### 76476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices

wish to attend the meeting must register, in advance, no later than Monday, December 28, 2015. Registration is required for all members of the public to ensure an expeditious security process.

**DATES :**  The full board meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 12, 2016 from 1:00 p.m. to 5 p.m., EST and Wednesday, January 13, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m., EST.

**ADDRESSES :**  Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel, 1001 14th St. NW., Washington,

DC 20005.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodations for a person with a disability, please contact Sandra Williams at (202) 564–4999 or williams.sandra@epa.gov, at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to allow as much time as possible to process your
request.

Dated: December 2, 2015.
Andrew D. Sawyers,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water.

[FR Doc. 2015–31044 Filed 12–8–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**

**AGENCY**

**[FRL–9939–69–OECA]**

**Notice of eDisclosure Portal Launch: Modernizing Implementation of EPA’s**  **Self-Policing Incentive Policies**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is modernizing implementation of its self-disclosurepolicies by creating a centralized webbased ‘‘eDisclosure’’ portal to receive and automatically process self-disclosed

civil violations of environmental law.

Under the automated eDisclosure system, large and small businesses will quickly be able to get some of their more routine types of disclosures resolved.

EPA is launching the eDisclosure system because it continues to believestrongly in the benefits of its selfdisclosure policies: To provide penalty mitigation and other incentives for companies that self-police, disclose, correct and prevent violations. EPA believes that the implementation changes announced today will make the processing of disclosures faster and more efficient, and will save time and resources for regulated entities and EPA. **DATES :**  These modifications to the implementation of EPA’s Audit Policy and Small Business Compliance Policy, and the launch of the eDisclosure portal, are effective immediately, December 9,

2015.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Philip Milton of EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Civil Enforcement,

at milton.philip@epa.gov or (202) 564– 5029. For general information on the eDisclosure portal please visit http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/epasedisclosure.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Over the past several years, EPA has been evaluating how best to realize the benefits of the self-disclosure policies. Most recently, EPA held two webinars in June 2015 to share its plan for eDisclosure and allow the nearly 350 people who participated to share their views and ask questions.

Companies have suggested that EPA could streamline implementation of the self-disclosure policies for more routine disclosures to make the process faster, more efficient, and to save time and resources for regulated entities and EPA, while still retaining the incentives to self-police environmental problems. The regulated community also emphasizedthat a key time to encourage selfauditing and self-disclosure is when companies are purchased or acquired, because that is a point in time when companies typically are assessing operations and management systems. EPA agrees with those suggestions from the regulated community and welcomes input, on an ongoing basis, as to how the eDisclosure system is working.

I. Explanation of Modification to the Implementation of the Policies

A. Introduction

On April 11, 2000, EPA issued its policy on ‘‘Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations’’ (Audit Policy). 65 FR 19618. The purpose of the Audit Policy is to enhance protection of human health and the environment by encouraging regulated entities to voluntarily discover, promptly disclose, expeditiously correct and prevent the recurrence of violations

of federal environmental law. Benefits

available to entities that make

disclosures under the terms of the Audit Policy include reductions in, and in some cases the elimination of, civil penalties, and an EPA determination not to recommend criminal prosecution of disclosing entities. (Ultimate prosecutorial discretion resides with the U.S. Department of Justice.) More information on the Audit Policy is

available athttp://www2.epa.gov/compliance/epasaudit-policy.

On August 1, 2008, EPA issued the ‘‘Interim Approach to Applying the Audit Policy to New Owners’’ (New Owner Policy). 73 FR 44991. The purpose of the New Owner Policy is to tailor Audit Policy incentives for new

owners that want to make a ‘‘clean start’’ at recently acquired facilities by addressing environmental noncompliance that began prior to acquisition. The New Owner Policy is designed to motivate new owners to audit newly acquired facilities and to encourage self-disclosures of violations that will, once corrected, yield significant pollutant reductions and

benefits to the environment. The

incentives tailored for new owners include clearly defined penalty mitigation beyond what is offered by the Audit Policy, as well as the modification of certain Audit Policy

conditions that will allow more violations to be eligible for penalty mitigation under the Audit Policy. More information on the New Owner Policy is

available at http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/epas-interim-approachapplying-audit-policy-new-owners.

EPA’s Small Business Compliance Policy (65 FR 19630, April 11, 2000) is an additional voluntary disclosure policy that provides incentives for small businesses (with 100 or fewer employees) that voluntarily discover, promptly disclose, and expeditiously

correct environmental violations. More

information on the Small Business Compliance Policy is available at http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/smallbusiness-compliance.

B. Background on Today’s Modifications

The penalty mitigation available under EPA’s self-disclosure policies has provided an incentive for regulated entities to detect, promptly disclose, expeditiously correct and prevent

violations of federal environmental requirements. Since 1995, the regulated community has increasingly adopted environmental auditing and environmental management practices as key components of sound business practices. Thousands of entities have disclosed violations to EPA pursuant to the Agency’s voluntary disclosure policies, and EPA continues to receive hundreds of new disclosures every year.

Enforcement also has contributed to the dramatic expansion of environmental auditing, as many regulated entities who

conducted audits have told EPA that one of the primary reasons for doing so


### 76477 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices

was to identify and correct violations before government inspectors discover noncompliance. Regulated entities have realized cost savings through auditing, not only by limiting their enforcement liability but also by reducing the amount of pollutants that they generate ( e.g., by adopting lower-cost production methods or energy-saving process changes).

C. Summary of Modifications to Audit Policy and Small Business Policy Implementation

The large number of violations selfdisclosed to EPA has taxed the Agency’s ability to promptly resolve all pending disclosures. Although EPA is not modifying the substantive conditions in its Audit Policy or Small Business Compliance Policy, the eDisclosure portal launched today streamlines and modernizes EPA’s approach to handling disclosures under these two policies. Today’s changes will result in faster and

more efficient resolution of selfdisclosures, while saving considerable time and resources for regulated entities and EPA. At the same time, EPA will continue to accept and process outside the automated eDisclosure system any new owner self-disclosures and any potential criminal violations disclosed to the Voluntary Disclosure Board (VDB).

In summary, entities that disclose potential violations through the new eDisclosure portal may qualify for one of two types of automated treatment, Category 1 or Category 2. In the June

2015 webinars and Information Sheet summarizing its plan for eDisclosure, EPA referred to these two types of

treatment as Tier 1 and Tier 2. Because commenters expressed concern about possible confusion with Tier II Reports under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), EPA has changed these description to Category 1 and Category

2. Category 1. Category 1 disclosures include: (1) EPCRA violations that meet all Audit Policy conditions; and (2)

EPCRA violations that meet all Small Business Compliance Policy conditions. It does not, however, include Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) section 103/EPCRA section 304 chemical release reporting

violations or EPCRA violations with significant economic benefit as defined by EPA.

For disclosures that qualify for Category 1 treatment, the eDisclosure system automatically will issue an

electronic Notice of Determination (eNOD) confirming that the violations are resolved with no assessment of civil penalties, conditioned on the accuracy and completeness of the submitter’s disclosure. EPA will spot check Category 1 disclosures to ensure conformance with EPCRA, the Audit Policy, the Small Business Compliance Policy, and eDisclosure requirements.

EPA is currently limiting Category 1

resolutions to the above-described violations because: (a) The Agency has significant experience with providing

NODs for these self-disclosed EPCRA violations (about half the disclosures EPA receives involve EPCRA reporting violations); (b) it is easy to confirm compliance with EPCRA reporting requirements; and (c) the regulated community suggested such violations for streamlined Audit Policy treatment. As the Agency gains experience with the eDisclosure system, it will evaluate whether to expand the types of violations that can qualify for Category

1 treatment.

Category 2. Category 2 disclosures include: (1) All non-EPCRA violations; (2) EPCRA violations where the discloser can only certify compliance with Audit Policy Conditions 2–9 ( i.e., discovery was not systematic); and (3)

EPCRA/CERCLA violations excluded from Category 1 above.

For disclosures that qualify for Category 2 treatment, the eDisclosure system automatically will issue an Acknowledgement Letter (AL) noting EPA’s receipt of the disclosure and promising that EPA will make a determination as to eligibility for penalty mitigation if and when it considers taking enforcement action for

environmental violations. EPA will screen Category 2 disclosures for significant concerns such as criminal conduct and potential imminent

hazards.

D. Summary of the eDisclosure Process

Entities wishing to disclose potential violations through the eDisclosure system must follow a three-step process:

1. Register to File with the Centralized

Web-Based Portal. This step requires entities to register with EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) system. See http:// www.epa.gov/cdx/. Existing CDXregistrants who are already identityproofed under the Cross Media Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule (CROMERR) would not be required to re-register with CDX. Also, paper identity proofing is available if electronic ID-proofing fails.

2. Submit a Violation Disclosure. In order to be considered ‘‘prompt’’ under both the Audit Policy and Small Business Compliance Policy, potential

violations must be disclosed online within 21 calendar days of the entity’s discovery that such potential violations may have occurred. If the 21st day after discovery falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the eDisclosure system will treat the disclosure as prompt if it is submitted on the next business day. Regulated entities may submit disclosures of potential (but not confirmed) violations to give them time

to determine whether a violation actually occurred and to more specifically identify the particular violation(s).

eDisclosure is not designed to receive or process any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI),

so disclosers must submit sanitized (non-CBI) information through the online system. Any follow-up CBI required to be submitted must be done manually according to EPA procedures and the requirements of 40 CFR part 2.

3. Certify Compliance. Within 60 days of submitting an Audit Policy disclosure (or within 90 days of submitting a Small Business Compliance Policy disclosure), the discloser must submit a Compliance Certification in the eDisclosure system. Such Compliance Certifications must identify the specific violations, and certify that the violations have been corrected and that the Audit Policy or Small Business Compliance Policy conditions have been met. The 60-day and 90-day Compliance Certification deadlines are subject to limited extensions, as discussed further in this

Notice.

Disclosed violations will be

considered withdrawn from Audit Policy or Small Business Compliance Policy consideration where the disclosing entity: (1) Voluntarily

withdraws its disclosure before submitting its Compliance Certification ( e.g., where it determines after disclosure that no violations actually occurred); (2) does not timely submit its Compliance Certification; or (3) submits a Compliance Certification that does not meet the conditions of the Audit Policy or Small Business Compliance Policy.

Whenever there is a withdrawal, the eDisclosure system automatically will record the entity’s attempt to disclose potential violations, notify it that EPA will retain such records, and send the

discloser a notice that the disclosure does not qualify for Audit Policy or Small Business Compliance Policy penalty mitigation through the eDisclosure system.

E. Implementation Details

1. Violation Correction and Compliance Certification Deadlines. Under the Audit Policy and Small Business Compliance Policy, disclosed


### 76478 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices

violations must be corrected as expeditiously as feasible and ordinarily within 60 or 90 days, respectively, from the date that the potential violations are discovered. Prior to today’s launch of the automated eDisclosure system, EPA and regulated entities would communicate directly with regulated

entities or their counsel to resolve their requests to extend the deadlines for correcting disclosed violations. Today’s adoption of an automated eDisclosure system includes an automated process for handling requests for extension of

such deadlines. Below is a discussion of the possible extensions in eDisclosure and how the eDisclosure system will process extension requests, followed by

a timeline that summarizes the violation

correction deadlines for new disclosures submitted after today’s launch.

a. Category 1 Disclosures. To obtain

an electronic Notice of Determination (eNOD), disclosers must correct their violations: (a) Within 60 days of the date of discovery for those seeking penalty mitigation under the Audit Policy; or (b) within 90 days of the date of discovery for those seeking penalty mitigation under the Small Business Compliance Policy. Since all self-disclosures must be made within 21 days of discovery in order to be prompt, a Category 1 Audit Policy Compliance Certification, therefore, will be due no later than 81 ( i.e., 60+21) days after violation discovery and a Category 1 Small Business Compliance Policy Compliance Certification will be due no later than 111 ( i.e., 90+21) days after violation discovery.

Extensions of the violation correction deadline and corresponding compliance

certification deadline are not allowed for Category 1 disclosures. If an entity requests an extension of the violation

correction deadline for an EPCRA disclosure that is potentially eligible for Category 1 treatment ( i.e., it meets all of the Audit Policy or Small Business Compliance Policy conditions and does

not involve EPCRA section 304 chemical release reporting violations or EPCRA violations with significant economic benefit as defined by EPA), the disclosure will be potentially eligible only for Category 2 (Acknowledgement Letter) treatment.

b. Category 2 Disclosures Pursuant to the Audit Policy. Category 2 disclosers seeking penalty mitigation under the Audit Policy can make an online request for up to 30 additional days (beyond the 60 days already allowed under the policy) to correct their violations, with no explanation required. Such extensions will be considered granted at the time of the request, and the eDisclosure system automatically will extend the Compliance Certification due date by an amount equal to the violation correction period extension ( e.g., an entity that gets 30 extra days to correct violations also gets 30 extra days to certify compliance).

Category 2 disclosers seeking penalty mitigation under the Audit Policy can make an online request for more than 30 additional days to correct their violations, provided the violation correction date does not extend beyond 180 days after the date of discovery. To make such a request for an extension of more than 30 days, disclosers must include in the eDisclosure system a justification for such extension. Upon such request, the eDisclosure system automatically will extend the Compliance Certification due date by an amount equal to the correction period extension, but the request is not considered granted or denied at the time of the request. Note also that EPA is more likely to scrutinize requests for extension beyond 30 additional days and ultimately may decide that correction was not prompt, if and when it considers taking an enforcement

action for environmental violations. c. Category 2 Disclosures Pursuant to the Small Business Compliance Policy. Category 2 disclosers seeking penalty mitigation under the Small Business Compliance Policy can make an online request for up to 90 additional days (beyond the 90 days already allowed under the policy) to correct their violations, with no explanation required. Such extensions are considered granted at the time of the request and the eDisclosure system automatically will extend the Compliance Certification due date by an amount equal to the correction period extension ( e.g., an entity that gets 90 extra days to correct violations also gets 90 extra days to certify compliance).

Category 2 disclosers seeking penalty mitigation under the Small Business Compliance Policy can make an online request for more than 90 additional days to correct their violations, provided the

violation correction date does not extend beyond 360 days after the date of discovery. To make such a request for an extension of more than 90 days,

disclosers must include in the eDisclosure system a justification for

such extension. Extensions of more than 180 days after discovery must be based

on the time needed to correct the violation(s) by putting into place pollution prevention measures. Upon such request, the eDisclosure system automatically will extend the Compliance Certification due date by an amount equal to the correction period extension, but the request is not considered granted or denied at the time of the request. Note also that EPA is more likely to scrutinize requests for extension beyond 90 additional days and ultimately may decide that correction was not prompt, if and when it considers taking an enforcement

action for environmental violations.

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**


### 76479 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–C** 2. Processing Unresolved Disclosures That Were Submitted Prior to Today’s Launch. In the June 2015 webinars and
Information Sheet, EPA stated its


### 76480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices

intention to allow regulated entities with pre-existing unresolved EPCRA

disclosures to resubmit such disclosures through the eDisclosure system within 90 days of its launch date. In order to provide for a more orderly transition, EPA is extending this resubmittal opportunity to 120 days after today’s launch. If such pre-existing unresolved EPCRA disclosures qualify for Category 1 treatment as outlined in today’s Notice, the eDisclosure system automatically will issue an eNOD for

such disclosures.

Note that for any such re-submitted disclosure, regulated entities must certify in eDisclosure within 30 days of their re-submittal that they timely corrected their violations. Timely correction is within 60 days of violation discovery for disclosures submitted under the Audit Policy and within 90 days of violation discovery for disclosures submitted pursuant to the Small Business Compliance Policy. No extensions of the 60-day or 90-day violation correction periods are available for such pre-existing EPCRA

disclosures.

For pre-existing disclosures subject to an audit agreement or significant settlement negotiations, EPA will

resolve such disclosures with a Notice of Determination (NOD), Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO), orConsent Decree (CD). All other preexisting disclosures ( i.e., non-EPCRA disclosures and pre-existing EPCRA

disclosures that are not resubmitted within 120 days of today’s eDisclosure launch) are hereby treated as Category 2

disclosures and this Federal Register Notice serves as the Acknowledgement

Letter for such disclosures. If and when EPA considers taking enforcement action for environmental violations, it

will make a determination as to eligibility for penalty mitigation.

II. Unchanged Aspects of EPA’s SelfDisclosure Policies

A. No Changes to Conditions in the Audit Policy and Small Business Compliance Policy

The launch of the eDisclosure system does not modify the substantive conditions in EPA’s Audit Policy or Small Business Compliance Policy. Instead, eDisclosure automates implementation of these policies to

allow for faster and more efficient processing of self-disclosed civil violations. Moreover, disclosures of

criminal violations will continue to be handled by the Voluntary Disclosure Board (VDB), outside the eDisclosure system, pursuant to the process outlined in EPA’s Audit Policy at 65 FR 19624. B. No Changes to EPA New Owner Policy Implementation

This Notice does not change EPA’s approach to resolving New Owner

disclosures as outlined in the New Owner Policy (73 FR 44991, August 1, 2008). Pre-existing New Owner disclosures will not be resolved through the eDisclosure system, but instead EPA will resolve these manually. New owners may elect to use the eDisclosure system to disclose future violations, but doing so will not provide New Owner treatment. To provide New Owner consideration, EPA will continue to accept and manually process new owner

disclosures outside of the eDisclosure system pursuant to EPA’s New Owner Policy, and EPA will enter into audit agreements as appropriate with new

owners.
C. No Routine Requests for Audit Reports

As discussed in the revised Audit Policy at 65 FR 19620, EPA reaffirms its policy, in effect since 1986, to refrain from routine requests for audit reports. EPA has not requested, and will not routinely request, copies of audit reports to trigger enforcement investigations. In general, an audit that results in expeditious correction will reduce liability, not expand it. If, however, the Agency has independent evidence that there may be violations, it may seek the

information it needs to establish the

extent and nature of the violation and the degree of culpability.

D. Opposition to Audit Privilege and Immunity

As discussed in the revised Audit Policy at 65 FR 19623, EPA reaffirms its opposition to audit privilege and immunity. EPA remains opposed to state legislation that does not reserve the right to bring independent action against regulated entities for violations

of federal law that threaten human health or the environment, reflect criminal conduct, or show repeated noncompliance. EPA also opposes legislation that bars enforcement in a way that allows one company to profit at the expense of its law-abiding competitors. See ‘‘Statement of Principles, Effect of State Audit Immunity/Privilege Laws on Enforcement Authority for Federal Programs,’’ dated February 14, 1997. The Agency opposes statutory immunity

because it diminishes law enforcement’s ability to discourage wrongful behavior and interferes with a regulator’s ability to enforce against individuals who disregard the law and place others in danger. III. EPA Approach to FOIA Requests Seeking Disclosures

EPA has always considered resolved Audit Policy disclosures to be publicly

releasable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (see 1997 Memo from Steven A. Herman, ‘‘Confidentiality of InformationReceived Under Agency’s SelfDisclosure Policy,’’ available at http:// www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ documents/sahmemo.pdf ). EPA is continuing such approach. This means that FOIA requests for eNODs generally will be granted, particularly since the eDisclosure system warns users that it is inappropriate to submit in the online portal any confidential business information (CBI) or information that

would constitute an unwarranted invasion of any person’s privacy ( e.g., social security numbers, birth dates, medical records, personal financial information, or other private information).

The 1997 memo also states that EPA generally will withhold unresolved disclosures pursuant to the FOIA ‘‘law enforcement proceeding’’ exemption, Exemption 7(A). By this Notice, EPA is effectively revising the 1997 Steve

Herman memorandum to eliminate the presumption in favor of withholding unresolved disclosures and to replace it with a presumption in favor of disclosure. This change is consistent with the 2009 open government and transparency memoranda from President Obama and Attorney General

Eric Holder. See http://www.justice.gov/ sites/default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/ 23/foia-memorandum.pdf. Therefore, in response to any FOIA requests for individual unresolved disclosures, EPA instead will determine on a case-by-case basis whether it reasonably foresees that

release would harm an interest protected by a FOIA exemption. In doing so, EPA will endeavor to be as accommodating as possible in responding to such requests, and EPA generally expects to make Category 1 and Category 2 disclosures publicly available within a relatively short period of time after their receipt.

EPA believes that this change is appropriate in part because it generally expects to spot check Category 1 disclosures and screen Category 2

disclosures within a few months after

their submission and will determine at that time whether further investigation

or other action is warranted. It is possible that disclosures involving longer requests for a violation correction

extension could cause EPA to withhold such disclosures under FOIA, but that would be determined on a case-by-case


### 76481 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices

basis as noted above. EPA also notes that entities with wholly past violations and no outstanding noncompliance likely face little, if any, risk of citizen suit exposure. Accordingly, regardless

whether the disclosed violations are resolved, EPA is optimistic that responsible disclosing entities will not be dissuaded from disclosing violations.

IV. Applicability

The Audit Policy, Small Business Compliance Policy, and New Owner Policy are policies that guide the Agency in the exercise of its enforcement discretion. They are not rules or regulations, and they are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. The policies and how they are implemented may be revised without public notice to reflect changes in EPA’s approach to providing incentives for self-policing by regulated entities, or to clarify and update the policies as

necessary.

IV. Effective Date

These modifications to the implementation of EPA’s Audit Policy and Small Business Compliance Policy are effective on December 9, 2015.

Dated: November 30, 2015.
Cynthia Giles,
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

[FR Doc. 2015–30928 Filed 12–8–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**

**AGENCY**

**[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0301; FRL–9939–34]**

**Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and**  **Federal Agency Crisis Declarations**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions or denials were granted during the period July 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015 to control unforeseen pest outbreaks.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; main telephone number: (703) 305–7090; email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following

list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers

determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the emergency exemption or denial.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0301 is available

at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 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 Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review

the visitor instructions and additional

information about the docket available

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions to the following State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific. EPA has also listed denied emergency exemption requests in this

notice.

Under FIFRA section 18 (7 U.S.C. 136p), EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are of four types: 1. A ‘‘specific exemption’’ authorizes use of a pesticide against specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.

2. ‘‘Quarantine’’ and ‘‘public health’’ exemptions are emergency exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are rarely requested.

3. A ‘‘crisis exemption’’ is initiated by a State or Federal agency (and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in

an emergency.

EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses unacceptable risks to the environment,

or if EPA cannot reach a conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in ‘‘a reasonable certainty of no harm’’ to human health, including exposure of residues of the pesticide to

infants and children.

If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity would result in pesticide chemical residues,

EPA establishes a time-limited tolerance meeting the ‘‘reasonable certainty of no harm standard’’ of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency granted the exemption or denial, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, number of acres (if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also gives the Federal Register citation for the time-limited tolerance, if any.

III. Emergency Exemptions and Denials

A. U.S. States and Territories

California

Department of Environmental Protection

Crisis exemption: On August 27, 2015 the California Department of

Environmental Protection declared a crisis for the use of methoxyfenozide on rice to control armyworms.

Delaware

Department of Agriculture

Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on pome fruit and

stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; July 16, 2015 to October 15, 2015.

Florida

Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services

Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of streptomycin sulfate on