[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55641-55644]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22104]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0284; FRL-9397-6]

Polyurethane-Type Polymers; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of polymers produced by the reaction of
either 1,6-hexanediisocyanate; 2,4,4-trimethyl-1,6-hexanediisocyanate;
5-isocyanato-1-(isocyanatomethyl)-1,3,3-trimethyIcyclohexane
(isophoronediisocyanate); 4,4'-methylene-bis-1,1'-
cyclohexanediisocyanate; 4,4'-methylene-bis-1,1' benzyldiisocyanate; or
1,3-bis-(2-isocyanatopropan-2-yl)benzene with polyethyleneglycol and
end-capped with one or a mixture of more than one of octanol, decanol,
dodecanol, tetradecanol, hexadecanol, octadecanol, and octadec-9-enol
or polyethyleneglycol ethers of octanol, decanol, dodecanol,
tetradecanol, hexadecanol, octadecanol, and octadec-9-enol (also known
as polyurethane-type polymers), when used as an inert ingredient in a
pesticide chemical formulation. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC submitted
a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible
level for residues of polyurethane-type polymers on food or feed
commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 11, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 12, 2013,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0284, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0284 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
November 12, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0284, by one of
the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of July 19, 2013 (78 FR 43117) (FRL-9392-
9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (IN-10553) filed by
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-
8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of polyurethane-type polymers produced by the reaction of
either 1,6-hexanediisocyanate; 2,4,4-trimethyl-1,6-hexanediisocyanate;
5-isocyanato-1-(isocyanatomethyl)-1,3,3-trimethyIcyclohexane
(isophoronediisocyanate); 4,4'-methylene-bis-1,1'-
cyclohexanediisocyanate; 4,4'-methylene-bis-1,1' benzyldiisocyanate; or
1,3-bis-(2-isocyanatopropan-2-yl)benzene with polyethylenglycol and
end-capped with one or a mixture of more than one of octanol, decanol,
dodecanol, tetradecanol, hexadecanol,

octadecanol, and octadec-9-enol or polyethyleneglycol ethers of
octanol, decanol, dodecanol, tetradecanol, hexadecanol, octadecanol,
and octadec-9-enol (CAS Reg. Nos. 1161844-26-3, 1161844-30-9, 1161844-
43-4, 1161844-51-4, 1161844-53-6, 693252-31-2, 162993-60-4, and 630102-
86-2). That notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the
petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. One
comment was received for a notice of filing from a private citizen who
opposed the authorization to sell any pesticide that leaves a residue
on food. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes
that some individuals believe that no residue of pesticides should be
allowed. However, under the existing legal framework provided by FFDCA
section 408, EPA is authorized to establish pesticide tolerances or
exemptions where persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have
demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by
the statute.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Polyurethane-type polymers conforms to
the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the
following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable
TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    7. The polymer's number average MW of 21,000 to 26,000 is greater
than or equal to 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2%
oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material
below MW 1,000.
    Thus, polyurethane-type polymers meets the criteria for a polymer
to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its
conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is
anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to
polyurethane-type polymers.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that polyurethane-type polymers could be
present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking
water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The
number average MW of polyurethane-type polymers is 21,000 to 26,000
daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed
through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin.
Since polyurethane-type polymers conform to the criteria that identify
a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any
potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The
Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the
public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found polyurethane-type polymers to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and polyurethane-type
polymers do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA
has assumed that polyurethane-type polymers do not have a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

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

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA concludes that
a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due
to the expected low toxicity of polyurethane-type polymers, EPA has not
used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons
the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of polyurethane-type polymers.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Existing Exemptions From a Tolerance

    There are no existing exemptions from a tolerance for polyurethane-
type polymers.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for polyurethane-type polymers.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of polyurethane-type
polymers from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted
from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it involve any
technical standards that would require Agency consideration of
voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or otherwise have any unique
impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule
does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    Although this action does not require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population. One comment was received
for a notice of filing from a private citizen who opposed the
authorization to sell any pesticide that leaves a residue on food. The
Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some
individuals believe that no residue of pesticides should be allowed.
However, under the existing legal framework provided by FFDCA section
408, EPA is authorized to establish pesticide tolerances or exemptions
where persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated
that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by the statute.

XI. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 29, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, alphabetically add the following entry to the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Polymers produced by the reaction   1161844-26-3, 1161844-30-9, 1161844-
 of either 1,6-hexanediisocyanate;   43-4, 1161844-51-4, 1161844-53-6,
 2,4,4-trimethyl-1,6-                693252-31-2, 162993-60-4, 630102-86-
 hexanediisocyanate; 5-isocyanato-   2.
 1-(isocyanatomethyl)-
 fxsp0;1,3,3fxsp0;-
 trimethyIcyclohexane
 (isophoronediisocyanate); 4,4'-
 methylene-bis-1,1'-
 cyclohexanediisocyanate; 4,4'-
 methylene-bis-1,1'
 benzyldiisocyanate; or 1,3-bis-(2-
 isocyanatopropan-2-yl)benzene
 with polyethylene glycol and end-
 capped with one or a mixture of
 more than one of octanol,
 decanol, dodecanol, tetradecanol,
 hexadecanol, octadecanol, and
 octadec-9-enol or
 polyethyleneglycol ethers of
 octanol, decanol, dodecanol,
 tetradecanol, hexadecanol,
 octadecanol, and octadec-9-enol,
 minimum number average molecular
 weight (in amu), 20,000.

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

[FR Doc. 2013-22104 Filed 9-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 46785]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18894]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP14-524-000; CP14-525-000]

Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC; DCP Midstream, LP; Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on July 18, 2014, Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC
(Cimarron) and DCP Midstream, LP (DCP), 370 17th Street, Suite 2500,
Denver, Colorado 80202, filed in Docket Nos. CP14-524-000 and CP14-525-
000, an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural
Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, requesting
authorization for Cimarron to abandon by sale to DCP the 5.5 mile, 12-
inch diameter Roberts Ranch Pipeline located in Midland and Ector
Counties, Texas.
    In addition, DCP request a certificate of public convenience and
necessity authorizing DCP to operate and maintain the Roberts Ranch
Pipeline for jurisdictional activities; a blanket certificate; and
waiver for certain regulatory requirements, all as more fully set forth
in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to
public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Katie Rice, DCP Midstream, LP, 370 17th Street, Suite 2500, Denver,
Colorado 80202, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a
subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 21, 2014.

    Dated: July 31, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18894 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 27, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59327-59333]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23274]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0451; FRL-9166-01-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan and Wisconsin; Finding of Failure To
Attain the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for the Detroit and Rhinelander Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Detroit and Rhinelander sulfur dioxide
(SO2) nonattainment areas failed to attain the 2010 primary
1-hour SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or
``standard'') by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018.
This proposed determination is based upon air quality modeling using
actual and allowable emissions for the Detroit area and monitored air
quality data from January 2015 to December 2017 for the Rhinelander
area. If EPA finalizes these determinations as proposed, within one
year after EPA publishes a final rule the States of Michigan and
Wisconsin will be required to submit revisions to their State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) that, among other elements, provide for
expeditious attainment of the 2010 SO2 standard. However,
for the Rhinelander area, if EPA approves the recent revised SIP
submission submitted by the State of Wisconsin, EPA is proposing to
treat that submission as satisfying the requirement to submit revisions
to the SIP to address the failure to timely attain the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2021-0451 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Sheffer, Meteorologist,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. The EPA Region
5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. The 2010 SO2 NAAQS

    Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA has established
NAAQS for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as ``criteria
pollutants'') and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine
whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be
established.
    Under the CAA, EPA must establish a NAAQS for SO2.
SO2 is primarily released to the atmosphere through the
burning of fossil fuels by power plants and other industrial
facilities. SO2 is also emitted from industrial processes
including metal extraction from ore and heavy equipment that burn fuel
with a high sulfur content. Short-term exposure to SO2 can
damage the human respiratory system and increase breathing
difficulties. Small children and people with respiratory conditions,
such as asthma, are more sensitive to the effects of SO2.
Sulfur oxides at high concentrations can also react with compounds to
form small particulates that can penetrate deeply into the lungs and
cause health problems.
    EPA first established primary, health-based SO2
standards in 1971 at 0.14 parts per million (ppm) over a 24-hour
averaging period and 0.3 ppm over an annual averaging period (36 FR
8186, April 30, 1971). In June 2010, EPA revised the NAAQS for
SO2 to provide increased protection of public health,
providing for revocation of the 1971 primary annual and 24-hour
SO2 standards for most areas of the country following area
designations under the new NAAQS.\1\ The 2010 NAAQS is 75 parts per
billion (ppb) (equivalent to 0.075 ppm) over a 1-hour averaging period
(75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). A violation of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS occurs when the annual 99th percentile of ambient
daily maximum 1-hour average SO2 concentrations, averaged
over a 3-year period, exceeds 75 ppb.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 50.4(e).
    \2\ 40 CFR 50.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Designations, Classifications, and Attainment Dates for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS

    Following promulgation of any new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation as
attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On August 5, 2013, EPA finalized
its first round of designations for the 2010 primary SO2
NAAQS (78 FR 47191). In the 2013 action, EPA designated 29 areas in 16
states as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including
the Detroit area in Michigan and the Rhinelander area in Wisconsin.\3\
EPA's initial round of designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
including the Detroit and Rhinelander areas, became effective on
October 4, 2013. Pursuant to CAA sections 172(a)(2) and 192(a), the
maximum attainment date for the Detroit and Rhinelander areas was
October 4, 2018, five years after the effective date of the final
action designating each area as nonattainment for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For exact descriptions of the Detroit and Rhinelander areas,
refer to 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a number of nonattainment areas, including the Detroit area,
EPA published an action on March 18, 2016, effective April 18, 2016,
finding that Michigan and other pertinent states had failed to submit
the required SO2 nonattainment plan by the submittal
deadline (81 FR 14736). Under CAA section 110(c), the finding triggered
a requirement that EPA promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP)
within two years of the finding unless, by that time (a) the state had
made the necessary complete submittal and (b) EPA had approved the
submittal as meeting applicable requirements. Michigan submitted a
complete nonattainment plan on May 31, 2016 and submitted associated
final enforceable measures on June 30, 2016. However, on March 19,
2021, EPA partially approved and partially disapproved Michigan's
SO2 plan as submitted in 2016 (86 FR 14827). Therefore, the
FIP clock was not stopped. EPA disapproved the attainment
demonstration, in part because it relied on an invalidated rule
(Michigan Administrative Code 336.1430) that was no longer enforceable.
EPA also disapproved the plan for failing to meet the requirements for
meeting reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the
NAAQS, reasonably available control measures and reasonably available
control technology (RACM/RACT), and contingency measures. To date,
Michigan has not submitted an approvable plan for the Detroit area, and
EPA is currently working on a FIP.
    For the Rhinelander area, Wisconsin submitted a nonattainment plan
on January 22, 2016, and supplemented it on July 18, 2016, and November
29, 2016. On March 23, 2021, EPA partially approved and partially
disapproved Wisconsin's Rhinelander SO2 plan as submitted
and supplemented in 2016 (86 FR 15418). EPA disapproved the attainment
demonstration for failing to comply with EPA's stack height
regulations. Additionally, EPA disapproved the plan for failing to meet
the requirements for meeting RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS, RACM/
RACT, emission limitations and control measures as necessary to attain
the NAAQS, and contingency measures. Under CAA section 110(c), the
partial disapproval triggered a requirement that EPA promulgate a FIP
within two years of the finding unless, by that time (a) the state had
made the necessary complete submittal and (b) EPA had approved the
submittal as meeting applicable requirements. On March 29, 2021,
Wisconsin submitted a permit containing a more stringent emission limit
for Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]'s Rhinelander facility, the main
SO2 source in the area, along with supplemental information
in order to remedy the plan's deficiencies specified in EPA's March 23,
2021 rulemaking. EPA proposed to approve Wisconsin's revised plan for
the Rhinelander SO2 nonattainment area on July 22, 2021 (86
FR 38643).
    On August 6, 2020, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center
for Environmental Health, and the Sierra Club filed a complaint in the
United States District Court (amended October 29, 2020), alleging that
EPA failed to perform certain non-discretionary duties in accordance
with the CAA, including to make timely findings that the Detroit and
Rhinelander areas attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the
attainment date. Under court order, EPA must determine whether Detroit
and Rhinelander areas have attained the SO2 NAAQS by January
31, 2022. The court order provides that if a covered nonattainment area
is redesignated to attainment before the applicable deadline for EPA's
determination, then EPA's duty to make the determination for that area
is automatically terminated. Therefore, EPA may not finalize this
action if either area is redesignated to attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS before January 31, 2022.

II. Proposed Determinations and Consequences

    Section 179(c)(1) of the CAA requires EPA to determine whether a
nonattainment area attained an applicable standard by the applicable
attainment date based on the area's air quality as of the attainment
date. In determining the attainment status of SO2
nonattainment areas, EPA may consider ambient monitoring data, air
quality dispersion modeling, and/or a

demonstration that the control strategy in the SIP has been fully
implemented.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area
SIP Submissions (April 2014) (``2014 SO2 Guidance''), 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.17 and in accordance with 40 CFR
part 50, appendix T, the 2010 1-hour annual SO2 standard is
met at a monitoring site when the design value is less than or equal to
75 ppb. Design values are calculated by computing the three-year
average of the annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations.\5\ When calculating 1-hour primary standard design
values, the calculated design values are rounded to the nearest whole
number or 1 ppb by convention. A SO2 1-hour primary standard
design value is valid if it encompasses three consecutive calendar
years of complete monitoring data or modeling data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix T, section 1(c),
daily maximum 1-hour values refer to the maximum 1-hour
SO2 concentration values measured from midnight to
midnight that are used in the NAAQS computations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Detroit Area Determination

    The determination of failure to attain for the Detroit area was
based on air quality dispersion modeling, using actual and allowable
emissions from the most recent three complete calendar years, prior to
the attainment date of October 4, 2018 (i.e., from 2015-2017).
    As previously noted, EPA may consider air quality dispersion
modeling in addition to monitoring data when determining the attainment
status of SO2 nonattainment areas. EPA's 2014 SO2
Guidance states that ``[i]f the EPA determines that the air quality
monitors located in the affected area are located in the area of
maximum concentration, the EPA may be able to use the data from these
monitors to make the determination of attainment without the use of air
quality modeling data.'' \6\ Although all the monitors in the Detroit
area are showing values below the NAAQS, EPA may not use the monitoring
data for this proposed determination of failure to attain because the
modeling results show that the monitors are not in the area of maximum
ambient SO2 concentration. The modeling data show that
SO2 concentrations near the monitors are below the NAAQS
while showing concentrations that violate the NAAQS at other modeling
receptors in the Detroit area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id., 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's modeling requirements to support SIP attainment
demonstrations are specified by regulation in appendix W of 40 CFR part
51 (Guideline on Air Quality Models), as referenced by 40 CFR 51.112.
Additionally, specific SO2 modeling guidance can be found in
EPA's document titled, ``SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling
Technical Assistance Document'' (Modeling TAD), which was most recently
updated in August 2016. EPA conducted a modeling demonstration, based
on guidelines from appendix W and the Modeling TAD, that contained an
assessment of the air quality impacts from the following sources: U.S.
Steel Ecorse, U.S. Steel Zug Island, EES Coke, DTE Energy (DTE) River
Rouge, DTE Trenton Channel, Carmeuse Lime, DTE Monroe, Severstal Steel,
Dearborn Industrial Generation (DIG), and Marathon Refinery.
1. Model Selection and Modeling Components
    EPA's Modeling TAD notes that for area designations under the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, the American Meteorological Society/Environmental
Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) modeling system should be
used, unless use of an alternative model can be justified. In some
instances, the recommended model may be a model other than AERMOD, such
as the BLP model for buoyant line sources. The AERMOD modeling system
contains the following components: AERMOD (the dispersion model),
AERMAP (the terrain processor for AERMOD), AERMET (the meteorological
data processor for AERMOD), BPIPPRIME (the building input processor),
AERMINUTE (a pre-processor to AERMET incorporating 1-minute automated
surface observation system (ASOS) wind data), AERSURFACE (the surface
characteristics processor for AERMET), and AERSCREEN (a screening
version of AERMOD).
    EPA conducted its air dispersion modeling demonstration with
AERMOD, the preferred model for this application. EPA used version
19191 of AERMOD, which was the most recent version at that time.
2. Modeling Parameter: Rural or Urban Dispersion
    EPA's recommended procedure for characterizing an area by prevalent
land use is based on evaluating the dispersion environment within 3
kilometers of the facility. According to EPA's modeling guidelines
contained in documents such as the Modeling TAD, rural dispersion
coefficients are to be used in the dispersion modeling analysis if more
than 50% of the area within a 3 kilometer radius of the facility is
classified as rural. Conversely, if more than 50% of the area is urban,
urban dispersion coefficients should be used in the modeling analysis.
    Although EPA's modeling guidelines recommend that areas such as
Detroit should be modeled using urban dispersion coefficients, it was
found that using urban dispersion coefficients caused the model to
overpredict monitored concentrations by 2-3 times due to emissions from
the tall stacks becoming trapped in the nighttime boundary layer.
Section 5.1 of the AERMOD Implementation Guide \7\ describes how prior
to AERMOD version 15181, the application of the urban option on tall
stacks in small to moderate size urban areas may have limited the plume
height resulting in high concentrations. While this issue was mitigated
beginning with bug fixes in version 15181 of AERMOD, a model to monitor
comparison conducted by EPA determined that modeled concentrations at
the monitor receptor locations correlated with monitoring
concentrations when the tall stacks were modeled with the rural
dispersion option instead of urban. In addition, peak monitored
concentrations occur during the daytime. When modeling the tall stacks
with the rural dispersion option the peak modeled concentrations
occurred during the daytime hours, while using the urban option
resulted in peak modeled concentrations during the nighttime hours.
Therefore, the rural dispersion option was used for the tall stacks at
EES Coke, DTE River Rouge, DTE Trenton Channel, and DTE Monroe, and the
urban dispersion option was used for the remaining modeled sources with
a population of 1,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2021. AERMOD
Implementation Guide, section 5.1. Publication No. 454-B-21-002.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/preferred/aermod/aermod_implementation_guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Modeling Parameter: Area of Analysis (Receptor Grid)
    EPA believes that a reasonable first step towards characterization
of air quality in the Detroit area is to determine the extent of the
area of analysis, i.e., receptor grid. Considerations presented in the
Modeling TAD include but are not limited to: The location of the
SO2 emission sources or facilities considered for modeling;
the extent of significant concentration gradients of nearby sources;
and sufficient receptor coverage and density to adequately capture and
resolve the model predicted maximum SO2 concentrations.

    For the Detroit area modeling analysis, a uniform Cartesian
receptor grid was used with receptor spacing of 100 meters throughout
the modeled domain. The receptor network contained 5,432 receptors and
covered 12 kilometers by 12 kilometers area over the city of Detroit.
EPA determined that this was the appropriate distance in order to
adequately characterize air quality from the sources in the Detroit
area which may have a potential impact in the area of analysis where
maximum concentrations of SO2 are expected.
4. Modeling Parameter: Source Characterization
    EPA characterized the sources within the area of analysis in
accordance with practices outlined as acceptable in the Modeling TAD.
Specifically, EPA used actual stack heights in conjunction with actual
or allowable emissions. EPA also adequately characterized the sources'
building layouts and locations, as well as the stack parameters, e.g.,
exit temperature, exit velocity, location, and diameter.
5. Modeling Parameter: Emissions
    Guidance on modeling SO2 actual emissions is provided in
section 5.2 of EPA's Modeling TSD. EPA believes that continuous
emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) data provide acceptable historical
emissions information when it is available and that these data are
available for many electric generating units. The Modeling TAD also
provides for the flexibility of using allowable emissions.
    EPA ran AERMOD using 2015-2017 actual average CEMS emissions data
for DTE River Rouge and Trenton Channel, and 2016 actual emissions data
for U.S. Steel, the source with the most significant contribution to
the maximum NAAQS violations in the area, from Michigan's annual
emissions database. Table 1 shows the actual emissions used for this
analysis.

       Table 1--Actual SO2 Emissions Used in the Modeling Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          SO2 emissions
                     Facility name                       (tons per year)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTE River Rouge........................................            4,383
DTE Trenton Channel....................................           11,303
U.S. Steel.............................................            1,480
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For EES Coke, Carmeuse Lime, DTE Monroe, Severstal Steel, DIG, and
Marathon Refinery in the area of analysis, EPA modeled the facilities
using the most recent federally enforceable allowable limits for
SO2. The facilities in EPA's area of analysis and their
associated allowable rates are summarized in Table 2 below.

     Table 2--Allowable SO2 Emissions Used in the Modeling Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          SO2 allowable
                                                         emissions (tons
                     Facility name                          per year)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
EES Coke...............................................            4,067
Carmeuse Lime..........................................            2,059
DTE Monroe.............................................           13,403
Severstal Steel........................................            2,119
DIG....................................................            2,335
Marathon Refinery......................................              401
------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Modeling Parameter: Meteorology and Surface Characteristics
    As noted in the Modeling TAD, the selection of meteorological data
should be based on spatial and climatological (temporal)
representativeness. The representativeness of the data are based on:
(1) The proximity of the meteorological monitoring site to the area
under consideration, (2) the complexity of terrain, (3) the exposure of
the meteorological site, and (4) the period of time during which data
are collected. Sources of meteorological data include National Weather
Service stations, site-specific or onsite data, and other sources such
as universities, the Federal Aviation Administration, and military
stations.
    EPA used the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport's
meteorological surface data and the White Lake meteorological upper air
data for the years 2013-2017 for modeling the Detroit area. This
meteorological data set was processed by Michigan and obtained from its
website.
    Meteorological data from the above surface and upper air stations
were used in generating AERMOD-ready files with the AERMET processor.
The output meteorological data created by the AERMET processor is
suitable for being applied with AERMOD input files for AERMOD modeling
runs. EPA followed the methodology and settings presented in appendix W
in the processing of the raw meteorological data into an AERMOD-ready
format and used AERSURFACE to best represent surface characteristics.
7. Modeling Parameter: Geography and Terrain
    The terrain in the area of analysis is best described as generally
flat. To account for these terrain changes, the AERMAP terrain program
within AERMOD was used to specify terrain elevations for all the
receptors. The source of the elevation data incorporated into the model
was the U.S. Geological Survey National Elevation Database.
8. Modeling Parameter: Background Concentrations
    The Modeling TAD offers two mechanisms for characterizing
background concentrations of SO2 that are ultimately added
to the modeled design values: (1) A ``first tier'' approach, based on
monitored design values, or (2) a temporally varying approach, based on
the 99th percentile monitored concentrations by hour of day and season
or month. For the Detroit area modeling analysis, hourly SO2
data from 2015-2017 at the Allen Park monitor, which is approximately
17 kilometers southwest of Detroit, along with Allen Park wind data was
used to generate Season/Hour-of-Day concentrations. Monitored
concentrations associated with wind directions between and including 40
to 205 degrees were excluded to avoid concentrations associated with
sources explicitly modeled in the demonstration. The Season/Hour-of-Day
background concentrations for this area of analysis were determined by
EPA to be between 0.9 and 13.2 ppb, and these values were incorporated
into the final AERMOD results.
8. Summary of Results and Proposed Determination
    EPA's modeling analysis indicated that the highest predicted 3-year
average 99th percentile 1-hour average concentration within the chosen
modeling domain is 139 ppb or 363.3 micrograms per cubic meter. The
AERMOD analysis included an output unit factor of 381,680 to convert
the model results from grams per second to ppb. This modeled
concentration included the background concentration of SO2,
and is based on actual and allowable emissions from the facilities in
the Detroit area.
    For an area to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the October
4, 2018 attainment date, the design value based upon modeled actual and
allowable air quality data from 2015-2017 at the area of maximum
ambient SO2 concentration must be equal to or less than 75
ppb for the 1-hour standard. EPA's modeling results show that the
maximum modeled design concentration in the Detroit area exceeds 75
ppb. Therefore, based on modeled actual and allowable emissions for the
2015-2017 period, EPA is proposing to determine that the Detroit area
failed to attain the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard by the October
4, 2018 attainment date.

B. Rhinelander Area Determination

    The determination of failure to attain for the Rhinelander area was
based

upon the most recent three complete calendar years, prior to the
attainment date of October 4, 2018, of complete, quality-assured
measured data gathered at an established state and local air monitoring
station (SLAMS) in the nonattainment area and entered into EPA's Air
Quality System (AQS) database.\8\ A year is considered complete when
all four quarters are complete, and a quarter is complete when at least
75 percent of the sampling days are complete. A sampling day is
considered complete if 75 percent of the hourly concentration values
are reported; this includes data affected by exceptional events that
have been approved for exclusion by the Administrator.\9\ Data from
ambient air monitors operated by state and local agencies in compliance
with EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to AQS.\10\
Monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are accurate to
the best of their knowledge.\11\ All data are reviewed to determine the
area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix
T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ AQS is EPA's repository of ambient air quality data.
    \9\ See 40 CFR part 50, appendix T, sections 1(c), 3(b), 4(c),
and 5(a).
    \10\ 40 CFR 58.16.
    \11\ 40 CFR 58.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the use of monitoring data for determining the
attainment status of SO2 nonattainment areas, EPA's 2014
SO2 Guidance specifically notes that ``[i]f the EPA
determines that the air quality monitors located in the affected area
are located in the area of maximum concentration, the EPA may be able
to use the data from these monitors to make the determination of
attainment without the use of air quality modeling data.'' \12\ This
language might be read to suggest that EPA must always assess whether
the air quality monitors in the affected area are located in the area
of maximum concentration prior to using monitoring data to determine an
SO2 nonattainment area's attainment status. However, this
language was intended to refer to a situation where EPA is considering
making a determination that the area has attained the NAAQS based on a
finding that all of the monitoring sites within the affected area had
an attaining design value for the relevant period. As described in
section II.B of this action, in this instance, the monitoring site in
the Rhinelander area did not have attaining design values for the
relevant period. Consequently, even if the monitoring sites are not
located in the area of maximum concentration, any monitors that would
be located in the area of maximum concentration could not record
concentrations lower than those recorded at the existing monitor at the
Rhinelander site. Accordingly, since the Rhinelander Tower monitor
design value for the 2015-2017 period was above the NAAQS, it is not
necessary to consider whether the monitor is located in the area of
maximum concentration in order to determine that the Rhinelander area
did not attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018
attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id., 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Monitoring Network Considerations
    Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA requires states to establish and
operate air monitoring networks to compile data on ambient air quality
for all criteria pollutants. EPA's monitoring requirements are
specified by regulation in 40 CFR part 58. These requirements are
applicable to state, and where delegated, local air monitoring agencies
that operate criteria pollutant monitors.
    In section 4.4 of appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, EPA specifies
minimum monitoring requirements for SO2 to operate at SLAMS.
SLAMS produce data that are eligible for comparison with the NAAQS, and
therefore, the monitor must be an approved Federal reference method
(FRM), Federal equivalent method (FEM), or approved regional method
(ARM) monitor.
    The minimum number of required SO2 SLAMS is described in
sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 of appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. According to
section 4.4.2, the minimum number of required SO2 monitoring
sites is determined by the population weighted emissions index for each
state's core based statistical area. Section 4.4.3 describes additional
monitors that may be required by an EPA regional administrator.
    Under 40 CFR 58.10, states are required to submit annual monitoring
network plans (AMNP) for ambient air monitoring networks for approval
by EPA. Within the Rhinelander area, Wisconsin is responsible for
ensuring that the area meets air quality monitoring requirements.
Wisconsin submits annual monitoring network plans to EPA that describe
the various monitoring sites that it operates.\13\ Each AMNP discusses
the status of the air monitoring network as required under 40 CFR 58.10
and addresses the operation and maintenance of the air monitoring
network in the previous year. EPA regularly reviews these AMNPs for
compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
58.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., ``Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2018
Air Monitoring Network Plan,'' which is included in the docket for
this action.
    \14\ See, e.g., letter dated September 1, 2017 from Edward Nam,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region V, to Gail Good,
Director, Bureau of Air Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, which is included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also conducts regular ``technical systems audits'' (TSAs)
during which EPA reviews and inspects ambient air monitoring programs
to assess compliance with applicable regulations concerning the
collection, analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air quality
data.\15\ As part of its 2018 TSA of Wisconsin, EPA required Wisconsin
to prepare and submit a corrective action plan, and EPA accepted
Wisconsin's TSA finding response forms in 2019.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, section 2.5.
    \16\ See letter dated June 24, 2019 from Michael Compher, Chief,
Air Monitoring and Analysis Section, Air and Radiation Division, EPA
Region V, to Katie Praedel, Chief, Air Monitoring Section, Bureau of
Air Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, which is
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the 2015-2017 data period, Wisconsin operated one
SO2 SLAMS in the Rhinelander area: Rhinelander Tower monitor
(AQS ID 55-085-0996). The Rhinelander Tower monitor site is located at
434 High Street under the Rhinelander municipal water tower. The
primary monitor at this site is an FEM monitor.
    Based on EPA's review of Wisconsin's AMNPs for the years 2016-2018
\17\ and the 2018 TSA of Wisconsin's monitoring program, EPA proposes
to find that the monitoring network in the Rhinelander area is adequate
for the purpose of collecting ambient SO2 concentration data
for use in determining whether the nonattainment area attained the 2010
SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Wisconsin's ANPs for 2016-2018 address the operation and
maintenance of its air monitoring network for 2015-2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. SO2 Data Considerations
    Under 40 CFR 58.15, monitoring agencies must certify, on an annual
basis, data collected at all SLAMS and at all FRM, FEM, and ARM special
purpose monitor stations that meet EPA quality assurance requirements.
In doing so, monitoring agencies must certify that the previous year of
ambient concentration and quality assurance data are completely
submitted to AQS and that the ambient concentration data are accurate
to the best of their knowledge. Wisconsin annually certifies that the
data it submits to AQS are quality assured, including data collected

by Wisconsin at the monitoring site in the Rhinelander area.
    For the Rhinelander area, for reasons discussed in section I.B of
this action, the applicable attainment date was October 4, 2018. In
accordance with appendix T to 40 CFR part 50, determinations of
SO2 NAAQS compliance are based on three consecutive calendar
years of data. To determine the air quality as of the attainment date
in the Rhinelander area, EPA must review the data collected during the
three calendar years immediately preceding the attainment date, or
January 1, 2015-December 31, 2017.
    The SO2 data for the Rhinelander area from January 1,
2015-December 31, 2017, have been certified by Wisconsin. EPA has also
evaluated the completeness of these data in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix T. The data collected by
Wisconsin meet the quarterly completeness criterion for all 12 quarters
in the three calendar years preceding the attainment date at the
Rhinelander Tower SO2 monitoring site.
3. Rhinelander SO2 Data and Proposed Determination
    The 1-hour SO2 design values at the Rhinelander Tower
monitor for the 2015-2017 period are presented in Table 3. Table 3
demonstrates that the 1-hour SO2 design values for the 2015-
2017 period are greater than 75 ppb at the eligible monitoring site.

                                            Table 3--2015-2017 1-Hour Design Values for the Rhinelander Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour
                                                                                average                        1-hour design     Design value
                           Site (AQS ID)                            ---------------------------------------------------   value (ppb)         valid?
                                                                           2015             2016             2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhinelander Tower (55-085-0996)....................................             156              129               38              108              Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA, Design Value Report, August 26, 2020.

    The data in Table 3 demonstrates that the monitoring site in the
Rhinelander area failed to attain the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018. The 3-year design
value for the Rhinelander Tower monitor was deemed valid due to meeting
the criteria in 40 CFR part 50, appendix T, section 3(c)(i), which
requires that ``at least 75 percent of the days in each quarter of each
of three consecutive years have at least one reported hourly value, and
the design value calculated according to the procedures specified in
section 5 is above the level of the primary 1-hour standard.''
    For an area to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the October
4, 2018 attainment date, the design value based upon monitored air
quality data from 2015-2017 at each eligible monitoring site must be
equal to or less than 75 ppb for the 1-hour standard. Table 3 shows
that the design value at the monitoring site in the Rhinelander area
exceeds 75 ppb. Therefore, based on quality-assured and certified data
for the 2015-2017 data period, EPA is proposing to determine that the
Rhinelander area failed to attain the 2010 1-hour SO2
standard by the October 4, 2018 attainment date.

C. Consequences for SO2 Nonattainment Areas Failing To Attain Standards
by Attainment Dates

    The consequences for SO2 nonattainment areas for failing
to attain the standards by the applicable attainment date are set forth
in CAA section 179(d). Under section 179(d), a state must submit a SIP
revision for the area meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110 and
172, the latter of which requires, among other elements, a
demonstration of attainment and reasonable further progress and
contingency measures. In addition, under CAA section 179(d)(2), the SIP
revision must include such additional measures as EPA may reasonably
prescribe, including all measures that can be feasibly implemented in
the area in light of technological achievability, costs, and any non-
air quality and other air quality-related health and environmental
impacts. The state is required to submit the SIP revision within one
year after EPA publishes a final action in the Federal Register
determining that the nonattainment area failed to attain the
SO2 NAAQS.
    On March 19, 2021 (86 FR 14827), and March 23, 2021 (86 FR 15418),
EPA published actions partially disapproving the 2010 SO2
attainment plans for the Detroit and Rhinelander areas, respectively,
as submitted and supplemented in 2016. Although final findings of
failure to attain will not eliminate each state's obligation to address
the disapproved elements of its prior plan submittal, EPA anticipates
that the submission of a new, approvable attainment plan in response to
these findings would also satisfy these obligations for Michigan and
Wisconsin.
    On July 22, 2021 (86 FR 38643), EPA proposed to approve Wisconsin's
revised plan, submitted to EPA on March 29, 2021. If EPA takes final
action to approve that revised SIP submission from Wisconsin, EPA is
proposing to find that the State has also satisfied the requirement to
submit a SIP revision to address the finding, if finalized, that the
area failed to timely attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    Under CAA sections 179(d)(3) and 172(a)(2), the new attainment date
for each nonattainment area is the date by which attainment can be
achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years
after EPA publishes a final action in the Federal Register determining
that the nonattainment area failed to attain the SO2 NAAQS.
In the meantime, EPA's FIP obligations for both the Detroit and
Rhinelander areas remain in force, and this finding, if finalized,
would not negate EPA's FIP deadlines. For the Detroit area, the
statutory deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP has passed, and EPA is
actively working on a FIP.
    In addition to triggering requirements for a new SIP submittal, a
final determination that a nonattainment area failed to attain the
NAAQS by the attainment date would trigger the implementation of
contingency measures adopted under 172(c)(9).

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing under CAA section 179(c)(1) to determine that the
Detroit and Rhinelander areas failed to attain the 2010 1-hour
SO2 standard by the applicable attainment date of October 4,
2018. If finalized as proposed, Michigan and Wisconsin would be
required under CAA section 179(d) to submit revisions to the SIP for
the Detroit and Rhinelander SO2 nonattainment areas,
respectively. The required SIP revision for each area must, among other
elements, demonstrate expeditious attainment of the standards within
the time period prescribed by CAA section 179(d). If finalized as
proposed, the SIP

revisions required under CAA section 179(d) would be due for submittal
to EPA no later than one year after the publication date of the final
action. However, for the Rhinelander area, if EPA approves the recently
revised SIP submission submitted by the State of Wisconsin, EPA is
proposing to treat that submission as satisfying the requirement to
submit revisions to the SIP to address the failure to timely attain the
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
action. EPA will accept comments from the public on this proposal for
the next 30 days and will consider these comments before taking final
action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore
was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA because it does not contain any information
collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This
proposed action, if finalized, would require the State to adopt and
submit SIP revisions to satisfy CAA requirements and would not itself
directly regulate any small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more, as described in UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action itself
imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments,
or the private sector. This action proposes to determine that the
Detroit and Rhinelander SO2 nonattainment areas failed to
attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment dates. If finalized, this
determination would trigger existing statutory timeframes for the State
to submit SIP revisions. Such a determination in and of itself does not
impose any Federal intergovernmental mandate.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The proposed finding of failure to attain the
SO2 NAAQS does not apply to tribal areas, and the proposed
rule would not impose a burden on Indian reservation lands or other
areas where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction within the Detroit and Rhinelander SO2
nonattainment areas. Thus, this proposed rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order
13175.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of
the Executive order. This proposed action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because the effect of this proposed action, if finalized,
would be to trigger additional planning requirements under the CAA.
This proposed action does not establish an environmental standard
intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because
it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
effect of this proposed action, if finalized, would be to trigger
additional planning requirements under the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: October 20, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2021-23274 Filed 10-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


September 7, 2005 Via E Mail and Facsimile edwards. debbie@ epa. gov Fax: 703 308 8005 Debra F. Edwards, Ph. D. Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Office of Pesticide Programs United States Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building, MC: 7508C 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460 Re: Soil Fumigants  Revised Risk Assessments Dear Dr. Edwards:

On behalf of the North Carolina fruit and vegetable production community who rely on soil fumigants and thus have a strong interest in the soil fumigant cluster risk assessment process, we write to request an extension of at least 30 days to comment on the revised soil risk assessments that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) made available on July 13, 2005. Comments on four of the fumigants currently are due on September 12, 2005. We ask that this deadline be extended at least to October 12, 2005. The risk assessments are hundreds of pages of highly technical material. The existing comment period does not provide an adequate opportunity to comment on these complex and interrelated documents, which involve extensive technical issues and documentation. As EPA has assured growers and other stakeholders that our input is important, we hope EPA will allow an adequate opportunity to provide that input on this large and complex dataset. EPA has yet to release the assessment for one of the most critical fumigants, chloropicrin. As EPA knows, chloropicrin is frequently used in combination with other soil fumigants. Grower groups cannot comment adequately in the absence of all information, including the chloropicrin assessment. Review of docket materials to date indicates that EPA does not adequately understand current use patterns for the other soil fumigants. To assist EPA in preparing these assessments, we would like to provide input that would give EPA an accurate understanding of these use patterns, as well as other issues critical to North Carolina producers, but do not have an adequate opportunity to do so under the current deadline. Page 2 September 7, 2005 Dr. Debra Edwards The North Carolina production community is committed to working with EPA to meet its obligations with regard to each of the soil fumigants, and believe an extension will help EPA meet this goal. It would also serve the public interest by lessening the confusion that would be presented by EPA's circulation of a revised draft that remains without critical data that are relevant to decisions stated in the document and thus that could greatly affect the conclusions in the document and the continued availability of these important soil fumigants to meet our nation's food demands.

We appreciate your attention.

Sincerely,

Larry B. Wooten President North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79397-79399]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31978]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0320]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 17 individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition against persons with a clinical
diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a
loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The regulation and the
associated advisory criteria published in the Code of Federal
Regulations as the ``Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical
Examinations'' have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from
operating CMVs in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have
had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather
than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified
medical examiner. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication to operate CMVs for up to 2 years in interstate
commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2015-0320 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for
this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change
to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information included in
a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov, at any time or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.

    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by letter to FMCSA, Room W64-113, Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption
for up to a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the
level that would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statutes
allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
The 17 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption
from the epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), which applies to
drivers who operate CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, in interstate
commerce. Section 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    FMCSA provides medical advisory criteria for use by medical
examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical
conditions should be certified to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce.
The advisory criteria indicate that if an individual has had a sudden
episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown
cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision
whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of
consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an
individual basis by the medical examiner in consultation with the
treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested
that a 6-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode.
Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have
a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination
are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the
driver may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has recovered fully from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication. Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/
seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years,
may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate
drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified
to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-
seizure medication for a 5-year period or more.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission. To
submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the
search box insert the docket number ``FMCSA-2015-0320'' and click the
search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue ``Comment
Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new page,
enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may
issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
``FMCSA-2015-0320'' and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments related to the
proposed rulemaking.

Summary of Applications

James E. Allen

    Mr. Allen is a 48 year-old driver in Maine. He has a history of a
seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1992. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2003. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Allen receiving an exemption.

Richard A. Bailey

    Mr. Bailey is a 65 year-old class A CDL holder in Iowa. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2009.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Bailey receiving an exemption.

Thomas A. DeAngelo

    Mr. DeAngelo is a 43 year-old class A CDL holder in Illinois. He
has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since
1990. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 1998. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. DeAngelo receiving an exemption.

Nathan Dermer

    Mr. Dermer is a 40 year-old driver in Alaska. He has a history of a
benign brain tumor removal in 1991 and a single seizure in 1994. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since that time. His physician states that he is supportive of
Mr. Dermer receiving an exemption.

Daniel Lloyd Halstead

    Mr. Halstead is a 63 year-old class A CDL holder in Nevada. He has
a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since
1973. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 2005. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Halstead receiving an exemption.

Kevin Mathis

    Mr. Mathis is a 29 year-old driver in New Jersey. He has a history
of juvenile myoclonic epilepsy and has remained seizure free since
2003. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and

frequency remaining the same since that time. His physician states that
he is supportive of Mr. Mathis receiving an exemption.

Toriano T. Mitchell

    Mr. Mitchell is a 32 year-old class B CDL holder in Ohio. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2003.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Mitchell receiving an exemption.

Thomas A. Mitman

    Mr. Mitman is a 58 year-old class A CDL holder in New York. He has
a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since
1996. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Mitman receiving an exemption.

James P. Murphy

    Mr. Murphy is a 39 year-old driver in Massachusetts. He has a
history of a single seizure and tumor removal in 2011. He was
previously on anti-seizure medication but discontinued it 2015. His
physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Murphy receiving an
exemption.

Jason Christopher Nikolas

    Mr. Nikolas is a 42 year-old driver in Virginia. He has a history
of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2012. He takes anti-
seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same
since that time. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Nikolas receiving an exemption.

Curtis Joseph Palubicki

    Mr. Palubicki is a 29 year-old driver in Minnesota. He has a
history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since September 2008.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Palubicki receiving an exemption.

Franklin Prettyman

    Mr. Prettyman is a 77 year-old driver in Maryland. He has a history
of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2012. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since that time. His physician states that he is supportive of
Mr. Prettyman receiving an exemption.

Chad Riemenschneider

    Mr. Riemenschneider is a 35 year-old driver in Texas. He has a
history of a single seizure in 2011 related to a brain tumor. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since that time. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Riemenschneider receiving an exemption.

Isaac E. Rogers

    Mr. Rogers is a 29 year-old class A CDL holder in Illinois. He has
a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since
2009. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Rogers receiving an exemption.

Tyler W. Schaefor

    Mr. Schaefor is a 34 year-old driver in Maine. He has a history of
a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2003. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2008. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Schaefor receiving an exemption.

Kenneth P. Schmitt

    Mr. Schmitt is a 38 year-old driver in South Dakota. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and his last seizure date is not
documented. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same and his physician notes that Mr. Schmitt
admits to occasional anti-seizure medication noncompliance. His
physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Schmittt receiving an
exemption.

Alfonso Valdivieso

    Mr. Valdivieso is a 52 year-old class A CDL holder in New York. He
has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since
2011. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Valdivieso receiving an exemption.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption
applications described in this notice. We will consider all comments
received before the close of business on the closing date indicated
earlier in the notice.

    Dated: December 9, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-31978 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P