FIFRA Enforcement:
On September 7, 2012, EPA and the Department of Justice announced criminal and civil settlements with the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company for alleged violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the federal law governing manufacture, distribution, and sale of pesticides. Scotts produces pesticides for commercial and consumer lawn and garden uses. The case levied the largest criminal penalty, and the largest civil settlement, ever sought under FIFRA. According to the EPA’s press release, Scotts had sold more than 70 million units of bird food illegally treated with pesticide that is toxic to birds. The settlement leaves one asking: “How did this happen at such a well-known and respected company?”
Criminal
Scotts was sentenced in federal district court in Columbus, Ohio. Scotts must pay a $4 million fine and perform community service for eleven criminal violations of FIFRA. In addition to the $4 million criminal fine, Scotts will contribute $500,000 to organizations that protect bird habitat, including $100,000 each to the Ohio Audubon’s Important Bird Area Program, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ Urban Forestry Program, the Columbus Metro-Parks Bird Habitat Enhancement Program, the Cornell University Ornithology Laboratory, and The Nature Conservancy of Ohio to support the protection of bird populations and habitats through conservation, research, and education.
Scotts pleaded guilty in February 2012 to illegally applying insecticides to its wild bird food products that are toxic to birds, falsifying pesticide registration documents, distributing pesticides with misleading and unapproved labels, and distributing unregistered pesticides.
In the plea agreement, Scotts admitted that it applied the pesticides Actellic 5E and Storcide II to its bird food products even though EPA had prohibited this use. Scotts purportedly had done so to protect its bird foods from insect infestation during storage. The company admitted that it used these pesticides contrary to EPA directives and in spite of the warning label appearing on all Storicide II containers stating, “Storcide II is extremely toxic to fish and toxic to birds and other wildlife.” Scotts sold this illegally treated bird food for two years after it began marketing its bird food line and for six months after employees specifically warned Scotts management of the dangers of these pesticides.
Scotts also pleaded guilty to submitting false documents to EPA and to state regulatory agencies in an effort to deceive them into believing that numerous pesticides were registered with EPA when in fact they were not. The company also pleaded guilty to having illegally sold the unregistered pesticides and to marketing pesticides bearing labels containing false and misleading claims not approved by EPA. The falsified documents submitted to EPA and states were attributed to a federal product manager at Scotts.
The criminal case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division and the Environmental Enforcement Unit of the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, Bureau of Criminal Identification & Investigation. It was prosecuted by Senior Trial Attorney Jeremy F. Korzenik of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, by Michael J. McClary, EPA Criminal Enforcement Counsel and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney and by Assistant U.S. Attorney J. Michael Marous.
Civil
In a separate civil agreement with EPA, Scotts agreed to pay more than $6 million in penalties and spend $2 million on environmental projects to resolves additional civil pesticide violations. The violations include distributing or selling unregistered, canceled, or misbranded pesticides, including products with inadequate warnings or cautions.
At the time the criminal violations were discovered, EPA also began a civil investigation that uncovered numerous civil violations spanning five years. Scotts’ FIFRA civil violations included the nationwide distribution or sale of unregistered, canceled, or misbranded pesticides, including products with inadequate warnings or cautions. As a result, EPA issued more than 40 Stop Sale, Use or Removal Orders to Scotts to address more than 100 pesticide products.
In addition to the $6 million civil penalty, Scotts will complete environmental projects, valued at $2 million, to acquire, restore and protect 300 acres of land to prevent runoff of agricultural chemicals into nearby waterways.
The civil case was investigated by U.S. EPA Region 5’s Land and Chemicals Division and Office of Regional Counsel, and the U.S. EPA Headquarters Office of Civil Enforcement, assisted by the Office of Pesticides Program.
Agency Press Statements
According to EPA’s press release: “The misuse or mislabeling of pesticide products can cause serious illness in humans and be toxic to wildlife,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Today’s sentence and unprecedented civil settlement hold Scotts accountable for widespread company noncompliance with pesticide laws, which put products into the hands of consumers without the proper authorization or warning labels.”
“As the world’s largest marketer of residential use pesticides, Scotts has a special obligation to make certain that it observes the laws governing the sale and use of its products. For having failed to do so, Scotts has been sentenced to pay the largest fine in the history of FIFRA enforcement,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. “The Department of Justice will continue to work with EPA to assure that pesticides applied in homes and on lawns and food are sold and used in compliance with the laws intended to assure their safety.”
*****
More information about the civil settlement and recalled products: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/fifra/scottsmiraclegro.html
EPA Withdraws Immediate Final TSCA 8(d) Rule for Cadmium
/in News & Events, TSCATSCA:
On Friday, December 14, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), announced the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to withdraw the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(d) immediate final rule published on December 3, 2012. In its announcment the agency said: “Based on several letters asking questions and raising concerns about the scope and extent of the immediate final rule that indicate that there is significant confusion and uncertainty within certain industrial sectors concerning the rule, EPA has decided to withdraw the immediate final rule.” EPA will announce the withdrawal in the Federal Register, no later than January 2, 2013, the original effective date of the final rule.
EPA also said that it “will be considering the questions and concerns raised in response to the immediate final rule and next steps with regard to this rule. EPA will also continue to work with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to reduce exposure to cadmium in consumer products generally, and especially those consumer products used by or around children, such as children’s metal jewelry.”
More information about this development is available at the agency’s website here. Information about section 8(d) is available here.
DTSC Requests Public Comment on Scientific Peer Review of Green Chemistry Regulations
/in Green Chemistry, Green Chemistry Regulation, News & EventsCalifornia Green Chemistry Regulations:
Yesterday, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) notified the public that the agency is adding two external scientific peer review reports to the Safer Consumer Products rulemaking, which was published in the California Regulatory Notice Register (Z-2012-0717-04)on July 27, 2012. A public comment period for the external scientific peer review reports will commence on November 30, 2012, and close at 5 p.m. on December 30, 2012.
According to the notice, DTSC has complied with Health and Safety Code section 57004 regarding submission of the scientific portions of the proposed safer consumer product regulations to an external scientific peer review. Documents were submitted to scientific peer reviewers through the University of California. Their written reports, which contain an evaluation of the scientific basis of the regulations, have been added to the rulemaking file. (If truly independent and objective, these comments should make interesting reading, potentially providing ammunition for the legal challenge that seems likely.)
Comments may be submitted by e-mail to gcregs@dtsc.ca.gov, by fax to (916) 324-1808, or by mail to:
Ms. Krysia Von Burg
Regulations Coordinator
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
Tel: (916) 324-2810
Fax: (916) 324-1808
The external scientific peer review reports are available at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/LawsRegsPolicies/Regs/index.cfm or http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SCPRegulations.cfm and for public inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the Regulations Section located at 1001 I Street, 22nd Floor, Sacramento, California. Requests and inquiries concerning this matter may be directed to Ms. Krysia Von Burg at the address indicated above or by telephone at (916) 324-2810. If Ms. Von Burg is unavailable, please call Ms. Jacqueline Arnold at (916) 322-2004.
Inquiries regarding technical aspects of the external scientific peer review report should be directed to Mr. Jeff Wong at (916) 322-2822. If Mr. Wong is unavailable, please call Ms. Odette Madriago at (916) 323-4927. However, such oral inquiries are not part of the rulemaking record.
New EPCRA TRI Website
/in EPCRA, News & Events, Right-to-Know, TransparencyEPCRA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI):
On November 19, 2012, EPA rolled out a new website to provide information on how industrial facilities are preventing releases of chemicals. The site shows how industry is making progress in reducing releases reported under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (ECPCRA). The site and additional information about the TRI program is available here.
FTC Publishes Revised Green Guides
/in Green Marketing, News & Events, Right-to-Know, Sustainable Packaging, Sustainable ProductsGreen Marketing:
On October 2, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published long-awaited revised guidelines, known as the Green Guides, to aid marketers in properly making environmental benefit claims. The FTC released its final revisions after a multiyear investigatory process, which included marketing surveys as well as reviewing comments from companies, trade organizations, government entities and individuals. The the Green Guides lack the force of law, they provide guidance on how to avoid false or misleading environmental marketing claims in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
Below is a short summary of some of the major changes contained within the final revisions.
Highlights of the Newly Revised Green Guides
General Environmental Benefit Claims: The Green Guides caution against making general environmental benefit claims, such as using the words “green” or “eco-friendly,” without stating the basis for and qualifying these terms. The qualifying information must be clear, prominent and available at the point of sale—so consumers are able to see it before making their purchasing decisions.
Carbon Offsets: Marketers should use competent and reliable scientific evidence and comprehensive accounting methods to support their claims. However, an offset claim is inappropriate if the activity that makes the basis of the claim is required by law. If the offset purchase will pay for an emission reduction that will not occur for at least two years, then marketers are encouraged to disclose this information.
Certifications and Seals of Approval: The Green Guides also make recommendations for certifications and seals of approval used for endorsements. Marketers are encouraged to use environmental certifications or seals that convey the basis for the certification, but if these are not available, then they should clearly identify the product’s specific environmental benefits. Marketers are also encouraged to disclose their material connections with certifying organizations and must verify all express and implied claims when using third-party certification.
Compostable or Degradable: “Compostable” claims must be based on competent and reliable scientific evidence, showing that product or packaging materials will become usable compost. Marketers should qualify if the product is not able to be composted in a safe or timely fashion. “Degradable” claims do not have to be qualified if the product or package can completely break down within a reasonably short amount of time, typically one year.
“Free-Off”: “Free-of” claims can be made if the product contains trace amounts, background levels or less of the substance; the substance was not intentionally added to the product; and the amount contained with the product will not cause the type of harm linked to the substance. The final revision differs from the standard articulated in the draft revision, and it will certainly create challenges for marketers.
Non-Toxic: For “non-toxic” claims, marketers should employ competent and reliable scientific evidence showing that the product is safe for people and the environment, unless otherwise qualified. A product might be considered “non-toxic” under certain agency regulations designed to protect human health, but those regulations might not ensure protection for the environment.
Ozone-Safe: Marketers are cautioned against misrepresenting that a product is safe for the atmosphere or ozone layer because the FTC finds that these can be unqualified general environmental benefit claims.
Recyclable and Recycled Content: The Green Guides also provide guidance regarding “recyclable” and “recycled content” claims. Recyclable claims should be qualified if recycling facilities are unavailable to 60 percent of consumers or communities to whom manufacturers sell a product. Recycled content refers to material recovered or diverted from waste during manufacturing or post-consumer use. Marketers are advised to qualify claims for products or packaging constructed partly from recycled material and specify the amount of partly recycled material contained therein. In addition, qualified claims should be made for products containing used, reconditioned or remanufactured parts.
Refillable: Marketers should not make unqualified “refillable” claims unless they identify a method to refill the product.
Renewable Materials and Energy : With claims like “made with renewable materials or energy,” the guides provide that marketers should qualify claims with specific information about the renewable materials used, such as what the renewable material is, how it is sourced and what qualifies it as renewable. Also, the Green Guides specify that marketers should qualify claims of renewable energy by specifying the source (e.g., wind or solar). If the power used to manufacture the product or any component of the product comes from fossil fuels, a renewable energy claim is inappropriate unless renewable energy certificates are purchased to link with energy use.
Source Reduction: Finally, “source reduction” claims should be qualified with the amount of reduction and the basis for comparison from which the claim is made (e.g., “30 percent less runof f than our earlier model”).
“Sustainable” and “Organic” Are Not Addressed: The final revisions offer no guidance on claims regarding “sustainability” and whether a product is “organic.” The FTC claims that it lacks a sufficient basis or context to provide guidance on these claims because these terms have numerous meanings among consumers. However, the Green Guides caution marketers from making these types of claims without impunity.
***
The complete final revisions to the FTC’s Green Marketing Guides are available here. Additional information is also available on the FTC’s dedicated website.
CBO Estimates Senator Lautenberg's TSCA Reform Bill Would Cost $128 Million over the Next Five Years
/in News & Events, TSCA ReformTSCA Reform:
On Tuesday, October 2, the Congressional Budget Office published its evaluation of the costs of implementing the amended version of S.847, The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, which is Senator Lautenberg’s latest attempt to amend the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Readers will recall that the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works passed the amended bill on July 25, sending it to the full Senate for a vote. Our blog post on that version of the bill is available here.
The CBO press release says the following:
“S. 847 would modify the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the law that regulates the manufacture, importation, and processing of chemicals, with the aim of shifting the burden from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to chemical manufacturers to prove that substances are safe before they enter the marketplace. This new responsibility for chemical manufacturers would be accomplished primarily by increasing the amount of information about chemical toxicity and usage that they would be required to submit to EPA. Enacting this legislation also would require EPA to undertake other activities that would encourage and support the development of safer alternatives to existing hazardous chemical substances.
CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would cost $128 million over the next five years, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, as EPA would incur additional administrative costs to meet the new requirements imposed by S. 847.
Enacting S. 847 could affect direct spending and revenues because the bill would increase some existing civil and criminal penalties for violations of TSCA, establish some new civil and criminal penalties for violations related to that act, and authorize EPA to charge fees to chemical manufacturers. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply to S. 847. CBO estimates that any changes in revenues and direct spending would not be significant.
A copy of the CBO report is available here.
EPA Posts List of Safer Chemical Ingredients for DfE Safer Product Labeling Program
/in Green Chemistry, News & Events, Sustainable ProductsDesign for the Environment (DfE):
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today posted a List of Safer Chemical Ingredients that contains chemicals that meet stringent criteria applied by the Design for the Environment (DfE) Safer Product Labeling Program. This program recognizes products that are high-performance and cost-effective while using the safest chemical ingredients. At present, more than 2,800 common household and other products carry the DfE Safer Product Label. This list of safer chemical ingredients will help product manufacturers identify chemicals that the DfE program has evaluated and identified as safer alternatives. This list only includes chemicals in products that were voluntarily submitted for evaluation through the DfE Safer Product Labeling Program. There may be other chemicals not included in this list that are also safer. The list and additional information can be found at http://www.epa.gov/dfe/saferingredients.htm You can contact Bridget Williams in EPA’s DfE Program at 202-564-8558 or by email at williams.bridget@epa.gov for further information.
EPA Undertakes FIFRA Enforcement Initiative Against Companies Selling Alleged Plant Growth Regulators
/in Enforcement, FIFRA, News & EventsFIFRA Enforcement:
On September 13, 2012, EPA issued a press release announcing three enforcement actions the agency recently settled against Missouri pesticide distributors under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA alleged the distributors violated FIFRA by selling and distributing unregistered and misbranded pesticides. All three cases involved the sale and distribution of “plant growth regulators,” which are regulated as “pesticides” under FIFRA. (Readers are forgiven for not knowing that plant growth regulators, several of which are natural and found in seaweed, are pesticides under FIFRA.) Although the agency’s press release doesn’t mention it, the enforcement actions appear to be part of a broader, “under-the-radar” initiative against companies producing growth regulators, many of which are marketed as “biostimulants” or “fertilizers,” and not “pesticides.”
FIFRA defines plant growth regulators as substances intended to accelerate or retard the growth of plants. Among other things, substances considered to be plant regulators may include hormone additives intended to stimulate plant root growth or fruiting, such as gibberellins, auxins, and cytokinins derived from seaweed. Products containing these additives are often marketed as fertilizers or biostimulants, but EPA says such claims do not exempt the products from regulation as pesticides.
The three settlements are summarized below, but others are pending within EPA and we suspect the agency is pursuing investigation of still more.
On June 14, 2012, FIFRA-07-2012-0015, Mayberry Seed Company of Essex, Missouri, agreed to pay a $17,160 penalty to resolve violations of FIFRA. EPA alleged that Mayberry distributed or sold an unregistered plant growth regulator and fungicide on at least 14 occasions between April 1, 2010, and August 25, 2011.
On July 5, 2012, Southeast Cooperative Service Company, Inc., of Advance, Missouri, agreed to pay a $12,000 civil penalty to resolve multiple sales of an unregistered plant growth regulator and fungicide to at least four individuals between April 1, 2010, and August 21, 2010.
On Sept. 4, 2012, FIFRA-07-2012-0029, AgXplore International, LLC, of Parma, Missouri, agreed to pay a $237,573 civil penalty to resolve violations of FIFRA, including 212 counts for the sale or distribution between May 7, 2009, and March 25, 2012, of 19 different unregistered pesticide products, including plant regulators, insecticides, and fungicides. AgXplore International, LLC has informed its customers and distributors of its violative products.
Under FIFRA, distributors of pesticides must ensure that pesticides intended for distribution within the U.S. are registered both if the distributor claims the substance can be used as a pesticide or if the product is intended to be used for a pesticidal purpose, including as a plant regulator.
Many plant growth regulator products are properly registered with EPA. Companies which comply with pesticide registration requirements must pay registration fees and may also incur significant costs in ensuring their products are correctly formulated, perform as intended, and are properly labeled. Accordingly, entities which produce, sell or distribute unregistered pesticides place themselves at an economic advantage relative to their competitors who comply with the law.
EPA registration requirements also protect consumers by ensuring that products are formulated in accordance with the product label. Without proper registration and labeling on pesticides (including required safety information), users may unintentionally misapply pesticides and cause damage to crops or non-target areas and may lack adequate first aid information in the event of an accident.
As part of their respective settlements with EPA, each of the three companies has certified that it is presently in compliance with FIFRA and its regulations.
Stay tuned for future postings regarding this development.
EPA Levies Record-Setting Penalties under FIFRA
/in Enforcement, FIFRA, News & EventsFIFRA Enforcement:
On September 7, 2012, EPA and the Department of Justice announced criminal and civil settlements with the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company for alleged violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the federal law governing manufacture, distribution, and sale of pesticides. Scotts produces pesticides for commercial and consumer lawn and garden uses. The case levied the largest criminal penalty, and the largest civil settlement, ever sought under FIFRA. According to the EPA’s press release, Scotts had sold more than 70 million units of bird food illegally treated with pesticide that is toxic to birds. The settlement leaves one asking: “How did this happen at such a well-known and respected company?”
Criminal
Scotts was sentenced in federal district court in Columbus, Ohio. Scotts must pay a $4 million fine and perform community service for eleven criminal violations of FIFRA. In addition to the $4 million criminal fine, Scotts will contribute $500,000 to organizations that protect bird habitat, including $100,000 each to the Ohio Audubon’s Important Bird Area Program, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ Urban Forestry Program, the Columbus Metro-Parks Bird Habitat Enhancement Program, the Cornell University Ornithology Laboratory, and The Nature Conservancy of Ohio to support the protection of bird populations and habitats through conservation, research, and education.
Scotts pleaded guilty in February 2012 to illegally applying insecticides to its wild bird food products that are toxic to birds, falsifying pesticide registration documents, distributing pesticides with misleading and unapproved labels, and distributing unregistered pesticides.
In the plea agreement, Scotts admitted that it applied the pesticides Actellic 5E and Storcide II to its bird food products even though EPA had prohibited this use. Scotts purportedly had done so to protect its bird foods from insect infestation during storage. The company admitted that it used these pesticides contrary to EPA directives and in spite of the warning label appearing on all Storicide II containers stating, “Storcide II is extremely toxic to fish and toxic to birds and other wildlife.” Scotts sold this illegally treated bird food for two years after it began marketing its bird food line and for six months after employees specifically warned Scotts management of the dangers of these pesticides.
Scotts also pleaded guilty to submitting false documents to EPA and to state regulatory agencies in an effort to deceive them into believing that numerous pesticides were registered with EPA when in fact they were not. The company also pleaded guilty to having illegally sold the unregistered pesticides and to marketing pesticides bearing labels containing false and misleading claims not approved by EPA. The falsified documents submitted to EPA and states were attributed to a federal product manager at Scotts.
The criminal case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division and the Environmental Enforcement Unit of the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, Bureau of Criminal Identification & Investigation. It was prosecuted by Senior Trial Attorney Jeremy F. Korzenik of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, by Michael J. McClary, EPA Criminal Enforcement Counsel and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney and by Assistant U.S. Attorney J. Michael Marous.
Civil
In a separate civil agreement with EPA, Scotts agreed to pay more than $6 million in penalties and spend $2 million on environmental projects to resolves additional civil pesticide violations. The violations include distributing or selling unregistered, canceled, or misbranded pesticides, including products with inadequate warnings or cautions.
At the time the criminal violations were discovered, EPA also began a civil investigation that uncovered numerous civil violations spanning five years. Scotts’ FIFRA civil violations included the nationwide distribution or sale of unregistered, canceled, or misbranded pesticides, including products with inadequate warnings or cautions. As a result, EPA issued more than 40 Stop Sale, Use or Removal Orders to Scotts to address more than 100 pesticide products.
In addition to the $6 million civil penalty, Scotts will complete environmental projects, valued at $2 million, to acquire, restore and protect 300 acres of land to prevent runoff of agricultural chemicals into nearby waterways.
The civil case was investigated by U.S. EPA Region 5’s Land and Chemicals Division and Office of Regional Counsel, and the U.S. EPA Headquarters Office of Civil Enforcement, assisted by the Office of Pesticides Program.
Agency Press Statements
According to EPA’s press release: “The misuse or mislabeling of pesticide products can cause serious illness in humans and be toxic to wildlife,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Today’s sentence and unprecedented civil settlement hold Scotts accountable for widespread company noncompliance with pesticide laws, which put products into the hands of consumers without the proper authorization or warning labels.”
“As the world’s largest marketer of residential use pesticides, Scotts has a special obligation to make certain that it observes the laws governing the sale and use of its products. For having failed to do so, Scotts has been sentenced to pay the largest fine in the history of FIFRA enforcement,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. “The Department of Justice will continue to work with EPA to assure that pesticides applied in homes and on lawns and food are sold and used in compliance with the laws intended to assure their safety.”
*****
More information about the civil settlement and recalled products: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/fifra/scottsmiraclegro.html
California DTSC Extends Comment Period for Proposed Safer Consumer Product Regulations
/in Green Chemistry Regulation, News & EventsCalifornia Green Chemistry Regulations:
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC) has announced a 30-day extension for the comment period on the proposed Safer Consumer Product regulations. The regulations were released on July 27. The new deadline for submitting comments is 5 p.m. on October 11, 2012. The public hearing on September 10, 2012 will take place as scheduled.
EPA Publishes the Peer Review Plans for the Risk Assessments on the Seven 2012 Work Plan Chemicals
/in Risk Assessment, TSCATSCA:
Today, August 17, 2012, EPA published the Peer Review Plans for the risk assessments on the seven 2012 work plan chemicals. The plans, which form part of the Agency’s Peer Review Agenda, describe the focus of the risk assessment being conducted on each chemical, indicate how peer reviewers will be selected and how the peer review will be conducted, and provide the time line for the reviews. As indicated in the plans, EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register when the External Review Drafts of the assessments become available, and will provide a 60-day period for public comment on the drafts before the peer review begins. The public will also be able to present comments at the teleconference panel review meetings. You can access and submit comments on the individual peer review plans for each chemical by using the following links: