[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 15 (Monday, January 25, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4007-4010]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01291]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 577

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0001]
RIN 2127-AL66

Update Means of Providing Notification; Improving Efficacy of
Recalls

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to amend, by regulation, the
means of notification required under the Safety Act, to be in a manner
other than, or in addition to, first-class mail. Furthermore, Section
24104 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act)
expounds on the need to update the means of notification by requiring
the Agency to include notification by electronic means in addition to
first class mail notification, within 270 days of its enactment. MAP-21
also authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to improve the efficacy
of recalls by requiring manufacturers to send additional notifications
of defects or noncompliance if a second notification by the
manufacturer does not result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or
replacement equipment being returned for remedy.
    NHTSA seeks public comment on the means, in addition to first class
mail, of providing notification to owners, purchasers, and dealers, by
a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or replacement equipment, that the
vehicle or equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety
or does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. As
a result of this ANPRM, the Agency anticipates receiving information
that will aid the Agency in developing a rule implementing the
notification requirements under MAP-21 and the FAST Act. The Agency
anticipates that comments and information received will aid in updating
the Agency's regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 10, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Internet: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may also call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
notice. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under the Public
Participation heading in the Supplementary Information section below
for more information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For substantive issues: Jennifer
Timian, Office of Defects Investigation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues: Justine
Casselle, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary
II. Notification Requirements Before and After MAP-21
    A. Means of Notification
    B. Additional Notifications
III. Public Participation
    A. Means and Methods of Notification
    B. General Owner Knowledge and Behavior/Availability of
Information to Owners
    C. Privacy Act
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
V. Submission of Comments

I. Executive Summary

    The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
authorizes the Agency to amend, through rulemaking, the means of
providing notification to owners, purchasers, and dealers, by a
manufacturer of a motor vehicle or replacement equipment, that the
vehicle or equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety
or does not comply with an applicable federal motor vehicle safety
standard. MAP-21 also authorizes NHTSA to improve recall effectiveness
by requiring manufacturers to send additional notifications of defects
or noncompliance if a second notification by the manufacturer does not
result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or replacement equipment
being returned for remedy. Finally, MAP-21 authorizes NHTSA to permit
``public notice'' in addition to individualized notification. More
recently, Section 24104 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act (FAST Act) requires the Agency to amend the means of notification
to owners by including electronic notification in addition to first
class mail notification.

    Much has changed in the ways and means by which manufacturers
communicate with their customers and influence behavior since the
1970's when U.S. law first required manufacturers to notify owners in
the event of a safety recall. Hard copy mail has become far less
prominent in the wake of virtually instantaneous electronic message
such as email and text messaging, in addition to heavy use of social
media. First class mail does not inform as to whether an owner actually
received the mail, let alone whether they read it and understood it,
whereas electronic messaging technologies are capable of confirming
whether the message at least was delivered to the address given. This
ANPRM seeks comments and supporting information on the specific means
and methods of notification that manufacturers use, and those that
manufacturers consider are most effective, to reach their owners and
purchasers as well as motivate them to have safety recalls completed.
We seek to learn and obtain opinion on what methods should be required
of manufacturers, as well as what methods are viable as alternatives in
the event a recall campaign does not meet expectations and/or the
Agency believes a public notification as contemplated by the statute is
appropriate. This is all in an effort to leverage the new authorities
NHTSA has been given to most efficiently and effectively improve safety
recall completion rates. NHTSA will use the comments and supporting
information submitted in response to this ANPRM to inform its
development of a regulatory proposal that would allow notification of
safety related recalls to be issued by means other than, or in addition
to, first-class mail.

II. Notification Requirements Before and After MAP-21

A. Means of Notification

    49 U.S.C. 30118(c) requires motor vehicle manufacturers or
manufacturers of replacement equipment to ``notify . . . the owners,
purchasers, and dealers of vehicle or equipment as provided in section
30119(d) of this section, if the manufacturer:
    1. Learns the vehicle or equipment contains a defect and decides in
good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety; or
    2. Decides in good faith that the vehicle or equipment does not
comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed
under this chapter.

The manner by which this required notice would be given to owners or
purchasers of vehicles or equipment is governed by 49 U.S.C. 30119(d).
Prior to MAP-21, and for vehicle recalls, section 30119(d) required
notice is to be sent via first-class mail to the registered owner, or
if the registered owner could not be identified, to the most recent
purchaser known to the manufacturer. 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(1)(A)-(B). For
recalls of replacement equipment, the statute required notification to
the most recent purchaser. Id.
    Section 31310 of MAP-21 amended the notice provisions in 49 U.S.C.
30119(d) to allow the Secretary of Transportation, and by delegation
NHTSA's Administrator, the flexibility to determine the manner by which
notifications about safety recalls under 49 U.S.C. 30118 must be sent.
The statute requires notification to be sent to each registered owner
whose name and address is reasonably ascertainable through State
records or other available sources, or the most recent purchaser known
to the manufacturer. 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(1)(A)-(B). Manufacturers are
also required to notify dealers under the statute. 49 U.S.C.
30119(d)(4). The amended statutory language authorizes the Agency to
engage in a rulemaking to permit notification of vehicle defects and
noncompliance by means other than first-class mail, such as electronic
notification. Recently, the FAST Act expounds on this authority by
expressly requiring the Agency to amend, by rulemaking, the means of
notification to include electronic notification.

B. Additional Notifications

    Not only did Section 31310 address the means of providing
notification, both on an individualized basis and on a more broad-based
level, but it also addressed improving the efficacy of recalls through
additional notifications. Previously, 49 U.S.C. 30119(e) authorized the
Secretary to order a second notification if the Secretary determined
that the first notification failed to result in an adequate number of
motor vehicles or items of replacement equipment being returned for
remedy. The statute was silent, however, as to whether additional
notifications beyond a second notification could be required. Section
31310 resolves this question by amending 49 U.S.C. 30119(e), which now,
under 49 U.S.C. 30119(e)(2)(A)(i), authorizes the Secretary to order
additional notifications if the Secretary determines that a second
notification also failed to result in an adequate number of motor
vehicles or items of replacement equipment being returned for remedy.
    Like the notifications addressed above, the means of additional
notifications is to be in a ``manner prescribed by the Secretary, by
regulation.'' 49 U.S.C. 30119(e)(2)(A)(i). This language anticipates
the Agency will engage in rulemaking to contemplate and permit, if not
order where warranted, notification of motor vehicle and equipment
defects and failures to comply by means other than first-class mail.

III. Public Participation

    NHTSA invites comments and information on how the agency can best
leverage the new flexibilities it has been given under MAP-21 and the
FAST Act to update the required means manufacturers use, whether as a
first notification or as a follow-up notification, to successfully
notify their owners and purchasers and urge them toward seeking the
free remedies they are offered. As a general matter, the Agency
requests that commenters provide as much research, evidence, or data as
possible to support their comments, including cost-benefit information,
as that information will be of great assistance to the Agency as it
moves forward in the development of a proposed rule. The questions
below are intended to focus, but not limit, the information and
opinions commenters offer. Commenters are encouraged to offer any
suggestions or tactics that may not have been expressly mentioned in
this notice.

A. Means and Methods of Notification

    (1) How effective has traditional first class mail been at reaching
owners? What is the estimated delivery rate for vehicle recalls where
registered owner information from state agencies and the U.S.
territories are available? What is the estimated delivery rate for
equipment recalls where these information sources are not available?
How many owners are equipment manufacturers able to notify using
traditional first class mail?
    (2) Other than by first class mail, in what ways can and do
manufacturers notify owners about safety recalls? How do, or should,
those means and methods change dependent upon the product being sold or
how it was sold (e.g., vehicles as opposed to replacement equipment, or
online sales as opposed to brick and mortar retail shops)? What are the
respective rates of delivery success for these methods? What
information or technology is available and used to calculate these
rates of delivery?
    (3) What are the corresponding rates of remedy completion for these
methods discussed in your response to paragraph (2) above?

    (4) What sales and marketing methods and techniques could be
employed for safety recall communications? Which have shown the most
success in terms of owners understanding and owner recall completion,
which have shown the least, and why? What information or technology is
available and used to calculate these findings and how do manufacturers
determine if these methods motivated the recall completion as opposed
to the recall completion being motivated by other tools such as first
class mailings?
    (5) If manufacturers communicate with owners through email, text
messaging, smart phone applications, or other electronic means, which
method of communication do manufacturers find most effective at
reaching owners? Which method of communication do owners prefer? Are
there best practices as to when and how these communications are
applied and when they are not? Are there certain demographics that seem
to respond less or more to certain types of electronic communications?
    (6) Are manufacturers using social media to inform owners of safety
recalls and influence owners' behavior to have recalls work completed?
What media is being used and which have been the most or least
effective in terms of ``click-throughs'' or other methods for tracking
owner attention? Are there certain demographics that seem to respond
less or more to social media generally and/or specific types of social
media? Are there best practices as to when and how these communications
are applied and when they are not?
    (7) Are there any legal or other limitations of which the Agency
should be aware in contemplating any of the alternatives noted above or
mentioned in your comments?
    (8) Do manufacturers currently have access to owners' email
addresses? Excluding collecting emails at point of sale, from where do
manufacturers collect this information and how do they determine its
``freshness'' or accuracy? Should owners be required to provide an
email address as part of a purchase or service transaction? Should the
answer depend on how and where the product was purchased, the purchase
price of the product, or some other factor? Why or why not?
    (9) What contingencies do manufacturers have in place to avoid spam
filters or to indicate that an email relates to a safety recall
explicitly? What assurances are, or could be, put in place to confirm
that an email was (a) received and (b) opened?
    (10) The purpose of 49 CFR part 577 is ``to ensure that
notifications of defects or noncompliances adequately inform and
effectively motivate owners of potentially defective or noncomplying
motor vehicles or items of replacement equipment to have such vehicles
or equipment inspected and, where necessary, remedied as quickly as
possible.'' Does notification by means other than first-class mail and
email carry out this purpose? What about text alerts, social media
campaigns, and other less traditional methods?

B. General Owner Knowledge and Behavior/Availability of Information to
Owners

    (1) Do owners read and understand the information they are
currently receiving from required safety recall notices delivered via
first class mail? What data or research supports your response?
    (2) Is there data identifying why owners do not react to safety
recall notices they receive from their manufacturers? What does that
data suggest would increase owner behavior toward recall completion? Is
there data indicating whether an increase in owners recall completion
is more likely to occur in the presence of cash incentives, service
offers, or other means? Is there data indicating otherwise?
    (3) What recall information do owners want and how do they want it
expressed? Are there particular words or phrases? Are their particular
formats or graphics that align more with recall completion? If any
focus group studies have been conducted by manufacturers or other
organizations regarding owners' needs in this area, should the Agency
use them to aid in assessing how to meet those needs?
    (4) Should the Agency engage in its own behavior study including,
but not limited to, surveys, polls, and focus groups? If so, what
questions should be asked? What strategies used? How large of a survey
or poll should be conducted?

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order
12866 or Executive Order 13563. NHTSA has considered the impact of this
ANPRM under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. This ANPRM seeks comments and supporting information on how
the Agency can best update the means of notifying owners, purchasers,
and dealers of recalls in an effort to improve vehicle safety recall
completion rates. Because this rulemaking only seeks comments and
information to aid in the Agency's development of a proposed rule, the
impact of this ANPRM is limited. Therefore, this rulemaking has been
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of
the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    As this Notice is an ANPRM, we are not proposing to adopt any new
information collection or record keeping requirements. If, after
considering the public comments received in response to this notice
NHTSA decides to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that includes
information collection or record keeping requirements, that notice will
discuss any new paperwork burden associated with those proposed
requirements.

Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

V. Submission of Comments

How can I influence NHTSA's thinking on this rulemaking?

    Your comments will help us improve this proposed rulemaking. We
invite you to provide different views on options we discuss, new
approaches we have not considered, new data, descriptions of how this
ANPRM may affect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your
views on all aspects of this ANPRM, but request comments on specific
issues throughout this document. Your comments will be most

effective if you follow the suggestions below:
     Explain your views and reasoning as clearly as possible.
     Provide solid evidence and data to support your views.
     If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived
at that estimate.
     Tell us which parts of the ANPRM you support, as well as
those with which you disagree.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
     Offer specific alternatives.
     Refer your comments to the specific sections of the ANPRM.
    Your comments must be written in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. 49 CFR 553.21.
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Please submit your comments to the docket electronically by logging
onto http://www.regulations.gov or by the means given in the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this document. Please note that pursuant to
the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon
and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards
set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly,
we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments.
OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. In addition, you should
submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information to the docket. When you send a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulations. 49 CFR part 512.

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that the docket receives before the
close of business on the comment closing date indicated in the DATES
section. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that
the docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment
too late for us to consider it in developing the next step in this
rulemaking, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for
future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given in the ADDRESSES section. You may also see the comments on the
Internet (http://regulations.gov). Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in
the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check
the docket for new material. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19476 at 19477-78).

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116-30121, 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 14, 2016 under authority
delegated pursuant to 49 CFR 1.95.
Frank S. Borris II,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-01291 Filed 1-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 9 (Monday, January 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2646-2647]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00646]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0966; Airspace Docket No. 12-AWA-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Modification of Class B Airspace; Las Vegas, NV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); Reopening of comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: This action reopens the comment period for an NPRM that was
published on October 26, 2012. In that document, the FAA proposed to
modify the Las Vegas, NV, Class B airspace area to ensure the
containment of large turbine-powered aircraft within Class B airspace.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on October 26, 2012 (77 FR 65332) closed on December 26, 2012,
is reopened until February 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-
0966 and Airspace Docket No. 12-AWA-5, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and ATC
Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2012-0966 and Airspace Docket No. 12-AWA-5) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Nos. FAA-2012-0966 and Airspace Docket No. 12-AWA-5.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM's

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Western Service Center, Operations
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Ave. SW.,
Renton, WA 98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Background

    In the Federal Register of October 26, 2012, the FAA issued a NPRM
entitled

``Proposed Modification of Class B Airspace; Las Vegas, NV'' (77 FR
65332). The FAA requested that comments on that proposal be received on
or before December 26, 2012. By letter dated December 7, 2012, the
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) requested that the FAA
extend the comment period for at least 30 days. AOPA stated that the
original comment period encompassed two Federal holidays and that no
comments had been posted to the docket as of the date of their letter.
AOPA added that an extension would provide additional time for the
public to review the NPRM and submit substantive comments on the
proposal.

Reopening of Comment Period

    The FAA has reviewed AOPA's request for additional time to comment
on the NPRM and has determined that reopening of the comment period is
consistent with the public interest and that good cause exists for
taking this action.
    Accordingly, the comment period for Docket No. FAA-2012-0966;
Airspace Docket No. 12-AWA-5, is reopened as indicated in the DATES
section, above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 8, 2013.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2013-00646 Filed 1-10-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P


<Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions 8E7434 and 8E7436

Petitioner: <Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) in cooperation
with Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. >

>

<EPA Registration Division contact: Susan Stanton;<PHONE_NUMBER>>

<	EPA has received  pesticide petitions (PP#8E7434 and PP#8E7436) from >

<Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East,
Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d),
to amend 40 CFR part 180.222 by establishing tolerances for residues of
prometryn, 2,4-bis(isopropylamino)-6-methylthio-s-triazine (CAS Number
7287-19-6), in or on the raw agricultural commodities carrot at 0.7
parts per million (ppm); celeriac, roots at 0.05 ppm; celeriac, tops at
0.05 ppm; cilantro, fresh at 4.0 ppm; cilantro, dried at 15 ppm; okra at
0.05 ppm; parsley, leaves at 0.7 ppm (all the preceding in PP8E7434);
and leafy petiole subgroup 4B at 0.5 ppm (PP#8E7436).  EPA has
determined that the petitions contain data or information regarding the
elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA; however, EPA has
not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time
or whether the data supports granting of the petitions. Additional data
may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism. The qualitative nature of prometryn residues in
plants is adequately understood based upon available EPA approved cotton
and celery metabolism studies.  The metabolism of prometryn involves
N-dealkylation and hydrolysis.  EPA has determined that residues of
concern in plants include parent only for tolerance setting purposes.>

<	2. Analytical method. The Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) lists a GC
method for determining residues in / on plants using a microcoulometric
sufur detection system that determines residues of prometryn.  No
tolerances are needed for prometryn residues in livestock commodities;
therefore, no enforcement analytical methods are needed.>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. IR-4 has submitted complete residue data for
prometryn on carrots, celeriac, cilantro, okra, parsley, and
representative crops in support of the leafy petiole subgroup 4B.>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  The data base for acute toxicity for prometryn is
complete.  Prometryn technical is slightly to practically non-toxic for
oral (male, 1802 mg/kg; female, 2076 mg/kg), dermal (LD50 > 3170), and
inhalation (LC50 4.96 mg/L)placing it in Toxicity Category III.  It
causes mild eye irritation (Toxicity Category III) and slight dermal
irritation (Toxicity Category IV).  Prometryn is not considered a skin
sensitizer.>

<	2. Genotoxicty. In four mutagenicity studies (Ames salmonella test,
chromosomal aberration, bacterial DNA repair, and unscheduled DNA
synthesis test) prometryn was found to be negative.  There is no
evidence of a mutagenic or cytogentic effect in vivo or in vitro with
prometryn.

In the Ames test prometryn was negative for gene mutation up to cytoxic
solubility limits (100-2000 ug/plate.

In a Chromosomal aberration in vivo Chinese hamster bone marrow test,
prometryn was negative for nuclear anomalies when animals were dosed
orally up to 5000 mg/kg.

Prometryn was negative for bacterial DNA repair and gene mutation up to
precipitating levels (1000 ug/plate).

In an unscheduled DNA synthesis test, prometryn was negative in rat
hepatocytes cultured in vitro up to cytotoxic levels of 156.25 ug/ml.>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Developmental toxicity
studies with rats (0-250 mg/kg/day) and rabbits (0-72 mg/kg/day) showed
maternal and developmental toxicity only at the highest dose.  The
developmental NOEL was 50 mg/kg/day in rats and 12 mg/kg/day in rabbits.

A 2-generation reproduction study with rats showed effects at the
highest dose (1500 ppm; 105.6 mg/kg/day) including decreased body weight
and food consumption. The reproductive NOEL was 750 ppm or approximately
50 mg/kg/day. The results indicate that prometryn is not embryotoxic or
teratogenic in either species at maternally toxic doses.>

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. In a subchronic 28-day pilot feeding study in
mice at the highest dose (0-4500 mg/kg/day), there were pathological
findings limited to the G.I. tract along with decreased body weights.
The NOEL was 450 mg/kg/day.

In a 21-day dermal toxicity study in rabbits, no local or systemic
toxicity was observed at all dose levels with a NOEL of >1000
mg/kg/day.>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. In a chronic toxicity study/oncogenicity study in
mice the NOEL in females was 1,000 ppm and the LOEL was 3,000 ppm based
upon decreased body weight gain.  There were no effects observed in
males.  Prometryn was not oncogenic under the conditions of the study.

In a chronic toxicity study in dogs, the NOEL was 3.75 mg/kg/day active
ingredient with a LOEL of 37.5 mg/kg/day.  The Agency has determined
that there is “no evidence of human carcinogenic potential”.>

<	6. Animal metabolism. The metabolism of prometryn in rats and
livestock animals is adequately understood.  Data indicate that the
distribution of prometryn is greatest in the blood, followed by the
spleen and the lungs.  Prometryn is predominantly excreted in the urine
and feces with slightly higher concentrations in the urine.>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. For risk assessment purposes, EPA has
determined that residues of concern in animals include parent only and
metabolites are toxicologically equivalent to parent prometryn.>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. There is no indication from the mammalian
toxicology database for any endocrine disrupting effect of prometryn.>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. Dietary Exposure. Tier I acute and chronic
dietary exposure evaluations were made for prometryn using the Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCIDTM), version 2.14 from Exponent.  In
addition to current tolerances for prometryn this exposure assessment
included proposed prometryn tolerances for uses on carrots, celeriac,
cilantro, okra, national tolerances for parsley (currently regional
tolerances only) and the leafy petioles crop subgroup 4B.  Percent of
crop treated values were conservatively estimated to be 100% for all
registered and proposed uses.  Drinking water estimates were
incorporated directly into the dietary exposure assessment using the
higher of the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for
surface and ground water.  All consumption data for these assessments
was taken from the USDA’s Continuing Survey of Food Intake by
individuals (CSFII) with the 1994-96 consumption database and the
Supplemental CSFII children’s survey (1998) consumption database.>

<Food. Acute Exposure.  An acute reference dose of 0.12 mg/kg/day for

the females 13-49 years subpopulation only was based on a NOAEL of 12
mg/kg/day from a rabbit developmental toxicity study and an uncertainly
factor of 100X.  No additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the
purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, the exposure value was
expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by
dividing the no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) by the exposure
for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a
percent of the acute reference dose (%aRfD).  Acute (food only) exposure
to the females 13-49 years subpopulation resulted in a MOE of 13,111
(0.76% of the acute RfD of 0.12 mg/kg/day).  Since the benchmark MOE for
this assessment was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for
exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary (food)
exposure to residues arising from the current and proposed uses for
prometryn.

Chronic Exposure.  The prometryn chronic dietary (food only) risk
assessment  was performed for all population subgroups with a chronic
reference dose of 0.04 mg/kg/day based on a chronic feeding study in
dogs with a no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 3.75 mg/kg/day
and an uncertainty factor of 100X.  The 100X safety factor includes
intra- and inter-species variations.  No additional FQPA safety factor
was applied.  For the purpose of aggregate risk assessment, the exposure
values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was
calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population
subgroup.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the
reference dose (%RfD).  Chronic (food only) exposure to the U.S.
population resulted in a MOE of 9,528 (1.0% of the chronic RfD of 0.04
mg/kg/day).  The most exposed sub-population was children (3-5 years
old) with a MOE of 4, 216 (2.4% of the chronic RfD of 0.04 mg/kd/day).
Since the benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since EPA
generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta
believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from dietary (food only) exposure to residues arising from the current
and proposed tolerances for prometryn.

Cancer.  Prometryn has been classified as a Group E chemical (no
evidence of human carcinogenic potential).  Therefore, no cancer risk
assessment was performed for prometryn.>

<	ii. Drinking Food. The EPA uses the screening models FIRST to estimate
potential surface water concentrations and the screening model SCI-GROW
to estimate potential ground water concentrations.  None of these models
includes consideration of the impact that processing (mixing, dilution,
or treatment) would have on the removal of pesticides from the water
source prior to distribution as drinking water.  The primary use of
these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a conservative
approximation of the Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) of
specific pesticides in drinking water.  Syngenta used the Tier 1 FIRST
and SCI-GROW to model prometryn concentrations in drinking water based
on current and proposed uses.  Surface water was the driver with a peak
day EDWC of 439.5 ppb (acute) and an annual average EDWC of 207.1 ppb
(chronic).

Acute Exposure from Drinking Water:  The acute EDWC of 439.5 ppb
(surface water) was used to calculate the acute drinking water exposure
values for females 13-49 years old (the only acute population subgroup
of concern).  Acute drinking water estimates were incorporated directly
into the DEEM-FCID™ software along with current and proposed crop
tolerances.  Acute exposure (food and water) to females 13-49 years old
resulted in a MOE of 576 (17.3% of the aRfD of 0.12 mg/kg/day).  Since
the benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA
generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta
believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from acute dietary (food and drinking water) exposure to residues
arising from all current and proposed uses of prometryn.

 Water.  The chronic EDWC of 207.1 ppb (ground water) was used to
calculate the chronic drinking water exposure values for the U.S.
Population and population subgroups.  Chronic drinking water estimates
were incorporated directly into the DEEM-FCID™ software along with
current and proposed crop tolerances.  Chronic exposure (food and water)
to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 859 (11.6% of the chronic
RfD of 0.04 mg/kg/day).  The most exposed sub-population was all infants
(<1 year old) with a MOE of 262 (38.2% of the chronic RfD of 0.04
mg/kg/day).  Since the benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and
since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the
RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposure to
residues arising from all current and proposed uses of prometryn.>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. Prometryn is not currently registered for
residential use such as turf and ornamentals.  Therefore there is no
expectation of non-occupational residential exposures.>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	Cumulative Exposure to Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.
 Prometryn is a member of the triazine class of pesticides.  Other
members of this class include atrazine, simazine, cyanazine, prometron,
propazine, metribuzin, hexazinone, ametryn, terbutrne, dipropetryn and
ethiozin.  Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider
“available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide’s residues and “other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity”.  EPA does not have, at this time,
available data to determine whether prometryn has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a
cumulative risk assessment.  For the purposes of this tolerance action,
the EPA has not assumed that prometryn has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances.>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. The chronic dietary exposure analysis (food plus
water) showed that exposure from all established and proposed prometryn
tolerances would result in a MOE of 788 (12.7% of the chronic RfD) for
the general U.S. population.  An acute dietary exposure analysis was not
required for the general U.S. population, however exposure from all
established and proposed prometryn tolerances would result in a MOE of
552 (18.1% of the acute RfD) for females 13-49 years old (the only acute
population of concern).  Based on the completeness and reliability of
the toxicity data supporting these petitions, Syngenta believes that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed prometryn
tolerances, including anticipated dietary exposure from food, water, and
all other types of non-occupational exposures.>

I

J

a

b

4

=

D

H

L

k

l

p

x

}

…

“

¹

º

×

Þ

í

î

᐀z

@

㠒ഀᣆ

뼀縃㴇ﰋ묎稒㤖뜝瘡%摧ᵝ㠖ഀᣆ

lation subgroup, all infants <1 year old.  Since the worst-case chronic
aggregate MOE of 252 exceeds the benchmark MOE of 100, Syngenta believes
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed
prometryn uses, including anticipated dietary exposure from food, water,
and all other types of non-occupational exposures.>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	There are no Codex or Mexican MRLs established for residues of
prometryn in plant or animal commodities.  A Canadian MRL of 0.1 ppm for
carrots has been established for prometryn.>


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 163 (Friday, August 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51694-51698]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18129]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0037; FRL-10013-82-OAR]

EPA Responses to Certain State Designation Recommendations for
the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard:
Notice of Availability and Public Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability and public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has posted our responses to certain state designation
recommendations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) on the Agency's website
and electronic docket. These responses include our intended
designations for the affected areas, specifically all remaining
undesignated areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the United
States. The EPA also invites the public to review and provide input on
our intended designations during the comment period specified in the
DATES section. The EPA sent its responses directly to the states on or
about August 13, 2020. The EPA intends to make final designation
determinations for the areas of the country addressed by these
responses no later than December 31, 2020.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 21, 2020.
Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on
the comment period.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0037, at https://www.regulations.gov.\1\ Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Out of an abundance of caution
for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and
Reading Room are closed to the public, with limited exceptions, to
reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will
continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and
webform. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov, as there may be a delay in processing mail and
faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received by scheduled
appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket Center services
and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The https://www.regulations.gov platform is in the process
of being upgraded. Users may be automatically redirected to https://beta.regulations.gov. Both website addresses contain the same
information and both website addresses allow users to submit
comments to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to our public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., comments hosted on the Web, Cloud, or other file
sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions concerning this
action, please contact Corey Mocka, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality
Policy Division, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code C539-04, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The following EPA contacts can answer questions
regarding areas in a particular EPA Regional office:
U.S. EPA Regional Office Contacts
    Region 2--Marina Castro, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Region 3--Megan Goold, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Region 4--Twunjala Bradley, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Region 5--Alisa Liu, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Region 6--Robert Imhoff, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Region 7--William Stone, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Region 8--Rebecca Matichuk, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Region 9--Ashley R. Graham, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Region 10--John Chi, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Regional offices                    Affected state(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Region 2--Air Programs Branch, 290       New York.
 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007.
EPA Region 3--Planning & Implementation      Maryland, Pennsylvania,
 Branch, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA   Virginia, and West
 19103.                                       Virginia.
EPA Region 4--Air Planning & Implementation  Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky,
 Branch, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center,     and North Carolina.
 61 Forsyth Street SW, 12th Floor, Atlanta,
 GA 30303.
EPA Region 5--Air Programs Branch, Air &     Illinois, Indiana, and
 Radiation Division (AR-18J), 77 West         Wisconsin.
 Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.
EPA Region 6--State Planning &               Louisiana, Oklahoma, and
 Implementation Branch, 1201 Elm Street,      Texas.
 Dallas, TX 75270.
EPA Region 7--Air Quality Planning Branch,   Missouri and Nebraska.
 11201 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66219.
EPA Region 8--Air Quality Planning Branch,   North Dakota and Wyoming.
 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202.
EPA Region 9--Air Planning Branch, 75        Hawaii.
 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
EPA Region 10--Air Planning & State/Tribal   Washington.
 Coordinations Branch, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
 Mail Code OAQ-107, Seattle, WA 98101.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most EPA offices are closed to reduce the risk of transmitting
COVID-19, but staff remain available via telephone and email. The EPA
encourages the public to review designation recommendations from
states, our recent letters notifying the affected states of our
intended designations, and area-specific technical support information
online at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations and also in
the public docket for these SO2 designations at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0037.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

    The following is an outline of the Preamble.

I. What is the purpose of this action?
II. Instructions for Submitting Public Comments and internet website
for Rulemaking Information
III. What is the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and what are the health
concerns that it addresses?
IV. What are the CAA requirements for air quality designations and
what action has the EPA taken to meet these requirements?
V. What guidance has the EPA previously issued and how does the EPA
now intend to apply the statutory requirements to determine area
designations and boundaries?
VI. What air quality information has the EPA used for these intended
designations?
VII. How do the Round 4 designations affect Indian country?
VIII. Where can I find information forming the basis for these
intended designations and exchanges between the EPA and states
related to these intended designations?

I. What is the purpose of this action?

    The purpose of this notice of availability is to solicit input from
interested parties on the EPA's recent responses to the state
designation recommendations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These
responses, and their supporting technical analyses, can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations and also in the public
docket for these SO2 designations at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0037.
    On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule that
revised the primary SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 35520; June 22, 2010)
after review of the existing primary SO2 standards
promulgated on April 30, 1971 (36 FR 8187). The EPA established the
revised primary SO2 NAAQS at a level of 75 parts per billion
(ppb) which is attained when the 3-year average of annual 99th
percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations of
SO2 does not exceed 75 ppb.
    The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS is contained in the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section
107(d) (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)). After promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, each governor or tribal leader has an opportunity to recommend
air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for
nonattainment areas, to the EPA. The EPA considers these
recommendations as part of its duty to promulgate the formal area
designations and boundaries for the new or revised NAAQS. By no later
than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, the EPA is required
to notify states, territories, and tribes, as appropriate, of any
intended modifications to an area designation or boundary
recommendation that the EPA deems necessary.
    After invoking a 1-year extension of the deadlines to designate
areas, as provided for in section 107 of the Act, the EPA completed an
initial round of SO2 designations for certain areas of the
country on July 25, 2013 (referred to as ``Round 1'').\2\ Following the
initial designations, three lawsuits were filed against the EPA in
different U.S. District Courts, alleging the agency had failed to
perform a nondiscretionary duty under the CAA by not designating all
portions of the country by the June 2, 2013, deadline. In one of those
cases, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on March 2, 2015, entered an enforceable order for the EPA to complete
the area designations by three specific deadlines according to the
court-ordered schedule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A total of 29 areas throughout the U.S. were designated in
this action published on August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191). The EPA
designated all 29 areas nonattainment based on violating monitored
SO2 concentrations from Federal Reference Method and
Federal Equivalent Method monitors that are sited and operated in
accordance with 40 CFR parts 50 and 58, and did not at that time
designate any other areas.
    \3\ Sierra Club v. McCarthy, No. 3-13-cv-3953 (SI) (N.D. Cal.
Mar. 2, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To meet the first court-ordered deadline, additional areas were
designated on June 30, 2016, and November 29, 2016 (collectively
referred to as ``Round 2'').\4\ To meet the second deadline of the
court-ordered schedule, the EPA completed SO2 designations
for most remaining areas of the country on December 21, 2017, and March
28, 2018 (collectively referred to as ``Round 3'').\5\ Finally, the EPA
is under a December 31, 2020, court-ordered deadline, the final of the
three deadlines established by the court, to designate all remaining
undesignated areas (collectively referred to as ``Round 4'' or the
``final round''). The remaining undesignated areas are: (1) Those areas
which, under the court order, did not meet the criteria that required
designation in Round 2 and also were not required to be designated in
Round 3 due to installation and operation of a new SO2
monitoring network by January 2017 in the area meeting EPA's
specifications referenced in EPA's SO2 Data Requirements
Rule (DRR),\6\ and (2) those areas which EPA has not otherwise
previously designated for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. After these
Round 4 designations are completed, there will be no remaining
undesignated areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A total of 65 areas throughout the U.S. were designated in
these actions published on July 12, 2016 (81 FR 45039), and December
13, 2016 (81 FR 89870). Of these 65 areas, seven were designated
nonattainment.
    \5\ Most remaining areas of the U.S. were designated in actions
published on January 9, 2018 (83 FR 1098) and April 5, 2018 (83 FR
14597). Of these areas, six were designated nonattainment.
    \6\ See 80 FR 51052 (August 21, 2015), codified at 40 CFR part
51 subpart BB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On or about August 13, 2020, consistent with section
107(d)(1)(b)(ii) of the CAA, the EPA notified affected states either of
our assessment of their recommended designations for Round 4 or of our
intended designations for areas without recommendations. While we are
in agreement with the recommendations for many areas, some may warrant
further discussion. The EPA is available to assist and hopes to resolve
any differences regarding the proper designation for these areas within
the 120-day period provided by the CAA.
    For any areas that we designate nonattainment in our final action,
the CAA directs states to develop and submit to the EPA State
Implementation Plans within 18 months of the effective date of the
final designations, that meet the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)
and 191-192 and provide for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but not later than 5 years from the effective date of the
final designations.

II. Instructions for Submitting Public Comments and Internet Website
for Rulemaking Information

A. Invitation To Comment

    The purpose of this document is to solicit input from interested
parties, other than the states to which we have sent notification
letters, on the EPA's recent responses to the designation
recommendations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These responses, and
their

supporting technical analyses, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations and also in the public docket for these
intended SO2 designations at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0037.
    CAA section 107(d) provides a process for air quality designations
that involves recommendations by states, territories, and tribes to the
EPA and responses from the EPA to those parties, prior to the EPA
promulgating final area designations and boundaries. The EPA is not
required under CAA section 107(d) to seek public comment during the
designation process, but we are electing to do so for these areas with
respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in order to gather additional
information for the EPA to consider before making final designations
for the specific areas addressed in the EPA's recent letters to states,
territories, and tribes. The EPA invites public input on our responses
to states regarding our intended designations for these areas during
the 30-day comment period provided in this document. In order to
receive full consideration, input from the public must be submitted to
the docket by September 21, 2020. At this time, the EPA is not asking
for public comments on areas beyond those areas that are the subject of
this proposed action. This document and opportunity for public comment
does not affect any rights or obligations of any state, territory, or
tribe, or of the EPA, which might otherwise exist pursuant to the CAA
section 107(d).
    Please refer to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document for specific instructions on submitting comments and locating
relevant public documents.
    For some cases, the EPA has indicated to a state that further
discussion is needed--e.g., where a state's recommended nonattainment
area boundary differs from the EPA's intended nonattainment area
boundary, or areas where the state recommended a designation of
attainment/unclassifiable (or unclassifiable) and available air quality
monitoring or modeling data show that the area may be violating the
2010 SO2 NAAQS or contain sources that may be contributing
to air quality in a nearby area that may be violating the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS. In establishing nonattainment area boundaries for
a particular area, the EPA is required to include within the boundaries
both the area that does not meet the standard and any nearby area
contributing to the area that does not meet the standard. We are
particularly interested in receiving comments, supported by relevant
information, if you believe that a specific geographic area for which
further discussion is needed concerning a state's recommended
designation of attainment/unclassifiable or unclassifiable (and for
which available air quality data would require a modification of the
recommended designation) should not be categorized by the CAA section
107(d) criteria as nonattainment, or if you believe that a specific
nearby area for which the EPA does agree with a state's recommended
designation of attainment/unclassifiable or unclassifiable should in
fact be categorized as contributing to nonattainment using the CAA
section 107(d) criteria. Please be as specific as possible in
supporting your views.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible.
     Provide your input by the comment period deadline
identified.
    The EPA intends to complete designations for the areas subject to
this round no later than December 31, 2020. Additional information on
the EPA's intended approach for addressing designations for all areas
can be found on the EPA's SO2 implementation website at
https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/applying-or-implementing-sulfur-dioxide-standards.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit confidential business information
(CBI) to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI in a USB flash drive or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the
outside of the USB flash drive or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the USB flash drive 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 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
    Send information identified as CBI only to the following address:
Tiffany Purifoy, OAQPS Document Control Officer, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code
C404-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2020-0037. There will be a delay in confirming receipt of CBI
packages, because the EPA-RTP office is closed to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Due to the office closure, EPA is also
requesting that parties notify the OAQPS Document Control Officer via
telephone,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>when
mailing information identified as CBI.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.

C. Where can I find additional information for this rulemaking?

    The EPA has also established a website for this rulemaking at
https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations. The website includes
the state designation and boundary recommendations, the EPA's intended
area designations, information supporting the EPA's preliminary
designation decisions, as well as the rulemaking actions and other
related information that the public may find useful.
III. What is the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and what are the health
concerns that it addresses?
    The Administrator signed a final rule revising the primary
SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2010. The rule was published in the
Federal Register on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520) and became effective on
August 23, 2010. Specifically, the EPA established a new 1-hour
SO2 standard at a level of 75 ppb, which is met at an
ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations
of SO2 is less than or equal to 75 ppb, as determined in
accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. 40 CFR 50.17(a) and (b).
Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to
SO2, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array of
adverse respiratory effects including bronchoconstriction and increased
asthma symptoms. Studies also show a connection between short-term
exposure and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital
admissions for respiratory illnesses,

particularly in at-risk populations including children, the elderly,
and asthmatics.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 75 FR 35520 at 35525, June 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What are the CAA requirements for air quality designations and what
action has the EPA taken to meet these requirements?

    After the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required to designate all areas of the country as either
``nonattainment,'' ``attainment,'' or ``unclassifiable,'' for that
NAAQS pursuant to section 107(d)(1)-(2) of the CAA. As part of these
Round 4 designations, the EPA is implementing its interpretation of
statutory terms under CAA section 107(d) nationwide and is basing these
designations on EPA's nationwide analytical approach and technical
analysis, including evaluation of monitoring data and air quality
modeling, applied to the available evidence for each area.
    Regarding statutory definitions and the EPA's interpretations of
such, section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA defines a nonattainment area
as an area that does not meet the NAAQS or that contributes to a nearby
area that does not meet the NAAQS. An attainment area is defined by
section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) of the CAA as any area (other than an area
that meets the definition of a nonattainment area) that meets the
NAAQS. Unclassifiable areas are defined by section 107(d)(1)(A)(iii) of
the CAA as those that cannot be classified on the basis of available
information as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS.
    In this action, the EPA defines a nonattainment area as an area
that, based on available information including (but not limited to)
monitoring data and/or appropriate modeling analyses, the EPA has
determined either: (1) Does not meet the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, or
(2) contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not
meet the NAAQS. An attainment/unclassifiable area is defined as an area
that, based on available information including (but not limited to)
appropriate monitoring data and/or modeling analyses, the EPA has
determined meets the NAAQS and does not likely contribute to ambient
air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. An
unclassifiable area is defined as an area for which the available
information does not allow the EPA to determine whether the area meets
the definition of a nonattainment area or the definition of an
attainment/unclassifiable area.
    This nationwide analytical approach also includes but is not
limited to: (1) The EPA's interpretations of other terms (e.g.,
attainment/unclassifiable, nonattainment, unclassifiable, violating
monitor, etc.) in the context of Round 4 of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS; (2) the appropriate basis for characterizing the air quality of
an area; (3) the five-factor analysis to determine the boundaries for
each air quality area under the NAAQS (see Section V of this document);
and (4) the methodology for appropriately characterizing SO2
air quality through monitoring or modeling.
    The EPA notes that CAA section 107(d) provides the agency with
discretion to determine how best to interpret the terms in the
definition of a nonattainment area (e.g., ``contributes to'' and
``nearby'') for a new or revised NAAQS, given considerations such as
the nature of a specific pollutant, the types of sources that may
contribute to violations, the form of the standards for the pollutant,
and other relevant information. In particular, the EPA's position is
that the statute does not require the agency to establish bright line
tests or thresholds for what constitutes ``contribution'' or ``nearby''
for purposes of designations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This view was confirmed in Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d
20 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the EPA's position is that the statute permits the EPA
to evaluate the appropriate application of the term ``area'' to include
geographic areas based upon full or partial county boundaries, as may
be appropriate for a particular NAAQS. For example, CAA section
107(d)(1)(B)(ii) explicitly provides that the EPA can make
modifications to designation recommendations for an area ``or portions
thereof,'' and under CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(iv) a designation remains
in effect for an area ``or portion thereof'' until the EPA redesignates
it.
    By no later than 1 year after the promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, CAA section 107(d)(1)(A) provides that each state governor is
required to recommend air quality designations, including the
appropriate boundaries for areas, to the EPA.\9\ The EPA reviews those
recommendations and is authorized to make any modifications the
Administrator deems necessary. The statute does not define the term
``necessary,'' but the EPA interprets this to authorize the
Administrator to modify designations that did not meet the statutory
requirements or were otherwise inconsistent with the facts or analysis
deemed appropriate by the Administrator. If the EPA is considering
modifications to a recommendation, we are required by CAA section
107(d)(1)(B)(ii) to notify the state of any such intended modifications
not less than 120 days prior to our promulgation of the final
designation. These notifications are commonly known as the ``120-day
letters.'' During this period, if the state or territory does not agree
with the EPA's modification, it has an opportunity to respond to the
EPA and to demonstrate why it believes the modification proposed by the
EPA is inappropriate. If a state or territory fails to provide any
recommendation for an area, in whole or in part, the EPA still must
promulgate a designation that the Administrator deems appropriate,
pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii). While CAA section 107(d)
specifically addresses the designations process between the EPA and
states and territories, the EPA intends to follow the same process to
the extent practicable for tribes that submitted designation
recommendations. The EPA is required by CAA section 107(d)(2)(A) to
publish a notice in the Federal Register promulgating its final
designations, and the EPA codifies its designations in the Code of
Federal Regulations at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Tribes are invited to submit recommendations following
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS but are not required to do
so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What guidance has the EPA previously issued and how does the EPA now
intend to apply the statutory requirements to determine area
designations and boundaries?

    In the notice of proposed rulemaking for the revised SO2
NAAQS (74 FR 64810; December 8, 2009), the EPA issued proposed guidance
on our approach to implementing the standard, including our approach to
initial area designations. The EPA solicited comment on that guidance
and, in the final rule (75 FR 35520; June 22, 2010), provided further
guidance concerning implementation of the standard and how to identify
nonattainment areas and boundaries for the SO2 NAAQS.
Subsequently, on March 24, 2011, the EPA provided additional
designations guidance to assist states with making their
recommendations for area designations and boundaries.\10\ The EPA also
issued two additional designations guidance documents on March 20,
2015,

and July 22, 2016, specific to Round 2 and Round 3 processes and
schedules, respectively.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ``Area Designations for the 2010 Revised Primary Sulfur
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' memorandum to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, from Stephen D. Page,
dated March 24, 2011, available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20110324_page_so2_designations_guidance.pdf.
    \11\ See ``Updated Guidance for Area Designations for the 2010
Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard,''
memorandum to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, from
Stephen D. Page, dated March 20, 2015, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/20150320so2designations.pdf, and ``Area Designations for the 2010
Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Round
3,'' memorandum to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
dated July 22, 2016, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/areadesign.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An updated designations guidance document was issued by the EPA on
September 5, 2019, to better reflect the Round 4 2010 SO2
NAAQS designations process and to supplement, where necessary, prior
designations guidance documents.\12\ This memorandum identifies factors
that the EPA intends to evaluate in determining whether areas are in
violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The document also contains
the factors that the EPA intends to evaluate in determining the
boundaries for all remaining undesignated areas in the country. These
factors include: (1) Air quality characterization via ambient
monitoring and/or dispersion modeling results; (2) emissions-related
data; (3) meteorology; (4) geography and topography; and (5)
jurisdictional boundaries.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ``Area Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Round 4,'' memorandum to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, from Peter
Tsirigotis, dated September 5, 2019, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-09/documents/round_4_so2_designations_memo_09-05-2019_final.pdf.
    \13\ The EPA supplemented this guidance with documents first
made available to states and other interested parties in 2013 and
updated in 2016. See SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-
Oriented Monitoring Technical Assistance Document (February 2016),
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2monitoringtad.pdf, and SO2 NAAQS
Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document (August 2016),
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2modelingtad.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. What air quality information has the EPA used for these intended
designations?

    These intended designations are based on the EPA's application of
the nationwide analytical approach to, and preliminary technical
assessment of, the weight of evidence for each area, including but not
limited to available air quality monitoring data and air quality
modeling results. With respect to air quality monitoring data, the EPA
has considered data from at least the most recent 3 full calendar
years, i.e., 2017-2019. The 1-hour primary SO2 standard is
violated at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour
average concentrations of SO2 exceeds 75 ppb, as determined
in accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50.
    In the EPA's September 2019 memorandum, we noted that Round 4 area
designations will be based primarily on ambient monitoring data,
including data from existing and new EPA-approved monitors that have
collected data at least from January 2017 forward, pursuant to the DRR.
In addition, EPA may evaluate air dispersion modeling submitted by
state air agencies for two specific circumstances. First, states may
submit air dispersion modeling of actual or allowable emissions to
support the geographic extent of a nonattainment boundary. Second,
states may submit air dispersion modeling of allowable emissions to
demonstrate that new permanent and federally enforceable SO2
emissions limits that subject sources are meeting provide for
attainment of the NAAQS and represent a more accurate characterization
of current air quality at the time of designation than does monitoring
data reflecting past air quality that does not account for compliance
with new limits and associated enforceable emissions reductions.

VII. How do the Round 4 designations affect Indian country?

    There are no violating monitors for areas of Indian county, so no
areas of Indian country are being designated as nonattainment as part
of this round. Any other parts of Indian country being designated as
attainment/unclassifiable or unclassifiable are being designated along
with the surrounding state area.

VIII. Where can I find information forming the basis for these intended
designations and exchanges between the EPA and states related to these
intended designations?

    Information providing the basis for this intended action are
provided in a technical support document (TSD) \14\ included in the
docket. The TSD, technical assistance documents, applicable EPA
guidance memoranda, and copies of correspondence regarding this process
between the EPA and the states, territories, tribes, and other parties,
are available for review at the public docket for these SO2
designations at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0037, at the EPA Docket Center listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document, and on the Agency's
SO2 Designations website at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations. Air dispersion modeling input and output files
are too large to post in the docket or on the website and must be
requested from the EPA Docket Office or the Regional office contacts
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The single TSD for this action consists of a few sections
with information that applies to all affected areas or to certain
groups of areas with some common features, and many sections that
are specific to individual states. For convenience, the term ``TSD''
is also used generically to refer to these state-specific sections.
For informational purposes, these individual state-specific TSDs are
available for separate downloading from the indicated EPA website.

    Dated: August 13, 2020.
Panagiotis Tsirigotis,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards.
[FR Doc. 2020-18129 Filed 8-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P