March 11, 2013

1

Attachment D

Record of Consultations

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1036 and is 

part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement

Companies Contacted: 

A. Stanley Culpepper

University of Georgia

Stanley@uga.edu

229-386-3328

B. Mike Stanghellini

TriCal, Inc.

mstanghellini@trical.com

831-637-0195

C. Husein Ajwa

University of California - Davis

haajwa@ucdavis.edu

831-755-2823

D. Laura Anderson

Arkema, Inc.

Laura.anderson@arkema.com

610-205-7819

E. Vincent Picirilo 

VJP Consulting, Inc.

vjpicrilo@aol.com

703-858-5894

Summary of Questions and Responses: 

(1) Publicly Available Data

i. Is the information that the Agency requests available from any public source, or already 

collected by another office at EPA or by another agency? 

A. Not that I am aware.

B. Industry has already commented the EPA on the cost burden of all of the mitigation 

requirements.

C. Part of the information is available in the public domain. The industry has already

compiled the information and provided the EPA with the cost burden of the 

mitigations measures.

D. None of the public training documents, labeling, or Fumigation Management Plan 

(FMP) information is available in the EPA Fumigant Tool Box for DMDS. While 
March 11, 2013

2

DMDS is subject to the requirements of the new mitigation measures, the availability

of the supporting documentation does not appear to be public on the EPA site.

E. This information is not available from public sources or another office of EPA or 

another Agency. It can only be retrieved from work records of fumigant applicators. 

o Agency Response: The Agency would like to clarify that the focus of this 

question is on the information collected in the FMP and Post Application 

Summary (PAS) required by fumigant labels. The Agency does not believe this 

kind of information can be made available unless provided by fumigant 

applicators performing the application. However, the Agency notes the other 

kinds of information available, as noted in comment (1) D, and will make sure 

that it is available through the Agency’s website.

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

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

they don’t meet our data needs very well?) 

C. USEPA dockets. It is not “a true duplication”. Some of it is, but not all of it is a 

duplication. 

D. Some other documentation is available at paladin.com

(2) Frequency of Collection

 Can the applicators record the information less frequently and still produce the same 

outcome? 

A. I cannot figure out how the information could be taken less frequently unless the EPA 

1) allowed us to do FMP on a subset of our fumigated acres or 2) allowed us to 

develop a single FMP for the entire farm at one time (no subsequent FMP’s). 

B. EPA dockets. Not necessarily true duplication, but might be close. EPA should have 

the comments from industry already.

C. Not really. Applicators need to record the information for every application. 

However, the amount of information can be tremendously reduced because it is either 

redundant or not needed. A large portion of the FMP is redundant and is a waste of 

time and papers.

D. It is possible that fumigations repeated in same field under same or similar conditions 

may be able to refer to earlier FMPs in lieu of repeating data entry. It would be 

necessary to retain earlier FMPs as a reference.

E. Because of the amount of information needed, reducing the frequency may not 

produce the same outcome. 

(3) Clarity of Instructions 

i. The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain information to decrease 

the likelihood of applicator and bystander exposure to soil fumigants. 
March 11, 2013

3

a. Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, etc.), is it clear what you are 

required to do and how to submit such information (if requested)? 

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

A. For most growers, the answer would be NO. The reason that the information is not 

clear to most growers is the overwhelming number and volume of new regulations 

(even prior to the new buffer restriction regulations). Although the EPA has done an 

excellent job with the website and educating registrants and academia, many growers 

still are simply overwhelmed. The process of using registrants to train applicators 

will be critical for grower understanding. If it was feasible, a single page flyer from 

the EPA that is EASY to understand and educates growers on the changes (not 

specifics) would be beneficial, in essence to compliment the registrant trainings 

(registrants could even use this in their trainings as information coming from the EPA 

has more validity). 

B. The instructions are clear.

C. The instructions are very clear.

D. This reporting is clear.

E. The instructions are clear and the procedures to submit the requested information are 

relatively straightforward.

o Agency Response: The Agency has acknowledged the volume of changes 

throughout the Reregistration Eligibility Decision implementation process, and is 

the reason the Agency selected a phased approach to the mitigation 

implementation. For additional information on the phased mitigation approach, 

please visit 

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/soil_fumigants/implementing-newsafety-measures.html.

The Agency has also conducted and participated in extensive outreach efforts, and 

continues to work closely with stakeholders to help ensure that users and 

enforcement personnel are prepared when these changes take effect. EPA’s 

fumigant webpage contains a number of implementation resources, such as fact 

sheets, that can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/index.htm.

ii. Do you understand that respondents are required to maintain records? 

A. I would estimate yes for 98% of our applicators.

B. Yes, assuming you mean that we are required to keep the FMPs and post-application 

summaries (PASs) for two years. If you mean that I, as a respondent to this ICR, 

need to maintain records for future feedback to the ICR, then no. I do not plan on 

keeping any records specifically to address any future ICR’s related to this one.

C. Yes. The FMP and PAS require keeping the records for two years. 

D. Yes.

E. Yes.
March 11, 2013

4

iii. For the activities associated with submitting information upon request, will it be difficult 

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

A. I do not understand “submitting information upon request”. As far as we know we 

are to document the FMP and save it for at least 2 years. If the Georgia Department 

of Ag shows up at the farm and wants to see our records then we will provide our 

records, including the FMP, to them. I am not aware of submitting any information 

and have not communicated such a need to any grower.

B. No. The FMPs and PASs are clear; but do contain redundant recording of 

information that is easily cited on the labels, which must also be available. Instead of 

requiring applications to copy and paste from labels to FMPs, we should be allowed 

to simple cite the labels via a singular checkbox (i.e., “Have the specific GAPs for the 

method you are using being followed?”).

C. No, not difficult. However, it can be reduced by eliminating the redundancy in the 

FMP and PAS.

D. This is clear and not difficult.

E. This will depend on the training and experience of the data collector for the 

applicator. 

o Agency Response: The Agency would like to confirm that the only 

information that must be submitted, is the FMP and PAS if requested, and 

notification of fumigant applications to states and tribes if required. To identify

which states and tribes require notice, please visit 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/statenotices/.

iv. Are there forms available to assist in recording the information the Agency requests? 

Are they clear, logical, and easy to complete? 

A. The FMP examples developed by (EPA) were absolutely priceless and simplified this 

complicated process immensely. Additionally, the PowerPoint presentations they

made and allowed us to use for trainings were greatly beneficial. For the new buffer 

restrictions being implemented in 2013 we need the following: an additional 

PowerPoint presentation focused just on buffers and a web site (or some type of 

program that could be downloaded to a computer) that can be used to make these 

calculations for growers.......IT MUST BE SIMPLE!

B. The FMP and PAS forms are clear.

C. The FMPs and PASs are clear and easy to complete. However, they can be simplified 

by removing redundancy in requiring information already listed in the label. 

D. There are public documents for most fumigants on the EPA site, would be helpful to 

include DMDS and other registered fumigants (if any).

E. Applicators have their own specific forms. In general, the recordkeeping is clear, 

logical and easy to complete.

o Agency Response: The Agency’s fumigant webpage contains a number of fact 

sheets, which can be found at 
March 11, 2013

5

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/index.htm. The 

Agency has also been working to develop a buffer zone calculator to make the 

process of calculating buffer zones easier for users. This tool is still under 

development, but will also be available at the Agency’s fumigant webpage, which 

can be reached at the previously provided link. 

(4) Burden and Costs

i. Are the labor rates accurate? 

A. No real experience here, looks fair to me????

B. They seem reasonable.

C. Yes, to the best of my judgment.

E. The labor rates are generally accurate. 

ii. The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that correct? 

A. Not if you assume capital costs are fixed costs for equipment?? Equipment has to be 

purchased in direct response to these new regulations such as gas measuring devices, 

safety equipment, etc...

B. Not really. What about the costs of buffer zone signs (signs, staples, staple guns, 

wood stakes)? Multiply 12,000 applications per year by 3-30 buffer zone signs per 

application, and industry and growers will have to consume vast quantities of paper 

signs (heavy paper), loads of staples, and 36,000-360,000 or more wood stakes. The 

signs cannot be reused due to environmental wear on the paper, but the wooden 

stakes can be reused in theory. What about the cost to vacate people from occupied 

structures, when needed, from buffer zones? What about the cost associated with 

static buffer zones around “difficult-to-evacuate” sites, such as prisons, which can 

never be unoccupied? What about the cost of air monitoring equipment? What about 

the costs associated with EPA’s oversized buffer zones that will be implemented with 

the express purpose for forcing users to use more costly tarps?

C. For most part, yes. However, there are costs that are not listed. For example, air 

monitoring equipment/supplies are very expensive and are not listed. Also, the cost 

of buffer zone posting in terms of supplies cost (to make the posts) and also the cost

of gas used to drive back and forth to collect the posts can sum up to a high cost. 

D. There are expenses associated with on line training that were not “capital.” 

E. Yes. 

o Agency Response: The Agency would like to clarify that certain aspects of the

RED mitigation requirements are captured by other ICRs, such as the Worker 

Protection ICR, and the Data Call-In (DCI) notices that were sent to the fumigant 

registrants. For burden and activities for the registrants that fall outside of the 

scope of other ICRs, the Agency has captured them in the fumigant ICR. In 

addition, EPA has adjusted the costs in the revised Supporting Statement to 

include cost of air monitoring equipment, cost of signs, and time for removal of 

signs.
March 11, 2013

6

iii. Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs 

associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include 

estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours 

and labor rates accurate? If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially 

different from EPA’s, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your 

estimates.

A. I think the costs to generate and document paperwork in this document is quite 

accurate. Of course, it must be clear that the amount of time required to obtain the 

information (i.e., actual time to get fit tested, or safety trained, etc.) is not included in 

these calculations and are of much greater costs than the paperwork. See comments 

below on concerns with calculations. 

B. Labor rates seem reasonable, as already asked two bullet points above. The time 

burdens listed in this document need revision. 

 For example, it will take much longer than 0.5 hour to read these new labels. 

The final Phase II labels are a labyrinth of complex and interconnected 

information. I would estimate that it’ll take certified applicators 3 hours to 

read and understand each label. This is based on the number of pages (40+ 

pages per label) and the highly detailed and complex information on each 

page. 

o Agency Response: The Agency has modified this activity to 

“Understanding Requirements.” Reading the label is the law for all 

pesticide products, but the Agency did want to capture the additional 

time it may take to understand the suite of fumigant mitigation 

measures, aside from taking the Applicator Training.

 Table 6 suggests that it take “0 hours” to post signs. This is not accurate. 

Consider a field that is 30 acres large and may require 30 or more buffer zone 

signs. It could take 1-2 hours to post all of these signs in the appropriate 

places, not counting the time it takes to map the field to determine where to 

place the signs in the first place.

o Agency Response: The Agency would like to clarify that the 

supporting statement included 0.13 hours for applicators to fill out the 

information, and 0.5 hours for handlers to post the signs. The Agency

also notes that these times are taken as an average, where some fields 

may have many points of entry to post, and others may not. However, 

the Agency has decided to increase this time to 1 hour, to account for 

both posting and removal.

 12 hours for the initial FMP is a reasonable estimate. However, subsequent 

FMPs may not take just one hour. If it is a grower-applied application and the 

grower is treating the same field as the year before, then, yes, maybe 

consecutive year FMPs may only take one hour to complete. However, 

several thousand applications per year are done by custom applicators, and 
March 11, 2013

7

these fields, product, rate, and other details can change from year to year. In 

these cases, each FMP may take 6-12 hours per year. 

o Agency Response: The Agency has estimated 12 hours for the initial 

FMP for every application and 1 hour to complete a FMP for the same 

site in subsequent years in table 6. Since the site owner and certified 

applicator must retain a signed copy of the FMP for 2 years, changes 

in product, rate, and other details may quickly be made to the FMP. 

The total annual burden and cost for this activity is multiplied by the 

number of applications, and is outlined in Table 7. Templates and 

online tools are currently being developed by EPA and the private 

sector to assist with the preparation of FMPs.

 One hour for the post-application summary sounds about right. 

 Table 10, no cost is assigned to distributing fumigant training materials, 

handler safety information, or first responder/medical expert training 

materials. All of these activities require hardcopy paper documents. 

Applicator training manuals to prepare applicators will be dozens to hundreds 

of paper each. Handler safety information is just one page per person, but 

each application will have 2-10 handlers, times 12,000 applications per year = 

24,000-120,000 handler training sheets are consumed. First responder and 

medical expert training documents will also consume paper.

o Agency Response: Many of the materials discussed in the comment 

above are available on-line. There is no requirement that these 

materials must be made available in paper. Initially, the Agency

included the distribution of materials as a “clerical task” in all cases so 

the time associated with this activity is listed in the “clerical task”

column. However, the Agency has since added 10 technical hours for 

maintaining the fumigant training materials.

 Table 11. There is a typo in the “Year 1” x “Managerial Hours and Costs” 

box. “230.938” should be “230,938”.

o Agency Response: The Agency has made this change.

 States need to provide their own feedback, but I would guess that state 

personnel will need more than 15 minutes (per Table 12) to review paperwork 

for compliance and enforcement. It might take them 30-60 minutes per 

application, but you need to ask the states directly.

 Table 14. Only EPA can give feedback on whether these time and cost 

estimates are accurate.
March 11, 2013

8

 Tables 16 and 17 are probably low, given that these are some missing costs 

(see above), and underestimates of how long some of these documentation 

requirements take.

o Agency Response: Please see the Agency’s responses to the other 

points on question 4 made by respondent B.

C. Table 6, Posting: posting large fields take a long time (2 hours for measuring, 

mapping, and posting).

o Agency Response: The Agency has changed this to 1 hour for posting 

and removal.

Table 6, FMP: It is true that it takes 12 hours for the initial FMP, but it might take 3 

to 6 hours the next year. If the area is slightly changed, then a minimum of 6 hours is 

needed. 

o Agency Response: Please see the Agency’s response on FMPs in the 

response to (4) B.

Table 10, Fumigant training materials, etc. can have a high cost. My estimates are that 

the items in Table 10 cost at least twice the listed costs. 

o Agency Response: The Agency acknowledges the high cost of 

fumigant training materials, which is why the estimate in Table 10 is 

actually multiplied by the number of registrant task forces to yield the 

total registrant burden for fumigant training. Additionally, while the 

Agency has required the availability of Applicator Training that must 

include certain elements, the ICR does not account for activities that 

exceed the Agency required elements. 

D. Arkema (uses a percentage of) the time of one employee to conduct the applicator 

training (and the cost is greater than that listed in the table).

o Agency Response: Please see the Agency’s response to the cost of 

fumigant training materials directly before this comment.

E. There are some areas that need further consideration as follows:

 Table 6, Page 14 has the assumption that reading the label has a burden of 1⁄2 hour 

per year. As the metam labels are 68 pages in length, this estimate is very low. 

Also, applicators may be involved in multiple applications over the course of the 

season/year. A more reasonable estimate would be 2-3 hours. 

 Table 6, Page 14 indicates 1⁄2 hour to post field signs. However, sign removal is 

not accounted for. Sign removal requires a separate, specific trip to remove the 

signs. An additional 1 hour of labor as well as fuel and transportation costs 

should be added. 
March 11, 2013

9

o Agency Response: The Agency has changed the “reading the label” 

activity to “Understand Requirements” as discussed in 4, bullet 3, 

response to B. The Agency has changed the posting burden to 1 hour

for posting and removal.

iv. Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed? 

A. On page 15, the EPA is not correct to assume fumigation occurs once every two 

years. 

o Agency Response: The Agency’s assumption is per fumigated field.

On page 15, the EPA needs to define what they are determining as a fumigant 

application because it appears that this document is assuming that a single fumigant 

application equals a single FMP. I think the EPA is underestimating the number of 

subsequent FMPs being developed. I may have 3 or more FMP for any day of 

fumigation.

o Agency Response: The Agency would like to clarify that it intends 

for one FMP to be developed for each application. There could be 

multiple applications being conducted during one day. 

Page 15, there are far more handlers per certified applicator than 3:1. In my program, 

I have a 12:2 ratio and it is likely a larger ratio with growers.

o Agency Response: The Agency notes that 3:1 was taken as an 

average, but it will depend on the fumigant used and application 

method. For example, metam shank applications may be made by the 

one certified applicator on site.

I really cannot comment on registrant burden and costs but you are not calculating in 

the time that Extension will be required to respond to the newly required community

outreach program. The time to address community concerns such as educational 

circular/bulletin will likely be significant if this process is not handled very carefully.

o Agency Response: The community outreach program targets specific 

emergency responders and poison control and should not place any 

additional burden on extension agents.

Cannot respond to state burden but again the assumption of one fumigant application 

every two years is not accurate.

o Agency Response: The Agency’s assumption is per fumigated field.

B. See bullets points above.
March 11, 2013

10

C. I cannot think of any other items beyond what is mentioned in the ICR. 

D. There are expenses associated with on line training that were not “capital” but include 

outside cost to develop the on-line training program (ex: annual maintenance cost for 

the on-line service).

o Agency Response: The Agency has modified Table 10 to include 10 

technical hours for maintenance and distribution. 

E. Registrant burden includes activities not directly covered.

 Registrants provide training outside of the “Achieva” training and also are involved in 

other sponsored training programs by the States. A company representative attended 

9 such seminars in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. These seminars are well attended 

and 3-4 hours in length. The purpose for the company representatives being present 

are to be available to handle questions that other trainers may not be able to answer. 

Travel costs to attend these seminars also need to be considered. 

o Agency Response: Additional training registrants provide voluntarily

(i.e. any fumigant training other than the certified applicator training) 

is not required by the fumigant REDs, and are therefore outside of the 

scope of this ICR.

 It is planned that registrant personnel will review all training materials on an annual 

basis to assure that any additions or changes are included in the training materials for 

the coming season. It is estimated that this review will require 15-20 hours to 

develop. 

o Agency Response: The Agency has modified Table 10 to include 10 

technical hours for maintenance and distribution. This is in addition to 

the 12 clerical hours already listed in the table.