EPA ICR No. 2311.02

 ICR Attachment E

2014 Section 24(c) ICR Consultation Questions:

1) Please provide your official contact information below:

CA: John E. Inouye

Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist)

California Department of Pesticide Regulation

Pesticide Registration Branch

1001 I Street, P.O. Box 4015

Sacramento, California 95812-4015

Phone: (916) 324-3538

John.Inouye@cdpr.ca.gov

TX: Dale R. Scott

Coordinator for Pesticide Product Evaluation and Registration

Texas Department of Agriculture

PO Box 12847

Austin, TX 78711

(512) 936-2535

Dale.scott@TexasAgriculture.gov

2) Publicly Available Data

a. Is the data that Agency seeks available from any public source, or already 

collected by another office at EPA or by another agency?

CA: Yes

TX: In most cases, the requested pesticide for the 24(c) registration already has 

a Section 3 registration with EPA. Some of the data requested by the EPA 

Risk Integration, Minor Use, and Emergency Response Branch has 

already been collected as part of the Section 3 data, which includes 

tolerance information. However, efficacy data is specific to the Section 

24(c) registration and has not been previously collected by EPA.

b. If yes, where can you find the data? (Does your answer indicate a true 

duplication, or does the input indicate that certain data elements are 

available, but that they do not meet our data needs very well?)

CA: If the data is not considered confidential, it is available in the public 

sector. Examples of this would include the USDA National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS) data, State/County Crop Reports, State/Federal 

pesticide label databases, University Extension and scientific publications. 

However, how this data is interpreted and used is specific to each special 

local need (SLN) situation being dealt with for the chemical/crop in 

question. Therefore, it is best to have the SLN applicant submit the data in 
the context of the emergency explanation. EPA can then use these 

resources as verification.

Confidential data may be possible to obtain from a registrant.

TX: The tolerance data is published in §40 CFR. 

3) Frequency of Collection

a. Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce the 

same outcome?

CA: Special local need information is collected once when the state approves 

the registration and then submits it to U.S. EPA for approval. Less 

frequent collection is not possible in this regard. However, five year 

expiration dates could be omitted with the same outcome.

TX: The data is specific to a particular 24(c) registration. The data is only 

collected upon the state requesting the registration. 

4) Clarity of Instructions

a. The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data so that 

the Agency can utilize them. Based on the instructions (regulations, PR 

Notices, etc.), is it clear what you are required to do and how to submit such 

data? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?

CA/TX:Yes

b. Do you understand that you are required to maintain records? CA//TX: Yes 

c. Considering that there is no required submission format, is it difficult to 

submit information in ways that are clear, logical and easy to complete? 

CA/TX: No

d. Are there forms associated with this process? Do you use them? Are they 

clear, logical, and easy to complete?

CA: Yes/Yes/Yes

TX: Yes, the requesting company along with the State Lead Agency is required 

to submit an EPA form 8570-25 with the registration packet. The forms 

are clear, logical and easy to complete.

5) Electronic Reporting and Record Keeping

The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to 

the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, 

unless there is a strong reason for not doing so. One such reason is that, at the 

present time, the Agency is unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be 

transmitted over the internet.
a. What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records and 

data submissions? Current electronic reporting alternatives include the use 

of web forms/XML based submissions via the Agency’s internet site and 

magnetic media-based submissions, e.g., diskette, CD_ROM, etc. Would you 

be interested in pursuing electronic reporting?

CA: I believe electronic submissions are a good idea. It would be faster, more 

efficient, and cost savings (postal) for the states.

As long as security is addressed, it is something our Department is 

interested in.

TX: The Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) would welcome the ability to 

submit electronic submissions for 24(c) registrations. This option is not 

available to the agency at this time. 

b. Are you keeping records electronically? If yes, in what format?

CA: Yes. We keep data on file mainly as paper, with some electronic format. 

Electronically, it’s stored on CDs.

TX: TDA currently keeps copies of all documents on our system. Most 

documents are either in Microsoft Word or pdf formats.

c. Although the Agency does not offer an electronic reporting option because of 

CBI-related security concerns at this time:

i. Would you be more inclined to submit CBI on diskette (CD or DVD) 

than on paper?

CA: At this point in time we don’t submit CBI for SLNs to EPA. If this 

type of information is required, we have the data owner of CBI 

submit it directly to EPA.

TX: Yes

ii. What benefits would electronic submission bring you in terms of 

burden reduction or greater efficiency in compiling the information?

CA: It would be faster, more efficient, and cost savings (postal) for the 

states.

TX: By allowing electronic submission, it would cut down on the cost 

and amount of paperwork and the cost of courier service. It would 

also allow for the submissions to be sent and reviewed in a timelier 

manner.

6) Burden and Costs

a. Are the labor rates accurate? CA: Yes TX: N/A
b. The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is 

that correct? CA: Yes TX: Correct

c. Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden 

hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., 

the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting 

studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate? If you 

provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from 

EPA’s, please provide and explanation of how you arrived at your estimates.

CA: Yes, for the most part the cost estimates should be fairly close. There are 

situations in which we may have to spend additional time in gathering and 

reviewing data to justify an SLN.

TX: No response

d. Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been 

missed?

CA:Yes, the additional cost in maintaining the new requirement for SLNs to have

expiration dates. The cost involves:

 The registrant to submit in a timely manner a request to extend the 

expiration date.

 The registrant must address alternative pesticides (re-justifying SLN). 

 The registrant must submit new labels with the new expiration date.

 The State must review this data/ information to extend the SLN.

 The State must send the appropriate correspondence to EPA addressing 

the extension of the SLN.

 If registrant is late in submitting for an extension of SLN, registrant must 

submit a new SLN application to the State.

 The State must use staff to:

 Process the intake mail.

 If new data is submitted, we’ll have staff index the data for 

evaluation.

 Staff has to review the data and/or information justifying 

the SLN.

 The State must send the appropriate correspondence to 

EPA addressing the extension of the SLN.

Overall the burden of tracking and making sure the SLN expiration data is 

not exceeded becomes an overall burden and additional cost on the State 

regulatory program, SLN registrants, and grower community.

TX: No response

7) Miscellaneous – Response to Emergency Exemption Process Revisions

a. How has the streamlined application process impacted your division as it 

pertains to the following:

i. Recertification of certain repeat emergency exemptions?

ii. The criteria used to determine when a potential emergency condition 

is expected to cause a significant economic loss and the data 

requirements used to document the loss?
b. Has the application and review process for submitting repeat emergency 

exemptions improved since the regulation went into effect March 28, 2006?

CA/TX: Not Applicable.