[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44648-44649]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4321-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Nebraska; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4321-DR), dated June 26, 2017, and
related determinations.

DATES: The amendment was issued on September 8, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael R.
Scott, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Dolph A. Diemont as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-20452 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request (ICR)
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 Identification of the Information Collection  -  Title and Numbers
	Title: Methylene Chloride; Regulation of Paint and Coating Removal for Consumer Use Under TSCA §6(a)
	EPA ICR No.: 2556.03
	OMB Control No.: 2070-0204
	Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0303
 Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prohibits the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal. It requires each person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce methylene chloride for non-prohibited uses to notify companies to whom methylene chloride is shipped of the prohibitions through the Safety Data Sheet (SDS). It also requires each person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce (except for retailers) any methylene chloride to retain in one location at the headquarters of the company, or at the facility for which the records were generated, documentation showing: (i) the name, address, contact, and telephone number of companies to whom methylene chloride was shipped; (ii) a copy of the notification provided to companies to whom the methylene chloride was shipped; and (iii) the amount of methylene chloride shipped. This information must be retained for 3 years from the date of shipment.
EPA established these requirements under section 6(a) of TSCA in response to a final determination that the consumer use of methylene chloride in paint and coating removal presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health. This Information Collection Request (ICR) consists of the downstream notification and the recordkeeping requirement.
 Summary Total Burden and Costs
                              Activity/Respondent

                             Number of Respondents
                           Responses per Respondent
                                Total Responses
                              Burden per Response
                                    (hours)
                             Total Burden (hours)
                                     Cost
                                  Respondents
                                      14
                                       1
                                      14
                                       -
                                     6.96
                                     $298
                                    Agency
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
Supporting Statement
   Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.
Under section 6(a) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. § 2605(a)), if EPA determines that a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant, under the conditions of use, EPA must by rule apply one or more requirements to the extent necessary so that the chemical substance no longer presents such risk.

With respect to a chemical substance listed in the 2014 update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments for which a completed risk assessment was published prior to the date of enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, TSCA section 26(l)(4) (15 U.S.C. § 2625(l)(4)) provides that EPA "may publish proposed and final rules under [TSCA section 6(a)] that are consistent with the scope of the completed risk assessment for the chemical substance and consistent with the other applicable requirements of [TSCA section 6]". Methylene chloride is such a chemical substance.

Section 6(a) of TSCA authorizes EPA to:
 Prohibit or restrict manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce of a chemical substance, or limit the amount of a chemical substance which may be manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce;
 Prohibit or restrict the manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce of the chemical substance for a particular use, of for a particular use above a specified concentration, or limit the amount of a chemical substance which may be manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for a particular use, or of for a particular use above a specified concentration;
 Require minimum warnings or instructions with respect to a chemical substance's use, distribution, or disposal;
 Require manufacturers or processors to make and retain certain records, or monitor or conduct certain tests;
 Prohibit or regulate any manner of commercial use;
 Prohibit or regulate any manner of disposal by a chemical substance's manufacturer or processor or any other person who uses or disposes of it for commercial purposes; and/or
 Require manufacturers or processors to give notice of the unreasonable risk of injury to distributors and, to the extent reasonably ascertainable, other persons in possession of a chemical substance; to give public notice of the unreasonable risk determination; and to replace or repurchase the chemical substance.
For methylene chloride, this regulation at 40 CFR 751:
 Prohibits all persons from manufacturing, processing, and distributing in commerce methylene chloride for all consumer paint and coating removal
 Prohibits the distribution in commerce of methylene chloride in paint and coating removal products to and by retailers
 Requires downstream notification of these prohibitions
 Requires limited recordkeeping

The downstream notification requirement under 40 CFR 751 mandates that each person (excluding retailers of products to consumer end users) who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce methylene chloride for any use must provide notification of the prohibitions to companies to whom methylene chloride was shipped through specific changes to the SDS.
The recordkeeping requirement under 40 CFR 751 mandates that each person (excluding retailers of products to consumer end users) who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce any methylene chloride must retain in one location at the headquarters of the company, or at the facility for which the records were generated, documentation showing: the name, address, contact, and telephone number of companies to whom methylene chloride was shipped; a copy of the notification provided to companies to whom the methylene chloride was shipped; and the amount of methylene chloride shipped. This information must be retained for 3 years from the date of shipment.
   Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the Agency has made of the information received from the current collection
The information collection activities covered by this ICR are necessary to mitigate the unreasonable risks identified for the consumer use of methylene chloride for paint and coating removal. Without the downstream notification requirement, there is a greater likelihood that non-prohibited uses of methylene chloride could be diverted to prohibited uses, or that users would buy or use materials that they do not realize are subject to the restrictions in the final rule. This would result in continuation of the risks that EPA has determined to be unreasonable. Downstream notification is necessary for effective enforcement of the rule as it provides a record of notification on use restrictions throughout the supply chain.
EPA also has authority under section 6 of TSCA to require recordkeeping related to the regulatory requirements imposed by EPA. This is especially important where, as here, such records are needed for effective enforcement of the TSCA section 6 rule.
EPA. This information collection is tailored to ensure minimal burden and will provide EPA with information upon inspection of such materials. There are no recurring reporting requirements to submit information to EPA under the information collection request.
Downstream Companies. Under 40 CFR 751, manufacturers, processors, and distributors in commerce of methylene chloride must notify companies downstream upon shipment of methylene chloride about the prohibitions. The information submitted to downstream companies through the SDS would provide knowledge and awareness of the restrictions to these companies. Under 40 CFR 751, retailers are specifically excluded from the definition of distribute in commerce to avoid the burden associated with providing notifications to the purchasing end user.
The regulated entities will compile and retain records that are necessary as a reference for EPA. These records will help ensure that entities throughout the methylene chloride supply chain are aware of the regulations in 40 CFR 751 and that companies upstream can show that entities to which they supply were notified of the restrictions. These recordkeeping requirements are also necessary to permit EPA to conduct enforcement activities and to ensure compliance within the regulated community.
   Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.
There will be no information collection by EPA; all information collection is by third parties and consists of the notification that occurs via SDS. Therefore, there is no need for any technology facilitation related to information collection activities. The recordkeeping requirement does not specify a particular technology or method of retaining the required information.
   Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.
 EPA's collection pursuant to the TSCA section 6(a) regulation does not duplicate any other collection. EPA expects that the records firms maintain as part of their routine business recordkeeping will satisfy EPA's recordkeeping requirement. There is no other Federal program that requires the information collection activities related to the prohibitions in 40 CFR 751.
   If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe the methods used to minimize burden.
 EPA believes that the downstream notification and recordkeeping requirements do not unduly burden small businesses. Because a revised SDS involves modifying an existing document and that the records firms maintain as part of their routine business recordkeeping will satisfy EPA's recordkeeping requirement, EPA concludes that the information collection request has no significant impacts on any of the entities subject to downstream notification as firms subject to this requirement have a cost-revenue impact of less than 1 percent.
   Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.
  Due to the nature of the triggering events that initiate information collection activities under the information collection, less frequent collection is not feasible. This collection only includes reporting information to third parties and does not require reporting information to EPA.
   Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner:
requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;
requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;
in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;
requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;
that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
 Not applicable.
   If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken in response to the comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.
    Describe efforts to consult with persons outside EPA to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.
    Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.
Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d) in proposing to renew this ICR, EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register that will provide a 60-day public comment period. The comments received and any additional public comment for this action will be posted in the docket.
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), in addition to the public notice in the Federal Register, EPA staff will contact appropriate stakeholders and ask them for their assessment of the regulatory burden estimates expressed by the Agency in this ICR. A summary of these consultations will be provided in the supporting statement during the second comment period.
   Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.
Not applicable.
   Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.
EPA will not be collecting information. Therefore, confidential information is not expected to be submitted to EPA.
   Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.
 The information collection does not include questions of a sensitive nature.
   Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:
 Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.
If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.
Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included under `Annual Cost to Federal Government'.
The collection specifies third party notification and recordkeeping requirements on persons who manufacturer, process, or distribute methylene chloride. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes associated with industries most likely affected by the paperwork requirements are described below:
213112
314999
Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations
All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills
324110
Petroleum Refineries
324191
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
325110
Petrochemical Manufacturing
325120
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
325199
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
325211
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
325212
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
325510
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
325520
Adhesive Manufacturing
325611
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
325612
325613
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
325998
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
326113
Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing
326199
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
326220
Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
326299
All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
327310
Cement Manufacturing
327992
Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
332117
Powder Metallurgy Part Manufacturing
332119
Metal Crown, Closure, and Other Metal Stamping (except Automotive)
332216
Saw Blade and Hand Tool Manufacturing
332321
Metal Window and Door Manufacturing
332410
Power Boiler and Heat Exchanger Manufacturing
332618
Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufacturing
332710
Machine Shops
332721
Precision Turned Product Manufacturing
332722
Bolt, Nut, Screw, Rivet, and Washer Manufacturing
332811
Metal Heat Treating
332812
Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers
333132
Oil and Gas Field Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
333515
Cutting Tool and Machine Tool Accessory Manufacturing
332994
Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing
333996
Fluid Power Pump and Motor Manufacturing
332999
All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
333515
Cutting Tool and Machine Tool Accessory Manufacturing
333911
Pump and Pumping Equipment Manufacturing
333996
Fluid Power Pump and Motor Manufacturing
334511
Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing
334512

334516
Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use
Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing
335312
335911
Motor and Generator Manufacturing
Storage Battery Manufacturing
335912
335921
Primary Battery Manufacturing
Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing
335991
Carbon and Graphite Product Manufacturing
336340
Motor Vehicle Brake System Manufacturing
336411
Aircraft Manufacturing
336413
Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing
336414
Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
336611
Ship Building and Repairing
339114
424310
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Piece Goods, Notions, and Other Dry Goods Merchant Wholesalers
424690
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
424710
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
562211
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
562213
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators

Under 40 CFR 751, each person who manufactures, processes, or distributes (not including consumer retailers) methylene chloride for any use is required to notify companies to whom methylene chloride is shipped of the prohibitions in 40 CFR 751 via the SDS, prior to or concurrent with the shipment; and each person who manufactures, processes, or distributes (not including consumer retailers) methylene chloride for any use is required to retain records for 3 years showing: (a) The name, address, contact, and telephone number of companies to whom methylene chloride or products containing methylene chloride was shipped, (b) a copy of the downstream notification provided, and (c) the amount of methylene chloride shipped.
EPA developed estimates for number of manufacturers, processors, and distributors affected. Based on EPA's Public 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) data (EPA 2016), there are an estimated 9 sites manufacturing or importing methylene chloride and 10 sites processing or using the chemical for a total of 19 manufacturers and processors. Manufacturers and processors do not need to repeatedly update SDS forms; once the form is updated once, the requirements are satisfied. However, new products or new firms will need to comply. One manufacturer and one processor are included as an estimate for new firms or new products that may need to comply with this ICR.
To estimate the number of wholesaler firms distributing products containing methylene chloride, the ratio of the number of Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesaler firms (NAICS 4246) to Basic Chemical Manufacturing firms (NAICS 3251) is applied to the number of manufacturers and processors of methylene chloride:
Ratio=8,079 Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesaler firms1,266 Basic Chemical Manufacturing firms=6.38
Wholesaler Firms ofProducts Containing MC=19 Manufactuers andProcessors of MC □ 6.38 Ratio=121
The number of Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesaler firms and the number of Basic Chemical Manufacturing firms are from the 2018 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) data series for employer firms (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). This estimate is conservative in that it includes all wholesalers of products containing methylene chloride. Wholesalers that only distribute methylene chloride-containing paint or coating removers for consumer uses would no longer be permitted to distribute those products, and thus would not have recordkeeping costs under 40 CFR 751. Most distributors fulfilled requirements during the previous ICR period; however, some firms may still need to respond to these requirements. To capture this potential burden, EPA assumes that ten percent of the estimated number of existing distributor firms may need to respond.
The total number of entities affected by the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of is estimated to be 14 (2 manufacturers or processors and 12 distributors). EPA was unable to estimate the potential for new firms to enter the market, which could affect this estimate over the time period of the ICR.
Downstream notification is considered a third-party notification. EPA expects that downstream notification will be accomplished through a specific modification to an already-existing chemical SDS that each manufacturer, processor, or distributor provides to downstream purchasers or users under the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200). EPA estimates that it will require 1 hour of technical labor for each affected manufacturer (including importer) and processor of methylene chloride and methylene chloride-containing products to make the required changes to the SDS. Once an SDS is annotated, the action would not need to be repeated; therefore, EPA estimates this as a one-time burden. However, this is a continuing requirement. Therefore, should new manufacturers, processors, or distributors of methylene chloride or methylene chloride-containing products or new methylene chloride-containing products enter the market, respondents may realize future burden. EPA has no information to estimate the potential for new methylene chloride-containing products or new respondents subject to 40 CFR 751 to enter the market over the time period of the ICR so the estimate is limited to a one-time burden for manufacturers, distributors, and processors.
The burden is estimated to occur during the first year of the ICR only. To develop an estimate of average annual burden across the time period of the ICR, EPA divided the burden per response equally across the three years. Therefore, average burden per respondent for each year is calculated as 1 hour/3 years = 0.33 hours/year.
Manufacturers (including importers), processors, and distributors (not including consumer retailers) of methylene chloride are required to retain for three years documentation showing: (i) The name, address, contact, and telephone number of companies to whom methylene chloride was shipped; (ii) a copy of the notification provided to companies to whom the methylene chloride was shipped; and (iii) the amount of methylene chloride shipped. EPA expects that this information would already be included in manufacturer and processor invoices that already are retained as part of routine business records for tax purposes (IRS, 2016a, IRS 2016b). However, distributors of products containing methylene chloride may not know how much methylene chloride is in each product they ship and may incur some additional time burden associated with determining this. While only some of these distributors are expected to have incremental recordkeeping costs under 40 CFR 751, EPA makes the simplifying assumption that each wholesaler firm will spend one hour researching and recording the methylene chloride concentration of the products they distribute.
In addition, once a wholesaler becomes familiar with the amount of methylene chloride in each product shipped, the action would not need to be repeated; therefore, EPA estimates this as a one-time burden. However, this is a continuing requirement. Therefore, should new distributors of methylene chloride-containing products or new methylene chloride-containing products enter the market, respondents may realize future burden. EPA has no information to estimate the potential for new methylene chloride-containing products or new respondents subject to the requirements to enter the market over the time period of the ICR so the estimate is limited to a one-time burden for distributors.
To develop an estimate of average annual burden across the time period of the ICR, EPA divided the burden per response equally across the three years. Therefore, average burden per respondent for each year is calculated as 1 hour/3 years = 0.33 hours/year.
EPA assumes no direct costs are associated with this collection. Labor costs are based on fully loaded wage rates. The estimated wage for manufacturers and processors is $80.50. The estimated wage for distributors is $36.58. More detail on the calculation of wage rates is presented in Attachment 2.
Details on the burden estimate calculations per activity are presented in Table 1. Table 1 presents the estimated average annual burden for each activity and each respondent type. Note: The total number of respondents includes an entity who is counted twice as a processor and distributor.

Table 1. Methylene Chloride Manufacturers, Processors, Distributors Downstream Notification and Recordkeeping Activities[1]
IC# 1. Methylene Chloride Manufacturers, Processors, Distributors Downstream Notification and Recordkeeping Activities[1]
Activity/Respondent
                             Number of Respondents
                           Responses per Respondent
                                Total Responses
                              Burden per Response
                             Total Burden (hours)
                                     Cost

                                    (hours)

                             Rule Familiarization
Methylene chloride manufacturers
                                       1
                                       1
                                       1
                                     0.167
                                     0.167
                                     $13
Methylene chloride processors
                                       1
                                       1
                                       1
                                     0.167
                                     0.167
                                     $13
Methylene chloride distributors
                                      12
                                       1
                                      12
                                     0.167
                                     2.004
                                     $73
                            Downstream Notification
Methylene chloride manufacturers
                                       1
                                       1
                                       1
                                     0.33
                                     0.33
                                     $27
Methylene chloride processors
                                       1
                                       1
                                       1
                                     0.33
                                     0.33
                                     $27
                                 Recordkeeping
Methylene chloride distributors
                                      12
                                       1
                                      12
                                     0.33
                                     3.96
                                     $145
                 Total Burden for all Activities by Respondent
Methylene chloride Manufacturers
                                       1
                                       1
                                       1
                                     0.50
                                     0.50
                                     $40
Methylene chloride Processors
                                       1
                                       1
                                       1
                                     0.50
                                     0.50
                                     $40
Methylene chloride Distributors
                                      12
                                       1
                                      12
                                     0.50
                                     5.96
                                     $218
Total
                                      14

                                      14

                                     6.96
                                     $298

   Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).
 The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.
If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.
Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.
There are no operational and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
   Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies may also aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.
There will only be third-party notification and recordkeeping requirements.
This collection requires third-party notification and recordkeeping. EPA will not receive any information as a result of the collection. Therefore, EPA estimates that it costs the Agency approximately $0 to carry out the activities associated with the information collection activities covered by this ICR. Collections occur only by third parties and will occur via SDS.
   Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in hour or cost burden.
There is a decrease in total annual costs compared with those identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. Burden decreased tenfold from 69 hours to 6.96 hours and from $3,712 to $298. The decrease in the respondent burden was caused by a significant decrease in the number of estimated respondents. Most respondents need to perform the actions required by this ICR once and responded to the requirements during the previous ICR period. However, EPA does not assume that the number of responses has dropped to zero. Therefore, EPA has estimated low levels of respondents in each category to account for new firms or new products.
   For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.
Not applicable.
   If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
Not applicable.
   Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."
EPA does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.
References
U.S. Census Bureau (2021). 2018 Statistics of U.S. Businesses- Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, Annual Payroll, and Estimated Receipts by Enterprise Employment Size for the United States, All Industries: 2018. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/econ/susb/2018-susb-annual.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2018). Downloadable of the Non-
      Confidential 	Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Database. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/access-cdr-data#2020

U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (2016a). https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small	Businesses-&-Self-Employed/What-kind-of-records-should-I-keep, accessed
      April 22, 2016.

U.S. Internal Revenue service (IRS) (2015). Publication 583. Starting a Business and
      Keeping Records. January 2015. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p583.pdf
List of Attachments
The attachments listed below can be found in the docket for this ICR or by using the hyperlink that is provided in the list below. The docket for this ICR is accessible electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0303.
Ref.
Title
1.
 Regulations at 40 CFR 751
2.
Wage Rates


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 198 (Wednesday, October 14, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61752-61757]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25954]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0479; FRL-9935-58-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Low Emission Vehicle Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the Delaware State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The SIP revision pertains to adoption by Delaware of a Low
Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program. The Clean Air Act (CAA) grants
authority to EPA to adopt Federal standards for emissions from new
motor vehicles, and generally preempts states from doing so. However,
the CAA grants California authority to adopt its own motor vehicle
standards, as long as EPA approves California's program via a
preemption waiver. The CAA also allows other states to then adopt
California's vehicle standards for which EPA has granted such a waiver,
provided the state's standards are identical to California's standards
and the state adopts the standards at least two years prior to their
commencement. Delaware adopted California emission standards for
passenger cars and trucks, and medium-duty passenger and other medium-
duty vehicles in 2010, effective beginning with new vehicles sold in
model year 2014. Delaware amended its LEV program regulation in 2013 to
incorporate California's most recent LEV regulatory updates to its
program. It is this program that Delaware submitted to EPA in August
2014 for inclusion into Delaware's SIP and which is the subject of this
rulemaking action. The purpose of this SIP revision is to reduce
vehicle emissions that contribute to formation

of ground level ozone, fine particulate matter, and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. EPA is approving Delaware's LEV SIP revision as part
of the Delaware SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 14, 2015 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by November 13,
2015. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2015-0479 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0479, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0479. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov or email.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware
19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What action is EPA taking?
    B. Delaware's Air Quality With Respect to the Federal National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone
    1. Delaware Ozone Nonattainment
    2. Delaware PM2.5 Nonattainment
    C. Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Standards
    D. California LEV Program
    E. Delaware LEV Program
II. Summary of August 2014 Delaware LEV SIP Revision
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking direct final rulemaking action to approve a SIP
revision submitted by Delaware to EPA on August 28, 2014, requesting
the inclusion of the state's adopted and implemented California LEV
standards as part of the Delaware SIP. A description of the direct
final rulemaking process being used by EPA to approve Delaware's SIP
revision is described in section III of this rulemaking action.
Delaware's LEV standards are applicable to subject, new motor vehicles
sold or titled in Delaware beginning with model year 2014. Subject
vehicles include passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty
vehicles and medium-duty trucks. Delaware first adopted California LEV
standards as state regulation (7 Admin. Code 1140) in 2010, effective
with the sale and titling of new vehicles beginning in model year 2014.
However, Delaware did not submit a request to EPA to incorporate that
version of the program as a SIP revision. Instead, Delaware revised its
Regulation 1140 in 2013 to incorporate California's most recent version
of its LEV program, otherwise known as the Advanced Clean Car Program.
Delaware formally submitted a SIP submittal to EPA on August 20, 2014
requesting EPA to incorporate this 2013 version of its LEV program rule
for inclusion in the SIP. Further detail on Delaware's LEV program is
provided below in subsection C. of this Background section.

B. Delaware's Air Quality With Respect to the Federal National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone

1. Delaware Ozone Nonattainment
    The CAA, as amended in 1990, requires EPA to set NAAQS for ambient
air pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment.
EPA establishes NAAQS for six principal air pollutants, or ``criteria''
pollutants, which include: Ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen
dioxide, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide
(SO2). The CAA establishes two types of NAAQS. Primary
standards provide public health protection, including protecting the
health of ``sensitive'' populations such as asthmatics, children, and
the elderly. Secondary standards protect public welfare, including
protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops,
vegetation, and buildings. The CAA also requires EPA to periodically
review the standards to ensure that they provide adequate health and
environmental protection, and to update those standards as necessary.
    Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions
between ozone precursor pollutants, including volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the presence
of sunlight. In order to reduce ozone concentrations in the ambient
air, the CAA directs areas designated as nonattainment to apply
controls on VOC and NOX emission sources to reduce the
formation of ozone.

    EPA has revised the ozone NAAQS and designated and classified areas
under those revised NAAQS several times since the CAA was reauthorized
in 1990. For each revised ozone NAAQS, Delaware has had areas
designated as nonattainment for the pollutant ozone.
    On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), EPA designated Kent and New
Castle Counties as severe nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
as part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-DE-NJ ozone
nonattainment area, with Sussex County designated as a separate,
marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Both areas were found to have
attained the 1-hour ozone standard by their respective attainment
dates, although neither area was formally redesignated to attainment.
EPA later revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS effective June 15, 2005.
    On April 30, 2004 (84 FR 23857), EPA designated all three Delaware
counties as moderate nonattainment under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
as part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE
nonattainment area. EPA granted the area a 1-year extension of its
attainment date (from 2010 to 2011) on January 21, 2011 (76 FR 3840).
On March 26, 2012, EPA determined that the area had attained the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS by its attainment date and also that it qualified for a
clean data determination, which suspended most CAA air quality planning
requirements based on air quality monitoring data showing that the area
met the NAAQS for the most recent three prior years. Once again, the
area was never formally redesignated to attainment prior to EPA's
revocation of the 1997 8-hour NAAQS on March 6, 2015 (44 FR 12264),
effective April 6, 2015.
    Most recently, EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts
per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436). On May
21, 2012 (77 FR 30088), EPA finalized designations for this 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, with New Castle County designated marginal nonattainment
as part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City nonattainment
area, and Sussex County once again designated marginal nonattainment as
the separate Seaford, DE area.
    On August 27, 2015, EPA published a Federal Register document (80
FR 51992) proposing to find that the Seaford, DE area had attained the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the marginal area attainment deadline of
July 20, 2015, based on complete, quality-assured and certified ozone
monitoring data for the period 2012-2014. In that same action, EPA
proposed to find that the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-
DE-MD marginal area meets the criteria, as provided in CAA section
181(a)(5) and interpreted by regulation at 40 CFR 51.1107, to qualify
for a 1-year attainment date extension for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
2. Delaware PM2.5 Nonattainment
    PM2.5 can be emitted directly or formed secondarily in
the atmosphere. The main precursors of secondary PM2.5 are
SO2, NOX, ammonia, and VOCs. Sulfates are a type
of secondary particle formed from SO2 emissions of power
plants and industrial facilities. Nitrates, another common type of
secondary particle, are formed from NOX emissions of power
plants, automobiles, and other combustion sources.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards
for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). EPA promulgated primary and
secondary annual standards at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. In the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated primary and
secondary 24-hour standards of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average
of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On October 17, 2006
(71 FR 61144), EPA once again revised the PM2.5 NAAQS,
retaining the annual average NAAQS at 15 [mu]g/m\3\ but revising the
24-hour NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on the 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. As established by EPA
regulation at 40 CFR part 50, the primary and secondary 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS are attained when the annual arithmetic mean
concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ at all relevant
monitoring sites in the subject area over a 3-year period.
    Under the revised particulate matter NAAQS promulgated by EPA since
1990, Delaware's New Castle County has been designated nonattainment
for both the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS on a number of
occasions. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), and supplemented on April
14, 2005 (71 FR 19844), EPA designated New Castle County nonattainment
for the annual 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as part of the Philadelphia-
Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area. On November 13, 2009 (74 FR
58688), EPA promulgated designations for the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS established in 2006, designating New Castle County nonattainment
as part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area.
EPA did not promulgate designations for the 2006 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS because that NAAQS was essentially identical to
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The November 13, 2009 action
clarified that all counties in Delaware were designated unclassifiable/
attainment for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through the
designations promulgated on January 5, 2005. EPA has since redesignated
Delaware's portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment area as attainment with both the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 79 FR 45350, (August 5, 2014).
    On January 15, 2013, EPA promulgated a revised primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 3086), strengthening the standard from 15
[mu]g/m\3\ to 12 [mu]g/m\3\. Nonattainment area designations for the
2012 primary annual PM2.5 standard were published on January
15, 2015 (80 FR 2206), with all counties in Delaware classified as
unclassifiable/attainment.

C. Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Standards

    To reduce air pollution from motor vehicles, which contributes to
higher levels of ambient air pollution such as ozone and
PM2.5, motor vehicles sold in the United States are required
by the CAA to be certified to meet Federal motor vehicle emission
standards. States are generally prohibited from adopting vehicle
standards, except for California, which, having regulated vehicle
emission prior to passage of the CAA in 1970, was granted an exception
by the CAA to continue to issue its own vehicle emission standards.
Section 209 of the CAA requires that California must demonstrate to EPA
that its newly adopted standards will be ``. . . in the aggregate, at
least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards.''
    The CAA also authorizes other states to adopt California emission
standards for which EPA has granted California such a waiver of
preemption. Under section 177 of the CAA, states are authorized to
adopt California's standards in lieu of Federal vehicle standards,
provided they do so with at least two model years lead time prior to
the effective date of the standards, provided that EPA has issued a
waiver of preemption to California for such standards.
    EPA has adopted several iterations, or ``tiers,'' of Federal
emissions standards since the CAA was reauthorized in 1990. When
Delaware first state-adopted California's LEV standards in 2010, the
Federal vehicle emission standards in effect were Tier 2 standards,
which were adopted by EPA on February 10, 2000

(65 FR 6698) and implemented beginning with 2004 model year vehicles.
These Federal Tier 2 standards set tailpipe emissions standards for
passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and also limited gasoline
sulfur levels. The Federal Tier 3 program set more stringent vehicle
emissions standards and further limited allowable sulfur content of
gasoline for new cars, beginning in 2017. EPA attempted to closely
harmonize the Tier 3 standards with California's most current LEV
Program. EPA finalized the Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards on April
28, 2014 (79 FR 23414).
    On May 7, 2010 (75 FR 25324), EPA and the U.S. Department of
Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
jointly established a national program consisting of new standards for
light-duty motor vehicles to reduce GHG emissions and to improve fuel
economy. This program affected new passenger cars, light-duty trucks,
and medium-duty passenger vehicles sold in model years 2012 through
2016. On October 15, 2012 (77 FR 62624), EPA and NHTSA issued another
joint rule to further tighten GHG emission standards for model years
2017 through 2025. The Federal GHG standards were harmonized with
similar GHG standards set by California, to ensure that automobile
manufacturers would face a single set of national emissions standards
to meet both Federal and California emissions requirements.

D. California LEV Program

    In 1990, California's Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted LEV
standards applicable to light- and medium-duty vehicles and phased-in
beginning with model year 1994 vehicles. In 1999, California adopted a
second generation of LEV standards, known as LEV II, which were phased-
in beginning model year 2004 through model year 2010. EPA waived
Federal preemption for California's LEV II program on April 22, 2003
(68 FR 19811).
    This LEV II program reduced emissions in a similar manner to the
Federal Tier 2 program by use of declining fleet average non-methane
organic gas (NMOG) emission standards, applicable to each vehicle
manufacturer each year. Separate fleet average standards were not
established for NOX, CO, PM, or formaldehyde as these
emissions are controlled as a co-benefit of the NMOG fleet average
(fleet average values for these pollutants are set by the certification
standards for each set of California prescribed certification
standards.) These allowable sets of standards ranged from LEV standards
(the least stringent standard set) to Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV)
standards (the most stringent standard set). California's LEV II
program established various other standards: The Ultra-Low Emission
Vehicles (ULEV), Super-Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (SULEV), Partial
Zero Emission Vehicles (PZEV), and Advanced Technology-Partial Zero
Emission Vehicles (AT-PZEV). Each manufacturer complied by
demonstrating that its own sales-weighted average of these respective
categories of standards fell below overall program standards.
    In January 2012, California approved a new LEV program for model
years 2017 through 2025, called the Advanced Clean Cars Program, or the
LEV III program. The program combines control of smog, soot, and GHG
emissions with requirements for greater numbers of ZEV vehicles into a
single program. LEV III regulations apply to light-duty vehicles,
light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. The program was
phased in beginning with vehicles certified in model year 2015, with
all vehicles meeting LEV III standards by model year 2020. Amendments
to California's ZEV requirements added flexibility to California's
existing ZEV program for 2017 and earlier model years, and establish
new sales and technology requirements starting with the 2018 model
year. The LEV III amendments establish more stringent criteria and GHG
emission standards starting with the 2015 and 2017 model years,
respectively. The California GHG standards are almost identical in
stringency and structure to the Federal GHG standards for model years
from 2017 to 2025. Additionally, on December 2012, California adopted a
``deemed to comply'' regulation that enables manufacturers to show
compliance with California GHG standards by demonstrating compliance
with Federal GHG standards. On June 9, 2013 (78 FR 2112), EPA granted a
Federal preemption waiver for California's Advanced Clean Cars Program.
California's LEV III program rules are codified in Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR), under Division 3.

E. Delaware LEV Program

    Delaware first adopted California's LEV II program via a Delaware
LEV program regulation (7 DE Admin Code 1140) adopted on November 9,
2010, effective with 2014 and newer model year passenger cars and
trucks and medium-duty vehicles titled in Delaware. Prior to that,
Delaware participated in the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV)
program--a voluntary, nationwide clean car program promulgated by EPA,
in conjunction with auto manufacturers and states, which allowed for
more stringent vehicle standards than prescribed by Federal law.
However, the program expired with the promulgation by EPA of more
stringent Tier II motor vehicle standards, which were sold beginning in
model year 2004. Therefore, the Delaware LEV program effectively
superseded Federal Tier 2 vehicle standards beginning with model year
2014. However, Delaware did not submit the 2010 version of its LEV
program rule (7 DE Admin. Code 1140) to EPA as a SIP revision request
to EPA at that time, and the SIP was not amended at that time to
replace the defunct NLEV program with the Delaware LEV program.

II. Summary of August 2014 Delaware LEV SIP Revision

    On August 20, 2014, Delaware submitted a SIP submittal requesting
that EPA amend the Delaware SIP to incorporate the state's LEV program.
Delaware adopted revisions to its Delaware LEV program, which was
originally adopted in December of 2010, on November 15, 2013 and
published the revised regulation in the Delaware Register of
Regulations on December 1, 2013 (effective December 11, 2013). This
revised version of Regulation 1140 serves to incorporate by reference
California's more recent LEV III standards and GHG standards applicable
to model year 2015 to 2025 LEV-subject vehicles. At the same time,
Delaware rescinded requirements that could prospectively and
automatically force incorporation of future California LEV rule changes
to Delaware's LEV program, without being subject to rulemaking under
Delaware's regulatory process.
    EPA is incorporating by reference Delaware's entire Regulation 1140
Delaware Low Emission Vehicle Program (7 DE Admin. Code 1140, effective
date December 11, 2013). Section 10.0 of Regulation 1140 lists the
applicable sections of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations
that comprise California's LEV III program which Delaware has
incorporated by reference as part of state adoption process of
Delaware's LEV program. Future changes made by California to its LEV
program will require additional regulatory action on the part of
Delaware and a SIP revision request to EPA to amend the Delaware SIP,
in the event that Delaware wishes to include such changes to its
program.

    Since Delaware's LEV program Regulation 1140 is codified in the
same regulatory section as the prior Delaware NLEV program, the action
to approve Delaware's request to revise the SIP to incorporate the LEV
program for the first time will have the effect of superseding the
prior SIP-approved, defunct NLEV program in the Delaware SIP. See 62 FR
72564, (December 28, 1999). Thus, this action also removes Delaware's
prior approved NLEV rule from the SIP and replaces it with the most
recently amended version of Regulation 1140, state effective December
11, 2013.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Delaware's August 20, 2014 SIP submittal
pertaining to adoption by Delaware of a LEV program as a revision to
the Delaware SIP. The CAA authorizes states to adopt California's
vehicle standards for which EPA has granted California a waiver of
preemption from Federal vehicle standards that would otherwise apply.
In this case, Delaware has already adopted California LEV III emission
standards and has begun implementing the program. EPA is publishing
this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However,
in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will
be effective on December 14, 2015 without further notice unless EPA
receives adverse comment by November 13, 2015. If EPA receives adverse
comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking action, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text
that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference
Delaware's LEV Program codified at 7 DE Admin. Code 1140 (effective
date of December 11, 2013) to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below.
    The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 CAA; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 appropriate circuit by December 14, 2015. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action. This action to approve Delaware's LEV Program SIP
revision request may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: September 29, 2015.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart I--Delaware

0
2. In Sec.  52.420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
a. Removing the heading ``1140 Delaware's National Low Emission Vehicle
(NLEV)'' and adding in its place ``1140 Delaware Low Emission Vehicle
Program.''
0
b. Revising the entries under heading number 1140 for Sections 1.0.,
2.0 and 3.0; and
0
c. Adding entries under heading number 1140 for Sections 4.0, 5.0, 6.0,
7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0, and 12.0.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                            EPA-Approved Regulations and Statutes in the Delaware SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              State effective                         Additional
    State regulation (7 DNREC 1100)         Title/subject           date         EPA approval date   explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 1.0...........................  Purpose.............        12/11/13   10/14/15[Insert
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
Section 2.0...........................  Applicability.......        12/11/13   10/14/15[Insert
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
Section 3.0...........................  Definitions.........        12/11/13   10/14/15[Insert
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
Section 4.0...........................  Emission                    12/11/13   10/14/15[Insert
                                         Certification                          Federal Register
                                         Standards.                             citation].
Section 5.0...........................  New Vehicle Emission        12/11/13   10/14/15[Insert
                                         Requirements.                          Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
Section 6.0...........................  Manufacturer Fleet          12/11/13   10/14/15[Insert
                                         Requirements.                          Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
Section 7.0...........................  Warranty............        12/11/13   10/14/15[Insert
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
Section 8.0...........................  Reporting and Record-       12/11/13   10/14/15[Insert
                                         Keeping                                Federal Register
                                         Requirements.                          citation].
Section 9.0...........................  Enforcement.........        12/11/13   10/14/15[Insert
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
Section 10.0..........................  Incorporation by            12/11/13   10/14/15[Insert
                                         Reference.                             Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
Section 11.0..........................  Document                    12/11/13   10/14/15[Insert
                                         Availability.                          Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
Section 12.0..........................  Severability........        12/11/13   10/14/15[Insert
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                citation].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-25954 Filed 10-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64239-64241]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26919]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1187; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-25]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace and Revocation of Class
E Airspace; Jackson, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class D airspace, Class E airspace
designated as a surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface, and removes Class E airspace
designated as an extension to Class D or Class E surface area at
Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field, Jackson MI. This action is due
to the decommissioning of the Jackson VHF omnidirectional range (VOR),
which provided navigation guidance for the instrument procedures to
this airport. The VOR is being decommissioned as part of the VOR
Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The name and the geographic
coordinates of the airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database. Additionally, this action makes an editorial
change to the airspace legal descriptions replacing ``Airport/Facility
Directory'' with the term ``Chart Supplement.''

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 28, 2019. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as a surface
area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface, and removes Class E airspace designated as an extension to
Class D or Class E surface area at Jackson County Airport-Reynolds
Field, Jackson MI to support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations
at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 19987; May 7, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-1187 to
amend Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as a surface area,
and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface,
and remove Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or
Class E surface area at Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field, Jackson
MI. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13,
2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71:
    Modifies the Class D airspace at Jackson County Airport-Reynolds
Field, Jackson, MI, by updating the geographic coordinates of the
airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautic database and makes an
editorial change to the airspace legal description replacing ``Airport/
Facility Directory'' with the term ``Chart Supplement'';
    Modifies the Class E airspace designated as a surface area at
Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field (formerly Jackson County-Reynolds
Field) by removing all airspace extensions from the 4-mile radius in
the airspace legal description, updates the name and geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database, and makes an editorial change to the airspace legal
description replacing ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with the term
``Chart Supplement'';
    Removes the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D
or Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Jackson County-
Reynolds Field, MI, as it is no longer required; and
    Modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to within a 6.5-mile radius (decreased from a 7-mile
radius) of Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field (formerly Jackson
County-Reynolds Field), removes the Jackson VOR/DME from the airspace
legal description, and updates the name and geographic coordinates to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of
the Jackson VOR, which provided navigation guidance for the instrument
procedures to this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program and to bring
the airspace in compliance with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for
Handling Airspace Matters. This action enhances safety and the
management of IFR operations at this airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace

* * * * *

AGL MI D Jackson, MI [Amended]

Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]15'38'' N, long. 84[deg]27'44'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Jackson County Airport-
Reynolds Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas

* * * * *

AGL MI E2 Jackson, MI [Amended]

Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]15'38'' N, long. 84[deg]27'44'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Jackson County Airport-
Reynolds Field. This Class E airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designates as an Extension to Class
D and Class E Surface Areas

* * * * *

AGL MI E4 Jackson, MI [Removed]

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL MI E5 Jackson, MI [Amended]

Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]15'38'' N, long. 84[deg]27'44'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Jackson County Airport-Reynolds Field.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 6, 2018.
John A. Witucki,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-26919 Filed 12-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P