**United States Environmental Protection Agency**

Office of Air and Radiation

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Air Quality Policy Division

New Source Review Group

**August, 2003**

**PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION AND NONATTAINMENT NEW SOURCE
REVIEW (40 CFR PARTS 51 AND 52) (Final Rule for Implementation of the
New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than
2.5 Micrometers (PM~2.5~))**![](media/image1.wmf){width="7.0in"
height="1.7840277777777778in"}

The EPA is revising the regulations governing the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment major New Source
Review (NA NSR) programs (collectively "major NSR") mandated by parts C
and D of title I of the Clean Air Act (the Act). Specifically, the major
NSR regulations are being revised to add particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers
(PM~2.5~) and its precursors to the major NSR program. This action is
being taken as part of our efforts to implement the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM~2.5~.

The major NSR program is a preconstruction review and permitting program
for new major sources of air pollutants and major modifications at
existing major sources. The types of information collection activities
associated with the major NSR program are those necessary for the
preparation and submittal of construction permit applications and the
issuance of final permits. The major NSR rule changes addressed in this
ICR add PM~2.5~ and its precursors to the list of pollutants that must
be addressed in a major NSR permit action, but do not otherwise change
the requirements of the program.

This Information Collection Request (ICR) (OMB Control Number 2060-0003;
EPA ICR Number 1230.21) is a revision of the existing ICR for the NSR
program The purpose of this ICR is to show the change in burden and cost
associated with the PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation rule. Table E-1
summarizes the overall change in burden and cost for respondents --
sources who must obtain major NSR permits and State and local agencies
who issue the permits (called "reviewing authorities"). The totals in
Table E‑1 represent an increase of about 9 percent in average annual
burden and about 11 percent in average annual cost relative to the major
NSR totals in the currently approved ICR. Relative to the entire
currently approved ICR (which includes minor NSR as well as major NSR),
the increase is about 1 percent in average annual burden and about 1.5
percent in average annual cost.

+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **TABLE      |             |             |             |             |
| E-1**        |             |             |             |             |
|              |             |             |             |             |
| **CHANGE IN  |             |             |             |             |
| BURDEN FOR   |             |             |             |             |
| RESPONDENTS  |             |             |             |             |
| RELATIVE TO  |             |             |             |             |
| JANUARY 2005 |             |             |             |             |
| ICR**        |             |             |             |             |
|              |             |             |             |             |
| **RESULTING  |             |             |             |             |
| FROM PM~2.5~ |             |             |             |             |
| NSR          |             |             |             |             |
| IM           |             |             |             |             |
| PLEMENTATION |             |             |             |             |
| RULE**       |             |             |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Type of    | **Change in | **Change in | **Change in | **Change in |
| Entity**     | Average     | Average     | Average     | Average     |
|              | Annual      | Annual      | Annual      | Annual Cost |
|              | Burden      | Burden per  | Cost**      | per Entity  |
|              | (Hours)**   | Entity      |             | (\$ 2004)** |
|              |             | (Hours)**   | **(\$       |             |
|              |             |             | 2004)^c^**  |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **           | 38,875      | 52          | \$4,268,991 | \$5,669     |
| Sources^a^** |             |             |             |             |
|              | 16,107      | 144         | \$701,152   | \$6,260     |
| **Reviewing  |             |             |             |             |
| Auth         |             |             |             |             |
| orities^b^** |             |             |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Total**    | 54,982      | N/A         | \$4,970,143 | N/A         |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

^a^ We estimate 753 major NSR permits each year (265 PSD permits and 488
NA NSR permits).

^b^ We assume that there are 112 State and local reviewing authorities.

^c^ The costs to sources include \$1,722,678 in start-up costs for
pre-construction monitoring. The remaining \$2,546,313 for sources and
all the costs for reviewing authorities are labor costs associated with
the increase in burden.

The EPA is the only Federal entity that will experience burden and cost
as a result of the PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation rule. We estimate the
average annual burden for EPA will be 1,916 hours, at a cost of \$69,365
annually.

CAVEAT: This analysis overstates the impact of the rulemaking over the
next 3 years because it has been prepared as if the rule revisions would
be fully implemented upon the effective date of the rule. In actuality,
the full effect of the PSD program for PM~2.5~ lags the promulgation of
this rulemaking due to the time needed for States with approved PSD
programs to modify their State Implementation Plans (SIPs).

The title of this ICR is "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Nonattainment New Source Review (40 CFR parts 51 and 52) (Final Rule for
Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM 2.5))." This document fulfills the
Agency's requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) with
regard to determining the regulatory burden associated with adding
PM~2.5~ to the PSD and NA NSR programs required under parts C and D of
title I of the Act. It has been assigned EPA tracking number 1230.21.

The program called the "major NSR program" under authority of parts C
and D of Title I of the Act is a preconstruction review and permitting
program applicable to new or modified major stationary sources of air
pollutants. In attainment areas (areas meeting the NAAQS) or in areas
where there is insufficient information to determine whether they meet
the NAAQS ("unclassifiable" areas), the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program is implemented under the requirements of
part C of Title I of the Act. In areas not meeting the NAAQS and in
ozone transport regions (OTR), the program is the "nonattainment" major
NSR (NA NSR) program, implemented under the requirements of part D of
title I of the Act. Applicability of the major NSR program must be
determined in advance of construction and is pollutant-specific. When a
source triggers major NSR in attainment areas (i.e., is subject to PSD),
it must install best available control technology (BACT) and conduct
modeling, monitoring, and other analyses as necessary. If a source is
located in a nonattainment area for a particular pollutant (i.e., is
subject to NA NSR), it must, for that pollutant, install technology that
meets the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER), secure emission
reductions to offset any increases above baseline emission levels, and
perform other analyses.

In 1997, EPA promulgated NAAQS for PM~2.5~ to address fine particle
pollution, while retaining the NAAQS for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM~10~) to address coarse particle pollution. After delays associated
with litigation over the NAAQS and with building up technical capacity
to address PM~2.5~, we are proceeding with implementation of the PM~2.5~
program, including implementation of the PM~2.5~ NSR program.

This ICR addresses changes to the major NSR program to add PM~2.5~ to
both PSD and NA NSR. For some sources, this will add to the burden of
obtaining major NSR permits because it will add to the number of
pollutants that must be addressed in the application process. Similarly,
State and local reviewing authorities will incur increased burden to
review such permit applications and issue the permits.[^1] In addition,
reviewing authorities will incur a one-time burden to revise their
implementation plans to incorporate the PSD and NA NSR changes.

Title I of the Act authorizes EPA to collect this information. Through
the NSR program it requires owners or operators of emissions units that
emit air pollutants to submit an application for a permit to construct,
modify, or significantly alter the operations of each source of criteria
pollutants.

For EPA to carry out its required oversight function of reviewing
construction permits and assuring adequate implementation of the
program, it must have available to it information on proposed
construction and modifications. The burden estimates included in this
ICR provide emissions, source, and control information for the major NSR
program.

The information in this ICR is based upon the best data available to the
Agency at this time. However, inconsistencies in reviewing authority
reporting techniques, incomplete data sets, and sampling limitations
necessitated a certain amount of extrapolation and "best-guess"
estimations. Consequently, the reader should not consider the
conclusions to be an exact representation of the level of burden or cost
that *will* occur. Instead, this ICR should be considered a
directionally correct assessment of the impact the programmatic changes
included in this rulemaking *may* have over the next 3 years.

Throughout this ICR, the reader will observe estimated values that show
accuracy to the single hour or dollar. However, reporting values at the
single unit level can be misleading. In most situations, the proper way
to present estimated data would be to determine an appropriate level of
precision and truncate values accordingly, usually in terms of thousands
or millions of units. For instance, a spreadsheet generated estimation
of \$5,456,295 could be presented in the text as \$5.5 (millions) or
\$5,456 (thousands). One problem with such an approach is the loss of
data richness when the report contains a mixture of very large and very
small numbers. Such was the case with this ICR, where source values are
consistently in the millions and federal and State values in the tens of
thousands. Consequently, to avoid the loss of information through
rounding, this ICR reports all values at the most meaningful unit level
for the range of values being presented and reminds the reader that
there is no implied precision inherent in this style of reporting.

For approval of a proposed ICR, the Agency must ensure that it has taken
every reasonable step to avoid duplication in its paperwork requirements
in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.9. Although the reviewing authorities will
be required to revise a State's SIP, this action imposes no new
paperwork requirements.

A notice soliciting public comment was published in the *Federal
Register* on May 18, 2007 (72 FR 28041). A 60-day public comment period
was provided for this ICR, during which all affected parties were given
the opportunity to comment on the burden analysis. No substantive
comments on the ICR were received.

This ICR is a revision to the renewal for the NSR program (ICR
#1230.17), completed in January 2005. This ICR incorporates the base
elements of the overall program as they relate to these changes. As
such, extensive consultation through public meetings and stakeholder
meetings with environmental groups; industry; and State, local, and
Federal agency representatives has been conducted for the permit
application and review elements affected in this ICR revision.

The Act defines the rate of reporting by sources, States, and local
entities. Consequently, less frequent collection is not possible.

OMB's general guidelines for information collections must be adhered to
by all Federal Agencies for approval of any rulemaking's collection
methodology. In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.5, the
Agency believes:

> 1\. The NSR regulations do not require periodic reporting more
> frequently than semi-annually.
>
> 2\. The NSR regulations do not require respondents to participate in
> any statistical survey.
>
> 3\. Written responses to Agency inquiries are not required to be
> submitted in less than 30 days.
>
> 4\. Special consideration has been given in the design of the NSR
> program to ensure that the requirements are, to the greatest extent
> possible, the same for Federal requirements and those reviewing
> authorities who already have NSR construction permitting programs in
> place.
>
> 5\. Confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information necessary
> for the completeness of the respondent's permit are protected from
> disclosure under the requirements of section 114(c) of the Act.
>
> 6\. The NSR regulations do not require more that one original and two
> copies of the permit application, update, or revision to be submitted
> to the Agency.
>
> 7\. Respondents do not receive remuneration for the preparation of
> reports required by the Act or parts 51 or 52.
>
> 8\. To the greatest extent possible, the Agency has taken advantage of
> automated methods of reporting.
>
> 9\. The Agency believes the impact of NSR regulations on small
> entities to be insignificant and not disproportionate.

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the current
NSR program and the changes in this rulemaking do not exceed any of the
Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.5, except for
the guideline which limits retention of records by respondents to 3
years. The Act requires both respondents and State or local agencies to
retain records for a period of 5 years. The justification for this
exception is found in 28 U.S.C. 2462, which specifies 5 years as the
general statute of limitations for Federal claims in response to
violations by regulated entities. The decision in *U.S. v. Conoco,
Inc.*, No. 83-1916-E (W.D. Okla., January 23, 1984) found that the
5-year general statute of limitations applies to the Clean Air Act.

Confidentiality is not an issue for this rulemaking. In accordance with
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the monitoring information to be
submitted by sources as a part of their major NSR permit application is
a matter of public record. To the extent that the information required
is proprietary, confidential, or of a nature that could impair the
ability of the source to maintain its market position, that information
is collected and handled subject to the requirements of section 114(c)
of the Act. Information received and identified by owners or operators
as confidential business information (CBI) and approved as CBI by EPA,
in accordance with Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B, shall be
maintained appropriately (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976;
amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28,
1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

The consideration of sensitive questions, (i.e., sexual, religious,
personal, or other private matters), is not applicable to this
rulemaking. The information gathered to establish a major NSR permit
does not include personal data on any owner or operator.

The President's priorities in promoting environmental justice (EJ) are
contained in Executive Order 12898. Because the NSR program operates
nationwide and across all industry classifications, the Agency does not
believe there is a disproportionate EJ effect in the NSR program.

Table 4-1 lists the industrial groups that we expect will contain the
majority of the industrial respondents affected by the NSR program.
These categories were chosen because of their historic relative
incidence in seeking NSR permits as established in prior ICRs and
confirmed by a nationwide air pollutant emission inventory developed by
the EPA in 1986-87. These industries have been used as the basis for
impact analysis since that inventory.

**Table 4-1.** **Most Numerous Industrial Respondents by Industrial
Group**

  ----------------------- --------- ----------------------------------------
  **Industry Group**      **SIC**   **NAICS**

  Electric Services       491       221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121,
                                    221122

  Petroleum Refining      291       32411

  Industrial Inorganic    281       325181, 32512, 325131, 325182, 211112,
  Chemicals                         325998, 331311, 325188

  Industrial Organic      286       32511, 325132, 325192, 325188, 325193,
  Chemicals                         32512, 325199

  Miscellaneous Chemical  289       32552, 32592, 32591, 325182, 32551
  Products                          

  Natural Gas Liquids     132       211112

  Natural Gas Transport   492       48621, 22121

  Pulp Mills              261       32211, 322121, 322122, 32213

  Paper Mills             262       322121, 322122

  Automobile              371       336111, 336112, 336712, 336211, 336992,
  Manufacturing                     336322, 336312, 33633, 33634, 33635,
                                    336399, 336212, 336213

  Pharmaceuticals         283       325411, 325412, 325413, 325414
  ----------------------- --------- ----------------------------------------

The respondents also include State and local air regulatory agencies.
Because of the national scope of the NSR program, these governmental
respondents are in all 50 States.

This section discusses the data items that must be collected and
reported and the activities that respondents must carry out under the
major NSR program.

The data required by sources for a complete major NSR permit application
can be found in the various parts of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR). Section 51.166 specifies the minimum requirements
that a PSD permit program under part C of the Act must contain to
warrant approval as a revision to a SIP. Section 52.21 delineates the
Federal PSD permit program which applies to all Federally controlled
areas, such as Tribal lands, outer continental shelf sources, and States
that have not submitted a PSD program meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
51.166. Section 51.165 specifies the elements of an approvable State
permit program for preconstruction review in nonattainment areas under
part D of the Act. Part 51, Appendix S (Offset Ruling) and 40 CFR 52.24
(statutory restriction on new sources) apply when a nonattainment area
SIP has not been fully approved by EPA as having met the requirements of
part D of the Act. These citations can be found on the EPA website at:

> <http://www.epa.gov/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/chi-toc.htm>

Respondent data and information requirements can be found in the
Supporting Statement for the 2005 ICR renewal for the major NSR program
(ICR #1230.17), including appropriate references in 40 CFR part 51 for
the data and information requirements that govern the way States
implement NSR programs.[^2]

Tables 6-1 and 6-2 list (for source and reviewing authority respondents,
respectively) the activities and associated burden for major NSR
permitting. For each activity, the tables give the baseline burden
(based on the 2005 ICR renewal), the estimated burden upon
implementation of the PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation rule, and the
incremental burden due to the rule.

For source respondents, the activities are divided into three broad
categories: (1) preparation and planning, (2) data collection and
analysis, and (3) permit application. Each of these categories is
further subdivided into individual activities.

Reviewing authority respondents' activities involve interacting with the
source during its preparation of an application, reviewing the
application and making a determination, implementing the public notice
and comment process, issuing the permit, and transmitting information to
EPA. In addition to the activities associated with reviewing and issuing
major NSR permits under the revised regulations, reviewing authority
respondents will have to revise their SIPs to add PM~2.5~ and its
precursors to their major NSR programs.

Table 6-3 lists EPA's activities associated with major NSR permitting.
These activities generally involve oversight review of major NSR
permitting actions to verify that the requirements of the Act and the
implementing part 51 and 52 regulations are being met. In addition, EPA
will have to review the SIP revisions submitted by the reviewing
authorities.

The owners or operators of new or modified major stationary sources
affected by the major NSR regulations must submit construction permit
applications to the reviewing authority, who logs in the permit
applications, stores applications in a central filing location, notifies
the Federal Land Manager (FLM) of the permit, and provides a copy of the
application (if applicable) to the FLM and transmits copies of each
application to EPA. Upon permit approval, the reviewing authority
submits control technology information to EPA's reasonably available
control technology (RACT)/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) database.

The reviewing authority reviews the permit application and checks the
quality of data submitted by the applicant on a case-by-case basis. The
applicant will be required to submit information on how the data were
obtained (e.g., indicate whether emissions data were obtained through
the use of emissions factors or test data) and how the calculations were
performed. The reviewing authority personnel will check data quality by
reviewing test data and checking engineering calculations, and by
reviewing control technology determinations for similar sources. The
RBLC and other sources will be reviewed for information on control
technology determinations made for sources similar to the sources
included in the permit application. Confidential information submitted
by the applicant will be handled by the reviewing authority's
confidential information handling procedures. The public will be
provided the opportunity to review a permit application and other
materials relevant to the reviewing authority's decision on issuing the
permit, including FLM findings, by obtaining a copy from the permit
reviewing authority or by attending the public hearing. The NSR
regulations will not require information through any type of survey.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires regulatory agencies, upon
regulatory action, to assess that action's potential impact on small
entities (businesses, governments, and small non-governmental
organizations) and report the results of the assessments in (1) an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), (2) a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and (3) a Certification. For ICR approval,
the Agency must demonstrate that it "has taken all practicable steps to
develop separate and simplified requirements for small businesses and
other small entities" (5 CFR 1320.6(h)). In addition, the agencies must
assure through various mechanisms that small entities are given an
opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.

A Regulatory Flexibility Act Screening Analysis (RFASA) developed as
part of a 1994 draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and incorporated
into the September 1995 ICR renewal analysis reported an initial
regulatory flexibility screening analysis showed that the changes to the
NSR program due to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments would not have an
adverse impact on small entities.[^3] This analysis encompassed the
entire universe of applicable major sources that were likely to also be
small businesses. The Agency estimates there are approximately 50 "small
business" major sources.[^4] Because the administrative burden of the
NSR program are the primary source of the NSR program's regulatory
costs, the analysis estimated a negligible "cost to sales" (regulatory
cost divided by the business category mean revenue) ratio for this
source group. Currently, there is no economic basis for a different
conclusion at this time.

The Agency may not, under any circumstances, exempt a major source of
air pollution from the requirements of major NSR. Since the impacts of
major NSR regulations which may impact small entities occur
predominantly at major sources, little room exists for regulatory
flexibility to avert the impact of the proposed rulemaking on small
entities through exemption.

Even though the major NSR program does not have an adverse impact on a
significant number of small businesses, EPA takes measures to assist
sources in affected small entities through the implementation of small
business stationary source technical and environmental compliance
assistance programs, as called for in section 507 of the Act. These
programs reduce the reporting burden of small entities that are subject
to major NSR and may significantly alleviate the economic burden on
small sources by (1) establishing programs to assist small businesses
with determining what Act requirements apply to their sources and when
they apply, and (2) providing guidance on alternative control technology
and pollution prevention for small businesses.

Respondents are not subjected to a collection schedule per se under the
major NSR regulations of parts 51 and 52. In general, each major
stationary source is required to submit an application as a prerequisite
to receiving a construction permit. Preparation of a major source
construction permit application is a one-time-only activity for each
project involving construction of a new major stationary source or major
modification of an existing major stationary source. The applicable SIP
typically states the time period that is necessary to process a permit
application and issue a permit. Consequently, a prospective source would
be obliged to work backward from the desired commencement date for
construction to determine the optimum submittal date for the
application.

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; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information. In addition to the labor hours
expended by the respondents, the burden estimate should include: (1)
total capital and start-up costs annualized over the useful life of the
purchased equipment, and (2) total costs for operation, maintenance, and
purchases of services. Each component should be divided into burden
borne directly by the respondent and any services that are contracted
out.

This section discusses the development of burden estimates and their
conversion into costs, which are separated into burden costs and capital
and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. According to the latest
guidance for ICRs (EPA 2005), capital and O&M costs display the cost of
any new capital equipment the source or reviewing authority may have to
purchase solely for information collection, assimilation, and storage
purposes. For example, if a source had to purchase a new mini-computer
to store and manipulate data, that computer would be a cost of
administration subject to reporting in the ICR. In addition, the latest
guidance instructs the Agency to differentiate the burden associated
with a source's labor and that which it hires through outside
contractors. To the extent a source contracts out for administrative
purposes (e.g., employing consultants to perform monitoring functions),
the burden associated with those contracted tasks are not a burden to
the source - but they still remain a cost. The reader should read this
section with the following considerations in mind:

> • The Agency believes the time necessary to perform a task is
> independent of the origins of its labor. In other words, if a source
> would employ 20 hours of burden to fully perform a function, then a
> contractor hired by the source would also take 20 hours to perform
> that same task. Furthermore, the Agency assumes no economies or
> diseconomies of scale. The linear combination of any amount of
> contractor and source effort will also sum to 20. Therefore, the
> burden estimates in this ICR act as an accurate assessment of the
> total burden to affected sources and reviewing authorities, given the
> affected entity does not employ contracted labor.
>
> • For some burden categories, the Agency believes the hours assigned
> to them will be divided between the source and outside contractors.
> For these categories, the Agency established a composite cost per hour
> by developing a weighted average of the source and contractor wages,
> with the weight defined by the percentage of total effort each burden
> source applied. Consequently, the cost developed in this ICR should be
> interpreted as an upper bound on the actual cost of administration by
> the source or reviewing authority. The methodology for determining
> cost per hour can be found in greater detail in section 6.2, below.

Although there have been regulatory changes to the NSR program since the
2005 renewal, we believe that they have not changed the regulatory
burden on a source that is subject to major NSR and must obtain a
permit. Similarly, we believe that the burden on a State or local
reviewing authority to review and issue a major NSR permit has not
changed. Thus, we have retained the per-permit hourly burden estimates
from the 2005 ICR renewal (ICR #1230.17) as the baseline for the current
regulatory action for both source respondents and State and local
reviewing authority respondents.

The PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation rule adds PM~2.5~ and its precursors to
the major NSR program, but does not otherwise change the requirements of
the program. Thus, the rule does not change the activities that a source
must carry out to obtain a permit, but may increase the number of
pollutants that the source must address in its permit application. This
is because major NSR applies to a new or modified source on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis. That is, a source must meet the
requirements of the program for each pollutant that it will emit in
amounts greater than the applicable threshold, and must address each
such pollutant in its permit application. Major NSR permitting actions
very often involve more than one pollutant. As a result of the PM~2.5~
NSR Implementation rule, we expect the number of pollutants involved to
increase for some sources, with a concomitant increase in the burden to
obtain a permit. In addition, we expect the burden for reviewing
authority respondents to review permit applications and issue permits to
increase accordingly.

To estimate the increase in permitting burden that will result from the
PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation rule, we considered two factors: (1) which
activities are likely to be affected by an increase in the number of
pollutants addressed, and (2) the increase in burden for the affected
activities. These factors are discussed further below.

The activities that source and reviewing authority respondents carry out
for permitting under the major NSR program are listed below in Tables
6-1 and 6-2, respectively. The burden for some of these activities (such
as control technology and impact analyses) will depend on the number of
pollutants involved, while others are primarily administrative in nature
(such as public hearings) and will be largely unaffected by the number
of pollutants. In Tables 6-1 and 6-2, those activities that are affected
by the number of pollutants show an incremental increase in burden in
the right-most column, while the unaffected activities have an
incremental burden of zero.

To determine the likely increase in burden for affected activities under
the major NSR program, we assumed that PSD permits currently address an
average of three pollutants and that NA NSR permits currently address an
average of two pollutants. We estimated that the PM~2.5~ NSR
Implementation rule will have the effect of increasing these numbers by
one pollutant per permit, for those sources that become subject to
PM~2.5~ permitting. (We estimate one pollutant, specifically direct
emissions of PM~2.5~, because the precursors of PM~2.5~ are already
regulated under major NSR.) Thus, for sources subject to PM~2.5~
permitting, the burden associated with the affected activities will
increase by 33 percent for PSD permitting and 50 percent for NA NSR
permitting. We assumed the same percent increase for reviewing
authorities where permits must address PM~2.5~.

However, not all sources that must obtain a major NSR permit will be
subject for PM~2.5~. To estimate the percentage of permits that will
have to address PM~2.5~, we consulted the RBLC to determine what
percentage has historically been subject to major NSR for particulate
matter. We found that over the last 10 years, approximately 60 percent
of facilities that obtained control technology determinations obtained a
determination for particulate matter. We used this percentage as a
weighting factor to determine the weighted average increase in burden
for the affected activities across all major NSR permits (i.e., those
that address PM~2.5~ and those that do not). For PSD the weighted
average is 20 percent (0.60 x 0.33 = 0.20), and for NA NSR the weighted
average is 30 percent (0.60 x 0.50 = 0.30). We applied these weighted
average burden increases to the affected activities for both source
respondents and reviewing authority respondents.

Table 6-1 shows the average incremental increase in burden hours per
permit for source respondents that we estimate will result from the
PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation rule. As the table shows, we estimate an
average incremental increase of 27 hours for PSD permits, or about
3 percent. For NA NSR permits, we estimate an average incremental
increase of 65 hours, or about 11 percent.

Table 6-2 gives the average incremental increase in burden hours per
permit for reviewing authority respondents. We estimate an average
incremental increase of 22 hours for PSD permits, or about 8 percent.
For NA NSR permits, we estimate an average incremental increase of 18
hours, or about 17 percent.

In addition to issuing permits, the reviewing authorities must ensure
that their NSR programs meet the requirements that EPA specifies for
such programs pursuant to parts C and D. The PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation
rule revises these requirements. Therefore, each reviewing authority
must submit changes to its existing SIP program or demonstrate that its
existing programs are at least equivalent to EPA's new requirements.
Because the changes needed for updating SIPs are small and the State
requirements for SIP development differ from State to State, the EPA
assumed it would take no more than 40 hours for each reviewing authority
to fully incorporate this rulemaking into its plan. This assumption
includes legislative review, public comment, and all legal and
legislative processes necessary for all of the above components. This is
a one-time burden that will occur during the 3-year period covered by
this ICR.

**Table 6-1. Source Respondent Burden Increase, Hours per Permit**

+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| * |                                       | **Ba   | *      | *      |
| * |                                       | seline | *Hours | *Incre |
| A |                                       | H      | per    | mental |
| c |                                       | ours** | Permit | In     |
| t |                                       |        | with   | crease |
| i |                                       | **per  | P      | in     |
| v |                                       | Permi  | M~2.5~ | Hours  |
| i |                                       | t^a^** | Rule   | per    |
| t |                                       |        | Revis  | Pe     |
| y |                                       |        | ions** | rmit** |
| * |                                       |        |        |        |
| * |                                       |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| I |                                       |        |        |        |
| . |                                       |        |        |        |
| P |                                       |        |        |        |
| S |                                       |        |        |        |
| D |                                       |        |        |        |
| p |                                       |        |        |        |
| e |                                       |        |        |        |
| r |                                       |        |        |        |
| m |                                       |        |        |        |
| i |                                       |        |        |        |
| t |                                       |        |        |        |
| s |                                       |        |        |        |
| ( |                                       |        |        |        |
| P |                                       |        |        |        |
| a |                                       |        |        |        |
| r |                                       |        |        |        |
| t |                                       |        |        |        |
| C |                                       |        |        |        |
| ) |                                       |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | A. Preparation and Planning           |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Determination of Compliance           | 170    | 170    | 0      |
|   | Requirements                          |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Obtain guidance on Data Needs         | 120    | 120    | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Preparation of BACT Engineering       | 85     | 102    | 17     |
|   | Analysis                              |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | B. Data Collection and Analysis       |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Air Quality Modeling                  | 200    | 200    | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Determination of Impact on Air        | 100    | 100    | 0      |
|   | Quality Related Values                |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Post-construction Air Quality         | 50     | 50     | 0      |
|   | Monitoring                            |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | C. Permit Application                 |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Preparation and Submittal of Permit   | 50     | 60     | 10     |
|   | Application                           |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Public Hearings                       | 24     | 24     | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Revisions to Permit                   | 40     | 40     | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | D. Total                              | 839    | 866    | 27     |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| I |                                       |        |        |        |
| I |                                       |        |        |        |
| \ |                                       |        |        |        |
| . |                                       |        |        |        |
| N |                                       |        |        |        |
| A |                                       |        |        |        |
| N |                                       |        |        |        |
| S |                                       |        |        |        |
| R |                                       |        |        |        |
| p |                                       |        |        |        |
| e |                                       |        |        |        |
| r |                                       |        |        |        |
| m |                                       |        |        |        |
| i |                                       |        |        |        |
| t |                                       |        |        |        |
| s |                                       |        |        |        |
| ( |                                       |        |        |        |
| P |                                       |        |        |        |
| a |                                       |        |        |        |
| r |                                       |        |        |        |
| t |                                       |        |        |        |
| D |                                       |        |        |        |
| ) |                                       |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | A. Preparation and Planning           |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Determination of Compliance           | 150    | 150    | 0      |
|   | Requirements                          |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Obtain Guidance on Data Needs         | 100    | 100    | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | B. Data Collection and Analysis       |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Preparation of LAER Engineering       | 40     | 52     | 12     |
|   | Analysis                              |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Demonstrate Offsets                   | 40     | 52     | 12     |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Prepare Analysis of Alternative       | 60     | 60     | 0      |
|   | Sites, Processes, etc.                |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Air Quality Modeling                  | 100    | 130    | 30     |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | C. Permit Application                 |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Preparation and Submittal of Permit   | 38     | 49     | 11     |
|   | Application                           |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Public Hearings                       | 25     | 25     | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | Revisions to Permit                   | 24     | 24     | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | D. Total                              | 577    | 642    | 65     |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+

^a^ Source: A. Rios and J. Santiago. *Information Collection Request for
40 CFR Part 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Nonattainment New Source Review*. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. October 2004. Page 17.

**Table 6-2. Reviewing Authority Respondent Burden Increase, Hours per
Permit**

+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| * |                                       | **Ba   | *      | *      |
| * |                                       | seline | *Hours | *Incre |
| A |                                       | H      | per    | mental |
| c |                                       | ours** | Permit | In     |
| t |                                       |        | with   | crease |
| i |                                       | **per  | P      | in     |
| v |                                       | Permi  | M~2.5~ | Hours  |
| i |                                       | t^a^** | Rule   | per    |
| t |                                       |        | Revis  | Pe     |
| y |                                       |        | ions** | rmit** |
| * |                                       |        |        |        |
| * |                                       |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| I | PART C (PSD)                          |        |        |        |
| . |                                       |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | A. Attend Pre-application Meetings    | 36     | 36     | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | B. Answer Respondent Questions        | 20     | 20     | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | C. Log In and Review Data Submissions | 16     | 16     | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | D. Request Additional Information     | 8      | 8      | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | E. Analyze for and Provide            | 24     | 24     | 0      |
|   | Confidentiality Protection            |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | F. Prepare Completed Applications for | 32     | 38     | 6      |
|   | Processing                            |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | G. File and Transmit Copies           | 8      | 8      | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | H. Prepare Preliminary Determination  | 24     | 29     | 5      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | I. Prepare Notices for and Attend     | 40     | 40     | 0      |
|   | Public Hearings                       |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | J. Application Approval               | 40     | 48     | 8      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | K. Notification of Applicant of RA    | 8      | 8      | 0      |
|   | Determination                         |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | L. Submittal of Information on BACT   | 16     | 19     | 3      |
|   | to RBLC                               |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | M. Total                              | 272    | 294    | 22     |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| I | Part D (Nonattainment)                |        |        |        |
| I |                                       |        |        |        |
| \ |                                       |        |        |        |
| . |                                       |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | A. Attend Pre-application Meetings    | 7      | 7      | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | B. Answer Respondent Questions        | 10     | 10     | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | C. Log In and Review Data Submissions | 8      | 10     | 2      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | D. Request Additional Information     | 4      | 4      | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | E. Analyze for and Provide            | 4      | 4      | 0      |
|   | Confidentiality Protection            |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | F. Prepare Completed Applications for | 12     | 16     | 4      |
|   | Processing                            |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | G. File and Transmit Copies           | 4      | 4      | 0      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | H. Prepare Preliminary Determination  | 8      | 10     | 2      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | I. Prepare notices for and Attend     | 18     | 18     | 0      |
|   | Public Hearings                       |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | J. Application Approval               | 16     | 21     | 5      |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | K. Notification of Applicant          | 2      | 2      | 0      |
|   | Determination                         |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | L. Submittal of Information on LAER   | 16     | 21     | 5      |
|   | to RBLC                               |        |        |        |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|   | M. Total                              | 109    | 127    | 18     |
+---+---------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+

^a^ Source: A. Rios and J. Santiago. *Information Collection Request for
40 CFR Part 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Nonattainment New Source Review*. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. October 2004. Page 18.

In order to allow a direct cost comparison with the existing approved
ICR for the major NSR program (i.e., the January 2005 renewal, ICR
#1230.17), we use the same cost factors in this ICR revision. These cost
factors are laid out below.

As in the January 2005 ICR renewal for the major NSR program, the hourly
labor rate for source respondents used for this analysis is \$65.50 per
hour (in 2004 dollars). This labor rate was calculated by taking 70% of
the 2004 in-house labor rate, which was derived using fully loaded but
weighted technical, clerical, and managerial staff wages, and adding the
resulting labor rate to 30% of the 2004 fully loaded weighted consultant
rate for technical, clerical, and managerial staff.

Similarly, the labor rate used in this analysis for reviewing authority
respondents is \$43.53 per hour. This rate was derived for the 2005 ICR
renewal by inserting 2004 Federal government pay schedule wage rates for
clerical, technical, and managerial staff into the weighting system
developed in the 1997 renewal ICR and described in the November 2002 ICR
revision.[^5]

Capital/start-up and O&M costs are non-labor related costs. One-time
capital/start-up costs are incurred with the purchase of durable goods
needed to provide information. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act,
capital/start-up cost should include among other items, preparations for
collecting information such as purchasing computers and software,
monitoring, sampling, drilling, and testing equipment.

Even if an applicant is a brand new company and the prospective source
is a "greenfield" source (the EPA estimates less than 1 percent of
source respondents fit that description) most, and perhaps all, of the
equipment needed to prepare permit applications (for example, the
computers and basic software) will be part of the source's business
operation inventory. Furthermore, much of the data and regulatory and
policy information for making technology determinations and even models
for performing ambient air impact analyses are available in electronic
form from several different EPA bulletin boards for just the
communication charges, which are typically absorbed in routine business
overhead expenses. Thus, the capital costs for the major NSR program are
negligible. In any case, the PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation rule, which is
the subject of this ICR revision, will not cause any new capital costs
to be incurred by any respondents.

The EPA has conservatively estimated that 13 percent of PSD permit
applicants have to conduct pre-construction ambient monitoring for the
impacts analyses and that monitoring is conducted for approximately
4 months. As a practical matter, sources would probably contract this
type of activity since it would generally be a one-time exercise.
Consequently, EPA believes this cost is most often a direct cost
associated with preparing permit applications. Based on this assumption,
cost of capital equipment for pre-construction monitoring is negligible.
To account for this cost in the 2005 ICR renewal, EPA added a line item
direct cost to the total annual cost based on a contracted service cost
of \$253,337 per permit where pre-construction monitoring is required.
This cost, although not a fixed-capital cost, is nonetheless considered
a start-up cost and is reported as such in the OMB form for the 2005 ICR
renewal. For purposes of this ICR revision, we estimate that the average
cost per PSD permit for those sources who must conduct pre-construction
monitoring will increase by 20 percent, or \$50,667, to \$304,004. This
estimate of a 20 percent incremental increase was derived as discussed
above in section 6.1 for other permitting activities that will be
affected by the increase in the number of pollutants addressed in PSD
permits.

Since the purchase of capital equipment is believed to be an
insignificant factor in permit application preparation, we assume that
the O&M and services for same are negligible. Further, once a permit is
issued, there is no O&M cost associated with it. It remains unaltered
unless the source or the reviewing authority discovers specific reasons
to reexamine it and change any conditions or specifications. If purely
administrative, the changes are handled exclusively by the reviewing
authority. If changes have the potential for environmental consequences,
the action may be significant enough to be counted as a separate and new
application, to which a new burden and cost may be ascribed.

Typically, annualized capital cost would be derived from a discounted
net present value of the stream of costs that would occur over the life
of the permit, or the ICR, whichever is shorter. However, in the case of
NSR, there are only up-front costs. The burden and cost of applying for
and issuing each permit is unique, and since the cost of NSR permitting
is incurred "up front," it is a sunk cost to the source and does not
require amortization over the life of the source. Therefore, the capital
costs for the ICR to industry respondents after the first year of each
permit are zero.

Staff in EPA's Regional Offices typically reviews major NSR permits. We
expect our review of NSR permits to comprise the tasks listed below in
Table 6-3. The table gives the baseline estimated average per-permit
burden hours, which reflect the values from the 2005 ICR renewal (ICR
#1230.17), as well as the estimated increase in burden resulting from
the PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation rule. The burden increase estimates were
derived as discussed above in section 6.1 for the source and reviewing
authority burden increases. That is, for those activities that will be
affected by the number of pollutants addressed by a major NSR permit,
the burden will increase by 20 percent for PSD permits and by 30 percent
for NA NSR permits. As shown in Table 6-3, we estimate that the average
incremental increase in EPA burden will be 1 hour (about 7 percent) for
PSD permits and 3 hours for NA NSR permits (about 23 percent).

To facilitate cost comparisons between this ICR revision and the 2005
ICR renewal, we have used the Federal labor rate from the 2005 ICR of
\$36.21 per hour.[^6] The rate reflects the assumption, made in the July
10, 1997 renewal ICR and the February 2001 renewal ICR, that the staff
reviewing permits are classified as Grade 11 Step 3. The corresponding
salary is loaded with benefits at the rate of 60%.

In addition, there will be Agency burden to review the revised SIPs
submitted by the reviewing authorities to verify that the revisions
fully meet the requirements of the program, as changed by the PM~2.5~
NSR Implementation rule. Due to the nature of the SIP revisions needed,
the Agency expects that each SIP revisions will require about 5 hours of
review. We expect this one-time burden to occur during the period
covered by this ICR.

**Table 6-3. Federal Burden Increase, Hours per Permit**

+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| * |                                   | **B     | **Hours | **Incr  |
| * |                                   | aseline | per     | emental |
| A |                                   | Hours** | Permit  | I       |
| c |                                   |         | with    | ncrease |
| t |                                   | **per   | PM~2.5~ | in      |
| i |                                   | Perm    | Rule    | Hours   |
| v |                                   | it^a^** | Revi    | per     |
| i |                                   |         | sions** | P       |
| t |                                   |         |         | ermit** |
| y |                                   |         |         |         |
| * |                                   |         |         |         |
| * |                                   |         |         |         |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| I | PART C (PSD)                      |         |         |         |
| . |                                   |         |         |         |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|   | A. Review and Verify              | 2       | 2       | 0       |
|   | Applicability Determination       |         |         |         |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|   | B. Review Control Technology      | 3       | 4       | 1       |
|   | Determination                     |         |         |         |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|   | C. Evaluate Air Quality           | 4       | 4       | 0       |
|   | Monitoring                        |         |         |         |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|   | D. Evaluate Alternative and       | 2       | 2       | 0       |
|   | Secondary Impact Analysis         |         |         |         |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|   | E. Evaluate Class I Area Analysis | 2       | 2       | 0       |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|   | F. Administrative Tasks           | 1       | 1       | 0       |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|   | G. Total                          | 14      | 15      | 1       |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| I | Part D (nonattainment)            |         |         |         |
| I |                                   |         |         |         |
| \ |                                   |         |         |         |
| . |                                   |         |         |         |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|   | A. Review and Verify              | 2       | 2       | 0       |
|   | Applicability Determination       |         |         |         |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|   | B. Review Control Technology      | 3       | 4       | 1       |
|   | Determination                     |         |         |         |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|   | C. Evaluate Offsets               | 1       | 1       | 0       |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|   | D. Evaluate Air Quality           | 4       | 5       | 1       |
|   | Monitoring                        |         |         |         |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|   | E. Evaluate Alternative and       | 2       | 3       | 1       |
|   | Secondary Impact Analysis         |         |         |         |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|   | F. Administrative Tasks           | 1       | 1       | 0       |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
|   | G. Total                          | 13      | 16      | 3       |
+---+-----------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

^a^ Source: A. Rios and J. Santiago. *Information Collection Request for
40 CFR Part 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Nonattainment New Source Review*. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. October 2004. Page 19.

For the purpose of estimating the total burden in this ICR, the
respondent universe is defined by the annual number of permit
applications prepared by sources and the number of reviewing authorities
that must process such permit applications. It also includes the number
of reviewing authorities that will have to revise their SIPs.

As discussed above in section 6.1, we believe that the average burden
per major NSR permit will increase as a result of the PM~2.5~ NSR
Implementation rule. However, we do not believe that the number of
permits will be affected. We expect that PM~2.5~ will very seldom, if
ever, be the only PSD pollutant or the only NA NSR pollutant subject to
permitting for a particular new major source or major modification. For
this reason, this analysis uses the same number of PSD permits (265 per
year) and NA NSR permits (488 per year) used in the 2005 ICR renewal
(ICR #1230.17). The total number of source respondents is the sum of PSD
and NA NSR permits, or 753 per year. For purposes of this ICR revision,
we carried out the analysis as if the PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation rule
would be fully implemented immediately upon promulgation. That is, we
have allowed for no lag time for reviewing authorities to submit SIP
revisions and for EPA to review and approve the revisions. This results
in a "worst-case" analysis for the 3-year period covered by this ICR,
but more accurately reflects the long-term impacts of the rule.

For the number of respondent reviewing authorities associated with major
NSR permitting and SIP revisions, we used the 112 reviewing authority
count used by other permitting ICRs. Again, we carried out this
"worst-case" analysis as if all reviewing authorities would begin
issuing major NSR permits for PM~2.5~ immediately, with no lag time for
SIP revisions. We also included the reviewing authorities' burden for
revising the SIPs in this ICR.

Based on the estimates presented above for the incremental increase in
burden for PSD and NA NSR permits, the labor rates for source and
reviewing authority respondents, and the number of respondents, we have
estimated the total incremental burden and costs that will result from
the PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation rule. Table 6-4 presents the totals for
source respondents for each year of the 3 years covered by this ICR.
Table 6-5 shows the average annual totals for reviewing authority
respondents.

**Table 6-4. Incremental Annual Burden and Costs for Source
Respondents**

  -------------- -------------------- ---------- --------------- --------------- ------------ -----------------
  **Activity**                        **Number   **Incremental   **Incremental   **Labor      **Incremental
                                      of Permits Burden per      Annual Burden** Rate**       Annual Cost (\$
                                      per Year** Permit**                                     2004)**

  PSD Permitting                                                                              

                 Permitting labor     265        27 hours        7,155 hours     \$65.50/hr   \$468,653

                 Pre-construction     34         \$50,667                                     \$1,722,678
                 monitoring^a^                                                                

                 PSD Permitting       265                        7,155 hours                  \$2,191,331
                 Subtotal                                                                     

  NA NSR                                                                                      
  Permitting                                                                                  

                 Permitting labor     488        65 hours        31,720 hours    \$65.50/hr   \$2,077,660

                 NA NSR Permitting                               31,720 hours                 \$2,077,660
                 Subtotal                                                                     

  **TOTAL**                           **753**                    **38,875                     **\$4,268,991**
                                                                 hours**                      
  -------------- -------------------- ---------- --------------- --------------- ------------ -----------------

^a^ The 34 permits per year for which pre-construction monitoring must
be carried out are a subset of the 265 PSD permits per year.

**Table 6-5. Incremental Annual Burden and Costs for Reviewing Authority
(RA) Respondents**

  ----------------------- ----------- --------------- --------------- ------------ ---------------
  **Major NSR                                                                      
  Permitting**                                                                     

  **Activity**            **Number of **Incremental   **Incremental   **Labor      **Incremental
                          Permits per Burden per      Annual Burden   Rate**       Annual Cost (\$
                          Year**      Permit          (Hours)**                    2004)**
                                      (Hours)**                                    

  PSD Permitting          265         22              5,830           \$43.53/hr   \$253,780

  NA NSR Permitting       488         18              8,784           \$43.53/hr   \$382,367

  Major NSR Subtotal      753                         14,614                       \$636,147

  **SIP Revisions**                                                                

  **Activity**            **Number of **Burden per    **Average       **Labor      **Average
                          SIP         Revision        Annual          Rate**       Annual Cost^c^
                          Revisions   (Hours)**       Burden^b^                    (\$ 2004)**
                          per                         (Hours)**                    
                          Year^a^**                                                

  Revision of SIP         37.33       40              1,493           \$43.53/hr   \$65,005

  **Reviewing Authority                                                            
  Totals**                                                                         

  **TOTAL**                                           **16,107**                   **\$701,152**
  ----------------------- ----------- --------------- --------------- ------------ ---------------

^a^ Each of the 112 reviewing authorities must submit one SIP revision
to conform their major NSR programs to the revised rules over the 3-year
period covered by this ICR. Thus, the average annual number of such
revisions is 112 / 3 = 37.33 per year.

^b^ Each reviewing authority will revise its SIP once for a 3-year total
burden of 4,480 hours. Average annual burden is 4,480 / 3 = 1,493 hours.

^c^ Total 3-year cost is 4,480 hours x \$43.53 = \$195,014. Average
annual cost is \$195,014 / 3 = \$65,005.

Based on the estimates presented above for the Federal burden hours for
each activity, the Federal labor rate, and the number of permits and SIP
revisions, we have estimated the total average annual Federal burden and
costs that will result from the PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation rule. All of
the Federal burden and costs are incurred by EPA. Table 6-6 presents the
estimated burden and costs.

**Table 6-6. Incremental Federal Annual Burden and Costs**

  ----------------------- ----------- --------------- --------------- ------------ ---------------
  **Major NSR                                                                      
  Permitting**                                                                     

  **Activity**            **Number of **Incremental   **Incremental   **Labor      **Incremental
                          Permits per Burden per      Annual Burden   Rate**       Annual Cost (\$
                          Year**      Permit          (Hours)**                    2004)**
                                      (Hours)**                                    

  PSD Permitting          265         1               265             \$36.21/hr   \$9,596

  NA NSR Permitting       488         3               1,464           \$36.21/hr   \$53,010

  Major NSR Subtotal                                  1,729                        \$62,606

  **SIP Revisions**                                                                

  **Activity**            **Number of **Burden per    **Average       **Labor      **Average
                          SIPs to     SIP Review      Annual          Rate**       Annual Cost^c^
                          Review per  (Hours)**       Burden^b^                    (\$ 2004)**
                          Year^a^**                   (Hours)**                    

  Revision of SIP         37.33       5               187             \$36.21/hr   \$6,759

  **Federal Totals**                                                               

  **TOTAL**                                           **1,916**                    **\$69,365**
  ----------------------- ----------- --------------- --------------- ------------ ---------------

^a^ The EPA will review one SIP revision submitted by each of the 112
reviewing authorities over the 3-year period covered by this ICR. Thus,
the average annual number of SIP reviews is 112 / 3 = 37.33 per year.

^b^ The EPA will review a total of 112 SIP revisions for a 3-year total
burden of 560 hours. Average annual burden is 560 / 3 = 187 hours.

^b^ Total 3-year cost is 560 hours x \$36.21 = \$20,278. Average annual
cost is \$20,278 / 3 = \$6,759.

Table 6-7 displays the incremental change in annual burden and costs for
source and reviewing authority respondents that we estimate will result
from the PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation rule, as well as the total across
all respondents. Table 6-8 shows the incremental change in annual burden
and costs for the EPA that we estimate will result from the PM~2.5~ NSR
Implementation rule.

**Table 6-7. Total Estimated Incremental Change in Annual Respondent
Burden and Costs**

  ----------------------- -------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **Type of Respondent**  **Number of    **Total          **Total           **Total           **Total
                          Responses**    Incremental      Incremental Labor Incremental       Incremental Costs
                                         Burden           Costs (\$/Year)** Capital Costs     (\$/Year)**
                                         (Hours/Year)**                     (\$/Year)**       

  Sources                 753            38,875           \$2,546,313       \$1,722,678       \$4,268,991

  Reviewing               790.33         16,107           701,152           0                 701,152
  Authorities^a^                                                                              

  **TOTAL**               **1,543.33**   **54,982**       **\$3,247,465**   **\$1,722,678**   **\$4,970,143**
  ----------------------- -------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

a During the 3-year period of this ICR, the 112 reviewing authorities
will review 753 major NSR permits each year and submit an average of
37.33 SIP revisions per year (112 / 3 = 37.33), for a total of 790.33
responses per year.

**Table 6-8. Total Estimated Incremental Change in Annual Federal Burden
and Costs**

  ----------------------- ------------ ---------------- -------------- ------------- --------------
  **Type of Entity**      **Number of  **Total          **Total        **Total       **Total
                          Entities**   Incremental      Incremental    Incremental   Incremental
                                       Burden           Labor Costs    Capital Costs Costs
                                       (Hours/Year)**   (\$/Year)**    (\$/Year)**   (\$/Year)**

  **Federal Agency**      **1**        **1,916**        **\$69,365**   **\$0**       **\$69,365**
  ----------------------- ------------ ---------------- -------------- ------------- --------------

As discussed in the previous sections, the burden for the major NSR
program will increase as a result of the PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation
rule. This change in the major NSR regulations is necessary under the
Clean Air Act because EPA has, in other rulemakings, promulgated NAAQS
for PM~2.5~ to protect the public health and welfare. The rule is a
program change to add PM~2.5~ and its precursors to the major NSR
program, but it does not otherwise change the requirements of the
program. We expect the rule change to increase the burden associated
with applying for and issuing those permits that will now have to
address PM~2.5~ in addition to other pollutants, but we do not expect
any change in the number of major NSR permits that must be issued (i.e.,
no change in the number of source respondents). In addition, reviewing
authorities will incur a one-time burden to revise their SIPs to
incorporate the major NSR rule changes. The magnitude of the change in
burden is presented above in Tables 6-7 and 6‑8.

We estimate that the PM~2.5~ NSR Implementation rule will increase the
total annual burden of the major NSR program on 753 source respondents
by nearly 39,000 hours and \$4.3 million per year (see Tables 6-4 and
6-7), for an average burden increase of about 52 hours and \$5,700 per
source. For the 112 reviewing authority respondents, we estimate that
the total annual burden will increase by about 16,000 hours and
\$700,000 (see Tables 6-5 and 6-7), for an average burden increase of
about 140 hours and \$6,300 per reviewing authority.

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 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,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0281, which is available for online viewing at
[www.regulations.gov](http://www.regulations.gov/), or in-person viewing
at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 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 (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 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-2007-0281 and
OMB Control Number 2060-0003 in any correspondence.

[^1]: The term "reviewing authority" is synonymous with the term
    "permitting authority" used in previous permit-related analyses. The
    reader should consider these terms interchangeable for comparison
    purposes.

[^2]: A. Rios and J. Santiago. *Information Collection Request for 40
    CFR Part 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
    Nonattainment New Source Review*. U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. October 2004. Appendix A.

[^3]: "Economic Assessment of the Impacts of Part C and D Regulatory
    Changes," June 2, 1994.

[^4]: The definition for "small business" employed for all SIC
    categories in this analysis was any business employing fewer than
    500 employees.

[^5]: U.S., Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
    Planning and Standards, *Draft Information Collection Request For
    Changes To The 40 CFR Part 51 And 52 Prevention Of Significant
    Deterioration And New Source Review Applicability Requirements For
    Modifications To Existing Sources*, November 2002, p. 29.

[^6]: A. Rios and J. Santiago. *Information Collection Request for 40
    CFR Part 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
    Nonattainment New Source Review*. U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. October 2004. Page 13.