[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63007-63009]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19900]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1206; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00068-T;
Amendment 39-22527; AD 2023-17-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR42 and ATR72
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that some batches of
nose landing gear (NLG) drag brace panels (DBP) having certain part
numbers were affected by a quality deficiency that was not detected in
production. This AD requires a measurement of the affected part and,
depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions,
as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD,
which is incorporated by reference. This AD also prohibits the
installation of affected parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 19, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 19,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1206; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA material incorporated by reference in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     For Safran Landing Systems SAS service information
incorporated by reference in this AD, contact Safran Landing Systems
SAS, Inovel Parc Sud--7, rue G[eacute]n[eacute]ral Val[eacute]rie
Andr[eacute], 78140 VELIZY-VILLACOUBLAY--FRANCE; telephone +33 (0) 1 46
29 81 00, website safran-landing-systems.com.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1206.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all ATR--GIE Avions de
Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR 42-200, ATR 42-300, ATR 42-320, ATR
42-400, ATR 42-500, ATR 72-101, ATR 72-102, ATR 72-201, ATR 72-202, ATR
72-211, ATR 72-212, and ATR 72-212A airplanes. Model ATR 42-400
airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the
U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include
those airplanes in the applicability. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on June 8, 2023 (88 FR 37481). The NPRM was prompted by AD
2023-0010, dated January 17, 2023, issued by EASA, which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD
2023-0010) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that it has
been determined that some batches of NLG DBP having part number (P/N)
D63757 and P/N D69085 were affected by a quality deficiency that was
not detected in production. Consequently, this issue could lead to NLG
DBP dissymmetry at the lower area, which might affect the structural
strength of the NLG DBP. This condition, if not addressed, could lead
to NLG DBP structural fatigue failure and subsequent collapse of the
NLG, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to
occupants.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a measurement of the
affected part and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable
corrective actions, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0010. The NPRM also
proposed to prohibit the installation of affected parts. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1206.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from Air Line Pilots Association,
International, who supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this
AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes,
this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will
increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2023-0010 specifies procedures for measuring the affected
part and, depending on findings, accomplishing applicable corrective
actions. Corrective actions could include obtaining and carrying out
repair instructions, or replacing the affected part with a serviceable
part. EASA AD 2033-0010 also specifies procedures for reporting
measurement findings to ATR--GIE and prohibits the installation of
affected parts.
    Safran Landing Systems SAS Service Bulletin 631-32-286, dated
October 28, 2022, provides the list of affected parts and specifies
measurement procedures.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 73 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170...........................              $0             $170          $12,410
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2023-17-01 ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional: Amendment
39-22527; Docket No. FAA-2023-1206; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-
00068-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 19, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes; and
Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that some batches of
nose landing gear (NLG) drag brace panels (DBP) having part number
(P/N) D63757 and P/N D69085 were affected by a quality deficiency
that was not detected in production. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the possibility of a resulting NLG DBP dissymmetry at the
lower area, which might affect the structural strength of the NLG
DBP. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to NLG DBP
structural fatigue failure and subsequent collapse of the NLG,
possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to
occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2023-0010, dated January 17, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0010).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0010

    (1) Where EASA AD 2023-0010 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2023-0010.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2023-0010 defines ``the SB,'' for this AD,
operators must use Safran Landing Systems SAS Service Bulletin 631-
32-286, dated October 28, 2022.
    (4) Paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2023-0010 specifies to report
measurement results to Safran Landing Systems SAS within a certain
compliance time. For this AD, report inspection results at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(4)(i) or (ii) of this AD,
but do not exceed the compliance time specified in Table 1 of EASA
AD 2023-0010.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your

request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved
AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a
principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards
Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0010,
dated January 17, 2023.
    (ii) Safran Landing Systems SAS Service Bulletin 631-32-286,
dated October 28, 2022.
    (3) For EASA AD 2023-0010, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) For Safran Landing Systems SAS service information, contact
Safran Landing Systems SAS, Inovel Parc Sud--7, rue
G[eacute]n[eacute]ral Val[eacute]rie Andr[eacute], 78140 VELIZY-
VILLACOUBLAY--FRANCE; telephone +33 (0) 1 46 29 81 00, website
safran-landing-systems.com.
    (5) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 7, 2023.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-19900 Filed 9-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24836-24837]
[FR Doc No: E9-12080]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12731-002]

Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Draft Application, Request for Waivers
of Integrated Licensing Process Regulations Necessary for Expedited
Processing of a Hydrokinetic Pilot Project License Application, and
Soliciting Comments

May 15, 2009.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File a License Application
for an Original License for a Hydrokinetic Pilot Project.
    b. Project No.: 12731-002.
    c. Date Filed: May 15, 2009.
    d. Submitted By: Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Angoon Tidal Power Pilot Project.
    f. Location: In Kootznahoo Inlet on the western shore of Admiralty
Island, near the City of Angoon in the Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon Census
Area of southeastern Alaska.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Applicant Contact: Roger Bason, President, Natural Currents
Energy Services, 24 Roxanne Blvd., Highland, NY 12528;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Steve Hocking<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC (Natural Currents) has
filed with the Commission: (1) A notice of intent (NOI) to file an
application for an original license for a hydrokinetic pilot project
and a draft license application with monitoring plans; (2) a proposed
schedule; (3) a request to be designated as the non-Federal
representative for section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
consultation; and (4) a request to be designated as the non-Federal
representative for section 106 consultation under the National Historic
Preservation Act (collectively the pre-filing materials).
    k. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the pre-filing
materials listed in paragraph j above, including the draft license
application and monitoring plans. All comments should be sent to the
address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments (original and
eight copies) must be filed with the Commission at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings
with the Commission must include on the first page, the project name
(Angoon Tidal Power Pilot Project) and number (P-12731-002), and bear
the heading ``Comments on the proposed Angoon Tidal Power Pilot
Project.'' Any individual or entity interested in submitting comments
on the pre-filing materials must do so by July 14, 2009.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-filing'' link.
    l. With this notice, we are approving Natural Currents' request to
be designated as the non-Federal representative for section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its request to initiate consultation
under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; and
recommending that it begin informal consultation with: (a) The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service as
required by section 7 of ESA; and (b) the Alaska State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    m. This notice does not constitute the Commission's approval of
Natural Currents' request to use the Pilot Project Licensing
Procedures. Upon its review of the project's overall characteristics
relative to the pilot project criteria, the draft license application
contents, and any comments filed, the Commission will determine whether
there is adequate information to conclude the pre-filing process.
    n. The proposed Angoon Tidal Power Pilot Project would consist of
eight (8) 25-kw Red Hawk Tidal Turbines, with a combined maximum output
of 200 kW for the pilot project. Initially, the turbines would be
mounted on portable anchored barges to test different positions within
the site for the best turbine performance. Following the location of
the desired development site, tidal turbines will be mounted on
constructed docks or piers secured to the solid, scoured, subsurface
bedrock. The transmission intertie is to be determined. The estimated
annual

generation of the project would be 525,600 kilowatt-hours
    o. A copy of the draft license application and all pre-filing
materials are available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, of for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    p. Pre-filing process schedule. The pre-filing process will be
conducted pursuant to the following tentative schedule. Revisions to
the schedule below may be made based on staff's review of the draft
application and any comments received.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Milestone                                                  Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on pre-filing materials due  July 14, 2009.
Issuance of meeting notice (if        July 29, 2009.
 needed).
Public meeting/technical conference   August 28, 2009.
 (if needed).
Issuance of notice concluding pre-    August 13, 2009 (if no meeting is needed).
 filing process and ILP waiver
 request determination.
                                      September 14, 2009 (if meeting is needed).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    q. Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be
notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12080 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		04/23/2021

TO:	National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology Review; Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085

FROM:	Donna Lee Jones, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Research Triangle Park, NC; Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC

SUBJECT:	Conference call with Coke Industry Representatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary

      A telephone conference call was held on April 22, 2021, between the EPA, the Coke Oven Environmental Task Force (COETF) of the American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute (ACCCI), and coke ovens company representatives as a follow-up to the ICR emissions data review performed by the COETF as part of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) for Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (PQBS) NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC), and for the technology review of Coke Oven Batteries (40 CFR part 63, subpart L). The main topic of discussion were the emissions to be used in risk modeling.

      Industry representatives summarized their own development of F prime values used in the buoyant line plume (BLP) model. Industry representatives discussed the number of batteries, plume heights, coke production, and heat generation for the United States (U.S.) Steel Clairton plant as compared to other coke plants. Industry representatives also discussed the impacts of modeling combined batteries versus modeling them individually, specifically in regard to the U.S. Steel Clairton plant that has several parallel batteries. Industry representatives stated that more information about the U.S. Steel Clairton plant and its uniqueness could be provided, if needed. The EPA indicated that they believed they had what was needed, but if the COETF wanted to provide a written statement on U.S. Clairton's unique attributes it would be helpful for documentation purposes.

      Industry representatives stated that they believed the Method 303 allowable emissions for subpart L sources should not be based on the emission limits in the rule (rolling monthly average as per § 63.309(d)). They believe adjustments are needed because the modeling is conducted on an annual basis, whereas the emission limits are based on 30-day (rolling) averages. Industry representatives stated that the limits could be adjusted to annual limits based on the methodologies used in the U.S. EPA, emission factor documentation for AP-42, Section 12.2, Coke Production: Final Report, Table 4-10, p. 4-147 (May 2008). Industry representatives stated there is a precedent for using adjusted limits for longer term, although they did not cite any examples. Industry representatives added that using 30-day average limits are more appropriate for acute modeling, not chronic risk modeling.

      Industry representatives asked when updates to AERMOD would be made available and if they could get the latest BETA version. The EPA said that the updates to AERMOD will not be available for distribution in the near future. Industry representatives inquired if EPA would be posting a copy of the coke modeling file to the coke website for stakeholders to review. The EPA said they are continuing their internal QA and would post the coke modeling file to the Coke Oven PQBS NESHAP (subpart CCCCC) website in the near future to provide public availability. Industry representatives also asked if EPA would like onsite meteorological data that they have for a few facilities. The EPA said they would like to review the data.
      Industry representatives stated that believed that EPA should use "urban" to classify all of the modeling areas at coke oven facilities. Industry representatives asked if EPA would be making improvements to urban modeling for complex terrains. The EPA said they would not.

ATTENDEES

Matthew Woody, EPA/OAQPS
Chris Owen, EPA/OAQPS
Donna Lee Jones, EPA/OAQPS
Chuck French, EPA/OAQPS
Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International

David Ailor, COETF/ACCCI
Mary Kaplan, AECOM
Allen Dittenhoefer, Montrose, Inc.
Jeffrey Knight, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
Ted Palma, COETF consultant

Cleveland Cliffs (previously AK Steel and ArcelorMittal USA)
Katie Kistler
Rich Zavoda
Julianne Kurdila

ABC Coke
Jay Cornelius
Abigail Anderson
Bill Osborn

U.S. Steel
Christopher Hardin
Mike Dzurinko
Jonelle Scheetz


[Federal Register: March 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 56)]
[Notices]
[Page 12842-12843]
[DOCID:fr25mr09-80]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2936-006]

City of Rock Island, IL; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Fishway Prescriptions

March 18, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Amendment of Exemption from Licensing.
    b. Project No.: 2936-006.
    c. Date filed: February 4, 2009.
    d. Applicant: City of Rock Island, Illinois.
    e. Name of Project: The Sears Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Rock River, Rock Island,
Illinois.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Robert T. Hawes, Director of Public
Works, 1309

Mill Street, Rock Island, IL 61201. Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Christopher Chaney, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary
fishway prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance of this notice;
reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    k. Description of Request: The City of Rock Island proposal
consists of adding to the authorized exemption two generating units,
each having a rated installed capacity of 300 kW and a rated hydraulic
capacity of 356 cubic feet per second (cfs). All changes in equipment
will be within the existing powerhouse. The Sears powerhouse is a run-
of-river operation on the north channel of the Rock River, adjacent to
the Sears Dam. With the proposed units the project's installed capacity
would increase from 600 kW to 1200 kW and the hydraulic capacity would
increase from 730 cfs to 1460 cfs.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210,.211,.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``
TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or `` FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in
the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening;
and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001
through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions
or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions should relate to
project works which are the subject of the license amendment. Agencies
may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A
copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each
representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    p. As provided for in 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5)(i), a license applicant
must file, no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this
notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis: (1) A copy
of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for
certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying
agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality
certification.
    q. e-Filing: Motions to intervene, protests, comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and fishway prescriptions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e Filing'' link.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-6498 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register: July 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 136)]
[Notices]
[Page 39106-39108]
[DOCID:fr17jy07-81]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56047; File No. SR-ISE-2007-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Extend the Short Term Option Series Pilot Program

July 11, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 27, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-
controversial under section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its rules to extend the Short
Term Option Series Pilot Program (``Pilot Program'') for an additional
year. The text of the proposed rule change is

available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the

Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On July 12, 2005, the Commission approved the Pilot Program, which
allows ISE to list and trade Short Term Option Series.\5\ Under the
terms of the Pilot Program, the Exchange can select up to five options
classes on which Short Term Option Series may be opened on any Short
Term Option Opening Date, as that term is defined in ISE Rules 504 and
2009. The Exchange is also allowed to list Short Term Option Series on
any option class that is selected by other securities exchanges that
employ a similar Pilot Program under their respective rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52012 (July 12,
2005), 70 FR 41246 (July 18, 2005) (File No. SR-ISE-2005-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot Program is currently set to expire on July 12, 2007.\6\
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to extend the Pilot Program
for an additional year, through July 12, 2008. The Exchange believes
that Short Term Option Series provides investors with a flexible and
valuable tool to manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays, and be
more responsive to the timing of events affecting the securities that
underlie option contracts. While ISE has not listed any Short Term
Option Series during the Pilot Program, there has been investor
interest in trading short-term options at the Chicago Board Options
Exchange. For competitive reasons and in order to have the ability to
respond to customer interest in Short Term Option Series, the Exchange
proposes the continuation of the Pilot Program at ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54117 (July 10,
2006), 71 FR 40564 (July 17, 2006) (File No. SR-ISE-2006-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the original proposal to establish the Pilot Program, the
Exchange stated that if it were to propose an extension or an expansion
of the Pilot Program, the Exchange would submit, along with any filing
proposing such amendments to the Pilot Program, a report (``Pilot
Program Report'') that would provide an analysis of the Pilot Program
covering the entire period during which the Pilot Program was in
effect. Since the Exchange did not list any Short Term Option Series
during the preceding year of the Pilot Program, there is no data
available to compile such a report at this time. Therefore, the
Exchange is not submitting a Pilot Program Report with this proposal.
    Finally, the Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems
capacity to support the listing of Short Term Option Series, should it
determine to do so in the future.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that Short Term Option Series increase the
variety of listed options available to investors and provide investors
with a valuable tool to manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays,
and be more responsive to the timing of events affecting the securities
that underlie options contracts. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of
the Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \8\ that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others
    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (3) does not become operative for 30 days from the
date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-
4 thereunder.\10\ The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the
operative delay to permit the Pilot Program extension to become
operative prior to the 30th day after filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange
provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change at least five business before doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the benefits of the Pilot Program to continue
without interruption.\12\ Therefore, the Commission designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \13\ As set forth in the Exchange's original filing proposing
the Pilot Program, if the Exchange were to propose an extension, an
expansion, or permanent approval of the Pilot Program, the Exchange
would submit, along with any filing proposing such amendments to the
program, a report that would provide an analysis of the Pilot
Program covering the entire period during which the Pilot Program
was in effect. The report would include, at a minimum: (1) Data and
written analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the
classes for which Short Term Option Series were opened; (2) an
assessment of the appropriateness of the option classes selected for
the Pilot Program; (3) an assessment of the impact of the Pilot
Program on the capacity of the Exchange, OPRA, and market data
vendors (to the extent data from market data vendors is available);
(4) any capacity problems or other problems that arose during the
operation of the Pilot Program and how the Exchange addressed such
problems; (5) any complaints that the Exchange received during the
operation of the Pilot Program and how the Exchange addressed them;
and (6) any additional information that would assist in assessing
the operation of the Pilot Program. The report must be submitted to
the Commission at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date
of the Pilot Program. See Form 19b-4 for File No. SR-ISE-2005-17,
filed March 7, 2005.

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-ISE-2007-54 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-54. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-54 and should be
submitted on or before August 7, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-13810 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


                        Information Collection Request
                         Supporting Statement for the
                            Fine Particulate Matter
                    National Ambient Air Quality Standards
               State Implementation Plan Requirements Rulemaking
                            EPA ICR Number 2258.03
                           OMB Control No. 2060-0611

                                 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

                                 May 27, 2015

              EPA Information Collection Request Renewal for the
        Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
                  State Implementation Plan Requirements Rule

                               Table of Contents

      1. Identification of the Information Collection Request........................page 4

      2. Need for and Use of the Collection..........................................page 5

      3. Non-Duplication, Consultation, and other Collection Criteria......... page 7

      4. The Respondents and the Information Requested.......................page 10

      5. The Information Collected -- Agency Activities, Collection Methodology and Information Management....................................................page 12

      6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection........................page 13

   1.          Identification of the Information Collection Request

1(a)	Title of the Information Collection

	The title of the Information Collection Request (ICR) is "Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) State Implementation Plan Requirements (SIP) Rule," ICR number 2258.03, and OMB Control Number 2060-0611, expiration date:  the earlier of May 31, 2018 or the date of the finalization of the new ICR proposed on March 23, 2015 (55 FR 15340).

1(b)	Abstract/Executive Summary

   The EPA has established a suite of PM2.5 ambient air quality standards based on evidence from numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to elevated levels of PM2.5. Estimates show that attainment of the PM2.5 standards would result in tens of thousands fewer premature deaths each year, tens of thousands fewer hospital admissions each year, and hundreds of thousands fewer doctor visits, absences from work and school, and respiratory illnesses in children annually. The EPA initially established annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards in 1997. The 24-hour standard was subsequently revised in 2006, and the annual standard was revised in 2012.

   The EPA is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), "Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS Implementation Rule (Renewal)" (EPA ICR No. 2258.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0611) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed renewal of an existing ICR, which was originally established with the EPA's now-remanded 2007 final rule addressing implementation-related requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 23, 2015,  the EPA proposed a new ICR associated with its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would replace the remanded 2007 PM2.5NAAQS Implementation Rule. Until that ICR is finalized, the existing ICR will remain in effect, subject to this proposed renewal.

   The EPA is proposing in the PM2.5 NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule to describe the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements that must be met by states with nonattainment areas required to develop attainment plans for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. The intended effect of the SIP Requirements Rule is to provide clarity to state air agencies regarding their planning obligations. Only states with nonattainment areas are required to submit SIPs that meet the requirements of the rule.

   The information collection activities in PM2.5 NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule  proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The PRA requires the EPA to assess the administrative burden (in hours and dollars) for state and local air agencies to develop plans to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS, and for the EPA to review and take action on such plans.   The current burden was estimated in the ICR (Reference number<PHONE_NUMBER>-009) concluded on 4/9/2012. This ICR is a renewal of the previous ICR approved estimating the burden for the 6 areas remaining in nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as compared to 31 nonattainment areas initially designated for that NAAQS. In addition, one of the six areas (San Joaquin Valley, CA) remains nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

   With respect to ongoing implementation of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, the EPA estimates the total administrative burden for state air agencies with nonattainment areas during the ICR extension period to be 126,000 hours, and the estimated administrative burden for EPA to be 6,900 hours. In this analysis, fifty percent of the hours are assumed to be expended in the first year, with the remaining hours evenly divided between the second and third years of the ICR period.

   For the remaining 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment burden, the present value of the total additional costs for state air agencies, the respondents, estimated at $7.6 million for the extension period. On an equivalent annual basis, that is approximately $2.5 million per year.

   For the remaining 1997 and 2006 PM2.5  nonattainment burden, the present value of the Agency administrative cost burden is estimated at $0.8 million dollars for the ICR extension period. This is roughly equivalent to $0.3 million per year.

   The incremental administrative burden for the areas and activities covered by this ICR is mitigated by the fact that these state air agencies all have experience with developing SIPs for previous revisions submitted for this and previous PM2.5 NAAQS.

   2.          Need For and Use of the Collection
   2(a)   Need/Authority for the Collection

   The CAA, which was last amended in 1990, requires the EPA to establish NAAQS for air pollutants that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, and which result from numerous or diverse sources. On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to add new standards for fine particulate matter (particles of solid and liquid material less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter), using PM2.5 as the indicator. The EPA established health-based (primary) annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). The annual standard was set a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter, based on the 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. The 24-hour standard was set a level of 65 micrograms per cubic meter, based on the 3-year average of the 98[th] percentile of 24-hour concentrations. The welfare-based secondary standards were established identical to the primary standards.

   The initial PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation Rule was proposed November 1, 2005 (70 FR 65983) and was promulgated on April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20586). The preambles to the proposed and final rules addressed the administrative burden in general terms. The preamble to the final rule stated that an ICR would be prepared. The first ICR (No. 2258.01) covered a period from April 5, 2008 through April 4, 2011. A extension without change of the approved ICR was approved through April 30, 2012.

   On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised the NAAQS for fine particles. The EPA established new primary and secondary 24-hour standards for PM2.5 (71 FR 61144). The 24-hour standards were set a level of 35 micrograms per cubic meter, based on the 3-year average of the 98[th] percentile of 24-hour concentrations. The annual standard remained unchanged at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter, based on the 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations.

   On December 14, 2012, the EPA revised the NAAQS for fine particles. The EPA established a new primary annual PM2.5 standard at a level of 12 micrograms per cubic meter, based on the 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (78 FR 3086). The 24-hour standards remained unchanged at a level of 35 micrograms per cubic meter, based on the 3-year average of the 98[th] percentile of 24-hour concentrations.

   On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded the 2007 PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation Rule, concluding that the agency had erred in implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS according to only the general nonattainment area planning provisions of subpart 1, part D, title I of the CAA, rather than in accordance with the the PM-specific planning requirements of subpart 4, part D, title I of the CAA and certain general planning provisions in subpart 1. On March 23, 2015, the EPA proposed a new implementation rule (80 FR 15340) consistent with the attainment planning requirements under CAA subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I, that would apply to ongoing implementation efforts by air agencies in areas designated nonattainment for the 1997, 2006, and most recent 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. As part of its proposed implementation rule, the EPA also proposed a new ICR to account for the additional cost burden to air agencies developing attainment plans for areas designated nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, in addition to the burden associated with plan revisions related to ongoing implementation efforts for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Once final, the new ICR will supersede the existing ICR for which the EPA is proposing renewal in the March 23, 2015 implementation rule action.

   However, in the meantime, while the EPA completes its current rulemaking and finalizes the new ICR, the agency is hereby proposing a renewal of the existing ICR that would continue to apply during this interim period.  The time period covered in the current approved ICR (2258.02) was a 3 year period from May 1, 2012 through April 30, 2015. The time period that was to be covered in this third ICR (2258.03) was anticipated to be a 3 year period from May 1, 2015 through April 30, 2018.  The renewal of the existing ICR period will extend the time period covered until the final approval action of the March 23, 2015 implementation rule.

   2(b)	User/Users of the Data

   The data collected from state or local air agency respondents will include the nonattainment SIP elements required by the CAA, many of which are described in more detail in the PM2.5 SIP requirements rule (72 FR 20586). The PM2.5 attainment plan must contain state rules and other requirements designed to achieve the NAAQS by the deadlines established under the CAA.

   The PM2.5 attainment plan(s) to be submitted by the state must include the various requirements in subpart 1, such as:

   * Baseline emissions inventory for stationary, mobile, and area emissions sources in the nonattainment area consistent with 40 CFR 51.1008 of the rule.
   * A proposed attainment date consistent with section 51.1004 of the rule.
   * An attainment demonstration with air quality modeling showing that existing federal and state emissions reduction programs, plus any new emissions reduction programs adopted by the state, will result in expeditious attainment by the attainment date, consistent with section 51.1011 of the rule. The attainment demonstration must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and Part 51, Appendix W, and must include emissions inventory projections, modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment date. The attainment demonstration and supporting air quality modeling should be consistent with the EPA's PM2.5 modeling guidance
   * A plan showing that annual emissions reductions will provide for reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the standard for the period prior to the area's attainment date, consistent with section 51.1012 of the rule; and reporting every 3 years on quantitative milestones showing such progress through the implementation of the attainment plan and associated control measures, consistent with section 51.1013 of the rule.

   The state air agencies use this information and analysis to fulfill federal obligations under Title I, Subpart D of the Clean Air Act and the PM2.5 Implementation Rule. They also use the attainment demonstrations, RFP, reasonably available control technology (RACT) and reasonably available control mechanisms (RACM) determinations to inform their citizenry, including potentially regulated entities. The potentially regulated entities use this information in assessing future emissions reduction requirements.

   The EPA regional and headquarters offices will use the submitted information in determining the adequacy of the various elements of the PM2.5 attainment plan. After a state submits a SIP with the appropriate technical supporting documentation, the EPA is required under the CAA to approve or disapprove the SIP within 12 months. Emissions reduction regulations developed by the state air agencies become federally enforceable when approved by the EPA.

   3. Non-Duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

   3(a)	Non-Duplication

As noted in section 2(b) above, the state air agency respondent will submit an attainment plan for each nonattainment area that will need to include a number of separate and unique elements. For example, each attainment plan will need to include a unique RACM/RACT analysis, attainment demonstration, and RFP plan.

   However, there are other activities covered by existing ICRs which complement the elements required in the PM2.5 attainment plan. For example, the existing fine particle monitoring network, covered under a separate, existing ICR, provides essential data for use by state air agencies and the EPA in identifying key categories of emissions and tracking progress toward attainment.

   The EPA encourages state air agencies to account for control measures and expected emission reductions from existing regulations and implementation planning processes, such as for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the regional haze program, the cross state air pollution rule (CSAPR), and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Taking such steps, where appropriate, may enable state air agencies to reduce the incremental administrative burden associated with this rule and enable identification of control strategies that achieve multi-pollutant environmental progress at a lower cost.

   Relevant ICRs and their titles are identified below.

      * Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans
            o 51.121-51.122  NOx SIP Call...................................2060-0445
            o 51.160-51.166  New Source Review................................2060-0003
            o 51.321-51.323  Air Quality Data Reporting..................2060-0088
            o 51.353-51.354  Inspection/Maintenance......................2060-0252
            o 51.365-51.366  Inspection/Maintenance......................2060-0252
      * Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans
            o 52.21 Prevention of Significant Deterioration.................2060-0003
      * Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods
            o 53.4 .................................................................2080-0005
            o 53.9(f),(h),(i).......................................................2080-0005
            o 53.14................................................................2080-0005
            o 53.15 ...............................................................2080-0005
            o 53.16(a)-(d),(f).....................................................2080-0005
      * Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations
            o 55.4-55.8 ...........................................................2060-0249
            o 55.11-55.14 ........................................................2060-0249
      * Ambient Air Quality Surveillance
            o 58.11-58.14 ........................................................2060-0084
            o 58.20-58.23 ........................................................2060-0084
            o 58.25-58.28 ........................................................2060-0084
            o 58.30-58.31 ........................................................2060-0084
            o 58.33 ................................................................2060-0084
            o 58.35 ................................................................2060-0084
            o 58.40-58.41 .........................................................2060-0084
            o 58.43 ................................................................2060-0084
            o 58.45 ................................................................2060-0084
            o 58.50 ................................................................2060-0084
      * Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans
            o 91.150-93.160 .....................................................2060-0279
      * 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Implementation Rule
            o 2236.02.............................................................2060  -  0594

   3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
	This is a renewal of an existing rule-related ICR.  Comments on this ICR will be requested when the ICR renewal is proposed in the Federal Register in May 2015.  The ICR renewal was published for public notice and comments on May XX, 2015  (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2015/pdf/2015-XXXX.pdf)

   3(c)	Consultations

	The EPA is soliciting comment on the proposed renewal of the ICR for the PM2.5 SIP requirements rule.

   3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	The collections under this rule (as reviewed in section 2.b) are necessary to comply with Clean Air Act requirements and provide assurances that identified levels of emission reductions are adequate to ensure timely attainment and maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS.

   3(c) 	General Guidelines

   The reporting and recordkeeping requirements in this proposed rule do not violate any of the regulations promulgated by OMB under 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5. This submission meets the current Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines set forth by OMB. Those guidelines reflect the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.6. The PM2.5 NAAQS SIP requirements 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;
      * manual methods of reporting.

   3(f)		Confidentiality

	The information requested from the state air agencies to fulfill CAA requirements as described in section 2(b) will rely on emissions levels and control efficiency data provided by certain facilities in the private and public sectors. This information is available from a variety of sources and state air agencies should already have information from emission sources, as facilities should have provided this information to meet other NAAQS SIP requirements, operating permits, and/or emissions reporting requirements. It is the assimilation and analysis of that data (e.g., for RACM/RACT control measure determinations, the attainment demonstration, etc.) that is required by this rule.

	Emissions and control technology information from emissions sources generally does not reveal the details of production processes. But, to the extent that it may, the affected facilities are protected. Specifically, the provision 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 PM2.5 SIP requirements rule submissions do not include questions whose answers would require sensitive information.

   4.0 The Respondents and the Information Requested

   4(a)	Respondents and Nonattainment areas

   State and local air agencies are the primary respondents under this ICR. Table 1 lists the nonattainment areas and state air agencies with remaining SIP submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS that potentially could be required during the ICR period. For purposes of this draft analysis, it has been assumed that for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, a revised attainment plan will be required during the ICR period for one nonattainment area.  It also has been assumed that for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, a revised attainment plan will be required during the ICR period for six nonattainment areas. (Note that these assumptions have been made only for the purposes of this draft analysis, and a number of factors and future state or EPA actions could change the assumptions put forth here.)

   Table 1 also includes an estimated 18,000 burden hours for each revised attainment plan  and an estimated total weighted direct and indirect hourly equivalent salary cost of $65.10 per hour. Section 6 provides more details on these estimates.

   Table 1. Remaining 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas with Estimated Burden for SIP Revision or Redesignation Action

                                   Area Name
                                     State
                                   EPA Reg.
                    Potential Actions during ICR Extension
                            Hours for SIP Revision
                       3-year Burden Estimate (Dollars)
Fairbanks
AK
                                      10
                      2006 PM2.5 revised attainment plan
                                                                         18,000
                                                                     $1,171,800
Imperial County
CA
                                       9
                      2006 PM2.5 revised attainment plan
                                                                         18,000
                                                                     $1,171,800
Liberty-Clairton
PA
                                       3
                      2006 PM2.5 revised attainment plan
                                                                         18,000
                                                                     $1,171,800
Provo
UT
                                       8
                      2006 PM2.5 revised attainment plan
                                                                         18,000
                                                                     $1,171,800
Salt Lake City
UT
                                       8
                      2006 PM2.5 revised attainment plan
                                                                         18,000
                                                                     $1,171,800
San Joaquin Valley
CA
                                       9
                      1997 PM2.5 revised attainment plan
                                                                         18,000
                                                                     $1,171,800
San Joaquin Valley
CA
                                       9
                      2006 PM2.5 revised attainment plan
                                                                         18,000
                                                                     $1,171,800

                                     TOTAL
                                                                        126,000
                                                                     $8,202,600

     4(b)	 	Information Requested

   The information requested under this proposed rule, as described in section 2(b) of this ICR, is required to meet the requirements of the CAA. The implementation framework set forth in the regulation does not adopt a "one-size-fits all" approach to meeting these requirements. This additional flexibility enables the State air agencies to customize, to the extent allowed by the Clean Air Act, their approach to attaining and maintaining the PM2.5 NAAQS.

   Data Items.  The emissions and control efficiency data required for the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACT, and RACM is assumed to have been collected as a result of reporting activities required by other OMB-approved ICRs. For example, the collection of emissions information for many stationary sources is required under other program requirements, such as the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) Rule (see http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/aerr/). In developing PM2.5 SIPs, air agencies are expected to use a range of other readily available data sources, such as existing federal rules that are expected to reduce future emissions of particulate matter precursors, and economic and population growth rates.

   Respondents' Activities. The state air agecies will compile and reference the data, set forth the analytical methodology, conduct control technology, emission reduction and air quality modeling analyses, develop initial drafts, hold hearings, adopt rules, regulations, and programs, have discussions with EPA staff as appropriate, refine the draft attainment demonstration as appropriate, adopt the SIP, and formally submit the SIP to the EPA.

   Agency Activities. The EPA staff in the regional offices will facilitate timely receipt of the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACT, and RACM requirements by reviewing materials and answering questions from the state air agencies regarding regulatory requirements, potential data sources, analytical tools, the draft attainment demonstration, and other draft SIP elements. The EPA Regional Offices will evaluate the formal SIP submissions and take rulemaking actions to approve or disapprove the SIP revisions. The EPA headquarters staff will facilitate policy coordination and national consistency in the timely review and evaluation of plans from state air agencies around the country. They will also facilitate information flow among the regions and states to promote the development of acceptable demonstrations and SIP submissions.

   Reporting Protocols. The dates for plan submissions and milestone reports are as set forth in subpart 4 of Part D of the CAA (sections 188-190), and in the proposed PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule.

   5.0 The Information Collected -- Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

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

	States.  The state air agencies' activities include:

      * Develop baseline emissions inventory and projection year inventory.
      * Conduct analyses of economic and technological feasibility of potential control measures and adopt state rules requiring emission reductions to ensure attainment of the standard "as expeditiously as practicable."
      * Develop and evaluate emissions reduction strategies, and conduct air quality modeling showing that existing federal and state emission reduction programs, plus any new emission reduction programs adopted by the state, will result in expeditious attainment by the attainment date.
      * Develop plans to ensure that future emission reductions will provide for reasonable further progress toward attainment of the standard for the period prior to the area's attainment date.

   	EPA Regional Offices. The regional office activities include:
      * Respond to inquiries from the air agencies and provide guidance on SIP development.
      * Review technical data, analyses, and draft SIP elements developed by the air agencies.
      * Evaluate the formal SIP submissions and conduct rulemaking actions approving or disapproving the SIP submissions.

   	EPA Headquarters.  The EPA headquarters office activities include:
      * Answer questions regarding application and interpretation of rule provisions.
      * Facilitate policy coordination and national consistency in the timely review and evaluation of plans from state air agencies around the country.
      * Coordinate information flow amongst the regions and states to promote the development of acceptable demonstrations and SIP submissions.

   5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

	The PM2.5 attainment plan submitted by the air agency will set forth the data sources, analytical methods, and the emission reduction and air quality improvement verification procedures used in its development and implementation.

     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 proposed PM2.5 NAAQS implementation regulations do not provide a direct administrative burden on small entities.

      5(d)	Collection Schedule

	The SIP deadlines for implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS under Subparts 1 and 4 were proposed in proposed PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule consistent with CAA requirements. Moderate area SIPs will be due within 18 months of the effective date of nonattainment area designation. The proposed rule requests comment on due dates for certain elements of Serious area SIPs; however, under all proposed options BACM/BACT requirements would be due within 18 months of the date an area is reclassified as Serious. Quantitative milestone reports, as required under the CAA, would be due every 3 years.

      6. Estimating the Burden of the Collection

	This section provides information on the hours and costs associated with the information collection for the respondents (the affected state and local air agencies) and EPA (regional and headquarters offices). Hours and costs are presented for the activities associated with each collection item for a nonattainment area (or portion thereof) in a given state, as well as the equivalent annual and present value cost estimates.

   6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

	The estimated respondent burden represents the estimated staff time associated with the activities required to develop the relevant PM2.5 SIP and implement the plan each year.

	The estimated burden in this ICR is incremental to the estimated burden of other EPA environmental reporting obligations. The actual incremental burden is expected to vary across areas for a number of reasons, such as the severity of the nonattainment problem and whether existing federal and state emission reduction programs are projected to bring the area into attainment.

Burden Estimate for Remaining Nonattainment Areas for 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

   Table 1 provides the list of areas and states still implementing the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS requirements that potentially could be responsible for developing Serious area SIP revisions during the extension of the ICR period. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that one of the original 39 nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5 standard (San Joaquin Valley, CA) will still need to develop a Serious area plan during the ICR period. The estimated burden hours for development of the remaining Serious area SIP is 18,000 hours.  The presumed allocation of total incremental burden across the three years is 50% in year 1, 25% in year 2, and 25% in year 3.

   Of the 32 areas designated as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 standard, Table 1 identifies six areas that potentially could be reclassified from Moderate to Serious during the extension of the ICR period, and that could have a Serious area SIP (or portions thereof) due within 18 months (also within the period for this ICR). For the purposes of this analysis, the estimated burden for development of the SIP revisions to address the Serious area requirements is 18,000 hours. Using the information in Table 1, Table 2 below provides a 3-year breakdown of expected burden hours by state and by year.

   Table 2.  Nonattainment Areas for 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS:
            Estimated Incremental Burden Hours by State and Year

State
                                  EPA Region
                            Additional hours Year 1
                            Additional hours Year 2
                            Additional hours Year 3
                                      AK
                                      10
                                                                          9,000
                                                                          4,500
                                                                          4,500
                                      CA
                                       9
                                                                         27,000
                                                                         13,500
                                                                         13,500
                                      PA
                                      10
                                                                          9,000
                                                                          4,500
                                                                          4,500
                                      UT
                                       8
                                                                         18,000
                                                                          9,000
                                                                          9,000

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Cost

	Labor costs are estimated for state air agencies using the total of projected additional hours for the areas. These estimates do not reflect staff experience and economies of scale. The hourly rates are the result of estimated direct and indirect cost per employee.  The main source of the information is 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 2012 Salary of Permanent Professional Staff at GS 11, Step 3 is $33.34. 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 $47.51. Nine percent of that is $4.32.
      * 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 $22.17. Sixteen percent of that is $3.55.

The estimated hourly indirect cost per employee is $23.90. This amount is the sum of the following:

   * Benefits at 16% of the weighted direct hourly equivalent salary cost per employee, or $6.59.
   * Sick and annual leave at 10% of the weighted direct hourly equivalent salary cost per employee, or $4.12.
   * General overhead at 32% of the weighed direct hourly equivalent salary cost per employee, or $13.18.

   The estimated total weighted direct and indirect hourly equivalent salary cost per employee is $65.10. The ICR cost estimates are in 2012 dollars. Federal hourly pay rates did not change between 2010 and 2012. The estimated total incremental respondent burden for the state respondents to meet the new 2012 PM2.5  SIP requirements and complete the remaining 1997 and 2006 SIP requirements is provided in Table 5.

      Table 3.  Estimated Incremental Cost and Hour Burden for the State Air Agencies (Respondents) to complete the remaining 1997 and 2006 SIP  Submittal Requirements.

                                     NAAQS
                          Additional Cost for Year 1
                          Additional Cost for Year 2
                          Additional Cost for Year 3
                    Burden for the 3-year ICR period (hrs)
                                   1997/2006
                                 $4.1 million
                                 $1.8 million
                                 $1.7 million
                                    126,000

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

   The estimated Agency burden is derived from the same estimates used for estimating respondent costs in section 6(b). 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 the 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.

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

      Agency Headquarters Burden.  Table 4 also summarizes total incremental 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.

      Total Incremental Burden for the Agency. The regional and headquarters office burden estimate for year 1 for the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS is 8,000 hours.  The estimates for years 2 and 3 are 4,000 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 provided in Table 4.

      Table 4.  Estimated Total Incremental Cost and Hour Burden for the EPA Regions and Headquarters to complete the remaining 1997 and 2006 SIP  Submittal Requirements.

                                     NAAQS
                     Total State Respondents' burden (hrs)
                             Regions  Burden (hrs)
                                HQ Burden (hrs)
                          Additional Cost for Year 1
                          Additional Cost for Year 2
                          Additional Cost for Year 3
                                   1997/2006
                                    126,000
                                     6,300
                                      630
                                 $0.5 million
                                 $0.2 million
                                 $0.2 million

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

      	The incremental respondent universe burden and cost estimates are presented in Tables 5.

      Table 5.  1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Incremental Respondent & Agency Universe Burden and Cost Estimates

Entity
Average Yearly Burden (hours)
3-Year Burden (hrs)
Present Value of Costs for 3-Year Burden
States
                                                                         42,000
                                                                        126,000
                                                                   $7.6 million
Agency
                                                                          4,620
                                                                          6,930
                                                                  $0.83 million
Total
                                                                         46,620
                                                                        132,930
                                                                   $8.4 million

      *The estimates are in current year (2012) 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)	Reason for Change in Burden

   We are requesting an decrease in burden to 126,000 hours from the 175,400.  The 126,000 hours is an extension to implement the remaining requirements for the 1997 PM2.5  and 2006 PM2.5  NAAQS.  This burden estimate is lower than the estimate for the previous PM2.5 Implementation ICR renewal primarily because the extension estimates the burden for the 6 areas remaining in nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as compared to 31 nonattainment areas initially designated for that NAAQS. In addition, one of the six areas (San Joaquin Valley, CA) remains nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  The estimates have been calculated using 2012 dollars and some assumptions regarding overhead, O&M costs, and capital costs have been adjusted to meet current guidelines and common procedures for preparing ICRs.

6(f)	Burden Statement

      The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information for the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS is estimated to average 6,000 hours, which is the 42,000 hours average yearly burden for the state air agencies identified in Table 1, and dividing by 7, the number of affected state responses.

      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 the EPA, to do so.  This estimate includes the time and burden needed to conduct the tasks associated with each state submitting the PM2.5 SIP required for each PM2.5 nonattainment area. The PM2.5 SIPs due during this ICR extension period will need to include several elements, including the attainment demonstration, RFP plan, RACT and RACM. 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 each milestone. The incremental efforts may result from adjusting the ways to comply with the previously applicable instructions associated with other NAAQS such as 8-hr ozone and PM10. Consequently, in meeting the 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 the 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 was stated in the April 2007 Federal Register Notice for the PM2.5 Implementation Rule, ".. the failure to have an approved ICR for this rule does not affect the statutory obligation for the state air agencies to submit SIPs as required under part D of the CAA."

   The Agency established a docket for the PM2.5 NAAQS State Implementation Requirements Rule under Docket ID No.OAR-2007-0265. All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm or 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.


INDEX TO DOCKET EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0846

Final Rule: Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze Federal                      Implementation Plan; Reconsideration                                         Index No. Document Date Category / Document Title

EPA Rulemakings and Guidance Documents    1997-07-31  Proposed Rule - Regional Haze Regulations, 62 FR 41138   1999-07-01  Final Rule - Regional Haze Regulations, 64 FR 35714   2004-05-04 Proposed Rule - Regional Haze Regulations and BART Guidelines, 69 FR 25184   2005-07-06 Final Rule - Regional Haze Regulations and BART Guidelines, 70 FR 39104   2005-08-01 Proposed Rule - Revision to Regional Haze Regulations Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific BART, 70 FR 44154   2006-10-13  Final Rule - Revision to Regional Haze Regulations Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific BART, 71 FR 60612   2012-07-20 Proposed Rule - Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans (Phase 1), 77 FR 42834    2012-12-05 Final Rule - Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans (Phase 1), 77 FR 72512   2012-12-21 Proposed Rule - Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze and Visibility Impacts of Transport, Ozone and Fine Particulates (Phase 2), 77 FR 75703   2013-05-20 Proposed Rule - Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze Requirements (Phase 2), 78 FR 29292   2013-07-30 Final Rule - Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze and Interstate Transport Requirements (Phase 2), 78 FR 46141   2014-02-18 Proposed Rule - Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan (Phase 3), 78 FR 29292   2014-09-03 Final Rule - Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan (Phase 3), 78 FR 52420                                       A.14. 2016-08-15 Partial Stay  -  Arizona Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan, 81 FR 52420

State Plans, Rules and Supporting Documents    2011-01 Arizona Regional Haze SIP with appendices   2013-05 Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, and enclosures (Revision to Arizona Regional Haze SIP)

Additional Documents Considered for Proposed Rulemaking   2012-12-20 Letter from Diane Enos, SRPMIC, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA   2014-03-31 Letter from Jay Grady, CPC, to Thomas Webb, EPA - Exhibit 1    2014-03-31 Letter from Jay Grady, CPC, to Thomas Webb, EPA   2014-11-03 Letter from Jay Grady, CPC, to Regina McCarthy, EPA, and attached petition   2014-11-03 Letter from Verle C. Martz, PCC, to Regina McCarthy, EPA    2015 Taiheiyo Cement Corp. Annual Report   2015 Mojave Demonstration Period Data   2015-01-16 Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Verle C. Martz, PCC   2015-01-27 Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Jay Grady, CPC   2016-06-15  Summary of Consultation with SRPMIC Regarding Regional Haze FIP Reconsideration

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking    2016-06-30 Proposed Rule: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans; 81 FR 42600

Public Comments Received on Proposed Rule     E.1 2016-07-13 PCC's Comments on RHR FIP Reconsideration Proposed Rulemaking    E.1.a 2016-07-13 Attachment 1 - Comments from PCC on RHR FIP Reconsideration Proposed Rulemaking    E.1.b 2016-07-13 Attachment 2 - Comments from PCC on RHR FIP Reconsideration Proposed Rulemaking    E.2 2016-08-15 Comments from CalPortland Company on RHR FIP Reconsideration Proposed Rulemaking    E.3 2016-08-12 Comments from EarthJustice on RHR FIP Reconsideration Proposed Rulemaking    E.3.a 2016-08-12 Exhibits 1-4  -  Comments from EarthJustice on RHR FIP Reconsideration Proposed Rulemaking

Additional Documents Considered for Final Rulemaking     F.1. 2016-07-01 Letter from Deborah Jordan, EPA, to Jay Grady, CPC    F.2. 2016-07-01 Letter from Deborah Jordan, EPA, to Verle C. Martz, CPC    F.3 2012-11-19 U.S. EPA, Internal memo, "Review of Cost Effectiveness of Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) at St.Marys Cement's (SMC) Facility in Charlevoix (SMC-Charlevoix)"    F.4 2005-10 De-NOX Technologies, LLC, "Report of NOx Removal Measurements from an SNCR System at the St. Mary's Cement Dixon IL Facility"    F.5 2012-03-20 U.S. EPA, Montana Regional Haze FIP, Ash Grove Cement BART 5-factor analysis    F.6 2012-03-20 U.S. EPA, Montana Regional Haze FIP, Holcim Cement BART 5-factor analysis    F.7 2011-01 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Colorado Regional Haze SIP, Reasonable Progress (RP) Four-Factor Analysis of Control Options For Holcim Portland Plant, Florence, Colorado

Notice of Final Rulemaking

[reserved]