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. 1204.11

b) Abstract

Section 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

(Attachment A) requires pesticide registrants to submit information to the Agency which may be 

relevant to the balancing of the risks and benefits 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 

information 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 regulations at 40 CFR 159 

provide a detailed description of the reporting obligations of registrants under FIFRA section

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 

section 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 FIFRA section 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 and 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. The Court agreed that submissible 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 constitutes 

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 section 6(a)(2). The information submitted is an 

essential component of the Agency’s pesticide registration and registration review programs 

which also require the submission of important information regarding a pesticide’s adverse 

effects, information which may not have been available at the time of the Agency’s initial review 

of a registration application. Because this information has potentially 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 section 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 Agency has the authority to 

call-in data (a.k.a. DCI “data call-in”) under Section 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 demonstrate 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, improving customer relations, 

minimizing liability, or protecting or expanding market share. According to feedback that EPA 

has received, registrants acquire and use this information to determine 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 antimicrobial 

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 information 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 registration 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 

registrants by consumers and other interested parties. This information collection avoids 

duplication by limiting the submission requirements under FIFRA section 6(a)(2) to information 

which has not been submitted to the OPP previously. Further, it exempts information submitted 

under section 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 letters, 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 many 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 the proposed renewal of this information collection activity and providing a 60-day 

public comment period.

d) Effect of Less Frequent Collection

Under FIFRA section 6(a)(2), the information collection activity is a one-time, nonrepetitive 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 producer 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 required to support registration or registration 

review under FIFRA section 3, and which show adverse effects that make them reportable under 

section 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 section 6(a)(2) constitutes FIFRA section

10(d)(1) safety and efficacy information. On September 28, 1999, the Agency issued a class 

determination that safety and efficacy information submitted under section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA is 

not entitled to confidential treatment, Attachment E. The determination enables the Agency to 

respond more quickly and efficiently to requests for information submitted under section 6(a)(2). 

Data submitted to the 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 section 10. If the 

information is not protected under FIFRA section 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 section 3 or 

24(c). The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code is 325300 (Pesticide 

and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing).

b) Information Requested
Page 5 of 17

i) Data Items

As further defined by the final rule implementing the FIFRA section 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 than 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 may 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 showing 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/benefit 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 data for thousands of domestic animal incidents for almost 100 

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

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

more detailed 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 evaluate incident 

rates. (http://www2.epa.gov/pets/epa-evaluation-pet-spot-products-analysis-and-plans-reducingharmful-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. 

Enhanced 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 numerous states that E.I . du 

Pont de Nemours and Company’s (DuPont) herbicide, Imprelis, which contains the active 

ingredient aminocyclopyrachlor, may have caused injury 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, in 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 response 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 

pollinator 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 declining 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 activities 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 section 6(a)(2), as implemented by the regulations 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 registration under FIFRA 

section 3 and registration review under section 3(g). The burden for these activities is approved 

by OMB under separate ICRs. Registrants may collect adverse information in the normal course 

of business, such as following 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 

section 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 analyzing the 

information for significance.

b) Collection Methodology and Management

The regulation allows flexibility in the method or format for the required submission. In 

essence, the regulation specifies the types of data that should be reported to the extent the 
Page 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 

Numbers (MRIDs), 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 pesticide 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 non6(a)(2) study, but it requires more screening and tracking. Regarding incidents, electronic 

submission is 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 into its master OPPIN system. The current Incident 

Data 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 more design work would 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 forms, see Attachment 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 reporting format prescribed in the regulations, so the submitters can use a format 

of their choosing for incidents. While the 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 section 6(a)(2) related to studies fall largely on basic 

producers, i.e., registrants that produce the active ingredient from raw materials, because they are 
Page 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 generating 

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 users 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 public 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 to 

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 section 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 generally on an "as received basis." The regulations 

establish time-frames within which reportable information received by registrants must be 

submitted 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 information. 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 incidents 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 2009-2012 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 is 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 effects information for one year 

after the cancellation or transfer of their product so long as the former registrant holds no active 
Page 9 of 17

registrations. Since stocks of the formerly registered products diminish, it is unlikely these 

former registrants would acquire or submit much adverse effects information to the Agency. 

Former registrants, therefore, are not included in the estimated 1,738 respondents assumed for 

this analysis. 

The Agency received an average of 153 studies annually from FY 2009 through FY

2012. 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 2009 through FY 2012 the Agency received an average of 907 incident-related 

submissions per year from registrants containing 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 number 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 reports are received and processed in the same way as registrant-submitted 

information. 

During the same time period, a total of 222 registrants submitted incident reports. 

Registrants may report for themselves alone or they may report for themselves and related 

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 will 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 number 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 final 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 

pesticide, 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 asymptomatic 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 98-4 
Page 10 of 17

(Attachment 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 training 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 is 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 Agency.

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 transparent and 

consistent methodology employing publicly-available data to provide more accurate estimates 

and allow easy replication of the calculations.

Methodology. The methodology uses publicly available wage data for each sector and 

labor type for an Unloaded 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 labor 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 from 

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/oes/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.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm. However, if other sectors are listed for which 
Page 11 of 17

43% is not applicable, the applicable percentage will be stated.

Fully Loaded Wage Rate. The fully loaded wages include benefits and overhead costs. 

The loaded wage rate is multiplied by 50% (EPA guidelines 20-70%) to get overhead costs. 

Costs are indexed to 2012 data. Attachment F contains worksheets providing the breakout of 

these costs for respondents and the Federal Government.

Using these data and methodology, Agency economists 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 $117.86, $62.64, and $37.37 per hour for 

managerial, technical, and clerical labor hour costs, respectively. 

Tables 1 - 5 summarize the annual burden hours and costs to registrants for compliance 

with the section 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 estimates for respondent per study and per incident burden 

and costs.

Table 1a Studies – Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates per Study

Collection Activities

Burden Hours by Labor Category Total

Managerial

$117.86/hr

Technical 

$62.64/hr

Clerical 

$37.37/hr Burden (hrs) Costs ($)

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

Labor Category Burden per 

Request (hrs)

Annual 

Number of 

Studies

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 2a. Incidents – Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates per Incident

Collection Activities

Burden 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 0.20 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 $134.29
Page 12 of 17

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Table 2b. INCIDENTS – Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates 

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

Estimates per Study/Incident Studies/Incidents

Expected each Year

Annual Estimates

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

Studies 3.25 $189.36 153 497 $28,972

Incidents 2.27 $134.29 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 – Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates for Training Activities

Training 

Activity

Burden Hours by Labor Category Total (per activity) Expected 

Activities 

each Year

Total 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. Studies + Incidents + Training Activities - Total Annual Burden and Cost for Respondents

Study, Incident, or Training 

Activity

Studies/Incidents/Training 

Activities 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 effort 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 is 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 burden hours have been adjusted upwards for this renewal. 

Tables 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. Studies – Agency Burden and Cost Estimates per Study

Collection Activities

Burden Hours by Labor Category Total

Managerial 

$120.73/hr

Technical 

$78.32/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 $322.15

TOTAL (per study) 0.00 5.60 0.90 6.50 $478.80

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Table 6b. Studies – Annual Agency Burden and Cost Estimates

Labor Category Burden per 

Request (hrs)

Annual 

Number of 

Studies

Total Annual 

Hours

Labor Rate 

($/hr) Costs ($)

Managerial 0.00 153 0.00 $120.73 $0
Page 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 

$120.73/hr

Technical 

$78.32/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 0.033 0.056 $3.28

Communications, guidance 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.025 $1.96

TOTAL (per incident) 0.000 0.183 0.033 0.216 $15.81

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 0.033 92,844 3,064 $44.66 $136,831

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 0.216 $15.81 92,844 20,054 $1,467,567

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 $17,481,557
Page 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. Total 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 prompted the need for additional 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, due to a 

significant increase 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 better 

evaluate incident rates. Second, the 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 collapse of bee colonies led to EPA’s 

request for more documentation from registrants for these products.

Calculations of labor 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. For 

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 reflects 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 an 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-HQOPP-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-HQOPP-2013-0742 in the Docket ID field. Click on the Submit button. From the results page, you 

will be able to link to the docket 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), 

http://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 Pesticide 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/

ATTACHMENT 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 Consultations

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