FR 2024-29363

The document in question is a notice from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), inviting public comments on renewing a process concerning the labeling of certain minimum risk pesticides, as required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 25(b). This process is captured within an Information Collection Request (ICR) that's part of ensuring these pesticides are appropriately labeled, assisting enforcement authorities in their regulatory duties.

Summary

The EPA is in the process of renewing an existing information collection framework that guides how minimum risk pesticides should be labeled. This renewal is meant to uphold clarity and consistency in how these products are marketed and to ensure they remain unregulated under FIFRA, provided they meet certain specified criteria. The EPA seeks input from the public, notably from small businesses, on how the administrative burden of this paperwork can be eased. Public comments are invited until February 11, 2025.

Key Issues and Concerns

One significant issue is the document’s lack of clarity regarding what construes "minimum risk pesticides," which could create confusion. The term is central to this regulatory framework, and a better explanation would help stakeholders assess their obligation or lack thereof under FIFRA.

Moreover, the document uses technical terminology, particularly in the "Burden statement," which might be difficult for a layperson to understand. The technical nature of these sections can create barriers for individuals and businesses unfamiliar with regulatory jargon but who are nevertheless affected by these rules.

Another concern is the increase in the estimated respondent burden and cost. The details provided do not sufficiently justify why these resources are essential at this time, particularly given technological advancements that could potentially streamline processes.

The methodology for calculating the average of 5.5 hours per response is also not clearly detailed, leaving the reader without a full understanding of how these figures were derived.

Additionally, there isn’t much information provided on the recent updates or changes to the information collection requirements beyond an increase in hours and costs. More transparency in this area could assist in understanding the necessity and impact of these changes.

Public and Stakeholder Impact

For the general public, particularly those concerned with the environmental and health impacts of pesticides, this document serves as an assurance that minimally risky pesticides are being labeled in a manner that ensures compliance with federal standards. However, for the common citizen, the intricacies of this regulatory process might not be directly impactful unless they are stakeholders.

Businesses, especially small enterprises engaged in the manufacture, distribution, or sale of such pesticides, are the primary stakeholders. These guidelines affect how these businesses operate under federal regulations regarding pesticide products. The document’s call for input on easing paperwork burdens is a positive note, potentially reducing operational costs and streamlining compliance efforts for small businesses.

In conclusion, while the notice highlights crucial steps toward regulatory renewal, there are areas where greater transparency and simplified communication would enhance stakeholder engagement and understanding. The EPA’s openness to public comment is commendable, presenting an opportunity for those affected to shape the outcome in ways that benefit both regulatory bodies and industry players.

In the Federal Register document, several financial aspects are highlighted concerning the Information Collection Request (ICR) related to "Labeling Requirements for Certain Minimum Risk Pesticides under FIFRA Section 25(b)." The financial references in the document provide insights into the economic implications for respondents and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) estimation of costs.

Summary of Financial References

The document mentions two primary financial figures:

1. Total estimated annual respondent costs are projected to be $109,361. This figure takes into account the expenses respondents might incur due to compliance with the labeling requirements discussed in the ICR. It is important to note that this amount does not include any capital investments or ongoing maintenance and operational costs.

2. There is also an increase in the burden costs by $48,821 compared to the previous ICR. This reflects adjustments made by the EPA based on an increase in the number of new products entering the market as well as updated wage rates.

Relation to Identified Issues

The financial references relate to several issues identified in the document:

• Lack of Explanation for Increased Costs: Although the document reports an increase in the estimated costs and burden hours, there is no explicit explanation or justification for why these additional resources are necessary at this time. Such clarification is crucial for stakeholders to understand the nature of the financial burdens they face.

• Technical Language and Accessibility: The financial terms, like "burden costs" and "respondent costs," are part of technical jargon that may not be easily understood by all stakeholders. Simplifying these terms or offering a glossary could enhance clarity and accessibility for the general public who might be affected by these financial implications.

• Methodology in Cost Estimation: The method used to estimate the 5.5 hours of average public reporting and recordkeeping burden per response is not clearly detailed. Understanding how this average was arrived at could provide greater transparency and potentially justify the financial figures mentioned.

• Electronic Submission and Technological Considerations: The document hints at using electronic means to possibly reduce the burden, but specific details are lacking. Utilizing electronic submissions could potentially reduce the respondent costs and time burden, therefore impacting the overall financial allocations positively.

In summary, the document's financial allocations and references have significant implications for stakeholders involved in the labeling of minimum risk pesticides. However, the clarity regarding the justifications for increased costs and more detailed explanations of estimation methodologies could greatly assist in understanding and possibly mitigating these financial impacts.