## Information Collection Request Supporting Statement for the PM 2.5 

## National Ambient Air Quality Standard

Implementation Rule EPA ICR Number 2258. 02 OMB Control No. 2060 - 0611

Prepared by: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

May 2011

EPA Inform ation Collection Request Renewal for the PM 2.5 

### National Ambient Air Quality Standard Implementation Rule2



## Table of Contents
1. Id entification of the Information Collection Request...
............... ......page 3
2. Need for and Use of the Collection..........................................page 5
3. Non
- Duplication, Consultation, and other Collection Criteria......... page 6
4. Respondents and the Information Requested... ...........................page 10

5. In formation Collected

—Agency

Activities, Collection Methodology and In formation Management.....................................................page 17
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection........................page 193



### 1. Identification of the Information Collection Request 1(a) Title of the Information Collection

The title of the Information Collection Request is PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality

Standard Implementation Rul e (Renewal) , ICR number 2258. 02 , and OMB Control Number 2060
- 0611 1(b) Abstract/Executive Summary The Paperwork Reduction Act requires the information found in this Information Collection Request (ICR) number 2258. 02 , to assess the burden (in hours and dollars) of the PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Implementation Rule as well as the periodic reporting and record keeping necessary to maintain the rule. The PM 2.5 NAAQS rule applies to p articles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM 2.5 ) which are also referred to as "fine” particles . The final FR N title is Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule. The EPA established the PM 2.5 standards based on evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to elevated levels of PM 2.5 . Estimates show that attainment of the PM 2.5 standards would be likely to result in tens of thousands fewer premature deaths each year, tens of thousands fewer hospital admissions each year, and hundreds of thousands fewer doctor visits, absences from work and schoo l, and respiratory illnesses in children annually
. On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to add new standards for fine particles, using PM 2.5 as the indicator. The EPA established health
based (primary) annual and 24
-hour standards for PM 2.5 (62 FR 38652). The annual standard was set a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter, based on the 3
- year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations. The 24
-hour standard was set a level of 65 micrograms per cubic meter, based on the 3
- year average of the 98 th percentile of 24
- hour concentrations. This PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard Implementation rule was proposed November 1, 2005 ( 70 FR 65983 ) and was promulgated on April 25, 200 7
. The preamble to the proposed and final regulation addresse s the administrative burden in general terms. The preamble to the final rule state s that an ICR will be prepared. The first ICR (No. 2258.01) covered a period from April 5, 2008 through April 4, 2011.4 On October 17 , 2006 , EPA revised the NAAQS for fine particles. The EPA established a new primary 24
-hour standards for PM 2.5 ( 71 FR 61144 ) that became effective on December 18, 2006 . The 24
-hour standard was set a level of 3 5 micrograms per cubic meter, based on the 3
- year average of the 98 th percentile of 24
- hour concentrations. The annual standard remained unchanged at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter, based on the 3
- year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations. The EPA promulgated the initial designations and boundaries for 31 areas across the country

with respect to the 2006 24
- hour PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688). The time period covered in this ICR is a three ye ar period from June 1 , 2011 through May

31 , 2014
. This rule provides the framework for the States to develop SIPs to achieve the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS as well as the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS . This framework reflects the requirements prescribed in CAA sections 110 and part D, subpart 1 of title I. A PM 2.5 SIP contains rules and other requirements designed to achieve the NAAQS b y the deadlines established under the CAA, and it also contains a demonstration that the State ’ s requirements will in fact result in attainment. The SIP must meet the CAA requirements in subpart 1 to adopt reasonabl y available control measures (RACM) and reasonabl y available control technology (RACT) and provide for reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment for the period prior to the area ’ s attainment date. After a State submits a SIP, the CAA requires EPA to approve or disapprove the SIP. Tribes are not required to conduct attainment demonstrations or submit the RFP, RACT, or RACM requirements
. In the previous ICR which addressed the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS , the administrative burden for State governments and the Agency were 630,000 hours and 69,300 hours , respectivel y over three years . For the current ICR, the Agency anticipates additional administrative burden for State governments and the Agency of 526 , 2 00 hours and 5 7 , 88 2 hours, respectively over three years . Fifty percent of the hours are expended in the first ye ar with the remainder evenl y divided between the second and third ye ars of the ICR period. The present value of the total additional costs for State governments, the respondents, estimated at $ 3 4 million for the 3 year period. On an equivalent annual basis that is $ 11.3 million per year during the 3 year period of the ICR. The present value of the Agency administrative cost burden is estimated at $ 3.5 million dollars for the 3 year period . This is equivalent to equal annual basis of $1. 2 million per year during the three ye ar period. The incremental administrative burden for the areas and activities covered by this ICR is mitigated by certain factors, including: 1. Several promulgated federal rules will reduce future emissions of particulate matter and its precursors and will help states attain the PM2.5 NAAQS. These rules include emission and fuel standards for onroad and nonroad5 mobile sources, and the Transport Rule, which addresses electric generating units. 2. In developing state implementation plans, some States are projected to attain based on Regional control programs from EPA analyses conducted as part of the Transport Rule, the 2006 PM NAAQS Review, and the PM 2.5 NAAQS Implementation Rule. Included in these anal ys es were emissions projections and air quality modeling design value predictions and interpolations for 2010, 2014, 2015, 2020, etc. 3. Experience with meeting the requirements of the P M 10 , 1997 PM2.5 , and 8
- hour Ozone NAAQS. Only 1 of the original 39 PM 2.5 nonattainment areas required to submit a nonattainment area plan has not submitted the SIP. For the thirty
- one areas not attaining the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, twenty
- two of those areas have developed SIPs for the 8
-hour ozone standard, fifteen developed SIPs for the 1997 8
-hour PM 2.5 standard, and fourteen developed SIPs for the PM 10 standard. Of the thirty
- one nonattainment areas for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, only one area has never developed a SIP for any criteria pollutant. Hence, there is familiarity with SIP activities for meeting nonattainment NAAQS requirements. Furthermore, many of these areas completed attainment demonstrations and fulfilled RFP and some RACT and RACM obligation s for the 1997 PM 2.5 , PM 10 , or 8
-hour Ozone NAAQS.


### 2. Need For and Use of the Collection 2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) for wide
- spread pollutants from numerous and diverse sources considered harmful to public health and the environment. Part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act sets forth the plan (implementation) requirements for areas designated non - attainment with a promulgated National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The EPA is charged under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, to assist each State with a non
- attainment area to develop a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of such primary standard. As a result of litigation and subsequent court decisions, an implementation framework was developed for the PM 2 .5 NAAQS. The PM 2.5 NAAQS Implementation Rule is scheduled to be published in April 200 7 . When the review and comment periods on the draft and final federal implementation rules close, the affected parties could begin to assess the milestones and begin the planning process
. This IC R is developed in response to the implementation framework to fulfill requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.6

2(b ) User/Users of the Data 1 The data collected from the State or local air agency respondents will include the require d SIP elements prescribed in CAA sections 110 and part D, subpart 1 of title I for Implementation plans and the requirements in this Implementation Rule. The PM 2.5 SIP will contain rules and other requirements designed to achieve the NAAQS by the deadlines established under the CAA, and it also contains a demonstration that the State ’s requirements will in fact result in attainment. The SIP must meet the requirements in subpart 1 to adopt RACM, RACT, and provide for RFP toward attainment for the period prior to the area ’ s attainment date. The regional and headquarters EPA use the information as part of their review of the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, and RACT requirements of the PM 2.5 implementation plan adequacy
. After a State submits a SIP with the technical supporting documentation , the CAA requires EPA to approve or disapprove the SIP. The attainment demonstration must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and Part 51, Appendix W and must include inventory

data, mo deling results, and emission reduction analyses on which the State has based its projected attainment date. The attainment date justified by the demonstration must be consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1004(a). The modeled strategies must be c onsistent with requirements in §51.1009 for reasonable further progress (RFP) and in §51.1010 for reasonabl y available control technology (RACT) and reasonabl y available control measures (RACM). The attainment demonstration and supporting air quality

mode ling should be consistent with EPA’s PM 2.5 modeling guidance. The State s use the attainment demonstrations, RFP, RACT and RACM determinations to inform their citizenry, including potentially regulated entities. They

also use this information and anal ys is to fulfill federal obligations under Title I, Subpart D of the Clean Air Act and the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule. The potentially

regulated entities use this information in assessing future emission reduction requirements. Emission reducing regulati ons developed b y the State s and approved b y the EPA are federally enforceable. 

### 3. Non -Duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3(a) Non -Duplication The State respondent will submit a implementation plan for each nonattainment area that will need to include a number of elements, including an evaluation of RACT
1 Attainment demonstrations as well as RFP, RACM and RACT are viewed as analytical products to some; but are regulations to others. In the context of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the attainment demonstration and RFP, RACM and RACT submissions are considere d data.7

and RACM, an attainment demonstration showing how the area will attain the standards as expeditiously as practicable, and a plan showing that the area will make reasonable further progress from the date the area's SIP is due to its attainment date. The four parts to the information collection for this ICR can be contained in the respondents one PM 2.5 SIP submission
- the attainment demonstration and the RFP, RACT , and RACM requirements
. There are other activities covered b y existing ICRs which complement the activities required for the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACT , and RACM . One example is the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule. Salient ICRs and their titles are identified below.

 Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans o 51.121
- 51.122 NOx SIP Call...................................2060
- 0445 o 51.160
- 51.166 New Source Review................................2060
- 0003 o 51.321
- 51.323 Air Quality Data Reporting..................2060
- 0088 o 51.353
- 51.354 Inspection/Maintenance......................2060
- 0252 o 51.365
- 51.366 Inspection/Maintenance......................2060
- 0252  Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans o 52.21 Prevention of Significant Deterioration.................2060
- 0003  Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods o 53.4 .................................................................2080
- 0005 o 53.9(f),(h),(i).......................................................2080
- 0005 o 53.14................................................................2080
- 0005 o 53.15 ........................ .......................................2080
- 0005 o 53.16(a)
- (d),(f).....................................................2080
- 0005  Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations o 55.4
- 55.8 ...........................................................2060
- 0249 o 55.11
- 55.14 ........................................................2060
- 0249  Ambient Air Quality

Surveillance o 58.11
- 58.14 ........................................................ 2060
- 0084 o 58.20
- 58.23 ........................................................2060
- 0084 o 58.25
- 58.28 ........................................................2060
- 0084 o 58.30
- 58.31 ........................................................2060
- 0084 o 58.33 ................................................................2060
- 0084 o 58.35 ................................................................2060
- 0084 o 58.40
- 58.41 .........................................................2060
- 0084 o 5 8.43 ................................................................2060
- 0084 o 58.45 ................................................................2060
- 0084 o 58.50 ................................................................2060
- 0084  8
-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Implementation Rule o 2236.02.............................................................2060

– 0594 Attainment Demonstration. The attainment demonstration requirement appears as 40 CFR 51. 1007 which implements Clean Air Act subsection 172(c)(1)
. The8

attainment demonstration for the PM 2.5 NAAQS is unique and does not duplicate other implementation plan requirements. However, the State s are encouraged to build upon related implementation planning processes they used for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, Ozone NAAQS, regional haze rule, and/or PM NAAQS. Taking such steps, where appropriate, may

reduce the incremental administrative burden and enable identification of control strategies that achieve requisite multi
-pollutant environmental progress at a lower cost. RFP. This unique requirement is described in 40 CFR 51. 1009
. Although the RFP submission does not duplicate other plan requirements, the RFP submission may complement them. For example, the emission reductions associated with the RFP SIP may also demonstrate attainment. The State s are encouraged to build upon related analyses for federal emission reducing rules as well as s alient PM
- 1 0 and ozone NAAQS and regional haze implementation requirements where appropriate. Taking such steps may reduce the incremental administrative burden. For example, the temporal and spatial nature of emission reductions associated with the federal rules may be sufficient to meet the RFP requirements. Hence, the need to identify additional emission reductions to meet RFP requirements may

be mitigated in some instances. In addition, State s are encouraged, where appropriate, to take into account similar anal ys es and planning efforts to meet certain PM 10 and ozone NAAQS and regional haze implementation requirements. Such actions may result in RFP plans which achieve requisite multi
-pollutant environmental progress at a lower cost. RACT and R

ACM . Th ese unique requirement s are described in 40 CFR 51. 1010 which implements CAA subsection 172(c)(1). For each PM 2.5 nonattainment area, the State shall submit with the attainment demonstration a SIP revision demonstrating that it has adopted all reasonably available control measures (including RACT for stationary sources) necessary

to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements. The SIP revision shall contain the list of the potential measures considered by

the State , and information and anal ys is sufficient to support the State ’s judgment that it has adopted all RACM, including RACT. The State s are encouraged to take into account the related anal ys es and planning efforts to meet certain PM10 and ozone NAAQS and regional haze implementation requirements where appropriate. Taking such steps can reduce administrative burden and foster achievement of multi
-pollutant environmental progress at a lower cost. 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Su bmission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A Federdal Register notice soliciting comment on this ICR renewal was published on February

2, 2011 (76 FR 5801).9

3(c) Consultations The EPA solicited comment on the proposed PM 2.5 implementation rules including public hearings. The EPA will solicit comment on the final PM 2.5 implementation rules including public hearing after publication
. 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection The collections under 40 CFR 51. 1007 , 51. 1009 , and 51. 1010 are necessary to provide assurances that identified level of emission reductions are adequate to ensure timely attainment and maintenance of the PM 2.5 NAAQS while adhering to the mandatory

measures and requirements for areas whose attainment dates are beyond 5 ye ars after designation 3( e) General Guidelines These reporting or recordkeeping requirements do not violate any of the regulations promulgated b y OMB under 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5. The final PM 2.5 NAAQS implementation rule do es not require:  reporting more than once a year;  respondents to participate in a statistical survey ;  responses to Agency

inquiries in less than 30 days;  respondents to receive remuneration for preparation of reports;  records to be kept more than 3 years , 2 and,  manual methods of reporting. 3 3(f) Confidentiality The information is requested from the State s. To fulfill the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACT and RACM requirements, the State s will use emissions levels and control efficiency data provided by

certain facilities in the private and public sector. This information is available from a variety of sources. It is the assimilation and anal ys is of that data that is required in the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACT and RACM determinations
. There are 3 7 plan submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas that States must prepare to meet the attainment demonstration as well as meet the RFP , RACT and RACM requirements
. State s should already have information from emission sources, as facilities should have provided this information to meet other NAAQS SIP requirements, operating permits, and/or emissions reporting requirements. Such information does not generall y reveal the details of production processes. But, to

2 However, the states may choose to retain the information for more than 3 years. 3 However, the states must still submit their attainment demonstration, RFP SIP, RACT SIP and RACM SIP.10

the extent it may, the affected facilities are protected. Specificall y, the completion of the emissions and control efficiency information that is confidential, proprietary, and trade secret is protected from disclosure under the requirements of subsections 503(e) and 114 (c) of the Clean Air Act. 3(g) Sensitive Information The requested attainment demonstration, RFP, RACT and RACM submission s do not include questions whose answers would require sensitive information. 

### 4.0 The Respondents and the Information Requested 4(a) Respondents and the Non -Attainment areas Table 1 a lists the State s affected by the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACT and RACM requirements for the 3 9 non - attainment areas for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS
. Table 1b lists the 31 areas designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. Local, State , and federal agencies are part of the North American Industrial Classification System code number 924110. 4 There are other entities that may be indirectl y affected, as they may comment on the draft submissions before they are forwarded to EPA’s Regional Offices. These include potentially

regulated entities, representatives of special interest groups, and individuals. Consideration of the burden on these entities is beyond the scope of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

4 http://www.census. gov/naics Code number 924110 includes “administration of air & water resources & solid waste management programs11

Table 1 a . 1997 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS Nonattainment Areas (see http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/q nc.html)

Area Action Atlanta, GA Baltimore, MD Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Birmingham, AL Redesignation request submitted Canton - Massillon, OH Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Charleston, WV Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Chattanooga, AL
-TN - GA Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Chicago
- Gary - Lake County, IL
- IN Clean Data Determination Cincinnati
- Hamilton, OH
- KY - IN Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Cleveland
- Akron
- Lorain, OH Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Columbus, OH Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Dayton - Springfield, OH Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Detroit
- Ann Arbor, MI Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Evansville, IN Redesignation request submitted Greensboro
- Winston Salem
- High Point, NC Clean Data Determination Harrisburg
- Lebanon
- Carlisle, PA Clean Data Determination Hickory, NC Redesignation request submitted Huntington
- Ashland, WV
- KY - OH Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Indianapolis, IN Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Johnstown, PA Clean Data Determination Knoxville, TN Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Lancaster, PA Clean Data Determination Libby, MT Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Liberty
- Clairton, PA Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Los Angeles
- South Coast Air Basin, CA Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Louisville, KY
- IN Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Macon, GA Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Martinsburg, WV
- Hagerstown, MD Clean Data Determination New York
- N. New Jersey - Long Island, NY
- NJ - CT Attainment Demonst ration SIP submission Parkersburg
- Marietta, WV
- OH Clean Data Determination Philadelphia
- Wilmington, PA
- NJ - DE Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Pittsburgh
- Beaver Valley, PA Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Rea ding, PA Clean Data Determination Rome, GA Attainment Demonstration SIP submission San Joaquin Valley, CA Attainment Demonstration SIP submission St. Louis, MO
- IL* Steubenville
- Weirton, OH
- WV Attainment Demonstration SIP submission Washington, DC
- MD - VA Clean Data Determination Wheeling, WV
- OH Clean Data Determination York, PA Clean Data Determination *: For the St. Louis nonattainment area, MO submitted an AD SIP, but IL has not . Table 1b. 2006 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS Nonattainment Areas (see http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/rnc.html)12

Area Action Allentown, PA Birmingham, AL Clean Data Determination Canton - Massillon, OH Charleston, WV Chico, CA Cleveland
- Akron
- Lorain, OH Detroit
- Ann Arbor, MI Fairbanks, AK Harrisburg
- Lebanon
- Carlisle
- York, PA Imperial Co, CA Johnstown, PA Klamath Falls, OR Knoxville, TN Lancaster, PA Liberty
- Cla irton, PA Logan, UT- ID Los Angeles
- South Coast Air Basin, CA Milwaukee
- Racine, WI New York
- N. New Jersey - Long Island, NY
- NJ - CT Nogales, AZ Oakridge, OR Philadelphia
- Wilmington, PA
- NJ - DE Pittsburgh
- Beaver Valley, PA Provo, UT Sacramento, CA Salt Lake City, UT San Francisco Bay Area, CA San Joaquin Valley, CA Steubenville
- Weirton, OH
- WV Tacoma, WA Yuba City
- Marysville, CA13 As indicated in Table s 1 a and 1b , some areas have non
- attainment area segments in more than one State . Furthermore, some multi
- state areas span more than one EPA Regional Office . For example, the Philadelphia
- Wilmington non
- attainment area encompasses part of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware . Penns ylvania and Delaware are in EPA Region 3 jurisdiction, while New Jerse y is in EPA Region 2 jurisdiction. This could increase the administrative burden of the State’s meeting the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACT and RACM requirements
. The size of the list of non
- attainment areas also suggests greater administrative burden. However, the administrative requirements for attainment demonstrations, RFP, RACT and RACM are less for the areas that attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS within 5 years or less of the non
- attainment designation date . Furthermore, illustrative air quality simulations and interpolations done that considered the effects of the Transport Rule and Regional Haze for geographic areas ( excluding AK, AZ, CA , ID, OR, UT, and WA in the simulations ) showed 10 areas with predicted design values above the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS level in 2014 . There are 15 State s required to submit the PM 2.5 SIPs to meet the requirements for the 2 0 areas needing additional local control measures above the Transport Rule predicted results. There are 1 0 nonattainment areas predicted to meet the 2006 PM 2.5 design value in 201 4 from the Transport Rule simulations . The 8 State s for these 1 1 areas will have less administrative requirement in submitting the SIPs requirements The numbers of non
- attainment areas or parts of are as in each State and the associated EPA Regional Office are presented in Table s 2 a and 2b. These were derived from the December 17 , 2010 information at: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/rnc a.html . The numbers of areas predicted to be in attainment were derived by looking at the Transport Rule and Regional Haze air quality model simulation results as illustrated in Table 3 a . Table 3b lists the western states not included in the Transport Rule modeling for which 2007
- 2009 monitoring data was used as an indicator of attainment
.14

Table 2 a . The Numbers of Non -Attainment Areas or Parts of Areas in Each State and EPA Regional Office for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS
State or District No. Areas

or Parts of Areas EPA

Region Alabama 2 4 California 2 9 Connecticut 1 1 District of Columbia 1 3 Delaware 1 3 Georgia 4 4 Illinois 2 5 Indiana 5 5 Kentuck y 3 4 Maryland 3 3 Michigan 1 5 Missouri 1 7 Montana 1 8 North Carolina 2 4 New Jersey 2 2 New York 1 2 Ohio 9 5 Pennsylvania 8 3 Tennessee 2 4 Virginia 1 3 We st Virginia 6 3 Table 2b. The Numbers of Non -Attainment Areas or Parts of Areas in Each State and EPA Regional Office for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

State or District No. Areas or Parts of Areas EPA Region No. of Nonattainment Areas Predicted in Attainment by

2014 Connecticut 1 1 1 New Jersey 2 2 1 New York 1 2 no such area Delaware 1 3 1 Pennsylvania 7 3 6 West Virginia 2 3 115

Alabama 1 4 no such area Tennessee 1 4 1 Michigan 1 5 no such area Ohio 3 5 2 Wisconsin 1 5 no such area Utah 3 8 no such area Arizona 1 9 1 California 7 9 1 Alaska 1 10 no such area Idaho 1 10 no such area Oregon 2 10 no such area Washington 1 10 no such area Table 3a. Summary of Results of CAM-X S imulations for Eastern United States Base Case Runs and Interpolations Which I nclude E mission Reductions from the Transport Rule (TR1)*
Nonattainment Area Projected A ttainment Status in 2014 Allentown, PA Attainment Birm ingham , AL Nonattainment Canton - Massillon, OH Attainment Charleston, W V Attainment Cleveland -Akron - Lorain, OH Nonattainment Detroit- Ann Arbor, MI Nonattainment Harrisburg - Lebanon - Carlisle - York, PA Attainment Johnstown, PA Attainment Knoxville, TN Attainment Lancaster, PA Attainment Liberty- Clairton, PA Nonattainment Milwaukee - Racine, W I Nonattainment New York - N. New Jersey- Long Island, NY- NJ CT Nonattainment Philadelphia -Wi lm ington, PA- NJ - DE Attainment Pittsburgh - Beaver Valley, PA Attainment Steubenville -We irton, OH - WV Nonattainment
* This is an illustrative simulation and is not necessarily a substitute for the work undertaken by the States in response to requirements for attainment demonstrations, RFP SI P submittals, RACT SIP submittals and RACM SIP submittals.16

Table 3b. Summary of Western Nonattainment Areas Not Included in Transport Rule Simulations
Nonattainment Area Projected A ttainment Status in 2014 Chico, CA Nonattainment Fairbanks, AK Nonattainment Imperial Co, CA Attainment Klam ath Falls, OR Nonattainment Logan, UT - ID Nonattainment Los Angeles - South Coast Air Basin, CA Nonattainment Nogales, AZ Attainment Oakridge, OR Nonattainment Provo, UT Nonattain me nt Sacramento, CA Nonattainment Salt Lake City, UT Nonattainment San Francisco Bay Area, CA Nonattainment San Joaquin Valley, CA Nonattainment Tacoma, WA Nonattainment Yuba City- Marysville, CA Nonattainment
4(b) Information Requested The information requested under this ICR is prescribed by 40 CFR 51. 1007 (attainment demonstration), 51. 1009 (RFP), and 51. 1010 (RACT and RACM ). The implementation framework set forth in the regulation does not adopt a “one
- size
- fits all” approach to meeting the attainment demonstration or RFP , RACT , and RACM requirements . This additional flexibility

enables the State s to customize, to the extent allowed by the Clean Air Act, their approach to attaining and maintaining the PM 2.5 NAAQS. Data Items. The emissions and control efficiency data required for the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACT , and RACM should have been collected as a result of reporting activities required b y other OMB approved ICRs. For example, see the ICR associated with the Final Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) : http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/cerr/index.html
. There may

be other data that the State s use. For example, State s may identify economic and population growth rates, federal rules that reduce future emissions of particulate matter precursors, and meteorological data. These data are presently available. Respondents’ Activities. The State s will compile and reference the data, set forth the methodology, conduct analyses, develop initial drafts, hold hearings, adopt rules, regulations, and programs, have discussions with EPA staff as appropriate, refine the draft17

demonstration and RFP , RACT , and RACM requirements as appropriate, adopt the SIP, and forward to EPA. Agency Activities. EPA staff in the regional offices may facilitate timely

receipt of the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACT , and RACM requirements by reviewing materials and answering questions from the State s regarding: requirements, potential data sources, anal ys is tools, the draft attainment demonstration and other submissions. The EPA Regional Offices will evaluate the SIP submissions and take rulemaking actions to approve or disapprove the SIP revi sions. EPA headquarters staff will facilitate information flow amongst the regions and State s to foster timely

attainment of acceptable demonstrations and SIP submissions. Reporting Protocols. The dates for the submissions are December 14, 2012 as set forth in Part D
- Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas

– Subpart 1
- Nonattainment Areas in General and the PM 2.5 Implementation rule. 

### 5.0 The Information Collected
— Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5(a) State s, EPA Regional Offices, and EPA Headquarters Offices

State s: The State s agencies’ activities include 5 :
 Forecast baseline emissions, develop and evaluate emission reduction strategies where warranted, conduct air quality modeling to verify

maintenance and attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS  Calculate the emission reductions necessary to fulfill RFP requirement, determine creditable emission reductions, where necessary determine additional emission reductions and compliance timing to meet RFP requirement . Draft findings, hold State hearings, make revisions as warranted. Submit RFP SIP as part of SIP to EPA Regional office. Have discussions with EPA.  Id entify

RACT applicable sources and their control measures under baseline and attainment conditions; and evaluate alternatives. Draft findings, hold State hearings, make revisions as warranted. Submit RACT determinations as part of SIP to EPA Regional Office. Have discussions with EPA.  Id entify

RACM applicable sources and their control measures under bas eline and attainment conditions; and evaluate alternatives. Draft findings, hold State hearings, make revisions as warranted. Submit RACM determinations to EPA Regional Office. Have discussions with EPA.

5 In some instances, there are local air pollution control districts within the states. These local agencies work in partnership with the s tates to facilitate accomplishment of the activities noted below
.18 EPA Regional Offices. The regional office activities include:

 Answering inquiries put forth by the State s.  Reviewing data, analysis, and findings of attainment demonstration, RFP , RACT and RACM determinations
.  Rulemaking actions approving or disapproving the SIP submissions EPA Headquarters. The EPA headquarters office activities include:  Facilitating information flow and problem solving amongst the regions regarding demonstrations and submittals from the State s  Answering questions regarding application and interpretation of salient rule provisions. 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

The PM 2.5 SIP meeting the attainment demonstration and RFP , RACT and RACM requirements will set forth the data sources and anal ytical methods, as well as the emission reduction and air quality improvement verification procedures. 5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

For an approved IC R, the Agency must demonstrate that it has taken all practical steps to develop separate and simplified requirements for small businesses and other small entities. See 5 CFR 1320.6(h). The PM 2.5 NAAQS implementation regulation does not provide a direct administrative burden on small entiti es. 5(d) Collection Schedule During the period from June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2014 , the SIP for the 2006 PM 2.5 standardis due on December 14 , 2012 that meets the required elements for the attainment demonstration , RFP , RACT and RACM. Attainment Demonstration. The demonstration submission date is December 14, 2012 for Subpart 1 designated non
- attainment areas. RFP. The RFP SIP submission date is December 14, 2012 for designated non
attainment areas. However, areas that demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no more than 5 years following designation meet RFP. RACT and RACM . For designated non
- attainment areas which demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 ye ars following designation, RACT and RACM are met. For areas having an attainment date of more than 5 years, the RACT and RACM SIP submission date is December 14, 2012
.19



### 6. Estimating the Burden of the Collection This section provides information on the cost and hours associated with the information collection for both the respondents (the affected State s) and the Agency (regional and headquarters offices). Hours and costs are presented for the activities associated with each collection item for a non
- attainment area (or segment) in a given State , as well as the equivalent annual and present value numbers. 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden The estimated respondent burden is that associated with the activities which result in the States meeting the attainment demonstration, RFP, RACT , and RACM SIP requirements
. The estimated burden is incremental to that required by other EPA environmental reporting obligations. The incremental burden for some areas may be less than for others. There are several reasons for this disparity
.  The severity of the non
- attainment problem varies among the designated areas.  Certain areas or parts of areas may already have developed and implemented RACT and RACM requirements.  Some areas may

have future predicted PM 2.5 design values which demonstrate attainment in expeditious and practicable fashion, within 5 ye ars of designation, under baseline conditions.  Some areas may

fulfill the RFP requirement as a result of creditable emission reductions resulting from federal rules that reduce PM 2.5 precursor emissions. In the course of conducting the Transport Rule analysis and the economic assessment for the PM 2.5 NAAQS Implementation Rule, the EPA staff conducted air quality simulations
. Some of the results are summarized in Table 3 . This information, together with that in Tables 1 and 2 can serve in estimating the burden hours. Subpart 1 Non - attainment Areas. Of the original 39 nonattainment areas with 58 SIP revisions required for the 1997 PM2.5 standard, only one area ha s an outstanding requirements due ( IL part of St. Louis, MO
- IL nonattainment area). Of the remaining 57 required SIPs , 47 have submitted Attainment Demonstration SIPs, 22 have f inal approved Clean Data Determinations, and 5 have submitted Redesignation requests. Thus the bulk of the remaining work for these areas consists of developing Maintenance SIPs or mid
- course corrections for those areas not demonstrating attainment in the 5 ye ars after the area was designated nonattainment
. The estimated burden for these areas was 300 hours for the states to complete their 1997 PM2.5 actions. EPA designated 31 areas nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on January 26, 2011 (http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/rnc.html). The base case air quality20

modeling simulations (see Table 3) were used to develop burden hour estimates for the non - attainment areas. The base case modeling was for the Transport Rule (TR1). Western states w ere not included in the TR1 modeling. Hence, monitored readings from 2007
- 2009 were used as indicators for attaining the 2006 PM 2.5 standard (see Table 4)
. Some of the 1 5 nonattainment area in the western states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) predominatel y experience local PM2.5 issues as a result of wood
-burning stoves in wintertime that would not be modeled in the TR1 simulations
. Of the 16 nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS , for which TR1 modeling was conducted, it is anticipated that 9 of the 16 nonattainment areas will attain the standard b y 2014. These simulations and interpolations assumed no additional emission reductions as a result of the State s developing emission reductions as part of a PM 2.5 NAAQS SIP. Furthermore, the simulations did not assume any additional emission reductions from the Transport Rule. Under these conditions, of the 16 areas included in the anal ys is, 7 areas did not have a predicted PM 2.5 design value simulated to meet PM 2.5 NAAQS by the end of 20 14
. If the progress in the simulation is presumed to be as expeditious as practicable, the 9 areas meeting the NAAQS should have little problem in developing simulations demonstrating attainment and using that information to ful fill the RACT, RACM and RFP SIP requirements. The State s with these 9 areas may wish to use the emission projections, air quality modeling simulations, and design value predictions to fulfill most of their attainment demonstration requirement. As a starting point for developing burden estimates, the Agency l ooked at the total hours expended in related EPA level of effort work assignments for meeting the 1997 ozone NAAQS , exclusive of the air quality modeling. The total was about 2000 hours in level of technical effort. 6 The potential scope of that effort was geographically broad including all non - attainment areas outside CA. Examples of the specific scope of the effort included:  Design of lower cost control strategies for 16 Subpart 2 moderate and

certain Subpart 1 areas  Examination of alternative emission reduction targets and geographic areas

(e.g., staying in State but going up to 100km for VOC emissions reductions and up to 200km for NOx emission reductions for some non - attainment areas).  Assessment of RFP requirements for certain non
- attainment areas,  Assessment of RACT/RACM  Differences in cost, emission reductions, economic, and energy impacts looking at alternative frameworks for Phases 1 and 2 of the Implementation Rule. These activities are rel ated to but do not precisely mimic the incremental activities undertaken by

a State to fulfill the attainment demonstration including the reasonabl y available control measure anal ys is as well as the RACT SIP, and RFP SIP submissions for a given 1 non
- attainment area.

6 EPA Contract No. 68
- D
- 00
- 283; Work Assignments 3
- 53 and 4
- 66.21 To avoid understating the State burden, an estimate of 3 , 000 hours per non attainment area per State was assumed and applied to the 9 areas that were projected to be in attainment by

20 14
. 7 Most of this estimated burden would be incurred in the first year. This is because of the overlap of emission reductions associated with the attainment demonstration, RACT requirements , and the RFP requirements. F or example, emission reductions resulting from RACT may

be creditable toward attainment and RFP. Furthermore, for Subpart 1 areas which are projected to meet the standard in an expeditious manner by 2 0 14 , that demonstration fulfills the RACT, RACM and RFP requirements
. Hence, although the attainment demonstration is not due until D ecember 12, 2012 , it benefits the State and potentially

regulated entities to make the attainment demonstration and, where appropriate, the RACT/RACM/RFP requirements earl y in the implementation planning process. The presumed allocation of total incremental burden across time is 50% in ye ar 1, 25% in year 2, and 25% in year 3. For the remaining 7 non - attainment area not predicted below the NAAQS in 20 14 , the total incremental burden hour estimate was increased by a f actor of 6. S pecifically, the estimated burden for these area s was 18,000 hours. This estimate may b e too high. However, directionally, one would expect more burden for the attainment demonstration in an area not expected to attain the standard within 5 years of designation under base case conditions. The estimated burden was increased for 9 State s for the 7 areas because certain areas are multiple State area s. The allocation of burden hours across time was the same for the 7 areas as that for the other Subpart 1 areas. The estimated incremental burden for non - attainment areas is presented in Table s 4 a and 4b
. The State total burden includes some non - attainment areas that include multiple State s. F or example, the Washington PM 2.5 non - attainment area requires SIP submittals from DC, MD and VA. Table s 4 a and 4b present the differences between estimated burden for State s predicted to meet the PM 2.5 NAAQS with Federal Control programs on the one hand and other State s with areas not predicted to meet the NAAQS.

7 For example, if a Subpart 1 area which is projected to attain the standard by 2014 is in two states, the assumed burden is 6,000 hours: 3,000 hours for each state. If a similar Subpart 1 area is found in only one state, the burden is assumed to be 3,000 hours.22
Table 4 a . Estimated Remaining Incremental Burden for the State s Attainment Demonstration, RFP SIP Submission , mid - course correction and maintenance plans for the Subpart 1 Non -Attainment Areas for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS .
State or District EPA Region No. of Areas or Parts of Areas Additional Hours

Year 1 Additional Hours

Year 2 Additional

Hours Year 3 Alabama 4 2 150 75 75 California 9 2 1,500 7 50 750 Connecticut 1 1 150 75 75 District of Colum bia 3 1 150 75 75 Delaware 3 1 150 75 75 Georgia 4 4 9,450 4,725 4,725 Illinois 5 2 9,150 4,575 4,575 Indiana 5 5 450 225 225 Kentuck y 4 3 450 225 225 Maryland 3 3 450 225 225 Michigan 5 1 150 75 75 Missouri 7 1 150 75 75 Montana 8 1 150 75 75 North Carolina 4 2 150 75 75 New Jersey 2 2 300 150 150 New York 2 1 150 75 75 Ohio 5 9 1,350 675 675 Pennsylvania 3 8 1,800 900 900 Tennessee 4 2 300 150 150 Virginia 3 1 150 75 75 We st Virginia 3 6 900 450 450 Total Not

Applicable 58 27,600 13,800 13,800 Table 4b. E stimated Incremental Burden for the States Attainment Demonstration, RACT SIP Submission, and RFP SIP Submission for the Subpart 1 Non -Attainment Areas for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

State or District EPA Region No. of Areas or Parts of Areas Additional Hours

Year 1 Additional Hours Year 2 Additional Hours Year 3 Alabama 4 1 9,000 4,500 4,500 Alaska 10 1 9,000 4,500 4,500 Arizona 9 1 1,500 750 750 California 9 7 55,500 27,750 27,750 Connecticut 1 1 9,000 4,500 4,500 Delaware 3 1 1,500 750 750 Idaho 10 1 9,000 4,500 4,50023

Michigan 5 1 9,000 4,500 4,500 New Jersey 2 2 10,500 5,250 5,250 New York 2 1 9,000 4,500 4,500 Ohio 5 3 19,500 9,750 9,750 Oregon 10 2 18,000 9,000 9,000 Pennsylvania 3 7 18,000 9,000 9,000 Tennessee 4 1 1,500 750 750 Utah 8 3 27,000 13,500 13,500 Wa shington 10 1 9,000 4,500 4,500 We st Virginia 3 2 10,500 5,250 5,250 Alabama 4 1 9,000 4,500 4,500 Total Not

Applicable 37 235,500 117,750 117,750 6(b) Estimating Respondent Cost

Labor costs are estimated for State governments using the total of projected additional hours for the Subpart 1 areas. These estimates do not reflect staff experience and economies of scale. The hourl y rates are the result of estimated directed and indirect cost per emplo yee. The main s ource of the information is http://www.opm.gov/oca/pay rates/index.htm The estimated weighted direct salary cost per employee is $35.88 per hour. This results from a summation of the professional, managerial, and support staff components.

 Hourly

equivalent 2010 Salary

of Permanent Professional Staff at GS 11, Step 3 is $33.34 . This is the average of hourl y equivalent rates for the San Francisco, CA and Washington, D.C. areas.  To account for per

manent managerial staff, 1/11 or 9% of the hourl y rate for GS 13, Step 3 is added to the professional staff hourl y rates. The average hourly equivalent rate for GS
- 13 using rates for San Francisco, CA and Washington, D.C. is $47.51. Nine percent of that is $4.32.  To account for permanent support staff at GS
- 6, Step 6, 1/8 or 16% of the hourly rate is added to the professional staff hourly rates. The average hourly equivalent rate for GS
- 6, Step 6 using rates for San Francisco, CA and Washington, D.C. i s $ 22.17 . Sixteen percent of that is $ 3.55
. The estimated hourl y indirect cost per employee is $ 23.90 . This amount is the sum of the following:

 Benefits at 16% of the weighted direct hourl y equivalent salary cost per employee or $ 6.59
.24

 Sick and annual leave at 10% of the weighted direct hourly equivalent salary

cost per emplo yee or $ 4.12
.  General overhead at 32% of the weighed direct hourly equivalent salary

cost per employee or $ 13.18
. The estimated total weighted direct and indirect hourly equivalent salary

cost per emplo yee is $ 65.10
. For the 1997 NAAQS, the remaining additional cost in ye ar 1 for the 21 State s to submit the SIP requirements for the 58 areas or parts of areas is $ 1.8 million. The cost estimates for ye ars 2 and 3 are $ 0.9 million. For the 2006 NAAQS, the additional cost in year 1 for the 18 States to submit the SIP requirements for the 31 areas or parts of areas is $15.3 million. The cost estimates for years 2 and 3 are $7.7 million. S tate costs are detailed in Tables 5a and 5 b. Table 5 a. Estimated Incremental Cost for the States Attainment Demonstration, RFP SIP Submission, mid - course correction and maintenance plans for the Subpart 1 Non -Attainment Areas for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

S tate Region Yr 1 cost Yr 2 cost Yr 3 cost Alabama 4 $9,765 $4,883 $4,883 California 9 $97,650 $48,825 $48,825 Connecticut 1 $9,765 $4,883 $4,883 Delaware 3 $9,765 $4,883 $4,883 District of Columbia 3 $9,765 $4,883 $4,883 Georgia 4 $615,195 $307,598 $307,598 Illinois 5 $595,665 $297,833 $297,833 Indiana 5 $29,295 $14,648 $14,648 Kentucky 4 $29,295 $14,648 $14,648 Maryland 3 $29,295 $14,648 $14,648 Michigan 5 $9,765 $4,883 $4,883 Missouri 7 $9,765 $4,883 $4,883 Montana 8 $9,765 $4,883 $4,883 New Jersey 2 $19,530 $9,765 $9,765 New York 2 $9,765 $4,883 $4,883 North Carolina 4 $9,765 $4,883 $4,883 Ohio 5 $87,885 $43,943 $43,943 Pennsylvania 3 $117,180 $58,590 $58,590 Tennessee 4 $19,530 $9,765 $9,765 Virginia 3 $9,765 $4,883 $4,883 West Virginia 3 $58,590 $29,295 $29,295

SUM $1,796,760 $898,380 $898,38025 Table 5b . Estimated Incremental Cost for the States Attainment Demonstration, RFP SIP Submission, mid - course correction and maintenance plans for the Subpart 1 Non -Attainment Areas for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.
State Region Yr 1 cost Yr 2 cost Yr 3 cost Connecticut 1 $585,900 $292,950 $292,950 New Jersey 2 $683,550 $341,775 $341,775 New York 2 $585,900 $292,950 $292,950 Delaware 3 $97,650 $48,825 $48,825 Pennsylvania 3 $1,171,800 $585,900 $585,900 West Virginia 3 $683,550 $341,775 $341,775 Alabama 4 $585,900 $292,950 $292,950 Tennessee 4 $97,650 $48,825 $48,825 Michigan 5 $585,900 $292,950 $292,950 Ohio 5 $1,269,450 $634,725 $634,725 Wisconsin 5 $585,900 $292,950 $292,950 Utah 8 $1,757,700 $878,850 $878,850 Arizona 9 $97,650 $48,825 $48,825 California 9 $3,613,050 $1,806,525 $1,806,525 Alaska 10 $585,900 $292,950 $292,950 Idaho 10 $585,900 $292,950 $292,950 Oregon 10 $1,171,800 $585,900 $585,900 Washington 10 $585,900 $292,950 $292,950

Sum $15,331,050 $7,665,525 $7,665,525 6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The estimated agency

burden is derived from the estimates for the respondents. Draft estimates were developed b y the headquarters staff with review b y regional office staff and subsequent refinement of the Agency burden and cost estimates
. The respondent burden was summed by EPA regional offices and a percentage was applied to the ye arl y burden estimate to reflect the actions taken on the part of the regional offices. Once ye arl y burdens were estimated for the Agency ’s Regional Offices, a percentage of those amounts are specified to derive estimates for the Agency ’s Headquarters Office Burdens. Discussions were held with Regional Office and Headquarters staff regarding the percentages and resulting burden estimates. Agency Regional Office Burden. Table 6 summarizes total incremental respondent burden b y Regional Office and provides estimates of total incremental Agency Regional Office burden. The summary of total incremental respondent26 burden comes from Table s 4 a and 4b . The Agency Regional Office burden is presumed to be 10% of the estimated total incremental burden for respondent by EPA Regional Office. The total incremental burden allocation for the Agency Regional Offices in Ta

ble 5 is 50% in year 1, 25% in year 2, and 25% in year 3. In discussion s with Agency Regional Office staff, they indicated that the total incremental burden estimates were ballpark. However, some regional office staff felt that a more reasonable allocati on of total incremental Agency Regional Office burden would be 37.5% in year 1, 37 .5 % in ye ar 2, and 25% in year 3. If that allocation were used , the corresponding Agency Regional Office burden estimates in years 1 and 2 would be 2,070 and ye ar 3 would b e 1,380
. Table 6 a . Estimated Agency Regional Office Burden Derived by Taking 10% of Regional Respondent Burden Total for Years 1, 2, and 3 for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS EPA Regional Office Total Regional

Respondents' burden (hrs) Yr 1 EPA Region burden (hrs) Yr 2 EPA Region burden (hrs) Yr 3 EPA Region

burden (hrs) 1 300 15 8 8 2 900 45 23 23 3 7,200 360 180 180 4 21,000 1,050 525 525 5 22,200 1,110 555 555 6 No PM2.5 Nonattainment areas 0 0 0 7 300 15 8 8 8 300 15 8 8 9 3,000 150 75 75 10 No PM2.5 Nonattainment areas 0 0 0 Sum 55,200 2,760 1,380 1,380 Table 6 b. Estimated Agency Regional Office Burden Derived by Taking 10% of Regional Respondent Burden Total for Years 1, 2, and 3 for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS EPA Regional Office Total Regional Respondents' burden (hrs) Yr 1 EPA Region

burden (hrs) Yr 2 EPA Region burden (hrs) Yr 3 EPA Region burden (hrs) 1 18,000 900 450 450 2 39,000 1,950 975 975 3 60,000 3,000 1,500 1,500 4 21,000 1,050 525 525 5 75,000 3,750 1,875 1,875 6 No PM2.5 Nonattainment areas 0 0 0 7 No PM2.5 Nonattainment areas 0 0 0 8 54,000 2,700 1,350 1,350 9 114,000 5,700 2,850 2,850 10 90,000 4,500 2,250 2,250 Sum 471,000 23,550 11,775 11,77527 Agency Headquarters Burden. The Regional Office burden estimates for ye ars 1, 2, and 3 are multiplied by 10% to arrive at an estimate for Headquarters burden for the same 3 years. 50% of this number is assigned to year 1, and 25% of that number is assigned to years 2 and 3. Resulting hours for ye ar 1 for the 1997 NAAQS are 276 . The estimates for years 2 and 3 are 138
. Resulting hours for ye ar 1 for the 2006 NAAQS are 2,355. The estimates for years 2 and 3 are 1,178. Total Incremental Burden for the Agency. The regional and headquarters office burden estimate for year 1 for the 1997 NAAQS is 3,036 hours. The estimates for ye ars 2 and 3 are 1,518 hours each ye ar. The regional and headquarters office burden estimate for year 1 for the 2006 NAAQS is 25,905 hours. The estimates for ye ars 2 and 3 are 12,953 hours each year. Total Cost for the Agency. Using the weighted direct and indirect salary equivalent hour rate derived in section 6(b), the total incremental burden hours are multiplied by

that rate. The result is the total cost estimate for the Agency; see Table 7
. Table 7 a . 1997 NAAQS Total Cost Estimate for the Agency Entity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Regional Offices $0.2 million $0.09 million $0.09 million Headquarters Office $0.02 million $0.009 million $0.009 million Total Agency Cost $0.2 million $0.1 million $0.1 million Table 7 b. 2006 NAAQS Total Cost Estimate for the Agency Entity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Regional Offices $1.5 million $0.8 million $0.8 million Headquarters Office $0.2 million $0.08 million $0.08 million Total Agency Cost $1.7 million $0.8 million $0.8 million 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Additional Burden and Costs

Part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act of 1990 provided plan requirements for Subpart 1 non
- attainment areas along with prescribed requirements and schedules for those areas. The major set of respondents is the State s, as they have over 90% of the estimated additional burden to meet these requirements on the specified schedule. There is also burden imposed on the Regional and Headquarters Offices of the Agency . Because of the overlap in work for the attainment demonstration, RACM SIP submittal, RACT SIP submittal, and RFP SIP submittal, most of the cost will be incurred in ye ar 1 of the 3 year period covered by this ICR.28 In the Agency ’s roles as facilitator, compiler, reviewer, and preparer, the estimated burden for the Agency

is also expected to be greater in the 1 st ye ar than in the 2 nd or 3 rd years. The total incremental respondent universe burden and cost estimates are presented in Tables 8 a and 8 b
. Table 8 a . 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS Total Incremental Respondent & Agency Universe Burden and Cost Estimates Entity Average Yearly

Burden (hours) 3 - Year

Burden (hrs) Present Value of Costs

for 3
- Year Burden States 18,400 55,200 $ 3,593,520 Agency 2,024 6,072 $364,626 Total 20,424 61,272 $ 3,958,146 Table 8 b. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Total Incremental Respondent & Agency Universe Burden and Cost Estimates
Entity Average Yearly

Burden (hours) 3 - Year

Burden (hrs) Present Value of

Costs for 3
- Year Burden States 157,000 471,000 $ 30,662,100 Agency 17,270 51,810 $3,111,215 Total 174,270 522,810 $ 33,773,315

* The estimates are in current year (20 10 ) dollars. Costs for years 2 and 3 are calculated using the equation Present Value = Future Value/ (1 + interest rate) t ,where “t” is the number of years hence (i.e., 0 for year 1, 1 for year 2, 2 for year 3). The adjusted values for years 1, 2, and 3 are then summed. 6(e) Reason for Change in Burden In the previous ICR for implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, we estimated a total of 210 ,000 burden annual hours for states . In this ICR revision, w e are requesting a decrease in burden to states of 34,600 annual hours due to the following factors :
 The number of non
- attainment areas has decreased as areas have come into compliance with the 1997 PM 2.5 standards  The burden associated with the remaining 1997 PM 2.5 non - attainment areas is less because of the work they have done previously to comply

with the standards
.  The burden associated with the nonattainment areas for the 2006 PM2.5 standard is less than the origin al burden of the 1997 standard due to fewer nonattainment areas.  The burden associated with the nonattainment areas for the 2006 PM2.5 standard is less because some areas are projected to attain the standard before the area’s attainment date based on Transport Rule modeling projections
.29 The estimates have been calculated using 20 10 dollars and some assumptions regarding overhead, O&M costs, and capital costs have been adjusted to meet current guidelines and common procedures for preparing ICRs. 6(f ) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information for the 1997 NAAQS is estimated to average 317 hours per response . Similarly, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information for the 2006 NAAQS is estimated to average 4,243 hours per response . Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended b y persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal ag ency . This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and s ys tems 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 EPA ’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. However , as was stated in the April 2007 Federal Register Notice for the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule , “.
. . the failure to have an approved ICR for this rule does not affect the statutory

obligation for the State s to submit SIPs as required under part D of the CAA.” 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, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2007
- 0265 , 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., M onday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566
- 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566
- 1742 . 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 electronicall y. 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 EPA30

D ocket ID Number EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2007
- 0265 and OMB Control Number 2060
- 0611 in any correspondence.