[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 16, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31939-31948]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12600]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300; FRL-10024-33-OW]
RIN 2040-AG15

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule
Revisions; Delay of Effective and Compliance Dates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is delaying until
December 16, 2021, the effective date of the National Primary Drinking
Water

Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR), which was published
in the Federal Register on January 15, 2021. EPA is also delaying the
January 16, 2024 compliance date established in the LCRR to October 16,
2024. The delay in the effective date is consistent with presidential
directives issued on January 20, 2021, to the heads of Federal agencies
to review certain regulations, including the LCRR. The delay will allow
sufficient time for EPA to complete its review of the rule in
accordance with those directives and conduct important consultations
with affected parties. The delay in the compliance date of the LCRR
ensures that any delay in the effective date will not reduce the time
provided for drinking water systems and primacy states to take actions
needed to assure compliance with the LCRR.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is effective December 16, 2021.
    Delayed effective date: As of June 16, 2021, the effective date of
the final rule published on January 15, 2021, at 86 FR 4198, and then
delayed in a rule published March 12, 2021, at 86 FR 14003, is
furthered delayed until December 16, 2021.
    Compliance date: The compliance date for the final rule published
on January 15, 2021, at 86 FR 4198, is delayed until October 16, 2024.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300. All documents in the docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Kempic, Standards and Risk
Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Mail Code
4607M, Washington, D.C. 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY
800-877-8339); email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For more
information visit https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    On January 15, 2021, EPA published in the Federal Register the
``National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Lead and Copper Rule
Revisions'' (86 FR 4198) (LCRR) with an effective date of March 16,
2021, and a compliance date of January 16, 2024. On January 20, 2021,
President Biden issued the ``Executive Order on Protecting Public
Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate
Crisis.'' (86 FR 7037, January 25, 2021) (Executive Order 13990).
Section 1 of Executive Order 13990 states that our nation has an
abiding commitment to empower our workers and communities; promote and
protect our public health and the environment; and conserve our
national treasures and monuments, places that secure our national
memory. Where the Federal Government has failed to meet that commitment
in the past, it must advance environmental justice. In carrying out
this charge, the Federal Government must be guided by the best science
and be protected by processes that ensure the integrity of Federal
decision-making. It is, therefore, the policy of the Administration to
listen to the science, to improve public health and protect our
environment, to ensure access to clean air and water, to limit exposure
to dangerous chemicals and pesticides, to hold polluters accountable,
including those who disproportionately harm communities of color and
low-income communities, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to bolster
resilience to the impacts of climate change, to restore and expand our
national treasures and monuments, and to prioritize both environmental
justice and the creation of the well-paying union jobs necessary to
deliver on these goals. Section 2 of Executive Order 13990 directs the
heads of all Federal agencies to immediately review regulations that
may be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to, the policy set forth
in Section 1 of Executive Order 13990. The January 20, 2021 White House
``Fact Sheet: List of Agency Actions for Review,'' identified the LCRR
as an agency action to be reviewed in conformance with Executive Order
13990 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/fact-sheet-list-of-agency-actions-for-review/).
    In conducting its review, EPA will carefully consider the concerns
raised by stakeholders, including disadvantaged communities that have
been disproportionately impacted, states that administer national
primary drinking water regulations, consumer and environmental
organizations, water systems, and other organizations.
    Stakeholders have a range of concerns about the LCRR. For example,
a primary source of lead exposure in drinking water is lead service
lines. Stakeholders have raised concerns that despite the significance
of this source of lead, the LCRR fails to require, or create adequate
incentives, for public water systems to replace all of their lead
service lines. In addition, stakeholders have raised concerns that
portions of many lead service lines are privately owned and
disadvantaged homeowners may not be able to afford the cost of
replacing their portion of the lead service line and may not have this
significant source of lead exposure removed if their water system does
not provide financial assistance. Other stakeholders have raised
concerns regarding the significant costs public water systems and
communities would face to replace all lead service lines. Based upon
information from the Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper
Rule, EPA estimates that there are between 6.3 and 9.3 million lead
service lines nationally and the cost of replacing all of these lines
is between $25 and $56 billion.
    Another key element of the LCRR relates to requiring public water
systems to conduct an inventory of lead service lines so that systems
know the scope of the problem, can identify potential sampling
locations, and can communicate with households that are or may be
served by lead service lines to inform them of the actions they may
take to reduce their risks. Some stakeholders have raised concerns that
the LCRR's inventory requirements are not sufficiently rigorous to
ensure that consumers have access to useful information about the
locations of lead service lines in their community. Other stakeholders
have raised concerns that water systems do not have accurate records
about the composition of privately owned portions of lead service lines
and also concerns about public water systems publicly releasing
information regarding privately owned property.
    A core component of the LCRR is maintaining an ``action level'' of
15 parts per billion (ppb), which serves as a trigger for certain
actions by public water systems such as lead service line replacement
and public education. The LCRR did not modify the existing lead action
level but established a 10 ppb ``trigger level'' to require public
water systems to initiate actions to decrease their lead levels and
take proactive steps to remove lead from the distribution system. Some
stakeholders support this new trigger level, while others argue

that EPA has unnecessarily complicated the regulation. Some
stakeholders suggest that the agency should eliminate the new trigger
level and instead lower the 15 ppb action level.
    Some stakeholders have indicated that the agency has provided too
much flexibility for small water systems and that it is feasible for
many of the systems serving 10,000 or fewer customers to take more
actions to reduce drinking water lead levels than those actions under
the LCRR. Other stakeholders have highlighted the limited technical,
managerial, and financial capacity of small water systems and support
the flexibilities provided by the LCRR to all of these small systems.
    Stakeholders have divergent views of the school and childcare
sampling provisions of the LCRR; some believe that the sampling should
be more extensive, while others do not believe that community water
systems should be responsible for provisions and that such a program
would be more effectively carried out by the school and childcare
facilities.
    Finally, some stakeholders have expressed concerns that the agency
did not provide adequate opportunities for a public hearing and did not
provide a complete or reliable evaluation of the costs and benefits of
the proposed LCRR.
    In addition, the LCRR has been challenged in court by the Natural
Resources Defense Council, Newburgh Clean Water Project, NAACP, Sierra
Club, United Parents Against Lead, and the Attorneys General of New
York, California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. Those cases have
been consolidated in Newburgh Clean Water Project, et al. v EPA, No.
21-1019 (D.C. Cir.). EPA also received a letter on March 4, 2021, from
36 organizations and 5 individuals requesting that EPA suspend the
March 16, 2021 effective date of the LCRR to review the rule and
initiate a new rulemaking. EPA also received a letter on February 4,
2021, from the American Water Works Association requesting that EPA not
delay the rule.
    Consistent with Executive Order 13990 and the Memorandum for the
Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies titled, ``Regulatory Freeze
Pending Review'' (86 FR 7424, January 28, 2021), EPA decided to review
the LCRR. EPA published a final rule on March 12, 2021 (86 FR 14003),
which provided for a short delay of the LCRR's effective date from
March 16, 2021 to June 17, 2021, to allow the agency to seek comment on
a separate proposal, also published on March 12, 2021 (86 FR 14063), to
extend the effective date further to December 16, 2021. EPA explained
that the further delay was needed to allow the agency adequate time to
conduct a thorough review of the complex set of LCRR requirements and
to assess whether the regulatory changes are inconsistent with, or
present obstacles to, the policy set forth in Section 1 of Executive
Order 13990, and to consult with stakeholders, including those who have
been historically underserved by, or subject to discrimination in,
Federal policies and programs prior to the LCRR going into effect. In
the proposal, EPA also sought comment on an extension of the compliance
dates by nine months from January 16, 2024, to September 16, 2024.
    The LCRR's effective date (i.e., when the rule is codified into the
Code of Federal Regulations) is different from the compliance dates.
Section 1412(b)(10) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) specifies
that drinking water regulations shall generally take effect (i.e.,
require compliance) three years after the date the regulation is
promulgated.\1\ This 3-year period is used by states to adopt laws and
regulations in order to obtain primary enforcement responsibility
(primacy) for the rule and by water systems to take any necessary
actions to meet the compliance deadlines in the rule. EPA is extending
the January 16, 2024 compliance date in the LCRR by nine months to
October 16, 2024, to correspond to the delay in the effective date. EPA
set the compliance date to October 16, 2024, to be consistent with its
intent, described in the proposal, to provide a full nine month delay,
to maintain the same time period between the effective date and the
compliance date in the LCRR, published on January 15, 2021. EPA expects
that the duration of the compliance date extension will provide
drinking water systems with adequate time to take actions needed to
assure compliance with the LCRR after it takes effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this action, EPA uses the term ``compliance date'' to
refer to the date water systems must comply with national primary
drinking water regulations (referred to as the ``effective date'' in
Section 1412(b)(10) of the SDWA) and the term ``effective date'' to
refer to when the rule is codified into the Code of Federal
Regulations (see Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act
and 1 CFR 18.17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recognizes that under Section 1413(a)(1) and 40 CFR 142.12(b),
states must submit complete and final requests for approval of program
revisions to adopt new or revised EPA regulations not later than two
years after promulgation of the LCRR (with the possibility for an
extension of up to two years based on certain criteria in EPA's
regulations). After completion of the stakeholder engagement process,
EPA will consider whether to let the rule take effect on December 16,
2021, with a compliance deadline of October 16, 2024, or whether the
agency intends to initiate a new rulemaking to withdraw or modify the
LCRR. At that time, EPA and states will have greater clarity with
respect to the primary enforcement (primacy) application process and
relevant timeframes. If EPA decides to withdraw the LCRR before it
takes effect, then there will be no revised regulation that triggers
the duty for primacy agencies to submit a program revision to EPA since
the previous regulation (i.e., those regulations that are in place
until such time that the LCRR takes effect) will remain in effect. If
EPA modifies the LCRR, the agency will establish a new deadline for
primacy applications as a part of that regulatory action. If EPA
decides to make no further changes to the rule, the agency intends to
use the date on which EPA announces that decision in the Federal
Register--no later than December 16, 2021--as the promulgation date for
the LCRR for purposes of the primacy revision application deadline
under 40 CFR 142.12(b)(1). Accordingly, EPA recommends that states
consider each of these possibilities in their planning and resource
allocation decision-making and that states do not submit primacy
applications to the agency at this time because EPA is not expecting to
begin review of primacy packages until there is more certainty as to
the agency's path forward on the LCRR.

II. Importance of EPA's Review of the LCRR for Protection of Public
Health

    The impact of lead exposure, including from drinking water, is a
public health issue of paramount importance and its adverse effects on
children and the general population are serious and well known. For
example, exposure to lead is known to present serious health risks to
the brain and nervous system of children. Lead exposure causes damage
to the brain and kidneys and can interfere with the production of red
blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts of the body. Lead has acute
and chronic impacts on the body. The most robustly studied and most
susceptible subpopulations are the developing fetus, infants, and young
children. Even low-level lead exposure is of particular concern to
children because their growing bodies absorb

more lead than adults do, and their brains and nervous systems are more
sensitive to the damaging effects of lead. EPA estimates that drinking
water can make up 20 percent or more of a person's total exposure to
lead. Infants who consume mostly formula mixed with tap water can,
depending on the level of lead in the system and other sources of lead
in the home, receive 40 to 60 percent of their exposure to lead from
drinking water used in the formula. Scientists have linked lead's
effects on the brain with lowered intelligence quotient (IQ) and
attention disorders in children. Young children and infants are
particularly vulnerable to lead because the physical and behavioral
effects of lead occur at lower exposure levels in children than in
adults. During pregnancy, lead exposure may affect prenatal brain
development. Lead is stored in the bones and it can be released later
in life. Even at low levels of lead in blood, there is an increased
risk of health effects in children (e.g., less than 5 micrograms per
deciliter) and adults (e.g., less than 10 micrograms per deciliter).
    The 2013 Integrated Science Assessment for Lead and the Health and
Human Services National Toxicology Program Monograph on Health Effects
of Low-Level Lead have both documented the association between lead and
adverse cardiovascular effects, renal effects, reproductive effects,
immunological effects, neurological effects, and cancer. EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Chemical Assessment Summary
provides additional health effects information on lead.
    Because of disparities in the quality of housing, community
economic status, and access to medical care, lead in drinking water
(and other media) disproportionately affects lower-income people.
Minority and low-income children are more likely to live in proximity
to lead-emitting industries and to live in urban areas, which are more
likely to have contaminated soils, contributing to their overall
exposure. Additionally, non-Hispanic black individuals are more than
twice as likely as non-Hispanic whites to live in moderately or
severely substandard housing, which is more likely to present risks
from deteriorating lead based paint. The disparate exposure to all
sources of environmental lead experienced by low-income and minority
populations may be exacerbated because of their more limited resources
for remediating lead service lines, which if present in a home, can be
a significant source of lead exposure.
    For example, stakeholders have raised concerns that, to the extent
water systems rely on homeowners to pay for replacement of customer-
owned portions of lines, lower-income homeowners may be unable to
afford to replace lines, resulting in disparate levels of protection.
In addition, a higher incidence of renting among lower-income people
may prevent residents from removing lines where the property owner does
not consent or finance replacement of the customer-owned portion of the
line. Moreover, the crisis in Flint, Michigan, has brought increased
attention to the challenge of lead in drinking water systems across the
country.
    Prior to EPA's actions to delay the effective and compliance dates
of the LCRR, litigants and stakeholders had expressed a wide range of
concerns about the LCRR's requirements that addressed both the rule's
ability to protect public health and the implementation burden that
will be placed on systems and states. Specific components of the rule
for which concerns have been raised include: The 15 parts per billion
(ppb) action level; the 10 ppb trigger level; the lead service line
inventory requirements, the lead service line replacement requirements;
the flexibility given to small systems; and the sampling of drinking
water at schools and child care facilities.
    Given the paramount significance to the public's health for
ensuring that lead in drinking water is adequately addressed under the
SDWA, and the concerns raised by litigants and other stakeholders about
the LCRR, it is critically important that EPA's review of the LCRR be
deliberate and have the benefit of meaningful engagement with the
affected public, including overburdened and underserved communities
disproportionately affected by exposure to lead, prior to the rule
going into effect.

III. Summary of Public Comments on the Extension of the Effective and
Compliance Dates of the LCRR and EPA's Responses

    In the proposed rulemaking, EPA solicited public comment on ``the
duration of the effective date and compliance date extensions and
whether the compliance date extension should apply to the entire LCRR
or certain components of the final rule.'' A summary of the comments
received on the extensions, as well as the agency's responses is
provided in this section.
    The majority of commenters expressed support for the delay of the
effective and compliance dates of the LCRR. These commenters,
representing states, water systems, environmental and public health
organizations, provided a number of reasons for their support as well
as suggestions for how EPA should utilize the additional time.
Commenters indicated that the delay would allow time for the agency to
conduct a more thorough and complete review, collect and analyze new
data, engage with stakeholders, and hold public meetings to solicit
further comment on the LCRR as it relates to state and local
implementation of drinking water standards, public health protections,
lead in school drinking water issues, and specifically to listen to
people who are living in communities disproportionately affected by
exposure to lead and underserved communities suffering from lead-
contaminated drinking water about their recommendations for the rule.
Several commenters urged EPA to suspend the March 16, 2021 effective
date of the LCRR to review the rule and initiate a new rulemaking to
address issues with the rule published in the Federal Register on
January 15, 2021 at 86 FR 4198. Commenters also expressed support for
the 9-month compliance date extension from the current compliance date
of January 16, 2024. Commenters stated that if the rule's effective
date were delayed from March 16, 2021, to December 16, 2021, the
compliance date should be delayed the same amount of time, ensuring
that utilities do not lose any of the time they had been expecting to
have available to implement the rule once there is regulatory
certainty. Additional commenters indicated that the extension of the
compliance date would allow resource-constrained systems and
communities needed time to implement the regulatory requirements of the
LCRR in general, and more specifically, the lead service line (LSL)
inventory and school and child care facility monitoring requirements.
Two commenters indicated that the compliance date should be delayed as
long as possible.
    EPA agrees with commenters that support a delay of the effective
date of the LCRR to December 16, 2021. This time is necessary and
sufficient to accommodate a thorough review of the requirements of the
LCRR and engage with a wide range of stakeholders, including
disproportionally affected and underserved communities on the issue of
controlling lead in drinking water. The additional 6-month delay of the
June 17, 2021 effective date to December 16, 2021, is necessary to
develop, publicize, and implement a public engagement process that
accommodates

the significant and widespread public interest in this rulemaking,
coupled with the time needed to compile and evaluate input received
during the public engagement process and make a decision as to whether
to let the LCRR as published take effect or initiate a rulemaking to
withdraw or modify the rule. EPA is currently implementing a public
engagement plan that includes public listening sessions, community,
tribal, and stakeholder roundtables, and a co-regulator meeting in
addition to receiving written public comment on the LCRR as part of its
engagement process. EPA believes that the extension of the effective
date to December 16, 2021, is sufficient for the review of the LCRR in
accordance with Executive Order 13990.
    EPA also agrees with commenters that support the 9-month delay of
the compliance date. The SDWA typically provides a 3-year time period
for drinking water systems and states to assure compliance with new or
revised drinking water standards. If the compliance date is not
delayed, systems and states would expend resources now to assure
compliance with the LCRR by January 16, 2024, particularly given the
significant effort required to develop the LSL inventory, LSL
replacement plan, and to re-evaluate the tap sampling locations used in
their sampling pool, all of which are required before the compliance
date and underpin the implementation of the larger requirements of the
LCRR. EPA estimated in the economic analysis of the final LCRR that
systems and states would spend between $57-60 million, in 2016 dollars,
in the first year following promulgation of the rule, working towards
compliance by January 16, 2024. The majority of these funds are spent
by systems to read and understand the new regulatory requirements,
develop implementation plans, train staff, and participate in trainings
and technical assistance interactions with the states; and by states to
adopt the rule and develop the changes needed to their implementation
programs, modify their data systems, provide training to their staff,
and provide training and technical assistance to the regulated systems.
    If EPA determines to initiate a rulemaking to withdraw the LCRR or
significantly revise it as a result of the Executive Order 13990 review
process, then these compliance expenditures might be unnecessary to
comply with applicable regulatory requirements. Without a delay in the
effective and compliance dates of the rule, states and regulated
entities may make decisions and spend scarce resources on compliance
obligations that could change at the end of EPA's review period. To
avoid imposing unnecessary costs on water systems and states, and to
allow systems and states sufficient time to prepare for compliance once
regulatory certainty has been achieved, EPA has determined to delay
both the effective and compliance dates of the LCRR to December 16,
2021, and October 16, 2024, respectively.
    EPA received a small number of comment letters that, in general,
supported a delay in the effective date and compliance dates, but did
not want the agency to delay the implementation of some of the
regulatory requirements they felt would increase public health
protection. These commenters indicated that the following improvements
could be implemented during EPA's reconsideration of the other aspects
of the LCRR: The LSL inventory requirements, improved corrosion control
treatment requirements, and strengthened monitoring provisions,
including provisions that would prevent sampling that is likely to
underestimate the actual lead levels in drinking water. Other
commenters indicated that any delay to the LCRR effective date and
compliance date must apply to the entire LCRR given the interrelated
nature of the different aspects of the rule. According to these
commenters, having the compliance date extension apply to the LCRR in
its entirety will simplify communication, reduce complexity and
confusion, improve compliance by the regulated community, and provide
additional time to obtain the data management tools and resources
required to implement the rule.
    Because there is only one effective date for the LCRR, it can take
effect or be withdrawn only in its entirety. EPA cannot selectively
allow some aspects of the rule to become effective in advance of other
parts of the rule without undertaking a separate notice and comment
rulemaking. While EPA could establish different compliance dates for
different parts of the LCRR as part of a notice and comment rulemaking,
the agency has determined not to do so at this time because it would
pre-determine the outcome of the public stakeholder process, create
confusion for implementing authorities and regulated entities, impose
potentially unnecessary costs, and undermine the re-evaluation process
by diverting agency and stakeholder resources that would otherwise be
devoted to the re-evaluation process. EPA is currently seeking input on
all aspects of the rule as part of the stakeholder engagement process.
To proceed with implementation of selected portions of the rule during
EPA's review of the entire rule would be both impractical and
inconsistent with the agency's stated intention to re-evaluate the LCRR
in light of stakeholder input on the entire LCRR. Moreover, as
explained in the proposal, stakeholders have raised concerns with
nearly all aspects of the LCRR, including the LSL inventory
requirements. Therefore, EPA has determined to delay the effective date
and all of the compliance dates in the rule at this time.
    EPA received a total of four comment letters indicating opposition
to the extensions of the effective and compliance dates, and an
additional two that did not explicitly support or oppose the delay in
the effective and compliance dates of the LCRR. In general, the
commenters opposing the extensions stated that delaying the effective
and compliance dates would delay the public health improvements that
would be achieved with implementing the LCRR, in part or in total, as
finalized on January 15, 2021.
    The comments opposing a delay in the compliance deadline include
the following, from the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
(AMWA), which stated that it ``has concerns that EPA's proposal to
delay the effective date . . . would postpone the significant public
health improvements that will be achieved by implementing the rule as
finalized.'' They go on to state, ``the benefits of this [delay] must
be weighed against the costs of postponing the public health
improvements that will be achieved when water systems begin to comply
with the final rule in its current form.'' AMWA identifies the
customer-initiated LSL replacement provision, the LSL inventory, and
the school and child-care testing provisions as public health
improvements that would be postponed by a delay of the rule effective
and compliance dates. Also, the Kentucky and Tennessee Water Utility
Councils (KY/TN WUC) of the American Water Works Association stated
that they ``are concerned that extending the dates of the Rule could
delay the enhanced awareness, detection, communication, and elimination
of potential lead exposure in communities.'' Another public commenter
opposed the effective and compliance date extensions, arguing that EPA
should instead simultaneously implement and revise the LCRR because of
certain aspects of the rule that the commenter claims ``would provide
immediate public health benefits''--such as the LSL inventory and
associated public

notification requirements, as well as changes in the sampling
requirements.
    Similarly, one anonymous commenter argued that to delay the rule is
tantamount to repeal of the rule and that EPA has not analyzed the
effects on human health of the delay that the LCRR was designed to
benefit, or considered why it is worth forgoing the benefits of the
rule for nine months in exchange for evaluation of the LCRR which, the
commenter claims, could be done without delaying the compliance dates.
The commenter also claims that EPA has failed to provide a meaningful
opportunity for the public to comment ``[b]ecause of these substantive
oversights, including the failure to consider the merits of the LCRR
and the deficiencies of the preexisting requirements in its proposal
that would allow those preexisting requirements to remain in effect for
a longer period of time.''
    The KY/TN WUC opposed the delay of the LCRR effective and
compliance dates, noting that EPA has already conducted extensive
outreach during the development of the LCRR, stating, ``EPA's thorough
and extensive review and stakeholder engagement process resulted in a
final Rule that strengthens every aspect of the current rule and
accelerates actions that can reduce lead in drinking water.'' This
concept of EPA having already conducted extensive outreach was echoed
by AMWA, noting that the agency ``has been discussing options for the
rule with these communities, other stakeholders, and the public since
at least 2010.'' However, AMWA ``agrees that engagement with at-risk
communities is critical.'' The commenter opposing the delay and arguing
that EPA should simultaneously implement and revise the LCRR, also
expressed support for EPA's effort to seek additional stakeholder input
on the LCRR. Another comment letter, from the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) recommended that EPA consider the extensive outreach
that the agency has already conducted on the LCRR.
    EPA received two comment letters that did not explicitly support or
oppose the delay in the effective and compliance dates of the LCRR. One
comment letter, jointly signed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the
National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties,
indicated that the LCRR as published on January 15, 2021, at 86 FR 4198
``satisfactorily addressed the local government perspective in both
protecting public health and reducing lead contamination of drinking
water.'' Another comment letter from AWWA requests that the effective
and compliance dates be extended in an amount commensurate with the
additional time used for stakeholder outreach. AWWA noted that the
``[u]ncertainty . . . which is naturally generated through
reconsideration efforts'' will make it difficult for public water
systems to prepare for compliance and make investments needed to meet
the interrelated requirements of the rule, as such efforts may prove to
be wasted or wasteful if the Rule ultimately changes in its
particulars.'' Accordingly, AWWA requests that ``all extensions to the
effective date of the LCRR and any subsequent agency activity that
seeks to change the LCRR should be accompanied by an extension to the
compliance timeframes.'' AMWA, though opposing the delays in the LCRR
implementation, also expressed support for an extension of the
compliance dates by nine months if EPA delays the June 17, 2021
effective date of the rule.
    For reasons discussed in the proposal and this action, EPA
disagrees with the commenters asserting that the LCRR, as published on
January 15, 2021, at 86 FR 4198, should take effect on June 17, 2021.
EPA provided a reasoned explanation in the proposal for the delayed
effective and compliance dates while the agency conducts this re-
evaluation. The explanation identified EPA's concern that water systems
and states could unnecessarily expend significant resources on
compliance with a rule that may ultimately be withdrawn or
substantially modified and, which many commenters have urged, may not
be a sufficient improvement in public health protection in comparison
to the existing protection of the LCR, or even possibly reduce public
health protections.
    This action will enable EPA to engage with communities,
stakeholders, tribes, and states to gather more information about their
concerns with the LCRR and to share information about actions that can
reduce drinking water lead exposure. The LCRR virtual engagement
process is providing benefits in three ways. First, the engagement is
increasing public and community awareness of the potential harmful
health effects of lead and the ways individuals and communities may
proactively reduce their exposure. Because the effective implementation
of drinking water lead reduction requirements, such as LSL replacement,
depends on the actions of both water systems and private citizens, the
increased awareness fostered by EPA's LCRR review outreach activities
will improve the implementation of the LCRR and/or a future lead in
drinking water regulatory action. Second, the information gained by the
agency from listening to the public and communities that have been
dealing with lead in drinking water issues across the country will
provide EPA with new information that will help in the development of
more effective implementation guidance for the LCRR or any future
revisions of the LCRR. Information gathered from this process may be
especially useful for the guidance on developing the initial LSL
inventory and the LSL replacement plan. Third, the delay of the
effective date, to engage with communities, will allow the agency to
potentially develop future regulatory revisions to the Lead and Copper
Rule, consistent with Executive Order 13990, that will be more
effective at reducing the lead in drinking water in real world
communities and better at targeting disadvantaged underserved
communities.
    EPA's economic analysis of the LCRR supports the conclusion that
the relatively-short delay in the effective date and compliance dates
for this rule, in particular, will not significantly reduce the
benefits of the LCRR. The economic analysis of the final LCRR estimated
that the annual total incremental cost of the regulatory requirements,
in 2016 dollars, would range from $161 to $335 million at the 3 percent
discount rate, and $167 to $372 million at the 7 percent discount rate.
The annual total incremental monetized benefits, in 2016 dollars, of
the final rule were estimated to be between $223 to $645 million, at a
3 percent discount rate, and $39 to $119 million at the 7 percent
discount rate. The delay of the original compliance date, of January
16, 2024, by nine months pushes back in time both the cost born by
complying entities and the monetized benefits received by the public as
a result of lower lead levels in drinking water, by nine months,
assuming all other environmental and regulatory conditions remain the
same. EPA selected the conservative assumption of modeling a one year
delay in the regulatory costs and benefits impacts. The estimated
annual total incremental cost of the rule given the one-year delay
ranged from $153 to $320 million, at the 3 percent discount rate, and
$155 to $346 million at the 7 percent discount rate, in 2016 dollars.
The monetized annual incremental benefits, in 2016 dollars, given a
one-year delay of the compliance date would range from $213 to $616
million, at the 3 percent discount rate, and $37 to $111 million at the
7 percent discount rate. The estimated change in the monetized

incremental annualized social costs and benefits of the delay in the
compliance date are approximately of equal size over the 35-year period
of analysis ($7 to $27 million for costs and $3 to $29 million for
benefits in 2016 dollars), but, as previously discussed, the expected
first year (post rule effective date) expenditures by systems and
states would be between $57-60 million, in 2016 dollars. These first-
year expenditures to prepare for regulatory compliance with the LCRR
could be unnecessary if EPA determines to initiate a rulemaking to
withdraw or significantly revise the LCRR as a result of the Executive
Order 13990 review process. The estimated first year (post rule
effective date) benefits are zero given that the regulatory
requirements that produce monetized benefits are not implemented until
the compliance date three years after the effective date.
    Moreover, EPA notes that there is an existing National Primary
Drinking Water Rule, the Lead and Copper Rule, that will continue to
provide public health protection and benefits during this short delay
in the most recent revisions to that rule. Water systems will continue
to implement the LCR, which includes requirements to monitor for lead
and optimize corrosion control treatment.
    Given the relatively small impact to the stream of monetized social
costs and benefits over the 35-year period of analysis, which has the
potential to dramatically change based on the results of EPA's
Executive Order 13990 review process, the significant and potentially
unnecessary implementation expenses estimated in the first year
following the original effective date, of March 16, 2021; the need to
provide systems and states sufficient time to prepare for compliance;
the potential positive gains to implementation and collection of new
information; and, the existing safeguards to protect against lead
contamination in drinking water, EPA has determined to delay both the
effective and compliance dates of the LCRR to December 16, 2021, and
October 16, 2024, respectively.
    EPA also disagrees with those commenters that suggested EPA let the
LCRR take effect on June 17, 2021, and then initiate a process to
revise it. Although EPA carefully considered whether to allow the rule
to take effect on June 17, 2021, while postponing the compliance dates
for only certain aspects of the rule, EPA has determined not to do so
at this time because it would pre-determine the outcome of the public
stakeholder process, create confusion for implementing authorities and
regulated entities, impose potentially unnecessary costs, and undermine
the re-evaluation process by diverting EPA and stakeholder resources
that would otherwise be devoted to the re-evaluation process. Moreover,
as explained in the proposal, stakeholders have raised concerns with
nearly all aspects of the LCRR, including the LSL inventory
requirements. Accordingly, EPA has determined that this approach, to
let the rule take effect while postponing compliance dates for some
aspects of the rule, is not appropriate at this time.
    EPA agrees that in developing the LCRR it has already conducted
extensive stakeholder engagements. However, to the extent commenters
are suggesting that additional stakeholder input is not warranted at
this time, the agency disagrees. EPA did not conduct any public
meetings on the LCRR revisions in the two years prior to promulgation
of the final rule, which includes the time period between the proposal
and the final rule. Similarly, in the two years preceding promulgation
of the final rule, EPA did not conduct any targeted meetings to get
input on the proposed revisions from communities historically
underserved by, or subject to discrimination in, Federal policies and
programs, or those communities that have been significantly affected by
lead in drinking water. The information shared by these communities
could prove to be valuable in understanding potential rule
implementation issues that could lead to improved and more effective
LCRR requirements and implementation guidance. As discussed previously,
EPA agrees with commenters that the delay of the effective date
warrants a delay in the compliance dates for the rule. EPA's re-
evaluation of the LCRR creates regulatory uncertainty during the 3-year
time period typically provided for drinking water systems and states to
assure compliance with new or revised drinking water standards. If the
compliance date is not delayed, systems and states would expend
resources now, to assure compliance with the LCRR by January 16, 2024.
EPA estimated in the economic analysis of the final LCRR that systems
and states would spend between $57-60 million, in 2016 dollars, in the
first year following promulgation of the rule working towards
compliance. If EPA were to initiate a rulemaking to withdraw or
significantly revise the LCRR, then these compliance expenditures would
be unnecessary to comply with applicable regulatory requirements.
Therefore, EPA is delaying the compliance date of the LCRR to October
16, 2024, to avoid imposing these potentially unnecessary costs on
water systems and states, and to allow systems and states sufficient
time to prepare for compliance once regulatory certainty has been
achieved.
    EPA has complied with the applicable Administrative Procedure Act
and SDWA requirements for this rule. If EPA decides that further
regulatory changes are necessary, EPA will comply with the applicable
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the SDWA, and
conform to the relevant EOs, including EOs 13132 and 13175, regarding
federalism and tribal consultations, respectively.
    Many commenters on the proposal to extend the effective and
compliance dates also provided input on all aspects of the LCRR,
including the action and trigger levels, LSL inventories, LSL
replacement requirements, as well as the requirements for optimal
corrosion control treatment, tap sampling, public education and
notification, and school sampling, and EPA's compliance with both the
substantive and procedural requirements for promulgation of a revised
drinking water regulation. The extent and breadth of these comments
demonstrates the significant concern that stakeholders, from a range of
perspectives, have with the LCRR and the procedures EPA followed in
promulgating the rule. EPA appreciates this input on the LCRR and is
considering these comments as part of its re-evaluation process.

IV. Final Rule Revisions

    This final rule extends the effective date of the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) to
December 16, 2021. This rule also extends the compliance date to
October 16, 2024.
    The significant factual, legal, and policy issues identified by
stakeholders and litigants, and summarized in Section II of this
document, warrant careful and considerate review of the rule, as well
as relief from the compliance deadlines as EPA considers these issues.
After publication of the final National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation, states and water systems commence activities to achieve
compliance with the rule by the deadline established in the LCRR based
on the requirements of Section 1412(b)(10) of the SDWA. Under the final
rule promulgated on January 15, 2021, water systems will begin the
actions to prepare LSL inventories, and, as appropriate, to prepare LSL
replacement plans. The postponement of compliance dates through this
action is intended as a stopgap measure to prevent the unnecessary
expenditure of

resources by water systems on those efforts until EPA completes its
review of the LCRR and can provide some certainty that the regulatory
requirements will not be changed. Without a delay in the effective and
compliance dates of the rule, regulated entities may make decisions and
spend scarce resources on compliance obligations that could change at
the end of EPA's review period.
    Section 1412(b)(9) of the SDWA authorizes EPA to review and revise
national primary drinking water rules ``as appropriate'' and directs
that any revision ``shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection
of the health of persons.'' 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(9). This delay is
consistent with EPA's exercise of this discretionary authority to
revise its drinking water rules.
    EPA will engage with stakeholders during this time period to
evaluate the rule and determine whether to initiate a process to revise
components of the rule. If EPA decides to withdraw the LCRR, the agency
will propose, take comment on, and issue a withdrawal prior to December
16, 2021. If EPA decides it is appropriate to modify the LCRR, it will
consider whether those modifications warrant further extensions to
compliance dates for the requirements that will be modified to provide
time to promulgate those revisions before water systems and states must
take actions to comply. If EPA decides to revise the LCRR, the agency
will follow the requirements of the SDWA and other applicable statues
and EOs to propose and promulgate those revisions.

V. Compliance With the Administrative Procedure Act

    Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
Chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take effect until 30
days after they are published in the Federal Register. The purpose of
this APA provision is to ``give affected parties a reasonable time to
adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.'' Omnipoint
Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see
also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977)
(quoting legislative history). However, when an agency grants or
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do
not need a reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse.
Thus, APA Section 553(d) allows an effective date less than 30 days
after publication for any rule that ``grants or recognizes an exemption
or relieves a restriction'' (see 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)). An accelerated
effective date may also be appropriate for good cause pursuant to APA
Section 553(d)(3) where an agency can ``balance the necessity for
immediate implementation against principles of fundamental fairness,
which require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount
of time to prepare for the effective date of its ruling.'' Gavrilovic,
551 F.2d at 1105.
    EPA has determined that this final rule is effective immediately
upon publication because it relieves a restriction by extending the
effective date and compliance deadlines of the LCRR, thereby providing
water systems with additional time to come into compliance. In
addition, there is good cause for immediate implementation of these
provisions because, as previously explained, the impact of this rule is
to ensure that water systems do not unnecessarily expend resources to
come into compliance with the LCRR until EPA concludes its review and
stakeholder engagement process and makes a decision as to whether to
revise the LCRR in whole or in part or to let it take effect as
published on January 15, 2021.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2040-0204. This action delays of the effective and
compliance dates of the LCRR until December 16, 2021 and October 16,
2024, respectively, and does not alter any of the information
collection activities required under the LCRR.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This action delays compliance with the
regulatory requirements of the LCRR and does not impose any additional
requirements on either large or small entities. EPA has therefore
concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all
directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The Executive order defines tribal implications
as ``actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.'' The delay of the effective
and compliance dates of the LCRR until December 16, 2021 and October
16, 2024, respectively, will not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more tribes, change the relationship between the Federal
Government and tribes, or affect the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are economically significant, per the
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in Section 2-202 of the
Executive order. This

action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the delays of
the effective and compliances dates, until December 16, 2021 and
October 16, 2024, respectively, do not have a significant economic
impact.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. EPA has concluded that the delay of the
effective and compliance dates of the LCRR, which were published in the
Federal Register on January 15, 2021, until December 16, 2021 and
October 16, 2024, respectively, is not likely to have adverse energy
effects. This conclusion is based on the fact that delaying the
regulatory requirements of the LCRR will reduce near term demand for
energy commodities that would be required to install and operate
corrosion control equipment, remove LSLs, or produce and deliver public
education materials.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that it is not feasible to determine whether this
action has disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The purpose of this rule is to extend effective date of the LCRR to
December 16, 2021, to allow EPA to conduct a review of the LCRR, under
Executive Order 13990, and consult with stakeholders, including those
who have been historically underserved by, or subject to discrimination
in, Federal policies and programs prior to the LCRR going into effect.
Because EPA is still in the collection process of potentially
significant environmental justice information on the distributional
impacts of drinking water lead-related regulatory requirements, it is
not feasible to determine with certainty the impact of the delay of the
effective and compliance dates of the LCRR.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to Subtitle E of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the
Congressional Review Act or CRA), and EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined
that this action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

    Environmental protection, Copper, Drinking water, Indians--lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Lead service line, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 141 as follows:

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

0
2. Amend Sec.  141.80 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (4) to read
as follows:

Sec.  141.80  General requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The requirements of this subpart are effective as of December
16, 2021.
    (3) Community water systems and non-transient, non-community water
systems must comply with the requirements of this subpart no later than
October 16, 2024, except where otherwise specified in Sec. Sec.
141.81, 141.84, 141.85, 141.86, and 141.90, or where an exemption in
accordance with 40 CFR part 142, subpart C or F, has been established
by the Administrator.
    (4)(i) Between December 16, 2021, and October 16, 2024, community
water systems and non-transient, non-community water systems must
comply with 40 CFR 141.80 through 141.91, as codified on July 1, 2020.
    (ii) If an exemption from subpart I of this part has been issued in
accordance with 40 CFR part 142, subpart C or F, prior to December 16,
2021, then the water systems must comply with 40 CFR 141.80 through
141.91, as codified on July 1, 2020, until the expiration of that
exemption.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  141.84 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  141.84  Lead service line inventory and replacement requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) All water systems must develop an initial inventory by October
16, 2024, and submit it to the primacy agency in accordance with Sec.
141.90(e).
* * * * *
    (b) Lead service line replacement plan. All water systems with one
or more lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown
service lines in their distribution system must, by October 16, 2024,
submit a lead service line replacement plan to the State in accordance
with Sec.  141.90(e). The lead service line replacement plan must be
sufficiently detailed to ensure a system is able to comply with the
lead service line replacement requirements in accordance with this
section. The plan must include a description of:
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  141.86 by revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii)
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  141.86  Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in tap water.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) All water systems with lead service lines, including those
deemed optimized under Sec.  141.81(b)(3), and systems that did not
conduct monitoring that meets all requirements of this section (e.g.,
sites selected in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section,
samples collected in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section,
etc.) between January 15, 2021, and October 16, 2024, must begin the
first standard monitoring period on January 1 or July 1 in the year
following October 16, 2024, whichever is sooner. Upon completion of
this monitoring, systems must monitor in accordance with paragraph
(d)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (ii) Systems that conducted monitoring that meets all requirements
of this section (e.g., sites selected in accordance with paragraph (a)
of this section, samples collected in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this section, etc.) between January 15, 2021, and October 16, 2024, and
systems that have completed monitoring under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of
this section, must continue monitoring as follows:
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  141.90 by revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) to read to
read as follows:

Sec.  141.90  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

    (1) No later than October 16, 2024, the water system must submit to
the State an inventory of service lines as required in Sec.  141.84(a).
    (2) No later than October 16, 2024, any water system that has
inventoried a lead service line, galvanized requiring replacement, or
lead status unknown service line in its distribution system must submit
to the State, as specified in Sec.  141.84(b), a lead service line
replacement plan.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-12600 Filed 6-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 30, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73471-73475]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25979]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0191; FRL-10423-01-OCSPP]

N,N-Dimethylnonanamide; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of N,N-dimethylnonanamide (CAS Reg. No.
6225-08-7) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent, co-solvent, and
adjuvant) not to exceed 20% by weight in pesticide formulations applied
to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities pre- and post-
harvest, and applied to animals. Spring Trading Company, on behalf of
Clariant Corporation, submitted a petition (IN-11126) to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment
of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of N,N-dimethylnonanamide, when used in accordance with the
terms of these exemptions.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 30, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 30, 2023
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0191, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and the OPP docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Rosenblatt, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0191 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
January 30, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0191, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov//send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket,

along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of October 18, 2018 (83 FR 52787) (FRL-
9984-21), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (IN-11126)
by Spring Trading Company, on behalf of Clariant Corporation, 4000
Monroe Rd., Charlotte, NC 28205. The petition requested that 40 CFR be
amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of N,N-dimethylnonanamide (CAS Reg. No. 6225-08-
7) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent, co-solvent, and adjuvant)
in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural
commodities pre- and post-harvest under 40 CFR 180.910 and applied to
animals under 40 CFR 180.930. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Spring Trading Company, on behalf of Clariant
Corporation, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. Subsequently, the petitioner requested that N,N-
dimethylnonanamide be limited to no more than 20% in pesticide
formulations. There were no relevant comments received in response to
the notice of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. When making a safety determination for an
exemption for the requirement of a tolerance FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B)
directs EPA to consider the considerations in section 408(b)(2)(C) and
(D). Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.'' Section 408(b)(2)(D) lists other factors for EPA consideration
making safety determinations, e.g., the validity, completeness, and
reliability of available data, nature of toxic effects, available
information concerning the cumulative effects of the pesticide chemical
and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity, and available
information concerning aggregate exposure levels to the pesticide
chemical and other related substances, among others.
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for N,N-dimethylnonanamide,
including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this
action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with N,N-
dimethylnonanamide follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by N,N-dimethylnonanamide as well as the
no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-
adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in
this unit.
    The toxicological database of N,N-dimethylnonanamide is supported
by data regarding N,N-dimethyldecanamide and N,N-dimethyloctanamide.
EPA has determined that it is appropriate to bridge N,N-
dimethyldecanamide and N,N-dimethyloctanamide data to assess N,N-
dimethylnonanamide due to similarities in functional groups/structure.
    The available toxicity studies indicate that N,N-dimethylnonanamide
has low overall toxicity. N,N-dimethylnonanamide exhibits low levels of
acute toxicity via the oral and dermal routes of exposure and it is
anticipated to have low potential for inhalation toxicity, based on an
inhalation toxicity study with surrogate chemicals. N,N-
dimethylnonanamide is not a skin sensitizer, but it is irritating to
the eyes and skin. No adverse effects were reported in the 28-day study
in rats. This study also performed neurotoxicity screening and no
adverse effects were reported. No adverse parental, reproductive, or
developmental effects were found in the reproductive/developmental
toxicity screening study in rats. Furthermore, concern for
carcinogenicity is low, based on negative results in mutagenicity
studies, and the lack of structural alerts for carcinogenicity using
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) QSAR
Toolbox. There is no evidence of

neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity in the available studies.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/overview-risk-assessment-pesticide-program.
    The hazard profile of N,N-dimethylnonanamide is adequately defined.
Overall, N,N-dimethylnonanamide is of low acute, subchronic, and
reproductive/developmental toxicity. No systemic toxicity is observed
up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. Since signs of toxicity were not observed, no
toxicological endpoints of concern or PODs were identified. Therefore,
a qualitative risk assessment for N,N-dimethylnonanamide can be
performed.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to N,N-dimethylnonanamide, EPA considered exposure under the
proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed
dietary exposures from N,N-dimethylnonanamide in food as follows:
    Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to N,N-
dimethylnonanamide may occur following ingestion of foods with residues
from their use in accordance with this exemption. However, a
quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted since a
toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.
    2. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
    N,N-dimethylnonanamide may be present in pesticide and non-
pesticide products that may be used in and around the home. However, a
quantitative residential exposure assessment was not conducted since a
toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.
    3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA 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.''
    Based on the lack of toxicity in the available database, EPA has
not found N,N-dimethylnonanamide to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and N,N-dimethylnonanamide does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance exemption, therefore, EPA has assumed
that N,N-dimethylnonanamide does not have a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts
to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act
Safety Factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    Based on an assessment of N,N-dimethylnonanamide EPA has concluded
that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S.
population, including infants and children. Because there are no
threshold effects associated with N,N-dimethylnonanamide, EPA conducted
a qualitative assessment. As part of that assessment, the Agency did
not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety
factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Because no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to N,N-dimethylnonanamide residues.

V. Other Considerations

Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of
N,N-dimethylnonanamide in or on any food commodities. EPA is
establishing a limitation on the amount of N,N-dimethylnonanamide that
may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops and raw agricultural commodities pre- and post-harvest
and to animals. This limitation will be enforced through the pesticide
registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (``FIFRA''), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register
any pesticide formulation for food use that exceeds 20% N,N-
dimethylnonanamide by weight in the final pesticide formulation.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established for residues of N,N-dimethylnonanamide (CAS Reg. No. 6225-
08-7) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent, co-solvent, and
adjuvant) not to exceed 20% by weight in pesticide formulations applied
to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities pre- and post-harvest
under 40 CFR 180.910 and applied to animals under 40 CFR 180.930.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemptions in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition,
this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 22, 2022.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.910, amend Table 1 to 180.910 by adding, in
alphabetical order, an entry for ``N,N-Dimethylnonanamide (CAS Reg. No.
6225-08-7)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.910  Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions
from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

                           Table 1 to 180.910
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Inert ingredients              Limits                 Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
N,N-Dimethylnonanamide (CAS   Not to exceed 20% by  Solvent, co-solvent,
 Reg. No. 6225-08-7).          weight of pesticide   and adjuvant.
                               formulation.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  180.930, amend Table 1 to 180.930 by adding, in
alphabetical order, an entry for ``N,N-Dimethylnonanamide (CAS Reg. No.
6225-08-7)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.930  Inert ingredients applied to animals; exemptions from
the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

                           Table 1 to 180.930
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Inert ingredients              Limits                 Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
N,N-Dimethylnonanamide (CAS   Not to exceed 20% by  Solvent, co-solvent,
 Reg. No. 6225-08-7).          weight of pesticide   and adjuvant.
                               formulation.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-25979 Filed 11-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45900-45902]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2014-0021]

General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment; Extension of
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in its General Working
Conditions in Shipyard Employment Standards.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent or received) by
December 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.

    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2014-0021,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2014-0021) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other materials in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not
publically available to read or download from the Web site. All
submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may contact Theda
Kenney at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen or Theda Kenney, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone
(202) 693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The standard on General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment
(29 CFR part 1915, subpart F) covers provisions that address conditions
and operations in shipyard employment that may produce hazards for
workers. The subpart is comprised of 14 sections that include
housekeeping; lighting; utilities; working alone; vessel radar and
communication systems; lifeboats; medical services and first aid;
sanitation; control of hazardous energy; safety color code for marking
physical hazards; accident prevention signs and tags; retention of DOT
markings, placards, and labels; motor vehicle safety equipment,
operation and maintenance; and servicing multi-piece and single-piece
rim wheels.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply.
For example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in subpart F of the General Working
Conditions in Shipyard Employment Standard (29 CFR 1915). The Agency is
proposing an adjustment decrease of 2,471 hours, from 101,376 to 98,905
hours. The decrease in hours is a result of updated data showing a
decrease in the number of small to large establishments covered by the
standard.
    OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this
notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend
the approval of the information collection requirements.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment Standard
(29 CFR part 1915, subpart F)
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0259.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Number of Responses: 285,653.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Various.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 98,905.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $2,726.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other materials must identify the Agency
name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2014-
0021). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document
files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in
reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit
them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled
ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your
electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the
Agency can attach them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting

personal information such as social security numbers and dates of
birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publically available to read or download from this Web
site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR
3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on September 22, 2017.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2017-20981 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: September 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 54638]
[DOCID:fr18se06-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-205-013]

Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate

September 11, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 1, 2006, Southern Natural Gas Company
(Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective
November 1, 2006:

Tenth Revised Sheet No. 23
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 23A

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15393 Filed 9-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P