[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 161 (Thursday, August 20, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50591-50593]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20497]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0337; FRL-9932-57-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida;
Regional Haze Plan Amendment--Lakeland Electric C.D. McIntosh

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the State of Florida's March 10, 2015, State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP). This submittal fulfills Florida's
commitment to EPA to provide a regional haze SIP revision with a Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) nitrogen oxides (NOX)
emissions limit for Unit 1 at the Lakeland Electric-C.D. McIntosh Power
Plant (McIntosh) reflecting best operating practices for good
combustion. States are required to address the BART provisions of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's regional haze regulations as part
of a program to prevent any future and remedy any existing
anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
(national parks and wilderness areas) caused by emissions of air
pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area
(also referred to as the ``regional haze program'') and to assure
reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas. In this action, EPA proposes to
approve the BART NOX emissions limit for Unit 1 at McIntosh
into the Florida SIP.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 21,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0337, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0337,'' Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air
Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2015-0337. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket

materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Overview

    On December 10, 2012, EPA proposed to approve the BART and
reasonable progress determinations for a number of EGUs in Florida as
part of Florida's regional haze SIP. See 77 FR 73369. In that action,
EPA proposed approval of Florida's BART determination for emissions
Units 1 and 2 at McIntosh found subject to BART. On August 29, 2013,
EPA issued a final, full approval of Florida's regional haze SIP. See
78 FR 53250. In that final action, EPA approved the BART determination
for the McIntosh facility, including the determination that the
existing level of control for NOX at Unit 1, best operating
practices for good combustion, is the NOX BART control for
Unit 1. See 78 FR 53263. As described in the August 29, 2013, final
action, FDEP submitted a letter to EPA dated July 30, 2013, in which
the State committed to provide EPA with a regional haze SIP revision no
later than March 19, 2015, the deadline for the State's five-year
regional haze periodic progress report SIP, that would include a
NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1 reflecting best
operating practices for good combustion.\1\ FDEP also committed to
modify the title V permit for McIntosh to include this new limit.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In that final action, EPA concluded that it ``is reasonable
for the State to implement a NOX BART emissions limit for
Unit 1 upon EPA's approval of the'' five-year regional haze periodic
progress report ``because of the limited visibility impact of
NOX emissions from Unit 1 and because the BART limit will
reflect the existing level of control.'' 78 FR 53263.
    \2\ FDEP's July 30, 2013, commitment letter is located in the
docket for today's proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To fulfill its commitment in accordance with the July 30, 2013
letter, the State of Florida submitted a SIP revision dated March 10,
2015, seeking to revise its regional haze SIP to include a
NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1 and the April 30, 2014,
construction permit establishing this NOX BART emissions
limit for Unit 1. The permit contains supporting conditions (e.g.,
monitoring requirements) and a condition specifying a schedule for
McIntosh to apply for a revision to its title V permit to reflect the
new permit conditions. In this action, EPA proposes to approve
Florida's March 10, 2015, SIP submittal for the reasons discussed in
Section II, below.

II. What is EPA's Analysis of Florida's Plan?

    Florida's March 10, 2015, SIP revision seeks to revise the State's
regional haze SIP to include a NOX BART emissions limit for
McIntosh Unit 1 and a construction permit (DEP Permit No. 1050004-034-
AC) dated April 30, 2014, for Unit 1 containing this limit. The SIP
revision and construction permit establish a NOX BART
emissions limit of 0.46 pounds per million British Thermal Unit (lb/
MMBtu) of heat input on a 30-operating day rolling average for Unit 1
in accordance with Florida's July 30, 2013, commitment letter and the
NOX BART control determination. Florida set this limit by
considering NOX emissions data for Unit 1 from 2001-2003,
the baseline period used by the State as the basis for its BART
determination for McIntosh.\3\ The permit states that the limit is
effective no later than EPA's approval of Florida's March 10, 2015,
regional haze SIP revision. Compliance with the BART NOX
emissions limit will be demonstrated with a NOX CEMS that
must comply with the certification and quality assurance, and other
applicable requirements of Rule 62-297.520, F.A.C.; 40 CFR 60.13,
including certification of each device in accordance with 40 CFR part
60, Appendix B, Performance Specifications and 40 CFR 60.7(a)(5); or 40
CFR part 75. Quality assurance procedures must conform to all
applicable sections of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F or 40 CFR part 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See July 22, 2015, email from Preston McLane, FDEP, to
Lynorae Benjamin, EPA Region 4, located in the docket for today's
proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The construction permit also sets the deadlines for McIntosh to
submit an application to revise its title V permit to include the
NOX BART limit and supporting conditions for Unit 1. Section
2.8 of the permit states that the ``permittee shall apply for the Title
V permit revision within 180 days of U.S. EPA's approval of the
amendment to Florida's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP).''
    EPA proposes to find that the March 10, 2015, SIP revision
containing the NOX BART emissions limit and new permit
conditions for Unit 1 fulfills Florida's commitment to establish a
NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1 that reflects best
operating practices for good combustion and to amend the facility's
title V permit to include the permit limit and supporting conditions.
EPA has evaluated the CEMS data reported to EPA's Clean Air Markets
Division (CAMD) for Unit 1 from 2001-2003 and believes that the
NOX BART emissions limit is consistent with the
NOX BART control determination.\4\ Therefore, EPA proposes
to incorporate the NOX BART limit for Unit 1 and Air Permit
No. 1050004-034-AC into Florida's regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The docket for today's proposed action contains the 2001-
2003 CEMS data for Unit 1 from CAMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Florida's March 10, 2015, regional haze
SIP revision and revise the regional haze SIP to include the
NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1 described above and the
April 30, 2014, construction permit containing this limit. EPA is
proposing to approve Florida's SIP submission because the submission
meets the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in the CAA
and in EPA's regional haze regulations and the applicable requirements
of section 110 of the CAA. As discussed above, EPA fully approved
Florida's regional haze SIP on August 29, 2013. Today's action does not
reopen EPA's final BART control determination for McIntosh Unit 1 or
any other aspect of EPA's August 29, 2013 final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 5, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015-20497 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 26349]
[DOCID:fr09my07-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-414-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes
in FERC Gas Tariff

May 2, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff
sheets with a proposed effective date of June 1, 2007:

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 501
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 501A
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 502
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 502A
Third Revised Sheet No. 502B
Ninth Revised Sheet No. 503
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 503.01
Third Revised Sheet No. 503A
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 511

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-8846 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 2384]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00546]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Non-Rule Making
Action at Northeast Alabama Regional Airport (GAD) Located in Gadsden,
Alabama

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request
from the Northeast Alabama Regional Airport Authority to waive the
requirement that a 1.00 acre parcel of airport property,
located at Northeast Alabama Regional Airport (GAD) in Gadsden,
Alabama, be used for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The public may send comments using the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the instructions on providing comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Brian Hendry, Community Planner, Jackson Airports
District Office, 100 West Cross St., Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-2307.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to mail address above between 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Northeast Alabama Airport Authority Attn: Mr.
Lee Roberts at the Northeast Alabama Airport 185 Ira Gray Drive,
Gadsden, Alabama 35904.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Hendry, Community Planner,
Jackson Airports District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B,
Jackson, MS 39208-2307,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The land release request may be
reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the
Northeast Alabama Regional Airport Authority to release approximately
1.00 acres of airport property at Northeast Alabama
Regional Airport (GAD) under the provisions of title 49, U.S.C.
47153(c). The FAA determined that the request to release property at
Northeast Alabama Regional Airport (GAD) submitted by the Sponsor meets
the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and
the release of the property does not and will not impact future
aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in
whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of
this notice. The property will be purchased by Prince Metal Stamping
that also owns the adjacent site directly west. The property is located
on the northern most parcel of airport property adjacent and south of
Airport Industrial Drive. The airport will receive fair market value
for the property, and the net proceeds from the sale of this property
will be used for maintenance and improvements at the Northeast Alabama
Regional Airport (GAD).
    The proposed use of this property is compatible with airport
operations. Copies of the Property Appraisal, Boundary Survey, Legal
Description are available for examination by appointment. Any person
may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request,
notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the
Northeast Alabama Regional Airport 185 Ira Gray Drive, Gadsden, AL
35904.

    Issued in Jackson, Mississippi, on January 6, 2023.
Rans D. Black,
Manager, Jackson Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2023-00546 Filed 1-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                                                                                SUPPORTING STATEMENT

AIRCRAFT ENGINES  --  SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RELATED TO EXHAUST EMISSIONS

RENEWAL

OMB Control No. 2060-0680 EPA ICR No. 2427.06 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION  Title of the Information Collection TITLE: "Aircraft Engines  -  Supplemental Information Related to Exhaust Emissions (Renewal)" OMB Control Number: 2060-0680 EPA ICR Number: 2427.06 Short Characterization/Abstract This Information Collection Request (ICR) documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) intent to renew and amend its data collection on new aircraft engine emissions information. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION Authority for the Collection/Need Under CAA section 231, 42 U.S.C. § 7571, the EPA is responsible for establishing standards for emissions from aircraft engines, and under CAA section 232, 42 U.S.C. § 7572, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for enforcing these standards. The EPA and the FAA traditionally work within the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to establish international aircraft emission standards and related requirements. Individual nations, including the U.S., later adopt these standards into their domestic law in fulfillment of their obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention).   Additionally, CAA section 114 additionally provides broad authority for the EPA to collect information related to the regulations we adopt for aircraft engines and other emission sources (42 U.S.C. § 7414(a)(1)).   The EPA is not proposing to apply this reporting to any additional respondents relative to the current ICR.  However, the EPA is expanding the scope of this ICR to include supersonic aircraft engines in addition to subsonic aircraft engines, and EPA is replacing one type of data collected with another.   When this ICR was established and previously renewed, the only aircraft engines that were in production, in development, or in use were subsonic engines.  Thus, the EPA only included subsonic engines and only referenced to subsonic test procedures.  Yet, standards in 40 CFR part 87 (Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and Aircraft Engines) apply to both subsonic and supersonic aircraft engines. Recently, there has been significant renewed interest in the development of supersonic aircraft and engines.  Thus, the EPA is expanding this ICR to apply equally to all engines (subsonic and supersonic aircraft engines) that are required to meet standards under Part 87.   The EPA is not expecting any supersonic engines to be certified by the FAA in the three-year period covered by this ICR. The inclusion of supersonic engines would not expand the number of respondents; nor would it place any additional burden on the manufactures because the EPA is only requesting data related to standards under Part 87.  If supersonic engines are certified by the FAA, the EPA wants to ensure it has access to this new emissions information in an expeditious manner so that the agency can understand the impacts of this new sector. The EPA is also proposing to replace the reporting of emission mass for Emission Index (EI) in the ICR for the following gaseous pollutants: hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX).  This would not impose any additional burden on manufactures because no additional information is being requested and emissions mass and EI can be simply converted between each other by respondents.  Additionally, EIs are more frequently used elsewhere, thus, this proposed replacement should make it easier for manufactures to complete their report.   In addition, this ICR also incorporates some minor updates and clarifications to the reporting template based on feedback provided to the EPA by manufacturers.  These updates are described in more detail later in section 4(b). In March 2017, ICAO adopted a new measurement (test) procedure, emissions standard and reporting requirement for nvPM emissions from subsonic aircraft gas turbine engines with a thrust greater than 26.7 kilonewtons (kN), with an implementation date of January 1, 2020.  The EPA plans to continue to collect this nvPM data through the two-part process with the FAA that the EPA established in the last renewal.  The FAA will verify that the nvPM data, test equipment, and procedures are in accordance with ICAO Annex 16 Volume II Chapter 4 and Appendices 7 and 8. The FAA will notify the manufacturer and the EPA once this verification has been successfully completed. After that point, manufacturers will submit the data to the EPA. The full list of parameters to be submitted to EPA are described later in Section 4(b) (ii) and (iii), and these parameters are consistent with ICAO's reporting requirement.  Practical Utility/Users of the Data The EPA believes it is necessary to continue the existing collection to further understand the characteristics of aircraft engines that are subject to emission standards and their impact on emission inventories. Much of this information is required to develop both present and future emission inventories. The emission inventory methodology includes the following information: Engine model or submodel;  Mass of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and nvPM by engine model or submodel for each operating mode of the landing and takeoff cycle (LTO) (i.e., take-off, climbout, taxi/ground idle); and  Number of LTOs by engine model or submodel operating in the study area (e.g., one or more airports) over the study time period (e.g., annually).  Projecting future emission inventories requires information on the emissions characteristics of particular engines to be coupled with data used to forecast fleet turnover (older airplanes and engines being retired as new equipment is added to the fleet). More specifically, the forecast methodology relies on: emission rate information, knowledge of the annual production levels for each engine model or submodel including the year in which production of certain engine models or submodels ended, and  information on the activity and life expectancy of the aircraft/engines.  Having such information available helps the Agency set and enforce appropriate and achievable emission standards and related requirements for aircraft engines in the context of the international process. This data may also be useful in evaluating alternative approaches to transitioning to new standards.  With participation from the EPA and the FAA, ICAO is continuing to work on developing future subsonic and supersonic aircraft engine standards. The data collected pursuant to this information collection would be used to help inform any future EPA rulemaking to codify such possible future standards under U.S. law. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA Non-duplication ICAO maintains an "emissions databank" with much of the information that is the subject of the new reporting requirement. The ICAO databank is a useful tool for providing a general overview of the aircraft fleet, but it is not updated on a consistent basis, it contains a varying amount of voluntarily reported data from each manufacturer, and it does not specifically include information for every engine sub-model. It also lacks information on smaller thrust category turbofans or turboprops and contains no information on engine production volumes. The EPA has attempted to use the emissions databank to conduct analyses in support of policy development, but at times was not able to get reliable information in certain key areas.  EPA needs the information on engine technology, performance parameters, and emissions data submitted under this ICR to conduct accurate technology assessments and aircraft emission inventories and develop appropriate policy; therefore, the ICAO databank is not alone a sufficient tool to inform our policy decisions, including future standard-setting actions. In the context of the roles of the EPA and the FAA with regard to aircraft engine emission standards, it is consistent with EPA policy and practice to ask for timely and reasonable reporting of emission certification testing and other information that is relevant to our emission standards.  Public Notice Required Prior to Information Collection Request (ICR) Submissions to OMB The EPA published a notice in the Federal Register on May 7, 2021, announcing the proposed ICR renewal and providing a 60-day public comment period. The EPA received 3 public comments; and all were substantive and relevant to this renewal. One commenter was supportive of the renewal of the ICR and expansion of the scope to include supersonic engines, and the other two commenters did not support renewing the ICR.  These latter commenters raised concerns regarding the data being available elsewhere and the burden estimates. In particular, the concern expressed was that much of the emissions data that is requested in the ICR is already reported to the ICAO Engine Emissions Database (EEDB).  There is no dispute that the emission rates in EPA's ICR are the same as those voluntarily reported to ICAO's EEDB because both are the certified values.  However, as we discussed in 3 (a) above, the EEDB is a voluntary data collection.  In the past, the EEDB has not always been updated on a regular basis, nor have data for all engines been reported in a timely manner.  While the frequency of updates and timeliness of reporting to the EEDB have improved in recent years, the EPA needs to ensure that we have accurate and up-to-date information, and the EPA does not believe it is appropriate to rely on voluntary reporting for such information.  The EPA further notes that the EEDB does not contain production information, which would be required by this ICR. It was also suggested that publicly available databases, such as the Cirium, could provide similar information, especially regarding production volumes.  The EPA is aware and has made use of services such as these previously, and we anticipate we will continue to use these types of services to supplement our future analyses.  When evaluating policies or making decisions that could impact manufacturers' existing engines, the EPA desires to have the highest quality data to ensure that we are basing decisions on correct data.  Manufacturer-supplied data is the most accurate method for us to do this.  Voluntary public databases also do not include information on the number of spare or exempted engines that are produced, which the ICR includes.  A commenter discussed an alternative method for estimating the number of spare engines needed based on market size.  However, there was not sufficient information in the comment to evaluate if this proposed method could be expanded to cover full engine programs.  Further, there was not any analysis provided by the commenter demonstrating if the full methodology was robust and would align with historical trends.  Also, a question this type of methodology raises is how stable the methodology would be over time.  Based on trade press articles, maintenance intervals are generally increasing over time.  It is unclear how this methodology would adapt or account for any changes in the number of required spare engines over time. Another concern raised in the comments was that the burden estimate was too low.  It was suggested that annual updates to the database would likely take 40-60 hours per year rather than the 11 hours (6 hours for gaseous emissions reporting, and 5 hours for nvPM emission) that the EPA estimated.  These increased time estimates are difficult to evaluate given the lack of supporting information in the comments.  Nonetheless, the EPA reevaluated and updated its burden estimate in response to the general comment that the burden estimate is too low.  As commenters noted, and we agree, much of the data is certification data and would not change from year to year.  However, the production data does need to be collected anew for each reporting year as production volumes change from year to year.  The EPA reevaluated the effort associated with the collection of production data and determined that additional clerical hours for data gathering and additional aerospace engineer hours for data review and quality assurance would be appropriate to account for the annual collection of production data.  Accordingly, the EPA is updating its annual reporting burden to account for two dedicated days of work for clerical staff (14 additional hours) and an additional half working day of time for aerospace engineering staff (4 additional hours) to account for the burden to gather production information. This increases the estimated annual reporting to be 30 hours total per-manufacturer for gaseous and nvPM emissions.  Commenters also noted that the estimated burden to report nvPM data for a new engine type to FAA for review would likely be closer to 120 hours per engine type, rather than the 40 hours per engine type EPA previously estimated.  No further information was provided by the commenter to support the 120-hour estimate.  When this ICR was most recently renewed and the nvPM reporting added, no comments were received that indicated the estimates were too low.  At this time, EPA does not have sufficient information to justify changing the estimate of 40 hours, and thus, the EPA is not updating it per the commenter's request.    Commenters also indicated that some manufacturers consider production numbers to be confidential business information (CBI).  We note that EPA has promulgated regulations regarding how we handle CBI information at 40 CFR 1068.10.  Furthermore, row 4 in the data reporting template is designated to allow manufacturers can indicate if the information in each column is to be treated as CBI.  The EPA is submitting the revised documents to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and publishing revised renewal materials for another public comment period. Consultations The EPA communicated with manufacturers on a regular basis as a part of our work at ICAO when developing the existing collection. These discussions have included the extent, form, and timing of the information submissions.   A manufacturer noted that since the nvPM tests are a new requirement there will be a different number of engine tests for nvPM than for other gaseous emissions.  New columns have been added to the template to allow this to be reported more easily.  We also received feedback from the manufacturers that it would be easier to report the emissions index rather than emissions mass.  These values are directly convertible, so we have incorporated this change as well.  The EPA is in regular communication with the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy as part of our ongoing work related to aircraft engine emissions.  We routinely discuss certification issues, including the FAA review of nvPM data collection.  FAA is supportive of reviewing the nvPM emissions information collected by the EPA as part of this ICR.  The EPA consulted with three respondents. There have been no substantive changes to the ICR since its last approval by OMB. Effects of Less Frequent Collection We require annual reporting. This is consistent with the current requirement to submit aircraft engine-related NOX, HC, CO, smoke, and CO2 information (see 40 CFR §§ 87.42 and 87.64 for the EPA's regulations requiring reporting of these emissions); along with nvPM emissions information. Since the technical emissions information will not typically change from year to year; much of the new information received each year will often be limited to the production volumes for the preceding year and to manufacturers introducing new aircraft engine types or models. Having the information updated every year will be most helpful for assessing technology trends and their impacts on national emissions inventories. It will also help us to stay abreast of developments in the aircraft engine industry.  General Guidelines This collection of information is consistent with all OMB guidelines under 5 CFR § 1320.5.  Confidentiality The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 apply for information you consider confidential. Sensitive Questions This information collection does not ask any questions concerning sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED Respondents/North American Industrial Classification Systems (NAICS) Codes All the expected respondents are manufacturers of new aircraft engines, which are represented by NAICS Code 336412. Information Requested  Data items, including record keeping requirements Reporting elements identified in 4 (b)(ii) list the 14 elements approved in the existing collection relating to gaseous and smoke emissions. Each element is applicable for each affected aircraft gas turbine engine sub-model that is subject to the standards under 40 CFR part 87 and serves as a key tool for informing public policy assessments.  Reporting elements identified in 4 (b)(iii) list 13 additional reporting elements approved in the existing collection relating to non-volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) emissions.  Each element is applicable for each subsonic aircraft turbofan or turbojet engine sub-model with a rated thrust greater than 26.7kN, as a key tool for informing public policy assessments. This information will be gathered using the test procedures described in Annex 16, Volume II, Chapter 4, Appendices 7 and 8. The nvPM data will be reported along with the annual report on HC, CO, NOX, smoke, and CO2 emissions as required under 40 CFR § 87.42 and 87.64.  Information relating to Gaseous Emissions and Smoke: Company corporate name as listed on the engine type certificate; Calendar year of reporting period; Complete sub-model name (this will generally include the model name and the sub-model identifier, but may also include an engine type certificate family identifier);  The type certificate number, as issued by the FAA (specify if the sub-model also has a type certificate issued by a certificating authority other than the FAA); Date of issue of type certificate and/or exemption, i.e., month and year; Emission standards to which the engine is certified; If this is a derivative engine, identify the original certified engine model; Engine sub-model that received the original type certificate for the engine type certificate family; Production volume of the sub-model for the previous calendar year, or if zero, state that the engine model is not in production and list the date of manufacture (month and year) of the last engine produced; Regarding the above production volume report, specify (if known) the number of engines that are intended for use on new aircraft (certified and exempted), the number intended for use as certified spare engines on in-use aircraft, and the number of excepted spare engines; Reference pressure ratio; Combustor description (type of combustor where more than one type available on an engine); Engine maximum rated thrust output (Foo), in kilonewtons (kN) or watts (W) (depending on engine type); Unburned hydrocarbon (HC) emission index (g / kg of fuel) over each segment of the Landing and Take-off Cycle (LTO), i.e. Take-off, Climb, Approach, Taxi / Ground Idle;  Unburned hydrocarbon (HC) mass (g) total (weighted) over the LTO cycle;  HC characteristic level (Dp/Foo);  CO emissions index (g / kg of fuel) over each segment of the LTO cycle; Carbon monoxide (CO) mass (g) total (weighted) over the LTO cycle; CO characteristic level (Dp/Foo); Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) emission index (g / kg_fuel) over each segment of the LTO Cycle; NOX mass (g) total (weighted) over the LTO Cycle NOX characteristic level (Dp/Foo);  Smoke number (SN) at each segment of the LTO cycle; Maximum SN at any thrust setting;  SN characteristic level;  Carbon dioxide (CO2) mass (g) total (weighted) and over each segment of the LTO Cycle; Number of emission tests run per sub-model; Number of engines tested per sub-model; Fuel flow (grams / second) total (weighted) and over the LTO Cycle; Any additional remarks to the EPA.  Data collection for nvPM emissions from aircraft gas turbine engines: Number of emission tests run per sub-model  -  if different than for gaseous; Number of engines tested per sub-model  -  if different than for gaseous; Maximum nvPMmass -  concentration (ug/m^3); Characteristic Maximum nvPMmass concentration (ug/m^3); nvPM EImass (mg/kg of fuel) for each thrust setting of the LTO cycle; nvPM mass system loss correction factor for each thrust setting of the LTO cycle; nvPM EImass (mg/kg of fuel) corrected for system losses (i.e., nvPM EImass at the engine exit) for each thrust setting of the LTO cycle; nvPM mass characteristic level (LTOmass / rated thrust) nvPM EInum (number of particles/kg of fuel) for each thrust setting of the LTO cycle; nvPM EInum system loss correction factor for each thrust setting of the LTO cycle; nvPM EInum (number of particles/kg of fuel) corrected for system losses (i.e., nvPM EInum at the engine exit) for each thrust setting of the LTO cycle; nvPM num characteristic level (LTOnum / rated thrust); Maximum nvPM EImass (mg/kg of fuel); Maximum nvPM EImass system loss correction factor; Maximum nvPM EImass (mg/kg of fuel) corrected for system losses (i.e., nvPM EImass at the engine exit); Maximum nvPM EInum (number of particles/kg of fuel); Maximum nvPM EInum system loss correction factor; and Maximum nvPM EInum (number of particles/kg of fuel) corrected for system losses (i.e., nvPM EInum at the engine exit). The annual report must be submitted for each calendar year in which a manufacturer produces any covered aircraft gas turbine engine. These reports are due to the EPA by February 28 of each year, for the previous calendar year. In instances where emissions information provided for a previous year remains valid and complete for the current reporting year, manufacturers may report production figures and state that there are no changes instead of resubmitting the original information, as provided by 40 CFR § 87.42(f). Production volume for engines produced under an exemptions/exception should be reported here, as provided by 40 CFR 87.50(d). The additional information required under 40 CFR 87.50(d) should be reported in a separate report to the Designated EPA Program Officer. To facilitate and standardize reporting, we will continue to provide an Excel template to each manufacturer.  Since the nvPM testing is a new procedure, manufacturers may have conducted a different number of tests for nvPM vs other gaseous pollutants.  Based on feedback from manufacturers, the EPA will add a new column to the nvPM tab in the template to so the number of nvPM tests conducted can be specified.  Recordkeeping Requirements Manufacturers need not keep records other than copies of the information submitted to the EPA. They must keep these records for at least three years, the records must be kept readily available, and the EPA may review them at any time. See 40 CFR § 87.46. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  -  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODS, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT Agency Activities EPA The EPA activities associated with the information collection request include creating a reporting template, coordinating with the FAA on emission testing and nvPM reporting, and answering manufacturers' questions about how to complete the template. Once the reporting program is in place, the EPA activities will include monitoring and review of emission reports, further communication and outreach, and program evaluation. FAA The FAA activities for the information collection request are limited to the nvPM data submission. These activities include reviewing manufacturers' emissions reports to verify that the nvPM data, test equipment, and procedures are in accordance with ICAO Annex 16 Volume II Chapter 4 and Appendices 7 and 8. Also, the FAA activities will include answering manufacturers' questions about these emissions reports. The FAA activities will include reviewing and verification of emission reports for nvPM data and further communication with manufacturers. The FAA will notify the manufacturer and the EPA after this verification has been successfully completed.  Collection Methodology and Management Data requested relating to emissions standards in 40 CRF part 87 (described in 4 (b)(ii)) will be collected in the process of type certification on an aircraft engine under 40 CFR part 87. All manufacturers seeking a type certificate from the FAA under 14 CFR part 21 shall submit data to the EPA for these engine types. The nvPM data requested in this collection will be submitted to the FAA for verification that it has been collected in the proper manner. The manufacturers will collect nvPM data using the procedures described in Annex 16 Volume II Chapter 4 and Appendices 7 and 8. Following the notification of verification from the FAA, manufacturers will fill out the reporting template with the nvPM data and provide to the EPA.  The EPA will ensure completeness of the collected information by reviewing each submittal. We generally expect manufacturers to submit data electronically via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>We will maintain records of these files and plan to post non-CBI data on our website. Small Entity Flexibility One manufacturer, Williams International, is a small business under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration. The information collection involves a minimal amount of effort, so we have not adopted any provisions to reduce the burden of sending or keeping this information. Williams International is not expected to respond to the request for nvPM data because they do not produce an aircraft engine that produces a thrust greater than 26.7kN.  Collection Schedule We require annual reporting. This is consistent with the existing collection requirement to submit aircraft engine-related NOX, HC, CO, smoke, nvPM, and CO2 information. The EPA anticipates issuing the CAA section 114 letters by January 1, 2022. These CAA section 114 letters will serve as a reminder to respondents about what data we are requiring to be submitted and provide any necessary clarification about the process. These letters will require the manufacturer of an aircraft gas turbine engine to submit completed reporting forms to the EPA by February 28, 2022. Much of the information will not change from year to year; we expect that the new information will often be limited to production volumes for the preceding year and to manufacturers introducing new aircraft engine types or models. Having the information updated every year will be most helpful for assessing technology trends and impacts and in a broader sense confirming, in a timely way, that manufacturers are properly complying with regulatory requirements. It will also help us to stay abreast of any developments in the characteristics of the aircraft engine industry. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION Section 6(a) of this Supporting Statement provides estimates of burden hours for all respondent types. Section 6(b) contains estimates of respondent costs for the information collection. Section 6(c) summarizes Federal burden and costs. Section 6(d) describes the respondent universe and the total burden and cost of this collection to respondents. Section 6(e) presents the bottom-line burden and cost. The burden statement for this information collection is in Section 6(f). Estimating Respondent Burden Estimated burden for elements relating to gaseous and smoke emissions data collection  The EPA estimates that the annual burden of the ICR relating to gaseous and smoke emission data, to each respondent would be 25 hours per year over the three years covered by this information collection.  The EPA estimates that up to 7 respondents[,] will submit a report to the EPA each year containing information regarding gaseous and smoke emissions. Estimated burden of relating to nvPM emissions data collection  The EPA estimates that the emissions testing burden to affected entities for reporting information to the FAA for verification will be 40 hours per engine type. This burden would be incurred only once for each engine type for the first incidence of nvPM data being reported for that engine type and would not be incurred again for that same engine type when reported in subsequent years unless the manufacturer made changes to the engine that changed its emissions characteristics. The EPA estimates that the additional annual reporting burden of the nvPM collection to each respondent would be 5 hours per year over the three years covered by this information collection. The EPA estimates that up to 6 respondents will submit data in their report to the EPA each year relating to the nvPM collection. Estimating Respondent Costs Costs to respondents associated with this information collection include labor costs (i.e., the cost of labor by manufacturers to meet the existing information collection requirements). Because the requirements merely supplement existing activities, we believe manufacturers will incur no non-labor costs (e.g., the cost of purchasing and installing equipment or contractor costs associated with providing the required information).  To calculate labor costs, the EPA estimated technical, managerial, clerical, and legal loaded labor rates for each industry sector using labor rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and applying a 60% loading factor. The loaded labor rates in 2021 US Dollars are: $128.56 for managers; $92.77 for aerospace Engineers; $38.18 for clerical staff, and $132.25 for legal staff in 2021 dollars.  Gaseous and Smoke Emissions Data Collection  During the three years covered by this information collection, the EPA estimates that the annual burden imposed on each of the 7 anticipated respondents/engine manufacturers will average 25 hours or $1,541 (175 hours or $10,785 annually in total) each year for tasks covered related to gaseous or smoke emissions information). This is based on an estimated effort involving 1 hour for managers, 6.5 hours for engineers, 16 hours for clerical staff, and 1.5 hours or attorneys. Manufacturers are already required to submit similar information annually, so we expect that continuing to submit and keeping the additional records will involve no capital costs and no Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs. Table 1 presents the total cost to all manufacturers each year for the existing collection.  Table 1: Estimated Annual Burden for Elements of the Existing Collection   Hours per Response BLS - Mean Hourly Wage (5/2019) Inflated Mean Hourly Wage (1/2021) Load Factor Loaded Labor Rate Labor Cost Number of Respondents Total Hours Total Cost Manager                                        1 $   78.80  $   80.35                                        0.6 $    128.56  $    128.56                                         7                                        7 $      900  Aerospace Engineer                                       6.5 $   56.86  $   57.98                                        0.6 $      92.77  $    602.99                                         7                                      45.5 $   4,221  Clerical Staff                                       16 $   23.40  $   23.86                                        0.6 $      38.18  $    610.84                                         7                                       112 $   4,276 Legal Staff                                       1.5 $   81.06  $   82.66                                        0.6 $    132.25  $    198.38                                         7                                      10.5 $   1,389

Totals                                       25

  $ 1,541                                          175 $ 10,785  nvPM data collection  The EPA anticipates only 6 of the 7 expected respondents will submit data on the nvPM collection. One manufacturer does not produce any engines that would meet the requirements to report under this new collection.  The EPA does not expect that manufacturers will need to re-test any engines. However, when a manufacturer develops a new engine, this would require the compilation of data to be submitted to the FAA for verification.  As an estimate, the EPA is assuming that each manufacturer will develop one new engine sometime in the next 3 years.   One Time costs for new nvPM collection Before manufactures submit emission data to the EPA, the data will need to be submitted to the FAA for review and verification. Based on input from the FAA, the EPA estimates it could take up to 40 hours or $3,711 per engine type to prepare and submit nvPM data to the FAA. Expecting there will be 6 engine types being used during this ICR's reporting period, the EPA estimates a total of 240 hours and $22,264 in one-time labor costs associated with efforts to prepare and submit data to the FAA. Annualized over the 3 years, across all six respondents, the average annual total burden would be 80 hours or $7,421.  Table 2- Respondent one-time costs

Hours per Response BLS - Mean Hourly Wage (5/2019) Inflated Mean Hourly Wage  (1/2021) Load Factor Loaded Labor Rate Labor Cost per Engine # of Engine Types/Models Total Startup Hours Total Startup Labor Cost Aerospace Engineer                                       40 $   56.86  $   57.98                                        0.6 $   92.77 $   3,711                                         6                                       240  $   22,264 Annual Labor Costs for nvPM Emissions collection The EPA estimates that the annual cost to each aircraft gas turbine engine manufacturer to fill out this additional nvPM data could average up to 5 hours or $429 per year, over the three years covered by this information collection. This is based on an estimated effort involving 5 hours for aerospace engineers. Table 3 - Annual Labor Costs for nvPM Emissions Collection

Hours per Response BLS Mean Hourly Wage (5/2019) Inflated Mean Hourly Wage  (1/2021) Load Factor Loaded Labor Rate Labor Cost Number of Respondents Total Hours Total Cost Aerospace Engineer                                        5  $56.86   $57.98                                        0.6  $92.77   $464                                         6                                       30  $2,783

Estimating Agency Burden and Cost This section describes the burden and cost to the Federal government associated with this information collection, both existing and new data. Federal activities under this information collection include FAA verification of testing and EPA oversight of the reporting program. The EPA estimates the salary, overhead, and benefits of agency staff to be $73.94. To derive this figure, the EPA multiplied the hourly compensation at GS-12, Step 5 on the 2017 General Schedule pay scale for the Detroit/Ann Arbor area ($46.21) by the standard government benefits multiplication factor of 1.6 to account for overhead and benefits.  FAA burden and cost  There are no FAA costs associated with the gaseous or smoke emissions collection of data. The FAA activities associated with the proposed collection of nvPM data includes oversight and implementation of guidance to manufacturers for data collection and testing, monitoring and verification of emission reports, communication and outreach, and program evaluation. The EPA estimates that this would involve up to 20 staff hours per engine type. The EPA estimates that there could be 6 engine types to be verified by the FAA. The anticipated costs for FAA activities related to this collection are not included in the Agency burden tabulations for this ICR.  EPA burden and cost  The EPA activities associated with the collection include oversight and implementation of the reporting program, e.g., monitoring and verification of emission reports, communication and outreach, and program evaluation. The EPA estimates that this will involve up to 10 staff hours per year for the gaseous and smoke collection. The nvPM collection could involve up to 5 staff hours per year for these activities. Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs For the gaseous and smoke collection, the EPA expects to receive annual reports from 7 manufacturers, 6 of whom have previously submitted data, and potentially 1 new manufacturer. The EPA expects to receive data from 6 manufacturers for the data associated with the nvPM collection.  Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs The EPA estimates that each respondent's burden and costs associated with the activities described in Section 4(b)(ii) over the three years covered by this request, will average 25 hours or $1,541 per year (Table 1). This results in a total for all respondents of 525 hours or $32,356 over the 3 years (175 hours or $10,785 per year)  For the new nvPM data collection, the EPA estimates that respondents would incur one-time start-up burden of 40 labor hours or $3,711 per engine type to prepare and submit the test results to the FAA for verification (Table 2). The EPA estimates that the additional reporting burden and costs associated with the activities described in Section 4(b)(iii), over the three years covered by this request, will average 5 hours per year or $464 (Table 3). This results in a total estimated burden for all respondents of 330 hours or $30,613 total over the 3 years (110 hours or $10,204 per year). The total cost over the 3 years to all respondents for this information collection is estimated to be 855 hours or $62,970. Individually this ICR is estimated to be 122 hours and $8,996 per respondent over the 3 years (or 40.7 hours and $2,999 per year). This is described in more detail in Table 4. The EPA's estimated burden for this information collection is 15 hours or $1,109 per year (45 hours or $3,327 over 3 years)

Table 4 - Total burden

                           Gaseous and Smoke Collection                                 nvPM Collection                                      Total

                                Response hours                                   Labor Cost                              Number of Respondents                             Capital / Startup Cost                                 Response hours                                   Labor Cost                              Number of Respondents                                 One-time Hours                                  One-Time Cost                              Annual Burden (hours)                              Annual Cost (2017 $) Respondent Burden 2022 25  $1,541  7  $-    5  $    464  6 80 $    7,421  285 $   20,990

2023 25  $1,541  7  $-    5  $    464  6 80 $    7,421  285 $   20,990

2024 25  $1,541  7  $-    5  $    464  6 80 $    7,421  285 $   20,990

EPA Burden 2022 10  $    739  1  $     -    5  $    370  1 0  $     -    15  $     1,109

2023 10  $    739  1  $     -    5  $    370  1 0  $     -    15  $     1,109

2024 10  $    739  1  $     -    5  $    370  1 0  $     -    15  $     1,109  FAA Burden** Data Verification 0  $     -    0  $     -    0  $     -    6 120 $    8,872  120  $     8,872

**  For the FAA Burden, the number of respondents is equal to the estimated number of engines they would need to verify the data from. Rather than the number of manufacturers who are reporting data.

Total OEM Reporting Burden 855 $   62,970

  (per year) 285 $   20,990

Individual respondent burden 122 $     8,996

  (per year) 40.7 $     2,999

Total Government Burden  165 $   12,199

  (per year) 55 $     4,066

Total EPA Burden 45 $     3,327

  (per year) 15 $     1,109

Total FAA Burden 120 $     8,872

  (per year) 40 $     2,957

Total Burden 1020 $   75,169

Approved OEM Reporting Burden  (from 2018) 1506 $ 129,597

  (per year) 502 $   43,199

Change in OEM Burden -651 $   (66,627)

  (per year) -217 $   (22,209)

Change in Burden Estimates There has been no change in the requirements for the existing collection. Labor costs have changed slightly due to updated cost data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The burden hours to collect the information has been increased by 19 hours in response to comments received that the estimated burden was too low.  The collection of nvPM data allows U.S. aircraft engine manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with international standards developed at ICAO. The initial collection had a very high start-up cost to test all of the engines. Since manufacturers have already tested all of their existing engines, the one-time cost to have the nvPM data verified by the FAA has been accomplished.  However, the EPA realizes that manufacturers will still be developing new engines that will need to be verified in the future.  Thus, EPA is estimates that 6 engines may need to go through this verification process.  The net result of the increase in collection hours and removal of one-time startup costs results in an estimated reduction of manufacturer cost and hours of $-66,627 and 651 hours over the next three years.  Burden Statement The respondent reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be up to 855 hours or $62,970 over the 3 years of this collection. Total burden to the government and all respondents is estimated to be 1020 hours or $75,169. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, the EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0546, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0546 and OMB Control Number 2060-0680 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register: March 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 10738-10740]
[DOCID:fr02mr06-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53354; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Supplementary Material .26 to Exchange Rule 301 To Waive the
Posting Requirements in Relation to Transfers for Nominal Consideration
Between Employees of the Same Member Organization and New Leases

February 23, 2006.
    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 February 17, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange''
or ``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
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).
    \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 proposes to amend Supplementary Material .26 to
Exchange Rule 301 to waive the posting requirements in relation to
transfers for nominal consideration between employees of the same
member organization and new leases.
    The text of the proposed rule changes is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.nyse.com), at the Exchange's Office of

the Secretary, 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .26 to
Exchange Rule 301 to waive the posting requirements in relation to
transfers for nominal consideration between employees of the same
member organization and new leases.
    Article II, section 10, of the Exchange Constitution authorizes the
Exchange's board of directors to (i) approve the transfer of membership
of a regular member and the lease of such a membership and (ii) adopt,
amend and repeal such rules as it may deem necessary or proper relating
to the posting of notice of the proposed transfer or lease of a
membership and other similar matters. Supplementary Material .26 to
Exchange Rule 301 sets forth the current posting requirements for
transfers and leases of seats, requiring that a proposed transfer or
lease of a membership must be posted on the Exchange's bulletin board
and in the Exchange's Weekly Bulletin at least 10 days before board
consideration of such transfer or lease.
    A large percentage of Exchange memberships and leases of
memberships are held on behalf of member organizations by individuals
who are employees of those member organizations. When an employee who
owns a membership on behalf of a member organization leaves that member
organization, the member organization may instruct the employee to
transfer such membership to another employee of the member organization
for a nominal consideration (``nominal transfer''). Similarly, if a
lessee member leaves his member organization, the member organization
may cause another employee to sign a new lease to enable the member
organization to retain the departed employee's floor trading rights.
    On December 6, 2005, the members of the Exchange and the
shareholders of Archipelago Holdings, Inc. (``Archipelago'') voted to
approve a merger between the Exchange and Archipelago. Upon
consummation of the merger, all membership interests in the Exchange
will be exchanged for a combination of cash and common stock of NYSE
Group, Inc. After the merger, the right to trade on the floor of the
Exchange will be pursuant to a system of trading licenses. In light of
the fact that memberships will cease to exist upon consummation of the
merger and the time and resources it takes to process transfers and
leases of membership, the Exchange announced that it would not process
any transfers or new leases of memberships entered into after the close
of business on Friday, December 30, 2005.
    At the time the Exchange announced its decision to cease processing
transfers of memberships and new leases, the Exchange believed that the
merger would be completed before the end of January 2006. As completion
of the merger has taken longer than anticipated, a backlog has
developed of memberships beneficially owned by member organizations
that are not available for use by such member organizations. This
problem is a consequence of the inability of those member organizations
to cause the nominal transfer to continuing employees of memberships
held by departed employees so as to allow those continuing employees to
transact business on the trading floor. Similarly, member organizations
have been unable to execute new leases in the names of continuing
employees when the employee who had been a lessee member on behalf of
the member organization has departed. In addition, member organizations
frequently meet their expanding needs for trading floor personnel by
causing employees to enter into new leases. The Exchange's decision not
to process new leases has prevented member firms from expanding their
floor trading capacity in this manner and has forced them to operate
with fewer floor trading personnel than they consider desirable.
    Some member organizations have experienced difficulty in
effectively conducting their business as a result of this inability
either to have employees admitted as members in place of departed
employees or to acquire memberships by entering into new leases to
expand their trading floor capacity. The Exchange has responded to this
problem by recommencing the processing of nominal transfers and new

leases.\5\ However, member organization personnel needs make it
important to process these transfers and leases as quickly as possible.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .26 to
Exchange Rule 301 to waive the posting requirements in relation to
nominal transfers and new leases, so as to shorten the process where an
applicant is otherwise acceptable to the Exchange and ready for
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ All new leases are required to contain a provision
specifying that they will terminate by their terms upon closing of
the merger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that waiving the ten day notice period prior
to Exchange approval of a transfer will provide significant relief to
member organizations that need to replace departed employees on the
trading floor, or expand their trading floor personnel, as quickly as
possible. The Exchange intends this waiver for nominal transfers and
leases to be of a limited duration and will reimpose the ``posting''
requirement if at any time the conditions that make such waiver
necessary, as discussed above, no longer exist.
    The purposes of the ``posting'' requirement are (i) to enable
members to raise objections to the suitability of a proposed new member
and (ii) to give notice to any member who may have a claim against the
proceeds of the sale of the membership. As the ``posting'' process has
not given rise to any objections to a proposed new member in many years
and the Exchange performs a thorough background check as part of its
approval process, the Exchange believes that waiving the ``posting''
requirement in the limited circumstances proposed by this filing will
not meaningfully diminish the stringency of the new member approval
process. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that there will be no
``posting'' procedure with respect to applicants for trading licenses
under the rules that will be in effect after the consummation of the
merger. In addition, since the only membership transfers that will be
permitted are nominal transfers between employees of the same member
organization, no true sale is occurring and there are therefore no
proceeds for a third party to make claims against.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirement under section 6(b)(5) \6\ of the Act that an
Exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule
change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the five-day prefiling requirement and the 30-day
operative delay, and designate the proposed rule change immediately
operative. The Commission believes that waiving the five-day prefiling
requirement and the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.\11\ The Commission
notes that the Exchange represented that the posting process has not
resulted in objections to a proposed new member in many years and the
Exchange performs a thorough background check as part of its approval
process for new members. The Commission also notes that the Exchange
represented that the proposed waiver of the 10-day posting period
should provide relief to member organizations that, as a consequence of
the backlog in processing membership transfers, need to replace
departed employees on the trading floor, or expand their trading floor
personnel, as quickly as possible to enable them to effectively conduct
their business. Accordingly, the Commission designates that the
proposal become operative immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ 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. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such 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 Number SR-NYSE-2006-08 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-NYSE-2006-08. 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 Commission's 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. 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-NYSE-2006-08 and should be submitted on or before March
23, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2931 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 144 (Monday, July 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45294-45295]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16229]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-1999-6254]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on July 15, 2020, the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA) petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) to renew a waiver of compliance from
certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained
at 49 CFR parts 214, 217, 219, 220, 221, 223, 225, 228, 229, 231, 233,
236, 238, and 239. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-1999-
6254.
    In its petition, SCVTA seeks to extend the terms and conditions of
its shared use waiver, originally granted by FRA's Railroad Safety
Board on September 26, 2005; modified in 2008; extended in 2011, 2013,
2018, and 2019. Specifically, SCVTA requests the following relief, for
a period of five years: partial relief from part 220, Railroad
Communications, for SCVTA employees, except its dispatchers; partial
relief from part 225, Railroad Accidents/Incident Reports, only for
employee injuries; and full relief from some parts of multiple
regulations (e.g., 49 CFR parts 217, 219, 221, 229, 238, and 239).
    This shared use waiver is for the continued operation of the SCVTA
rail fixed guideway transit system with the Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR) in the Vasona Corridor. SCVTA shares this corridor with UPRR, as
they operate in parallel for 5 miles of the existing 15-mile-long UPRR
Vasona Industrial Lead. It serves the cities of southwest San Jose and
Campbell, California. Because SCVTA owns this 5-mile-long portion of
the shared corridor, SCVTA and UPRR have executed an Operations and
Maintenance Agreement, which includes an exclusive operating easement,
allowing UPRR to fulfill its

obligations as a common carrier of freight by continuing its existing
freight operations within the purchased corridor. This agreement
requires SCVTA to inspect, maintain, and repair all tracks, signal
systems, and automatic warning devices along the freight track within
that portion of the corridor shared with SCVTA tracks.
    SCVTA explains it has worked diligently with FRA to rectify
compliance concerns found during the 2018-2019 waiver relief period,
and seeks a full five-year extension of the regulations as previously
granted in this docket.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. If any interested
parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing,
they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment
period and specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by September 10, 2020 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety,Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-16229 Filed 7-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P