Page 1 of 13

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR AN

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title: Pesticide Spray Drift Reduction Technologies 

EPA ICR No.: 2472.01

OMB Control No.: 2070-[new]

1(b) Short Characterization

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is seeking approval for a

new information collection request (ICR). EPA intends to initiate a voluntary information 

collection for research to verify the effectiveness of application technologies for agricultural 

pesticide sprays that have the potential to significantly reduce pesticide spray drift. The focus of 

this research is on technologies, such as spray nozzles, shrouds and shields, and nozzle/drift 

reducing adjuvant chemical combinations, which are used for aerial or groundboom applications 

to row and field crops. Collectively these technologies are referred to as drift reduction 

technologies (DRTs). 

The voluntary program would encourage the identification and use of DRTs that can 

substantially reduce drift of pesticide spray droplets from the target application site (e.g., a corn 

field) downwind to non-target areas. Exposures and adverse effects to humans, wildlife, and 

crops and other vegetation from pesticide spray drift are well recognized. Published research 

suggests 1 – 10% or more of applied agricultural pesticide sprays drift from the target field.

EPA believes there are application technologies that have the potential to significantly 

reduce the amount of spray drift. Studies conducted to measure spray drift reduction would 

verify the percent reduction achieved, and thus identify these technologies. EPA, with input 

from a variety of stakeholders, has developed a testing protocol appropriate to the needs of this 

voluntary program.

As manufacturers become aware of this program and begin to complete verification

studies of their technologies (in accordance with the protocol), they would submit the test data to 

EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) for evaluation. EPA/OPP will evaluate each data 

submission and, if appropriate, assign a drift reduction rating to the specific tested technology

(e.g., a nozzle) based on the technology’s reduction in potential spray drift as compared to a 

standard application technology. The rating categories are described in section 2(b). EPA/OPP 

will then post on its website the identification of the manufacturer, its validated technology, and 

the EPA-assigned DRT rating. 

A pesticide registrant would have the option of selecting one or more categories of DRTrated technologies (e.g., one star, two star, etc.) for the pesticide product label that is sent to EPA 

for approval. As part of the label approval process, EPA would consider the rating category, 

(along with the appropriate drift reduction factor), in its risk assessment and risk management 

decisions. Upon EPA’s approval of that label, the applicator would refer to the website to 
Page 2 of 13

identify verified DRTs whose use could be compatible with their application and then follow the 

label directions for the DRT-rated technology selected for use. 

Use of DRT technologies offers the potential for (1) fewer/reduced application 

restrictions needed to mitigate spray drift from the intended application site(s), (2) application of 

more of the spray on the target site or crop which can improve efficacy, (3) a reduction in the 

associated potential risks, and (4) a reduction in costs to the applicator and grower (reduced 

potential for insurance claims and enforcement penalties). Thus, applicators and growers will 

have incentives to use these drift reduction technologies. As applicators and growers use DRTs

on a more routine basis, benefits will accrue. Less pesticide loss to non-target sites means more 

of the applied pesticides are deposited on the intended sites. This results in improved efficacy, 

reduced costs to applicators and growers, and reductions in overall risks.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection 

For the purpose of this document, pesticide spray drift is defined as the physical 

movement of pesticide droplets through the air at the time of application or soon thereafter from 

the target site to any non- or off-target site. This does not include pesticide movements by

erosion, migration, volatility, or windblown soil particles after application. Spray drift is 

dependent on the design of application equipment, size of spray droplets, weather conditions, and 

other factors.

Today, there is increased sensitivity to spray drift due to increased suburban development 

in agricultural areas and the need to protect threatened or endangered species. Spray drift 

management is of interest to pesticide and other chemical manufacturers, application equipment 

manufacturers, growers, pesticide applicators, government agencies, advocacy groups, and the 

public. 

Under Section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Attachment 

A), EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) licenses (or registers) pesticide products. The 

EPA/OPP is charged with licensing the sale and use of pesticides and ensuring that when 

applicators use pesticides according to product label directions, the pesticides will not cause 

unreasonable adverse effects to humans or the environment. To perform these important 

functions, EPA must rely, in part, on quality scientific data and other information to estimate a 

pesticide’s potential hazards, exposures, and risks from its intended use. An important 

component of this scientific assessment is the potential risks to humans and the environment 

from pesticide droplets or particles that drift from the application target site (e.g., a corn field) 

during or shortly after application. Generally, applications of most if not all sprays result in some 

amount of drift: it is not possible to completely eliminate drift.

EPA has spent considerable time and resources reviewing the best available science to 

better understand and estimate drift. Given our current understanding, we know that application

technologies and how they are used, meteorological conditions, and applicator behavior can 

profoundly affect the amount of pesticide spray drift.

Over the years, industry, pesticide applicators, and university and government researchers 

have developed and employed a variety of pesticide application strategies and technologies to 

reduce spray drift. Examples of drift reduction technologies include spray nozzles, shrouds and 
Page 3 of 13

shields, and nozzle/drift reducing adjuvant chemical combinations. Although these and other 

technologies have the potential to reduce pesticide spray drift, there is often uncertainty about 

their effectiveness or performance. Verification testing of technologies would provide 

quantitative, quality-assured data regarding the specific effectiveness of the tested technology to 

reduce spray drift. EPA believes that equipment manufacturers, pesticide registrants, and others 

who have an interest in reducing spray drift can conduct these verification studies using EPA’s 

test methods or another suitable peer-reviewed method provided they have access to appropriate 

test equipment and facilities. In this document, EPA refers to these entities collectively as 

manufacturers. These studies will demonstrate the potential for individual technologies to 

reduce spray drift by reducing the amount of the smallest droplets in spray that are most subject 

to drift, by trapping droplets within shields or shrouds around spray nozzles, or by other means.

EPA envisions that use of DRTs referenced on pesticide product labels submitted by

registrants (for approval) will be included in the agency’s pesticide risk assessments and risk 

management decisions for establishing application restrictions. 

Use of these DRTs in the application of pesticides has the potential for significant 

benefits. Benefits to growers and applicators would include:

 Substantiated, accepted performance claims of the verified technologies

 Greater deposition of applied pesticides on the target sites/crops which may result 

in improved efficacy of pest or weed control

 With greater on-target deposition, potential reductions in application rates with a 

commensurate reduction in application costs

 Reduction of the currently estimated application restrictions for preventing 

adverse effects (e.g., smaller or no buffer zones) 

 Applications can be made with increased flexibility in application timing and 

options potentially saving applicators time and costs

o Applications under a wider range of environmental and application 

method conditions

 Reduced spray drift resulting in fewer incidents of adverse effects

o Fewer claims of violations of pesticide labeling requirements that need to 

be investigated by enforcement authorities

o Reduction in enforcement violation penalties

o Less litigation and associated costs, including insurance claim costs

Benefits to manufacturers and pesticide registrants would include:

 Increased demand for DRT-rated equipment and pesticide products offering the 

option of DRT application methods on the label as applicators and growers use 

DRTs on a more routine basis.

Benefits to the public and the environment would include:

 Reduced spray drift means fewer incidents of adverse effects from spray drift to 

humans, and terrestrial and aquatic organisms and ecosystems, including 

threatened or endangered species.

For its voluntary program, EPA intends to use a ‘star’ rating system similar to that used 

by the United Kingdom (U.K.). (See 

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/guidance/industries/pesticides/topics/using-pesticides/spraydrift/leraps/local-environment-risk-assessment-for-pesticides-leraps.htm). Similarities with the 
Page 4 of 13

U.K.’s system may enable uniformity for star ratings of technologies that could be marketed in 

both countries.

Similar to the U.K. voluntary program, EPA’s voluntary program would verify

performance of the DRT and provide a website with the rating information for each verified 

DRT. The website would also provide guidance to manufacturers on participating in this 

voluntary program and guidance to pesticide applicators for selecting DRTs with specific ‘star’ 

ratings as specified on pesticide product labels. The ability to incorporate information on the 

effectiveness of DRTs into Agency risk assessments and risk management decisions should

allow pesticide applications that are protective of the environment and the health of those in the 

vicinity. Increasing the use of verified DRTs should allow more targeted, and therefore more 

effective, pesticide applications while significantly increasing public health and environmental 

protection by reducing the drift of pesticides to areas beyond the application sites.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

Every registered pesticide product has a label that contains specific use directions and 

restrictions on how applicators are to properly and safely use the product. EPA relies on 

scientific information and risk assessments to determine use restrictions appropriate for specific 

products and uses. EPA routinely uses models, such as AGDRIFT®and AGDISP, to estimate the 

deposition of spray droplets downwind from the application site. In its risk assessment, 

EPA/OPP correlates a pesticide’s toxicity values with the estimated amounts of off-target spray

drift to determine potential risks to sensitive sites, species, and humans. This analysis provides 

the basis for risk management measures, such as a buffer zone and its size, maximum wind 

velocity, pesticide release height, spray quality, and other application variables, to prevent 

unreasonable risks.

DRT verification testing would be performed according to a protocol (Generic 

Verification Protocol for Testing Pesticide Application Spray Drift Reduction Technologies for 

Row and Field Crops (Attachment C)) developed with input from the Stakeholder Technical 

Panel (described in section 3(c)). Testing conducted according to this protocol or a suitable peerreviewed alternative will provide high quality data. The protocol addresses three testing 

approaches: low speed wind tunnels (to simulate application by groundboom equipment), high 

speed wind tunnels (to simulate application by aircraft), and field testing (groundboom or aerial 

application). One of the most important concepts in the protocol is the use of a reference nozzle. 

EPA’s protocol was specifically designed to include a reference nozzle. By requiring the use of a 

specific reference nozzle EPA can compare technologies and make sure that, for example, a 25 

percent reduction for one technology is consistent with the same 25 percent reduction for another 

technology.

Generally, testing of smaller technologies, such as spray nozzles or nozzle/adjuvant

combinations, would be conducted in wind tunnels which measure the amount of the relatively 

smallest driftable droplets, which are referred to as fines. The DRT rating of the test nozzle is 

determined by calculating the percent reduction of driftable fractions (fines) during the wind 

tunnel study. The DRT rating will be based on the difference between the amounts of driftable 

fines from the test and reference nozzles. 

 
Page 5 of 13

EPA believes that field studies will most likely be used to determine drift reduction for 

shrouds or other large equipment that cannot fit into a wind tunnel. Vendors may also choose to 

test nozzles and nozzle/adjuvant combinations with field studies. Unlike wind tunnels, DRT field 

studies will collect data on downwind deposition of droplets resulting from an application using 

the larger technology and the reference nozzle. Depositions are measured at varying distances. 

EPA can use these data to estimate the percent drift reduction from the use of the tested 

technology. Each of these field studies is likely to be unique, and involve case-by-case 

considerations. 

EPA limited the protocol to technologies for application to row and field crops because a 

large majority of agricultural pesticides are applied to these crops by groundboom and aerial 

equipment. Thus, a focus on encouraging the use of DRTs for row and field crop uses should

have an overall greater benefit to drift reduction. The Agency recognizes that verified DRTs for 

row and field crops may also be appropriate for use on other non-agriculture sites such as sod 

farms or golf courses as well as orchard/vineyard floors.

Use of a standardized DRT test protocol will enable EPA to make valid comparisons of 

test results from nozzle to nozzle, to nozzle/adjuvant combination to other tested technologies. 

The drift reduction estimated by the study results would then be used to assign the technology its 

DRT rating. EPA’s protocol and a format for data submission will be available via the EPA 

website at http://www.epa.gov/DRT.

EPA’s process for review of submitted studies would:

 Verify the adequacy of the study

 Determine the potential for the DRT to reduce drift compared to a reference

 Based on that comparison, assign each verified technology to one of four drift 

reduction categories represented by stars:

o Less than 25% reduction = No DRT rating

o 25 to 49% reduction = DRT* rating

o 50 to 74% reduction = DRT** rating

o 75 to 89% reduction = DRT*** rating

o Equal to or greater than 90% reduction = DRT  rating

As EPA/OPP rates technologies and makes the ratings available to the public via its 

website, EPA/OPP will encourage pesticide registrants to submit applications for new and 

amended registrations to include the use of verified DRTs on their product label use directions 

(e.g., “Apply this product with DRT**  technologies.”), as an alternative option to using 

application technologies that do not have a DRT rating. Applications with non-rated technologies 

will likely have greater application restrictions. In review of these registration applications,

EPA/OPP will “credit” the DRT-rated technology in the risk assessment-management decision 

(i.e., use a drift reduction factor in the risk assessment) instead of using a conservative default 

assumption that does not assume any spray drift reduction. Pesticide labels that include use

directions that specify DRT-rated technologies would also specify spray drift risk management 

measures, such as buffer zones, maximum wind speed, or release height. Pesticide product labels 

will specify to use a technology with a particular DRT rating. Eventually, applicators will have a 

variety of technologies from which to choose once EPA/OPP has been able to review and rate 

multiple submissions on a variety of technologies. 
Page 6 of 13

Pesticide applications conducted in accordance with products labeled with the use of 

DRTs should result in significantly less off-target spray drift deposition and risk from 

applications, compared to applications conducted without the use of DRTs. Reduction in offtarget deposition and risk could result in a lessening of application restrictions necessary to 

prevent adverse risks from spray drift, such as reduction or elimination of a buffer zone, or 

allowing applications during greater wind velocity or release height. Conversely, for identical or 

substantially similar pesticides without a DRT claim, EPA/OPP cannot apply the credit of a DRT 

claim and therefore would likely require greater application restrictions to address potentially 

greater off-target drift and risks. 

Pesticide registrants could choose to label their products for use with both standard 

application equipment (non-DRT), as most are currently labeled, and DRT-rated equipment or 

technologies, thus giving the applicator a choice. In this case such labels would have two sets of 

application restrictions: one set of restrictions if the product is applied without DRT and another 

set of restrictions if the product is applied with a DRT.

EPA anticipates labels would have a table, similar to the following, to express possible 

buffer zones, or other key application parameters such as maximum wind speed or release height. 

Label Directions-- Droplet Size Buffer Zone (ft)

Aquatic Terrestrial

Non-DRT Rated 

Technology

Fine to Medium 100 25

DRT* Rated 

Technology

--- 25 25

DRT** Rated 

Technology

--- 15 10

The buffer zones for a particular label would be calculated specific to the active 

ingredients in the product and the use patterns on that label. The buffer zones on any particular 

label would represent the buffer needed for the most sensitive of the non-target species. 

In preparing to make a pesticide application labeled with a DRT claim, applicators would 

refer to the EPA website to identify the specific application technologies which have the DRT 

star rating on the pesticide product label. For example, products labeled for use with DRT*** 

technologies, the applicator would refer to the EPA’s DRT website to see the identities of the 

specific DRT*** rated technologies to make the application. Additionally, EPA expects 

manufacturers of the verified DRTs will identify those technologies in their catalogs and on their 

websites.

3. NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 

3(a) Non-Duplication 
Page 7 of 13

OPP is not aware of any public or private assembly of verification data on the efficiency

of DRT technologies. Since each equipment or technology manufacturer would submit 

information unique to its products offered for sale, duplication is unlikely to occur.

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), on November 21, 2012, EPA published a Notice in the

Federal Register (77 FR 69823) announcing this proposed information collection activity and 

providing a 60-day public comment period. That Notice as well as the support documents, public 

comments submitted, and the agency’s responses to those comments are available at 

http://www.regulations.gov using the docket identifier EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0631. EPA also 

received comments from another Federal Agency, whose comments have been considered and 

addressed as appropriate.

3(c) Consultations

In 2006, EPA established a technical panel to develop test methods to verify the potential 

effectiveness of drift reduction technologies. The technical panel includes representatives from 

EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs and Office of Research and Development, other government

agencies (United States Department of Agriculture, California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation, and Canada’s Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency), pesticide and application 

equipment industries, pesticide applicators, growers, environmental interests and university

researchers. While the work of the panel to produce the verification protocol is considered to be

completed, EPA continues to coordinate informational activities with panel members. 

Since 2006, EPA has made presentations to various entities. A few recent examples are:

 August 2011, at the Pesticide Application and Drift Modeling Workshop in Christchurch, 

New Zealand, 

 February 2012, at the Weed Science Society of America 2012 Annual Meeting,

 May 2012, at a meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) there was 

an update on DRT Technology. (see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/),

 May 2012, at the Council of Producers and Distributors of Agrotechnology, 2012 

Adjuvants and Inerts Annual Conference,

 August 2012, a webinar for members of the Agricultural Retailers Association,

 April 2013, at the State-FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group Meeting,

 May 2013, at the Council of Producers and Distributors of Agrotechnology, 2013

Adjuvants and Inerts Annual Conference,

 August 2013, at the Agrochemical Formulation USA Workshop,

 December 2013, at the Minnesota Crop Pest Management Course.

During and after these presentations, many stakeholders provided information to EPA that was 

considered in the development of this program.
Page 8 of 13

As part of these contacts, EPA has been advised that several manufacturers are 

conducting, or in the near future anticipate conducting, studies to measure spray drift reduction. 

Such studies could be submitted to EPA as “stand-alone” submissions from an equipment 

manufacturer in which the applicant only seeks to have his technology receive a ‘star-rating’ and 

posting on the DRT website. Alternatively, the study could be submitted as part of an 

application for registration or amended registration of a pesticide product. As part of that 

process, EPA would approve the use directions for the label for use of ‘star-rated’ drift reduction 

technologies.

During the 60-day public comment period after publication of the Federal Register

Notice, as part of a consultation process, EPA contacted five stakeholders to seek specific 

feedback on the practical utility of the voluntary information requested, the respondent burdens 

or costs estimated by EPA, clarity of guidance provided, and collection methods. Three of the 

these stakeholders responded. The consultation comments are included in Attachment E.

Two of the stakeholders noted that there is a significant body of wind tunnel and drift 

studies in the public literature. Some of the data may meet the needs of EPA. EPA understands 

the stakeholders concern since it was also a concern identified in the public comments. See 

response to comment 20. One of the stakeholders considered the scope of the program to be 

narrow and asked that EPA consider a tiered approach: The second Tier could move beyond the 

equipment DRT-ratings and focus on formulation technology. EPA may consider such an 

approach at some time in the future.

Two stakeholders believe that the data report to be submitted to EPA could be clearer. 

As discussed in response to comment 26, EPA intends to develop a template type of format for 

reporting DRT data to EPA. 

All stakeholders currently keep their records electronically. Stakeholders believe that the 

option for electronic submission has potential and could lead to efficiencies. Two stakeholders 

generally agree that the cost of conducting the DRT studies, in the US, is accurate. One of these 

stakeholders also believes that costs would increase if testing is outside the US. One respondent 

asked for additional information on any required recordkeeping.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Not applicable. Since this is a voluntary information collection, each manufacturer 

would determine if they wished to submit information to EPA, and their schedule for doing so. 

3(e) Compliance with General OMB Guidelines

This collection of information is consistent with all OMB guidelines under 5 CFR 

1320.6. 

3(f) Confidentiality 

EPA will not collect proprietary trade secrets or other proprietary information. The 

publically available information would be limited to the name of the technology manufacturer 

company, the name of and description of the technology, and the ‘star’ rating assigned by the 

agency. Confidentiality of respondent information (the submitted studies) will be ensured to the 

maximum extent allowed by law. The information collection will comply with the Privacy Act.
Page 9 of 13

3(g) Sensitive Questions 

The information requested under this voluntary collection does not include questions of a 

sensitive nature. Under this ICR, agricultural equipment manufacturers would submit to EPA 

research conducted according to protocols that were developed in cooperation with a Stakeholder 

Technical Panel.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 

4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes

Potential respondents affected by the voluntary collection activities under this ICR 

include pesticide application equipment manufacturers, chemical manufacturers, pesticide 

registrants, university researchers, and others who have an interest in reducing spray drift. The 

North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes for the principal respondents 

are:

Producers of pesticide products 32532

Crop Production 111

Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, 

Life Sciences

541710

Colleges, universities, and professional schools 611310

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by this action.

4(b) Respondent Activities

EPA believes that most respondents will contract with a testing facility to conduct

study(ies) that meet the criteria in the testing protocol. (Attachment C) This may involve the 

following activities:

 Make arrangements for testing with a contract laboratory

 Submit contractor-prepared study reports to EPA for review and evaluation

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION 

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

EPA will perform the following activities under this ICR:

 Review and evaluate the submitted study: Assign a drift reduction ‘star’ rating

 Post rating on EPA’s website (http://www.epa.gov/DRT)

Although EPA has discussed the need to conduct risk assessments that credit the use of 

DRT, such risk assessments will be part of the label review process conducted as part of a 

registration action. (Registration actions are already covered under a different ICR.)
Page 10 of 13

5(b) Collection Procedures

Equipment manufacturers, chemical manufacturers, pesticide registrants, university

researchers, and others who have an interest in reducing spray drift determine to “opt-in” to the 

voluntary program and submit information to EPA. EPA is not requiring submission of this 

information, and does not intend to issue a Data Call-In for DRT studies. This means that EPA 

will collect only the information submitted.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

Small businesses can choose whether or not to participate in the voluntary program by

arranging for the needed testing, and then submitting the study to EPA. Since this is a voluntary

submission, there are no deadlines, and small businesses can create their own submission 

schedules.

5(d) Collection Schedule

There is no collection schedule. Potential respondents can choose whether or not to 

participate in the voluntary program, as well as the timing of any submissions. EPA anticipates 

that 4 to 7 companies would submit studies for review and evaluation over the first year of the 

ICR. Some of these same companies could continue to submit studies during the remaining 

years of the ICR. EPA has identified a number of equipment manufacturing companies, 

pesticide registrants, and adjuvant chemical manufacturing companies that could be interested in 

submitting DRT studies to EPA. EPA estimates that 12 companies could submit studies during 

the 3-year timeframe covered under this ICR. A study is a submission that could have the results 

of testing one or more nozzles, one or more adjuvant chemicals, one larger piece of equipment, 

or a combination of technologies.

6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost

As described previously in this ICR (see section 4(b), the respondents are expected to 

engage in the following activities when they contract with a testing facility to participate in the 

voluntary research program under this ICR:

 Make arrangements for testing with a contract laboratory

 Submit contractor-prepared study reports to EPA for review and evaluation

The potential respondent burden hours were estimated using the estimated test costs, ad 

the estimated fully loaded hourly rate for a technical staff person or manager ($135/hr.). EPA 

obtained cost estimates for testing from two sources. 

 The estimate to conduct and report a wind tunnel test is a cost up to $6,000, with an 

average estimated burden of 44 hours.

 The estimate to conduct and report a field study is a cost up to $100,000, with an average 

estimated burden of 740 hours. 
Page 11 of 13

EPA believes that most manufacturers of nozzles and other small technologies would opt 

to conduct a wind tunnel test if applicable for their technology. EPA estimates 20 studies could 

be submitted during the 3-year period under this ICR. Therefore, 20 studies at $6,000 and burden 

of 44 hours per study would yield a cost of $120,000 and burden of 880 hours during the 3 years, 

for an average yearly cost of $40,000 and burden of 293 hours. EPA also estimates that one field 

study would be submitted during the 3-year period, for an average yearly cost of $33,000 and 

burden of 246 hours. The combined yearly cost is $73,000 ($40,000 + $33,000), and yearly 

burden is 539 hours. The average cost per response is $10,476 ($220,000/21), and the average 

burden per response is 77 hours (1620/21).

There are no capital expenditures, or operation and maintenance costs associated with 

this information collection activity. 

6(b) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The review of a DRT study would combine primary contractor review and secondary

EPA review. The following table provides the estimated cost for EPA to review one study.

Contractor

Level Contractor Rate ($/hr) Hours Cost ($)

Junior Level 180 36 6480

Senior Level 240 4 960

Administration 160 1 160

EPA

Level Fully Loaded Wage 

Rate ($/hr)

Hours Cost ($)

Technical 119.85 20 2397

Managerial 71.58 2 143.16

Total Hours & Cost for Review of One Study = 63 10,140.16

The 3-year cost for EPA to review 20 wind tunnel studies and one field study would be 

$10,140.16 (x 21) or $212,943. The average cost for a year would be $70,981. 

The burden hours for 3 years for EPA to review 20 wind tunnel studies and one field 

study would be 63 (x 21) or 1323 hours. The average burden for a year would be 441 hours.

6(c) Burden Statement

EPA estimates the total annual respondent burden for the ICR entitled Pesticide Spray 

Drift Reduction Technologies, a new ICR, to be 539 hours, with an annualized cost of $73,000. 

The average per response burden is 77 hours, with an average cost of $10,476. Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.03(b). The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and appear on the 

information collection instrument as applicable, i.e., form or instructions. 

The Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
Page 12 of 13

OPP-2012-0631. It is available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute.

A hard copy is available for viewing at the OPP Docket in the Environmental Protection 

Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), located in EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave,

NW, Washington, DC 20460. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading 

Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805).

Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

You may submit comments regarding the Agency's need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques. 

 

Comments regarding burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of 

information, including suggestions for reducing the burden can be sent to: Director, Collection 

Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. You can also send comments to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Include docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OPP-2012-0631 and 

OMB control number 2070-[new] in any correspondence.

ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Attachments to the supporting statement are available in the public docket established for this 

Information Collection Request (ICR) under the docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP2012-0631. These attachments are available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov unless

otherwise accessed as described in the sections below. 

Attachment A: 7 U.S.C. 136a - FIFRA Section 3: This attachment can be accessed via the 

internet at: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/usc_sec_07_00000136---a000-.html

Attachment B: Red-Line/Strike-Out Version of “Generic Verification Protocol for Testing 

Pesticide Application Spray Drift Reduction Technologies for Row and Field Crops” to 

demonstrate the changes from the Draft Version 1.5 (September 2012) to the Final 

Version

Attachment C: Final Version of “Generic Verification Protocol for Testing Pesticide 

Application Spray Drift Reduction Technologies for Row and Field Crops”

Attachment D: Response to Comments Document

Attachment E: Consultation: Responses from Three Stakeholders 

Attachment F: Draft Version of EPA’s Future Webpage
Page 13 of 13