A. Background 1. Statutory Authority

Section 104(b)(1)(B) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), also known as the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. The law requires these standards to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standards if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.

The CPSIA also sets forth a process for updating CPSC's durable infant or toddler standards when the voluntary standard, upon which the CPSC standard was based, is changed. Section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA provides that if an organization revises a standard that has been adopted, in whole or in part, as a consumer product safety standard under this subsection, it shall notify the Commission. In addition, the revised voluntary standard shall be considered to be a consumer product safety standard issued by the Commission under section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058), effective 180 days after the date on which the organization notifies the Commission (or such later date specified by the Commission in the Federal Register ) unless, within 90 days after receiving that notice, the Commission notifies the organization that it has determined that the proposed revision does not improve the safety of the consumer product covered by the standard and that the Commission is retaining the existing consumer product safety standard.

On June 4, 2010, the Commission published a final rule issuing a standard for infant bath seats that incorporated by reference the standard in effect at that time, ASTM F1967-08a, Standard Consumer Specification for Infant Bath Seats, with certain modifications to make the standard more stringent. 75 FR 31691. The standard was codified in the Commission's regulations at 16 CFR part 1215. The ASTM standard has been revised twice since the rule issued, with the Commission incorporating by reference, ASTM F1967-11a (77 FR 45242, Jul. 31, 2012), and ASTM F1967-13 (78 FR 73692, Dec. 9, 2013), respectively.

Since December 2013, when the CPSC incorporated by reference ASTM F1967-13 as the mandatory standard for infant bath seats, ASTM published two additional revisions to the standard. On June 25, 2019, ASTM notified the Commission that it has revised ASTM's standard for infant bath seats. The current ASTM standard is ASTM F1967-19, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Bath Seats, approved May 1, 2019. The CPSC reviewed the changes between the current CPSC standard, 16 CFR part 1215 and the two revisions to the standard (ASTM F1967-18 and ASTM F1967-19) since ASTM F1967-13 became mandatory. ASTM did not notify CPSC of the publication of the 2018 version of the standard because ASTM was considering making additional changes in 2019. Consequently, ASTM notified CPSC of the 2019 revision to the standard, which included the changes in the 2018 version of the standard.

The ASTM standard for infant bath seats establishes performance requirements, test methods, and labeling requirements to address hazards to children associated with infant bath seats, including stability, restraints, suction cups, latching and locking mechanisms, and resistance to collapse. Products commonly referred to as bath rings also are included in the scope of this specification. Traditional infant bath tubs that are used to bathe an infant are not within the scope of this standard.

Under section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, unless the Commission determines that ASTM's revision to a voluntary standard that is a CPSC mandatory standard “does not improve the safety of the consumer product covered by the standard,” the revised voluntary standard becomes the new mandatory standard. As discussed below, the Commission determines that the changes made in ASTM F1967-19 will either improve the safety of infant bath seats or are neutral with respect to safety. Therefore, the Commission will allow the revised voluntary standard to become effective as a mandatory consumer product safety standard under the statute, effective December 22, 2019.

There are several differences between the current CPSC standard 16 CFR part 1215 (ASTM F1967-13) and the two subsequent revisions to the standard (ASTM F1967-18 and ASTM F1967-19). We summarize the differences and the CPSC's assessment of the revisions below.

The major revisions made in ASTM F1967—18 are summarized below. ASTM F1967-18 includes several changes that improve safety by clarifying testing. ASTM also made several editorial changes, such as spacing, formatting, re-ordering, and renumbering, which do not change the safety of the infant bath seats.

The 2018 version of the ASTM standard adds language (Section 1.5), which ASTM intends to add to all of its standards, stating that ASTM developed the standard in accordance with principles recognized by the World Trade Organization. We conclude that adding this text does not change the safety of infant bath seats.

The 2018 revision to the standard adds four new definitions to address changes the ASTM subcommittee made to achieve consistency across juvenile product safety standards, including defining the terms “conspicuous,” “double action release system,” “installation components,” and “protective component.” Of these new terms, the definition of “double action release system” is significant because it clarifies the actions and the sequence necessary for a release mechanism to be considered a double action release mechanism. Accordingly, we determine that this new definition improves the safety of infant bath seats. The other new definitions are neutral to the safety of infant bath seats.

Section 5 General Requirements contains a number of minor editorial adjustments. The Commission considers these changes to be neutral to the safety of infant bath seats. ASTM also added section 5.10, to state: “Infant bath seats must comply with applicable requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.” The purpose of this statement is to alert potential manufacturers to CPSIA requirements. We consider this statement to be neutral to the safety of infant bath seats because the product must comply with CPSIA, regardless of this requirement in the standard.

Section 6.1 Stability moves wording from an explanatory note into the enforceable performance requirement. Specifically, Section 6.1.2.3 states: “If the product would continue to tip over under the application of force, but it is prevented from doing so by the test platform interior side walls, it shall be considered a tip over.” With this change to the stability performance requirement, certain types of contact to the tub fixture test platform are clearly identified as failures. This change will reduce ambiguity in testing to the standard and will lead to more consistent testing. We consider the reduced ambiguity for testing to be an improvement to safety because the revised language will clarify what constitutes a failure when conducting the testing.

The other changes to the performance requirements in section 6 are editorial in nature: The changes separate the stability requirements and present a succinct modified decimal numbering system, as opposed to paragraph form. We consider these editorial changes to be neutral to the safety of infant bath seats.

Two different latching and locking test procedures (Section 7.1.1.1 and 7.1.2.1), in the 2018 version of the standard reference a new test surface. The new “Test Surface #3” is defined as: “(a)ny area on the side(s) of the test platform (for example, inside surface, outside surface, and top ledge), where safety tread strips are not applied. ” Therefore, new products that are restrained by the sides of the tub can now be installed and tested according to the manufacturer's instructions by using Test Surface #3. The changes regarding the definition of a new test surface reduce ambiguity in the standard and will lead to more consistent testing. We expect that an increase in testing consistency will improve the safety of bath seats.

The 2018 ASTM standard made four changes to Section 7.4 Stability Test:

• The new tub fixture test platform figures correct dimensioning errors, add a cross-section drawing, define more clearly the location of the cross-sections, and add new dimensions to specify accurately the physical tub detailed in ASTM F1967-18 Footnote #5. Adding the two new cross-section drawings in this section required the rest of the figures in the standard to be renumbered accordingly. These revised fixtures correct errors and increase accuracy and clarity, which we expect will improve the safety of infant bath seats.

• The 2018 version of the ASTM standard adds a requirement for a new test surface and modifies the two existing test surfaces. The 2013 version required testing on only two surfaces, and those two surfaces had to be “. . . within the 24 in. (60.0 cm) length of uniform tub side ledge thickness . . . .” The restrictive test surface definitions and the lack of a test surface on the side and end walls of the tub fixture test platform created a conflict between the test procedures and the manufacturer's installation instructions. New products on the market engage with the side and end walls as part of the new products' retention system. To reduce potential sources of test-to-test and laboratory-to-laboratory variation, the ASTM subcommittee decided to add Test Surface #3, which addresses tub fixture test platform's sides and end walls as a new test surface in Section 7.4.1.2.3. The new language broadens the test procedures and allows for new designs of bath seats to be installed according to the manufacturer's instructions. These changes reduce ambiguity in the standard and lead to more consistent testing. We expect the reduced ambiguity and increased consistency will improve the safety of infant bath seats.

• Section 7.4.3.8 states that the 17.0 lbf applied force shall be perpendicular to the test bar. The 2013 revision stated that the force shall be horizontal. During the stability test, many products deflect elastically, while remaining in the initial manufacturer's recommended-use position. As a product deflects elastically, the test bar rotates in the direction of the applied force. If the test bar rotates, but the applied force remains horizontal, then the angle between the test bar and the applied force changes, reducing the torque applied to the sample. In contrast, the 2018 version states that the applied force must be perpendicular to the test bar, causing the applied torque to remain nominally consistent as the product deflects elastically. We conclude that a test that applies a consistent torque is a more stringent test, and therefore, this change improves the safety of infant bath seats.

• ASTM F1967-13 provides a formula for the baby wash solution that is used in testing, and states the contact information for a specific manufacturer of the solution. However, the company listed is no longer in business. ASTM F1967-18 lists two name-brand baby wash products readily available for purchase. We consider this change neutral to the safety of infant bath seats.

The 2018 ASTM standard also changed the static load test in section 7.5, to reflect the new Test Surface #3. This change allows new types of products that are intended to be restrained by the sides of the tub, to be installed according to the manufacturer's instructions. Adding a new test surface reduces ambiguity in the standard and leads to more consistent testing. We consider the reduced ambiguity and increased consistency to improve the safety of infant bath seats.

The second change to Section 7.5.5 requires that a product be tested “. . . in all other manufacturer's recommended use positions.” The revised language improves safety by requiring products be tested in all manufacturer's use positions, not just in one position. Typically, laboratories conduct testing in one position, usually what the laboratory considers to be the most onerous position. This can lead to different results from different laboratories. Adding the statement that testing should be “. . . in all other manufacturer's recommended use positions” will improve test-to-test and laboratory-to-laboratory repeatability. We consider the reduced ambiguity and increased consistency to improve safety.

The suction cup test methods in section 7.6 also include the new Test Surface #3 and require testing of the product “. . . in all other manufacturer's recommended use positions.” As noted, testing “in all other manufacturer's recommended use positons” removes the possibility of different laboratories getting different testing results because of ambiguity. Reduced ambiguity leads to improving test-to-test and laboratory-to-laboratory repeatability, resulting in more consistent, testing which improves testing accuracy. We consider the reduced ambiguity and increased consistency to improve safety.

Revisions to section 8 in the 2018 standard, regarding Marking and Labeling, include changes to the formatting and presentation of the warnings. These revisions result from major changes ASTM initiated for juvenile products. After publishing the 2013 version of the standard, ASTM convened a task group, ASTM Ad Hoc Wording Task Group (Ad Hoc TG), consisting of members of the various durable nursery products voluntary standards committees, including CPSC staff. The purpose of the Ad Hoc TG is to harmonize the wording, as well as the warning format, across durable infant and toddler product voluntary standards. Ad Hoc TG recommendations were published as a reference document, titled, “Ad Hoc Wording—May 4, 2016,” as part of the F15 Committee Documents.

In addition to the formatting changes, the warning statement required by the 2018 ASTM standard includes a personalized warning using the words: “Stay in arms' reach of your baby,” as opposed to: “ALWAYS keep baby within adult's reach.” Research suggests that personalizing warnings and instructions increase compliance.

The revisions in ASTM F1967—18 incorporate the Ad Hoc Wording recommendations. Accordingly, we consider adopting the Ad Hoc Wording reference document recommendations and the more personal messaging as improvements to safety because they provide noticeable, personalized, and consistent warning labels on infant bath seats.

The requirements for Instructional Literature in section 9 of ASTM F1967-18 are expanded to include infant bath seat labeling requirements similar to the marking and labeling section of the standard. Staff considers these changes to improve the safety of bath seats because they provide noticeable, personalized, and consistent instructional literature.

ASTM F1967-19 revises two sections of the standard. The first, a change to section 7.5.1, allows the static load tests to be conducted on any of the three test surfaces, rather than specify a particular test surface. The second update removes Footnote #6 from the ASTM standard. The standard already covers the same topic in Section 7.4.1.2, and the footnote was incomplete and confusing. Both changes are neutral to the safety of bath seats.

The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, agencies must discuss, in the preamble to the final rule, ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble to the final rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).

In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section B of this preamble summarizes the major provisions of the ASTM F1967-19 standard that the Commission incorporates by reference into 16 CFR part 1215. The standard is reasonably available to interested parties, and interested parties may purchase a copy of the standard from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA; phone: 610-832-9585; www.astm.org. A copy of the standard can also be inspected at CPSC's Division of the Secretariat, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA; 5 U.S.C. 801-808) states that, before a rule may take effect, the agency issuing the rule must submit the rule, and certain related information, to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1). The submission must indicate whether the rule is a “major rule.” The CRA states that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a rule qualifies as a “major rule.” Pursuant to the CRA, OIRA designated this rule as not a “major rule,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). In addition, to comply with the CRA, the Office of the General Counsel will submit the required information to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General.

Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program, or, for children's products, on tests on a sufficient number of samples by a third party conformity assessment body accredited by the Commission to test according to the applicable requirements. As noted, standards issued under section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA are “consumer product safety standards.” Thus, they are subject to the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA.

Because infant bath seats are children's products, samples of these products must be tested by a third party conformity assessment body whose accreditation has been accepted by the Commission. These products also must comply with all other applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead content requirements in section 101 of the CPSIA, the tracking label requirement in section 14(a)(5) of the CPSA, and the consumer registration form requirements in section 104(d) of the CPSIA.

In accordance with section 14(a)(3)(B)(iv) of the CPSIA, the Commission has previously published a notice of requirements (NOR) for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing infant bath seats (75 FR 31688, September 4, 2010). The NOR provided the criteria and process for our acceptance of accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing infant bath seats to 16 CFR part 1215. The NORs for all mandatory standards for durable infant or toddler products are listed in the Commission's rule, “Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies,” codified at 16 CFR part 1112.

CPSC staff from the Directorate for Laboratory Sciences, Division of Mechanical Engineering, analyzed testing revisions to the infant bath seat standard and found that the revised tests use existing equipment and similar testing protocols. Testing laboratories that have demonstrated competence for testing in accordance with ASTM F1967-13 will have the competence to test in accordance with the revised standard ASTM F1967-19. Therefore, the Commission considers the existing CPSC-accepted laboratories for testing to ASTM F1967-13 to be capable of testing to ASTM F1967-19 as well. Therefore, the Commission considers the existing accreditations that the Commission has accepted for testing to this standard also to cover testing to the revised standard. Accordingly, the existing NOR for this standard will remain in place, and CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies are expected to update the scope of the testing laboratories' accreditation to reflect the revised standard in the normal course of renewing their accreditation.

The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public procedure are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The Commission concludes that when the Commission updates a reference to an ASTM standard that the Commission has incorporated by reference under section 104(b) of the CPSIA, notice and comment is not necessary.

Under the process set out in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, when ASTM revises a standard that the Commission has previously incorporated by reference as a Commission standard for a durable infant or toddler product under section 104(b)(1)(b) of the CPSIA, that revision will become the new CPSC standard, unless the Commission determines that ASTM's revision does not improve the safety of the product. Thus, unless the Commission makes such a determination, the ASTM revision becomes CPSC's standard by operation of law. The Commission is allowing ASTM F1967-19 to become CPSC's new standard. The purpose of this direct final rule is merely to update the reference in the Code of Federal Regulations so that it reflects accurately the version of the standard that takes effect by statute. Public comment will not impact the substantive changes to the standard or the effect of the revised standard as a consumer product safety standard under section 104(b) of the CPSIA. Under these circumstances, notice and comment are not necessary. In Recommendation 95-4, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) endorsed direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite promulgating rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comment. See 60 FR 43108 (August 18, 1995). ACUS recommended that agencies use the direct final rule process when they act under the “unnecessary” prong of the good cause exemption in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Consistent with the ACUS recommendation, the Commission is publishing this rule as a direct final rule because we do not expect any significant adverse comments.

Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will become effective on December 22, 2019. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including an assertion challenging the rule's underlying premise or approach, or a claim that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without change.

Should the Commission receive a significant adverse comment, the Commission would withdraw this direct final rule. Depending on the comments and other circumstances, the Commission may then incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, providing an opportunity for public comment.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that agencies review proposed and final rules for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. The RFA applies to any rule that is subject to notice and comment procedures under section 553 of the APA. Id. As explained, the Commission has determined that notice and comment are not necessary for this direct final rule. Thus, the RFA does not apply. We also note the limited nature of this document, which updates the incorporation by reference to reflect the mandatory CPSC standard that takes effect under section 104 of the CPSIA.

The standard for infant bath seats contains information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The revisions made no changes to that section of the standard. Thus, the revisions will not have any effect on the information collection requirements related to the standard.

The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the CPSC for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety rules,” thus, implying that the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. Therefore, a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when it becomes effective.

Under the procedure set forth in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, when a voluntary standard organization revises a standard upon which a consumer product safety standard was based, the revision becomes the CPSC standard within 180 days of notification to the Commission, unless the Commission determines that the revision does not improve the safety of the product, or the Commission sets a later date in the Federal Register . The Commission has not set a different effective date. Thus, in accordance with this provision, this rule takes effect 180 days after we received notification from ASTM of revision to this standard. As discussed in the preceding section, this is a direct final rule. Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will become effective on December 22, 2019.

For the reasons stated above, the Commission amends Title 16 CFR chapter II as follows:

Public Comments

On Monday, November 5, 2018 (83 FR 55329-55332), the Department of Defense published a proposed rule titled “Transitional Compensation (TC) for Abused Dependents” for a 60-day public comment period. Fifteen public comments were received, and all were supportive of the program. The Department thanks the commenters for their support. This section of the preamble responds to the public comments.

Four of the 15 comments discussed the general eligibility of dependents for the program, specifically the inclusion of step and adopted children, unborn children, and non-married domestic partners. With regard to general eligibility for dependents, the definition of “dependent child” is provided in section 1059(i) of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.). It includes step, adopted, and unborn children, so long as the step/adopted children resided with the Service member at the time of the abuse offense or the dependent spouse was pregnant with the unborn child at the time of the offense. Non-married domestic partners, to include boyfriends, girlfriends, or roommates, are not military dependents and are therefore not eligible to receive any military benefits. No changes were made to the rule as a result of these comments.

Three comments questioned the duration of payments. Two suggested that the 36-month payment duration is unnecessarily long, and the third supported the use of the full 36-month duration of payments to allow the abused dependents ample time to recover financially. Section 1059(e) of title 10, U.S.C., read in conjunction with 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(9), authorizes the Secretaries of the Military Departments to make TC payments to abused dependents for a period of between 12 and 36 months at their discretion pursuant to policies prescribed for this purpose. By policy, the DoD has further restricted the payment duration to be no less than either the remaining unserved portion of the Service member's obligated service contract length or 12 months, whichever is greater. In practice, the majority of abused dependents receive TC benefits for the full 36-month period authorized by law. No changes were made to the rule as a result of these comments.

Additionally, three comments expressed concerns over the program's recertification eligibility restrictions that require recipients to forfeit benefits if they cohabitate with the abusive former Service member or remarry. Two of these comments stressed that a large percentage of abuse victims return at some point to the abuser before eventually leaving for good. The purpose of the Department's TC program is to remove the financial disincentive that could otherwise discourage abuse victims from reporting and ultimately leaving an abusive environment. Continuing to pay recipients who return to the abusive environment runs counter to the policy's purpose. Abuse victims may return to the abuser, as referenced by the commenters, due to financial hardships; the Department's TC program helps alleviate that potential incentive to return. Another purpose of the Department's TC program is to assist abuse victims in rebuilding their lives after the abuse incidents and resultant loss of household military income. Remarriage by an abuse victim is a key indication that they have begun that new life and no longer require government assistance. Other support programs, to include ex-spousal support, survivor benefits, and annuitant programs typically include similar remarriage forfeiture provisions. No changes were made to the rule as a result of these comments.

As the result of additional internal review, clarifying and style-related edits were made throughout the rule.

This program was established by Congress for abused dependents of military personnel through the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Pub. L. 103-160). This rule consolidates and clarifies existing procedural requirements established by the Act and currently found in internal DoD guidance, DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1342.24, Transitional Compensation for Abused Dependents which was last updated in January 16, 1997 and can be found at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/134224p.pdf.

The statute authorized temporary payments for families in which the Service member had been court-martialed with a qualifying sentence (forfeiture of all pay and allowances, or bad conduct discharge, or dishonorable discharge, or in the instance of officers and commissioned warrant officers, dismissal from the Service) or was being administratively separated from the military as a result of a dependent-abuse offense. DoD began authorizing payments in August 1995 in accordance with DoDI 1342.24.

To be eligible for the benefit, a family member (spouse or dependent child) must have been living in the home of the Service member. The Service member must have been administratively separated for a dependent-abuse offense; or convicted of a dependent-abuse offense and either separated or sentenced to a forfeiture of all pay and allowances (under a court-martial sentence).

A dependent-abuse offense must be the basis for the administrative separation or conviction, although it does not have to be the primary reason. In exceptional cases where a member was separated for a reason other than a dependent abuse offense but a dependent abuse event was still determined to have occurred, the Secretary of the Military Department concerned may grant transitional compensation benefits to the dependents. Active duty victims of dependent-abuse are also eligible for transitional compensation, when the offender is also active duty.

• Amount of the benefit: The compensation amount is based on the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation rate, which changes annually. Current amounts can be found at the Department of Veterans Affairs Dependency and Indemnity Compensation website at https://benefits.va.gov/compensation/types-dependency_and_indemnity.asp.

• Length of the benefit: The transitional compensation benefit is available for no less than the longer of 12 months or the unserved portion of the Service member's obligated active service. Compensation will not extend beyond 36 months.

• Maintaining eligibility: Individuals become ineligible for compensation and benefits if they remarry or move back in with the former Service member while receiving benefits.

• Recertifying eligibility: If compensation is available for more than 12 months, recertification is required annually to ensure eligibility for transitional compensation.

• Other benefits: As part of the Transitional Compensation Program, individuals may be eligible for other benefits including medical care, exchange privileges, and commissary privileges.

Transitional compensation is one of the many resources available to military families. Each installation's Family Advocacy Program or legal assistance office can help a family apply for transitional compensation as well as other means of assistance.

Per DoD's Financial Management Regulation at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/current/07b/07b_60.pdf, transitional compensation payments are not taxable. Transitional compensation recipients should not expect to receive a Form 1099 for tax purposes. Also, recipients need not report transitional compensation payments on their tax return.

According to law and DoD Policy, transitional compensation for a dependent spouse or former spouse is at the same rate as defined in 38 U.S.C. 1311—Dependency & Indemnity Compensation to a Surviving Spouse. There is also an additional amount for children under this section. For children without a mil-spouse parent, the amount is the same as the rate defined in 38 U.S.C. 1313—Dependency & Indemnity Compensation to Children. You can find annual updates to these rates on the DoD Comptroller's website at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Volume_07b.pdf.

The intent of this program is to encourage victims of dependent abuse to come forward and report abuse, provide assistance to victims in separating from an abuser, inform victims of resources available to them as victims of dependent-abuse, ensure the safety and well-being of victims, and ensure the Department of Defense does not leave a spouse and family financially destitute when an abusing Service member is discharged from the military for a dependent-abuse offense. In accordance with statute, the rate of payment varies based on the number of dependents impacted, and is designed to assist with living expenses such as food, clothing and housing. The Department spends approximately $17M each fiscal year in transitional compensation payments. This final rule will not result in any changes to the number of TC recipients or the amount they are paid.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a “significant regulatory action,” nor is it economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This final rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because this final rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. We 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. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.

The Department of Defense certifies that this final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Section 111.6(f)(1) of this final rule contains information collection requirements. These reporting requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned OMB Control Number 0704-0578, “Transitional Compensation for Abused Dependents (TCAD).”

The applicable Systems of Records Notice (SORN) is T7347b, Defense Military Retiree and Annuity Pay System Records (January 7, 2009, 74 FR 696), http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/DOD-wide-SORN-Article-View/Article/570196/t7347b/. The Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) is available at https://www.dfas.mil/dam/jcr:5cf8a068-89c7-47eb-b844-1e2020ed5f73/Defense%20Retiree%20and20Annuitant%20Pay%20System%20(DRAS)%202016.pdf; or https://www.dfas.mil/dfas/foia/privacyimpactassessments.html.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This final rule will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.

Unless otherwise noted, these terms and their definitions are for the purposes of this part.

Dependent abuse offense. Conduct by an individual while a Military Service member on active duty for a period of more than 30 days that involves abuse of a then-current spouse or a dependent child of the Service member and that is a criminal offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or another criminal code applicable to the jurisdiction where the act of abuse is committed. The term “involves abuse of the then-current spouse or a dependent child” means that the criminal offense is against the person of that spouse or a dependent child. Crimes that may qualify as dependent-abuse offenses include sexual assault, rape, sodomy, assault, battery, murder, and manslaughter. (This is not an exhaustive or exclusive listing of dependent-abuse offenses, but is provided for illustrative purposes only. The facts and circumstances of a particular case should always be interpreted in a manner most favorable to the spouse or a dependent child of the member when determining whether the conduct constitutes a “dependent abuse offense.”)

Dependent child. As defined in 10 U.S.C. 1059.

Exchange stores. The Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the Navy Exchange, the Marine Corps Exchange, and the Coast Guard Exchange.

Parent. The natural father or mother, or father or mother through adoption. For purposes of TC, parent does not include persons who have stood “in loco parentis” to a dependent child.

Secretary concerned. Includes the Secretary of the cognizant Military Department and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, when applicable.

Service member. Includes former Service members, where appropriate.

Spouse. An individual married to a Service member, but does not include a domestic partner.

I. General Information A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this final agency action without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because no significant EPA judgment is involved in making findings of failure to submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, where states have made no submission to meet the requirement. Thus, notice and public procedures are unnecessary to take this action. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0452. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, William Jefferson Clinton Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 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 Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.

For questions related to specific states mentioned in this document, please contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office:

In June 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. See 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). On July 12, 2016, the EPA, as part of the second round of area designations for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS, designated four areas of the country as nonattainment for the 1-hour primary 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. 1 See 81 FR 45039, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. These area designations had an effective date of September 12, 2016.

Areas designated as nonattainment for the SO 2 NAAQS are subject to the general nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA section 172 and to the SO 2 -specific planning requirements of subpart 5 of part D of Title I of the CAA (sections 191 and 192). All components of the SO 2 part D nonattainment area SIP, including the emissions inventory, attainment demonstration, reasonably available control measures (RACM) including reasonably available control technology (RACT), enforceable emission limitations and control measures, reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, nonattainment new source review (NNSR), and contingency measures, are due to the EPA within 18 months of the effective date of designation of an area under CAA section 191. Thus, the nonattainment area SIPs for areas designated effective September 12, 2016, were due on March 12, 2018. These SIPs were required to demonstrate that their respective areas will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the effective date of designation, or by September 12, 2021.

If the EPA finds that a state has failed to make the required SIP submittal or that a submitted SIP is incomplete, then CAA section 179(a) establishes specific consequences, including the imposition of mandatory sanctions for the affected area, after a period of time. Additionally, such a finding also triggers an obligation under CAA section 110(c) for the EPA to promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years after the finding of failure to submit if the affected state has not submitted, and EPA has not approved, the required SIP submittal.

If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that a state has made the required complete SIP submittal for an area within 18 months of the effective date of this rulemaking, then, pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply in the affected nonattainment area. If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that the state has made a complete submission within 6 months after the offset sanction is imposed, then the highway funding sanction will apply in the affected nonattainment area, in accordance with CAA section 179(b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.31. The sanctions will not take effect if, within 18 months after the date of these findings, the EPA affirmatively determines that the affected state has made a complete SIP submittal addressing the deficiency for which the finding was made. Additionally, if the state makes the required SIP submittal and the EPA takes final action to approve the submittal within 2 years of the effective date of these findings, the EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP for the affected nonattainment area.

As of the date of signature of this action, the two states listed in Table 1 failed to make complete SIP submittals required under part D of Title 1 of the CAA by March 12, 2018, for two areas designated nonattainment effective September 12, 2016. 2 The EPA is, therefore, issuing findings of failure to submit for the two states responsible for these areas: Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County, Maryland, and St. Clair, Michigan.

The EPA believes that the human health or environmental risks addressed by this action will not have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment under the SO 2 NAAQS. The purpose of this rule is to make findings that the states named in this final action failed to submit the required SIPs to provide for timely attainment of the 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS, which will result in certain CAA-required deadlines for actions to provide for such attainment. In finding that certain states failed to submit a complete SIP that satisfies the nonattainment area plan requirements under section 172 and subpart 5 of part D of Title I of the CAA (sections 191 and 192) for the 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS, this action does not adversely affect the level of protection provided for human health or the environment. Rather, it is intended that the actions and deadlines resulting from this notice will in fact lead to greater protection for United States citizens, including minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, by ensuring that states meet their statutory obligation to develop and submit SIPs to ensure that areas make progress toward attaining the 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS.

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

This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because it finds that two states failed to meet the requirement in the CAA to submit SIPs under section 172 and subpart 5 of part D of Title I of the CAA (sections 191 and 192) for the SO 2 NAAQS.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This final rule does not establish any new information collection requirement apart from what is already required by law. This rule relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs under section 172 and subpart 5 of part D of Title I of the CAA (sections 191 and 192) which address the statutory requirements that apply to areas designated as nonattainment for the SO 2 NAAQS.

I certify that this rule 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. The rule is a finding that the named states have not made the necessary SIP submission for certain nonattainment areas to meet the requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.

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

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.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule finds that two states have failed to complete the requirement in the CAA to submit SIPs under section 172 and subpart 5 of part D of Title I of the CAA (sections 191 and 192) for the SO 2 NAAQS. No tribe is subject to the requirement to submit an implementation plan under section 172 or under subpart 5 of part D of Title I of the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the 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 action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is a finding that certain states have failed to submit a complete SIP that satisfies the nonattainment area plan requirements under section 172 and subpart 5 of part D of Title I of the CAA and does not directly or disproportionately affect children.

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

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. In finding that certain states have failed to submit a complete SIP that satisfies the nonattainment area planning requirements under section 172 and subpart 5 of part D of Title I of the CAA, this action does not adversely affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Section 307(b)(l) of the CAA indicates which federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final agency actions by the EPA under the CAA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”

The EPA has determined that this final rule consisting of findings of failure to submit certain required SIP provisions for two nonattainment areas for the 2010 primary 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS is “nationally applicable” and that it is “of nationwide scope and effect” within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). This final agency action affects two nonattainment areas that are located in two states, residing in two of the ten EPA Regional Offices and covered by two different federal judicial circuits. In addition, the rule addresses a common core of knowledge and analysis involved in formulating the decision and a common interpretation of the requirements of 40 CFR 51 appendix V applied to determining the completeness of SIPs in states across the country.

This determination is appropriate because in the 1977 CAA Amendments that revised CAA section 307(b)(l), Congress noted that the Administrator's determination that an action is of “nationwide scope or effect” would be appropriate for any action that has “scope or effect beyond a single judicial circuit.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323-324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope and effect of this action extends to the two judicial circuits that include the two states affected by this action. In these circumstances, CAA section 307(b)(1) and its legislative history authorize the Administrator to find the rule to be of “nationwide scope or effect” and thus to indicate that venue for challenges lies in the D.C. Circuit. Accordingly, the EPA is determining that this is a rule of nationwide scope or effect. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this final action is published in the Federal Register . Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not affect the finality of the action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Thus, any petitions for review of this action must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this final action is published in the Federal Register .

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this action with the date it was adopted by the SCAQMD and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On June 5, 2019, the EPA determined that the submittal for Rule 1325 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal review by the EPA.

The current SIP contains a version of Rule 1325 “Federal PM 2.5 New Source Review Program,” approved into the SIP on November 30, 2018. 1 The EPA's final approval of the rule identified above in Table 1 would have the effect of entirely superseding our prior approval of the same rule in the current SIP-approved program.

Rule 1325 addresses nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit requirements for major sources of PM 2.5 . The rule has been amended to address the single deficiency the EPA identified in our November 18, 2018 action regarding the lack of inclusion of volatile organic compounds and ammonia as PM 2.5 precursors when evaluating if a project will result in a major modification. The District also made minor clarifying edits.

In our November 30, 2018 action conditionally approving Rule 1325 into the SCAQMD portion of the California SIP, we determined that separate from the identified deficiency, the rule satisfied the applicable requirements for a PM 2.5 NNSR permit program. Therefore, in this action we are only evaluating whether the amendments to Rule 1325 address the identified deficiency and if the minor clarifying edits are approvable.

The definition of term Regulated NSR Pollutant was revised to include all PM 2.5 precursors. This revision corrects the deficiency previously identified by EPA.

The definitions of Major Polluting Facility in paragraph (b)(4) and Precursors in paragraph (b)(9), were revised to remove the existing August 14, 2017 applicability date since the date has passed. Likewise, revisions were made to section (f)—Two Year Limit on Facility Exemption, to implement the 70 ton per year applicability threshold, rather than provide a future effective date. In paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(15), a new definition for the terms Oxides of Nitrogen and Volatile Organic Compound, respectively, were added. These definitions are consistent with EPA definitions for these terms. Other minor capitalization edits were made throughout the rule. EPA finds each of these revisions approvable.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. Because the revisions to the rule are minor, or correct the identified deficiency, we do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we receive an adverse comment by October 21, 2019, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comment(s) in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive any timely adverse comment, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on November 19, 2019. This will incorporate the rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the rule listed in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 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 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 19, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

On July 31, 2019 (84 FR 37187), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of New Hampshire. In the NPRM, EPA proposed to redesignate the Central New Hampshire nonattainment area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS. EPA also proposed to approve the maintenance plan New Hampshire submitted to ensure the area will continue to maintain the SO 2 NAAQS. New Hampshire submitted the request for redesignation and state implementation plan (SIP) submittal on March 16, 2018.

The NPRM provides the rationale for EPA's proposed approval, which will not be restated here. EPA received no public comments during the public comment period in response to the NPRM.

EPA is redesignating the Central New Hampshire nonattainment area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS by amending 40 CFR 81.330. EPA is also approving the maintenance plan submitted by the State of New Hampshire for the Central New Hampshire nonattainment area for the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS as an addition to the New Hampshire SIP at 40 CFR 52.1520(e), “Nonregulatory.”

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for these actions to become effective immediately upon publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the State of planning requirements for this SO 2 nonattainment area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these actions to become effective on the date of publication of these actions.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 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 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 19, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Parts 52 and 81 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

On July 5, 2019, the EPA published a direct final rule (84 FR 32084) and a parallel proposal (84 FR 32114) to amend the Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines to revise the emission standards for particulate matter for new stationary compression ignition engines located in remote areas of Alaska. We stated in that direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by August 5, 2019, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register . We subsequently received adverse comment on that direct final rule and are withdrawing it. We will address those comments in any subsequent final action, which will be based on the parallel proposed rule also published on July 5, 2019. As stated in the direct final rule and parallel proposed rule, we will not institute a second comment period on this action.

The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:

Entities potentially affected by this rule are fuel producers and distributors involved in supplying gasoline to the Atlanta RVP Area.

The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which EPA is aware that potentially could be affected by this rule. Other types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected. To determine whether your organization could be affected by this rule, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

This final rule approves a request from the state of Georgia to change the federal RVP gasoline standard during the summer ozone season that runs from June 1 to September 15 of each year for the Atlanta RVP Area. Specifically, this final rule amends EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) to relax the federal summertime RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for the Georgia counties: Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale (the Atlanta RVP Area). This action finalizes EPA's May 14, 2019 proposal which was subject to public notice and comment (84 FR 21305). As a result of this final rule the gasoline in the Atlanta RVP Area will no longer be subject to the federal RVP summertime fuel standard of 7.8 psi and instead be subject to a federal standard of 9.0 psi, starting on June 1, 2020, and thereafter.

The preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows: Section III provides the history of the federal gasoline volatility regulation; Section IV describes the policy regarding relaxation of volatility standards in ozone nonattainment areas that are redesignated as attainment areas; Section V provides information specific to Georgia's request for the 13 counties addressed by this action; Section VI provides a response to the comments EPA received; and Section VII presents the final action in response to Georgia's request.

On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline nationwide was becoming increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function, thereby aggravating asthma and other respiratory conditions, increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under CAA section 211(c), EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868) that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the regulatory control periods that were established on a state-by-state basis in that final rule. The regulatory control periods addressed the portion of the year when peak ozone concentrations were expected. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of gasoline during the high ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)).

The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new CAA section 211(h) to address fuel volatility. CAA section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season (as defined by EPA in 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2)(ii)). CAA section 211(h) also prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.

On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with CAA section 211(h). The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, effective January 13, 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published in 1991, EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to their respective volatility programs. EPA's policy for approving such changes is described below in Section IV of this preamble.

The state of Georgia initiated the change being finalized in this action by requesting that EPA relax the 7.8 psi RVP standard to 9.0 psi for the counties of Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale. See Section V of this preamble for information specific to Georgia's request.

As stated in the preamble for EPA's amended Phase II volatility standards (56 FR 64706, December 12, 1991), any change in the gasoline volatility standard for a nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises the applicable standard for that area. Thus, for former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas where EPA mandated a Phase II volatility standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the federal 7.8 psi gasoline RVP requirement remains in effect, even after such an area is redesignated to attainment, until a separate rulemaking is completed that relaxes the federal summertime RVP standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.

As explained in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable gasoline RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, CAA section 107(d)(3) requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to CAA section 175A, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA will not relax the gasoline volatility standard unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent volatility standard. Similarly, a maintenance plan may be revised to relax the gasoline volatility standard if the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the area will maintain attainment for its duration.

At proposal, EPA considered the applicability of its longstanding policy and practice of approving RVP relaxations in areas that are either designated attainment or have been redesignated to attainment for all relevant ozone NAAQS. Given that a portion of the Atlanta RVP Area is a designated nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, EPA proposed to approve relaxation of the federal 7.8 psi RVP standard in areas that are designated as nonattainment. 2 In doing so, and as explained in the NPRM, EPA considered Agency practices and policy for the approval of requests from states to opt out of reformulated gasoline (RFG) and removal of state fuel regulations from approved SIPs. In these kinds of approvals, EPA typically considers whether a subject state has demonstrated that the relevant area will be able to attain the ozone NAAQS by the attainment date without relying on emissions reductions from either RFG or the state fuel regulation. EPA received no comments on extending this demonstration of non-interference with the timely attainment of the applicable NAAQS to approving requests for federal RVP relaxation in nonattainment areas. Therefore, while EPA continues to believe that relaxation of an applicable gasoline RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process or in the context of a maintenance plan for an area, EPA will now also evaluate whether the relaxation of the federal RVP standard in a nonattainment area is appropriate by applying similar considerations for the approval of state requests to opt out of RFG and remove state fuel regulations from approved SIPs.

On August 15, 2018, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources submitted a request to relax the federal gasoline RVP requirement in the Atlanta RVP Area. Georgia did not request relaxation of the federal RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi when it originally submitted the CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the 15-county 2008 ozone NAAQS, which EPA approved on June 2, 2017 (82. FR 25523). 3 Since then, EPA also designated a portion of the Atlanta RVP Area as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 4 Therefore, Georgia was required to demonstrate that relaxing the federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would not interfere with the maintenance of any NAAQS, including a revised maintenance plan for the 15-county 2008 ozone NAAQS area and with the timely attainment of the seven county 2015 ozone NAAQS area, and to submit a CAA section 110( l ) non-interference demonstration for the Atlanta RVP Area to support the request to relax the federal summertime RVP standard.

The State's August 15, 2018 submittal included a request to relax the federal RVP requirement in the Atlanta RVP Area, the CAA section 175A maintenance plan revision, and section 110( l ) non-interference demonstration. The non-interference demonstration shows that the relaxation would not interfere with the maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the 15-county 2008 ozone NAAQS maintenance area or any other applicable CAA requirement, including timely attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA finalized its approval of the maintenance plan revision and demonstration on April 23, 2019 (84 FR 16786). As part of the that rulemaking, EPA included an evaluation of Georgia's CAA section 110( l ) demonstration for the 15-county 2008 ozone NAAQS maintenance area and the seven-county 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area (including the additional control measures incorporated into the SIP to ensure timely attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS). 5 EPA received no adverse comments on our proposed approval of Georgia's CAA section 110( l ) demonstration. In addition, our proposed relaxation of the federal summertime RVP standard in the Atlanta RVP Area did not reopen that rulemaking.

EPA received the following three comments on its May 14, 2019 proposal to relax the federal summertime RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for the Atlanta RVP Area. Two of these comments were related to the proposal, and EPA has responded to them below. EPA also received one comment that was not related to any of the issues addressed in the proposal and EPA's response is provided below.

Comment: EPA received two comments that expressed a general concern over whether EPA should establish the effective date (compliance date) for this final rule as the publication date of the final rule in the Federal Register . The compliance date is the date that 9.0 psi RVP gasoline may be introduced into commerce in the Atlanta RVP Area. Both commenters noted that a relaxation during the middle of the summer fuel season without adequate notice would subject fuel retailers and marketers to suffer significant financial losses due to the nature of the fuel supply distribution system and in some instances a longer period of time to switch over to the less expensive federal 9.0 psi RVP gasoline. The commenters opined that EPA should provide for market stability by either making the RVP relaxation effective after the end of the federal summertime RVP control period ( i.e., September 15th) or 90 days after the final rule is published.

Response: EPA acknowledges that a change in a fuel specification may typically take a number of weeks or months to be fully realized or implemented throughout an entire area such as the Atlanta RVP area. EPA also did not receive any public comments that supported an immediate effective or compliance date of the final rule ( e.g., the federal RVP relaxation to occur during the 2019 summer high ozone season, which began on June 1, 2019). Although this action provides regulatory flexibility and relief from a more stringent and expensive requirement, EPA believes that regulated parties will not necessarily experience such relief equally, or within the same time period and as a matter of normal business practices as described in the submitted comments. As a result, EPA is setting a compliance date of June 1, 2020, which is when the next federal summertime RVP standard period commences.

Comment: EPA received another comment concerning the impact of the 1.0 psi RVP waiver that is provided to gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol and 15 percent ethanol (E10 and E15, respectively). The commenter expressed several concerns with the 1.0 psi waiver, such as an increase in ozone precursor emissions. The commenter states that a uniform RVP cap of 9.0 psi for summer gasoline would simplify fuel markets, result in protective level of emissions over wide geographic areas and avoid competitive issues where different fuels are required.

Response: The commenter's general concerns with the national 1.0 psi waiver for gasoline containing 10 to 15 percent ethanol are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 6 In this rulemaking, EPA is merely revising the federal summertime RVP standard for the Atlanta RVP Area pursuant to a request from the State. In addition, the State supported its request with the demonstration that the area will continue to maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and that the RVP change will not interfere with timely attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS or any other CAA requirement.

EPA is taking final action to approve Georgia's request for the Agency to relax the federal summertime RVP standard applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for the Atlanta RVP Area. Specifically, this action revises the applicable federal RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi provided at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) for the Georgia counties of Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale. This approval is based on Georgia's August 15, 2018 request and EPA's final determination in its April 23, 2019 final rule, that the State, as required by CAA section 110( l ), made an adequate demonstration to show that relaxation of this federal requirement would not interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Atlanta RVP Area, and is consistent with other CAA requirements including timely attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and therefore was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This rule provides meaningful burden reduction because it relaxes the federal RVP standard for gasoline, and as a result, fuel suppliers will no longer be required to provide the lower, 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in the Atlanta RVP Area during the summer months. Relaxing the federal volatility requirements is also beneficial because this action can improve the fungibility of gasoline by allowing the gasoline sold in the Atlanta RVP Area to be identical to the fuel sold in the remainder of the state.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are refiners, importers, or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in Georgia, and gasoline distributers and retail stations in Georgia. This action relaxes the federal summertime RVP standard for gasoline sold in Georgia's Atlanta RVP Area during the summertime high ozone season to allow the RVP for gasoline sold in these counties to rise from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities beyond those, if any, already required by or resulting from the CAA section 211(h) RVP program. Therefore, this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This rule does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandates that are specifically and explicitly set forth in CAA section 211(h) without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA.

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.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule affects only those refiners, importers, or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in the Atlanta RVP Area and gasoline distributers and retail stations in the Atlanta RVP Area. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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. EPA has no reason to believe that this action may disproportionately affect children since Georgia has provided evidence that a relaxation of the federal summertime RVP standard will not interfere with its attainment of the ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta RVP Area, or any other applicable CAA requirement. By separate action, EPA has finalized its approval of Georgia's revised maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including the state's non-interference demonstration that relaxation of the gasoline RVP standard in the Atlanta RVP Area to 9.0 psi RVP will not interfere with any other NAAQS, including the 2015 ozone NAAQS, or CAA requirement.

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

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it does not affect the applicable ozone NAAQS ( i.e., the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS), which establish the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. Georgia has demonstrated in its non-interference demonstration that this action will not interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in the Atlanta RVP Area for the 15-county 2008 ozone NAAQS maintenance area, or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA including timely attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Therefore, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations are not an anticipated result. The results of this evaluation are contained in EPA's rulemaking for Georgia's non-interference demonstration (84 FR 16786, April 23, 2019). A copy of Georgia's August 15, 2018 letter requesting that EPA relax the federal summertime RVP standard, including the technical analysis demonstrating that the less stringent gasoline RVP will not interfere with continued maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Atlanta RVP Area, or with any other applicable CAA requirement, including timely attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, have been placed in the public docket for this action.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 80 as follows:

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).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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-2018-0424 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 19, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0424, 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.

In the Federal Register of August 14, 2018 (83 FR 40272) (FRL-9981-10), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 8E8687) by Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc., c/o Landis International, Inc., P.O. Box 5126, Valdosta, GA 31603-5126. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180.603 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide dinotefuran (N-methyl-N′-nitro-N″;-[(tetrahydro-3-furanyl)methyl)] guanidine) and metabolites DN (1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine) and UF (1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)-urea), in or on persimmon at 2 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc., c/o Landis International, Inc., the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Two comments were received on the notice of filing; however, neither comment is relevant to this action.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .”

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for dinotefuran including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with dinotefuran follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

Dinotefuran is a neonicotinoid pesticide and acts as an agonist on insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Typically, low to moderate levels of neonicotinoids, such as dinotefuran, activate the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors causing stimulation of the peripheral nervous system (PNS). High levels of neonicotinoids (agonists) can overstimulate the PNS, maintaining cation channels in the open state which blocks the action potential and leads to paralysis.

The main target organ of toxicity for dinotefuran is the nervous system, but effects on the nervous system were only observed at high doses. Nervous system toxicity was manifested as clinical signs and decreased motor activity seen after acute dosing (in both rats and rabbits); changes in motor activity are consistent with effects on the nicotinic cholinergic nervous system seen after repeated dosing. The other significant effects were decreases in body weight and/or body weight gain, but even these effects occurred at or near the limit dose. Changes in spleen and thymus weights were seen in mice, rats, and dogs following subchronic and chronic dietary exposures. However, these weight changes were not corroborated with alterations in hematology parameters, histopathological lesions in these organs, or toxicity to the hematopoietic system. Furthermore, in the immunotoxicity studies in rats and mice, no effects on T-cell dependent antibody response (TDAR) were seen when tested up to the limit dose. There were also no changes in spleen and thymus weight, and there were no histopathological lesions in these organs. In addition, the developmental immunotoxicity study showed no effects on functionality of the immune system in rats following exposure to dinotefuran at the limit dose during the prenatal, postnatal, and post-weaning periods. Because of the lack of immunotoxicity seen in the immunotoxicity studies in mice, rats, and developing rats, the thymus weight changes seen in dogs and the spleen weight changes seen in mice and rats in the subchronic and chronic oral studies were not considered to be toxicologically relevant.

No systemic or neurotoxic effects were seen following repeated dermal applications at the limit dose to rats in the 28-day dermal toxicity study. Also, no systemic or portal of entry effects were seen following repeated inhalation exposure at the maximum obtainable concentrations to rats in the 28-day inhalation study. In the developmental toxicity study in rats, no maternal or developmental toxicity was seen at the limit dose. In rabbits, maternal toxicity manifested as clinical signs of neurotoxicity, but no developmental toxicity was seen. In the reproduction study in rats, parental, offspring, and reproductive toxicity was seen at the limit dose. Parental toxicity included decreased body weight weights/gains, transient decrease in food consumption, and decreased thyroid weights. Offspring toxicity was characterized as decreased forelimb grip strength or hindlimb grip strength in the F1 pups. There was no adverse effect on reproductive performance at any dose. In the developmental neurotoxicity study, no maternal or offspring toxicity was seen at any dose including the limit dose.

Dinotefuran is classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies. There was no evidence of mutagenicity in both the in vivo and in vitro assays.

Dinotefuran has low acute toxicity by oral, dermal, and inhalation exposure routes. It does not irritate the eye but causes a low level of skin irritation; it is not a dermal sensitizer.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by dinotefuran as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Human Health Risk Assessment to Support New Use on Imported Persimmon on page 18 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0424.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for dinotefuran used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B of the final rule published in the Federal Register of April 10, 2013 (78 FR 21267) (FRL-9381-5).

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to dinotefuran, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing dinotefuran tolerances in 40 CFR 180.603. EPA assessed dietary exposures from dinotefuran in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

Such effects were identified for dinotefuran. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues for all current crops.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008 NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues for all current crops.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that dinotefuran does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for dinotefuran. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for dinotefuran in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of dinotefuran. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Variable Volume Water Model (PRZM/VVWM), Pesticide Flooded Application Model (PFAM), and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of dinotefuran for acute exposures are estimated to be 84 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 154 ppb for ground water, and for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 19.5 ppb for surface water and 132 ppb for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 154 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 132 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure ( e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Dinotefuran is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf, ornamentals, vegetable gardens, roach and ant bait, pet spot-ons, indoor aerosol sprays, crack and crevice sprays, etc. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Because no dermal or inhalation endpoints were chosen for dinotefuran, residential handler and post-application residential dermal and inhalation exposure scenarios were not assessed. As a result, risk assessments were only completed for post-application scenarios in which incidental oral exposures are expected. Children (ages 1 to < 2 years old) may receive short-term hand-to-mouth exposures from post-application exposure to fogger application in indoor rooms or areas. Children (ages 1 to < 2 years old) may receive intermediate- and chronic/long-term hand-to-mouth exposures from post-application exposure to spot-on application to dogs (small). The post-application exposure and risk estimates for all existing residential uses resulted in risk estimates that are not of concern (MOEs ranged from 1,200 to 4,600). Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.

4. 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 dinotefuran to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and dinotefuran does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that dinotefuran does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the prenatal studies, no maternal or developmental toxicity was seen at the limit dose in rats. In rabbits, maternal toxicity manifested as clinical signs of neurotoxicity, but no developmental toxicity was seen. In the rat reproduction study, parental, offspring, and reproductive toxicity was seen at the limit dose. Parental toxicity included decreased body weight gain, transient decrease in food consumption, and decreased thyroid weights. Offspring toxicity was characterized as a decreased forelimb grip strength or hindlimb grip strength in the F 1 pups. There was no adverse effect on reproductive performance at any dose. In the developmental neurotoxicity study, no maternal or offspring toxicity was seen at any dose including the limit dose.

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

i. The toxicity database for dinotefuran is complete.

ii. The neurotoxic potential of dinotefuran has been adequately considered. Dinotefuran is a neonicotinoid and has a neurotoxic mode of pesticidal action. Consistent with the mode of action, changes in motor activity were seen in repeat-dose studies, including the subchronic neurotoxicity study. Additionally, decreased grip strength and brain weight were observed in the offspring of a multi-generation reproduction study albeit at doses close to the limit dose. For these reasons, a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study was required. The DNT study did not show evidence of a unique sensitivity of the developing nervous system; no effects on neurobehavioral parameters were seen in the offspring at any dose, including the limit dose.

iii. As discussed in Unit III.D.2., there is no evidence that dinotefuran results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues, corrected for additional residues which are of concern for the risk assessment only. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to dinotefuran in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by dinotefuran.

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to dinotefuran will occupy 10% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to dinotefuran from food and water will utilize 4.8% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of dinotefuran is expected.

3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

Dinotefuran is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to dinotefuran.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined food, water, and short-term residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 740. Because EPA's level of concern for dinotefuran is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

4. Intermediate- and long-term risk. Intermediate- and long-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate- and long-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

Dinotefuran is currently registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with intermediate- and long-term residential exposures to dinotefuran.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for intermediate- and long-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined food, water, and intermediate- and long-term residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 1,400 for children 1 to < 2 years old from background dietary exposures and post-application hand-to-mouth exposures from pet spot-on applications to small dogs. Although adults are expected to also have long-term post-application exposures to dinotefuran due to the pet spot-on treatments, quantitative dermal and inhalation assessments are not required since there was no dermal and inhalation hazard identified in the toxicity database and oral exposure is not anticipated for adults. Therefore, the intermediate- and chronic/long-term aggregate assessment for adults is equivalent to the chronic dietary exposure and risk assessment for the most highly exposed adult population subgroup, adults 20-49 years old, and is not of concern. Because EPA's level of concern for dinotefuran is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, dinotefuran is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to dinotefuran residues.

Adequate enforcement methodology, a high-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS) method for the determination of residues of dinotefuran, and the metabolites DN and UF; an HPLC/ultraviolet (UV) detection method for the determination of residues of dinotefuran; and HPLC/MS and HPLC/MS/MS methods for the determination of DN and UF) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.

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 an MRL for residues of dinotefuran on persimmons.

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of dinotefuran, N -methyl- N  ′-nitro- N  ″-[(tetrahydro-3-furanyl)methyl)] guanidine and metabolites DN (1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furmethyl)guanidine) and UF (1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-furmethyl)-urea), in or on persimmon at 2 ppm.

This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the 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 action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

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).

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

The portion of the site to be deleted from the NPL is: the residential portion of the site, identified as OU1, of the Vasquez Boulevard and I-70 Superfund Site, Denver CO. A Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion for this Site was published in the Federal Register (84 FR 2116) on February 6, 2019.

The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion originally was March 8, 2019; this date was extended to April 8, 2019 on www.regulations.gov, by email to interested community members, at public meetings, and by publication of notices in local newspapers. Twenty-seven public comments were received and expressed concerns about non-Superfund projects in the area, the extent of the remedy, and the source of the contaminants. The non-Superfund projects in the area are overseen by other agencies. The properties that were remediated under the Superfund process do not have additional restrictions placed on them. EPA investigations identified possible sources of contamination and the residential properties that needed cleanup. The remedy implemented removed the contaminants associated with the site. Institutional controls are in place for those properties that did not provide access to sample or cleanup. A responsiveness summary was prepared and placed in both the docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-1999-0010, on www.regulations.gov, and in the local repositories listed above.

EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of portions of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability, in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery Superfund Site, Bountiful, Salt Lake County, Utah. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was published in the Federal Register (84 FR 35356) on July 23, 2019.

The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was August 22, 2019. One public comment in support of the deletion was received; no adverse comments were received.

EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Mystery Bridge Rd./U.S. Highway 20 Superfund Site, Evansville, WY. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was published in the Federal Register (84 FR 35360) on July 23, 2019.

The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was August 22, 2019. No public comments were received.

EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: