I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 1 of 25 **United States Environmental Protection Agency** 

## Office of Air and Radiation Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Air Quality Policy Division Geographic Strategies Group



## INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST **SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR NUMBER 1813.0**  **8 ,**  **RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZ** **E RULE** 

# EPA

EPA # 1813.08I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 2 of 25 This I CR, EPA Form 1813.08, is an update of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 2060

- 0421; EPA Form 1813.07 which expires on October 31, 2012. The current approved collection is for 859 respondents, 31,841 hours per year, and $2,563,000 per year. This renewal requests approval for 5 3 respondents ( 5 2 s tate agencies, and 1 group of F ederal Land Managers (F LMs) ) , 6 , 048 hours per year, and $ 2 9 3 , 631 per ye ar
. Table E.1 summarizes the total annual respondent burden for this renewal. Tribes are not required to submit regional haze plans, so there are no burden estimates for Tribal governments

. The change in burden reflect s changes in labor rates, changes in the activities conducted due to the normal progression of the program , and the fact that the majorit y of regional haze state implementation plans ( SIPs ) for the first 10

- year implementation period (including best availab le retrofit technology

( BART ) determinations ) will have been acted on b y the EPA b y November 2012 . After EPA’s action on the SIPs for the first implementation period, the states will be shifting their primary focus to development of interim progress reports required by the regional haze rule and to assessing whether revisions to the SIPs will be needed in 2018. A few states will be required to submit SIP revisions by June 2014 to remedy EPA disapproval of their current plans.
**Table E** 
**- 1**  **Estimated Sta**  **te and FLM**  **Respondent Burden to Implement Requirements** 

**Task Element States**  **FLMs**

**Av erage**  **An nual**  **Hours Av**  **erage An**  **nual**

**Cost ($ )**  **Av erage**  **An nual**  **Hours Av**  **erage An**  **nual**

**Cost ($ )** 

Total Burden by Respondent 5,021 243,770 1,027 49,861

**Total for Respondent**  **Universe 6,048**  **hours; $ 293,631**  **Executive Summary**I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 3 of 25 This document fulfills the Agency 's requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) with regards to determining the regulatory burden associated with the implementation of the regional haze program (40 CFR 51.308) and requirements related to the Grand Can yon Visibility Transport Commission (40 CFR 51.309). It has been assigned EPA trackin g number 1813.08. The title of this Information Collection Request (ICR) is “Information Collection Request Supporting Statement f or E PA I CR Number 1813.0 8 , Renewal o f The I CR for the Regional Haze Rule .” Subpart P of 40 CFR 51 , Protection of Visibility , also known as the regional haze rule, is the subject of this clearance request. In the next three ye ars, activities conducted by the states, Federal Land Managers (FLMs), and the EPA will focus on reporting require ments in the rule to address the progress of regional haze implementation plans. During the next three ye ars, s ix s tates (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Carolina) will also be responsible for submitting SIP revisions to remedy EPA’s disapproval of specific elements of their regional haze programs. 40 CFR 51. 308 (g) requires states to develop periodic reports evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress goals for improving visibility in Class Iareas inside the state an d in neighboring states . The re are similar reporting requirements under 40 CFR 51. 309 , a section of the regional haze rule in which three states (Utah, W yoming, and New Mexico) elected to submit their SIPs. Under section 309, these states adopted regional haze strategies for the period from 2003 to 2018 for sulfur dioxide emissions. These strategies are based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility

Transport Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class Iareas i n the Colorado Plateau area. On June 15, 2005, the EPA finalized amendments to the July 1999 regional haze rule. These amendments apply to the provisions of the regional haze rule that require emission controls known as best available retrofit technology , or BART, for industrial facil ities emitting air pollutants that reduce visibility

by causing or contributing to regional haze. The pollutants that reduce visibility

include fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), and compounds which contribute to PM 2.5 formation, such as nitrogen oxides (NO X ), sulfur dioxides (SO 2 ), and under certain conditions volatile organic compounds (VOC) , and ammonia. **1 Identification of the Information Collection**  **1.1 Title** 

OMD1.2 Description **EPA TRA**  **CKING NUMBER: 1813.08** 
**E -** **TRA CKING NUMBER:**  **OMB -**  **2060 -**  **0421**

**1.2 Description** I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 4 of 25 The BART requirements of the regional haze rule apply to facilities built between 1962 and 1977 that have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of visibility

- impairing pollution. Those facilities fall into 26 categories, including utility and industrial boilers, and large industrial plants such as pulp mills, refineries and smelters. Many of these facilities have not been previousl y subject to f ederal pollution control requirements for these pollutants. Under the 1999 regional haze rule, states are required to set periodic goals for improving visibility

in the 156 Mandatory

Class I Federal Areas. As states work to reach these goals, they mus t develop regional haze implementation plans that contain enforceable measures and strategies for reducing visibility

- impairing pollution. The 2005 amendments include guidelines, known as BART guidelines, for states to use in determining which facilities must install controls and the t ype of controls the facilities must use. States were required to develop their implementation plans by December, 2007. As part of those plans, states were required identify the facilities that are subject to BART and conduct a ppropriate BART determinations in accordance with the regional haze rule and BART guidelines. The majority

of the states did not submit their SIPs on time, and the EPA is currentl y subject to several consent decrees that have establish ed schedule s for final action s on the SIPs, or promulgation of FIPs . These consent decre e s , that in the aggregate , require the agency to complete the majorit y of the remaining unfinished actions on the initial regional haze implementation plans b y November 2012. Since that date aligns closel y with the expiration of the currentl y approved ICR (October 31, 2012) and the majority

of the effort required to complete the actions on the initial SIPs will have occurred, the primary focus for estimating burden f or th is 3 year r enewal period (October 31, 2012

– October 30, 2015) will apply to the next program milestone which is the 5

- year periodic progress report (see 40 CFR 51. 308(g)). The due date for states to submit the progress reports is 5 ye ars from their initial regional haze SIP submittal, and for many states, that due date falls within the date range of this ICR renewal. In the 5

- ye ar progress report, the states are required to describe the status of the implementation of measures needed to achieve reasonable progress go als, report on the emissions reductions achieved, assess visibility changes, and evaluate whether the current implementation plan is sufficient to meet all established reasonable progress goals.I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 5 of 25 Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA) sets forth a national goal for visibility . The goal is the “prevention of an y future, and the remedyi ng of any existing, impairment in visibility in mandatory Class IFederal areas which impairment results from man

- made air pollution.” This section of the CAA also calls for EPA regulations to assure that s tates provide for reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal. The original regulations on protection of visibility in mandatory

Class I Federal areas, developed in 1980, addressed visibility that is “reasonably

attributable” to a single source or small group of sources. The r egional h aze r ule, promulgated in 1999, added new sections to the code of federal environmental regulations. These included sections 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309. This I CR renewal request provides for continued implementation of the regional raze rule. During this clearance period, we anticipate that the reporting requirements under 40 CFR 51.308 (g) will be the major program focus and the similar reporting r equirements (see 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)) for the three states that submitted regional haze SIPs under 40 CFR 51.309

. Six states will be required to conduct additional anal ys es and submit approvable SIP revisions to remedy EPA’s disapproval of specific elements of their current regional haze plan. We also anticipate that a small subset of states ( 13 ) may submit minor SIP revisions to adopt the requirements of the Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) as a BART alternative, to replace a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).
The data collected from resp ondents include revised state implementation plans. These data confirm progress in assessing visibility impairment and sourc e contribution , and provide the foundation for the establishment of the reasonable progress goals, control strategies, and BART requirements. The information in this ICR is based upon the best data available to the Agency at this time. However, incomplete data and sampling limitations imposed necessitated a certain amount of extrapolation and “best

- guess” estimat es
. Consequently , the reader should not consider the conclusions to be an exact representation of the leve l of burden or cost that will occur. Instead, this I CR should be considered a directionally correct assessment of the impact the programmatic changes included in this rulemaking may have over the next 3 ye ars. Throughout this ICR, the reader will observe estimated values that show accuracy to the single hour or dollar. However, reporting values at the single unit level can be misleading. In most situations, the proper way to present estimated data would be to determine an appropriate level of precision an d truncate values accordingl y, usuall y in terms of thousands or **2 Need and Use of the Collection** 

**2.1 Need / A**  **uthority for the Collection** 

**2.2 Practical Utility**  **/ Users of the Data** 

**2.3 Caveats and**  **Considerations**I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 6 of 25 millions of units. For instance, a spreadsheet generated estimation of $5,456,295 could be presented in the text as $5.5 (millions) or $5,456 (thousands). One problem with such an approach is the loss of data richness when the report contains a mixture of very large and very

small numbers. Consequently , to avoid the loss of information through rounding, this ICR reports all values at the single unit level and reminds the reader that there is no implied precision inherent in this style of reporting.I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 7 of 25 This information collection renewal request is related to provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) which require periodic reports describing progress towards the reasonable progress go als. Each state must submit an implementation plan revision evaluating whether improvement in visibility

is made towards the reasonable progress goal for each mandatory

Class 1 Federal area located within the state and in each mandatory

Class 1 Federal are a located outside the state which may be affected b y emissions from within the state. These implementation plans are due 5 ye ars from the submittal of the initial regional haze plan. The reasonable progress implementation plans required by the regional haz e rule are unique and do not duplicate other implementation plan requirements. In compliance with the PRA, this draft I CR must solicit public comments for a 60

- day

period prior to submission to OMB. The I CR for the regional haze rule was revised last in August 2009

. We solicited public comments on this I CR prior to submitting it to OMB. We issued a Federal Register notice requesting comments on the I CR renewal on April 26, 2012 (77 FR 24952 ). The EPA received one comment in response to the p ublic notice that was published in the Federal Register

. This comment suggested that the EPA under estimated the annual reporting burden of implementing the regulation haze regulations by focusing solel y on the five year progress report. The EPA has addressed these issues in this final IC R. The comment can be found in Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2003

- 0162

- 0012, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington , D.C. The EPA consulted with the EPA Region 5 Office for comment, review, and suggestions on this ICR renewal. The point of contact for the regional office is John Summerhays, regional haze coordinator for EPA Region 5, ( 312 ) 886

- 6067 . Mr. Summerhay s had no comments. We also contacted the s tate of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) , explained the requirements of the I CR renewal, and solicited comment. The point of contact is Mr. Michael Kiss , Director , Office of Air Quality

Assessments , Richmond, VA , (804) 698

- 4460

. Mr. Kiss had no comments. The EPA contacted the state of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to explain the requirements of the ICR , the comment submitted on the proposed I CR , and the changes to the I CR after considering the comment . The point of contact is Karin Landsberg, **3 Non**  **- Duplication, Consultation, and Other Collection Criteria** 

**3.1 Non**  **- Duplication** 

**3.2 Public Notice**  **Requirements**

**3.3 Consultations** I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 8 of 25 Environmental Program Manager, Air Quality Division, Juneau, AK, (904) 269

- 4913

. The information collection requested under this IC R is necessary to ensure implementation of the 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309 requirements. OMB's general guidelines for information collections must be adhered to by all federal a gencies for approval of an y rulemaking's collection methodology . In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.5, the Agency believes:
1. The regional haze regulations do not require periodic reporting more frequently

than every

5 years
. 2. The regional haze regulations do not require respondents to participate in an y statistical survey. 3. Written responses to Agency inquiries are not required to be submitted in less than 30 day s. 4. Respondents do not receive remuneration for the preparation of r eports required b y the Act or part 51. 5. To the greatest extent possible, the Agency has taken advantage of automated methods of reporting. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the current regional haze program and the changes proposed in this rulemaking do not exceed an y of the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.5, except for the guideline which limits retention of records b y respondents to 3 years. The Act requires both respondents and state or local agencies to retain records for a period of 5 years. The justification for this exception is found in 28 U.S.C. 2462, which specifies 5 years as the general statute of limitations for f ederal claims in response to violations by regulated entities. The decision in U.S. v. Conoco, Inc. , No. 83

- 1916

- E (W.D. Okla., January

23, 1984) found that the 5

- year general statute of limitations applied to the CAA. Confidentiality

is not an issue for this rulemaking. In accordance with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, any monitoring information to be submitted by

sources is a matter of public record. To the extent that the information required is proprietary , co nfidential, or of a nature that could impair the ability

of the source to maintain its market position, that information is collected and handled subject to the requirements of §503(e) and §114(c) of the Act. Information received and identified by owners o r operators as confidential business information (CBI) and approved as CBI by EPA, in accordance with Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B, shall be maintained appropriately (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; **3.4 Less Frequent**  **Collection**
**3.5 General**  **Guidelines**

**3.6 Confidentiality** I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 9 of 25 amended b y 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979). The consideration of sensitive questions, (i.e., sexual, religious, personal or other private matters), is not applicable to this rulemaking. The informa tion gathered to develop an implementation plan does not include personal data on any owner or operator. Because the regional haze program operates nationwide and across numerous industry

classifications, the Agency does not believe there are disproportionate environmental justice impacts in implementing in the regional haze program. **3.7 Sensitive**  **Questions**

**3.8 Environmental**  **Justice Considerations** I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 10 of 25 The major categories of respondents dire ctl y affected during this ICR period of October 31, 2012 through October 15, 2015 include the states and FLMs. The s tates are d evelop ing implementation plan s under 40 CFR 51.308 (g) and 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) evaluating progress towards the re asonable progress goal for each mandatory Class IF ederal area located within the s tate and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the s tate which may

be affected b y emissions from within the s tate

. Six states will be required to make addit ional revisions to their current regional haze plan to meet program requirements. Up to 12 states may , but are not required to, make minor revisions to their SIP to adopt the requirements of CSAPR as a BART alternative, to replace a FIP. The FLMs will review the 5

- year progress reports and provid e comments to the states. The states are required to provide sufficient review time for the FLMs and explain how they address the FLMs comments in the documentation for their progress report. The information required under this I CR renewal provides for a continuation of the process initiated with previous I CRs for the regional haze rule. In this stage of the process, the states are mainly focusing on revising their SIPs to report on progress made towards reaching their long term visibility

goals. For 34 states, the progress reports will be due during the October 31, 2012 to October 30, 2015 ICR period. Inresponse to the public comment received , EPA has adjusted the ICR to account fo r o ther actions that states may undertake during the ICR period which include corrections or updates to initial regional haze SIPs, developing SIPs to replace an y FIP , and an y earl y efforts the states may undertake in preparation for the required regional haze SI P revision due by July 31, 2018. The information that is requested under this renewal period under the regional haze rule requirements includes : **Requirements for Periodic Report Describing Progress towards**  **the Reasonable**  **Progress Goals**

 D escription of status of control measures
 Summary

of emission reductions
 Calculat ion of visibility conditions and changes
 Calculation of 5 year progress
 Assessment of contributing emissions
 Assessment of reasonable progress goals

 Review monitoring strategy and note changes
 Submit 5 year progress report **4 The Respondents and the Information Requested**  **4.1 Re**  **s pond**  **e nts/** 

**4.2 Information**  **Requested**I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 11 of 25  Determine degree of visibility improvement
 Consult with FLMs
 Interstate consultation with states The first progress report must be in the form of an implementation plan revision that comp l ies with procedural requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 and 40 CFR 51.103. The report is due five years after the initial r egional h aze plan submission. **Develop and Submit Substantive Revisions to Regional Haze SIPs to Remedy EPA Disapprovals (may include the**  **following):**

 Conduct BART determinations

 Id entify

reasonable progress goals
 Develop long term strategies
 Submit monitoring strategy Louisiana , Mississippi, and Arkansas are required to develop and submit substantive SIP revisions by June 2014.
**Revised SIPs to Remedy EPA’s Limited/Partial Disapproval of State**  **Plans** The EPA published a final rule on June 7 , 2012 ( 77 FR 33642 ), revising rules that pertain to how states can meet specific requirements of the regional haze program. This final rule allows states participating in the Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule to use that program in place of source

specific BART for sulfur dioxide and/or nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants that are subject to the regional haze rule. The EPA also finalized limited dis approvals of regional haze SIPs that have been submitted by : Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia , and Texas. The EPA also finalized FIPs to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR in the regional haze SIPs of: Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. We assume that 12 states could elect to prepare and sub mit a SIP revision consisting of one paragraph to substitute a state plan in place of EPA’s FIP related to the Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule as an alternative to BART. Two states (Alabama and North Carolina) will be required to submit minor SIP revisions by

June 2014. **Early Efforts for the 2018 Regional Haze SIP**I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 12 of 25 After the EPA’s action on the initial regional haze SIPs , the states will be shifting their focus to development of interim progress reports required b y the regional haze rule and to assessing wh ether revisions to th e SIPs will be needed in 2018. Although, the EPA believes that most states will be working on their 5 year progress reports during the period of this ICR some states may

elect to begin developing data sets and anal ys es to support the r egional haze SIP revision due July 31, 2018.I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 13 of 25 **EPA.** Each EPA regional office is responsible for reviewing and approving the SIPs and developing and promulgating FIPs when necessary . For this ICR renewal period, the EPA will primarily be reviewing the SIP revisions required under CFR 51. 308(g) and 51. 309(d)( 10) , which are the periodic progress reports. The ten EPA regional offices and the EPA headquarters offices will provide direction and facilitate resolution of major issues, and deliver data, tools, and training to the states as needed. Each regional offic e must address public comments before approving the SIPs or promulgating FIPs.
**FLMs.** The FLMs will be reviewing the 5

- ye ar progress report , the substantive regional haze SIP revisions, and offering comments to the states in fulfillment of the requirement under CFR 51.308 (i)(4) for the states to coordinate their regional haze efforts with the FLMs. This section discusses the development of burden estimates and their conversion into costs, which are separated into burden costs and capital and O&M costs. C apital and O&M costs display the cost of any

new capital equipment the respondent may have to purc hase solely

for information collection, assimilation, and storage purposes. For example, if a source had to purchase a new mini

- computer to store and manipulate data, that computer would be a cost of administration subject to reporting in the ICR. In addit ion, the latest guidance instructs the Agency to differentiate the burden associated with a source’s labor and that which it hires through outside contractors. To the extent a source contracts out for administrative purposes (e.g., employing consultants to perform visibility modeling ), the burden associated with those contracted tasks are not a burden to the source

- but they still remain a cost. The reader should read this section with the following considerations in mind:

 The Agency

believes the time necessary to perform a task is independent of the origins of its labor. For example , if a source would employ 20 hours of burden to full y perform a function, then a contractor hired b y the source would also take 20 hours to perform that same task. Furtherm ore, the Agency assumes no economies or diseconomies of scale. The linear combination of any amount of contractor and source effort will also sum to 20 hours

. Therefore, the burden estimates in this I CR act as an accurate assessment of the total burden to respondents

.  For some burden categories, the Agency believes the hours assigned to them will be divided between the source and outside contractors. For these categories, the Agency established a composite cost per hour by developing a weighted average of the source and contractor wages, with the weight defined b y the percentage of total effort each burden source applied. Consequently , the cost developed in **5 The Information Collected**  **- Ag**  **ency A** **ctivities, Collection Methodologies, and Information Managemen**  **t**

**5.2 Collection**  **Methodology and**  **Management 5.1**  **Ag ency**  **Ac tiv**  **ities**I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 14 of 25 this I CR should be interpreted as an upper bound on the actual cost of administration by

the source. The methodology for determining cost per hour can be found in greater detail in section 6.2, below.

 While this I CR renewal estimates burden to federal and state agencies, it does not include costs estimates to the industrial sources. This is because the ef fort for this ICR renewal period, October 31, 2012 through October 31, 2015 mainly involves preparation and review of the progress reports required under CFR 51. 308(g) and 51. 309(d)(10) of the regional haze rule. Sources, for the most part, will not be inv olved in preparation of these reports. The implementation plan revisions prepared b y the s tates are periodic progress reports which are due five ye ars after the state submits its comprehensive regional haze SIP . The plans must at a minimum include the following elements :

 A description of the status of all measures included in the regional haze implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress.

 A summary

of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the state through implementation of the measures

.  An assessment of the following visibility conditions and changes for each mandatory

Class 1 Federal area within the state with values for most impaired and least impaired day s expressed in terms of 5

- ye ar averages of the annual values : current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired day s; the difference between current visibility

conditions for the most impaired and least impaired day s and baseline visibility conditions; and the change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired day s over the past 5 ye ars
.  An anal ys is tracking the change over the past 5 ye ars in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the state

.  An assessment of an y significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred over the past 5 years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility

.  An assessment of whether the current regional haze implementati on plan elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the state, or other states with mandatory Class 1 Federal areas affected by emissions from the state, to meet all established reasonable progress goals.

 A review of the state’s visibility monitoring strategy

and any modifications to the strategy as necessary
.  Other elements, including reporting, record keeping, and other measures, necessary

to assess and report on visibility

.I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 15 of 25 The Regulatory

Flexibility

Act (RFA) requires regulatory agencies, upon regulatory

action, to assess that action ’ s potential impact on small entities (businesses, governments, and small non

- governmental organizations) and report the results of the assessments in (1) an Initial Regulatory Flex ibility Analy sis (IRFA), (2) a Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analy sis (FRFA), and (3) a Certification. For ICR approval, the Agency must demonstrate that it "has taken all practicable steps to develop separate and simplified requirements for small businesse s and other small entities" (5 CFR 1320.6(h)). In addition, the agencies must assure through various mechanisms that small entities are given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. The E PA determined that it was not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility anal ys is in connection with the r egional h aze r ule ( July 6, 2005, 70 FR 39104 ) because the rule did not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Similarly, this ICR rene wal will not impose any

direct requirements on small entities and will apply primarily to states which are developing the SIP revisions

. States are required to submit their periodic progress reports, in the form of a SIP revision, five years after the initial regional haze plan submission

. Table 5.1 shows when these reports are due for each of the states. Note that some states have reports which are due outside of this renewal period, beyond October 31, 2012. Accordingl y, we have estimated burden only for the 3 4 states with due dates that fall in 2015 or earlier.
**Table 5.1 Due Dates for the 5 Year Progress Reports**  **1** Initial Regional Haze Submittal Year 5 Year Progress Report Due Date State
2007 2012 NC, SC 2008 2013 AL , AR , DE, KY, LA, MS, MO, TN, UT, Albuquerque/Bernalillo County NM 2 2009 2014 CA, CT, KS, MN, NV, NJ, RI , TX, VT

1 The EPA is developing FIPs for Hawaii, Montana, and the Virgin Islands and due dates for the progress reports will be based on the dates of the FIP promulgation 2 Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) (i)(II) of the CAA for the entire State of Ne w Mexico under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74

- 2

- 4). **5.4 Collection**  **Schedule 5.3**  **Small Entity Flexibility** I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 16 of 25 2010 2015 District of Columbia , FL, GA, ID, ME, MI , NH, NY, ND, OK, OR, PA, VA 2011 2016 AK, AZ, CO, IN, NE, NM, OH, SD, WA, WY 2012 2017 MA, MD Three states (Louisiana , Mississippi, and Arkansas) will be required to develop and submit substantive SIP revisions by June 2014. The EPA believes that Florida and Mississippi will develop and submit SIPs before the I CR renewal period. Twelve states (Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Virginia) may

elect, but are not required, to replace EPA’s FIP with a minor SIP revision at an y time. Two states (Alabama and North Carolina) will be required to submit minor SIP revisions by June 2014. For the purposes of this I CR, we assume that each of these states will choose to submit a minor SIP revision (consisting of one paragraph) within the three ye ar period of this I CR renewal.I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 17 of 25 Burden means the total time, effort, o r financial resources expended b y person s to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or p rovide information to or for a f ederal agency . This include s the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and s ys tems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the way s to compl y with an y previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The burden estimate should be composed of (1) the total capital and start

- up cost component annualized over its useful life; (2) the total operation, maintenance and purchases of services component. Each component should be divided into burden borne directl y b y the respondent and an y services that are contracted out. This I CR renewal will apply to 50 states the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands which are primarily developing 5

- ye ar progress reports in the form of SIP revisions to satisfy the requirements of the regional haze rule

. Table 5.1 above shows when these reports are due for each of the states and the estimated due date for the SIPs. The FLMs will review and comment on those plans. For this renewal period, the burden fo r industrial sources will be negligible as the reports are required from the states

. F or three states (Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico) which submitted their regional haze SIPs under section 309 of the regional haze rule , there are also 5

- ye ar periodic repo rting requirements that are essentiall y the same as the requirements under section 308(g). Table 6.1 summarizes the results for each of the major categories of respondents with details discussed in the narrative below

. We account for the requirement that three states (Louisiana , Mississippi, and Arkansas) will need to submit a new substantive SIP to remedy EPA’s disapproval of specific elements of these SIPs. We assume that 12 states could elect to prepare and submit a SIP revision consisting of one paragraph to substitute a state plan in place of EPA’s FIP related to the Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule as an alternative to BART. Additionally , two states (Alabama and North Carolina) will be required to submit minor SIP revisions by June 2014. **Develop and S ubmit**  **5**
**- Year Progress Reports as required under the**  **Regional Haze Rule**
**.** Based on the elements that are required for the report, which are described in section 5.2 above, we believe that an estimate of 2 8 0 hours per s tate to complete the 5

- year progress report is reasonable. Much of the anal ys is for the report will entail the states **6 Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection** 

**6.1 Estimating**  **Respondent Burden** I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 18 of 25 assessing changes in their emission inventories for the reporting period and reporting on changes in visibility based on available monitoring data. This burden estimate does not include any hours for preparation and finalization of the emission inventories because it is assumed that the EPA will provide an approved inventory , with appropriate forward projections of future visibility conditions, which the states may use for the ir anal ys es
. For each individual state, w e believe that approximately 1 6 0 hours on average is needed to anal yz e, evaluate, and summarize changes in the inventory and monitoring data over the reporting period, and another 80 hours is sufficient to prepare the report in the form of a SIP revision. These estimates are based on informal conversations with state and the EPA ’s technical staff. Finall y, we assumed that states would need approximately 40 additional hours to address and respond to an y public comments received on its SIP revision

. We assumed the FLMs would spend 80 hours, on average, reviewing and formally commenting on each of the 5

- ye ar progress report SIP revisions. **Develop and Subm it Substantive Revisions to Regional Haze SIPs to**  **Remedy EPA Disapproval.** Based on a review of the previous ICR we believe that an estimate of 300 hours per state to complete substantive revisions to the regional haze SIP is reasonable. Based on discussion with EPA and RPO staff, we believe that the majority of the SIP development effort will be complete by the time this c ollection period takes effect. We assume the FLMs will spend 80 hours, on average, reviewing and formally commenting on each of the substantive regional haze SIP revisions. **Develop and Submit Minor Revisions for Regional Haze SIPs to Replace EPA FIP.**  We assume that 1 2 states could elect to prepare and submit a SIP revision consisting of one paragraph to substitute a state plan in place of EPA’s FIP related to the Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule as an alternative to BART. Two states (Alabama and North Carolina) will be required to submit minor SIP revisions by June 2014. Although the SIP may consist of one paragraph, states must submit the SIP to EPA after reasonable notice and public hearings. This SIP will not be reviewed by the FLMs. The EPA assumes that states would need no more than 2 1 hours to prepare and finalize the SIP including public notice and response to comments. **Early Efforts for the 2018 Regional Haze SIP**
**.** We assume that 50 states the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands may elect to begin developing information for the regional haze SIP required in 2018. TheI NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 19 of 25 EPA estimates that states will use 50 hours per ye ar beginning in late 2013 to develop the 2018 SIP.
**T able 6.1** 
**. Estimated Respondent Burden to Implement Requirements**  **Task Element Hours/State**  **Hours/Source FLM** 
**– hours/state**  **SIP Year** 

**Incurred**
Develop and submit §308(g) or 309(d)(10) Implementation Plan

– 5

- year periodic reports 2 4 0 0 80 2012

- 2015

Develop and submit substantive revisions to the regional haze SIP 300 0 80 2012

- 2014

Develop and submit minor revisions adopting CSAPR as BART alternative. 2 1 0 0 2012

- 2015

Early efforts on 2018 SIP 50 0 0 2013

- 2015

This IC R uses the most recentl y available wage values with the wage rate metho ds established in the New Source Review (NSR) IC Rs 3

. For this renewal period, the burden for industrial sources will be negligible as the reports are required from the states with review being done b y the EPA and the FLMs. Consistent with methodologies for previous NSR ICRs, the labor rate used to calculate federal, state, and local respondents’ labor costs is approximated from the 2012 f ederal government pay

schedule. Managerial rates are accounted for by multiplying the hourl y rate b y 9%; the clerical support rates are multiplied by 1 3 %. 4 The hourly

rate is $ 48.55 , and the calculation is shown in Table 6.3
**Table 6. 3**  **Determination of Federal , State, and Local**  **Wage Rates** Annual Salary of Technical Staff, GS 11 Step 3 (FY 12 Schedule)* $ 53,639 .00 Annual Cost of Supervisory Staff, GS 13 Step 3 (FY 12 Schedule)* $ 76,452 .00 Factor (1/11) 0.09 $ 6,880.68 Annual Cost of Support Staff, GS 6 Step 6 (FY 12 Schedule)* Factor (1/8) $3 5,672 .00 0.13 $4, 637.36

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION AND NONATTAINMENT NEW SOURCE REVIEW: EMISSIONS TEST FOR ELECTRIC GENERATING UNI TS, August 2006, p. 20

4 Ibid. **6.2 Estimating**  **Respondent Costs** I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 20 of 25 Annual Applicable Salary of Technical Staff $ 65,157.04 Benefits (at 16%) $10,425.13

Sick Leave / Vacation (at 10%) $ 6,515.70 General Overhead (at 29%) $ 18,895.54 Total Cost Per FTE $100,993.41 Total Hourly Cost (Total Per FTE divided by 2,080 hours per year) $48.55 * http://www.opm.gov/oca/12tables/html/gs.asp February 2012 Since the purchase of capital equipment is believed to be an insignificant factor in meeting the requirements associated with this I CR renew al , the EPA assumes the operation, maintenance, or services are negligible Most of the data and other guidance for estimating emissions and visibility impacts are available in electronic form and an y equipment needed to respond to requests will be part of the respondent’s operating inventory

. Ty pically annualized capital cost would be derived from a discounted net present value of the stream of costs that would occur over the life of the activity , or the IC R, whichever is shorter. However we do not anticipate these ty pes of expenses will be incurred during this clearance period. For this I CR, we have assumed the following number of offices will be involved in implementing the Regi onal Haze requirements. **EPA Regional Offices.** We assume that all 10 EPA Regional Offices will be responsible for reviewing implementation plans from the s tates in their jurisdiction , responding to public comments, and preparing f ederal r egister notices in taking final action on the SIPs

. **EPA Headquarters.** The EPA Headquarters staff will provide oversight and review of the submittals. Table 6.4 presents our estimate of the Agency burden in the I CR clearance period which is the average to rev iew one state plan . In developing these estimates, we considered previous estimates for similar activities , particularl y related to the time necessary to review SIPs and prepare federal register notices and respond to public comments. The SIP revisions for this renewal period are anticipated to be much abbreviated compared to the comprehensive regional haze SIP submittals which are required to be submitted every

10 years. This results in a reduced burden relative to the previous I CR renewals as there are no modeling, emission inventory , or control strategy

analy ses due during the 2012

– 2015 collection period.
Summ ing the total hours from Table 6.4 ( 520 hours) and multiplying by 3 7 total plans yields a total estimate of 19 , 240 hours. Using the calculated labor rate of $48.55/hr , from Table 6.3, multiplied by the 19,240 hours **6.2.3 An**  **nualiz ed**  **Capital Costs**

**6.3 Estimating**  **Ag ency** **Burden and Cost** I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 21 of 25 gives an estimated cost of $ 9 34 , 102 , which when averaged over the 3 ye ar collection period is about $ 311 , 367 per ye ar as the Agency ’s burden estimate.
**Table 6.4. Estimated Agency**  **Burden to Implement Requirements Task Element**  **Hours/EPA Regional**  **Office Hours/**  **EPA Headquarters**  **Year Incurred**
Review Periodic Progress Reports from States 160 80 20 12

- 20 15
Respond to Public Comments and Prepare Federal Register Notices 120 40 20 12

– 20 15

Review substantive revisions to the regional haze SIP 100 20 2012

- 2014

TOTAL 3 80 1 4 0
For the purpose of estimating burden in this ICR, the respondent universe is determined as follows.
**States**

. We assume that 50 states , the District of Columbia , and the U.S. Virgin Islands may

elect to begin developing information for the regional haze SIP required in 2018. We assume that 34 states, including Albuquerque/ Bernalillo County in New Mexico, will be affected b y the regional haze rule 5

- year p rogress reporting requirements. We assume that 12 states could prepare and submit a SIP revision consisting of one paragraph to substitute a state plan in place of EPA’s FIP related to the Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule as an alternative to BART. We assume that three states will need to submit a new substantive SIP to remedy EPA’s disapproval of specific elements of these SIPs. Additionally , two states submit minor SIP revisions by June 2014

. **Tribes.** No tribes have elected to develop and implement the regional haze plan. **Industry.** The sole regional haze requirement for this reporting period is for the states to submit periodic progress reports, and thus there is no anticipated burden for industrial sources.
**FLMs.** The burden hours for FLMs are estimated for the group as a whole , and are estimated to be 80 hours for each SIP revision . For the 34 5

- ye ar progress report SIPs, the hours would be 2,720. Multiplying by the labor rate of $48.55/hr equates to a cost of $132,056, or $44,019 per ye ar for each of the 3 years. For the 3 substantive regional haze SIP r evisions, the hours will be 240

. Multiplying by the labor rate of $48.55/hr equates to a cost of $ 11 , 652 , or $ 5 , 826 per year for each of the 2 years. **6.4 Estimating the**  **Respondent Universe** I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 22 of 25 Tables 6.6 summarizes the total annual respondent burden to prepare and submit : the 5

- year progress reports , substantive revisions to state SIPs to remedy EPA’s disapproval of regional haze plans, and minor revisions to state SIPs to adopt the requirements of CSAPR as a BART alternative, thus replacing EPA’s FIP . The total respondent burden is estimated to be 6 , 048 hours per ye ar and $ 2 9 3 , 631 per year. As described in section 6.2. 2 and 6.2. 3, there are no operation and maintenance costs or capital costs associated with activities to be conducted during this 3

- ye ar clearance period. The total number of respondents is 53 ( 5 2 s tate agencies and 1 group of FLMs.) **6.5 Bottom Line**  **Burden and Cost**I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 23 of 25 **Table 6. 6**  **Estimated Annual**  **Respondent Burden to Implement Requirements** 

**Task Element**  **States FLMs** 

**Av erage**  **An nual**  **Hours Av**  **erage**

**An nual Cost**  **($ )**  **Av erage** 

**An nual Hours**  **Av erage** 

**An nual Cost**  **($ )**  Develop and submit §308(g) or 309(d)(10) Implementation Plan

– 5

- year periodic reports 3,173

Calculation: ( 280 hours per plan x 34 plan s )/3 years = 3,173 hr /yr 15 4 ,049

Calculation: ( 3,173 hrs per yr x labor rate of $ 48.55 ) 0 0

Review and Comment on Reports 0 0 907 Calculation: ( 80 hours per plan x 34 plans )/3 years = 907 hr /yr 44 ,035

Calculation: ( 907 hrs per yr x labor rate of $48.55 )
Develop and submit § 51. 308 State Implementation Plan 450

Calculation: ( 300 hours per plan x 3 plans)/2 years = 3,173 hr/yr 2 1, 848

( 450 0 hrs per yr x labor rate of $48.55) 0 0

Review and Comment on resubmitted SIPs 0 0 120 Calculation: ( 80 hours per plan x 3 plans)/2 years = 907 hr/yr 5 ,8 26

Calculation: ( 120 hrs per yr x labor rate of $48.55)

Submit minor SIP revision adopting CSAPR as BART alternative. 98

Calculation: ( 2 1 hours per plan x 1 4 plans)/3 years = 80 hr/yr 4 , 758

( 98 hrs per yr x labor rate of $48.55) 0 0

Early effort on 2018 SIP 1,3 00

Calculation: ( 50 hours per plan x 5 2 plans)/2years = 1,325 hr/yr 6 3 , 115

( 1,325 hrs per yr x labor rate of $48.55) 0 0

**Total Burden by**  **Respondent** 5,021 2 4 3, 770 1,027 49 ,86 1

**Total for Respondent**  **Universe 6,048**  **hours; $ 2**  **9 3,**  **631**I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 24 of 25 The burden estimates for this I CR renewal period cover different task elements than those for the previous renewal (1813.0 7 ). These differences reflect the requirements of the final r egional h aze r ule with respect to the scheduled events and activities in the implementation process. The last collection request anticipated the program progressing from the planning stages to imple mentation. The change in burden reflects changes in labor rates, changes in the activities conducted due to the normal progression of the program , and the fact that the aggregate initial regional haze SIPs and best available retrofit technology (BART) dete rminations will be acted on by the EPA b y November 2012 and the states will be evaluating reasonable progress and implementation stages for the goals in those SIPs. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 114 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or p rovide information to or for a f ederal agency . This incl udes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and sy stems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing informati on; adjust ing the existing way s to compl y with an y previously applicable instructions and requirements; train ing personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search ing data sources; complet ing and review ing the collection of information; and transmitting or otherwise disclos ing the information. The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it display s a currently

valid OMB control number . The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. To comment on the Agency ’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and an y suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, the EPA has established a public docket for this I CR under Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2003

- 0162 , that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Cente r, in the EPA Docket Cent er (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334 , 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday , excluding legal holiday s. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566

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

- 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index li sting of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available **6.6 Reasons for**  **Change in Burden** 

**6.7 Burden**  **Statement**I NFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA ICR RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE Page 25 of 25 electronically . When in the sy stem, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the O ffice of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Offi cer for EPA. Please include EPA Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2003

- 0162 and OMB Control Number 2060

- 0421 in an y corre spondence.