 			INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)
				Part A of the Supporting Statement
					(February 2018)

 	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a)	Title: Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Detergent Gasoline (Reinstatement)
	EPA ICR No. 1655.10, OMB Control No. 2060-0275

1(b)	Abstract

Gasoline combustion results in the formation of engine deposits.  The accumulation of deposits, particularly in the orifices of fuel injectors and on intake valves, typically results in increased emissions and reduced engine performance.  As fuel injectors replaced carburetors in the 1980's, a number of vehicle manufacturers experienced problems with deposit formation.  Detergent additives, which had been available for years to control deposits in carbureted vehicles, were improved to accommodate the new technology.  However, their use was voluntary and there were no regulatory standards by which to gauge their effectiveness.  Congress recognized the importance of effective detergent additives in minimizing vehicle emissions, and added Section 211(1) in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.  It required gasoline to contain detergent additives, effective January 1, 1995, and provided the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the authority to establish specifications for such additives.  The regulations at 40 CFR 80 - Subpart G implemented certification requirements for detergents and imposed a variety of recordkeeping and reporting requirements for certain parties involved with detergents, gasoline, or post-refinery component (any gasoline blending stock or any oxygenate that is blended with gasoline subsequent to the gasoline refining process (PRC)).  All gasolines must contain certified detergents, with the exception of research, racing, and aviation gasolines.

The EPA maintains a list of certified gasoline detergents at https://www.epa.gov/air-pollution-transportation. As of October 2017 there were 448 certified detergents and 20 detergent manufacturers. Most of the certification activity occurred during the early years of the program.  We estimate that current certification testing will be for 3 additives annually.

There are approximately 250 refiners and importers of gasoline, 1,350 blenders of detergent into gasoline or PRC, 8,000 carriers of gasoline or PRC, 200,000 gasoline retail outlets, and 100,000 fleet facilities which handle gasoline.  The estimated total annual burden for respondents for this collection is 220,181 hours and $20,180,587, including $335,040 in annualized capital or O&M costs.  The estimated total annual Agency burden is 200 hours and $16,400 in labor costs.

 	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) 	Need/Authority for the Collection

Motor vehicles comprise the major source of air pollution in most urban areas, and account for about half of the toxic air emissions in the United States.  Gasoline detergents help to minimize emissions.  Detergents are typically added to gasoline as it is loaded into tank trucks at terminals.  Section 211(l) of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires that all gasoline contain effective detergent additives.  Section 114 of the Act provides EPA with the authority to impose recordkeeping and reporting requirements if necessary for enforcement of statutory requirements.  The recordkeeping and reporting requirements for this program, at 40 CFR 80 - Subpart G, are necessary in order for EPA to certify detergents, to demonstrate that certified detergents are effective, to assure that gasoline contains certified detergents at the minimum concentration (also known as the lowest additive concentration (LAC)) necessary to be effective, and to deter violations.  There is no standard test procedure for testing qualitatively and quantitatively for specific detergents in gasoline, thus necessitating reliance on recordkeeping and reporting as detergents, gasoline, and PRC pass through the distribution system.  Blenders of detergent into gasoline or PRC are required to maintain records that demonstrate that the LAC is met, on average, each month at each automated blending facility, and by batch at non-automated facilities.  These records are known as volumetric additive reconciliation (VAR) records.  There is economic incentive to violate because uncertified detergents are typically less expensive, and blending a certified detergent at less than the minimum specified concentration will also save money.

A detergent manufacturer has a variety of options under which it may certify a detergent.  The primary option is "National Generic Certification," which allows the detergent to be used in any gasoline.  We estimate that over 99% of detergents have been certified under this option.  Other options include limiting a detergent to a Petroleum Administrative Defense District (PADD Certification), a specific gasoline pool (Fuel-specific Certification), or California gasoline (CARB-based Certification), under California's detergent certification rule.  All the options may be found at 40 CFR 80.163.

2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The list of certified detergents is publicly available.  The fuel, additive, and motor vehicle industries are well aware that gasoline must contain certified detergents.  The list is monitored by the additive manufacturers in order to maintain an awareness of competitors.  Manufacturers and distributors of gasoline, and blenders of detergent into gasoline, monitor the list to ensure that gasoline contains certified detergents and that the documentation accompanying gasoline indicates such.

Most of the data submitted by the detergent manufacturers are confidential.  Thus access is restricted to authorized EPA personnel and authorized contractors.  Review of the data is necessary to determine if the detergent manufacturer has met the certification requirements for a specific detergent and can be certified by EPA.  The documentation accompanying the detergent, with the LAC and any use restrictions, is used by the detergent blender to ensure proper additization.  Product transfer documents (PTDs) are monitored by transferors and transferees to ensure that they are handling legal detergents and gasolines.  VARs are necessary for detergent blenders to demonstrate that they have additized properly.

As mentioned above, there is not a method of analyzing gasoline for the proper level of a certified detergent.  Thus, the records required by this rule, particularly the VAR and certification records, are essential in EPA's monitoring for compliance.

 	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a)	Nonduplication

The records required here are not available elsewhere.  In many instances the records are already produced as a customary business practice.

3(b)	Public Notice

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA solicited comments for a 60-day period prior to submission of the ICR to OMB.  Notice was published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2017 (82 FR 46806). No relevant comments were received.

3(c)	Consultations

EPA consulted with the following people regarding this collection:

      May Thomas
      Sr HSES Analyst
      Afton Chemical Corporation
      330 S. Fourth Street, 3[rd] Floor
      Richmond, VA  23219
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
      Chris J Fogarty
      Product Manager  -  Fuel Additives
      BASF Corporation
      Mail Stop 4A2
      100 Park Avenue
      Florham Park, NJ 07932
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Certification by the detergent manufacturers, and the development of VAR and QA records by blenders of detergent into gasoline or PRC, account for the regulatory burden.  The other burdens discussed above are minor or customary business practices upon which the regulations did not impose significant additional burdens.  As this program has matured, nearly all of the applications for detergent certification now rely on previous vehicle testing.  We estimate only one application annually is based on new testing.

Consultations with detergent manufacturers indicate that they have become quite familiar with submitting applications based on previous testing, with burden estimates ranging from one to four hours for preparation and submittal of the application.  For an application based on new testing, however, there have been broad ranges of estimates, from 16 hours to 2000 hours.  We believe that, as with the previous ICR, a reasonable average continues to be 60 hours for a detergent certification.

Past consultations with detergent blenders that use automated blending equipment (the vast majority of blenders) also indicates a range of estimated VAR/QA burden, from about 30 to 260 hours per year per facility.  This is to be expected since there is a wide range in the size of these facilities and a wide range in the degree of sophistication utilized in implementing the VAR requirements and voluntary QA procedures.  The estimate for a detergent blender that does not use automated equipment is 500 hours per year.  A major reason for the difference in burden between automated and non-automated equipment is the VAR period, which may be up to 30 days for automated equipment, but is by batch for non-automated equipment and calculated manually.

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Certification of an additive is one-time, with the exception of an annual fuel-property report in the case of a fuel-specific certification.  (As of July 2014, there were no fuel-specific certifications, and no indication that any would be forthcoming.)  VAR records and PTDs are ongoing and necessary for enforcement.  The generation and transfer of PTDs are customary business practices.  Researchers using gasoline without a certified detergent are required to submit a brief annual report on their activities.  EPA believes that the annual reporting requirements are reasonable and that a less frequent collection would hamper enforcement.  Thus, less frequent collection is not a practicable alternative.

3(e)	General Guidelines

All Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines are met.

3(f)	Confidentiality

Most of the information reported to EPA is business confidential and is governed by the Freedom of Information Act regulations for EPA at 40 CFR 2.

3(g)	Sensitive Questions

There is no sensitive information requested.

 	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION COLLECTED

4(a)	Respondents/SIC/NAICS Codes

The respondents are related to the following major group Standard Industrialization Classification (SIC) codes:
 5172 - Petroleum Products
 2911 - Petroleum Refining

The respondents are related to the following major group NAICS codes:
 324110 - Petroleum Refineries
 324199 - All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
 325110 - Petrochemical Manufacturing
 325199 - All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
 424710 - Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
 424720 - Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals)

4(b)	Information Requested
        Data Items

      REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

            Detergent Manufacturers

            For each detergent, the detergent manufacturer (includes an importer or a party which is not the manufacturer but is requesting certification as a detergent for a product manufactured by another party) is required to:
                submit a certification letter to EPA containing a variety of information concerning the certification testing and options for which certification is requested (80.161(b)(3), 80.163(c)(1)(iii), 80.164(a));
                submit certification test data, and/or the acceptance criteria a supplier must meet for detergent reactant materials, upon EPA request (80.165, 80.162(b)(1));
                submit a detailed description of the detergent's composition to EPA pursuant to the registration requirements for fuel additives at 40 CFR 79, addressing specific compositional descriptions identified in 40 CFR 80 and the LAC for each certification option (80.161(b)(1)(i),(ii),(ii)(A), 80.162);
                ship a sample of the detergent and certain information concerning the sample to EPA, and if requested by EPA, ship an additional sample (80.161(b)(2), 80.167(d));
                notify EPA in writing, with supporting data, if there is a change in the LAC for which the additive is effective (80.161(b)(1)(ii)(C));
                notify, in writing, gasoline manufacturers (includes importers), detergent blenders, and all others who purchase the detergent, of the LAC and any use restrictions (80.161(c));
                submit certain information annually for each fuel-specific certification option (80.164(c)(3));
                notify customers if a fuel-specific certification is no longer valid (80.164(c)(3)(iii));
                if, upon receipt from EPA of a notice of intent of detergent disqualification, wishing to respond, submit written comments in an attempt to demonstrate compliance (80.161(e)(3), (4); and
                submit a list of customers to EPA if EPA should issue a final decision to disqualify a certified detergent (80.161(e)(6)).

            Detergent Blenders

            A blender of detergent into gasoline or PRC:
                is required to notify EPA in writing if it intends to use a detergent at lower than its LAC, and, if requested by EPA, must submit the data supporting the use of the lower concentration (80.161(d)(1), (2), (3));
                who has certified under a fuel-specific option, is required to supply, upon request,  EPA with a sample of the test fuel or with blendstocks with which to formulate the test fuel (80.167(d)); and
                is required to generate VAR records (80.170), and, upon request, to provide EPA with VAR records and supporting documentation (80.170(g)).

            Transferors and Transferees

            A transferor of gasoline, detergent, or PRC, including any gasoline refiner, importer, reseller, distributor, carrier, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer (WPC), oxygenate blender, detergent manufacturer, distributor, carrier, or blender, shall:

                generate or obtain documentation for each shipment and provide this documentation (product transfer document (PTD)) to the transferee (with exception of delivery of detergent-additized gasoline to motorists and small volumes to fleets) identifying the product, its detergent status if gasoline or PRC, and certain additional information (80.171); and
                as a defense against liability, along with transferees, may establish quality assurance (QA) procedures that involve the development of records in addition to those required by the rules (80.169).

            Researchers

            A party conducting research on gasoline that does not contain a certified detergent is required to notify EPA annually, in writing (80.173(a)(3)).

            Racing Gasoline/Aviation Gasoline

            Parties handling racing gasoline or aviation gasoline are required to generate or transfer PTDs indicating that these products are limited to those uses (80.173(b)(1)).  Pump stands for racing gasoline or aviation gasoline must be appropriately labeled if located at a facility that dispenses gasoline to motor vehicles (80.173(b)(2)).

      RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

      Most records are required to be kept for five years, with exceptions for certain small businesses and California gasoline (80.164(c)(4), 80.169(c)(8), 80.170(g), 80.171(d)).  This retention period is necessary in order to provide EPA with adequate time for inspection, is consistent with the relevant civil statute of limitations, and is consistent with the retention period for PTDs under the reformulated gasoline/anti-dumping rules at 40 CFR 80 - Subpart D (except for retailers in anti-dumping areas).  There is no regulatory burden because businesses retain such records as a customary business practice.

            Detergent Manufacturers

            For each detergent, the detergent manufacturer is required to maintain records for:
 the acceptance criteria for suppliers of detergent reactive materials (80.162(b)(1));
 the test data for fuel parameters supporting a fuel-specific certification (80.164(c)(1));
 the fuel composition survey results, and documentation on test methods and statistical procedures, used to support a fuel-specific certification (80.164(c)(4));
 the certification test (80.165); and
 in order to have an affirmative defense for a potential violation of the certification program controls and prohibitions, the fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and related data for each detergent batch (80.169(c)(4)(i)(C),(D)).

            Detergent Blenders

            A blender of detergent into gasoline or PRC is required to maintain the VAR records on the use of the detergent (80.170).  Gasoline or PRC additized in California is exempt, provided the records required by California are maintained (80.173(c)).

            Transferors and Transferees

            Transferors and transferees of gasoline, detergent, or PRC:

                are required to maintain the PTDs for each shipment (80.171); and
                as a defense against liability, may establish QA procedures that involve retaining records in addition to those required to be retained by the rules (80.169).

            Researchers

            A party conducting research on gasoline that does not contain a certified detergent is required to maintain documentation demonstrating that the gasoline has been used only for research (80.173(a)(1)).

            Racing Gasoline/Aviation Gasoline

            Parties handling racing gasoline or aviation gasoline are required to maintain the PTDs for each shipment (80.173(b)(1)).

	(ii)  Respondent Activities
            The following are required:
 Read and comprehend the regulatory requirements.
 Train personnel to meet the requirements, employing new technology and procedures as    necessary.
 Develop the information that is not already available.
 Gather and organize the information.
 Review the information and, if necessary, take corrective action such that it can be concluded that the regulatory requirements have been met.
 Report the information to EPA and/or retain the information in storage, as specified in the regulations.

 	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

The following are required:
 Develop a thorough understanding of the regulatory requirements.
 Develop the skills necessary to convey the requirements to the respondents and others such that it can be comprehended easily.
 Respond to inquiries on the requirements.
 Provide access to the regulations and the list of certified detergents.
 Review the reported information.
 Contact the respondent when the information has not been submitted properly and discuss how the deficiency can be corrected.
 Store the information.
 Enter the information into the database.
 Upon concluding that all requirements have been met, issue a letter to the manufacturer indicating that the detergent has been certified, and update the list of certified detergents.
 Maintain rigorous security for the protection of confidential business information.
 Maintain computer hardware and software.
 Monitor compliance via on-site inspections.

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

The EPA has not issued forms.  The respondents may submit and store the information in the format of their choice, including electronically.  Because most of the information reported to EPA is confidential, it is housed in an office with an advanced security system.  The computers on which the data are handled have no linkage outside this office.

5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

The reporting requirements have been made as simple as practical in order to minimize the burden on all parties, large and small.  For small businesses subject to this rule, the vast majority are merely transporters or retailers of gasoline.  Their only burden is the transfer and storage of PTDs, which is a customary business practice.  Transfers of small volumes of additized gasoline to WPCs and other ultimate consumers are exempt from the PTD requirements (80.171(c)).

5(d) Collection Schedule

Reporting only required on occasion.

 	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND THE COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a) and (b)	Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs

Estimating the burden is straightforward.  Capital/start-up costs were incurred by industry in 1995.  Third party activity, the transmittal or storage of PTDs, is a customary business practice.  Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are in three categories.  First, the on-road engine testing to demonstrate that the detergent meets the deposit-control standards is performed at contractor facilities.  The cost of this testing is about $200,000.  As discussed above, this testing is being performed for only one new certified detergent each year, with the other certifications based on previous testing. The second O&M cost is for copying and postage for the estimated three submissions annually for detergent certification and one submission annually for research notification.  At an estimated $10 per submission, the annual cost is $40.  The third O&M cost is for the storage of the VAR records at the 1300 automated detergent blending facilities and 50 non-automated detergent blending facilities.  The estimated annual cost per facility is $100, for a total of $135,000.

Thus, the total annual O&M cost is $200,000 + $40 + $135,000 = $335,040.

 Three labor categories are involved: managerial (includes legal and professional review), technical, and clerical.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2015 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, mean wages were:

       Wages
       Managerial 	$57.44 per hour
       Technical	$49.98 per hour
       Clerical	$17.47 per hour

 Doubling for company overhead and employing a 2% annual inflation factor to bring the rates up to date, and, for convenience, rounding up to the nearest dollar, gives the following rates that will be used in this ICR:

       Total Employer Cost
       Managerial	$120 per hour
       Technical	$104 per hour
      Clerical	$ 36 per hour

NOTE: The labor rates used in the last approved renewal package (EPA ICR No. 1655.09), cited as being derived from Bureau of Labor Statistics National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from May 2011, appear to have been misquoted or incorrectly calculated resulting in the following, slightly inflated, figures:

       Total Employer Cost
       Managerial	$135 per hour
       Technical	$131 per hour
      Clerical	$ 44 per hour

The rate correction found in the current ICR package, not any fundamental difference in the actual burden created by its collection activities, creates the reported $2,281,002 per year reduction in industry labor costs reported below.

Worksheet 1: Detergent Manufacturer Submissions for Certification

Our review of the submissions indicates a fairly wide range of burden.  Many submissions are minor changes to existing certified detergents and are able to rely on previously submitted data.  We estimate that they require about four hours to prepare.  About one out of 10 undergoes the complete development cycle with estimates of 16 to 2000 hours of burden.

Thus, we continue to believe that the average burden per detergent is estimated at about 60 hours, with the hours and costs allocated as follows (we estimate three submissions annually (17 manufacturers) for the next three years):

Activity	Management		Technical		Clerical

Read		2 hours/$240		4 hours/$416		1 hour/$36

Train		2 hours/$240		2 hours/$208		1 hour/$36

Develop
data		2 hours/$240		20 hours/$2080	1 hour/$36

Organize
data		2 hours/$240		4 hours/$416		1 hour/$36

Review	2 hours/$240		10 hours/$1040	1 hour/$36

Report or
retain		2 hours/$240		1 hour/$104		2 hours/$72

TOTALS	12 hours/$1440	41 hours/$4264	7 hours/$252
GRAND TOTAL	60 hours/$5,956

Worksheet 2: VAR and QA by Detergent Blenders with Automated Equipment

As noted above, respondents indicated a fairly wide range of burden, from 30 to 260 hours per year per blending facility, for the 1300 facilities nationwide.  The VAR period may be as long as 30 days, but can be shorter due to changes in detergents, maintenance downtime, etc.  We believe that a reasonable average burden is 150 hours per year per facility, representing 15 VAR periods, for a total of 1300 x 15 = 19,500 responses annually.  Thus, the estimated hours and costs per VAR period are:

Activity	Management		Technical		Clerical

Read		0.1 hour/$12.00	0.8 hour/$83.20	0.4 hour/$14.40

Train		0.1 hour/$12.00	0.8 hour/$83.20	0.4 hour/$14.40

Develop
data		0.1 hour/$12.00	1.4 hour/$145.60	1.33 hour/$47.88

Organize
data		0.1 hour/$12.00	0.8 hour/$83.20	1.33 hour/$47.88

Review	0.1 hour/$12.00	0.8 hour/$83.20	0.73 hour/$26.28

Retain		0.1 hour/$12.00	0.2 hour/$20.80	0.4 hour/$14.40

TOTALS	0.6 hour/$72.00	4.8 hours/$499.20	4.6 hours/$165.24

GRAND TOTAL	10 hours/$736.44

Worksheet 3: VAR and QA by Detergent Blenders with Non-automated Equipment

There appears to be little blending occurring with non-automated equipment.  However, since it is done manually, and the VAR is done per batch, we estimate 500 hours per year for such blenders.  It is estimated that a blender of this type will do about a thousand batches per year, or a burden of 0.5 hour per batch.  Using the same labor mix as Worksheet 2 gives a per batch cost of $36.82.  We estimate that there are 50 blenders in this category, for a total of 50,000 responses annually.

Worksheet 4: Notification by Researchers

We estimate that we will receive one letter annually from researchers notifying us that a gasoline without a certified detergent will be used for research purposes.  Assuming a management official spent one-half hour on each letter and a clerical person also spent one-half hour, gives a burden of one hour and $78 per letter.

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The Agency activities described in section 5(a) are handled by engineers and scientists at the GS-13 level ($82 per hour, including 160% overhead, as per OMB policy).  It is estimated that 200 hours are spent annually, for a cost to the government of $16,400.  The program is running smoothly and, as noted above, the number of requests for certification has decreased from the previous ICR.  Lease, computer, and security costs are covered in the ICR for the Fuel and Fuel Additive Registration requirements at 40 CFR 79 (EPA ICR Number 0309.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0150), with which this program is closely integrated.

6(d) and (e)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs, and
Bottom Line Burden and Costs

The following worksheet is based on the above discussions.

Worksheet 5: Annual Industry Burden

Activity		Responses		Hours/Cost		Total Hours/Cost
Detergent
Certification		3			60/$5956.00		180/$17,868
(3 respondents)

Automated
VAR/QA		19,500			10/$736.44		195,000/$14,360,580
(1300 respondents)

Non-automated
VAR/QA		50,000			0.5/$36.82		25,000/$1,841,000
(50 respondents)

Researcher
Letters		1			1.0/$78.00		1/$78.00
(1 respondent)

TOTALS		69,504					         220,181/$16,219,526

Thus, the net annual burden to industry is 220,181 hours (3.17 hours per response).  Labor costs are $16,219,526, and O&M costs are $335,040, for a total cost of $16,554,566.

6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden

The previous clearance consisted of 220,181 hours (3.17 hours per response), labor costs of $18,500,528, and O&M costs of $335,040, for a total cost of $18,835,568. There is no increase of hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. The respondent universe and responses also remained the same in this collection.  There is a decrease in cost to the industry of $2,281,002 per year due to updated industry labor costs.
6(g)	Burden Statements

 The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3.17 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0595, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0595 and OMB Control Number 2060-0275 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65767-65769]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26627]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; Chrysler

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

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Chrysler LLC, (Chrysler)
petition for exemption of the Chrysler [confidential] vehicle line in
accordance with 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has
determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard 49 CFR Part 541, Federal
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Chrysler requested
confidential treatment for specific information in its petition. The
agency will grant Chrysler's request for confidential treatment by
separate letter. Chrysler informed the agency that the nameplate will
be released prior to introduction of the vehicle line.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2014 Model Year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-439, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is
(202) 366-5222. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated July 31, 2012, Chrysler
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2014 Chrysler
[confidential] vehicle line. The petition requested an exemption from
parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device
as standard equipment for the entire vehicle line.
    Under 49 CFR Part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to
grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its
petition, Chrysler provided a detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device for the [confidential] vehicle line. Chrysler will install the
Sentry Key Immobilizer System (SKIS) antitheft device as standard
equipment on the vehicle line. The SKIS provides passive vehicle
protection by preventing the engine from operating unless a valid
electronically encoded key is detected in the ignition system of the
vehicles. The major components of the SKIS device consist of the Radio
Frequency Hub Module (RFHM), Ignition Node Module (IGNM), Engine
Control Module, Body Controller Module, Sentry Key Immobilizer Module
(SKIM), the transponder key that performs the immobilizer function and
the Instrument Panel Cluster which contains the telltale function only.
According to Chrysler, all of these components work collectively to
perform the immobilizer function. Chrysler stated that its
[confidential] vehicle line will also be available with an optional
visible or audible alarm system to provide an indication of
unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e., flashing lights or horn alarm).
    According to Chrysler, the immobilizer feature is activated when
the key is removed from the ignition system, whether the doors are open
or not. Only a valid key inserted into the ignition system will allow
the vehicle to start and continue to run.
    Chrysler stated that the functions and features of the SKIM are all
integral to the RFHM. The SKIM performs the interrogation with the
transponder in the key. The RFHM receives Low Frequency (LF) and/or
Radio Frequency (RF) signals from the Sentry Key transponder which is
integral to the FOB with integrated key. The RFHM contains an RF
transceiver, a microprocessor and serves as the Remote Keyless Entry RF
receiver.
    The RFHM is paired with the IGNM that contains either a rotary
ignition switch (keyed vehicles) or a START/STOP push button (keyless
vehicles). According to Chrysler, the SKIS will be placed on both its
keyless entry vehicles and keyed vehicles. For the keyed vehicles, the
IGNM transmits an LF signal to excite the transponder in the key when
the ignition switch is turned to the ON position. The IGNM waits for a
signal response from the transponder and transmits the response to the
RFHM. If the response identifies the transponder key as invalid or if
no response is received from the transponder key, Chrysler stated that
the

RFHM sends an invalid key message to the Engine Control Module, which
will disable engine operation and immobilize the vehicle after two
seconds of running. This process is also similar for the keyless
vehicles. Chrysler stated that when the keyless START/STOP button is
pressed, the RFHM transmits a signal to the transponder key through LF
antennas to the RFHM. The RFHM waits for a signal from the transponder.
If the response from the transponder identifies the transponder key as
invalid or the transponder key is not within the car's interior, the
engine will be disabled and the vehicle will be immobilized after two
seconds of running.
    To avoid any perceived delay when starting the vehicle with a valid
transponder key and to prevent unburned fuel from entering the exhaust,
Chrysler stated that the engine is permitted to run for no more than
two seconds if an invalid transponder key is used. Chrysler stated that
only six consecutive invalid vehicle start attempts are permitted and
all other attempts are locked out by preventing the fuel injectors from
firing and disabling the starter.
    Chrysler also stated that each ignition key used in the SKIS has an
integral transponder chip included on the circuit board beneath the
cover of the integral Remote Keyless Entry transmitter. Each
transponder key has a unique transponder identification code that is
permanently programmed into it by the manufacturer which must be
programmed into the RFHM to be recognized by the SKIS as a valid key.
Chrysler stated that once a Sentry Key has been programmed to a
particular vehicle, it cannot be used on any other vehicle.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 49 CFR Part
543.6, Chrysler provided information on the reliability and durability
of the device. Chrysler conducted tests based on its own specified
standards and stated its belief that the device meets the stringent
performance standards prescribed. Specifically, Chrysler stated that
its device must demonstrate a minimum of 95 percent reliability with 90
percent confidence. In addition to the design and production validation
test criteria, Chrysler stated that the SKIS device also undergoes a
daily short term durability test and all of its systems undergo a
series of three functional tests for durability prior to being shipped
from the supplier to the vehicle assembly plant for installation in its
vehicles.
    Chrysler stated that its vehicles are also equipped with a security
indicator that acts as a diagnostic indicator. Chrysler stated that if
the RFHM detects an invalid transponder key or if a transponder key
related fault exists, the security indicator will flash. If the RFHM
detects a system malfunction or the SKIS has become ineffective, the
security indicator will stay on. If the vehicle is equipped with a
Customer Learn transponder programming feature, the security indicator
will flash whenever the Customer Learn programming is in use.
    Chrysler stated that it expects the [confidential] vehicle line to
mirror the lower theft rate results achieved by the Jeep Grand Cherokee
vehicle line when ignition immobilizer systems were included as
standard equipment on the line. Chrysler stated that it has offered the
SKIS immobilizer system as standard equipment on all Jeep Grand
Cherokee vehicles since the 1999 model year. Chrysler indicated that
the average theft rate, based on NHTSA's theft data, for the Jeep Grand
Cherokee vehicles for the four model years prior to 1999 (1995-1998),
when a vehicle immobilizer system was not installed as standard
equipment, was 5.3574 per one thousand vehicles produced, significantly
higher than the 1990/1991 median theft rate of 3.5826. However, the
average theft rate for the nine model years (1999-2008, no data
available for 2007) after installation of the standard immobilizer
device was 2.5704, which is significantly lower than the median. The
Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicle line was granted an exemption from the
parts-marking requirements beginning with MY 2004 (67 FR 79687,
December 30, 2002). Chrysler further stated that NHTSA's theft data for
the Jeep Grand Cherokee indicates that the inclusion of a standard
immobilizer system resulted in a 52 percent net average reduction in
vehicle thefts.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR Part 543.7(b), the agency
grants a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of
Part 541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that Chrysler has provided adequate reasons for its belief that
the antitheft device for the vehicle line is likely to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR
Part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Chrysler
provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide four of the five
types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3): Promoting
activation; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by
unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of
the device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Chrysler's petition for exemption for its [confidential] vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, beginning with
the 2014 model year vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR Part 541,
Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft
Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR Part 543.7(f)
contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all
Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future
product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is
granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary
in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines
exempted from the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard.
    If Chrysler decides not to use the exemption for this vehicle line,
it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the
vehicle line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR Parts 541.5 and
541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Chrysler wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. 49 CFR Part 543.7(d) states that a
Part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line
exempted under this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on
which the line's exemption is based. Further, 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2)
provides for the submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to
permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the
one specified in that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that 49 CFR
Part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and
itself. The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of

which might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the
agency before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: October 24, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-26627 Filed 10-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6514-6515]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2467]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2011-0011]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on an extension of a currently
approved collection.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
    This document describes one collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket notice numbers cited at
the beginning of this notice and be submitted to Docket Management,
Room W12-140, Ground Level, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590 by any of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the Docket Management System.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room W12-
140 on the ground level of the DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complete copies of each request for
collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Carlita
Ballard, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W43-439, NVS-131,
Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to
its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information.
    The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be
included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected and;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collections of information:
    Title: Petitions for Exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR Part 543).
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0542.
    Form Number: None.
    Affected Public: Motor vehicle manufacturers.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from approval
date.
    Abstract: Manufacturers of passenger vehicle lines may petition the
agency for an exemption from Part 541 requirements, if the line is
equipped with an anti-theft device as standard equipment and meets
agency criteria. Device must be as effective as parts-marking.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 1,808.
    Number of Respondents: 8.
    49 U.S.C. chapter 331 requires the Secretary of Transportation to
promulgate a theft prevention standard to provide for the
identification of certain motor vehicles and their major replacement
parts to impede motor vehicle theft. 49 U.S.C. 33106 provides for an
exemption to this identification process by petitions from
manufacturers who equip covered vehicles with standard original
equipment antitheft devices, which the Secretary determines are likely
to be as effective in reducing or deterring theft as parts-marking.
NHTSA may exempt a vehicle line from the parts marking requirement, if
the manufacturer installs an antitheft device as standard equipment on
the entire vehicle line for which it seeks an exemption and NHTSA
determines that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 33106, after
model year (MY) 2000, the number of new exemptions is contingent on a
finding by the Attorney General as part of its long-range review of
effectiveness. After consulting with DOJ, the agency decided it could
continue granting one exemption per model year pending the results of
the long-term review.
    In a final rule published on April 6, 2004, the Federal Motor
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard was extended to include all passenger
cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle rating of
6,000 pounds or

less, and to light duty trucks with major parts that are
interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of
multipurpose passenger vehicles. Consistent with this DOJ consultation,
the April 6, 2004 final rule amended the general requirements of
Section 543.5 of Chapter 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
allowing a manufacturer to petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one
additional line of its passenger motor vehicles from the requirements
of the theft prevention standard for each model year after MY 1996. The
final rule became effective September 1, 2006.
    Prior to September 1, 2006, manufacturers were only allowed to
petition NHTSA for high-theft vehicles lines. In its April 6, 2004
final rule, the agency amended part 543 to allow vehicle manufacturers
to file petitions to exempt all vehicle lines that would become subject
to parts-marking requirements beginning with the effective date of the
final rule. As a result of this amendment, vehicle manufacturers are
allowed to file petitions to exempt all vehicles lines that would
become subject to the parts-marking requirements regardless of their
theft status (high or low). While there are approximately 27 vehicle
manufacturers, since the effective date of the rule, 23 petitions for
exemption from the parts-marking requirements have been received by the
agency for MYs 2011-2013, averaging approximately 8 responses per year.
We anticipate this to remain the average number of yearly responses
received by the agency.
    NHTSA estimates that the average hours per submittal will be 226,
for a total annual burden of 1,808. NHTSA estimates that the cost
associated with the burden hours is $36.62 per hour, for a total cost
of approximately $66,209.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued on: January 31, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-2467 Filed 2-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 172 (Thursday, September 3, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54952-54954]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18112]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0121; FRL-10013-57-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; California; South Coast Air Quality Management
District; Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)
portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from
the use and application of industrial adhesives. We are proposing to
approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and
plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 5, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0121 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to

make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a language other than English or if
you are a person with disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation
at no cost to you, please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. The EPA's Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Local agency           Rule No.             Rule title                 Adopted              Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD..................            1168  Adhesive and Sealant        October 6, 2017.....  May 23, 2018.
                                           Applications.
VCAPCD..................           74.20  Adhesives and Sealants....  October 9, 2018.....  January 31, 2019.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 31, 2019, the submittal for VCAPCD Rule 74.20 was deemed
complete by operation of law pursuant to the criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V and on November 23, 2018, the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 1168
was deemed complete by operation of law pursuant to the criteria in 40
CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review
under 40 CFR 51.103.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved an earlier version of SCAQMD Rule 1168 into the SIP on
December 21, 2009 (74 FR 67821).
    We approved an earlier version of VCAPCD Rule 74.20 into the SIP on
August 30, 2013 (78 FR 53680).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    Emissions of VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level
ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the
environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit
regulations that control VOC emissions by limiting VOC content in
adhesives and sealants. The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs),
which are in the docket for today's rulemaking, have more information
about these rules.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of
VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see
CAA section 182(b)(2)). The SCAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment
area classified as ``Extreme'' for the for the 1997, 2008, and 2015 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR
81.305), and the VCAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area
classified as ``Serious'' for the 1997, 2008, and 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305). Therefore SCAQMD Rule 1168 and VCAPCD Rule 74.20
must implement RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision, relaxation, and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January
11, 1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial
Adhesives,'' EPA-453/R-08-005, September 2008.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    These rules meet CAA requirements and are consistent with relevant
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. The TSDs
have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The VCAPCD TSD includes recommendations for the next time the
agency modifies their rules. Regarding SCAQMD Rule 1168, we have not
identified any further recommendations at this time.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve these submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant
requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until October 5, 2020. If we take final action to approve the submitted
rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP and replace the previously approved versions of these
rules.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In these rules, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by

reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference the VCAPCD and SCAQMD rules
described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, 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 rules do 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 13, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-18112 Filed 9-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 129-132]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00078]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2019 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1066; Product Identifier 2018-NM-176-AD; Amendment
39-19540; AD 2019-01-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for The
Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes powered by Rolls-Royce plc (RR)
Trent 1000-A (including -A/01 and -A/01A), Trent 1000-AE (including -
AE/01A), Trent 1000-C (including -C/01 and -C/01A), Trent 1000-CE
(including -CE/01A), Trent 1000-D (including -D/01 and -D/01A), Trent
1000-E (including -E/01 and -E/01A), Trent 1000-G (including -G/01 and
-G/01A), and Trent 1000-H (including -H/01 and H/01A) turbofan engines.
This AD requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to limit
extended operations (ETOPS). This AD was prompted by a report from the
engine manufacturer indicating that after an engine failure, prolonged
operation at high thrust settings on the remaining engine during an
ETOPS diversion may result in failure of the remaining engine before
the diversion can be safely completed. We are issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 4, 2019.
    We must receive comments on this AD by March 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
1066; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued AD 2018-09-05, Amendment 39-19261 (83 FR 18208, April 26,
2018) (``AD 2018-09-05''), to address an unsafe condition identified on
Boeing Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes powered by RR Trent 1000 Package
C engines. The Package C engines are RR Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-AE2,
Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-CE2, Trent 1000-D2, Trent 1000-E2, Trent
1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2, and Trent 1000-L2
turbofan engines. AD 2018-09-05 was prompted by a report from the
engine manufacturer that intermediate pressure compressor (IPC) stage 2
blades have a resonant frequency that is excited by the airflow
conditions existing in the engine during operation at high thrust
settings under certain temperature and altitude conditions.
    We determined that the resultant blade vibration can result in
cumulative fatigue damage that can cause blade failure and consequent
engine in-flight shutdown. In the event of a single engine in-flight
shutdown during the cruise phase of flight, thrust on the remaining
engine is normally increased to maximum continuous thrust (MCT). During
a diversion following a single engine shutdown under an ETOPS flight,
the remaining engine may operate at MCT for a prolonged period, during
which the IPC stage 2 blades would be exposed to the resonant frequency
condition. Therefore, an ETOPS diversion will put the remaining engine
at an operating condition that would significantly increase the
likelihood of failure of the remaining engine. In addition, if the
remaining engine already had cracked IPC stage 2 blades, the likelihood
of the remaining engine failing before a diversion can be safely
completed will further increase.
    The issue associated with IPC blade vibration due to a resonant
frequency as described above was determined to exist on Boeing Model
787-8 airplanes powered by RR Trent 1000 Package B engines. The Package
B engines are RR Trent 1000-A (including -A/01 and -A/01A), Trent 1000-
AE (including -AE/01A), Trent 1000-C (including -C/01 and -C/01A),
Trent 1000-CE (including -CE/01A), Trent 1000-D (including -D/01 and -
D/01A), Trent 1000-E (including -E/01 and -E/01A), Trent 1000-G
(including -G/01 and -G/01A), and Trent 1000-H (including -H/01 and H/
01A) turbofan engines. The engine manufacturer assessed available data
and determined that the IPC blade vibration due to a resonant frequency
for the Package B engines is less severe than that for the Package C
engines, but it is still an unsafe condition that must be addressed by
AD action on Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes powered by the RR Trent 1000
Package B engines during an ETOPS diversion.
    The Package B engines have been certified for installation on
Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes. Furthermore, Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes
have been certified for intermixed engine installation, where a Package
B engine is installed with a Package C or a Trent 1000-TEN engine, for
certain thrust ratings. The RR Trent 1000-TEN engines have a numeral
``3'' at the end of the model number (e.g., Trent 1000-

AE3). When a 787-8 airplane has an intermix engine configuration where
a Package B engine is installed with a non-Package B engine, ETOPS
limitations associated with the non-Package B engine also apply. In
this case, the airplane must be operated in a manner that satisfies all
applicable ETOPS limitations.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires revising the AFM to limit ETOPS.

Interim Action

    This AD is interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing
a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in
this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available,
we might consider additional rulemaking.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because after an engine failure, prolonged operation at high thrust
settings on the remaining engine during an ETOPS diversion may result
in failure of the remaining engine before the diversion can be safely
completed; unrecoverable thrust loss on both engines could lead to a
forced landing. Additionally, there are currently no domestic operators
of this product. We find good cause that notice and opportunity for
prior public comment are impracticable and unnecessary. In addition,
for the reasons stated above, we find that good cause exists for making
this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2018-
1066 and Product Identifier 2018-NM-176-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
final rule because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this final rule.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an
affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future, we provide the following cost estimates to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                  Action                                 Labor cost                 Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revisions............................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.....              $0             $85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-01-01 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19540; Docket No. FAA-
2018-1066; Product Identifier 2018-NM-176-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 4, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes,
certificated in any category, powered by Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent
1000-A (including -A/01 and -A/01A), Trent 1000-AE (including -AE/
01A), Trent 1000-C (including -C/01 and -C/01A), Trent 1000-CE
(including -CE/01A), Trent 1000-D (including -D/01 and -D/01A),
Trent 1000-E (including -E/01 and -E/01A), Trent 1000-G (including -
G/01 and -G/01A), and Trent 1000-H (including -H/01 and H/01A)
turbofan engines.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Power plant.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report from the engine manufacturer
indicating that after an engine failure, prolonged operation at high
thrust settings on the remaining engine during an extended-operation
(ETOPS) diversion may result in failure of the remaining engine
before the diversion can be safely completed. We are issuing this AD
to address unrecoverable thrust loss on both engines, which could
lead to a forced landing.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Revision of Limitations Chapter in Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

    Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
Certificate Limitations chapter of the applicable Boeing AFM Engine
Appendix by incorporating the information in figure 1 to paragraph
(g) of this AD. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this
AD into the AFM. When information identical to that in figure 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD has been included in the Certificate
Limitations chapter of the general revisions of the AFM, the general
revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may
be removed from the AFM.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: The Boeing AFM for the
aircraft affected by this AD is required to be furnished with the
aircraft, per 14 CFR 25.1581. Further, operators of the aircraft
affected by this AD must operate in accordance with the limitations
specified in the AFM, per 14 CFR 91.9.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18JA19.000

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this

AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Rebel Nichols,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3556; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on January 11, 2019.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2019-00078 Filed 1-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Distance Matrix of Ohio Respondents Zip Codes and Ohio RF1 Reaches. ( Matrix4. sd2)

This data set contains distances from zip codes in Ohio to each of the 1,954 reaches. Zip codes must be converted from their 5 digit zip code into a row number for this data set using the " zip_ fmt" format.

Data Element Definitions ZIP  Index number corresponding to a specific zip code in Ohio _ 1 through _ 1954  Estimated distance from the centroid of the zip code to the reach indexed by a number from 1 to 1954. The reach RF1 identifier must be converted to its index value in the range of 1 to 1954 using the " rch_ fmt".