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 (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, 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 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. As these technologies are identified, their drift-reducing 

potential needs to be verified via a generic protocol developed with input from a variety of 

stakeholders.

As manufacturers become aware of the voluntary program and begin to complete 

verification studies of their technologies (conducted according to the generic 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. 

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, registrants would label their products 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 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 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 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 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 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, including pesticide applicators, and government researchers 

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

reduce 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 about their effectiveness or 

performance. Verification testing of technologies would provide quantitative, quality-assured 
Page 3 of 12

data regarding the specific effectiveness of the tested technology 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 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 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 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

 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 zones, 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 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:

 As applicators and growers use DRTs on a more routine basis, there will be 

increased 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 terrestrial and aquatic organisms and ecosystems, including 

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). 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 the 
Page 4 of 12

UK’s system 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 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 B)) 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 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), high 

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

application). Generally, testing of smaller technologies, such as spray nozzles and adjuvants,

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

driftable droplets. Larger 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 vineyard crops which require the use of 

significantly 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

resultswould 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, assign each verified technology to one of 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 ratings 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 technologies with 

greater restrictions. In review of these registration applications, EPA/OPP would 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 offtarget 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 potentially 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 80 
Page 6 of 12

Low boom 40 

 DRT* -- 60

 DRT** -- 40

 DRT*** -- 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 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), EPA is publishing 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 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 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, 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/)

 On May 16, 2012, at the Council 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-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, 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 ICR.

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.

3(g) Sensitive Questions 
Page 8 of 12

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

Conduct study(ies) according to developed protocols. (Attachment B) This may involve 

the following 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 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.

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 

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

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 would continue to submit studies 

during the remaining years of the ICR. EPA has identified 16 equipment manufacturing 

companies, six pesticide 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-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

EPA obtained cost estimates from two sources. 

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

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

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 estimates 20 studies could be submitted during the 3-year period under 

this ICR. Therefore, 20 studies at $6,000 per study would yield a cost of $120,000 during the 3 

years, 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 yearly cost of $33,000. The combined yearly 

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 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 $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 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-HQOPP-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.
Page 11 of 12

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.
Page 12 of 12

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: Draft Generic Verification Protocol for Pesticide Spray DRT (Version 1.5, 

September 2012)

Attachment C: Flowchart: EPA’s Voluntary Drift Reduction Technology Program