Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0537-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Pesticides: Modification to the Minimum Risk Pesticide Listing Program and Other Exemptions under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Posted Date: 2021-04-08T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 66 (Thursday, April 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18232-18237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07033]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 152

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0537; FRL-10016-29]
RIN 2070-AK55

Pesticides; Modification to the Minimum Risk Pesticide Listing 
Program and Other Exemptions Under FIFRA Section 25(b)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is soliciting public 
comments and suggestions about the petition process for exemptions 
regarding pesticides from registration and other requirements under the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), where the 
pesticides are determined to be of a character unnecessary to be 
subject to regulation under FIFRA. The Agency is considering 
streamlining the petition process and revisions to how the Agency 
evaluates the potential minimum risk active and inert substances, 
factors used in classes of exemptions, state implementation of the 
minimum risk program and the need for any future exemptions or 
modifications to current exemptions. EPA is also requesting comment on 
whether the Agency should consider amending existing exemptions or 
adding new classes of pesticidal substances for exemption, such as peat 
when used in septic filtration systems.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0537, through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at 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)

[[Page 18233]]

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket 
Center and Reading Room are closed to the public with limited 
exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via 
email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA Docket Center 
services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Acting Director 
Biopesticide and Pollution Prevention Division, (7509P), Office of 
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-
0291; email address: BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be affected by this action if you manufacture, distribute, 
sell, or use minimum risk pesticide products. EPA has promulgated 
several exemptions for pesticide products of a character not requiring 
regulation under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
Act (FIFRA). These exemptions are codified in 40 CFR 152.25. 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), as well as other manufacturers in 
similar industries such as animal feed (NAICS code 311119), cosmetics 
(NAICS code 325620), and soap and detergents (NAICS code 325611).
     Manufacturers who may also be distributors of these 
products, which includes farm supplies merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 
424910), drug and druggists merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 424210), 
and motor vehicle supplies and new parts merchant wholesalers (NAICS 
code 423120).
     Retailers of minimum risk pesticide products (some of 
which may also be manufacturers), which includes nursery, garden 
center, and farm supply stores (NAICS code 444220), outdoor power 
equipment stores (NAICS code 444210), and supermarkets (NAICS code 
445110).
     Users of minimum risk pesticide products, including the 
public in general, as well as exterminating and pest control services 
(NAICS code 561710), landscaping services (NAICS code 561730), sports, 
and recreation institutions (NAICS code 611620), and child daycare 
services (NAICS code 624410). Many of these companies also manufacture 
minimum risk pesticide products.
     Government establishments engaged in regulation, 
licensing, and inspection (NAICS code 926150).
     Sewage treatment facilities collecting, treating, and 
disposing waste through sewer systems or sewage treatment facilities, 
(NAICS code 221320).
     Site Preparation Contractors NAICS code 238910; and septic 
tank pumping and cleaning services (NAICS 562991).
    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 this action?

    This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) is issued under 
the authority of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., particularly FIFRA 
sections 3 and 25. Exemptions to the requirements of FIFRA are issued 
under the authority of FIFRA section 25(b). Eligible products may be 
exempt from, among other things, registration requirements under FIFRA 
section 3.

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is considering whether regulatory and policy changes are needed 
to improve the exemption provisions in order to make the implementation 
of the process and evaluation of the exemption provisions more 
efficient. This ANPR initiates the rulemaking process by specifically 
soliciting public comments and suggestions about the petition process 
for exemptions regarding pesticides from registration and other 
requirements under FIFRA section 25(b), where the pesticides are 
determined to be of a character unnecessary to be subject to regulation 
under FIFRA. The Agency is considering streamlining the petition 
process and revisions to how the Agency evaluates the potential minimum 
risk active and inert substances, factors used in classes of 
exemptions, state implementation of the minimum risk program and the 
need for any future exemptions or modifications to current exemptions. 
EPA is also requesting comment on whether the Agency should consider 
amending existing exemptions or adding new classes of pesticidal 
substances for exemption, such as peat when used in septic filtration 
systems.
    This ANPR asks the public to provide input on specific questions 
about the petition process and the evaluation of potential minimum risk 
active and inert substances, factors used in classes of exemptions 
listed at 40 CFR 152.25, state implementation of the minimum risk 
program and the need for any future exemptions or modifications to 
current exemptions. EPA is assessing whether changes to the exemption 
process could improve efficiency and enhance opportunities for reducing 
regulatory requirements.
    EPA regulations at 40 CFR 152.20 provide certain exemptions for 
pesticides adequately regulated by another Federal agencies. 40 CFR 
152.30 provides exemptions for pesticides that are context-specific 
(e.g., pesticides distributed or sold under an emergency exemption 
under FIFRA section 18); the exemptions in 40 CFR 152.30 are not 
limited to specific pesticides. Because the exemptions in 40 CFR 152.20 
and 152.30 are in general not based on risk analysis of individual 
pesticides, they are not the subject of this ANPR.

D. What are the incremental economic impacts of this action?

    This ANPR does not impose or propose any requirements, and instead 
seeks comments and suggestions that will help the Agency identify, 
develop and consider improvements to the FIFRA section 25(b) petition 
process and related requirements. 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 
public comment.

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 
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.

[[Page 18234]]

    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. Request for Comment

    EPA invites public suggestions for improving the exemption 
provisions in order to make the implementation of the process and 
evaluation of the exemption provisions more efficient. EPA is 
particularly interested in public feedback on the questions posed in 
this document regarding the implementation and evaluation of the 
exemption provisions of the Minimum Risk Pesticide Listing Program and 
the other exemptions codified at 40 CFR 152.25. 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 the program review, and is particularly interested in 
information regarding the impacts of exemptions, both in terms of costs 
and costs savings. For instructions on how to submit comments see Unit 
I.E. and the ADDRESSES section of this document.

III. Background

A. Brief Summary of the EPA's Use of the Authority in FIFRA Section 
25(b)

    Under FIFRA section 25(b)(2), EPA may exempt from the requirements 
of FIFRA any pesticide that is ``of a character unnecessary to be 
subject to [FIFRA].'' Pursuant to this authority, in 1988 (53 FR 15952, 
May 4, 1988) (FRL-3266-9b), EPA promulgated 40 CFR 152.25(a) through 
(e) which provided the initial determinations that certain classes of 
pesticides would be exempt from FIFRA regulation. The classes include 
Treated articles or substances (40 CFR 152.25(a)), Pheromones and 
pheromone traps (40 CFR 152.25(b)), Preservatives for biological 
specimens (40 CFR 152.25(c), Vitamin hormone products (40 CFR 
152.25(d)) and Foods (40 CFR 152.25(e)). The final rule was amended in 
1994 (59 FR 2751, January 19, 1994) (FRL-4744-6) to include Natural 
Cedar (40 CFR 152.25(f)).
    In 1996, EPA promulgated 40 CFR 152.25(g), which exempted from 
FIFRA any pesticide product consisting solely of specified ingredients 
that EPA determined to pose minimum risk to humans and the environment 
(61 FR 8876, March 6, 1996) (FRL-4984-8). This provision was later 
redesignated as 40 CFR 152.25(f) (66 FR 64759, December 14, 2001) (FRL-
6752-1). In 2001, EPA also moved provisions related to vitamin hormone 
products to 40 CFR 152.6(f) (66 FR 64759, December 14, 2001) (FRL-6752-
1). The exemption provision in what is now 40 CFR 152.25(f) was the 
start of the Minimum Risk Pesticide Listing Program, which covers the 
listing of active and inert ingredients as minimum risk substances that 
are available for use in minimum risk pesticide products. Currently, 
forty-four active ingredient substances and two hundred and eighty-
seven inert ingredient substances, as well as commonly consumed food 
commodities, animal feed items, and edible fats and oils as described 
in 40 CFR 180.950 (a), (b) and (c), respectively, are included in the 
Minimum Risk Pesticide Listing Program.
    The Minimum Risk Pesticide Listing Program (152.25(f)) has been 
amended several times over the years. The last amendment was in 2015 
when EPA issued a final rulemaking entitled, Pesticides; Revisions to 
Minimum Risk Exemption (80 FR 80660) (FRL-9934-44) December 28, 2015). 
The 2015 amendment improved the clarity and transparency of the minimum 
risk exemption by codifying the inert ingredients list and by adding 
specific chemical identifiers, where available, for all eligible active 
and inert ingredients. The 2015 rule also modified the labeling 
requirements for the exemption to require products to list ingredients 
on the label with a designated label display name and to provide the 
producer's contact information on the product label. The specific 
chemical identifiers and the labeling changes were intended to make it 
easier for manufacturers, the public, and Federal, state, and tribal 
inspectors to determine the specific chemical substances that are 
permitted in minimum risk pesticide products and provide more 
consistent information for consumers.
    In the March 1996 final rule, EPA wrote that ``In developing its 
list of exempted substances, EPA applied certain factors. Consideration 
was given to such factors as: (1) Whether the pesticidal substance is 
widely available to the general public for other uses; (2) If it is a 
common food or constituent of a common food; (3) If it has a nontoxic 
mode of action; (4) If it is recognized by the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) as safe; (5) If there is no information showing 
significant adverse effects; (6) If its use pattern will result in 
significant exposure, and (7) If it is likely to be persistent in the 
environment.'' (61 FR 8876, March 6, 1996) (FRL-4984-8).

B. Environmental Justice

    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 12989 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs agencies, 
to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to identify 
and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its actions on minority and low-
income populations. EPA has not identified any such disproportionate 
effects from this action as specified in Executive Order 12898. This 
ANPR solicits comments from the public regarding pesticide exemptions 
under FIFRA and does not propose specific actions or regulatory 
changes. Comments from the public are a precursor to possible future 
action; before the development of regulatory options have been 
considered. The exemptions about which EPA is soliciting comment are 
intended to reduce the regulatory burden for pesticides with minimal 
impact on all communities, including low-income and minority 
populations. The Agency welcomes public input on the consideration of 
environmental justice concerns in the context of the issues raised in 
this ANPR. 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.

C. Petition Process and Rulemaking

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., 
the public can petition EPA ask the Agency to consider whether a new 
substance should be added to the list of active ingredients eligible 
for the minimum risk pesticide listing exemption in 40 CFR 152.25(f)(1) 
or the list of inert ingredients in 40 CFR 152.25(f)(2). EPA reviews 
the petition and may grant or deny the petition request. If the Agency 
decision is to grant the petition, EPA would generally publish in the 
Federal Register a proposed rule (also known as a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking or NPRM). Supporting documents for a proposed rule are made 
available in the corresponding official docket created for the 
rulemaking and available through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
http://www.regulations.gov. Once the

[[Page 18235]]

proposed rule publishes, the public has an opportunity to provide 
comments. EPA considers the comments received on the proposed rule, 
addressing comments and making revisions to the proposed revisions 
based on those comments, and issues a final rule. The rulemaking record 
is updated when the final rule publishes in the Federal Register and 
the regulatory provisions are codified in Title 40 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR). Petitions are considered by EPA on a case-
by-case basis.
    EPA invites the public to comment on the petition process and how 
it relates to the Minimum Risk Pesticide Program.
    1. Do you have any suggestions for improving the processes for 
initiating a review of a substance or for implementing a decision that 
a substance may be used or may no longer be used in a minimum risk 
pesticide process? Please explain how changes could increase 
efficiencies.
    2. Given the identified minimum risk characteristics of these 
products and anticipated low impacts on communities, are current 
approaches effective for seeking input from the public and 
stakeholders, including State local, Tribal, and territorial officials, 
scientists, labor unions, environmental advocates, and environmental 
justice organizations? Are there particular approaches that are more or 
less effective?

D. Evaluation of Minimum Risk Pesticide Ingredients

    As described in Unit III.B., the public can petition EPA under the 
APA to request that the Agency consider whether a substance should be 
added to the list of active or inert ingredients eligible for inclusion 
in minimum risk pesticide products. To determine whether to grant or 
deny that petition, EPA applies the risk assessment factors described 
in the March 1996 final rule, as well as additional factors currently 
relevant to pesticide risk assessment. The risk factors from March 1996 
include: (1) Whether the pesticidal substance is widely available to 
the general public for other uses; (2) If it is a common food or 
constituent of a common food; (3) If it has a nontoxic mode of action; 
(4) If it is recognized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as 
safe; (5) If there is no information showing significant adverse 
effects; (6) If its use pattern will result in significant exposure, 
and (7) If it is likely to be persistent in the environment.
    Currently, the EPA's pesticide registration risk assessment process 
considers the original seven factors described in the previous 
paragraph as part of a weight-of-the evidence approach, but also 
routinely considers the following additional six factors to determine 
whether the substance in question: (1) Is likely to have carcinogenic 
or endocrine disruptor properties; (2) Is likely to cause human health 
developmental, reproductive, mutagenic, or neurotoxicity issues; (3) Is 
a known allergen or a known allergenic source or a potential allergen; 
(4) Is associated with developmental toxicity/adverse effects to 
mammals, birds, aquatic organisms, insects, plants; (5) Produces or 
could produce toxic degradates; and (6) Has the potential to be 
contaminated with toxic or allergenic impurities.
    Environmental justice and pollution prevention directives will 
continue to be a part of the regulatory planning process for the 
Minimum Risk Pesticide Listing Program.
    EPA invites the public to comment on the factors described in this 
unit that are used to evaluate substances for consideration under the 
Minimum Risk Pesticide Listing Program.
    1. Considering the previous discussion, should the factors 
discussed above be considered in determining whether a substance should 
be exempted from FIFRA regulation via the minimum risk exemption?
    2. How would these other factors be weighed in a minimum risk 
determination?
    3. Are there other polices, that EPA should consider in determining 
whether a substance should be exempt from FIFRA regulation via the 
Minimum Risk Pesticide Listing Program? For example, should EPA 
consider additional environmental justice and pollution prevention 
policies?
    4. When considering products that are a ``minimum risk'' to public 
health and the environment, should the product also be considered to be 
of low impact to all communities, including low-income and minority 
populations? Please explain why or why not.

E. Exempted Classes of Pesticides

    In addition to substances that may be formulated into pesticide 
products, the regulations at 40 CFR 152.25 exempt several classes of 
pesticides from registration under FIFRA due to their unique and 
specific character. For example, under 40 CFR 152.25(b), pheromones 
need not be registered under FIFRA if, for example, they are formulated 
into traps. The pheromone compound itself must either be naturally 
produced by an arthropod or a synthetically produced compound which is 
identical or substantially similar to the naturally produced pheromone 
with only slight variations to the compound as allowed by the 
regulation (40 CFR 152.25(b)(2) or (3)). EPA has determined that such 
products pose little risk to humans or the environment, as exposure is 
expected to be low and not likely distinguishable from the highest 
levels encountered naturally on days of heavy arthropod presence.
    Another category, under 40 CFR 152.25(e), exempts from FIFRA 
registration products consisting only of natural cedar in certain forms 
(blocks, chips, shavings, needles, etc.), if the natural cedar meets 
certain criteria. To be eligible for this exemption, the product must 
be natural cedar or cedarwood and the product must not be treated, 
combined, or impregnated with any additional substances. Labeling 
claims for natural cedar or cedar wood products must be limited to 
specific arthropods or must exclude ticks if any general term such as 
``arthropods,'' ``insects,'' ``bugs,'' or any other broad inclusive 
term, is used. Excluded from exemption are products formulated with 
cedarwood oil, a form of cedar more likely to be involved in accidental 
exposure via the eye, dermal or oral routes. For pests of significant 
public health importance, such as ticks, efficacy data and other 
registration data needs to be evaluated to ensure protection of human 
health and the environment.
    In some situations, an exemption like those codified in 40 CFR 
152.25(a) through (e) may be preferable to a listing under the Minimum 
Risk Pesticides Listing Program in 40 CFR 152.25(f). A minimum risk 
exemption would include all uses of a product consisting of eligible 
ingredients, provided that the labeling and other generic requirements 
are met. Other exemptions are more targeted as to the nature of the 
use, even as they are in some cases more general with respect to what 
ingredients are included. EPA believes that exemptions like those 
codified in 40 CFR 152.25(a) through (e) may be more appropriate for 
situations where the exemption sought is narrowly tailored to a 
specific use pattern or where the pesticide functions via complex 
chemical processes that do not lend themselves to identification and 
listing of active and inert ingredients.
    As these examples show, EPA has exempted some minimum risks 
products with pesticidal properties and uses from FIFRA regulation 
separately from the list of minimum risk pesticide ingredients. These 
include, like cedar, unrefined natural products that lack a specific 
formulation and products with

[[Page 18236]]

a specific form or application, such as pheromone traps. One example of 
an unrefined natural product which currently lacks a specific 
formulation is peat. Peat is an accumulation of partially decomposed 
organic material found in peatlands or bogs, and has uses as fuel, in 
gardening, and in certain types of septic filtration systems. While the 
use of peat in septic systems may be intended for a pesticidal 
(antimicrobial) purpose, it has been suggested that registration of 
such uses may not be necessary to carry out the purposes of FIFRA. In 
the context of this ANPR, EPA is interested in comments about whether 
there may be criteria that could address such circumstances or if EPA 
should consider proposing the creation of an exemption from FIFRA 
registration for the specific use of peat in septic filtration systems. 
In considering such an exemption, because of the public health and 
environmental interests at stake, should EPA also consider which label 
and labeling claims might be considered false or misleading for these 
systems (i.e., they could not be marketed to perform controls that they 
cannot be shown to achieve), and whether such circumstances warrant the 
consideration of any other limitations on the exemption from FIFRA 
registration.
    EPA invites the public to comment on the following questions on the 
current classes of pesticide exemptions found in 40 CFR 152.25 or on 
other aspects of the Minimum Risk Pesticides Listing Program.
    1. EPA broadly requests comment on the utility, clarity, 
functioning, and implementation of the provisions in 40 CFR 152.25.
    2. Are there other pesticidal substances or systems, like peat as 
mentioned above, that EPA should consider adding as a new class at 40 
CFR 152.25 for exemption from registration under FIFRA? How do these 
other pesticidal substances or systems meet the existing factors?
    3. What other factors should EPA consider in determining whether a 
category or class of products should be exempted from FIFRA regulation? 
Please explain how these other factors should be weighed in a 
determination.
    4. When considering whether a category or class of products are a 
``minimum risk'' to public health and the environment, should the 
category or class of products also be considered as being of low impact 
to all communities, including low-income and minority populations? Are 
there other factors that the Agency should consider?

F. Minimum Risk Pesticide Program Exemption

    Currently, to be eligible for the minimum risk exemption, a 
pesticide product must meet the following conditions:
    Condition 1: The product's active ingredients must all be listed in 
40 CFR 152.25(f)(1).
    Condition 2: The product's inert ingredients may only be those that 
are:
     Listed in Table 2 of 40 CFR 152.25(f)(2)(iv); or
     A commonly consumed food commodity, animal feed item, or 
edible fat and oils as described in 40 CFR 180.950(a) through (c) as 
given in 40 CFR 152.25(f)(2)(i) through (iii).
    Condition 3: All the ingredients (both active and inert) must be 
listed on the label. The active ingredient(s) must be listed by the 
label display name in 40 CFR 152.25(f)(1) and their percentage by 
weight in the product.
    Condition 4: The product must not bear claims to control or to 
mitigate microorganisms that pose a threat to human health or claims to 
control insects or rodents carrying specific diseases.
    Condition 5: The name of the producer or the company for whom the 
product was produced, and the company's contact information must be 
displayed prominently on the product label.
    Condition 6: The label cannot include any false or misleading 
statements.
    A pesticide product that meets all these conditions is exempt from 
federal regulation under FIFRA. EPA does not review products that claim 
to meet the criteria set by 40 CFR 152.25(f), and companies do not 
report such products to EPA. However, states may enforce and often have 
their own requirements regarding minimum risk products. In 2019, a 
majority of states required products that are exempt from federal 
regulation under 40 CFR 152.25(f) to adhere to some form of state 
regulation, varying from a simple fee to complete state registration.
    The states have reported that the regulation of federally exempt 
products has presented some challenges for the states. EPA's previous 
response to the state concerns prompted the 2015 rule change to the 
federal program. The 2015 amendment codified the inert ingredients list 
by adding specific chemical identifiers, where available, for all 
eligible active and inert ingredients. The 2015 rule also modified the 
labeling requirements for the exemption to require products to list 
ingredients on the label with a designated label display name and 
provide the producer's contact information.
    EPA invites the public to comment on the following questions on the 
Minimum Risk Pesticide Listing Program or the minimum risk exemptions 
and solicits comments on other aspects of the Minimum Risk Pesticide 
Listing Program.
    1. Have the changes to the federal program in the 2015 rule, which 
provided specific chemical identifiers and the labeling changes, made 
it easier for manufacturers, the public, and Federal, state, and tribal 
inspectors to identify specific chemicals used in minimum risk 
pesticide products?
    2. Are there state challenges to implementing the minimum risk 
program? Can EPA address those challenges with changes to its program? 
Do states have suggestions for improvements to the program?

IV. Next Steps

    EPA intends to review all the comments and information received in 
response to this ANPR, as well as previously collected and assembled 
information, to help determine whether to propose any additions or 
modifications to the Minimum Risk Pesticide Listing Program or related 
policies and to the class exemptions or the other provisions at 40 CFR 
152.25. In addition to comments received in response to this ANPR, 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 for amending the current regulations in 40 CFR 152.25, 
and issue 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 to comment on EPA's 
proposal.

IV. 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 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    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).

[[Page 18237]]

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 impose requirements do not apply to this ANPR. Should EPA 
subsequently determine to pursue a rulemaking, EPA will address the 
statutes and Executive Orders as applicable to that rulemaking.
    As part of your comments on this ANPR, please include any comments 
or information that you believe could help the Agency assess the 
potential impact of a subsequent regulatory action with regard to the 
following:
    Potential economic impacts on small entities pursuant to the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    Potential applicability of voluntary consensus standards pursuant 
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note);
    Potential 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 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); and
    Potential impacts to state and local governments or tribal 
governments.
    The Agency will consider such comments during the development of a 
subsequent rulemaking as it takes appropriate steps to address any 
applicable requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 152

    Environmental protection, Exemptions from pesticide regulation, 
Minimum risk pesticides.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-07033 Filed 4-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P