April 20 , 2012

Page 1 of 10 **Supporting Statement for a Request to Revise a Currently Approved Information Collection** 

**Request (ICR) under**  **t he Paperwork Reduction Act**  **Proposed Revision to OMB Control No. 1218**  **- 0072**  **1. OVERVIEW**  The purpose of this Supporting Statement is to analy ze and describe the burden hours and costs associated with the voluntary information collection activities contained in Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2012 - 1 , entitled: “Material Safety Data Sheets as Pesticide Labeling,” issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on April 9 , 2012 1

. In PR Notice 2012 - 1 , EPA provides guidance on what could be included in the S afety Data Sheets (S DS ) that are required b y the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) . EPA is issuing th e clarification of its policy in order to avoid potential inconsistencies between EPA - approved labels for pesticides regulated under the Federal Insec ticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the SDS that OSHA requires for these chemicals under th e HCS. OSHA recently

published a final rule 2 that align s its HCS requirements with the Globally Harmonized Sy stem of Classification and Labe l ling of Chemicals (GHS). Along with the issuance of that final rule, OSHA is revis ing the existing Hazard Communication collection of information requirements that are currentl y approved b y the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , and OMB's regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 . I dentified under OMB Control No. 1218 - 0072 , the revised ICR for the final rule is currently pending review and approval by OMB. Although the OSHA IC R that is currentl y pending re view and approval by OMB addresses the information collection activities associated with prepari ng an SDS as prescribed by the OSHA final rule , the approach provided in the EPA guidance for pesticide registrants was not considered b y OSHA at the proposed rule stage, and is therefore not captured specificall y b y the ICR that was prepared for that rule. The EPA guidance, which was developed in res ponse to public comments received b y OSHA on its proposed rule, 3 clarifies that those preparing an SDS for a pesticide may choose to use the section 15 of the SDS to provide additional information about the pesticide, using the pesticide labeling as the source of that additional information. EPA recognizes that its guidance involves an information collection activity covered by the PRA , which applies to voluntary

collections (or in this case a disclosure), as well as those imposed . As such, EPA and OSHA are collaborat ing on a subsequent revision to OSHA’s I CR identified under OMB Control No. 1218 - 0072 , to ensure that it addresses the activities described in the PR Notice. 4 EPA is first

1 For the April 20, 2012 Federal Register notice, please see 77 Federal Register 23713 - 23715 at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR% 252BN%252BO%252BSR;rpp=25;po=0;D=EPA - HQ - OPP 2012 - 0176 . For the April 9, 2012 PR Notice 2012 - 1, please see http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/ 2 77 Federal Register 17574 - 17896, March 26, 2012 3 OSHA issued its proposed rule to amend the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) to include GHS on September 30, 2009 (74 FR 50279). More information regarding OSHA’s HCS rulemaking can be found at: http://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/index2.html . 4 A copy of the OSHA ICR revision for the final rule can be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain , under “Currently under Review” select Department of Labor and then scroll to “DOL OSHA, OMB CONTROL NUMBER: 1218 - 0072 , Hazard CommunicationApril 20 , 2012

Page 2 of 10 solicit ing public comment on th is I CR revision as part of its release of the PR Notice. After considering public comments on the ICR revision, OSHA will revis e its existing IC R identified under OMB Control No. 1218 - 0072 to capture the information collection activities and burden adjustments, if any , related to EPA’s PR Noti ce 2012 - 1 . O SHA will publish a separate notice in the **Federal Register** that will announce the result of OMB’s reviews. Under the PRA, a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves it under the PRA, and the ag ency display s a currently

valid OMB control number. Also, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no employer can be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number. **2. N**  **EED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2.1.**  **Authority /Need**  **for the Collection** Section 6(b)(7) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. , states that any occupational safety or health standard promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under section 6(b) rulemaking authority "shall prescribe the use of labels or other appropriate forms of warning as are necessary to insure that employees are app rised of all hazards to which they are exposed, relevant sy mptoms and appropriate emergency treatment, and proper conditions and precautions of safe use of exposure." Man y chemicals cause acute injuries or illnesses such as rashes, burns and poisoning, or chronic effects such as cancer or liver damage. Also, chemicals can pose phy sical hazards to workers by contributing to accidents such as fires and explosions. To prevent such occupational hazards, OSHA addressed the issue of hazard information transmittal in its existing HCS (29 CFR 1910.1200) , and its collection of information requirements are designed to ensure that the hazards of chemicals produced or imported are evaluated and that information concerning these hazards is transmitted to employers and employees. This purpose is accomplished through hazard determination, labels, safety data sheets, written hazard communication programs and training. Under FIFRA, every

pesticide sold or distributed in the United States must be registered by EPA (FIFRA §12(a)(1)(A)). In granting a registration, EPA must determine , among other things, that the pesticide’s “labeling” complies with the requirements of FIFRA (FIFRA §3(c)(5)(B)). FIFRA defines “labeling” in section 2(p)(2)(A) to include all written, printed, or graphic matter accompanying the pesticide at an y time. FIFRA also requires that pesticide labeling not be false or misleading as described in FIFRA section 2(q)(1)(A), both in terms of its label and labeling . EPA has also promulgated several requirem ents for hazard communication on FIFRA labeling. See, e.g. , 40 CFR Part 156, Subpart D. EPA regards SDS’s for pesticides to be labeling when they accompan y the pesticide. PR Notice 92 - 4 (October, 1992) explains EPA’s policy to allow SDS’s to accompany p esticides so long as they do not obscure or conflict with the labeling approved b y EPA. Should an SDS conflict with the approved labeling, it could be misleading to users of the pesticide and therefore cause the pesticide to be considered misbranded and unlawful for sale or distribution. See FIFRA §§ 2(q)(1)(A) and 12(a)(1)(E). As indicated previousl y , OSHA’s current HCS requires employers to have chemical hazard communication programs that include labeling, SDS’s, and worker training. FIFRA labels approved byApril 20 , 2012

Page 3 of 10 EPA pre - empt OSHA’s label requirements, but not the requirements for SDS and worker training (except for certified applicators and agricultural workers for whom EPA has training requirements). In the past, there was minimal potential for inconsis tency between the HCS and FIFRA requirements because OSHA did not prescribe specific hazard statements, signal words, or pictograms. However, an SDS that compl ies with OSHA’s recentl y issued final rule that establishes the HCS/GHS requirements , could be viewed as inconsistent with the FIFRA labeling since some of the label elements (e.g., pictogram(s), signal word(s), and/or hazard statement(s)) could differ for the same hazards that are identified in the FIFRA labeling . The guidance in EPA’s PR Notice 2012 - 1 is needed in order to clarify that preparers of an SDS for a pesticide may

avoid the potential for inconsistency between the HCS and FIFRA requirements. That is, the preparer may

choose to use the section 15 of the SDS to provide addition al information about the pesticide, using the pesticide label as the source of that additional information. Without this guidance, an SDS prepared in compliance with the revised OSHA HCS might be subject to regulatory or enforcement action for misbranding under FIFRA. As indicated previousl y, OSHA recently published a final rule 5 that aligns its HCS requirements with the GHS. The information collection activities contained in that final rule are addressed in an ICR revision entitled: “ Supporting Statement For The Revised Hazard Communication Standard 6 (29 CFR 1910.1200, 1915.1200, 1917.28, 1918.90, 1926.59, and 1928.21) Incorporating Globall y Harmonized Sy stem of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (OMB Control No. 1218 - 0072 (February 2012)) .” A co py of the OSHA IC R revision for the final rule can be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain . **2.2 Users of the Data**  As indicated in the OSHA I CR, the primary users of the SDS are emplo ye rs and employees in facilities that manufacture, process or use chemicals covered by the OSHA HCS. The HCS covers over five million workplaces in which employees are potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals. Included in that universe are facilities in the U.S. that manufacture, process or use pesticides. These entities use the SDS to “ insure that emplo yees are apprised of all hazards to which they are exposed, relevant sy

mptoms and appropriate emergency

treatment, and proper conditions and precautions of safe use o r exposure , " consistent with s ection 6(b)(7) of the OSHA. The PR Notice issued by

EPA may

be used by

preparers of an SDS for a pesticide. According to the National Pesticide Information Retrieval Sy stem (NPIRS, 2011) there are 1,723 pesticide registrants, i.e., companies that hold a registration for a pesticide product issued b y EP A under FIFRA. 7 These are the entities that are expected to engage in the information collection activities related to PR Notice 2012 - 1 .

5 77 Federal Register 17574 - 17896, March 26, 2012 . 6 The purpose of this Supporting Statement is to analyze and describe the burden hours and costs associated with the proposed revisions to the existing Hazard Communications information collection request. 7 National Pesticide Information Retrieval System (NPIRS) , February 4, 2011 . http://state.ceris.purdue.edu .April 20 , 2012

Page 4 of 10 **3. NON**  **- DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA**  **3.1. Non**  **- Duplication**  As indicated in the OSHA I CR for HCS, several regulatory authorities w ithin the U.S. exercise jurisdiction over chemical hazard communication. In addition to OSHA’s HCS, the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates chemicals in transport, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulates consumer products, and the Environmental P rotection Agency (EPA) regulates pesticides, as well as having other authority over labeling under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Each of these regulatory

authorities operates under different statutory mandates, and has adopted distinct hazard communic ation requirements. Although some differences across agencies exist due to their statutory mandates, EPA and OSHA are minimizing the potential for inconsistencies related to those differences. EPA’s PR Notice 2012 - 1 clarifies what the preparer of the SDS may do to ensure that they

compl y with both the revised OSHA HCS and EPA FIFRA labeling requirements . **3.2. Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB**  EPA is in the process of soliciting comments p ursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of PRA , and will summarize those results in this section of the revised Supporting Statement that is submitted to OMB for review and approval. Specificall y , EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to:

 Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agencies, including whether the information will have practical utility .  Evaluate the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity

of the methodology

and assumptions used.  Enhance the quality , utility , and clarity of the information to be collected.  Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ

less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. **3.3. Effects of Less Frequent Collection**  There is no submission or collection, and the acti vities described in PR Notice 2012 - 1 onl y provide an option for preparers of an SDS for a pesticide. It is assumed that an yone that chooses the option outlined in PR Notice 2012 - 1 would only need to engage in those activities once, when they prepare the S DS that is required by

the OSHA regulations. **3.4. General**  **PRA Guidelines**  None of the guideline s under the PRA are exceeded by the optional approach outlined in the EPA guidance.April 20 , 2012

Page 5 of 10 **3.5. Confidentiality**  **and Sensitive Questions** In formation contained on pesticide labels or as part of pesticide labeling under FIFRA is public information and is not confidential. The inclusion of this information on the SDS does not involve any information that would be considered to be confidential. In addition, n o information of a sensitive or private nature is involved in this information collection activity . As such , this information collection activity complies with the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A - 108. **4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION**  **COLLECTION ACTIVITY 4.1.**  **Potential Respondents**  For purposes of this Supporting Statement, the universe of potential r espondents includes pesticide registrants, as the entities that would likely prepare an SDS if required to do so by the OSHA HCS. U sing the No rth American Industrial Classification Sy stem (NAI CS) codes , EPA estimates that this universe may

include, but is not limited to , facilities within the following industry categories: **Type of Entity NAICS**  **Example of Potentially Affected Entities** Chemical Manufacturers and Importers 325, 32411 Persons who manufacture (defined b y statute to include import) one or more of the subject chemical substances. Processors 325, 32411 Persons who process one or more of the subject chemical substances. **4.2. Information**  **Collection Activity** The information collection activity covered b y this Supporting Statement is the voluntary option described in EPA’s PR Notice 2012 - 1 . Specifically , the preparer of an SDS for a pesticide may choose to include in Section 15 of the SDS the hazard information already approved by EPA for the pesticide label. In choosing to do this, a respondent may undertake one or more of the following activities: (a) Review EPA’s PR Notice 2012 - 1 . (b) Determine whether to follow the optional approach and use S ection 15 to provide the additional information from the pesticide label.

- If the optional approach is not chosen, there is no further activity to discuss in this Supporting Statement.

- If the optional approach is chosen, the respondent would identify whic h information from the pesticide label they

would want to include in the SDS. (c) Follow EPA’s PR Notice 2012 - 1 to include the explanation and pesticide label information in the SDS. The overall activities associated with p reparing the SDS are addressed in the OSHA’s ICR for the HCS . The activities described here provide additional detail related to including additional pesticide information in section 15 of the SDS.April 20 , 2012

Page 6 of 10 **5. AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, INFORMATION**  **MANAGEMENT , AND BURDEN/COSTS**  The only EPA activities related to PR Notice 2012 - 1 involve the potential for answering questions and providing assistance. As such, there are no Agency activities for which burden, costs or information management considerations apply . **6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN**  **AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6.1.**  **Overview** The burden and cost related to the SDS requirements in OSHA’s HCS are covered b y the OSHA ICR identified under OMB Control No. 1218 - 0072 . The revised ICR submitted to OMB for OSHA’s recentl y issued final rule, presents the burden hours and costs for completing r evisions to comply with the recently

promulgated requirements related to the SDS and l abeling under OSHA ’ s revised HCS. Since employers will have three years to complete the SDS revisions under the OSHA final r ule, OSHA annualized those burden hours and costs over a three year period, yielding an estimated **1,138,560** hours at a cost of **$ 76,144,960**  to revise the SDS and labeling consistent with the recent OSHA final rule. This Supporting Statement provide s additional detail on estimated burden and costs related to the activities associated with the SDS preparer’s inclu sion in section 15 of the SDS additional pesticide information from the EPA approved labeling , as described in EPA’s PR Notice 2012 - 1 . EPA and OSHA believe that this burden is reflected in the estimate provided by OSHA in its I CR, and EPA is providing this additional information to supplement that estimate. The following sections explain the assumptions and methods that were used to estimate the burden and costs for this I CR, along with a summary of the cost and burden calculations. **6.2. Estimating Total Respondent Burden and Cost**  **6.2.1. Methodology Used**  The methodology

used for estimating the burden hours and costs in this Supporting Statement, which are limited to the activities described in EPA’s PR Notice 2012 - 1 , is based on the methodology used b y OSHA in its revised I CR for the final revisions to the HCS. Here are some key points from that I CR that guided the estimate provided in this Supporting Statement:

 Respondent activities to comply with the HCS final rule regarding revisions to the SDS will be incurred as a one - time transition burden over the three - ye ar phase - in period established by the OSHA final rule.  The OSHA ICR considered that for establishments producing hazardous chemicals, the revised HCS would involve reclassifying chemicals in accordance with the new classification sy stem ; revising/preparing the SDS; revising labels associated with hazardous chemicals 8 ; affixing the

8 Note that the activities in OSHA’s ICR related to revising labels do not apply to pesticides.April 20 , 2012

Page 7 of 10 new labels to containers holding the chemical ; and dispatching new SDSs with new shipments of the chemicals.  The burden hour and cost estimates, including loaded wage rates of $66 an hour , are taken from the OSHA I CR, which based its estimates on the Final Economic Analy sis (FEA) prepared by OSHA for the modifications to the HCS. o For firms with 500 or more employees , OSHA assumes an employer will spend 3 hours per SDS to reclassify

their chemicals and change SDS’s and labels to a GHS - compli ant regulation. OSHA based this time estimate on the actual experience of three firms, 2 firms that comply

with the recent Japanese labeling regulations 9 and one large firm that currentl y uses a state - of

–the - art database s ys tem. o In firms with 100 - 499 employees, OSHA estimates that an emplo yer will spend a total of 5 hours per SDS to convert to the new s ys tem. This estimate includes 3 hours to obtain and reorganize the SDS’s information into the 16

– section format, change the SDS and label fo rmats, and input the data. These emplo ye rs will spend 2 hours maintaining their SDS’s and labels in a commonly

used word processing s ys tem and are expect ed to perform chemical classification calculations using simple methods. These firms are already producing 9

– section performance oriented SDS’s. o OSHA estimates that firms with 20 - 99 employees have not yet converted to the 16 - section SDSs and assumes these firms will spend 7 hours per SDS to reclassify chemic als and make changes to SDSs and labels. o Firms with 1 - 19 employees produce fewer products than those firms in the 20 - 99 and above category , and OSHA assumes it will take these firms 7 hours per SDS to reclassify their chemicals and revise their SDSs and l abels. For purposes of this Supporting Statement, the activities only involve the preparation or revision of the SDS for pesticides, which is a subset of those activities already captured by the OSHA IC R. Although the burden and costs for preparing or rev ising the SDS are not specifically described in the OSHA ICR , this document estimates the burden and costs for the SDS preparer for a pesticide to include the EPA approved labeling information in section 15 of the SDS. In addition, EPA will annualize the total potential burden and costs discussed in this Supporting Statement over three years in the same manner that OSHA did in its I CR for the H C S revisions. **6.2.2. Total Number of Potential Respondents**  The PR Notice issued by

EPA may

be used by

preparers of an SDS for a pesticide , which EPA assumes will be the pesticide manufacturer or processor (see discussion in 4.1. of this Supporting Statement). According to NPIRS (NPIRS, 2011 ), there are 1,723 pesticide registrants, i.e., companies that hold at least one re gistration for a pesticide product issued by EPA under FIFRA. Since the guidance provided in PR Notice 2012 - 1 applies only to those pesticide registrants who choose to follow the EPA guidance in preparing an SDS for one of their products, EPA is not able to provide a precise estimate of the potential number of respondents. In order to provide a conservative estimate, however, EPA assumes that as many

as one third of all pesticide registrants might choose to follow the guidance provided in EPA’s PR Notice 2012 - 1 . Therefore the estimated total number of potential respondents that may choose to include additional pesticide labeling information in section 15 of the SDS is 574 (1,723 ÷ 3).

9 Several countries have already promulgated GHS - compliant regulations, including Japan.April 20 , 2012

Page 8 of 10 **6.2.3. Total Number of Potential Pesticide SDSs**  Under the OSHA HCS, an SDS may be prepared for a specific chemical or on a product basis. At this point, it is difficult for EPA to estimate how many of the approximately 18,580 pesticide products (NPIRS, 2011) might involve an SDS, and of that, how many might be revised as describe d by PR Notice 2012 - 1 . In order to provide a conservative estimate, however, EPA assumes that as many as one third of all pesticide products might involve an SDS, and that as many as half of those SDS’ could involve the inclusion of additional pesticide i nformation in Section 15 of the SDS as described in EPA’s PR Notice 2012 - 1 . Therefore the estimated total number of potential SDS’ that would include the additional pesticide labeling information in section 15 of the SDS is 3,097 (18,580 ÷ 3) ÷ 2). Consid ering the estimated total number of potential respondents, and assuming only one potential response per chemical, the number of average responses per respondent is 5.4 (3,097 ÷ 574 respondents). **6.2.4. Estimated Burden and Costs per SDS**  As summarized in 6.2.1. of this Supporting Statement, OSHA estimated the burden and costs for a compan y to reclassify chemicals in accordance with the new classification sy stem ; **revis e**  **the SDSs**  and labels associated with hazardous chemicals ; affix the new labels to containers holding the chemical , and dispatch new SDSs with new shipments of chemicals. Varying based on the size of the firm, the OSHA burden estimate for these activities ranges from 7 hours per SDS for small entities to 3 hours for entities w ith 500 or more emplo yees. Of course this estimate covers all of the activities, while this Supporting Statement is only

intended to estimate how much of that burden could be assigned to revising an SDS prepared for a pesticide based on the EPA guidance i n PR Notice 2012 - 1 . Considering that the EPA guidance consists of the inclusion of language that is already available in the PR Notice and the EPA approved labeling for the particular pesticide, EPA assumes that the preparer of the SDS for a pesticide wil l simply need to copy

that information into the SDS. Given the nature of this activity , EPA assumes that this burden is not likely to vary based on the size of the firm. As such, EPA estimates the burden hours for the preparer of an SDS for a pesticide t o include additional pesticide labeling information in section 15 of the SDS is approximately 0.25 hours per SDS. The OSHA ICR provides a loaded hourl y wage rate of $66, which is used to calculate the costs associated with the burden hours. Using this same wage rate, EPA estimates the cost of the burden hours for the preparer of an SDS for a pesticide to include addi tional pesticide labeling information in section 15 of the SDS is approximately $16.50 per SDS (0.25 hours x $66). **6.3. Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs**  **6.3.1. Total Respondent Burden Hours and Costs**  Based on the information and estimates provided in 6.2. of this supporting statement, EPA estimates the total burden to be 774 hours (3,097 pesticides with revised SDSs using the EPA guidance x 0.25 hours burden per SDS), and the estimated per respondent burden is estimated to be 1.4 hours (0.25 hours per resp onse x 5.4 responses per respondent. EPA estimates the total costs for this burden to be $ 51,084 ( 774 hours x $ 66 per hour), and the estimated per respondent cost is estimated to be $ 89 ($ 51,084 ÷ 574 respondents).April 20 , 2012

Page 9 of 10 Averaged over three ye ars, the estimated annual burden and costs related to the activities described in PR Notice 2012 - 1 are 258 hours ( 774.2 hours ÷ 3), and $ 17,028 ($ 51,084 ÷ 3). **6.3.2. Total**  **Agency Burden**  **Hours and Costs** Based on EPA’s minimal involvement in the implementation of the optional approach described in PR Notice 2012 - 1 , as discussed in chapter 5 of this Supporting Statement, EPA has not estimated any burden and costs for EPA. **6.4. Reasons for Change in Burden**  This request supplements an existing OSHA I CR, identified under OMB Control No. 1218 - 0072, to ensure that it addresses the activities described in the EPA PR Notice 2012 - 1 . This request does not, however, result in any change to the burden estimate that will be in the OMB inventory when it acts on the OSHA I CR revision to the HCS, which was submitted to OMB recently for approval of the burden hours related to the recently finalized HCS revisions. As such, after considering public comment on the supplemental information for the estimates provided in th at OSHA I CR, OSHA intends to submit this request to OMB as a supplement to the existing ICR without changing the burden estimate. **6.5. Burden Statement**  The annual ized public burden for this collection of information, which involves the activities associated with the SDS preparer’s inclusion in section 15 of the SDS additional pesticide information from the EPA approved labeling as described in EPA’s PR Notice 2012 - 1 , is estimated to average about 1.4 hours per respondent, or 0.25 hours per SDS. This request supplements an existing OSHA IC R, identified under OMB Control No. 1218 - 0072, and will be incorporated into that I CR in the future. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current and valid OMB control number. For purposes of soliciting public comment on the proposed estimates related to the EPA guidance, EPA established a public docket for this I CR un der Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OPP - 2012 - 0176 , which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S - 4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Cry stal Drive, Arlington, VA. This docket facility

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday , excluding legal holiday s. The docket telephone number is (703) 305 - 5805. You may submit comments regarding the Agency's need for providi ng this guidance , the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated techniques. Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No . EPA - HQ - OPP - 2012 - 0176 and OMB Control No. 1218 - 0072, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by mail to: OPP Regulatory

Public Docket (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency , 1200 Penns yl vania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 2046 0

–0001.April 20 , 2012

Page 10 of 10 **6.6. Next Step in the PRA Process for this ICR**  EPA and OSHA will consider the comments received and amend th is Supporting Statement as appropriate. The final document will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. OSHA will issue another **Federal Register** notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the I CR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comme nts. **7. ATTACHMENTS to this SUPPORTING STATEMENT**  All of the attachments listed below can be found in the docket for this ICR, identified as Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OPP - 2012 - 0176 , which is accessible electronicall y through http://www.regulations.gov , or the URL address included in the following listing . **Attachment A** : Federal Insecticide , Fungicide , and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq . http://agriculture.senate.gov/L egislation/Compilations/Fifra/FIFRA.pdf . **Attachment B:** Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2012 - 1 , entitled: “Material Safety Data Sheets as Pesticide Labeling ,” [ April 9, 2012 ]. http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/ . **Attachment C:** Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 1992 - 4 , entitled: “Material Safety Data Sheets as Pesticide Labeling,” October, 1992 . http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/#1992 .