Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 82011 

FIFRA Information Security Manual. In 

addition, AceInfo Solutions and its 

subcontractors, Avaya Government 

Solutions, Koansys LLC, and Quality 

Associates Inc., are required to submit 

for EPA approval a security plan under 

which any CBI will be secured and 

protected against unauthorized release 

or compromise. No information will be 

provided to AceInfo Solutions and its 

subcontractors, Avaya Government 

Solutions, Koansys LLC, and Quality 

Associates Inc., until the requirements 

in this document have been fully 

satisfied. Records of information 

provided to AceInfo Solutions and its 

subcontractors, Avaya Government 

Solutions, Koansys LLC, and Quality 

Associates Inc., will be maintained by 

EPA Project Officers for this contract. 

All information supplied to AceInfo 

Solutions and its subcontractors, Avaya 

Government Solutions, Koansys LLC, 

and Quality Associates Inc., by EPA for 

use in connection with this contract will 

be returned to EPA when AceInfo 

Solutions and its subcontractors, Avaya 

Government Solutions, Koansys LLC, 

and Quality Associates Inc., have 

completed their work. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Business 

and industry, Government contracts, 

Government property, Security 

measures. 

Dated: December 15, 2010. 

Michael Hardy, 

Acting Director, Information Technology 

Resource Management, Division,Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32663 Filed 12–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0648; FRL–8856–4] 

Web-Distributed Labeling of Pesticides 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: EPA is considering an 

initiative to make portions of pesticide 

labeling for certain products available 

electronically. Web-distributed labeling 

would allow users to download 

streamlined labeling specific to the use 

and state in which the application will 

occur. More concise labeling should 

increase users’ comprehension and 

compliance with pesticide labeling, 

thereby improving protection of human 

health and the environment from risks 

associated with improper pesticide use. 

Web distributed labeling would also 

allow new labeling to enter the 

marketplace and reach the user more 

quickly than the current paper based 

labeling thus implementing both new 

uses and risk mitigation in a more 

timely manner. This notice describes 

potential approaches for a webdistributed labeling system and seeks 

stakeholder feedback on a variety of 

issues. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0648, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010– 

0648. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or 

e-mail. The regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either in the 

electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

hours of operation of this Docket 

Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle DeVaux, Field and External 

Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 308–5891; fax number: 

(703) 308–2962; e-mail address: 

devaux.michelle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you use pesticide products 

occupationally, manufacture or 

distribute pesticides, regulate pesticide 

products, or provide pesticide labeling 

to users. Potentially affected entities 

may include, but are not limited to: 

• Persons who manufacture, 

distribute, sell, apply, or regulate 

pesticide products, including 

agricultural, commercial, and 

residential products (NAICS codes 

325320, 325311, 424690, 424910, 

926140). 

• Establishments, such as farms, 

orchards, groves, greenhouses, and 

nurseries, primarily engaged in growing 

crops, plants, vines, or trees and their 

seeds (NAICS code 111). 

• Establishments primarily engaged 

in providing pest control for crop or 

forestry production, or for exterminating 

and controlling birds, mosquitoes, 

rodents, termites, and other insects and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
82012 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 

pests (NAICS codes 115112, 115310, 

561710). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

Since 2007, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) 

has been exploring the feasibility and 

advisability of an initiative that would 

allow registrants to make portions of 

some pesticide product labeling 

available via the internet. The goals of 

this initiative, called web-distributed 

labeling, are (a) to provide streamlined 

labeling that contains only the most 

current labeling information pertinent to 

the state where a pesticide is to be used 

and for the particular intended use, and 

(b) to move new labeling (with new uses 

and/or new risk mitigation) into the 

hands of the user in a more timely 

manner. This streamlined labeling will 

omit unrelated directions and thus 

should reduce the overall length of 

labeling by a significant amount. EPA 

expects shorter, more focused labeling 

should improve readability, and user 

comprehension and compliance. Webdistributed labeling would be proposed 

initially as a voluntary option for 

registrants and would not be 

appropriate for all pesticide products. 

The web-distributed labeling 

initiative would create a system that 

would make the most current version of 

pesticide labeling available to 

purchasers and users via the internet 

and by other means. For certain types of 

pesticide products, portions of the 

labeling would no longer accompany 

the pesticide container. To obtain the 

additional labeling, a statement on the 

container label would direct a user to a 

specific Web site on the Internet. Once 

logged onto the Web site, the user 

would enter information identifying the 

product, the state where it would be 

applied, and the intended application 

site. The Web site would then provide 

the user with legally sufficient labeling 

appropriate for the proposed use, which 

the user could choose to download or 

print. Because it would contain only 

information relevant to the specified 

use, the labeling provided by the Web 

site would be ‘‘streamlined’’ compared 

to labeling currently on registered 

products, which often contain labeling 

information for dozens of uses. The Web 

site would only return state-specific 

labeling, not EPA’s ‘‘master labeling.’’ 

The web-distributed labeling system 

would also offer alternate delivery 

mechanisms for users who cannot or 

prefer not to access the Internet. 

The Agency has had many useful 

discussions of its web-distributed 

labeling initiative with stakeholders in 

both formal and informal settings. 

Through these discussions, EPA has 

identified the critical elements of a webdistributed labeling system for 

distributing information to pesticide 

users via the internet. These discussions 

have also raised a number of issues on 

which EPA seeks further comment. 

This Notice is organized into seven 

units, starting with this Introduction. 

Unit II. provides background 

information on the history of the 

initiative and particularly the Agency’s 

goals in pursuing this new technique for 

conveying enforceable labeling 

information to pesticide users. Unit III. 

discusses the significant elements of 

web-distributed labeling and Unit IV. 

identifies issues for further 

consideration. Finally, Unit VI. 

describes a proposed path forward for 

determining whether, when, and how to 

begin implementation of the webdistributed labeling initiative. 

B. What is the Agency’s Authority for 

Taking this Action? 

EPA is taking this action under the 

authority of FIFRA, section 20(a). This 

section provides that ‘‘The 

Administrator shall undertake research 

* * * with * * * others as may be 

necessary to carry out the purposes of 

[FIFRA].’’ Here EPA is seeking to input 

from stakeholders that will help EPA 

assess whether to continue 

consideration of a web-distributed 

labeling program. This information is 

essential to understanding whether a 

web-distributed labeling system would 

improve users’ compliance with 

pesticide labeling, thereby reducing 

risks to human health and the 

environment. 

III. Overview 

This unit discusses the legal 

framework within which EPA and the 

states regulate the format and content of 

the labeling on pesticide products; the 

kinds of problems that exist with 

pesticide labeling; and how a webdistributed labeling system would 

address those problems. 

A. Legal Framework 

1. Federal Authority. A webdistributed labeling system would be 

implemented under EPA’s existing 

authority and would follow essentially 

the same process as is currently used. 

EPA regulates pesticide products under 

the authority of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA). FIFRA establishes a pre-market 

review and approval system called 

‘‘registration.’’ With limited exceptions, 

no pesticide may be sold or distributed 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 82013 

in the United States unless EPA has first 

issued a registration for the product. As 

part of the registration process, EPA 

reviews and approves the labeling of 

pesticide products. EPA may also 

review amendments to labeling 

proposed by the registrant, such as a 

change in use site or application rate. 

Labeling describes how a pesticide may 

be used safely and effectively. 

Traditionally, labeling has been limited 

to what is attached to or accompanies 

the product and is provided to users at 

the point of sale, commonly as a leaflet 

or booklet. The ‘‘misuse provision’’ in 

FIFRA § 12(a)(2)(G) prohibits the use of 

a pesticide ‘‘in a manner inconsistent 

with its approved labeling.’’ In effect, 

the labeling is the law. 

Because FIFRA requires users to 

follow the requirements and limitations 

in labeling, the labeling for a pesticide 

product becomes the primary 

mechanism by which EPA 

communicates enforceable requirements 

to pesticide users about how to use a 

product safely and effectively. FIFRA 

§ 2(p) clearly allows for both a ‘‘label’’ 

and ‘‘labeling.’’ The term ‘‘label’’ means 

‘‘the written, printed, or graphic matter 

on, or attached to, the pesticide or 

device or any of its containers or 

wrappers.’’ ‘‘Labeling’’ means ‘‘all labels 

and all other written, printed, or graphic 

matter accompanying the pesticide or 

device at any time; or to which 

reference is made on the label or in 

literature accompanying the pesticide or 

device, except to current official 

publications of the Agency, United 

States Department of Agriculture, 

Department of the Interior, and 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, State experiment stations, 

State agricultural colleges, and other 

similar Federal or State institutions or 

agencies authorized by law to conduct 

research in the field of pesticides.’’ 7 

U.S.C. 2(p)(2). Although not common 

currently, labeling sometimes uses a 

reference to other enforceable 

documents that do not physically 

accompany the container, as evidenced 

by the Worker Protection Standard and 

Bulletins Live (for threatened and 

endangered species and their habitats). 

A registrant may distribute or sell a 

registered product with the 

composition, packaging, and labeling 

currently approved by the Agency. 40 

CFR 152.130(a). Likewise, a registrant 

may distribute or sell a product under 

labeling bearing any subset of the 

approved directions for use, provided 

that in limiting the uses listed on the 

label, no changes would be necessary in 

precautionary statements, use 

classification, or packaging of the 

product. 40 CFR 152.130(b). 

2. State Authority. EPA does not 

anticipate that a web-distributed 

labeling system would affect state 

authority with respect to pesticide 

regulation in any way. Section 24(a) of 

FIFRA provides that a state may regulate 

the sale or use of any federally 

registered pesticide or device in the 

state, but only if and to the extent the 

regulation does not permit any sale or 

use prohibited by FIFRA. Section 24(b) 

holds that such state shall not impose or 

continue in effect any requirements for 

labeling or packaging in addition to or 

different from those required under 

FIFRA. State lead agencies have the 

final authority to approve marketed 

product labeling submitted by 

registrants for sale and distribution in 

their states. Under state laws in every 

state, sale or distribution of a pesticide 

product may not occur within a state 

until the state registers the product. 

Section 26 of FIFRA provides that a 

state shall have primary enforcement 

responsibility for pesticide use 

violations provided the state has 

adopted adequate pesticide use laws, 

has adopted and is implementing 

adequate procedures for the 

enforcement of such state laws and 

regulations, and will keep such reports 

showing compliance with the 

conditions listed above. 

B. What Problems is Web-Distributed 

Labeling Intended to Solve? 

Many people have voiced criticisms 

about the labeling currently on many 

pesticide products. Among other 

problems, critics complain that labeling 

attempts to convey too much 

information and that the existing 

process for implementing labeling 

changes is too slow. Both types of 

problems can result in the use of 

pesticides in ways that, EPA has 

determined, cause risks to human health 

and the environment and that might be 

avoided by changing the way users 

obtain labeling. In particular, critics 

note that because the labeling of a single 

product may contain precautions and 

detailed use directions for multiple 

uses, the labeling is often quite long— 

sometimes exceeding 50 pages in length. 

As a consequence, pesticide users 

complain that it is difficult to find all of 

the relevant parts of the labeling, and 

some state regulatory officials suspect 

that overly lengthy labeling materials 

has diminished user compliance rates. 

Further, the Agency is concerned with 

how much time can elapse between 

EPA’s approval of the addition of both 

new uses and new restrictions on 

pesticide use and when products 

containing such statements actually 

reach users’ hands. Many factors 

contribute to the delay including the 

need for approval by state regulatory 

officials following EPA approval and the 

long lead time involved with printing 

new labeling and getting the new 

versions on products in the 

marketplace. More timely 

implementation of approved labeling 

would reduce risk when new risk 

mitigation measures have been 

registered. These delays also mean that 

identical products bearing different 

versions of labeling are often available 

simultaneously in the marketplace. 

State officials and users have 

complained that different but legal 

versions of product labeling lead to 

confusion of users and challenges for 

enforcement. 

C. Web-Distributed Labeling as a 

Solution 

State regulators suggested that EPA 

consider web-distribution of pesticide 

labeling as a solution to some of the 

problems identified. In response, EPA 

initiated an internal workgroup to 

explore the concept of web-distributed 

labeling. The workgroup had extensive 

outreach to and conversations with 

stakeholders. EPA found that if accepted 

by users web-distributed labeling 

appeared feasible, and it could have 

benefits for many stakeholder groups. 

For pesticide users, a new webdistributed labeling system would 

provide simplified labeling. Under the 

new system certain information on the 

label would be required to be attached 

to the container and the user would be 

required to obtain and follow a copy of 

state- and site-specific use directions 

and precautions for the product from an 

alternate source, either the Internet or a 

toll-free phone service that would mail 

or fax a copy of the labeling to the user. 

To obtain full use directions specific to 

the state and crop the product is 

intended to be applied, the container 

label would require a user to go to a 

Web site on the Internet, enter the EPA 

product registration number, the state 

where it would be applied, and the 

application site in order to download 

streamlined use directions and 

associated labeling. The user would be 

required to comply not only with 

restrictions appearing in the label 

securely attached to the container and 

in labeling accompanying the container, 

but would also have to obtain and 

follow those in the web-distributed 

labeling available from a referenced 

Internet source or toll-free number. 

The web-distributed labeling 

generated by the user’s specification of 

a particular use and state would 

eliminate information that is not 

relevant and would dramatically 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
82014 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 

simplify labeling. Most web-distributed 

labeling could then contain relatively 

brief, very specific use directions and 

precautions that would not be obscured 

by information applicable to use on 

other sites or with other legally 

sufficient application methods. 

Moreover, a web-distributed labeling 

system could make additional 

information available to users that they 

could find valuable, e.g., rate calculators 

or demonstration videos. The users 

ultimately would have in their 

possession all pertinent labeling 

information. 

For pesticide regulators (i.e., EPA and 

the states) whose mission is to protect 

human health and the environment, 

web-distributed labeling could bring at 

least two primary benefits in terms of 

protecting human health and the 

environment. First, EPA thinks that 

users would more readily understand 

the streamlined labeling available 

through a web-distributed labeling 

system and therefore would be more 

likely to comply with the requirements 

in the labeling. Second, by providing 

use-direction labeling electronically, 

rather than as a printed document that 

accompanies the pesticide container, 

registrants could significantly reduce 

the amount of time between when EPA 

approves a change to pesticide labeling 

and when the labeling reflecting the 

change actually reaches users in the 

field thus reducing risk in a more timely 

manner. 

For registrants, web-distributed 

labeling could reduce printing costs and 

the time needed to implement new uses. 

When pesticide labeling changes under 

the current system, registrants have to 

arrange for printing of new labeling 

material to accompany each newly 

released container of pesticide. Many 

products require a large, multi-page 

booklet attached to the container. Under 

a web-distributed labeling system, the 

process for developing new printed 

labeling could be more orderly and less 

costly. Note: The cost of printing 

labeling (in a streamlined form) would 

be transferred to the user. Finally, for 

pesticide enforcement staff (states and 

EPA regions) web-distributed labeling 

could have several advantages over the 

current system. First, enforcers could 

find higher rates of user compliance 

with pesticide labeling and faster 

implementation of risk mitigation 

measures. Enforcers would also benefit 

from fewer versions of pesticide labeling 

in the marketplace because the portion 

of labeling that changes most often 

would not be attached to the container. 

In addition, web-distributed labeling 

that is state-specific would also make it 

easier for state enforcement personnel to 

verify that a user is complying with a 

state-approved version of the labeling. 

EPA requests stakeholders to consider 

the following: 

• How would web-distributed 

labeling benefit your organization? What 

problems with pesticide labeling could 

it address? 

• How could audiences that do not 

traditionally use the label, such as farm 

workers, farm worker advocacy 

organizations and environmental 

interest groups, benefit from webdistributed labeling? 

• What resource savings could be 

achieved in your organization if webdistributed labeling were implemented? 

What costs would be incurred? 

• Please provide any general 

comments about the concept of webdistributed labeling and the potential 

benefits to stakeholder groups including 

pesticide users, registrants, regulators, 

farm worker advocacy groups, 

environmental interest organizations, 

and the public. 

IV. Overview of Web-Distributed 

Labeling 

A. The Current System 

In most cases, registration of a 

pesticide product begins with approval 

by EPA of a ‘‘master label,’’ which is 

EPA-approved labeling that contains the 

complete set of precautions and use 

directions for all approved uses of the 

product. This is followed by state 

approval of a ‘‘marketed label,’’ which is 

specific labeling associated with a 

product as it will be sold in a state; the 

‘‘marketed label’’ must be the same as (or 

a legally sufficient subset of) the 

approved FIFRA master label. 

1. EPA’s Registration Process. EPA 

authorizes the use of pesticide product 

primarily under section 3 of FIFRA 

(federal registration). Under this 

provision, EPA is responsible for 

ensuring that approved pesticide 

products will not pose unreasonable 

adverse effects to human health or the 

environment. EPA defines risk 

standards, identifies data studies 

required to evaluate these risks, and 

specifies the requirements for product 

labeling. 

Applicants for registration are 

responsible for developing the 

formulation of a product, providing data 

from required studies), and providing 

product labeling which details how a 

product is to be used. Much of the 

labeling content is prescribed based on 

the chemical and toxicological 

properties of the product, for example if 

a product is a severe skin irritant, it is 

labeled as toxicity category II (see 40 

CFR 156 and various Pesticide 

Registration Notices). It is left to the 

applicant to propose the directions for 

use describing the application timing, 

method, and equipment, use rates, retreatment intervals, maximum 

quantities per application and year, and 

other restrictions. These use directions 

are used to define the exposure 

parameters in a risk assessment. EPA’s 

registration decisions are based on 

conducting a risk assessment of the 

pesticide developed using 

environmental fate, toxicology, and 

ecological effects data provided by an 

applicant as the applicant proposed the 

pesticide be used (i.e., as specified in 

the proposed product labeling.) 

Following EPA’s risk assessment, a 

detailed review is conducted to ensure 

that the proposed labeling adheres to 

current EPA regulations and policies. 

Issues identified during the risk 

assessment can often be mitigated by 

adjusting the labeling on the product 

prior to approval. 

When EPA has completed a review of 

the application for registration and finds 

that the product will not pose 

unreasonable adverse effects to human 

health or the environment, the product 

is registered and EPA approves a master 

label. The master label contains a 

complete set of precautions and use 

directions for all approved uses of a 

product, but is not generally the label 

that accompanies the pesticide 

container. The master label is used to 

develop marketed product labeling 

(discussed below). 

More information on EPA’s pesticide 

registration process is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/

regulating/registering/index.htm. 

2. State Registration. All states have a 

state pesticide registration requirement 

under their respective state laws. 

Therefore, in addition to registering all 

pesticides with EPA under FIFRA for 

approval of a master label, pesticide 

companies must also receive approval 

from a state in order to distribute, sell, 

offer for sale, and in some cases use, the 

product in that state. The process to 

obtain a state registration can vary 

greatly among states, as can the level 

and type of review conducted by the 

state lead agency. While some states 

may simply record the existence of each 

marketed label, other states may do a 

detailed comparison of the ‘‘marketed 

label’’ to the EPA ‘‘master label,’’ or 

conduct extensive risk assessments or 

other reviews. 

In addition to varying greatly in how 

they register pesticide products and 

approve labeling, states vary greatly in 

how they manage labeling and other 

supporting documents. Because of 

available resources or statutory 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 82015 

requirements, some states may manage 

pesticide labeling in their files in hardcopy format. Other states receive, 

review, and/or manage pesticide labels 

in electronic format, including 

sophisticated online portals for 

registrants to submit online pesticide 

registration applications, electronic 

documents, and payments. Regardless of 

how they manage labeling as part of 

their state pesticide registration 

program, most state lead agencies agree 

that the labeling found on or 

accompanying the product in the 

channels of trade, despite the version, is 

the labeling that is enforceable in 

instances of misuse. 

3. Pesticide Labeling Production 

Process. Despite the complexity and 

time involved in getting a pesticide 

product label registered with both EPA 

and states, registration is only one 

aspect of moving a product from initial 

concept to final use by applicator. Even 

focused simply on the labeling aspects, 

the overall production process 

encompasses product development, 

regulatory approval of the master label 

by EPA, development of the marketed 

label, regulatory approval of the 

marketed label by states, printing of 

state approved marketed labels, filling 

and labeling of product containers, 

distributing product to the point of sale, 

and providing post sale product 

stewardship to both applicators and 

enforcement staff. 

B. History of Development of WebDistributed Labeling 

State officials involved in pesticide 

regulation deserve credit for initiating 

EPA’s consideration of a webdistributed labeling system. The StateFIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation 

Group, a group of representatives from 

State organizations responsible for state 

level regulation of pesticides, produced 

two issue papers on the electronic 

submission and distribution of pesticide 

labeling. EPA’s Office of Pesticide 

Programs formed an e-label review 

workgroup, tasked with exploring ways 

of using technology to make the 

pesticide labeling submission, review, 

approval, and dissemination process 

more efficient. In the summer of 2007, 

the Association of American Pesticide 

Control Officials (AAPCO), the national 

association representing State lead 

agencies for pesticide regulation, 

presented the idea for web-distributed 

labeling to the director of the Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

After receiving the request to consider 

web-distributed labeling, EPA formed 

an internal workgroup with members 

from the Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assistance, Office of General Counsel, 

Regional Offices, and 2 state 

representatives. The workgroup 

discussed the mechanics of webdistributed labeling and how it would 

complement ongoing label improvement 

programs. The workgroup conducted 

extensive stakeholder outreach to 

individuals and associations to describe 

the concept of web-distributed labeling 

and to solicit stakeholder feedback. 

Using the stakeholders’ input, the EPA 

internal workgroup developed 

discussion papers to describe some of 

the details around specific elements of 

web-distributed labeling. 

In May, 2008, EPA requested formal 

feedback on web-distributed labeling 

from the Pesticide Program Dialogue 

Committee (PPDC), a federal advisory 

committee for the Office of Pesticide 

Programs. In response, a PPDC 

workgroup was formed to review and 

respond to the discussion papers 

developed by EPA. The PPDC 

workgroup includes representatives 

from user and grower groups; public 

interest groups; trade associations; 

industry; state, local, and tribal 

government; educational organizations; 

federal agencies; and others. From 

October 2008 through October 2009 the 

PPDC web-distributed labeling 

workgroup met to discuss and provide 

comment on papers. A full listing of the 

meetings and papers considered is 

available at: http://epa.gov/pesticides/ 

ppdc/distr-labeling/index.html. 

In October 2009, the PPDC workgroup 

discussed a pilot for web-distributed 

labeling that would allow users to test 

the functionality of one or several webdistributed labeling Web sites using 

mocked-up labeling. The pilot would be 

conducted without any actual labeling 

changes. Based on the feedback received 

from the PPDC workgroup, EPA decided 

to shift the focus of the pilot from 

developing Web sites capable of 

delivering web-distributed labeling to 

soliciting user feedback on the concept 

of web-distributed labeling. The pilot is 

discussed in further detail in Unit VI. of 

this Notice. EPA invited participation in 

it customer acceptance pilot through a 

Federal Register Notice published on 

August 18, 2010. See http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR–2010–08– 

18/pdf/2010–20449.pdf. 

C. Web-Distributed Labeling Elements 

1. Scope of Web-Distributed Labeling. 

A primary consideration before webdistributed labeling could be 

implemented is which products should 

be eligible to participate. EPA does not 

anticipate that all products would be 

eligible for web-distributed labeling 

initially. 

EPA is not inclined to limit products’ 

eligibility for web-distributed labeling 

based on how the product is registered 

or distributed. Web-distributed labeling 

would be available for otherwise eligible 

products whether they are sold by 

registrants directly or through another 

company as supplemental distributor 

products. 

Both unrestricted (general use) and 

restricted use products (RUPs) may be 

appropriate for web-distributed labeling. 

General use products are accessible to 

all applicators and can be used in 

agricultural, residential, and industrial 

settings, among others. RUPs are 

available only to applicators that have 

been certified as competent by a state, 

tribal, or federal agency, and 

applications are generally conducted as 

part of the applicator’s primary 

occupation rather than incidentally. 

Both types of products would benefit 

from streamlined labeling available 

through web-distributed labeling. In 

general, EPA believes that RUP 

applicators, because of their training, 

certification, and awareness of legal 

responsibility to comply with all 

labeling, are more likely to comply with 

the requirement to obtain webdistributed labeling. However, many 

professional applicators also use general 

use products and would also comply. 

Therefore, EPA would invite 

manufacturers of both general use 

products and RUPs to participate in 

web-distributed labeling. 

EPA proposes to limit the scope of 

products eligible to use a web 

distributed labeling system to those that 

are used as part of a money-making or 

business operation, or as a public 

regulatory function. Residential, 

consumer use products would not be 

included in web distributed labeling 

and would continue to be distributed 

with the full labeling accompanying the 

product container. Registrants may 

choose to post the labeling for 

residential products to the Web sites, 

however, so that consumers may obtain 

some of the benefits of web distributed 

labeling, such as viewing text in a larger 

font size. 

Further consideration of the potential 

scope of web-distributed labeling is 

available at http://epa.gov/pesticides/ 

ppdc/distr-labeling/oct08/wdlscope.pdf. 

EPA requests feedback on the 

following: 

• What should be the scope of 

products under consideration as eligible 

for web-distributed labeling? 

• What criteria should be used to 

determine which types of pesticides 

should be eligible for web-distributed 

labeling? 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
82016 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 

2. Voluntary vs. Mandatory 

Participation. EPA thinks that 

participation in the web-distributed 

labeling system should initially be 

voluntary. As discussed above, EPA 

would invite both general and restricted 

use pesticide manufacturers to 

participate in the program. Once webdistributed labeling is established and 

has operated for a few years, the Agency 

would expect to evaluate its impact on 

pesticide safety and may consider 

implementing a mandatory system if 

appropriate. 

EPA requests comments on the 

following: 

• What are the benefits and 

drawbacks associated with voluntary 

and mandatory participation in webdistributed labeling? 

• How would pesticide registrants, 

states, and users benefit from a 

voluntary web-distributed labeling 

system? 

• How would a voluntary system 

negatively affect these groups? 

• Why would stakeholders support 

mandatory participation in a webdistributed labeling system? 

• What would be the drawbacks of a 

mandatory system? 

3. What’s on a Pesticide Container 

and on the Web-Distributed Labeling 

Web site? Implementation of webdistributed labeling would require 

decisions be made regarding which 

types of information would appear on 

the label securely- attached to the 

container, which would appear in 

labeling accompanying the container, 

and which would be web-distributed, or 

available through alternate delivery 

mechanisms. Currently, for virtually all 

products, all labeling is attached to the 

pesticide container or distributed at the 

point of sale with the product. The 

labeling includes all information 

required by FIFRA and EPA’s 

regulations. Web-distributed labeling 

would be used for state-approved, 

marketed product labeling, not EPA’s 

master labeling. 

Under web-distributed labeling, EPA 

would partition the label and labeling 

elements according to whether they 

would be securely-attached to the 

container, accompanying the container, 

or in web-distributed labeling. The 

securely-attached or accompanying 

label and labeling would contain all 

safety and product identification 

information; state- or site-specific use 

direction information would be 

available through web-distributed 

labeling. Users accessing the labeling 

through an alternate delivery 

mechanism would receive a copy of the 

labeling containing all information in 

the securely attached, in the 

accompanying labeling, and available 

via the web-distributed labeling system. 

A full list of the components that would 

appear on the label and those 

components that would be available 

through the web-distributed labeling 

system can be found at: http://epa.gov/ 

pesticides/ppdc/distr-labeling/oct08/ 

container-label.pdf. 

i. Information Securely Attached to 

the Container. In accordance with 

FIFRA § 2(q) and 40 CFR Part 156, 

specific label elements must be on a 

label securely-attached to the container. 

The same requirements would apply to 

a web-distributed labeling system. Thus, 

the following elements must be found 

on the label securely-attached to the 

container: Directions for use or a 

reference statement to directions for use 

found elsewhere in labeling; use 

classification (Restricted Use Product 

statement); violation of federal law 

statement; product registration number; 

signal word; Worker Protection 

Standard referral statements; storage 

and disposal requirements; product 

establishment number; brand/product/ 

trademarked name; ingredient 

statement; net weight or contents; skull 

& crossbones/POISON and statement of 

practical treatment if highly toxic; name 

and address of producer or registrant; 

warning or caution statement adequate 

to protect health and the environment 

(by regulation, this requires physical 

and chemical hazard information, and 

human health and environmental 

precautionary statements); and (for 

labels of products for export only) ‘‘Not 

registered for Use in the United States 

of America. 

Under web-distributed labeling, a 

‘‘released for shipment date’’ would be 

required to appear on the container 

label. The released for shipment date 

should appear with the registration 

number on the product container label 

and its purpose is detailed in Section 

B.3. 

In addition to the existing 

requirements outlined above, under 

web-distributed labeling EPA would 

require a container label to include a 

reference statement, likely under the 

heading ‘‘Directions for Use’’ where the 

violation of federal law statement 

appears, that reminds users they are 

bound by the directions on the 

container as well as those included in 

the web-distributed labeling. The 

language requiring users to obtain and 

comply with web-distributed labeling 

would be similar to: 

‘‘You must obtain additional labeling, 

which includes directions for use, from 

[insert the Web site address for the webdistributed labeling system] or by 

calling [insert the toll-free telephone 

number]. This additional labeling must 

be dated after the ‘‘released for shipment 

date’’ appearing [indicate location on 

container]. You must possess a copy of 

this additional labeling at the time of 

application. It is a violation of federal 

law to use this product in a manner 

inconsistent with its attached label or 

the additional labeling obtained in one 

of the methods listed above.’’ 

While not required to be attached to 

the container, users and the 

environment would benefit from 

additional information attached to or 

physically accompanying the container. 

For example, since pesticides in their 

containers move in the channels of 

trade, it is important to provide basic 

information regarding safe storage, 

handling, and disposal of the product, 

as well as what to do in case of 

accidents and spills, to anyone who may 

come in contact with the pesticide, such 

as distributors, applicators, handlers, 

medical providers, or first responders. 

ii. Web-Distributed Labeling Content. 

Web-distributed labeling would 

encompass all labeling information not 

required to be affixed to the container. 

In order to minimize costs of reprinting 

product labels, pesticide companies 

would not want to put information in 

the label or in the labeling physically 

accompanying the container that would 

be likely to change frequently. The webdistributed labeling would include 

components of the labeling that are 

specific to the type of application, such 

as engineering controls, environmental 

hazards, use directions and advisory 

statements. There has been discussion 

about the concerns for putting the target 

sites and pests on the label that is 

securely attached or accompanying the 

container. However, any change in site 

or pest would require manufacturers to 

print new labels and have them in the 

channels of trade prior to making any 

changes to the web-database. If these 

items changed frequently and they were 

securely attached or accompanying the 

container, the benefit of web-distributed 

labeling would be reduced greatly. 

EPA requests comments on the 

following: 

• Do you agree with the proposed 

content that would be included on the 

web-distributed portion of the labeling? 

• Should other content be included 

on the container-affixed label? 

4. Lifespan of Web-Distributed 

Labeling. This unit addresses how a 

system for web-distributed labeling 

would affect the length of time that 

pesticide labeling would be valid. EPA 

proposes to adopt an approach that 

would operate in essentially the same 

manner as the current, paper-based 

system. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 82017 

i. The Current System. The current, 

paper-based system generally does not 

result in a fixed ‘‘lifespan’’ for pesticide 

labeling—the duration of time over 

which a user may lawfully use a 

pesticide according to its labeling. Users 

may use a pesticide consistent with the 

labeling that accompanied it when the 

pesticide was obtained for as long as 

they have the pesticide or unless EPA 

issues an order that affects such use. 

FIFRA § 12(a)(2)(A) makes it unlawful 

for a person to detach or alter the 

labeling on a registered pesticide 

product. Consequently, each time that a 

pesticide is used up and the container 

is disposed of, the user must get a new 

container with new labeling that he 

cannot alter or deface. This means that 

the labeling accompanying a container 

is legally valid only for as long as the 

user possesses the specific product 

container and is only valid with respect 

to the quantity of pesticide in that 

container. 

Currently, when EPA approves 

changes to a registrant’s labeling, the 

registrant places the revised labeling on 

newly produced quantities of the 

pesticide within 18 months of the 

approval. These time periods allow 

application of the new labeling in the 

production process over an extended 

timeframe rather than requiring the 

registrant to collect, relabel, and 

redistributed the product with an 

amended label. Users buying product 

containers bearing the revised labeling 

thus become subject to the new 

requirements. 

In sum, pesticide users have come to 

expect that they will be able to use a 

pesticide according to the labeling 

accompanying the product container 

until the all of the pesticide has been 

used up. This expectation holds even if 

EPA requires changes to the labeling on 

quantities of the identical product when 

sold in the future. 

ii. The Proposed System. One premise 

of a web-distributed labeling system is 

that labeling would not physically 

accompany the pesticide product at the 

time of sale. Instead, material would 

become ‘‘labeling’’ because the container 

label would refer to it and make it 

legally binding. Referenced labeling 

would be obtained separately from the 

product container. Once obtained, such 

labeling applies to all products that refer 

to it, not necessarily just a single 

specific container as is the case for the 

paper-based system. One result of this is 

if a user possesses multiple containers 

of the same pesticide product, it may 

not be necessary to require the user to 

obtain separate labeling for each 

discrete container of a pesticide he 

possesses. 

The attenuation of the labeling and 

the product container creates a potential 

problem—old, out-of-date labeling 

could be associated with newly 

produced quantities of a pesticide by 

virtue of having the same registration 

number. Further, just as now happens 

under the current paper-based system, 

when EPA amends the labeling of a 

pesticide product to incorporate new 

protections for human health or the 

environment, those protections should 

apply prospectively to users who 

purchase products sold after the date of 

the amendment. But, because webdistributed labeling is not linked to 

particular containers, the new system 

must ensure that users do not continue 

to follow old labeling when using new 

products. 

To address this situation, EPA 

proposes the following approach. EPA 

would require product containers to 

bear a statement that the specific 

container was ‘‘released for shipment on 

[date]’’ and also require the user to 

obtain a valid version of the labeling 

from the Web site on or after that date. 

The date on which a product was 

released for shipment is the date on 

which the registrant made a pesticide 

product available for sale or distribution 

to another person. (40 CFR 152.3) 

Finally, the container label would 

specify that the product could be used 

only in accordance with an approved 

version of the labeling obtained after the 

production date from the Web site listed 

on the labeling. In addition, labeling 

obtained would include a prominent 

statement of the date on which the 

labeling was generated, along with a 

statement that the user could use the 

labeling only if the product container 

indicated it had been released for 

shipment before the date in the labeling. 

Once a product is in the channels of 

trade and the container label changes, it 

would be treated the same way existing 

stocks are treated under the current 

system, and dealers could lawfully sell 

the product with labeling that had been 

superseded by a new version. 

The consequence of this approach 

would be that a pesticide could lawfully 

be used according to any version of the 

labeling that a user obtained after the 

date on which the product was released 

for shipment. Once the pesticide in the 

container was used up (or disposed of), 

if the user wanted an additional 

quantity of the pesticide, the user would 

need to obtain a new container of the 

pesticide labeled with a new ‘‘released 

for shipment on [date].’’ Labeling that 

predated the date on the newly obtained 

quantity of pesticide would no longer be 

valid. In effect, this approach would 

give web-distributed labeling an 

indeterminate lifespan equal to the 

amount of time a user takes to use up 

the pesticide material—the same 

lifespan as under the current system. 

(As with the paper-based system, EPA 

would retain the authority under FIFRA 

to cancel or suspend the registration of 

a pesticide using web-distributed 

labeling, and could further prohibit use 

of existing stocks, if deemed necessary.) 

EPA requests comments on the 

following: 

• What are the benefits and 

drawbacks associated with tying the 

lifespan of web-distributed labeling to a 

‘‘released for shipment date?’’ 

• What are the benefits and 

drawbacks of a requirement for webdistributed labeling to have a specific 

expiration date? 

• If a specific expiration date is 

recommended, should it be a firm date 

or a set time period after the product is 

released for shipment? Why? 

5. Functionality and Hosting of WebDistributed Labeling Web site(s). This 

section presents EPA’s thoughts on the 

web-distributed labeling Web site 

functionality and Web site hosting. The 

functionality section describes in a 

general sense what users would be able 

to do if the web-distributed labeling 

Web site were available. The hosting 

section presents several basic concepts 

the EPA has discussed for housing and 

maintaining the software and hardware 

that support the web-distributed 

labeling Web site. EPA has 

differentiated the major components of 

Web site functionality in two categories: 

Critical components and desirable 

components. The critical components 

are those that EPA believes are 

necessary for implementing a useable 

web-distributed labeling Web site; 

without these critical components, the 

key benefits described earlier in this 

Notice may not be realized. The 

desirable components are those that 

EPA believes would add value to a webdistributed labeling Web site; however, 

these desirable components are not 

necessary for implementing a useable 

web-distributed labeling Web site. A full 

discussion of the proposed functionality 

is available at http://epa.gov/pesticides/ 

ppdc/distr-labeling/jan09/ 

functionality.pdf. 

i. Critical Components of the Web 

site(s). The first three critical 

components relate particularly to users 

of pesticide products. Users must be 

able access web-distributed labeling. 

This would include searching the webdistributed labeling database by the 

registration number, the state in which 

the application is to be made, and the 

use site to which the application is to 

be made. By specifying these search 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
82018 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 

criteria, the user would choose the 

labeling he/she wishes to view. Second, 

the Web site must allow all users to 

view both current and historic versions 

of product labeling for pesticides in the 

web-distributed labeling system. This 

would include the most recently 

approved version of the labeling, as well 

as all versions of web-distributed 

labeling that had been previously 

approved and available for download so 

that users could access versions of the 

labeling that correspond to a container 

purchased at an earlier date and 

compare historic and current versions of 

labeling, and inspectors could access all 

versions of labeling that corresponds to 

a container. Finally, the Web site must 

have user-friendly interface and be easy 

to navigate. Some people that would use 

a potential web-distributed labeling 

Web site might have little to no 

experience navigating the Internet. In 

order to encourage utilization of the 

web-distributed labeling system Web 

site, it is important that it be intuitive 

and easy for an inexperienced Internet 

user to navigate. 

There are also critical components 

related to the posting of labeling and 

security of the Web site. In order to 

house accurate current and historical 

versions of labeling, the web-distributed 

labeling Web site must allow 

participating registrants (or agents with 

appropriate access rights) to upload new 

versions of web-distributed labeling. 

This component will ensure that only 

authorized users are permitted to make 

timely updates to web-distributed 

labeling Web site content. In addition, 

the web-distributed labeling Web site 

must employ appropriate security 

measures to minimize the possibility of 

unauthorized persons uploading, 

editing or otherwise tampering with 

web-distributed labeling information. 

For example, the system could maintain 

password-protected access and an audit 

history for persons performing any 

activity other than accessing labeling. 

Appropriate functionality would allow 

the Web site to meet the needs of users 

by delivering streamlined labeling and 

to ensure the integrity of the labeling 

through necessary security measures. 

ii. Desirable Components of the Web 

site(s). In contrast to the necessary 

functionality listed above, the following 

components are desirable in a webdistributed labeling system to facilitate 

a more positive user experience. The 

desirable components of a Web site are 

providing single URL (Web site address) 

to access the web-distributed labeling 

system, providing a static URL for each 

product, allowing users to select the 

format for the labeling, highlighting 

changes between current and historical 

versions of labeling, and providing links 

to training and other tools for 

applicators. 

A single uniform resource locator 

(URL) (e.g. http:// 

www.webdistributedlabeling.com) as 

opposed to multiple URLs (e.g., http:// 

www.webdistributedlabeling.com, 

http:// 

www.webdistributedlabeling22.com, etc. 

Note: These Web sites are fictional and 

will not provide legally enforceable 

pesticide product labeling.) would allow 

users to visit a single Web site to search 

for and download all labeling. While the 

container label will identify the Web 

site for each product, having a single 

Web site address on all products 

participating in the web-distributed 

labeling system should make education 

and training of users easier and more 

effective. 

Static web addresses for webdistributed labeling would always link 

to the current labeling for Product X, for 

example http:// 

www.webdistributedlabeling.com/ 

ProductX_current.htm. This would 

allow users to ensure that they are 

always linking to the current version of 

the labeling without having to search 

through the Web site. 

A feature that allows users to specify 

the format of the labeling, e.g., PDF, 

html, mobile version, would provide 

users with flexibility to download or 

view the labeling in the format most 

convenient and accessible to them. 

A feature that highlights changes 

made in the most recent version of webdistributed labeling by comparing the 

most recent version with a historic 

version of web-distributed labeling 

would assist users in quickly 

determining what components of the 

labeling had changed. 

Finally, the web-distributed labeling 

Web site could also be used to house or 

link to materials that may be helpful to 

pesticide applicators or other users, 

such as training materials, rate 

calculators, supplementary health and 

safety information, equipment 

calibration instructions, stewardship 

information, versions of labeling in 

different languages, and many other 

types of information. 

EPA considered an optional feature of 

providing the EPA-approved master 

labeling, but decided that it would not 

be a good fit in the web-distributed 

labeling system. An electronic version 

of the master labeling can currently be 

found in the Pesticide Product Labeling 

System (PPLS). Since the intent of webdistributed labeling is to provide stateapproved labeling to the user and 

master labeling is already available 

electronically, the Agency decided 

against adding this as a desirable 

component of a potential webdistributed labeling Web site. 

iii. Web site Hosting Approaches. 

Although the specifics of the 

technological architecture used to 

implement the WDL should be left up 

to those involved in the actual 

development, EPA considered some 

basic concepts of web site and database 

design, including who should host, or 

be responsible for hosting, the WDL 

Web site(s). This section discusses 

options for the Web site portal and 

databases, and potential hosts and the 

advantages and disadvantages 

associated with each. A discussion 

paper on web-distributed labeling Web 

site hosting is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/ 

registering/index.htm. 

There are two critical components in 

the architecture of the web-distributed 

labeling system: 

(1) The portal, i.e., the initial Web site 

visited by users or the public to begin 

their search for web-distributed 

labeling, and 

(2) The database(s) holding the files 

necessary to generate web-distributed 

labeling. EPA believes that a single Web 

site portal connected to multiple 

databases maintained by pesticide 

companies would be the most 

appropriate option for a web-distributed 

labeling system. 

A single Web site would provide 

users with one access point for all 

information related to web-distributed 

labeling. The Web site would contain 

software necessary to allow users to 

specify search criteria (i.e., registration 

number, state, and use site) and for the 

Web site to identify and interact with 

separate databases containing the 

information necessary to generate 

appropriate web-distributed labeling. 

This alternative would operate in a 

manner similar to a service such as the 

online bookseller, Amazon. All users 

visit the Amazon.com Web site to search 

for their products, and the Amazon Web 

site, in turn, searches multiple databases 

(of its warehouses and partner dealers) 

to provide the requested information 

back to the user. For the WDL system, 

a single pesticide labeling portal would 

be linked to databases maintained by 

registrant and/or third parties. Multiple 

databases would allow multiple entities 

to share the responsibility for 

maintaining and updating databases. 

Such a system would require the use of 

consistent standards for data-formatting 

and searching to be effective. 

One alternative is that all WDL 

information would be maintained in a 

single database. This approach would 

assure a standard delivery format for 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 82019 

labeling, and the single access point 

would be easier for users to remember. 

A single database would assist federal 

and state enforcement personnel in 

reviewing the labeling. However, a 

single portal and database could require 

a single entity to process and maintain 

a large amount of information. 

A second alternative is multiple Web 

site portals with multiple databases, 

which would require the user to visit a 

specific site for each product. It would 

be similar to the multiple options 

available to purchase a car online. A 

user can visit each dealer’s Web site but 

cannot search all databases at once for 

information on a car; each database 

must be searched separately for different 

car models. This approach would allow 

each entity to maintain data in its own 

format, but would impose additional 

burden on users to visit a different Web 

site for each product they intend to use. 

Extra burden could lead to noncompliance. It would also be more 

burdensome for enforcement personnel 

who would have to search each Web 

site/database individually. 

iv. Potential Web site Portal and 

Database Hosts. Whether the approach 

chosen is a single Web site and 

database, a single Web site linked to 

multiple databases, or multiple Web 

sites with multiple databases, the 

options for hosts of the web-distributed 

labeling Web site portal(s) and 

database(s) are the same. EPA, 

registrants, and third-party vendors 

could operate the Web site(s) and 

database(s). While there are positives 

and negatives associated with each, if 

the preferred single portal, multiple 

databases approach is chosen, then the 

most likely hosts of the Web site would 

be EPA or a third-party vendor and the 

hosts of the databases would be 

registrants and third-party vendors. 

Regardless of which entity hosts the 

Web site, registrants would be 

responsible for posting the marketed 

product labeling approved by the state. 

Registrants would have the flexibility to 

post each product’s labeling as it is 

approved by the state. States would be 

able to continue to use their current 

process for reviewing and approving 

pesticide labeling, whether it is done 

electronically or on paper. States would 

not be responsible for posting labeling 

but would have full access to the system 

in order to verify that the labeling 

posted is accurate and matches the 

state-approved version. 

EPA: As the Federal authority for 

pesticide registration and regulation, 

EPA is involved in the registration of 

almost all pesticides. It maintains 

historical records of all master labels 

submitted and approved, and it is 

developing a structured database for all 

master labeling content (E-label 

program). If EPA were to host the Web 

site for web-distributed labeling, EPA 

would likely operate a single portal Web 

site and would likely rely on other 

entities (e.g., registrants or states) to 

provide the electronic files on stateapproved marketed product labeling 

that would be accessed by and through 

the Web site. 

Potential disadvantages to EPA’s 

serving as the host are that EPA may be 

unable or less likely than a third-party 

vendor to link to other commercial Web 

sites, limiting the potential benefit of 

web-distributed labeling to provide 

links to training and tools to users. Also, 

with EPA as host, determining who is 

liable for errors with the labeling could 

be more difficult. 

Although EPA does maintain master 

labeling for all pesticide products, users 

rely on the state-approved marketed 

product labeling to make applications. 

EPA is not involved in the state 

approval process for marketed product 

labeling and does not require states or 

registrants to submit the approved 

marketed product labeling to the 

Agency. Making EPA the host of the 

web-distributed labeling Web site would 

increase burden on registrants to submit 

the final state approved labeling to EPA 

for posting. 

Registrants: Registrants are ultimately 

responsible for obtaining approval for 

and distributing pesticide labeling. 

Registrants submit their applications for 

registration to EPA and, after receiving 

approval, use the master label to get 

state approval for marketed product 

labeling and updates. Because 

registrants track the labeling at each step 

of the approval process, they are in best 

position to ensure that the labeling 

provided to the web-distributed Web 

site(s) is the latest approved version. In 

addition, most registrants already have 

and maintain Web sites for their 

products and could use them as the 

basis for a web-distributed labeling. 

Third-Party Vendor: Third-party 

vendors could include for-profit and 

not-for-profit organizations. Some 

already provide a service to registrants 

and states facilitating electronic 

submission of labeling or to the public 

by harvesting available pesticide 

registration data and making it available 

online. Some third-party vendors charge 

a subscription fee. 

Third parties could offer 

comprehensive services to create 

electronic files for labeling and 

submitting them for approval by the 

state, or could rely on other entities 

(e.g., registrants or states) to provide the 

electronic files on state-approved 

marketed product labeling that would 

be accessed by and through the Web 

site(s). 

A registrant or third-party would 

likely be able to quickly adopt new 

technology with fewer constraints than 

apply to the federal government and 

might be able, therefore, to revise the 

Web site to improve the user 

experience. However, adding another 

actor to the pesticide labeling process 

introduces the potential for additional 

errors. Overall, third-parties are more 

flexible and attuned to the needs of their 

customers, whether they are users, 

registrants, or government. 

States: EPA initially considered 

suggesting states as a potential host for 

a web-distributed labeling system. State 

lead agencies provide the final approval 

for a product’s labeling before it is 

released into the channels of trade. 

However, because states have 

independent processes for reviewing 

and approving labeling and may not 

have the capacity to build a Web site for 

labeling, EPA decided not to consider 

states as a potential host for a webdistributed labeling Web site. 

EPA seeks comments on the 

following: 

• Do the critical components of the 

web-distributed labeling Web site 

provide sufficient functionality for users 

and other stakeholders? Should any 

optional components be considered 

critical components? 

• Are there other non-critical features 

of the Web site that EPA has not 

considered? Please describe their 

purpose and utility. 

• Which Web site hosting approach 

does your organization support? Why? 

• Are any proposed Web site hosting 

approaches not possible or practical? 

Why? 

• Which potential Web site host is 

preferable? Why? 

• Are there other potential benefits or 

drawbacks associated with having any 

of the entities listed above host the webdistributed labeling Web site? 

6. Alternative Delivery Mechanism for 

Labeling. Alternate mechanisms of 

delivery must be developed to provide 

pesticide labeling to those users who do 

not have access to the web and/or the 

necessary technology to download and 

print WDL labeling. Alternatives for 

those without adequate access to the 

Internet include the alternative delivery 

mechanisms of faxing and U.S. Mail, 

alternate electronic mechanisms such as 

mobile technology, and accessing 

labeling from alternate locations that 

may have Internet access, such as the 

place of purchase, libraries, schools, and 

county extension offices. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
82020 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 

The primary alternate delivery 

mechanisms the Agency expects to be 

used are fax on demand and U.S. Mail. 

Both the faxing and mailing options 

could be developed in conjunction with 

a toll-free hotline through which 

pesticide users could request the 

necessary labeling. The user would call 

the toll-free number, provide the state(s) 

and site(s) of intended use, and request 

the streamlined labeling via mail or fax. 

Users would also have the option to 

request the full product labeling. It is 

expected that the toll-free hotline 

number would need the following 

characteristics or functions to ensure 

faxing and sending labels via mail are 

viable alternatives: Nearly 24-hour 

access; no charge to callers; multilingual 

capability; non-automation; ability to 

fax and send via mail; and ability to 

quickly respond to user requests. 

Once the user requests the labeling 

through the hotline, it needs to be 

delivered to the user. Faxing the 

labeling is an option for users who have 

access to a fax machine. This 

mechanism seems most feasible for 

users that apply pesticides in the course 

of their work, such as commercial 

pesticide applicators, because this group 

is more likely to own fax machines. A 

mechanism accessible by all pesticide 

users is the U.S. mail. Standard delivery 

through U.S. Mail should not have any 

extra costs to the user but expedited 

delivery could be offered for an 

additional charge. First class mail takes 

about 1 to 3 days to get to the recipient, 

which is in addition to any processing 

time needed to select, print, and prepare 

the labeling to be mailed. This 

processing time needs to be minimized 

in order to keep this mechanism 

feasible. 

Mobile technology is another possible 

alternative delivery mechanism because 

cell phones and other mobile devices 

may be more accessible for users that do 

not have access to computers and/or the 

Internet. However, mobile technology 

may be limited due to limited network 

coverage, the size of files that can be 

downloaded, and slower access speeds. 

Another issue with mobile technology is 

that some states may require the users 

to have a paper copy of the label and it 

isn’t clear if labeling can be printed 

from these devices. For users in states 

that do not require the user to have a 

paper copy of the labeling, delivery of 

labeling to a smart phone is a feasible 

alternative to accessing and printing the 

labeling at a traditional computer. 

Some places, such as the place of 

purchase, libraries, schools, and 

university extension service offices, may 

serve as alternate locations to access the 

Internet and/or fax machines, and thus 

access web distributed labeling. Access 

may be limited in some of these 

locations (e.g., libraries may have slow 

Internet connection speeds and limited 

availability of computers and printing, 

schools may not be accessible to nonstudents). While EPA recognizes that 

these locations could be a potential 

place for users to access web-distributed 

labeling, the Agency will not rely on the 

place of purchase, libraries, schools, or 

university extension services as the 

primary alternate delivery mechanism 

for web-distributed labeling. 

EPA believes that all of these 

mechanisms should be explored. At a 

minimum, faxing and mailing should be 

implemented as the primary alternate 

delivery mechanisms for webdistributed labeling, and outreach 

should be done to ensure that alternate 

locations are an option for at least some 

users. 

EPA requests stakeholder input on the 

proposed alternate delivery 

mechanisms. Please respond to the 

following: 

• Who should administer the 

alternate delivery mechanisms 

(maintaining the toll-free hotline, 

mailing and faxing the labels)? 

• Who should pay for administering 

the toll-free hotline and mailing the 

web-distributed labeling? 

• Are there other feasible alternate 

delivery mechanisms for webdistributed labeling? Please describe 

them and how they could be 

implemented. 

7. Outreach and Culture Change. Webdistributed labeling would be a 

potentially major change for pesticide 

users. Although many may be familiar 

with using the Internet, they have not 

relied on it for pesticide labeling. Users 

would have to adapt to a new way of 

obtaining product labeling but 

regardless of the distribution system 

employed, their responsibility to obtain 

and follow all label and labeling 

instructions would not change. To avoid 

the increased risk to public health and 

the environment created if users do not 

obtain and follow the labeling as 

required, it would be essential to 

develop and implement a 

comprehensive communication plan 

about web-distributed labeling to 

educate users and those who conduct 

training or make pesticide use 

recommendations. 

Outreach regarding the new labeling 

access method and the required culture 

changes will need to be multifaceted 

with different communication messages, 

timing, and collaborations depending on 

the stakeholders and target outreach 

audience. Although it may be necessary 

to tailor the information to specific 

audiences, locations and products for 

the pilot, the underlying issues are the 

same. A more complete discussion of 

outreach and communication is 

available at: http://epa.gov/pesticides/ 

ppdc/distr-labeling/jan09/ 

ed-culture.pdf. 

Two facets of a successful outreach 

campaign are a clear, consistent message 

delivered repeatedly to the user and 

involving all relevant stakeholders in 

the outreach effort. The three messages 

would be: 

(1) Web-distributed labeling will 

replace paper-based labeling on only 

some products (but not all products) 

and only in some marketplaces (not 

home and garden or antimicrobials); 

(2) Users still must follow federal and 

state requirements, including, where 

applicable, possession of the labeling at 

the time of application, and comply 

with all labeling use restrictions and 

instructions (whether attached, 

accompanying, or web-distributed 

labeling); and 

(3) There are different ways to obtain 

web-based labeling: Internet download 

and the alternate delivery mechanisms, 

such as fax or mail. 

A number of pathways exist that 

provide information to stakeholders: 

EPA, registrants, cooperative extension 

service, state regulatory and 

enforcement agencies, trade 

associations, user groups, pesticide 

dealers and crop advisors, and farm 

worker advocacy groups. With an 

understanding of the benefits of a webdistributed labeling system, they would 

be better equipped to pass the 

information to the end user. Before 

implementing any web-distributed 

labeling program, EPA would work with 

the stakeholder groups identified above 

as well as any other interested parties to 

develop a comprehensive plan for 

outreach. 

EPA plans to work with 

representatives from the groups listed 

above in developing a strategy to 

conduct collaborative outreach in order 

to ensure that culture change regarding 

web-distributed labeling occurs in the 

most effective manner possible. EPA 

would also work through existing 

committees, networks, and workgroups, 

including the Pesticide Program 

Dialogue Committee, the NAFTA label 

workgroup, the State-FIFRA Issues 

Research and Evaluation Group 

(SFIREG), The Pesticide Stewardship 

Alliance (TPSA), and the Association of 

American Pesticide Control Officials 

(AAPCO). The American Association of 

Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE) will 

be a critical partner because of its 

experience in developing educational 

material and its knowledge of how to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 82021 

conduct effective outreach into the 

pesticide user community. The message 

will be delivered most effectively if 

responsibility for doing so is shared, 

because each individual organization 

has its own expertise, experience and 

reach into the user community. 

Education of users would begin well 

before implementing a web-distributed 

labeling system. Those delivering the 

web-distributed labeling message to 

users should have an understanding of 

it and their role as educators and 

information sources at least 6 months 

before the pilot begins. EPA recognizes 

the timing of training will dictate the 

most effective times to conduct outreach 

and would plan the initiation of the 

outreach and education component of 

web-distributed labeling with this 

timeframe in mind. 

EPA requests comment on the 

proposed approach to stakeholder 

outreach and education. 

• Are there audiences or partners that 

have not been identified? 

• Are there alternate ways to deliver 

the message more efficiently or 

effectively? 

8. Enforcement. Under the current 

system, a user is required to comply 

with the pesticide product labeling. The 

requirement for applicators to comply 

with labeling will not change under 

web-distributed labeling; as under the 

existing paper-based system, an 

applicator’s failure to follow the use 

directions or other labeling language 

would be a violation of FIFRA 

§ 12(a)(2)(G). 

Pesticide labeling is enforced under 

FIFRA § 12 which lists various unlawful 

activities. FIFRA § 12(a)(1)(A) declares it 

unlawful to sell or distribute a pesticide 

not registered under FIFRA § 3. FIFRA 

§ 12(a)(1)(B) declares it unlawful for any 

person to distribute or sell a product 

whose claims differ from those made in 

connection with its registration. FIFRA 

§ 12(a)(1)(E) declares it unlawful for any 

person to distribute or sell a misbranded 

product as defined in § 2(q). FIFRA 

§ 12(a)(2)(A) declares it unlawful for any 

person to detach, alter, deface, or 

destroy, in whole or in part, any 

labeling required under the Act. FIFRA 

§ 12(a)(2)(G) declares it unlawful for any 

person to use any registered pesticide in 

a manner inconsistent with its labeling. 

FIFRA § 12(a)(2)(H) declares it unlawful 

for any person to use any pesticide 

which is under an experimental use 

permit contrary to the provisions of 

such permit. FIFRA §§ 13 and 14 

describe the actions the Agency may 

take in response to violations of the Act. 

Web-distributed labeling would mean 

a change in the way labeling is 

delivered, but not in the way it is 

enforced. Enforcement of FIFRA and 

EPA’s regulations is necessary to ensure 

that pesticides continue to be used 

according to labeling requirements. This 

section explores how implementation of 

a WDL system would affect the legal 

responsibilities of users and registrants, 

users, and distributors to comply with 

FIFRA. Further discussion is available 

at: http://epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/distrlabeling/june09/enforcement-paper.pdf. 

i. Registrants. States have primary 

enforcement authority for pesticide use 

violations. EPA generally pursues 

violations of the FIFRA’s labeling 

requirements. Compliance monitoring 

would be a joint federal-state effort to 

monitor labels in the marketplace and 

ensure that applicators are using and 

following current and appropriate labels 

when applying pesticides. This 

approach would not be altered by a 

web-distributed labeling system. 

Registrants are ultimately responsible 

for ensuring that the label affixed to or 

accompanying a product when it is 

released into channels of trade is 

current and accurate. Although the 

registrant may enter into contracts with 

other parties acting as the registrant’s 

agent to produce or label products, the 

registrant is still ultimately responsible 

for the labeling of the product. Under a 

web-distributed labeling scenario, the 

registrant would be responsible for 

ensuring that current and accurate 

labeling is available for users to obtain. 

By listing a Web site address on the 

label, the registrant would take 

responsibility for the content of the Web 

site concerning that product. There are 

a number of alternative methods that 

have been proposed for distribution of 

labeling, including fax-on-demand 

services or toll-free telephone lines to 

request a copy of the label. Regardless 

of how the user obtains the label, the 

registrant would be responsible for the 

labeling content delivered to the user. 

The registrant would be responsible 

for providing a legally valid label to the 

user. There may be instances where a 

registrant contracts with a third party to 

provide labeling to users under a webdistributed labeling system. Transferring 

this duty from the registrant to the third 

party Web site host does not absolve the 

registrant of its ultimate responsibility. 

The Agency may also find the registrant 

liable for violations of FIFRA regarding 

the Web site’s operations and content. 

FIFRA § 14(b)(4) provides that the act, 

omission, or failure of any officer, agent, 

or other person (e.g., a Web site host) 

acting for or employed by any person 

regulated by FIFRA (e.g., a registrant) 

shall be deemed to be the act, omission, 

or failure of such person (a registrant) as 

well as that of the person employed (the 

host). The Agency is considering 

whether registrants seeking to use webdistributed labeling for their products 

should be required to submit, as part of 

the pesticide’s registration under FIFRA, 

documentation of their contractual 

arrangements with Web site operators. 

Such a requirement would serve many 

purposes including the following: 

(1) it will encourage registrants to 

enter into contractual agreements with 

reputable Web site operators; and 

(2) it will expedite federal and state 

compliance monitoring efforts. 

ii. Users. Pesticide users are 

responsible for applying the product in 

accordance with the restrictions and 

directions in pesticide product labeling. 

The provisions of a product’s labeling 

are generally enforceable, and violations 

of a product’s labeling are punishable by 

civil or criminal penalties under FIFRA 

§ 14. A user’s responsibility to follow 

labeling instructions, and the 

consequences of not doing so, would 

not change under web-distributed 

labeling. 

Under web-distributed labeling, the 

container’s label will require the user to 

possess the labeling referenced on the 

pesticide container (i.e., directions for 

use) prior to mixing, loading, or 

applying the pesticide. Failure to 

possess the directions for use as 

required by the container’s label will 

constitute misuse of the pesticide 

product and violate FIFRA § 12(a)(2)(G). 

There is an issue with respect to what 

actions by a user would constitute 

having an appropriate copy of the 

labeling in his possession. EPA would 

regard having either a paper copy of the 

downloaded labeling or an electronic 

file as meeting the requirement to have 

a copy of the labeling but state 

requirements may be different. Further, 

if the user had multiple containers of 

the same product, he would need to 

have only one copy (paper or electronic) 

of the labeling for that product. State 

laws may differ and may require hard 

copies. 

The container’s label will also require 

the user to follow the web-distributed 

labeling. Failure to follow the use 

directions or other requirements 

contained in the web-distributed 

labeling violates FIFRA § 12(a)(2)(G). 

FIFRA is a strict liability statute. Thus, 

if the user obtains an incorrect version 

of the labeling and applies the pesticide 

consistent with the incorrect directions, 

it may be a violation of FIFRA 

§ 12(a)(2)(G) because the application 

was not made consistent with the 

approved labeling. The user may be able 

to argue as an affirmative defense the 

correctness and accuracy of the 

downloaded labeling or that they 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
82022 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 

followed the correct process to retrieve 

the correct labeling but nonetheless 

received the incorrect labeling. 

A user could not use the 

unavailability of a Web site as a reason 

for not obtaining a copy of the webdistributed labeling because the 

container label will provide at least one 

alternative method of obtaining a copy 

of the labeling. EPA would expect the 

user to employ the alternative method 

in case the Web site was not available 

before mixing, loading or applying the 

pesticide. 

iii. Pesticide Dealers & Other 

Distributors. Currently, dealers and 

other distributors of pesticides are also 

responsible for ensuring that the 

registered pesticides they sell or 

distribute have their complete labeling. 

If the labeling is incomplete the 

pesticide may be misbranded, and it is 

a violation of FIFRA § 12(a)(1)(E) to sell 

or distribute a misbranded pesticide. 

However, Congress intended to allow 

any person who violates FIFRA 

§ 12(a)(1)(E) to shift his or her liability 

to the registrant from whom the person 

purchased or received the pesticide if 

that person holds a ‘‘guaranty’’ in writing 

from the registrant. FIFRA § 12(b)(1). A 

guaranty is a written agreement between 

the dealer or distributor and the 

registrant or other person who sells the 

pesticide to the dealer or distributor, 

and notes that the pesticide was 

lawfully registered at the time of the 

sale and that it complies with all 

requirements of FIFRA. The guaranty 

transfers liability for any violations 

associated with labeling or misbranding 

from the dealer or distributor to the 

registrant or other person who provided 

the pesticide. The FIFRA guaranty 

provision would not be affected by webdistributed labeling. 

Dealers and distributors may elect 

under the current system to provide 

parts of EPA-approved labeling for a 

product to their customers when they 

sell or distribute a registered pesticide. 

Such accompanying material must 

travel with the pesticide product from a 

registered establishment where the 

product was produced. 40 CFR 167.3 

defines ‘‘produce,’’ in part, as ‘‘to 

package, repackage, label, relabel or 

otherwise change the container of the 

any pesticide or device.’’ Further, 40 

CFR 167.20 requires establishments 

where pesticidal products are produced 

to be registered with EPA. Since the 

container would bear an affixed label 

when dealers and distributors receive it, 

they would not be relabeling the 

product; therefore, they would not be 

considered producers and not required 

to register as establishments. 

Under web-distributed labeling, there 

would be no requirement for dealers 

and distributors to register as 

establishments that ‘‘produce’’ pesticidal 

products because the web-distributed 

labeling is tied to the product by 

reference, and thus part of the labeling. 

As long as the dealer or other distributor 

provides the purchaser with all of the 

labeling required to accompany the 

pesticide container, the dealer or other 

distributor of the pesticide would not be 

in violation of FIFRA. Dealers may, as 

a service to their customers, provide the 

means for a user to obtain labeling 

through an Internet connection whereby 

the customer can download the labeling 

for the product he just purchased. 

Offering this service does not make the 

dealer liable for the failure of the user 

to obtain the proper labeling, nor does 

providing the means for obtaining 

labeling make the dealer’s facility a 

production facility and subject to 

establishment registration. In sum, 

dealers would need to meet the same 

state and federal requirements for 

selling pesticides to which they are now 

subject. 

Under current law dealers and other 

distributors of pesticides may elect to 

provide parts of the EPA-approved 

labeling for a product to their customers 

when they sell or distribute a registered 

pesticide. Such accompanying material 

must travel with the pesticide product 

from a registered establishment where 

the product was produced. 

EPA seeks comments from 

stakeholders on the potential 

enforcement of web-distributed labeling, 

specifically on: 

• Would states be able to enforce 

web-distributed labeling under their 

current laws and regulations? 

• Are there potential areas of 

enforcement that the Agency has not 

considered? 

• Do users, states, registrants, or other 

stakeholders think that enforcement 

would be significantly different under 

web-distributed labeling? If so, please 

provide an explanation of how. 

V. Issues 

A. User Access 

It is necessary to ensure that all users 

can access web-distributed labeling in 

order to assure that they have the 

information needed to use pesticides 

safely and effectively. EPA would not 

implement web-distributed labeling if 

users were unable to access labeling and 

as a result did not comply with labeling 

directions during application. 

While broadband penetration is 

expanding across the United States, 

especially in rural communities, not all 

users have internet access or the ability 

to download and print large files. A 

2009 survey conducted by the United 

States Department of Agriculture found 

that 59 percent of farms in the United 

States had internet access. Internet 

access varies by geographic location and 

farm size. See http:// 

usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/ 

FarmComp/FarmComp-08-14-2009.pdf. 

To ensure that all pesticide users are 

able to access the labeling, EPA will 

make labeling available either 

electronically or through an alternate 

delivery mechanism. However, EPA 

expects that as broadband penetration 

increases, users’ reliance on the 

alternate delivery mechanism for webdistributed labeling would decrease. 

EPA will continue to monitor internet 

and computer access in rural 

communities. To ensure that no system 

is implemented that would compromise 

access to and thus compliance with 

labeling, EPA plans to conduct several 

pilots related to web-distributed 

labeling (see Unit VI.). The pilots will 

evaluate users’ potential to access the 

internet to download web-distributed 

labeling and the feasibility of alternate 

delivery mechanisms. 

EPA requests comments on the 

following: 

• Are there other ways to reach 

pesticide users that do not have internet 

access other than those considered by 

EPA? 

• What types of outreach should EPA 

and other stakeholders do to ensure that 

all pesticide users understand and could 

use web-distributed labeling, regardless 

of internet access? 

B. User Acceptance/Outreach 

Product labeling is the primary 

mechanism used by EPA to 

communicate critical information to the 

pesticide user. The labeling contains use 

directions, health and safety 

information, and instructions for proper 

disposal, as well as other important 

information. Both FIFRA and pesticide 

labeling regulations assume that users 

follow the use directions on the label 

and labeling for registered products; 

users that do not comply with labeling 

are subject to penalties for noncompliance. To protect human health 

and the environment from the risks 

associated with pesticide misuse or 

misapplication, it is of the utmost 

importance that pesticide users follow 

labeling instructions. 

Implementation of web-distributed 

labeling would have to ensure that risks 

to the public and the environment are 

not increased by users’ failure to 

download and follow the pesticide 

labeling. EPA would not move forward 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 82023 

with web-distributed labeling if EPA 

were to conclude that the system is 

unlikely to enhance users’ 

understanding and following of 

pesticide labeling. To gauge user 

acceptance and to ensure that the webdistributed system is designed to be as 

user-friendly and functional as possible, 

the Agency is developing a pilot as 

described in Unit VI. 

EPA requests comments on the 

following: 

• Is there data on professional 

pesticide users’ reading and 

understanding of the label under the 

current paper-based system? 

• In addition to doing a pilot to gauge 

user acceptance of the concept of webdistributed labeling and potentially 

doing a field-level pilot, what else could 

EPA do to measure users’ acceptance of 

the concept and likelihood of 

downloading the labeling from a Web 

site? 

C. State Acceptance 

As discussed in Unit II.A.2., state 

registration of pesticide products varies 

widely. Since users are required to 

comply with the marketed labeling 

registered by states, it is essential that 

states are actively involved in the 

development of a web-distributed 

labeling system. To move forward with 

web-distributed labeling, EPA will need 

the support of all states. EPA has been 

working with both state lead agencies 

for pesticide regulation and cooperative 

extension services to get feedback from 

these stakeholders. The primary 

concerns of states are ensuring the 

enforceability of web-distributed 

labeling and not being required to 

significantly alter their registration 

systems. 

A web-distributed labeling system 

would not require every state to adopt 

the same registration system. States 

could continue to use their existing 

registration systems, receiving the 

marketed labeling either electronically 

or as a hard copy from registrants. EPA 

anticipates that registrants would be 

responsible for entering the approved 

marketed labeling into the database(s) 

for the web-distributed labeling system, 

meaning no increased burden for review 

and approval of products in a state. 

EPA also recognizes that coordination 

with states and registrants would be 

necessary to implement web-distributed 

labeling. If a company chooses to 

participate in web-distributed labeling, 

both the state and the registrant would 

need to understand the process and the 

format of the approved labeling. States 

would need to notify registrants how the 

approval process would work to ensure 

that the labeling posted to and retrieved 

from the web-distributed labeling 

system would be valid. 

The Agency will continue to work 

with states through the Association of 

American Pesticide Control Officials 

(AAPCO) and the State-FIFRA Issues 

Research and Evaluation Group 

(SFIREG) to ensure their concerns are 

addressed in the development and 

implementation of web-distributed 

labeling. 

EPA seeks comments on the 

following: 

• What are specific areas in which 

web-distributed labeling could affect 

state programs? 

• What would be the impact of webdistributed labeling on state programs? 

• How could EPA satisfactorily 

address concerns about the effect of 

web-distributed labeling on state 

programs? 

D. Registrant Liability 

In the PPDC Workgroup on webdistributed labeling, a number of 

stakeholders voiced a concern that 

implementing a system of web-based 

distribution of pesticide labeling could 

change the potential tort liability of 

registrants. ‘‘Tort liability’’ refers broadly 

to the body of law for establishing rights 

and remedies in non-criminal lawsuits 

to provide relief for persons who have 

suffered injury because of the wrongful 

acts of others. This area of the law 

addresses a wide variety of ‘‘civil 

wrongs’’ (referred to as ‘‘torts’’), not 

arising out of contractual obligations. 

Although the legal principles governing 

tort liability are quite extensive and 

sometimes complex, the basic 

framework is fairly simple. If one person 

has been harmed by the behavior of 

another, the injured party may bring a 

lawsuit against the person who 

allegedly caused the injury in order to 

recover damages. If a judge or jury finds 

that the defendant’s behavior caused the 

damage and that the behavior was 

‘‘negligent,’’ i.e., did not meet the 

relevant standard of care, the defendant 

normally could be found liable for 

damages caused. Negligence can occur 

in many different situations and can 

involve many different types of 

behavior. Whether a particular person’s 

behavior constitutes ‘‘negligence’’ 

typically is determined on a case-bycase basis. When dealing with the sale 

of products, negligence claims can 

involve making a defective product (one 

that does not work as claimed), or 

failing to provide adequate instructions 

or warnings so that the user can use the 

product without injury. 

The Agency asked participants in the 

PPDC Workgroup to explore the impact 

on registrants’ potential tort liability of 

a web-based system of distributing 

labeling. In response several work group 

members collaborated on the 

preparation of an issue paper, ‘‘Liability 

Concerns Associated with WebDistributed Labeling,’’ which is available 

at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/ 

distr-labeling/sept09/liabilityissues.pdf. 

In addition to tort liability, the PPDC 

issue paper discusses a number of other 

topics. One was registrants’, dealers’, 

and users’ liability for violations of 

FIFRA and associated state regulatory 

requirements. Unit III.C.8. deals with 

enforcement of FIFRA requirements, 

and addresses the aspects of the paper 

dealing with liability for regulatory 

violations. 

The PPDC paper also identified 

unsettled legal issues concerning the 

scope of state authority to regulate 

pesticides, in particular whether a state 

has the authority to refuse to approve or 

register a product, therefore effectively 

prohibiting its sale, if the State did not 

consider the EPA-approved pesticide 

labeling adequate. Whatever the merits 

of the competing views of the legal issue 

might be, EPA believes that a decision 

to allow a registrant to use a webdistributed labeling system would not 

affect the scope of states’ authority to 

regulate pesticides within their borders. 

States would have no greater or less 

authority to refuse to approve a 

pesticide using web-distributed labeling 

than they have to refuse to register 

pesticides under the current system. 

(EPA takes no position in this notice on 

the extent of State authority to refuse to 

register a pesticide and what reasons, if 

any, would be legally sufficient.) 

Finally, with respect to tort liability, 

the PPDC paper raised several questions 

but did not suggest possible answers. 

The PPDC paper did not contain 

sufficient explanation for EPA to 

understand the basis for concern that a 

voluntary, web-distributed labeling 

approach might increase the risk of 

successful tort liability lawsuits against 

registrants, much less what steps EPA or 

others might take to minimize any such 

risk. Consequently, EPA asked the 

authors to revise and expand the paper 

using examples to illustrate how a webdistributed labeling, approved by EPA, 

could affect registrants’ potential tort 

liability. EPA has not received a new 

version of the issue paper. 

Because the legal authority, 

registration processes, and requirements 

for users to follow all pesticide labeling 

are the same under web-distributed 

labeling as they are under the current 

system, EPA does not believe that webdistributed labeling will introduce 

additional tort liability to pesticide 

manufacturers or distributors. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
82024 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 

EPA requests comments on the 

following: 

• Would a decision to adopt a system 

of web-based distribution of pesticide 

labeling affect the potential tort liability 

of registrants? As part of the comment, 

please describe the legal theory for 

potential negligence and how webdistributed labeling affects the 

likelihood of successful tort claims 

against a registrant, especially as 

compared with the current paper-based 

system of distributing labeling. 

• What steps might EPA take to 

evaluate whether the extent of 

compliance with pesticide labeling 

increases, decreases, or does not change 

when comparing pesticide users who 

buy products using web-distributed 

labeling vs. users of products following 

the current system? 

• To what extent could a system of 

web-distributed labeling affect the 

authority of a state to regulate 

pesticides? 

VI. Next Steps 

This section presents EPA’s thoughts 

on the next steps for exploring the 

concept of web-distributed labeling. In 

addition to continuing its outreach 

efforts with stakeholders and 

considering feedback on this Federal 

Register Notice, EPA intends to conduct 

a User Acceptance Pilot. Based on the 

feedback gathered during the User 

Acceptance Pilot and from this notice, 

a Virtual Pilot and Limited Field Pilot 

may be developed. 

A. Customer Acceptance Pilot 

The User Acceptance Pilot would 

simulate the web-distributed labeling 

experience using a real Web site, which 

would be capable of providing webdistributed labeling for a limited 

number of pesticide products. The 

labeling downloaded from this Web site 

would not be valid for purposes of 

authorizing a user to apply the products 

involved. The users would go through 

the following steps: 

1. Log onto an Internet-accessible Web 

site. 

2. Enter a product registration number 

or other product identifier for one of 

several pre-determined products. 

3. Select the relevant state/county in 

which the mock pesticide application 

would take place. 

4. Select the relevant use pattern(s) for 

the mock pesticide application to filter 

the labeling according to use pattern(s). 

5. View and download from the Web 

site the labeling appropriate for the 

identified product, use pattern, and 

state provided. 

In addition, the pilot Web sites 

would: 

1. Place a prominent statement on 

each page of the downloaded labeling 

making it clear that the labeling 

downloaded from the Web site(s) was 

not legally valid for purposes of making 

a pesticide application. 

2. Offer users a mechanism for 

providing feedback on the webdistributed labeling experience. 

The purpose of the User Acceptance 

Pilot is to research the extent to which 

users would accept a system requiring 

them to obtain labeling via the Internet. 

The specific goal of the pilot is to 

determine whether the benefits of webdistributed labeling would be 

sufficiently appealing to users that they 

would be willing to visit a Web site to 

obtain labeling for a pesticide product. 

The pilot would demonstrate how users 

could access labeling information using 

the Web site and would not involve the 

actual distribution to users of actual 

pesticide product labeling that would 

rely on the web-distributed labeling 

approach. 

The results of this research are 

important for EPA in deciding whether 

and how to move ahead with further 

efforts to develop such a system. 

Consequently, the Agency not only 

expects participants in the Pilot to offer 

users a mechanism for providing 

feedback on the web-distributed 

labeling experience, but also encourages 

participants to summarize and submit to 

EPA the feedback obtained through the 

pilot. EPA hopes to receive information 

on users’ opinions about paper labels, 

the web-distributed labeling Web site 

experience, web-distributed labeling 

overall, and other potential features of 

web-distributed labeling. 

More information on the User 

Acceptance Pilot is available at http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-08-18/ 

pdf/2010-20449.pdf. 

B. Review of Public Comments on 

Federal Register Notice 

EPA is using this notice to solicit 

comments and suggestions from 

stakeholders and the public on the 

concept of web-distributed labeling. 

EPA will review comments as they are 

submitted and will present the 

information received to interested 

parties. EPA plans to incorporate 

feedback received through this notice 

into the development of the planned 

pilots and in refining the concept of 

web-distributed labeling. 

EPA intends to continue 

communicating with WDL stakeholders 

to provide updates and gather feedback 

as it moves closer to implementing 

WDL. In addition to addressing 

comments received in response to this 

and other WDL Federal Register 

Notices, EPA will continue to provide 

updates on the EPA Web site, meet with 

and encourage the submission of 

information from stakeholders, and 

gather and respond to informal 

comments received on the User 

Acceptance Pilot and Virtual Pilot 

described above. 

C. Virtual Pilot 

The Virtual Pilot would demonstrate 

the actual functionality of webdistributed labeling through the creation 

of an actual Web site and supporting 

database(s). The goals of the pilot would 

be to assess whether the Web site works 

properly for registrants, EPA, states, and 

users. The objectives, scope, 

assumptions, and program assessment 

are discussed in a paper at http:// 

epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/distr-labeling/ 

sept09/wdl-virtualpilot.pdf. This pilot 

could be conducted in conjunction with 

the Limited Field Pilot discussed in 

Section D below. 

D. Limited Field Pilot 

The Limited Field Pilot would 

implement web-distributed labeling on 

a trial basis, in a limited geographical 

area and with a small number of 

products. The Limited Field Pilot would 

be informed by the findings of the 

Customer Acceptance Pilot and 

comments on this Federal Register 

Notice. Users in areas participating in 

the Limited Field Pilot would only be 

able to obtain the full labeling for a 

participating product using webdistributed labeling. Containers would 

bear a limited set of the labeling (see 

Unit III.C.3). Since the Limited Field 

Pilot depends heavily on the feedback 

received from stakeholders, the concept 

will not be developed substantially until 

the other pilots have been completed. 

VII. Conclusion 

After extensive stakeholder feedback 

and refinement of the concept, EPA 

believes that web-distributed labeling 

would be beneficial to users, registrants, 

states, other stakeholders and the 

Agency. Stakeholders would benefit 

from faster implementation of risk 

mitigation and new uses, faster access to 

new uses, reduced printing costs, and 

streamlined labeling. Since labeling is 

the critical component that allows EPA 

to communicate use and safety 

instructions to users, an initiative to 

make the labeling streamlined, and 

easier to read and understand could 

lead to increased compliance and 

therefore improved protection of human 

health and the environment. EPA 

recognizes that issues exist with 

implementation of a web-distributed 

labeling system. However, given the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2010 / Notices 82025 

potential benefits, EPA plans to move 

forward to pilot some of these concepts 

and to address outstanding questions. 

The Agency will continue to engage all 

stakeholders in the consideration of this 

ambitious system. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, electronic 

pesticide labeling, pesticide 

distribution, pesticide labeling, 

pesticide production, pesticide 

regulation, pesticide user, state 

pesticide regulation. 

Dated: December 13, 2010. 

Steven Bradbury, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32036 Filed 12–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission. 

‘‘FEDERAL REGISTER’’ CITATION OF

PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 75 FR 80810, 

Thursday, December 23, 2010. 

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF

MEETING: Wednesday, December 29, 

2010, 10 a.m. (Eastern Time). 

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: The meeting has 

been cancelled. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer on 

(202) 663–4070. 

Dated: December 27, 2010. 

Stephen Llewellyn, 

Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32962 Filed 12–27–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6570–01–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

Notice of Agreements Filed 

The Commission hereby gives notice 

of the filing of the following agreements 

under the Shipping Act of 1984. 

Interested parties may submit comments 

on the agreements to the Secretary, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 

Washington, DC 20573, within ten days 

of the date this notice appears in the 

Federal Register. Copies of the 

agreements are available through the 

Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the 

Office of Agreements at (202)–523–5793 

or tradeanalysis@fmc.gov. 

Agreement No.: 011922–003. 

Title: TNWA/GA Cooperative 

Working Agreement. 

Parties: American President Lines, 

Ltd.; APL Co., Pte. Ltd; Hapag-Lloyd 

AG; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., 

Ltd.; Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.; Nippon 

Yusen Kaisha; Orient Overseas 

Container Line (Europe) Limited; Orient 

Overseas Container Line, Inc. Orient 

Overseas Container Line, Inc. 

Filing Party: Wayne Rohde, Esq.; 

Cozen O’Connor; 1627 I Street, NW.; 

Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006. 

Synopsis: The amendment updates 

the corporate addresses of APL and 

Hyundai. 

Agreement No.: 011928–005. 

Title: Maersk Line/HLAG Slot Charter 

Agreement. 

Parties: A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S and 

Hapag-Lloyd AG. 

Filing Party: Wayne Rohde, Esq.; 

Cozen O’Connor; 1627 I Street, NW.; 

Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006. 

Synopsis: The amendment would 

revise the language to reflect changes in 

allocations due to added tonnage in the 

service and would extend the duration 

of the agreement. 

Agreement No.: 012034–002. 

Title: Hamburg Sud/Maersk Line 

Vessel Sharing Agreement. 

Parties: Hamburg-Sud and A.P. 

Moeller-Maersk A/S. 

Filing Party: Wayne Rohde, Esq.; 

Cozen O’Connor; 1627 I Street, NW.; 

Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006. 

Synopsis: The amendment would 

revise the number of vessels deployed 

and would make corresponding 

operational changes in services under 

the agreement. 

Agreement No.: 012057–005. 

Title: CMA CGM/Maersk Line Space 

Charter, Sailing and Cooperative 

Working Agreement Asia to USEC and 

PNW-Suez/PNW & Panama Loops. 

Parties: A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S and 

CMA CGM S.A. 

Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; 

Cozen O’Connor; 1627 I Street, NW.; 

Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006. 

Synopsis: The amendment increases 

the number and size of vessels to be 

deployed under the agreement, revises 

the space allocations of the parties, and 

deletes obsolete language from the 

agreement. 

Agreement No.: 012115. 

Title: HSDG–CCNI USWC-Europe 

Vessel Sharing Agreement. 

Parties: Compania Chilena De 

Navegacion Interoceanica, S.A. and 

Hamburg Sud. 

Filing Party: Wayne Rohde, Esq.; 

Cozen O’Connor; 1627 I Street, NW.; 

Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006. 

Synopsis: The agreement authorizes 

the parties to share vessels in the trade 

between the U.S. West Coast and ports 

on the Pacific Coasts of Mexico, Canada 

and Central America, Caribbean Coasts 

of Panama, Colombia, ports in 

Continental Europe, United Kingdom 

and North Africa. 

By Order of the Federal Maritime 

Commission. 

Dated: December 23, 2010. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32804 Filed 12–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Notice of Proposals To Engage in 

Permissible Nonbanking Activities or 

To Acquire Companies That are 

Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking 

Activities 

The companies listed in this notice 

have given notice under section 4 of the 

Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 

1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 

CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to 

acquire or control voting securities or 

assets of a company, including the 

companies listed below, that engages 

either directly or through a subsidiary or 

other company, in a nonbanking activity 

that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y 

(12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 

determined by Order to be closely 

related to banking and permissible for 

bank holding companies. Unless 

otherwise noted, these activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

Each notice is available for inspection 

at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. 

The notice also will be available for 

inspection at the offices of the Board of 

Governors. Interested persons may 

express their views in writing on the 

question whether the proposal complies 

with the standards of section 4 of the 

BHC Act. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding the applications must be 

received at the Reserve Bank indicated 

or the offices of the Board of Governors 

not later than January 11, 2011. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. 

Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 

North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201– 

2272: 

1. Grupo Financiero Banorte, S.A.B. 

de C.V., Mexico City, Mexico; to acquire 

100 percent of the voting shares of Ixe 

Grupo Financiero, S.A.B. de C.V., 

Cuauhtemoc, Mexico, and indirectly 

acquire voting shares of Ixe Securities, 

LLC, New York, New York, and thereby 

engage in securities brokerage activities, 

pursuant to section 225.28(b)(7)(i) of 

Regulation Y. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES