[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 165 (Wednesday, August 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51805-51806]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21135]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0442; FRL 9932-00-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Microbial Rules (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted
an information collection request (ICR) for the Microbial Rules (EPA
ICR No. 1895.09, OMB Control No. 2040-0205) to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
August 31, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Register (80 FR 17040) on March 31, 2015, during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is provided in this renewal
notice, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 25,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0442, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Roland, Drinking Water
Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
(4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>: fax number: 202-
564-3755; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Supporting documents which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in
the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The Microbial Rules Renewal ICR examines public water
system, air carrier and primacy agency burden and costs for
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in support of the microbial
drinking water regulations. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR parts 141 and
142. The following microbial regulations are included: the Surface
Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), the Total Coliform Rule (TCR), the Revised
Total Coliform Rule (RTCR), the Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (IESWTR), the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR), the
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR), the Long
Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), the Ground
Water Rule (GWR) and the Aircraft Drinking Water Rule (ADWR). Future
microbial-related rulemakings will be added to this consolidated ICR
after the regulations are promulgated and the initial, rule-specific,
ICRs are due to expire.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are public water systems, air carriers and primacy
agencies.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory for compliance with
40 CFR parts 141 and 142.
    Estimated number of respondents: 149,864 (total).
    Frequency of response: Varies by requirement (i.e., on occasion,
monthly, quarterly, semi-annually and annually).

    Total estimated burden: 14,683,598 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    TTotal estimated cost: $652,507,000 (per year), includes
$21,982,000 annualized capital and $88,035,000 operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 913,658 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is a result of inclusion of the RTCR
burden (839,526 hours) and expanded implementation requirements for the
GWR and LT2ESWTR; updating relevant baseline information for each rule
with the most current and accurate information available (e.g., Public
Water System inventories); and, updating burden to incorporate the
results of consultation with stakeholders. Where appropriate and
available, estimated violation, waiver and other associated rates have
also been updated to reflect current information on rule compliance.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-21135 Filed 8-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as a representative of Smoky Mountain Vapers Group (1600+ members) in East Tennessee and as a consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of my group and myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to us, as consumers of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life, both my parents' lives and hundreds of thousands of others. Science is proving that insignificant associated health risks are present in e-cigarettes when compared to traditional combustible cigarettes. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Best regards, Doug Arnold, Smoky Mountain Capers, Knoxville, TN


Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act Section 610 Analysis the Phase II Land Disposal Restriction Rule United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response February 20, 2004 2 Introduction Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act ( SBREFA) requires federal agencies to periodically review regulations to determine whether or not they have had a significant adverse impact to a substantial number of small entities. Currently, The Agency is evaluating whether or not the Phase II and Phase III Land Disposal Restriction ( LDR) final rulemakings have significantly adversely impacted a substantial number of small entities. This memorandum presents findings of the SBREFA analysis on Phase II of the LDR rulemaking.

The Phase II final rule was promulgated September 19, 1994 and established treatment standards for newly identified TC organic wastes ( i. e., hazardous wastes that exhibit the toxicity characteristic for one or more organic hazardous constituents), chlorotoluene wastes ( K149 K151) and coke by product wastes ( K141 K145, K147 K148). The rule also promulgated universal treatment standards ( UTS) for all TC organic wastes ( D018 D043) as well as ignitable, corrosive and reactive waste ( D001 D003). The LDRs require that affected wastes not only be treated for their characteristic, but also any underlying hazardous constituents ( UHCs) that may be present in the wastes themselves. For example, if a wastewater treatment sludge exhibited the toxicity characteristic for benzene ( i. e., leached more than 0.5 ppm on a TCLP test), it would have to be treated not only for the benzene but also any underlying hazardous metal constituents reasonably expected to be present at levels above UTS. Therefore, in this example, a modification of the treatment train that would normally be used to treat the sludge would be necessary. Additional treatment steps to comply with UTS requirements or to establish treatment requirements for newly identified TC organic wastes could have resulted in incremental compliance costs to small entities.

To fulfill its obligations under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Office of Solid Waste is conducting an economic impact screen of potentially affected small entities under the Phase II rule. This memorandum presents estimates of the economic impacts of the Phase II LDR final rule on affected small entities ( i. e., small businesses, small government units, or small non governmental organizations such as trade associations and universities), expressed as an estimate of compliance cost to sales on a corporatespecific basis. In addition, it contains a brief assessment of how the market structure of affected entities might affect economic impacts.

Methodology EPA completed data collection from available databases including the 1999 Biennial Reporting System data ( BRS) and Dun and Bradstreet Spectrum, as well as literature review, phone consultation with knowledgeable authorities and other data collection and analysis as appropriate.

EPA conducted the following steps to complete the analysis:

1. Identify waste handlers who manage potentially affected volumes of hazardous waste.

The 1999 BRS data were used to identify waste handlers who manage potentially affected volumes of newly listed toxicity characteristic organic wastes ( waste codes D018  D043) and newly listed coke byproduct and chlorotoluene wastes ( waste codes K141  K148, K149  K151). It should be noted that 3 waste handlers who manage potentially affected volumes of ignitable, corrosive, and reactive characteristically hazardous wastes ( waste codes D001 D003) and metal and pesticide wastes ( waste codes D004 D017) were not identified because no data on the volume of waste affected by the requirement for UHCs to be treated to meet UTS standards are available. It is assumed that current treatment of metal wastes ( D004 D011) pre rule will meet the new UTS standard because prior Agency contact with commercial treaters indicates that they usually treat to much lower levels than are required to assure compliance. It is assumed the waste volume will be negligible. These volumes are only captured in the analysis if they are reported in combination with the newly listed TC organic wastes ( D018 D043).

2. Identify waste handlers from Step 1 who are small entities.

The Agency relied primarily on Dun and Bradstreet Spectrum data ( D& B) to identify any waste handlers identified in Step 1 who are small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration Table of Size Standards ( see http:// www. sba. gov/ size/ indextableofsize. html). To avoid disclosure of proprietary data from Dun and Bradstreet facilities are represented as numbers in the memorandum instead of actual facility names or other identifiers. The model facilities include representations of affected firms and summary information about the number of employees, and sales for the industries that the model facilities represent. The memorandum does not include any data regarding the names, location, number of employees or sales/ revenue of actual small entities identified through data collection from the Dun and Bradstreet.

In completing this step diligent efforts were made to identify whether each facility included in the BRS database was large or small. However because of variations in names between D& B and BRS as well as name changes, facilities and companies going out of business, a determination could not be made on all facilities. In total there were approximately 260 distinct companies in BRS and no size determination could be made on approximately 18 percent of these facilities. A total of 47 companies were identified as being small.

3. Calculate cost of treatment for affected small entities.

Treatment costs for newly identified TC organic wastes ( D018  D043) include two parts: Scenario 1) the additional cost of treatment resulting from the treatment standard for a specific waste code ( e. g., combustion of an organic bearing hazardous waste), and Scenario 2) any additional treatment required for underlying hazardous constituents ( e. g., a hazardous waste that exhibits the toxicity characteristic for an organic constituent and also contains underlying metal hazardous constituents that requires additional treatment to the treatment required for the organic hazardous constituent). Treatment costs for ignitable, corrosive or reactive wastes ( ICR wastes, D001  D003) only include treatment for underlying hazardous constituents. Treatment costs for newly identified listed wastes including chlorotoluene wastes ( K149  K151) and coke by product wastes ( K141  K145, K147  K148) only include the treatment for a specific waste code and does not include treatment for underlying hazardous constituents because this requirement does not apply to listed wastes. EPA will calculate treatment costs for two of the three categories of affected wastes: 1) TC organic wastes and 2) newly identified wastes according to the previous description. Underlying treatment costs for ICR wastes are estimated under Scenario 2 above only if they are reported in combination with TC organic wastes. The waste management assumptions 4 for each of the 47 small entities are presented in Table 1.

4. Conduct an economic impact analysis of the incremental cost of treatment to the sales of affected small entities to determine if there are significant impacts EPA compared the incremental compliance costs of treatment for the affected waste volumes with the annual revenues for the small entity. Results are separated into three categories: 1) the incremental compliance costs are equal to or less than 1 percent of the annual sales of the affected entity, 2) the incremental compliance costs are greater than 1 and less than 3 percent of the annual sales of the affected entity, and 3) the incremental compliance costs are equal to or greater than 3 percent of the annual sales of the affected entity.

Results Facility specific cost impacts are presented in Table 2. A summary of the overall cost impacts are presented in Table 1. Scenario 1 presents the cost impacts assuming that TC organic wastes ( i. e., D018 D043) with no underlying hazardous constituents to treat. Scenario 2 presents the cost impacts assuming that TC organic wastes with underlying hazardous constituents to treat. In general costs are well below 1 percent of sales. Costs exceed one percent of sales for only one of the 47 small businesses identified. Cost impacts average less than 0.1 percent of sales for all 47 facilities. Because of the relatively low impacts, the Agency has determined that Phase II LDR restrictions have not had a significant adverse impact to a substantial number of small entities. 5 Table 1. Phase II LDR Small Business Baseline and Compliance Management Practices Facility Number 1999 Generation Quantity ( tons) 1 Baseline Management 1999 Management 1 Generators of Coke By Product Wastes ( K142, K147, K148)

1 1,780 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 735 tons stabilization ( assume followed by landfill)

1,022 tons landfilled 13 tons incineration Assume off site stabilization and Subtitle C landfill.

2 7.3 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 7.3 tons stabilization ( assume followed by landfill)

Assume off site stabilization and Subtitle C landfill.

Generators of TC Organic Wastes ( D018 D043)

3 5.9 Assume stabilization and Subtitle C landfill of waste sludges. 5.9 tons metals recovery  type unknown ( This is a spent reformer catalyst.)

Assume off site high temperature metals recovery.

4 9.7 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 9.7 tons other treatment ( These are spent carbon wastes)

Assume off site incineration.

5 3.9 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 3.9 tons acid regeneration ( This is a spent carbon waste.

The management reported management method appears incorrect.)

Assume off site incineration.

6 1.3 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 1.3 tons incineration  solids Assume off site incineration.

7 1.3 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 1.3 tons incineration  solids Assume off site incineration.

8 8.9 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 8.9 tons transfer facility storage Assume off site incineration.

9 1.2 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 1.2 tons transfer facility storage Assume off site incineration. Table 1. Phase II LDR Small Business Baseline and Compliance Management Practices Facility Number 1999 Generation Quantity ( tons) 1 Baseline Management 1999 Management 1 6 10 0.2 Assume stabilization and Subtitle C landfill of waste sludges. 0.2 tons transfer facility storage Assume off site incineration.

11 37.3 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 37 tons landfill Assume off site stabilization and Subtitle C landfill.

12 3.3 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 3.3 tons incineration  solids Assume off site incineration.

13 0.1 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 0.1 tons transfer facility storage ( inorganic solid)

Assume off site stabilization and Subtitle C landfill.

14 1.1 Assume stabilization and Subtitle C landfill of waste sludges. 1.1 tons fuel blending Assume off site cement kiln.

15 0.2 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 0.2 tons incineration  type unknown Assume off site incineration.

16 2 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 2 tons other treatment  type unknown ( spent carbon wastes) Assume off site incineration.

17 0.1 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 0.1 tons transfer facility storage Assume off site incineration.

18 5.2 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 1.9 tons land treatment ( assume error in reporting because facility only has a landfill)

Assume off site stabilization and Subtitle C landfill.

3.2 tons transfer facility storage ( spent carbon filters)

Assume off site incineration.

19 2.4 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 2.4 tons energy recovery  solids Assume off site cement kiln. Table 1. Phase II LDR Small Business Baseline and Compliance Management Practices Facility Number 1999 Generation Quantity ( tons) 1 Baseline Management 1999 Management 1 7 20 2.8 Assume stabilization and Subtitle C landfill of waste sludges. 2.8 tons fuel blending Assume off site cement kiln.

21 1.0 Assume stabilization and Subtitle C landfill of waste sludges. 1.0 tons energy recovery  type unknown Assume off site cement kiln.

22 1.5 Assume stabilization and Subtitle C landfill of waste sludges. 1.5 tons management unknown ( degreasing sludge with metal scale or filings)

Assume off site incineration.

23 11.2 Assume stabilization and Subtitle C landfill of waste sludges. 11.2 tons fuel blending Assume off site cement kiln.

Generators of TC Organic Wastes ( D018 D043) and TC Metals ( D004 D011)

24 0.5 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 0.5 tons stabilization Assume off site stabilization and Subtitle C landfill.

25 2.0 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 2 tons other treatment Assume off site stabilization and Subtitle C landfill.

26 0.05 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 0.05 tons stabilization Assume off site stabilization and Subtitle C landfill.

27 4.2 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 4.2 tons transfer facility storage Assume off site stabilization and Subtitle C landfill.

28 0.1 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 0.1 tons incineration  solids Assume off site incineration.

29 0.1 Assume stabilization and Subtitle C landfill of waste sludges. 0.1 tons transfer facility storage Assume off site incineration.

30 40.9 Assume stabilization and Subtitle C landfill of waste sludges. 40.9 tons stabilization Assume off site stabilization and Subtitle C landfill. Table 1. Phase II LDR Small Business Baseline and Compliance Management Practices Facility Number 1999 Generation Quantity ( tons) 1 Baseline Management 1999 Management 1 8 31 4.0 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 4.0 tons incineration  solids Assume off site incineration.

32 0.1 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 0.1 tons stabilization Assume off site stabilization and Subtitle C landfill.

33 3.8 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 3.8 tons fuel blending Assume off site cement kiln.

34 4.9 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 4.9 tons stabilization Assume off site stabilization and Subtitle C landfill.

Generators of TC Organic Wastes ( D018 D043) and Ignitable and Corrosive Characteristic Wastes ( D001 D002)

35 5.6 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 5.6 tons transfer facility storage Assume off site incineration.

36 2.7 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 2.7 tons fuel blending Assume off site cement kiln.

37 2.4 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 2.4 tons transfer facility storage Assume off site incineration.

38 0.4 Assume stabilization and Subtitle C landfill of waste sludges. 0.4 tons fuel blending Assume off site cement kiln.

39 2.6 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 2.6 tons incineration  solids Assume off site incineration.

40 0.6 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 0.6 tons transfer facility storage Assume off site incineration.

41 4.8 Assume stabilization and Subtitle C landfill of waste sludges. 4.8 tons fuel blending Assume off site cement kiln. Table 1. Phase II LDR Small Business Baseline and Compliance Management Practices Facility Number 1999 Generation Quantity ( tons) 1 Baseline Management 1999 Management 1 9 42 0.3 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 0.3 tons incineration  sludge Assume off site incineration.

43 0.005 Assume stabilization and Subtitle C landfill of waste sludges. 0.005 transfer facility storage Assume off site incineration.

44 4.3 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 4.3 tons incineration  solid Assume off site incineration.

45 4.0 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 4.0 tons transfer facility storage Assume off site incineration.

46 2.3 Assume stabilization and Subtitle C landfill of waste sludges. 2.3 tons other disposal Assume off site incineration.

47 10.2 Assume Subtitle C landfill of waste solids. 10.2 tons fuel blending Assume off site cement kiln.

1 1999 generation and management information obtained from the 1999 Biennial Report Database. 10 Table 2. Facility Specific Summary of LDR Phase II Impacts on Small Businesses Facility Sales 1/ Scenario 1 ( no underlying metals) LDR Costs as % of Sales Scenario 2 ( treat underlying metals) LDR Costs as % of Sales 1 $ 330,000,000 0.04% NA 2 $ 32,000,000 0.00% NA 3 $ 247,000,000 0.01% 0.01%

4 $ 35,000,000 0.08% 0.08%

5 $ 400,000 1.08% 1.10%

6 $ 9,000,000 0.00% 0.00%

7 $ 35,000,000 0.00% 0.00%

8 NA NA NA 9 NA NA NA 10 $ 10,000,000 0.00% 0.00%

11 $ 3,000,000 0.09% 0.09%

12 $ 14,000,000 0.06% 0.06%

13 $ 45,000,000 0.00% 0.00%

14 $ 8,000,000 0.02% 0.02%

15 $ 9,000,000 0.04% 0.04%

16 $ 33,000,000 0.01% 0.01%

17 $ 16,000,000 0.02% 0.02%

18 $ 78,000,000 0.01% 0.01%

19 $ 3,000,000 0.00% 0.00%

20 $ 4,000,000 0.04% 0.04%

21 $ 10,000,000 0.02% 0.02%

22 $ 3,000,000 0.00% 0.00%

23 $ 10,000,000 0.14% 0.14%

24 $ 57,000,000 0.00% 0.00%

25 $ 2,000,000 0.00% 0.01%

26 $ 37,000,000 0.00% 0.00% Table 2. Facility Specific Summary of LDR Phase II Impacts on Small Businesses Facility Sales 1/ Scenario 1 ( no underlying metals) LDR Costs as % of Sales Scenario 2 ( treat underlying metals) LDR Costs as % of Sales 11 27 $ 2,000,000 0.00% 0.02%

28 $ 37,000,000 0.00% 0.01%

29 $ 4,000,000 0.00% 0.00%

30 $ 4,000,000 0.00% 0.00%

31 $ 4,000,000 0.00% 0.69%

32 $ 19,000,000 0.00% 0.00%

33 $ 5,000,000 0.00% 0.17%

34 $ 3,000,000 0.00% 0.01%

35 $ 1,000,000 0.27% 0.28%

36 $ 2,000,000 0.08% 0.08%

37 $ 700,000 0.00% 0.00%

38 $ 44,000,000 0.02% 0.02%

39 $ 3,000,000 0.00% 0.00%

40 $ 11,000,000 0.03% 0.03%

41 $ 4,000,000 0.02% 0.02%

42 $ 22,000,000 0.00% 0.00%

43 $ 53,000,000 0.00% 0.00%

44 $ 30,000,000 0.02% 0.02%

45 $ 8,000,000 0.02% 0.02%

46 $ 3,000,000 0.25% 0.25%

47 $ 15,000,000 0.02% 0.02%

1/ Sales values rounded to nearest $ 1 million, or $ 100,000 for companies with less than $ 900,000 in sales 12 Table 3. Summary of Phase II LDR Impacts on Small Businesses Scenario 1 Incremental Costs ( No metals) Scenario 2 Incremental Costs ( With metals)

No. of Companies Scenario 1 No.

Impacted Companies Scenario 2 No.

Impacted Companies Management/

Disposal Transport ation Total Manageme nt/ Disposal Transporta tion Total K142, K147, K148 Wastes 1/

TC Organic Wastes ( D018 D043) 23 17 17 $ 162,177 $ 74,902 $ 237,080 $ 162,820 $ 74,902 $ 237,722 TC Organic Wastes ( D018 D043)

with TC Metals ( D004 D011) 11 9 9 $ 3,137 $ 37,257 $ 40,394 $ 3,137 $ 37,257 $ 40,394 TC Organic Wastes ( D018 D043)

with IC waste ( D001  D002) 13 10 10 $ 10,802 $ 18,749 $ 29,552 $ 11,222 $ 18,749 $ 29,971 Phase II LDR TOTALS 47 36 36 $ 176,116 $ 130,908 $ 307,026 $ 177,178 $ 130,908 $ 308,086 1/ Estimates for the Phase II K wastes are included with the TC Organic Wastes ( D018 D043) to avoid disclosure.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45965-45967]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18666]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0234; FRL-9708-4]

Determination of Attainment for the Paul Spur/Douglas
PM10 Nonattainment Area, Arizona; Determination Regarding
Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a determination that the Paul Spur/Douglas
nonattainment area in Arizona is currently attaining the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers
(PM10) based on certified, quality-assured ambient air
monitoring data for the years 2009-2011. Given our determination that
the Paul Spur/Douglas nonattainment area is currently attaining the
PM10 NAAQS, EPA is also determining that Arizona's
obligation to make submissions to meet certain Clean Air Act
requirements related to attainment of the NAAQS is not applicable for
as long as the Paul Spur/Douglas nonattainment area continues to attain
the NAAQS and that the obligation on EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan to address the State's attainment-related
requirements is also suspended for as

long as Arizona's underlying obligation is suspended.

DATES:  Effective Date: This rule is effective on September 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0234 for
this action. The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, Air Planning Office,
AIR-2, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-
3901, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. We are providing the following
table of contents for ease of locating information in this proposal.

Table of Contents

I. EPA's Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. EPA's Proposed Action

    On May 25, 2012, EPA proposed to find that the Paul Spur/Douglas
nonattainment area (NA) \1\ is currently attaining the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS based on certified and quality-assured data from
the most recent three-year period, 2009-2011, and to suspend certain
Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements related to attainment for so long as
the area continues to attain the standard. See 77 FR 31268; (May 25,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Paul Spur/Douglas NA covers approximately 220 square
miles along the border with Mexico within Cochise County. Cities and
towns within this area include Douglas, 2010 population 17,378,
(U.S. Census) and Pirtleville, 2010 population 1,744, (U.S. Census).
The 2010 population of Agua Prieta, Mexico, just across the border
from Douglas, is 78,138 (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y
Geografia).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To summarize our proposed rule, we described the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS, which is 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\), and reviewed the designation and classification of the Paul
Spur/Douglas NA for that standard. We then discussed how EPA makes
attainment determinations for PM10 and indicated that the
24-hour PM10 NAAQS is attained when the expected number of
exceedances averaged over a three-year period is less than or equal to
one at each monitoring site within the nonattainment area. See 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K.
    We described Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's (ADEQ's)
two PM10 monitoring sites in the Paul Spur/Douglas area. We
noted that ADEQ's annual network plans have met the applicable
requirements for such plans, and based on the findings of our technical
system audit report, ADEQ's monitoring network meets or exceeds the
applicable requirements. Finally, we noted that ADEQ has certified the
data it submits to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database as quality-
assured.
    Next, we reviewed the ambient PM10 data collected at the
two PM10 monitoring sites in the Paul Spur/Douglas area for
the most recent three-year period, 2009-2011. We noted that the highest
annual 24-hour average PM10 concentrations over the past
three years ranged from 46 to 85 [mu]g/m\3\ at the Paul Spur monitor
and from 83 to 138 [mu]g/m\3\ at the Douglas monitor. As a result, we
concluded that the area is attaining the PM10 standard
because the expected number of exceedances per year for the Paul Spur/
Douglas NA was less than 1.0. For additional information on the
PM10 NAAQS, the designation and classification of the Paul
Spur/Douglas NA, ADEQ's monitoring network plans and certifications,
the monitoring sites in the Paul Spur/Douglas area, and the data we
relied on for our clean data finding, please see 77 FR 31269-31271.
    In conjunction with and based on our proposed determination that
the Paul Spur/Douglas NA is currently attaining the PM10
NAAQS, EPA proposed to determine that Arizona's obligation to submit
revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the
following CAA requirements is not applicable for so long as the Paul
Spur/Douglas NA continues to attain the PM10 standard: The
part D, subpart 4 obligation to provide an attainment demonstration
pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B); the reasonably available control
measure (RACM) provisions of section 189(a)(1)(C); the reasonable
further progress (RFP) provisions of section 189(c); and, the
attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP and contingency measure provisions
of part D, subpart 1 contained in section 172. We proposed to suspend
these SIP requirements based on application of the Clean Data Policy to
the Paul Spur/Douglas NA. In doing so, we noted that our application of
the Clean Data Policy to the Paul Spur/Douglas NA is consistent with a
number of actions we have taken for other PM10 nonattainment
areas that we also determined were attaining the NAAQS. For a detailed
explanation of our Clean Data Policy and its application to the Paul
Spur/Douglas NA, please see 77 FR 31271-31273.
    Lastly, we noted that suspension of the State's SIP obligation
would also serve to suspend EPA's obligation to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the same attainment-related
requirements. See 77 FR 31273-31274.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received a comment from a private citizen
expressing a general skepticism of the ability to regulate
PM10 in a desert environment; no general information and no
Paul Spur/Douglas NA specific information was provided to support the
comment. Furthermore, no information was provided to dispute either the
2009-2011 Paul Spur/Douglas ambient PM10 data, or our
proposed suspension of attainment-related SIP obligations or the
related FIP obligations. Therefore, no response is necessary. We note,
however, that many effective measures exist to reduce dust from
anthropogenic sources in desert environments, including paving unpaved
roads and other unpaved surfaces used by motor vehicles, restricting
off-road vehicle use to a designated time of year and/or location where
the effects can be mitigated, and stabilizing soil in areas that have
been disturbed by human activity.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change EPA's assessment of the
2009-2011 ambient PM10 data collected in the Paul Spur/
Douglas NA and related finding that the area is attaining the NAAQS, or
our application of the Clean Data Policy as described in our proposed
action. Therefore, EPA is finalizing its determination that the Paul
Spur/Douglas NA in Arizona is currently attaining the NAAQS for
PM10.
    EPA is also taking final action to determine that Arizona's
obligation to make SIP submissions to meet the following CAA
requirements is not applicable for as long as the Paul Spur/Douglas NA
continues to attain the PM10 NAAQS: The part D, subpart 4
obligation to provide an attainment

demonstration pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B); the reasonably
available control measure (RACM) provisions of section 189(a)(1)(C);
the reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions of section 189(c);
and, the attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP and contingency measure
provisions of part D, subpart 1 contained in section 172.
    Lastly, EPA finds that our obligation to promulgate a FIP
addressing the Paul Spur/Douglas NA attainment-related requirements is
suspended for as long as the underlying State obligation is suspended.
    This final action does not constitute a redesignation to attainment
under CAA section 107(d)(3) because Arizona has not submitted a
maintenance plan and EPA has not approved such a plan for the Paul
Spur/Douglas NA as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA,
nor has EPA determined that Arizona has met the other CAA requirements
for redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR
part 81 remains moderate nonattainment for the Paul Spur/Douglas NA
until such time as EPA determines that Arizona has met the CAA
requirements for redesignating the Paul Spur/Douglas NA to attainment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    With this action, we are making a determination regarding
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS based on air quality data and,
based on this determination, suspending certain Federal requirements.
Therefore, this action would not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law or by the CAA. 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide 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, this action does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian
Tribes and thus will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: July 20, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-18666 Filed 8-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                     INDEX TO DOCKET EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0735 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Nevada; Redesignation of Las Vegas Valley to Attainment for PM10                                                                                CATEGORY I:  	Notices of Proposed Rulemaking

   A.       Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Nevada; Redesignation of Las Vegas Valley to Attainment for PM10;,  Proposed rule, pre-publication signature copy, June 27, 2014.

   B.       79 FR 42258, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Nevada; Redesignation of Las Vegas Valley to Attainment for PM10, July 21, 2014.

CATEGORY II:	NDEP's SIP Revision Submittal Package    A.       Letter from Colleen Cripps, Ph.D., Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, September 7, 2012.

   B.       Letter from Lewis Wallenmeyer, Director, Clark County Department of Air Quality, to Colleen Cripps, Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, August 27, 2012.

   C.       Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Particulate Matter (PM10), Clark County, Nevada, August 2012.

   D.       Letter from Colleen Cripps, Ph.D., Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, May 27, 2014

   E.       Letter from Lewis Wallenmeyer, Director, Clark County Department of Air Quality, to Colleen Cripps, Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, May 20, 2014

CATEGORY III:	Relevant Portions of Approved Nevada State Implementation Plan    A. City of Las Vegas Building Code, Section 3708, Residential Wood Combustion Ordinance (Fireplace), No. 3538, November 21, 1990.

   B. Clark County Building Code, Section 3708, Residential Wood Combustion Ordinance (Fireplace), No. 1249, December 4, 1990.

   C. City of North Las Vegas Building Code, Section 13.16.150, Residential Wood Combustion Ordinance (Fireplace), No. 1020, September 18, 1991.

   D. City of Henderson Building Code, Section 15.40.010, Residential Wood Combustion Ordinance (Fireplace), No. 1697, October 15, 1996.

   E. PM10 State Implementation Plan for Clark County, June 2001.

   F. Clark County Air Quality Regulations, Section 91 - Fugitive Dust from Unpaved Roads, Unpaved Alleys and Unpaved Easement Roads, November 20, 2001.

   G. Clark County Air Quality Regulations, Section 90 - Fugitive Dust from Open Areas and Vacant Lots, December 17, 2002.

   H. Clark County Air Quality Regulations, Section 92 - Fugitive Dust from Unpaved Parking Lots, Material Handling & Storage Yards, & Vehicle & Equipment Storage Yards, December 17, 2002.

   I. Clark County Air Quality Regulations, Section 93 - Fugitive Dust from Paved Roads & Street Sweeping Equipment, March 4, 2003.

   J. Clark County Air Quality Regulations, Section 94  -  Permitting & Dust Control for Construction Activities, March 18, 2003.

   K. Nevada Administrative Code, Section 445B.22083  -  Construction, major modification or relocation of plants to generate electricity using steam produced by burning of fossil fuel, October 31, 2005.

   L. Nevada Administrative Code, Section 445B.2203 - Emissions of particulate matter: Fuel-burning equipment,

   M. Nevada Administrative Code, Section 445B.22017 - Visible emissions: Maximum opacity; determination and monitoring of opacity,

   N. Clark County Air Quality Regulations, Section 12  -  Preconstruction Review for New or Modified Stationary Sources, September 7, 2004.

   O. Clark County Air Quality Regulations, Section 26 - Emission of visible air contaminants, August 27, 1981.

   P. Clark County Air Quality Regulations, Section 27 - Particulate matter from process weight rate, June 18, 1982.

   Q. Clark County Air Quality Regulations, Section 28 - Fuel burning equipment, August 27, 1981.

   R. Clark County Air Quality Regulations, Section 30  - Incinerators, June 18, 1982.

   S. Clark County Air Quality Regulations, Section 42 - Open burning, August 27, 1981.

   T. Clark County Air Quality Regulations, Section 41  -  Fugitive Dust, August 27, 1981.

CATEGORY IV:	Related EPA Proposed and Final Rules    A.       52 FR 24634, "Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter," Final rule, July 1, 1987.

   B.       56 FR 11101, "Designations and Classifications for Initial PM-10 Nonattainment Areas," Notice announcing designations and classifications for initial PM-10 nonattainment areas, March 15, 1991.

   C.       57 FR 13498, "State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990," General preamble for future proposed rulemakings, April 16, 1992.

   D.       57 FR 18070, "State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental," General preamble for future proposed rulemakings; Appendices, April 28, 1992.

   E.       57 FR 27936, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Kansas," Final rule, June 23, 1992.

   F.       57 FR 27939, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Missouri," Final rule, June 23, 1992.

   G.       58 FR 3334, "Reclassification of Moderate PM-10 Nonattainment Areas to Serious Areas," Final rule, January 8, 1993.

   H.       58 FR 62188, "Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act," Final rule, November 24, 1993.

   I.       59 FR 41998, "State implementation Plans for Serious PM10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990," Addendum to General Preamble for future rulemakings, August 16, 1994.

   J.       60 FR 12459, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Michigan," Final rule, March 7, 1995.

   K.       60 FR 62748, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Florida Change in National Policy Regarding Applicability of Conformity Requirements to Redesignation Requests," Final rule December 7, 1995.

   L.       61 FR 20458, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio," Final rule, May 7, 1996.

   M.       61 FR 31831, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Michigan," Final rule, June 21, 1996.

   N.       61 FR 53174, "Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request, Maintenance Plan, and Emissions Inventory for the Reading Ozone Nonattainment Area; Policy Change for Ozone Redesignations," Proposed rule, October 10, 1996.

   O.       62 FR 24826, "Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request, Maintenance Plan, and Emissions Inventory for the Reading Ozone Nonattainment Area; Ozone Redesignations Policy Change," Final rule, May 7, 1997.

   P.       65 FR 37879, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio and Kentucky," Final rule, June 19, 2000.

   Q.       66 FR 53094, "Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of Miscellaneous Revisions," Final rule, October 19, 2001.

   R.       66 FR 53665, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Redesignation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Kentucky and Indiana; Approval of Revisions to State Implementation Plan; Kentucky," Final rule, October 23, 2001.

   S.       68 FR 2954, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Nevada -- Las Vegas Valley PM - 10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment of the Annual and 24-Hour PM - 10 Standards," Proposed rule, January 22, 2003.

   T.       68 FR 52838, "Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan, Clark County Air Quality Management Board," Direct final rule, September 8, 2003.

   U.       69 FR 31056, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Source Review; State of Nevada, Clark County Department of Air Quality Management," Proposed rule, June 2, 2004.

   V.       69 FR 32273, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Nevada Las Vegas Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment of the Annual and 24-Hour PM - 10 Standards," Final rule, June 9, 2004.

   W.       69 FR 54006, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Source Review; State of Nevada, Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management," Final rule, September 7, 2004.

   X.       71 FR 61144, "National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter," Final rule, October 17, 2006.

   Y.       71 FR 61236, "Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations," Final rule, October 17, 2006.

   Z.       72 FR 6986, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: California," Proposed rule, February 14, 2007.

   AA.       72 FR 26718, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: California," Final rule, May 11, 2007.

   BB.       73 FR 20536, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Stationary Source Permits," Final rule, April 16, 2008.

   CC.       73 FR 66182, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Clark County," Direct final rule, November 7, 2008.

   DD.       75 FR 17254, "40 CFR Parts 51 and 93; Revisions to the General Conformity Regulations," Final rule, April 5, 2010.

   EE.       75 FR 45485, "Determination of Attainment for PM10 for the Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, NV," Direct final rule, August 3, 2010.

   FF.       77 FR 17334, "Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Nevada; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan," Final rule, March 26, 2012.

   GG.       77 FR 50936, "Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans; BART Determination for Reid Gardner Generating Station, Final rule, August 23, 2012.

   HH.       77 FR 64039, "Limited Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; Clark County; Stationary Source Permits," Final Rule, October 18, 2012.

   II.       77 FR 64737, "Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter," Final rule, October 23, 2012.

   JJ.       78 FR 3086, "National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter," Final rule, January 15, 2013.

   KK.       78 FR 44494, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of California; PM10; Redesignation of Sacramento to Attainment; Approval of PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Sacramento," Proposed rule, July 24, 2013.

   LL.       78 FR 59261, "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of California; PM10; Redesignation of Sacramento to Attainment; Approval of PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Sacramento," Final rule, September 26, 2013.

   MM.       54 FR 41218, "Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Particulate Matter," Proposed Rule, October 5, 1989

   NN.       58 FR 31622, "Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Particulate Matter," Final rule, June 3, 1993.               CATEGORY V: Other Documents Relied Upon for Proposed Rulemaking

   A.       PM-10 SIP Development Guideline, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, Document ID EPA - 450/2 - 86 - 001, June 1987.

   B.       Memorandum from John Calcagni, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," September 4, 1992.           C.       PM - 10 Emissions Inventory Requirements, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, Document ID EPA - 454/R - 94 - 033, September 1994.

   D.       Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, EPA, "Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment," October 14, 1994.

   E.       EPA, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Section 13.2.1, Paved Roads, January 2011.           F.       Letter from Matthew Lakin, EPA Region IX, to Mike Sword, Clark County DAQ, February 28, 2013.

   G.       Letter from Lewis Wallenmeyer, Clark County DAQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, April 30, 2013.

   H.       Letter from Matthew Lakin, EPA Region IX, to Mike Sword, Clark County DAQ, June 5, 2013.

   I.       Letter from Mike Sword, P.E., CEM, Engineering Manager, Clark County DAQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, June 4, 2013, and attached Annual Monitoring Network Plan Report (June 2013).

   J.       Letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Lewis Wallenmeyer, Director, Clark County DAQ, August 1, 2013.           K.       EPA, "Adequacy Documentation for Plan Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets in August 2012 Clark County PM10 Maintenance State Implementation Plan," Memorandum, October 28, 2013.

   L.       Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Mike Sword, Engineering Manager, Clark County DAQ, October 30, 2013.           M.       Memorandum from Joseph W. Paisie, Acting Chief, SO2/Particulate Matter Programs Branch, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X, entitled "TSP Redesignation Request", May 20, 1992.

   N.       Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Phil Wiker, Engineering Manager, Clark County DAQ, dated December 11, 2013.           O.       EPA Region IX, Technical System Audit Report, Clark County Department of Air Quality Ambient Air Monitoring Program, July 26-July 27, 2012, Final report, July 2013           P.       Letter from Lewis Wallenmeyer, Clark County DAQ, to Fletcher Clover, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, dated April 22, 2014

   Q.       Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, to Lewis Wallenmeyer, Clark County DAQ, dated June 25, 2014

   R.       Air Quality System Design Value Report for Las Vegas PM10 nonattainment area, 2013, June 25, 2014.           S.       Air Quality Quick Look Report for Las Vegas PM10 nonattainment area, 2011-2013, June 25, 2014.           T.       Air Quality Quick Look Report for Las Vegas PM10 nonattainment area, 2014, June 25, 2014.

CATEGORY VI:  	Public Comments on Proposed Rulemaking

None

CATEGORY VII:  	Notices of Final Rulemaking

   A.       Approval of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, Redesignation to Attainment for PM10;, Final rule, pre-publication signature copy, September XX, 2014.

CATEGORY VIII:  	Additional Materials Relied Upon for Final Rule

   A.       Data Completeness Report for Las Vegas PM10 nonattainment area, 2013, September 12, 2014.           B.       Air Quality Quick Look Report for Las Vegas PM10 nonattainment area, 2011-2013, September 12, 2014.           C.       Air Quality Design Value Report for Las Vegas PM10 nonattainment area, 2014, September 12, 2014.