p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1796 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 24 ) IV-H-4 7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/20084:20:37

PM Sheet 24 of 107P. 2

A-90-3 7 IV-H-4 7
Bil l Harnet t 11/19/200 2 09:5 4 A M To : Amy_L._Farrell@omb.eop.go v cc : Arthur_G._Fraas@omb.eop.gov , Bil l Wehrum/DC/USEPA/US@EPA , DaveSvendsgaard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA , Lorraine_D._Hunt@omb.eop.gov , Pa m Smith/RTP/USEPA/US@EP A Subject : Fina l Rul e ICR Q

ICR-NSR-APPLICABILIT Y 11-07-0 2



# m<nm

EP A AI R DOCKE

TP. 3


### Unite d State s Environmental Protectio n Agenc y 

# EP A Offic

e o f Ai r an d Radiation Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Planning an

d Standard s Innovative Strategie s an

d Economic s Grou

p Integrated Implementation Grou p November , 200

2 

## INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T

FO RCHANGE S T O TH E 4 0 CF R PART S 5 1 an d 5 2 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S

prepare d b

y
Danie l Charle s Mussatti , Senio r Economis t Innovativ e Strategie s and Economic s Grou p Ai r Qualit

y Strategie s and Standard s Divisio n



### EP A #1713.0 4P. 4

Executiv e Summar y Thi s rulemakin g take s final actio n on severa l change s to th e major

NS R programb y providing :

• ane w metho d fo

r determinin g baselin e emissions , • ane w actual-to-projected-actual methodolog y fo r determinin g whether amajor modificatio n wil l occur , • ane w applicabilit

y provision s fo

r emissio n unit s designate d a s Clea n Unit s or tha t participat e in pollutio n contro l project s (PCPs) , • change s to let

major stationar y source s manag e facilit

y wid e ai r emission s throug h aPlant-wid e Applicabilit y Limi t (PAL ) withou t requirin g apreconstructio n majo r NS Rpermit

. Furthe r effort s are als o under

wa y a t thi s time t

o develo p aforma

l definitio n o f

wha t constitute s RMR& Ran d describ e aprogramthroug h whic h source s o f

pollutio n ma

y voluntaril y participate an d potentiall y avoi d costl y an d unnecessar y majo r NS Rdetermination s an d permits , base d upo n th e reasonablenes s o f th e project s undertake n an d offerin g relie f fro mth e regulator

y uncertaint

y associate d wit

h permit-relate d decisions

. Tabl e E. l Aggregate Chang e in Source , RA , an d Federal Burde n and Cost " fo r thi s Rulemakin g Regulatory Chang e SOURCE S Baselin e Determinatio n Avoide d Majo rSourc e NS R Ne w Monitorin g Requirement s Actual-to-projected-actua l Determinatio n Plant-wid e Applicabilit y Limit s (PALs ) Avoide d Majo rSourc e NS R Ne w Monitorin g Requirement s Clea n Unit s Tes t Pollutio n Contro l Project s Sourc e Tota l RAs FEDERA L Numbe r o f Affecte d Entitie s

3 3 8
1 1 1 1 1 4 11 2 1 Annua l Burde n

Hour s

(2,517 1 30 0 &ZJ2 J (839 ) 10 0 (§39 1 (839 ) (11.346 ) 8.96 0 0 Annualize d

Cos t

(§18A7Z5 1 $225,00 0 (§503,400 1 (§J2£25 1 $7,50 0 (§62^25 1 ($62,925 ) (S648.450 ) $331,520

. $ 0 Averag e Cos t pe r

Entity

&62£25 1 $7,50 0 (§62,925)

. (§62^25)

. $7,50 0 (§62^25)

. ($62,925 ) ($46,318 ) $2,96 0 $ 0 I n 200 2 dollars

. Detaile d discussio n o f th e individual component s o f thi s rulemakin g ca

n b e found in it s preamble

. Whil e th e overal l effect

o f thi s rulemakin g i s arelaxatio n o f th e burde n currentl y impose d on sources , there ar e severa l factor s tha

t dampe n tha

t effect

. Firs t

o f all , whil e eventuall y thi s rulemakin g wil l potentiall y appl y to al l source s in attainmen t an d nonattainmen t

areas , i n th e thre e year s immediatel y followin g th e promulgatio n o f thi s rulemaking , th e Agenc yP. 5

anticipate s th e followin g Federall y controlle d area s wil l b e affecte d immediatel y b y th e change s discusse d above

. Affecte d entitie s withi n th e lif e o f thi s IC Rrevisio n include : Federa l Permittin g Authorities : includin g Regiona l and Offic e o f

Air and Radiatio n environmental officer s State s where th e managemen t o f th e programha s bee n delegate d bac k to th e State Federall y controlle d area s suc h a s outer continental shel f

drillin g platforms , Tribal lands , an d Federal territorie s and holding s (e.g. , America n Samoa) Source s o f

ai r pollutio n withi n attainmen t area s withi n th e affecte d States , Tribal lands , an d othe r Federall y controlle d area s Fro mth e dat aavailabl e fo r thi s analysis , 1 0 to 1 2 percen t o f al l permitte d source s ar e i n state s tha

t hav e Federall y manage d programs . Amon g thes e states , approximatel y on e third (abou t 3 to 4 percen t

o f al l permitte d source s nationally ) are i n PS D areas . Thes e are th e source s potentiall y affecte d b y thi s IC Rrevision

. Therefore , jus t ove r one-thirtiet

h o f any potential full-time reduction s fro mmos t o f thi s rulemakin g are evident durin g th e time fram

e o f thi s ICR

. Second , alon g wit

h th e element s o f

thi s rulemakin g tha

t constitute a reductio n i

n burden , th e Agenc y determine d i t wa s pruden t

to includ e a forma l requiremen t

fo r source s t o demonstrat e thei r post-chang e emission s do no t excee d th e preconstructio n projection

. T o d o this , EP A decide d some source s shoul d keep an d maintai n actua l emissio n record s fo

r a t leas t five year s i f

ther e i s areasonabl e possibility tha t aprojec t tha t i s no t par t o f amajor modificatio n ma

y resul t i n asignificant

emission s increas e o f

a regulate d NS Rpollutant

. Whil e mos t o f th e emissio n monitorin g and recordkeepin g task s shoul d already b e par t o f th e operation s o f

eac h facility , som

e source s ma

y hav e to undertak e ne w monitorin g an d recordkeepin g tasks , an d mos t source s wil l hav e some de minimis chang e i n thei r reportin g practices

. Th e additional burde n o f thes e smal l change s dampen s th e effect

o f th e other element s o f

thi s rulemaking

. Sinc e th e aggregate effect

o f th e individual part s o f

thi s rulemakin g constitut e areductio n i n th e burde n impose d b y th e Federal government o n source s an d State an d local environmental management organizations , thi s rulemakin g i s consisten t wit h th e Offic e o f

Management

an d Budget' s (OMB's ) guidanc e fo

r th e reductio n o f

burde n when and whereve r possible. '

Offic e o f th e President

o f th e Unite dStates , Offic e o f Management

an d Budget , Offic e o f

Informatio n and Regulator y Affairs ; Apri l 2002 ; Managin g Informatio n Collectio n andDissemination ; http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/paperwork_policy_report_fin a l.pd fP. 6

CONCLUSION : Thi s rulemakin g represent s a POTENTIA L DECREAS E I N BURDE N t o sources
. Thi s rulemakin g represent s a n INCREAS E I N BURDE N t o State s an d othe r

Reviewin g Authoritie s fo ral l part s o f thi s rulemaking

. Becaus e thi s rulemakin g represent s a decreas e i n burden , th e Agenc y deter
mine d ther e i s N O SIGNIFICAN T IMPAC T O N A SUBSTANTIA L NUMBE R O F SMAL L ENTITIES

.

CAVEAT : Nothin g in thi s analysi s shoul d b e construe d a s constitutin g th e ful l effect o f any o f th e programelement s discussed

. Thi s analysi s pertain s t o onl y asubse t

o f th e ful l effect - to thos e affecte d source s locate di n area s attainin g th e appropriate air qualit y standard an d tha

t are als o Federall y managed

. Th e ful l effect o f thes e programs , whil e discusse d briefl y in thi s analysis , lag s th e promulgatio n o f thi s rulemakin g du e t

o th e tim e neede d fo

r State s t o modif

y thei r SIPs

. Th e Agenc y expect s the ful l effect o f thi s rulemakin g wil l b e include d in th e nex t IC Rupdat e i

n 2004

.P. 7

EP A TRACIKIN G NUMBfeR : 1,2074.0 1 1 Identificatio n o f th e Informatio n Collectio n 1. 1 Titl e Thi s documen t fulfill s th e Agency' s requirement s under th e Paperwor

k Reductio n Ac t

(PRA ) wit

h regard s to determinin g th e regulator y burde n associate d wit

h th e promulgatio n o f

ne w applicabilit

y requirement s fo

r modification s a

t source s subjec t

t o part s C an d D o f

titl e I o f th e Clea n Air Ac t (th e Act , o

r CAA) , Preventio n o f Significant

Deterioratio n (PSD ) an d Nonattainmen t

Ne w Sourc e Revie w (NSR)

. It ha s been assigne d EP

A trackin g number 2074.01

. Th e titl e o f

thi s Informatio n Collectio n Reques t (ICR ) i s "Informatio n Collectio n Reques t fo r Change s t o th e 4 0 CF

RPart s 5 1 an d 5 2 PS D and NS RApplicabilit y Requirement s fo

r Modification s t o Existin g Sources " 1. 2 Descriptio n Historically , th e progra mcalle d th e "majo r

NS Rprogram " derive s it s authorit y fro mpart s C an d D o f

Titl e I o f th e Ac t and i s apreconstructio n revie w and permittin g programapplicabl e to new or modifie d majo

r stationar y source s o f

air pollutants

. I n area s no t

meetin g National Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standard s (NAAQS ) an d in ozon e transpor t region s (OTR) , th e programi s th e "nonattainment " NS Rprogram , implemente d under th e requirement s o f

par t D o f titl e I o f th e Act

. In attainment

area s (area s meetin g NAAQS ) or

i n area s where ther e i s insufficien t informatio n to determin e whether

the y mee t

th e NAAQ S ("unclassifiable " areas) , thi s Preventio n o f

Significant

Deterioratio n (PSD ) progra mi s implemente d under th e requirement s o f

par t C o f Titl e I o f th e Act

. Applicabilit

y o f the major NS Rprogra

mmus t b e determine d in advanc e o f constructio n and i s pollutant-specific

. When asourc e trigger s major NS Ri n attainmen t

areas , it mus t instal l bes t

availabl e contro l technolog y (BACT ) an d conduc t modelin g an d monitorin g a s necessary . I f th e sourc e i s locate d i

n a nonattainmen t

area , i t mus t instal l technolog y tha

t meet s th e lowes t achievabl e emissio n rate (LAER) , secure emissio n reduction s t o offse t any increase s abov e baselin e emissio n levels , and perfor mother analyses

. In it s current

form , th e NS Rprogrami s acombinatio n o f ai r qualit y plannin g and air

pollutio n contro l technolog y progra mrequirement s fo

r ne w an d modifie d stationar y source s o f

ai r pollution

. I

n brief , sectio n 10

9 o f th e Ac t require s u s to promulgat e primar y NAAQ S to protec t

publi c healt h an d secondar

y NAAQ S t o protec t

publi c welfare

. Onc e th e Agenc y set thes e standards , state s mus t develo p State Implementatio n Plan s (SIPs ) whic h contain s emissio n limitation s an d other contro l measure s t

o attai n an d maintai n th e NAAQ S and t o mee t th e other requirement s o f sectio n 110(a) o f

th e Act

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CF RPART S 5 1 an d 5 2 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 1P. 8

SIP s contai n apreconstructio n revie w programto manag e th e emission s fro mthe constructio n an d modificatio n o f an y stationar

y sourc e o f

air pollutio n t

o assure tha

t th e NAAQ S ar

e achieve d and maintained , mandate d b y Titl e I

. In respons e to comments , discussions , an d recommendation s fro mth e publi c and stakeholders , th e EP A i s revisin g regulation s governin g majo r NS Rprograms . Thes e revision s includ e change s i n NS Rapplicabilit

y requirement s fo

r modification s to allo w source s additional avenue s fo r determinin g when apreconstructio n permi t i s required. 2 Sectio n 111(a)(4 ) o f

th e Ac t define s th e modificatio n provision s o f the NS Rprogra

mi n part s C an d D : "..

. ['modification ' means]..

. any physical chang e in , o r chang e i n th e metho d o f

operatio n of

, astationar

y sourc e whic h increase s th e amoun t o f any ai r pollutan t emitte d b y suc h sourc e o r whic h result s i n th e emissio n o f

any air pollutan t no t previousl y emitted. " B y th e definitio n o f

major amodification , th e proces s involve s atwo-step tes t fo r determinin g whethe r

sourc e activitie s constitut e amodificatio n subjec t t o majo r NS Rrequirements : whether aphysical o r

operational chang e wil l occur

tha t wil l resul t

i n asignificant

emission s increas e ove

r baselin e actua

l level s and whethe r

asignificant

ne t emission s increas e will occur a t th e majo r stationar y source . Th e referenc e to "any physical chang e .. . o r chang e i n th e metho do f operation " coul d mea

n tha t eve n th e repai r

or replacemen t

o f asingl e leak y pip e coul d mee t

th e requirement s fo

r amajor NS Rmodification

. However , th e EPA ha s previousl y adopte d several limite d exclusion s fro m th e "physica

l or operational change " component o f th e definitio n to recogniz e tha

t routin e maintenance , repai r an d replacement , an d change s in hour s o f

operatio n or

in th e productio n rate are no t b y themselve s considere daphysical chang e or chang e i n th e metho d o f

operatio n withi n th e definitio n o f

major modification

. Th e Agenc y als o limite d th e scop e o f th e statutor

y definitio n o f

modificatio n b y excludin g al l change s tha t d o no t resul t i n a n emission s increas e a

t amajo r sourc e abov e a"significant " level

. Take n together , thes e regulator y limitation s restric t

th e applicatio n o f th e majo r NS Rprogra

mto only "majo

r modifications " a

t existin g majo

r stationar y sources .

Thes e provision s als o le

t State s mak

e simila r change s i n thei r majo r NS Rprograms .

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O TH E 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 and 5 2 PSD AND NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FORMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 2P. 9

On e ke y attribut e o f

th e major NS Rprogrami

n genera l i s tha t source s wit h major modification s ma

y "net " ou t

o f revie w b y couplin g the propose d emission s increase s a t th e sourc e wit

h contemporaneou s emission s reductions

. In other words , asourc e ca

n modify , o

r even completel y replace , o

r add , emission s unit s withou t obtainin g amajo

r NS Rpermi t

a s lon g a s it s "actua

l emissions " do no t

increas e over

baselin e level s a t th e plan t a s awhol e b y asignificant amount
. Existin g regulation s defin e baselin e actual emission s a s "the averag e rate , in tpy , a t whic h th e uni t

actuall y emitte d th e pollutan t durin g a2-yea

r perio d whic h precede s th e particula r dat e an d whic h i s representativ e o f normal sourc e operation. " Th e permittin g authoritie s wil l ordinaril y allo w us e o f adifferen t time perio d "upo n adeterminatio n tha t i t i s mor e representativ e o f

norma l sourc e operation. " W

e hav e historicall y use d th e 2 year s immediatel y precedin g th e propose d chang e t o establis h th e baseline

. However , i

n som e case s w e hav e allowe d us e o f a n earlier period

. EP A define s a"ne

t emission s increase " a s th e increas e i n "actua l emissions " fro

mth e particula

r physical o r

operational chang e (takin g into accoun t th e us e o f

emission s contro l technolog y and restriction s on hour s o f operatio n or

rate s o f productio n where suc h control s and restriction s are federall y enforceable) , togethe r wit h th e source' s other

contemporaneou s increase s o r

decrease s i

n actua l emissions

. Eac h sourc e seekin g a

n NS Rpermi t

mus t predic t whether or no t th e propose d chang e wil l resul t i n asignificant

ne t increas e i n th e source' s actual emissions

. Currently , whe n asourc e uni t (other tha n a n electri c utility stea

mgeneratin g unit) 3 "ha s no t begu n norma

l operations, " tha

t unit' s post-chang e actua

l emission s are equa

l th e unit s Potential T o Emi t (PTE)

. Thi s i s referre d t

o a s th e "actual-to-potential " test
. Source s ma y avoi d thi s presumptio n b y agreein g t o limi t th e unit' s PTE throug h th e us e o f practicall y enforceabl e restrictions

. Th e ne t resul t o f thi s proces s let s source s ensure n o increas e in thei r actual emission s abov e baselin e level s followin g th e change

. Thi s rulemakin g take s final actio n o n several change s to th e majo r NS R programb y providing :

• ane w metho d fo

r determinin g baselin e emissions ,
Th e regulation s define electri c utilit y stea mgeneratin g unit s (EUSGUs) , whic h hav e specia l rule s fo r physica l an doperationa

l change s tha

t emplo y a n actual-to-projected-actual methodolog y fo r all change s (but

not replacement) a

t a n existin g electri c utilit

y stea m generatin g units

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O TH E 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 an d 52 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 3P.1 0

• anew actual-to-projected-actual methodolog y fo r determinin g whether amajo r modificatio n wil l occur , • anew applicabilit

y provision s fo

r emissio n unit s designate da s Clea n Unit s or tha t participat e i n pollutio n contro l project s (PCPs) , • change s to le t

major stationar y source s manag e facilit

y wid e ai r emission s throug h aPlant-wid e Applicabilit y Limi t (PAL ) withou t requirin g apreconstructio n majo r NS Rpermit

. Further effort s are als o under

wa y a t thi s time to develo p aforma l definitio n o f

wha t constitute s RMR& Rand describ e aprogramthroug h whic h source s o f

pollutio n ma

y voluntaril y participat e an d potentiall y avoi d costl y an d unnecessar y majo r NS Rdetermination s an d permits , base d upo n th e reasonablenes s o f th e project s undertake n and offerin g relie f fro mth e regulator

y uncertaint

y associate d wit

h permit-relate d decisions

. Further explanatio n o f

thes e change s ca

n b e found in th e discussio n below

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O TH E 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 an d 5 2 PS D AND NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FORMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 4P.1 1

2 2. 1 Nee d an d Us e of th e Collectio n Nee d / Authorit y fo r th e Collec tio n Titl e I o f th e Ac t authorize s EPA t o collec t thi s information

. Throug h th e NS Rprogrami

t require s owner s or

operator s o f

unit s tha t emi t ai r pollutant s t o submi t

a n applicatio n fo

r apermi t to construct , modify , o r significantl y alter

th e operation s o f

eac h sourc e o f

criteri apollutants

.
2. 2 Practica l Utilit y / User s o f th e Dat a

2. 3 Caveat s an d Consideration s Fo r

EPA to carr

y out it s require d oversigh t

functio n o f

reviewin g preconstructio n permit s an d assurin g adequate implementatio n o f th e program , i t

mus t hav e availabl e t o it

informatio n o

n propose d constructio n an d modifications

. Th e burde n estimate s include d i n thi s IC Rprovide s emissions , source , an d contro l informatio n fo r th e PSD/NS Rprogram . Th e informatio n i

n thi s IC Ri s base d upo n th e bes t dat aavailabl e to th e Agenc y a t thi s time

. However , inconsistencie s i n reviewin g authorit

y (RA ) reportin g techniques , incomplete dat asets , and samplin g limitation s impose d upo n th e Agenc y b y th e Paperwor k Reductio n Ac t

necessitate d a certai n amount

o f extrapolatio n an d "best-guess " estimations. 4 Consequently , th e reader

shoul d no t

consider th e conclusion s to b e a

n exac t representatio n o f

th e leve l o f

burde n or cos t tha t will occur . Instead , thi s IC Rshoul d b e considere d adirectionall y correc t assessmen t

o f th e impac t th e programmati c change s include d in thi s rulemakin g may hav e ove r th e nex t thre e years . Throughou t

thi s ICR , th e reade r

wil l observ e estimate d value s tha t sho w accurac y to th e singl e hour or dollar

. However , reportin g value s a t th e singl e uni t level ca n b e misleading

. I n mos t

situations , the prope r

wa y t o presen t estimate d dat awoul d b e to determin e a n appropriate leve l o f precisio n and truncate value s accordingly , usuall y i n term s o f thousand s or million s o f

units

. Fo r instance , aspreadshee t

generate d estimatio n o f $5,456,29 5 coul d b e presente d in th e tex t a s $5. 5 (millions ) or

$5,45 6 (thousands)

. On e proble mwit h suc h a n approac h i s th e los s o f

dat a richnes s when th e repor

t contain s amixture o f

ver y larg e and ver

y smal l numbers

. Such wa s th e cas e wit h thi s ICR , where sourc e value s are consistentl y i

n th e million s an d Federal value s i n th e ten s o f

thousands

. Consequently , t

o avoi d th e los s o f

informatio n throug h rounding , thi s IC R report s al l value s a

t th e singl e uni t

leve l an d remind s th e reade r tha t ther e i s n o implie d precisio n inheren t in thi s styl e o f

reporting

.

Th e ter m"reviewin g authority " i s synonymou s wit h th e ter m "permittin g authority " use di n previou s permit-relate d analyses

. Th e reader shoul d consider

thes e term s interchangeabl e fo r compariso n purposes .

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 and 52 PSD AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FORMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 5P.1 2

3 3. 1 Non-Duplication , Consultation , an d Othe r Collectio n Criteri a Non-Duplicatio n

3. 2 Publi c Notic e Requirement s Fo r

approval o f

apropose d ICR , th e Agenc y mus t ensure tha

t i t ha s taken ever y reasonabl e step t

o avoi d duplicatio n i

n it s paperwor

k requirement s i n accordanc e wit

h 5 CF R1320.9

. Th e Administrato r assert s that , whil e th e Clea n Unit s portio n o f

thi s rulemakin g require s dat arepottin g tha t i s simila r to tha t already bein g performe d by source s fo r Operatin g Permi t and Complianc e Assuranc e Monitorin g purposes , th e dat acollecte d fo r thi s rulemakin g i s more specifi c tha n thos e other , similar , collection s and constitute s anecessar

y component

o f th e NS Rprogra

mt o ensure th e protectio n o f

the environment

. Fo r any existin g rule , § 3507(g ) o f th e PR A limit s ho w lon g aDirecto r ma y tak e to approv e acollectio n o f informatio n to 3 years . Th e IC Rfo r th e 4 0 CF RPar t 5 1 an d 5 2 Preventio n o f

Significant

Deterioratio n and Ne w Sourc e Revie w Progra mwa s renewe d las t

in Februar

y o f 2001

. Thi s IC Ranalysi s present s a

n update t o tha

t renewal , base d upo n programmati c change s complete d sinc e February , 2001

. Fo r al l o f th e element s o f

thi s rulemaking , significant

publi c comment

period s were given

.
3. 3 Consultation s

3. 4 Effect s o f Les s Frequen t Collectio n Followin g th e 199 6 proposal o f change s t o th e NS Rprogram , EP A hel d tw o publi c hearing s an d more tha n 5 0 stakeholde r

meeting s wit

h environmental groups ; industry ; an d state , local , an d federa l agenc y representatives

. Th e Ac t define s th e rate o f

reportin g b y sources , states , an d local entities

. Consequently , les s frequen t collectio n i s no t

possible

.

3. 5 Genera l Guideline s OMB' s genera l guideline s fo

r informatio n collection s mus t b e adhere d t

o b y al l Federa

l Agencie s fo

r approval o f

an y rulemaking' s collectio n methodology

. I

n accordanc e wit

h th e requirement s o f

5 CF R1320.5 , the Agenc y believes : 1

. Th e NS Rregulation s d o no t require periodi c reportin g mor e frequently tha n semi-annually

. 2

. Th e NS Rregulation s do no t require respondent s to participat e i n an y statistical survey . 3

. Writte n response s t

o Agenc y inquirie s ar

e no t require d to b e submitte d i n les s tha n thirt y days

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CF RPART S 5 1 and 5 2 PS D AND NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 6P.1 3

4

. Special consideratio n ha s bee n give n i n th e desig n o f

th e NS R programt o ensure tha

t th e requirement s are , t

o th e greates t

extent possible , th e same fo

r Federal requirement s and thos e permittin g authoritie s wh o already hav e preconstructio n permittin g program s i n place

. 5

. Confidential , proprietary , and trad e secre t informatio n necessar

y fo r th e completenes s o f

th e respondent' s permi t

ar e protecte d fro

m disclosur e under

th e requirement s o f

§503(e ) an d §114(c ) o f

the Act

. 6

. Th e NS Rregulation s do no t requir e more tha

t on e origina

l and tw o copie s o f th e permi t

application , update , or

revisio n t o b e submitte dt o th e Agency

. 7

. Respondent s d o no t

receiv e remuneratio n fo

r th e preparatio n o f

report s require d b y th e Ac t

or part s 5 1 o r

52

. 8

. T o th e greates t

exten t possible , th e Agenc y ha s take n advantag e o f automate d method s o f

reporting

. 9

. Th e Agenc y believe s th e impac t o f NS Rregulation s o

n smal l entitie s to b e insignificant

an d no t disproportionate

. Th e recordkeepin g an d reportin g requirement s containe d i n th e curren t NS Rprograman d th e change s mad e i n thi s rulemakin g d o no t

excee dan

y o f th e Paperwor

k Reductio n Ac t

guideline s containe d i

n 5 CF R1320.5 , excep t fo r th e guidelin e whic h limit s retentio n o f record s by respondent s to thre e years . Th e Ac t

require s bot

h respondent s an d Stat

e or loca l agencie s t o retai n record s fo r aperio d o f

five years . Th e justificatio n fo r thi s exceptio n i s found in 2 8 U.S.C

. 2462 , whic h specifie s five year s a s th e general statute o f

limitation s fo

r Federal claim s i

n respons e t

o violation s b y regulate d entities

. Th e decisio n in U.S

. v . Conoco

. Inc.

. No

. 83-1916- E (W.D

. Okla. , Januar y 23 , 1984 ) found tha

t th e five yea

r general statut e o f

limitation s applie d t o th e Clea n Ai r Act

. 3. 6 Confidentialit y Confidentialit y i s no t a n issu e fo r thi s rulemaking

. I

n accordanc e wit

h the Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f

1990 , th e monitorin g informatio n t o b e submitte d b y source s a s apar t o f thei r permi t applicatio n an d update ; application s fo

r revision s an d renewal s i s amatter o f publi c record

. T o th e exten t tha t th e informatio n require d i s proprietary , confidential , or o f a nature tha t coul d impair

th e abilit y o f th e sourc e t o maintai n it s marke t position , tha

t informatio n i s collecte d an d handle d subjec t t o th e requirement s o f

§503(e ) and § 114(c ) o f

th e Act

. Informatio n receive d and identifie d b y owner s or operator s a s confidentia

l busines s informatio n (CBI ) an dapprove d a s CB I b y EPA , in accordanc e wit h Titl e 40 , Chapter 1 , Par t 2 , Subpar t B , shal l b e maintaine d appropriatel y (se e 4 0 CF R2 ; 4 1

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O TH E 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 and 5 2 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FORMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 7P.1 4

F R36902 , September

1 , 1976 ; amende d b y 4 3 F R39999 , September

8 , 1978 ; 4 3 F R42251 , September

28 , 1978 ; 4 4 FR17674 , Marc h 23 , 1979)

.
3. 7 Sensitiv e Th e consideratio n o f sensitiv e questions , (i.e. , sexual , religious , persona l Question s o r ome r privat e matters) , i s no t

applicabl e to thi s rulemaking

. Th e informatio n gathere d fo

r purpose s o f

establishin g a

n operatin g permi t

fo r a sourc e d o no t

includ e personal dat aon an y owne r or operator
.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O TH

E 40 CFRPART S 5 1 and 5 2 PS D AND NSRAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 8P.1 5

4 Th e Respondent s an d th e Informatio n Requeste d 4. 1 Respondent s There ar e ove r 14,50 0 source s subjec t

t o Titl e I operatin g permit s requirement s in th e EPA' s Operatin g Permit s Database , encompassin g al l industr y classification s i

n 3 4 state s and th e Distric t o f Columbia. 5 Thi s comprise s th e majorit

y o f th e univers e o f

potentiall y affecte d source s fo r th e NS Rprograman d fo

r thi s ICR

. Tabl e 4- 1 i

n th e current

IC Rdisplay s th e industr

y classification s mos t

commonl y affecte d b y NS Rpermittin g requirements. 6 Tabl e 4.1 , below , recreate s tha t tabl e fo r thi s analysis

.
Tabl e 4. 1 Potentiall y Affecte d Entitie s
Industr y Grou p Pul p an d Pape rMill s Pape rMill s Chemica l Processe s Pharmaceutical s Petroleu m Refinin g Automobil e Manufacturin g
Electri c Service s Natura l Ga s Transpor

t SI C 26 1 26 2 28 1 28 3 29 1 37 1
49 1 49 2 NAIC S

32211,322121,322122 , 3221 3 322121,32212 2 325181 , 32512 , 325131 , 325182 , 211112 , 325998 , 331311 , 32518 8 325411,325412,325413,32541 4 3241 1 336111 , 336112 , 336712 , 336211 , 336992 , 336322 , 336312 , 33633 , 33634 , 33635 , 336399 , 336212 , 33621 3 221111,221112,221113,221119,221121,22112 2 48621,2212 1
Th e Ne w Sourc e Revie w Progra mmaintain s it s ow n separate database , th e RAC T / BAC T / LAERClearinghous e (RBLC ) tha t gather s datao

n pre constructio n permit s fo

r new an d existin g source s o f pollution. 7 Whil e incomplete , thes e dat aar

e th e sourc e selecte d b y th e EP A fo r th e estimate s

Th e databas e doe s not

includ e AK , AR , AZ , ID , KS , KY , MT , NJ , NM , PA , SD , TN , TX , UT , WA , andWY

. Whil e severa l o f thes e state s contai n many source s subjec t to NSR , EP

A believe s th e lack

o f thei r informatio n i

n thi s databas e doe s no t

har mthi s analysis

. Informatio n Collectio n Reques t fo r 4 0 CF RPar t 5 1 an d 5 2 Preventio n o f Significant

Deterioratio n andNonattainmen t Ne w Sourc e Review , Offic e o f Management

andBudget

(OMB ) Contro l Numbe r

2060-0003 ; EP A For mNumber

1230.09

. Th e RBL C doe s not

contai n acomplete recordo f al l PS D an

d NS R permits

. Approximatel y 45 0 permi t determination s ar

e missin g fro

m Texa s an d 5 0 fro mLouisiana , and a s man

y a s 1,00 0 ar e missin g fro

m Regio n VI

. Fro mRegio n IX , the Agenc y believe s Californi aha s not entere dan y informatio n int

o the RBL C fo

r a t leas t the pas t 3 years .

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 and 52 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FORMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 9P.1 6

in thi s ICR

. Th e RBL C contain s 1,14 2 PS D and NS Rpermit s betwee n 199 2 an d th e present
. Fro mth e RBL C database , there ar e 1 1 three-digi t SI C cod e classification s tha t compris e hal f

o f th e permi t

determination s mad e sinc e 1992 , five o f

whic h appea

r on th e current

IC Rlis t a s comprisin g "most" o f

th e determination s made

. It take s 2 7 three-digi t

SI C cod e classification s to mak e u p 7 5 percen t

o f th e determination s sinc e 1992 , and there ar

e 5 9 three-digi t

classification s i

n th e set tha t make s u p 9 0 percen t o f th e determination s sinc e 1992

. Th e energ y industr y compris e almos t aquarter o f all permi t determinations , wit

h almos t 2 0 percen t

i n th e 49 1 Electri c Service s classificatio n an d almos t five percent

i n th e 49 2 Natura l Ga s Transpor

t classification

. Tabl e 4. 2 display s th e distributio n o f RBL C determination s fo

r th e 1 1 three-digi t

SIC classification s tha

t make u p hal f o f al l determination s in th e database

.
Tabl e 4. 2 RBL C Distributio n o f Permi tDetermination s Sinc e 1992

Industr y Grou p Electri c Service s
Natura l Ga s Transpor

t Stee l works , blas t furnaces , electrometallurgica l products , stee l wiredrawin g Gray an d ductil e iro n foundries , stee l foundrie s Electri c an d othe rServices , Servic e Utilitie s
Pul p an d Pape rMill s Nitroge n Fertilizers , Phosphati c Fertilizers , an d Pesticide s an d Agricultura l Chemical s NE C Moto rVehicle , Passenge rCar , an d Truc k Bodies , Moto rVehicl e Part s an d Accessories , Truc k Trailer s Sewerag e Systems , Refus e Systems , an d Sanitar y Service s NE C Petroleu m Refinin g Rubbe ran d Miscellaneou s Plasti c Product s SI C 49 1
49 2 33 1
33 2 49 3
26 1 28 7
37 1

49 5
29 1 30 8 RBL C

Coun t 22 3
5 2 4 4
4 2 3 8
34 3 3
3 3

2 7
2 6 2 5 NAIC S 221111,221112,221113,221119,221121 , 22112 2 48621,2212 1 324199 , 331221 , 331111 , 331112 , 331222 , 33261 8 331511,33151 2 261111,261112,261112,261119,261121 , 26112 2 32211 , 322121 , 322122 , 3221 3 325311,325312,3253 2 336111,336112,33612,336211,336212,336312 , 336322 , 33633 , 33634 , 33635 , 336399 , 33699 2
22132 , 56292 , 562212 , 562213 , 562219 , 488119 , 56291,56171,56299 8 3241 1 326113 , 326121 , 32615 , 32614 , 325991 , 326191 , 326121,326215,32619 9

Amon g al l potentiall y affecte d source s i n th e Titl e I database , 4,70 0 source s (32. 6 percent ) hav e Standard Industrial Classificatio n (SIC ) code s designate d a s 99 9 - indicatin g th e sourc e di d no t identif y aspecifi c

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O TH E 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 and 5 2 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FORMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 1 0P.1 7

Th e univers e o f potentiall y affecte d source s fo r thi s IC R updat e include s onl y source s i n attainmen t area s i n Federall y controlle d States , (Hawaii , Illinois , Indiana , Michigan , Nort h Dakota , Nevada , Ne w Hampshire , Ne w Jersey , Ne

w York , Ohio , an d Sout h Dakota) , othe r Federall y controlled-areas , an d 9 5 source s i n India n country . industr y withi n whic h i

t operated. 8 Th e remainin g 9,80 0 source s subjec t to Titl e I operatin g permit s requirement s repor t specifi c sourc e classification s withi n th e EPA' s Operatin g Permit s Database

. O f th e 26 0 three-digi t SI C code s wit

h Titl e I sources , onl y 1 5 hav e more tha n on e percen t o f th e total Titl e I source s (includin g th e 99 9 classification)

. Includin g th e 99 9 classification , i t take s th e seve n classification s wit h the mos t source s in the mt o accoun t fo r hal f o f th e Titl e I sources . Withou t th e 99 9 classification , i t

take s th e top 1 9 three-digi t SI C classification s t

o accumulate hal f

o f al l Titl e I source s i

n th e database

. Accordin g to th e analyse s performe d fo

r th e mos t recent IC Rfo r th e NS Rprogram , 1,69

4 source s i n eight three-digi t

SIC cod e categorie s (4 0 NAIC S categories ) account fo r mos t o f th e sourc e categorie s subjec t t o NS Reach year . Tabl e 4. 1 display s thes e sourc e SIC and Nort h America

n Industr y Classificatio n System(NAICS ) categories

. Eventually , thi s rulemakin g will affect al l States , territories , and possession s o f

th e Unite d States , a s wel l a s al l local an d Tribal governments , bu t

fo r th e first three-yea r perio d o f thi s rulemakin g (th e perio d covere d b y thi s ICR) , mos t state s wil l no t

b e affecte d b

y thi s regulatio n du e t o th e regulator y la g necessar y fo r SI P review , revision , an d approval

. Durin g thi s period , th e onl y entitie s potentiall y affecte db y thi s fina l actio n wil l b e locate d i

n area s where th e Federal government ha s direc t regulator y authority

. Thes e "Federall y controlle dareas " includ e Guam , Puert o Ric o an d th e Virgi n Islands ; Washingto n D.C ; Hawaii , Illinois , Indiana , Michigan , Minnesota , Nort h Dakota , Nevada , Ne w Hampshire , Ne w Jersey , Ne w York , Ohio , an d Sout h Dakota

. Th e Federa

l government

als o ha s authorit

y i n Texa s an d Washingto n State , but onl y fo r on e sourc e categor

y in eac h SIP , s o thi s analysi s wil l trea t Texa s an d Washingto n State a s thoug h their SIP s were full

y approved

. O f

th e state s in th e Operatin g Permit s Database , only Ne w Jerse y an d Sout h Dakotaar

e no t availabl e fo

r thi s analysis

. Th e EP A estimate d ther e are abou t 5,54 5 source s (abou t

3 8 percen t

o f th e total ) in th e 1 2 Federall y controlle d states , th e Distric t o f Columbia , an

d i n India n Countr y - representin g 22 2 differen t three-digi t

SI C cod e

Whil e th e Federal government ha s change d it s classification s systemto th e Nort h America

n Industr y Classificatio n Syste m(NAICS) , the reportin g proces s tha

t support s th e Agency' s databas e fo r source s subjec t t o Operatin g Permit s requirement s ha s no t full y change dt

o th e ne w system
. Therefore , thi s repor t wil l continu e employin g th e SI C syste man d simultaneousl y repor t th e NAIC S classificatio n fo r eac h affecte d sourc e categor

y fo r futur e compariso n purposes .

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O TH E 40 CFRPART S 5 1 and 52 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FORMOD I FICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 1 1P.1 8

classifications. 9 About

1 6 percen t

o f th e estimate d source s ha

d a99 9 SI C cod e - abou t

hal f o f tha t fo r th e Operatin g Permit s Database

. When th e 99 9 classification s i s included , i t take s 1 3 SIC classification s t o accoun t fo r hal f o f th e source s i

n th e Federall y controlle d states
. Without th e 99 9 classification , i t

take s 2 6 three-digi t

SI C classification s t

o accoun t fo r hal f o f th e sources . Fo r

th e eight SIC classification s reporte d i n th e curren t IC R(Tabl e 4.1) , th e Agenc y estimate d 88 4 source s woul d fall into thos e categorie s - abou t

1 6 percen t

o f th e total

. Base d upo n thes e characteristics , th e Agenc y determine d th e prox y methodolog y fo r estimatin g potentiall y affecte dsource s i

n the Federall y controlle d state s wa s areasonabl e approximatio n o f

th e tru e numbe

r an d distributio n o f

source s i n thos e states
.
4. 2 Informatio n Requeste d Th e dat arequire d by source s fo r acomplete major

NS Rpreconstructio n permi t applicatio n ca

n b e foun d i n th e variou s part s o f

Titl e 4 0 o f

th e Cod e o f Federal Regulation s (4 0 CFR)

. 4 0 CF R50.16 6 specifie s th e minimu mrequirement s tha t aPS D ai r qualit y permi t under Par t C o f the

. Ac t mus t contai n to warrant

approva l a s arevisio n t

o aStat e Implementatio n Pla

n (SIP)

. 4 0 CF

R52.2 1 delineate s th e Federal PS D permi t programwhic h applie s to al l Federal holding s other tha n States , delegate dTribal lands , outer continental shel f

sources , an d State s tha

t hav e no t submitte d aPS D progra

mmeetin g th e requirement s o f 4 0 CFR 51.166

. 4 0 CF

R51.16 5 specif

y th e element s o f

a n approvabl e State permi t fo r preconstructio n revie w i

n nonattainmen t

area s under

Par t D o f th e Act

. 4 0 CFRPar

t 51 , Appendi x S (Offset

Ruling ) an

d 4 0 CF R52.2 4 (constructio n moratorium ) apply when anonattainmen t are aSIP ha s no t bee n full y approve d b

y EP A a s havin g met

th e requirement s o f

Par t D o f th e Act

. Thes e citation s ca n b e found o n th e EP

A websit e at : http://www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/subch-C.ht m

Becaus e o f

alac k o f informatio n about

th e nature o f

source s i n India n Country , thi s analysi s distribute d th e 9 5 affecte d source s over the database' s SI C categorie s accordin g to th e distributio n o f source s i n tha t database

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O TH

E 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 and 5 2 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 1 2P . 1 9

Tabl e 4. 3 Industry Data and Informatio n Requirement s fo r PS D Permi tApplication s Curren t Requirement s Descriptio n o f th e nature , location , desiq n capacity , an d typica l operatin q schedul e Detaile d schedul e fo rconstructio n Descriptio n o f continuou s emissio n reductio n system , emissio n estimates , an d othe rinformatio n neede d t o determin e tha t BAC T i s use d Ai rqualit y impact , meteoroloqical , an d topoqraphica l dat a Natur e an d exten t of , an d ai rqualit y impact s o f genera l commercial , residential , industrial , an d othe r qrowt h i n are a o f sourc e Us e o f ai rqualit y model s t o demonstrat e complianc e wit h NAAQ S an d incremen t A demonstratio n tha t th e benefit s o f th e propose d sourc e significantl y outweig h th e environmenta l an d socia l cost s impose d a s a resul t o f it s location , construction , o rmodificatio n Informatio n necessar

y t o determin e impact o n AQRV s i n Clas s I area s Ai rqualit y monitorin g dat a Impairmen t of visibility , soils , an d vegetatio n Ai rqualit y impac

t resultin g fro m genera l commercial , residential , industrial , an d othe rgrowt h associate d wit h sourc e Writte n notic e o f propose d relocatio n fro m portabl e sourc e Descriptio n o f th e location , desig n construction , an d operatio n o f building , structure , facility , o r installatio n Descriptio n o f th e natur e an d amount s o f emission s t o b e emitte d Descriptio n o f th e ai rqualit y dat a an d dispersio n o rothe rai rqualit y modelin g use d Sufficien t informatio n t o ensur e attainmen t an d maintenanc e o f NAAQ S Regulatio n Referenc e 40CFR51.166(n)(2)(l ) 40CFR51.166(n)(2)(ii ) 40CFR51.166(n)(2)(iii ) 40CFR51.166(n)(3)(l ) 40CFR51.166(n)(3)(ii ) 40CFR51.166(k)&(l ) No t a curren t requiremen t ° 40CFR51.166(n)(4 ) 40CFR51.166(m ) 4 0 CF R 51.166(o)(1 ) 40CFR51.166(o)(2 ) 40CFR51.166(l)(4)(iii)(d ) 4 0 CF R 51.160(c)(2 ) 4 0 CF R 51.160(c)(1 ) 4 0 CF R 51.160(f ) 40CFR51.160(c)-(e) , 4 0 CF R 51.161-16 3
a A 199 0 Ac

t Requiremen t £173(a)( 5 Table s 4. 3 summarize s th e responden t dat aand informatio n requirement s whic h owner s or

operator s o f

major source s mus t

includ e in PS D constructio n permi t

applications

. Th e table s als o includ e th e appropriat e reference s in 4 0 CF

Rpar t 5 1 fo r th e dat aan d informatio n requirement s tha t gover n th e wa y State s implemen t

NS Rprograms . Fo r

eac h referenc e i n Par t 51 , correspondin g languag e wil l b e foun d i n par t 52

. Tabl e 4. 4 summarize s th e dat aan d informatio n requirement s impose d b y 4 0 CF R Part s 5 1 an d 5 2 o

n State s an d other

Permittin g Authorities

.
Tabl e 4. 4 R

A Data an d Informatio n Requirement s Requiremen t Earl y FL M notificatio n an d opportunit y t o participat e i n meetinq s Submissio n o f al l permi t application s t o EP A Submissio n o f notic e o f application , preliminar y determination , degre e o f incremen t consumption , an d opportunit y fo rpubli c commen t Submissio n t o FL M o f permi t application s Submissio n o f writte n reques t t o exemp t source s fro m revie w Writte n reques t fo rus e o f innovativ e contro l technoloq y Establishin q an d operatin q a permittin q proqra m fo ral l ne w source s Provid e notic e t o EP A o f al l permit s Provid e fo rpubli c commen t fo ral l NS R permit s Regulatio n Referenc e 40CFR51.166(p)(1)(ii ) 40CFR51.166(q)(1 ) 40CFR51.166(q)(2)(iv ) 40CFR51.166(p)(1 )
4 0 CF R 52.2 1 (l)(4)(vi ) 40CFR51.166(s ) 4 0 CF R 51.16 0 4 0 CF R 51.161(d ) 4 0 CF R 51.16 1

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O TH E 4 0 CF RPART S 5 1 and 52 PSD AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FORMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 13P.2 0

4. 3 Collectio n Schedul e Under th e curren t

NS Rsystem , respondent s are no t subjecte d t

o a collectio n schedul e pe r

s e under NS Rpermittin g regulation s o f part s 5 1 an d 52

. I n general , eac h affecte d sourc e i s require d to submi t a n applicatio n a s aprerequisit e to receivin g aconstructio n permit

. Preparatio n o f

aconstructio n permi t

applicatio n i s aone-time-onl y activit y fo r eac h projec t

involvin g constructio n o f anew sourc e or

modificatio n o f a n existin g source . Th e applicabl e SI P typicall y state s th e time perio d tha t i s necessar

y t o proces s apermi t

applicatio n an d issu e apermit ; consequently , aprospectiv e sourc e woul d b e oblige d t o wor k backward fro mth e hopefu l commencement o f constructio n t o determin e th e optimu msubmittal date fo r th e application

. However , whil e the curren t syste mdoe s no t

require periodi c reportin g or surveys , th e provision s o f thi s rulemakin g require s som e source s to maintai n record s o f emission s fo r five year s an d repor

t i f there i s asignificant

emission s increas e and/o r if emission s are inconsisten t wit h preconstructio n projections

. Thes e requirement s are i

n additio n t

o simila r (bu t no t a s detailed ) requirement s fo r emission s trackin g and reportin g under Titl e V Operatin g Permit s regulation s an d Par

t 64 Complianc e Assuranc e Monitorin g rules

. 4. 4 Smal l Entit y Flexibilit y Th e Regulator y Flexibilit

y Ac t (RFA ) require s regulator

y agencies , upo n regulator y action , to asses s tha

t action s potential impac t

o n smal l entitie s (businesses , governments , an d smal l non-governmental organizations ) an d repor t th e result s o f

th e assessment s i

n (1 ) a n Initial Regulator

y Flexibility Analysi s (IRFA) , (2 ) aFina l Regulator

y Flexibilit

y Analysi s (FRFA) , and (3 ) aCertification

. Fo r

IC Rapproval , th e Agenc y mus t demonstrate tha

t i t "ha s take n al l practicabl e step s t o develo p separat e an d simplifie d requirement s fo

r smal l businesse s and other smal l entities " ( 5 CF

R 1320.6(h))

. I n addition , th e agencie s mus t assure throug h variou s mechanism s that

smal l entitie s ar

e give n a n opportunit

y to participat e i

n th e rulemakin g process . A Regulator

y Flexibilit

y Ac t Screenin g Analysi s (RFASA ) develope d a s par t o f a199 4 draf

t Regulator

y Impac t Analysi s (RIA ) and incorporate d int o th e Septembe r

199 5 ICRrenewa

l analysi s reporte d a

n initial regulator y flexibilit

y screenin g analysi s showe d tha t th e change s t

o th e NS Rprogramdu e t o th e 199 0 Clea n Air Ac t amendment s woul d no t

hav e a n advers e impac t

o n smal l entities. I 0 Thi s analysi s encompasse d th e entire univers e o f

applicabl e majo

r source s tha

t wer e likel y t

o als o b e small-businesses

. Th e Agenc y estimate s there are approximatel y 5 0 "smal l

1 0 "Economi c Assessment of the Impact s o f

Par t C andD Regulator

y Changes, " Jun e 2 , 1994

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O TH E 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 and 52 PS D AND NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FORMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 14P.2 1

business " major

sources . " Becaus e th e administrativ e burde n o f th e NS R programare th e primar

y sourc e o f

th e NS Rprogram' s regulator y costs , th e analysi s estimate d anegligibl e "cos t t o sales " (regulator

y cos t divide d b y th e busines s categor

y mea n revenue ) rati o fo

r thi s sourc e group . Currently , there i s n o economi c basi s fo r adifferen t conclusio n a

t thi s time

.
4.4. 1 Measure s t o Aver t Impact s o n Smal l Enti
tie s Th e Agenc y ma y not , a s ageneral rule , exemp t amajor sourc e o f ai r pollution

. Sinc e th e impact s o f NS Rregulation s whic h ma y impac t smal l entitie s occur

predominantl y a

t major sources , littl e roo mexist s fo r regulator y flexibilit y to aver t th e impac t

o f th e propose d rulemakin g on smal l entitie s throug h exemption

. However , even thoug h th e Titl e V programdoe s no t

hav e a n advers e impac t

o n asignificant

number o f smal l businesses , EPA take s measure s to assis t source s i n affecte d smal l entitie s throug h th e implementatio n o f smal l busines s stationar

y sourc e technical an d environmental complianc e assistanc e programs , a s calle d fo r i n sectio n 50 7 o f

th e Act

. Thes e program s ca n reduc e th e reportin g burde n o f smal l entitie s whic h ar

e subjec t to major NS Rand ma

y significantl y alleviat e th e economi c burde n o n smal l source s b y establishin g program s t o assis t smal l businesse s wit

h determinin g wha

t Ac t requirement s appl y t o thei r source s an d when the y apply , an d guidanc e o n alternativ e contro l technolog y an d pollutio n preventio n fo r smal l businesses

. 4.4. 2 Measure s t o Mitigat e Impact s o n Smal l Enti
tie s Generally , EP A ha s severa

l method s by whic h i t

ca n minimiz e th e disproportionat e effect

o f arulemakin g on smal l entities

. Ne t cost s a n b e reduce d throug h th e us e o f smal l busines s stationar

y sourc e technical an d environmental complianc e assistanc e programs , th e Agenc y ca n defe r applicabilit

y fo r one or several sourc e categories , an d mitigatio n ca n b e achieve db y discretio n o f

th e Federal government
. However , thes e avenue s d o no t

appl y t o th e NS Rprogram . 4. 5 Environmenta l Justic e Consideration s Th e President' s prioritie s i n promotin g environmental justic e (EJ ) are containe di

n Executiv e Order

#12898

. Becaus e th e NS Rprogramoperate s nation-wid e an d acros s al l industr y classifications , th e Agenc y doe s no t believ e there i s adisproportionat e environmental justic e effect i n th e NS R program .

1 1 Th e definitio n fo

r "smal l business " employe d fo r al l SIC categorie s i

n thi s analysi s wa s an

y busines s employin g fewe r tha n 50 0 employees

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 and 5 2 PSD AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FORMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 15P.2 2



### 5 5. 1 Th e Informatio n Collecte d - Baseline , Methodology , an d Managemen t Determinatio n o f Baselin e Table s 6-1 , 2 , an d 3 in th e curren t NS RIC Rlist s th e activities , burden , an d estimate d cost s o f

NS Ractivitie s require d fo r sources , Permittin g Authoritie s (RAs) , and th e EPA , respectively

. Thes e estimate s for mth e baselin e fo

r thi s ICR

. Fo r

convenience ; Table s 5.1 , 2 , an d 3 , below , recreat e th e informatio n fo r PS D source s (thos e affecte db y thi s IC R revision)

. Tabl e 5. 1 Baselin e Annual Sourc e Burde n and Costs " fro m th e Curren tIC R

Activit y 1

. Par t C (PSD ) A

.

B

.

C

.

D

. E

. F

. Preparatio n an d Plannin g Determinatio n o f Complianc e Requirement s Obtai n guidanc e o n Dat a Need s Preparatio n o f BAC T Engineerin g Analysi s Dat a Collectio n an d Analysi s Ai rQuality Modelin g Determinatio n o f Impac

t o n Ai rQualit y Relate d Value s Post-constructio n Ai rQuality Monitorin g Permi t Applicatio n Preparatio n an d Submitta l o f Permi t Applicatio n Publi c Hearing s Revision s t o Permi t Subtota l burde n Direct cos t fo rPre-constructio n Ai rQuality Monitorin g Tota l cos t Unit s

32 0 32 0 32 0
32 0 32 0 32 0
32 0 32 0 32 0
34 Hour s pe rUni t

17 0 12 0 8 5
20 0 10 0 5 0
5 0 2 4 4 0 83 9 Annua l Hour s

54,40 0 38,40 0 27,20 0 64,00 0 32,00 0 16,00 0 16,00 0 7,68 0 12,80 0 268,48 0 Annua l

Cos t
$3,47 1 $2,45 0 $1,73 5 $4,08 3 $2,04 2 $1,02 1 $1,02 1 $49 0 $81 7 $17,12 9 $7,09 9 $24,22 8
a I n thousand s o f 200 0 dollar s Tabl e 5. 2 Baselin e Annua l Stat e an d Loca l R A Responden t Burde n an d Cost "

Activit y I

. PAR T C (PSD ) A

. Atten d Pre-applicatio n Meeting s B

. Answe rResponden t Question s C

. Lo g I n an d Revie w Dat a Submission s D

. Reques t Additiona l Informatio n E

. Analyz e fo ran d Provid e Confidentialit y Protectio n F

. Prepar e Complete d Application s fo rProcessin g G

. Fil e an d Transmi t Copie s H

. Prepar e Preliminar y Determinatio n I

. Prepar e Notice s fo ran d Atten d Publi c Hearing s J

. Applicatio n Approva l K

. Notificatio n o f Applican t o f RADeterminatio n L

. Submitta l o f Informatio n o n BAC T / LAE R t o RBL C M. Tota l Unit s
32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 Hour s Pe rUni t
3 6 2 0 1 6 8 2 4 3 2 8 2 4 4 0 4 0 8 1 6 27 2 Annua l Hour s 11,52 0 6,40 0 5,12 0 2,56 0 7,68 0 10,24 0 2,56 0 7,68 0 12,80 0 12,80 0 2,56 0 5,12 0 87,04 0 Annua l

Cos t $47 7 $26 5 $21 2 $10 6 $31 8 $42 4 $10 6 $31 8 $53 0 $53 0 $10 6 $21 2 $3,60 7 I n thousand s o f 200 0 dollar s

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O THE 40 CF RPART S 5 1 an

d 52 PSD AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 1 6P.2 3

Accordin g t

o th e curren t

ICR , th e Agenc y expect s 32 0 PS D application s per year , eac h requirin g abou t 83 9 hour s to complete , fo r atota l o f over 268,00 0 hours

. Th e IC Rals o estimate s 59 0 nonattainmen t NS Rpermit s per year , eac h requirin g 55 7 hours , fo r atotal o f over 340,00 0 hour s pe

r year . Th e current

IC Rals o predict s eac h mino r sourc e (56,50 0 total mino r NS Rsources ) wil l requir e 4 0 hour s to complete it s NS Rapplicatio n requirements , fo

r atotal o f 2,260,00 0 hours

. Tabl e 5. 3 Baselin e Annua l Federa l Burde n an d Cost "

Activit y 1

. PAR T C (PSD ) A

. Revie w an d Verif y Applicabilit y Determinatio n B

. Revie w Contro l Technolog y Determinatio n C

. Evaluat e Ai rQualit y Monitorin g D

. Evaluat e Alternativ e an d Secondar y Impac t Analysi s E

. Evaluat e Clas s 1 Are a Analysi s F

. Administrativ e Task s G

. Tota l Unit s
32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 Hour s Pe r Uni t
2 3 4 2 2 1 1 4 Annua l Hour s
64 0 96 0 1,28 0 64 0 64 0 32 0 4,48 0 Annua l

Cos t $2 1 $3 1 $4 1 $2 1 $2 1 $1 0 $14 4
a I n thousand s o f 200 0 dollars

.

Sectio n 182(c)(8 ) o f

th e Clea n Air Ac t state s i n extreme ozon e nonattainmen t

area s any increas e i s considere d amodification , bu t th e sourc e ca n get "internal " offset s a

t a1. 3 to 1 rati o to avoi d applyin g controls

. Under

thi s provision , affecte d source s i n extreme ozon e area s wil l hav e to seek

out internal offset s fo

r an y modificatio n tha

t result s i n a n increas e i n emissions

. However , under thi s IC Rrevision , non e o f th e state s wit h Federall y controlle d program s hav e extrem e nonattainmen t areas , s o th e ne t

effect o f th e Sectio n 182(c)(8 ) provisio n i s zero .
5. 2 Collectio n Methodolog y an d Managemen t Thi s sectio n discusse s th e developmen t o f burde n estimate s and thei r conversio n into costs , whic h ar e separate d into burde n cost s an d capita l an d O&M costs
. Accordin g t o th e lates t guidanc e fo

r ICR s (EPA 1995) , capital an d O&M cost s displa y th e cos t o f an y new capital equipmen t

th e sourc e or R A ma y hav e t o purchas e solel y fo r informatio n collection , assimilation , an d storag e purposes . Fo r example , if

asourc e ha

d to purchas e anew mini-computer t o store an

d manipulate data , tha

t computer woul d b e acos t

o f administratio n subjec t

t o reportin g i

n th e ICR

. In addition , th e lates t

guidanc e instruct s th e Agenc y to differentiate th e burde n associate d wit

h asource' s labo r

and tha t whic h it hire s throug h outsid e contractors
. T o th e extent asourc e contract s ou t

fo r administrativ e purpose s (e.g. , employin g consultant s t o perfor mmonitorin g functions) , th e burde n associate d wit

h thos e contracte d task s are no t aburde n to th e sourc e - bu t

the y stil l remai n acost
. Th e reader shoul d rea d thi s sectio n wit h th e followin g consideration s i n mind :

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 and 5 2 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 1 7P.2 4

• Th e Agenc y believe s th e amount o f time necessar

y to perfor

matas k i s independent

o f th e origin s o f

it s labor

. I n other

words , i f asourc e woul d emplo y X hour s o f

burde n t o full y perfor mafunction , then a contracto r hire d b y th e sourc e woul d als o take X hour s to perfor mtha t sam e task

. Furthermore , th e Agenc y assume s n o economie s or diseconomie s o f

scal e i n tha t th e linea r combinatio n o f

an y amount o f contracto r an d sourc e effor

t wil l als o sumto X

. Therefore , th e burde n estimate s i

n thi s IC Rac t

a s a n accurate assessmen t

o f th e total burde n to affecte d source s an d RAs , give n th e affecte d entit y doe s no t

emplo y contracte dlabor

. • Fo r som e burde n categories , th e Agenc y believe s th e hour s assigne dto the mwil l b e divide d betwee n th e sourc e an d outsid e contractors
. Fo r thes e categories , th e Agenc y establishe d acomposite cos t per hour b y developin g aweighte d averag e o f th e sourc e and contracto r

wages , wit h th e weight

define d b y th e percentag e o f total effor t eac h burde n sourc e applied

. Consequently , th e cos t develope d in thi s IC Rshoul d b e interprete da s a

n uppe r boun d o n th e actua

l cos t o f administratio n b y th e sourc e or

RA

. Th e methodolog y fo r determinin g cos t

pe r hour ca n b e found in greate r

detai l i n sectio n 6.2 , below

. Th e owner s an d operator s o f new o r modifie d stationar

y source s affecte d b y th e NS Rregulation s mus t submi t constructio n permi t

application s t

o th e RA , who , i n turn , log s in th e permi t applications , store s application s i n acentral filin g location , notifie s th e Federal Lan d Manager (FLM ) o f th e permit , an d provide s acop y o f th e applicatio n (i f

applicable ) t o th e FL

M an d transmit s copie s o f

eac h applicatio n to EPA

. Upo n permi t approval , th e R A submit s contro l technolog y informatio n to EPA' s RBL C database

. Th e R A review s th e permi t

an d check s th e qualit

y o f dat asubmitte d b y th e applican t on acase-by-cas e basis

. Th e applican t wil l b e require d to submi t informatio n o n ho w th e dat awere obtaine d (e.g., indicate whether emission s dat awere obtaine d throug h th e us e o f emission s factor s o

r tes t data ) an d ho w th e calculation s wer e performed

. Th e R A personne l wil l chec k dat aqualit

y b y reviewin g tes t

dat aan d checkin g engineerin g calculations , an d b y reviewin g contro l technolog y determination s fo r simila r sources . Th e RBL C an d other source s wil l b e reviewe d fo r informatio n o n contro l technolog y determination s mad e fo r source s simila r to th e source s include d i

n th e permi t

application

. Confidentia

l informatio n submitte d b y th e applican t wil l b e handle d b y th e permi t reviewin g authority' s (RA's ) confidential informatio n handlin g procedures

. Th e publi c wil l b e provide d th e opportunit y to revie w a permi t applicatio n an d other

material s relevan t

to th e RA' s decisio n o

n issuin g th e permit , includin g FL M findings , by obtainin g acop y fro mth e permi t reviewin g authorit

y o r b y attendin g th e publi c hearing

. Th e NS R regulation s wil l no t

requir e informatio n throug h an y typ e o f survey .

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 an d 52 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 1 8P.2 5

Tabl e 6- 2 list s th e Stat

e and loca l agenc y burde n an d cost s associate d wit h th e major NS Rpermittin g rule , a s modifie d b y th e propose d Refor

m change s o f

thi s analysis

. A s i s th e cas e wit h th e respondents , State and loca l agencie s wh o approv e NS Rpermit s wil l only hav e start-up cost s fo r any give n permit

. Consequently , whil e th e Stat e or loca l agenc y wil l approv e many permit s each year , th e annua l burde n fo

r tha t functio n i s simply equa

l to th e burde n found i

n any 1 year .

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 and 5 2 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 1 9P.2 6

6 6. 1 Estimatin g th e Burde n an d Cos t o f th e Collectio n Estimatin g Th e Numbe r o f Respondent s T o determin e th e number o f potentiall y affecte d respondent s fo r thi s rulemaking , th e EPA bega n wit h th e baselin e dat afound i n th e Februar

y 200 1 (current ) ICR , reproduce d fo r convenienc e i n thi s IC Rrevisio n a s Table s 5.1 , 5.2 , an d 5.3 , above

. Fromtha t baseline , th e EPA made severa l adjustment s t o separat e ou t thos e source s affecte d b y thi s rulemakin g (al l major sourc e NS Rmodifications ) and thos e fo r thi s IC Rupdat e (Federall y controlle d areas)

. Th e univers e o f

potentiall y affecte d source s i n Tabl e 5. 1 include s bot

h ne w constructio n an d modification s to existin g sources . Sinc e thi s rulemakin g deal s exclusivel y wit h majo r NS Rrequirement s fo

r existin g facilities , th e Agenc y bega n wit h the 91 0 annual NS Rpermi t determinations , subtracte d out 2 0 percent

fo r utilitie s (base d upo n informatio n in th e RBLC) , leavin g 72 8 non-utilit y permit s eligibl e fo

r consideratio n unde r

thi s rulemaking

. Th e Agenc y the n estimate d approximatel y two-third s o f th e availabl e NS Rpermit s issue d eac h yea r come fro mexistin g sources , divide d betwee n PS D an d NS Rpermit s accordin g t o th e roughl y 1: 2 rati o o f permit s found in th e curren t ICR

. Therefore , thi s analysi s assume s 48 5 permi t determination s (16 2 PS D and 32 3 nonattainmen t

NSR ) ar e made eac h yea

r a t existin g non-utilit

y sources . Apportionin g thes e source s accordin g to th e distributio n i n the curren t IC Rmean s ther e are 22 2 potentiall y affecte d PS D source s eac h yea r whe n thi s rulemakin g i s i n ful l effect

. Durin g th e perio d o f time whe n thi s rulemakin g onl y affect s Federall y controlle d areas , thi s analysi s assume s 3 8 percen t

(fromth e Operatin g Permit s databas e analysis ) o f th e overal l value s apply. 1 2 Consequently , th e result s i n thi s IC Rrevisio n are base d upo n 6 2 PS D non-utilit y source s and 8 5 PS D sources , includin g utilities

. Tabl e 6.1 , belo w display s th e distributio n o f source s assume d fo

r thi s IC Ranalysis

. Fo r th e numbe r

o f responden t

permittin g authorities , thi s analysi s use s th e 11 2 R A count use d b y other

permittin g ICR s fo

r one-tim e task s (e.g. , SI

P revision ) an d th e appropriat e sourc e count fo r individual permit-relate d item s (e.g. , attendin g pre-applicatio n meeting s wit h th e source)

. There i s only on e Federal sourc e liste d i n thi s ICR

.

1 2 Th e estimate d 38 % o f all potentiall y affecte dsource s include s mor e tha n jus t th e source s foun

di n the Agency' s general estimate o f the number o f source s manage d by the Federa l government
. I

n man y case s wher e aState doe s not

hav e a n approve d SIP , th e Agenc y delegate s authorit y fo r th e state progra

mback t o th e state
. FO r

thi s analysis , thi s delegatio n ha s bee n ignore d an dthos e affecte dsource s ar e include d herein

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O TH E 40 CF RPART S 5 1 and 5 2 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 2 0P.2 7

Tabl e 6. 1 Estimate d Numbe r o f Affecte d Respondents Pe r Yea r

Withou t Utilitie s Wit h Utilitie s Whe n Full y Implemente d 16 2 22 2 Federall y Controlle d Area s 6 2 8 5

6. 2 Estimatin g Responden t Burde n Thi s rulemakin g include s tw o type s o f change s t o th e existin g NS R program- mandator

y change s tha

t affect al l source s seekin g a preconstructio n permit , and voluntar y change s tha

t allo w source s th e opportunit y t o decid e whether

or no t th e alternativ e permittin g requirement s provid e anet benefi t to th e source . Fo r

voluntar y programs , al l RA s mus t

includ e thei r

provision s withi n thei r

SIP s and d o no t

hav e th e ability t o refus e to includ e th e voluntary programa s apar t o f it s NS R program(unles s th e RAca n mak e ashowin g tha

t th e progra

mis , i n fact , les s stringen t

tha n it s existin g program)

. Fo r source s decidin g to op t

into voluntary programs , th e Agenc y assert s that , fo r any sourc e tha

t decide s t o op t int o suc h aprogramth e benefit s fromtha t chang e mus t

outweig h th e cos t o f tha t change

. Under

thi s assertion , "costs " and "benefits " includ e other than monetar

y measure s and i t

i s th e implici t

reveale d preferenc e o f th e sourc e b y it s choic e tha t determine s whethe r

or no t th e programi s beneficial

. Table s 6. 2 throug h 6.8 , below , display th e expecte d number o f affecte dsource s an d th e chang e i n burde n an d cos t

fo r each o f th e change s include din thi s rulemakin g fo r al l respondents

. Th e reader shoul d note th e estimate d number

o f source s discusse d belo w are a n order-of-magnitud e assessmen t

o f th e scop e o f

eac h program . In tha

t context
. Th e reporte d numbe r o f affecte d source s shoul d b e considere d aprobabl e outcom e withi n areasonabl e rang e aroun d th e estimate and no t a n exac t estimate

. Thi s sectio n present s estimate s o f th e numbe r

o f potentiall y affecte d source s an d th e burde n hour s expecte d t o b e incurre d a t thos e source s subjec t t o preconstructio n permittin g unde r PS D and nonattainmen t

NS R regulation s a s set

out i n th e Ac t an d part s 5 1 an d 5 2 o f

Titl e 4 0 o f

th e Code o f Federal Regulations

. Applyin g th e methodolog y establishe d fo r economi c analyse s establishe d b y th e Agenc y i n Th e OAOP S Economi c Resourc e Documen t

' 3 and Th e EPA Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Cos t

Manual l4

. Th e burde n estimate s i

n thi s IC Rreflec t

th e exper t judgemen t

o f EPA

1 3 Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Apri l 1999 , Th e OAQP S Economi c Resourc e Document , http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/econdata/6807-305.pd f 1 4 Unite dState s Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Januar y 2002 , Th e EP A Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Cos t

Manual , sixt

h edition , Daniel C

. Mussatti , ed. , EP

A -452/B-020-00 1 http://www.epa.gOv/ttn/catc/products.html#cccinf o

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 an d 52 PSD AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FORMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 2 1P.2 8

staff , contractors , an

d industr y experts
. Al l burde n estimate s represen t th e marginal cos t

o f thi s rulemaking , base d upo n th e baselin e burde n and cost s describe d in th e NS Rprogram' s Februar y 14 , 200 1 IC Rrenewal. I 5 Whil e th e overal l effect

o f thi s rulemakin g i s arelaxatio n o f th e burde n currentl y impose d o

n sources , ther e are severa l mitigatin g factor s tha

t make tha t resul t no t apparen t i n th e final analysis

. Firs t

o f all , whil e eventuall y thi s rulemakin g wil l appl y t o al l source s i n attainmen t

an d nonattainmen t

areas , i n th e thre e year s immediatel y followin g th e promulgatio n o f

thi s rulemaking , th e Agenc y anticipate s th e followin g Federall y controlle d area s wil l b e affecte d immediatel y b y th e change s discusse d above : Federal Permittin g Authorities : includin g Regiona l and Offic e o f

Ai r an d Radiatio n environmental officer s State s where th e managemen t o f thei r progra mha s bee n delegate d bac k t o th e Stat

e Federall y controlle d area s suc h a s outer continental shel f

drillin g platforms , Tribal land s that hav e delegate d Titl e I authorit y bac k to th e Federal government , an d Federal territorie s an d holding s (e.g. , America n Samoa) Source s o f

air pollutio n withi n attainmen t area s i n th e affecte dStates , Tribal lands , and other

Federall y controlle d areas . 6.2. 1 Baselin e Wit h thi s rulemaking , th e EPA amend s th e NS Rrule s to require State s to Determinatio n us e ane w tes t a s a n a l ternat ' v e t 0 tne curren t "actual-to-potential " tes t

fo r determinin g th e applicability o f th e NS Rrequirement s fo

r facilitie s seekin g t o make modification s a t a n existin g majo

r stationar y source . A s describe d in greater

detai l in th e Preambl e to thi s rulemaking , th e followin g are key feature s o f th e ne w methodology :
• Ne w methodolog y applie s to an y existin g emission s uni t

a t amajor stationar y sourc e undergoin g aphysical o r operational change ;
• Source s other

tha n electri c utility stea

mgeneratin g unit s wil l determin e pre-chang e (baseline ) actua l emission s b y calculatin g a n averag e annua

l emission s rate , fro

man y 24-consecutiv e month s durin g th e 10-yea

r perio d ( 2 i n 10) precedin g the change; 1 6 Source s wil l projec t

post-chang e (future ) actua l emission s t o reflec t th e highes t

projecte d annual increas e i n actua l emission s tha

t result s fro mth e propose d change , i.e. , excludin g increase s tha t th e existin g

1 5 Unite dState s Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Februar y 14 , 2002 , Informatio n Collectio n Reques t fo r 4 0 CF Rpar t 5 1 an d 5 2 Preventio n o f Significan

t Deterioratio n and Nonattainment Ne w Sourc e Review , OMB Contro l No

. 2060-0003 , EP A No

. 1230.0 9 1 6 Thi s rate ma

y nee d to b e adjuste d t

o reflec t current emission s factors

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 and 52 PSD AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 2 2P.2 9

emission s uni t

coul d hav e accommodate d durin g th e baselin e perio d an dtha t i s als o unrelate d to th e particula r project. ; an d

• Source s mus t

maintai n sufficien

t emission s informatio n fo r a t leas t 5 year s followin g physica l or operational chang e to demonstrat e tha t post-chang e emission s d o no t resul t i n amodification

. EP A i s als o codifyin g th e "2-year s i n 5 " presumptio n fo

r calculatin g th e representativ e baselin e actual emission s already i n us e b y thes e units

. Therefore , thi s par

t o f th e analysi s use s 8 5 potentiall y affecte d non-utilit y sources , a s describe d i n sectio n 6.1 , above

. O f these , th e Agenc y anticipate s n o more tha

n 5 percen t

( 3 PS D an d 6 NSR ) - an d probabl y fewe r - wil l b e abl e t o selec t

ane w two-yea

r baselin e perio d tha

t wil l allo w the mt o avoi d major NSR

. For

thi s analysis , onl y th e thre e PS D source s ca n b e affected. I 7 Fo r all non-utilit

y source s permitte d annually , the ne w rule s require each sourc e to kee p arecor d o f

annual emission s but

doe s no t requir e CEM S or an y additional monitorin g equipment

. Althoug h thi s recordkeepin g i s a ne w burde n under

th e NS Rprogram , i

t i s no t anew burde n to source s becaus e mos t

source s mus t

perfor msimila r monitorin g under

th e requirement s fo

r titl e V an d fo

r emissio n inventor

y purposes . Onl y fo

r a ver y fe w instance s wil l thi s ne w requiremen t require asourc e t o undertake ne w monitoring

. Th e onl y "new " burde n fo r thi s recordkeepin g component

wil l b e fo r th e sourc e t

o keep th e record s i

n aspecifi c and accessibl e forma

t an d to repor

t deviation s abov e acertai n level

. Also , eac h sourc e wil l hav e to maintai n record s fo r a t leas t five year s to demonstrate tha t th e actual emissio n projection s hav e no t bee n exceeded

. Th e Agenc y anticipate s thes e tw o requirement s wil l add abou t tw o hour s pe r

wee k t o th e burde n fo

r eac h affecte d sourc e - abou t a n extr a10 0 hour s per

year . Tabl e 6. 2 summarize s th e expecte d effect o f th e chang e i

n baselin e determinatio n portio n o f

thi s rulemaking

.
Tabl e 6. 2 Estimate d Effectof ne w Baselin e Determinatio n

Activit v Reductio n i n Numbe rof PS D source s fro m " 2 i n 10 " chang e RecordkeeDin q an d ReDortin q TOTA L EXPECTE D EFFEC T Unit s 3 3 3 Hour s pe r Uni t (839 ) 10 0 (739 ) Annua l

Hour s 12,517 ) 30 0 (2.217 ) Annua l Cos t a (§188,775 ) $12,50 0 ($168,275 )
a Change s ar e i n 200 2 dollar s

1 7 Som

e source s ma

y als o experienc e alowe

r baselin e throug h other

part s o f thi s rulemaking , but

fo r simplificatio n purposes , tha t scenari o wa s no t considered

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O TH E 4 0 CF RPART S 5 1 and 52 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 23P.3 0

6.2. 2 Actual-To Projected-Actua l Determinatio n A s describe d i n sectio n I.C. I o f

th e preamble , the Agenc y adopte d a n actual-to-projected-actual methodolog y fo r determinin g baseline , combine d wit

h arevise d proces s to determin e baselin e emission s t o identif y whe n source s pla

n to mak e amodificatio n subjec t

t o NSR

. Thi s methodolog y allow s certai n emission s increase s t o b e exclude d fro mth e calculatio n i f

suc h increase s coul d hav e bee n accommodate d b y th e emission s uni t

befor e th e chang e an d ar

e unrelate d t

o the change

. Any other increas e in emission s wil l no t trigge r NSR

. Under

ou r curren t NS R program , asourc e ca

n make physical change s or change s i n th e metho d o f operatio n withou t

triggerin g major

NS Rapplicability , provide d th e change s d o no t

resul t in either asignificant

emission s increas e fro

ma projec t o r asignificant

ne t emission s increas e fro

mth e majo

r stationar y source . Th e Agenc y interprete d thi s requiremen t t o allo w unrelate d change s that , standin g alone , d o no t resul t i n significant

emission s increase s an d t o allo w suc h change s t o occur withou t considerin g whethe r othe r contemporaneou s emission s increase s rende r th e chang e significant

. Althoug h thi s ne w emission s tes t i s achang e fro

mth e current

"actual-to

potential " test , th e differenc e i s tha t source s wil l no t

hav e to obtai n a

n enforceabl e permi t

restrictio n on thei r

post-chang e emission s projections

. Under th e "actual-to-potential " tes t man y source s relie d o

n aprojectio n o f post-chang e actual emission s b y obtaine d enforceabl e restriction s throug h amino r NS Rpermittin g action

. Thi s restrictio n effectively mad e th e potential-to-emi t

o f th e sourc e equal to thi s post-chang e projection

. Under th e ne w test , w e ar

e no t requirin g source s to obtai n enforceabl e restriction s t o us e th e post-chang e emission s projection

. O f th e 66 7 annua

l permi t determination s mad e fo

r existin g sources , th e Agenc y anticipate s th e actual-to-projected-actual determinatio n wil l allo w abou t 1 0 percen t

(6 7 source s - 8 PS D source s i n Federall y controlle d areas ) t o avoi d major

NSR , divide d betwee n PS D an d NS Rdetermination s accordin g t o th e distributio n in th e Februar y 200 1 ICR

.
Tabl e 6. 3 Estimate d Effecto f Actual-To-Projected-Actua l Determinatio n
Activity Reductio n i n Numbe ro f PS D source s Unit s 8 Hour s oe r Uni t 83 9 Annua l Hour s (6.712 ) Annua l Cost '

($503,400 )
a Change s ar e i n 200 2 dollar s
6.2. 3 Plant-wid e Applicabilit y Limit s (PALs ) A PAL i s avoluntar y programtha

t function s much lik

e th e ol d "Bubbl e Policy " that

le t source s manag e facility-wid e emissions

. Th e adde d flexibilit y provide d under

aPA L strike s a

n important

balanc e betwee n th e source' s nee d t o respon d rapidl y to marke t change s and th e Agency' s missio n t o protec t

th e environment

. Th e PA L provision s o f

thi s rulemakin g are base d on plant-wid e actua l emission s suc h tha

t if asourc e

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 an d 5 2 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FORMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 2 4P.3 1

maintain s it s emission s belo w aplant-wid e actua l emissio n cap , (calle d a

n "actuals " PAL) , th e programlet s th e sourc e mak e modification s to it s facilit y withou t triggerin g majo

r NSR

. I n retur n fo r thi s flexibility , th e sourc e mus t

monito r emission s fro

mall o f it s emissio n unit s unde r

th e PAL

. Th e leve l o f

monitorin g wil l b e differen t under aPA L fro mtha t require d elsewhere in th e Act

. Other program s includ e monitorin g requirement s to sho w source s do no t excee d aparticula

r value , whic h ca

n b e don e b y showin g i

t operate d withi n acertai n rang e (parametri c monitoring)

. Under

PALs , eac h sourc e mus t

quantif y it s emissions

. Th e facility' s existin g monitorin g system s wil l mos t likel y b e used , bu t

onl y afte r i t i s customize d to attai n ahigher leve l o f performance ; an d some source s wil l hav e t o purchas e monitorin g equipmen t tha t the y ma y no t currentl y have

. However , th e Agenc y expect s th e cos t o f new monitor s woul d preclud e mos t

source s fro

mchoosin g PAL s exemptio n an d tha t only source s wit

h existin g monitorin g system s wil l choos e to us e th e PAL s program . Consequently , th e Agenc y als o believe s th e additional cos t o f monitorin g fo

r thes e source s wil l b e minima l - abou t 10 0 hour s ayear . Th e PA L programapplie s to bot

h PS D and nonattainmen t

NS R permitting , bu t

fo r thi s IC Rrevision , i

t onl y applie s t

o PS D source s i

n Federall y manage d areas . Fro mth e databas e analysi s supplie d to th e EPA b y it s contractor s fro

mth e RBLC , EP

A determine d there were 5 2 source s o f ai r pollutio n tha

t applie d fo

r multipl e NS Rpermit s betwee n 199 2 an d 2002 , or , on average , tw o source s pe r year . Amon g all o f

th e source s identifie d a s havin g more than on e permi t withi n aten-yea

r period , seve n had thre e permits , si x ha d four , and tw o had five majo r NS Rpermits

. Th e remainin g 3 7 al l had onl y tw o permit s withi n te n years . Therefore th e Agenc y determine d th e number o f avoide d permit s availabl e withi n aten

yea r perio d fo r any give n sourc e woul d mos t likel y b e one . I f

al l o f thos e source s wer

e t o b e in Federall y controlle d areas , thi s analysi s woul d hav e a n uppe r boun d on it s estimate d effect

. Consequently , fo r thi s IC R revision , EPA assume d on e PS D permi t coul d b e avoide d eac h yea r durin g th e lif e o f thi s ICR

. Thi s analysi s focuse s o n th e number o f PS D permit s avoide d b y source s tha t take PALs , an d shoul d no t b e equate d wit

h th e number

o f source s tha

t wil l actuall y appl y fo

r PA L permits

. Th e avoidanc e o f major sourc e permit s i s jus t

on e o f th e reason s asourc e migh t tak e aPA L - simplifie d applicabilit

y an d nettin g are example s o f others , even i f

th e underlyin g change s woul d no t

hav e triggere d amajor

sourc e permit

. Further , no t ever y sourc e wit

h aPA L i s wil l mak

e a n otherwis e majo

r sourc e permi t triggerin g chang e ever

y year . Th e number

o f source s tha

t wil l eventuall y take PAL s i s likel y higher tha n th e estimate mad

e here fo r th e number

o f permit s avoide d a

t source s covere d b y thi s analysis

. However , i t i t th e latter figur e tha t i s more appropriate fo

r us e i n developin g th e burde n estimate use d i

n thi s ICR

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O TH E 40 CF RPART S 5 1 an

d 52 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 2 5P.3 2

Tabl e 6. 4 Estimate d Effectof Plant-wid e Applicabilit

y Limit s

Activity Reductio n i n Numbe ro f PS D source s Increas e i n Monitorin g Requirement s a t Source s Optin g int o PAL s TOTA L EXPECTE D CHANG E Unit s 1 1 Hours pe r Uni t (§39 } 10 0 (739 ) Annua l

Hour s (839 } 10 0 (739 ) Annua l Cost "

($62^25 1 $7,50 0 ($55,225 )
a Curren t IC R cost s ar e i n thousand s o f 200 1 dollars , change s ar e i n thousand s o f 200 2 dollar s
6.2. 4 Clea n Unit s Tes t Thi s rulemakin g include s anew typ e o f applicabilit

y tes t fo r emissio n unit s tha t ar e designate d a s Clea

n Unit s (CU)

. Under

thi s test , th e Agenc y explicitl y recognize s tha

t th e rate o f

technological chang e i s no t smoot h an d continuous

. Instead , onc e anew technolog y ha s bee n introduce dfo r pollutio n contro l purposes , i t ma y take asignificant

number o f year s fo r a ne w contro l technolog y to b e develope d tha t woul d replac e tha

t BAC T or LAERdevice. 1 8 Consequently , whe n asourc e undertake s amajo r NS R revie w an d install s BAC T or LAER , tha

t sourc e (no w deeme d a"Clea n Unit" ) ma y mak e achange s ove

r alon g perio d o f

tim e tha t coul d trigger major NS Runder

astric t interpretatio n o f

th e regulation , but

woul d no t resul t in acontro l technolog y chang e tha t woul d provid e more tha

n de minimis improvement s i

n th e source' s abatement

efficiency

. Th e C

U applicabilit

y tes t presume s th e prio r

installatio n o f

BAC T or LAERa t a sourc e i s sufficien

t to exemp t

futur e modification s a

t th e sourc e fro

m additional major

NS Rrevie w - s o lon g a s th e sourc e doe s no t excee d it s permitte d emission s level

. Emission s unit s tha t hav e no t been throug h major NS Rma y stil l qualif

y fo r th e Clea n Uni t designatio n if

they demonstrate tha

t th e contro l i s comparabl e t o BAC T or LAER

. Thi s C U applicabilit

y tes t als o allow s mino r

NS Ran d voluntar

y contro l installation s to qualif

y fo r futur e exemptions , thereb y providin g incentive s fo r source s t o instal l state-of-the-ar t control s (beyon d wha

t ma y b e deeme d BAC T or

LAER ) in anticipatio n o f

th e nee d fo

r futur e modification s tha

t woul d trigge r

major NSR

. Thi s new applicabilit y tes t therefore protect s ai r

quality , create s incentive s fo r source s t o instal l state

of-the-ar t controls , provide s flexibilit y fo r sources , and promote s administrativ e efficiency

. Th e determinatio n o f

th e number

o f potentiall y affecte d source s fo r th e Clea n Unit s Tes t

follow s th e same methodolog y a s tha t performe d fo

r th e Plant-wid e Applicabilit

y Test , above

. Consequently , whil e a s man y a s five source s beyon d thos e already performin g CUT-lik e practice s afte

r

1 8 Fo r

instance , th e technolog y governin g th e remova l o f S0 2 fro m combustio n flu e ga s stream s ha s remaine drelativel y unchange d(excep t fo r mino r innovation s t o improv e operations ) sinc e it s introductio n to th e pollutio n contro l communit y i n the earl y 1980's

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 an d 52 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FORMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 2 6P.3 3

receivin g amajor

sourc e permi t

ma y b e abl e to op t

into th e Clea

n Unit s Tes t programunder

th e ful l coverag e o f

thi s rulemakin g i

n th e shor t term , whil e onl y Federall y controlle d area s are affected , th e Agenc y anticipate s onl y on e PS D sourc e ma

y b e abl e t o op t

int o th e programdurin g th e perio d o f tim e covere d b y thi s IC Rrevision

. Tabl e 6. 5 Estimate d Effecto f Clea n Units Tes t

Activity Reductio n i n Numbe ro f PS D source s Unit s 1 Hour s pe r Uni t 83 9 Annua l Hours (839 ) Annua l Cos t "

($62,925 )
a Curren t IC R cost s ar e i n thousand s o f 200 1 dollars , change s ar e i n thousand s o f 200 2 dollar s
6.2. 5 Pollutio n Contro l Project s (PCPs ) EP

A develope d acomprehensiv e lis t o f pollutio n contro l project s (PCPs ) believe dto b e environmentall y beneficia l whe n applie d t

o mos t industrial processes . T o provid e incentive s t o source s fo r th e installatio n o f

thes e technologies , EP

A ha s determine d tha

t source s installin g aliste d PC P woul d qualif

y fo r a n exclusio n fro

mmajor NS Ri f th e installatio n doe s no t resul t in anegativ e ai r

qualit y impac t (e.g. , aviolatio n o f

aNAAQS)

. Th e Agency' s determinatio n o f wha t presumptivel y qualifie s a s aPC P i s limite d t o thos e technologie s liste d i n thi s rulemaking , but th e a n RA ma y allo w other

project s t o qualif

y us e on acase-by-cas e permittin g process . Thus , th e PC P Exclusio n allow s source s to instal l emission s control s tha t ar e know n t o b e environmentall y beneficial withou t triggerin g major

NS R fo r small , collateral pollutan t increases

. Thes e provision s thu s offe r flexibilit y whil e improvin g ai r

quality

. Under th e provision s o f

th e PC P exclusion , source s ma y undertake major NS Raction s that

hav e asignificant

emission s increas e but

stil l d o no t hav e t o mee t

th e existin g NS Rrequirement s fo r additional control

. However , th e sourc e mus t stil l obtai n offset s fo

r th e significant

increase

. Sinc e th e offse

t requiremen t

i s aprovisio n o f

th e current

NS Rrules , i

t produce s n o ne t

chang e in th e burde n o r

cos t to the sourc e an d i s no t considere d apar

t o f th e burde n and cos t

o f thi s rulemaking

. Ther e are n o empirical foundation s upo n whic h t o bas e a n estimate o f

th e number o f potentiall y affecte d source s fo r thi s elemen t

o f th e rulemaking , sinc e th e determinatio n o f aspecifi c number

o f participatin g entitie s woul d involv e th e derivatio n o f acounterfactual value

. Consequently , base d upo n informa

l pollin g o f

EP A regional office s an d fo

r th e purpose s o f thi s analysis , EP

A expect s on e PS D an d on e NS Rpermitte d sourc e wil l participat e in th e PC P progra meac h yea

r durin g th e lif

e o f thi s IC R revision

. Currently , anumber o f source s ar

e already participatin g i

n th e PC P programa s par

t o f th e on-goin g polic y surroundin g majo r sourc e permitting

. However , th e Agenc y believe s thi s formalizatio n o f th e PC P proces s wil l provid e greater certaint y t o source s and offe

r astreamline d methodolog y tha

t wil l b e attractiv e to mor

e source s and type s o f

source s

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O TH E 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 an

d 52 PSD AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 27P.3 4

tha n ar e currentl y participating

. Thes e ar e th e source s addresse d i

n thi s IC Rrevisio n an d tha

t wil l b e addresse d in toto durin g the next NS RIC R update

.
Tabl e 6. 6 Estimate d Effectof Pollutio n Contro l Projec tExclusio n

Activity Reductio n i n Numbe ro f PS D source s Unit s 1 Hours pe r Uni t 83 9 Annua l Hour s (839 ) Annua l Cost '

($62,925 )
a Curren t IC R cost s ar e i n thousand s o f 200 1 dollars , change s ar e i n thousand s o f 200 2 dollar s
6. 3 Estimatin g Reviewin g Au thorit y Burde n Th e current rulemakin g result s i n a

n unambiguou s increas e i

n th e burde n impose d upo n RAs , fro

mEPA requirement s tha

t an y change s i

n th e permittin g proces s to b e include d in th e state' s SIP , the n submitte d fo

r approval t o th e EPA

. Becaus e th e change s neede d fo r updatin g SIP s are smal l an d th e state requirement s fo r SIP developmen t

diffe r fro mstate to state , th e Agenc y assume d i t woul d take n o mor

e tha n eight y hour s fo r eac h reviewin g authorit

y to full y incorporat e thi s rulemakin g into it s plan

. Thi s assumptio n include s legislativ e review , publi c comment , an d al l lega l an d legislativ e processe s necessar y fo r al l o f th e abov e components
. Tabl e 6.7 , below , display s th e aggregate effect o f thi s rulemakin g on al l RAs

. Tabl e 6. 7 Estimate d Reviewin g Authority Burde n and Cost a

Activity TOTA L EXPECTE D CHANG E Unit s 11 2 Hours pe r R A 8 0 Annua l Hour s 8.96 0 Annua l Cos t *

$331,52 0 a Curren t IC R cost s ar e i n thousand s o f 200 1 dollars , change s ar e i n thousand s o f 200 2 dollar s
6. 4 Estimatin g Federa l Burde n Th e Federal chang e i n burde n resultin g fro mthes e change s wil l b e t

o revie w state SIP s t o verif

y thei r change s full

y meet the requirement s o f

th e program . Du e to th e natur e o f th e change s needed , the Agenc y expect s that , whe n th e rul e i s full

y in effect , tha

t eac h SIP wil l require abou t ten hour s o f review

. However , fo

r th e tim e perio d o f

thi s rulemaking , th e Federal burde n i s limite d t o onl y thos e task s i t woul d perfor

mi n th e maintenanc e o f

it s oversigh t

functio n in Federall y controlle d areas . I n othe r words , th e EP

A assume s ther e i s n o additional Federa l burde n o r cos t derive d fro

mth e shor

t ter meffect s o f

thi s rulemaking

.
Tabl e 6. 8 Estimate d Federa l Burde n and Cost a

Activity TOTA L EXPECTE D CHANG E Unit s 1 Hours

0 Annua l Hour s 0 Annua l Cost '

$ 0
a Curren t IC R cost s ar e i n thousand s o f 200 1 dollars , change s ar e i n thousand s o f 200 2 dollar s

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CF RPART S 5 1 an

d 52 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 2 8P.3 5

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CF RPART S 5 1 and 5

2 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 29P.3 6

6. 5 Estimatin g Responden t Cost s Table s 6. 2 throug h 6.8 , above , includ e th e expecte d cos t o f th e burde n associate d wit

h eac h o f th e change s in th e major

sourc e NS Rprogram . Th e cos t t o respondent s fo

r IC Rpurpose s generall y fall s withi n tw o categories : th e burde n cos t

o f technical an d administrativ e personnel , an d th e capital cos t o f collection-relate d equipment

. Fo r thos e element s o f

thi s rulemakin g tha t constitut e opportunitie s fo r reduction s i

n sourc e burden , there ca

n b e n o potential chang e i

n th e capital cost s associate d wit h thi s IC Rupdate

. When th e Agenc y anticipate s a n increas e i

n burde n t o sources , thei r additional capital cost s ar

e considere d belo w i

n thi s section

. Sourc e burde n cost s are typicall y wag e rate s pai d to employee s and cost s incurre d b y th e us e o f consultan t

labor

. Fo r

thi s analysis , th e Agenc y assesse d sourc e burde n a s onl y internall y generate d wages , establishe d a t th e administrativ e rat e o f $7 5 pe r hour (full y loaded ) establishe d i

n the Augus t

200 1 IC Rfo

r th e Complianc e Monitorin g Rul e (EPA Numbe r 1663.03)

. 6. 6 Estimatin g Agenc y Cost s Durin g th e developmen t o f th e 199 7 IC Rfo

r th e par t 7 1 Federa

l Operatin g Permi t Regulations , th e Agenc y als o determine d the appropriate wag e rate s t o appl y t o Federal burde n categories

. Fo r thi s ICR , th e Agenc y employe d th e same methodolog y to determin e 200 2 Federal and state burde n cost s an d establishe d th e appropriate rat e a t $3 7 pe r hour

. Tabl e 6. 9 display s th e calculatio n o f

thi s rate
.
Tabl e 6. 9 Determinatio n of Federal an d Stat e Wag e Rate s Annua l Salar

y o f Permi t Staff , G S 1 1 Ste p 3 (FY 0 2 Schedule) * Annua l Cos t o f Supervisor y Staff , G S 1 3 Ste p 3 (F Y 0 2 Schedule) * Facto r(1/11 ) Annua l Cos t o f Suppor

t Staff , G S 6 Ste p 6 (FY 0 2 Schedule) * Facto r(1/8 )
Annua l Applicabl e Salar y o f Permi t Staff Benefit s (a t 16% ) Sic k Leav e / Vacatio n (a t 10% ) Genera l Overhea d Tota l Cos t Pe rFT E Tota l Hourl y Cos t (Tota l Pe rFT E divide d b y 2,08 0 hours pe ryear ) $63,369.0 0 0.0 9 $29,569.0 0 0.1 3



# r $44,462.0 0

$5,703.2 1
$3,696.1 3 $53,861.3 4 $8,617.8 1 $5,386.1 3 $17,413.3 7 $85,278.6 5 $37.1 2 http://www.govexec.com/pay/02BS.hmi . Apri l 11 , 200 2
6. 7 Estimatin g Cost s Th e first thre e year s o f

thi s rulemakin g hav e alimite d affect o n sources , sinc e i t wil l take severa

l year s fo r Permittin g Authoritie s t

o modif y thei r SIP s an d hav e themapprove d b y th e EPA

. Durin g thi s period , only Federall y controlle d area s wil l contai n source s affected b y thi s rulemaking

. Thos e area s ca

n b e found liste d in Sectio n 4. 1 o f thi s IC Rrevision

. Durin g th e perio dcovere d b y thi s IC Rrevision , thi s rulemakin g will produc e a mino r decreas e i

n sourc e burde n (11,34 6 hour s fo r al l affected sources ) hour s an d cos t

($648,45 0 overall , o r

abou t $46,31 8 pe

r affected source)

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 an d 52 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Pag e 3 0P.3 7

Thi s rulemakin g wil l als o increas e th e burde n (8,96 0 hours ) and cos t ($331,52 0 overall , o r

abou t $2,96 0 per

entity ) fo r Permittin g Authorities

. Sinc e th e Agenc y alread y ha s oversigh t authorit y ove r th e affecte d source s in thi s IC Rrevision , th e EPA anticipate s n o chang e t o it s ow n burde n an d cos t fro mthi s rulemakin g ove r

th e perio d o f

time covere d b y thi s revision

. Tabl e 6.10 , below , display s th e chang e i n annua l burde n an d cost s fo

r sources , Permittin g Authorities , an d th e Federa l government , respectively

. I n eac h table , th e secon d colum n list s th e number

o f affecte d units , base d upo n th e methodologie s an d assumption s discusse d abov e i n eac h section

. Th e third colum

n display s th e chang e i

n hour s pe r affecte d uni t

fo r eac h programelement , wit

h negativ e number s indicatin g areductio n in burden , zer o indicatin g n o change , an d apositiv e valu e indicatin g a n increase d burden

. Th e reade r

ca n re-creat e th e annual hour s fo r each burde n categor

y b y multiplyin g th e number o f affecte d unit s b y th e hour s pe r unit

. Colum

n fou r display s th e total cos t

o f th e expecte d burden , an d colum n fiv e display s th e averag e cost , acros s onl y affecte d sources , fo r eac h elemen t

o f th e rulemaking

. Th e Sourc e Total ro w a t th e botto mo f

Tabl e 6.10' s sourc e sectio n display s th e averag e cos t to respondent s a s acros s al l 91 0 annuall y affecte d sources . Fo r

permittin g authorities , th e burden categorie s liste d are one-tim e burde n categorie s that eac h sourc e mus t

incur , whethe r

or no t the y hav e aFederall y impose d progra mi n place

. Consequently , th e las t colum n i s on e thir d o f

th e produc t

o f th e number

o f annual hour s fo

r eac h burde n categor

y time s th e Federal and state wag e rate
. Tabl e 6.1 0 Aggregat e Chang e in Burde n an d Cost afo r thi s Rulemakin g
Regulator

y Chang e SOURCE S Baselin e Determinatio n Avoide d Majo rSourc e NS R Ne w Monitorin g Requirement s Actual-to-projected-actua l Determinatio n Plant-wid e Applicabilit y Limit s (PALs ) Avoide d Majo rSourc e NS R Ne w Monitorin g Requirement s Clea n Unit s Tes t Pollutio n Contro l Project s Sourc e Tota l RAs FEDERA L Numbe r o f Affecte d Entitie s

3 3 8

1 1 1 1 1 4 11 2 1 Annua l Burde n

Hour s

30 0 £112 }

<839 ) 10 0 1839 } (839 ) f 11.346 ) 8.96 0 0 Annualize d

Cos t

$225,00 0 ($503,400 ) .(562,925 1 $7,50 0 ($62^925)

. ($62,925 ) (S648.450 ) $331,52 0 $ 0 Averag e Cos t pe r

Entity

(162,925] ! $7,50 0 ($62,925 ) M2£25)

. $7,50 0 1162^925)

. ($62,925 ) ($46,318 ) $2,96 0 $ 0 a I n thousand s o f 200 2 dollars

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O TH

E 4 0 CF RPART S 5 1 and 5 2 PS D AND NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FO RMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 3 1P.3 8

6. 8 Reason s Fo r Throug h year s o f negotiation , publi c meetings , an d draf t revisions , th e Chanq e I

n Burde n Informatio n Transfer an d Progra

mIntegratio n Divisio n ha s strive d to streamlin e an d simplif

y th e reportin g an d recordkeepin g requirement s fo r th e preconstructio n permi t procee d mandate d b y th e Ac t fo r source s o f criteri aan d hazardou s ai r

pollutants

. Thi s rulemakin g represent s the culminatio n o f

many part s o f

tha t process . Becaus e th e goa

l o f thi s effor t wa s to reduc e burde n an d costs , th e reason s fo r th e chang e i

n burden displaye d abov e th e table s abov e i s sel f evident

. 6. 9 Burde n Burde n mean s th e total time , effort , or financia l resource s expende d b y Statemen tperson s t o generate , maintain , retain , or disclos e or

provid e informatio n t

o or fo r aFederal agency . Thi s include s th e tim e neede d t o revie w instructions ; develop , acquire , install , an d utiliz e technolog y and system s fo r th e purpose s o f

collecting , validating , an d verifyin g information , processin g an d maintainin g information , an d disclosin g and providin g information ; adjus t

th e existin g way s t o compl y wit h an y previousl y applicabl e instruction s and requirements ; trai n personne l t o b e abl e t o respon d t o acollectio n o f

information ; searc h dat asources ; complete an d revie w th e collectio n o f

information ; an d transmi t or otherwis e disclos e th e information

. Th e Agenc y ma y no t conduc t o r sponsor , and aperso n i s no t require dt o respon d to , acollectio n o f informatio n unles s i

t display s a currentl y vali d OM B contro l number

. Th e OM B contro l number s fo r EPA' s regulation s are liste d in 4 0 CF RPar t 9 an d 4 8 CF

RChapter 15

. Sen d comment s o n th e Agency' s nee d fo r thi s information , th e accurac y o f th e provide dburde n estimates , and any suggeste d method s fo r minimizin g responden t

burden , includin g throug h th e us e o f automate d collectio n technique s t o th e Director , OPP E Regulator

y Informatio n Division , U.S

. Environmental Protectio n Agenc y (2137) , 40 1 M St

. S.W. , Washingto n D.C

. 20460 ; an d t o th e Offic e o f Informatio n an d Regulator y Affairs , Offic e o f Managemen t

an d Budget , 72 5 17t

h Street , N.W. , Washingto n D.C

. 20503 , Attention : Des k Office r fo r EPA

. Includ e th e EP

A IC R number an d OM B contro l number i n an y correspondence

.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RCHANGE S T O THE 4 0 CFRPART S 5 1 an d 52 PS D AN D NS RAPPLICABILIT Y REQUIREMENT S FORMODIFICATION S T O EXISTIN G SOURCE S Page 32