EPA Registration Division contact: Barbara Madden<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

PP# 6E7129

	21 U.S.C. 346 EPA has received a pesticide petition (6E7129) from
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East,
Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ, 08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d),
to amend 40 CFR part 180.361 by establishing tolerances for residues of
the herbicide, pendimethalin
[N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine] and its
metabolite 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol
in or on the raw agricultural commodity Brassica, head and stem,
Subgroup 5A at 0.05 parts per million (ppm), grape at 0.05 ppm,
asparagus at 0.1 ppm and artichoke, globe at 0.05 ppm.  EPA has
determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the
elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA; however, EPA has
not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time
or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data
may be needed before EPA rules on the petition. This summary was
prepared by BASF Corporation, the registrant.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.  The qualitative nature of the residues of
pendimethalin in plants is understood based on adequate studies
conducted with 14 C pendimethalin on various crops. Pendimethalin and
its 3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol metabolite (CL202347) are the residues of
concern.

	2. Analytical method. Section 408 (b)(3) of the amended FDCA requires
EPA to determine that there is a practical method for detecting and
measuring levels of the pesticide chemical residue in or on food and
that the tolerance be set at a level at or above of the limit of
detection of the designated method. In plants the method is aqueous
organic solvent extraction, column clean up, and quantitation by GC.
The method has a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm for
pendimethalin and the alcohol metabolite.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Field trials in major growing areas were
carried out in order to determine the magnitude of residues in the
Brassica head and stem, artichoke, asparagus and grape commodities.  EPA
has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding
the above aforementioned crops.  Field trials were conducted in the
required regions.  Field trials were carried out using the maximum
number of applications, the maximum label rate and shortest pre-harvest
interval (PHI).>

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  Pendimethalin technical demonstrates low acute
toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure.  The
acute toxicity studies place technical pendimethalin in toxicity
category III for the acute oral, category IV for acute dermal, and
category IV for acute inhalation.  Technical pendimethalin is category
IV for skin irritation and category III for eye irritation.
Pendimethalin did not cause skin sensitization in guinea pigs.  Two
formulated end use products are registered for use on crops, an
Emulsifiable Concentrate (EC) and an Encapsulated Suspension (CS).  The
EC has an acute oral category of III, acute dermal category of III, an
acute inhalation category of III, eye and skin irritation of III, and is
not a dermal sensitizer.   The CS has an acute oral category of IV, an
acute dermal category of IV, an acute inhalation category of IV, eye and
skin irritation category of IV, and is not a dermal sensitizer.

	2. Genotoxicty. Extensive mutagenicity studies conducted to investigate
point and gene mutations, DNA damage and chromosomal aberration, both
using in vitro and in vivo test systems demonstrate pendimethalin to be
non-genotoxic.

Pendimethalin has been classified as a Group C "possible human
carcinogen," based on a statistically significantly increased incidence
of benign follicular cell adenomas of the thyroid gland in male and
female rats at 5000 ppm (250 mg/kg b.w./day) (highest concentration
tested).  For risk assessment, OPP recommends using the RfD (non-linear)
approach for quantification of human risk.  The Agency Committee has
determined that the hypothesis, that benign thyroid tumors associated
with pendimethalin are due to a thyroid-pituitary imbalance, can be
supported.  Finally, pendimethalin's mechanism of threshold oncogenic
activity only occurs at high doses in rats, a mammalian species that is
expected to be much more sensitive than humans to the induction of
thyroid tumors via conditions which result in hypothyroidism.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Pendimethalin (BAS 455 H)
is not a selective developmental toxicant.  There is no indication of
increased susceptibility following prenatal/postnatal exposure to
pendimethalin.

In a developmental (teratology) toxicity study in the rat, the results
demonstrated that the NOAELs for both maternal toxicity and fetal
(prenatal)/developmental toxicity were 500 mg/kg b.w./day (highest dose
tested) (HDT).  In addition, there were no indications of any
teratogenic effects in the rat fetuses at 500 mg/kg b.w./day (HDT).
Therefore, pendimethalin is considered to be neither a developmental
toxicant nor a teratogenic agent in the rat.

In a developmental (teratology) toxicity study in the rabbit, the
results demonstrated the NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 30 mg/kg
b.w./day, based on increased clinical signs of toxicity and decreased
body weight gain during the treatment period at 60 mg/kg b.w./day (HDT).
 The NOAEL for fetal (prenatal)/developmental toxicity was 60 mg/kg
b.w./day (HDT).  In addition, there were no indications of any
teratogenic effects in the rabbit fetuses at 60 mg/kg b.w./day.
Therefore, pendimethalin is considered to be neither a developmental
toxicant nor a teratogenic agent in the rabbit.

A two-generation reproductive toxicity study in the rat demonstrated an
absence of increased sensitivity for the developing offspring to
pendimethalin.  The NOAEL for parental toxicity was 500 ppm
(approximately 38.5 mg/kg b.w./day), based on reduced food consumption
and decreased body weight/weight gain at 2500 ppm (mid-dietary
concentration).  The NOAEL for pup/offspring toxicity was also 500 ppm,
based on decreased pup body weight gain at 2500 ppm.  Lastly, the NOAEL
for reproductive toxicity was 2500 ppm (approximately 194 mg/kg
b.w./day), based on reduced mean live litter size at 5000 ppm (highest
concentration tested) (HCT).  These reductions in mean live litter size
and pup body weight gain were only observed at dietary concentrations
that were parentally toxic.  As such, there is no evidence that prenatal
or postnatal exposure to pendimethalin results in an increased
sensitivity to developing offspring.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Subchronic (90-day) feeding studies were
conducted in rats and dogs.  For the rat, the NOAEL for systemic
toxicity was 500 ppm (41 mg/kg b.w./day), based on slightly decreased
body weight, increased absolute and relative liver weights, and liver
histopathology (hepatocellular hypertrophy) in males and females at 5000
ppm (HCT).  For the dog, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 2500 ppm
(62.5 mg/kg b.w./day), based on decreased body weight at 10000 ppm (250
mg/kg b.w./day).

	5. Chronic toxicity. The chronic Reference Dose (RfD) was established
based on the results of subchronic special studies demonstrating the
thyroid hormone related endpoint in rats.  The NOAEL of 10 mg/kg
b.w./day was established from the collective results of the subchronic
oral 92-day thyroid function study, the subchronic oral 56-day thyroid
function study, and the 14-day intrathyroidal metabolism study.  A LOAEL
of 31 mg/kg b.w./day was based on hormonal and histopathological changes
in the thyroid gland.  The chronic RfD was calculated to be 0.03 mg/kg
b.w./day using an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 30X (3X for interspecies
extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies variability) and a 10X database
uncertainty factor (UFDB) retained pending receipt of a developmental
thyroid toxicity study.  EPA/HED currently recommends a FQPA Safety
Factor of 1X.  Therefore, the chronic Population Adjusted Dose (PAD) is
0.03 mg/kg b.w./day.

Chronic toxicity studies were conducted in rats, mice, and dogs.  For
the 2-year rat feeding study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500
ppm (25 mg/kg b.w./day), based on decreased body weight gain
(approximately 20-30%), increased clinical signs of toxicity, increased
relative liver weights, and slight but statistical increase in the
incidence of benign follicular cell adenomas of the thyroid gland in
males and females at 5000 ppm (250 mg/kg b.w./day) (HCT).  For the
18-month mouse feeding study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500
ppm (75 mg/kg b.w./day), based on slightly decreased mean body weights
and reduced survival at 5000 ppm (750 mg/kg b.w./day) (HCT).  There were
no oncogenic effects up to 5000 ppm (750 mg/kg b.w./day) (HCT).  Lastly,
for the 1-year oral (via gelatin capsules) chronic dog study, the NOAEL
for systemic toxicity was 200 mg/kg b.w./day, the highest dose tested.

	6. Animal metabolism. Although not relevant to this petition, adequate
goat and poultry metabolism studies are available for pendimethalin. The
Agency has determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite
pendimethalin residues of concern in animal commodities as a result of
use on multiple crops and no tolerances for pendimethalin residues of
concern in livestock commodities are needed.

In the rat, pendimethalin is metabolized mainly through oxidation of the
4-methyl group attached to the benzene ring as well as oxidation of the
alkyl side chain of the N-substituted dinitroaniline compound.  When
C14-pendimethalin is administered to rates, about 70% of the
radioactivity is excreted in feces and 20% is in the urine within 24
hours.  Within 96 hours, the radioactivity found in the tissues was 0.3
ppm or less, except fat which is 0.9 ppm.  The major portion of the
radioactivity that was excreted in the feces was identified as the
parent compound.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. The main pendimethalin plant metabolite, CL
202347, has been tested for toxicity.  The acute oral toxicity in mice
was determined to be 2140 mg/kg bw.  An Ames assay showed the metabolite
to be non-mutagenic.

	8. Endocrine disruption. It is known that pendimethalin affects the
hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid axis.  However, as the chronic RfD (0.03
mg/kg b.w./day) is based on the thyroid hormone related endpoint in
rats, as noted in the subchronic special studies in Section 5 above,
which additionally demonstrated reversibility of the thyroid effects in
the oral 56-day thyroid function study, these effects are already taken
into consideration in the characterization of potential risks to humans.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Pendimethalin is widely used as a pre-emergent
herbicide to control broadleaf and grass weeds in food and non-food
crops, as well as non-agricultural use sites including residential
lawns. In examining aggregate exposure, FQPA directs EPA to consider
available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in
food (dietary) and all other non-occupational exposures. The primary
non-food sources of exposure are through pesticide use in gardens,
lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses). The potential
for aggregate exposure from all registered and proposed uses is
discussed below.

	i. Food. An assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential risk due
to chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population to residues of
pendimethalin (BAS 455 H).  The current tolerance values are listed in
the U.S. 40 CFR § 180.361 and the U.S. EPA document DP Number D329627.

This analysis included the crops with established tolerance values as of
October 2006 and the proposed uses on asparagus, grape, artichoke, and
Brassica head and stem, Crop Subgroup 5A.

Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment

An acute assessment was not needed since the U.S. EPA Toxicological
Endpoint Selection (TES) Committee had previously evaluated the
pendimethalin toxicity data and determined there was no relevant
toxicological endpoints for acute dietary exposure and that a risk
assessment was not required.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

The chronic dietary exposure estimates were based on established and
proposed tolerance values, and 100% CT values. Default process factors
were used with consumption data from the USDA Continuing Survey of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII 1994 - 1996, 1998).  The EPA Food Commodity
Ingredient Database (FCID) was also used in Exponent's Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Module (DEEM-FCID) software.  Secondary residues were not
included for meat, milk, eggs, and poultry since it has been determined
that there is no likelihood of residues in these animal commodities and
therefore, tolerance have not been required by the EPA.

Dietary exposure estimates were compared against the worst-case
pendimethalin chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) of 0.03 mg/kg
b.w./day for all populations subgroups.  Results of the chronic dietary
assessments are listed in the table below.  The estimated chronic
dietary exposure from crops (both established and proposed tolerances)
was less than 9 % of the cPAD for all subpopulations.  Additional
refinements such as the use of anticipated residues and percent crop
treated values for the established and proposed new crops would further
reduce the estimated chronic dietary exposure.  The results in Table 1
below demonstrate there are no safety concerns for any subpopulation
based on established and new uses, and that the results clearly meet the
FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

Table 1.	Summary of chronic dietary exposure assessment considering
crops with established and proposed tolerances for pendimethalin.

Population

Subgroups	Exposure Estimate

(mg/kg b.w./day)	%cPAD

U.S. Population	0.001121	3.36

All Infants (< 1 year)	0.001804	5.41

Children 1-2 years	0.002983	8.95

Children 3-5 years	0.002536	7.61

Children 6-12 years	0.001636	4.91

Youth 13-19 years	0.001063	3.19

Females 13-49 years	0.000894	2.68

Adults 20-49 years	0.000906	2.72

Adults 50+ years	0.000783	2.35

%cPAD = percent of chronic population adjusted dose

Exposure estimates based on tolerance values and 100 % CT values

]

	ii. Drinking Water. There are no established maximum contaminant levels
or health advisory levels for residues of pendimethalin (BAS 455 H) in
drinking water.  The drinking water exposure values used in this
assessment were obtained from the most recent pendimethalin assessment
conducted by EPA published on March 3, 2006.  The pendimethalin water
values were calculated using PRZM-EXAMS and SCI-GROW2.  The modeled
acute and chronic surface water concentrations were 38.8 and 4.8 ug/L,
respectively.  The modeled groundwater concentration was 0.024 ug/L.

Drinking water contributions were assessed based on the a pendimethalin
water concentration of 4.8 ug/L for chronic exposure and water
consumption and body weights reported in CSFII, using DEEM-FCID
software.  The chronic estimated water exposure values are summarized in
Table 2.

Table 2.  	Summary of chronic dietary exposure assessment for drinking
water considering direct and indirect sources.

Population

Subgroups	Exposure Estimate

(mg/kg b.w./day)	%cPAD

U.S. Population	0.000101	0.3

All Infants (< 1 year)	0.000332	1.0

Children 1-2 years	0.000150	0.5

Children 3-5 years	0.000141	0.4

Children 6-12 years	0.000097	0.3

Youth 13-19 years	0.000073	0.2

Females 13-49 years	0.000094	0.3

Adults 20-49 years	0.000094	0.3

Adults 50+ years	0.000099	0.3

%cPAD = percent of chronic population adjusted dose

Exposure based on the maximum estimated water concentration of 4.8 ug/L

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk (Food and water)

An acute assessment was not needed since the U.S. EPA Toxicological
Endpoint Selection (TES) Committee had previously evaluated the
pendimethalin toxicity data and determined there was no relevant
toxicological endpoints for acute dietary exposure and that a risk
assessment was not required.

Short- and Intermediate-Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food, water,
and residential)

Short-term aggregate risk from pendimethalin takes into account
exposures from dietary consumption (food and water) and residential
exposure from turf use.  Post application exposure from the turf use is
considered short-term.  The aggregate MOE from food, water, and
residential exposure are 1863 (children 1-2 years) and 5513 (US
population) for the EC formulation and 886 (children 1-2 years) and 3067
(US population) for the CS formulation, respectively.  These MOEs are
greater than the target MOE of 300, which indicates there is no safety
concern.  The results of the analysis are shown in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. 	Estimated short/intermediate term aggregate exposure and risk
of pendimethalin for the EC formulation.

Population	NOAEL (mg/kg/day)	Target MOE1	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Residential Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure
(mg/kg/day)	MOE2

US	10	300	0.001121	0.000101	0.000592	0.001814	5513

Child

1-2 yr old	10	300	0.002983	0.00015	0.002235	0.005368	1863

1 Target MOE is 300.

2 Aggregate MOE = (NOAEL / (Food + Water + Residential Exposure)

Table 4. 	Estimated short/intermediate term aggregate exposure and risk
of pendimethalin for the CS formulation.

Population	NOAEL (mg/kg/day)	Target MOE1	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Residential Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure
(mg/kg/day)	MOE2

US	10	300	0.001121	0.000101	0.002038	0.00326	3067

Child

1-2 yr old	10	300	0.002983	0.00015	0.008148	0.011281	886

1 Target MOE is 300.

2 Aggregate MOE = (NOAEL / (Food + Water + Residential Exposure)

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)

The aggregate chronic risk includes residues of pendimethalin from food
and water (Table 5). Exposures from residential uses are not included in
the chronic aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate there are no
safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses,
and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable
certainty of no harm.

Table 5. 	Estimated chronic aggregate exposure and risk of pendimethalin

Population Subgroup	cPAD (mg/kg/day)	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% cPAD

U.S. Population	0.03	0.001121	0.000101	0.001222	3.7

All Infants (< 1 yr old)	0.03	0.001804	0.000332	0.002136	6.4

Children 1-2 years	0.03	0.002983	0.00015	0.003133	9.4

Children 3-5 years	0.03	0.002536	0.000141	0.002677	8.0

Children 6 – 12 years	0.03	0.001636	0.000097	0.001733	5.2

Youth 13-19 years	0.03	0.001063	0.000073	0.001136	3.4

Females 13-49 years	0.03	0.000894	0.000094	0.000988	3.0

Adults 20-49 years	0.03	0.000906	0.000094	0.001	3.0

Adults + 50	0.03	0.000783	0.000099	0.000882	2.6

]

herbicide and Pendulum® AquaCap™ herbicide are presented below.

The following table provides the route specific and aggregate exposure
assessment results for each population subgroup, along with the
percentage of the cPAD (0.03 mg kg BW/day) utilized, and MOE
(NOAEL/Aggregate systemic Exposure).

Table 6.	Summary of residential exposure to pendimethalin following the
use of the Pendulum® 3.3 EC herbicide formulation including the route
specific and aggregate exposure assessment results for the population
subgroups.

Population subgroup	Route of Exposure	Route Specific

Systemic Exposure

(mg/kg BW/day) 1	Aggregate

Systemic Exposure

(mg/kg BW/day)	%cPAD	MOE

Adult

(20-49)	Post-application dermal	0.000592	0.000592	1.8	16892

Child

(1-6)	Post-application dermal	0.000990	0.002235	6.7	4474

	Post-application

(Hand to Mouth ingestion)	0.001245

	1 Based 3% dermal absorption

Table 7.	Summary of residential exposure to pendimethalin following the
use of the Pendulum® AquaCap™ herbicide formulation including the
route specific and aggregate exposure assessment results for the
population subgroups.

Population subgroup	Route of Exposure	Route Specific

Systemic Exposure

(mg/kg BW/day) 1	Aggregate

Systemic Exposure

(mg/kg BW/day)	%cPAD	MOE

Adult

(20-49)	Post-application dermal	0.002038	0.002038	6.1	4907

Child

(1-6)	Post-application dermal	0.003411	0.008148	24.4	1227

	Post-application

(Hand to Mouth ingestion)	0.004737

	1 Based 3% dermal absorption

]

D. Cumulative Effects

,

-

W

[

h

o

+

-

1

D

摧ₗý

摧ₗý

n€&

摧ₗý

n€&

摧ₗý

n€&

摧ₗý

n€&

摧ₗý

n€&

摧ₗý

n€&

摧ₗý

n€&

摧ₗý

n€&

摧ₗý

n€&

n€&

鐇ȿ혈F퐌渗耟Ȧ

摧ₗý

鐇Ď혈F퐌渗耟Ȧ

摧ₗý

鐇ÿ혈F퐌渗耟Ȧ

摧ₗý

鐇ÿ혈F퐌渗耟Ȧ

摧ₗý

鐇ÿ혈F퐌渗耟Ȧ

摧ₗý

鐇ÿ혈F퐌渗耟Ȧ

鐇ÿ혈F퐌渗耟Ȧ

鐇ÿ혈F퐌渗耟Ȧ

鐇ÿ혈F퐌渗耟Ȧ

鐇Ď혈F퐌渗耟Ȧ

¶

¶

ce action, therefore, it is assumed that pendimethalin does not have a
common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Based on these risk assessments, there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population
or any subpopulation from aggregate exposure to pendimethalin residues.

	2. Infants and children. Based on these risk assessments, there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants or children, or
any subpopulation from aggregate exposure to pendimethalin residues.

F. International Tolerances

	There are no CODEX, Canadian or Mexican International Maximum Residue
Levels (MRL's) established for residues of pendimethalin in these crops
at this time.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45208-45209]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18522]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0007; Notice 1]

Pirelli Tire, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Pirelli Tire, LLC (Pirelli), has determined that certain
Pirelli P Zero replacement tires do not comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for
Light Vehicles. Pirelli filed a noncompliance report dated November 19,
2018, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on December 14, 2018, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces receipt of
Pirelli's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before September 27, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Pirelli has determined that certain Pirelli P Zero
replacement tires do not fully comply with paragraphs S5.5(e) and (f)
of FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR
571.139). Pirelli filed a noncompliance report dated November 19, 2018,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance

Responsibility and Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
December 14, 2018, for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirement of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Pirelli's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Equipment Involved: Approximately 28 Pirelli P Zero replacement
tires, size 265/45R21 104W, manufactured between July 10, 2018, and
August 08, 2018, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: Pirelli explains that the noncompliance is due
to a mold error, and that as a result, the number of tread plies
indicated on the sidewall of the subject tires does not match the
actual number of plies in the tire construction as required by
paragraphs S5.5(e) and (f) of FMVSS No. 139. Specifically, the tires
were marked ``Tread: 2 Polyester 2 Steel 1 Polyamide; Sidewall: 1
Polyamide'' when they should have been marked ``Tread: 2 Polyester 2
Steel 1 Polyamide; Sidewall: 2 Polyester.''
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S5.5(e) and (f) of FMVSS No. 139
provide the requirements relevant to this petition. Each tire must be
marked on each sidewall with the information specified in paragraphs
S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall with the information specified
in S5.5(e) through (i) according to the phase-in schedule specified in
paragraph S7 of FMVSS No. 139. Specifically, each tire should be marked
with the generic name of each cord material used in the plies (both
sidewall and tread area) of the tire and the actual number of plies in
the sidewall, and the actual number of plies in the tread area, if
different.
    V. Summary of Petition: Pirelli described the subject noncompliance
and stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Pirelli submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. The subject tires comply with the performance requirements and
all other marking requirements of FMVSS No. 139.
    2. The tire construction information for the subject tires have
been corrected in Pirelli's centralized R&D system that creates the
drawings used in manufacturing the tire molds. Pirelli is in the
process of correcting the subject molds before they are used for future
production.
    3. Pirelli cited the agency as saying that it ``believes that one
measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety, in this case, is
that there is no effect of the noncompliance on the operational safety
of vehicles on which these tires are mounted. The safety of people
working in the tire retread, repair, and recycling industries must also
be considered and is a measure of inconsequentiality.'' See 83 FR 36668
(July 30, 2018) (Grant of petition for determination of inconsequential
noncompliance for Continental tires, for tire marked with the incorrect
number of tread plies).
    4. Pirelli stated that the subject Pirelli tires were manufactured
as designed and meet or exceed all applicable FMVSS No. 139 performance
standards. Furthermore, all of the sidewall markings related to tire
service (load capacity, corresponding inflation pressure, etc.) are
correct and the tires correctly show that they contain tread plies.
Pirelli does not believe the mislabeling of these tires presents a
safety concern for consumers or for the retreading and recycling
personnel.
    5. Pirelli says that NHTSA has granted similar petitions involving
tires manufactured by Cooper Tire and Goodyear (Dunlop). See 74 FR
10804 (March 12, 2009), grant of petition submitted by Goodyear where
tires were marked ``Tread 3 Polyester + 2 Steel,'' whereas the correct
marking should have been ``Tread 2 Polyester + 2 Steel + 2
Polyamide;.'' See 82 FR 17075 (April 7, 2017) grant of petition
submitted by Cooper Tire & Rubber Company where tires were marked
``TREAD 1 PLY NYLON + 2 PLY STEEL + 2 PLY POLYESTER,'' whereas the
correct marking should have been ``TREAD 1 PLY NYLON + 2 PLY STEEL + 1
PLY POLYESTER.'' See 83 FR 13002 (March 26, 2018), grant of petition
submitted by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd. where tires were marked
``TREAD 5 PLIES STEEL'' whereas the correct marking should have been
``TREAD 4 PLIES STEEL.''
    6. Pirelli is not aware of any warranty claims, field reports,
customer complaints, legal claims, or any incidents or injuries related
to the subject condition.
    Pirelli expressed the belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject equipment that Pirelli no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant equipment under their control
after Pirelli notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-18522 Filed 8-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


            Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under
                          The Paperwork Reduction Act
IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
       1(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection

      Title: TSCA Section 8(a) Preliminary Assessment Information Rule (PAIR)

      EPA ICR No.: 0586.11 	OMB Control No.: 2070-0054
       1(b)	Short Characterization

      On June 22, 1982, EPA promulgated the generic section 8(a) Preliminary Assessment Information Rule (PAIR) (40 CFR part 712) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2607). EPA uses PAIR to collect information to identify, assess, and manage human health and environmental risks from chemical substances, mixtures and categories. PAIR requires chemical manufacturers and importers to complete a standardized reporting form to help evaluate the potential for adverse human health and environmental effects caused by the manufacture or importation of identified chemical substances, mixtures or categories.

      Chemicals identified by the existing chemical review program, any other EPA office or federal agency, for which a justifiable information need for production, use, or exposure-related data can be satisfied by the use of the PAIR, is a proper subject for a chemical-specific TSCA section 8(a) PAIR rulemaking. Many of the chemical substances, mixtures and categories listed in 40 CFR part 712 have been recommended by the Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) to EPA for test rule consideration. In most instances, such as in a preliminary risk determination, or in reaching a decision whether testing of a chemical is necessary to satisfy an identified data need, the information that EPA receives from a PAIR report is sufficient to satisfy its information needs.

      This information collection activity also covers certain specific chemical testing and reporting requirements under Subpart B of 40 CFR part 766 that are very similar to the PAIR requirements. The Agency rarely receives submissions of the information required by 40 CFR 766. EPA received no more than five submissions over the course of the last OMB approval for this particular aspect of the information collection. However, collection of this information is covered under the PAIR ICR because the requirements are similar and because the Paperwork Reduction Act requires that recordkeeping and reporting activities contained in any regulation be approved by OMB even if they involve less than ten respondents or would otherwise not require approval (see 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)(i)).

      The dibenzo-para-dioxin/dibenzofuran regulations at part 766 require that any person who manufactures, imports, or processes a chemical substance listed at 766.25 tests that chemical substance and submit appropriate information to EPA according to the schedules described in at 766.35. These chemical substances are subject to testing immediately upon manufacture, import or processing. Persons who manufacture or import a chemical substance listed under 766.25 must report results, using the Dioxin/Furan Report Form 7710-51 of all existing test data that show that chemical substance has been tested for the presence of halogenated dibenzodioxins/halogenated dibenzofurans (HDDs/HDFs), as defined in the regulation, no later than 90 days after the person first manufactures or imports the chemical substance.  (Copies of EPA Form 7710-51 are available from the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics' (OPPT) National Program Chemicals Division. Additionally, any manufacturer or importer of a chemical substance listed in 766.25 in possession of unpublished health and safety studies on HDDs/HDFs is required to submit copies of such studies to EPA, in accordance with various provisions of 40 CFR 716, no later than 90 days after the person first manufactures or imports the chemical substance.
NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION
      2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

     Under TSCA, which covers the production, distribution, and disposal of commercial and industrial chemicals in the United States, EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is charged with the responsibility for assuring that chemicals made available for sale and use in the United States do not pose any unreasonable adverse risks to human health or to the environment. To carry out this mandate, EPA has broad authority to issue regulations designed to gather health/safety and exposure information on, require testing of, and control exposure to chemical substances and mixtures. Drugs, cosmetics, foods, food additives, pesticides, and nuclear materials are exempt from TSCA and are subject to control under other U.S. Government statutes (e.g., foods, food additives, drugs and cosmetics are under the purview of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)).

     TSCA section 8(a) gives EPA the authority to promulgate rules under which manufacturers (which by statute includes importers) and processors of chemical substances must maintain records and/or report such data as EPA may reasonably require to carry out the TSCA mandates. Examples of information that can be required to be reported under TSCA section 8(a) include:

 chemical or mixture identity;
 categories of use;
 quantity manufactured or processed;
 by-product description;
 health and environmental effects information;
 number of individuals exposed; and
 method(s) of disposal

      Section 8(a) regulations can be tailored to meet unique information needs (e.g., via chemical-specific rules, which are covered under EPA ICR #1198, OMB Control #2070-0067) or information can be obtained via the use of "model" or standardized reporting rules. One example of a model TSCA section 8(a) reporting rule is the "Preliminary Assessment Information Rule" (or PAIR). Under PAIR, producers and importers of a listed chemical are required to report the following site-specific information on a two-page form (described in more detail in section 4 of this Supporting Statement):
 Quantity of chemical produced and/or imported;
 Amount of chemical lost to the environment during production or importation;
 Quantity of enclosed, controlled and open releases of the chemical; and
 Per release, the number of workers exposed and the number of hours exposed.

      Exemptions for such reporting are as follows:

 Production or importation for the sole purpose of research and development (R&D);
 Production or importation of less than 500 kilograms during the reporting period at single plant site;
 Companies whose total annual sales from all sites owned by the domestic or foreign parent company are below $30 million for the reporting period and who produced or imported less than 45,400 kilograms of the chemical; and
 Production or importation of the listed chemical solely as an impurity, a non-isolated intermediate, and under certain circumstances as a by-product.

      This Supporting Statement addresses the information collection activities associated with PAIR, which establishes procedures for chemical manufacturers and processors to report production, use, and exposure-related information on listed chemical substances. Subpart A establishes requirements that apply to all reporting under PAIR, and Subpart B covers manufacturers' and processors' reporting. Processors are not required to report PAIR information under this information collection.

      In addition, as described in the previous section, this Supporting Statement addresses information collection activities associated with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in 40 CFR 766.
       2(b)	Use/Users of the Data

      EPA uses PAIR data to (1) monitor domestic manufacture and/or importation of chemical substances, mixtures and categories, (2) identify possible routes of human or environmental exposure, (3) support regulations designed to prevent possible adverse health effects and (4) support EPA programs. The information provided by PAIR is needed to complete assessments of chemicals of interest and to assist in the development of regulations to control hazardous chemicals.

      All EPA program offices are potential users of the PAIR. The information helps EPA evaluate the potential for adverse human health or environmental effects caused by the manufacture and importation of the identified chemical substance, mixture or category. If EPA does not monitor these parameters, adverse human health or environmental effects may occur without EPA's knowledge. Without this information, EPA would not be able to evaluate the need for additional testing or further regulatory action.

      Other federal agencies, which require data on the human health and environmental effects of a chemical, use PAIR information. States also have access to public portions of PAIR information. Public interest groups use information reported under the public portions of PAIR.
NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATION AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA
      3(a)	Non-Duplication

     PAIR reporting data assist EPA in identifying, evaluating and managing the human health and environmental effects of chemical substances, mixtures and categories.

     EPA has developed procedures that must be met to ensure that the chemicals added to the rule and the information requested on these chemicals does not duplicate other activities or impose a burden on industry that outweighs the need for the data. These procedures are for rule promulgation and implementation:

     (1) A continuing evaluation of the information collection and management activities;
     (2) The management of the collected information;
     (3) A chemical nomination, screening and selection process; and
     (4) Technical assistance for persons subject to the rule.

     It is unlikely that the information to be reported is duplicative because (1) EPA estimates that each rule will generate only a few reports, (2) the information required by the PAIR is unique to the manufacturer or importer, and (3) efforts are made to ensure that the information requested is not currently in the possession of EPA or easily obtained by EPA from other public sources. The following databases and sources of information are checked:

   > The Chemical Screening Branch's Existing Chemical Assessment Tracking System (CECATS), a database containing information on TSCA section 8(e) and For Your Information (FYI) submissions and Chemical Hazard Information Profiles (CHIPs);
   > The Toxic Substances Control Act Test Submissions (TSCATS) database, an online index to the compiled, unpublished health and safety studies submitted to EPA;
   > The Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS), a file containing chemical toxicity data;
   > LEXIS/NEXUS, a data network with a wide range of fields including information published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and BNA's Environmental Reporter and Chemical Regulation Reporter;
   > The Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET), run by the National Library of Medicine; and
   > The Toxic Substances Control Act section 8(b) inventory data (CICIS) and inventory update data (CUS).

      Similar searches are conducted for each list of chemical substances, mixtures or categories added to the PAIR.

      Some chemicals in PAIR are referred to EPA by other federal agencies. These agencies conduct searches of their own databases for existing chemical information before they refer any chemical to EPA. Referrals are made to EPA only after a decision has been made that an agency's existing chemical information is inadequate to meet its needs.

      3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

      Prior to submission to OMB, this ICR will be made available to the public for comment through a Federal Register notice. The public will have 60 days to provide comments. Any comments received will be given consideration when completing the supporting statement that is submitted to OMB.
       3(c)	Consultations

      On numerous occasions, EPA has published in the Federal Register notices requesting comments on the reporting requirements of TSCA section 8(a) PAIR rules. Industry and environmental groups generally respond to these requests for comment.

      The American Chemistry Council (ACC), formerly the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), has responded to several Federal Register notices. The ACC is a nonprofit trade association whose members account for more than 90 percent of the total U.S. production capacity for basic industrial chemicals. The ACC encourages EPA to use PAIR and has not strongly objected to any of the information requirements contained in PAIR.

      The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has also responded to Federal Register notices. NRDC is a national nonprofit environmental organization dedicated to the protection of human health and the environment. NRDC generally urges EPA to adopt a more detailed set of information requirements.

      Also, EPA routinely consults with other federal agencies (e.g., OSHA, CPSC, DOT). These consultations include exchanging information on existing chemicals, and referrals of chemicals to EPA by other federal agencies for information collection when the other agency's own authority or information collection requirements have not met their information needs.

      In addition to the public notice and comment period required by the OMB regulations that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (see section 3(b) of this Supporting Statement), the OMB regulations, 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), also require agencies to consult with potential ICR respondents and data users about specific aspects of an ICR before the agency submits the ICR to OMB for review and approval. In accordance with this regulation and based on OPPTS Regulatory Coordination Staff guidance, EPA will solicit comments from potential ICR respondents and data users with respect to the renewal of this ICR.
       3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

      Under PAIR, persons are required to report only once for a chemical listed in the PAIR. However, if information received from the initial report indicates human health and environmental risks, then the Agency may require that additional information be submitted at some future date to monitor any changes pertaining to that chemical. As such, the reporting frequency for PAIR cannot be reduced without effectively suspending the information collection requirement.

      3(e)	General Guidelines

      This collection does not exceed any of the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines at 5 CFR 1320.6. Note that when this information collection was approved by OMB in October 2001, OMB established the following terms of clearance:

      "The Agency shall ensure that the approximate annual burden estimates for each PAIR rule are provided in the preamble to each rule. Upon renewal of this ICR, the Agency shall provide a list of the chemicals covered by the final PAIR rules issued by EPA over the next three years."

      Accordingly, in the preamble to each PAIR rule, EPA provides an annual burden estimate for the rule. The list of chemicals in those final PAIR rules, along with the burden estimate provided for those rules, is generally found in this supporting statement.  However, this supporting statement contains no such information because no PAIR rules were issued over the last three years.
       3(f)	Confidentiality

      Submitters may designate information reported under PAIR and subpart B of 40 CFR 766 as confidential business information (CBI). EPA has implemented procedures to protect any confidential, trade secret or proprietary information from disclosure. These procedures comply with EPA's confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, and TSCA section 10.
       3(g)	Sensitive Questions

      This information collection does not include questions of a sensitive nature.

4	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
      4(a)	Respondent NAICS Codes

      PAIR's respondents are manufacturers and importers of chemical substances, mixtures or categories. Respondents affected by this collection are included primarily in the following NAICS codes:

      3251 Basic Chemical Manufacturing
      3252 Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
      3255 Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturing
      3253 Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
      3259 Other Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
      32411 Petroleum Refineries
      4(b)	Information Requested
            (i) Data Items

      PAIR requires manufacturers or importers of the listed chemical substances, mixtures or categories to report to EPA information such as the substances' chemical identification, quantity produced or imported, chemical processes, employee exposure, environmental releases, uses and products. Respondents are only required to report information that is known or reasonably ascertainable by them. As described in the previous section, extensive files searches are not required. The PAIR reporting requirements are included in the PAIR form and instructions (EPA Form 7710-35).
            (ii) Respondent Activities

      A representative respondent would engage in the following activities:

      > Conduct an initial review of the rule to determine if their company must report;
      > Familiarize themselves with the PAIR reporting form;
      > Complete the PAIR reporting form;
      > Provide trade name notification;
      > Indicate CBI status if so desired; and
      > Keep a copy for recordkeeping requirements.

      The PAIR generally requires one-time reporting and establishes the reporting period for the listed chemical substances, mixtures or categories. Typically, the reporting period is 30 days from the effective date of the PAIR rule. Effective dates of PAIR rules are typically 30 days after publication of the rule in the Federal Register. In other words, the reporting period is typically 60 days from the publication of a final PAIR rule in the Federal Register. Therefore, a reporting schedule is not required.

5	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
      METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
   5(a)	Agency Activities

      The activities routinely conducted by EPA related to the rule development, processing, analysis and storage of the information collected under a PAIR rule are as follows:
Chemical nomination, review and selection;

   > Rule development;
   > Evaluation of the rule (including impact assessments);
   > Industry/public assistance;
   > Compliance monitoring; and
   > Processing of data received for listed chemicals (includes receipt, dissemination, evaluation, etc.).
       5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

      The PAIR requires respondents to submit TSCA section 8(a) notices to the Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), using EPA Form 7710-35. Information collected under PAIR is logged in and assigned a document control number (DCN), distributed to appropriate EPA personnel for further processing, review, analysis, etc. The information is maintained by EPA's Information Management Division.
       5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

      In accordance with TSCA section 8(a)(1)(B), PAIR contains a small business exemption. A manufacturer or importer is considered a small business if (1) the firm's total annual sales when combined with those of its parent company (if any) are less than $30 million for the reporting period and (2) its total production and/or importation of the chemical substances, mixture or category, for the reporting period, does not exceed 100,000 pounds (45,000 kilograms) at an individual site owned and controlled by the firm.

      The small manufacturer/importer exemptions apply to PAIR, regardless of which office or agency nominates a chemical. In some instances, the EPA Administrator can remove these exemptions on a chemical-specific basis, provided notice and comment rulemaking is utilized. EPA expects that those offices that have a critical need for reporting from small businesses usually exempt from PAIR reporting will use other mechanisms to gather the data. EPA does not expect to issue a PAIR rule during the next 3 years that would impact such small businesses.
       5(d)	Collection Schedule

      Information collection under PAIR occurs after publication of a Federal Register notice establishing the reporting period for the listed chemical substances, mixtures or categories. Respondents are asked to respond once, within 30 days of the effective date of the final PAIR rule (which is usually 30 days after publication of the rule in the Federal Register). The Agency has no plans to publish the data collected by PAIR, although non-CBI information may be made available to the public upon request.

6	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION
      6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

      This section presents the Agency's estimates of the burden associated with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the TSCA section 8(a) PAIR. The total annual industry burden for both reporting and recordkeeping is estimated to be 947.93 hours. These estimates are based on the level of PAIR reporting activity expected during the ICR period of FY 2012 through 2014. In conducting any study that will be submitted to EPA under TSCA, the respondent must comply with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards (GLPS) at 40 CFR part 792. Since the GLPS represent basic standard practices used by laboratories, any burden and costs related to the GLPS are fully captured in the cost and burden estimates provided below.

      The PAIR report is submitted on EPA Form 7710-35, which is two pages long (available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/pubs/pairform.pdf). The first page asks the respondent to provide basic identifying information, such as the identity of the chemical (CAS number), the physical location of the plant and mailing address of the responding entity. The second page requires the respondent to provide general information on the quantities of the chemical used and number of workers exposed and some additional information on the categories of products (e.g., industrial and consumer) associated with manufacture or processing of the reported substance.

      Much of the information requested under this ICR is routinely collected by manufacturers and processors for the maintenance and upkeep of health and safety information but has not previously been made available to the Agency. This information should be readily available to the firm as it is generated and maintained as part of their normal business practices. In fact, the regulations specifically state that the respondent is not required to conduct an exhaustive search of their files (see 40 CFR 712.7). The EPA has reviewed the average per-report burden estimate in light of the Agency's experience and feedback received from actual submitters. Our average estimate of 28.7 hours per response is consistent with that information.

      The methodology used to develop these cost estimates follows principles that have been used in previous ICRs. The methodology and calculations used in this analysis assume the employee responsible for filling out the form has a reasonable level of familiarity with the company and knowledge of the operation at the site. The analysis deals with the marginal costs of complying with this specific request and not the total costs to the company of initial employee training and costs associated with collecting and storing records or of file maintenance that enable a company to comply with a range of other federal and state environmental, health and safety regulations or accounting requirements that rely on this type of information. The 8(a) PAIR requests are issued infrequently and based on conversations with respondents, this effort is similar to other efforts they perform which require familiarity with EPA, state and other federal agency requests for chemical information and does not involve additional familiarization or training to comply with information requested under this ICR.

      The Agency is not asserting an exact measurement of the burden and costs that all potential respondents will incur while complying with this information collection activity. The Agency's burden and cost estimates are based on averages. Some respondents may indeed require more time to respond the information collection than the Agency's estimated average of 28.73 hours per report; however, the Agency believes some respondents will be able to complete their response activities in less time. The Agency also intends to continue to provide rule-specific estimates of burden and costs, presenting them in the preamble to the PAIR rule. Should the Agency determine in that context that this average estimate is insufficient, it will adjust the ICR accordingly. Upon renewal, EPA will reassess its burden estimate based on the next three-year approval period and make adjustments as appropriate.

      Based on information provided by EPA's Information Management Division (IMD), an average of 14.8 sites submitted a total of 33 reports per year (an average of 2.23 reports per site per year) during the period of FY 2006 through FY 2010. In general, the analysis uses data and methodological assumptions from previous economic analyses of the individual PAIR rules and other government data sources. This analysis also assumes that future annual reporting levels will be similar to the annual reporting levels of the FY 2006 through FY 2010 period. The rate at which new PAIR rule chemicals are added is sporadic and not entirely predictable, but this higher level of projected reporting is consistent with the Agency's recent experience. A detailed description of the methodology used to derive the estimates follows.

      Number of Sites and Reports per Site

      The burden hour estimates in this analysis are based on an estimate of the level of PAIR reporting activity during the next three-year ICR approval period (FY 2012 to FY 2014). This, in turn, is related to the number of PAIR chemical reports and reporting sites. This report utilizes data from the fiscal years 2006 to 2010 and annualizes the number of sites reporting and the number of reports submitted to develop estimates of future burden. During the 2006 to 2010 period, an annual average of 14.8 sites (respondents) submitted 33 reports (forms), for an average of 2.23 reports per respondent. Some PAIR reports submitted during a given fiscal year may have resulted from chemicals added to the PAIR during the previous year.

      Chemicals are added to the PAIR (via Federal Register notices) based on Interagency Testing Committee reports as published in the Federal Register. The number of chemicals added to the PAIR recently is not used in estimating burden but are provided as background (Source: US EPA, CCD, Greg Schweer, (8(a) chemicals)).

      Table 1 presents the submission statistics for section 8(a) PAIR reporting.

Table 1: Sites Reporting and PAIR Reports Submitted
                                  Fiscal Year
                                Sites Reporting
                               Reports Submitted
                                     2006
                                       3
                                      CBI
                                     2007
                                      68
                                      CBI
                                     2008
                                       1
                                      CBI
                                     2009
                                       0
                                      CBI
                                     2010
                                       2
                                      CBI
Totals
                                      74
                                      --
5-Year Average
                                     14.8
                                      33
Ratio Forms/Sites
                                     2.23
                                      --
Ratio Sites/Form
                                     0.45
                                      --

      Unit Burden Estimates

      To estimate the burden and costs to industry respondents, several reporting activities (or burden factors) are analyzed. These burden items include: form familiarization; reporting; trade name notification; CBI substantiation; recordkeeping; and, report submission. Each of these activities requires the skills of various labor categories. The section below details each separate activity and presents the estimated labor hours required by each task, by labor category (secretarial, technical and managerial).
       Form Familiarization

      In the 1981 PAIR economic analysis it was estimated that form familiarization would require 3 hours of effort from managerial personnel and 4 hours from technical personnel for a total of 7 hours per site. The estimate includes efforts for rule familiarization and to determine if reporting is required. To calculate the burden on a per report basis, the above estimate was multiplied by 0.45, the expected average number of sites per report (i.e., 15 sites / 33 reports). This calculation results in a per report burden of 3.15 hours.

Per-Report Burden Hours for Form Familiarization
                                   Activity
                                  Secretarial
                                   Technical
                                  Managerial
                                     Total
Form Familiarization
                                     0.00
                                      1.8
                                     1.35
                                     3.15
       Report Preparation

      The 1981 PAIR economic analysis estimated that direct reporting activities would require a total of 16 hours of effort per report. This consists of the burden related to the completion of the PAIR form. As indicated previously, the respondents are not expected to conduct an exhaustive search of their files. Respondents are only required to report what is known or reasonably ascertainable to them (see 40 CFR 712.7). The relative distribution of reporting burden between managerial, technical and secretarial personnel used in the 1992 PAIR ICR update has been retained and is reflected below.

Per-Report Burden Hours for Report Preparation
                                   Activity
                                  Secretarial
                                   Technical
                                  Managerial
                                     Total
Reporting
                                     1.25
                                     9.25
                                     5.50
                                     16.00

      Given that each site produces an average of 2.23 reports, the per-site burden for report preparation is 2.23 x 16 hours, or 35.68 hours.
       Trade Name Notification

      Some companies may report their customers' uses as unknown for more than twenty percent of their volume. These companies must list under Item 10 of the PAIR reporting form the market (trade) name(s) under which they distribute the chemical. This reporting is referred to as trade name notification.

      All commercial manufacturing, importing and processing sites that distribute any of the chemicals subjected to a PAIR reporting rule under a trade name must take steps to ensure that information about the downstream processors is submitted to EPA. Firms may choose among several options to meet trade name notification requirements, including:

      1) Submit trade name data to EPA for listing in the Federal Register;
      2) Notify all customers of the need to report; or
      3) Complete the reporting requirements for each customer.

      This ICR assumes that companies will adopt the least-costly reporting alternative of providing a trade name list to EPA for inclusion in the Federal Register. However, trade name notification is not relevant if processor reporting is not required.

      Furthermore, this ICR also assumes that all manufacturers and importers will incur trade name notification costs, but does not address processors due to the lack of data on processor reporting. In the 1994 EPA PAIR ICR, the unit burden of trade name notification was given as 3.2 hours (i.e., 2.2 hours managerial and 1.0 hours secretarial). This unit burden assumption was retained for this analysis.

Per-Report Burden Hours for Trade Name Notification
                                   Activity
                                  Secretarial
                                   Technical
                                  Managerial
                                     Total
Trade Name Notification
                                     1.00
                                     0.00
                                     2.20
                                     3.20

      Given that each site produces an average of 2.23 reports, the trade name notification per-site burden for trade name notification is 2.23 x 3.2 hours, or 7.14 hours.
       CBI Substantiation

      A company may make claims of confidentiality for any data element contained in its submission. For each CBI (confidential business information) claim, generic information must be supplied for a non-CBI copy of the submission (i.e., a sanitized version must also be submitted). It is assumed that most of the time required for CBI substantiation involves managerial staff discussion of whether or not to make a CBI claim. Furthermore, it is assumed that all firms will review their submissions for CBI content. As used in the previous PAIR ICR, the 1986 alternative CAIR CBI substantiation burden estimates have been used in this analysis with substantial downward adjustments to account for the less rigorous substantiation requirements in PAIR reporting rules. CBI claims for a PAIR report can be made by simply checking the appropriate boxes on the PAIR reporting form. It is assumed that most of the time required for PAIR CBI substantiation involves staff discussion of whether or not to make a CBI claim. As a result, burden estimates used in CAIR have been reduced by one-half in both labor categories to 0.5 hours of secretarial time and 4 hours of managerial time per report.

Per-Substantiation Burden for CBI Substantiation
                                   Activity
                                  Secretarial
                                   Technical
                                  Managerial
                                     Total
Trade Name Notification
                                     0.50
                                     0.00
                                     4.00
                                     4.50

      Based on an analysis of CBI claims for reporting to the TSCA Inventory (discussed in the 1986 CAIR economic analysis), only 75 percent of reports are expected to make CBI claims. The burden distributed across all reports is 4.5 hours x 0.75, or 3.38 hours. Multiplying the adjusted report burden and cost by 2.23, in turn, provides the per site burden for CBI substantiations of 7.53 hours.

      Recordkeeping

      Pursuant to TSCA section 8(a), the manufacturer/importer or processors of the chemical substances identified under PAIR must also maintain records of the information submitted to EPA. In addition, since manufacturer/importer or processors that submit data to EPA must comply with the GLPS in 40 CFR 792, this ICR also generally covers the burden associated with maintaining records as required under the GLPS. These records are used for compliance monitoring and enforcement purposes.

      As in the previous ICR, EPA estimates that the recordkeeping burden associated with this ICR involves about an hour of time for both the secretarial and the technical labor category. This burden estimate represents the time necessary for the individuals to identify the information, determine the appropriate location for the record to be kept, and placing the record in such a location. The per-report recordkeeping burden is therefore estimated to be 2 hours.

Per-Report Burden Estimates for Recordkeeping
                                   Activity
                                  Secretarial
                                   Technical
                                  Managerial
                                     Total
Trade Name Notification
                                     1.00
                                     1.00
                                     0.00
                                     2.00

      The per-site burden for recordkeeping is 2.23 reports x 2.0 hours, or 4.46 hours.
       Report Submission

      Report submission consists of three elements: preparation and review of a transmittal letter to accompany the submission of a report, photocopying the report and mailing costs.

      As with the previous ICR, EPA estimates that the per report submission will require 0.5 hours of secretarial time and 0.5 hours of managerial time for a total of one hour. The secretarial burden includes the time required to type the transmittal letter, to photocopy the report, and the steps necessary to mail the report package to EPA after management review and approval. The managerial time assumes an involvement in the preparation of the transmittal letter and review of the report package before it is submitted to EPA.

Per Report Burden Estimates for Report Submission
                                   Activity
                                  Secretarial
                                   Technical
                                  Managerial
                                     Total
Trade Name Notification
                                     0.50
                                     0.00
                                     0.50
                                     1.00

      Given that each site produces an average of 2.23 reports, the per site burden for report submission is 2.23 x 1 hour, or 2.23 hours.

      Total Industry Burden Estimates

      Table 2 presents the compilation of the annual burden hour estimates for respondents.

Table 2: Estimated Annual Burden Hours (assuming 2.23 reports per site and 33 reports per year)
                                  Burden Item
                               Hours Per Report
                                Hours Per Site
                              Total Annual Hours
Form Familiarization
                                     3.15
                                     7.02
                                    103.95
Reporting
                                     16.00
                                     35.68
                                      528
Trade Name Notification
                                     3.20
                                     7.14
                                     105.6
CBI Substantiation
                                     3.38
                                     7.53
                                    111.38
Recordkeeping
                                     2.00
                                     4.46
                                     66.0
Report Submission
                                     1.00
                                     2.23
                                     33.0
Totals
                                     28.73
                                     64.05
                                    947.93
Note: Burden hours are derived from section 8(a) reporting during FY 2006 to FY 2010.

      In summary, an average of 14.8 respondents would be required to spend an estimated total of 947.93 hours each year to respond to PAIR rules during the period of FY 2012 through FY 2014, requiring an average 64.05 hours per respondent.
   6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

      This section presents estimates of the cost expected to be incurred as a result of reporting under the TSCA section 8(a) PAIR. The total annual industry cost for both reporting and recordkeeping is estimated to be $59,158. This estimate is based on the cost of the burden estimate provided above, and includes other costs associated with this ICR.

      Labor costs in this report have been updated using the most recently available, revised wage rates and information on benefits costs. These wage rates are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplemental Tables, December 2010 (released on March 9, 2011), with the information extracted from Table 2, Private industry workers in manufacturing industries, by occupational group. This table is available on-line at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf in PDF format. The clerical wages are taken from the BLS data for "office and administrative support." The technical wages are taken from the BLS data for "professional and related." The managerial wages are taken from the BLS data for "management, business and financial." Labor wage rates and hourly benefit costs taken from those sources have been used to calculate the labor cost to respondents, as shown below. The hourly overhead is calculated as 17 percent of the base wage. This approach is used for consistency with Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics economics practices, and is based on the analysis in Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program, Cody Rice, U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch, June 10, 2002. This approach, which is now standard practice in this office, produces wage and cost estimates that are somewhat lower than the data and methods used in the most recent previous 8(a) PAIR ICR renewal analysis. Table 3 presents 2010 hourly industry wages.

Table 3: Industry Hourly Labor Costs (2010$)
                                Wage Component
                                   Clerical
                                   Technical
                                  Managerial
Hourly Wage Rate
                                    $17.36
                                    $36.93
                                    $42.82
Benefit Costs
                                     $8.67
                                    $18.50
                                    $19.64
Fringe and Overhead Factor
                                     1.67
                                     1.67
                                     1.63
Total Hourly Cost
                                    $28.98
                                    $61.71
                                    $69.74

      These labor costs are multiplied by the estimated burden hours per activity and added to any non-labor costs to develop total unit costs per report. It is estimated that recordkeeping and report submission tasks will require expenditures other than labor.

      Recordkeeping is estimated to require an additional $33.90 per report for miscellaneous filing materials while report submission is estimated to require an additional $20.41 per report for photocopying and mailing expenses. Total non-burden costs per report are estimated to be $54.30. With an annual estimate of 33 reports expected, the total non-burden cost for this ICR is $1,792 (rounded to the nearest whole dollar). These non-burden hour costs are identified separately on the OMB Form 83-I pursuant to OMB guidance, but are included in the total costs here. Finally, unit costs per report are multiplied by the number of reports per site per year to arrive at unit costs per site (respondent costs).

      1. Form Familiarization

      The per-report cost of form familiarization is:

      Managerial labor: 1.35 hours@ $69.74/hour = $94.15
      Technical labor: 1.8 hours @ $61.71/hour = $111.07
      Cost per report = $205.22

      The per-site cost of form familiarization is:

      Cost per report of $205.22 x 2.23 reports per site = $457.59

      2. Report Preparation

      The per-report cost for report preparation is:

      Managerial labor: 5.5 hours @ $69.74/hour = $383.57
      Technical labor: 9.25 hours @ $61.71/hour = $570.80
      Secretarial labor: 1.25 hours @ $28.98/hour = $36.23
      Cost per report = $990.59

      The per-site cost of report preparation is:

      Cost per report of $990.59 x 2.23 reports per site = $2,208.75

      3. Trade Name Notification

      The per-report cost for trade name notification is:

      Managerial labor: 2.20 hours @ $69.74/hr = $153.43
      Secretarial labor: 1 hour @ $28.98/hr = $ 28.98
      Cost per report: $182.41

      The per-site cost of trade name notification is:

      Cost per report of $182.41 x 2.23 reports per site = $406.72

      4. CBI Substantiation

      The per-report cost for CBI substantiation is:

      Managerial labor: 4.0 hours @ $69.74/hour = $278.96
      Secretarial labor: 0.5 hours @ $28.98/hour = $14.49
      Cost per report = $293.45
            Adjusted cost per report = $220.09 (adjustment for 75 percent of reports claiming CBI)

       	The per-site cost of CBI substantiation is:

      Cost per report of $220.09 x 2.23 reports per site = $490.73

      5. Recordkeeping

      The per-report cost for recordkeeping is:

      Technical labor: 1.0 hours @ $61.71/hour = $61.71
      Secretarial labor: 1.0 hours @ $28.98/hour = $28.98
      Filing materials = $33.90
      Cost per report = $124.59

        	The per-site cost of recordkeeping is:

      Cost per report of $124.59 x 2.23 reports per site = $277.80

      6. Report Submission

      The per-report cost of report submission:

      Managerial labor: 0.5 hours @ $69.74/hour = $34.87
      Secretarial labor: 0.5 hours@ $28.98/hour = $14.49
      Photocopying and mailing = $20.41
      Cost per report = $69.77

      The per-site cost of report submission is:

      Cost per report of $69.77 x 2.23 reports per site = $155.56

      The unit cost per report and unit cost per site, including a breakdown of costs by labor category, are summarized in Table 4:

Table 4: Reporting Costs by Labor Category and Reporting Activity
                                 Cost Element
                                  Secretarial
                                   Technical
                                  Managerial
                              Other Direct Costs
                             Total Cost Per Report
Form Familiarization
                                      $0
                                    $111.07
                                    $94.15
                                      $0
                                    $205.22
Reporting
                                    $36.23
                                    $570.80
                                    $383.57
                                      $0
                                    $990.59
Trade Name Notification
                                    $28.98
                                      $0
                                    $153.43
                                      $0
                                    $182.41
CBI Substantiation
                                    $10.87
                                      $0
                                    $209.22
                                      $0
                                    $220.09
Recordkeeping
                                    $28.98
                                    $61.71
                                      $0
                                    $33.90
                                    $124.59
Report Submission
                                    $14.49
                                      $0
                                    $34.87
                                    $20.41
                                    $69.77
Per Report Total
                                    $119.55
                                    $743.58
                                    $875.23
                                    $54.30
                                   $1,792.66
Note: Annual average reporting cost per respondent = $1,792.66 * 2.23 reports = $3,997.15

      The average respondent is assumed to spend $1,793 per report, or $3,997 in total per respondent per year. As noted earlier, the Agency is estimating an average of 14.8 reporting sites and 33 reports per year. Over all sites, responding to PAIR rules is estimated to cost industry a total of $59,158 per year during the period of FY 2012 through FY 2014.
       6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

      The estimated annual cost of the PAIR to the federal government is calculated on an annual basis. The FY 2010 cost to EPA of a full-time equivalent employee (FTE), Grade 12, Step 1 in the Baltimore-Washington pay area is $74,872 (U.S. Office of Personnel Management Internet site at http://www.opm.gov). One FTE is equivalent to 2,080 hours per year. The fully loaded FTE cost is $119,795. The annual costs per FTE are derived by multiplying the annual pay rate by 1.6 (the benefits multiplication factor).

     The multiplication factor used is recommended in EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation's Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs), (June 1,
1992).

      Data processing costs have been updated from 2006 to average 2010 dollars using the GDP implicit price deflator from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA GDP price index series with a base of 2000 = 100 has the 2006 index at 103.3 and the 2010 index at 110.7, so the adjustment factor from 2006 to 2010 is 1.072 (110.7/103.3 = 1.072). Data processing costs for the 2006 PAIR ICR update were estimated to be approximately $247.84 per report. Adjusting this number to 2010 with the GDP implicit price deflator yields an adjusted data processing cost of $265.61 per report (i.e., $247.84 x 1.072 = $265.61). Thus, the total annual data processing cost is $8,765.22 ($265.61 per report x 33 annual reports).

      This analysis assumes that an annual average of 33 reports will be submitted over the three year period of FY 2012 through 2014. Personnel burden and costs associated with industry/public assistance and data processing activities have been adjusted based on that estimate. From the 1989 PAIR ICR update it has been derived that industry/public assistance required approximately 1.5 hours per report. For 33 reports, that works out to 49.5 hours or about 0.02 FTEs. Similarly, the 1989 PAIR ICR update estimated that about 3.75 hours of data processing/system support personnel time would be required per report. For 33 reports, that works out to 123.75 hours or 0.06 FTEs.

      Table 5 summarizes the government's activities in developing and administrating the PAIR. The required FTEs per activity are retained from the 1996 PAIR ICR update and from the previous 8(a) PAIR ICR renewal analyses, for all activities except for the recalculation of the two categories of burden discussed in the previous paragraph.

Table 5: Government Burden Summary
                                   Activity
                                 Annual Burden
Chemical nomination, review, and selection
                                     0.25
Rule development
                                     0.90
Evaluation of rule
                                     0.05
Industry/public assistance
                                     0.02
Compliance monitoring
                                     0.10
Data processing and system support personnel
                                     0.06
Total  Cost
                                     1.38

      It is estimated that the annual cost to the federal government will be $8,765 in data processing costs plus 1.38 FTEs. At an estimated loaded annual salary of $119,795 per FTE, the total of 1.38 FTEs will cost EPA $165,317 in fully loaded labor cost (salaries, benefits, and overhead). This brings the total costs to the federal government to $174,083 annually (i.e., $8,765 + $165,317).

      Table 6 presents a summary of the costs to the federal government for this information collection.

Table 6: Government Estimated Annual Burden and Cost Summary (2010$)
Total FTEs
                                     1.38
Loaded Cost per FTE
                                   $119,795
Government Labor Cost
                                   $165,317
Government Data Processing Cost
                                      $8,765
Total Annual Government Cost
                                   $174,083
   6(d)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Respondent Burden and Costs

Total respondent annual burden hours = 947.93 hours
Total respondent annual costs = $59,158

Agency Burden and Costs
Agency burden hours: 1.38 FTEs = 2,870.4 hours
Agency annual costs = $174,083
      6(e)	Reason for Change in Burden

      This request reflects a decrease in the estimated annual burden of 620 hours (from 1,568 hours to 948 hours) from that currently in the OMB inventory. This decrease reflects a decrease in the assumed number of PAIR reports filed annually, from an average of 54.2 per year to 33 per year. The more recent average is based on the past five fiscal years (2006-2010) of PAIR reporting data. The annual average number of respondents (reporting sites) is 14.8, and has decreased from the previous estimated average of 26.0.
       6(f)	Burden Statement

      The annual public burden for this collection of information, which is approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0054, is estimated to average 28.7 hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

	The Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-1008, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  You may submit comments regarding the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques.

      Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-1008 and OMB Control No. 2070-0054, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by mail to: Document Control Office (DCO), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 7407T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,  Washington, D.C. 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 89 (Thursday, May 7, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27114-27116]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0010; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-18]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation of Jet Route J-105 and Amendment of VOR Federal
Airways V-15, V-63, V-272, and V-583 in the Vicinity of McAlester, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes Jet Route J-105 and amends VHF
Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-15, V-63, V-272, and V-
583 in the vicinity of McAlester, OK. The modifications are necessary
due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the McAlester,
OK, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid (NAVAID), which
provides navigation guidance for portions of the affected air traffic
service (ATS) routes. The McAlester VOR is being decommissioned as part
of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, July 16, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National
Airspace System.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket
No. FAA-2020-0010 in the Federal Register (85 FR 3301; January 21,
2020), removing Jet Route J-105 and amending VOR Federal airways V-15,
V-63, V-272, and V-583 in the vicinity of McAlester, OK, due to the
planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the McAlester, OK,
VORTAC. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No
comments were received.
    Subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No.
FAA-2018-0817 in the Federal Register (85 FR 3814; January 23, 2020),
amending VOR Federal airway V-15 by removing the airway segment between
the Hobby, TX, VOR/DME and the Navasota, TX, VOR/DME. That airway
amendment, effective March 26, 2020, is included in this rule.
    Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004 and VOR Federal airways
are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11D dated August
8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Jet Route and VOR Federal airways listed
in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by removing Jet Route J-105 and modifying VOR Federal airways
V-15, V-63, V-272, and V-583. The planned decommissioning of the VOR
portion of the McAlester, OK, VORTAC NAVAID has made this action
necessary. The Jet Route and VOR Federal airway changes are outlined
below.
    J-105: J-105 extends between the Ranger, TX, VORTAC and the Badger,
WI, VOR/DME. The jet route is removed in its entirety.
    V-15: V-15 extends between the Navasota, TX, VOR/DME and the
Neosho, MO, VOR/DME; and between the Sioux City, IA, VORTAC and the
Minot, ND, VOR/DME. The airway segment overlying the McAlester, OK,
VORTAC between the Bonham, TX, VORTAC and the Okmulgee, OK, VOR/DME is
removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as
charted.
    V-63: V-63 extends between the Bowie, TX, VORTAC and the Oshkosh,
WI, VORTAC; and between the Wausau, WI, VORTAC and the Houghton, MI,
VOR/DME. The airway segment overlying the McAlester, OK, VORTAC between
the Texoma, OK, VOR/DME and the Razorback, AR, VORTAC is removed. The
unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.
    V-272: V-272 extends between the Dalhart, TX, VORTAC and the Fort
Smith, AR, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the McAlester, OK,
VORTAC between the Will Rogers, OK, VORTAC and the Fort Smith, AR,
VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway
remain as charted.
    V-583: V-583 extends between the Centex, TX, VORTAC and the
McAlester, OK, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the McAlester, OK,
VORTAC between the Paris, TX, VOR/DME and the McAlester, OK, VORTAC is
removed. Concurrent changes to other portions of the airway are not
being made, at this time, as noted in the NPRM. The unaffected portions
of the existing airway remain as charted.
    All radials in the route descriptions below are unchanged and
stated in True degrees.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of removing Jet Route J-105
and modifying VOR Federal airways V-15, V-63, V-272, and V-583 due to
the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the McAlester, OK,
VORTAC NAVAID qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National
Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR
part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically
excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions
that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes,
and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C,
D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting
Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any
potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA
Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the
FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a
normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined
that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of
an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019 and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes.

* * * * *

J-105 [Removed]

* * * * *

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-15 [Amended]

    From Navasota, TX; College Station, TX; Waco, TX; Cedar Creek,
TX; to Bonham, TX. From Okmulgee, OK; to Neosho, MO. From Sioux
City, IA; INT Sioux City 340[deg] and Sioux Falls, SD, 169[deg]
radials; Sioux Falls; Huron, SD; Aberdeen, SD; Bismarck, ND; to
Minot, ND.
* * * * *

V-63 [Amended]

    From Bowie, TX; to Texoma, OK. From Razorback, AR; Springfield,
MO; Hallsville, MO; Quincy, IL; Burlington, IA; Moline, IL;
Davenport, IA; Rockford, IL; Janesville, WI; Badger, WI; to Oshkosh,
WI. From Wausau, WI; Rhinelander, WI; to Houghton, MI. Excluding
that airspace at and above 10,000 feet MSL from 5 NM north to 46 NM
north of Quincy, IL, when the Howard West MOA is active.
* * * * *

V-272 [Amended]

    From Dalhart, TX; Borger, TX; Burns Flat, OK; to Will Rogers,
OK.
* * * * *

V-583 [Amended]

    From Centex, TX; INT Centex 061[deg] and College Station, TX,
273[deg] radials; College Station; Leona, TX; Frankston, TX;
Quitman, TX; to Paris, TX.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-09266 Filed 5-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P