Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0065-0008
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-05-22T04:00Z

MEMORANDUM	

TO:		  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Application Requirements for the Approval and
Delegation of Federal Air 			Toxics 	Programs to State, Territorial,
Local, and Tribal Agencies ICR 			Docket (OAR-2004-0065)

FROM:	Jeff Whitlow, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/OID

DATE:	April 25, 2007

SUBJECT:	Planned approach to updating the 2004   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Information Collection Request 			(ICR) 

	The "Application Requirements for the Approval and Delegation of
Federal Air Toxics Programs to State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal
Agencies" 2004 ICR is numbered as EPA ICR Number 1643.05 and OMB Control
Number 2060-0264.  This ICR is scheduled to expire on September 30,
2007.  EPA is in the process of evaluating the key assumptions in the
2004 ICR and whether these should be changed in the renewal ICR package.
 Section I contains a brief discussion of the major assumptions. 
Section II contains a list of questions we are asking the EPA Regional
Office Air Toxics Coordinators to refine our assumptions for 2007.  The
renewal ICR will reflect the input we receive from EPA’s Regional
Offices.

I.	Key Assumptions in 2004 Compared to 2007

Most of the 2004 assumptions were based on discussions with the EPA
Regional Office Air Toxics Coordinators.

Number of 10-year NESHAP to be delegated

Then:  Remaining 10year NESHAP would be delegated and an additional 150
existing MACT to TX and Albuquerque AQCB.

Now:  We think we can assume that all 10-year NESHAP have been delegated
to those willing to accept delegation.

Number of area source standards to be delegated

Then:  None would have been promulgated

Now:  40 will be promulgated.  But what percentage of agencies will take
delegation?

Number of residual risk and technology review (RTR) standards to be
delegated

Then:  None would have been promulgated

Now:  3 RTR reviews will be completed in 2007, but probable intent is to
propose no further action.  An additional 12 are under review.  Based on
discussions with contractor staff working on that effort, we can assume
that 6 will result in a significant change to risk and/or technology
driven changes in the ICR time period.  The remaining 18 MACT are
perhaps greater candidates for future changes, but these are not likely
to be promulgated within this ICR period. 

Number of States, local, and Tribal agencies that maintain a 112(l)
program 

Then:  124 of 127

Now:  Assume same for MACT, but will differ for area sources and/or RTR.
 

Percentages using various delegation options

Then:

Straight delegation (80)

Rule adjustment (3)

Rule substation (5)

Equivalency by permit (12)

State program approval (0)

Now:  Consult with Regions

Burden per delegation options

Then:   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 With one exception, in calculating the
burden hours associated with each delegation option, we retained the
same activities and burden hour estimates used in the previous ICR (ICR
Number 1643.04) for the 2004 renewal.  However, for the burden
associated with the overall approval to receive delegation (§63.91), we
assumed that all S/L/Ts have completed the upfront activities such as
demonstrating adequate resources and establishing a section 112(l)
program.  Instead, the only burden associated with §63.91 is
maintaining the program (20 hours/year to store, file and maintain
information).  

Now:  Same.

112(r) withdrawal option

Then:  

No occurrences related to withdrawals

All S/L/Ts accepting delegation of the accidental release program have
completed the process, so no additional occurrences.

Now:  Consult with Regions to see if there have been any occurrences

Withdrawal of section 112(l) delegation

Then:  None

Now:  Confirm that none have occurred or are pending

Wage rates and assumptions about benefits, etc.  Use same factors as
2004, just update for current wages unless there is new guidance on ICRs
that we need to follow.

O&M related to reporting and recordkeeping:  Use same approach (costs
for copying and mailing delegation requests) as 2004, but update for
current postage costs.

II.	Questions for Regional Air Toxics Coordinators

1.  Have there been any changes in the number of local agencies that are
in your Region since 2004?  If so, how many are there?

2.  Are you still processing any MACT delegations?  If so, how many per
year are expected in the 2007 to 2009 time period?  What about area
source standards?

3.  Are there any state/local agencies that have not accepted
delegation of any MACT standards in your Region?  Area source standards?
 Residual risk standards?  Have any agencies indicated an intent to
refuse to delegation for any of these categories of standards?

4.  Which of your state/local agencies have automatic delegation, i.e.,
they accept the part 63 standards "as is" under an umbrella
authorization?  Do any distinguish between MACT, area source standards
and residual risk standards in using this authorization?

5.  Which of your state/local agencies request straight delegation
(accept the part 63 standards "as is") through a standard-by-standard
request to you?  Do any distinguish between MACT, area source standards
and residual risk standards in using this approach?

6.  Which state/local agencies have used the equivalency by permit
option since 2004?  For what standards did they substitute?  How many
sources have these permits in each source category in each state?  Are
any additional equivalency by permit actions expected in the 2007 to
2009 time period?

7.  Have any state/local agencies used the rule substitution option
since 2004?  For what standards did they substitute?  Are any additional
rule substitutions expected in the 2007 to 2009 time period?

8.  Have any state/local agencies used the rule adjustment option since
2004?  For what standards did they substitute?  Are any additional rule
adjustments expected in the 2007 to 2009 time period?

9.  Are any of your state/local agencies currently interested in the
state program approval option for all part 63 standards or a subset of
them.  Please describe.  Have they suggested changes to this option that
would make it more user friendly?  Do you have concerns about the burden
to Regions if the state program approval option is revised?

10.  Have all of your state/local agencies have accepted delegation of
the §63.95 Accidental Release Prevention Program?   If any have not,
do you expect any of them to request delegation in the next 3 years? 
Have you had to withdraw any programs or is this a future threat?

11.  Have you had to withdraw any section 112(l) delegations?  Is there
any threat of this occurring in the future?

11.  How much of your time (approximate) do you spend on subpart E
delegation issues per year?

12.  Have any of the state/local agencies complained about the burden of
completing delegation requests?  If so, what were their complaints?

13.  Do you or your agencies allow electronic reporting/submissions
related to delegation activities?  If so, please describe.  

 PAGE   

 PAGE   1