PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request USEPA/ Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance/ Office of Compliance 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2060 0032 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart PP)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR No. 1066.04 9. Keywords Ammonium sulfate, caprolactam by product, coke oven by product 10. Abstract This regulation applies to each ammonium sulfate dryer within an ammonium sulfate manufacturing plant in the caprolactam, synthetic and coke oven by product sectors of the ammonium sulfate manufacturing industry for which construction, modification or reconstruction commenced after November 12, 1980. Owners and operators must conduct an initial performance test, and monitor and record control device operating parameters and comply with a particulate emission standard.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 4 b. Total annual responses 8 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 10 _________ % c. Total hours requested 246 d. Current OMB inventory 182 e. Difference 64 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment 64 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or management b. Program evaluation f. Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Initially 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Learia A. Williams Phone: ( 202) 564 4113 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3):

( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Doreen Sterling, Acting Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C. § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( i) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of:

"( i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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." OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


Educator survey

Top of Form

EPA would like to evaluate your experience with teaching the SunWise School Program. Can you kindly take a few minutes to answer the following questions? Your answers will go a long way toward helping us improve SunWise.

Information collection via this form is authorized by OMB Control No. 2060-0439.

required item   optional item

About You

To establish that you are an educator registered with the SunWise Program, please enter:

Your Participation in SunWise

Please select: Did your class take part in any SunWise activities this past year (2010-2011 school year)?

 No	In the interest of improving SunWise, can you tell us why not?

Do you plan on teaching SunWise next year?

 No

If not, why not?

Did you order or download any SunWise resources besides the Tool Kit activities?

 No

If so, which ones?

Were you aware of the SunWise with SHADE Poster Contest this past year?

 No

If yes, did your class participate in the SunWise with SHADE Poster Contest this past year?

 No

Were you aware of the “Don’t Fry Day” Pledge this past year?

 No

If yes, did you take the “Don’t Fry Day” Pledge this past year?

 No

	If yes, which activities did you participate in for your pledge? (check all that apply)

c. Other. Please describe:

I. Overall Satisfaction:

 Please rank the children's overall satisfaction with the SunWise program.

Use a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the least satisfied and 5 being the most satisfied.

 	Most Satisfied

 	1	2	3	4	5

Please rank your overall satisfaction with the SunWise program.

Use a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the least satisfied and 5 being the most satisfied.

 	Most Satisfied

 	1	2	3	4	5

II. Cross-Curricular Classroom Lessons (SunWise Tool Kit)

Overall the instructional level of the Tool Kit was:

Too easy 	About right	Too advanced

 Please indicate how many activities you completed in each of the following subject area in the past year:

	0	1	2	3	4	5	6+

Physical

	0	1	2	3	4	5	6+

What were the children's two favorite activities?

Did the SunWise Tool Kit help students learn how to protect themselves from overexposure to the sun?

Use a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the least helpful and 5 being the most helpful.

 	Very helpful

 	1	2	3	4	5

Did the SunWise Tool Kit help you learn about the risk of overexposure to the sun?

Use a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the least helpful and 5 being the most helpful.

 	Very helpful

 	1	2	3	4	5

 How many other faculty members did you share your materials with?

1	2	3	4	5	6+

9. To the best of your knowledge, how many teachers in your school are currently using the SunWise curriculum?

1	2	3	4	5	6+

10. Would you recommend the SunWise Tool Kit to other teachers?

 No

III. UV Index/Frisbee Use

Did your class use the SunWise Web site to gather and/or input UV Index data?

 No

Was the UV Frisbee an effective teaching tool?

 I did not use the UV Frisbee

Please describe:

IV. Infrastructure Enhancements

Did you organize any school-wide sun safety activities (out of the classroom)?

 No

If yes, please describe:

Please indicate if any of your school’s policies changed as a result of your efforts with SunWise. (Check all that apply.)

f.  Were annoucements about sun protection made (e.g., on sunny days or before field trips)?

What challenges have you experienced in trying to change sun safety policies at your school?

(Check all that apply.)

g. Other (please describe):

	V. Personal Behaviors

Please indicate how your personal sun behaviors have changed since teaching the SunWise Program:

If any of your sun protection behaviors have decreased, why? (Please explain)

Since teaching the SunWise Program, have you talked to your family or friends about being sun safe more often?

 No

VI. Suggestions

What information, materials, or resources would you suggest we add, delete or change?

Have you developed any enhancement activities/lessons for use with SunWise that you would be willing to share?

 No

If yes, please describe

VII. Future Participation

Would you like to continue your participation in SunWise for the next school year? (You automatically stay enrolled in SunWise, and you do not need to re-register.)

 No

How receptive would you be to new units on:

Bottom of Form

THANK YOU

The public reporting and record-keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a federal agency. 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. (This collection is OMB control number 2060-0439.) Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, OIC/OEI, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence

OMB Control No. 2060-0439

Available online at   HYPERLINK "https://cfpub.epa.gov/sunwise/index.cfm?do=data.edsurvey"  https://cfpub.epa.gov/sunwise/index.cfm?do=data.edsurvey


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32655-32656]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14033]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of The Secretary

Application of Menagerie Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Monarch Air for
Commuter Air Carrier Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2015-6-1) Docket DOT-OST-
2014-0192

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding
Menagerie Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Monarch Air, fit, willing, and able,
and awarding it commuter air carrier authorization.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than
June 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in
Dockets DOT-OST-2014-0192 and addressed to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, M-30, Room W12-140, Washington, DC and should be
served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shabu Thomas, Air Carrier Fitness

Division, (X-56, Office W86-469), U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 3, 2015.
Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2015-14033 Filed 6-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


Ozone Sensitivity in Atlanta in Relation to the SEMAP Sensitivity Study

As part of the SouthEastern Modeling, Analysis, and Planning (SEMAP) project, Georgia Tech performed an analysis of the sensitivity of ozone concentrations in the Eastern U.S. to reductions in emissions of both nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).  This analysis was based off of the 2007 and 2018 SEMAP modeling which used CMAQ version 5.01 with updates to the vertical mixing coefficients and land-water interface.  The entire "ozone season" was modeled (May 1  -  September 30) using a 12-km modeling grid that covered the Eastern U.S.  Details of the modeling platform set-up can be found in Appendix E.

Sensitivities were modeled relative to 2018 emissions to evaluate the impact of NOx and VOC reductions on daily 8-hour maximum ozone concentrations.  Each emission sensitivity run reduced the 2018 anthropogenic NOx or VOC emissions (point, area, mobile, NONROAD, marine/aircraft/rail) within a specific geographic region by 30%.  The 14 geographic regions included Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland,  MANE-VU (minus MD), LADCO, and CENRAP.  This resulted in a total of 28 model runs (2 precursors x 14 regions).  The NOx and VOC sensitivities were evaluated at every ozone monitor in the domain.

GA EPD used the SEMAP NOx and VOC sensitivity modeling to examine the normalized sensitivities of NOx and VOC emissions on 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations (part per trillion ozone/ton per day, ppt/TPD) at 10 ozone monitors in Atlanta.  This analysis started with the day-by-day NOx and VOC emission sensitivities (ppb) for May 1  -  September 30.  Not all modeled days were used in the calculations.  The criteria for selecting days to include in the calculation generally follows the approach used by EPA to select days to include in the relative response factor (RRF) calculation as described in EPA's "Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze".  For our analysis, the following criteria were used to select the days that would be included in the average sensitivity calculation:

   * To address the 1997 ozone NAAQS, an initial threshold value of 85 ppb was used.  If the 2018 modeled 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentration was at or above the threshold, then those days were included in the calculation.  If at least 10 modeled days were at or above the initial threshold, then an average sensitivity was calculated based on those days.  If fewer than 10 days were available, the threshold was dropped until 10 days were available or the minimum allowable threshold value of 80 ppb was reached.  If there were fewer than four days available when the minimum allowable threshold value was reached, the minimum allowable threshold was lowered until at least four days were available to include in the average sensitivity calculation.

   * To address the 2008 ozone NAAQS, an initial threshold value of 75 ppb was used.  If the 2018 modeled 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentration was at or above the threshold, then those days were included in the calculation.  If at least 10 modeled days were at or above the initial threshold, then an average sensitivity was calculated based on those days.  If fewer than 10 days were available, the threshold was dropped until 10 days were available or the minimum allowable threshold value of 70 ppb was reached.  If there were fewer than four days available when the minimum allowable threshold value was reached, the minimum allowable threshold was lowered until at least four days were available to include in the average sensitivity calculation.

The average absolute sensitivity was calculated for NOx (85 ppb threshold), NOx (75 ppb threshold), VOCs (85 ppb threshold), and VOCs (75 ppb threshold) at each Atlanta ozone monitor location (Table 1).  Next, the average absolute sensitivity was normalized by the emission reduction to give the normalized sensitivity (ppb/TPD).  The SEMAP 30% emission reductions were statewide, but the ozone impacts at the Atlanta monitors will mostly results from the local NOx and VOC emission reductions in the nearby 15 ozone nonattainment counties.  Therefore, it was not appropriate to normalize the local NOx and VOC sensitivity results by the statewide emission reduction.  Instead, a conservative approach would be to assume the ozone impacts at the 10 Atlanta monitors resulted solely from the local NOx and VOC emission reductions in the nearby 15 ozone nonattainment counties.  Therefore, the average absolute sensitivity was normalized by the emission reductions from NOx and VOC reductions in the nearby 15 ozone nonattainment counties.  The anthropogenic NOx emissions in the 15 ozone nonattainment counties are 281.5 TPD, so a 30% reduction is 84.5 TPD.  The anthropogenic VOC emissions in the 15 ozone nonattainment counties are 280.0 TPD, so a 30% reduction is 84.0 TPD.  Finally, the normalized sensitivities (ppb/TPD) were multiplied by 1000 to convert the units to ppt/TPD (Table 2).

Table 1.  Absolute NOx and VOC sensitivity at 10 Atlanta ozone monitors.

AIRS ID

County

Site Name
                       30% NOx w/ 75 ppb threshold (ppb)
                       30% NOx w/ 85 ppb threshold (ppb)
                       30% VOC w/ 75 ppb threshold (ppb)
                       30% VOC w/ 85 ppb threshold (ppb)
                                  13-067-0003
Cobb, GA
Kennesaw
                                    -6.272
                                    -6.733
                                    -0.380
                                    -0.407
                                  13-077-0002
Coweta, GA
Newnan
                                    -6.807
                                    -8.087
                                    -0.148
                                    -0.131
                                  13-085-0001
Dawson, GA
Dawsonville
                                    -5.252
                                    -5.252
                                    -0.059
                                    -0.059
                                  13-089-0002
DeKalb, GA
South DeKalb
                                    -6.515
                                    -7.385
                                    -0.487
                                    -0.576
                                  13-097-0004
Douglas, GA
Douglasville
                                    -6.732
                                    -7.073
                                    -0.350
                                    -0.607
                                  13-121-0055
Fulton, GA
Confederate Ave.
                                    -5.167
                                    -5.653
                                    -0.644
                                    -0.888
                                  13-135-0002
Gwinnett, GA
Gwinnett
                                    -6.440
                                    -7.608
                                    -0.222
                                    -0.246
                                  13-151-0002
Henry, GA
McDonough
                                    -7.341
                                    -7.645
                                    -0.282
                                    -0.388
                                  13-223-0003
Paulding, GA
Dallas /Yorkville
                                    -5.849
                                    -5.849
                                    -0.096
                                    -0.096
                                  13-247-0001
Rockdale, GA
Conyers
                                    -7.580
                                    -8.461
                                    -0.262
                                    -0.270

Table 2.  Normalized NOx and VOC sensitivity at 10 Atlanta ozone monitors.

AIRS ID

County

Site Name
                       NOx w/ 75 ppb threshold (ppt/TPD)
                       NOx w/ 85 ppb threshold (ppt/TPD)
                       VOC w/ 75 ppb threshold (ppt/TPD)
                       VOC w/ 85 ppb threshold (ppt/TPD)
                                  13-067-0003
Cobb, GA
Kennesaw
                                    -74.265
                                    -79.719
                                    -4.530
                                    -4.851
                                  13-077-0002
Coweta, GA
Newnan
                                    -80.595
                                    -95.757
                                    -1.762
                                    -1.563
                                  13-085-0001
Dawson, GA
Dawsonville
                                    -62.190
                                    -62.190
                                    -0.702
                                    -0.702
                                  13-089-0002
DeKalb, GA
South DeKalb
                                    -77.139
                                    -87.440
                                    -5.796
                                    -6.854
                                  13-097-0004
Douglas, GA
Douglasville
                                    -79.705
                                    -83.744
                                    -4.165
                                    -7.225
                                  13-121-0055
Fulton, GA
Confederate Ave.
                                    -61.173
                                    -66.934
                                    -7.664
                                    -10.577
                                  13-135-0002
Gwinnett, GA
Gwinnett
                                    -76.251
                                    -90.082
                                    -2.638
                                    -2.926
                                  13-151-0002
Henry, GA
McDonough
                                    -86.918
                                    -90.519
                                    -3.354
                                    -4.624
                                  13-223-0003
Paulding, GA
Dallas /Yorkville
                                    -69.252
                                    -69.252
                                    -1.145
                                    -1.145
                                  13-247-0001
Rockdale, GA
Conyers
                                    -89.754
                                   -100.186
                                    -3.121
                                    -3.210

These results show that NOx emission reductions are generally 10-20 times more effective than VOC emission reductions at reducing ozone concentrations.  In order to look at the impact of removing NOx or VOC controls on the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, the most conservative approach would be to use the highest normalized NOx and VOC sensitivity value across the 10 Atlanta ozone monitors.  The highest normalized NOx sensitivity is 100.2 ppt/TPD and the highest normalized VOC sensitivity is 10.58 ppt/TPD.