Page 1 of 12 **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 an information collection request (I CR) . EPA intends to initiate a voluntary information collection for research to verify

the effectiveness of application technologies for agricultural pesticide spray s that have the potential to significantly reduce pesticide spray drift
. The focus of this research is on technologies , including spray nozzles, shrouds and shields , and drift reducing adjuvant chemicals used for aerial or groundboom applications to row and field crops
. Collectively

these technologies are referred to as drift reduction technologies (DRTs)
. This is a new ICR. 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 p esticide spray drift are well recognized
. Published research suggests 1

– 10% or more of applied agricultural pesticide spray s drift from the t arget field
. EPA believes there are application technologies that have the potential to significantl y reduce the amount of spray drift. As these technologies are identified , their drift
- reducing potential needs to be verified via a generic protocol developed with input from a variety of s takeholder s . As manufacturers become aware of the voluntary program and begin to complete verification studies of their technologies (conducted according to the generic protocol) , the y would submit the test dat a to EPA ’s Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP ) for evaluation. EPA/OPP will evaluat e 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. Pesticide registrants would then be able to refer to the website to identify verified DRTs whose use could be compatible with application of their pesticide products
. To encourage use of DRTs for application of a product, r egistrants w o uld label their prod ucts for use with DRTs in one or more of the drift reduction rating categories , and then submit these labels to EPA for approval
. As part of the label approval process, EPA would consider the rating, i.e., a drift reduction factor , in its risk assessment and risk management decisions
.Page 2 of 12

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 potential 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 result s 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 a pesticide 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 mo vements 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 and 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 spray s result in some amount of drift: i t 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 a pplication technologies and how they are used , meteorological conditions , and applic ator behavior can profoundly

affect the amount of pesticide spray drift. Over the ye ars, i ndustry , including pesticide applicators , and government researchers have developed and employed a variety of pesticide application strategies and technologies to re duce spray

drift. Examples include low drift spray nozzles and sprayers, drift control chemical adjuvants, barrier structures, and vegetation. Although these and other technologies have the potential to provide drift reduction, there is often uncertainty a bout their effectiveness or performance. Verification testing of technologies would provide quantitative, quality
- assuredPage 3 of 12

data regarding the specific effectiveness of the tested technolog y to reduce spray drift. EPA believes that equipment manufacturers, pesticide registrants, university researchers, 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 b y 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 registrant labels will be included in its 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 o f 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 cost s  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  Applications with reduced necessary restrictions, such as buffer zone s, maximum allowable wind velocities , and spray release heights  Reduced spray

drift results in fewer incidents of adverse effects o Fewer claims of violations of pesticide labe ling requirements that need to be investigated b y enforcement authorities o Reduction in enforcement violation penalties o Less li ti gation and associated costs, including insurance claim costs Benefits to manufacturers and pesticide registrants would include:  As applicators and growers use DRTs on a more routine basis, there will be i ncreased demand for DRT
- rated equipment, and pesticide products offering the option of DRT application methods on the label Benefits to the public and the environment would include:  Reduced spray

drift means fewer incidents of adverse effects from spray drift to humans , and t errestrial and aquatic organisms and ecos ys tems , including endangered species For its voluntary

program, EPA intends to use a ‘star’ rating s ys tem simil ar to that u sed by the United Kingdom (U.K.). (See http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/guidance/industries/pesticides/topics/using
- pesticides/spray
drift/leraps/local
- environment
- risk
- assessment - for
- pesticides
- leraps.htm). EPA/OPP will rate verified technologies as either ‘one star,’ ‘two stars,’ or ‘three stars’ depending on the percent spray drift reduction as compared to a standard application technology . Harmonization with thePage 4 of 12

UK’s s ys tem enables uniformity for star ratings of technologies that may 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 th e effectiveness of DRTs into Agency risk assessments and risk m anagement decisions should allow pesticide applications that are protective of the environment and the health of those in the vicinity
. Increasing the u se 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 specifi c use directions and restrictions on how applicators are to properly and safel y use the product. EPA relies on scientific information and risk assessments to determine use restrictions app ropriate for specific products and uses. EPA routinely uses models, such as AGDRIFT ® and AGDI SP , 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 e stimated amounts of off
- target s pray drift to determine potential risks to sensitive sites, species, and humans. This analy sis provides the basis for risk management measures , such as a buffer zone and its size, max imum wind velocity , pesticide release height, spray quality, and other application variables, to prevent unreasonable risk s . DRT v erification testing would be performed according to a protocol ( Generic Verification Protocol for Testing Pesticide Applicati on Spray Drift Reduction Technologies for Row and Field Crops (Attachment B ) ) developed with input from the Stakeholder Technical Panel (described in section 3(c))
. Testing conducted according to this protocol or a suitable peer
reviewed alternative will provide data that can be quantified by a standardized testing process that incorporates the appropriate quality parameters . The protocol addresses three testing approaches: low speed wind tunnels (to simulate application by groundboom equipment) , hi gh speed wind tunnels (to simulate application by aircraft) , and field testing (groundboom or aerial application) . Generall y, testing of small er technologies, such as spray nozzles and adjuvants , would be conducted in wind tunnels which measure the amount of the relatively smallest driftable droplets . L arger equipment would be tested in field studies in which the amount of pesticide deposition from downwind spray drift is measured
. EPA can use data from wind tunnel and field tests in the models for its risk assessments. 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 these uses should have an overall greater benefit to drift reduction. In the future , EPA may consider expanding this voluntary program to application technologies for orchard and vin eyard crops which require the use of significantl y different application equipment.Page 5 of 12

Use of a standardized DRT test protocol will enable EPA to make valid comparisons of test results among similar tested technologies. The drift reduction suggested by the study results w ould then be used to assign the DRT its drift reduction rating. EPA’s protocol 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 standard  Based on that comparison, a ssign each verified technology to one o f three 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% or more reduction = DRT*** rating
. As EPA/OPP rates technologies and makes the rating s available to the public via its website , EPA/OPP will encourage pesticide registrants to submit registration applications to add the use of verified DRTs to their product label use directions (e.g., “Apply this product with DRT** technologies.”) , as an alternative option to using standard application technolog ies with greater restrictions . In review of these registration applications, EPA/OPP w ould credit the DRT label claim in its risk assessment and management decisions
. Risk assessments of products labeled with the use of DRTs should result in significantly less off
- target deposition and risk from applications, compared to assessments of labels without use of DRTs
. Reduction in off
target deposition and risk should lead to reduced application restrictions, 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 potentiall y greater off
- target drift and risks
. A flowchart of EPA’s Voluntary

Drift Reduction Technology Program is Attachment C. Pesticide registrants could choose to label their products for use with both standard application equipment (non
- DRT) 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. An example of a potential table for a pesticide label is given below: 

### Application Equipment **Release Height Buffer Zone Size**  **(ft)**
Standard application equipment High boom 80Page 6 of 12 Low boom 40
DR T*
-- 60
DR T**
-- 40
DR T***
-- 20
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, if a label allows the applicator to use DRT*** technology , 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 websites. **3. NON -**  **DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3(a) Non**  **- Duplication**  OPP is not aware of any public or private assembly of verification data on the ef ficiency 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), EPA is publish ing a **Federal Register** Notice announcing this proposed information collection activity and providing a 60
- day public comment period. Any public comments received for this action will be available at http://www.regulations.gov using the docket identifier EPA
- HQ
- OPP
- 2012
- 0631
. **3(c) Consultations** In 2006, EPA established a technical panel to dev elop 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 D epartment 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 researcher s. While the work of the panel is considered completed, EPA continues to coordinate information activities with panel members. Since 2006, EPA has made presentations to various entities . A few recent examples are:Page 7 of 12

 In August 2011 , at the Pesticide Application and Drift Modeling Workshop in Christchurch, NZ.  On February

6
- 9, 2012, at the Weed Science Society of America 2012 Annual Meeting,  On May

3, 201 2 , at a meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) there was an update on DRT Technology . (see http: //www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/)  On May

16, 2012, at the Co uncil of Producers and Distributors of Agrotechnology , 2012 Adjuvants and Inerts Annual Conference
.  On August 14, 2012, a webinar for members of the Agricultural Retailers Association. 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
- alon e ” submissions from an equipment manufacturer in which the applicant onl y seeks to have his technology receive a ‘star
- rating’ and posting on the DRT website. Alternativel y, the study could be submi tted 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 tec hnologies. During the 60
- day public comment period after publication of the **Federal Register** Notice, EPA intends to contact several respondents or stakeholders to seek specific feedback on the practical utility

of the voluntary information requested, the burdens or costs estimated by EPA , clarity

of guidance provided, and collection methods
. The comments of the stakeholders consulted , and EPA responses to those comments, will be summarized and made publicly available as an attachment to the final I CR. **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 Genera l 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 w ould be limited to the name of the technology manufacturer company, the name of and description of the technology , and the ‘star’ rating assigned b y the agency . Con fidentiality 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
. **3(g) Sensitive Questions**Page 8 of 12

The information requested under th is voluntary collection does not include questions of a sensitive nature. Under this I CR, 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 b y the voluntary collection activiti es under this I CR 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 Sy stem (NAICS) code s 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 pro vides a guide for readers regarding entities likely

to be affected by

this action. **4(b) Respondent Activities**  Conduct study(ies) according to developed protocols. (Attachment B ) This may involve the foll owing activities:  Read protocol  Make arrangements for testing with a contract laboratory  Submit 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 th e following activities under this I CR :  Review and evaluate the submitted study : A ssign 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
. **5(b) Collection**  **Procedures**Page 9 of 12

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 informatio n, 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**  EPA anticipates that 4 to 7 companies would submit studies for review and evaluation over the first ye ar of the ICR. S ome of these same companies would continue to submit studies during the remaining ye ars of the ICR. EPA has identified 16 equipment manufacturing companies , six pes ticide registrants, and 10 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
- ye ar timeframe covered under this I CR
. A study is a submissio n that coul d 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 EPA obtained cost estimates from two sources.  The estimate t o conduct and report a wind tunnel tes t is a cost up to $6,000.  The estimate to conduct and report a field study is a cost up to $1 00,000
. Given the significant differences in the test costs, 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 estimate s 20 studies could be submitted during the 3
- ye ar period under this I CR
. Therefore, 20 studies at $6,000 per study would yield a cost of $120,000 during the 3 ye ars , for an average yearly cost of $40,000. EPA also estimates that one field study would be submitted during the 3
- year period, for an average yearl y cost of $33,000. The combined ye arl y cost is $73,000. The average cost per response is $10,476. There are no capital expenditures , or operation and maintenance costs associated with this information collection activity
. 6(b) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The review of a DRT study would combine primary contractor review and secondary EPA review. The following table provides the estimated cost for EPA to review one study.Page 10 of 12 **Contractor** Level Contractor Rate ($/hr) Hours Cost ($) Junior L evel 180 36 6480 Senior Level 240 4 960 Administration 160 1 160 EPA Level Fully

L oaded 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
- ye ar cost for EPA to review 20 wind tunnel studies and one field study would be $ 10,140.16 (x 2 1 ) or $2 1 2, 94 3. The average cost for a ye ar would be $7 0 , 98 1. 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 ye ar would be 441 hours
. **6(c )**  **Burden Statement** EPA estimates the total annual respondent burden for the ICR entitled **Pesticide Spray Drift Reduction**  **Technolog ies**  **,** a new ICR, to be $ 73 ,000
. The average cost per response is $10,476. According to the PRA, “burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by

persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency . For this collection, it is the time responding to survey questions or participating in a focus group. The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it display s 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 IC R under Docket ID No. EPA
- HQ
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 disc losure is restricted b y statute . A hard cop y 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 holiday s. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566
- 1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (70 3) 305
- 5805 ). Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets
.Page 11 of 12

You may submit comments regarding the Agency's need for this information, th e accuracy o f 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, in cluding 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 Informatio n and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. In clude docket ID No. EPA
- HQ
- OPP
- 2012
- 0631 and OMB control number 2070
- [new] in any correspondence.Page 12 of 12 **ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT**  Attachments to the supporting statement are available in the public docket established for this Information C ollection Request (ICR) under the docket identification number **EPA -**  **HQ -**  OPP
2012
- 0631
. These attachments are available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov unless otherwise accessed as described in the section s 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**  **:** Draft Generic Verification Proto col for Pesticide Spray DRT (Version 1.5, September 2012) **Attachment C:** Flowchart: EPA’s Voluntary Drift Reduction Technology Program