ICR Attachment C: Record of Consultations with Potential Respondents

EPA ICR No. 1759.06

OMB Control No. 2070-0148

ATTACHMENT C

Renewal Consultations -- List of Representatives and Questions Posed

I.

List of Representatives Consulted
Kerry H. Richards
Penn State Pesticide Education Program
[email protected]
814-880-0013
Jim Wilson
South Dakota State University
[email protected]
605-688-4752
J. Patrick Jones
N.C. Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services
[email protected]
919-733-3556

II.

Sample Consultations Questions for OPP ICR Renewals

EPA Questions Asked in Consultation Regarding ICR the Document
(1) Publicly Available Data
Is the information that the Agency requires available from another source, or already
required by another office at EPA or by another agency?

If yes, where can one find the information?

(2) Frequency

Can the Agency require the information, training, or notifications less frequently and
still produce the same outcome (e.g., require training less frequently or worker
notification less frequently, etc)?

(3) Clarity of Instructions
Based on the regulations and Agency guidance, is it clear what is required and how to
comply? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the requirements?
Is it understandable what records (e.g., central posting) need to be kept?

Are formats clear and logical?

(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
Are there web-based tools available that can assist in meeting the requirements? If
so, what are they?

What benefits would electronic tools bring in terms of burden reduction or greater
efficiency?

(5) Burden and Costs
Are the labor rates and burden hour estimates in the ICR supporting statement
accurate? Bear in mind that the estimates include only burden hours and costs
associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR.

If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA’s,
please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates.

The Agency has assumed there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that
correct?

Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been omitted?

III.

Consultations Responses
Response 1
EPA/OPP ICR – Worker Protection Standard - Training and Notification
OMB No: 2070-0148; EPA No: 1759.06
Contact information
Please fill in your name, title, organization, mailing address, and contact information (at
least e-mail or phone number) where you prefer to be contacted. We are required to
include your name and contact information in the next Federal Register notice on this
information collection request (ICR).
Name: Kerry H. Richards
Title: Director
Organization: Penn State Pesticide Education Program
Address: 111E Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802

E-mail and phone number: Email: [email protected] Phone: (814) 880 - 0013

Questions regarding the ICR document
(1) Publicly Available Data
Is the information that the Agency requires available from another source or already
required by another office at EPA or by another agency?
Although not available to the general public, some if not all of the information, that is
required to be available to workers at the central location regarding the pesticide
applications being made, is required by most states under their state pesticide
regulations. However, adapting any state recordkeeping regulations to incorporate
information required under the Worker Protection Standards would not be difficult.
If yes, where can one find the information?
A few states have mandatory reporting of pesticide applications and the agency
responsible for pesticide regulations would likely be the repository for that
information.

(2) Frequency
Can the Agency require the information, training, or notifications less frequently and
still produce the same outcome (e.g., require training less frequently or worker
notification less frequently, etc)?
As indicated in the supporting statement, if the option to provide workers who have
been trained is available and practiced, a worker may only require training once every
five years. If that is the case, it is not possible to require training less frequently.
As for the frequency of notification, it is a reasonable expectation that this
information is provided at a central location where workers have open access.
(3) Clarity of Instructions
Based on the regulations and Agency guidance, is it clear what is required and
how to comply? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the
requirements?
The guidance is clear in regard how to comply with training and notification
requirements. However, a list of the requirements in a checklist format would not
only help clarify the requirements but facilitate compliance.
Is it understandable what records (e.g., central posting) need to be kept?
The requirement of what records must be kept at the central location is easily
understandable and straightforward.
Are formats clear and logical?
The required poster clearly presents the ten concepts that are outlined in the
regulations. The available area for the required medical information provides a
consistent format that allows all employees to easily and quickly locate that critical
information. To my knowledge there is not a standard format for displaying the
required information regarding required information for each application. Some states
have developed their own formats and this may be something worth considering.
(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
Are there web-based tools available that can assist in meeting the requirements?
If so, what are they?
I am not aware of any web-based tools that are available for meeting the
requirements.

Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
What benefits would electronic tools bring in terms of burden reduction or
greater efficiency?
If an electronic data base for recordkeeping was developed so that required
information that does not change would be automatically displayed it may make the
record-keeping process more efficient. For example, if when the trade name of a
product was typed into a field in the spreadsheet for the product brand name in the
spread sheet, the fields for EPA Registration Number, REI and Active Ingredient
would automatically populate with the information at is consistent with that product.
Although additional fields would be required to be filled in with crop and site specific
information, this would also provide a standard format and potential increase the
clarity of information to workers and handlers.
(5) Burden and Costs
Are the labor rates and burden hour estimates in the ICR supporting statement
accurate? Bear in mind that the estimates include only burden hours and costs
associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR.
The assumptions made in the burden hour formulas are conflicting and not accurate
from several aspects, primarily the burden estimates for notification. However,
beyond that, if the assumption is correct that 309,085 agricultural establishments are
in the United States that both hire labor and use pesticides, estimating 50,000 new
entrants each year would mean over a 15% annual growth which seems unrealistically
high.
In regard to the estimates of burden hours for notification:
All calculations are flawed for the non-greenhouse estimates because the estimated
number of greenhouse operations (11,350) was not subtracted from the total number
of establishments (309,085). The number of establishments in the non-greenhouse
calculations should have been 297,735.
In addition:
•

The calculation formulas for oral notification only take into consideration the
number of establishments, not the number of workers at each establishment
that will require being orally notified. Although estimates of the amount of
time it takes for oral notification as opposed to posting notification may be
accurate, it is not a realistic assumption that only one oral notification per
establishment would be required. Not all workers gather in a common
location at one specific time to allow for the possibility of a singular oral
notification. A minimum of two oral notifications per establishment per

application would even be an unrealistically conservative number for nongreenhouse applications.
•

Although some establishments primarily grain and forage crops where there
may not be any workers present with-in 1/4 mile of some applications, and
assumption of the probability that this occurs in 50% of all applications is
unrealistic. A more plausible probability, although still somewhat unrealistic,
may be that 35% of all applications are made where no workers will be within a ¼ mile of the application site. The same could be said for nongreenhouse posted notifications.

If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from
EPA’s, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates.
Non-greenhouse oral notification factors:
297,735
10.5
2
35%

Estimated number of total establishments – greenhouse establishments
Estimated number of treatments annually
Extremely conservative number of oral notifications required per application
Percent of applications where no workers would be present within ¼ mile

(297,735*10.5*2*.65) = 4,064,083 oral notifications
Non-greenhouse posted notifications factors:
297735
10.5
35%
5%

Estimated number of total establishments – greenhouse establishments
Estimated number of treatment annually
Percent of applications where no workers would be present within ¼ mile
Percent of applications involving pesticides that are Toxicity Class 1

(297,735*10.5*.65*.05) = 101,602 posted notifications
The Agency has assumed there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is
that correct?
Yes, this would be a correct assumption.
Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been omitted?
• There was not any cost burden factored in for workers in regard to treatmentspecific worker/handler notification at all. If oral notification is assumed, the
worker is being paid for the time the grower is taking for that oral
notification. For posted notification, the worker is being paid for the time
they must take to read that posted notification.
Additional burden and cost estimates for worker notification:

Oral Notifications:
Non-Greenhouse: 4,064,083
Greenhouse:
28,375

4,092,458

Posted Notifications:
Non-Greenhouse: 101,602
Greenhouse:
567,500

669,102

Total Notifications

4,761,560

Additional worker notification burden cost:
Number of notifications*burden (estimated 3minutes per notification)* cost per minute
($19.87/60)
(4,761,576*3*.33) = $4,713,944

Response 2
EPA/OPP ICR – Worker Protection Standard - Training and Notification
OMB No: 2070-0148; EPA No: 1759.06
Contact information
Please fill in your name, title, organization, mailing address, and contact information (at
least e-mail or phone number) where you prefer to be contacted. We are required to
include your name and contact information in the next Federal Register notice on this
information collection request (ICR).
Name: Jim Wilson
Title: Extension Pesticide Education Coordinator
Organization: South Dakota State University
Address: Box 2207A SDSU
Brookings, SD 57007
E-mail and phone number:

[email protected]
(605) 688-4752

Questions regarding the ICR document
(1) Publicly Available Data

Is the information that the Agency requires available from another source, or already
required by another office at EPA or by another agency?
Not to my knowledge
If yes, where can one find the information?
(2) Frequency
Can the Agency require the information, training, or notifications less frequently and
still produce the same outcome (e.g., require training less frequently or worker
notification less frequently, etc)?
I am unaware of any data quantifying frequency of training and quality of
outcome
(3) Clarity of Instructions
Based on the regulations and Agency guidance, is it clear what is required and how to
comply? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the requirements?
Given the complexity of the WPS regulations the guidance is likely adequate
Is it understandable what records (e.g., central posting) need to be kept?
Yes
Are formats clear and logical?
Yes
(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
Are there web-based tools available that can assist in meeting the requirements? If
so, what are they?
There are not readily available that I am aware of.
What benefits would electronic tools bring in terms of burden reduction or greater
efficiency?
Increased availability to Web based guidance would bring efficiencies.
(5) Burden and Costs
Are the labor rates and burden hour estimates in the ICR supporting statement
accurate? Bear in mind that the estimates include only burden hours and costs
associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR.
There is great variation across the country of which I am not aware. It appears as
though reasonable attempts have been made to determine costs
If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA’s,
please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates.

The Agency has assumed there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that
correct?
I would assume there are capital costs involved with complying with the WPS
requirements such as training facilities and equipment, decontamination sites, etc, but
most of these should be a part of a well run operation regardless of the regualtion

Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been omitted?
Likely, but I am not aware of any

Response 3
EPA/OPP ICR – Worker Protection Standard - Training and Notification
OMB No: 2070-0148; EPA No: 1759.06
Contact information
Please fill in your name, title, organization, mailing address, and contact information (at
least e-mail or phone number) where you prefer to be contacted. We are required to
include your name and contact information in the next Federal Register notice on this
information collection request (ICR).
Name: J. Patrick Jones
Title: Dep. Director of Pesticide Programs
Organization: N.C. Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Address: 2109 Blue Ridge Rd. Raleigh, NC 27609

E-mail and phone number:

[email protected]
(919) 733-3556

Questions regarding the ICR document
(1) Publicly Available Data
Is the information that the Agency requires available from another source, or
already required by another office at EPA or by another agency?
No, not that I am aware of.

If yes, where can one find the information?

(2) Frequency
Can the Agency require the information, training, or notifications less frequently
and still produce the same outcome (e.g., require training less frequently or
worker notification less frequently, etc)?
I do believe that the specific pesticide application information could be posted less
frequently, our inspection experience shows that most workers do not rely on the
specific application information to learn about pesticide applications that have
occurred. Workers seem to depend on the oral and posted warnings to learn of
pesticide applications that have taken place. I think the current frequency allowed for
notification of applications is appropriate for the beginning of the work period. It
allows for proper exceptions for workers who do not go within a ¼ mile of the
applications and for workers who are not on the establishment at the time of the
application or within the restricted entry period. I don’t believe notifications
performed less frequently would offer the same protections.
I also believe that the training frequency is adequate.
(3) Clarity of Instructions
Based on the regulations and Agency guidance, is it clear what is required and
how to comply? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the
requirements?
The regulations are discussed in a manner to allow for a clear understanding of the
requirements. The statement about worker training regarding the requirement to train
workers within 5 days of employment on the establishment is clear, but it may be a
little misleading to some growers since the regulation is based on number of days of
entry into an area that has been treated with pesticides within the last 30 days. You
could state that workers must receive full training before the 6th day of entry into an
area that has been treated with a pesticide within the last 30 days.
Is it understandable what records (e.g., central posting) need to be kept?
Yes
Are formats clear and logical?
Yes
(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
Are there web-based tools available that can assist in meeting the requirements?
If so, what are they?
There are web based tools and programs to assist growers in their pesticide
application record keeping, but they are not set up to allow workers access to the
records as required by the Worker Protection Standard. Printouts from these

programs would be easier to read and they may also allow for translation into other
Languages.
What benefits would electronic tools bring in terms of burden reduction or
greater efficiency?
Electronic records would be a great time saver for the growers as they could establish
known products in the data with set characteristics such as REI, Active ingredients,
PPE requirements, and other label restrictions.
(5) Burden and Costs
Are the labor rates and burden hour estimates in the ICR supporting statement
accurate? Bear in mind that the estimates include only burden hours and costs
associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR.
Yes
If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from
EPA’s, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates.
n/a
The Agency has assumed there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is
that correct?
yes
Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been omitted?
No