Page 1 of 17 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR AN INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

a) Title: Submission of Unreasonable Adverse Effects Information under FIFRA Section 6(a)(2)

ICR Nos.: OMB No. 2070

- 0039; EPA No. 1204. 1 1

b) Abstract

Section 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) ( A ttachment A ) requires pesticide registrants to submit information to the Agency which may be relevant to the balancing of the risks and benefi ts of a pesticide product

. The statute requires the registrant to submit any factual information that it acquires regarding adverse effects associated with its pesticidal products, and it is up to the Agency to determine whether or not that factual

inform ation constitutes an unreasonable adverse effect. In order to limit the amount of less meaningful information that might be submitted to the Agency, the EPA has limited the scope of factual information that the registrant must submit. The agency’s regula tions at 40 CFR 159 provide a detailed description of the reporting obligations of registrants under FIFRA s ection 6(a)(2)

.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

a) Need/Authority for the Collection

This information collection stems from a non

- discretionary statutory requirement. Submission of information about unreasonable adverse effects is specifically required under

s ection 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 USC 136d(a)(2)):

"If at any time after the registration of a pesticide the registrant has additional factual information regarding unreasonable adverse effects on the environment of the pesticide, he shall submit such information to the Administrator."

The Agency’s FIFR A s ection 6(a)(2) regulations are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 159 ( Attachment B ) , and Agency guidance is available in Pesticide Registration Notice 98

- 3 ( Attachment C )

.

In terms of scope, please note that in CSMA an d NACA v. EPA

, 484 F. Supp. 513 (1980), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with EPA that FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) covers all information relevant to EPA's determination of whether a pesticide may cause

unreasonable adverse effects. T he Court agreed that submiss i ble information includes the same type of information as that provided by a registrant as part of an application for registration. The Court specifically rejected the argument that the responsibility for determining what const itutes an unreasonable adverse effect shifts to industry once EPA has granted a registration.Page 2 of 17 b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is the primary user of the information that registrants submit to the Agency under FIFRA s ection 6(a)(2). The information submitted is an essential component of the Agen cy’s pesticide registration and registration review program s which also require the submission of important information regarding a pesticide’s adverse

effects

, informa tion which may not have been available at the time of the Agency’s initial review of a registration application. Because this information has po tentially significant consequences for human health or the environment, the Agency’s determination with regard to the registration of the pesticide may have been different if the information had been available earlier . If warranted by the information provided, EPA may seek to amend the registration in order to address the concerns raised by the information.

The adverse affects information submitted under Section 6(a)(2) provides an important means of focusing EPA attention on key problem areas regarding the use of a particular pesticide

. This information is considered by EPA in conjunction with other information to determine whether pesticide products containing a specific active ingredient should be reregistered, or whether the terms and conditions of registration should be changed. This type of information may also be pertinent to granting emergency exemptions under s ection 18 of FIFRA.

Registrants perform studies in support of registration applications

, in response to data

call

- ins issued by EPA , or voluntarily for their own purposes

. The A gency has t he authority to

call

- in data (a.k.a. DCI “data call

- in”) under S ection 3(c)(2)(B) of FIFRA, and the accounting for

the burden hours and costs for all OPP program DCIs is documented in the ICR entitled the

Pesticide Data Call

- In Program ICR, OMB #2070

- 0174; EPA # 2288.01. The outcome of

studies

, whether they dem onstrate known effects or new adverse effects

, are carefully analyzed by registrants and presented to the Agency. The 6(a)(2) rule does not impose the requirement to perform studies but merely to identify and promptly submit adverse effects information to the Agency when they are identified

.

A number of registrants have indicated that the type of information collected under FIFRA 6(a)(2) is valuable to them as well

. Registrants may actively seek unanticipated and/or

adverse effects information as part of product stewardship, improv ing customer relations,

minimiz ing liability, or protect ing or expand ing market share. According to feedbac k that EPA has received, registrants acquire and use this information to determin e whether actual product

use patterns reveal risk issues that did not emerge when the data were developed for the original registration application. These registrants believe that it is an integral part of their product stewardship program and that collecting, analyzing and reacting to adverse effects information is essential to the way in which they conduct business as a routine matter

. For example

, Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) , the trade association for registrants of antimicrobi al pesticide products, has a voluntary stewardship program for their members called Product Care ®

( http://www.cspa.org/product

- care

- product

- stewardship/what

- is

- product

- care

- .html )

. As noted

on the CSPA Product Care ® website, Product Care ® companies routinely gather marketplace and

incident infor mation and evaluate it and make appropriate product changes.Page 3 of 17 3. NON

- DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION

CRITERIA

a) Non

- Duplication

The information required to be submitted under this ICR is generally available only from registrants who have opted to secure registrat ion of their pesticide product(s). The only feasible means of collecting the required information is from pesticide registrants because it is either health and safety data that is generated, owned or used by the registrants, or it is submitted to registra nts by consumers and other interested parties. This information collection avoids duplication by limiting the submission requirements under FIFRA s ection 6(a)(2) to information which has not been submitted to the OPP previously. Further, it exempts infor mation submitted

under s ection 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Information in published articles is generally also exempt from submission.

b) Consultations

As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), EPA will consult with a cross

- section of pesticide registrants seeking feedback on the adverse effect information reporting requirements and

processes
, as well as an assessment of the burden estimates associated with this effort.

EPA provides frequent consultation to assist in the understanding of the 6(a)(2) regulations. These activities have included dialogue between industry and the Agency on 6(a)(2) information reporting requirements, content, definitions, format, and timing

. In addition to phone conversations and preparing e

- mails and let ters, Agency staff members have participated in meetings with individual registrants as well as gatherings of large groups such as the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) . These communications permit an open exchange of problems and solutions on m any issues.

c) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to OMB

Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), EPA will publish a Federal Register (FR) Notice announcing th e proposed renewal of this information collection activity and provid ing a 60

- day public comment period.

d) Effect of Less Frequent Collection

Under FIFRA s ection 6(a)(2)

, the information collection activity is a one

- time, non

repetitive submission of information. As such, there is no set interval for multiple collections

. The information is submitted one time, according to the timeframes described in the rule for various categories of information.Page 4 of 17 e) General Guidelines

Section 6(a)(2) regulations do not prescribe specific recordkeeping requirements, the EPA requirements in 40 CFR Section 169.2(k) state that records containing research data relating to registered pesticides be retained as long as the registration is valid and the produce r remains in business. Registrations are valid until they are either voluntarily canceled or withdrawn by the registrant or until EPA has cause to suspend or cancel the registration. Since the typical period of marketability of a pesticide ranges from 15 to 30 years, the PRA guidelines specifying that data other than health, medical or tax records not be required to be retained for more than three years will be exceeded for those studies which are requ ired to support registration or registration

review un der FIFRA s ection 3

, and which show adverse effects that make them reportable under

s ection 6(a)(2). The burdens associated with this recordkeeping requirement have already been approved by OMB under another ICR and are therefore excluded from this ICR.

f) Confidentiality

Much of the information submitted pursuant to s ection 6(a)(2) constitutes FIFRA s ection 10(d)(1) safety and efficacy information. On September 28, 1999, the Agency issued a class

determination that safety and efficacy information subm itted under s ection 6(a)(2) of FIFRA is

not entitled to confidential treatment , A ttachment E . The determination enables the Agency to respond more quickly and efficiently to requests for information submitted under s ection 6(a)(2).

Data submitted to th e Agency are handled in accordance with the provisions of the FIFRA Confidential Business Information (CBI) Security Manual which provides procedures for protecting information claimed as confidential in accordance with FIFRA s ection 10. If the

informatio n is not protected under FIFRA s ection 10, and it is not otherwise protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), EPA is obligated to make it available to members of the public upon request under FOIA

.

g) Sensitive Questions

If information of a sensitive nature is submitted as part of this information collection , the Agency will protect it appropriately, as provided by the Privacy Act or other relevant statutes.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

a) Respondents/NAICS Codes

Potential respondents affected by the collection activities under this ICR include anyone

who holds or ever held a registration for a pesticide product issued under FIFRA s ection 3 or 24(c). The North American Industrial Classific ation System (NAICS) code is 3253 0 0 (Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing).

b) Information RequestedPage 5 of 17 i) Data Items

As further defined by the final rule implementing the FIFRA s ection 6(a)(2) requirements (62 FR 49639) , registrants are required to report on:

(1) studies showing new or more severe toxicological responses than previously reported of any type in any strain of test organism

, (40 CFR 159.165) ; (2) the fact that a study has been discontinued before planned, if submission of information concerning the study is, or would have been, required (40 CFR 159.167); ( 3 ) epidemiological or exposure studies of human population groups indicating greater exposure th an previously reported (40 CFR 159.170) ; (4 ) information on excess residues on food or feed, and residues in surface water, ground water or drinking water (40 CFR 159.178); (5 ) information on metabolites, degradates, contaminants or impurities which m ay be of toxicological concern (40 CFR 159.179); ( 6 ) incidents involving toxic or adverse effects to human or other non

- target organisms (40 CFR 159.184); ( 7 ) studies

, incidents , or other information show ing lack of efficacy of certain pesticide products with public

- health related uses

, plus certain information for any incident of a pest having developed resistance to any pesticide; (40 CFR 159.188)

. ( 8 ) other information which may be relevant to risk/b enefit determinations of any type (40 CFR 159. 195)

.

Since the last ICR was approved, the EPA has found it necessary to request additional data in certain subject areas under 40 CFR 159. Beginning in 2010, respondents began submitting enhanced incident d ata for thousands of domestic animal incidents for almost 100

spot

- on flea and tick products. Domestic animal incidents are normally reported statistically

without deta ils of breed, age, and circumstances. The Agency felt it was necessary to collect

more d etailed information about these cases. After meeting with pesticide registrants (Attachment I), EPA began requiring more standardized post market surveillance reporting on adverse effects and submission of sales information so the Agency can better evaluat e incident

rates. ( http://www2.epa.gov/pets/epa

- evaluation

- pet

- spot

- products

- analysis

- and

- plans

- reducing

harmful

- effects ). This enhanced data was analyzed, and new mitigation steps were taken for this type of product. Some of the products have been discontinued by the manufacturers, and other newer products have had additional incident reporting added as a condition of registration.

Enhance d data reporting for spot

- on flea and tick products will continue so that EPA can monitor incident levels more closely.

In the summer of 2011, the Agency received reports from numer ou s states that E.I . du Pont de Nemours and Company’s (DuPont) herbicide, Imprelis, which contains the active ingredient aminocyclopyrachlor, may have caused in jury to certain species of evergreen trees, particularly Norway spruce and white pine. DuPont submitted reports for tens of thousands of incidents for this product. The incidents resulted in EPA issuing a stop sale order for the

herbicide and EPA requesting extra backup information to help explain circumstances for the incidents of alleged tree and plant damage (Attachment J). The data is still under analysis. (http://www .epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/imprelis.html).Page 6 of 17 Additionally, i n 2013

, new concerns about neonicotinoid pesticides and the collapse of bee colonies led to EPA’s request for more documentation from registrants for these products (See Attachment K ). In resp onse to the international phenomenon of colony collapse and numerous bee kills worldwide, registrants of certain neonicotinoid products were asked to report honeybee kill incidents quickly and in fuller detail. EPA is concerned about declines in pollinato r health, and is working to protect bees and other pollinators from pesticide risks through regulatory actions, voluntary changes to pesticide use by registrants and research programs aimed at increasing the understanding of factors associated with declini ng pollinator health. This information will assist the EPA in its attempt to understand what role pesticides may be playing in pollinator declines.

ii) Respondent Activities

Respondents must:

(1) read the final rule or instructions ; (2) plan activitie s to ensure required information is identified and submitted ; (3) process, compile

, and review information for accuracy and appropriateness ; (4) complete written instruments to effectuate a submission ; and (5) submit the information to EPA.

Under FIFRA s ection 6(a)( 2), as implemented by the regulation s in 40 CFR part 159

, pesticide registrants have no obligation to create or seek out adverse effects information. Such activities may be conducted by the registrant in support of pesticide regist ration under FIFRA

s ection 3 and r egistration r eview under s ection 3(g) . T he burden for these activities is approved by OM B under separate ICR s . Registrants may collect adverse information in the normal course of business, such as followi ng up on consumer complaints to gather more information. Regardless of how the information comes into the possession of the registrant, once the registrant acquires information subject to submission under section 6(a)(2)

, as defined by the regulations

, the registrant must submit it to EPA.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED

-- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

a) Agency Activities

The Agency will continue the following current activities with regard to the FIFRA

s ection 6(a)(2) program: 1) answering questions and providing guidance to respondents; 2) receiving and recording data submissions; 3) analyzing claims of confidentiality and providing appropriate protection; 4) storing the data submitted; and 5) screening and ana lyzing the information for significance.

b) Collection Methodology and Management

The regulation allows flexibility in the method or format for the required submiss ion. In essence, the regulation specifies the types of data that should be reported to the extent thePage 7 of 17 information is available and the reporting time

- frames. For incident information (but not studies), these vary according to the significance of the information.

Scientific studies containing 6(a)(2) information are assigned Master Record Identifier

Number s (MRID s )

, as are all other pesticide studies submitted to OPP . Adverse effects incident reports are entered into a computerized database which can track incidents by chemical, submitter, type of incident, location, date of submission, and other parameters. All 6(a)(2) submissions are screened by subject matter experts throughout the pesticide program. Data are forwarded to and reviewed by pesticide product managers and science reviewers for relevance to the regulatory status of the pe sticide product(s) to which the submitted information pertains. The public may access the data by making a request under FOIA.

OPP has established criteria for voluntary submission of study reports in electronic form (Adobe PDF on CD

- ROM) , though these studies currently require a registration number for

electronic processing . A 6(a)(2) study could be submitted electronically just as easily as a non

6(a)(2) study , but it requires more screening and tracking

. Regarding incidents, electronic

submission i s possible, but would require a number of activities to be completed as prerequisites. First, OPP would work with registrants to develop a standard form for submitting incident reports. The resulting form would have to be approved by OMB. This standard form would be an essential precursor to electronic submission of incident data. The submission technique would comply with the Agency’s electronic submission standards. Finally, OPP has been working to integrate its existing databases in to its master OPP IN system. The current I ncident

D ata System has been partially integrated with the Office of Pesticide Programs Information System, It draws on live chemical

, product , and registration number data from OPPIN in cataloging new incidents. That development was seen as an essential precursor to electronic

submission of incident data. Significantly m ore design work w ould be necessary to add the extra fields in necessary for electronic submission.

It should be noted that at the time the final regulations went into effect in 1998 and at the request of the regulated community, OPP staff worked with industry representatives and trade associations on voluntary forms for incident reporting . This was done by the trade associations as a service for their members. The agency accepts incident reports using the voluntary forms as well as incidents formatted in other ways. The voluntary forms may well serve as the foundation

for standardized f orms , see A ttachment H

.

c) Small Entity Flexibility

Regardless of the size of the registrant, the 6(a)(2) regulations provide simplified reporting and extended reporting time

- frames for most incident reports. At the present time there

is no standard r eporting format prescribed in the regulations, so the submitters can use a format of their choosing for incidents . While t he Agency does not mandate a specific format for the required submission, as noted above, EPA has worked with industry to provide one to facilitate

submissions. To further simplify compliance, EPA has issued detailed guidance (Attachments C and D).

The requirements of FIFRA s ection 6(a)(2) related to studies fall largely on basic producers, i.e., registrants that produce the active ingredient from raw materials, because they arePage 8 of 17 the registrants most likely to generate and possess data subject to the information collection. Formulators (companies that do not manufacture active ingredients) are exempt from generati ng most health effects data required to support registration except for product

- specific acute toxicity

studies.

Both basic producers and formulators, however, may register and market end use products and receive incident reports from distributors and us ers of their products as well as other sources such as state regulatory agencies. The number of incident reports associated with a pesticide product depends on such variables as the volume of sales of that product and whether it is sold to the general pub lic or is restricted to experienced and trained applicators. Some registrants put toll free telephone numbers on their labels making it easy for consumers to contact them with incident reports. Other registrants, however, do not. Thus, it is difficult t o generalize about the relative burden of incident reporting in terms of small versus large companies.

d) Collection Schedule

The information required to be submitted under FIFRA s ection 6(a)(2) is not based on any schedule because the information is non

- repetitive in nature. As such, the information required to be submitted by respondents is gene rally on an "as received basis." The regulations

establish time

- frames within which reportable information received by registrants must be

su bmitted to EPA. The reporting time

- frames vary according to the organism exposed and the relative severity or rarity of the alleged effects. Allegations of human deaths must be reported individually by registrants within 15 days of acquiring the informat ion. Other serious and rare incidents are reported individually. Generally, they may be accumulated for one month and submitted by the end of the month following the accumulation period. Minor or common incidents are reported as aggregate counts of inci dents and effects for each product registration number or active ingredient. They may be accumulated for three months and submitted by the end of the second month following the accumulation period.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

a ) Estimating Respondent Burden

To estimate the respondent burden, the Agency used current statistics on the number of registrants of active products. For burden estimates related to study and incident data submissions, actual statistics for FY 20 0 9

- 20 12 were used

.

As of November 2012, for purposes of this analysis, there were 1,738 registrants with active registrations. The number of registrations held by each registrant ranged from 1 to 814

and the median i s two. Seven hundred twenty six (726) registrants held only one product registration , and 1,489 held ten or fewer registrations ; thirty

- three ( 33 ) held 51

- 100 product registrations ; and 34 held more than 100 registrations

.

Former registrants have an obligation to report adverse effe cts information for one year after the cancellation or transfer of their product so long as the former registrant holds no activePage 9 of 17 registrations. Since stocks of the formerly registered products diminish, it is unlikely these former registrants would acqui re or submit much adverse effects information to the Agency. Former registrants, therefore, are not included in the estimated 1

, 73 8 re spondent s assumed for this analysis.

The Agency received an average of 153 stud ie s annually from FY 200 9 through FY

2 0 12 . For purposes of this analysis, the Agency assumes 153 study

- related submissions will be received each year for the duration of this information collection renewal

.

From FY 200 9 through FY 20 12 the Agency received an average of 9 07 incident

- related

submissions per year from registrants con taining an average of 92

, 844 incidents per year

. Of these, 5, 645 incidents were individually reported and 87,199 were reported as aggregate statistics on the yearly average. A small num ber of incidents

, an average of 745 per year
, were reported by parties other than registrants. These include states, EPA regional offices, and private groups and individuals. These parties are not required to report adverse effects information to the Agency, but their rep orts are received and processed in the same way as registrant

- submitted

information.

During the same time period

, a total of 222 registrants submitted incident report s

. Registrants may report for themselves alone or they may report for themselves and re lated entities such as their divisions or subsidiaries. Registrant task forces such as the Deet Issues

Task Force or the Metam Task Force may report specific types of incidents or studies for their member registrants

.

For purposes of this ICR renewal

, the Agency estimates that it wil l continue to receive
93,000 ( rounded up to next thousand ) incident reports from the regulated community each year.

It is the estimated number of incidents that drives the burden estimates in this analysis, not the

total nu mber of registrants or number of registrants represented by current incident reporting

.

The level of registrant reporting would be substantially higher had it not been for action taken by the Agency to eliminate certain types of incident reports. The fi nal regulations included the following as a condition for reporting incidents:

40 CFR 159.184(a)(2)

- The registrant is aware or has been informed that the person or

non

- target organism suffered a toxic or adverse effect or may suffer a delayed or chronic

adverse effect in the future. (Emphasis added)

A literal interpretation of the italicized language above could have resulted in registrants reporting all asymptomatic exposures. Those are cases in which someone alleges exposure to a pesti cide, but is experiencing no symptoms. Or someone may call a registrant to ask if they may get sick after an exposure or to express concern that they may get sick in the future as a result of an exposure. (These were referred to as ‘may suffer’ incidents .) OPP consulted with a major poison control center to determine the volume of asymptomatic exposure calls they receive. According to the poison control center’s statistics for a major pesticide company, nearly half the calls they handled were asymptomat ic exposures. In order to focus resources, both the Agency’s and registrants’, on a manageable volume of useful incident reports, the Agency eliminated the requirement to report most ‘may suffer’ incidents. This was accomplished in PR Notice 98

- 4Page 10 of 17 (Attach ment D), which referenced the Agency’s authority under Part 159.155 of the FIFRA 6(a)(2) regulations to eliminate specified requirements by written notice to registrants. Elimination of the requirement is still in effect.

Another aspect of the respondents ’ burden is ongoing employee training on compliance with 6(a)(2) reporting requirements. New employees would require training and experienced employees are likely to receive refresher training. Each company would plan training and track

the status of tra ining efforts. For purposes of determining the number of employees that need to be trained on adverse effects information reporting, EPA assumed an average of 10 employees per registrant or 17,380 individuals requiring training each year. This estimate i s an average; the actual number would range from one person in a small company to several dozen in a large company. The Agency does not believe that a high proportion of people in any company need detailed training in 6(a)(2) requirements. Most employees who are likely to receive information concerning the effects of pesticide products are simply made aware of the need to pass information along to an appropriate individual or unit within the company that evaluates reports and prepares submissions to the A gency.

b) Estimating Respondent Costs

i) Estimating Labor Costs

Consistent with recent ICR renewals, OPP is using labor cost estimates from Agency economists with respect to wages, benefits and overhead for all labor categories for affected industries, state government, and EPA employees. This approach uses a transpar ent and consistent methodology employing publicly

- available data to provide more accurate estimates and allow easy replication of the calculations

.

Methodolog y. The methodology uses publicly available wage data for each sector and labor type for an Unload ed wage rate (hourly wage rate) and calculates the Loaded wage rate (unloaded wage rate + benefits) and the Fully loaded wage rate (loaded wage rate + overhead). Fully loaded wage rates are used to calculate the Agency’s staffing costs.

Unloaded Wage Rate

. Wages are estimated for l abor types (management, technical, and clerical) within applicable sectors. The Agency uses average wage data for the relevant sectors available in the National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates fr om the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) . (see http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm )

.

Sectors

. The specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and website for each sector is included in that sector’s wage rate table in Attachment F . Within each sector, the wage data are provided by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) . The SOC system is used by Federal statistical agencies to classify workers into occupational categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data (see http://www.bls.gov/o es/current/oes_stru.htm ).

Loaded Wage Rate

. Unless stated otherwise, all benefits represent 43% of unloaded wage rates, based on benefits for all civilian non

- farm workers, from http://www.bls.g ov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm . However, if other sectors are listed for whichPage 11 of 17 43% is not applicable

, the applicable percentage will be stated.

Fully Loaded Wage Rate

. T he fully loaded wages include benefits and overhead costs.

The loaded wage rate is mult iplied by 50% (EPA guidelines 20

- 70%) to get overhead costs.

Costs are indexed to 20 12 data. Attachment F contains worksheets providing the breakout of these costs for respondents and the Federal Government.

Using these data and methodology, Agency econo mists estimated the wages for the management, technical, and clerical labor categories. The fully loaded wage rates used to

calculate the respondent costs for this renewal are $1 17.86, $62.64, and $37.37 per hour for managerial, technical

, and clerical labor hour costs , respectively.

Table s 1

- 5 summariz e the annual burden hours and costs to registrants for compliance

with the s ection 6(a)(2) requirements . The estimates include the paperwork burden costs of submitting studies and incident reports ( calculated separately) and the costs of employee 6(a)(2) training. Tables 1 and 2 present the estimate s for respondent per study and per incident burden

and costs.

Table 1 a S tudies

– Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates per S tudy

C ollection Activities B urden Hours by Labor Category T otal

Manage rial $11 7

. 86 /hr Technical $62. 64 /hr Clerical $3 7.37 /hr Burden (hrs) Costs ($)

Read Instructions 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.30 $24.31

Create Information 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 $62.64

Compile and Review 0.10 0.55 0.00 0.65 $46.24

Complete Paperwork 0.00 0.10 0.50 0.60 $24.95

Store and Maintain Data 0.00 0.20 0.50 0.70 $31.21

TOTAL (per study ) 0.20 2.05 1.00 3.25 $189.36

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Table 1b. Studies

– Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates

L abor Category Burden per Reques t (hrs) Annual

Number of

S tudies Total Annual

Hours Labor Rate ( $/hr ) Annual Costs ($)

Managerial 0.20 153 31 $ 117.86 $3,607

Technical 2.05 153 314 $62.64 $19,647

Clerical 1.00 153 153 $37.37 $5,718

TOTAL (per year) 3.25 153 497 $28,972

Totals may vary between tables due to rounding.

Table 2 a

. Incidents

– Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates per Incident

C ollection Activities B urden Hours by Labor Category Total Managerial $117.86/hr Technical $62.64/hr Clerical $37.37/hr Burden (hrs) Costs ($)

Read Instructions 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 $6.26

Create Information 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.55 $34.45
Compile and Review 0. 2 0 0.55 0.00 0.75 $58.03
Complete Paperwork 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55 $20.55

Store and Maintain Data 0.00 0.12 0.20 0.32 $14.99

TOTAL (per incident ) 0.20 1.32 0.75 2.27 $134.29Page 12 of 17 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Table 2b. INCIDENTS

– Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates

L abor Category Burden per Request (hrs) Annual

Number of

Incidents Total Annual

Burden

Hours Labor Rate ($/hr) Costs ($)

Managerial 0.20 92,844 18,569 $117.86 $2,188,583

Technical 1.32 92,844 122,554 $62.64 $7,676,876

Clerical 0.75 92,844 69,633 $37.37 $2,602,315

TOTAL (per year) 2.27 92,844 210,756 $12,467,774

Totals may vary between tables due to rounding.

Table 3 exhibits the estimated annual respondent burden and costs estimates for all

studies and incidents under this information collection.

Table 3 . Studies + I ncidents

- Total Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates for Studies and Incidents

E stimates per Study/Incident S tudies/Incidents Expected each Year A nnual Estimates

Burden (hrs) Costs ($) Burden (hrs) Costs ($)

Studies 3. 25 $ 1 8 9

. 36 153 497 $28, 972

Incident s 2. 2 7 $ 1 34

. 29 92

, 844 210

, 756 $ 12, 467

, 774

TOTAL (per year) 92,997 211,253 $12,496,746

Totals may vary between tables due to rounding.

Table 4 presents the respondent burden and cost estimates for training activities.

Table 4

. Training

– Re spondent Burden and Cost Estimates for Training Activities

Training Activity B urden Hours by Labor Category Total (per activity) Expected

Activities

each Year T otal Annual Burden

and Costs

Managerial $117.86/hr Technical $62.64/hr Clerical $37.37/hr Burden (hrs) Costs ($) Burden (hrs) Costs ($)

Plan training 0.50 0.10 0.00 0.60 $65.20 1,738 1,043 $113,310

Conduct employee training 0.50 1.50 1.00 3.00 $190.26 17,380 52,140 $3,306,800

Follow

- up, tracking 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 $13.74 1,738 521 $23,877

TOTAL (per year) 20,856 53,704 $3,443,988

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Table 5 exhibits the estimated total annual respondent burden and costs for all activities, including study and incident reporting and training activities.

Table 5

. S tudies + Incidents + Training Activities

- Total Annual Burden and Cost for Re spondents

S tudy, Incident, or Training

Ac tivity S tudies/Incidents/Training

Ac tivities each Year Totals

Burden (hrs) Costs ($)

Studies 153 497 $28,972

Incidents 92,844 210,756 $12,467,774

Training Activities 20,856 53,704 $3,443,988

TOTAL (per year) 113,853 264,957 $15,940,734

Totals may not sum due to rounding.Page 13 of 17 ii) Estimating Capital

, and Operations and Maintenance Costs

There are no capital expenditures or operation and maintenance costs associated with this information collection activity.

c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

Agency activities include: screening 6(a)(2) submissions by subject matter experts to determine the significance of the information; information management activities to record, file, and track the submissions; communicating with registrants, providing guidance on the requirements; and management and oversight of the process

.

The EPA fully loaded employee costs for this renewal for managerial, technical, and clerical rates are estimated at $120.73, $78.32, and $44.66 per hour, respectively. The fully loaded wage rates for EPA employees were calculated using the same method that was used for the respondent wage rates ; the calculation of wage rates is in Attachment F. Screening and managing submitted information involves a mixture of technical and clerical skills; no managerial labor time is involved in these tasks.

The Agency burden estimate does not include the e ffort to fully review a 6(a)(2) study or to prepare the resulting documents. Nor does the burden estimate include the effort to take regulatory action that may result from 6(a)(2) adverse effects information. The burden

associated with those activities i s covered under other ICRs. This ICR does include the costs of subject matter experts reviewing incident reporting.

As stated before, the agency is also collecting additional incident data for spot

- on pet products, one herbicide, and neonicotinoids related to effects on pollinators . These data were required in order to investigate the higher than expected incident numbers . Thus, the agency is receiving and needing to analyze extra data and thus has an increased burden of information for analysis. To account for this, Agency b urden hours have been adjusted upward s for this renewal

. T ables 6

- 8 illustrate the estimated Agency burden and costs . Tables 6 and 7 below present per study and per incident Agency burden and costs.

Table 6a

. S tudies

– Age ncy Burden and Cost Estimates per S tudy

C ollection Activities B urden Hours by Labor Category T otal

Managerial $1 20

. 7 3/hr Technical $7 8.32 /hr Clerical
$44. 66 /hr Burden (hrs) Costs ($)

Screen submitted information 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 $156.65

Record, file, and track

submissions 0.00 3.60 0.90 4.50 $322.1 5

TOTAL (per s tudy ) 0.00 5.60 0.90 6.50 $478.80

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Table 6b. Studies

– Annual Agency Bur den and Cost Estimates

L abor Category Burden per Request (hrs) Annual

Number of

S tudies Total Annual

Hours Labor Rate ($/hr) Costs ($)

Managerial 0.00 153 0.00 $120.73 $0Page 14 of 17 Technical 5.60 153 857 $78.32 $67,107

Clerical 0.90 153 138 $44.66 $6,150

TOTAL (per year) 6.50 153 995 $73,256

Totals may vary between tables due to rounding.

Table 7. INCIDENTS

– Agency Burden and Cost Estimates per Incident

Collection Activities Burden Hours by Labor Category Total

Managerial $1 20.73 /hr Technical $7 8.32 /hr Clerical
$44. 66 /hr Burden (hrs) Costs ($)

Screen submitted information 0.000 0.135 0.000 0.135 $10.57

Record, file, and track

submissions 0.000 0.023 0.03 3 0.05 6 $3. 2 8

Communications, guidance 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.025 $1.96

TOTAL (per incident) 0.000 0.183 0.03 3 0.21 6 $15. 8 1

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Table 7b. INCIDENTS

– Annual Agency Burden and Cost Estimates

LABOR CATEGORY Burden Hours per Request Annual

Number of

Incidents Total Annual

Hours Labor Rate ($/hr) Costs ($)

Managerial 0.000 92,844 0 $120.73 $0

Technical 0.183 92,844 16,990 $78.32 $1,330 ,736

Clerical 0.03 3 92,844 3, 064 $44.66 $ 136,83 1

TOTAL (per year) 0. 216 92,844 20, 054 $ 1

, 467 ,567

Totals may vary between tables due to rounding.

Table 8 presents the combined total annual Agency burden and costs estimates for studies

and incidents.

Table 8. Total Annual Agency Burden and Cost Estimates for Studies and Incidents

Per Study/Incident Estimate Studies/Incidents Expected each Year Total

Burden (hrs) Costs ($) Hours Costs ($)

Studies 6.50 $478.80 153 995 $73,256

Incidents 0.21 6 $15 .8 1 92,844 20,054 $ 1,46 7

, 567

TOTAL (per year) 21

, 049 $ 1,540, 823

Totals may vary between tables due to rounding

d) Bottom Line Hours and Costs Tables

Table 9 displays the total burden hours and costs of FIFRA section 6(a)(2) requirements for respondents and the Agency from Tables 1

– 8.

Table 9. MASTER TABLE TOTAL

Hours Costs ($)

Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates 264,957 $15,940,734

Annual Agency Burden and Cost Estimates 21,049 $ 1,540 ,823

TOTAL 286,006 $ 17,48 1

, 557Page 15 of 17 The average burden per response is 2.85 hours (264,957 total hours **÷** 92,997 responses). The average per respondent burden is 152.45 hours (264,957 total hours **÷** 1,738 total potential respondents), and the average cost is $9,172 per respondent ($15,940,734 total cost **÷** 1,738 total potential respondents). Not all of the potential respondents are likely to submit information each year. This calculation is a simple average of the burden and does not reflect the more likely potential respondent burden which is characterized by the type of submission, the number of registrations held, and the number of incidents that need to be reported.

e) Reasons for Change in Burden

The estimate total respondent burden is expected to increase by 61,721 hours from 203,236 hours to 264,957 hours, with an expected increase in estimated costs from $11,793,027 to $15,940,734. The increase in burden hours and cost is primarily due to the expected increase in the number of responses, as discussed further below. It also reflects a small increase in the number of registrants of active products (1,738 versus 1,733), with a resultant small increase in the additional employees being trained. T otal burden hour estimates associated with studies are reduced because the estimated annual number of study submissions decreased from 183 studies to 153. The change in burden is an adjustment.

The number of responses is expected to increase by 31% from 71,000 in the last ICR approval to 93,000 for this ICR renewal. The increase is due to EPA’s revised expectations regarding the number of incident reports that will be submitted to the Agency. The increase in the number of incident reports has also prompt ed the need for add itional information discussed in section 4 of this supporting statement. Since the last ICR was approved, the EPA has found it necessary to request additional data in certain subject areas under 40 CFR 159. First, d ue to a significant in crease the number of adverse incidents for spot

- on domestic animal pet products from several registrants, EPA began requiring more standardized post

- market surveillance reporting on adverse effects and submission of sales information so the Agency can bett er evaluate incident rates. Second, t he Agency requested extra information from the registrant of a herbicide to help explain circumstances for incidents of alleged tree and plant damage. Finally, new concerns about neonicotinoid pesticides and the collap se of bee colonies led to EPA’s request for more documentation from registrants for these products.

Calculations of l abor rates and related burden costs have changed for both EPA and respondents due to changes in the base wages and an increase in the percentage of benefits. Fo r this renewal, the Agency updated the fully loaded wage rates for all labor categories for both Agency employees and respondents. The Agency burden has increased, which re flects an increase in the number of incident submissions and more communication relating to incident

data.

f) Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.85 hours per response. The total annual "respondent" (applicant)Page 16 of 17 burden is estimated to be 264,957 hours, with a n average potential per respondent burden of

152.45 hours. “Burden” is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information subject to the

PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for

certain regulations in Title 40 , after initial display in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and may appear on the information collection instrument as applicable, i.e., form or

instructions , and in the Federal Register.

The Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OPP

- 2013

- 0742, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the EPA Docket Center

- Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, in Rm. S

- 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. The docket telephone number is (202) 566

- 1744. 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 may be submitted to EPA electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or by mail addressed to Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include Docket ID

No. EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2013

- 0742 and OMB control number 2070

- 0052 in any correspondence.

7. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

All of the attachments listed below can be found in the docket for this ICR , or as part of the supporting statement or are available via a link (unless otherwise noted); accessible electronically through www.Regulations.gov . On the main page, select Advanced Search from the menu bar at the top and select Docket Search . Enter the Docket ID Number , EPA

- HQ

OPP

- 20 13

- 0742 in the Docket ID field. Click on the Submit button . From the results page, you

will be able to link to the do cket view or directly open select documents found in the docket.

ATTACHMENT A: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

– Section 6(a)(2) ( 7 USC 136d ),

h ttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/usc_sec_07_00000136

--- d000

- .html

ATTACHMENT B: FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) Reporting Requirements

- Codified as 40 CFR part 159

. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR

ATTACHMENT C:

PR Notice 98

- 3

- Guidance on Final FIFRA 6(a)(2) Regulations for P esticide Product Registrants http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/

ATTACHMENT D:

PR Notice 98

- 4

- Additional Guidance on Final FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) Regulations for Pesticide Product Registrants (w/Attachment)Page 17 of 17 http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/

A TTACHMENT E: Class Determination Regarding Confidentiality of 6(a)(2) Information http://www.epa.gov/EPA

- PEST/1999/December/Day

- 15/p32185.htm

ATTACHMENT F: Worksheet for Estimating OPP ICR Wage Rates for Respondent and Agency Labor Costs

ATTACHMENT G:

Reserved

– Record of Consultation s

ATTACHMENT H : Industry’s Voluntary 6(a)(2) Incident Reporting Forms & Guidance Documents see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fifra6a2/

.

ATTACHMENT I: Meeting with Registrants on Spot

- On Flea and Tick Pesticide Products http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/spot

- on

- meeting

- may2009.pdf

ATTACHMENT J: Letter to Dupont on Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/imprelis

- stopsale

- letter.pdf

ATTACHMENT K: Pollinator Protection Letter to Registrants http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/ecosystem/pollinator/bee

- july2013

- letter.pdf