UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on July 10, 2006

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2006-25251

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of   NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.,  filed  6/27/06 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between (1) Memphis, Tennessee, and Cozumel, Mexico; and (2) Detroit,
Michigan, and Zihuatanejo/Ixtapa, Mexico.  Northwest states that it will
serve these markets on a seasonal basis, beginning February 17, 2007.

Applicant rep: Alexander Van der Bellen<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst:
Linda Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: July 10, 2006,  through July
10, 2008.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

   		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

- see next page -

Remarks:  We have acted on this application without awaiting expiration
of the 15-day period with the consent of all parties served with a copy
of this application.

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  Regarding the issue of the start-up deadline, we have
determined that, in the circumstances presented, we will require
Northwest to institute the proposed service no later than February 17,
2007.

- see next page -

________________________________________________________________________
_____________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 45137]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16038]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95348; File No. S7-24-89]

Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for
Commission Action on the Fifty-Second Amendment to the Joint Self-
Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation
and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-
Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges
Basis

    On November 5, 2021,\1\ certain participants in the Joint Self-
Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation
and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-
Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges
Basis (``Nasdaq/UTP Plan'' or ``Plan'') \2\ filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \3\ and
Rule 608 of Regulation National Market System (``NMS'') thereunder,\4\
a proposal (``Proposed Amendment'') to amend the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.\5\
The Proposed Amendment was published for comment in the Federal
Register on November 26, 2021.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter from Robert Books, Chair, Nasdaq/UTP Plan
Operating Committee, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission
(Nov. 5, 2021).
    \2\ The Plan governs the collection, processing, and
dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation information and
transaction reports in Eligible Securities for its Participants. The
Plan serves as the required transaction reporting plan for its
Participants, which is a prerequisite for their trading Eligible
Securities. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55647 (Apr. 19,
2007), 72 FR 20891 (Apr. 26, 2007).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \4\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \5\ The Proposed Amendment was approved and executed by more
than the required two-thirds of the self-regulatory organizations
(``SROs'') that are participants of the Plan. The participants that
approved and executed the amendment (the ``Participants'') are: Cboe
BYX Exchange, Inc, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange,
Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange, Inc., Nasdaq ISE,
LLC, Nasdaq PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, New York Stock
Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago,
Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. The other SROs that are participants
in the UTP Plan are: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.,
Investors Exchange LLC, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc., MEMX LLC,
MIAX PEARL, LLC, and Nasdaq BX, Inc.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93618 (Nov. 19,
2021), 86 FR 67562 (Nov. 26, 2021) (``Notice''). Comments received
in response to the Proposed Amendment are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-24-89/s72489.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 24, 2022, the Commission instituted proceedings
pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,\7\ to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Amendment or to approve
the Proposed Amendment with any changes or subject to any conditions
the Commission deems necessary or appropriate after considering public
comment.\8\ On May 19, 2022, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of
Regulation NMS,\9\ the Commission extended the period within which to
conclude proceedings regarding the Proposed Amendment to 240 days from
the date of publication of the Notice.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94307 (Feb. 24,
2022), 87 FR 11787 (Mar. 2, 2022).
    \9\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(i).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94953 (May 19,
2022), 87 FR 31921 (May 25, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 608(b)(2)(ii) of Regulation NMS provides that the time for
conclusion of proceedings to determine whether a national market system
plan or proposed amendment should be disapproved may be extended for an
additional period up to 60 days (up to 300 days from the date of notice
publication) if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination or the
plan participants consent to the longer period.\11\ The 240th day after
publication of the Notice for the Proposed Amendment is July 24, 2022.
The Commission is extending this 240-day period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to conclude proceedings regarding the Proposed
Amendment so that it has sufficient time to consider the Proposed
Amendment and comments received. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule
608(b)(2)(ii) of Regulation NMS,\12\ the Commission designates
September 22, 2022, as the date by which the Commission shall conclude
the proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
Proposed Amendment or to approve the Proposed Amendment with any
changes or subject to any conditions the Commission deems necessary or
appropriate (File No. S7-24-89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-16038 Filed 7-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 128 (Thursday, July 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31254-31255]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0231]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hutchinson River, New York, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulation;
modification.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Hutchinson River Parkway Bridge
across the Hutchinson River, mile 0.9 at New York, New York. This
deviation is necessary to complete application of protective coating on
the bridge as well as maintenance of operating machinery. This modified
deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position for periods of up to two weeks over the course of the summer
months in order to expedite work efforts.

DATES: This deviation is effective without actual notice from July 6,
2017 through 12:01 a.m. on September 29, 2017. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on June 30,
2017 until July 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0231 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this modified
temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management
Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
212-514-4334, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New York City Department of
Transportation, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary
deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate application
of protective coating to the bridge as well as maintenance of operating
machinery. The Hutchinson River Parkway Bridge, across the Hutchinson
River, mile 0.9 at New York, New York has a vertical clearance of 30
feet at mean high water and 38 feet at mean low water in the closed
position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at
33 CFR 117.793(b).
    On May 1, 2017, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation
entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hutchinson River, New York,
NY'' in the Federal Register (82 FR 20257). Under that temporary
deviation, between April 3, 2017 and September 29, 2017, the draw of
the Hutchinson River Parkway Bridge would remain closed to navigation
for a period not to exceed 7 days; the draw would then open for vessels
in accordance with established operating regulations for a period not
to exceed another 7 days, after which the cycle would repeat.
    Due to project delays prompted by inclement weather and bridge
equipment failure, the New York City Department of Transportation has
requested that between June 9, 2017 and August 31, 2017 the draw of the
Hutchinson River Parkway Bridge remain closed to navigation for a
period not to exceed 14 days; the draw will then open for vessels in
accordance with established operating regulations for a period not to
exceed 7 days, after which the cycle will repeat. Between September 1,
2017 and September 29, 2017, the draw will remain closed to navigation
for a period not to exceed 7 days; the draw will then open for vessels
in accordance with established operation regulations for another 7
days, after which the cycle will repeat.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so
at all times. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies.
There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transit to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 30, 2017.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-14171 Filed 7-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Information Collection Request

Supporting Statement for the

8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Implementation Rule

EPA ICR # 2236.01

Prepared by:

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Office of Air and Radiation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

June 2006

Initial EPA Information Collection Request for the

8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Implementation Rule

Table of Contents

Identification of the Renewal Information Collection
Request………page 3

Need for and Use of the
Collection…………………………………...page 6

Non-Duplication, Consultation, and other Collection Criteria………
page 8

Respondents and the Information
Requested…………………………page 12

Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology and
Information
Management……………………………………………..page 18

Estimating the Burden and Cost of the
Collection……………………page 20

Identification of the Information Collection Request

1(a)	Title of the Information Collection

		The title of the Information Collection Request is 8-hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard Implementation Regulations, ICR
number 2236.01.

1(b)	Abstract/Executive Summary

	The Paperwork Reduction Act requires the information found in this
Information Collection Request (ICR) number 2236.01, to assess the
burden (in hours and dollars) of the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard Implementation (NAAQS) Rule as well as the periodic
reporting and record keeping necessary to maintain the rule. The rule
was proposed June 2, 2003 (68 FR 32802) and promulgated in two Phases:
Phase 1 published April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951) and Phase 2 published
November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612).  The preamble to the proposed and final
regulation addressed the administrative burden in general terms.   The
preamble to the final Phase 2 rule stated that an ICR would be prepared
(70 FR at 71692).

	The time period covered in this ICR is a three year period from June 1,
2006 through May 31, 2009.  The milestones include the attainment
demonstration, Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submission, and the Reasonable Available Control Technology
(RACT) SIP submission.   However, not all of the milestones and
associated burden and administrative cost estimates apply to areas with
design values in excess of the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.

Early Action Compact Areas.  None of the aforementioned milestones apply
to Early Action Compact (EAC) Areas.  These areas have a deferral of
their non-attainment designations dates until 12-31-06, with the
potential for a final deferral until 12-31-07.  There are 14 such areas.

Subpart 2 moderate and above and all Subpart 1 non-attainment areas.
These areas have to prepare an attainment demonstration. However, almost
all 71 non-EAC Subpart 1 areas can demonstrate attainment using modeling
already completed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or
Agency).

Subpart 2 moderate and above areas as well as Subpart 1 areas with
projected attainment after 6-15-09.  These 8-hour non-attainment areas
would have to prepare an RFP SIP submission and an RACT SIP submission.

	The incremental administrative burden for the areas and activities
covered by this ICR is mitigated by 3 factors.

Some states may use some parts of EPA analyses conducted as part of the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation
Rule.  Included in these analyses were emissions projections and air
quality modeling design value predictions and interpolations for 2007,
2009, 2010, etc.

Promulgated federal rules which reduce future emissions of ozone
precursors.  As a consequence:

Some designated non-attainment areas are projected to attain and
maintain the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS without additional state emission
reducing regulations or programs.

Some designated non-attainment areas do not design and adopt additional
state rules to fulfill RFP requirements set forth by the 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS Implementation rule.  The emission reductions associated with
federal emission reducing rules are creditable toward RFP requirements.

Experience with the 1-hour O3 NAAQS.  Twenty-one of the original 26
subpart 2 moderate and above 8-hour non-attainment areas were also
moderate or above for the previous 1-hour Ozone NAAQS.   Hence, there is
familiarity with SIP activities for an Ozone NAAQS.  Furthermore, many
of these areas completed attainment demonstrations and fulfilled RFP and
some RACT obligations for the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS.

	The Agency anticipates additional administrative burden for state
governments and the Agency of 856,000 hours and 94,160 hours,
respectively.  Fifty percent of the hours are expended in the 1st year
with the remainder evenly divided between the 2nd and 3rd years of the
ICR period.  Tribes are not required to conduct attainment
demonstrations or submit RFP or RACT SIPs.

	The present value of the total additional costs for state governments,
the respondents, estimated at $45.7 million for the 3 year period.   On
an equivalent annual basis that is $17.1 million per year during the 3
year period of the ICR.

	The present value of the Agency administrative cost burden is estimated
at $4.9 million dollars.  This is equivalent to an equal annual stream
of costs of $1.5 million per year during the three year period.

Need For and Use of the Collection

2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

	Part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act sets forth the plan
(implementation) requirements for areas designated non-attainment with a
promulgated National Ambient Air Quality Standard.  When the Clean Air
Act amendments of 1990 were enacted, the Subpart 2 provisions were
specific to designated non-attainment areas for the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS,
but that standard was revised in 1997.  As a result of litigation and
subsequent court decisions, an implementation framework was developed
for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, promulgated in 1997.

	The 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule was issued in two phases:
Phase 1 was published April 30, 2004 and Phase 2 was published November
29, 2005.  When the review and comment periods on the draft and final
federal implementation rules closed, the affected parties could begin to
assess the milestones and begin the planning process.

	This ICR is developed in response to the implementation framework to
fulfill requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

2(c)	User/Users of the Data

	The data collected from respondents include attainment demonstrations,
RFP SIP submissions, and RACT SIP submissions.  The attainment
demonstrations indicate what emission reductions are necessary to attain
and maintain the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.  The RFP SIP describes how the RFP
obligation will be met by the affected non-attainment areas as emission
reductions are phased in over time. The RACT SIP identifies the
assessment of present controls on affected sources of emissions to see
if they meet RACT requirements and identifies where additional measures
and emission reduction requirements are required.  The RACT requirements
can be used to meet RFP requirements. And, the RACT and RFP requirements
can be used to satisfy the emission reduction requirements to attain and
maintain the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.  The similarities between the RACT and
RFP requirements may be reflected in the attainment demonstration.

	The states use the attainment demonstrations, RFP SIP submissions, and
RACT SIP submissions to inform their citizenry, including potentially
regulated entities.  They also use this information and analysis to
fulfill federal obligations under Title I, Subpart D of the Clean Air
Act and the 8-hour Ozone Implementation Rule.

	The potentially regulated entities use this information in assessing
future emission reduction requirements.

	The regional and headquarters EPA use the information as part of their
review of attainment demonstration, RFP SIP, and RACT SIP adequacy.
Emission reducing regulations developed by the states and approved by
the EPA are federally enforceable.

Non-Duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a)	Non-Duplication

	There are 3 parts to the information collection for this ICR: the
attainment demonstration, the RFP SIP submission, and the RACT SIP
submission.

	There are other activities covered by existing ICRs which complement
the activities required for the attainment demonstration, RFP SIP
submission, and RACT SIP submission.  One example is the Consolidated
Emissions Reporting Rule.  Salient ICRs and their titles are identified
below.

Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation
Plans

51.121-51.122  NOx SIP Call……………………………..2060-0445

51.160-51.166  New Source
Review.......................………2060-0003

51.321-51.323  Air Quality Data Reporting………………2060-0088

51.353-51.354  Inspection/Maintenance………………….2060-0252

51.365-51.366  Inspection/Maintenance………………….2060-0252

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans

52.21 Prevention of Significant Deterioration…..………...2060-0003

52.741 O3 Control Strategy for Chicago, IL-6 counties…..2060-0203

Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods

53.4
………………………………………………………..2080-00
05

53.9(f),(h),(i)……………………………………………….20
80-0005

53.14……………………………………………………….208
0-0005

53.15
………………………………………………………2080-0005

53.16(a)-(d),(f)……………………………………………..208
0-0005

Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations

55.4-55.8
…………………………………………………..2060-0249

55.11-55.14
………………………………………………..2060-0249

Ambient Air Quality Surveillance

58.11-58.14
………………………………………………..2060-0084

58.20-58.23
………………………………………………..2060-0084

58.25-58.28
………………………………………………..2060-0084

58.30-58.31
………………………………………………..2060-0084

58.33
……………………………………………………….2060-008
4

58.35
……………………………………………………….2060-008
4

58.40-58.41
………………………………………………...2060-0084

58.43
……………………………………………………….2060-008
4

58.45
……………………………………………………….2060-008
4

58.50
……………………………………………………….2060-008
4

Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal
Implementation Plans

91.150-93.160
……………………………………………..2060-0279

	Attainment Demonstration.   The attainment demonstration requirement
appears as 40 CFR 51.908 which implements Clean Air Act subsections
172(c)(1), 182(b)(1)(A), and 182(c)(2)(B).  The attainment demonstration
for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS is unique and does not duplicate other
implementation plan requirements.  However, the states are encouraged to
build upon related implementation planning processes they used for the
1-hour Ozone NAAQS, regional haze rule, and/or PM NAAQS.   Taking such
steps, where appropriate, may reduce the incremental administrative
burden and enable identification of control strategies that achieve
requisite multi-pollutant environmental progress at a lower cost.

	RFP SIP Submission.  This unique requirement is described in 40 CFR
51.910.  Although the RFP submission does not duplicate other plan
requirements, the RFP submission may complement them.  For example, the
emission reductions associated with the RFP SIP may also demonstrate
attainment.

	The states are encouraged to build upon related analyses for federal
emission reducing rules as well as salient PM NAAQS and regional haze
implementation requirements where appropriate.  Taking such steps may
reduce the incremental administrative burden.   For example, the
temporal and spatial nature of emission reductions associated with the
federal rules may be sufficient to meet the RFP requirements.  Hence,
the need to identify additional emission reductions to meet RFP
requirements may be mitigated in some instances.

	In addition, states are encouraged, where appropriate, to take into
account similar analyses and planning efforts to meet certain PM NAAQS
and regional haze implementation requirements.  Such actions may result
in RFP plans which achieve requisite multi-pollutant environmental
progress at a lower cost.

	RACT SIP Submission.  This unique requirement is described in 40 CFR
51.912 which implements CAA subsections 172(c)(1) 182(b)(2),(c),(d), and
(e).  But, it is related to the Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) requirement for the regional haze rule and RACT requirements for
the PM NAAQS implementation rule.  The states are encouraged to take
into account these related requirements and analyses where appropriate.
Taking such steps can reduce administrative burden and foster
achievement of multi-pollutant environmental progress at a lower cost.

3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)

	The preamble for the final 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Phase 2 implementation
rule stated that an ICR would be prepared.

3(c)	Consultations

	The EPA solicited comment on the proposed and final 8-hour
implementation rules including public hearings.

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	The collections under 40 CFR 51.908, 51.910, and 51.912 are necessary
to provide assurances that identified level of emission reductions are
adequate to ensure timely attainment and maintenance of the Ozone NAAQS
while adhering to the mandatory measures and requirements for moderate
and above Subpart 2  non-attainment areas, as well as Subpart 1 areas
whose attainment dates are beyond 5 years after designation.

3(c) 	General Guidelines

	The Agency completed OMB form 83-1, the Paperwork Reduction Act
Submission in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the Office of
Management and Budget.  Those guidelines reflect the requirements of 5
CFR 1320.6.  The final 8-hour Ozone NAAQS implementation rule does not
require:

reporting more than once a year;

respondents to participate in a statistical survey;

responses to Agency inquiries in less than 30 days;

respondents to receive remuneration for preparation of reports;

records to be kept more than 3 years,and,

manual methods of reporting.

3(f)		Confidentiality

	The information is requested from the states.  To fulfill the
attainment demonstration, RFP SIP submission, and RACT SIP submission
requirements, the states will use emissions levels and control
efficiency data provided by certain facilities in the private and public
sector.   This information is available from a variety of sources.   It
is the assimilation and analysis of that data that is required in the
attainment demonstration, RFP SIP submittal, and the RACT SIP submittal.

	There are 38 non-attainment areas that must prepare an attainment
demonstration as well as submit an RFP and RACT SIP.  States should
already have information from emission sources, as facilities should
have provided this information to meet 1-hour SIP requirements,
operating permits, and/or emissions reporting requirements.  Such
information does not generally reveal the details of production
processes.   But, to the extent it may, the affected facilities are
protected.   Specifically, the completion of the emissions and control
efficiency information that is confidential, proprietary, and trade
secret is protected from disclosure under the requirements of
subsections 503(e) and 114 (c) of the Clean Air Act.

3(g)	Sensitive Information

	The requested attainment demonstration, RFP SIP submission, and RACT
SIP submission do not include questions whose answers would require
sensitive information.

The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)	Respondents and the Non-Attainment areas

	Table 1 lists the states and regional offices affected by the
attainment demonstration, RFP SIP submission, and RACT SIP submission
for the 38 non-attainment areas.  Local, state, and federal agencies are
part of the North American Industrial Classification System code number
924110.

	There are other entities that may be indirectly affected, as they may
comment on the draft submissions before they are forwarded to EPA’s
Regional Offices.  These include potentially regulated entities,
representatives of special interest groups, and individuals.
Consideration of the burden on these entities is beyond the scope of the
Paperwork Reduction Act.

Table 1.  Classifications of 8-Hour Ozone Non-attainment Areas As of
March 02, 2006  (see http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnc.html)

n = area has whole or part county or counties in a previous 1-hr Ozone
nonattainment area (as of June 15, 2005) no longer subject to the 1-hour
standard

m = area has whole or part county or counties in a previous 1-hr Ozone
maintenance area (as of June 15, 2005) no longer subject to the 1-hour
standard

* = area has whole or part county or counties in a CO, PM-10, or PM-2.5
nonattainment or maintenance area or previous 1-hr Ozone nonattainment
or maintenance area (as of June 15, 2005)

The 1-hour ozone standard, as well as designations and classifications
for all 1-hour ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas, have been
revoked except for the Greensboro, NC, Nashville, TN, and Denver, CO
maintenance areas. See   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/oindex.html"  details here.

Category/Classification (Attainment Date)

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

SEVERE 17   (June 2021)

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"4482"  Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA   [n*]

SERIOUS   (June 2013)

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"6781"  Riverside Co, (Coachella Valley), CA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"6921"  Sacramento Metro, CA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"7381"  San Joaquin Valley, CA   [n*]

MODERATE   (June 2010)

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"0720"  Baltimore, MD   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1123"  Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (E. MA), MA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1119"  Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth(SE),NH   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1520"  Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1602"  Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1681"  Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1921"  Dallas-Fort Worth, TX   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"3045"  Greater Connecticut, CT   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"3361"  Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"36045"  Jefferson Co, NY   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"4473"  Los Angeles-San Bernardino Cos(W Mojave),CA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"5081"  Milwaukee-Racine, WI   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"5601"  New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island,NY-NJ-CT   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"6163"  Philadelphia-Wilmin-Atlantic Ci,PA-NJ-MD-DE   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"6460"  Poughkeepsie, NY   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"6482"  Providence (All RI), RI   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"7620"  Sheboygan, WI   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"8001"  Springfield (Western MA), MA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"7040"  St Louis, MO-IL   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"06111"  Ventura Co, CA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"8842"  Washington, DC-MD-VA   [n*]

MARGINAL   (June 2007)

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"0520"  Atlanta, GA   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"0760"  Baton Rouge, LA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"0840"  Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"26027"  Cass Co, MI

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"2161"  Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"06025"  Imperial Co, CA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"3805"  Kent and Queen Anne's Cos, MD   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"18091"  La Porte, IN

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"4000"  Lancaster, PA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"4922"  Memphis, TN-AR   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"5320"  Muskegon, MI   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"5721"  Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News (HR),VA   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"6400"  Portland, ME   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"6760"  Richmond-Petersburg, VA   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"7362"  San Francisco Bay Area, CA   [n*]

SUBPART 1   (June 2009)

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"0160"  Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"26005"  Allegan Co, MI   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"0240"  Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"0280"  Altoona, PA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"0317"  Amador and Calaveras Cos (Central Mtn), CA

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"0870"  Benton Harbor, MI

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"26019"  Benzie Co, MI

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1000"  Birmingham, AL   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1280"  Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1320"  Canton-Massillon, OH   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1480"  Charleston, WV   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1621"  Chico, CA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1641"  Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1660"  Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY  (TN portion)

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1674"  Clearfield and Indiana Cos, PA   [*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"1840"  Columbus, OH   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"2000"  Dayton-Springfield, OH   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"55029"  Door Co, WI   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"2360"  Erie, PA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"2376"  Essex Co (Whiteface Mtn), NY   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"2640"  Flint, MI   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"2760"  Fort Wayne, IN

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"42055"  Franklin Co, PA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"3001"  Grand Rapids, MI   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"42059"  Greene Co, PA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"3212"  Hancock, Knox, Lincoln & Waldo Cos, ME   [nm*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"3240"  Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"3279"  Haywood and Swain Cos (Great Smoky NP), NC

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"3401"  Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"26063"  Huron Co, MI

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"3480"  Indianapolis, IN   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"3610"  Jamestown, NY

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"3680"  Johnstown, PA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"3720"  Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, MI

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"3807"  Kern Co (Eastern Kern), CA   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"55061"  Kewaunee Co, WI   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"3840"  Knoxville, TN   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"4040"  Lansing-East Lansing, MI

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"4121"  Las Vegas, NV   [*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"4320"  Lima, OH

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"4520"  Louisville, KY-IN   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"4680"  Macon, GA   [*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"55071"  Manitowoc Co, WI   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"4831"  Mariposa and Tuolumne Cos (Southern Mtn),CA

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"26105"  Mason Co, MI

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"5311"  Murray Co (Chattahoochee Nat Forest), GA

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"5389"  Nevada Co. (Western Part), CA

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"6020"  Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"6200"  Phoenix-Mesa, AZ   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"6281"  Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"6640"  Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"6680"  Reading, PA   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"6840"  Rochester, NY

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"6895"  Rocky Mount, NC

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"7320"  San Diego, CA   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"7561"  Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"7801"  South Bend-Elkhart, IN   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"8050"  State College, PA

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"8080"  Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"8153"  Sutter Co (Sutter Buttes), CA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"42117"  Tioga Co, PA

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"8400"  Toledo, OH   [m*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"9000"  Wheeling, WV-OH   [*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"9280"  York, PA   [n*]

      HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnca.html" \l
"9321"  Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA   [nm*]

	As indicated in Table 1, some areas have non-attainment area segments
in more than one state.  Furthermore, sometimes these multi-state areas
span more than 1 EPA Region.  For example, the Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Atlantic City non-attainment area encompasses part of Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and New Jersey.    Pennsylvania and Maryland are in EPA Region
3 jurisdiction, while New Jersey is in EPA Region 2 jurisdiction.   This
could increase the administrative burden of the attainment
demonstration, RFP SIP submission, and RACT SIP submission.

	The size of the list of non-attainment areas also suggests greater
administrative burden.  However, the administrative requirements for
attainment demonstrations, RFP SIP submittals, and RACT SIP submittals
are less for the Subpart 2 marginal areas and the Subpart 1 areas that
attain the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS within 5 years or less of the
non-attainment designation.   Furthermore, illustrative air quality
simulations and interpolations done without considering the effects of
the CAIR for geographic areas excluding AZ, CA, CO, and NV showed only 4
Subpart 1 areas with predicted design values above the 8-our Ozone NAAQS
in 2007.   The number of Subpart 1 areas decreased to one in 2009.

	The numbers of non-attainment areas or parts of areas in each state and
the associated EPA Regional Office are presented in Table 2.   These
were derived from the March 3, 2006 information at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gncs.html"
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gncs.html .  The numbers of areas
predicted to be in attainment were derived by looking at air quality
model simulation results.  See Table 3.

Table 2.  The Numbers of Non-Attainment Areas or Parts of Areas in Each
State

State or District	No. of Areas or Parts of Areas	EPA Region	No. of
Subpart 1 Areas  Predicted in Attainment by 2009	No. of Subpart
2-Marginal Areas Predicted in Attainment by 2007	No. of Subpart 2
Moderate Areas Predicted in Attainment by 2009

Alabama	1	4	1	0	0

Arizona	1	9	Not in simulation	Not in simulation	Not in simulation

Arkansas	1	6	0	1	0

California	15	9	No such areas	Not in simulation	Not in simulation

Connecticut	2	1	No such areas	No such areas	0

Delaware	1	3	No such areas	No such areas	0

District of Columbia	1	3	0

Georgia	3	4	2

Illinois	2	5	No such areas	No such areas	1

Indiana	7	5	5	1	0

Kentucky	3	4	3	No such areas	No such areas

Louisiana	1	6	No such areas	1	No such areas

Maine	2	1	1	1	No such areas

Maryland	4	3	No such areas	0	0

Massachusetts	2	1	No such areas	No such areas	2

Michigan	12	5	9	2	No such areas

Missouri	1	7	No such areas	No such areas	1

New Hampshire	1	1	No such areas	No such areas	1

New Jersey	2	2	No such areas	No such areas	0

New York	8	2	4	No such areas	2

North Carolina	4	4	3	No such areas	1

Ohio	11	5	9	No such areas	0

Pennsylvania	17	4	14	0	0

Rhode Island	1	1	No such areas	No such areas	0

South Carolina	1	4	No such areas	No such areas	1

Tennessee	3	4	2	1	No such areas

Texas	3	6	No such areas	0	0

Virginia	3	3	No such areas	2	0

West Virginia	5	3	5	No such areas	No such areas

Wisconsin	5	5	2	No such areas	0

Table 3.  Summary of Results of CAM-X Simulations for Base Case Runs and
Interpolations which do not include emission reductions from the Clean
Air Interstate Rule*

Nonattainment Area

2007 Nonattainment Area Count = 23	Classification

Projected attainment

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-DE-MD-NJ	Moderate	N/A

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX	Moderate	N/A

Baltimore, MD	Moderate	N/A

New York - N. NJ – Long Is., NY-NJ-CT	Moderate	N/A

Milwaukee-Racine, WI	Moderate	N/A

Chicago-Gary-Lake Co, IL-IN	Moderate	N/A

Atlanta, GA	Marginal	2012

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX	Moderate	2012

Sheboygan, WI	Moderate	2015

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH	Moderate	2013

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY	Basic (Subpart 1)	N/A

Kent and Queen Anne Co, MD	Marginal**	2012

Providence (All RI), RI	Moderate	2012

Washington, DC-MD-VA	Moderate	2015

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX	Marginal	N/A

Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA	Moderate	2009

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC	Moderate	2009

Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI	Marginal**	N/A

Lancaster, PA	Marginal**	2009

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA	Basic (Subpart 1)	2009

Columbus, OH	Basic (Subpart 1)	2009

Door Co, WI	Basic (Subpart 1)	2009

Greater Connecticut, CT	Moderate	2009

* This is an illustrative simulation and is not necessarily a substitute
for the work undertaken by the states in response to requirements for
attainment demonstrations, RFP SIP submittals, and RACT SIP submittals.

** These areas were originally classified as moderate, but were
reclassified to marginal.

     4(b)	 	Information Requested

	The information requested under this ICR is prescribed by 40 CFR 51.908
(attainment demonstration), 51.910 (RFP SIP Submission), and 51.912
(RACT SIP Submission).  The implementation framework set forth in the
regulation does not adopt a “one-size-fits all” approach to meeting
the attainment demonstration or RFP and RACT SIP submissions.   This
additional flexibility enables the states to customize, to the extent
allowed by the Clean Air Act, their approach to attaining and
maintaining the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.

	Data Items.   The emissions and control efficiency data required for
the attainment demonstration, RFP SIP submission, and RACT SIP
submission should have been collected as a result of reporting
activities required by other OMB approved ICRs.  For example, see the
ICR associated with the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule:
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/cerr/index.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/cerr/index.html .  In addition, air
pollutant concentration data is covered already by ICR 0940-18, OMB
Control Number 2060-0084;  the New Source Review provisions are covered
by ICR 1230.10 and 1230.11, OMB Control Number 2060-003; and  the
Reformulated Gasoline Requirements are covered ICR 1951.08, OMB Control
Number 2060-0277.

	There may be other data that the states use.   For example, states may
identify economic and population growth rates, federal rules that reduce
future emissions of ozone precursors, and meteorological data.   These
data are presently available.

	Respondents’ Activities.  The states will compile and reference the
data, set forth the methodology, conduct analyses, develop initial
drafts, hold hearings, adopt rules, regulations, and programs, have
discussions with EPA staff as appropriate, refine the draft
demonstration and RFP and RACT SIP submissions as appropriate, adopt the
SIP, and forward to EPA.

	Agency Activities.  EPA staff in the regional offices may facilitate
timely receipt of the attainment demonstration, RFP SIP submission, and
RACT submission by reviewing materials and answering questions from the
states regarding:   requirements, potential data sources, analysis
tools, the draft attainment demonstration and other submissions. The EPA
Regional Offices will evaluate the SIP submissions and take rulemaking
actions to approve or disapprove the SIP revisions.

	EPA headquarters staff will facilitate information flow amongst the
regions and states to foster timely attainment of acceptable
demonstrations and SIP submissions.

	Reporting Protocols.  The dates for the submissions are set forth in
the final implementation rule (40 CFR 51.508, 51.910, and 51.912).

The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology,
and Information Management

     5(a)	States, EPA Regional Offices, and EPA Headquarters Offices

		States:  The states agencies’ activities include:

Forecast baseline emissions, develop and evaluate emission reduction
strategies where warranted, conduct air quality modeling to verify
maintenance and attainment of the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS

Calculate the emission reductions necessary to fulfill RFP requirement,
determine creditable emission reductions, where necessary determine
additional emission reductions and compliance timing to meet RFP
requirement.  Draft findings, hold state hearings, make revisions as
warranted.  Submit RFP SIP to EPA Regional office.  Have discussions
with EPA.

Identify RACT applicable sources and their control measures under
baseline and attainment conditions; and evaluate alternatives.  Draft
findings, hold state hearings, make revisions as warranted.  Submit RACT
SIP to EPA Regional Office.  Have discussions with EPA.

		EPA Regional Offices.  The regional office activities include:

Answering inquiries put forth by the states.

Reviewing data, analysis, and findings of attainment demonstration, RFP
SIP and RACT SIP.

Rulemaking actions approving or disapproving the SIP submissions

		EPA Headquarters.   The EPA headquarters office activities include:

Facilitating information flow and problem solving amongst the regions
regarding demonstrations and submittals from the states

Answering questions regarding application and interpretation of salient
rule provisions.

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

		The attainment demonstration and the RFP and RACT SIP submittals will
set forth the data sources and analytical methods, as well as the
emission reduction and air quality improvement verification procedures.

     5(c)		Small Entity Flexibility

			For an approved ICR, the Agency must demonstrate that it has taken
all

     	practical steps to develop separate and simplified requirements
for small businesses and other small entities.  See 5 CFR 1320.6(h).
The 8-hour Ozone NAAQS implementation regulation does not provide a
direct administrative burden on small entities.

      5(d)	Collection Schedule

			During the period from September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2009,
there are three sets of scheduled deliverables:  attainment
demonstration; RFP SIP submission; and RACT SIP submission.

			Attainment Demonstration.   The demonstration submission date is June
15, 2007 for Subpart 1 designated non-attainment areas.  The submission
date for Subpart 2 designated non-attainment areas which are classified
as moderate and above is the same.

			RFP SIP Submission.   The RFP SIP submission date is June 15, 2007
for Subpart 1 designated non-attainment areas.   However, Subpart 1
areas that demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
more than 5 years following designation meet RFP.  Subpart 2 designated
non-attainment areas which are classified as moderate or above, have
June 15, 2007 as their RFP SIP submission date.

			RACT SIP Submission.  For Subpart 1 designated non-attainment areas
which demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than 5 years following designation, RACT is met.   For Subpart 1
areas having an attainment date of more than 5 years, the RACT SIP
submission date is June 15, 2007.  For Subpart 2 designated
non-attainment areas which are classified as moderate or above, the RACT
SIP submission date is September 15, 2006.

Estimating the Burden of the Collection

	This section provides information on the cost and hours associated with
the information collection for both the respondents (the affected
states) and the Agency (regional and headquarters offices).   Hours and
costs are presented for the activities associated with each collection
item for a non-attainment area (or segment) in a given state, as well as
the equivalent annual and present value numbers.

6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

	The estimated respondent burden is that associated with the activities
which result in the attainment demonstration, RFP SIP submission, and
RACT SIP submission.

	The estimated burden is incremental to that required by other EPA
environmental reporting obligations.  The incremental burden for some
areas may be less than for others.   There are several reasons for this
disparity.

The severity of the non-attainment problem varies among the designated
areas.

Certain areas or parts of areas may already have developed and
implemented RACT requirements.

Some areas may have future predicted 8-hour ozone design values which
demonstrate attainment in expeditious and practicable fashion, within 5
years of designation, under baseline conditions.

Some areas may fulfill the RFP requirement as a result of creditable
emission reductions resulting from federal rules that reduce ozone
precursor emissions.

	In the course of conducting the Clean Air Interstate Rule analysis and
the economic assessment for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule,
the EPA staff conducted air quality simulations.  Some of the results
are summarized in Table 3.   This information, together with that in
Tables 1 and 2 can serve in estimating the burden hours.

	Subpart 1 Non-attainment Areas.   EPA has identified 65 Subpart 1 areas
(  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnsum.html"
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gnsum.html ).  The base case air
quality modeling simulations were used to develop burden hour estimates
for the Subpart 1 non-attainment areas. There were 9 Subpart 1 areas
omitted in those simulations.  These were the Subpart 1 areas in
Arizona, California, and Nevada. These simulations and interpolations
assumed no additional emission reductions as a result of the states
developing emission reductions as part of an 8-hour Ozone NAAQS SIP.
Furthermore, the simulations did not assume any additional emission
reductions from the Clean Air Interstate Rule.  Under these conditions,
of the 56 Subpart 1 areas included in the analysis, only one did not
have a predicted 8-hour ozone design value simulated to meet 8-hour
NAAQS by 2009.  For the 56 Subpart 1 areas included in the air quality
simulation, 52 were projected to attain the standard by 2007 and 55
projected design values that met the standard by 2009.  If that progress
is presumed to be as expeditious as practicable, over 98% of the Subpart
1 areas should have little problem in developing simulations
demonstrating attainment and using that information to fulfill the RACT
and RFP SIP requirements.  The states with these (55) Subpart 1 areas
may wish to use the emission projections, air quality modeling
simulations, and design value predictions to fulfill most of their
attainment demonstration requirement.

	As a starting point for developing burden estimates, the Agency looked
at the total hours expended in related EPA level of effort work
assignments, exclusive of the air quality modeling.  The total was about
2000 hours in level of technical effort.   The potential scope of that
effort was geographically broad including all non-attainment areas
outside AZ, CA, and NV.  Examples of the specific scope of the effort
included:

Design of lower cost control strategies for 16 Subpart 2 moderate and
certain Subpart 1 areas

Examination of alternative emission reduction targets and geographic
areas (e.g., staying in state but going up to 100km for VOC emissions
reductions and up to 200km for NOx emission reductions for some
non-attainment areas).

Assessment of RFP requirements for certain non-attainment areas,

Assessment of RACT if there was not a previous requirement

Differences in cost, emission reductions, economic, and energy impacts
looking at alternative frameworks for Phases 1 and 2 of the
Implementation Rule.

These activities are related to but do not precisely mimic the
incremental activities undertaken by a state to fulfill the attainment
demonstration including the reasonably available control measure
analysis as well as the RACT SIP, and RFP SIP submissions for a given
Subpart 1 non-attainment area.

	To avoid understating the state burden, an estimate of 3000 hours per
non-attainment area per state was assumed and applied to the 55 Subpart
1 areas that were projected to be in attainment by 2009.

	Most of this estimated burden would be incurred in the first year.
This is because of the overlap of emission reductions associated with
the attainment demonstration, RACT requirements and the RFP
requirements.  For example, emission reductions resulting from RACT may
be creditable toward attainment and RFP.  Furthermore, for Subpart 1
areas which are projected to meet the standard in an expeditious manner
by 2009, that demonstration fulfills the RACT and RFP requirements.
Hence, although the attainment demonstration is not due until 6/15/07,
it benefits the state and potentially regulated entities to make the
attainment demonstration and, where appropriate, the RACT/RFP
requirements early in the implementation planning process.  The presumed
allocation of total incremental burden across time is 50% in year 1, 25%
in year 2, and 25% in year 3.

	For the Buffalo-Niagara Subpart 1 non-attainment area, the total
incremental burden hour estimate was increased by a factor of 6.
Specifically, the estimated burden for that area was 18,000 hours.  This
estimate may be too high.  However, directionally, one would expect more
burden for the attainment demonstration in an area not expected to
attain the standard within 5 years of designation under base case
conditions.  The allocation of burden hours across time was the same for
Buffalo-Niagara as that for the other Subpart 1 areas.

	In the case of the 9 Subpart one areas in AZ, CA, and NV, the estimated
total incremental burden was put at 9,000 hours per area per state.  The
rationale for a number lower than 18,000 hours, but higher than 3,000 is
based on the results of the base case air quality simulations for the
other states.  The 9,000 total incremental burden hours per area per
state is consistent with the assumption that on average more of these
areas will be in projected to be in non-attainment by 2009/2010 under
base case.  The presumed allocation of total incremental burden across
time is the same as for the other Subpart 1 areas.  To wit:  50% in
year, 25% in year 2, and 25% in year 3.

	The estimated incremental burden for Subpart 1 non-attainment areas is
presented in Table 4.   There you see the differences between estimated
burden for Indiana and West Virginia on the one hand and New York on the
other.  The difference is explained by the great incremental burden
estimate for the Buffalo-Niagara non-attainment area.

Table 4.  Estimated Incremental Burden for the States Attainment
Demonstration, RACT SIP Submission, and RFP SIP Submission for the
Subpart 1 Non-Attainment Areas.

State	EPA Region	No. of Areas or Parts of Areas	Additional Hours  Year 1
Additional Hours  Year 2	Additional

Hours Year 3

Alabama	4	1	1500	750	750

Arizona	9	1	4500	2250	2250

California	9	7	31500	15750	15750

Georgia	4	2	3000	1500	1500

Indiana	5	5	7500	3750	3750

Kentucky	4	3	4500	2750	2750

Maine	1	1	1500	750	750

Michigan	5	9	13500	6750	6750

Nevada 	9	1	4500	2250	2250

New York	2	5	15000	7500	7500

North Carolina	4	3	4500	2250	2250

Ohio	5	10	15000	7500	7500

Pennsylvania	3	15	22500	11250	11250

Tennessee	4	2	3000	1500	1500

West Virginia	3	5	7500	3750	3750

Wisconsin	5	3	4500	2250	2250

Total	Not Applicable	73	145000	72500	72500

	Subpart 2 Moderate and Above Non-attainment Areas.  For Subpart 2
Moderate and above areas, most of these areas have met previous RACT
requirements.  Also, many of these areas had RFP plans in place for the
1-hour Ozone NAAQS.  Furthermore, for some of these areas, the RFP
requirement is met or reduced because of creditable emission reductions
resulting from federal rules reducing emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and/or nitrogen oxides (NOx).   Currently, there are 25
moderate and above Subpart 2 areas.

	Nineteen of these areas were included in the base case air quality
simulation.  Six of the 19 areas were predicted to have 8-hour Ozone
design values that meet the standard in 2009.  These six areas are
presumed to have a smaller administrative burden.  Furthermore, in
assessments done for the Phase 2 final implementation rule, many Subpart
2 areas were able to meet the RFP requirement because of anticipated
creditable emission reductions associated with federal rules reducing
VOC and/or NOx.  The estimated amount of incremental additional burden
for these 6 Subpart 2 areas is 5,000 hours per area per state.

	The 5000 hour total incremental burden estimate for these 6 areas is
two thirds more than that for Subpart 1 areas which were simulated to
achieve the 8-hour standard under base case conditions.  This higher
burden estimate reflects the perception of a more prescriptive structure
for Subpart 2 areas.  However, that perception may not be valid.  Hence,
the estimates for these 6 Subpart 2 areas may be too high.

	For the 13 other Subpart 2 areas included in the air quality
simulation, plus the 6 Subpart 2 areas in California, the estimated
total incremental additional burden is 20,000 hours per area per state.
This represents 15,000 more hours to develop and submit the attainment
demonstration.

	Because of the overlap in emission reductions for attainment, RACT, and
RFP, states are often spending 50% of the total estimated incremental
burden in the 1st year and 25% in each of the 2nd and 3rd years of the
ICR period.   The estimated incremental burden for Subpart 2 and above
areas is presented in Table 5.

Table 5.  Estimated Additional Burden for Attainment Demonstrations,
RACT SIP Submittals, and RFP SIP Submittals for States with Part of or
entire Subpart 2 Moderate and above Non-attainment Areas.

State or District	EPA Region	Number of Areas or Parts of Areas
Additional Hours Year 1	Additional Hours

Year 2	Additional Hours Year 3

California	9	6	60000	30000	30000

Connecticut	1	2	20000	10000	10000

Delaware	3	1	10000	5000	5000

District of Columbia	3	1	10000	5000	5000

Illinois	5	2	12500	6250	6250

Indiana	5	1	10000	5000	5000

Maryland	3	3	30000	15000	15000

Massachusetts	1	2	5000	2500	2500

Missouri	7	1	2500	1250	1250

New Hampshire	1	1	2500	1250	1250

New Jersey	2	2	20000	10000	10000

New York	2	3	15000	7500	7500

North Carolina	4	1	2500	1250	1250

Ohio	5	1	10000	5000	5000

Pennsylvania	3	1	10000	5000	5000

Rhode Island	1	1	10000	5000	5000

South Carolina	4	1	2500	1250	1250

Texas	6	2	20000	10000	10000

Virginia	3	1	10000	5000	5000

Wisconsin	5	2	20000	10000	10000

Total	Not Applicable	35	282500	141250	141250

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Cost

	Labor costs are estimated for state governments using the total of
projected additional hours for the Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 moderate and
above areas.  These estimates do not reflect staff experience and
economies of scale.  The hourly rates are the result of estimated
directed and indirect cost per employee.   The main source of the
information is   HYPERLINK "http://www.opm.gov/oca/payrates/index.htm"
http://www.opm.gov/oca/payrates/index.htm

	The estimated weighted direct salary cost per employee is $35.88 per
hour.   This results from a summation of the professional, managerial,
and support staff components.

Hourly equivalent 2006 Salary of Permanent Professional Staff at GS 11,
Step 3 is $29.06.   This is the average of hourly equivalent rates for
the San Francisco, CA and Washington, D.C. areas.

To account for permanent managerial staff, 1/11 or 9% of the hourly rate
for GS 13, Step 3 is added to the professional staff hourly rates.  The
average hourly equivalent rate for GS-13 using rates for San Francisco,
CA and Washington, D.C. is $41.42.   Nine percent of that is $3.73.

To account for permanent support staff at GS-6, Step 6, 1/8 or 16% of
the hourly rate is added to the professional staff hourly rates.   The
average hourly equivalent rate for GS-6, Step 6 using rates for San
Francisco, CA and Washington, D.C. is $19.33.  Sixteen percent of that
is $3.09.

	The estimated hourly indirect cost per employee is $20.81.  This amount
is the sum of the following:

Benefits at 16% of the weighted direct hourly equivalent salary cost per
employee or $5.74.

Sick and annual leave at 10% of the weighted direct hourly equivalent
salary cost per employee or $3.59.

General overhead at 32% of the weighed direct hourly equivalent salary
cost per employee or $11.48.

		The estimated total weighted direct and indirect hourly equivalent
salary cost per employee is $56.69.   The estimated total incremental
respondent burden for the attainment demonstration, RACT SIP submittal,
and RFP SIP submittal is provided in Table 6.

Table 6.  Estimated Total Incremental Cost and Hour Burden for the
States (Respondents) to Fulfill the Attainment Demonstration, RACT SIP
Submittal, and RFP SIP Submittal Requirements.

Areas	Additional Cost for Year 1	Additional Cost for Year 2	Additional
Cost for Year 3	Burden for the 3 year ICR period

Subpart 1 areas	$8.2 million	$4.1 million	$4.1 million	290 thousand
hours

Subpart 2 areas	$16 million	$8.0 million	$8.2 million	565 thousand hours

Total	$24 million	$12 million	$12 million	855 thousand hours

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	The estimated agency burden is derived from the estimates for the
respondents.  Draft estimates were developed by the headquarters staff
with review by regional office staff and subsequent refinement of the
Agency burden and cost estimates.

	The respondent burden was summed by EPA regional offices and a
percentage was applied to the yearly burden estimate to reflect the
actions taken on the part of the regional offices.   Once yearly burdens
were estimated for the Agency’s Regional Offices, a percentage of
those amounts are specified to derive estimates for the Agency’s
Headquarters Office Burdens.  Discussions were held with Regional Office
and Headquarters staff regarding the percentages and resulting burden
estimates.

	Agency Regional Office Burden.  Table 7 summarizes total incremental
respondent burden by Regional Office and provides estimates of total
incremental Agency Regional Office burden.   The summary of total
incremental respondent burden comes from Tables 4 and 5.  The Agency
Regional Office burden is presumed to be 10% of the estimated total
incremental burden for respondent by EPA Regional Office.   The total
incremental burden allocation for the Agency Regional Offices in Table 7
is 50% in year 1, 25% in year 2, and 25% in year 3.

	In discussions with Agency Regional Office staff, they indicated that
the total incremental burden estimates were ballpark.  However, some
regional office staff felt that a more reasonable allocation of total
incremental Agency Regional Office burden would be 37.5% in year 1,
37.5% in year 2, and 25% in year 3.   If that allocation were used, the
corresponding Agency Regional Office burden estimates in years 1, 2, and
3 would be 32,000; 32,000; and, 21,000 respectively.   Recognize that
there is no provision in OMB form I-83 for identifying the estimated
total incremental burden for the Agency which submits the Information
Collection Request.

Table 7.  Estimated Agency Regional Office Burden Derived by Taking 10%
of Regional Respondent Burden Total for Years 1, 2, and 3

EPA Regional Office	Year 1 Respondents’ Burden	Year 1 Agency Reg.
Office  Burden	Year 2 Agency Reg. Office Burden	Year 3 Agency Reg Office
Burden

1	39000	3900	1950	1950

2	50000	5000	2500	2500

3	100000	10000	5000	5000

4	 21500	2150	1075	1075

5	93000	9300	4650	4650

6	20000	2000	1000	1000

7	2500	250	125	125

8	No Subpart 1 or Subpart 2 moderate or above areas	NA	NA	NA

9	100500	10050	5025	5025

10	No O3 Non-attainment areas	NA	NA	NA

Total	426500	42650	21325	21325

	Agency Headquarters Burden.  The Regional Office burden estimates for
years 1, 2, and 3 are multiplied by 10% to arrive at an estimate for
Headquarters burden for the same 3 years.  Resulting hours for years 1,
2, and 3 are 4265, 2133, and 2133, respectively.

	Total Incremental Burden for the Agency.   The regional and
headquarters office burden estimate for year 1 is 46,915 hours.   The
estimates for years 2 and 3 are 23,458 hours each year.

	Total Cost for the Agency.  Using the weighted direct and indirect
salary equivalent hour rate derived in section 6(b), the total
incremental burden hours are multiplied by that rate.   The result is
the total cost estimate for the Agency; see Table 8.

Table 8.  Total Cost Estimate for the Agency

Entity	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3

Regional Office	$2.4 million	$1.2 million	$1.2 million

Headquarters Office	$0.2million	$0.1 million	$0.1 million

Total Agency Cost	$2.6 million	$1.3 million	$1.3 million

6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Additional Burden and
Costs

	Title I of the Clean Air Act of 1990 provided a classification system
for 1-hour Ozone NAAQS non-attainment areas along with prescribed
programs and measures for those areas.  In essence, there was no
incremental administrative burden associated with the implementation of
the 1-hour standard associated with discretionary action on the part of
the Agency.   However, with the promulgation of the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,
the non-attainment designations, and the finalization of Phases 1 and 2
of the Ozone Implementation rule, the Office of Management and Budget
believed there were there were additional administrative burdens by the
Agency.   This ICR attempts to develop estimates of the incremental
burden resulting from the transition from a 1-hour to an 8-hour form of
the standard.

	The methodology does not subtract the decreased burden that some areas
experienced because of the move to an 8-hour standard.   For example,
the Los Angeles South Coast area was classified as Subpart 2-extreme for
the 1-hour standard, but is Subpart 2-severe 17 for the 8-hour standard.
  In this case, the burden estimates presented may be biased high.
Failure to consider staff experience and economies of scale given
related Particulate Matter NAAQS implementation and Regional Haze
activities may also impart an upward bias to the estimates.   On the
other hand, areas classified as Subpart 2-marginal have to attain the
standard by 2007.  If any of these areas do not attain the 8-hour
standard by 2007, there could be additional burdens for such areas not
reflected in the present estimates.

	The major set of respondents is the states, as they have over 90% of
the estimated additional burden.  There is also burden imposed on the
Regional and Headquarters Offices of the Agency.   Because of the
overlap in work for the attainment demonstration, RACT SIP submittal,
and RFP SIP submittal, most of the cost will be incurred in year 1 of
the 3 year period covered by this ICR.   In the Agency’s roles as
facilitator, compiler, reviewer, and preparer, the estimated burden for
the Agency is also expected to be greater in the 1st year than in the
2nd or 3rd years.

	The total incremental respondent universe burden and cost estimates are
presented in Table 9.

Table 9.  Total Incremental Respondent & Agency Universe Burden and Cost
Estimates

Entity	Average Yearly Burden	3-Year Burden Hours	Present Value of Costs
for 3-Year Burden

States	285333	856000	$45.7 million

Agency	 31387	  94160	$ 4.9 million

Total	316720	950160	$50.6 million

*The estimates are in current year (2006) dollars.  Costs for years 2
and 3 are calculated using the equation Present Value = Future Value/ (1
+ interest rate)t ,where “t” is the number of years hence (i.e., 0
for year 1, 1 for year 2, 2 for year 3).  The adjusted values for years
1, 2, and 3 are then summed.

6(e)	Burden Statement

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 9,511 hours for this
reporting period.  This estimate is derived by taking 285,333 hours, the
average yearly burden for the states identified in Table 9, and dividing
by 30, the number of affected states.  Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information or for a Federal
agency other than EPA to do so.   This estimate includes the time and
burden needed to conduct the tasks associated with 3 milestones covered
during this ICR reporting period.  Those milestones are the RACT SIP
submittal, RFP SIP submittal, and the attainment demonstration.  In
meeting these milestones, such incremental efforts may include reviewing
instructions as well as verifying, processing, maintaining, and
disclosing information.  Such efforts may require incremental
development, acquisition, installation, and/or utilization of
technological systems for several purposes.  These purposes include
collecting, verifying, validating, processing, maintaining and
disclosing information associated with the 3 milestones.  The
incremental efforts may result from adjusting the ways to comply with
the previously applicable instructions associated with the 1-hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard.   Consequently, in meeting the 3
milestones, there could be some incremental burden associated with
learning/training, searching data sources, and transmitting the
deliverables.

	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.   When
this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB
control number for the approved information collection requirements
contained in the final implementation rule.  However, as stated in the
November 29, 2005 Federal Register Notice for the 8-hour Ozone
Implementation Rule on page 71,693, “..the failure to have an approved
ICR for this rule does not affect the statutory obligation for the
States to submit SIPs as required under part D of the CAA.”

	The Agency established a docket for the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard Implementation Rule under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079, which is available for online viewing at:
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov .
Although listed in the index, some information such as Confidential
Business Information is not publicly available.  Other information such
as copyrighted materials are not placed on the internet, but are
available in hard copy form at the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket),
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC.  The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  The telephone number for the
Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202)
566-1742.   That docket is not open at present, but is available for
viewing.

 Section 51.905(c) and (d), (published in the phase 1 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (69 FR at 23998, April 30, 2004)) set forth
requirements for anti-backsliding purposes for areas designated
attainment for the 8-hour standard. These provisions require these areas
to submit a 10-year maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) if they also were a non-attainment area, or
an attainment/unclassifiable area with a section 175A maintenance plan,
under the 1-hour ozone standard.  For purposes of this ICR, 8-hour
attainment areas that were designated nonattainment for the 1-hour
standard immediately prior to 8-hour designation are presumed to have
the same burden that they would have if we did not revoke the 1-hour
standard and the area attained the standard and developed a 10 year
maintenance plan for redesignation to attainment of the 1-hour standard.
 In addition, 8-hour attainment areas that  had section 175A maintenance
plans under the 1-hour standard immediately prior to 8-hour designation
are presumed to have the same burden they would have if we did not
revoke the 1-hour standard and the area had to develop its second
10-year maintenance plan under section 175A of the Act. In either case,
there would also be a public hearing on the projections.  We did not
prepare an ICR for the section 51.905(c) and (d) section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan requirement.  This requirement was issued under the
Phase 1 final 8-hour Ozone NAAQS implementation rule.  The preamble to
that rule states that the preparation of an ICR is not warranted.

 The list of Early Action Compact and other non-attainment areas (their
design values, coverage, and Subpart 2 classifications) can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gntc.html

 Attainment demonstrations as well as RFP and RACT SIP submissions are
viewed as analytical products to some; but are regulations to others.
In the context of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the attainment
demonstration and RFP and RACT SIP submissions are considered data.

 However, the states may choose to retain the information for more than
3 years.

 However, the states must still submit their attainment demonstration,
RFP SIP, and RACT SIP.

   HYPERLINK "http://www.census.gov/naics"  http://www.census.gov/naics
 Code number 924110 includes “administration of air & water resources
& solid waste management programs

  In some instances, there are local air pollution control districts
within the states.   These local agencies work in partnership with the
states to facilitate accomplishment of the activities noted below.

 EPA Contract No.  68-D-00-283; Work Assignments 3-53 and 4-66.

 For example, if a Subpart 1 area which is projected to attain the
standard by 2009 is in two states, the assumed burden is 6000 hours:
3000 hours for each state.  If a similar Subpart 1 area is found in only
one state, the burden is assumed to be 3000 hours.

 The Second Addendum to the Economic Assessment for the 8-hour Ozone
Implementation Rule, U.S. EPA 8-29-05.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


Ratio's for each Boat/ gear Type Long line < 40 feet Long line >= 40 fTrawl < 50 Trawl 50  7Trawl >= 7Gillnet < 40 fe North Atlantic 0.564223522 0.607520661 0.675124 0.692337 0.604307 0.82449268 Middle Atlantic 0.564223522 0.607520661 0.715878 0.698451 0.635007 0.861443715 Gillnet >= 4Pair Trawl ( larPair trawl ( Midwater TMidwater tPurse Seine 0.806696 0.846496144 0.813379 0 0.868449 0.671478 0.829654 0 0 0 00.671478 New England Species Specifc Ratio's BetweenLong line < 4Long lineTrawl < 50 Trawl 50  7 American Plaice 0.63 0.03 0.25 American Shad 0.00 Atlantic Cod 0.66 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.12 Atlantic herring 0.76 0.03 Atlantic mackerel 0.77 0.1 Atlantic menhaden 0.68 Bluefish 0.63 0.02 0.05 Butterfish 0.64 0.07 Crabs 0.00 Lumpfish 0.60 Pollock 0.71 0.01 0.09 Red Hake 0.62 0.02 0.17 Sculpins 0.66 0.334 0.333 Scup 0.69 0.14 0.65 Searobin 0.00 Silver Hake 0.63 0.1 0.18 Skates 0.68 0.02 0.3 Tautog 0.00 Weakfish 0.00 White perch 0.82 Windowpane 0.63 0.03 0.25 Winter flounder 0.64 0.03 0.25 Trawl >= 7Gillnet < 40Gillnet >= 4Pair Trawl ( large) Pair trawl ( medMidwater TrawMidwater trawPurse Sein 0.69 0.01 0.01 0.55 0.09 0.13 0.4 0.08 0.01 0.48 0.24 0.02 0.02 0.62 0.08 0.92 0.82 0.08 0.03 0.8 0.13 1 0.42 0.18 0.3 0.81 0.333 0.11 0.1 0.72 0.47 0.1 0.11 1 0.69 0.015 0.015 0.68 0.02 0.02 ine Middle Atlantic Species Specifc Ratio'Long line < 40 feLong line > Trawl < 50 Trawl 50  7Trawl >= 7 Alewife 0.85 American Shad 0.84 0.013333 0.013333 0.013334 Atlantic Croaker 0.74 0.2167 0.2167 0.2167 Atlantic menhaden 0.67 Blue Crab 0.00 Spot 0.84 0.01 0.01 0.01 Striped Bass 0.00 Summer Flounder 0.65 0.01 0.16 0.83 Weakfish ( Grey Trout) 0.76 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.16 White perch 0.00 Windowpane 0.70 0.99 Winter Flounder 0.70 0.99 Gillnet < 40 feGillnet >= 4Pair Trawl Pair trawl ( Midwater TMidwater tPurse Seine 0.5 0.5 0.48 0.48 0.175 0.175 0.02 0.98 0.485 0.485 0.24 0.24 0.01 0.01