Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 159 / Friday, August 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 39399 

Dated: July 26, 2017. 

Debra H. Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17219 Filed 8–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P?≤ 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 158 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0683; FRL–9965–54] 

RIN 2070–AK41 

Pesticides; Technical Amendment to 

Data Requirements for Antimicrobial 

Pesticides 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a correction 

pertaining to the ‘‘200 ppb (parts per 

billion) level’’ described in the 

antimicrobial pesticides data 

requirements regulation to clarify that 

the 200 ppb level is based on total 

estimated daily dietary intake for an 

individual and not on the amount of 

residue present on a single food, as is 

incorrectly implied by the current 

regulatory text. This change is intended 

to enhance understanding of the data 

required to support an antimicrobial 

pesticide registration and does not alter 

the burden or costs associated with 

these previously-promulgated 

requirements. Through this action, EPA 

is not proposing any new data 

requirements or any other revisions 

(substantive or otherwise) to existing 

requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 17, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0683, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

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

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cameo Smoot, Field and External 

Affairs Division (7506P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; (703) 

305–5454; email address: 

smoot.cameo@epa.gov. 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are a producer or 

registrant of an antimicrobial pesticide 

product or device. 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, but are not limited 

to: 

• NAICS code 325320, Pesticide and 

Other Agricultural Chemical 

Manufacturing, e.g., pesticide 

manufacturers or formulators of 

pesticide products, importers, exporters, 

or any person or company who seeks to 

register a pesticide product or to obtain 

a tolerance for a pesticide product. 

If you have any 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 action is issued under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 

et seq. and the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d). 

C. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is proposing a single correction 

to the data requirements for 

antimicrobial pesticide products that are 

codified in 40 CFR part 158, subpart W. 

EPA is not proposing any other changes 

(substantive or otherwise) or any new 

data requirements. The correction to the 

‘‘200 ppb level’’ described in 40 CFR 

158.2230(d) will clarify that the 200 ppb 

level is based on total estimated daily 

dietary intake for an individual and not 

on the amount of residue present on a 

single food, as is incorrectly implied by 

the current regulatory text. 

D. What are the incremental costs and 

benefits of this action? 

No new data requirements are 

proposed and this correction does not 

result in any new burden or costs being 

imposed. The proposed change 

represents a technical correction; 

therefore, registrants will not submit 

more studies than they are currently 

submitting in their application 

packages. As a result, this change will 

not cause any increase in the cost to 

register an antimicrobial pesticide 

product. 

EPA believes the correction should 

provide registrants with more specific 

information such that it could reduce 

the number of consultations (emails, 

phone calls, and meetings) registrants 

seek to ensure that they are correctly 

interpreting the regulations before they 

begin their testing programs. Applicants 

may save time and money by better 

understanding when studies are needed 

and by not submitting unneeded 

studies. Submission of all required 

studies at the time of application may 

reduce potential delays in the 

registration process, thereby allowing 

products to enter the market earlier. The 

clarity derived from having more 

understandable data requirements may 

be especially important to small firms 

and new firms entering the industry 

who may have less experience with the 

pesticide registration program than 

those firms that routinely work with the 

Agency. 

Although we believe that the 

correction reduces uncertainty and will 

result in a decrease in the number of 

inquiries registrants may make to EPA 

seeking clarification on this particular 

point, EPA did not attempt to determine 

whether or not, or the extent to which, 

the correction might result in any cost 

savings for the registrants or for EPA. 

Because EPA is not proposing any new 

data requirements and also made sure 

not to increase the frequency at which 

the existing data are required, EPA 

determined there is no need to perform 

an economic analysis for this proposed 

rulemaking. 

E. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

39400 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 159 / Friday, August 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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

comments.html. 

II. Background 

Under FIFRA, every pesticide product 

must be registered (or specifically 

exempted from registration under 

FIFRA section 25(b)) by EPA before the 

pesticide may be sold or distributed in 

the United States. To obtain a 

registration, an applicant or registrant 

must demonstrate to the Agency’s 

satisfaction that, among other things, the 

pesticide product, when used in 

accordance with widespread and 

commonly recognized practice, will not 

cause ‘‘unreasonable adverse effects’’ to 

humans or the environment. 

Under FIFRA, anyone seeking to 

register a pesticide product is required 

to provide information to EPA that 

demonstrates, among other things, that 

the product can be used without posing 

unreasonable adverse effects on the 

environment. The FFDCA section 408 

dietary safety factor is incorporated into 

FIFRA’s definition of ‘‘unreasonable 

adverse effects on the environment.’’ 

Moreover, EPA has authority under 

FFDCA to establish a tolerance or an 

exemption from the need for a tolerance 

for a pesticide chemical residue in or on 

food, provided there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate exposures to the residues of 

the pesticide product, including all 

anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information. EPA’s data 

requirement regulations in 40 CFR part 

158 outline the kinds of data and related 

information typically needed to register 

a pesticide product. The data 

requirements are organized by major 

pesticide type (e.g., conventional, 

biochemical, microbial, or 

antimicrobial), scientific discipline (e.g., 

toxicology or residue chemistry) and 

major use sites (e.g., outdoor vs. indoor, 

terrestrial, aquatic, or greenhouse). 

The data requirements in 40 CFR part 

158 were first promulgated in 1984 (49 

FR 42856, October 24, 1984), and 

principally focused on the data needed 

to register agricultural pesticide 

chemicals. In the Federal Register of 

October 26, 2007, EPA promulgated a 

final rule to revise and update the data 

requirements for conventional 

pesticides (72 FR 60934) (FRL–8106–5). 

Also on October 26, 2007, EPA 

promulgated a rule to specifically 

describe the data requirements for 

biochemical and microbial pesticides 

(72 FR 60988) (FRL–8109–8). In the 

Federal Register of May 8, 2013, the 

data requirements specific to 

antimicrobial pesticides were 

promulgated (78 FR 26936) (FRL–8886– 

5) and became effective on July 8, 2013. 

III. Legal Challenge to the 2013 Rule, 

Resulting Settlement Agreement, and 

This Proposal 

On July 3, 2013, the American 

Chemistry Council (ACC) filed a 

petition for judicial review of the 2013 

final rule, entitled ‘‘Data Requirements 

for Antimicrobial Pesticides’’ (78 FR 

26936, May 8, 2013), in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit. (American 

Chemistry Council, Inc. v. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

No.13–1207 (D.C. Cir.)). On July 8, 2013, 

the final rule became effective. 

EPA and ACC subsequently entered 

into a settlement agreement that 

addressed ACC’s petition for judicial 

review of the 40 CFR part 158, subpart 

W data requirements rule. The 

settlement agreement, which became 

effective on March 2, 2015, is available 

at http://www.regulations.gov using the 

docket identifier EPA–HQ–OPP–2008– 

0110–0139. Under the settlement 

agreement with ACC, EPA agreed to 

propose by September 2, 2017, a 

correction to the current language at 40 

CFR 158.2230(d) referring to the 200 

ppb level as ‘‘the concentration of the 

antimicrobial residues in or on the food 

item’’ in order to make the language 

consistent with the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration’s (FDA) policy set forth 

in ‘‘Guidance for Industry, Preparation 

of Food Contact Notifications for Food 

Contact Substances: Toxicology 

Recommendations. Final Guidance. 

April 2002.’’ A copy of the FDA 

guidance has been placed in the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking. 

Accordingly, the proposal clarifies that 

the 200 ppb level established in the rule 

is based on total estimated daily dietary 

intake, and not on the amount of residue 

present on a single food item or 

commodity. As part of its obligations 

under the settlement agreement, EPA 

previously addressed this issue in 

interim guidance issued on April 30, 

2015. This guidance is available on 

EPA’s Web site at https://www.epa.gov/ 

pesticide-registration/epa-datarequirements-registration-antimicrobialpesticides-part-158w. 

IV. Request for Comments 

The Agency invites the public to 

provide its views and suggestions for 

the proposed change in this document, 

and will formally respond to any 

comments on this proposed change at 

the time of issuing a final rule. EPA is 

particularly interested in comments and 

any suggestions for better characterizing 

the benefits of burden reduction or 

savings resulting from this correction. 

V. FIFRA Review Requirements 

In accordance with FIFRA sections 21 

and 25(a), EPA submitted a draft of this 

proposed rule to the Secretary of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

and the Secretary of the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), with 

copies to the appropriate Congressional 

Committees (i.e., the Committee on 

Agriculture in the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Committee on 

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in 

the United States Senate). On June 1, 

2017, USDA completed their review of 

the draft proposed rule and informed 

EPA that they did not have any 

comments. On July 17, 2017, HHS 

completed their review of the draft 

proposed rule and provided two 

comments. First, with regard to the 

section II. Background summary 

paragraph about FIFRA and FFDCA 

authority, HHS submitted suggested text 

to avoid the suggestion that the FFDCA 

contains provisions related to the 

registration of a pesticide product, and 

also inserted language concerning 

‘‘aggregate’’ exposures. EPA has 

addressed the comments submitted by 

HHS in the proposed rule and has 

provided additional clarifying language. 

The proposed rule now states that 

‘‘Under FIFRA, anyone seeking to 

register a pesticide product is required 

to provide information to EPA that 

demonstrates, among other things, that 

the product can be used without posing 

unreasonable adverse effects on the 

environment. The FFDCA section 408 

dietary safety factor is incorporated into 

FIFRA’s definition of ‘‘unreasonable 

adverse effects on the environment.’’ 

Moreover, EPA has authority under 

FFDCA to establish a tolerance or an 

exemption from the need for a tolerance 

for a pesticide chemical residue in or on 

food, provided there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate exposures to the residues of 

the pesticide product, including all 

anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ In the second 

HHS comment, HHS suggested that we 

specifically identify the FDA policy 

cited in the draft proposed rule. In 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 159 / Friday, August 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 39401 

response, EPA has specifically 

identified the FDA policy and placed a 

copy of the FDA’s ‘‘Guidance for 

Industry, Preparation of Food Contact 

Notifications for Food Contact 

Substances: Toxicology 

Recommendations. Final Guidance. 

April 2002,’’ in the docket for this 

action. 

Under FIFRA section 25(d), EPA also 

submitted a draft of this proposed rule 

to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel 

(SAP). The SAP waived its review of the 

proposed rule on June 2, 2017, because 

the proposed rule does not contain 

scientific issues that warrant review by 

the Panel. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review; Executive Order 

13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review; and Executive Order 

13777: Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). In addition, since this 

action does not contain a new 

requirement or impose any new burden 

or costs, the burden reduction and 

controlling provisions in Executive 

Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 

2017), do not apply. Although we 

believe that the correction reduces 

uncertainty and will result in a decrease 

in the number of inquiries registrants 

may make to EPA seeking clarification 

on this particular point, EPA did not 

attempt to determine whether or not, or 

the extent to which, the correction 

might result in any cost savings for the 

registrants or for EPA. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection requirements that 

would require additional review or 

approval by OMB under the PRA, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information 

collection requirements associated with 

the submission of data under 40 CFR 

part 158 have already been approved by 

OMB pursuant to the PRA and are 

covered by the following existing 

Information Collection Requests (ICRs): 

• The information collection 

activities associated with the 

establishment of a tolerance are 

currently approved under OMB Control 

No. 2070–0024 (EPA ICR No. 0597). 

• The information collection 

activities associated with the 

application for a new or amended 

registration of a pesticide are currently 

approved under OMB Control No. 2070– 

0060 (EPA ICR No. 0277). 

• The information collection 

activities associated with the generation 

of data for registration review are 

currently approved under OMB Control 

No. 2070–0174 (EPA ICR No. 2288). 

• The information collection 

activities associated with the generation 

of data for experimental use permits are 

currently approved under OMB Control 

No. 2070–0040 (EPA ICR No. 0276). 

This proposed rule does not involve 

a change in information collection 

activities associated with the generation 

of data for antimicrobial pesticide 

products or devices. EPA believes no 

additional burden for data submission 

would be imposed by the simple 

correction in this proposed rule. The 

most that may be needed is for an 

applicant to become familiar with the 

change. Although we believe that the 

correction reduces uncertainty and will 

result in a decrease in the number of 

inquiries registrants may make to EPA 

seeking clarification on this particular 

point, EPA did not attempt to determine 

whether or not, or the extent to which, 

the correction might result in any cost 

savings for the registrants or for EPA. 

EPA is seeking comment on this point 

in particular. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The 

small entities directly regulated by this 

proposed rule are small manufacturers 

of antimicrobial pesticide products. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, EPA certifies that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

There will not be significant adverse 

economic impacts on a substantial 

number of small entities by the simple 

correction proposed. On the contrary, 

all registrants of pesticide products, 

regardless of size, will benefit equally 

by receiving the clearer editorial and/or 

technical direction, likely reduce the 

number of requests for further 

clarification of data requirements, and 

likely enjoy a more streamlined 

registration process. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the correction in 

this proposed rule on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to 

such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded federal mandate of $100 

million or more as described in UMRA, 

2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Accordingly, this action is 

not subject to the requirements of 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action will not have any 

effect on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

39402 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 159 / Friday, August 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that the EPA has 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, nor does it affect energy supply, 

distribution or use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

the consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to 

NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 

note. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

This action does not involve special 

consideration of environmental justice 

related issues as specified in Executive 

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994), because this action does not 

address human health or environmental 

risks or otherwise have any 

disproportionate high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 158 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 4, 2017. 

Louise P. Wise, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

Therefore, the EPA proposes to amend 

40 CFR part 158 as follows: 

PART 158—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 158 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136–136y; subpart U 

is also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701. 

■ 2. In § 158.2230, revise paragraph (d) 

to read as follows: 

§ 158.2230 Antimicrobial toxicology. 

* * * * * 

(d) 200 parts per billion (ppb). The 

200 ppb level was originally used by the 

Food and Drug Administration with 

respect to the concentration of residues 

in or on food for tiering of data 

requirements for indirect food use 

biocides. The Agency has also adopted 

this same residue level for determining 

toxicology data requirements for 

indirect food uses of antimicrobial 

pesticides. The 200 ppb level is the 

concentration of antimicrobial residues 

in the total estimated daily dietary 

intake. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–17339 Filed 8–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0597; FRL–9965–96] 

40 CFR Part 711 

RIN 2070–AK31 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; 

Chemical Data Reporting; 

Requirements for Inorganic Byproduct 

Chemical Substances; Notice of Public 

Meetings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Rulemaking committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: EPA is giving notice that it is 

holding two additional meetings of the 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee 

(Committee) established on June 5, 

2017. The objective of the Committee is 

to negotiate a proposed rule that would 

limit chemical data reporting 

requirements under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA), as 

amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg 

Chemical Safety for the 21st Century 

Act, for manufacturers of any inorganic 

byproduct chemical substances when 

such byproduct chemical substances are 

subsequently recycled, reused, or 

reprocessed. The purpose of the 

Committee is to conduct discussions in 

a good faith attempt to reach consensus 

on proposed regulatory language. This 

negotiation process is required by the 

TSCA. This notice announces the 

details of two upcoming meetings of the 

Committee, which are both open to the 

public, and which serve as the third and 

fourth meetings of the Committee. 

DATES: The third Committee meeting 

will be held on September 13, 2017, 

from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on September 

14, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. The 

fourth Committee meeting will be held 

on October 25, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 

p.m. and on October 26, 2017, from 9 

a.m. to 3 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The third meeting will take 

place at Ronald Reagan Building and 

International Trade Center, Oceanic 

Suite, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW., 

Washington, DC 20004, while the fourth 

meeting will be held at William 

Jefferson Clinton East Building, Room 

1153, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any 

member of the public wishing to obtain 

information concerning the public 

meetings may contact Jonah Richmond, 

Designated Federal Officer (DFO), 

Conflict Prevention and Resolution 

Center, Office of General Counsel, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(202) 564–0210; email address: 

Richmond.jonah@epa.gov. General 

information about the Committee, as 

well as any updates concerning the 

meetings announced in this notice, may 

be found at https://www.epa.gov/

chemical-data-reporting/negotiatedrulemaking-committee-chemical-datareporting-requirements. 

For information on access or services 

for individuals with disabilities, or to 

request accommodation for a disability, 

please contact the DFO, preferably at 

least ten days prior to the meetings to 

give EPA as much time as possible to 

process your request. 

For technical information contact: 

Susan Sharkey, Chemical Control 

Division (7405M), Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (202) 564–8789; 

email address: Sharkey.susan@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture 

(including manufacture as a byproduct 

chemical substance and including 

import) chemical substances listed on 

the TSCA Inventory. The following list 

of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes are 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this action may 

apply to them: 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS