p. 1



# OAR Box 1796 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 18)IV-H-4 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/20084:20:37

PM Sheet 18of 107P. 2 Bil l Wehru m 10/18/200 2 08:3 6 A M To : Arthur_G._Fraas@omb.eop.gov , Paul_R

. "^tfdomb.eop.gov , Amy_L._Farrell@omb.eop.go v cc : Subject : RMR R IC R an d RI A Draft s Curren t draf t RMR R IC R an d RIA

. Mor e t o follow

.

—Forwarde d b y Bil l Wehrum/DC/USEPA/U S o n 10/18/200 2 08:3 4 A M - -

Da n Mussatt i 10/17/200 2 04:0 0 P M To : Dav e Svendsgaard/RTP/USEPA/US@EP A cc : Bil l Harnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA , Bil l Wehrum/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

. Lyn n Hutchinson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA , Michae l Ling/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

. Racquelin e Shelton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA , Ro n Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EP A Subject : Coul d i t b e true? B I thin k I hav e answere d al l o f you rconcerns , an d hav e attache d th e revise d draf t document s yo u nee d fo r OMB

. I f the y mee t you rapprova l (an d I hav e no t overlooke d anythin g o rmad e som e gargantua n typo) , the n al l yo u nee d t o d o i s chang e th e nam e o f th e PD F fil e b y deletin g th e wor d "draft " fro m th e en d o f th e name . I f ther e ar e concerns , I wil l b e i n th e offic e unti l noo n tomorrow
. I F I don' t hea rfro m anyon e b y then , I wil l assum e ther e ar e n o problems

. Hop e thi s doe s th e trick

.
& RMR R Impac t Analysi s Octobe r1 7 0 2 dra f icr-NSR-RMR R 10-17-0 2 draft. f 

# f jtiy/rtLxe-

—


### NO V 2 2 2002
EP A AI R DOCKET 

# 1P. 3

October 17 , 200 2 MEMORANDUM : TO : Ro n Evans , Group Leader

Innovativ e Strategie s an d Economic s Grou p FROM : Danie l Mussatti , Senio r Economis t Innovativ e Strategie s an d Economic s Grou p SUBJECT : ANALYSI S O F PROPOSED DEFINITIO N OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ,

REPAI RAND REPLACEMEN T (RMR&R ) FO RTHE NEW SOURC E REVIE W PROGRAM

Introduction : Currently , th e Agenc y interpret s an d applie s it s majo r Ne w Sourc e Revie w (NSR ) exclusio n fo

r source s performin g routin e maintenance , repai r and replacemen t

(RMR&R ) o n acase by-cas e basis
. Thi s rulemakin g provide s aforma l definitio n o f

wha t constitute s RMR& Rand describe s tw o alternative s throug h whic h source s o f pollutio n ma

y participate : a

n annua l maintenanc e cos t

proces s that

establishe s a

n upper limi t or "allowance " fo

r exempte d maintenanc e an d repai r activities , an d asecon d proces s tha t identifie s major

sourc e NS Rproject s o n acase-by

cas e basis , employin g aprojec t cos t tes t simila r to tha t use d fo r Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS)
. Thes e program s woul d exemp t participatin g source s fro

mcostl y an d unnecessar

y majo r NS Rdetermination s an d permit s fo r RMR&R-relate d activitie s an d provid e greate r

level s o f certainty t o industr

y whe n makin g permitting-relate d decisions
. Thes e alternativ e rulemakin g option s als o limi t

th e applicabilit

y o f th e previou s case-by-cas e approac h t o determinin g whic h activitie s a

t asourc e constitut e or

do no t constitut e amajor

NS Raction
. Thi s paper

present s a

n overvie w o f

th e impact s o f

th e tw o propose d definition s o f routin e maintenance , repair , an d replacemen t (RMR&R ) withi n th e framewor k o f th e NS Rpreconstructio n permi t program . T o perfor

mthi s analysis , th e Agenc y relie d heavil y upo n existin g report s o n fil e fo r variou s aspect s o f

th e majo r NS Rprogram , includin g th e Jun e 200 2 NS RRepor t t o th e President, 1 th e NS R90-Da y Revie w Backgroun d Paper, 2 th e curren t major NS RInformatio n Collectio n Reques t

(ICR), 3 th e ICR s submitte d in May an d Jun e fo r revision s t o th e NS R

U.S
. EPA , 2002 , "Ne w Sourc e Review : Repor t T o the President, " http://www.epa.gov/air/nsr-review/background.html U.S
. EPA , 2001 , "NS R90-Da y Revie w Backgroun d Paper, " Docke t A-2001-19 , Document

Number II-A

01 , http://www.epa.gov/air/nsr-review/background.html U.S
. EPA , 2001 , "Informatio n Collectio n Reques t fo r 4 0 CF RPar t 5 1 and 5 2 Preventio n o f

Significan

t Deterioratio n an

d Nonattainment

New Sourc e Review, " OM B Contro l Number

2060-0003 ; EP

A For m Numbe r 1230.09
. RMR& RImpac tAnalysi s Augus t29,200 2 Pag e 1P. 4

applicabilit

y requirement s an d th e propose d RMR& Rprogram, 4 ' 5 and thei r associate d Federal Registe r notice s and other

publi c announcements . Th e Curren tNS RProgram : Th e NS Rprogra mi s acombinatio n o f

ai r qualit y plannin g and ai r pollutio n contro l technolog y programrequirement s fo r ne w and modifie d stationar y source s o f

ai r pollution
. Sectio n 109 o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f

199 0 (CAAA ) require s EP A t o promulgat e primar

y National Ambient

Air Qualit y Standard s (NAAQS ) t

o protec t publi c healt

h an d secondar y NAAQ S t o protec t

publi c welfare
. Onc e EP

A ha s set thes e standards , state s mus t develo p aState Implementatio n Pla n (SIP ) whic h contain s emissio n limitation s an d othe r contro l measure s t o attai n an d maintai n th e NAAQ S an d t o meet th e othe r requirement s o f

sectio n 110(a) o f

th e Act
. Th e state' s NS Rprogrami s apar t o f tha t SIP
. Th e programcommonl y calle d th e "majo r NSR " derive s it s authority fro mpart s C an d D o f

Titl e I o f th e Ac t an d i s apreconstructio n revie w an d permittin g progra mapplicabl e t

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

ai r pollutants
. I n area s no t

meetin g th e NAAQ S an d i n th e ozon e transpor t region s (OTR) , th e programi s th e "nonattainment " NS Rprogram , implemente d unde r th e requirement s o f

par t D o f titl e I o f th e Act
. In attainment

area s (area s meetin g NAAQS ) o r in area s where ther e i s insufficien

t informatio n t o determin e whethe r they meet th e NAAQ S ("unclassifiable " areas) , th e Agenc y implement s major NS Ra s th e Preventio n o f Significant

Deterioratio n (PSD ) programunde r

th e requirement s o f

part C o f Titl e I o f th e Act
. Applicability o f

th e major NS R programmus t

b e determine d i

n advanc e o f

constructio n and i s pollutant-specific
. When asourc e trigger s major

NS Rin attainmen t

areas , i t mus t instal l bes t

availabl e contro l technolog y (BACT ) an d conduc t modelin g an d monitorin g a s necessary . I f th e sourc e i s locate d i n anonattainmen t area , i t mus t instal l technolog y tha

t meet s th e lowes t

achievabl e emissio n rat e (LAER) , secur e emissio n reduction s to offse

t an y increase s abov e baselin e emissio n levels , an d perfor mothe r analysis
. On e ke y attribut e o f

th e major NS Rprogrami n general i s tha t source s wit

h major modification s ma

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

h contemporaneou s emission s reductions
. I n other words , asourc e ca

n modify , o r

eve n completel y replace , o r

add , emission s unit s withou t obtainin g amajor

NS Rpermi t

a s lon g a s it s "actual emissions " d o no t

increas e over

baselin e level s a

t th e plan t a s awhol e b y asignificant amount . Existin g regulation s defin e baselin e actual emission s a s "the averag e rate , i n tpy , at whic h th e uni t actuall y emitte d th e pollutan t durin g a2-yea

r perio d whic h precede s th e particula r dat e an d whic h i s representativ e o f

normal sourc e operation. " Th e permittin g authoritie s wil l ordinaril y allo w us e o f adifferen t tim e perio d "upo n adeterminatio n that i t i s mor e representativ e o f

norma l sourc e operation. " W e hav e historicall y use d th e 2 year s immediatel y precedin g th e propose d chang e to establis h th e baseline
. However , i n some case s w e hav e allowe d us e o f a n earlier period
. EP A define s a"net

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

mth e particula

r
U.S
. EPA , 2002 , "Infonnatio n Collectio n Reques t fo r Change s to th e 4 0 CF

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

y Requirement s fo

r Modification s t

o Existin g Sources, " EP

A For mNumber

2074.01
. U.S
. EPA , 2002 , "Informatio n Collectio n Reques t fo r th e Establishment

of aDefinitio n o f

Routin e Maintenance , Repai r

an d Replacemen t

fo r th e Ne w Sourc e Revie w Program, " EP A For mNumber

1713.04
. RMR& RImpac tAnalysi s Augus t29 , 200 2

Pag e 2P. 5

physical o r

operational chang e (takin g into account th e us e o f

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

operatio n o r

rate s o f productio n wher e suc h control s an d restriction s are federall y enforceable) , together wit h th e source' s othe r

contemporaneou s increase s o r decrease s i

n actua l emissions
. Eac h sourc e seekin g a

n NS Rpermi t

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

ne t increas e i n th e source' s actua l emissions
. Currently , whe n asourc e uni t (othe r tha n a n electri c utility stea

mgeneratin g unit) 6 "ha s no t begu n normal operations, " tha t unit' s post-chang e actua l emission s are equa

l th e unit s Potential T o Emi t (PTE)
. Thi s i s referre d t o a s th e "actual-to

potential " test . Source s ma y avoi d thi s presumptio n b y agreein g t o limi t th e unit' s PTE throug h th e us e o f practicall y enforceabl e restrictions
. Th e ne t resul t o f thi s proces s let s source s ensure n o increas e in thei r

actual emission s abov e baselin e level s followin g th e change
. Element s o f

Ne w Sourc e Revie w Reform : I n respons e t o comments , discussions , an d recommendation s fro

mth e publi c an d stakeholders , th e EPA i s revisin g regulation s governin g numerou s provision s o f

th e majo r NS Rprogram . Thes e revision s include:. 7 ' 8

• ane w metho d fo

r determinin g baselin e emissions , ane w actual-to-future-actual determinatio n fo r whethe r amajo r modificatio n wil l occur , ane w applicabilit

y provision s fo

r emissio n unit s designate d a s Clea n Unit s or

tha t participat e in pollutio n contro l project s (PCPs) , • change s t o le t

major stationar y source s manag e facilit

y wid e ai r emission s throug h aPlant

wid e Applicabilit

y Limi t (PAL ) withou t

requirin g apreconstructio n major NS Rpermi t
• arul e sectio n tha

t direct s ho w amajor

modificatio n i s determine d unde r th e variou s ne w major NS Rapplicabilit

y option s (baselin e emissions , actual-to-future-actual methodology , PALs , an d Clea

n Units ) and clarifie s where t o find th e provision s in th e revise d rules , codifyin g wha

t ha s alway s bee n EPA policy : tha t determinin g whether

amajor modificatio n ha s occurre d i s atwo-ste p proces s involvin g a n assessmen t

o f whether:(l ) asignificant emission s increas e o f

aregulate d pollutan t

occurre d fro

macombinatio n o f

on e or more emission s unit s followin g th e physical o r operational change ; and (2 ) asignificant ne t emission s increas e o f

tha t pollutan t occurre d fro

mth e major

stationar y sourc e over

th e contemporaneou s period , • aforma

l definitio n o f

wha t constitute s RMR& Rand describe s aprogramthroug h whic h source s o f pollutio n ma

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

y uncertaint

y associate d wit

h permit-relate d decisions
.

Th e regulation s define electri c utilit y stea mgeneratin g unit s (EUSGUs) , whic h hav e specia l rule s fo r physical an d operational change s tha t emplo y a n actual-to-future-actual methodolog y fo r al l change s (but not replacement ) a

t a n existin g electri c utilit

y stea mgeneratin g units
. Thes e provision s als o let

State s mak

e simila r change s i n thei r majo r NS Rprograms . Thi s analysi s use s the term s "proces s unit " an d "source " a s synonym s fo r th e sam e entity
. RMR& RImpactAnalysi s Augus t29,200 2

Pag e 3P. 6

Routin e Maintenance , Replacemen tan d Repai r - Background : Th e modificatio n provision s o f th e NS Rprogra

min part s C an d D are base d o n th e definitio n in sectio n 111(a)(4 ) o f th e Act : "..
. ['modification ' means]..
. any physica l chang e in , o r chang e in th e metho d o f operatio n of

, astationar

y sourc e whic h increase s th e amount o f an y ai r pollutan t emitte d b y suc h sourc e or whic h result s i

n th e emissio n o f

an y ai r pollutan t no t previousl y emitted. " Tha t definitio n involve s atwo-step tes t fo r determinin g whether

sourc e activitie s constitut e a modificatio n subjec t

to majo r NS Rrequirements : th e sourc e determine s whethe r aphysical or operational chang e wil l occur an d the n determine s whethe r th e chang e wil l resul t

in (1 ) asignificant emission s increas e o f

aregulate d pollutan t

fro macombinatio n o f

on e or mor e emission s unit s followin g th e physical or

operational change ; an d (2 ) asignificant net emission s increas e o f

tha t pollutan t fro mth e major

stationar y sourc e ove r

th e contemporaneou s period
. Th e Agency , industry , an d environmental group s hav e debate d fo r year s a s t o th e type s o f

project s o r activitie s tha t

qualif y a s RMR&R
. Th e referenc e t o "any physical chang e .. . o r chang e in th e metho d o f operation " coul d mea

n tha t even th e repai r

or replacemen t

of asingl e leak

y pip e coul d mee t th e requirement s fo

r amajo r NS Rmodification
. However , th e EP A ha s previousl y adopte d several limite d exclusion s fro mth e "physical o r

operational change " componen t o f th e definitio n t o recogniz e tha

t routin e maintenance , repai r an d replacemen t

(RMR&R) , and change s i n hour s o f operatio n or

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

operatio n withi n th e definitio n o f major modification
. Th e Agenc y als o limite d th e scop e o f th e secon d ste p o f

th e statutor

y definitio n o f

modificatio n b y excludin g al l change s tha t do no t resul t in a n emission s increas e a

t amajor sourc e abov e a"significant " level
. Take n together , thes e regulator

y limitation s restric t

th e applicatio n o f

th e major

NS Rprogramt o onl y "majo r modifications " at

existin g major

stationar y sources . Currently , th e RMR& Rexclusio n i s interprete d an d applie d o n acase-by-cas e basis
. Th e curren t proces s stil l "impose s significant burden s o

n th e utility practice s necessar

y to maintai n th e safety , availability , efficienc y an d reliability o f th e electricit y suppl y a

t existin g sources . . .[and ] th e curren t NS Rprogramha s activel y discourage d efficienc y improvement

project s . . ." 9 Fo r

example , th e 200 1 NS R90-Da y Repor t cite s th e followin g anecdotal evidence :

"
. . .pas t blad e maintenanc e an d replacemen t o f onl y th e deteriorate d blade s a t Detroi t Ediso n ha s never

increase d efficienc y over

th e original design
. Ye t

becaus e [blad e upgrade ] woul d resul t i n substantiall y improve d efficienc y compare d to th e original design , EP

A considere d i t

aphysical chang e unde r

it s NS Rregulations , and [therefore ] subjec t

t o NSR.
. ." 1 0 Another majo r proble minherent

in th e curren t

major NS Rsyste mi s regulator

y delay
. Sinc e 1997 , th e averag e time neede d t

o obtai n amajo

r NS Ror PS D permit , acros s al l industries , i s about seven

9 U.S
. EP

A 2002 , "Ne w Sourc e Review : Repor t T o th e President, " p 8
. 1 0 U.S
. EPA , 2001 , "NS R90-Da y Revie w Backgroun d Paper, " p 28
. RMR& RImpac tAnalysi s Augus t29 , 200 2

Pag e 4P. 7

months. " Th e averag e time neede d t o make amaintenance-relate d NS Rdeterminatio n i s betwee n thirt y and sixt y days
. Th e National Petroleu mCounci l reporte d in Jun e 200 0 tha t th e lengthy proces s fo r obtainin g permit s ca

n limi t arefinery' s abilit

y t o respon d quickl y to changin g marke t conditions , offering th e followin g lis t

o f averag e regulator

y delays , base d upo n survey s o f it s members : 3- 6 month s t o prepare apermi t applicatio n 1-3 month s fo

r th e permittin g authorit

y t o dee mth e applicatio n complet e 3- 6 month s fo

r th e development

an d negotiatio n of adraf

t permi t A n unstate d perio d fo

r publi c notic e and th e opportunit y t o receiv e publi c comment s o n the draf t permi t A n unstate d perio d o f

time fo r th e permittin g authorit

y t o respon d t o publi c comment s and take final actio n o n th e permit 1 2 Not e that thes e example s d o no t

addres s onl y routin e maintenance
. I n th e Detroi t Ediso n example , the y decide d agains t

replacin g it s turbin e blade s wit h on e wit h abette r desig n t o avoi d NSR
. Bu t

th e deliberat e improvemen t

o f auni t durin g routin e maintenanc e i s a n integral part

o f aplant' s operation s an d th e upgrad e woul d hav e mad e asignificant improvement

in energ y consumptio n withou t affectin g th e environment
. Relyin g o n th e result s o f th e NP C survey , th e entir e proces s o f merel y gettin g approval to mak e aroutin e modificatio n woul d require aminimu mo f year . Obviously , i f

suc h aroutin e chang e i s warrante d in respons e t o changin g marke t

conditions , the

n ayear' s wort

h o f delay woul d deepl y threate n acompany' s abilit y to operate effectivel y i

n the market
. Clearly , th e formalize d proces s throug h whic h asourc e report s it s routin e activitie s shoul d no t preven t suc h case-by-cas e decisions
. On e o f th e goal s o f

th e propose d ne w definitio n fo r routin e maintenance , repai r

an d replacement

i s t o allo w fo

r thi s sor t o f flexibility
. Under th e curren t

case-by-cas e approach , i f asourc e neede d t o perfor

mmaintenanc e an d repai r a t some unit , an d th e nee d fo r majo r NS Rpermittin g fo

r tha t repai r wa s no t clear , tha t sourc e woul d hav e to postpon e makin g th e repair unti l a n NS Rapplicabilit

y determinatio n coul d b e made
. Durin g that la g period , th e unrepaire d uni t woul d continu e t o emi t

above-normal level s o f

pollutant s (o r

par t o f th e source' s productiv e capacit y woul d hav e t o b e shu t

dow n to awai t

th e NS Rdetermination)
. Then , i f th e determinatio n indicate d th e activit y require d majo

r NS Rpermitting , th e sourc e woul d hav e t o wai t

onc e mor e fo r it s permi t t o b e approve d before beginnin g th e repair
. In othe r words , a sourc e ma y hav e t o wai t

fo r u p to eightee n month s t o b e abl e t o make arepai r becaus e i t trigger s major NS Rpermitting
. Approac h A : Th e Annual Maintenanc e Allowanc e Approach : Under th e propose d annua

l maintenanc e allowanc e approach , EP A propose s modifyin g th e RMR& Rexemptio n to explicitl y includ e activitie s a

t facilitie s wit

h tota l applicabl e cost s belo w a n annual maintenanc e allowanc e level , establishe d fo

r the aggregate o f

al l unit s a t th e facilit y fo r eac h calenda

r year . The su

mo f all projec t cost s a t al l of afacility' s unit s fo

r th e calenda

r yea r woul d b e compare d t o th e allowance
. Facilitie s woul d make individual determination s o n eac h potential projec t t o b e include d i

n th e

1 1 Ibid , p 7
. 1 2 Ibid , p 44
. RMR& RImpac tAnalysi s Augus t29 , 200 2 Pag e 5P. 8

RMR& Rtotal and , fo

r thos e project s i t

deem s RMR& Ri s no t

appropriate , th e facilit

y wil l perfor

m th e 4-step determinatio n tes t currentl y use d fo

r al l routin e maintenanc e repai r and replacemen t activities
. I f

th e 4-ste p tes t

determine s th e activity doe s no t meet th e requirement s fo

r RMR&R , th e activit y wil l b e assume d to require amajor sourc e NS Rpermit
. At

th e en d o f

eac h year , facilitie s wit h total cost s belo w th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e woul d b e considere d to hav e undergon e onl y routin e maintenance , repai r an d replacemen t

activitie s fo

r thos e activitie s in th e RMR& R report . I f th e total yearl y RMR&Rcos t fo r afacilit y exceed s th e annual maintenanc e allowance , al l o f th e facility' s reporte d activitie s woul d b e reviewe d a s follows : Th e owner/operato r

shal l subtrac t

project s fro

mth e tota l yearl y cost , startin g wit

h the mos t expensiv e project , unti l th e remainde r i s les s tha

n or equa l to th e annual maintenanc e allowance
. (Fo r

simplicity , thi s report

differentiate s thes e project s a s "excluded". )
• Project s tha

t wer e remove d fromth e total yearl y cos t woul d b e evaluate d o

n athe curren t case-by-cas e basi s i

n accordanc e wit

h curren t EP A policy
. An y "excluded " projec t

found t o b e requir e major

sourc e NS Rpermittin g throug h th e ex post case-by-cas e revie w woul d b e subjec t t o th e requirement s o f

NSR , includin g an

y potential enforcement-relate d requirement s fro mit s failur

e to apply fo

r a n NS Rpermit
. Th e Agenc y wil l establis h th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e equa l to th e produc t

o f th e replacement cos t o f th e uni t an d aspecifie d maintenanc e percentag e establishe d in th e propose d rule , where replacemen t

cos t i s define d a s th e tota l capita l investmen t necessar y fo r th e complet e replacemen t o f th e unit , calculate d accordin g t o th e EPA' s cos t

methodology , se t

ou t i n th e EPA Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Cos t

Manual fo

r annua l operation s and maintenanc e activities. 1 3 Whe n astationar y sourc e use s th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e t o determin e RMR& Ractivities , al l project s mus t b e include d i n th e annual cos t calculations
. A stationar

y sourc e ma

y no t selec t whic h project s underg o acase-by-cas e revie w and whic h are include d i n th e cos t calculations
. Facilitie s mus t

submi t a n annua l report , aggregate d acros s al l unit s a t th e facility , to th e appropriate Permittin g Authorit

y (PA ) withi n 6 0 day s o f

th e end o f

th e yea r ove r whic h projec t

cost s hav e bee n summed
. Eac h repor

t mus t provid e asummar

y o f th e estimate d replacemen t valu e o f eac h unit , th e aggregate d annual maintenanc e allowanc e fo r th e facility , adescriptio n o f al l change s made t

o eac h unit , an d th e cost s associate d wit h thos e projects
. I f

th e su mo f

th e cos t o f th e project s a

t afacilit y excee d th e annual aggregat e maintenanc e allowanc e fo r th e facility , th e outcom e o f th e case-by-cas e revie w o f al l nonroutin e project s mus t als o b e include d i

n th e unit' s report . Approac h B : Th e Equipmen tReplacemen tApproach : Under th e alternativ e RMR& Rapproac h tha t delineate s whe n a

n equipment

replacemen t

activit y wil l trigge r

amajor NS Rpermit , source s wil l no t perfor ma n annual inventor

y o f it s units
. Instead , eac h instanc e wher e th e sourc e mus t replac e a n existin g piec e o f

equipment

integral to th e emissio n o f pollutio n wil l b e subjecte d t o a projec t cos t threshol d simila

r t o th e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) reconstructio n test . Activitie s that

fall outsid e th e threshol d o f that tes t wil l b e subjec t

t o major sourc e NS Rpermittin g - a n outcom e tha

t i s identical to tha

t o f th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e scenari o and the current

1 3 Th e EP

A Air Pollutio n Contro l Cos t

Manual , 6t

h Edition , Danie l Mussatti , ed. , Januar y 2002 , EP

A #452-B

02-001 , Sectio n 1 , Chapter 2
. RMR& RImpac tAnalysi s Augus t29,200 2

Pag e 6P. 9

common-sens e approach
. Th e equipment

replacemen t

approac h i s ver

y simila r i n impac t to th e expecte d impac t

o f th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e approac h in that al l source s wil l hav e t

o annuall y determin e ho w the y wil l perfor mplanne d maintenanc e an d repai r activitie s i

n the presenc e o f

th e RMR& Rrequirement s (Rul e Assimilation , Developmen t o f Strategy) , and , t o b e abl e t o anticipat e large-scal e RMR& R activities , wil l als o nee d t

o perfor ma n annual assessment

o f th e replacemen t

valu e o f it s pollutin g units
. However , unlike th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e approach , th e equipment replacemen t approac h doe s no t

require a n annual repor

t to th e P A o n RMR& Ractivities
. Consequently , there i s n o analogou s repor

t preparatio n activit

y fo r th e equipment

replacemen t

approach
. For

thos e activitie s identifie d a s requirin g major sourc e NS Rpermitting , th e improve d verificatio n proces s lai d ou t in th e equipmen t

replacemen t

approac h wil l resul t

i n som e reductio n in burde n and costs . However , th e exten t

o f tha t burde n reductio n canno t

b e determine d apriori
. Instead , th e Agenc y mus t wai t fo r aforma l definitio n o f

th e component s o f

th e determinatio n proces s befor e assessin g it s relativ e impact
. Whil e th e Agenc y ma y promulgat e either

Approac h A o r

Approac h B , or

som e combinatio n o f

bot h approaches , thi s analysi s assume s the tw o approache s ar e mutuall y exclusiv e - tha t th e final rul e wil l b e either Approac h A o r

Approac h B , but

no t acombinatio n o f

th e two . Profil e o f Regulate d Entities : There ar e tw o type s o f

source s potentiall y affecte d b y th e propose d approache s t o routin e maintenance , repair , an d replacemen t withi n th e framewor

k o f th e Agency' s NS Rpreconstructio n permi t program . Th e followin g discussio n include s brie f description s o f

th e tw o types : electricit

y generatin g unit s an d non-utilit y larg e industrial boilers , combustio n turbines , an d othe r units
. Th e Agenc y mad e thi s determinatio n base d upo n existin g ai r qualit y report s and regulator y analyses : th e Ozon e Transpor t Assessment

Group' s (OTAG's ) 199 0 dat abase ; tli e Operatin g Permit s dat abas e o f respondents ; an d th e dat abas e develope d b y th e RACT/BACT/LAE RClearinghous e (RBLC)
. Electricity Generatin g Units : In 1990 , approximatel y 2. 8 trillio n kilowat t hour s (kWh ) o f electricit y were generate d i n th e Unite d States
. B y 2005 , EP A project s thi s total t

o increas e to abou t 3. 6 trillio n kWh. 1 4 More tha n 9 5 percen t

o f th e nation' s generatin g capacit y i s owne d b y electri c utilitie s an d asignificant

portio n o f

th e nation' s electricit

y generatin g industr

y i s i n th e regio n affecte d b y th e final Sectio n 12 6 rule. 1 5 EP A estimate s 84 2 electrical generatin g unit s o f les s tha n 2 5 M W wil l b e operatin g i

n thi s regio n in th e yea

r 2000
. I n additio n t o electri c utilit

y powe r unit s tha t produc e onl y electricity , thi s number include s unit s owne d b y independen t power producer s (IPPs ) an d unit s tha

t co-generate electricit

y an d stea m(co-generators) , whethe r owne d b y utilitie s o r IPPs
. Non-Utility Potentiall y Affecte d Sources : There ar e abou t 14,50 0 source s subjec t

t o Titl e I

1 4 EPA' s generatio n requirement projection s are base d o

n a n extensio n o f

th e electri c deman d forecas t o f th e Nort h America

n Electri c Reliabilit

y Council , adjuste d fo

r the impac t

o f th e Climate Chang e Actio n Plan
. 1 5 Th e final Sectio n 12 6 regio n consist s o f

whol e o r part s o f Delaware , Distric t

o f Columbia , Indiana , Kentucky , Maryland , Michigan , Nort h Carolina , Ne w Jersey , Ne w York , Ohio , Pennsylvania , Virginia , an d Wes t Virginia
. Th e petition s filed wit h EP A only nam

e part s o f Indiana , Michigan , Kentucky , and Ne w Yor k whil e namin g th e whol e o f th e othe r jurisdictions
. RMR& RImpac tAnalysi s Augus t29,200 2

Page 7P.1 0

operatin g permit s requirement s in th e EPA' s Operatin g Permit s Database , encompassin g al l industr y classification s i

n 3 4 state s and th e Distric t o f Columbia
. EP

A believe s thi s databas e represent s th e majorit y o f th e univers e o f

potentiall y affecte d source s fo r th e NS Rprogram . Tabl e 1 belo w i s i n th e curren t

NS RIC Ran d i n th e IC Rfo r th e direct-to-final se t

o f change s t o th e NS Rprogram dealin g wit

h applicability
. Tabl e 1 display s th e industr y classification s mos t

commonl y affected b y NS Rpermittin g requirements. 1 6 Tabl e 1 Mos tCommonl y Affecte d Entitie s Industr y Grou p Pulp an d Paper

Mill s Paper Mill s Chemica l Processe s Pharmaceutical s Petroleu mRefinin g Automobil e Manufacturin g Electri c Service s Natural Ga s Transpor

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

32211,322121,322122,3221 3 322121,32212 2 325181 , 32512 , 325131 , 325182 , 211112 , 325998 , 331311 , 32518 8 325411 , 325412 , 325413 , 32541 4 3241 1 336111 , 336112 , 336712 , 336211 , 336992 , 336322 , 336312 , 33633, 33634 , 33635,336399,336212,33621 3 221111,221112,221113,221119,221121,22112 2 48621.2212 1 Assessin g Benefits an d Costs : Th e Agenc y believe s al l source s potentiall y subjec t to majo r NS R permittin g wil l us e th e RMR& Rapproac h promulgate d b y EPA
. I n th e past , maintenanc e and repai r activitie s a

t aproces s uni t

wer e screene d b y th e facilit y accordin g t o acase-by-cas e rul e fo r determinin g whethe r

or no t th e activit

y coul d trigger

majo r NSR
. Th e facilit

y woul d apply fo

r a n NS Rdeterminatio n fo

r al l activitie s i t

believe d ma

y trigge r major NS Rpermittin g an

d thos e activitie s fo

r whic h acase-by-cas e determinatio n wa s inconclusive
. Base d upo n th e result s o f thi s determination , th e facilit

y woul d respon d accordingly , applyin g fo r amajor NS Rpermi t

whe n necessary . Under

th e annual maintenanc e allowanc e approac h t o RMR& Rprogram , EP A ha s develope d a

n objectiv e tes t

to reduc e th e uncertaint

y associate d wit

h determinin g whedier

asourc e i s eligibl e fo

r routin e maintenanc e exclusion
. Under the equipment

replacemen t

approach , EP

A ha s streamline d th e major

sourc e permi t

determinatio n proces s t o remov e uncertainty an d decreas e regulator y delays
. EP

A anticipate s source s wil l choos e to participat e in th e ne w RMR& Rprogra m unde r eithe r o f it s t o propose d approache s becaus e o f the increase d regulator

y certaint y offered b y th e program . Benefits : "Benefits " refer s t o an y an d al l outcome s of

aregulatio n tha

t contribute t

o a n enhance d leve l o f social welfare
. Th e tw o primary type s o f benefit s tha

t ca n b e attribute d t o tii e RMR& R definitio n are temporal

health-relate d benefit s and benefit s fro mavoided

costs. Eliminatin g the regulator y lag i n th e RMR& Rproces s ca

n reduc e short-ter

mexposure s to pollutant s an d woul d als o lead t o de minimis improvement s vis a vis th e cumulativ e effect o f som e pollutants
. Furthermore ,

1 6 Informatio n Collectio n Reques t fo r 4 0 CFRPar

t 5 1 and 5 2 Preventio n o f

Significant

Deterioratio n an d Nonattainment

Ne w Sourc e Review , Offic e o f Managemen

t and Budget

(OMB ) Contro l Number

2060

- 0003 ; EP A For mNumber

1230.09
. RMR& RImpac tAnalysi s

Pag e 8 Augus t29,200 2P.1 1

stimulatin g th e firm' s incentiv e fo r makin g technological improvement s whil e performin g RMR& R task s coul d lea

d to permanent

decrease s i n emission s (an d improvement s in energ y consumptio n an d production ) tha

t wer e no t anticipate d b y th e underlyin g air qualit y standard
. Th e concomitan t decreas e i n pollutio n contro l cost s (b y reducin g th e nee d fo r furthe r control s a

t other sources ) an d increase d health-relate d benefit s offe r opportunitie s fo

r ye t unrealize d economi c improvement s throug h th e propose d RMR& Rprogram . However , give n th e lon g tim e neede d fo r th e build-u p o f cumulativ e exposure affect s an d th e lac k o f dat ato define th e trade-of

f betwee n contro l alternatives , thi s analysi s defer s quantifyin g thes e potentia l health-relate d an d contro l cos t benefit s unti l bette r dat aare available
. Th e Agenc y believe s mos t o f th e benefit s fro

mth e propose d definitio n o f RMR& Ractivitie s wil l b e derive d fro

mcos t savings , o f

whic h thi s repor

t identifie s tw o primary types : improve d flexibilit y an d reactio n time , and avoide d NS Rcosts . Bureaucrati c delay s du e to processin g tim e and revie w limi t industry' s abilit

y to reac t quickl y i n achangin g economi c environment
. Fo r man y sourc e categories , thi s i s no t

abi g proble mbecaus e the y undertake NSR-relate d activitie s o n a n infrequent basis
. However , fo

r anumber

o f industries , th e Agenc y ha s identifie d a s man y a s thre e or

fou r change s take plac e eac h yea r tha t coul d promp t

a n Operatin g Permi t

revisio n and , potentially , a major NS Rpermit , a s well. 1 7 When suc h change s occur , permittin g lag s ca n significantl y impac t

th e profitability o f

the sourc e b y preventin g timel y change s in processe s tha t improv e competitivenes s an d protec t

market share
. Fo r

EGU s an d other

boile r applications , th e failur

e to perfor

mtimel y repair s an d maintenanc e ca n reduc e boile r

efficienc y an d thereb y reduc e electricit y generatin g capacity
. Eve n aon e percen t chang e i n th e hea

t rat e ofaboile r

{ceteris paribus) ca

n impos e ahal f amillio n dolla

r chang e i n ne t

revenue s fo

r a50 0 MWe coal-fire d boiler. 1 8 Allowin g source s t o respon d to maintenance-relate d problem s i n arevenu e maximizin g fashio n wil l unambiguousl y increas e revenue s (an d profits ) an d reduc e operatin g cost s fo r industry
. Th e ne t effect o f thes e cos t

saving s coul d b e substantial
. I n tangibl e cos t savings , the abilit

y t o addres s large r

routin e maintenanc e an d repai r problem s quickl y ca

n conceivabl y resul t

i n ten s o f million s o f

dollar s i n saving s throug h more efficien t electricit y generatio n alone
. That , combine d wit h th e potential fo

r improve d national an d international competitivenes s and market share du e to RMR& Rflexibilit

y improvement s coul d potentiall y resul t in jo b savings , jo b creation , an d othe r macro-economi c improvements
. Unfortunately , ther e i s n o wa y to determin e arealisti c valu e fo r thes e improvements
. Consequently , thi s repor t invite s th e public , regulate d community , environmental organization s an d othe r stakeholder s t o offe

r thei r inpu t int o thi s assessmen t

toward futur e refinement

o f thi s analysis
. Sourc e Costs : EP

A believe s cost s wil l b e insignificant fo r mos t o f th e source s participatin g i n th e RMR& Rprogra

munder either approach
. Fo r

instance , th e first

annua l tas k a t eac h participatin g facilit y wil l b e t

o estimate th e replacemen t cost s o f al l o f it s proces s units
. Sinc e thes e dat aare readil y availabl e to th e applican t throug h financial record s (suc h a s insuranc e forms ) i t shoul d tak e

1 7 U.S
. EPA , 1994 , "Economi c Analysis , Regulator y Flexibilit

y Ac t Screenin g Analysis , an

d Paperwor

k Reductio n Act

Informatio n Collectio n Reques t Analysi s fo

r Propose d Revision s t

o Par t 7 0 Operatin g Permit s Regulations, " b y Danie l Charle s Mussatti , pp 33-48
. 1 8 http://ildpower.com/fossil02.html RMR& RImpac tAnalysi s Augus t29,200 2

Pag e 9P.1 2

n o more tha

n 4 hour s pe r

proces s uni t

(source ) fo

r eac h facilit

y t o inventor

y all o f it s units
. Followin g th e estimatio n o f replacemen t

cos t fo r eac h proces s unit , th e facilit y mus t create a n annual repor t fo r eac h source , detailin g al l o f th e RMR&R-relate d cost s and activitie s a t tha t unit
. Fo r mos t units , thi s wil l b e arelativel y shor t report , agai n probabl y n o more tha n 4 hour s pe r

repor t to gathe r an d record each unit' s RMR&R-relate d activitie s into th e facility' s annua l report . A s state d i

n th e preambl e t o th e propose d RMR& Rdefinitio n an d in th e accompanyin g IC R revision , th e facilit

y mus t repor t activitie s aggregate d b y RMR&R-relate d cost s acros s al l appropriat e proces s units , rathe r tha n aggregatin g th e cos t

o f activitie s acros s pollutants
. Whil e thi s limitatio n necessaril y increase s th e burde n an d cos t t o industry , EPA believe s th e cos t o f that additional burde n i s minimal
. Tabl e 2 display s th e expecte d long-ter mannua l burde n an

d cos t o f thi s rulemakin g to source s fo

r th e maximumscop e o f

thi s propose d rulemaking
. Tabl e 2 Expecte d Annual Marginal Burde n and Cos tto Proces s Unit s (Sources ) fo r th e Annual Maintenanc e Allowanc e Approac h

Entity/Activit y Source s Rul e Assimilation , Developmen t o f Strategy 2 Assessmen

t o f Replacement

Valu e Preparatio n o f

Annua l RMR&RRepor

t Tota l Sourc e Burden an d Cos t Respondent s
1,45 0 1,45 0 1,45 0 1,45 0 Hour s Pe r

Respondent per Yea r

4
4 4 1 2 Tota

l Annua l Hour s (All Respondents )
5,80 0 5,80 0 5,80 0 17,40 0 Annua

l Cost pe r Respondent '

S300 $30 0 $30 0 $90 0 Tota

l Annua l Cos t (Al l Respondent) 1 • $435,00 0 $435,00 0 $435,00 0 $1,305,00 0 1 All cost s ar

e i n 200 2 dollar s 2 One-time item s hav e bee n average d over

th e thre e yea

r lif e o f thi s ICR
. Ther e ar e approximatel y 14,50 0 source s o f ai r pollutio n potentiall y subjec t t o NS Rpermitting. 1 9 Eac h o f thes e source s wil l hav e t o undertake th e task s liste d in Tabl e 2 , resultin g i n a n increase d burde n to al l potentiall y affecte d source s o f abou t $90 0 pe r yea r ($1. 3 millio n annuall y fo r al l sources ) under

th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e approach
. Becaus e ther e ar e s o man y source s that ar e potentiall y affecte d an d wil l nee d t o perfor mth e minimal annua

l task s o f inventor y an d reporting , th e increas e in burde n dominate s th e expecte d effect s o f th e RMR&Rprogram . However , throug h th e potential fo

r reduce d uncertaint

y and improve d flexibilit

y and competitivenes s found i n th e RMR& Rprogram , th e Agenc y believe s tha t althoug h no t

measurable , fo

r thos e source s subjec t t o majo r sourc e NS Runde r

th e curren t

case-by-cas e process , th e overal l benefit to source s abl e t o avoi d majo

r NS Rpermittin g throug h th e RMR& Rprogra moutweigh s the de minimis increas e in burde n an d cost s impose d upo n th e entir e univers e o f potentiall y affecte d sources . Consequently , th e Administrato r assert s tha

t whil e no t

estimabl e i

n the traditiona

l sense , th e

1 9 Mos t

source s contai n mor

e tha n on e pollutio n creatin g unit , bu t thi s repor t doe s not need t o differentiat

e b y pollutan t fo r the purpose s o f

thi s analysis
. RMR& RImpactAnalysi s

Page 1 0 Augus t29 , 200 2P.1 3

propose d RMR& Rapproache s provid e regulator y relie f to thos e source s currentl y subjec t t o major sourc e NS Runde r

the curren t

routin e maintenanc e provisions
. Tabl e 3 Expecte d Annual Margina l Burde n and Cos tt

o Proces s Units (Sources ) fo r th e Equipmen tReplacemen tApproach

Entit y / Activit y Source s Rul e Assimilation , Development o f Strategy 2 Assessment

o f Replacement

Valu e Total Sourc e Burde n an d Cos t Respondent s
1,45 0 1,45 0 1,45 0 Hour s Pe r

Responden t per Yea r

4
4 8 Tota

l Annua l Hour s (Al l Respondents )
5,80 0 5,80 0 11,60 0 Annua

l Cos t per Respondent

'

$30 0 $30 0 $60 0 Tota

l Annua l Cos t (Al l Respondent) 1
$435,00 0 $435,00 0 $870,00 0 1 Al l cost s ar

e i n 200 2 dollar s 2 One-tim e item s hav e been average d over th e thre e yea

r lif e o f thi s ICR
. Th e 14,50 0 source s o f

ai r pollutio n potentiall y subjec t t o NS Rpermittin g under th e propose d equipmen t

replacemen t

approac h wil l hav e t

o undertake th e task s liste d in Tabl e 3 , above
. Becaus e th e activitie s tha

t fall withi n th e definitio n o f routin e maintenanc e repai r an d replacemen t

ar e independen t

o f th e progra

mtha t govern s it , there i s n o reaso n to believ e th e number o f affecte d source s o r th e burde n differ s betwee n th e tw o propose d approaches
. Th e primar y differenc e betwee n th e tw o propose d approache s i s tha t th e equipment

replacemen t

approac h doe s no t

hav e a n associate d annual reportin g requirement
. Consequently , th e number o f affecte d source s an d th e burde n associate d wit

h eac h o f th e task s i

n Tabl e 3 ha s th e sam

e valu e a s it s analo g i

n Tabl e 2 fo

r th e annual maintenanc e allowanc e approach
. Each affecte d sourc e wil l expen d abou t 8 additional hour s i n regulatory-relate d activities , relativ e t o th e status quo, fo r atotal additional cos t

o f abou t $87 0 thousan d pe r

year . A s wit

h th e annua

l maintenanc e allowanc e approach , th e Administrato r assert s tha

t th e reductio n i

n uncertaint

y and improve d flexibilit

y an d competitivenes s availabl e throug h th e equipment

replacemen t

RMR& Rapproac h als o provide s regulator y relie f t o industry
. Permittin g Authority Costs : Permittin g authoritie s seekin g t o implement th e new RMR& R provision s wil l incur

th e cost s outlin e in thi s section
. PAs , however , d o no t hav e t o adop t an y particula r provisio n a s lon g a s the y ca n sho w tha

t thei r versio n o f

th e programi s a

t leas t a s stringen t a s ours . PA s wh o d o no t

want t o implement

th e ne w provision s wil l incur cost s associate d wit

h demonstratin g th e adequac y o f thei r existin g programs . Eac h participatin g P A wil l hav e to lear

n th e rul e and incorporat e i

t into it s SIP
. Th e Agenc y identifie d five task s tha t eac h P A mus t perfor mfo r th e incorporatio n o f

th e RMR& Rprogra

minto it s SI P an d tw o annual task s i t wil l hav e to perfor

m t o maintai n th e RMR& Rprogram . Tabl e 4 display s th e expecte d annual burde n and cos t o f thi s rulemakin g to PA s fo

r th e maximumscop e o f

thi s analysis
. Eac h P

A ca n expec t to incu r a n additional 1,40

0 hour s o f activit y per yea r

RMR& RImpactAnalysi s

Page 1 1 Augus t29,200 2P.1 4



### Tabl e 4 Expecte d Marginal

Entit y / Activit y Rul e Familiarization 2 Applicabilit

y Determinations 2 SIP Revision 2 Publi c Hearin g an d SIP Modification 2 Legislativ e Coordination 2 Annua l Repor t Review 3 NS RDetermination 5

- ' Tota l One-Tim e P

A Burde n an d Cost ' Tota l Annua l Burde n an d Cost ' 

### Burde n

Respondents 11 2 11 2 11 2 11 2 11 2 11 2 11 2 11 2 11 2 

### an d Cos t

t o Permittin g Authoritie s

Hour s Pe r Activit y 20 1 0 4 0 3 0 4 0 8 1 0 Tota

l Annua l Hour s (Al l Respondents ) 2,24 0 1,12 0 4,48 0 3,36 0 4,48 0 116,48 0 7,28 0 15,68 0 123,76 0 Annua

l Cos t per Respondcn

j $74 0 $37 0 $1,48 0 $1,11 0 $1,48 0 $38,48 0 $2,40 5 $5,18 0 Tota

l Annua l Cos t (Al l Respondent) 1 $82,88 0 $41,44 0 $165,76 0 $124,32 0 $165,76 0 $4,309,76 0 $269,36 0 $580,16 0 $4,579,12 0 1 Al

l cost s are i

n 200 2 dollar s 2 One-time item s hav e been average d ove r th e thre e yea

r lif e o f thi s ICR
. 3 Annua

l item s hav e been estimate d a t 13 0 source s pe

r P A per year. . 4 Assume s 1 determinatio n fo r ever y 2 0 sources . Federa l Cost : Th e Federa l governmen t incur s amoderat e long-ru n burde n fro mth e promulgatio n o f thi s rule , bu t

th e Agenc y believe s th e burde n an d cos t o f th e RMR& Rprogra mt o b e justified
. EP A wil l b e responsibl e fo r tw o one-tim e activities , SI P revisio n suppor t (a t leas t 1 0 hour s o f guidanc e pe r

year , o r 3,36 0 hour s ove r

th e thre e year s o f

expecte d SI P revision) , an d SI P revie w an d approva l (abou t

on e da y pe r

SIP , o r atota l o f 29 9 hour s pe r

year)
. Annually , th e EP A wil l hav e tw o task s t o perform : managemen t o f th e RMR& Rprogra mt o thos e source s wher e i t ha s authorit y (abou t 1 0 hour s pe r

year , o r 1,45 0 hour s pe r

yea r pe r Federall y manage d source) , an d oversigh t o f P A repor t

revie w an d NS Rdeterminations , whic h wil l tak e abou t hal f a s lon g fo r

th e Federa l governmen t

t o revie w eac h form , relativ e t o th e PA' s burde n fo r eac h task
. Th e Agenc y typicall y estimate s i t

offer s oversigh t

t o on e sourc e i n ten . Tabl e 5 , below , display s th e averag e annua l expecte d burde n an d cos t t o th e Federa l governmen t fo r th e RMR& Rprogram . Botto m Lin e Impacts : Th e propose d annua l maintenanc e allowanc e approac h t o RMR& R activitie s wil l ad d abou t

$1 3 millio n annuall y t o th e cos t o f th e NS Rprogram . However , th e effec t o f smal l cost s accrue d b y larg e number s o f source s make s thi s tota l misleading
. Abou t 6 1 percen t o f tha t cos t applie s t o th e annua l cos t o f th e RMR& Rprogra mt o source s - mos t o f whic h i s attributabl e t o th e de minimis cos t o f additiona l reportin g tha t i s sprea d acros s 14,50 0 source s (a t an annua l cos t

o f les s tha n athousan d dollar s pe r source)
. I f

tha t de minimis cos t

i s remove d fro mtotal , th e annua l cos t

o f th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e RMR& Rprogra mi s les s tha n $200,000

. Th e equipmen t

replacemen t

approac h cost s somewha t les s tha n th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e approach , sinc e i t

doe s no t hav e an annua l reportin g requirement
. Consequently , fo r sources , th e equipmen t

replacemen t

approac h wil l cos t

source s an expecte d $87 0 thousan d pe r year , o r abou t $60 0 pe r sourc e pe r

year .

RMR& RImpac t Analysi s Pag e 1 2 Augus t

29,200 2P.1 5

Tabl e 5 Expecte d Yearl y Marginal Burde n an d Cos tto Th e Federal Governmen t

Entity/Activit y Coordinatio n wit

h PA s 2 Review o f SIPS 2 Management

o f Federa l Progra m' Annua l Repor t Review 3 NS RDetermination 3 ' 4 TOTA L One-Time Federa

l Burde n an d Cost s ' TOTA L Annua l Federal Burden an d Cost s ' Numbe r o f Respondent s Serve d 11 2 11 2 14 5 13,05 0 13,05 0 Hour s per

Yea r Pe r Respondent 1 0 8 1 0 4 1 0 1 3 Tota

l Annua l Hour s 1,12 0 89 6 1,45 0 5,22 0 13,05 0 1(45 6 Averag e Annua

l Cos t per Respondent ' $41,44 0 $11,06 3 $37 0 $ 4 $ 6 $52,50 3 Tota

l Annua l Cos t (All Respondent) ' $41,44 0 $11,06 3 $53,65 0 $193,14 0 $482,85 0 $52,50 3 $502,19 0 1 Al l cost s ar e i

n 200 2 dollar s 2 One-time item s hav e been average d over th e thre e yea

r lif e o f thi s ICR
. 3 Annua

l item s hav e been estimate d a t 13 0 source s per

P A pe r year. . 4 Assume s 1 determinatio n forevet y 2 0 sources .

Under bot h approaches , th e Agenc y ha s provide d opportunitie s fo r industr y t o improv e it s responsivenes s to changin g economi c condition s whil e performin g critical repair , replacemen t an d maintenanc e activities
. Thes e improvement s deriv e fro mth e RMR&Rprogram' s primar y goal s - th e reductio n o f

uncertainty an d regulator

y delay relate d t o th e performanc e o f suc h activities
. Whil e valuable , th e decreas e in uncertaint y an d regulator

y dela y are no t quantifiabl e in th e traditional sense . Instead , th e Agency' s assertio n tha t th e tw o alternativ e approache s t o RMR& Rprovid e regulator y relie f depend s o n asimpl e concept , th e L e Chetalier Principl e i

n it s economi c application : reducin g th e restriction s o n industr y reduce s costs . Consequently , whil e th e measurabl e portio n o f th e propose d approache s indicate increase s in burde n and cost , th e progra min toto shoul d b e beneficial
.
Tabl e 6 Botto m Lin e One-Tim e an d Annua l Burde n an d Costs'o f th e RMR& R Program (Bot

h Approaches )

Entit y / Activit y Proces s Unit s (Sources ) Annua l Maintenanc e Allowanc e Approac h Proces s Unit s (Sources ) Equipment Replacement

Approac h Permittin g Authoritie s (Bot h Approaches ) U S Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y (Bot

h Approaches ) Tota l Expecte d Cos t

( Annua l Maintenanc e Allowanc e Approach ) Tota l Expecte d Cos t

(Equipmen t

Replacement

Approach ) Number o f Respondent s 1,45 0 1,45 0 11 2 1 Hours Ye a Respo n pe

r pe r den t 1 2
8 14 0 2 3 Tota

l Annua l Hour s (Al l Respondents ) 17,40 0 11,60 0 15,68 0 2,90 6 Annua

l Cos t pe r Respondent ' $90 0 $60 0 $5,18 0 $85 1 Tota

l Annua l Cos t (All Respondent) 1 $1,305,00 0 $870,00 0 $580,16 0 $107,52 2 $1,992,68 2 $1,557,68 2 Al l cost s ar e i n 200 2 dollar s RMR& RImpac tAnalysi s Augus t29 , 200 2 Pag e 1 3P.1 6

Caveats : Th e analysi s i s base d upo n th e bes t dat aavailabl e to th e Agenc y a t thi s time
. However , inconsistencie s in P

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

necessitate d acertai n amount o f extrapolatio n and "best-guess " estimation s b y PA s an d Agenc y experts . Consequently , th e reader shoul d no t consider th e conclusion s t o b e a

n exac t representatio n o f

th e leve l o f

burde n or cos t tha t wil l occur . Instead , thi s repor

t shoul d b e considere d adirectionall y correc t assessmen t

o f th e impac t

th e programmati c change s include d i n thi s rulemaking
. Furthermore , becaus e th e final versio n o f thi s rulemakin g ha s no t

been determined , th e EP

A canno t make afai

r estimate ex

ante o f th e impac t

o n number o f permit s tha

t wil l b e affecte d b y thi s rulemaking
. However , in th e contex t o f wha t ha s bee n don e fo

r ove r te n year s fo

r NSR , th e Agenc y ca n b e relativel y confident

tha t th e DIRECTIO N an d th e MAGNITUD E o f th e expecte d change s du e t o th e ne w RMR& Rprogra

mreporte d in thi s analysi s ar e representativ e o f wha t wil l b e observ e ex post. Throughou t

thi s repor

t th e reader

wil l observ e estimate d value s tha t sho w accurac y t o th e singl e hou r or dollar
. However , reportin g value s a t th e singl e uni t

leve l ca n b e misleading
. I n mos t situations , th e prope r

wa y to presen t

estimate d dat awoul d b e to determin e a n appropriate leve l o f precisio n an d truncate value s accordingly , usuall y in term s o f thousand s or

million s o f

units
. Fo r instance , aspreadshee t

generate d estimatio n o f

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

$5,45 6 (thousands)
. One proble mwit h suc h a n approac h i s th e los s o f

dat arichnes s whe n th e repor

t contain s amixture o f

ver y larg e an d ver

y smal l numbers
. Such wa s th e cas e wit h thi s analysis , where sourc e value s are consistentl y i n th e million s an d Federal value s i n th e ten s o f thousands
. Consequently , to avoi d th e los s o f informatio n throug h rounding , EP A reporte d al l value s a t th e singl e uni t

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

RMR& RImpac tAnalysi s Augus t29,200 2 Pag e 1 4P.1 7

Th e Agenc y believe s that

th e benefit s fro

mth e RMR& Rprogra

m outweig h th e cos t

o f tha t program , whether

th e Agenc y ca

n quantif y tha t net benefit or not . Unde r

thi s assertion , "costs " an d "benefits " includ e thing s othe r

tha n monetar y measure s an d source s potentiall y subjec t to majo r NS Rpermittin g wil l avai l themselve s o f th e RMR& Rprogra

m becaus e o f

th e increase d regulator

y certainty
. Consequently , th e Administrato r

assert s that

th e component s o f

th e major sourc e permi t exemptio n processe s (bot

h th e annua

l maintenanc e allowanc e progra m and the equipment

replacemen t

program ) are nonincreasin g i n cos t t o sources . Tabl e E- l Botto m Lin e Effect s fo r Al l Respondent s

Entit y / Activit y Proces s Unit s (Sources ) Annua l Maintenanc e Allowanc e Approac h Proces s Unit s (Sources ) Equipmen t Replacement

Approac h Permittin g Authoritie s (Bot h Approaches ) U S Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y (Bot

h Approaches ) Tota l Expecte d Cos t

( Annua l Maintenanc e Allowanc e Approach ) Tota l Expecte d Cos t

( Equipment

Replacement

Approach ) Number o f Respondent s 1,45 0 1,45 0 11 2 1 Hour s pe r Yea r pe r Responden

t 1 2
8 14 0 2 3 Total Annual Hour s (Al l Respondents ) 17,40 0 11,60 0 15,68 0 2,90 6 Annua

l Cos t per Respondent

' $90 0 $60 0 $5,18 0 $85 1 Tota

l Annua l Cos t (All Respondent) 1 $1,305,00 0 $870,00 0 $580,16 0 $107,52 2 $1,992,68 2 $1,557,68 2 I Al l cost s ar

e i n 200 2 dollar sP.1 8 Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 

# EP A Offic

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

d Standard s Innovative Strategie s an

d Economic s Grou

p October , 200 2 

## INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTH E ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTIN E MAINTENANCE , REPAI RAN D REPLACEMEN T FO RTH E NE W SOURC E

REVIE W PROGRA M

prepare d b

y
Danie l Mussatti , Senio r Economis t Innovativ e Strategie s an

d Economic s Grou p Ai r Qualit

y Strategie s an

d Standard s Divisio n

EP A #1713.0 4P.1 9

Executiv e Summar y Currently , th e EPA interpret s and applie s it s majo r Ne w Sourc e Revie w (NSR ) exclusio n fo

r source s performin g routin e maintenance , repai r an d replacemen t

(RMR&R ) o

n acase-by-cas e basis
. Thi s rulemakin g provide s aforma l definitio n o f

wha t constitute s RMR& Ran d describe s tw o approache s throug h whic h source s o f pollutio n ma

y participate : a

n annua l maintenanc e cos t

proces s tha

t establishe s a

n upper limi t or "allowance " fo r exempte d maintenanc e and repai r activities , an d asecon d proces s tha t identifie s majo

r sourc e NS Rproject s o

n acase-by-cas e basis , employin g a projec t cos t tes t simila r t o tha t use d fo r Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS)
. Thes e approache s woul d exemp t participatin g source s fro mcostl y an d unnecessar

y major NS Rdetermination s an d permit s fo r RMR&R-relate d activitie s and provid e greater level s o f certaint y t o industr y when makin g permitting-relate d decisions
. Thes e option s als o limi t th e applicabilit

y o f th e curren t

case-by-cas e determinatio n approac h to determinin g whic h activitie s a t asourc e constitut e or

d o no t constitut e a major NS Raction
. Th e calculatio n fo

r th e burde n an d cos t

t o source s differ s slightl y betwee n alternativ e approaches
. Source s incu r th e mos t annua l cos t (abou t $1. 3 millio n fo r al l affecte d sources ) unde r th e annual maintenanc e allowanc e approach , bu t

tha t i s a n artifac t o f th e number

o f source s affected , sinc e source s als o incu r

th e lowes t

per-entity cos t

eac h year (abou t $900)

. Source s incur

alesser cos t ($87 0 thousan d pe r

yea r fo r al l sources ) i

f the Agenc y adopt s th e equipmen t replacemen t

approac h du e to astreamline d determinatio n proces s an d reduce d reportin g requirements
. PA s wil l hav e th e secon d lowes t cos t pe r entity ($ 5 thousand) , and the Federa l government

wil l incur

th e highes t

cos t per yea r a t ove r $ 10 0 thousand
. Fo r

PA s an d th e Federal government , thes e are cost s in additio n t o thos e reporte d i n th e curren t Informatio n Collectio n Reques t (ICR) , but fo r sources , th e reporte d cos t i s to alarg e (an d presentl y unmeasurable ) extent , th e sam

e burde n fo

r th e same activitie s under

th e curren t

system , wit h n o mor e tha n perhap s five or

te n percen t

o f th e total burde n and cos t bein g new . Table s E- l display s th e result s o f thi s IC Rfo

r al l respondent s fo r bot h RMR& Ralternativ e approaches
. Under bot h approaches , th e Agenc y ha s provide d opportunitie s fo r industr y to improv e it s responsivenes s t o changin g economi c condition s whil e performin g critical repair , replacemen t an d maintenanc e activities
. Thes e improvement s deriv e fro mth e RMR& Rprogram' s primar y goal s - th e reductio n o f

uncertaint

y an d regulator

y dela y relate d t o th e performanc e o f

suc h activities
. Whil e valuable , th e decreas e in uncertaint y an d regulator

y dela y ar e no t quantifiabl e in th e traditiona l sense . Instead , th e Agency' s assertio n tha t th e tw o alternativ e approache s to RMR& R provid e regulator

y relie f depend s o n asimpl e concept , th e L e Chetalier Principl e i n it s economi c application : reducin g th e restriction s o n industr y decrease s costs . Consequently , whil e th e measurabl e portio n o f th e propose d approache s indicate increase s in burde n and cost , th e progra min toto shoul d b e beneficial
.P.2 0

1 Identificatio n o

f th e Informatio n Collectio n 1. 1 Titl e Thi s document fulfill s th e Agency' s requirement s unde r th e Paperwor

k Reductio n Ac t

(PRA ) wit

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

h th e propose d chang e t

o th e preconstructio n permittin g progra mt o provid e aclea

r categor y o f activitie s that

wil l b e considere d routin e maintenance , repair , an d replacement

unde r th e Ne w Sourc e Revie w (NSR ) program . I t ha s been assigne d EP

A trackin g number 1713.04
. Th e titl e o f

thi s Informatio n Collectio n Reques t (ICR ) i s "Informatio n Collectio n Reques t fo r th e Establishmen t

of aDefinitio n o f Routin e Maintenance , Repai r and Replacement

fo r th e Ne w Sourc e Revie w Program. " 1. 2 Descriptio n Th e programcommonl y calle d the "major NS Rprogram " derive s it s authorit y frompart s C an d D o f

Titl e I o f th e Ac t an d i s apreconstructio n revie w an d permittin g progra mapplicabl e t o ne w o r

modifie d majo

r stationar y source s o f

ai r pollutants
. I n area s no t

meetin g National Ambient Air Qualit y Standard s (NAAQS ) an

d i n ozon e transport

region s (OTR) , th e programi s th e "nonattainment " NS Rprogram , implemente d unde r th e requirement s o f

part D o f titl e I o f th e Act
. In attainmen t

area s (area s meetin g NAAQS ) or

in area s wher

e ther e i s insufficient

informatio n t

o determin e whethe r

the y meet

the NAAQ S ("unclassifiable " areas) , the Agenc y implement s th e Preventio n o f Significant

Deterioratio n (PSD ) progra munde r th e requirement s o f

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

y o f th e major NS Rprogra

mmus t b e determine d i

n advanc e o f constructio n an d i s pollutant-specific
. Whe n asourc e trigger s majo r NS Rin attainmen t

areas , i t mus t instal l Bes t

Availabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT ) an d conduc t modelin g an d monitorin g a s necessary . I f th e sourc e i s locate d i

n anonattainment

area , i t mus t instal l technolog y (ha t meet s th e Lowes t

Achievabl e Emissio n Rat e (LAER) , secure emissio n reduction s to offse t an y increase s abov e baselin e emissio n levels , an d perfor mothe r analysis
. Th e NS Rprogrami s acombinatio n o f ai r qualit y plannin g an

d ai r pollutio n contro l technolog y progra mrequirement s fo

r new an d modifie d stationar y source s o f

ai r pollution
. I

n brief , sectio n 109 o f

th e Ac t require s u s t o promulgat e primar

y NAAQ S t o protec t

publi c healt

h and secondar

y NAAQ S to protec t

publi c welfare
. Onc e EP

A ha s se t thes e standards , state s mus t

develo p aState Implementatio n Pla n (SIP ) whic h contain s emissio n limitation s an d other contro l measure s to attai n and maintai n th e NAAQ S an d to mee t

th e other requirement s o f

sectio n 110(a

) o f th e Act
. Th e state' s NS Rprogrami s apar t o f tha t SIP
. In respons e t o comments , discussions , an d recommendation s fro mth e public , an d stakeholders , EP A i s revisin g regulation s governin g th e NS R

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTHE ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTIN E MAINTENANCE ,

REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NE W SOURC E REVIEW PROGRAM Page lP.2 1

program s mandate d b y part s C an d D o f titl e I o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t (CAA or Act ) to clarif

y and formaliz e th e proces s throug h whic h routin e maintenance , replacement , an d repai r o f proces s unit s i s handled.' 2 Th e modificatio n provision s o f th e NS Rprogrami

n part s C an

d D ar e base d o n th e definitio n i

n sectio n 111(a)(4 ) o f

th e Act : "..
. ['modification ' means ]
.. . any physica l chang e in , o r chang e i n th e metho d o f

operatio n of

, astationar

y sourc e whic h increase s th e amoun t

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

an y air pollutan t no t previousl y emitted. " Tha t definitio n involve s atwo-ste p tes t fo r determinin g whether

sourc e activitie s constitut e amodificatio n subjec t t o major NS Rrequirements : th e Permittin g Authorit

y (PA ) determine s whethe r aphysical or

operational chang e wil l occur

an d then determine s whethe r th e chang e wil l resul t

i n a n emission s increas e over

baselin e levels
. Th e referenc e t o "an

y physical chang e .. . o r

chang e i n th e metho d o f operation " coul d mea

n tha t even the repai r

o r replacemen t

of asingl e leak y pip e coul d mee t

th e requirement s fo

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

l o r operational change " componen t o f th e definitio n to recogniz e that

routin e maintenance , repai r an d replacemen t

(RMR&R) , and change s in hour s o f

operatio n o

r i n th e productio n rate are no t b y themselve s considere d aphysica l chang e or

chang e i n the metho d o f operatio n withi n th e definitio n o f majo r modification
. Th e Agenc y als o limite d th e scop e o f

th e secon d step o f

th e statutor

y definitio n o f modificatio n b y excludin g all change s tha t d o no t resul t in a n emission s increas e at

amajor sourc e abov e a"significant " level
. Take n together , thes e regulator

y limitation s restric t

th e applicatio n o f

th e majo r NS R programt o onl y "majo

r modifications " a

t existin g majo

r stationar y sources . Currently , th e RMR& Rexclusio n i s applie d o n acase-by-cas e basis , an d i s interprete d i

n acase-by-cas e fashion
. There ha s bee n considerabl e debate over th e year s a s to the type s o f project s or

activitie s tha

t qualif y a s RMR&R
. Whil e EP

A doe s no t

expec t ever y sourc e contemplatin g arepai r an d replacemen t

activit y t o seek a n applicabilit

y determination , the consequence s o f a n incorrec t determinatio n b y astationar y sourc e coul d b e a

n enforcement

actio n fo r
1 Thi s analysi s use s th e term s "proces s unit " an d 'source " a s synonym s fo r th e same entity
. 2 Thes e provision s als o le t State s mak

e simila r change s i n their majo r NS R programs .
INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORTHE ESTABLISHMEN T OF A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTIN E MAINTENANCE ,

REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NE W SOURC E REVIEW PROGRA M Pag e 2P.2 2

failur e to obtai n th e necessar

y pre-constructio n permit
. Th e additio n of a clea r categor y o f activitie s considere d t o b e RMR& Rwil l provid e mor e certaint y t o astationar

y sourc e in plannin g an d decisio n making
. 1.2. 1 Alternativ e A : Annua l Maintenanc e Allowanc e Approac h EP

A propose s modifyin g the RMR& Rexemptio n to explicitl y includ e activitie s wit

h total cost s belo w a

n annua l maintenanc e allowanc e fo r a unit
. Th e annual maintenanc e allowanc e an d th e rule s fo r calculatio n an d summatio n o f

project s unde r

th e allowanc e woul d b e define d in ne w provision s a

t 4 0 CF R51.16 5 (a) (1 ) (xxvi) , 4 0 CF R51.16 6 (b ) (38) , 4 0 CF R52.2 1 (b ) (39) , and 4 0 CF R52.2 4 (f ) (25)
. Under

EPA' s propose d approac h amaintenanc e allowanc e woul d b e establishe d fo r eac h facilit

y fo r eac h pre-define d yea

r (typicall y acalenda

r yea r or fisca l year)
. Th e cost s o f project s o n whic h constructio n commence s durin g the calenda r yea r woul d b e summe d acros s al l unit s regardles s o f th e pollutan t

i t emit s fro mleas t expensiv e to mos t

expensiv e t o ge t

atotal yearl y cos t

fo r aunit
. Facilitie s wit

h tota l RMR&R-relate d cost s belo w th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e woul d b e considere d to hav e undertak e onl y routin e maintenance , repai r

an d replacemen t

activitie s fo

r thos e project s i

n it s annual report . Whe n afacility' s total yearl y reporte d cos t exceed s th e annual maintenanc e allowance , th e activitie s woul d b e reviewe d a s follows : Th e owner/operato r

shal l subtrac t

project s fro

mthe tota l yearl y cost , startin g wit

h th e mos t

expensiv e project , unti l th e remainder i s les s tha n o r equal to th e annual maintenanc e allowance
. • Project s that

were remove d fro

mth e total yearl y cos t

woul d b e evaluate d accordin g to th e 4-step case-by-cas e basi s i n accordanc e wit h curren t EPA policy
. • Any remove d projec t

foun d to requir e major

sourc e NS Rpermittin g throug h th e ex

post case-by-cas e revie w woul d b e subjec t to th e requirement s o f

NSR , includin g any potentia l enforcement-relate d requirement s fro

mit s failur

e t o appl y for

a n NS Rpermi t

befor e beginnin g th e modification
. Th e Agenc y wil l establis h th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e equa l t o th e produc t o f th e replacemen t

cos t o f th e uni t an d aspecifie d maintenanc e percentag e establishe d i n th e propose d rule , where replacement cos t i s define d a s th e total capital investment necessary fo

r th e complet

e replacemen t

o f th e unit , calculate d accordin g t o th e EPA' s cos t methodology , se t

ou t i n th e EP A Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Cos t

Manual , (excludin g th e cost s fo

r installin g an d maintainin g pollutio n contro l equipment). 3 When astationar y sourc e use s th e annua

l maintenanc e

Th e EP A Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Cos t

Manual , 6 , h Edition , Daniel Mussatti , ed. , Januar y 2002 , EP

A #452-B-02-001 , Sectio n 1 , Chapter 2
.
INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTHE ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ,

REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NEW SOURC E REVIE W PROGRAM Page 3P.2 3

allowanc e to determin e RMR& Ractivities , al l project s mus t b e include d in th e annual cos t

calculations
. Facilitie s mus t

submi t a n annua l report , aggregate d acros s all unit s a t th e facility , t o th e appropriat e Permittin g Authorit y (PA ) withi n 6 0 day s o f

th e en d o f th e yea r over whic h projec t

cost s hav e been summed
. Each repor t mus t provid e asummar

y o f th e estimate d replacemen t valu e o f eac h unit , th e aggregate d annual maintenanc e allowanc e fo r th e facility , a descriptio n o f

al l change s mad e to eac h unit , an d th e cost s associate d wit h thos e projects
. I f

th e sumo f

th e cos t o f th e project s a

t afacilit y excee d th e annual maintenanc e allowanc e fo r th e unit , th e outcom e o f

th e 4-ste p case by-cas e revie w o f

al l project s selecte d in accordanc e wit h th e step s outline d abov e mus t

als o b e include d in th e unit' s report . Dependin g o n th e Agency' s decision s in th e post-proposal stage , a possibl e outcome to thi s rul e i s tha t th e curren t

interpretatio n o f

RMR& R woul d b e broaden , particularl y i f w e focu s o n asingl e facto r suc h a s cost . T o minimiz e th e chance s tha t th e cos t o f a n activit y coul d broade n it s interpretatio n o f

RMR& Ractivities , EPA' s recommende d approac h wil l als o contai n safeguard s to hel p ensure tha t project s tha

t shoul d b e considere d amajor

modificatio n unde r

th e regulation s ar

e ineligibl e fo

r exclusio n fro

mNS Runde r

th e annua l maintenanc e allowance
. EP A propose s excludin g fro

mus e o f th e annual maintenanc e allowance : 1
. Th e installatio n of

a ne w proces s unit . Th e type s o f activitie s eligibl e fo r a n automati c RMR& Rexemptio n shoul d b e limite d to maintenanc e o f

existin g equipmen t

a t astationar

y sourc e i n order t o ensure continue d saf

e an d reliabl e operation
. Th e additio n o f ne w proces s unit s tha

t di d no t previousl y exis t

shoul d receiv e greater scrutin y befor

e adeterminatio n o f

routinenes s i s made
. 2
. Th e replacemen tof

a n entir e proces s unit . Th e replacemen t o f a n entire proces s uni t

shoul d b e automaticall y considere d routin e sinc e avariet

y o f operatin g parameter s coul d change
. Therefore , a wholesal e exchang e of aproces s uni t shoul d b e subjec t

to greate r scrutiny under

th e NS Rprogram . 3
. An y chang e tha twoul d resul tin a n increas e i

n shortter

m emissio n rate s of

an y regulate d pollutant , o r i n th e emissio n of any regulate d pollutan tno tpreviousl y emitted . An y projec t that wil l resul t

i n ahigher emissio n rat e o

r th e emissio n of anew pollutan t shoul d no t

b e automaticall y exclude d fro mth e NS R programa s thes e increase s ma y resul t i n asignificant

ne t emission s increas e or

ma y hav e asignificant

impac t o n th e environment
.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTH E ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NE W SOURC E REVIE W PROGRAM Page 4P.2 4

1.2. 2 Alternativ e B : Equipmen t Replacemen t Approac h Concomitant wit h th e propose d annual maintenanc e allowanc e approach , th e Agenc y develope d asecon d approac h to th e management o f RMR& R activitie s tha

t focuse s o n clarifyin g whe n th e replacemen t o f existin g equipment wit h equipment

tha t serve s th e same functio n and tha t doe s no t alte r th e basi c desig n parameter s of auni t woul d b e considere d RMR&R
. Under thi s approach , EP

A woul d establis h apercentag e (ye t t o b e determined ) o f

th e replacemen t

valu e o f a n emission s uni t

(ye t to b e defined ) a s aper-projec t

threshol d fo

r applyin g th e RMR& Rexclusio n i n afashio n simila

r t o tha t employe d fo

r Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) purposes . Thi s approac h woul d let source s determin e more readil y wha t large-scal e replacemen t

activitie s woul d o r

woul d no t

trigge r major NS Rpermitting
. Th e equipment replacemen t

approac h woul d appl y to th e replacemen t

o f existin g equipment

wit h either identical new equipmen t

o r wit h improved , functionally equivalen t equipment
. Whil e th e annua

l maintenanc e provision s describe d abov e wil l improv e implementatio n o f

th e RMR& Rexclusion , th e allowanc e applie s primaril y t o lower cost , shor t turn-aroun d activities
. Fo r larg e scal e project s tha

t shoul d qualif

y fo r a n RMR& Rexemption , th e curren t common-sens e approac h an d th e propose d annual maintenanc e allowanc e approac h ma y no t provid e sufficien

t relief
. Th e curren t

approac h ha s to o much uncertaint y wit h regard t o whethe r

or no t propose d project s (th e same project s tha

t woul d no t

meet th e annual maintenanc e allowanc e criteria ) constitut e RMR&R
. Affected source s mus t choos e betwee n proceedin g withou t apermi t (wit h al l o f th e potential liabilitie s o f

noncompliance ) or seekin g a n applicabilit

y determination , whic h delay s major sourc e NS R projec t implementatio n b y aminimu mo f si x months
. Give n suc h achoice , i t i s no t surprisin g tha

t th e Agenc y ha s amasse d anecdotal evidenc e there hav e been case s i

n whic h th e uncertaint

y abou t th e exemptio n fo

r routin e activitie s ha s resulte d in expensiv e delay s o r even th e cancellatio n o f beneficia l projects
. Such regulator

y discouragemen t

result s i n los t productiv e capacity , a s wel l a s los t opportunitie s to improv e energ y efficienc y and reduc e ai r

pollution
. Source s are no t

th e only entitie s tha

t incur undu e cost s fro

msuc h determinations
. State an

d local permittin g authoritie s mus t devote scarc e resource s to mak

e comple x determinations , consul t wit h other agencie s t

o ensure thei r

determination s are consisten t wit h decision s made fo

r simila r circumstance s i

n other jurisdiction s (an d th e EPA) , and confe r wit h other regulator s to ensur

e consistenc y amon g th e PA' s conclusions
. Becaus e th e equipment

replacemen t

approac h ha s no t

bee n full y defined , EP A canno t perfor mahighl y integrate d analysi s o f it s potential impac t

o n industr y a t thi s time
. Consequently , th e Agenc y ha d t o mak e a n important limitin g assumptio n wit

h regar d to thi s analysis
. Althoug h th e NS R

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTH E ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO

RTHE NE

W SOURC E REVIE W PROGRA M Page 5P.2 5

proposal packag e indicate s th e Agenc y seek s commen t o n whether

thi s approac h shoul d b e adopte d separatel y o r alon g wit h th e annua

l maintenanc e allocatio n option , thi s analysi s assume s th e tw o approache s ar e mutuall y exclusiv e and tha t on e or th e other o f th e approache s - bu t no t bot h - wil l b e presen t

i n th e final rule
. Th e result s o f the EPA' s analysi s ar

e foun d below
.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTH E ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AND REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NE W SOURC E REVIEW PROGRAM Page 6P.2 6

2 2. 1 Nee d an d Us e o f th e Collectio n Nee d / Authorit y fo rth e Collec
tio n Titl e I o f th e Ac t require s EP

A to collec t

thi s information
. Throug h th e NS Rprogrami t

require s owner s o

r operator s o f

unit s tha t emit air pollutant s to submi t

a n applicatio n fo

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

th e operation s o f

eac h sourc e o f

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

2. 3 Caveat s an d Consideration s Fo r

EP A to carr y out it s require d oversight

functio n o f

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

mus t hav e availabl e to i

t informatio n o

n propose d constructio n an d modifications
. Th e burde n estimate s include d in thi s IC Rprovid e emissions , source , and contro l informatio n fo r th e PSD/NS Rand nonattainmen t

NS Rprogram . Th e analysi s include d in thi s IC Ri s base d upo n th e bes t dat aavailabl e to th e Agenc y a

t thi s time
. However , inconsistencie s in PA reportin g techniques , incomplete dat asets , an d samplin g limitation s impose d upo n th e Agenc y b y th e Paperwor k Reductio n Ac t

necessitate d acertai n amount o f extrapolatio n and "best-guess " estimation s b y PA s an d Agenc y experts . Consequently , th e reader

shoul d no t

consider th e conclusion s to b e a

n exac t representatio n o f

th e leve l o f

burde n o r cos t that wil l occur . Instead , thi s IC Rshoul d b e considere d adirectionall y correc t assessment

o f th e impac t th e programmati c change s include d i n thi s rulemaking
. Throughou t

thi s ICR , th e reader

wil l observ e estimate d value s tha t sho w accurac y t o th e singl e hour o r dollar
. However , reportin g value s a t th e singl e uni t leve l ca n b e misleading
. I n mos t

situations , th e proper

wa y to presen t estimate d dat awoul d b e t o determin e a

n appropriat e leve l o f precisio n and truncat e value s accordingly , usuall y i n term s o f thousand s or million s o f

units
. Fo r instance , aspreadshee t

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

$5,45 6 (thousands)
. On e proble mwit h suc h a n approac h i s th e los s o f

dat a richnes s when th e repor

t contain s amixture o f

ver y larg e and ver

y smal l numbers
. Such wa s th e cas e wit h thi s ICR , where sourc e value s are consistentl y in th e million s an d Federa l value s i n th e ten s o f

thousands
. Consequently , to avoi d th e los s o f informatio n throug h rounding , thi s IC R report s al l value s a

t th e singl e uni t

leve l and remind s the reader tha t mere i s n o implie d precisio n inherent i n thi s styl e o f

reporting
.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTH E ESTABLISHMEN T OF A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AND REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NEW SOURC E REVIEW PROGRAM Page 7P.2 7

3 Non-Duplication , Consultation , an d Othe rCollectio n Criteri a 3. 1 Non-Duplicatio n Fo r approva l o f apropose d ICR , th e Agenc y mus t ensur e tha t i t ha s take n ever y reasonabl e step to avoi d duplicatio n i n it s paperwor

k requirement s in accordanc e wit

h 5 CF R1320.9
. Th e Administrato r assert s that

th e dat a collecte d fo

r thi s rulemakin g i s more specifi c tha n other , similar , collection s and constitute s anecessar y component

o f the NS Rprogramto ensure th e protectio n o f

th e environment
. 3. 2 Publi c Notic e Requirement s Fo r

an y existin g rule , § 3507(g ) o f th e PR A limit s ho w lon g aDirecto r ma y take t o approv e acollectio n o f informatio n t

o 3 years . Th e IC Rfo

r th e 4 0 CF RPar t 5 1 an d 5 2 Preventio n o f

Significant

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

in Februar

y o f 2001
. Thi s IC Ranalysi s present s a

n update to that

renewal , base d upo n programmati c change s complete d sinc e February , 2001
. For al l o f th e element s o f

thi s rulemaking , significant

publi c comment

period s were given
. 3. 3 Consultation s

3. 4 Effect s o f Les s Frequen t Collectio n Th e proces s o f discussin g possibl e improvement s to th e NS Rprogram include d significant

interagenc y consultation , includin g meeting s wit h representative s fro

mth e Departmen t

o f Energy , th e Departmen t

o f th e Interior , and th e Offic e o f

Management

an d Budget
. Buildin g o n tha t input , EP A hel d conferenc e call s wit h variou s stakeholder s durin g October 2001 , includin g representative s fro mindustry , state an d loca

l governments , an d environmenta l group s t o discus s new idea s tha

t were raised
. Durin g many o f

thes e meetings , EP

A discusse d idea s fo

r ho w t o defin e routin e maintenance , repai r an d replacemen t

i n order to create mor

e certaint y fo r th e regulate d community
. Today' s propose d rul e i s a n outgrowt h o f idea s discusse d i

n thos e meetings
. Th e Ac t define s th e rat e o f

reportin g b y sources , states , an d loca l entities
. Consequently , les s frequen t collectio n i s no t

possible
.

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

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

o b y al l Federa

l Agencie s fo

r approva l o f an y rulemaking' s collectio n methodology
. In accordanc e wit h th e requirement s o f

5 CF R1320.5 , th e Agenc y believes : 1
. Th e NS Rregulation s d o no t require periodi c reportin g mor e frequently tha t semi-annually
.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORTH E ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NE W SOURC E REVIEW PROGRAM Pag e 8P.2 8

2
. Th e NS Rregulation s d o no t requir e respondent s t o participat e i n any statistical survey . 3
. Writte n response s to Agenc y inquirie s ar e no t require d t o b e submitte d i n les s tha n thirt y days
. 4
. Specia

l consideratio n ha s bee n give n in th e desig n o f th e NS R progra mto ensure tha

t th e requirement s are , t

o the greates t

exten t possible , th e sam

e fo r Federal requirement s and thos e PA s wh o already hav e preconstructio n permittin g program s in place
. 5
. Confidential , proprietary , an d trad e secre t informatio n necessar

y fo r th e completenes s o f

th e respondent' s permi t

ar e protecte d from disclosur e unde r

th e requirement s o f

§ 5 03(e ) an d §114(c ) o f

th e Act
. 6
. Th e NS Rregulation s d o no t requir e more tha

t on e origina

l an d tw o copie s o f th e permi t

application , update , or

revisio n to b e submitte d t o th e Agency
. 7
. Respondent s do no t

receiv e remuneratio n fo

r th e preparatio n o f

report s require d b y th e Ac t

or part s 5 1 or

52
. 8
. T o th e greates t

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

reporting
. 9
. Th e Agenc y believe s th e impac t o f NS Rregulation s o n smal l entitie s to b e insignificant

an d no t disproportionate
. Th e recor d keepin g an d reportin g requirement s containe d i n th e curren t NS Rprogra

man d th e change s mad e i n thi s rulemakin g do no t

excee d any o f th e Paperwor

k Reductio n Ac t

guideline s containe d i

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

require s bot

h respondent s and Stat

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

five years . Th e justificatio n fo r thi s exceptio n i s foun

d in 2 8 U.S.C
. 2462 , whic h specifie s five year s a s th e general statute o f

limitation s fo

r Federal claim s i

n respons e to violation s b y regulate d entities
. Th e decisio n i n U.S
. v . Conoco
. Inc. , No
. 83-1916- E (W.D
. Okla. , Januar

y 23 , 1984 ) found tha

t th e five yea

r general statute o f limitation s applie d t o th e Clea n Ai r Act
. 3. 6 Confidentialit y Confidentialit y i s no t a n issu e fo r thi s rulemaking
. In accordanc e wit h th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f

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

r revision s an d renewal s i s amatter o f publi c record
. T o th e exten t tha t th e informatio n require d i s proprietary , confidential , o r of a

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTH E ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NEW SOURC E REVIE W PROGRAM Pag e 9P.2 9

nature tha t coul d impai r

th e ability o f

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

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

§503(e ) an d §114(c ) o f

th e Act
. Informatio n receive d an d identifie d b y owner s or

operator s a s confidentia

l busines s informatio n (CBI ) and approve d a s CB I b y EPA , i n accordanc e wit

h Titl e 40 , Chapter 1 , Par t 2 , Subpar t B , shal l b e maintaine d appropriatel y (se e 4 0 CFR2 ; 4 1 F R36902 , Septembe

r 1 , 1976 ; amende d b

y 4 3 F R39999 , September

8 , 1978 ; 4 3 F R42251 , September

28 , 1978 ; 4 4 F

R17674 , Marc h 23 , 1979)
. 3. 7 Sensitiv e Th e consideratio n o f sensitiv e questions , (i.e. , sexual , religious , personal Question s o r otne r privat e matters) , i s no t

applicabl e to thi s rulemaking
. Th e informatio n gathere d fo

r NS Rapplication s doe s no t includ e personal data o n an y owner or operator .

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTH E ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AND REPLACEMEN T FO RTH E NE W SOURC E REVIE W PROGRAM Pag e 1 0P.3 0

4 Th e Respondent s an d th e Informatio n Requeste d 4. 1 Respondent s Th e Agenc y assert s tha t th e benefit s fro

mth e RMR& Rprogra

moutweig h it s costs , whether

th e Agenc y ca

n quantif y tha t ne t benefi t or not . Under thi s assertion , "costs " an d "benefits " includ e thing s other tha n monetar y measures . Consequently , th e Administrato r assert s tha

t th e RMR& R progra m(th e annua

l maintenanc e allowanc e programan d th e equipmen t replacemen t

program ) mus t

b e nonincreasin g in cos t

t o sources . Thi s rulemakin g pertain s to tw o separate methodologie s fo r th e reportin g o f physical change s a

t apollutio n sourc e tha

t ma y b e classifie d a s routin e maintenance , repair , an d replacement
. Th e Agenc y believe s source s wil l participate i

n th e RMR& Rprogrambecaus e o f th e increase d regulator

y certaint y i t will offer
. I n th e past , maintenanc e an d repai r activitie s a

t a proces s uni t

wer e screene d b y th e facilit

y accordin g t o acase-by-cas e rul e fo r determinin g whethe r

th e activit

y coul d trigge r

major NSR
. Th e facilit

y woul d apply fo

r a n NS Rdeterminatio n fo

r al l activitie s i t

believe d ma

y trigge r majo r NS Rpermittin g an d thos e activitie s fo r whic h acase-by-cas e tes t wa s inconclusive
. Base d upo n th e result s o f thi s determination , th e facilit y woul d respon d accordingly , applyin g fo r amajor NS Rpermi t when necessary . Under

bot h o f th e ne w RMR& Rprograms , EPA ha s provide d a

n objectiv e tes t

t o reduc e th e uncertaint

y associate d widi determinin g whether

asourc e i s eligibl e fo

r a n RMR& Rmajor

sourc e permi t exclusion
. There ar e approximatel y 14,50 0 source s o f air pollutio n potentiall y subjec t t o NS Rpermitting , representin g al l industr y classification s i

n 3 4 state s and th e Distric t

o f Columbia. 4 ' 5 Thi s comprise s th e majorit y o f th e univers e o f

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

r thi s ICR
. Tabl e 4- 1 i

n th e curren t

IC Rdisplay s th e industr

y classification s mos t commonly affecte d b y NS Rpermittin g requirements 6

. Tabl e 4.1 , below , reproduce s tha

t tabl e fo r thi s analysis
.

Th e databas e doe s not

includ e AK , AR , AZ , ID , KS , KY , MT , NJ , NM , PA , SD , TN , TX , UT , WA , and WY
. Whil e severa l o f thes e state s contai n man

y source s subjec t to NSR , EP

A believe s th e lack

o f thei r infonnatio n i

n thi s databas e doe s not har mthi s analysis
. Mos t source s contai n more tha

n on e pollutio n creatin g unit , bu t thi s repor t doe s not need to differentiat

e b y pollutan t

fo r the purpose s o f

thi s analysis
. Informatio n Collectio n Reques t fo r 4 0 CF RPar t 5 1 an d 5 2 Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n and Nonattainment Ne w Sourc e Review , Offic e o f Managemen

t and Budget

(OMB ) Contro l Numbe

r 2060-0003 ; EP

A For m Numbe r 1230.09
.
INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTHE ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTIN E MAINTENANCE ,

REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NEW SOURC E REVIE W PROGRAM Pag e 1 1P.3 1

Tabl e 4. 1 Potentiall y Affected Entitie s
Industry Group Pul p an d Paper

Mill s Paper Mill s Chemica l Processe s Pharmaceutical s Petroleu mRefinin g Automobil e Manufacturin g Electri c Service s Natura l Ga s Transpor

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

32211,322121,322122,3221 3 322121,32212 2 325181,32512 , 325131,325182,211112 , 325998,331311 , 32518 8 325411,325412,325413,32541 4 3241 1 336111 , 336112,336712 , 336211 , 336992 , 336322 , 336312,33633 , 33635,336399,336212,33621 3 221111,221112,221113,221119,221121,22112 2 48621.2212 1 33634 ,

Fo r th e perio d o f

time covere d b y thi s IC Rrevisio n fo r thi s rulemakin g (unti l th e next

NS RUpdat e i n 2004) , mos t state s wil l no t

b e affecte d b y thi s regulatio n du e t o th e regulator y la g neede d fo

r SI P review , revision , an d approval
. Durin g thi s period , th e only source s affecte d b y thi s final actio n wil l b e source s locate d in attainment area s in state s or

other area s where th e Federal governmen t ha s direc t regulator y authority. 7 Eventually , thi s rulemakin g wil l affect all States , territories , and possession s o f

th e Unite d States , a s wel l a s al l local an d Tribal governments . O f

th e state s i n th e Operatin g Permit s Database , only Ne w Jerse y and Sout

h Dakot aare no t

availabl e fo

r thi s analysis
. Fo r thos e state s wit

h Federa l delegatio n no t

in th e Operatin g Permit s database , th e Agenc y use d "proxy " dat ato represen t them
. T o identif

y a n appropriate prox y state , th e Agenc y employe d th e same methodolog y i t use d when estimatin g th e univers e o f state s wit h Federal delegatio n i

n th e IC Rupdate fo

r NS Rapplicabilit

y issues. 8 Th e Agenc y estimate d th e Federall y controlle d state sourc e coun t to b e abou t

on e third o f

th e tota l number o f source s i n th e Operatin g Permit s Databas e - abou t th e sam e a s th e rati o o f

Federall y controlle d state s t o th e numbe r o f state s in th e database
. Sinc e thi s IC Rrevisio n deal s exclusivel y wit h source s i

n attainment areas , and sinc e PS D permi t application s constitut e abou t one Thes e area s includ e Puert o Rico , Guam , and th e Virgi n Islands ; Washingto n D.C ; Hawaii , Illinois , Indiana , Michigan , Minnesota , Nort h Dakota , Nevada , Ne w Hampshire , Ne w Jersey , New York , Ohio , Sout h Dakota , an d part s o f California
. Th e Federal government als o ha s authorit

y i n Texa s and Washingto n State , but onl y fo r one sourc e categor

y i n eac h SIP , s o thi s analysi s will trea t Texa s and Washingto n State a s thoug h thei r SIP s were full

y approved
. U.S
. EPA , 2002 , "Informatio n Collectio n Reques t fo r Change s t

o th e 4 0 CF

R Part s 5 1 and 5 2 PS D and NS RApplicabilit y Requirement s fo

r Modification s t

o Existin g Sources, " EP

A For mNumber

2074.01
.
INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORTH E ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NEW SOURC E REVIEW PROGRAM Pag e 1 2P.3 2

third o f al l NS Rpermi t

application s annually , afte r establishin g proxie s fo r th e missin g states , th e EPA estimate d abou t 1 0 percen t

(1,45 0 sources ) o f al l o f th e source s in th e Operatin g Permit s Databas e wil l b e i n area s affected b y thi s rulemakin g and wil l participat e i n th e RMR& Rprogram . I n accordanc e wit

h th e methodolog y employe d fo r othe r permit-relate d ICRs , w e determine d ther e ar e 11 2 PA s affecte d b y thi s rulemaking
. 4. 2 Informatio n Requeste d Th e dat arequire d b y source s fo r acomplet

e preconstructio n permi t

fo r NS Ror PS D purpose s are in th e variou s part s o f Titl e 4 0 o f

th e Cod e o f Federal Regulation s (4 0 CFR ) an d reporte d i n othe r NS RICRs
. Thes e requirement s constitut e th e burde n tha t woul d b e avoide d b y asourc e usin g th e RMR& Rexemption ; and th e burde n tha t woul d b e impose d upo n source s usin g th e RMR& Rexemptio n bu t excee d thei r

annua l maintenanc e allowanc e o r progra mcos t threshol d (i f

usin g Alternativ e A ) or thei r per-projec t

cos t threshol d (i f

usin g Alternativ e B)
. 4. 3 Collectio n Schedul e

4. 4 Smal l Entit y Flexibilit y Under th e curren t

NS Rsystem , respondent s are no t subjecte d t

o a collectio n schedul e pe r

s e unde r NS Rpermittin g regulation s o f part s 5 1 and 52
. However , th e provision s o f th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e alternativ e add a

n annual burde n to all source s subjec t t o an d potentiall y subjec t t o PS D an d nonattainmen t

NS Rapplicatio n requirements
. Withi n 6 0 day s o f th e en d of afacility' s reportin g year , th e facilit y mus t produc e an d submi t

arepor t fo r eac h proces s unit' s annual maintenance , repair , an d replacemen t

activities , includin g th e replacemen t valu e (curren t purchas e an d installatio n cos t ofasimila

r device ) o f

eac h proces s unit , a descriptio n o f

al l change s made t

o th e uni t (includin g th e cos t

o f thos e changes) , and , i f

th e total cos t

o f thos e change s excee d th e processin g unit' s annua

l maintenanc e allowance , th e determinatio n o f eac h nonroutin e activity' s case-by-cas e NS Rdetermination
. There i s n o analogou s reportin g proces s fo r th e equipment

replacemen t

approach
. Th e Regulator

y Flexibilit

y Ac t (RFA ) a s amende d b y th e Small Busines s Regulator y Enforcement

and Fairnes s Ac t

(SBREFA ) require s regulator y agencies , upo n regulator

y action , t o asses s tha

t action s potential impac t

o n smal l entitie s (businesses , governments , and smal l non-governmental organizations ) an d repor

t th e result s o f

th e assessment s i

n (1 ) a n Initial Regulator y Flexibilit

y Analysi s (IRFA) , (2 ) aFina l Regulatory Flexibilit y Analysi s (FRFA) , o r

(3 ) aCertification
. For

IC Rapproval , th e Agenc y mus t demonstrate tha

t i t "ha s taken al l practicabl e step s t o develo p separate and simplifie d requirement s fo r smal l businesse s an d other small entities " ( 5 CF

R1320.6(h))
. I

n addition , th e agencie s mus t assure throug h

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTH E ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTIN E MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTH E NEW SOURC E REVIE W PROGRAM Pag e 1 3P.3 3

variou s mechanism s tha

t smal l entitie s ar

e give n a n opportunit

y t o participat e i

n th e rulemakin g process . A Regulator

y Flexibilit

y Ac t Screenin g Analysi s (RFASA ) develope d a s par t of a1994 draf

t Regulator

y Impac t Analysi s (RIA ) and incorporate d into th e September

199 5 IC Rrenewal analysi s showe d tha t th e change s t

o th e NS Rprogra

mdu e to th e 199 0 Clea

n Air Ac t amendment s woul d no t hav e a n advers e impac t

o n smal l entities. 9 Thi s analysi s encompasse d th e entire univers e o f

applicabl e majo

r source s tha

t wer e likel y to als o b e small-busines s - approximatel y 5 0 "smal l business " majo r sources l0

. Becaus e th e administrativ e burde n o f th e NS Rprogrami s th e primar y sourc e o f th e NS Rprogram' s regulator y costs , th e analysi s estimate d a negligibl e "cos t

t o sales " (regulator

y cos t divide d b y th e busines s categor y mea n revenue ) rati o fo

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

t thi s time
. 4.4. 1 Measure s t o Aver t Impact s o n Smal l Enti tie s Th e Agenc y ma y not , a s agenera

l rule , exemp t

amajor sourc e o f ai r pollution
. Sinc e th e impact s o f NS Rregulation s whic h ma y impac t smal l entitie s ar e predominantl y to major

sources , littl e roo mexist s fo r regulator y flexibilit

y to aver t th e impac t

o f th e propose d rulemakin g o n smal l entitie s throug h exemption
. However , eve n thoug h th e NS R progra mdoe s no t

hav e a n advers e impac t

o n asignificant

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

y sourc e technica

l and environmental complianc e assistanc e programs , a s calle d fo r i n sectio n 50 7 o f

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

e subjec t to majo r NS Rand ma

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

h determinin g wha

t Ac t requirement s appl y to thei r source s an d when they apply , and guidanc e o n alternativ e contro l technolog y an d pollutio n preventio n fo r smal l businesses
. 4.4. 2 Measure s t o Mitigat e Impact s o n Smal l Enti tie s Generally , EPA ha s several method s b y whic h i t ca n minimiz e th e disproportionate effect

of arulemakin g o

n smal l entities
. Net

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

y sourc e technical and environmenta

l complianc e assistanc e programs , th e Agenc y ca n defe r applicabilit

y fo r on e o r severa l sourc e categories , and mitigatio n ca n b e

9 "Economi c Assessment o f th e Impact s o f

Par t C and D Regulator

y Changes, ' Jun e 2 , 1994
. 1 0 Th e definitio n fo

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

n thi s analysi s wa s an

y busines s employin g fewe r tha n 50 0 employees
.
INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTH E ESTABLISHMEN T OF A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NE W SOURC E REVIEW PROGRA M Pag e 1 4P.3 4

achieve d b y discretio n o f

th e Federa

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

apply t o th e NS Rprogram . 4. 5 Environmenta l Justic e Consideration s Th e President' s prioritie s in promotin g environmental justic e ar e containe d in Executiv e Order #12898
. B y th e nature o f

th e task s include d i n thi s rulemaking , i

t i s no t likel y there wil l b e any disproportionat e environmental justic e effect s derive d fro mthi s par t o f th e NS Rprogram .

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTHE ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ,

REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NEW SOURC E REVIEW PROGRAM Pag e 1 5P.3 5

5 5. 1 Th e Informatio n Collecte d - Baseline , Methodology , an d Managemen t Determinatio n o f Baselin e Table s 6-1,2 , and 3 o f th e curren t

IC Rfo r th e PSD/NS Rprogra

m(a s revise d b y recen t

applicabilit

y provisions ) list s th e activities , burden , an d cost s o f th e NS Ractivitie s require d unde r 4 0 CFRpart s 5 1 an

d 5 2 fo r sources , PAs , and th e Federal government , respectively
. For convenience , Table s 5.1 , 2 , and 3 , below , recreate thi s information
. Thes e estimate s for mth e baselin e fo

r thi s ICR
. Tabl e 5. 1 Baselin e Annual Sourc e Burde n an d Cost " Estimate s
Activit y I . Par t C (PSD ) A
.

B
.

C
.

D
. E
. F
. Preparatio n an d Plannin g Determinatio n o f

Complianc e Requirement s Obtai n guidanc e o

n Dat aNeed s Preparatio n o f

BAC T Engineerin g Analysi s DataCollectio n an

d Analysi s Ai r Qualit y Modelin g Determinatio n o f

Impac t o n Ai r Qualit y Relate d Value s Post-constructio n Air

Qualit y Monitorin g Permit Applicatio n Preparatio n an d Submitta

l o f Permi t Applicatio n Publi c Hearing s Revision s t o Permit Subtotal burde n Direc t cos t fo r Pre-constructio n Air

Qualit y Monitorin g Tota l cos t II
. PAR T D (Nonattainment) A
.

B
.

C
.

D
. Preparatio n an d Plannin g Deteiminatio n o f

Complianc e Requirement s Obtai n guidanc e o n Dat aNeed s DataCollectio n an

d Analysi s Preparatio n o f

LAE REngineerin g Analysi s Demonstrate Offset s Prepare Analysi s o f

Alternativ e Sites , Processes , etc . Ai r Qualit y Modelin g Permit Applicatio n Preparatio n an d Submitta

l o f Permit Applicatio n Publi c Hearing s Revision s to Permit Tota l III
. MINO RNS R A
. Preparatio n an d Submitta l o f Minor NS RPermit

Applicatio n III
. GRAN

D TOTAL Unit s

32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 3 4

59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0

56.50 0 57.41 0 Hour s

pe r Uni t

17 0 12 0 8 5 20 0 10 0 5 0 5 0 24 4 0 83 9

150 10 0 4 0 4 0 6 0 10 0 3 8 2 5 24 57 7 4 0 Annua

l Hour s
54,40 0 38,40 0 27,20 0 64,00 0 32,00 0 16,000 16,00 0 7,68 0 12,80 0 268,48 0

88,50 0 59,00 0 23,60 0 23,60 0 35,40 0 59,00 0 22,42 0 14,75 0 14,16 0 340,43 0 2,260,00 0 2,868.91 0 Annua

l Cos t
$4,08 0 $2,88 0 $2,04 0 $4,80 0 $2,40 0 $1,20 0 $1,20 0 $57 6 $96 0 $20,13 6 $7,09 9 $27,23 5

. $6,63 7 $4,42 5 $1,77 0 $1,77 0 $2,65 5 $4,42 5 $1,68 1 $1,10 6 $1,06 2 $25,53 2 $177,00 0 $215,00 0 I n thousand s o f

200 0 dollar s

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORTHE ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ,

REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTH E NEW SOURC E REVIE W PROGRAM Pag e 1 6P.3 6

Tabl e 5. 2 Baselin e Annua l Stat e an d Loca l P A Burde n an d Cost "

Activit y I
. PAR

T C (PSD ) A
. Atten d Pre-applicatio n Meeting s B
. Answer

Respondent

Question s C
. Lo g I n an d Review Dat

aSubmission s D
. Reques t

Additional Informatio n E
. Analyz e fo

r an d Provid e Confidentialit

y Protectio n F
. Prepar

e Complete d Application s fo r Processin g G
. Fil e an d Transmi t

Copie s H
. Prepare Preliminar

y Determinatio n I
. Prepar

e Notice s fo

r an d Atten d Publi c Hearing s J
. Applicatio n Approva

l K
. Notificatio n o f

Applicant o f P A Determinatio n L
. Submitta

l o f Informatio n o

n BAC T / LAE Rto RBL C M
. Tota l II
. PAR

T D (Nonattainment) A
. Atten d Pre-applicatio n Meeting s B
. Answer

Respondent

Question s C
. Lo g I n an d Review DataSubmission s D
. Reques t

Additional Informatio n E
. Analyz e fo

r an d Provid e Confidentialit y Protectio n F
. Prepare Complete d Application s fo r Processin g G
. Fil e an d Transmi t

Copie s H
. Prepare Preliminar

y Determinatio n I
. Prepar

e Notice s fo

r an d Atten d Publi c Hearing s J
. Applicatio n Approva

l K
. Notificatio n o f

Applicant o f P A Determinatio n L
. Submitta

l o f Informatio n o

n BAC T / LAE Rto RBLC M
. Tota l III
. MINO RNS R Tota l fo r Preparatio n an

d Submitta

l o f Mino r NS RPermit

Applicatio n III
. GRAN

D TOTAL Unit s 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0

59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0

56,50 0 57,41 0 Hour s Pe

r Unit
3 6 2 0 1 6 8 2 4 3 2 8 2 4 4 0 4 0 8 1 6 27 2
7 1 0 8 4 4 1 2 4 8 1 8 1 6 2 1 6 10 9 3 0 Annua

l Hour s 11,520 6,40 0 5,12 0 2,56 0 7,68 0 10,24 0 2,56 0 7,68 0 12,800 12,800 2,56 0 5,12 0 87,04 0 4,13 0 5,90 0 4,72 0 2,36 0 •2,36 0 7,08 0 2,36 0 4,72 0 10,620 9,44 0 1,180 9,44 0 64,31 0 1,695,000 1,846,35 0 Annua

l Cost $42 8 $23 8 $19 0 $9 5 $28 5 $38 0 $9 5 $28 5 $47 5 $47 5 $9 5 $19 0 $3,23 1 0 $15 3 $21 9 $17 5 $8 8 $8 8 $26 3 $8 8 $17 5 $39 4 $35 0 $4 4 $35 0 $2,38 7 0 $62,91 8 $68,53 6
aI n thousand s o f

200 0 dollar s

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORTH E ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTIN E MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AND REPLACEMEN T FO RTH E NEW SOURC E REVIE W PROGRA M Page 17P.3 7

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

Activit y I
. PAR

T C (PSD ) A
. Review an

d Verif y Applicabilit

y Determinatio n B
. Review Contro l Technolog y Determinatio n C
. Evaluate Air

Qualit y Monitorin g D
. Evaluate Alternativ e an d Secondar

y Impac t Analysi s E
. Evaluate Clas s I Are aAnalysi s F
. Administrativ e Task s G
. Tota l II
. PAR

T D (Nonattainment ) A
. Review an d Verif

y Applicabilit

y Determinatio n B
. Revie w Contro l Technolog y Determinatio n C
. Evaluate Offset s D
. Evaluat

e Ai r Qualit y Monitorin g E
. Evaluat

e Alternativ e an

d Secondar

y Impac t Analysi s F
. Administrativ e Task s G
. Tota l III
. MINO RNS R Review Synthetic/Netting-Base d Mino r NS RPermit s III
. GRAN

D TOTAL Unit s 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0

59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0 59 0

2,82 5 3,73 5 Hour s Pe

r Unit
2 3 4 2 2 1 1 4
2 3 1 4 2 1 1 3
2 2 9 Annua

l Hour s 64 0 96 0 1,28 0 64 0 64 0 32 0 4,48 0 1,18 0 1,77 0 59 0 2,36 0 1,18 0 59 0 7,67 0 5,65 0 17,800 Annua

l Cos t $2 4 $3 6 $4 8 $2 4 $2 4 $1 2 $16 6 0 $4 4 $6 6 $2 2 $8 8 $4 4 $2 2 $28 5 0 $21 0 $66 1 I n thousand s o f

200 0 dollars
. 5. 2 Burde n Statemen t Thi s sectio n discusse s the development o f burde n estimate s an

d thei r conversio n int o costs , whic h ar e separate d into burde n cost s and capital an d O& M costs . Burde n mean s the total time , effort , or financia l resource s expende d b y person s to generate , maintain , retain , o r disclos e or

provid e informatio n to o r

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

collecting , validating , an d verifyin g information , processin g and maintainin g information , and disclosin g and providin g information ; adjus t th e existin g way s to compl y wit h an y previousl y applicabl e instruction s an d requirements ; trai n personne l to b e abl e to respon d to acollectio n o f information ; searc h dat asources ; complete and revie w th e collectio n o f information ; an d transmi t or otherwis e disclos e th e information
. Th e Agenc y ma y no t conduc t o r sponsor , an d aperso n i s no t require d to respon d to , acollectio n o f informatio n unles s i

t display s acurrentl y vali d OM B contro l number
. Th e OMB contro l number s fo

r EPA' s regulation s ar

e liste d i n 4 0 CF RPar t 9 and 4 8 CF RChapte r 15
. 5. 3 Cos t Statemen t Accordin g to th e lates t guidanc e fo

r ICR s (EP A 1995) , capita

l and O& M cost s repor

t th e cos t o f an y new capita

l equipment

th e sourc e or

P A ma y hav e to purchas e solel y fo r th e purpos e o f

informatio n collection , assimilation , an d storage . For example , i f

asourc e ha

d to purchas e anew

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTH E ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTH E NEW SOURC E REVIEW PROGRA M Page 1 8P.3 8
mini-compute r

t o store an d manipulate data , tha t computer woul d b e a cos t o f administratio n subjec t

t o reportin g in th e ICR
. Fo r thi s IC R revision , th e Agenc y believe s al l th e informatio n neede d fo r th e inventor

y assessmen t

activitie s a

t eac h proces s uni t

are areadil y availabl e an d d o no t requir e additional capital investment fo r thei r handling
. Furthermore , th e Agenc y believe s all o f

th e datarequire d fo

r th e determinatio n o f

th e replacemen t

valu e o f eac h proces s uni t

ar e readil y availabl e throug h accountin g activitie s currentl y undertake n b y eac h facilit y (e.g. , throug h insuranc e documentation)
. Th e lates t guidanc e als o instruct s the Agenc y to differentiate th e burde n associate d wit

h asource' s labor

and that whic h i t hire s throug h outsid e contractors . Fo r

thi s IC Rrevision , th e Agenc y believe s th e activitie s require d fo

r asourc e to participate in th e RMR& Rprogra mar e proprietar y activitie s tha

t preclud e th e recruitin g o f consultant s an d contractor s to perfor

mthem
. Therefore , all o f

th e sourc e responden t activitie s reporte d i

n thi s IC Rrevisio n ar

e calculate d a s administration

leve l tasks
. 5. 4 Dat a Collectio n Methodolog y Under th e curren t

NS Rsystem , eac h facilit

y submit s informatio n fo

r a case-by-cas e determinatio n o f whether amaintenanc e activit

y wil l trigge r th e nee d fo

r a n NS Rapplication
. Under

th e tw o alternativ e RMR& R system s in thi s proposal , eac h nonroutin e activit y mus t hav e tha t same determination
. However , th e set o f determination s propose d i n th e annua

l maintenanc e allowanc e approac h i s asubse t o f th e determination s currentl y made
. Therefore , th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e approac h constitute s areductio n i

n burden fo

r source s an d PAs , relativ e t o th e status quo. Fo r th e equipment

replacement

approach , th e Agenc y believe s th e activitie s tha

t woul d trigge r

a n NS Rdeterminatio n (an d an y subsequen t major sourc e permitting ) i s th e sam e set o f activitie s tha

t woul d b e subjec t t o th e ne w approach' s case-by-cas e analysis
. Give n th e streamline d assessment

procedure inherent

i n th e propose d approach , th e equipment replacemen t

proces s mus t

als o constitute areductio n i n burde n fo

r source s an d PAs , relativ e to th e status quo. Th e Agenc y believe s nonroutin e activitie s that wil l trigge r

amajor NS R applicatio n unde r

either RMR& Rprogra

mar e th e same activitie s tha

t woul d hav e triggere d amajo r NS Rapplicatio n unde r

th e curren t

system . Consequently , fo

r thi s IC Rrevision , th e burde n associate d wit h NSR

triggerin g maintenanc e activitie s i s th e sam e fo r source s an

d PA s under th e curren t

an d propose d programs .

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORTHE ESTABLISHMEN T OF A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ,

REPAIR , AND REPLACEMEN T FO RTH E NEW SOURC E REVIEW PROGRAM Page 1 9P.3 9

6 6. 1 Estimatin g th e Burde n an d Cos t o f th e Collectio n Estimatin g Th e Responden t Burde n

6. 2 Estimatin g Sourc e Burde n Thi s sectio n present s estimate s o f th e burde n hour s and cos t expecte d to b e incurre d b y respondent s (sources , PAs , and th e EPA ) durin g th e scop e o f thi s IC Rrevision , applyin g th e methodolog y establishe d fo r economi c analyse s establishe d b

y th e Agenc y i

n Th e OAQP S Economi c Resourc e Document " and Th e EP

A Air Pollutio n Contro l Cos t

Manual
. Th e burde n estimate s reflec t

th e exper t judgemen t

o f EP A staff , contractors , an d industr

y experts . Al l burde n estimate s represen t th e margina

l cos t o f thi s rulemaking , base d upo n th e baselin e burde n an d cost s describe d i

n th e NS Rprogram' s Februar

y 14 , 200 1 IC Rrenewal. 1 2 Th e chang e in burde n du e t o thi s rulemakin g wil l eventuall y appl y to al l source s in attainment

and nonattainmen t

areas . However , fo

r severa l year s followin g th e promulgatio n o f thi s rulemaking , th e Agenc y anticipate s onl y th e followin g entitie s ma y b e affecte d b y thi s rulemaking :

• Federal EPA offices : includin g Regional Office s and Th e Offic e o f Ai r an d Radiation , Th e Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d Standards , th e Ai r Qualit y Standard s an d Strategie s Division , an d th e Informatio n Transfer and Integratio n Divisio n • Al l Permittin g Authoritie s • Federall y controlle d area s suc h a s oute r continental shel f

drillin g platforms , and Tribal land s and Federal territorie s an d holding s (e.g. , American Samoa)
• Source s o f

air pollutio n wiuhi

n attainmen t

area s withi n state s that

hav e Federal authority , Federall y manage d areas , an d Tribal land s A s part o f th e burde n estimate s fo

r thi s IC Rrevision , th e first tas k tha t mus t b e undertake n i s fo

r th e environmental manager s a t eac h facilit

y t o read an d assimilate th e informatio n containe d i n thi s rulemaking , and the n to develo p astrateg y an

d accountin g syste mfo

r complyin g wit

h it
. Thi s i s aone-tim e activit

y and , accordin g to th e directio n o f th e Offic e o f Managemen t

an d Budget , ha s bee n average d ove r th e three-yea

r lif e of a typical ICR
. Th e Agenc y believe s that , o n average , i

t shoul d take afacilit

y n o more tha

n ten o r twelv e person-hour s to perfor mthi s tas k

and ha s allocate d 4 hour s pe r

yea r t o thi s activit

y i n thi s analysis
.
1 1 Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Th e OAQP S Economi c Resourc e Document , http://vvww.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/econdata/6807-305.pdf
. Apri l 199 9 1 2 Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Februar y 14 , 2002 , Informatio n Collectio n Reques t

fo r 4 0 CF Rpar t 5 1 an d 5 2 Preventio n o f

Significan

t Deterio

ratio n and Nonattainment

New Sourc e Review , OMB Contro l No
. 2060-0003 , EP A No
. 1230.0 9

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTH E ESTABLISHMEN T OF A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NE W SOURC E REVIE W PROGRAM Pag e 2 0P.4 0

6.2. 1 Estimatin g Sourc e Burde n Unde r Approac h A : Th e Annua l Maintenanc e Allowanc e Approac h Th e first annual tas k

a t eac h facilit

y applyin g fo

r a n RMR& Rexemptio n unde r th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e approac h i s t o estimate th e replacemen t

cost s o f al l o f it s proces s units
. Thi s assessment mus t b e don e initiall y and eac h yea

r thereafter , a

t th e en d o f

th e facility' s reportin g year . EPA believe s tha

t i t wil l take n o more tha

n 4 hour s pe

r proces s uni t (source ) fo

r eac h facilit

y determin e th e replacemen t cos t o f tha t proces s uni t affecte d b y aroutin e maintenanc e provision , includin g inquirie s o f financial official s an

d maintenanc e personne l withi n tha t facilit y or it s ownin g firm. Generally , th e initial burde n and cost s fo r aprogramexcee d th e cos t o f repeatin g th e programi

n subsequen t

years . However , tli e Agenc y believe s th e relativ e eas e o f collectio n o f

th e datanecessar

y for th e RMR& Rprogra

mpreclude s an y economie s o f scal e o r saving s throug h learning-by-doing
. Therefore , th e annua l long-ter mburde n fo r dat acollectio n fo

r eac h proces s uni t

(source ) i n th e RMR& Rprogramwil l als o b e 4 hours
. Followin g th e estimatio n o f replacemen t

cos t fo r each proces s unit , th e facilit y mus t creat e a n annual repor

t fo r eac h source , detailin g al l o f th e RMR&R-relate d activitie s a t tha t uni t an d thei r costs . For

some units , thi s ma y b e arelativel y shor

t report , bu t

fo r man y proces s unit s i

n highl y competitiv e industries , i t

ma y tak e a s muc h a s aful

l person-da

y to compil e an d assimilat e al l o f

th e informatio n o n many RMR&R-relate d action s take n throughou t

th e year . O n average , EP

A believe s i

t wil l tak e n o more tha n 4 hour s pe r

repor t t o gather an d recor d eac h unit' s RMR&R-relate d activitie s into th e facility' s annual report . Accordin g t o th e methodolog y establishe d in th e preamble , i f th e tota l valu e o f RMR& Ractivitie s in th e annual repor t fro masourc e exceed s th e limi t establishe d fo

r aparticula

r unit , th e mos t

expensiv e o f

thos e activitie s mus t

b e reviewe d unde r

th e curren t

4-ste p case-by-cas e proces s t o determin e whether

or no t the y qualif

y a s major

sourc e NS Ractivities
. I f a n activit y qualifie s under

th e 4-ste p tes t

a s amajo r sourc e NS Rpermi t activity , th e sourc e mus t

immediatel y appl y fo

r tha t majo r sourc e NS R permi t an d ma y incur some enforcement

relate d cost s du e t

o ex post applicatio n for

th e activity
. In thes e cases , th e Agenc y believe s ther e wil l b e n o ne t increas e o r

decreas e i n burde n to th e source , sinc e th e activitie s are th e same a s thei r

analo g i n th e bas e case , but there ma y b e asligh t increas e in costs . Th e Agenc y ha s identifie d on e potential cos t saving s t o source s tha

t canno t b e quantifie d a

t thi s time
. Under

th e curren t

system , source s mus t wai t unti l a n NS Rapplicatio n ha s bee n approve d befor e i t ca n commenc e construction , modification , or maintenanc e activities
. Under th e propose d system , tha

t regulator y la g ha s bee n remove d b y allowin g fo r NS Rpermit s to b e applie d fo

r afte r th e fact
. Whil e mitigate d somewha t b y th e potential fo r enforcement

actions , th e Agenc y believe s ex post permi t application s

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTHE ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ,

REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTH E NE W SOURC E REVIE W PROGRAM Pag e 2 1P.4 1

ar e potentiall y significant

i n impact
. EPA doe s no t

hav e dataupo n whic h t o bas e any numeri c conclusio n and invite s th e publi c to comment o n th e potentia l scop e o f

thi s element

o f th e RMR& Rprogram . Tabl e 6. 1 display s th e expecte d annual burde n and cos t o f thi s rulemakin g t o source s fo

r th e thre e year s immediatel y followin g promulgatio n (th e maximu mscop e o f

thi s IC Rrevision)
. Tabl e 6. 1 Expecte d Yearl y Margina l Burden an d Cos tt o Proces s Units (Sources ) for Alternativ e A : Th e Annual Maintenanc e Allowanc e Approac h

Entity / Activit y Source s Rul e Assimilation , Development o f Strategy 2 Assessment

o f Replacement

Valu e Preparatio n o f

Annua l RMR& RRepor t Tota l Sourc e Burden an d Cos t Respondent s
1,45 0 1,45 0 1,45 0 1,45 0 Hour s Pe

r Responden t pe r Yea r

4 ' 4 4 1 2 Tota

l Annua l Hour s (Al l Respondents )
5,80 0 5,80 0 5,80 0 17,40 0 Annua

l Cos t pe r Respondent '
$30 0 $30 0 $30 0 $90 0 Tota

l Annua l Cos t (Al l Respondent) 1
$435,00 0 $435,00 0 $435,00 0 $1,305,00 0 1 Al l cost s are-in 200 2 dollar s 2 One-tim e item s hav e been average d ove r th e thre e yea

r lif e o f thi s ICR
. 6.2. 2 Estimatin g Sourc e Burde n Unde r Approac h B : Th e Equipmen t Replacemen t Approac h Under th e alternativ e RMR& Rapproac h tha t delineate s when a

n equipmen t

replacement

activit y wil l trigge r

amajo r NS Rpermit , source s wil l no t perfor ma n annual inventor

y o f it s units
. Instead , eac h instanc e where th e sourc e mus t

replac e a n existin g piec e o f

equipment

integral t o th e emissio n o f

pollutio n wil l b e subjecte d to aprojec t cos t threshol d simila r to th e New Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) reconstructio n test . Activitie s tha

t fal l outsid e th e threshol d o f

tha t tes t wil l b e subjec t

to th e curren t

4-step case-by-cas e determinatio n tes t fo r major sourc e NS R permittin g - a

n outcome tha

t i s identical to tha

t o f th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e scenari o an d th e curren t common-sens e approach
. Th e equipment

replacemen t

approac h i s ver

y simila r i n impac t t o th e expecte d impac t

o f th e annua l maintenanc e allowanc e approac h i n tha t al l source s wil l hav e to annuall y determin e ho w the y will perfor mplanne d maintenanc e an

d repai r activitie s in th e presenc e o f th e RMR& R requirement s (Rul e Assimilation , Developmen t o f Strategy) , and , t

o b e ablet o anticipate large-scal e RMR& Ractivities , will als o nee d t o perfor m a n annual assessment

o f th e replacemen t

valu e o f it s pollutin g units
. However , unlik

e th e annual maintenanc e allowanc e approach , th e equipment replacement

approac h doe s no t

require a n annua l repor t t o th e P A o n RMR&Ractivities
. Consequently , there i s n o analogou s repor t preparatio n activit

y i n Tabl e 6. 2 fo

r th e equipment

replacemen t

approach
.

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORTH E ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AND REPLACEMEN T FORTH E NEW SOURC E REVIE W PROGRAM Pag e 2 2P.4 2

Fo r thos e activitie s identifie d a s requirin g major sourc e NS Rpermitting , th e improve d verificatio n proces s lai d out i n th e equipment

replacemen t approac h wil l resul t

i n some reductio n i

n burde n an d costs . However , th e exten t o f tha t burde n reductio n canno t

b e determine d a priori. Instead , th e Agenc y mus t

wai t fo r aforma l definitio n o f

th e component s o f

th e determinatio n proces s befor e assessin g it s relativ e impact
. A s in th e annua

l maintenanc e allowanc e alternative , th e Agenc y ha s identifie d one potential cos t saving s to source s tha

t canno t b e quantifie d a

t thi s time
. Under

th e curren t

system , source s mus t

wai t unti l a n NS R applicatio n ha s bee n approve d before i t ca n commenc e construction , modification , or

maintenanc e activities
. Under th e propose d system , tha

t regulator y la g ha s bee n remove d b y allowin g fo r NS Rpermit s to b e applie d fo r afte r th e fact
. Whil e mitigate d somewha t b y th e potential fo

r enforcement

actions , th e Agenc y believe s ex post permi t application s are potentiall y significant

in impact
. EPA doe s no t

hav e dat aupo n whic h to bas e an y numeri c conclusio n an d invite s th e publi c t o comment

o n th e potential scop e o f

thi s elemen t

o f th e RMR& Rprogram . Tabl e 6. 2 Expecte d Yearl y Margina l Burden an d Cos tt o Proces s Units (Sources ) fo r Alternativ e B : Th e Equipmen tReplacemen tApproac h

Entit y / Activit y Source s Rul e Assimilation , Development o f Strategy 2 Assessmen t

o f Replacement

Valu e Tota l Sourc e Burde n an d Cos t Respondent s
1,45 0 1,45 0 1,45 0 Hour s Pe r

Responden t per Yea r

4 4 8 Total Annua

l Hour s (Al l Respondents )
5,80 0 5,80 0 11,60 0 Annua

l Cos t pe r Respondent '
$30 0 $30 0 $60 0 • Tota

l Annua l Cos t (Al l Respondent) '
$435,00 0 $435,00 0 $870,00 0 1 Al l cost s are i

n 200 2 dollar s 2 One-time item s hav e been average d over th e thre e yea

r lif e o f thi s ICR
. 6. 3 Estimatin g P A Burde n Permittin g authoritie s seekin g t o implement th e ne w RMR& Rprovision s wil l incur the cost s outline d in thi s section
. PAs , however , d o no t hav e t o adop t an y particula

r provisio n a s lon g a s the y ca n sho w tha

t thei r versio n o f th e progra

mi s a t leas t a s stringen t

a s th e EPA's
. PA s wh o d o no t want to implement

the ne w provision s wil l incur cost s associate d wit

h demonstratin g the adequac y o f thei r existin g programs . Whil e participatin g PA s wil l no t

hav e t o directl y manag e RMR& Rprogram s durin g the scop e o f

thi s IC Rrevision , eac h participatin g P A wil l hav e t

o begi n th e proces s o f

understandin g th e rul e and incorporatin g i t into it s SIP
. I n addition , man

y state s mus t

hav e SI P approval fro

mthei r legislature an d al l participatin g PA s wil l fac e some sor t o f publi c comment

perio d o n thei r revise d SIPs
. Th e EPA believe s th e assessmen t fo r thes e activitie s

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORTH E ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO

RTH E NEW SOURC E REVIE W PROGRAM Pag e 2 3P.4 3

represente d in othe r

rulemakin g ICR s are representativ e o f th e burde n tha

t thi s rulemakin g wil l impose
. Consequently , th e Agenc y applie d th e burde n estimate s fro

mrecen t titl e V-relate d ICR s t

o thi s rulemaking
. Th e Agenc y identifie d five task s tha t eac h P A mus t perfor mfo r th e incorporatio n o f

th e RMR& Rprogra

minto it s SIP
. First , eac h P A mus t spen d (o n averag e acros s al l PAs ) abou t 6 0 hour s i

n rul e familiarizatio n activities , afte

r whic h i t wil l expen d abou t

3 0 hour s i

n determinin g tli e criteri afo r applicabilit

y o f th e rul e to eac h o f

th e source s withi n it s purview
. Th e nex t

step involve s SI

P revision , whic h th e Agenc y believe s wil l take abou t

12 0 hours
. Onc e th e P

A ha s revise d it s SIP , i

t mus t first take publi c comment , revis e th e SI P base d upo n thos e comments , an d then guid e th e new SI

P throug h th e legislativ e process . Publi c hearing s and SI P modificatio n shoul d take , o n average , abou t 9 0 hours , base d o n th e fact that publi c hearin g requirement s var y significantl y betwee n states . Legislativ e coordinatio n wil l als o var y acros s states , bu t

o n average , th e Agenc y believe s wil l take n o more tha n 9 0 hour s pe r

PA
. Tabl e 6. 3 display s th e expecte d annual burde n and cos t o f thi s rulemakin g t o PA s fo r th e thre e year s immediatel y followin g promulgatio n (th e maximu m scop e o f thi s IC Rrevision)
. Tabl e 6.3 , below , als o display s th e expecte d number o f source , PA , an d Federal respondent s fo r th e perio d o f

tim e immediatel y followin g promulgation , and thei r expecte d annual burde n an d cost. 1 3 Tabl e 6. 3 Expecte d Margina l Burde n and Cos tt o Permittin g Authoritie s - Bot h Approache s

Entit y / Activit y Permittin g Authoritie s Rule Familiarization 2 Applicabilit

y Determinations 2 SI P Revision 2 Publi c Hearin g an d SIP Modification 2 Legislativ e Coordination 2 Tota l Permittin g Authorit

y Burde n an d Cost ' Respondent s

11 2 11 2 11 2 11 2 11 2 11 2 Hour s Pe

r Responden t per Yea r

2 0 1 0 4 0 3 0 4 0 14 0 Tota

l Annua l Hour s (All Respondents )
2,24 0 1,12 0 4,48 0 3,36 0 4,48 0 15,68 0 Annua

l Cos t per Respondent '
$74 0 $37 0 $1,48 0 $1,11 0 $1,48 0 $5,18 0 Tota

l Annua l Cos t (Al l Respondent) '
$82,88 0 $41,44 0 $165,76 0 $124,32 0 $165,76 0 $580,16 0 1 All cost s ar

e i n 200 2 dollar s 2 One-time item s hav e been average d ove r th e thre e yea

r lif e o f thi s ICR
.

1 3 Table s 6. 3 an

d 6. 4 dea l exclusivel y wit

h the burden and cos t

o f th e alternativ e approache s t

o RMR& Rdurin g th e first thre e year s followin g promulgatio n o f the rule
. Consequently , neither tabl e include s the revie w o f annua l report s (a

n element o f thi s rulemaking' s associate d Impac t Analysi s paper)
.
INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORTHE ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTIN E MAINTENANCE ,

REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NE W SOURC E REVIEW PROGRAM Page 2 4P.4 4

6. 3 Estimatin g Federa l Burde n Th e Federal government incur s asignificant

short-ru n burde n fromth e promulgatio n o f

thi s rule , bu t

th e Agenc y believe s th e burde n an d cos t o f th e RMR& Rprogra

mafte r th e SI P approval proces s ha s bee n complete d wil l declin e to minima

l levels
. Durin g th e first

thre e year s followin g promulgatio n (th e maximu mscop e o f thi s IC Rrevision) , th e Agenc y wil l b e responsibl e fo

r thre e primar

y activities
. First , i

n suppor t o f eac h o f th e 11 2 PA s workin g t

o revis e thei r

SIP s to includ e RMR& Rth e Agenc y ca n b e expecte d to offe

r a t leas t 1 0 hour s o f

guidanc e per

year , or 3,36 0 hour s ove r th e scop e o f

thi s ICR
. Furthermore , a s eac h P A complete s it s SIP , EP A wil l hav e to revie w and approv e it
. Thi s proces s shoul d tak e abou t on e da y pe r SIP , o r atotal o f 89 6 hour s (26 6 hour s pe r

yea r average)
. Finally , th e EP

A mus t administer

th e RMR& Rprogra

mt o thos e source s where i t ha s authority
. EPA believe s th e revie w and approval o f eac h RMR& Rrepor

t wil l tak e abou t

1 0 hour s pe r

year , or 1,45 0 hour s pe r

yea r fo r al l proces s unit s (sources ) an d 4,35 0 hour s over th e three-yea

r maximu mlif

e o f thi s IC Rrevision
. Tabl e 6.4 , below , display s th e averag e annual expecte d burde n an d cos t to th e Federal governmen t fo r th e RMR& Rprogram . Tabl e 6. 4 Expecte d Federa l Yearl y Marginal Burde n and Cos t- Bot h Approache s

Entit y / Activit y Numbe r o f Respondent s Serve d Tota l Annua l Cos t Yea r per Hour s (Al l Annua l Cos t pe r Responde ^ ! Respondent

Respondents ) Responden t ' Hour s per Tota l Annua l

U S Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y Coordinatio n wit

h PAs 2 Review o f SIPS 2 Management

o f Federal Progra

m 11 2 11 2 14 5 1 0

3 1 0 1,12

0 33 6 1,45 0 $37 0

$11 1 $37 0 $41,44 0

$12,43 2 $53,65 0 2 3 2,90 6 $85 1 $107,52 2 1 Al l cost s are i

n 200 2 dollar s 2 One-time item s hav e been average d ove r th e thre e yea

r lif e o f thi s ICR
. 6. 3 Estimatin g Responden t Cost s Th e ICR-relate d cos t to respondent s are th e annual burde n cos t o f personne l an d th e capital cos t o f collection-relate d equipment
. Sinc e al l o f th e element s o f

thi s rulemakin g constitute opportunitie s fo r reduction s i

n sourc e burden , ther e wil l b e n o potential chang e i n th e capita

l cost s associate d wit

h thi s IC Rupdate
. Consequently , all o f th e cost s i

n thi s IC R update ar e relate d to th e chang e i

n administrativ e burde n eac h element o f thi s rulemakin g provides
. 6.3. 1 Sourc e Cost s Sourc e burde n cost s are typicall y wag e rate s pai d t o employee s an d cost s incurre d b y th e us e o f

consultan t

labor
. However , fo

r thi s analysis , th e Agenc y assesse d sourc e burde n a s only wage s fo r employee s withi n th e affecte d firms. Th e curren t IC Rdisplay s th e standard derivatio n fo r sourc e

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORTH E ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTH E NE W SOURC E REVIEW PROGRAM Page 2 5P.4 5

wag e rate s employe d in man y air-relate d ICRs , i

n accordanc e wit

h guidanc e establishe d b y th e Agency' s Offic e o f General Counci l (OGC ) fo r it s initial Federal Operatin g Permit s Regulator y Impac t Analysi s (RIA ) an d ICR. I 4 Fo r

thi s analysis , th e Agenc y assesse d sourc e burde n a s onl y internall y generate d wages , establishe d a t th e administrativ e (white-collar ) rate o f $7 5 pe r hou r (fully loaded ) a s establishe d in th e Augus t 200 1 IC R fo r th e Complianc e Assuranc e Monitorin g Rul e (EPA Number 1663.03)
. 6.3. 2 Estimatin g Agenc y an d P A Cost s Durin g th e development o f th e 199 7 IC Rfo

r th e par t 7 1 Federal Operatin g Permi t Regulations , th e Agenc y establishe d th e methodolog y b y whic h i t estimate s th e appropriat e wag e rate s t o appl y to Federal burden categories
. Fo r thi s ICR , th e Agenc y employe d th e same methodolog y t o determin e 200 2 Federal an d state burde n cost s an d establishe d th e appropriat e rat e a t $3 7 pe r hour
. Th e Agenc y ha s asserte d fo r eac h IC Rperforme d in suppor t o f th e Ai r Office' s permittin g functio n tha t th e wag e fo

r state agencie s and othe r PA s i s th e same a s th e wag e fo r th e Federal government . Th e curren t IC Rals o display s th e derivatio n o f thes e wages , a s wel l
6. 4 Expecte d Benefit s Fo r

thos e activitie s that

trigge r NS Runde r

th e RMR& Rprogram , th e Agenc y believe s thos e same activitie s woul d hav e triggere d major NS R applications , anyway . Consequently , th e saving s t o source s participatin g in th e RMR& Rprogramwil l deriv e fro msmaller maintenanc e an d repai r activitie s tha

t woul d hav e triggere d amajor NS Rapplicatio n bu t

wer e no t identifie d a s no t

RMR& Ractivitie s throug h thi s program' s rankin g process . A

n additional saving s to participatin g source s ca n b e found i

n th e avoidanc e o f

request s fo

r determinatio n fo

r al l activitie s tha

t di d no t pas s th e case-by-cas e tes t

unde r th e curren t

approach
. However , whil e thi s rulemakin g wil l potentiall y produc e asaving s i n burde n fo

r source s o f

air pollution , EP

A doe s no t

hav e th e necessar

y datato estimate th e level o f tha t savings
. Consequently , EP A invite s the publi c t o provid e comment s o n th e extent

to whic h source s ar

e abl e to avoi d majo

r NS Rdeterminatio n request s an d majo

r NS Rpermittin g becaus e o f th e RMR& Rprogram . 6. 5 Conclusion s Fo r th e thre e year s followin g promulgatio n o f thi s rulemaking , th e Agenc y expect s th e RMR& Rprogramwil l generat e cost s o f abou t $ 2 millio n per year , o f whic h proces s unit s wil l accru e abou t 6 5 percent . Whil e source s hav e th e mos t

annual cost , th e larg e number o f affecte d unit s mean s source s wil l actuall y incur th e lowes t

per-entit y cos t eac h year . PA s wil l hav e th e secon d lowes t

cos t per entit y ($ 5 thousan d per

PA) , an d th e Federal governmen t

wil l incur th e highes t

cos t pe r yea r a t ove r $ 10 0 thousand
. Fo r

PA s an d th e Federal government , thes e ar e new costs , i

n additio n to thos e reporte d i n th e curren t ICR , bu t fo r sources , th e reporte d

1 4 Unite d State s Environmental Protectio n Agency , May , 1995 , Par t 7 1 Informatio n Collectio n Request
.
INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FO RTHE ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ,

REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTH E NEW SOURC E REVIEW PROGRAM Page 2 6P.4 6

cos t i s t o alarg e (an d presentl y unmeasurable ) extent , duplicativ e o f th e burde n fo r th e same activitie s unde r

th e curren t

system . Whil e th e exten t o f th e new sourc e burde n o f thi s rulemakin g i s unknown , th e Agenc y ha s asserte d tha

t n o mor e tha n perhap s five or

te n percen t o f th e total burde n an d cos t wil l b e new . Tabl e 6.5 , below , display s th e result s o f thi s IC Rfo

r al l respondents
. Tabl e 6. 5 Botto m Lin e Effects

Entit y / Activit y Proces s Unit s (Sources ) Annual Maintenanc e Allowanc e Approac h Proces s Unit s (Sources ) Equipment Replacemen t

Approac h Permittin g Authoritie s (Bot h Approaches ) U S Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y (Bot

h Approaches ) Tota l Expecte d Cos t

( Annua l Maintenanc e Allowanc e Approach ) Tota l Expecte d Cos t

( Equipment

Replacement

Approach ) Number o f Respondent s 1,45 0 1,45 0 11 2 1 Hour s per Yea r pe r Respondent 1 2
8 14 0 2 3 Tota

l Annua l Hour s (All Respondents ) 17,40 0 11,60 0 15,68 0 2,90 6 Annua

l Cos t per Respondent ' $90 0 $60 0 $5,18 0 $85 1 Tota

l Annua l Cos t (Al l Respondent) ' $1,305,00 0 $870,00 0 $580,16 0 $107,52 2 $1,992,68 2 $1,557,68 2 1 All cost s are i

n 200 2 dollar s
6. 6 Reason s Fo r Chang e I n Burde n Throug h year s o f negotiation , publi c meetings , an d draf t revisions , th e Informatio n Transfe

r an d Progra

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

y th e reportin g and record keepin g requirement s fo r th e preconstructio n permi t procee d mandate d b y th e Clea n Ai r Ac t fo r source s o f criteri aan d hazardou s air pollutants
. Thi s rulemakin g represent s th e culminatio n o f many part s o f

tha t process . Becaus e th e goa

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

n burde n displaye d abov e in Table s 6.3 , 6.4 , 6. 5 an d 6. 6 i s sel f evident
. Send comment s o n th e Agency' s nee d fo r thi s information , th e accurac y o f th e provide d burde n estimates , an d an y suggeste d method s fo

r minimizin g responden t

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

y Informatio n Division , U.S
. Environmental Protectio n Agenc y (2137) , 40 1 M St
. S.W. , Washingto n D.C
. 20460 ; an d to th e Offic e o f Informatio n and Regulator y Affairs , Offic e o f Management

an d Budget , 72 5 17t

h Street , N.W. , Washingto n D.C
. 20503 , Attention : Des k Office r fo r EPA
. Includ e th e EP

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

INFORMATIO N COLLECTIO N REQUES T FORTHE ESTABLISHMEN T O F A DEFINITIO N O F ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ,

REPAIR , AN

D REPLACEMEN T FO RTHE NE W SOURC E REVIEW PROGRAM Page 27