[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70625-70634]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22558]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 152

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0420; FRL-10637-01-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AL13

Pesticides; Review of Requirements Applicable to Treated Seed and
Treated Paint Products; Request for Information and Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is soliciting public

comments and suggestions about seeds treated with a pesticide
registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) as well as treated paint. The Agency is considering whether
a rule under FIFRA to regulate certain use of treated seed and treated
paint products or other administrative action is appropriate
considering questions raised by stakeholders. To inform this
consideration, EPA is requesting comment and information from all
stakeholders on the use and usage of treated seed, including storage,
planting, and disposal of the treated seed, and on whether or to what
extent treated seed products are being distributed, sold, and used
contrary to treating pesticide and treated seed product labeling
instructions. Similarly, EPA is requesting comment from stakeholders on
the addition of labeling requirements on the labels of treated paint
products and potential language that should be included in those
labels.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 11, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0420, is available online at
https://www.regulations.gov. Additional instructions on visiting the
docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Bartow, Chemical Review Manager,
Pesticide Reevaluation Division, Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention (7508M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be affected by this action if you manufacture, distribute,
sell, treat, or use pesticide-treated seed or treated paint products.
EPA has promulgated several exemptions for pesticide products of a
character not requiring regulation under FIFRA, including for treated
articles and substances; EPA is now considering modifying the treated
article exemption. This exemption is codified in 40 CFR 152.25(a). The
following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, rather it provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturers
(NAICS codes 325320 and 325311).
     Manufacturers who may also be distributors of these
products, which includes farm supplies merchant wholesalers (NAICS code
424910).
     Retailers of pesticide products (some of which may also be
manufacturers), which includes nursery, garden center, and farm supply
stores (NAICS code 444220).
     Government establishments engaged in regulation,
licensing, and inspection (NAICS code 926150).
     Users of treated seed products and persons involved in
crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Persons involved in support activities for crop production
(NAICS code 1151).
    If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) is issued under
the authority of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., particularly FIFRA
sections 3 and 25. FIFRA section 3(a) authorizes EPA to regulate the
distribution, sale, or use of any unregistered pesticide ``[t]o the
extent necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment'' (defined at FIFRA section 2(bb), in pertinent part, as
``any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account
the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use
of any pesticide''). 7 U.S.C. 136a(a) and 136(bb). Exemptions to the
requirements of FIFRA are issued under the authority of FIFRA section
25(b). Eligible products may be exempted from among other things,
registration requirements under FIFRA section 3. In addition, FIFRA
section 25(a) authorizes EPA to ``prescribe regulations to carry out
the provisions of [FIFRA]'' and FIFRA section 25(b) authorizes
exemptions from, among other things, registration requirements under
FIFRA section 3. 7 U.S.C. 136w(a) and (b).

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is requesting comments on specific issues related to seed
treated with conventional pesticides (``treated seed'') and paint
treated with conventional or antimicrobial pesticides (``treated
paint''). As to treated seed products, EPA has typically included on
the label of the treating pesticide labeling instructions regarding
both the use of the treating pesticide and the distribution, sale, and
use of the treated seed product, and EPA's exposure assessments and
registration decisions take those instructions into consideration.
However, states and other stakeholders have raised questions about the
clarity and enforceability of instructions specifically relating to use
of the treated seed products (i.e., instructions relating to the
storage, planting, and management of the treated seed). EPA is seeking
to improve labeling on both treating pesticide labeling and labeling on
treated seed products (e.g., seed bag tags) during registration and
registration review processes, and is requesting comment in response to
this FRN on such labeling instructions. EPA is also requesting comment
on use and usage of treated seed products, including storage, planting,
and disposal of treated seed, and on whether or to what extent treated
seed products are being distributed, sold, and/or used contrary to
treating pesticide labeling instructions for each separate crop seed
product. To EPA's knowledge, treated seed are generally being used
consistent with the instructions on the label of the treated seed
product. However, the Agency is seeking any specific information from
all stakeholders to further inform this issue (e.g., whether there are
specific cases of use contrary to label instructions) before
considering EPA's next steps with respect to how EPA regulates treated
seed products. EPA is looking for this information from a broad range
of stakeholders, including those who treat seed in commercial
facilities or on the farm and those who use treated seed products.
    For treated paint products, pesticide labeling requirements do not
currently exist. EPA is exploring the option of requiring labeling
instructions on treated paint products to address potential risks of
concern for professional painters exposed to the pesticide in the
treated paint without the use of personal protection equipment (PPE),
such as respirators, when applying the paint using a spray method. Thus
far, labeling for treated paint has been proposed for only one active
ingredient (i.e., diuron), but is being considered for other active
ingredients that are registered for use as paint preservatives. EPA is
requesting comments among other things on requiring such labeling
instructions on treated paint containers.
    EPA will consider comments and information to determine whether to
amend its approach for allowing treated

seed and treated paint products to be wholly exempt from FIFRA
requirements (e.g., through issuance of a rule pursuant to FIFRA
section 3(a) to regulate distribution, sale, and use of treated seed
product and/or other administrative action). FIFRA section 3(a)
authorizes EPA to limit the distribution, sale, or use of an
unregistered pesticide ``[t]o the extent necessary to prevent
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' Such a FIFRA section
3(a) rule and conforming amendments to the treated article exemption
would be intended to allow for enforcement of certain use instructions
on labeling of treated seed and treated paint as an alternative to
registration of such products. Other actions could include amending the
treated article exemption to limit the scope of the exemption so that
some FIFRA requirements would still apply (e.g., requiring seed
treatment facilities to identify as establishments), and other
administrative actions could include addressing specific use concerns
with treated seed through further action on the specific treating
pesticide registration (e.g., clarifying labeling instructions,
reducing or eliminating use of the treating pesticide for some seed
treatments, or including terms and conditions on the registration for
expiration of the use or imposition of use restrictions should use
contrary to labeling instructions be reported). This ANPRM initiates
the rulemaking process by specifically soliciting public comments and
suggestions about the potential FIFRA 3(a) rule and/or other related
amendments, as it relates to treated seed and paint products.

D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?

    This ANPRM does not impose or propose any requirements, and instead
seeks comments and suggestions that will help the Agency identify
whether and to what extent there is a potential need for a FIFRA
section 3(a) rule and/or other regulatory or administrative action. If
EPA decides to propose changes to the regulations, it will conduct the
appropriate assessments of the costs and benefits of those changes and
provide opportunities for further public comment.

E. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI.
    Do not submit CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or
email. If you wish to include CBI in your comment, please follow the
applicable instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules and clearly mark the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments.
    When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting
tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Background

A. Brief Summary of EPA's Registration Process for Pesticides

    Applications for registration of a pesticide may be submitted to
EPA and must meet the requirements in FIFRA sections 3(c) and 33. 7
U.S.C. 136a and 136w-8. Those requirements include, among other things,
submission of complete labeling of the pesticide, including claims made
for the pesticide and instructions on use; complete data in support of
that registration request; and requisite fees in support of that
application. 7 U.S.C. 136a(c); 7 U.S.C.136a(b); and 7 U.S.C. 136w-8;
see also, 40 CFR part 152 for application procedures and part 158 for
data requirements. FIFRA section 3(c)(4) requires EPA to issue a
Federal Register notice and opportunity for comment in relation to
``each application for registration of any pesticide if it contains any
new active ingredient or if it would entail a changed use pattern.'' 7
U.S.C. 136a(c)(4). See also 40 CFR 152.105.
    To grant a pesticide registration, FIFRA requires EPA to consider
whether the pesticide meets the FIFRA standard that use of the
pesticide has no ``unreasonable adverse effects'' to human health and
the environment. 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5). FIFRA section 2(bb) defines
``unreasonable adverse effects on the environment'' to mean, among
other things, ``any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking
into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits
of the use of any pesticide'' or ``a human dietary risk from residues
that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food inconsistent
with the standard under section 408 of the Federal, Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act'' (FFDCA). 7 U.S.C. 136(bb). EPA is required to review
each pesticide registration every 15 years to determine whether the
pesticide continues to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration. 7
U.S.C. 136a(g) and 40 CFR Part 155, subpart C.
    It is a violation under FIFRA to sell or distribute an unregistered
pesticide or to use a registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent
with its labeling. 7 U.S.C. 136j(a)(1)(A) and 136j(a)(2)(G). FIFRA
section 12 does not make it a violation to use an unregistered
pesticide. However, under FIFRA section 3(a), EPA may, by regulation,
impose limits on the distribution, sale, and use of any pesticide that
is not registered ``to the extent necessary to prevent unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment,'' and compliance with such
regulation is enforceable under FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(S). 7 U.S.C.
136a(a) and 136j(a)(2)(S).

B. Background on the Treated Article or Substance Exemption

    FIFRA section 25(b)(2) provides that the Administrator may, by
regulation, exempt from the requirements of FIFRA, including the
registration requirements, any pesticide which the Administrator
determines to be of ``a character which is unnecessary'' to be subject
to FIFRA ``in order to carry out the purposes'' of FIFRA. 7 U.S.C.
136w(b)(2). Several exemptions under FIFRA section 25(b)(2) were
adopted in 1988 and included a ``treated articles and substances''
exemption at 40 CFR 152.25(a).
    The regulation at 40 CFR 152.25 provides that ``the pesticides or
classes of pesticides listed in this section have been determined to be
of character not requiring regulation under FIFRA and are therefore
exempt from all provisions of FIFRA when intended for use, only in the
manner specified.'' The regulation in 40 CFR 152.25 identifies the
types of pesticides and conditions applicable for an exemption to
apply. 40 CFR 152.25(a) identifies treated articles or substances and
defines them as ``an article or substance treated with, or containing,
a pesticide to protect the article or substance itself (for example,
paint treated with a pesticide to protect the paint coating, or wood
products treated to protect the wood against insect or fungus
infestation), if the pesticide is registered for such use.''
    It has been EPA's longstanding position that FIFRA section 25(b)(2)
authorized the 1988 final rule exempting pesticide-treated articles or
substances because EPA's assessment of the treating pesticide
comprehensively addresses the use of and exposure to the treating
pesticide and to the article or substance that is permissibly treated
and distributed, sold, and used consistent with labeling instructions.
The FIFRA finding to grant the

registration or continue the registration of the pesticide is based on
that assessment, which again addresses the risks from use of the
treating pesticide and use of the treated article or substance. No new
assessment or risk finding is necessary for the exemption to apply and
no new FIFRA section 25(b)(2) finding is required for each and every
article or substance treated. Rather, once a pesticide is registered
under FIFRA for use in treating an article or substance, the only
conditions applicable to a determination as to whether the treated
article exemption applies to the article or substance treated by that
pesticide are those stated in the regulatory text at 40 CFR 152.25(a).
    It has also been EPA's longstanding position that treated seed
products meeting the regulatory conditions at 40 CFR 152.25(a) are
exempt from FIFRA requirements. Those conditions include that a
pesticide ``registered for such use'' is used, which EPA has
interpreted to require compliance with labeling instructions relating
to distribution, sale, and use of the pesticide registered under FIFRA
to treat seed and the distribution, sale, and use of the treated seed
product itself. If distribution, sale, and/or use of the treating
pesticide or treated seed product is not consistent with such labeling
for the treating pesticide or treated seed product, then the
``registered for such use'' criterion is not met and the exemption does
not apply. For example, if the treating pesticide requires that the
treated seed bag tag include specific labeling information and
instructions, but such bag tag does not include the required labeling
or instructions, the ``registered for such use'' condition is not met.
In such a case, the exemption does not apply and the treated seed
product must be registered under FIFRA and must comply with other FIFRA
requirements, such as the requirement in FIFRA section 7 to register
the establishment in which the pesticide is produced and the
requirements in FIFRA section 17(c) and 19 CFR 2.110 through 2.117 to
file an EPA Notice of Arrival of Pesticides and Devices (EPA Form 3540-
1) or its electronic equivalent for importation of treated seed product
(Ref. 1). Similarly, if the treated seed product is not used consistent
with the instructions on treating pesticide labeling as communicated on
the seed bag tag, the condition that a pesticide ``registered for such
use'' is not met and use of the treated seed product would be use of an
unregistered pesticide. The required labeling information and
instructions are helpful to farmers who use the treated seed and may be
considered in EPA risk assessments. As a result, compliance with the
requirements for such labeling and the instructions relating to
distribution, sale, and use may be necessary to protect against
unreasonable risks to the environment.
    A more thorough discussion of EPA's approach for evaluating
pesticides for use in treating seeds, which includes an evaluation of
the use of the treated seed product itself, and the treated article
exemption is discussed in EPA's Treated Seed Petition Response which is
discussed in the next section.

C. Background on the Petition Relating to Treated Seed and EPA's
Response

    In April 2017, the Center for Food Safety (CFS or the Petitioner)
filed a petition with EPA seeking a rulemaking or a formal agency
interpretation relating to pesticide treated seed (hereinafter Treated
Seed Petition) (Ref. 2). Specifically, CFS petitioned EPA to take the
following actions: (1) Amend 40 CFR 152.25(a) to clarify that it does
not apply to seeds for planting coated with systemic pesticides, such
as the neonicotinoids, that are intended to kill pests of the plant
instead of pests of the seed itself; (2) Alternatively, publish a
final, formal, Agency interpretation in the Federal Register stating
that EPA interprets the exemption in 40 CFR 152.25(a) not to apply to
seeds for planting coated with systemic pesticides, such as the
neonicotinoids, that are intended to kill pests of the plant instead of
pests of the seed itself; and (3) Aggressively enforce FIFRA's numerous
pesticide registration and labeling requirements for each separate crop
seed product that is coated with a neonicotinoid or other systemic
insecticidal chemical.
    EPA responded to the petition on September 27, 2022 (hereinafter
Treated Seed Petition Response) (Ref. 1). In that response, EPA
explained the history of the regulatory treated article exemption, the
comprehensive nature of assessments of pesticides that are intended for
use in treating seeds which includes assessment of the impact with use
of the treated seed, and the regulatory conditions for the article
exemption to apply. EPA noted that if the conditions for the exemption
are met, the exemption applies; no new assessment or risk finding is
necessary and no new FIFRA section 25(b)(2) finding specific to the
article or substance treated is required. EPA also noted that it has
been reviewing and will continue to review labeling instructions for
pesticides registered for seed treatment use(s) in registration and
registration review to verify the completeness of these instructions
for both use of the treating pesticide and the distribution, sale, and
use of the treated seed products. Finally, EPA acknowledged that use of
the treated seed product in a manner contrary to labeling instructions
is not generally enforceable under FIFRA. As a result, while the Agency
did not grant the petition requests, it noted that it intends to issue
this ANPRM to seek additional information on pesticide seed treatment,
including use and usage information and whether treated seed products
are being used contrary to labeling instructions, and to explore the
option of issuing a rule pursuant to FIFRA section 3(a) to regulate the
use of treated seed products. As explained in the petition response,
plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) are not subject to the treated
article exemption for reasons articulated at 40 CFR 174.1 (because the
characteristics of PIPs ``distinguish them from traditional chemical
pesticides,'' PIPs are subject to ``different regulatory requirements,
criteria, and procedures than traditional chemical pesticides''). As a
result, PIPs are not within the scope of this ANPRM. For further
information, please see docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0805 at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0805.

D. State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) Treated
Seed Issue Paper

    In August 2022, SFIREG provided EPA with the ``Treated Seed Issue
Paper'' for consideration and response (Ref. 3). Shortly following the
submittal of this issue paper by SFIREG, EPA released the Treated Seed
Petition Response discussed in Unit II.C., which addressed many of the
issues raised in the SFIREG issue paper in full or in part. In June
2023, the Agency responded to the SFIREG issue paper, based on its
understanding of the issues that were raised (Ref. 4). Part of that
response included EPA's intention to include in this ANPRM the issues
that were raised and to particularly focus on those not fully addressed
in the Treated Seed Petition Response. Some of the issues raised in the
SFIREG issue paper that are included in this ANPRM include use of
treated seed products and available data systems to track the active
ingredients used for seed treatments, change in use patterns of other
pesticides due to availability of treated seeds, and label language on
seed treatment products and treated seed products (e.g., seed bag
tags). Other issues raised in the SFIREG issue paper that were
addressed in the Treated Seed Petition Response, some of which have

requests for comment discussed in Unit III., include assessments of
treated seed and effects to different taxa, including pollinators, non-
target terrestrial and aquatic organisms, and human health.

E. Background on Treated Paint

    Paint and coating products are often treated with pesticides for a
variety of reasons, such as to increase the longevity of the products
by controlling microbial contamination of the paint applied to a
surface. Pesticide labeling requirements for treated paint or coatings
do not currently exist. However, recent EPA risk assessments on paint
preservative pesticides suggest that there may be risks of concern for
professional painters exposed to treated paint without use of PPE such
as respirators when applying paint using a spray method. The concept of
adding labeling requirements for treated paint on the paint container
has, thus far, only been proposed for one active ingredient (i.e.,
Diuron Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision Case Number 0046)
but is being considered for many other active ingredients that are
registered for use as paint preservatives and using the spray method of
application. The Agency believes that the proposed labeling
requirements for paint containers would help occupational users of
paint, particularly those using sprayers to apply the paint, mitigate
any potential risks of concern. EPA notes that similar risk mitigation
measures are in the process of being implemented in Canada by the Pest
Management Regulatory Agency.

III. Request for Comment and Information

A. General

    EPA invites public feedback on the questions posed in this document
regarding use and usage of treated seed products and whether there are
cases of use contrary to treating pesticide or treated seed product
(e.g., seed bag tag) labeling instructions. EPA also invites comments
on whether the Agency should take action through a potential FIFRA 3(a)
rule and conforming amendments and/or other regulatory or
administrative action to address concerns with the potential for
noncompliance with labeling instructions. EPA is also requesting public
feedback regarding similar questions with respect to treated paint.
Please provide EPA with your thoughts as well as a rationale supporting
your suggestions. If you can, provide examples or describe situations.
Commenters are encouraged to present any data or information that
should be considered by EPA during its consideration of these issues
with treated seed and treated paint products and for the potential
development of a section 3(a) rule and/or other regulatory or
administrative action. EPA is not seeking comment to this docket on EPA
assessments to support any particular registration or registration
review decision. Such comments must be timely submitted to the dockets
for those actions.
    As explained in the Treated Seed Petition Response, EPA's
assessments for treating pesticides are based on all reasonably
available and reliable information, including exposure assessments
based on the treating pesticide labeling instructions defining the
maximum amount of active ingredient that may be used on the seed. These
assessments and labeling instructions are subject to public comment
during the registration and registration review processes. In addition,
outside of the registration and registration review processes, EPA
recently solicited further public comment on proposed updates to all
treated seed labeling on treating pesticide products and on treated
seed products, to reduce exposures to non-target organisms, which might
include federally listed threatened or endangered species. EPA has
updated the labeling language for such products for future active
ingredients undergoing registration review in response to comments and
in anticipation of seeking further comment in response to this ANPRM.
In addition, its public processes under registration and registration
review for specific pesticide products intended for use in treating
seed, EPA will continue to consider further updates to treated seed
product label language to take into account additional public comments
and new information, if any submitted.
    This ANPRM is a separate effort to consider whether to amend its
approach for regulation of treated seed products (e.g., through
issuance of a rule pursuant to FIFRA section 3(a) to regulate
distribution, sale, and use of treated seed products and/or other
regulatory or administrative action).
    This ANPRM is also intend to explore the option of adding
instructions on the labels of pesticides used to treat paint, similar
to the approach take for labeling of treated seed, and/or whether to
amend its approach for allowing treated paint to be exempt from FIFRA
requirements (e.g., through issuance of a rule pursuant to FIFRA
section 3(a) to regulate distribution, sale, and use of treated seed
products and/or other regulatory or administrative action).

B. Specific Topics Related to Treated Seed and Paint

    EPA is specifically requesting comment and information on the
following topics:
     Effectiveness of instructions on treated seed product
labeling (e.g., on the seed bag tags) to mitigate potential risks;
     Use, usage, and tracking of treated seed products;
     Management of spilled or excess treated seed;
     Treated paint; and
     Administrative action, amendment of the treated article
exemption, and/or FIFRA section 3(a) Rule.
    1. Effectiveness of instructions on treated seed product labeling
(e.g., on the seed bag tags) to mitigate potential risks.
    EPA currently is reviewing labeling instructions for pesticides
registered for seed treatment use(s) in registration and registration
review. EPA intends to ensure that treating pesticide labeling
instructions include: (1) the requirement that seed bag tag labeling
accompany the treated seed when distributed and sold; (2) that such
labeling include specified clear and effective instructions on use of
the treated seed, including the name of the active ingredient and
pesticide product used (including the EPA product registration number),
and instructions on the storage, planting, and/or management of spilled
or excess treated seed, as appropriate; and, (3) that the distribution
or sale of the treated seed products without such labeling is the
distribution or sale of an unregistered pesticide.
    The Treated Seed Petition raised a number of issues with the
potential for harm from the planting of treated seed or with the
planting process used to plant treated seed. The Treated Seed Petition
Response discusses each of the issues, including how EPA assessments of
the treating pesticide address these issues. The response also
discusses the regulatory conditions for application of the treated
article exemption and how those conditions apply to treated seed
products, including, among other things, the need for use of the
treating pesticide and treated seed products to be consistent with the
treating pesticide and related seed product labeling instructions.
Examples of such labeling are in the document ``Labeling Instructions
for Pesticide-Treated Seed and Pesticide-Treated Paint Products''
(referred to as the ``Labeling Instructions'' document from hereon)
(Ref. 5), which can be found in the

docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0420. For example, the specified labeling
language on storage includes instructions on storing away from food and
feedstuffs and not allowing children, pets, or livestock to have access
to treated seed. Other instructions on use include, for example, the
prohibition on use of the treated seed for food or feed; instructions
detailing planting methods or management of spilled or excess seed to
ensure reduced risk, for example, to pollinators and aquatic
environments; and instructions on managing the potential for dusts
generated from the abrasion of treated seed coatings during planting
(i.e., dust-off).
    EPA is requesting comment on the following:
     Labeling instructions presented in the Labeling
Instructions document (Ref. 5) and whether there are any necessary
improvements to such language.
     Are the examples of current instructions for storage,
planting, and management of treated seed clear, generally achievable,
etc.?
     Are there other recommendations to increase the clarity of
instructions on treated seed product (i.e., seed bag tag labeling) for
the end user?
     Are there additional or alternative instructions that
would be effective in reducing dust-off?
    2. Use, usage, and tracking of treated seed products.
    EPA's exposure estimates reflect both use and usage information.
Use information is focused on the maximum amount of particular
pesticide that may be applied based on the treating pesticide labeling
instructions (e.g., total active ingredient that may be applied to the
seed). Exposure estimates are also based on the modeling parameters for
the assessment (e.g., the seeding rate for a particular crop per acre).
For FIFRA ecological assessments of seed treatment uses, EPA assumes
that the maximum amount of the pesticide is available as if the maximum
permitted amount of the pesticide had been directly applied to the soil
as shown in the T-Rex User Guide (Ref. 6). The term ``usage'' has been
used broadly to refer to documented applications of a pesticide,
including information such as actual application rates and timing, and
spatial distribution of applications (usually based on survey data)
(Ref. 7 and Ref. 8). Usage information is typically used to allow
assessments to be more precise as compared to using worst case
assumptions (e.g., on the percentage of a particular crop that is
treated with every pesticide registered for use on that crop). EPA does
not have current and reliable information quantifying the total pounds
of active ingredient used to treat seed or the location and the number
of acres planted with treated seed. Kynetec USA, the primary source of
agricultural usage data for seed treatment in the years 2005-2014,
stopped providing seed treatment estimates and supporting use of the
existing 2005-2014 estimates in 2015 due to concerns about the
reliability of those data (Ref. 7). However, applications of pesticides
to treat seed may be generally characterized as common for a wide
variety of crop seeds and seed pieces for planting based on
agricultural extension services' recommendations and other information.
EPA assessments detail the basis for use and usage information and such
details are subject to public comment during the registration and
registration review processes and the Agency continues to work to
identify, investigate, and procure additional sources of usage data for
seed treatments. As suitable data are procured and determined to meet
EPA data quality standards, they will be integrated into usage analyses
to help inform risk assessments (Ref. 9).
    The Treated Seed Petition noted the lack of pesticide usage data
collected by EPA but acknowledged that one EPA assessment assumed
nearly 100% of one crop is treated with the referenced pesticide and in
another case identified the percentage of the pesticide use that is on
treated seed. In response, EPA acknowledged the lack of usage data but
more recently, data from two sources (i.e., Ben Kirk and Kline and
Company) were identified, procured, and determined to meet EPA data
quality standards. Data from those sources have been evaluated and will
be integrated into usage analyses to inform risk assessments as
appropriate.
    The SFIREG issue paper sought additional information on the general
use of treated seed and data systems to track use of active ingredients
to treat seed. The SFIREG issue paper also sought more information on
the impact of the use of treated seed on the other types of
applications such as soil or foliar applications (i.e., replacement and
reduction in use of other types of applications). Finally, the SFIREG
issue paper noted that there is no clear mechanism to address
interstate commerce of treated seed and thus no means for a
comprehensive state review of environmental impacts of seeds that could
be legally planted in that state. The paper notes that state regulation
of treated seed would conflict with the regulatory exemption for
treated articles, and thus one state is considering prohibiting use of
certain types of treated seed.
    EPA is seeking comment on the certain issues summarized below as
raised in the SFIREG issue paper and the Treated Seeds Petition.
     Information on the use and usage of treated seed.
     Given the scope of EPA assessments, whether the potential
for tracking of treated seed distribution, sale, and/or use would
provide any meaningful improvements in the assessment of the risks of
pesticides used to treat seeds.
     Are there available data detailing the replacement or
reduction of other types of pesticides with increasing use of treated
seed, since this issue is of interest to states and other stakeholders?
EPA would normally address replacement and use reduction on an
individual chemical basis, taking into account alternative control
strategies to seed treatment (e.g., application of a pesticide at-plant
(soil level) or immediately upon germination (foliar)) when there are
risks associated with the treated seed (Ref. 10).
     Are there additional data sets available that may serve to
complement the recently acquired data sources (e.g., data that trade
organizations might have that can provide a better picture of how much
of an active ingredient is used in seed treatment)?
     EPA requests information on the volume of imported treated
seed products and whether amending the treated article exemption so
that importers of treated seed products must comply with FIFRA section
17(c) and 19 CFR 12.110 through 2.117, including filing an EPA Notice
of Arrival of Pesticides and Devices (EPA Form 3540-1) or its
electronic equivalent would assist in tracking the import and
distribution of treated seed products (e.g., to track compliance with
the exemption conditions).
     Should the treated article exemption be amended so that
treated seed manufacturers would be subject to FIFRA section 7
registration and reporting requirements (Ref. 11)? Would this
information help track use of seed treatment pesticides or provide any
helpful treated seed usage information?
    3. Management of spilled or excess treated seed.
    EPA included additional labeling instructions for management of
spilled and excess treated seed in the registration review Proposed
Interim Decisions (PIDs) and Interim Decisions (IDs) of several
chemicals (see for example Ref. 12 and Ref. 13) as appropriate. This
labeling included instructions on the collection and burial

of spilled treated seed, incorporation of treated seed into soil,
limiting the broadcast planting of treated seed, and proper disposal of
excess treated seed. In 2022, EPA requested additional comment on the
labeling instructions as part of the ESA Workplan Update (Ref. 14) to
reduce the potential for exposures to non-target organisms from spilled
treated seed or disposal of excess treated seed, which might include
federally listed threatened/endangered species.
    Comments on the ESA Workplan Update (Ref. 14) raised concerns with
disposal of treated seed, particularly for use in ethanol production.
The proposed labeling instructions that are presented in Labeling
Instructions document (Ref. 5) are intended to address concerns
relating to disposal of treated seed, exposure to wildlife,
contamination of ground and surface water, sufficiency of current
disposal instructions on both the registered treating pesticide product
and treated seed product labeling, and disposal by way of ethanol
production (for oil seed crops such as corn and soybeans). The concern
regarding disposal of treated seeds stems from the possibility of a
buildup of pesticide material as a byproduct of ethanol production.
    The Agency previously approved labels for oil seed crops that
allowed for the use of excess treated seeds in ethanol production. EPA
became aware of the potential for the use of excess, unmarketable
treated seeds of oilseed crops in ethanol production and was concerned
about the potential for pesticide residues found in the ethanol
production by-products getting into food or feed. The byproducts of the
process (e.g., wet distiller's grain or spent mash) can be used as
livestock feed or applied as fertilizer but may also contain pesticide
residues. To mitigate the risk, EPA allowed the use of treated seeds of
oilseed crops for ethanol production but with the following conditions:
(1) Byproducts are not used for livestock feed; and (2) No measurable
residues of pesticide remain in ethanol byproducts that are used in
agronomic practice. However, these measures may not be sufficient to
protect against pesticide buildup after ethanol production. To address
this concern, the Agency's proposed labeling instructions include
language to prohibit the use of excess treated seeds for ethanol
production (see Ref. 5).
    EPA requests comment on the following:
     Are additional instructions for collection of spilled seed
needed?
     What is currently done with excess treated seed if not
used in a planting season? For example, what do farming operations do
with excess seed; can that seed be returned to the distributor or seed
company?
     Similarly, what do distributors and seed companies do with
excess treated seed that is not sold or delivered to or is returned
from farming operations?
    4. Treated paint.
    Paints and coatings are often treated with pesticides for a variety
of reasons, such as to increase the longevity of the products by
controlling microbial contamination of the paint applied to a surface.
Pesticide labeling requirements for treated paint do not currently
exist. However, recent EPA risk assessments on paint preservative
pesticides suggest that some treated paints may pose risks of concern
to professional painters when applying paint using a spray method,
without use of PPE such as respirators. The concept of adding labeling
requirements for treated paint on the paint container has, thus far,
only been proposed for one active ingredient (i.e., Diuron Proposed
Interim Registration Review Decision Case Number 0046) but is being
considered for many other active ingredients that are registered for
use as paint preservatives (Ref. 15). The Agency proposed labeling
requirements for paint containers that would help occupational users of
paint, particularly those using sprayers to apply the paint, to
potentially mitigate the identified risks of concern.
    EPA assesses risks to Do-It-Yourself painters as well as
professional painters (i.e., those who provide the service of applying
paint to the interior and exterior of homes, businesses, other building
projects, machinery, and industrial equipment for compensation) from
use of treated paint, and such assessments are based on long-standing
EPA modeling parameters. An example includes the default value that 5
gallons of paint (applied by a brush or roller) or 50 gallons of paint
(applied by airless sprayer) are typically used daily by a professional
painter. For Do-It-Yourself painters, the default value is 2 gallons
(brush or roller) or 15 gallons (airless sprayer) of paint are
typically used daily. EPA has used these values for many years. These
values are used to estimate exposure from treated paint. Based on that
exposure and the severity of inhalation and dermal hazard of the
chemical, EPA determines the level of risk posed by those paints. EPA
requests specific comment on the topics discussed further in this unit.
    a. Implementation and enforcement concerns.
    EPA is considering requiring certain treated paint products to
include labeling instructions relating to precautionary label language
and proper use. See Ref. 5. Distribution and sale of the treated paint
products with such instructions would be an exempted treated substance
and thus registration of the treated paint would not be required. For
the exemption to apply, and similar to treated seed, the registration
and labeling for the treating pesticide will make clear that specified
instructions and precautionary language must appear on the treated
paint labeling. If more than one pesticide is used to treat the paint,
the registration and labeling for the treating pesticides will also
likewise make clear that the exemption will only apply if the most
restrictive label language is used on the paint label. If the
appropriate instructions and precautionary language are not on the
paint product labeling, the treated paint would not qualify as an
exempt treated article, making it an unexempt, unregistered pesticide
that may not be sold or distributed under FIFRA section 3 and subject
to enforcement under FIFRA section 12(a)(1)(A).
    EPA is also considering adding specific use instructions for
professional painters based on recent risk assessments for paint
preservatives that have identified risks for professional painters. EPA
may propose a FIFRA section 3(a) rule to apply to certain treated
paint, making certain use instructions enforceable under FIFRA section
12(a)(2)(S). Similar to the discussion on treated seed, other
administrative actions may also be considered (e.g., limiting or
cancelling use of specific active ingredients to treat paint based on
risk assessment).
    EPA requests specific comment on the following topics:
     If EPA were to establish label requirements for treated
paint products, what should be included to increase the clarity of the
labeling and its safe use for the end user and the environment?
     Is there evidence that the lack of label or labeling
requirements on treated paint has resulted in harm to human health or
the environment? This may include harm experienced by professional
painters from use of treated paint, improper disposal of treated paint,
etc. This evidence could come in the form of work-related treated paint
accident reports.
     Would requiring on the treated paint label the EPA
registration number for each treating pesticide and the appropriate use
instructions relating to painter protection be effective in reducing
the identified risk concerns? If not, what additional information or
requirements should EPA consider?

     Should the treated article exemption be amended so that
paint manufacturing establishments producing pesticide-treated paint
would be subject to FIFRA section 7 registration and reporting
requirements (Ref. 11)? If so, should the establishment registration
number be included on the label of the treated paint? How many paint
manufacturers might be subject to such a requirement?
     If EPA were to establish enforceable use requirements for
professional painters using treated paint, what additional information
or requirements should EPA consider in this rulemaking to ensure
effective enforcement? This may include information on additional
resources, processes, etc. needed by states for enforcement.
    b. Importation.
    As noted previously, the condition in the exemption that the
treating pesticide be ``registered for such use'' specifies that the
exemption only applies to treated paint that is formulated with a
FIFRA-registered pesticide product. EPA requests information on the
volume of imported treated paint and whether amending the treated
article exemption so that importers of treated paint must comply with
FIFRA section 17(c) and 19 CFR 12.110 through 2.117, including filing
an EPA Notice of Arrival of Pesticides and Devices (EPA Form 3540-1) or
its electronic equivalent would assist in tracking the import and
distribution of treated paint (e.g., to track compliance with the
exemption conditions).
    5. Administrative action, amendment of the treated article
exemption, and/or FIFRA section 3(a) rule.
    EPA's assessments for seed and paint treatment uses are
comprehensive, and EPA processes allow for comment on those
assessments. As noted in the Treated Seed Petition Response, amending
the regulatory exemption for treated articles to require registration
of pesticide-treated seed where there is general compliance with
labeling instructions for the FIFRA registered pesticides and treated
seed products would provide little to no human health or environmental
benefits. This is based on the comprehensive nature of EPA assessments
for treating pesticides and treated seed and given EPA has no
information suggesting that users of treated seed products are
distributing, selling, or using the seed products contrary to labeling
instructions. This is the same case for other treated articles and
substances, including treated paint. However, concerns were raised by
the Treated Seed Petition and the SFIREG issue paper regarding a lack
of enforceability relating to use of treated seeds contrary to label
instructions and possible effects of such use on human health and the
environment. The same concerns also apply to treated paint products.
Thus, EPA is requesting comment from stakeholders on whether or to what
extent there might be use of treated seed and paint products contrary
to labeling instructions for the treated seed and paint.
    EPA will take into consideration comments and information submitted
in response to this ANPRM to determine whether to amend its approach
for regulation of treated seed and treated paint (e.g., through
issuance of a rule pursuant to FIFRA section 3(a) to regulate
distribution, sale, and use of treated seed and paint products and/or
other regulatory or administrative action). FIFRA section 3(a)
authorizes EPA to limit the distribution, sale, or use of an
unregistered pesticide ``[t]o the extent necessary to prevent
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' EPA believes a FIFRA
section 3(a) rulemaking could be a more efficient and less resource-
intensive means to address some of the concerns that have been raised
by Petitioner and states relating to use of the treated seed, where
there is some indication that compliance with such labeling is in
question. Other regulatory approaches could include limiting the scope
of the exemption so that some FIFRA requirements would still apply
(e.g., requiring seed treatment facilities to identify as
establishments). Other administrative approaches could include
addressing specific use concerns through further action during
registration review for specific active ingredients (e.g., clarifying
labeling instructions, further reducing or eliminating use of the
treating pesticide for some seed or paint treatments, or including
further terms and conditions on the registration for expiration of the
use or imposition of use restrictions should use contrary to labeling
instructions be reported).
    EPA requests comment on the following:
     Is a FIFRA section 3(a) rule and/or other regulatory or
administrative action necessary or appropriate to prevent unreasonable
adverse effects on human health and the environment, considering the
concerns raised regarding enforceability of any particular type of
labeling instructions on use of treated seed and paint products? Is a
FIFRA section 3(a) rule and/or other regulatory or administrative
action the best way of ensuring use consistent with instructions on the
treating pesticide labeling relating to use of the treated seed or
paint?
     Are there examples of use of treated seed contrary to
labeling instructions, and whether adopting a FIFRA section 3(a) rule
or the other options noted are the best means of ensuring appropriate
use of treated seed?
     Would there be any impacts that might result to states if
such a FIFRA section 3(a) rule is finalized? Are there existing tools
that would be impacted, or are new ones needed for state investigation
and enforcement? For example, state statutes or rules may need to be
amended, new standard operating procedures developed, additional
personnel hired, or some form of record keeping added.
     Are there specific examples of misuse by seed treatment
applicators or from on-farm seed treatments and what type of evidence
has been collected to support this claim?
     What are the enforcement measures that are used in regions
and individual states for misuse of pesticides and are there barriers
to applying such measures to treated articles, such as treated seed and
treated paint?
     What are some examples of state statutory authority
concerning treated seed and/or paint, and successful enforcement
measures that have been exercised regarding treated seed and/or paint?
     What are some considerations, including enforcement
considerations, that need to be included in EPA's approach for
assessment and management of pesticide-treated seed and paint?

C. Potential Environmental Justice Concerns

    Under EPA policy, environmental justice is ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income, with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice. In addition,
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), entitled
``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' directs agencies, to the
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental
justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority (people of color and/or indigenous

peoples) and low-income populations. EPA has not identified any such
disproportionate effects from the issuance of this ANPRM as specified
in Executive Order 12898. This ANPRM solicits comments from the public
regarding pesticides under the treated article exemption including
treated seed and treated paint. The Agency welcomes public input on the
consideration of environmental justice concerns in the context of the
issues raised in this ANPRM. If and when the Agency proposes regulatory
options regarding exemptions under FIFRA or the related procedures, EPA
will seek additional input from the public, as appropriate.
    1. Environmental justice concerns for treated seed.
    It is estimated that there are 2.5-3 million agricultural workers
in the United States. The Department of Labor conducted a National
Agricultural Workers Survey in 2019-2020. In this survey, more than
2,100 farmworkers were interviewed in person. Approximately 78% of
those workers identified themselves as Hispanic and 62% said that
Spanish was the language in which they were most comfortable
conversing. Among U.S.-born farmworkers, 32% were Hispanic. Ten percent
of farmworkers were self-identified as indigenous. EPA requests
specific comment on the following topic:
     Are there any sources of data that could address whether
exposure to treated seeds may be an environmental justice concern
(e.g., given the potential for language barriers)?
    2. Environmental justice concerns for treated paint.
    EPA has limited sources of data to address whether there could be
disproportionate impact to certain demographics that might be more
likely to be exposed to treated paint. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) data from 2021 include demographics on ``painting workers'' and
``painters and paperhangers.'' For both categories, the BLS data
suggest that the majority of workers are Hispanic or Latino. According
to 2021 U.S. Census data, Hispanics/Latinos make up 18.9% of the
population. However, according to BLS, 32.3% of ``painting workers''
and 59.3% of ``painter and paperhangers'' are Hispanic or Latino. EPA
requests specific comment on the following topics:
     Are there any sources of data that could address whether
exposure to treated paint may be an environmental justice concern?
     Does either, or both, of the BLS categories (i.e.,
painting workers; painters and paperhangers) represent the type of
painter that may be exposed to treated paint?

D. Potential Impacts on Children's Health

    In addition to the statutory obligations in FIFRA and FFDCA to
consider children's health in registration decisions, EPA's 2021 Policy
on Children's Health (Ref. 16) states that protecting children's health
from environmental risks is fundamental to EPA's mission because
varying behavioral and physiological characteristics can affect
children's exposure and health risks, children's health should be
viewed through the lens of a sequence of ``lifestages'' (from
conception, infancy, early childhood, and adolescence through until 21
years of age).
    Children may be more susceptible to environmental exposures and/or
the associated health effects, and therefore more at risk than adults.
These risks arise because children generally eat more food, drink more
water, and breathe more air relative to their body size than adults do,
and consequently may be exposed to relatively higher amounts of
contaminants. Normal childhood activity, such as putting hands and
objects in mouths, playing on the ground, or crawling, can result in
exposures to contaminants that adults do not face. In addition,
environmental contaminants may affect children disproportionately
because they are still developing; for example, their immune system
defenses are not fully developed, and their growing organs are more
easily harmed.
    The Agency welcomes public comment and information regarding the
consideration of potential children's health concerns in the context of
the issues raised in this ANPRM. If and when the Agency proposes
regulatory options regarding exemptions under FIFRA, other actions or
the related procedures, EPA will seek additional input from the public
to facilitate the Agency's consideration of potential children's health
concerns related to those actions.

IV. Next Steps

    EPA intends to review all the comments and information received in
response to this ANPRM, as well as previously collected and assembled
information, to help determine whether to propose a FIFRA section 3(a)
rule or take other regulatory or administrative action to adjust its
approach for treated seed or treated paint. In addition to comments
received in response to this ANPRM, EPA may seek additional information
from states, industry or other stakeholders. Should EPA decide to move
forward with changes to the program, the next step would be to
identify, develop and evaluate specific options, including whether
amendment to the current regulation in 40 CFR 152.25(a) is appropriate,
and if so, to develop a proposed rule for public review and comment.
During the development of the proposed rule, the Agency may also engage
stakeholders or provide other opportunities for public engagement and
comment before issuing a final action.

V. References

    The following is a list of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these references and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the reference is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022. EPA
Response to the April 2017 Petition from Center for Food Safety and
Others Relating to EPA Regulation of Pesticide-Treated Seed.
September 27, 2022. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0805-0104.
2. Center for Food Safety (CFS) et al. 2017. Citizen Petition to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency. April 26, 2017.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0805-0002.
Federal Register. 83 FR 66260, December 26, 2018 (FRL-9987-54).
3. SFIREG (State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group). 2022.
SFIREG Treated Seed Regulation Issue Paper. August 31, 2022.
4. USEPA. 2023. EPA Response to 08/31/2022--(State FIFRA Issues
Research and Evaluation Group SFIREG) Treated Seed Issue Paper. June
28, 2023.
5. USEPA. 2023. Labeling Instructions for Pesticide-Treated Seed and
Pesticide-Treated Paint Products. September 2023. https://www.regulations.gov (under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0420).
6. USEPA. 2012. T-REX Version 1.5 User's Guide for Calculating
Pesticide Residues on Avian and Mammalian Food Items. March 22,
2012. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/t-rex-version-15-users-guide-calculating-pesticide#Section2_1.
7. USEPA. 2019. Assessment of Usage, Benefits, and Impacts of
Potential Mitigation in Stone Fruit Production for Four
Nitroguanidine Neonicotinoid Insecticides (Clothianidin,
Dinotefuran, Imidacloprid, and Thiamethoxam). December 6, 2019.
https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0865-1178.
8. USEPA. 2020. Revised Method for National Level Listed Species
Biological Evaluations of Conventional Pesticides. March 12, 2020.
https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/revised-method-national-
level-listed-species-biological-evaluations-
conventional#:~:text=The%20Revised%20Method%20for%20National,to%20dev
elop%20BEs%20for%20pesticides.
9. USEPA 2022. Response to Public Comments Received on Draft
Biological Evaluations for Imidacloprid, Thiamethoxam, and
Clothianidin. June 2022. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/nas/final/cloth-imi-thixam-rtc.docx.
10. USEPA. 2018. Benefits and Impacts of Potential Mitigation for
Neonicotinoid Seed Treatments on Small Grains, Vegetables, and
Sugarbeet Crops. August 30, 2018. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844-1622.
11. USEPA. 2022. Pesticide Establishment Registration and Reporting.
November 30, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/compliance/establishment-registration-and-reporting.
12. USEPA. 2022. Tebuconazole Proposed Interim Registration Review
Decision Case Number 7004. June 30, 2022. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0378-0095.
13. USEPA. 2021. Triticonazole Interim Registration Decision Case
Number 7036. March 17, 2021. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0602-0039.
14. USEPA. 2022. ESA Workplan Update: Nontarget Species Mitigation
for Registration Review and Other FIFRA Actions. November 2022.
https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/epas-workplan-and-progress-toward-better-protections-endangered-species.
15. USEPA. 2022. Diuron Proposed Interim Registration Review
Decision Case Number 0046. April 2, 2022. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0077-0065.
16. USEPA. 2021. 2021 Policy on Children's Health. October 5, 2021.
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/2021-policy-on-childrens-health.pdf.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by
Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), and was therefore
not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Other Regulatory Assessment Requirements

    Because this action does not impose or propose any requirements,
and instead seeks comments and suggestions for the Agency to consider
in possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the various other
review requirements in statutes and Executive Orders that apply when an
agency imposes requirements do not apply to this ANPRM. Should EPA
subsequently determine to pursue a rulemaking, EPA will address the
requirements in the statutes and Executive Orders as applicable to that
rulemaking.
    Nevertheless, the Agency welcomes comments and/or information that
would help the Agency to assess any of the following:
     Potential economic impacts of a rulemaking on small
entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.);
     Potential impacts on Federal, state, or local governments
pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538);
     Potential federalism implications pursuant to Executive
Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, November 2, 1999);
     Potential Tribal implications pursuant to Executive Order
13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000);
     As discussed in Unit III.C., potential human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations pursuant to
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994);
     As discussed in Unit III.D., potential disproportionate
environmental health or safety effects on children pursuant to
Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);
     Potential availability of voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272).
     Potential energy effects pursuant to Executive Order
13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
and
     Potential impacts in terms of costs and burdens associated
with regulation options that the Agency may consider in developing a
proposed rulemaking or other requirements, including potential
activities and burdens associated with potential paperwork burdens
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Agency will consider such comments and information in
developing options as it considers appropriate steps to address any
applicable requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 152

    Administrative practice and procedure; Agricultural commodities;
Environmental protection; Exemptions from pesticide regulation;
Pesticides and pests; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-22558 Filed 10-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Feedback from the Second National EPA Technical Assistance Grant Recipients Workshop,

February 28  March 1, 2003 EPA provides Technical Assistance Grants ( TAGs) to community groups associated with Superfund sites. The community groups use the grants to hire their own technical advisors to assist the communities in participating in the Superfund process.

On February 28 and March 1, 2003, EPA sponsored a workshop for TAG community group recipients and their technical advisors in Albuquerque.

There are currently 119 TAGs at Superfund sites. TAG community groups and technical advisors from 42 Superfund sites in 22 states participated in the workshop.

Ed Lorenz and Wilma Subra of the NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee provided an overview of the work of the Superfund Subcommittee and requested feedback from the workshop recipients. The following is a summary of the workshop feedback relative to the Superfund Subcommittee.

I. Funding The need for adequate funding in the Superfund program was the # 1 message from the workshop.

Workshop participants strongly supported an increase in funding to the level of a fully funded Superfund program.

The current level of funding is not adequate to fully implement the entire Superfund program. The workshop participants requested the NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee recommend an increase in funding from the current funding level to a level that will be sufficient to implement the entire Superfund program. II. Reinstate The Superfund Tax Workshop participants strongly supported the reinstatement of the Superfund tax.

III. NPL Listing All sites that qualify for listing at the Federal level should be listed. Sites that qualify for listing should not be omitted due to the lack of financial resources.

IV. Remedial Actions All fund led sites that are ready for remedial actions should have adequate resources to initiate and completely implement the required actions.

All fund led sites currently in the remedial action phase should have the required financial resources to fully implement the remedial actions on an ongoing basis.

Remedial actions should not be selected based on financial resources and cost to the detriment of appropriate, implementative and protective short and long term remedies.

Remedial actions have moved more towards containment and less towards treatment and permanent remedies. This trend should be reversed to more appropriately protect human health and the environment.

Remediation of Ecological Risk should not be considered secondary to Human Health Risk. Particular emphasis should be placed on Eco Risk that impact species used for human consumption and indigenous ceremonies.

Brownfield resources should not be used for Superfund site stabilization when the Brownfield focus is used as the driver to enable lesser protective remedy due to proposed future land use. V. Legal Resources The Superfund program lacks adequate resources to bring PRPs to the table at fund led sites.

VI. Measuring Program Performance Community involvement and participation in the Superfund process needs to be a part of program assessment. Community knowledge is not inferior to the expertise brought by agency staff and PRPs and it needs to be sought and valued.

Use of TAG process needs to be assessed as part of program measurement. Remediations planned without community based technical input are likely to fail.

Community evaluation of site remedial activities needs to be empowered through the TAG process.

VII. Technical Assistance Grants Increase community involvement through an increase in the number of TAGs and community outreach mechanisms.

Increase the scope of the TAGs to include health studies and legal issues.

Insure adequate resources to fully implement the TAG program.

VIII. Community Involvement Communities should be the primary stakeholder in all Superfund remedial selection and implementation processes. Communities must be afforded the opportunity for early, meaningful and full participation in all phases of the Superfund program including early discussions and the planning processes. Communities should be able to participate in all meetings between PRPs, federal, state and local government agencies in the development, reviewing and implementing of all aspects of the Superfund process. ( Exception  financial negotiations between government agencies and the PRPs and during negotiations of consent decrees.)

More consistency in implementing the program should be developed across regions. The interaction between remedial project managers and communities regarding participation in program site planning, document reviews and site decisions needs to be addressed.

Few of the TAG recipients ( other than those linked to Wilma or Ed) knew of the work of the Superfund Subcommittee and, perhaps, of most concern, did not know we were holding meetings in Phoenix or New Bedford. We need to do a good job of informing community organizations at NPL sites of our activities. As a result of the presentation at the TAG workshop, EPA has sent a notice to all TAG groups and all EPA community advisory groups ( CAGs) about the upcoming meetings of the subcommittee.


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009–0421; FRL-       ]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review
and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Secondary Brass and Bronze
Production (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart M), Primary Copper Smelters (40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart P), Primary Zinc Smelters (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Q),
Primary Lead Smelters (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart R), Primary Aluminum
Reduction Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart S), and Ferroalloy Production
Facilities (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Z), EPA ICR Number 1604.09, OMB
Control Number 2060–0110.

AGENCY:	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION:	Notice.

SUMMARY:	In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection Request
(ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval.  This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection.  The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before [INSERT DATE 30
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number
EPA-OECA-2009–0421, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement
and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code 2801T , 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05),
Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32580), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d).  EPA received no comments.  Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

	 EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009–0421, which is available for public viewing
online at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
http://www.regulations.gov , in person viewing at the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

	Use EPA’s electronic docket and comment system at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov , to submit or
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available
electronically.  Once in the system, select “docket search,” then
key in the docket ID number identified above.   Please note that EPA’s
policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in
paper, will be made available for public viewing at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov , as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure
is restricted by statute.  For further information about the electronic
docket, go to   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov .

	Title:  NSPS for Secondary Brass and Bronze Production (40 CFR part 60,
subpart M), Primary Copper Smelters (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart P), Primary
Zinc Smelters (40 CFR part 60, subpart Q), Primary Lead Smelters

ICR Numbers:  EPA ICR Number 1604.09, OMB Control Number 2060–0110.

	ICR Status:  This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2010.  Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.  An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.  The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

	Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions
of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and any changes, or additions
to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts M, P, Q,
R, S and Z. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must make an
initial notification, performance tests, periodic reports, and maintain
records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period
during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a
minimum, are required semiannually.

	Burden Statement:  The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden
for this collection of information is estimated to average 100.5 hours
per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of secondary brass
and bronze production facilities, primary copper smelters, primary zinc
smelters, primary lead smelters, primary aluminum reduction plants, and
ferroalloy production facilities.

	Estimated Number of Respondents: 18

	Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually, and
annually.

	Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:  4,923

	Estimated Total Annual Cost:  $597,254, which includes $465,654 in
labor costs, $0 in capital/startup costs, and $131,600 in operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.

	Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in the number of hours
and responses in the total estimated burden currently identified in the
OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens.  The burden increase of 9 hours
is due to the adjustment of number of responses associated with the
semiannual reports for Ferroalloy Production Facilities.  The number of
responses for Ferroalloy Production Facilities was correct when
accounting for the total annual responses and thus did not affect the
total number of responses but was incorrect in the calculation of burden
hours.  The total number of responses increased from 29 to 49 due to an
adjustment of the number of reports for Primary Aluminum Reduction
Plants in the total annual responses calculation.  The change did not
affect the calculations of burden hours.

Dated:  ______________________

_____________________________

Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division

BILLING CODE 6560-50

 PAGE   4

 PAGE   5


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72240-72241]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28614]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Amended Waiver for
Launch and Mission Risk

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of amended waiver.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  This notice concerns an amendment to a waiver related to the
launch and reentry of an Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. On March 10,
2014, the FAA issued United Launch Alliance (ULA) and Lockheed Martin
(Lockheed) waivers to certain risk requirements of the FAA's
regulations. Since that time, changes to the mission's flight plan have
increased its risk profile. After analyzing this updated risk profile,
the FAA finds that the analysis underlying the original waiver
decisions still applies. The FAA, therefore, amends its original waiver
to permit launch risk from debris of 217 x 10-6 and total
mission risk from debris of up to 218 x 10-6.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For technical questions concerning
this waiver, contact Charles P. Brinkman, Aerospace Engineer, AST-200,
Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal
questions concerning this waiver, contact Benjamin Jacobs, Attorney-
Advisor, Regulations Division (AGC-210), Office of the Chief Counsel,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Lockheed and ULA are private commercial space flight companies.
Lockheed entered into a contract with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) to provide the first orbital flight test
for NASA's Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (Orion) Program. Lockheed
has contracted with ULA to provide launch services for the mission.
    The FAA is responsible for licensing, among other things, the
launch of a launch vehicle and the reentry of a reentry vehicle, under
authority granted to the Secretary of Transportation by 51 U.S.C.
Subtitle V, chapter 509 (Chapter 509), and delegated to the FAA's
Administrator and Associate Administrator for Commercial Space
Transportation.
    The mission at issue in this notice is Orion Exploration Flight
Test 1, which is scheduled to launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station in Florida in early December. The mission tests the Orion
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle in an un-crewed, limited-capability
configuration, and serves as a stepping stone towards a crew-capable
vehicle that would enable human exploration missions beyond Earth
orbit. The mission is comprised of a launch, which is conducted by ULA,
and a reentry, which is conducted by Lockheed. The launch vehicle is
ULA's Delta IV Heavy launch vehicle, which consists of a Common Booster
Core (CBC) as the first stage with two additional strap-on CBCs and a
Delta IV Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS). The first burn of the DCSS
places the Orion and the DCSS in orbit, and a second DCSS burn places
the Orion into a highly elliptical, negative-perigee trajectory, to
simulate the thermal conditions and high reentry speeds the module
would experience returning from missions beyond Earth orbit. After
separating from the DCSS, the Orion module reenters over the eastern
Pacific Ocean, splashing down 231 nautical miles west of Baja
California, Mexico.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note that, due to the unique characteristics of this
mission, FAA regulations require us to account for risks that are
typically not included in our Sec.  417.107 analysis--namely, the
uncontrolled reentry of an upper stage after orbital insertion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 417.107(b)(1) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) prohibits, in relevant part, the launch of a
launch vehicle if the expected casualty (Ec) rate for the
flight exceeds 30 x 10-6 for impacting inert and explosive
debris (debris). Section 435.35 establishes acceptable risk for reentry
vehicles, and requires operators to comply with Sec. Sec.  431.35(a)
and 431.35(b)(1)(i),\2\ which in turn prohibit an Ec for
debris in excess of 30 x 10-6 for both launch and reentry
combined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although the module is a reentry vehicle and not a reusable
launch vehicle, 14 CFR 435.33 incorporates and applies Sec.  431.43
to all reentry vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 27, 2014, ULA petitioned the FAA for waivers of these
provisions because the projected risk from debris during launch was 164
x 10- 6, and the projected risk from debris during reentry
was less than 1 x 10-6--for a total-mission debris risk of
approximately 165 x 10-6. The FAA issued a waiver and, on
March 10, 2014, gave notice in the Federal Register. Notice of Waiver,
Mar. 10, 2014 (79 FR 13375). This initial waiver allowed a maximum-
allowable Ec value for ULA and Lockheed's proposed mission
of 165 x 10-6,\3\ based on the risk increase the launch
operators requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Our March 2014 Notice correctly identified the total mission
debris risk as 165 x 10-6, but when breaking down the
sources of that risk, we listed four risk factors adding up to a
total of only 164 x 10-6. 79 FR at 13376. This breakdown
mistakenly omitted the debris risk related from controlled disposal
of the upper stage, with an Ec of < 1 x 10-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 3, 2014, ULA and Lockheed transmitted to the FAA the
mission's final trajectory and an updated risk analysis. Since that
time, ULA and Lockheed have continued to submit updated risk
information, as it becomes available, to the FAA. According to these
documents, it is necessary for ULA and Lockheed to modify the mission's
launch trajectory, for two reasons: To lower the mission's maximum
heating temperature constraint, and to adjust the flight azimuth to be
the same as what was flown in previous missions. On November 20, 2014,
in light of the changed mission trajectory, ULA petitioned for an
amendment to its waiver to allow an Ec of 207 x
10-6 for debris from launch. On November 21, 2014, Lockheed
petitioned for an amendment to its waiver to allow total mission risk
of 208 x 10-6.
    Using ULA's updated trajectory, the FAA calculates the debris-
related Ec for failure during the de-orbit burn, after the
first 120 seconds, increases to 76 x 10-6 from 53 x
10-6. In addition, calculations by the FAA and the United
States Air Force indicate an increased debris risk, from launch to
orbital insertion, of approximately 30 x 10-6 above original
estimates. As a result, the FAA calculates that overall launch risk
increases from 164 x 10-6 to 217 x 10-6, and
total mission risk increases from 165 x 10-6 to 218 x
10-6. The FAA believes these risk figures best

capture the uncertainties due to weather and the inability to perform
significant mitigation at the launch site on the day of launch.

A. Analysis of the Updated Risk Assessment

    The FAA's original waiver analyzed ULA and Lockheed's proposals
using the waiver criteria established by our statutory and regulatory
framework. Section 50905(b)(3) allows the FAA to waive a license
requirement if the waiver (1) will not jeopardize public health and
safety, and safety of property; (2) is in the public interest; and (3)
will not jeopardize national security and foreign policy interests of
the United States. See also 49 CFR 404.5(b). We reapply those same
criteria here.

1. Public Health and Safety, and Safety of Property

    The FAA's initial waiver examined ULA and Lockheed's proposal in
comparison with the historically acceptable launch risk levels at other
Federal agencies to determine whether the mission would fall within
those parameters. The rationale for our approval of ULA and Lockheed's
prior waiver requests applies equally to their revised risk assessment.
Although the FAA's regulations prohibit debris risk in excess of 30 x
10-6, a waiver is warranted in this case because the United
States Government's experience conducting other space missions with
risk in excess of 100 x 10-6 demonstrates that the risks of
this mission are consistent with the public health and safety, and the
safety of property. As we stated in our March 10, 2014, Notice of
Waiver, the United States Government has repeatedly accepted risk for
government launches in excess of the FAA's 30 x 10-6,
without negative consequences for safety. 79 FR at 13376. The Space
Shuttle, for example, used a debris risk criterion of 200 x
10-6 for launch risk to the public. See NASA's
Implementation Plan for Space Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond, Vol.
1 Final Edition, at 2-39 (May 15, 2007). In addition, in 2005, the U.S.
Air Force accepted risk levels in a government launch ranging from 145
to 317 x 10-6. Dept. of the Air Force Memorandum, Overflight
Risk Exceedance Waiver for Titan IV B-30, Mission (Apr. 4, 2005).
    ULA's updated launch risk of 217 x 10-6 is still less
than the risk levels previously approved for a government launch.
Accordingly, granting a waiver of Sec. Sec.  417.107(b)(1) and
431.35(b)(1)(i) in this case does not jeopardize the public health and
safety, or the safety of property.

2. Public Interest

    The FAA looks to its enabling statute to determine how Congress has
defined the public interest. The FAA implements the agency's statutory
mandate to encourage the development of commercial space capabilities
and the continuous improvement of the safety of launch vehicles
designed to carry passengers. 51 U.S.C. 50901(b).
    As with their initial petition, ULA and Lockheed's petition for an
amended waiver are consistent with the public interest because the test
flight is necessary to the development of NASA's human-missions
capability beyond Earth orbit.

D. National Security and Foreign Policy Interests

    The FAA has not identified any national security or foreign policy
implications associated with amending this waiver.

Summary and Conclusion

    The FAA determines that amending the waivers associated with this
mission will not jeopardize public health and safety or safety of
property. In addition, amending the waivers is in the public interest
because it accomplishes the goals of Chapter 509 and does not unduly
increase risk to the public. Finally, amending the waivers will not
jeopardize national security and foreign policy interests of the United
States. The FAA therefore amends its prior waivers of the requirements
of 14 CFR 417.107(b)(1) and 431.35(b)(1)(i) for launch and mission
risk, respectively, to allow launch risk of an Ec of 217 x
10-6 and total mission risk of 218 x 10-6.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 26, 2014.
Kenneth Wong,
Licensing and Evaluation Division Manager.
[FR Doc. 2014-28614 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31090-31091]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13322]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging
Companies will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, June 3, in Multi-
Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC.
    The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (EDT) and will be open to the
public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will
open at 9:00 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The
meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.
    On May 18, 2015, the Commission published notice of the Committee
meeting (Release No. 33-9774), indicating that the meeting is open to
the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to the
Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority
of the Commission may attend the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and
regulations affecting small and emerging companies under the federal
securities laws.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 27, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-13322 Filed 5-28-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P