Attachment H - Consultation Record

Consultation: BASF
(1) Publicly Available Data
(1) Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or already
collected by another office at EPA or by another agency?
No, this is new data being created and stored internally. BASF, like all
registrants, will have the test data available for authorized FIFRA inspectors and
EPA data call-ins.
(2) If yes, where can you find the data?
Not applicable.
(2) Frequency of Collection
Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce the same
outcome?
Yes, the agency is not actually collecting any information from registrants, other than the
updated labels. In so far as many labels must be submitted anyway, a reduction in
frequency for this rule will produce the same outcome.
(3) Clarity of Instructions
(1) The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data so that the
Agency can utilize them.
(1) Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, etc.), is it clear
what you are required to do and how to submit such data?
Yes, we changed all our labels to include the required language, and
created records based on the testing and cleaning of our packages.
(2) If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?
Not applicable.
(2) Do you understand that you are required to maintain records?
Yes, we are required to maintain records on our packaging tests. In particular, we
are required to maintain records on certain formulations with suspended solids.
These test records demonstrate the rinse-ability of the packages holding the
product.
(3) Considering that there is no required submission format, is it difficult to
submit information in ways that are clear, logical and easy to complete?

No, since the records do not need to be submitted, we should be able to review
them on site with any authorized FIFRA inspector.
(4) Regarding the any [specific program] forms, do you use them?
Are they clear, logical, and easy to complete?
There are no specific forms.
(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the
public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there
is a strong reason for not doing so. One such reason is that, at the present time, the
Agency is unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the
Internet.
(1) What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records and
data submissions? Current electronic reporting alternatives include the use of
“web forms”/XML based submissions via the Agency’s Internet site and magnetic
media-based submissions, e.g., diskette, CD-ROM, etc. Would you be interested
in pursuing electronic reporting?
Sure, BASF supports electronic alternatives as long as we can maintain the same
level of confidentiality, the tools needed (software) is widely available, and paper
submissions may be used as a back-up in the event there are electronic failures.
Are you keeping your records electronically? If yes, in what format?
Yes, we keep many records electronically. The most common format is a “PDF”
file.
(2) Although the Agency does not offer an electronic reporting option because of
CBI-related security concerns at this time
(1) Would you be more inclined to submit CBI on diskette than on paper?
Yes, it’s simply easier to create and use. A paper copy can always be
printed if need be.
(3) What benefits would electronic submission bring you in terms of burden
reduction or greater efficiency in compiling the information?
Electronic submissions do not need to be printed, duplicated, and mailed. Much
less file space is needed for storage.
(5) Burden and Costs
(1) Are the labor rates accurate?
Yes, the labor rates are accurate.

(2) The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is
that correct?
That is correct, no capital cost were required for registrants.
(3) Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours
and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR
does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the
estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate? 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.
Yes, the hours and labor rates are accurate.
(4) Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?
No, there are no other costs that should be accounted for; however, we did
voluntarily spend some time and money on outreach and education for our
customers, to inform them about the rule. This training and education was done
in cooperation with many stakeholders, including EPA, and was done in
conjunction with regular industry events. The trade did spend an extra $50K on
some educational material sent directly to about 6000 bulk dealers, but nothing
more significant.

Consultation: Land O’ Lakes
(1) Publicly Available Data
(1) Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or already
collected by another office at EPA or by another agency?
I don’t know of any single source for the data requested in this ICR.
(2) If yes, where can you find the data?
(2) Frequency of Collection
Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce the same
outcome?
The proposed record retention process and time frames seem reasonable. The records
will be available at facilities which are typically inspected on an annual basis by State
Department of Agriculture representatives and can be verified on an annual basis. If
EPA sets up a record collection process it should be coordinated through the State Ag
Departments.
(3) Clarity of Instructions
(1) The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data so that the
Agency can utilize them.
(1) Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, etc.), is it clear
what you are required to do and how to submit such data?
The information Collection Request provided a good summary of
recordkeeping requirements. PR Notices and summary of the
regulations have been helpful.
(2) If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?

(2) Do you understand that you are required to maintain records?
Yes. The regulations spell out the recordkeeping requirements clearly.
(3) Considering that there is no required submission format, is it difficult to
submit information in ways that are clear, logical and easy to complete?
As a registrant with multiple repack facilities, I would request all records for my
locations be sent to me and consolidated for a single submission. I would
accommodate whatever format EPA requested.
(4) Regarding the any [specific program] forms, do you use them?

Our locations use monthly containment inspection forms patterned after the
MN Dept. of Ag’s secondary containment inspection form.
Are they clear, logical, and easy to complete?
Yes.
(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the
public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there
is a strong reason for not doing so. One such reason is that, at the present time, the
Agency is unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the
Internet.
(1) What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records and
data submissions?
I’m in favor of electronic data submission.
(2) Current electronic reporting alternatives include the use of “web forms”/XML
based submissions via the Agency’s Internet site and magnetic media-based
submissions, e.g., diskette, CD-ROM, etc. Would you be interested in
pursuing electronic reporting?
Yes.
Are you keeping your records electronically? If yes, in what format?
All records are not currently being kept electronically.
(2) Although the Agency does not offer an electronic reporting option because of
CBI-related security concerns at this time
(1) Would you be more inclined to submit CBI on diskette than on paper?
I’m in favor of electronic submittals over paper.
(3) What benefits would electronic submission bring you in terms of burden
reduction or greater efficiency in compiling the information?
Based on EPA’s records request, I would organize our data submittal by
developing electronic versions of all required records. Paper files are
cumbersome and more easily misplaced.
(5) Burden and Costs
(1) Are the labor rates accurate?
The labor estimates are fair.

(2) The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is
that correct?
I don’t foresee any capital costs, although I am interested in developing an
internal recordkeeping process for monthly inspections and other records
pertaining to compliance with this rule. If that is pursued, there would be costs
for programming and development.
(3) Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours
and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR
does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the
estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate?
Without having gone through an actual ICR, it’s hard to determine the level of
accuracy in the cost estimate values. I believe the cost estimates for the
regulated community are under estimated. My opinion is based on typical
information requests within the company, where communications frequently
must be done one than once, certain locations require additional follow-up or
information sent isn’t what was originally requested
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.
(4) Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?

Consultation Questions: ARADC
(1) Publicly Available Data
(1) Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or already
collected by another office at EPA or by another agency?
I am unclear what specifically this question is asking. With regards to empty pesticide
containers, agricultural retailers do not currently keep records.
(2) If yes, where can you find the data?
See part (1).
(2) Frequency of Collection
Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce the same outcome?
Under the Rule, agricultural retailers just need to keep their records on hand, so currently, yes,
the Agency would have the same outcome if it collected the information less frequently.
(3) Clarity of Instructions
(1) The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data so that the
Agency can utilize them.
(1) Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, etc.), is it clear what
you are required to do and how you submit such data?
Yes, the record keeping instructions in the Container and Containment Rule are
clear. The questions on the ICR are unclear and unspecific.
(2) If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?
In regards to the ICR, the questions asked should be specific to the information
needed by the Agency instead of general. It is extremely unclear what the
specific questions are, and it takes a large amount of time to read the instructions,
put together relevant parts of the instructions and data, compare them to the entire
regulation, and the compare that to every other possible regulation. The ICR
would be much clearer if it asked specific questions and organized the instructions
in a way in which each segment of the industry and each part of the recordkeeping
instructions for that segment were sectioned.
In regards to the Container and Containment Rule, the recordkeeping instructions
are clear.

(2) Do you understand that you are required to maintain records?
Yes, the Agricultural Retailers Association understands that its members, primarily
agricultural retailers, must maintain records under the Pesticide Container and
Containment Rule.
(3) Considering that there is no required submission format, is it difficult to submit
information in ways that are clear, logical and easy to complete?
Yes, since there is not required format, agricultural retailers can keep their records in a
manner that works for the business and do not have to duplicate records already kept.
(4) Regarding the [any specific program] forms, do you use them? Are they clear,
logical, and easy to complete?
It is unknown how each retailer keeps their records, but it probably makes since for their
individual business record system.
(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
The government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the public
electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there is a
strong reason for not doing so. One such reason is that, at the present time, the Agency is
unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the internet.
(1) What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records and data
submissions? Current electronic reporting alternatives include the use of “web
forms”/XML based submissions via Agency’s Internet site and magnetic mediabased submissions, e.g., diskette, CD-ROM, etc. Would you be interested in
pursuing electronic reporting?
Most agricultural retailers would be interested in an electronic reporting option; however,
many agricultural retailers would still need the option of submitting paper-based records
due to technological variances.
Are you keeping records electronically? If yes, in what format?
Most agricultural retailers keep records electronically; however, the database program
varies by location. Many retailers keep records that relate to a customer’s purchase on
the customer’s computer profile in a database at the retail site.
(2) Although the Agency does not offer an electronic reporting option because of
CBI-related security concerns at this time, would you be more inclined to submit
CBI on diskette than on paper?

Since they do not have to report the information to the Agency, it does not matter.
However, in general, many retailers may prefer to report electronically over the internet,
but it probably does not matter for most retailers whether it is in paper or diskette form.
(3) What benefits would electronic submission bring you in terms of burden
reduction or greater efficiency in compiling the information?

(5) Burden and Costs
(1) Are the labor rates accurate?
The labor rate estimate used in the ICR is high for most agricultural retailers.
Agricultural retailers estimate that their average administrative support cost is $16 per
hour, plus about 30% of the cost in additional benefits, totaling $20.80 per hour.
Professional labor (facility manager) makes about $70,000 or $44.00 per hour.
(2) The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that
correct?
The Agency’s assumption that no capital cost is associated with the record keeping under
the Rule is correct.
(3) Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours
and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does
not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the
estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate? 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 estimated time for professional labor to read instructions is low. As of today, there is
no compliance manual for record keeping on the Agency website. It is my estimation;
however, that for professional labor to find the manual, find the relevant parts, and read
the manual and the FR notice for comprehension, professional labor will spend at least an
hour reading instructions.
(4) Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?
Professional labor also spends time at meetings and conferences understanding the Rule.
Many retailers have spent at least an hour listening to presentations on complying with
this Rule.