# EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

## Office of Air and Radiation Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

____________________________________________________________________________________ November 20 11 

# DR**AFT SUPPORTING**

**STATEMENT FOR THE PART 70 STAT**  **E OPERATING PERMIT**  **PROGRAM**

**prepared by Jeff Herring, Environm**  **ental Scientist Air Quality Policy Division**  **Operating Perm its Group** 

**EPA #1587. 12** E

- 1 The approved burden l evel in the prev ious ICR was 4. 2 million hours per ye ar for sources, 1. 3 million hours per year for perm itting authorities (PAs), and 33 thousand hours for the Federal government; for a total of 5. 6 million hours each ye ar. The current I CR predicts 4.0 million, 1. 3 millio n, and 3 7 thousand hours, respectively , for each resp ondent group, for a total of 5. 3 million hours each year . Overall, this is an expected decrease of 211 thousand hours. This small decrease in burden primarily reflects the benefits of reductions in permit modification activities brought about b y the implementation of the Flexible Air Permits rule and a decrease in source population and existing permits based on updated data available from permitting authorities . For sources, this is a decrease in burden o f 1 99 thousand hours , due to the same reasons as for permitting authorities

. The Agency predicts States and other PA s will incur a burden decrease of about 15 thousand hours per ye ar and the Federal government will incur an increase of about 3 thousand hour s per ye ar . **TA BLE E**  **- 1**  **BURDEN CHA NGE FROM DECEMBER 2007 ICR TO CURRENT ICR** 

**Av erage**  **An nual**  **Burden in November 2007 ICR**  **Av erage**  **An nual**  **Burden in ICR Renewal**  **Difference**

**Sources** 4,176,069 3 , 977 , 118 - 1 98,951 **P A**  **s** 1,349,570 1,3 34 , 766

- 14,804 **Federal** 33,389 3 6 , 583 3,194 **TOTA L**  5,559,028 5,3 48 ,4 6 7

- 210 ,5 61
Table E

- 1 displays the expected annual burden and the expected change in annual burden for sources, PA s, and the Federal government for implementation of the part 70 Operating Permits Program between the 3

- ye ar period covered by

this I CR renewal, May 20 12 and April 201 5

. Of the 5. 3 million hours the Agency anticipates it will take to perform all the functions required each year, about 7 5 percent of the burden applies to sources. However, the magnitude of the total expected burden can be misleading due to the number of permitted sources. For the 15,940 sources included in this analysis, the average expected burden is relativel y small

– just over 6 weeks of a full

- time employee's time. Permi tting authoriti es incur about 2 4 percent of the burden of part 70 management, with the total burden spread between a significantly smaller **Executive Summary**E

- 2 number of entities compared to sources. On average, the Agency estimates the burden associated with the part 70 Operating Permits Program will be about 1 1 , 9 00 hours per year per PA. Each PA can e xpect to expend an average of 8 4 hours of effort per source each ye ar, at a cost of about $ 3 , 9 00 per permit. However, PA burden cannot be considered an Unfunded Mandate because the net cost to PA s for their management of an operating permits program must, by law, be passed on to the PA's sources through the permit fee. The cost of permits to sources must be of sufficient magnitude to fully offset all permit management costs. Hence, the true annu al cost to permitting authorities under title V is zero, and the true annual cost to sources is $ 2 2 7 million, approximately $ 1 4 , 2 00 per source per ye ar. The decrease in burden for source s and permitting authorities compared to the 2007 IC R renewal is primarily due reductions in the number of permit modification activities performed each ye ar due to implementation of the Flexible Permits (FAP) rule. Secondary to this , compared to the 2007 ICR renewal, some of the burden decreases are due to updated data from permitting authorities about the numbers of existing sources and permits and updated wage rates

. Since the 2007 I CR renewal , EPA promulgated two new regulatory revisions to part 70 and part 71 : the Flexible A ir Permits Rule 1 and the GHG Tailoring rul e 2

. OMB has previously approved IC R change s related to these two rule changes and we incorporate th em into this renewal and update them to match the current state of program implementation ( s ee ICR change justification documentation for the Flexible Air Permit s Rule 3 and the GHG Tailoring Rule ) 4

. These change justification documents are included in the docket for this ICR renewal . The first rule resulted in a net reduction in burden for a large number of existing sources, while the second resulted in an increase in burden for a modest number of newly subject sources and small increases in burden for a large number of existing sources. The two revisions resulted in a net reduction in burden when compared to the 2007 ICR renewal. Since the changes in burden are caused by updated data on the

1 Operating Permit Programs, Flexible Air Permits Rule, Final Rule (74 FR 51418, October 6 2009). 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, Final Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010). 3 Information Collection Request for Changes to the Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, the Part 71 Operating Permits Regulations, and the Parts 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Regulation and Non

- Attainment New Sources Review Regulations for Flexible Air Permits, November 2008, EPA tracking # 1587.10. 4 Information Collection Request for State Operating Permit Regulations (40 CFR part 70) Change Justification, EPA tracking # 1587.11.E

- 3 number of sources and permits, rather than changes in information collection requirements that have not already been approved b y OMB, there are no new information collection requirements contained in this analysis

. The burden and cost increase for F ederal (EPA) activities compared to the 2007 renewal are due to increased EPA review related to implementation of the GHG Tailoring rule , which is greater than the burden decrease for EPA epected from implementation of the Flexib le Air Permit rule. In accordance with the analy tical requirements established under the Regulatory

Flexibility

Act (RFA) and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Agency has determined that there are no adverse effects to b e identified vis

- à

- vis small entities and small businesses. Note that EPA has not made any changes in regulatory requirements or policy

that would impose any

new information collection requirements for small business . This I CR renewal does show a small decrease in overall burden hours due to the update in the number of existing permits and the effects of the Flexible Air Permit rule

.1

**Table of Contents Executive**  **Summary.................................................. ..**  **... ............E**  **- 1**  **1. Identification of the Information Col** **lection...... ..........**  **...... .**  **... .**  **. .**  **.........1 2.**  **Need and Use of the Collection........................ .........**  **... ..**  **...... .**  **........3 3.**  **Non -** **Duplication, Consultation, and Other Collection Criteria..........................................**  **........... ......**  **. ........5**  **4. The Respondents and the Information Requested......**  **.......... ..**  **...........8 5.**  **The In formation Collected** 

**– Collection Methodology**  **a nd Information**  **Management. ...........................**  **.. ...**  **.......... .........12**  **6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection......**  **........ ...**  **.... .......14**  **Attachment 1 Assumptions for Part 70 ICR Ren**  **ewal.................. .........**  **... ...**  **.....................2 9**  **Attach ment**  **2 Title V of the Clean Air Act, t**  **he Statutory Requirements For the Respondent Information........................**  **.......... ......**  **. ..........**  **.. ..........4**  **4 Attachment**  **3 Analysi**  **s of Part 70 State Program Evaluation s For ICR Renewal Purposes**  **( 1587.07).........**  **............... ...**  **.............. ...**  **......... ........**  **............... ....**  **... ..**  **......5 5**  **Attachment 4**  **Federal Register Notice ................................................**  **... ...**  **............ ..6**  **1**2

This analysis is titled: " Draft Supporting Statement for the State Operating Permit Program ." Itfulfills the Agency's requirements under the Pap erwork Reduction Act (PRA) to determine, report, and periodicall y update the regulatory burden associated with the Operating Permits Program, codified in 40 CFR part 70. This report has been ass igned EPA tracking number 1587. 12 . The OMB tracking number for this ICR is 2060

- 0243.
Title V of the Clean Air Act requires States to develop and implement a program for issuing operating permits to all sources that fall under any Act definition of major and certain other non

- major sources that are subject to Federal air quality regulations. The Act further requires EPA to develop regulations that establish the minimum requirements for those State operating permits programs and to oversee their implementation. The EPA regulations setting forth requirements for the operating permits programs to be implemented by

state and local agencies were codified at 40 CFR part 70 on July 21, 1992. The activities that will occur during the period of this I CR include:

• permitting authorities issuing the remaining initial permit s;
• sources submitting semi

- annual mo nitoring and annual compliance certification reports;

• permitting authorities reviewing those reports;

• sources submitting applications for permit revisions;

• permitting authorities processing permit revisions;

• sources appl ying for permit renewal;

• permitting authorities renewing permits;

• newly

subject sources submitting permit applications; and

• permitting authorities issuing new initial permits. All of these data are made available for public review and comment. Th e activities to carry out these tasks are considered mandatory and necessary

for implementation of title V and the proper operation of the operating permits program. The information will also be available for public inspection at any time in the offices of the permitting authorities. The Agency

anticipates annualized direct costs of the part 70 program for the three ye ars of the I CR to subject sources to be approximately $ 49 6 million. These represent the direct administrative costs for 15,940 sources, or approximately $ 10, 4 00 per source per ye ar ( 25 0 hours per source per year). The Agency estimates the cost of the part 70 permit program for the three ye ars of the ICR to permitting auth orities to be approximately $ 18 4 million ( about $ 3 , 9 00 and 8 4 hours per source per year) while Federal costs for the three **1 Identification of the Information Collection** 

**1.2 Description** 3

ye ars of the ICR will be approximate ly $ 5

. 0 million ( about $ 100 and 2 hours per source per year).

In implementing title V of the Act and EPA's part 70 operating permit regulations, State and local permitting authorities must develop programs and submit them to EPA for approval (section 502(d)). Sources subject to the program must prepare operating permit applications and submit them to the permitting authority within 1 year after approval of the program b y EPA (section 503). Permitting authorities will then issue permits (section 503(c)) and thereafter enforce, revise, and renew those permits at no more than 5

- year intervals (section 502(b)(5)). Permit applications and proposed permits will be provi ded to, and are subject to review b y, EPA (section 505(a)). The permit and all information submitted by

a source shall be available for public review except for confidential information which will be protected from disclosure (section 503(e)) and the publi c shall be given public notice of, and an opportunity for comment on, permit actions (section 502(b)(6)). Sources will submit monitoring reports semi

- annually and compliance certification reports annually , to the permitting authorities (section 503(b)(2)). The EPA has the responsibility

to oversee implementation of the program (section 502(c)). A copy of sections 502 through 504 of title V of the Act are in Attachment 2

.

The burden estimates included in this I CR include the total burden of implementing the part 70 operating permits program. For the 3

- ye ar period covered b y this I CR, all State programs (including those portions of States for which an operating permits program is being implemented b y a local agency) have been submitted to EPA and h ave been granted full approval. All permit applications have been submitted to State or local permitting authorities except for sources that will be newly subject to the program. To carry out the remaining activities of the program (listed above in section 1.2) permitting authorities must obtain the required information from sources subject to the program and they

must then carry

out their functions (e.g., permit issuance, renewal, and revision and report review) based on the information.

The information included in this I CR is based upon the best data sources available to the Agency at this time. However, inconsistencies in PA reporting techniques, incomplete **2 Need and Use of th**  **e Collection 2.1 Need/Authority for the Collection** 

**2.2 Practical**  **U tility/Users of the Data** 

**2.3 Caveats and Considerations** 4

data sets, and sampling limitations imposed upon the Agency by the Paperwork Reduction Act necessitated a certain amount of extrapolation and "best

- guess" estimations by permitting authority and Agency experts. Consequently, the reader should not consider the conclusions to be an exact representation of the level of burden or cost that will occur during the three years of this I CR. Instead, this ICR should be considered a directionally

correct assessment of the impact the Part 70 Permits Program will have over the next three ye ars. Throughout this ICR, the reader will observe estimated values that show accuracy to the single hour or dollar. Because this I CR estimates the expected impact of the Operating Permits Program, reporting values at the single unit level may be misleading. In most situations, the proper way to present estimated data would be to determine an appropriate level of precision and truncate values accordingl y, usually in terms of thousands or millions of units. For instance, a spreadsheet generated estimation of $5,456,295 would be presented in the text as $5.5 (millions) or $5,456 (thou sands). One problem with such an approach is the loss of data richness when the report contains a mixture of very large and very small numbers. Such was the case with this ICR, where source values are consistently

in the millions and Federal values in the tens of thousands. Consequently , to avoid the loss of information through rounding, this I CR reports all values at the single unit level and reminds the reader that there is no implied precision inherent in this style of reporting.5

While much of the information requested under this ICR existed prior to the creation of the operating permits program, an operating permit is a compilation of existing requirements; the purpose being to bring all requirements applicable to a source into one document. Th e intent of this compilation is to (1) resolve any questions of applicability at the time of permit issuance, (2) provide certainty t o sources as to their obligations, and (3) provide the public access to a source's obl ig ations and compliance status. The Agency has no leeway

to not require such previousl y existing information under this ICR since consolidation of the information into the operating permit and providing public access is the whole purpose of the statute. To the extent that similar informatio n was previously collected (e.g., State permits under State implementation plans), the part 70 program may replace those activities thus avoiding duplication of efforts.

For any existing rule, § 3507(g) of the PRA limits the length of time for which th e Director may approve a collection of information to 3 years. The last I CR renewal (EPA tracking number 1 587.0 7 ) was granted on September 12 , 2007 for the period ending September 30, 2010

. On April 22, 2009, the expiration date of the ICR renewal was ext ended to April 30, 2012 as part of the approval of collection changes associated with the promulgation of the final Flexible Air Permits rule, EPA tracking number 1587.10

. Except for information collection in notices of proposed rules or those exempted under the emergency

processing provisions of 44 U.S.C. § 3507(j), the PRA requires EPA to solicit comment on each proposed information collection, including the renewal or modification of any existing I CR. **[ We will update**  **the following after the first FR**  **not ice is**  **published in December 2011**  ] On February 9, 2007 (72 FR 6233), the Agency published a notice soliciting comment on an analysis of burden for the part 70 program for the 3

- year period of this ICR (i.e., J uly 1, 2007 to June 30

, 2010). A copy of the F

ebruary 2007 notice is attached as Attachment 4

. The EPA received no public comments

.
In updating this ICR, EPA relied on the latest information on the number of sources subject to the program and the number of permits issued which is provided to EPA’ s regional offices, semiannually , by permitting authorities within their jurisdictions. Also, EPA contacted the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officers (STAPPA/ALAPCO), now known as the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) , and during a conference call **3 Non**  **- Duplication, Consultation, and Other Collection Criteria**  **3.1 Non**  **- Duplication** 

**3.2 Public Notice Requireme**  **nts**

**3.3 Consultations** 6

with them EPA received input on the draft ICR renewal for part 70 that was released for public comment on February 2, 2007

. Consistent with NACAA’s input during that consultation, changes were made to burden estimates for certain activities performed b y permitting authorities and EPA. Also, consistent with NACAA’s concerns, in section 4.2.2, we are providing more detailed descriptions of permitting authority activities

. The burden estimates for specific activities for this ICR renewal continues to rely on consultations conducted for the previous ICR s , as shown below. Permitting authorities contacted b y EPA:

• Tom Micai, New Jersey DEP, 609

- 292

- 0834

• Lisa McClung, West V irginia DEP, 304

- 558

- 0885

• Way

ne Anderson, Mississippi DEQ, 601

- 961

- 5153

• Rick McVaigh, San Joaquin UAPCD, 209

- 497

- 2000 Geri O. Sullivan of STAPPA/ALAPCO (now NACAA) contacted the following members and provided their responses to EPA:

• Jim Ross, Illinoi s EPA, 217

- 782

- 4651

• Brian Fitzgerald, Vermont ANR, 802

- 241

- 3848

• Phil Davis, Alabama DEM, 334

- 271

- 7875

• Curt Marshall, Regional Air Pollution Control Agency (Day ton, OH), 937

- 225

- 4435

• Renee Bashel, Wisconsin DNR, 608

- 266

- 7718 In the 2007 ICR renewal , E PA discussed two other EPA activities that it thought would yi eld additional title V burden information. One of these activities was a nationwide, comprehensive evaluation of the majority of title V operating permits programs, which was completed September 2006. The second activity was a stakeholder effort to assess all aspects of the title V program, currently lead by the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. (This effort is known as the Title V Task F orce.) The first activity , the State program evaluations, w as not specifically designed to provide information for purposes of estimating burdens and cost of title V programs but it did result in information that generall y supports the assumptions of the prior ICR, including those based on input from State and loc al permitting authorities. This resulted in only one assumption for permitting authorities that changed, that is the frequency that public comments results in changes to draft permits (see T able 8, section 6.3.2 ) , which did not lead to significant changes in overall burden for permitting authorities. The second activity , the Title V Task F orce, resulted in recommendations on ways that EPA could improve the effectiveness of the title V programs, such as through rulemaking or the issuance of guidance, but it did not result in any information useful for estimating burdens for this I CR , and no guidance or7

rulemaking resulting from this effort are effective at this time . (For more on the Title V Taskforce, s ee http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/permits/taskforce.html )

In general, the information collections included in this I CR are one

- time submittals per activity (e.g., permit appl ication, permit issuance, and permit revision). Exceptions are deviation reports that must be submitted "promptly" and the semi

- annual monitoring data report and the annual compliance certification. These reports are required by section 503(b)(1) and (2), respectively , of the Act and EPA has no leeway to require less fr equent reporting.
Part 70 requires retention of all monitoring data and support information and all permit applications, proposed permits, and final permit records for a period of 5 ye ars. These records are necessary

to fulfill the intent of title V to assure compliance with applicable requirements. Questions regarding the obligations of a source and its status of compliance can be resolved through such records.
All information, other than confidential business information, relating to the permitting of sources under this program and related to compliance monitoring are required by section 503(e) of the Act to be subject to public review at all times. Section 70.4(b)(3)(viii) requires the permitting authority to make available to the public any permitting information except that entitled to protection from disclosure under section 114(c) of the Act. Protected information may be required to be submitted directly to EPA. Such information will be stored in EPA's Confidential Business Information office. **3.4 Effects of Less Frequent Collection** 

**3.5 General Guidelines** 

**3.6 Confidentiality** 8

Respondents to this information collection come from two groups: permitting authorities (PAs) and sources required to obtain an operating permit. All States are required b y title V to develop a part 70 operating permits program. In many inst ances, local agencies administer a program in their jurisdiction in lieu of the State and are thereb y subject to the same program requirements as States. In total, there are 112 State, territorial, and local agencies administering operating permits program s. Under title V, all major stationary sources must obtain an operating permit. 5 Some non

major sources may

also be subject to the program if they are subject to a Federal standard such as a New Source Performance Standard (including standards for hazardous air pollutants). Some of these sources have been exempted from the program or the applicability

of the program requirements are deferred until some future date. Information provided to the EPA by

permitting authorities indicates that 14,988 sources are now subject to the program, representing more than 500 SI C codes. Additional information (including SIC codes) for major sources subject to title V may be found by

accessing the following web page: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/data /systems/air/afsmajorsources.p df

All activities associated with the operating permits program are considered information collection activities and are re flected in the IC R for part 70. Following are lists of the operating permits program data items su bmitted by sources and permitting authorities and program activities performed by permitting authorities and sources.

**Permitting Authorities** (submitted to EPA)

• Applications for initial permits, permit revisions, and permit renewals

• Draft/proposed permits, permit revisions, or permit renewals

• Final permit

• Annual report of enforcement activities

5 All definitions of “major” in the Act. **4 The Respondents and the Information Requested**  **4.1 Respondents** 

**4.2 Information Requested** 

**4.2.1 Data Items Submitted Including Recordkeeping Requirements** 9

**Sources** (submitted to permitting authority)

• Application for initial permits, permit revisions, and permit renewals

• Deviation reports that must be filed "promptly "

• Semi

- annual monitoring report

• Annual compliance certification report

**PERMITTING AUTHORITY ACTIVITIES**

• **Program administration:** Responding to inquiries about the program, developing internal and external program guidance, developing rules, forms , and other mechanisms to implement the program, planning, attending program training, permit fee collection, providing source training, attending EPA meetings and conferences, providing public education, and other program related activities

. • **Permit appli cation review**  **,** in cluding discussions with a source concerning the completeness of the permit application , review of applications for completeness and technical approach, and requests for additional information, when necessary

. • **Draft permit preparation ,**  in cluding contact with the source to clarify the specific requirements that appl y, drafting the “statement of basis,” drafting gap

- filling monitoring, when necessary , and drafting permit terms and conditions to reflect existing requirements

. 6

• **Comment period notification:**  P roviding notice to the public, EPA, and affected States of the comment period on a draft permit (for initial permit issuance, permit renewal and significant permit modification). Affected State notification is also required for minor permi t modificati on . • **Public hearing administration:** Administering a public hearing, when appropriate , for initial permit issuance, permit renewal, and significant permit modification

. • **Interaction with EPA** on a proposed permit, including negotiations, re

- drafting, and formal EPA objections (including those attributable to public petitions)

.

6 This involves writing permit terms that reflect the “applicable requirements” that apply to sources
. These “applicable requirements” (e.g., MACT and CAM) are not required b y part 70; they

are required by

other Federal rules and their burden are counted in the I CRs for those rules. Nevertheless, writing permit terms to reflect those requirements are part 70 burdens. Also, part 70 burden include imposing additional monito ring through part 70, such as gap

- filing monitoring (as clarified in a December 15, 2006 interpretive rule , 71 FR 75422 ). **4.2.2 Respondent Activities** 10

• **Response to public comments:** Anal yz ing public comments and revising the draft permit accordingl y , when appropriate

. • **Permit issuance:** Formal izing permits, placing copies of final permits on public websites, entering information into EPA’s permit website (Air Facility System), and providing copies to sources

. • **General permits a**  **dm inistration**  (Burden for issuing general permits included with other permit issuance burden)

. • **Permit revision**  : Modifying permits to reflect changes at the source otherwise prohibited by

the permit , including public participation and affected State review, when needed

. • **Permit renewal:** Updating the permit to reflect changes at the source, not captured through permit revision (includes reviewing application, drafting changes, public notice, public hearings (when needed), responding to public comments (when needed), and permit issuance)

. • **Monitoring and compliance certification:** Reviewing deviation and semi annual monitoring reports and annual compliance certification reports required b y part 70, and any enforcement activities related to such reviews

. • **Annual reporting:** Preparing and submitting to EPA annually a report of the State's enforcement activities

. **S OURCE ACTIVITIES** 

• **Permit application preparation** , including internal meetings, permitting authority discussions, management and legal department involvement, responsible official certification, contractor services

. • **Draft permit development:** Interaction with the permitting authority on draft permit development

. • **Gap -**  **filling development:** Development of “periodic ” monitoring or reporting, where necessary

. • **Public hearing participation**

• **Operate gap -**  **filling periodic monitoring:** Operation of monitoring equipment and the taking and keeping of records, where necessary

. • **Monitoring reports:** Preparing deviation and semi

- annual monitoring data reports and annual compliance certification s , including data anal ys is, responsible official certification, and report submissio n . • **Permit revisions:** Preparing applications for revisions

. • **Permit renewal :**  Preparing permit renewal applications

. • **Other activities** associated with permit renewal, including discussions with permitting authority an d public hearing participation

.11 **EPA ACT IVITIES** 

• **Review proposed permits** and permit revisions to determine if they provide for compliance with all applicable requirements

. • **Review monitoring** provisions of proposed permits or permit revisions to see if they contain applicable requirements or to add periodic monito ring if needed

. • **Consult** with the permitting authority on any problems detected in the proposed permit or permit revision including interaction related to fact finding on permit petitions.

• **Program oversight including review of program chan**  **ges** , review annual reports of enforcement activities, program evaluation, issuing notices of def iciency , development of formal EPA responses to public petitions, and applying sanctio ns to States, as appropriate.12

The Agency

will receive proposed permits or permit revisions in hard copy or electronically , depending on permitting authority capability. Each EPA Regional Office has determined with their permitting authorities the most efficient s ys tem to exchange information. Each Regional Office maintains files of permit information only to the extent that the office determines the need for file retention. This will vary depending on factors such as the source (e.g., large, complicated sources vs. small), the ty pe of permit (general vs. full), the number of actions occurring at a source, or the record of the source with respect to compliance. There is no need for EPA to maintain complete files of permit actions for public access since these are maintained by permitting authorities.

Title V provides few ways to mitigate the effects of operating permit regulations on small entities. Under section 502(a) of the Act, the Agency has exempted or deferred applicability

of title V for those non

- major source categories for which compliance with title V will b e impractical, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome. (For example, see a recent final rule, 70 FR 75320, December 19, 2005, which exempted a large number of small sources). The Agency has not anal yz ed how many of these non

- major sources will be small bu sinesses, but believes that a large percentage may fall under that definition. For industries with a large number of identical sources (e.g., bulk gasoline distribution terminals and gravel mining operations) general permits may be used to meet the requirements of title V ( instead of a source

- specific permit) . General permits can reduce the burden of the program on small businesses. In accordance with the analy tical requirements established under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA) and the Small Busine ss Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Agency

has determined that, because this I CR does not significantly increase burden relative to its predecessor, there are no adverse effects to be identified vis

à

- vis small entities and small businesse s.

Items identified in section 4.2.1 are listed below with their schedule for submission. **5 The Information Collected** 

**– Collection Methodology and Information Management**  **5.1 Collection Methodology and Management** 

**5.2 Small Entity Flexibility** 

**5.3 Collection Schedule** 13

**Permitting Authorities (submitted to EPA):**

• Application for permits, permit revision, and permit renewal should be submitted to EPA with the proposed permit or permit revision

. • Draft/proposed permits, permit revisions, or permit renewals should be submitted when the State wants to commence the EPA review period of the prop osed permit or permit revision

. • The final permit should be submitted to EPA soon after it is issued, but there is no deadline in part 70 for this submission

. • The annual report of enforcement activities is submitted to EPA annually , but p art 70 does not specify

a date

. • Responding to program evaluation questionnaires

. **Sources (submitted to perm itting authority):** 

• New permit applications are due within 1 year after a source becomes subject to the pro gram . • Permit revision applications are submitted by a source when it wishes to make a change to its permit. There is no schedule for these submissio ns in that they are at the discretion of the source

. • Permit renewal applications are due at least 6 months prior to expiration of the permit

. • The semi

- annual periodic monitoring report is due to be submitted to the permitting authority twice a ye ar on dat es specif ied by the permitting authority

. • The annual compliance certification report is due annually on a date specif

ied by the permitting authority . • Deviation reports (frequency is defined by

permitting authority but at least every six months)

.14

Historically , the Agency

has identified 116 permitting authorities for title V purposes. This number includes several governmental agencies that do not manage operating permits programs. In actuality , there are 112 permitting authorities acting within the United States

. Forty- nine S tates operate as permitting authorities, with California employing 34 local air quality management organizations in lieu of a statewide permitting authority. Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Washington D.C. all have operating permits programs, and there are 26 county or regional permitting authorities within S tates that operate in a manner similar to that of California. As of July

2011 , the Agency

identified 14,988 sources subject to permitting under part 70, 14 , 650 of which have already received permits, representing a backlog of 338 sources. We consider sources who have not yet received initial permits to be in the backlog if the deadline for the permitting authority to act on the application has passed and a permit has not been issued. Also, between May 2011 and April 2012 , EPA estimates that 100 new sources will become subject to permitting, and that an additional 185 permits will be issued ( i.e., comprised of 100 new sources and 85 backlogged sources ). Thus, at the beginning of the period covered b y this anal ys is, EPA estimates there will be a source population of 15,088 sources, 14,835 issued permits, and a backlog of 253 permits. In addition, during the three years of this ICR we assume that the backlog of initial permi ts will be reduced in equal amount each ye ar, eliminating the backlog by the end of the period of analysis. Also, 300 sources will become newly subject to permitting during the period of the anal ys is as a normal consequence of economic growth 7 and 552 sources will become newly

subject because they

trigger permitting requirements for GHGs pollutants under the GHG Tailoring Rule

. 8 Table 1 summarizes the number of permitting authorities and the number of permits to be issued during the period of this ICR renew al. In the original 1992 RIA and I CR for the Operating Permits Regulations, the Agency anticipated 34,324 sources would be required to obtain operating permits. Since that time, the Agency

has offered additional regulatory relief to sources b y providing a vehicle through which sources defined as major based upon their potential to emit can, b y contractuall y limiting operations, reduce their potential to emit to under the major source threshold (generall y 100 tons per year of a criteria pollutant, 25 tons of a mixture of HAPs, or 10 tons of a single HAP). The success of this "sy nthetic minor" program can

7 The 2007 ICR renewal assumed there would be 50 new sources per year, while data collected by EPA from permitting authorities suggest s 100 sources per year is a more accurate assumption. 8 This number is based on assumptions made in the RIA and ICR for the GHG Tailoring rule for sources that wo uld become subject to part 70 solely based on Step 2 of the Tailoring rule. **6 Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Co**  **llection 6.1**  **Estimating the Number of Respondents**15

readil y be seen b y the significant drop (over 16,000 sources) in the number of affected major sources.
**TA BLE 1** 

**IDENTIFICA**

**TION OF A FFECTED ENTITIES A** **ND PE RMIT ISSUA** **NCE SCHEDULE PERMITTING A**  **UTHORITIES SOURCES**  State Permitting Authorities PLUS: California Local Authorities PLUS: Territories and Possessions PLUS: District of Columbia PLUS: Other L ocal PAs Total Permitting Authorities 49 34 2 1 26 112 Total Population of Part 70 Sources as of Ju ne 2011 Less: Sources Permitted Before June 2011 Less: Sources P ermitted July 2011 t hrough April 2012 Total Sources E xpected to Be Permitted through April 2012 Plus: Newl y Subjected Sources through April 2012 Sources re maining to Be Permitted as of May 2012 Percent of Sources Expected to Be Covered by General Permits Existing Sources Expected to Be Covered Less: Sources Covered through June 2007 Existing Sources Issued General Permits During this ICR Plus New Subject Sources During ICR Per iod (3 years) Total Permits to be Issued in Year 1 Less: New Sources Covered by General Permits Single
- source Permits to be Issued in Year 1 Total Permits to be Issued in Year 2 Less: New Sources Covered by G eneral Permits Single
- source Permits to be Issued in Year 2 Total Permits to be Issued in Year 2 Less: New Sources Covered by General Permits Single
- source Permits to Be Issued in Year 3 Total (single) Permits Expected to Be Issued During This ICR 14,650 185 14,835 100 14,988

253 16% 2 , 374 2,374 0 852 369 0 369 369 0 369 368 0 368 1105 Another example of regulatory relief incorporated into the operating permits program is the general permit, which allows large numbers of homogenous major sources of pollution to receive the same permit. This program h as been successful in allowing approximately 16% (more than 2, 3 00 part 70 sources ) of all part 70 sources a cost

- effective alternative to single

- source permitting. The EPA estimate s that by April 2012 (when the period of this ICR begins), the total population of part 70 sources will have grown to 15,088 and that 16% of these sources ( 2 , 374 sources) will have received general permits. Because general permits are typicall y relatively easy to issue, the Agency

assumes that all existing sources eligible for gen eral permits will have received them by May 2012 and that none of the 253 backlogged sources will be issued general permits during the three ye ars of this I CR. We further assume that none of the estimated 852 newly subject sources will receive general permits during the period of this I CR.16

Data collected b y EPA suggests a renewal backlog of 3,335 permits as of July 2011 . These permits will need to be renewed during the 3

- year ICR period in order to eliminate the backlog. Additional permits will become sub ject to renewal during the IC R period because their initial or previous renewal permits are expiring. Thus, the total amount of permits projected to be renewed during the IC R period is 13,295 . EPA assumes that the total number of permits to be renewed in e ach ye ar of the I CR will be one third of the backlog plus whatever permits would normally come up for review because their permits are at the end of their 5

- ye ar term, or 4,431 the first year, 4,432 the second ye ar, and 4,432 the third ye ar. This analysis also assumes that 84 percent of renewal permits will be issued as single

- source permits and 16 percent as general permits

.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended b y persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or pro vide information to or for a Federal agency

. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to compl y with any previously

applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The Agency derived its estimates in Tables 2 and 3 from previous consultations with fewer than nine respondents from the regulated community

on the burdens and cos ts of the permit programs, data collected by EPA from permitting authorities on the numbers of permit s issued, renewed, and modified in the course of program administration, and based on our anal ys is of data submitted within the context of State and local permitting program evaluations

. The assumptions in Table 2, 3 and 4 are unchanged from the 2007 I CR renewal. Table 4 includes Federal burden estimates for each of the EPA activities discussed above in section 4.2.2. These activities remain unchanged from the last I CR renewal. Also, there are several new activities or changes in activity levels compared to the 2007 I CR renewal that are related to the Flexible Air Permits and GHG Tailoring rules, and for the sake of clari ty , we discuss those later in this document. **6.2 Estimating Burden** 17 **TA BLE 2**  **AV ERA** **GE SOURCE BURDEN BY A CTIVITY**  **AC TIVITY**  **BURDEN PER SOURCE OR PERMIT (Hours)** Prepare Application 300 Draft Permits Interaction 40 Gap
-filling Monitoring Development 40 Public Hearing Participation 10 Operate Gap
-filling Perio dic Monitoring 200 Prepare Monitoring Reports 80 Permits Revisions S ignificant Permit Modifications (10% of Permits) Minor Permit Modifications (50% of Permits) Administrative Amendments (50% of Permits) 80 40 8 Re
- application of General Perm it 2 Permit Renewal 200 Other Activities 20
**TA BLE 3**  **PERMITTING A UTHORITY BURDEN BY A** **CTIVITY AC**  **TIVITY BURDEN PER PERMIT OR PROGRA** **M (Hours)** Program Administration 3,500 / PA Permit Application Review 100 / permit Draft Permits Preparation 150 / permi t Comment Period Notification 10 / permit Hold Public Hearings 100 / hearing Interaction with EPA 20 / permit Analyze Public Comments 40 / permit Permits Issuance 8 / permit General Permits 80 / PA Permit Revision Significant Permit Modificatio n Minor Permit Modification Administrative Amendment 9 0/ permit 3 0 / permit 5 / permit Permits Renewal 9 0 / permit Renew General Permits 10 / permit Review Monitoring and Compliance Cert

. Report 5 / report / permit Annual Enforcement Activity R eporting 40 / PA18 **TA BLE 4**  **EPA A** **CT IVITIES**  **AC TIVITIES**  **BURDEN HOURS PER PERMIT / PROGRA** **M** Review Proposed Permits* New Permits Significant Permit Modifications Minor Permit Modifications 20 / permit 8 / revision 1 / revision Consultation New Permits (25%) Significant Permit Modifications (25%) Minor Permit Modifications (25%) 8 / permit 8 / permit 1 / permit Program Oversight 50 / program / year Review the Annual Enforcement Activity Reports 10 / report * Includes the burden for review of periodic monitoring

Historically , the Agency

had assumed 70 percent of all source burden categories would be performed in

- house, with the remaining 30 percent delegated to contractors. 9 However, this renewal incorporates the previous ICR reassessment of that assumption , which is based on allocation of contractor support for only the initial permit application task. This anal ys is assumes one

- third of the source's initial permit application preparation would be performed b y contracted labor. The remainder of the source's tasks would be done entirel y in

- house. In the 2000 ICR renewal, EPA determined source wage rates based on data from the 1997 Statistical Abstract of the United States , adjusted to 1999 dollars using the Employ ment Cost Inde x (ECI). The Agency estimated the total hourly cost of in

- house labor using the wage rates for technical support staff (at full time), administrative staff (at one

- eleventh time), and administrative support staff (at one

- eighth time), adding in the costs f or benefits, sick leave/vacation, and general overhead. The resulting hourl y cost was $32 per hour for in

- house labor. In the 2004 ICR renewal, EPA calculated an updated hourly cost for in

- house labor using the same methodology . At that time, the hourly c ost was $34 per hour. For this I CR renewal, the Agency was unable to duplicate the methodology used in 2000 and 2004 because the Bureau of the Census has changed the data reported in the Statistical

9 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Screening for Operating Permits Regulations, EPA

- 450/2

- 91

- 011, June 1992, pp. 16

- 17. **6.3 Estimating Costs**  **6.3.1 Estimating Source Costs** 19

Abstract of the United States . Instead, EPA updated the hourl y cost for in

- house labor b y adjusting the 2004 value (in 2003 dollars) to 2006 dollars using the ECI for white

- collar workers in private industry

. Then in the change justification for the GHG Tailoring rule, we adjusted the wage rates based on an in d ex for December 2007 relative to December 2006 for private industry

workers, management, professional, and related workers, as contained in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employ ment Cost Index Historical Listing: Current Dollar M arch 2001

- March 2009

. This calculation resulted in an hourl y cost of $3 9 for in

- house labor for sources as detailed below in Table 5.
**TA BLE 5** 

**DETERMINA**

**TION OF SOURCE IN -**  **HOUSE and Contractor**  **BURDEN COSTS** factor ECI Cost Cost 2007 2006 2007 * 
03179

. 0 * 8

. 103 8

. 103 1

. 107 * / 83

. 37 $ 2007 

 hour factor ECI
In

- hour Cost2007 = $37.83 /hour x 1.032 = $39.03/hour Contractor Cost 2007 = $143/hour x 1.032 = $147.58/hour

. For contracted labor, operating permit management and reporting require the same skills employed b y the EPA's consultants. For the 2000 ICR, a s an estimation of a source's consulting costs, the Agency averaged the fully

loaded cost of three environmental contractors at the PL2 (secretarial support), PL 3 (technical), and PL 4 (administration) leve ls, applying the methodology employed below in Table 6 for establishing a Federal and PA FTE wage rate. The fully loaded hourl y cost calculated at that time for Industry

hired consultants is $ 268 (1999 dollars)

. Therefore, the hourly rate for preparing the initial permit application w as set at $ 111 for the 2000 ICR (1/3 of $ 268 plus 2/3 of $3 2 ). All other s ource tasks were estimated using the in

- house hourly cost of $3 2 per hour. Because of the confidential nature of the values used to estimate contractor hourly costs, the exact methodology

was not documented in the 2000 I CR. As a result, for the 2004 ICR renewal EPA used the ECIto update the hourl y cost for preparing initial permit applications, calculating a value of $131 per hour. For the 2007 ICR, EPA used the same approach. The Agency

used the methodology

detailed above in Table 5, except that we started with the value in 1999 dollars ($111 per hour) and used the ECI for 1999 (146.9) in place of the ECI for 2003. This resulted in an hourly cost for preparing an initial permit application of $143. All other source tasks are estimated at the in

- house hourly cost of $3820

per hour, as discussed above. In 2010 , for purposes of calculating the wage rates for purposes of the ICR change justification for the GH G tailoring rule, EPA calculated the wage rates for in

- house and contractor wages as shown in Table 5, which resulted in an in

house wage rate of $39/hour and a contractor rate of $148/hour. This is the wage rates assumed in this I CR renewal.

Historically , the Agency

applied a $34 per hour rate for Federal and State full time employee (FTE) wage rates. During the development of the ICR for the part 71 Federal Operating Permit Regulations, the Agency was instructed by

the Office of General Council (OGC) to compute more accurate estimations of these hourl y costs. To determine the appropriate hourl y wage to appl y to the burden estimation for each respondent , OGC instructed the Agency

to assume the appropriate FTE rate to appl y would be a GS

- 11 Step 3, fully loaded to account for overhead, benefits, and all other appropriate costs. To fully incorporate the cost of that FTE's support staff and managerial costs, the Agency also assumed one

- eleventh of a manager's time (at a GS

- 13, Step 3 level), and one

- eighth of a secretary's time (at a GS

- 6, Step 6 level). Applying the same process for th is IC R renewal , the Agency has determined the appropriate cost of Federal and permitting authority burden at $ 4 6 per hour. Table 6 displays the calculation of this rate.
**TA BL**  **E 6**  **DETERMINA**

**TION OF FEDERA L A**  **ND PERMITTING A UTHORITY BURDEN COSTS**  Annual Salary of P ermit Staff, GS 11 Step 3 (FY 0 7 Schedule)* $ 50,106 .00 Annual Cost of Supervisory Staff, GS 13 S tep 3 (FY 0 7 6 Schedule )* $ 71,415.00 Factor (1/11) 0.09 $ 6,427. 35 Annual Cost of Admin. Support Staff, GS 6 Step 6 (FY 06 Schedule)* $3 3,322 .00 Factor (1/8) 0.13 $4, 331.86 Annual Applicable Salary of Permit Staff $ 60,865.21 Benefits (at 16%) $ 9,738.43 Sick Leave/Vacation (at 10%) $ 6,086.52 General Overhead $1 8,511.67 Total Cost Per FTE $9 5,301.83 Total Hourly Cost (Total Per FTE div ided by 2,080 hours per year) $ 45.77 * http://www.opm.gov/oca/06tables/html/gs.asp, January 4 , 2007 Table 7 lists the burden categories for respondent sources, the number of estimated occurrences for each item, and the exp ected cost for each, based on the burden estimations from Table 2

. Table 8 lists the burden categories for respondent permitting authorities, the expected number of permits or programs involved, and the expected cost for each, based **6.3.2 Estimating PA and Agency Costs** 21

on the burden estimatio ns from Table 3. Table 9 lists the burden categories for Federal (EPA) activities , the number of estimated permits or programs involved, and the expected cost for each, based on the burden estimations from Table 4. Tables 7, 8 and 9 closel y follow the an al ys is of the 2007 I CR renewal without accounting for changes due to the Flexible Air Permits or GHG Tailoring rules . We refer to these tables as the “baseline” analysis later on in this document because they allow the reader to see the effects of this I CR update relative to the 2007 I CR renewal baseline. We later show the changes relative to the FAP and the GHG tailoring rule relative to the baseline in the bottom line section, where we show the totals taking every thing into account

. **TA BLE**  **7 BA** **SELINE BUR**  **DEN A ND COST OF SOURCE A** **CTIVITIES FOR THE 3**  **- YEA**  **R ICR PERIOD AC**  **TIVITY BURDEN HOURS**  **PER PERMIT RA**  **TE PER HOUR**  **AF FECTED** 

**PERMITS TOTA**  **L BURDEN**

**(HOURS) TOTA**  **L COST**

**($ 200**  **7 )**  Prepare Application 300 $1 4 8 852 255,600 $ 37,828 , 8 00 Draft Permit 40 $3 9 1,190 47,600 $ 1, 856,400 Gap Filling Monitoring Development 40 $3 8 595 23,800 $ 928,20 0 Public Hearing Participation 10 $3 9 24 240 $ 9 , 36 0 Operate Gap Filling Monitoring Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 200 $3 9 7 , 418 7 , 602 7 , 786 1, 483 , 6 00

1, 520 ,4 00 1, 557 ,2 00 4 , 561 , 200 $ 57 , 860 , 4 00 $ 59 , 295 , 60 0 $ 60 , 730 , 800 $1 77 , 886 , 800 Prepare Monitoring Reports Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 80 $3 9 1 4 , 835 1 5 , 204 1 5 , 572 1, 186,8 00

1, 216 , 280 1, 245 , 760 3 , 648 , 840 $ 46 , 2 8 5 , 2 00 $ 47 , 434 , 920 $ 48 , 584 ,6 4 0 $1 42 , 304 , 760 Permit Revisions Significant Permit Mod s Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Minor Permit Mods Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Admin

. Amendments Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 80

40

8 $3 9
1, 246 1, 277 1, 308 3,831 6,231 6,385 6,540 19,156
6,231 6,385 6,540 19,156 99,680

102,160 104,640 3 06,480 249,240 249,015 255,060 766,240
49,848 51,080 52,320 1 53 , 248 $ 3,887,520

$ 3,984,240 $ 4,080,960 $1 1 , 952 , 720 $ 9,720,360 $ 9,960,600 $10,202,400 $ 29 , 8 83 , 360
$ 1,944,072 $ 1,992,120 $ 2,040,480 $ 5 , 976,672 General Permit Renewal 2 $3 9 2,127 4,254 $ 1 65 , 906 Permit Renewal 200 $3 9 11,168 2 , 233 , 600 $ 87,110 , 400 Other Activities 20 $3 9 11,168 223 , 360 $ 8 , 711 , 04022 T otals 12, 224 , 462 $ 504,614,418

**TA BLE**  **8 B**  **AS ELINE**  **BURDEN A ND**  **COST OF PERMITTING A UTHORITY**  **ACTIVITIES FOR THE 3**  **- YEA**  **R ICR PERIOD AC**  **TIVITY Burden Hours**  **per Permit**  **Af**

**fected Permits or Programs**  **Total Burden (Hours)**  **Total Cost**

**($ 200**  **7 )**  Program Administration 3,500 /year 112 programs 1,176,000 $ 54 , 096 ,0 0 0 Permit Application Review 100 150 85,200 $ 3,919,200 Draft Permit Preparation 150 323 165,750 $ 7,624,500 Comment Period Notification 10 323 11,050 $ 508,300 Public Hearing 100 6 2,200 $ 101,200 Interaction with EPA 20 323 22,100 $ 1,016,600 Analyzing Public Comments 40 6 880 $ 40,480 Permit Issuance 8 323 8,840 $ 406,640 General Permits Administration 80 /year 112 programs 26,880 $ 1,236,480 Permit Revisions Significant Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 9 0 1, 246 1, 277 1, 308 3 , 8 3 1 1 1 2 ,140 1 14,930 1 17,720 3 44 , 790 $5,158,440

$5,286,780 $ 5,415,129 $ 1 5 , 860 , 340 Minor Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 3 0 6, 231 6, 3 8 5 6 , 540 19,156 186 , 930 191,550 196,200 574,680 $8,598,780 $8,811,300 $9,025,200 $ 2 6 , 435 , 280 Administrative Year 1 Year 2 Y ear 3 5 6,231 6 , 385 6 , 540 19 , 156 3 1 , 155 3 1 , 925 3 2 , 70 0 95 , 780 1, 015 , 250 $1,590,220

$1,602,640 $ 1,615,060 $4, 405 , 880 $ 4 6 , 701 , 5 0 0 Permit Renewals 9 0 11,168 1,005,120 $ 46 , 235 ,5 2 0 Review General Permits 10 2,127 21 , 2 70 $ 978 , 420 Review Monitoring and Compliance Certification Reports Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 4 , 835

1 5 , 202 1 5 , 5 7 2 45,611 2 22 , 525 2 28 ,0 53 2 33 , 580 747,135 $ 1 0 , 236 ,15 0

$1 0 , 490 , 41 5 $ 1 0 , 744 , 680 $ 3 1 , 471 , 245 Annual Enforcement Activity Reporting 40 112 programs 13,4 40 $ 6 18 , 240 Totals 4, 238 , 138 $ 1 94 , 954 , 32523 **TA BLE**  **9 BA** **SELINE BURDEN A**  **ND COST OF EPA**  **A CTIVITIES**  **FOR THE 3 -** **YEA R ICR PERIOD**  **AC TI**  **VITY Burden Hours**  **Af fected Permits**  **or Programs Total Burden**  **(Hours) Total Cost** 

**($ 2006**  **)** Review Permits and Revisions New Permits Renewals Significant Permit Revisions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Minor Permit Revisions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 20 20 8

1 298

558
1, 246 1, 277 1, 308 3,831
6,231 6,385 6,540 19,156 5 , 950 11 , 160
9,968 1 0,216 1 0,464 3 0 , 648
6,231 6,385 6,540 19,156 $ 2 7 3 , 7 00

$ 513 , 360
$ 458,528 $ 469.936 $ 481,344 $1, 409 , 808
$ 286,626 $ 293,710 $ 300,840 $ 881 , 176 Consult with PA New Permits Significant Permit Revisions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

M inor Permit Revisions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 8 8

1 298

3 12 3 19 3 27 958
1,558 1,596 1,635 4 , 789 2 , 380
2, 496 2, 552 2, 616 7,664
1, 558 1, 596 1, 635 4,789 $ 109,480

$1 14 , 816 $1 17 , 392 $1 2 0,336 $3 52 , 544
$7 1,668 $ 73,416 $ 75,210 $ 2 20 , 294 Program Oversight 50 112 programs 16,800 $7 72 , 8 00 Review the Annual Report 10 112 3,360 $ 15 4 , 560 Totals 10 1 , 907 $ 4, 687 , 722

Since the approval of the 2007 I CR renewal, EP A has promulgated several rules which have af fected the burden and cost of the part 70 program , the Flexible Air Permits and the GHG T ailoring rule . The Of

fice of Management and Budget (OMB) approved I CR change requests for both of these rules, EP A tracking numbers 1587.10 and 1587.1 1, respectivel y; however, this is the first ICR renewal that will address es the two provisions at the same time and update them to reflect current implementation experience

. The Flexible Air Permits (FAP) rule, promulgated during the term of the last I CR renewal, revised part 70 to provide for permits that for allow for upfront approval for changes to processes, equipment, raw materials and end products at a facility , in such a way as to **6.3.3 Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs** 24

avoid formal submittal and processing of significant permit modifications (SPM) and minor permit modifications (MPM) during the term of the permit. The FAP rule did not increase the number of sources subject to title V permitting and it only applies to a relativel y small number of new and existing sources that would need to get a permit any way . While there is ty

pically an increased burden to put the flexible provisions in the permit, once added, they

allow the source to avoid permit modifications on a recurring, open - ended basis, resulting in an overall decrease in burden over the long term. The baseline permitting burden for all existing and new source for the 3

- ye ar period of this ICR is shown in tables 7

- 9 , while t ables 1 0

- 12 show the incremental burden increases for issuing new tier 2 permits and burden decreases for avoided modifications for all tier 1 and 2 permits expected by the end of the ICR period. For EPA, the additional incremental burden is for reviewing and con sulting with permitting authorities on modifications that occur solel y due to GHG (usually related to combustion sources). The EPA estimated in the FAP ICR that 5 percent of the total number of existing sources subject to part 70 would obtain a comprehens ive flexible permit (a “Tier 1” permit) and that an additional 10 percent of all existing sources and new sources subject to part 70 would seek simpler flexible permits (“Tier 2” permits). The FAP ICR assumed all existing part 70 sources would be issued T i er 1 and 2 permits during the period of that ICR, and that there would be no new T ier 1 permits needed after that period ended. Thus, for this ICR period, we assume that only new T ier 2 permits will be issued. Table 10 lists the burden categories for respondent sources, the number of estimated occurrences for each item, and the expected costs for each, based on the burden estimations made in the previous OMB

- approved ICR change worksheet for the Flexible Permits rule. Table s 11 and 12 present the same analysis for permitting authorities and EPA, respectivel y . Our assumptions for the mix of activities expected to occur under th e FAP rule have changed compared to the OMB

- approved change worksheet due to the normal evolution of the program (b y May 2012, the b eginning of the ICR period, all eligible existing permits have been changed to add Tier 1 and 2 flexibility and only new tier 2 permits will need to add such flexibility during the term of the ICR renewal ) . Also, the number of affected permits has changed because of different assumptions concerning the number of existing permits over the period.
**TABLE 10 THE INCREMENTA**  **L BURDEN AND COST OF THE FLEXIBLE PERMITS RULE FOR SOURCE A CTIVITIES FOR THE**  **3 -** **YEA R ICR PERIOD**  **AC TIVITY**  **Burden Hours per permit**  **Rate per ho ur**  **Af fected**  **permits Total Burden** 

**(Hours) TOTA**  **L COST**

**(2007) Tier 1**  **– 5 MPM A** 

**voided per y**  **ear** - 40 $39 797
- 478,200
- $18,649,800 **Tier 1 -**  **1 SPM A**

**voided every**  **5 y ears**  - 80 $39 797
- 38,240
- $1,491,360 **Tier 2 –**  **New Permit** 60 $148 119 7,140 $1,056,720 **Tier 2 –**  **1 MPM A**

**voided per y**  **ear** - 40 $39 1594
- 191,280
- $7,459,920 **TOTA L** 
- 700,580
- $26,544,36025 **T ABLE**  **11 THE INCREMENTA**  **L BURDEN AND COST OF THE FLEXIBLE PERMITS RULE FOR PERMITTING A UTHORITY**  **AC TIVITIES FOR THE 3**  **- YEA**  **R ICR PERIOD AC**  **TIVITY Burden Hours**  **per permit Rate per hour**  **Af fected**  **permits Total Burden** 

**(Hours) TOTA**  **L COST**

**(2007) Tier 1**  **– 5 MPM A** 

**voided per y**  **ear** - 30 $46 797
- 358,650
- $16,497,900 **Tier 1 -**  **1 SPM A**

**voided every**  **5 y ears**  - 90 $46 797
- 43,020
- $1,978,920 **Tier 2 –**  **New FA P Permit**  **issued** 45 $46 119 5,35 5 $246,330 **Tier 2 –**  **1 MPM A**

**voided per y**  **ear** - 30 $46 1,594
- 143,460
- $6,599,160 TOTAL
- 539,775
- $24,829,650
**T ABLE**  **12 THE INCREMENTA**  **L BURDEN AND COST OF THE FLEXIBLE PERMITS RULE FOR EPA A** **CTIVITIES FOR THE 3 -**  **YEA R ICR PERIOD**  **AC TIVITY**  **Burden Hours per**  **p ermit**  **Rate per**

**hour Af** 

**fected permits Total Burden** 

**(Hours) TOTA**  **L COST**

**(2007) Tier 1**  **– 5 MPM A** 

**voided per y**  **ear** - 1 $46 797
- 11,955
- $549,930 **Tier 1 -**  **1 SPM A**

**voided every**  **5 y ears**  - 8 $46 797
- 3,824
- $175,904 **Tier 2 –**  **New Permit** 8 $46 119 952 $43,792 **Tier 2 –**  **1 MPM A**

**voided per y**  **ear** - 1 $46 1,594
- 4,782
- $219,972 TOTAL
- 19,609
- $902,014 The GHG Tailoring Rule, also promulgated during the term of the last ICR renewal , “tailors” the requirements of the Clean Air Act to limit the number of facilities that would otherwise be required to obtain title V permits solely due to their emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG). Prior to the Tailoring Rule there were no requirements for sources to consider GHG emissions in their title V permit applications or permits and th ere were no applicable requirements related to GHG to put into title V permits. We are currentl y in S tep 2 of the implementation schedule of the Tailoring Rule and EPA assumes that there are about 552 GHG sources subject to part 70 solely due to GHG emissi ons during this implementation step and that all of these sources will be issued single source permits (non

- general permits). The baseline burden of permitting any source subject to title V is shown in tables 7, 8 and 9. This burden is based on the assumptions of the 2007 I CR renewal. The 552 additional GHG sources are included in those tables as well . The baseline burden tables, however, do not include the incremental burden for addressing GHG emissions in permits that applies to both GHG and non

- GHG sub ject sources. The incremental GHG burden is shown in Tables 13, 14 and 15 below. Note that EPA assumes the burden for issuing new GHG permits is the same as non

- GHG permits, so there is no incremental burden for new permit issuance included in the tables b elow (it is included in tables 7, 8 and 9 instead). Specificall y, included in the tables below is the incremental burden for sources and permitting authorities alike to address GHG in all new non

- GHG permits (including backlog sources), the burden of per mit modifications solely

related to GHG (based on the26

number of NSR actions involving GHG in the NSR I CR), the burden of addressing GHG in all existing non

- GHG permits when they undergo minor permit or significant modification procedures , and the burden of addressing GHG in 80 percent of all permit renewals. For EPA, the additional incremental burden is for reviewing and consulting with permitting authorities on minor and significant modifications that occur solely due to GHG. 10 Table 13 lists the burden categories for respondent sources, the number of estimated occurrences for each item, and the expected costs for each, based on the burden estimations made in the previous OMB

- approved ICR change worksheet for the GHG Tailoring rule. Compared to the change worksheet for this rule, these tables have be en updated to reflect the number of affected permits and the mix of activities expected to occur due to the maturity of the program. T able s 1 4 and 15 present the same anal ys is for permitting authorities and EPA , respectivel y **T ABLE**  **13 THE INCREMENTA**  **L BURDEN AND COST OF THE GHG TA** **ILORING RULE FOR SOURCE A**  **CTIVITIES FOR THE 3 -**  **YEA R ICR PERIOD**  **AC TIVITY**  **Burden Hours per permit**  **Rate per**

**hour Af** 

**fected permits Total Burden** 

**(Hours) TOTA**  **L COST**

**(2007) Prepare A** **pplication ( add**  **GHG to non -**  **GHG permit)** 34 $148 553 18,802 $2,782,696 **Modification due to GHG** 43 $39 2,745 118,035 $4,603,365 **Modification to address GHG to non**  **- GHG permit**  4 $39 22 , 987 91 , 948 $ 3,585,972 **Ad dress GHG at**  **Renewal** 20 $39 8,934 178,688 $6,968,832 **TOTA L**  4 07,473 $ 17,940,865 **T ABLE**  **14 THE INCREMENTA**  **L BURDEN AND COST OF THE GHG TA** **ILORING RULE FOR PERMITTING A**  **UTHORITY AC**  **TIVITIES FOR THE 3 -** **YEA R ICR PERIOD**  **AC TIVITY**  **Burden Hours per permit**  **Rate per**

**hour Af** 

**fected permits Total Burden** 

**(Hours) TOTA**  **L COST**

**(2007 )**  **Prepare A pplication (add**  **GHG to non -**  **GHG permit)** 43 $46 553 23,779 $1,093,834 **Modification due to GHG** 40 $46 2,745 109,800 $5,050,800 **Modification to address GHG in non**  **- GHG permit**  4 $46 40,799 163,196 $ 4,229,608 **Ad dress GHG at Renewal**  9 $46 8934 80,4 19 $3,698,842 **TOTA L**  3 05,937 $1 4,073,084

10 Note we did not include administrative permit modifications because there is no requirement for EPA review and they do not involve substantive changes.27 **T ABLE**  **15 THE INCREMENTA**  **L BURDEN AND COST OF THE GHG TA** **ILORING RULE FOR EPA**  **A CTIVITIES FOR THE 3**  **- YEA**  **R ICR PERIOD**  **AC TIVITY**  **Burden Hours per permit**  **Rate per**

**hour Af** 

**fected permits Total Burden** 

**(Hours) TOTA**  **L COST**

**(2007) Review Modification due**  **to GHG** 8 $46 2,745 21,960 $ 1,010,160 **Consult on Modification due to GHG**  8 $46 686 5,490 $252,540 **TOTA** L 27,450 $ 1,262,700 Tables 2, 3, and 4 display the activities of the part 70 program for sources, permi tting authorities, and Federal government (EPA) , respectively

. T able 5 explains the derivation of the hourl y cost of in

- house labor for sources, and Table 6 gives the derivation of hourly costs for permitting authorities and EPA. Tables 7, 8 and 9 summariz e the expected baseline costs for the 3

- year period (in 2007 dollars) for sources, permitting authorities and EPA. The baseline burden and costs, which are based on the methodology of the previous renewal ICR, do not account for changes to the approved burden from the Flexible Permits rule and the GHG Tailoring rule. The incremental burden and costs attributable to the Flexible Air Permits rule is shown in tables 10, 11 and 12, and that attributable to the GHG Tailoring rule is shown in Table 13, 14, and 15 . In table 16 we show the calculation of the burden and in table 17 the calculation of the cost for the 3

- ye ar period of this renewal, adjusted for the Flexible Permits and GHG tailoring Rules. In table 18, we show the bottom line burden and cost for this renewal ICR.
**TA BLE 16**  **CA LCUL**  **ATI ON OF BOTTOM LINE TOTA** **L ICR (3 -** **YE AR) BURDEN HOURS**  **Respondent Baseline**  **Flexible A ir Permit**  **GHG T ailoring**  **TOT AL**  **Sources** 12,224,462
- 700,580 4 07 , 473 1 1 , 931 , 365 **Permitting Au**  **thorities** 4,238,138
- 53 9 ,775 3 05 , 937 4,0 04,299 **Fede ral (EP** 

**A)** 101,907
- 19,609 27 , 450 10 9, 748 **TOT AL**  16,564,507
- 1,259,964 740,860 16, 045 ,4 02

**TA BLE 17**  **CA LCUL**  **ATI ON OF BOTTOM LINE TOTA** **L ICR (3 -** **YE AR) COST**  **Respondent Baseline**  **Flexible A ir Permit**  **GHG T ailoring**  **TOT AL**  **Sources** $ 504,614,418
- $ 26,544,360 $ 17,940, 865 $ 496,010,923 **Permitting Au**  **thorities** $ 194,954,325
- $ 24,829,650 $ 14,073,084 $ 184,197,759 **Federal (EP**

**A)** $ 4,687,722
- $ 902,014 $ 1,262,700 $ 5,048,408 **TOT AL**  $ 704,256,465
- $ 52,276,024 $ 33,276,649 $ 685,257,09028

Table 18 below displays the expected burden and cost for sources, permitting authorities and the Federal government (EPA) for implementation of the part 70 Operating Permits Program between May

2012 and April 2015. Of the 16.0 million hours the Agency anticipates it will take to perform all the functions required b y title V, about 3/4 of the burden applies to sources. However, the magnitude of the total expected burden can be misleading, due to the number of permitted sources. For the 15,940 sources included in this analysis, the average expected b urden is relatively small

– just over 6 weeks of a full time employee's time. Likewise, the cost associated with that burden is also small

- about $10,400.

**TA BLE 18**  **BOTTOM LINE BURDEN A ND COST (2012**  **- 2015)**  **Number of Af**  **fected Entities**  **Total ICR**

**(3 -** **Year) Burden**  **Hour Av**  **erage**

**An nual**  **Burden Per Respondent**  **Av erage** 

**An nual**  **Burden Per Source**  **Total ICR (3 -** 

**Year) Cost ($2006)**  **Av erage** 

**An nual Cost**  **Per Respondent**  **($2006) Av**  **erage**

**An nual**  **Cost Per Source** 
**Sources** 15,940 11 , 931 , 355 25 0 25 0 $49 6 , 010 , 923 $ 10 , 372 $ 10, 372 **PA s**  112 4,0 04 , 299 1 1 , 918 8 4 $1 8 4 , 197 , 759 $ 5 48 , 208 $ 3, 852 **Federal** 1 109 ,7 4 8 3 6 , 583 2 $ 5 , 048 , 408 $1, 682 , 803 $ 106 **Total** 16, 045 ,4 02 NA NA $ 6 85 , 257 , 090 NA NA Permitting authorities incur about 2 4 p ercent of the burden in Table 1 8 , with the total burden spread between a significantl y smaller number of entities than for sources. On average, the Agency

estimates the PA burden associated with the part 70 Operating Permits Program will be about 1 1 , 9 00 hours per year. However, for some permitting authorities with re latively fewer sources (Connecticut, Wyoming , etc.), this average burden will exceed their actual burden; and, for permitting authorities with more than the average number of sources (Louisiana, Texas, etc.) , the average burden will be too low. A better me asure of the effect of title V regulations on permitting authorities would be to divide the total estimated hours by the number of operating permits. On average, each PA can expect to spend about 8 4 hours per ye ar managing and overseeing each permit in it s jurisdiction , at a cost of approximately $ 3,9 00 per permit. However, this cost cannot be considered an Unfunded Mandate from the Federal government, because the net cost to permitting authorities for their management of an operating permits program must, by law, be passed on to sources in the form of permit fees of sufficient magnitude to fully offset all permit management costs. Therefore, the true annual cost to permitting authorities under title V is zero, and the true annual cost to sources is $2 2 7 mil lion , or approximately $ 1 4 , 2 00 per permit.29

The part 70 program has been evolving since its inception, beginning with promulgation of the part 70 regulations in 1992. Early on, State and local permitting authorities developed their programs , submitte d them to EPA for approval , and began issuing the ini tial permits

. As of the beginning of this ICR, all initial permits have essentially been approved and permit issuance activities have shifted to processing permit renewals and permit implementation activities, such as operating gap

- filling monitoring and preparing monitoring or compliances reports

. The FAP rule was designed to reduce the number of permit modification procedures necessary for processing by

sources and permitting authorities to reduce overall burden and cost. The GHG tailoring rule reduces the number of sources that would otherwise have to get permit under the statutory” major source” thresholds, so even though it modestly increases the number of source that have to get permits, it is benefi cial to sources and permitting authorities because it prevents a much larger number of sources from having to get permits. Also, this I CR renewal reflects step 2 of the phase

- in of the implementation of the tailoring rule and there are other rulemakings scheduled to possibly

subject additional sources to permitting for their GHG emissions, however, it is too earl y to prejudge what the outcome of those rulemaking will be and any future rulemakings to expand the universe of sources will likely result in additional EPA submittals to OMB to revise the burden and cost for this program. With the experience gained through program implementation, EPA and permitting authorities have a better sense of the activities associated with the program and the burden of thos e activities. The activities in this I CR have been developed based on this knowledge. The burden (in hours) in this I CR can be accuratel y compare d to the approved burden levels in its predecessor on an activity

- by

- activity basis , since these burdens are in dependent of changes in the wage rates used to compute the costs for each activity

. The approved burden level in the previous ICR was 4. 2 million hours per year for sources , 1. 3 million burden hours per year for permitting authorities, and 33 thousand hours for Federal oversight; for a total of 5. 6 million hours. Table 1 9 compares the burden in the previous I CR with the burden in this I CR. The change in burden is a decrease from the previous I CR primarily due to burden reductions from fewer permit modifications being necessary due to implementation of the Flexible Permits (FAP) rule. During the period of the 207 IC R renewal, sources and permitting authorities were focused on revising existing permits (through significant modification procedures and renewals ) to put flexibility provisions, authorized by the FAP, into existing title V permits , which partially offset the burden reductions that come from fewer permit modifications under the FAP. During the period of this I CR, we assume those FAP provisions have been established in the permits (except for a small number of new sources seeking T ier 2 FAP), and thus, sources and permitting authorities alike reap the recurring burden reductions that come from the **6.4 Changes in the Burden** 30

reduction in the number of significant and minor permit modifications that must be processed over the period of this renewal IC R ( Th e FAP reduc es about 70 1 thousand hours for sources and 5 40 thousand hours for permitting authorities over 3 years )

. The effects of the FAP is somewhat partiall y offset b y the increased burden of the GHG Tailoring Rule ( about 407 thousand hours for sources and 306 thousand hours for permitting authorities) , but the FAP still provides a net reduction in benefits for sources and permitting authorities after taking the GHG Tailoring r ule into account

. For permitting authorities, there is a slight decrease in burden during the 3

- ye ar period of this I CR compared to the 2007 renewal also primarily due to implementation of the Flexible Permit rule. Fewer source submittal s related to permit modifications affects permitting authorities in much the same manner as sources

.
**TA BLE 1**  **9 BURDEN CHA**  **NGE FROM DECEMBER 2007 ICR TO CURRENT ICR Av**  **erage An**  **nual Burden in November**  **2007 ICR Av**  **erage An**  **nual Burden in ICR**  **Renewal Difference** 

**Sources** 4,1 76,069 3,977 , 118 - 198,951 **PA s**  1,349,570 1,3 34 , 766

- 14,804 **Federal** 33,389 3 6 , 583 3,194 **TOTA L**  5,559,028 5,3 48 ,476

- 210,552 Also, a ffecting the calculation of burden in this renewal is a change in the s ource population and the number of permits issued to part 70 sources since the last I CR renewal

. Recent data shows a decline of almost 9 00 sources and permits from the levels assumed in the 2007 renewal , possibly attributable to sources that have ceased operation due to the recent national economic decline

. Several other factors have affected the calculation of burden in this I CR renewal , but to a lesser extent. W e recalculated the wage rate for source and permitting authoriti es, adjusting them to a 2007 basis from the 2006 basis used in the last I CR update

. Also, our assumption concerning the number of new source subject to permitting has changed

– we assumed 50 new source s per year in the 2007 renewal, while this renewal assumes 100 new source s per year (based on recent data collected fro m permitting autho rities)

.
As previously

noted, it is impractical to attempt to delineate burden by respondent and activity due to the large number of respondents, the variation in the circumstances for each respondent, and the varied nature of the activities of the pro gram. Following in Table 2 0 **6.5 Burden Statem**  **ent**31

is the apportioned burden for each ty pe of respondent. This is derived from the total permitting authority hourly burden divided by the number of permitting authorities, and similarly for sources.
**TA BLE**  **20 BURDEN STA** 

**TEMENT Number of**  **Respondents Total A**  **nnual**

**Burden Av**  **erage An**  **nual**

**Burden per Respondent**  **Av erage**  **An nual** 

**Burden per Source**  **Source** 1 5 , 940 3,977 , 118 2 5 0 2 5 0 **PA s**  112 1, 3 34 , 766 1 1 , 918 8 4 **Federal** 1 3 6 , 583 3 6,583 2 Burden means the total time, effort, or financial res ources expended b y persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes o f collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to compl y with any previously

applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be ab le to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a c ollection of information unless it displays a currentl y valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this I CR under Docket ID Number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2004

- 0015 , which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334 , 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566

- 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566

- 1742 . An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to acce ss those documents in the public docket that are available electronically . When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID32

Number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2004

- 0015 and OMB Control Number 2060

- 0243 in any correspondence.33 **ATTACHMENT 1 ASSUMPTIONS FOR PART 70**  **ICR RENEWAL**
**TIME PERIOD OF ICR** The time period covered by this ICR is May 1 , 20 12 to April 2015 **SOURCE POPULATION** 1. Total population of title V sources as of June 2011 = 1 4,998

. An additional 100 sources will be added to the program before the ICR peri od begins, so the s ource populations at the beginning of IC R period will be 1 5 , 088

. 2. This I CR projects that 284 new sources will become subject to title V each year increasing the population as follows: 3. Source population at the end of ICR year 1 = 1 5,372 4. S ource population at the end of ICR year 2 = 1 5 , 656 5. S ource population at the end of ICR year 3 = 1 5 , 940 **INITIAL PERMIT ISSUANCE BACKLOG** 6. The total backlog of existing sources that had not received their initial permits was 338 sources as of June 2011

. 7. We Assume 85 initial backlogged permits will be issued before the ICR period begins and that all backlogged initial permits will be issued b y the end of the ICR period (85 each ye ar)

. **GENERAL PERMITS** 8. Assume 16 % of existing permits at beginning of ICR period are general permits

. 9. Assume no new general permits will be issued during period of ICR 10. Assume 16% of renewals will be for general permits

. **IN ITIAL PERMITS ISSUANCE RATE**  11. Single

- source permits are non - general permits

. 12. There will be 253 backl ogged initial single

- source permits that will be issued in equal amount s each ye ar of the I CR. 13. Source with backlogged permits have already submitted permit application s . 14. There will be 852 new single

- source permits issued during the IC R ( 284 per year)

. 15. 5 52 of the 852 new single

- source permits will be for sources that become subject d ue to step 2 of the GHG tailoring rule, 300 of the 852 are subject for other reasons

-- the GHG estimate is from the RIA for the Tailoring Rule.34

16. Initial permits are composed of the new permit s issued to new sources and new permits issued to reduce the backlog of sources that have submitted applications but are awaiting permit issuance (852 new + 253 backlog = 1,105 initial permits) **PERMIT APPLICATIONS** During the period of this ICR, it is assumed that only the new initial sources will submit applications for initial title V permits

- backlogged initial source are assumed to have already prepared and submitted permit applications

. **PERMIT REVISION RATES** 17. Sources covered b y g eneral permits will not apply for permit revisions

. 18. Permit revisions estimates for any ye ar are based on the number of single

- source permits in force at the beginning of the ye ar. 19. Significant modifications occur for 10% of existing single source permits per year. 20. Minor permit modifications and administrative amendments occur for 50% of existing single source permits per year. **PERMIT RENEWAL** 21. Both single source and general permits are renewed but we treat them separatel y because burdens differ greatly

. 22. Data indicate permit renewal backlog of 3,335 single

- source permits as of June 2011 (permits that are passed their deadline for renewal)

. 23. We a ssume that equal numbers of backlogged permits renewed each ye ar . 24. An additional 3,320 single

- source permits will come due for renewal each year on their normal schedule (approximately 1/5 of the universe of permits issued or renewed 5 ye ars previously , due to 5

- ye ar permit term)

. 25. Assume 16% of all renewals are general permits and 84 % single source permits

. **OP ERATION OF GAP**  **- FILING MONITORING**  26. We assume operation of such monitoring in 50% of all permits

. **MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORTS**  27. These reports are made based on all previousl y- issued permits (single

- source and general) , so the permit total at the beginning of each I CR year is used to calculate the number of reports occurring each ye ar. **SYNTHETIC MINOR PERMITS** All sy nthetic minor permits had been issued prior to Jul y 2007 so no burden is included during the term of this I CR.35

**PERMITTING AUTHORI TY ACTIVITIES**  **28.** Program administration, general permits administration, and preparing the enforcement reports occur on a yearl y basis. **29.** All new initial single

- source permits (new and backlog) are assumed to go through the activities of permit drafting, pub lic notification, interaction with EPA, and issuance notifications. **30.** The activities of public hearings and finaliz ing draft permits that have public comment is assumed for 2 % of new permits **. EPA ACTIVITIES**  31. EPA reviews 25% of all new initial permits and consults on 25% of issues on new single

- source permits, significant modifications, and minor permit modification. 32. EPA reviews all significant and minor permit modifications to single

- source permits

. 33. EPA reviews 5% of all single

- source permit renewals. 34. P rogram oversight and review of enforcement reports occurs on a ye arly basis **FLEXIBLE AIR PERMITS** 35. See the ICR for the Flexible Air Permits rule (the FAP ICR) for more on the assumptions used in this portion of this I CR. 36. All existing tier 1 and 2 FAP per mits were issued prior to the beginning of this I CR. 37. Tier I FAPs are 5% of all title V existing permits (existing when the ICR period begins or 797 permits). 38. No new Tier 1 FAPs expected during ICR period because EPA assumes that new sources are built and permitted to handle anticipated growth. 39. Each Tier I FAP avoids 5 MPM per year and 1 SPM every 5 years. 40. Tier 2 FAPs are 10% of all title V existing permits or 1,574 existing permits and 10% of all new permits issued by the end of the ICR period or 119 permits. 41. Each Tier 2 FAP avoids 1 MPM per year. **GHG TAILORING RULE** 42. The burden hour assumptions in this I CR are from the RIA and the ICR change worksheet for the GHG Tailoring Rule. 43. The RIA for the Tailoring rule estimated 552 new single

- source permit s due to GHG during step 2 of the tailoring rule

– we assume all will be issued in equal amounts during each ye ar of the ICR period. 44. We assume no residential or commercial sources (non

- industrial sources) will be issued title V permits during step 2

– the tailoring rule RIA estimated less than 20 such permits would be issued and assumed the permit issuance burden would be one half that of industrial sources.36

45. All modifications and all renewals for existing single

- source permits (non

- GHG) will experience a small burden increase to address GHG requirements. 46. We assume no general permits will be issued for new GHG sources during the period of this analysis. 47. Modifications due to GHG are new modifications to single

- source permits that not already accounted for in the baseline anal ys is. The NSR RIA assumes 915 per year of these. See Appendix C, table 3.1. 48. We assume 80% of renewals that occur during this period will need to address GHG due to combustion

- related activities. 49. The only

additional burden for EPA is related to review (100%) and consultation (25%) of minor permit modifications (MPM) and significant permit modifications (SPM) due to GHG.37 **ATTACHMENT 2**  **TITLE V OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR**

**THE RESPONDENT INFORMATION**
**SEC. 50 2. PERMIT PROGRAMS**  (a) V iolations.

- After the effective date of any p ermit program approved or promulgated under this title, it shall be unlawful for any person to violate any

requirement of a permit issued under this title, or to operate an affected source (as provided in title IV), a major source, any other s ource (including an area source) subject to standards or regulations under section 111 or 112, any o ther source required to have a permit under parts C or D of title I, o r any o ther stationary source in a category designated (in whole or in part) by

r egulations promulgated by the A dministrator (after notice and public comment) which shall include a finding setting forth the basis for such designation, except in compliance with a permit issued by a p ermitting authority

under this title. (Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to alter the applicable requirements of this Act that a permit be obtained before construction or modification.) The Administrator may , in the Administrator's discretion and consistent with the applicable provisions of this Act, promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source categories (in whole or in part) from the requirements of this subsection if the Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such categories, except that the Administrator may not exempt any

major source from such requirements. (b) Regulations.

- The Administrator shall promulgate within 12 months after the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 regulations establishing the minimum elements of a permit program t o be administered by any air pollution control agency . These elements shall include each of the following: (1) Requirements for permit applications, including a standard application form and criteria for determining in a timel y fashion the completeness of applications. (2) Monitoring and reporting requirements. (3)(A) A requirement under State or local law or interstate compact that the owner or operator of all sources subject to the requirement to obtain a permit under this title pay an annual fee, or the equivalent over some other period, sufficient to co ver all reasonable (direct and indirect) costs required to develop and admini ster the permit progr am requirements of this title, including section 507, including the reasonable costs of

- (i) reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, (ii) i f the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, whether be fore or after the d ate of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any s uch permit (not including any c ourt costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), (iii) emissio ns and ambient monitoring, (iv) preparing generall y applicable regulations, or guidance, (v) modeling, anal ys es, and demonstrations, and (vi) preparing inventories and tracking emissions.38 (B) The total amount of fees collected by the permitting auth ority

s hall conform to the following requirements: (i) The Administrator shall not approve a program as meeting the requirements of this p aragraph unless the State demonstrates that, except as otherwise provided in subparagraphs (ii) through (v) of thi s s ubparagraph, the program will result in the collection, in the aggregate, f rom all sources subject to subparagraph (A), of an amount not less than $25 per ton of each regulated pollutant, or such other amount as the Administrator may

determine adequat el y r eflects the reasonable costs of the permit program. (ii) A s used in this subparagraph, the term "regulated pollutant" shall mean (I) a volatile organic compound; (II) each pollutant regulated under section 111 or 112; and (III) each p ollutant for which a national primary ambient air quality

s tandard has been promulgated (except that carbon monoxide shall be excluded from this reference). (iii) Indetermining the amount under clause (i), the permitting authority i s not required to include any amount of regulated pollutant emitted by any s ource in excess of 4,000 tons per year of that regulated pollutant. (iv) The requirements of clause (i) shall not apply i f the permitting authority demonstrates that collecting an amount less than the amount spe cified under clause (i) will meet the requirements of subparagraph (A). (v) The fee calculated under clause (i) shall be increas ed (consistent with the need to cover the reasonable costs authorized by subparagraph (A)) in each ye ar beginning after the ye ar of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 by th e percentage, if any , by which the Consumer Price Index for the most recent calendar year endin g before the beginning of such ye ar exceeds the Consumer Price In dex for the calendar year 1989. For purposes of this clause

- (I) the Consumer Price Index for any c alendar ye ar is the average of the Consumer Price Index for all

- urban consumers published by the Department of Labor, as of the close of the 12

- month period ending on August 31 of each calendar year, and (II) the revision of the Consumer Price In dex which is most consistent with the Consumer Price Index for calendar ye ar 1989 shall be used. (C)(i) I f the Administrator determines, under subsection (d), that the fee provisions of the operating permit program do not meet the requirements of this paragraph, or if the Administrator makes a determination, under subsection (i), that the permitting authority is not adequatel y administering or enforcing an approved fee program, the Administrator may , in addition to taking any other action authorized under this title, collect reasonable fees from the sources identified under subparagraph (A). Such fees shall be designed solely to cover the Administrator's costs of administering the provisions of the permit program promulgated b y the Administrator. (ii) Any source that fails to pay f ees lawfully

imposed by

the Administrator under this subparagraph shall pay a p enalty of 50 percent of the fee amount, plus interest on the fee amount computed in accordance with section 6621(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to computation of interest on underpay ment of Federal taxes). (iii) Any f ees, penalties, and interest collected under this subparagraph shall be deposited in a special fund in the United States Treasury f or licensing and other services, which thereafter shall be available for appropriation, to remain available until expended,39

subject to appropriation, to carry out the Agency's activities for which the fees were col lected. Any fee required to be collected by a State, local, or interstate agency under this subsection shall be utilized solely to cover all reasonable (direct and indirect) costs required to support the permit program as set forth in subparagraph (A). (4) Requirements for adequate personnel and funding to administer the program. (5) A requirement that the permitting authority have adequate authority

to: (A) i ssue permits and assure compliance by all sources required to have a permit under this title with each applicable standard, regulation or requirement under this Act; (B) issue permits for a fixed term, not to exceed 5 years; (C) a ssure that upon issuance or renewal permits incorporate emission limitations and other requirements in an applicable implementation plan; (D) terminate, modify , or revoke and reissue permits for cause; (E) enforce permits, permit fee requirements, and the requirement to obtain a permit, including authority to recover civil penalties in a maximum amount of not less than $ 10,000 per day

for each violation, and provide appropriate criminal penalties; and (F) assure that no permit will be issued if the Administrator objects to its issuance in a timely

manner under this title. (6) A dequate, streamlined, and reasonable proce dures for expeditiously determining when applications are complete, for processing such applications, for public notice, including o ffering an opportunity f or public comment and a hearing, and for expeditious review of permit actions, including applicati ons, renewals, or revisions, and including an opportunity

f or judicial review in State court of the final permit action by the applicant, any person who participated in the public comment process, and any other person who could obtain judicial review of that action under applicable law. (7) T o ensure against unreasonable delay b y the permitting authority, adequate authority and procedures to provide that a failure of such permitting authority to act on a permit a pplication or permit renewal application (in accordance with the time periods specified in section 503 or, as appropriate, title IV) shall be treated as a final permit action solely f or purposes of obtaining judicial review in State court of an action brought by any person referred to in paragr aph (6) to require that action be taken by the permitting authority on such application without additional delay

. (8) Authority , and reasonable procedures consistent with the need for expeditious action b y the permitting authority on permit applications and related matters, to make available to the public any p ermit application, compliance plan, permit, and monitoring or compliance report under section 503(e), subject to the provisions of section 114(c) of this Act. (9) Arequirement that the permitting authority , in the case of permits with a term of 3 or more years for major sources, shall require revisions to the permit to incorporate applicable standards and regulations promulgated under this Act after th e issuance of such permit. Such revisions shal l occur as expeditiously a s practicable and consistent with the procedures established under paragraph (6) but not later than 18 months after the promulgation of such standards and regulations. No such revision shall be required if the effective date of th e standards or regulations is a date after the expiration of the permit term. Such permit revision shall be treated as a permit renewal if it complies with the requirements of this title regarding renewals.40 (10) Provisions to allow changes within a permitted facility ( or one operating pursuant to section 503(d)) without requiring a permit revision, if the changes are not modifications under any p rovision of title I and the changes do not exceed the emissions allowable under the permit (whether expressed therein as a rate of emissions or in terms of total emissions: Provided, That the facility p rovides the Administrator and the permitting authority w ith written notification in advance of the proposed changes which shall be a minimum of 7 days, unless the p ermitting a uthority p rovides in its regulations a different time frame for emergencies. (c) S ingle Permit.

- A single permit may b e issued for a facility with multiple sources. (d) S ubmission and Approval.

- (1) Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment o f the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Governor of each State shall develop and submit to the Administrator a permit program under State or local law or under an interstate compact meeting the requirements of this title. In additio n, the Governor shall submit a legal opinion from the attorney general (or the attorney f or those State air pollution control agencies that have independent legal counsel), or from the chief legal officer of an interstate agency , that the laws of the State , locality , or the interstate compact provide adequate authority to carry o ut the program. Not later than 1 ye ar after receiving a program, and after notice and opportunity f or public comment, the Administrator shall approve or disapprove such program, in whole or in part. The Administrator may

a pprove a program to the extent that the program meets the requirements of this Act, including the regulations issued under subsection (b). If the program is disapproved, in whole or in part, the Administrator shall notify the Governor of any revisions or modifications necessary to obtain approval. The Governor shall revise and resubmit the program for review under this section within 180 days after receiving notification. (2)(A) I f the Governor does not submit a program as required under paragraph (1) or if the Administrator disapproves a program submitted by the Governor under paragraph (1), in whole or in part, the Administrator may , prior to the expiration of the 18

- month period referred to in subparagraph (B), in the Administrator's discretion, apply any o f the sanctions specified in section 179(b). (B) If the Governor does not submit a program as required under paragraph (1), or if the A dministrator disapproves any such program submitted by the Governor unde r paragraph (1), in whole or in part, 18 months after the date required for such submittal or the date of such disapproval, as the case may b e, the Administrator shall apply s anctions under section 179(b) in the same manner and subject to the same deadlin es and other conditions as are applicable in the c ase of a determination, disapproval, or finding under section 179(a). (C) The sanctions under section 179(b)(2) shall not apply pursuant to this paragraph in any

area unless the failure to submit or the disapproval referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B) relates to an air pollutant for which such area has been designated a nonattainment area (as defined in part D of title I). (3) I f a program meeting the requirements of this title has not been approved in whole for any State, the Administrator shall, 2 ye ars after the date required for submission41

of such a program under paragraph (1), promulgate, administer, and enforce a program under this title for that State. (e) S uspension.

- The Administrator shal l suspend the issuance of permits promptly u pon publication of notice of approval of a permit program under this section, but may , in such notice, retain jurisdiction over permits that have been federall y issued, but for which the administrative or judici al review process is not complete. The Administrator shall continue to administer and enforce federall y issued permits under this title until they

are replaced by

a p ermit issued by a permitting program. Nothing in this subsection should be construed to limit the Administrator's ability to enforce permits issued by a State. (f) P rohibition.

- No partial permit program shall be approved unless, at a minimum, it applies, and ensures compliance with, this title and each of the following: (1) All requirements established under title IV applicable to "affected sources." (2) A ll requirements established under section 112 applic able to "major sources", "area sources," and "new sources." (3) A ll requirements of title I (other than section 112) app licable to sources required to have a permit under this title. Approval of a partial program shall not relieve the State of its obligation to submit a complete program, nor from the application of any sanctions under this Act for failure to submit an approvable permit program. (g) Interim Approval.

- If a program (including a partial permit program) submitted under this title substantially m eets the requirements of this title, but is not fully approvable, the Administrator may b y rule grant the program interim appro val. Inthe notice of final rulemaking, the Administrator shall specify the changes that must be made before the program can receive full approval. An interim approval under this subsection shall expire on a date set by the Administrator not later than 2 years after such approval, and may n ot be renewed. For the period of any such interim app roval, the provisions of subsection (d)(2), and the obligation of the A dministrator to promulgate a program under this title for the State pursuant to subsection (d)(3 ), shall be suspended. Such provisions and such obligation of the Administrator shall apply a fter the expiration of such interim approval. (h) E ffective Date.

- The effective date of a permit program, or partial or interim program, approved under this ti tle, shall be the effective date of approval by the Administrator. The effective date of a permit program, or partial permit program, promulgated b y the Administrator shall be the date of promulgation. (i) A dministration and Enforcement.

- (1) Whenever the Administrator makes a determination that a permitting authority i s not adequatel y administering and enforcing a program, or portion thereof, in accordance with the requirements of this title, the Administrator shall provide notice to the State and may, prior to the expiration of the 18

- month period referred to in paragraph (2), in the Administrator's discretion, apply any o f the sanctions specified in section 179(b). (2) Whenever the Administrator makes a determination that a permitting authority is not adequately

administering and enforcing a program, or portion thereof, in accordance with the requirements of this title, 18 months after the date of the notice under paragraph (1), the A dministrator shall apply the sanctions under section 179(b) in the42

same manner and subject to the same deadlines and other conditions as are applicable in the case of a determination, disapproval, or finding under section 179(a). (3) The sanctions under section 179(b)(2) shall not apply pursuant to this subsection in any area unless the failure to adequately enforce and administer the program relates to an air pollutant for which such area has been designated a nonattainment area. (4) Whenever the Administrator has made a finding under paragraph (1) with respect to any State, unless the State has corrected such deficiency within 18 months after the date of such finding, the Administrator shall, 2 ye ars after the date of such finding, promulgate, administer, and enforce a program under this title for that State. No thing in thi s paragraph shall be construed to affect the validity o f a program which has been approved under this title or the authority of any permitting authority acting under such program until such time as such program is promulgated by the Administrator under this paragraph. [42 U.S.C. 7661a] **SEC. 503. PERMIT APPLICATIONS.** (a) APPLICABLE DATE.

- Any source specified in section 502(a) shall become subject to a permit program, and required to have a permit, on the later of the following dates

- (1) The effective date of a permit program or partial or interim permit program applicable to the source; or (2) The date such source becomes subject to section 502(a). (b) COMPLIANCE PLAN.

- (1) The regulations required by s ection 502(b) shall include a requirement that the applicant submit with the permit application a compliance plan describing how the source will comply with all applicable requirements under this Act. The compliance plan shall include a schedule of compliance, and a schedule under which the p ermittee will submit progress reports to the permitting authority no less frequentl y than every 6 months. (2) The regulations shall further require the permittee to periodicall y (but no less frequentl y than annually) certify that the facility is in compli ance with any a pplicable requirements of the permit, and to promptly r eport any deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority

. (c) DEADLINE.

- Any person required to have a permit shall, not later than 12 months after the date on which the source becomes subject to a permit program approved or promulgated under this title, or such earlier date as the permitting authority m ay establish, submit to the permitting authority a c ompliance plan and an application for a permit signed by

a responsib le official, who shall certify the accuracy

o f the information submitted. The permitting authority shall approve or disapprove a completed application (consistent with the procedures established under this title for consideration of such applications), and shall issue or deny the permit, within 18 months after the date of receipt thereof, except that the permitting authority shall establish a phased schedule for acting on permit applications submitted within the first full ye ar after the effective date of a permit program (or a partial or interim program). Any such schedule shall assure that at least one

third of such permits will be acted on by s uch authority

annually o ver a period of not to exceed 3 ye ars after such effective date. Such authority s hall est ablish reasonable43

procedures to prioritize such approval or disapproval actions in the case of applications for construction or modification under the applicable requirements of this Act. (d) TIMELY AND COMPLETE APPLI CATIONS.

- Except for sources required to have a permit before construction or modification under the applicable requirements of this Act, if an applicant has submitted a timely and complete application for a permit required by

this title (including renewals), but final action has not been taken on such application, the source's failure to have a permit shall not be a violation of this Act, unless the delay in final action was due to the failure of the applicant timely to submit information required or requested to process the application. No source required to have a permit under this title shall be in violation of section 502(a) before the date on which the source is required to submit an application under subsection (c). (e) COPIES; AVAILABILITY.

- A cop y of each permit application, compliance p lan (including the schedule of compliance), emissions or compliance monitoring report, certification, and each permit issued under this title, shall be available to the public. If an applicant or permittee is required to submit information entitled to prot ection from disclosure under section 114(c) of this Act, the applicant or permittee may s ubmit such information separatel y. The requirements of section 114(c) shall apply to such information. The contents of a permit shall not be entitled to protection under section 114(c). **SEC. 504. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS.** (a) CONDIT IONS.

- Each permit issued under this title shall include enforceable emission limitations and standards, a schedule of compliance, a requirement that the permittee submit to the p ermitting authority, no less often than every 6 months, the results of any required monitoring, and such other conditions as are necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements of this Act, including the requirements of the applicable implementation plan. (b) MONITORING AND ANALYSIS.

- The Administrator may b y rule prescribe procedures and methods for determining compliance and for monitoring and analysis of pollutants regulated under this Act, but continuous emissions monitoring need not be required if alternative methods are available that provide sufficiently reliable and timel y information for determining compliance. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect any continuous emissions monitoring requirement of title IV, or where re quired elsewhere in this Act. (c) INSPECTION, ENTRY, MONITORING, CERTIFICATION, AND REPORTI

NG.

- Each permit issued under this title shall set forth inspection, entry , monitoring, compliance certification, and reporting requirements to assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions. Such monitoring and reporting requirements shall conform to any applicable regulation under subsection (b). Any report required to be submitted by

a p ermit issued to a corporation under this title shall be signed by a responsible corporate official, who shall certify its accuracy

. §70.5(c) S

tandard applications form and required information

. The State program under this part shall provide for a standard application form or forms. In formation as described44

below for each emissions unit at a part 70 source shall be included in the application. The Administrator may

a pprove as part of a State program a list of insignificant activities and emissions levels which need not be included in permit applications. However, for insigni ficant activities which are exempted because of size or production rate, a list of such insignificant activities must be included in the application. An application may n ot omit information needed to determine the applicability o f, or to impose, any applic able requirement, or to evaluate the fee amount required under the schedule approved pursuant to §70.9 of this part. The permitting authority may use discretion in developing application forms that best meet program needs and administrative efficiency

. The forms and attachments chosen, however, shall include the elements specified below: (1) I dentifying information, including company name and address (or plant name and address if different from the company n ame), owner's name and agent, and telephone numb er and names of plant site manager/contact. (2) Adescription of the source's processes and products (b y Standard Industrial Classification Code) including any associated alternative scenario identified by the source. (3) The following emission related information: (i) A ll emissions of pollutants for which the source is major, and all emissions of regulated air pollutants. A permit application shall describe all emissions of regulated air pollutants emitted from any emissions unit, ex cept where such units are exempted under this paragraph (c) of this section. The permitting authority shall require additional information related to the emissions of air pollutants sufficient to verify which requirements are applicable to the source, and other information necessary to collect any permit fees owed under the fee schedule approved pursuant to §70.9(b) of this part. (ii) Identification and description of all points of emissions described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section in sufficient detail to establis h the basis for fees and applicability of requirements of the Act. (iii) Emissions rate in tpy and in such terms as are necessary to establish compliance consistent with the applicable standard reference test method. (iv) The following information to the extent it is needed to determine to regulate emissions: Fuels, fuel use, raw materials, production rates, and operating schedules. (v) I dentification and description of air pollution control equipment and compliance monitoring devices or activities. (vi) Limitations on source operation affecting emissions or any w ork practice standards, where applicable, for all regulated pollutants at the part 70 source. (vii) O ther information required by any a pplicable requirement (including information related to stack height limitations developed pursuant to section 123 of the Act.) (viii) C alculations on which the information on paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(vii) of this section is based. (4) The following air pollution control requirements: (i) C itation and description of all applicable requirements, and (ii) D escription of or reference to any a pplicable test method for determining compliance with each applicable requirement.45 (5) O ther specific information that may b e necessary

to implement an d enforce other applicable requirements of the Act or of this part or to determine the applicability o f such requirements. (6) An explanation of any proposed exemptions from otherwise applicable requirements. (7) A dditional information as determined to be necessary b y the permitting authority to define alternative operating scenarios identified by the source pursuant to § 70.6(a)(9) of this part or to define permit terms and conditions implementing § 70.4(b)(12) or § 70.6(a)(10) of this part. (8) A co mpliance plan for all part 70 sources that contains all the following: (i) Adescription of the compliance status of the source with respect to all applicable requirements. (ii) A description as follows: (A) F or applicable requirements with which the source is in compliance, a statement that the source will continue to comply with such requirements. (B) For applicable requirements that will become effective during the permit term, a statement that the source will meet such requirements on a timely b asis. (C) F or requirements for which the source is not in compliance at the time or permit issuance, a narrative description of how the source will achieve compliance with such requirements. (iii) A compliance schedule as follows: (A) F or applicable requirements with which the source is in compliance, a statement that the source will continue to comply with such requirements. (B) For applicable requirements that will become effective during the permit term, a statement that the source will meet such requirements on a timely basis. A statement that the source will meet in a timely m anner applicable requirements that become effective during the permit term shall satisfy this provision, unless a more detailed schedule is expressly required b y the applic able requirement. (C) As chedule of compliance for sources that are not in compliance with all applicable requirements at the time of permit issuance. Such a schedule shall include a schedule of remedial measures, including an enforceable sequence of actions with milestones, leading to compliance with any applicable requirements for which the source will be in noncompliance at the time of permit issuance. This compliance schedule shall resemble and be at least as stringent as that contained in any judicial consent decree or administrative order to which the source is subject. Any such schedule of compliance shall be supplemental to and shall not sanction noncompliance with, the applicable requirements on which it is based. (iv) A schedule for submission of certified progress reports no less frequently than every 6 m onths for sources required to have a schedule of compliance to remedy a violation. (v) The compliance plan content requirements specified in this paragraph shall apply and be included in the acid rain portion of a compliance plan for an affected source, except as specifically

s uperseded by

regulations promulgated under title IVo f the Act with regard to the schedule and method(s) the source will use to achieve compliance with the acid rain emi ssions limitations.46 (9) Requirements for compliance certification, including the following: (i) Ac ertification of compliance with all applicable requirements by a responsible official consistent with paragraph (d) of this section and section 114(a)(3) of the Act; (ii) As tatement of methods used for determining compliance, including a description of monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements and test methods; (iii) As chedule for submission of compliance certifications during the permit term, to be submitted no less frequently than annually , or more frequently if specified by the underl ying applicable requirement or b y the permitting authority ; and (iv) As tatement indicating the source's compliance status with any applicable enhanced monitoring and compliance certification requirements of the Act. (10) The use of nationally

- standardized forms for acid rain portions of permit applications and compliance plans, as required by regulations promulgated under title IV of the Act. (d) Any application form, report, or compliance certification submitted pursuant to these regulations shall contain certification by a responsible official of truth, accuracy , and completeness. This certification and any other certification required under this part shall state that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry , the statements and information in the document are true, accurate, and complete.47 **ATTACHMENT 3**  **ANALYSIS OF PART 70 STATE PROGRAM EVALUATIONS**  **FOR ICR**

**RENEWAL PURPOSES ( 1587.07**  **)**

**Background**

 Representative sample of State Evaluation s selected (below) for review.  List of State/local agencies reviewed is similar to list of S tates that initially responded to surveys for earlier I CRs. o Previous I CR estimates based on responses from: New Jersey , West Virginia, Mississippi, San Joaquin, Illinois, Vermont, Alabama, Day ton Ohio, Wisconsin. o Audit analysis based on same list , except for Day ton, Ohio and San Joaquin, where audits are not available for review. o State of Ohio was substi tuted for Day ton, Ohio because Day

ton is a fi e ld office of the Ohio program, not a separate program.
 State program evaluations not designed primarily for ICR purposes

– designed for programs oversight purposes instead

– thus, results only partiall y appropriate for ICR purposes.  State evaluations reports did not ty picall y address totals burdens hours or costs for individual activities, sources or States, nor did they address average burden hours or average costs per permit, per source, or per permitting authority

.  Data for IC R renewal also provided by EPA’s internal TOPS part 70 tracking system

– a s ys tem where EPA Region al offices provide tracking data on a 6

- month basis for each approved part 70 program (some 3

- month data also available for historical pur

poses). o TOPS data not summarized below, but independently included in assumptions included in ICR (i.e., source universe subject to permitting, number of initial permits issued, number of renewal permits issued, Number of significant modification issued, number of general permits (also interpreted as number of sources subject to general permitting).
 Since the last I CR renewal (30 months ago), the Title V Taskforce under the Clean Act Advisory

Committee has undertaken a review of the title V program (this w as mentioned briefl y in the current ICR, section 3,3). This effort resulted in a list of recommendations for changes to policy and rulemakings to make the programs amore effective, but no data useful for ICR renewal purposes was generated.
 For the record , the previous I CR assumed the following: o General permits are 1/5 of the total. o Public notification occurs for every draft permit. o Public comments cause draft permits to be revised 10% of the time. o Public hearings are held for 2% of permits. o Gap

- filling monitoring (or recordkeeping which serves the same purpose) is required in 1⁄2 of permits, including general permits.48 o Significant permit revisions occur in 1/10 of issued single permits (does not include general permits) on an annual basis (30% over 3 years) o Minor permit modifications occur in 1⁄2 of single permits each ye ar (150% of permits over 3 ye ars) o Administrative amendments occurs in 1⁄2 of single permits each ye ar (150% of permits over 3 ye ars) o Permit renewals occur roughl y at the same rate as the initial permits expire and that any backlog of renewals is reduced over the 3

- year period of the ICR. o Applying for a permit renewal is about 1/2 the burden of appl ying for an initial permit, while for States, permit renewals are about 1/3 the burden of initial p ermits. o 100% of compliance reports reviewed b y States. Note that all of these State programs have been effective, with at least interim approval , which allow ed them to begin issuing permits, for over 10 years at present
. **Results of Evaluations** 

 No major changes to assumptions for I CR renewal supported by this review

– information within evaluation reports generall y consistent with past EPA assumptions.
 The State evaluations generall y lack quantitative data, but they provide general support that the assump tions of the I CR are a directionally correct assessment of the frequency

that certain activities occur.
 One minor change is in the number of sources that are expected to get regulatory relief through the use of general permits. The evaluations are not convincing on this point but tracking data shows that 16% of permits are general permits.
 Another minor change is in the percentage of public comments that lead to changes to the draft permits. The evaluations suggests that such changes are rare, consistent with the frequency that public hearings occur, since the standard for changing the permit and for holding a public hearing are similar. Thus, we are changing the frequency

for finalizing drafts permit with public comment to 2% from 10% within the burden e stimates for permitting authorities. **State Summaries New Jersey**  (410 Permits) 1. No General permits 2. “ Perform Gap

- filling exercise on every permit” (didn’t answer question directly) 3. Public comments on less than 2 % of draft p ermits, all changed in response 4. P ublic hearing requested occasion all y, public attendance low 5. Significant modifications: 1

- 2 % (TOPS shows 46 over life of program) 6. Minor Modifications: 90 % (TOPS only addresses significant modifications)49 7. Admin Amendments : 10 % 8. Revi ew 100 % of compliance report s 9. Renewals easier to process because applications fo cus on changes at sources since permit issued. Renewals not a high priority at this time **West Virginia** (171 Permits) 1. 1 general permit (certain units at natural gas compressor facilities), 26 sources ful ly implemented (13% of sources) 2. “Some sort” of gap

- filling recordkeeping or monitoring in “most, if not all permits.” (Didn’t say

how many

units in these permits had such M&R). Experience is causing NSR permits to be written better , so that less gap

- filing will be necessary

in title V permits in future 3. Public c omments are “rare,” or“0 to 3 %, ” and change due to comments occur similarly 4. No Public hearings have ever been held 5. 191 modifications to date (over life of program) 6. Significant Modifications: 11 % (TO PS shows 0 over life of program) 7. Minor Modifications: 30.9 % 8. Admin Am en dments : 46.1 % 9. Renewals easier to process, but we have onl y processed a few (Did not elaborate further) 10. Review 100 % of compliance reports **Mississippi** (317 Permits) 1. No general permits . W ill consider general permits for MACT area source s not exempted fro m Title V 2. Said in “some cases” gap - filling has lead to new control devices. Also, did not specify how often gap

- filling recordkeeping or monitoring added other than to say that they did so when the underlying standards are inadequate 3. Has not received many public comments, most on high profile sources on Gulf Coast. Also said comments during public comment period are “rare ” 4. Did not specify

that any public hearin gs have occurred 5. 384 revisio ns during life of program 6. Significant Modifications: 85 out of 384 or 22% (TOPS says 138) 7. Minor Mo difications: 24 out of 384 or 6 % 8. Admin Amendments : 33 out of 384 or 9% also they said 502(B)(10) changes were 242 out of 384 or 63% (these are similar in burden to admin

. amendments because no public process required) 9. Renewals not easier to

- date, but streamlined renewal applications coming, so may be easier in future 10. Rev iew 100 % of compliance reports **Alabama** (251 Permits) 1. No general permits issued50 2. Periodic mo nitoring added for “most units subject to a regulation that do not contain underl ying monitoring requirements ” 3. Public comments: Said they have not received many

and that most were not relevant to title V 4. Did not state that any hearings had ever been held , only stated that they have procedures in place to hold hearings 5. TOPS says 54 significant revisions to date (no response to these questions in audit) 6. Renewals easier than initial issuance because of staff experience 7. Review 100 % of compliance reports **Ver mont**  (20 permits) 1. No general permits 2. They said they have added monitoring wh en necessary , but not how often 3. Public comments very few, perhaps 5% (1 comment) 4. State has had 1 public hearing 5. S ignificant Modifications: 55.3 % (TOPS say s 6 over life of program) 6. Minor Modifications: 20 % 7. Admin Amendments : 26.7 % 8. Renewals easier to process, application much better, review focuses on changes and CAM 9. Review 100 % of compliance reports **Wisconsin** (148 Permits) 1. General permits for n on - metallic minerals processing plants , small heating units, hospital sterilizers, and printing presses; about 5% of sources 2. They say they have add ed monitoring but not how often 3. Public comments on 10% of permits, 5% change due to comment 4. Did not say

how often public hearings held 5. Significant Modifications: 80% (TOPS says 136 life of program) 6. Minor Modifications: 5 % 7. Admin Amendments : 15% 8. Ju st plainly

said easier to renew 9. Review 100 % of compliance reports **Illinois** (728 Permits) 1. No general permits 2. No universal approach as to when gap

- filing added. Much recordkeeping added but monitoring only

typi cally for utility

sources; monitoring may be added for other source categories based on case - by

- case determination 3. Public comments on 5

- 7% of draft permits; most result in chang es to the permit to som e extent 4. Did not specify

has often public hearings have occurred. EPA notes that State’s w ebsite for public hearing did not contain any public hearing records for title V p ermits within the last 6 months 5. Significant Modifications: 15 % (TOPS say s 41)51 6. Minor Modifications: 40 % 7. Admin Amendments : 45% 8. Renewals easier because most requirements already established in permits, requirements do not typically need to change , and renewal application much more complete than applications for initial permits 9. Review 100 % o f compliance reports **Ohio** (755 Permits) 1. No general permits 2. “ Gap

- filling as appropriate based on regulations and DAPC Engineering Guide #65 ” . Also said “routinely” added to permits 3. Public comments on less than 5% of draft permits; chang es due to comments less than 1% 4. 8 public hearings have occurred during life of program 5. Significant Modifications: 10 % (TOPS say s 18) 6. Minor Modifications: 4 % 7. Admin Amendments : 86% 8. Very much easier because just updating what already done 9. Review 100 % of compliance reports52 **ATTACHMENT 4**  **Date FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE** 

TO be added after first ICR notice issued for this renewal ICR , about December 2011

.