  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Air Quality Policy Division

New Source Review Group

August, 2003

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION AND NONATTAINMENT NEW SOURCE REVIEW:  EMISSIONS TEST FOR
ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS

EPA # 1230.16

This ICR applies to a rulemaking that proposes to revise the
applicability test used to determine whether existing electric
generating units (EGUs) are subject to the regulations governing the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment major
New Source Review (NSR) programs (collectively “major NSR”) mandated
by parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).  The
rulemaking proposes three options for revising this applicability test.
The proposed rule would not affect new EGUs, which would continue to be
subject to major NSR preconstruction review.

Under Option 1, we are proposing to compare the maximum hourly emissions
rate at that unit during the past 5 years to the maximum hourly
emissions rate at that unit after the change to determine whether an
emissions increase would occur.  If so, the change would qualify as a
“modification” and would be subject to the requirements of the major
NSR program.

The proposed regulations under Option 1 would simplify applicability
determinations for sources and Reviewing Authorities (RAs).  It would
eliminate the burden of projecting future annual emissions and
distinguishing between annual emissions increases caused by the change
and those due solely to demand growth, because any increase in the
emissions under the hourly emissions test would be logically attributed
to the change.  It would reduce recordkeeping and reporting burdens on
sources because compliance would no longer rely on synthesizing
emissions data into rolling average emissions.  It would improve
compliance by making the rules more understandable, which would
correspondingly reduce the RAs’ compliance and enforcement burden.

Under Option 2, an existing EGU would first be subject to the same
hourly emissions test that applies under Option 1.  If the change
qualifies as a modification under the hourly emissions test, the unit
would then be subject to the existing actual-to-projected-actual annual
emissions test to determine whether the change would result in a
significant net emissions increase.  If so, the change would qualify as
a “major modification” and would be subject to the requirements of
the major NSR program. We expect no change in burden currently imposed
on industry sources for each permit action under Option 2.  This is
because the information used in computing the hourly emissions would be
used in computing the annual emissions.

Under Option 3, an existing EGU would be subject only to the
actual-to-projected-actual annual emissions test to determine whether
the change would result in a significant net emissions increase.  If so,
the change would qualify as a “major modification” and would be
subject to the requirements of the major NSR program.  The proposed
rules under this option would differ from the current rules for EGUs in
only one respect—the look-back period for the unit’s baseline actual
emissions would be 10 years instead of the 5 years that currently
applies.  This would make the look-back period for EGUs the same as
currently applies to non-EGUs under the existing rules.  Because Option
3 entails only a relatively small change from the existing rules, the
burden for each permit action would not change under Option 3.

We believe that none of the three proposed rule options would change the
number of major NSR permit actions for existing sources compared to the
actual-to-projected-actual methodology that currently applies to
utilities under the major NSR program.  This is because all three
options and the existing rule are based on the hourly emissions test
and/or the actual-to-projected-actual annual emissions test.  Both of
these methodologies allow increases in production up to the amount that
the source can achieve at its current capacity.  That is, both emissions
tests allow sources to use existing capacity.

Under all three options, the proposed regulations would promote the
safety, reliability, and efficiency of EGUs.  Consistent with the
primary purpose of the major NSR program, the proposed regulations
balance the economic need of sources to utilize their existing physical
and operating capacity with the environmental benefit of regulating
those emissions increases related to a change.

The overall effect of proposed Option 1 would be a relaxation of the
burden currently imposed on industry sources for each permit action.  We
also anticipate that proposed Option 1 would have a corresponding
effect on the burden imposed on the RAs due to reduced effort needed for
review of data submissions and preparation of submissions for
processing.  However, RAs would be required to submit changes to their
existing SIP programs or demonstrate that their existing programs are at
least equivalent to EPA’s new requirements, resulting in a small
one-time burden to them in the short term.

The overall effect of proposed Options 2 and 3 would be no change in the
burden currently imposed on industry sources for each permit action.  We
also anticipate that proposed Options 2 and 3 would have no effect on
the burden imposed on the RAs to process each permit.  As with Option 1,
RAs under Options 2 and 3 would be required to submit changes to their
existing SIP programs or demonstrate that their existing programs are at
least equivalent to EPA’s new requirements, resulting in a small
one-time burden to them in the short term.  Table E.1 summarizes the
estimated change in burden resulting from proposed Option 1.  Table E.2
summarizes the estimated change in burden resulting from proposed
Options 2 and 3.

Table E.1  Average Annual Change in Burden and Cost for Option 1 a, b

Regulatory Change

Average Number of Affected Entities per Year

Average Annual Burden Hours

Average Annualized Cost

($1,000)

Average Cost per Entity

($1,000)

SOURCES

Baseline	6.33c	4,440	$472	$74

Option 1	6.33c	4,182	$450	$71

Change

-259

-$22

-$3

RAs

Permit Actions

Baseline	6.33c	1,179	$52	$8.2

Option 1	6.33c	1,139	$50	$7.9

Change	0	-40	-$2	-$0.3

SIP Revisions

Baseline	37.33d	0	0	0

Option 1	37.33d	747	$33	$0.9

Change	0	747	$33	$0.9

Overall Change

707	$31

FEDERAL

	Permit Actions

Baseline	1e	85	$3.7	$3.7

Option 1	1e	79	$3.5	$3.5

Change	0	-6	-$0.3	-$0.3

SIP Revisions

Baseline	1f	0	0	0

Option 1	1f	187	$8.2	$8.2

Change	0	187	$8.2	$8.2

Overall Change

181	$7.9	$7.9

a   Costs are in 2005 dollars.

b   Any discrepancies are the result of rounding error.

c   Total number of affected entities over 3 years is 19; annual average
number affected is 19(3 = 6.33.  See Section 6.4.1 of this document for
how we determined the number of affected entities.

d   Burden incurred in year 2 only.  Total number of affected RAs is
112; annual average number affected is 112(3 = 37.33.

e   EPA is the only affected Federal entity.  Over 3 years, EPA would
review 19 affected permits issued by RAs (annual average of 6.33).

f   EPA is the only affected Federal entity.  Burden to review 112 SIP
revisions submitted by RAs incurred in year 3 only (annual average over
3 years of 37.33).

Table E.2  Average Annual Change in Burden and Cost for Options 2 and 3
a, b

Regulatory Change

Average Number of Affected Entities per Year

Average Annual Burden Hours

Average Annualized Cost

($1,000)

Average Cost per Entity

($1,000)

SOURCES

Baseline	6.33c	4,440	$472	$74

Option 1	6.33c	4,440	$472	$74

Change

0

0

0

RAs

Permit Actions

Baseline	6.33c	1,179	$52	$8.2

Option 1	6.33c	1,179	$52	$8.2

Change	0	0	0	0

SIP Revisions

Baseline	37.33d	0	0	0

Option 1	37.33d	747	$33	$0.9

Change	0	747	$33	$0.9

Overall Change

747	$33

FEDERAL

	Permit Actions

Baseline	1e	85	$3.7	$3.7

Option 1	1e	85	$3.7	$3.7

Change	0	0	0	0

SIP Revisions

Baseline	1f	0	0	0

Option 1	1f	187	$8.2	$8.2

Change	0	187	$8.2	$8.2

Overall Change

187	$8.2	$8.2

a   Costs are in 2005 dollars.

b   Any discrepancies are the result of rounding error.

c   Total number of affected entities over 3 years is 19; annual average
number affected is 19(3 = 6.33.  See Section 6.4.1 of this document for
how we determined the number of affected entities.

d   Burden incurred in year 2 only.  Total number of affected RAs is
112; annual average number affected is 112(3 = 37.33.

e   EPA is the only affected Federal entity.  Over 3 years, EPA would
review 19 affected permits issued by RAs (annual average of 6.33).

f   EPA is the only affected Federal entity.  Burden to review 112 SIP
revisions submitted by RAs incurred in year 3 only (annual average over
3 years of 37.33).

Since the aggregate long-term effect of the individual parts of this
rulemaking constitute a reduction in the burden imposed by the Federal
government on sources and State and local environmental management
organizations, this rulemaking is consistent with the Office of
Management and Budget(s (OMB(s) guidance for the reduction of burden
when and wherever possible.

Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR).  It has
been assigned EPA tracking number 1230.19.  The title of this
Information Collection Request (ICR) is “Information Collection
Request for Changes to Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Nonattainment New Source Review:  Emissions Test for Electric Generating
Units.”

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The program called the “major NSR program”
under authority of parts C and D of Title I of the Act is a
preconstruction review and permitting program applicable to new or
modified major stationary sources of air pollutants.  In areas not
meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and in ozone
transport regions (OTR), the program is the "nonattainment" NSR program,
implemented under the requirements of part D of title I of the Act.  In
attainment areas (areas meeting NAAQS) or in areas where there is
insufficient information to determine whether they meet the NAAQS
("unclassifiable" areas), the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program is implemented under the requirements of part C of Title
I of the Act.  Applicability of the major NSR program must be determined
in advance of construction and is pollutant-specific.  When a source
triggers major NSR in attainment areas, it must install best available
control technology (BACT) and conduct modeling and monitoring as
necessary.  If the source is located in a nonattainment area, it must
install technology that meets the lowest achievable emission rate
(LAER), secure emission reductions to offset any increases above
baseline emission levels, and perform other analyses.

Before 1970, the CAA existed primarily as a mechanism for funding
research grants and State air pollution control agencies.  Congress
added substantive provisions to the CAA for the first time in 1970,
including emission standards for new stationary sources.  This program,
known as the NSPS program, applies to EGUs and other stationary sources
of criteria pollutants, which are SO2, NOx, particulate matter (PM), CO,
ozone, and lead.  Preconstruction permitting for EGUs and other new
stationary sources of criteria pollutants was considered in 1970, but
not added to the CAA until it was amended again in 1977.  The
preconstruction program for major stationary sources is commonly called
the major NSR program.  The NSPS and major NSR programs ensure that no
new sources of pollution – whether from new sources or modifications
to existing sources – can be constructed unless the source complies
with new source requirements.

We are proposing to revise the emissions test for existing EGUs under
the major NSR program.  We are proposing three alternatives that we
designate as Options 1, 2, and 3.

Under Option 1, we are proposing to determine whether a physical or
operational change to an existing EGU would cause an emissions increase
by comparing the maximum hourly emissions rate at the unit during the
past 5 years to the maximum hourly emissions rate at that unit after the
change.  If the change would cause an increase in hourly emissions, the
change would qualify as a “modification” and would be subject to the
requirements of the major NSR program.  Major NSR is a preconstruction
permitting program, so the analysis must be conducted before a
modification occurs.  The owner/operator may select the hourly emissions
rate at that unit at any time during the 5 years prior to the change.
Thus, EGU owner/operators may select the hourly rate that is
representative of the unit’s maximum emissions in the past 5 years.

Under Option 2, an existing EGU would first be subject to the same
hourly emissions test that applies under Option 1.  If the change
qualifies as a modification under the hourly emissions test, the unit
would then be subject to the existing actual-to-projected-actual annual
emissions test to determine whether the change would result in a
significant net emissions increase.  If so, the change would qualify as
a “major modification” and would be subject to the requirements of
the major NSR program.

Under Option 3, an existing EGU would be subject only to the
actual-to-projected-actual annual emissions test to determine whether
the change would result in a significant net emissions increase.  If so,
the change would qualify as a “major modification” and would be
subject to the requirements of the major NSR program.  The proposed
rules under this option would differ from the current rules for EGUs in
only one respect—the look-back period for the unit’s baseline actual
emissions would be 10 years instead of the 5 years that currently
applies.  This would make the look-back period for EGUs the same as
currently applies to non-EGUs under the existing rules.

We are proposing these rule revisions only for existing EGUs.
Specifically, the revised emissions test is available only for existing
units as defined in the regulations governing the major NSR programs at
40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, or 52.21, and Appendix S of part 51.  That is,
the EGU must have existed for more than 2 years from the date that it
first operated.  The revised emissions test for major NSR is not
available to greenfield sources or to new emissions units.

We are proposing to define EGU as fossil-fuel fired boilers and turbines
serving an electric generator with a nameplate capacity greater than 25
megawatts (MW) producing electricity for sale.  Fossil fuel is described
as natural gas, petroleum, coal, or any form of solid, liquid, or
gaseous fuel derived from such material.  The term "fossil fuel-fired"
with regard to a unit means combusting fossil fuel, alone or in
combination with any amount of other fuel or material.  This definition
of EGU is broader than the definition of electric utility steam
generating unit (EUSGU) currently found in the NSR regulations.  The EGU
definition includes simple cycle gas turbines that would not qualify
under EUSGU definition.  That is, the revised emissions test would apply
to EUSGUs (including cogeneration units) and simple cycle gas turbines.

Title I of the Act authorizes EPA to collect this information. Through
the NSR program it requires owners or operators of emissions units that
emit air pollutants to submit an application for a permit to construct,
modify, or significantly alter the operations of each source of criteria
pollutants.

For EPA to carry out its required oversight function of reviewing
construction permits and assuring adequate implementation of the
program, it must have available to it information on proposed
construction and modifications. The burden estimates included in this
ICR provide emissions, source, and control information for the PSD/NSR
program.

The information in this ICR is based upon the best data available to the
Agency at this time. However, inconsistencies in reviewing authority
(RA) reporting techniques, and incomplete data sets, and sampling
limitations imposed necessitated a certain amount of extrapolation and
“best-guess” estimations. Consequently, the reader should not
consider the conclusions to be an exact representation of the level of
burden or cost that will occur. Instead, this ICR should be considered a
directionally correct assessment of the impact the programmatic changes
included in this rulemaking may have over the next 3 years.

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 and truncate values accordingly, usually in terms of thousands
or 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. Such was the case with this ICR, where source values are
consistently in the millions and federal and State values in the tens of
thousands. Consequently, to avoid the loss of information through
rounding, this ICR reports all values at the most meaningful unit level
for the range of values being presented and reminds the reader that
there is no implied precision inherent in this style of reporting.

For approval of a proposed ICR, the Agency must ensure that it has
taken every reasonable step to avoid duplication in its paperwork
requirements in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.9.  Although the RAs will be
required to revise a State’s SIP, the proposed action imposes no new
paperwork requirements.

For any existing rule, § 3507(g) of the PRA limits how long a Director
may take to approve a collection of information to 3 years. The ICR for
the 40 CFR Part 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
New Source Review Program was renewed last in October 2004. This ICR
analysis presents an update to that renewal, based upon programmatic
changes completed since then.

A 60-day public comment period will be provided after proposal, during
which all affected parties will be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed charges.  All received comments will be considered, and
some may be reflected in the development of the final regulatory
language.

This ICR is an update to the renewal for the ICR program (ICR #1230.17),
completed in October 2004.  This ICR incorporates the base elements of
the overall program as they relate to these changes.  As such, extensive
consultation through public meetings and stakeholder meeting with
environmental groups; industry; and State, local, and Federal agency
representatives has been conducted for the permit application and review
elements affected in this ICR update.

The Act defines the rate of reporting by sources, States, and local
entities. Consequently, less frequent collection is not possible.

OMB's general guidelines for information collections must be adhered to
by all Federal Agencies for approval of any rulemaking's collection
methodology.  In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.5, the
Agency believes:

1.	The NSR regulations do not require periodic reporting more frequently
than semi-annually.

2.	The NSR regulations do not require respondents to participate in any
statistical survey.

3.	Written responses to Agency inquiries are not required to be
submitted in less than thirty days.

4.	Special consideration has been given in the design of the NSR program
to ensure that the requirements are, to the greatest extent possible,
the same for Federal requirements and those RAs who already have NSR
construction permitting programs in place.

5.	Confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information necessary for
the completeness of the respondent's permit are protected from
disclosure under the requirements of §503(e) and §114(c) of the Act.

6.	The NSR regulations do not require more than one original and two
copies of the permit application, update, or revision to be submitted to
the Agency.

7.	Respondents do not receive remuneration for the preparation of
reports required by the Act or parts 51 or 52.

8.	To the greatest extent possible, the Agency has taken advantage of
automated methods of reporting.

9.	The Agency believes the impact of NSR regulations on small entities
to be insignificant and not disproportionate.

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the current
NSR program and the changes proposed in this rulemaking do not exceed
any of the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.5,
except for the guideline which limits retention of records by
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 Federal
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
Clean Air Act.

Confidentiality is not an issue for this rulemaking.   In accordance
with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the monitoring information to
be submitted by sources as a part of their major NSR permit application
is a matter of public record.   To the extent that the information
required is proprietary, confidential, 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 or 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; amended by 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 information gathered to establish a major NSR permit
does not include personal data on any owner or operator.

The President’s priorities in promoting environmental justice (EJ) are
contained in Executive Order #12898.  Because the NSR program operates
nation-wide and across all industry classifications, the Agency does not
believe there is a disproportionate EJ effect in the NSR program.
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The proposed emissions tests applies only to
existing EGUs.  The industry classifications affected by the proposed
rule are presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1	Potentially Affected Entities

Industry Group		SIC	NAICS

Electric Services	491	221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122

Eventually, this rulemaking will affect all States, territories, and
possessions of the United States, as well as all local and Tribal
governments, but for the first 3-year period of this rulemaking (the
period covered by this ICR), most States will not be affected by this
regulation due to the regulatory lag necessary for SIP review, revision,
and approval.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 During the first 2 years that this
ICR covers, the only entities potentially affected by this final action
will be located in areas where the Federal government has direct
regulatory authority.  These “Federally controlled areas” include,
but are not limited to, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands;
Washington D.C.; Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and South Dakota.  The
Federal government also has authority in Texas and Washington State, but
only for one source category in each SIP, so this analysis will treat
Texas and Washington State as though their SIPs were fully approved.

For our analysis of the number of respondents in each year of the 3-year
period, see Section 6.4.1 of this document.

The data required by sources for a complete major NSR construction
permit application can be found in the various parts of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). 40 CFR 50.166 specifies the
minimum requirements that a PSD permit program under Part C of the Act
must contain to warrant approval as a revision to a State Implementation
Plan (SIP). 40 CFR 52.21 delineates the Federal PSD permit program which
applies to all Federally controlled areas, such as Tribal lands, outer
continental shelf sources, and States that have not submitted a PSD
program meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166.  40 CFR 51.165
specifies the elements of an approvable State permit program for
preconstruction review in nonattainment areas under Part D of the Act.
40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S (Offset Ruling) and 40 CFR 52.24
(construction moratorium) apply when a nonattainment area SIP has not
been fully approved by EPA as having met the requirements of Part D of
the Act. These citations can be found on the EPA website at:

  HYPERLINK http://www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/subch-C.htm
http://www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/subch-C.htm

Respondent data and information requirements can be found in the current
ICR for the PSD/NSR program (EPA Tracking Number 1230.17, Appendix A,
October 2004), including appropriate references in 40 CFR part 51 for
the data and information requirements that govern the way States
implement NSR programs.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table A-3 of Appendix A of
the current ICR (EPA Tracking Number 1230.17) summarizes the data and
information requirements which State and local agencies must meet.  For
convenience, Table 5.1, below, recreates this information.  Table 5.1
also shows the Part 51 references for the data and information
requirements specified.  The appropriate language from the CAA, 40 CFR
51 and 40 CFR 52 for State and local agencies is also included.

Table 5.1 Permitting Agency Data and Information Requirements

Requirement	Regulation Reference

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Early FLM notification and opportunity to
participate in meetings	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 40 CFR 51.166(p)(1)(ii)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Submission of all permit applications to EPA	  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Submission of notice of application, preliminary
determination, degree of increment consumption, and opportunity for
public comment	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Submission to FLM of permit applications	  SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 40 CFR 51.166(p)(1)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Submission of written request to exempt sources
from review	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 40 CFR 52.21(i)(4)(vi)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Written request for use of innovative control
technology	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 40 CFR 51.166(s)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Establishing and operating a permitting program
for all new sources	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 40 CFR 51.160

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Provide notice to EPA of all permits	  SEQ CHAPTER
\h \r 1 40 CFR 51.161(d)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Provide for public comment for all NSR permits
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 40 CFR 51.161

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.  According to the latest guidance for ICRs (EPA 1995),
capital and O&M costs display the cost of any new capital equipment the
source or RA may have to purchase 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
addition, 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
monitoring functions), 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.  In other words, if a source
would employ 20 hours of burden to fully perform a function, then a
contractor hired by the source would also take 20 hours to perform that
same task.  Furthermore, 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.  Therefore, the burden estimates in this ICR
act as an accurate assessment of the total burden to affected sources
and RAs, given the affected entity does not employ contracted labor.

•		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 by the percentage of total effort each burden source
applied.  Consequently, the cost developed in this ICR should be
interpreted as an upper bound on the actual cost of administration by
the source or RA.  The methodology for determining cost per hour can be
found in greater detail in section 6.2, below.

The owners or operators of new or modified major stationary sources
affected by the major NSR regulations must submit construction permit
applications to the RA, who logs in the permit applications, stores
applications in a central filing location, notifies the Federal Land
Manager (FLM) of the permit, and provides a copy of the application (if
applicable) to the FLM and transmits copies of each application to EPA.
Upon permit approval, the RA submits control technology information to
EPA's RBLC database.

The RA reviews the permit application and checks the quality of data
submitted by the applicant on a case-by-case basis.  The applicant will
be required to submit information on how the data were obtained (e.g.,
indicate whether emissions data were obtained through the use of
emissions factors or test data) and how the calculations were performed.
 The RA personnel will check data quality by reviewing test data and
checking engineering calculations, and by reviewing control technology
determinations for similar sources.  The RBLC and other sources will be
reviewed for information on control technology determinations made for
sources similar to the sources included in the permit application.
Confidential information submitted by the applicant will be handled by
the RA’s confidential information handling procedures.  The public
will be provided the opportunity to review a permit application and
other materials relevant to the RA’s decision on issuing the permit,
including FLM findings, by obtaining a copy from the permit reviewing
authority or by attending the public hearing.  The NSR regulations will
not require information through any type of survey.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires regulatory agencies, upon
regulatory action, to assess that actions potential impact on small
entities (businesses, governments, and small non-governmental
organizations) and report the results of the assessments in (1) an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), (2) a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (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 businesses 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.

A Regulatory Flexibility Act Screening Analysis (RFASA) developed as
part of a 1994 draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and incorporated
into the September 1995 ICR renewal analysis reported an initial
regulatory flexibility screening analysis showed that the changes to the
NSR program due to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments would not have an
adverse impact on small entities. This analysis encompassed the entire
universe of applicable major sources that were likely to also be
small-businesses. The Agency estimates there are approximately 50
“small business” major sources.  Because the administrative burden
of the NSR program 16 the primary source of the NSR program’s
regulatory costs, the analysis estimated a negligible “cost to
sales” (regulatory cost divided by the business category mean revenue)
ratio for this source group. Currently, there is no economic basis for a
different conclusion at this time.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 We believe that today’s proposed Option 1 will
relieve the regulatory burden associated with the major NSR program for
all EGUs, including any EGU that are small businesses.  This is because
Option 1 would  simplify applicability determinations, eliminate the
burden of projecting future annual emissions and distinguishing between
emissions increases caused by the change from those due solely to demand
growth, and reduce recordkeeping and reporting burdens.  We believe that
proposed Options 2 and 3 will not affect the major NSR regulatory burden
for any EGUs.  As a result, the program changes provided in the proposed
rule are not expected to result in any increases in expenditure by any
small entity.  We have therefore concluded that, depending on the option
ultimately selected, today’s proposed rule either would have no effect
on the regulatory burden for all small entities, or would relieve
regulatory burden for all small entities.

The Agency may not, as a general rule, exempt a major source of air
pollution.  Since the impacts of NSR regulations which may impact small
entities occur predominantly at major sources, little room exists for
regulatory flexibility to avert the impact of the proposed rulemaking on
small entities through exemption. However, even though the Title V
program does not have an adverse impact on a significant number of small
businesses, EPA takes measures to assist sources in affected small
entities through the implementation of small business stationary source
technical and environmental compliance assistance programs, as called
for in section 507 of the Act. These programs can reduce the reporting
burden of small entities which are subject to major NSR and may
significantly alleviate the economic burden on small sources by
establishing programs to assist small businesses with determining what
Act requirements apply to their sources and when they apply, and
guidance on alternative control technology and pollution prevention for
small businesses.

Generally, EPA has several methods by which it can minimize the
disproportionate effect of a rulemaking on small entities. Net costs can
be reduced through the use of small business stationary source technical
and environmental compliance assistance programs, the Agency can defer
applicability for one or several source categories, and mitigation can
be achieved by discretion of the Federal government.  However, these
avenues do not apply to the NSR program.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 We believe that today’s proposed Option 1 will
relieve the regulatory burden associated with the major NSR program for
all EGU, including any EGU that are small businesses.  This is because
Option 1 would  simplify applicability determinations, eliminate the
burden of projecting future annual emissions and distinguishing between
emissions increases caused by the change from those due solely to demand
growth, and reduce recordkeeping and reporting burdens.  Proposed
Options 2 and 3 would not affect the major NSR regulatory burden.  As a
result, the program changes provided in the proposed rule are not
expected to result in any increases in expenditure by any small entity.

We have therefore concluded that, depending on the option ultimately
selected, today’s proposed rule either would have no effect on the
regulatory burden for all small entities, or would relieve regulatory
burden for all small entities.

Respondents are not subjected to a collection schedule per se under NSR
permitting regulations of parts 51 and 52.  In general, each major
stationary source is required to submit an application as a prerequisite
to receiving a construction permit.  Preparation of a major source
construction permit application is a one-time-only activity for each
project involving construction of a new major stationary source or major
modification of an existing major stationary source.  The applicable SIP
typically states the time period that is necessary to process a permit
application and issue a permit.  Consequently, a prospective source
would be obliged to work backward from the desired commencement date for
construction to determine the optimum submittal date for the
application.

Burden means the total time, effort, of financial resources expended by
person to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information
to or for a Federal agency.  This include the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
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) a total capital and start-up cost component annualized
over its useful life; (2) a total operation, maintenance and purchases
of services component.  Each component should be divided into burden
borne directly by the respondent and any services that are contracted
out.

Although there have been regulatory changes to the NSR program since the
2004 renewal, we believe that they have not changed the regulatory
burden on a source that is subject to major NSR and must obtain a
permit.  Similarly, we believe that the burden on a State or local RA to
review and issue a major NSR permit has not changed.  Thus, we have
retained the per-permit hourly burden estimates from the 2004 ICR
renewal (1230.17) as the baseline for the current regulatory action for
both industrial respondents and State and local RA respondents.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The proposed Option 1 emissions test would
simplify applicability determinations for sources and reviewing
authorities.  It would eliminate the burden of projecting future annual
emissions and distinguishing between emissions increases caused by the
change from those due solely to demand growth, because any increase in
the emissions under the maximum achievable emissions test would be
logically attributed to the change.  It would reduce recordkeeping and
reporting burdens on sources because compliance would no longer rely on
synthesizing emissions data into rolling total emissions.  It would
improve compliance by making the rules more understandable, which would
correspondingly reduces the RAs’ compliance and enforcement burden.

Specifically, we believe that proposed Option 1 would reduce the
industry’s burden related to determination of compliance requirements
and preparation and submittal of permit applications.  Accordingly, in
estimating the respondent burden for Option 1 for this ICR, we have
reduced the labor hour burden of certain activities by 20 percent to
account for the reduced burden of a given permit action.  We based the
20 percent reduction on engineering judgment and experience in reviewing
major NSR permit actions.

Under Option 1, the RAs will see a corresponding reduced burden for
logging in and reviewing data submissions, as well as preparing
completed permit applications for processing.  As discussed further in
section 6.3, Federal authorities will see a reduced burden for reviewing
and verifying applicability determinations under Option 1.

Because they retain an annual emissions test, proposed Options 2 and 3
are not expected to reduce the per-permit hourly burden experienced by
industrial respondents or State and local RA respondents.  As a result,
we believe that the baseline burden estimates from the 2004 ICR renewal
will continue to apply under these options.

Table 6.1 presents the average burden by activity for industrial
respondents for the baseline case, Option 1, and Options 2 and 3.  This
burden consists of the activities required to obtain a major NSR
construction permit, differentiated according to whether the permit is
issued pursuant to Part C of the Act (PSD permits) or Part D of the Act
(nonattainment major NSR permits).

Table 6.2 presents the average burden by activity for the RAs for the
baseline case, Option 1, and Options 2 and 3.  These activities are for
issuing major NSR construction permits.

  Table 6.1 Industrial Respondent (Source) Per-Permit Burden

Activity	Baseline Hours

per Permit	Option 1 Hours per Permit	Options 2 and 3 Hours per Permit

I.     Part C (PSD)

A.     Preparation and Planning

        Determination of Compliance Requirements	170	136	170

	        Obtain guidance on Data Needs	120	120	120

	        Preparation of BACT Engineering Analysis	85	85	85

	B.     Data Collection and Analysis

        Air Quality Modeling	200	200	200

	        Determination of Impact on Air Quality Related Values	100	100
100

	        Post-construction Air Quality Monitoring	50	50	50

	C.     Permit Application

        Preparation and Submittal of Permit Application	50	40	50

	        Public Hearings	24	24	24

	        Revisions to Permit	40	40	40

	D.     Total 	839	795	839

II.     Part D (nonattainment)

A.     Preparation and Planning

        Determination of Compliance Requirements	150	120	150

	        Obtain Guidance on Data Needs	100	100	100

	B.     Data Collection and Analysis

        Preparation of LAER Engineering Analysis	40	10	40

	        Demonstrate Offsets	40	10	40

	        Prepare Analysis of Alternative Sites, Processes, etc.	60	60	60

	        Air Quality Modeling	100	100	100

	C.     Permit Application

        Preparation and Submittal of Permit Application	38	30	38

	        Public Hearings	25	25	25

	        Revisions to Permit	24	24	24

	D.     Total	577	539	577

Table 6.2 State and Local RA Respondent Per-Permit Burden

Activity	Baseline Hours

per Permit	Option 1 Hours per Permit	Options 2 and 3 Hours per Permit

I.	PART C (PSD)

A.     Attend Pre-application Meetings	36	36	36

	B.     Answer Respondent Questions	20	20	20

	C.     Log In and Review Data Submissions	16	13	16

	D.     Request Additional Information 	8	8	8

	E.     Analyze for and Provide Confidentiality Protection	24	24	24

	F.     Prepare Completed Applications for Processing	32	26	32

	G.     File and Transmit Copies 	8	8	8

	H.     Prepare Preliminary Determination	24	24	24

	I.      Prepare Notices for and Attend Public Hearings	40	40	40

	J.     Application Approval	40	40	40

	K.     Notification of Applicant of RA Determination	8	8	8

	L.     Submittal  of Information  on BACT / LAER to RBLC	16	16	16

	M.     Total	272	263	272

II.	Part D (Nonattainment)

A.     Attend Pre-application Meetings	7	7	7

	B.     Answer Respondent Questions	10	10	10

	C.     Log In and Review Data Submissions	8	6	8

	D.     Request Additional Information	4	4	4

	E.     Analyze for and Provide Confidentiality Protection	4	4	4

	F.     Prepare Completed Applications for Processing	12	10	12

	G.     File and Transmit Copies	4	4	4

	H.     Prepare Preliminary Determination	8	8	8

	I.      Prepare notices for and Attend Public Hearings	18	18	18

	J.     Application Approval	16	16	16

	K.     Notification of Applicant Determination	2	2	2

	L.     Submittal of Information on BACT/LAER to RBLC	16	16	16

	M.     Total	109	105	109

In addition to issuing permits, the RAs must ensure that their NSR
programs meet the requirements that EPA specifies for such programs
pursuant to Parts C and D.  The proposed rule would revise the
applicability requirements for EGUs.  Therefore the RAs must incorporate
these changes into their SIPs or demonstrate that an alternative
approach is at least equivalent to the revised requirements.

This rulemaking results in a small increase in the burden imposed upon
RAs in the short term.  Each RA must submit changes to their existing
SIP programs or demonstrate that their existing programs are at least
equivalent to EPA’s new requirements.  Because the changes needed for
updating SIPs are small and the State requirements for SIP development
differ from State to State, the EPA assumed it would take no more than
20 hours for each RA to fully incorporate this rulemaking into its plan.
 This assumption includes legislative review, public comment, and all
legal and legislative processes necessary for all of the above
components.  We expect this burden to occur in year 2 of the period
covered by this ICR.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In order to improve the accuracy of burden
estimates, this ICR uses 2006 values with the wage rate methods
established in the July 1997 renewal ICR and confirmed in the 2001 and
2004 renewal ICRs.  The single exception is the estimate of
pre-construction ambient air quality monitoring costs, which were
adjusted from the 2001 renewal ICR due to the lack of computational
detail provided in the 1997 renewal.

We estimated industry labor costs using a two-step process.  First, we
calculated an estimated in-house labor rate using the latest data from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  We then calculated an industrial
respondent’s labor rate reflecting a division between in-house
technical staff and contractor staff.

To calculate the in-house labor rate, $72.20/hr, we have used a graded
approach in calculating labor cost as recommended in the ICR handbook.
We used wage rates for industry respondents retrieved from the BLS,
specifically for Engineering Managers (management), Environmental
Engineers (technical), and Word Processors and Typists (clerical) in the
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution industry.  The
latest data available on wage rates for this sector reflects May 2005;
accordingly, we have used this period as the basis for all costs
reported in this ICR.  Based on BLS data on benefits compensation for
Utilities in the private sector, we used 38.4 percent of the total
compensation to estimate benefits.  We calculated the overhead rate as
50 percent of the total compensation rate (i.e., salary plus benefits).
The addition of benefits and overhead to the hourly rate produces a pay
rate that reflects the true cost to employ an industry sector worker.
Table 6.3 summarizes this result.  Following is a summary of the
computed wages for industry personnel.

Table 6.3  Calculated In-house Hourly Labor Rates

Labor Type	Base Salary, Hourly Ratea	Benefit Hourly Rateb	Overhead
Hourly Rate c	Adjusted Hourly Rate	In-house Weighting (%)	In-house
Hourly Rate

Management	46.29	17.76	32.03	96.10	5%	4.81

Technical	36.22	13.91	25.06	75.19	85%	63.91

Clerical	16.77	6.44	11.60	34.81	10%	3.48

Total	 	 	 	     	100%	 $ 72.20

a  Dept of Labor: Bureau of Labor and Statistics   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/oes"  http://www.bls.gov/oes . Data for May 2005.
Accessed August 2006

b  Benefits are 38.4% of Base Salary Hourly Rate based on 2nd Quarter
2005 data from the Dept of Labor: Bureau of Labor and Statistics
HYPERLINK "http://data.bls.gov"  http://data.bls.gov .

c  Overhead rate is 50% of Base Salary Hourly Rate plus Benefit Hourly
Rate.

The labor rate used to calculate the industrial respondent’s labor
cost is $85.20/hr and reflects a division of labor between in-house
technical staff and managerial staff, and the involvement of outside
consultants.  The consultant rate in the 1997 ICR was estimated to be 60
percent higher than the loaded in-house rate.  Therefore, we have
estimated the current loaded consultant rate to be $115.52 ($72.20 (
1.60 = $115.52).  The following methodology is detailed in the July 10,
1997 ICR.  The industrial respondent’s labor rate is calculated by
taking 70% of the 2005 in-house rate ($72.20 ( 0.70 = $50.54), which is
derived using fully loaded but weighted technical, clerical, and
managerial staff wages, and adding the resulting labor rate to 30% of
the 2005 fully loaded weighted consultant rate for technical, clerical,
and managerial staff (($115.52 ( 0.30 = $34.66).  The resultant
industrial respondent’s labor rate equals $85.20/hr.

Following the same assumptions as the 2004 ICR renewal, approximately 13
percent of PSD sources submitting Part C (PSD) permit applications will
conduct pre-construction ambient air quality monitoring.  The average
cost for this activity is estimated to be $280,343, which is calculated
using the same 3 year adjustment factor (1.16) as the previous ICRs and
adding an additional growth of 10.66% (2/3 of 16%) for 2004 and 2005.
We have assumed that one of the 9 PSD permits submitted during the
3-year period covered by this ICR would be required to do this
monitoring.

The labor rate used to calculate the State and local respondents’
labor cost is $43.88/hr. This rate is the result of inserting 2005
Federal government pay schedule wage rates for clerical, technical, and
managerial staff into the weighting system developed in the 1997 renewal
ICR and described in the November 2002 parts 51 & 52 ICR update.  For
this ICR, the Agency employed the same methodology to determine 2005
Federal burden costs.  Table 6.4 summarizes this result.

Table 6.4	Determination of Federal and State Wage Rates

Annual Salary of Permit Staff, GS 11 Step 3 (FY 05  Schedule)*

$48,255.00

Annual Cost of Supervisory Staff, GS 13 Step 3 (FY 05 Schedule)*
$68,776.00

	Factor (1/11)	0.09

	$6,189.84

Annual Cost of Support Staff, GS 6 Step 6 (FY 05 Schedule)*

Factor (1/8)	$32,092.00

0.13

	$4,171.96

Annual Applicable Salary of Permit Staff

$58,616.80

Benefits (at 16%)

$9,378.69

Sick Leave / Vacation (at 10%)

$5,861.68

General Overhead

$17,413.37

Total Cost Per FTE

$91,270.54

Total Hourly Cost (Total Per FTE divided by 2,080 hours per year)

$43.88

a   HYPERLINK "http://www.opm.gov/oca/05tables/html/gs.asp"
http://www.opm.gov/oca/05tables/html/gs.asp   August 2006

Even if an applicant is a brand new company and the prospective source
is a “greenfield” source (the EPA estimates less than one percent of
the combined number of major and minor industrial respondents fit that
description) most, and perhaps all, of the equipment needed to prepare
permit applications (for example, the computers and basic software) will
be part of the source’s business operation inventory.  Furthermore,
much of the data and regulatory and policy information for making
technology determinations and even models for performing ambient air
impact analyses are available in electronic form from several different
EPA bulletin boards for just the communication charges, which are
typically absorbed in routine business overhead expenses.

The EPA has conservatively estimated that 13 percent of PSD permit
applicants have to conduct pre-construction ambient monitoring for the
impacts analyses and that monitoring is conducted for approximately 4
months.  As a practical matter, sources would probably contract this
type of activity since it would generally be a one-time exercise.
Consequently, EPA believes this cost is most often a direct cost
associated with preparing permit applications.  Based on this
assumption, cost of capital equipment for pre-construction monitoring is
negligible.  To account for this cost in the ICR, EPA has added a line
item direct cost to the total annual cost based on a contracted service
cost of $280,343 per permit where pre-construction monitoring is
required.  This cost, although not a fixed-capital cost, is nonetheless
considered a start-up cost and is reported as such in the OMB form for
this ICR.  As a result, the total estimated direct cost would be
$280,343 for the one PSD permit assumed to require ambient monitoring
during the ICR period.

Since the purchase of capital equipment is believed to be an
insignificant factor in permit application preparation, the EPA assumes
the operation, maintenance, or services for same are negligible.
Further, once a permit is issued, there is no operations and maintenance
cost associated with it.  It remains unaltered unless the source or the
permitting authority discovers specific reasons to reexamine it and
change any conditions or specifications.  If purely administrative, the
changes are handled exclusively by the permitting authority.  If changes
have the potential for environmental consequences, the action may be
significant enough to be counted as a separate and new application, to
which a new burden and cost may be ascribed.

Capital/start-up and O&M costs are non-labor related costs.  One-time
capital/start-up costs are incurred with the purchase of durable goods
needed to provide information.  According to the Paperwork Reduction
Act, capital/start-up cost should include among other items,
preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and
software, monitoring, sampling, drilling, and testing equipment.  As
stated above, we believe that as a practical matter sources would
probably contract this type of activity rather than making a capital
investment in equipment to be used as part of a one-time exercise.
These costs, although not fixed-capital costs, have been included as
start-up costs in the OMB form.  For the same reason, that is,
contracting out for this kind of expenditure/activity, the O&M costs
associated with start-up capital equipment are zero for this ICR.

Typically 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 permit, or the ICR, whichever is shorter.  However, in the case of
NSR, there are only up-front costs.  The burden and cost of applying for
and issuing each permit is unique, and since the cost of NSR permitting
is incurred “up front,” it is a sunk cost to the source and does not
require amortization over the life of the source.  Therefore, the
capital costs for the ICR to industry respondents after the first year
of each permit are zero.

Staff in EPA’s regional offices typically reviews major NSR permits.
The EPA expects its review of NSR permits to comprise the tasks listed
in Table 6.5.  The table gives the baseline estimated average per-permit
hourly burden, which reflects the values from the 2004 ICR renewal
(1230.17), as well hourly burden under proposed Options 1, 2, and 3.
For Option 1, we believe that EPA will see a reduced burden for
reviewing and verifying applicability determinations.  For Options 2 and
3, we believe that EPA’s burden will not be affected and will remain
at the baseline level.

As described in section <IP_ADDRESS>, we calculated Federal labor rates using
the weighting developed in the 1997 ICR renewal and described in the
November 2002 parts 51 and 52 ICR update.  The estimated labor rate is
$43.88/hr based on data for 2005.

In addition, there will be Agency burden resulting from these changes to
review SIPs to verify that their changes fully meet the requirements of
the program.  Due to the nature of the changes needed, the Agency
expects that, when the rule is fully in effect, that each SIP will
require about 5 hours of review.  We expect this burden to occur in
year 3 of the period covered by this ICR.

Table 6.5	Federal Per-Permit Burden

Activity	Baseline Hours

per Permit	Option 1 Hours per Permit	Options 2 and 3 Hours per Permit

I.	PART C (PSD)

A.     Review and Verify Applicability Determination	2	1	2

	B.     Review Control Technology Determination	3	3	3

	C.    Evaluate Air Quality Monitoring	4	4	4

	D.     Evaluate Alternative and Secondary Impact Analysis	2	2	2

	E.    Evaluate Class I Area Analysis	2	2	2

	F.    Administrative Tasks	1	1	1

	G.   Total	14	13	14

II.	Part D (nonattainment)

A.     Review and Verify Applicability Determination	2	1	2

	B.     Review Control Technology Determination	3	3	3

	C.     Evaluate Offsets	1	1	1

	D.     Evaluate Air Quality Monitoring	4	4	4

	E.     Evaluate Alternative and Secondary Impact Analysis	2	2	2

	F.     Administrative Tasks	1	1	1

	G.    Total	13	12	13

For the purpose of estimating burden in this ICR, the respondent
universe is defined by the annual number of permit applications prepared
by existing EGUs that would be subject to the proposed rules and the
number of such permit applications processed by State and local RAs.  It
also includes the number of RAs that will have to revise their SIPs.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 We estimate that the number
of NSR permit applications for EGUs over a 3-year period would be 182,
based on an analysis we completed for the 2002 NSR Rule ICR.  We
recently conducted a survey of the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC)
database and determined that approximately 25 percent of the EGU permit
applications over a 3-year period were for major modifications at
existing sources.  Since the proposed rule would apply only to such
modifications, we assumed that 45 permit actions would be subject to the
proposed rule during a 3-year period, once the rule is fully
implemented, or approximately 15 permit actions per year.

In the third year of the period covered by this ICR, when the rule is
fully implemented in all areas, we estimate that 15 permit actions would
be subject to the proposed rule.  During the first 2 years of the period
covered by this ICR, while RAs are revising their SIPs for their
SIP-approved Part C (PSD) and Part D (nonattainment major NSR)
programs, only those PSD permit actions that occur in the States
described in Section 4.1 (where the federal government has direct
regulatory authority for PSD permits) would be subject to the proposed
rule.  Using the same survey of the RBLC database mentioned above, we
estimate that there will be two PSD permit actions per year in such
States that would be subject to the proposed rule.  The other 13 major
NSR permit actions expected in each of the first 2 years covered by this
ICR would not be subject to the proposed rule because they would be Part
D (nonattainment major NSR) permits or Part C (PSD) permits that occur
in States not subject to the Federal PSD regulations.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Since the activities to prepare permit
applications for Part C (PSD) and Part D (nonattainment major NSR)
differ, we estimated the number of major modification EGU permit actions
that would fall into each category.  To estimate this number, we used
data provided in the 2004 ICR renewal (1230.17), which show the
percentage of major NSR sources preparing permit applications under each
part (about 35 percent under Part C (PSD) and 65 percent under Part D
(nonattainment major NSR)).  We assumed that the EGU permit actions
would follow the same breakdown.  Therefore, of the 15 major
modification EGU permit actions annually when fully implemented in the
third year, 5 would be under Part C (PSD) and 10 would be under Part D
(nonattainment major NSR).  As noted above, in each of the first
2 years, two PSD permits would be subject to the proposed rule.  Thus,
in aggregate over the 3 years covered by this ICR, we estimate a total
of 19 major NSR permit actions subject to the proposed rule (9 Part C
permits and 10 Part D permits).

As noted above in Section 6.2.2, we have estimated that 13 percent of
PSD permit applicants have to conduct pre-construction ambient
monitoring.  Using this factor, we estimate that one of the nine Part C
(PSD) permits subject to the proposed rule that would be issued during
the 3 years covered by this ICR would require such monitoring.  As a
result, the applicant for this permit would incur an estimated direct
cost of $280,343 for contracted services to conduct the required ambient
monitoring.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 For the number of respondent RAs associated with
major NSR permit actions that are subject to the proposed rule, we use
the number of subject permit actions discussed above.  That is, in each
of the first 2 years, we estimate two RAs issuing subject Part C
permits.  (We are assuming that these permit actions occur in States
where we have delegated the Federal PSD program to the State and local
RAs.)  In the third year, we estimate 5 RAs issuing subject Part C
permits and 10 issuing subject Part D permits.

For the number of respondent RAs associated with SIP revisions, we use
the 112 RA count used by other permitting ICRs for one-time tasks of
this type.  We estimated that all RAs will have changes to their SIPs in
place for the proposed rule by the third year of the period covered by
this ICR.

Based on the estimates presented above for the hourly burden for each
activity, the labor rates for industrial and RA respondents, and the
number of respondents, we have estimated the total burden and cost for
the baseline case and proposed Options 1, 2, and 3.  Table 6.6 presents
the baseline totals for industrial respondents aggregated across the 3
years covered by this ICR.  This table also represents the totals for
Options 2 and 3, which do not affect the burden for industrial
respondents.  Table 6.7 presents the totals under Option 1 for
industrial respondents.  Tables 6.8, 6.9, and 6.10 present the baseline
totals, totals for Option 1, and totals for Options 2 and 3,
respectively.

Table 6.6 Burden for Industrial Respondents for Years 1 – 3 (Aggregate
Total) –

Baseline and Options 2 and 3

 	Activity	Number of Sources	Hours per Source	Total Hours	Total Cost

I.  Part C (PSD)

	A.     Preparation and Planning

	        Determination of Compliance Requirements	9	170	1,530	$130,356

	        Obtain guidance on Data Needs	9	120	1,080	$92,016

	        Preparation of BACT Engineering Analysis	9	85	765	$65,178

	B.     Data Collection and Analysis

	        Air Quality Modeling	9	200	1,800	$153,360

	        Determination of Impact on Air Quality Related Values	9	100	900
$76,680

	        Post-construction Air Quality Monitoring	9	50	450	$38,340

	C.     Permit Application

	        Preparation and Submittal of Permit Application	9	50	450
$38,340

	        Public Hearings	9	24	216	$18,403

	        Revisions to Permit	9	40	360	$30,672

	D.     Subtotal burden

839	7,551	$643,345

	E.      Direct cost for Pre-construction Air Quality Monitoring	1

	$280,343

 	F.     Total cost	 	 	 	$923,688

II. Part D (nonattainment)

	A.     Preparation and Planning

	        Determination of Compliance Requirements	10	150	1,500	$127,800

	        Obtain Guidance on Data Needs	10	100	1,000	$85,200

	B.     Data Collection and Analysis

	        Preparation of LAER Engineering Analysis	10	40	400	$34,080

	        Demonstrate Offsets	10	40	400	$34,080

	        Prepare Analysis of Alternative Sites, Processes, etc.	10	60
600	$51,120

	        Air Quality Modeling	10	100	1,000	$85,200

	C.     Permit Application

	        Preparation and Submittal of Permit Application	10	38	380
$32,376

	        Public Hearings	10	25	250	$21,300

	        Revisions to Permit	10	24	240	$20,448

 	D.     Total	 	577	5,770	$491,604

III.	Grand Total	19	 	13,321	$1,415,292

IV.	Annual Average (Grand Total ( 3)	6.33

4,440	$471,764

Table 6.7 Burden for Industrial Respondents for Years 1 – 3 (Aggregate
Total) – Option 1

 	Activity	Number of Sources	Hours per Source	Total Hours	Total Cost

I.  Part C (PSD)

	A.     Preparation and Planning

	        Determination of Compliance Requirements	9	136	1,224	$104,285

	        Obtain guidance on Data Needs	9	120	1,080	$92,016

	        Preparation of BACT Engineering Analysis	9	85	765	$65,178

	B.     Data Collection and Analysis

	        Air Quality Modeling	9	200	1,800	$153,360

	        Determination of Impact on Air Quality Related Values	9	100	900
$76,680

	        Post-construction Air Quality Monitoring	9	50	450	$38,340

	C.     Permit Application

	        Preparation and Submittal of Permit Application	9	40	360
$30,672

	        Public Hearings	9	24	216	$18,403

	        Revisions to Permit	9	40	360	$30,672

	D.     Subtotal burden

795	7,155	$609,606

	E.      Direct cost for Pre-construction Air Quality Monitoring	1

	$280,343

 	F.     Total cost	 	 	 	$889,949

II. Part D (nonattainment)

	A.     Preparation and Planning

	        Determination of Compliance Requirements	10	120	1,200	$102,240

	        Obtain Guidance on Data Needs	10	100	1,000	$85,200

	B.     Data Collection and Analysis

	        Preparation of LAER Engineering Analysis	10	40	400	$34,080

	        Demonstrate Offsets	10	40	400	$34,080

	        Prepare Analysis of Alternative Sites, Processes, etc.	10	60
600	$51,120

	        Air Quality Modeling	10	100	1,000	$85,200

	C.     Permit Application

	        Preparation and Submittal of Permit Application	10	30	300
$25,560

	        Public Hearings	10	25	250	$21,300

	        Revisions to Permit	10	24	240	$20,448

 	D.     Total	 	539	5,390	$459,228

III.	Grand Total	19	 	12,545	$1,349,177

IV.	Annual Average (Grand Total ( 3)	6.33

4,182	$449,726

Table 6.8 Burden for RA Respondents for Years 1 – 3 (Aggregate Total)
– Baseline

MAJOR NSR PERMITTING

 	Activity	Affected RAs	Hours Per RA	Total Hours	Total Cost

I.	PART C (PSD)

	A.     Attend Pre-application Meetings	9	36	324	$14,217

	B.     Answer Respondent Questions	9	20	180	$7,898

	C.     Log In and Review Data Submissions	9	16	144	$6,319

	D.     Request Additional Information 	9	8	72	$3,159

	E.     Analyze for and Provide Confidentiality Protection	9	24	216
$9,478

	F.     Prepare Completed Applications for Processing	9	32	288	$12,637

	G.     File and Transmit Copies 	9	8	72	$3,159

	H.     Prepare Preliminary Determination	9	24	216	$9,478

	I.      Prepare Notices for and Attend Public Hearings	9	40	360	$15,797

	J.     Application Approval	9	40	360	$15,797

	K.     Notification of Applicant of RA Determination	9	8	72	$3,159

	L.     Submittal  of Information  on BACT / LAER to RBLC	9	16	144
$6,319

 	M.     Total	 	272	2448	$107,418

II.	Part D (Nonattainment)

	A.     Attend Preapplication Meetings	10	7	70	$3,072

	B.     Answer Respondent Questions	10	10	100	$4,388

	C.     Log In and Review Data Submissions	10	8	80	$3,510

	D.     Request Additional Information	10	4	40	$1,755

	E.     Analyze for and Provide Confidentiality Protection	10	4	40
$1,755

	F.     Prepare Completed Applications for Processing	10	12	120	$5,266

	G.     File and Transmit Copies	10	4	40	$1,755

	H.     Prepare Preliminary Determination	10	8	80	$3,510

	I.      Prepare notices for and Attend Public Hearings	10	18	180	$7,898

	J.     Application Approval	10	16	160	$7,021

	K.     Notification of Applicant Determination	10	2	20	$878

	L.     Submittal of Information on BACT/LAER to RBLC	10	16	160	$7,021

	M.     Total

109	1,090	$47,829

III.	Grand Total for Permits	19	 	3,538	$155,247

IV.	Annual Average for Permits (Grand Total ( 3)	6.33

1,179	$51,749

SIP REVISIONS

	Activity	Affected RAs	Hours per Revision	Total Hours	Total Cost

V.	Total for SIP Revisions (No SIP Revisions Required)	0	0	0	0

VI.	Annual Average for SIP Revisions (Total ( 3)	0

0	0

Table 6.9 Burden for RA Respondents for Years 1 – 3 (Aggregate Total)
– Option 1

MAJOR NSR PERMITTING

 	Activity	Affected RAs	Hours Per RA	Total Hours	Total Cost

I.	PART C (PSD)

	A.     Attend Pre-application Meetings	9	36	324	$14,217

	B.     Answer Respondent Questions	9	20	180	$7,898

	C.     Log In and Review Data Submissions	9	13	117	$5,134

	D.     Request Additional Information 	9	8	72	$3,159

	E.     Analyze for and Provide Confidentiality Protection	9	24	216
$9,478

	F.     Prepare Completed Applications for Processing	9	26	234	$10,268

	G.     File and Transmit Copies 	9	8	72	$3,159

	H.     Prepare Preliminary Determination	9	24	216	$9,478

	I.      Prepare Notices for and Attend Public Hearings	9	40	360	$15,797

	J.     Application Approval	9	40	360	$15,797

	K.     Notification of Applicant of RA Determination	9	8	72	$3,159

	L.     Submittal  of Information  on BACT / LAER to RBLC	9	16	144
$6,319

 	M.     Total	 	263	2,367	$103,864

II.	Part D (Nonattainment)

	A.     Attend Preapplication Meetings	10	7	70	$3,072

	B.     Answer Respondent Questions	10	10	100	$4,388

	C.     Log In and Review Data Submissions	10	6	60	$2,633

	D.     Request Additional Information	10	4	40	$1,755

	E.     Analyze for and Provide Confidentiality Protection	10	4	40
$1,755

	F.     Prepare Completed Applications for Processing	10	10	100	$4,388

	G.     File and Transmit Copies	10	4	40	$1,755

	H.     Prepare Preliminary Determination	10	8	80	$3,510

	I.      Prepare notices for and Attend Public Hearings	10	18	180	$7,898

	J.     Application Approval	10	16	160	$7,021

	K.     Notification of Applicant Determination	10	2	20	$878

	L.     Submittal of Information on BACT/LAER to RBLC	10	16	160	$7,021

	M.     Total

105	1,050	$46,074

III.	Grand Total for Permits	19	 	3,417	$149,938

IV.	Annual Average for Permits (Grand Total ( 3)	6.33

1,139	$49,979

SIP REVISIONS

	Activity	Affected RAs	Hours per Revision	Total Hours	Total Cost

V.	Total for SIP Revisions	112	20	2,240	$98,291

VI.	Annual Average for SIP Revisions (Total ( 3)	37.33

747	$32,764

Table 6.10 Burden for RA Respondents for Years 1 – 3 (Aggregate
Total) – Options 2 and 3

MAJOR NSR PERMITTING (Same as Baseline)

 	Activity	Affected RAs	Hours Per RA	Total Hours	Total Cost

I.	PART C (PSD)

	A.     Attend Pre-application Meetings	9	36	324	$14,217

	B.     Answer Respondent Questions	9	20	180	$7,898

	C.     Log In and Review Data Submissions	9	16	144	$6,319

	D.     Request Additional Information 	9	8	72	$3,159

	E.     Analyze for and Provide Confidentiality Protection	9	24	216
$9,478

	F.     Prepare Completed Applications for Processing	9	32	288	$12,637

	G.     File and Transmit Copies 	9	8	72	$3,159

	H.     Prepare Preliminary Determination	9	24	216	$9,478

	I.      Prepare Notices for and Attend Public Hearings	9	40	360	$15,797

	J.     Application Approval	9	40	360	$15,797

	K.     Notification of Applicant of RA Determination	9	8	72	$3,159

	L.     Submittal  of Information  on BACT / LAER to RBLC	9	16	144
$6,319

 	M.     Total	 	272	2448	$107,418

II.	Part D (Nonattainment)

	A.     Attend Preapplication Meetings	10	7	70	$3,072

	B.     Answer Respondent Questions	10	10	100	$4,388

	C.     Log In and Review Data Submissions	10	8	80	$3,510

	D.     Request Additional Information	10	4	40	$1,755

	E.     Analyze for and Provide Confidentiality Protection	10	4	40
$1,755

	F.     Prepare Completed Applications for Processing	10	12	120	$5,266

	G.     File and Transmit Copies	10	4	40	$1,755

	H.     Prepare Preliminary Determination	10	8	80	$3,510

	I.      Prepare notices for and Attend Public Hearings	10	18	180	$7,898

	J.     Application Approval	10	16	160	$7,021

	K.     Notification of Applicant Determination	10	2	20	$878

	L.     Submittal of Information on BACT/LAER to RBLC	10	16	160	$7,021

	M.     Total

109	1,090	$47,829

III.	Grand Total for Permits	19	 	3,538	$155,247

IV.	Annual Average for Permits (Grand Total ( 3)	6.33

1,179	$51,749

SIP REVISIONS (Same as Option 1)

	Activity	Affected RAs	Hours per Revision	Total Hours	Total Cost

V.	Total for SIP Revisions	112	20	2,240	$98,291

VI.	Annual Average for SIP Revisions (Total ( 3)	37.33

747	$32,764

Based on the estimates presented above for the Federal hourly burden
for each activity, the Federal labor rate, and the number of permits and
SIP revisions, we have estimated the total Federal burden and cost for
the baseline case and proposed Options 1, 2, and 3.  Tables 6.11, 6.12,
and 6.13 present these totals aggregated across the 3 years covered by
this ICR for the baseline case, Option 1, and Options 2 and 3,
respectively.

Table 6.11 Federal Burden for Years 1 – 3 (Aggregate Total) –
Baseline

MAJOR NSR PERMITTING

 	Activity	Permits	Hours Per Permit	Total Hours	Total Cost

I.	PART C (PSD)

	A.     Review and Verify Applicability Determination	9	2	18	$790

	B.     Review Control Technology Determination	9	3	27	$1,185

	C.    Evaluate Air Quality Monitoring	9	4	36	$1,580

	D.     Evaluate Alternative and Secondary Impact Analysis	9	2	18	$790

	E.    Evaluate Class I Area Analysis	9	2	18	$790

	F.    Administrative Tasks	9	1	9	$395

 	G.   Total	9	14	126	$5,529

II.	Part D (nonattainment)

	A.     Review and Verify Applicability Determination	10	2	20	$878

	B.     Review Control Technology Determination	10	3	30	$1,316

	C.     Evaluate Offsets	10	1	10	$439

	D.     Evaluate Air Quality Monitoring	10	4	40	$1,755

	E.     Evaluate Alternative and Secondary Impact Analysis	10	2	20	$878

	F.     Administrative Tasks	10	1	10	$439

	G.    Total

13	130	$5,704

III.	Grand Total for Permits	19	 	256	$11,233

IV.	Annual Average for Permits (Grand Total ( 3)	6.33

85	$3,744

SIP REVISIONS

	Activity	Affected RAs	Hours per Review	Total Hours	Total Cost

V.	Total for SIP Revisions (No SIP Revisions Required)	0	0	0	0

VI.	Annual Average for SIP Revisions (Total ( 3)	0

0	0

Table 6.12 Federal Burden for Years 1 – 3 (Aggregate Total) –
Option 1

MAJOR NSR PERMITTING

 	Activity	Permits	Hours Per Permit	Annual Hours	Annual Cost

I.	PART C (PSD)

	A.     Review and Verify Applicability Determination	9	1	9	$395

	B.     Review Control Technology Determination	9	3	27	$1,185

	C.    Evaluate Air Quality Monitoring	9	4	36	$1,580

	D.     Evaluate Alternative and Secondary Impact Analysis	9	2	18	$790

	E.    Evaluate Class I Area Analysis	9	2	18	$790

	F.    Administrative Tasks	9	1	9	$395

 	G.   Total	9	13	117	$5,134

II.	Part D (nonattainment)

	A.     Review and Verify Applicability Determination	10	1	10	$439

	B.     Review Control Technology Determination	10	3	30	$1,316

	C.     Evaluate Offsets	10	1	10	$439

	D.     Evaluate Air Quality Monitoring	10	4	40	$1,755

	E.     Evaluate Alternative and Secondary Impact Analysis	10	2	20	$878

	F.     Administrative Tasks	10	1	10	$439

	G.    Total

12	120	$5,266

III.	Grand Total for Permitting	19	 	237	$10,400

IV.	Annual Average for Permits (Grand Total ( 3)	6.33

79	$3,467

SIP REVISIONS

	Activity	Affected RAs	Hours per Revision	Total Hours	Total Cost

V.	Total for SIP Revisions	112	5	560	$24,573

VI.	Annual Average for SIP Revisions (Total ( 3)	37.33

187	$8,191

Table 6.13 Federal Burden for Years 1 – 3 (Aggregate Total) –
Options 2 and 3

MAJOR NSR PERMITTING (Same as Baseline)

 	Activity	Permits	Hours Per Permit	Total Hours	Total Cost

I.	PART C (PSD)

	A.     Review and Verify Applicability Determination	9	2	18	$790

	B.     Review Control Technology Determination	9	3	27	$1,185

	C.    Evaluate Air Quality Monitoring	9	4	36	$1,580

	D.     Evaluate Alternative and Secondary Impact Analysis	9	2	18	$790

	E.    Evaluate Class I Area Analysis	9	2	18	$790

	F.    Administrative Tasks	9	1	9	$395

 	G.   Total	9	14	126	$5,529

II.	Part D (nonattainment)

	A.     Review and Verify Applicability Determination	10	2	20	$878

	B.     Review Control Technology Determination	10	3	30	$1,316

	C.     Evaluate Offsets	10	1	10	$439

	D.     Evaluate Air Quality Monitoring	10	4	40	$1,755

	E.     Evaluate Alternative and Secondary Impact Analysis	10	2	20	$878

	F.     Administrative Tasks	10	1	10	$439

	G.    Total

13	130	$5,704

III.	Grand Total for Permits	19	 	256	$11,233

IV.	Annual Average for Permits (Grand Total ( 3)	6.33

85	$3,744

SIP REVISIONS (Same as Option 1)

	Activity	Affected RAs	Hours per Review	Total Hours	Total Cost

V.	Total for SIP Revisions (No SIP Revisions Required)	112	5	560	$24,573

VI.	Annual Average for SIP Revisions (Total ( 3)	37.33

187	$8,191

The first 3 years of this rulemaking have a limited affect on sources,
since it will take at least 2 years for RAs to modify their SIPs and
have them approved by the EPA.  During this period, only Federally
controlled areas will contain sources affected by this rulemaking.
Those areas can be found listed in Section 4.1 of this ICR revision.
For this analysis we have assumed that the proposed rule would be fully
implemented in the third year covered by this ICR.  During the period
covered by this ICR revision, proposed Option 1 would produce a minor
decrease in source burden hours (776 hours for all affected EGUs) and
cost ($66,115overall, or about $3,480 per source).  Proposed Options 2
and 3 would have no affect on source burden hours or cost.  Proposed
Option 1 would increase the burden (2,119 hours) and cost ($92,982
overall, or about $830 per entity) for RAs.  Proposed Options 2 and 3
would increase RA burden by a total of 2,240 hours and cost by a total
of $98,291.  Note that these increases for RAs only occur in the short
term.  After the period covered by this ICR revision, the RAs’ burden
and costs would be associated only with permitting.  Under Option 1 in
later years, total burden hours and cost for all RAs are expected to be
reduced by 40 hours and $1,770.  Under Option 2 or 3 would have no
effect on RA burden or cost in later years.

Table 6.14 displays the change in annual burden and costs for sources,
reviewing authorities, and the Federal government under proposed
Option 1.  The second column of Table 6.14 lists the number of entities
affected, based upon the methodologies and assumptions discussed above
in each section. The third column displays the average change in hours
per year.  The fourth column gives the average change in costs per year,
and the fifth column gives the average change in cost per affected
entity.  In the third, fourth, and fifth columns, negative numbers
indicate a reduction in burden or cost, zero indicates no change, and a
positive value indicates an increased burden or cost.  Table 6.15
displays the same information for proposed Options 2 and 3.

Table 6.14  Average Annual Change in Burden and Cost for Option 1 a, b

Regulatory Change

Average Number of Affected Entities per Year

Average Annual Burden Hours

Average Annualized Cost

($1,000)

Average Cost per Entity

($1,000)

SOURCES

Baseline	6.33c	4,440	$472	$74

Option 1	6.33c	4,182	$450	$71

Change

-259

-$22

-$3

RAs

Permit Actions

Baseline	6.33c	1,179	$52	$8.2

Option 1	6.33c	1,139	$50	$7.9

Change	0	-40	-$2	-$0.3

SIP Revisions

Baseline	37.33d	0	0	0

Option 1	37.33d	747	$33	$0.9

Change	0	747	$33	$0.9

Overall Change

707	$31

FEDERAL

	Permit Actions

Baseline	1e	85	$3.7	$3.7

Option 1	1e	79	$3.5	$3.5

Change	0	-6	-$0.3	-$0.3

SIP Revisions

Baseline	1f	0	0	0

Option 1	1f	187	$8.2	$8.2

Change	0	187	$8.2	$8.2

Overall Change

181	$7.9	$7.9

a   Costs are in 2005 dollars.

b   Any discrepancies are the result of rounding error.

c   Total number of affected entities over 3 years is 19; annual average
number affected is 19(3 = 6.33.  See Section 6.4.1 of this document for
how we determined the number of affected entities.

d   Burden incurred in year 2 only.  Total number of affected RAs is
112; annual average number affected is 112(3 = 37.33.

e   EPA is the only affected Federal entity.  Over 3 years, EPA would
review 19 affected permits issued by RAs (annual average of 6.33).

f   EPA is the only affected Federal entity.  Burden to review 112 SIP
revisions submitted by RAs incurred in year 3 only (annual average over
3 years of 37.33).

Table 6.15  Average Annual Change in Burden and Cost for Options 2 and 3
a, b

Regulatory Change

Average Number of Affected Entities per Year

Average Annual Burden Hours

Average Annualized Cost

($1,000)

Average Cost per Entity

($1,000)

SOURCES

Baseline	6.33c	4,440	$472	$74

Option 1	6.33c	4,440	$472	$74

Change

0

0

0

RAs

Permit Actions

Baseline	6.33c	1,179	$52	$8.2

Option 1	6.33c	1,179	$52	$8.2

Change	0	0	0	0

SIP Revisions

Baseline	37.33d	0	0	0

Option 1	37.33d	747	$33	$0.9

Change	0	747	$33	$0.9

Overall Change

747	$33

FEDERAL

	Permit Actions

Baseline	1e	85	$3.7	$3.7

Option 1	1e	85	$3.7	$3.7

Change	0	0	0	0

SIP Revisions

Baseline	1f	0	0	0

Option 1	1f	187	$8.2	$8.2

Change	0	187	$8.2	$8.2

Overall Change

187	$8.2	$8.2

a   Costs are in 2005 dollars.

b   Any discrepancies are the result of rounding error.

c   Total number of affected entities over 3 years is 19; annual average
number affected is 19(3 = 6.33.  See Section 6.4.1 of this document for
how we determined the number of affected entities.

d   Burden incurred in year 2 only.  Total number of affected RAs is
112; annual average number affected is 112(3 = 37.33.

e   EPA is the only affected Federal entity.  Over 3 years, EPA would
review 19 affected permits issued by RAs (annual average of 6.33).

f   EPA is the only affected Federal entity.  Burden to review 112 SIP
revisions submitted by RAs incurred in year 3 only (annual average over
3 years of 37.33).

Through years of negotiation, public meetings, and draft revisions, the
Air Quality Policy Division has strived to streamline and simplify the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the construction permit
process mandated by the Act for sources of criteria and hazardous air
pollutants. This rulemaking represents the culmination of many parts of
that process. Because the goal of this effort was to reduce burden and
costs, the reasons for the change in burden displayed in the tables
above are self-evident.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously- applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The Agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are
listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0160, which is available for online viewing at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or in
person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Cetner in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the
public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be
used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system,
select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.
Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include
the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0160 and OMB Control Number
2060-0003 in any correspondence.

NOTE:  The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding during the
last week of June 2006.  The Docket Center is continuing to operate.
However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to Docket
Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of operation for people
who wish to visit the Public Reading Room to view documents.  Consult
EPA's Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA
website at   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm"
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm  for current information on docket
status, locations and telephone numbers.”

	Office of the President of the United States, Office of Management and
Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; April 2002;
Managing Information Collection and Dissemination;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/paperwork_policy_report_final.pdf

	The term “reviewing authority” is synonymous with the term
“permitting authority” used in previous permit-related analyses. The
reader should consider these terms interchangeable for comparison
purposes.

	“Economic Assessment of the Impacts of Part C and D Regulatory
Changes,” June 2, 1994.

	The definition for “small business” employed for all SIC categories
in this analysis was any business employing fewer than 500 employees.

 	U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics: Bureau of Labor
Statistics 	Data.   HYPERLINK "http://data.bls.gov"  http://data.bls.gov
.  Data for 2nd Quarter 2005.  Accessed August 2006.

     	U.S., Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Draft Information Collection Request For Changes
To The 40 CFR Part 51 And 52 Prevention Of Significant Deterioration And
New Source Review Applicability Requirements For Modifications To
Existing Sources, November 2002, p. 29.

 	Information Collection Request for Changes to the 40 CFR Parts 51 and
52 PSD and NSR Applicability Requirements for Modifications to Existing
Sources.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC. November 2002.  p. 19.

 	A. Rios and J. Santiago.  Information Collection Request for 40 CFR
Part 51 and 52 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment
New Source Review.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC.  October 2004.  p. 14.

  PAGE  vi

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO THE 40 CFR PARTS 51 and 52
PSD AND NONATTAINMENT NSR: DEBOTTLENECKING, AGGREGATION, AND PROJECT
NETTING

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION AND NONATTAINMENT NEW SOURCE REVIEW:  EMISSIONS TEST FOR
ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS

Page   PAGE  38

EPA

Executive Summary

1.2	Description

1	Identification of the Information Collection

1.1	Title TRACKING NUMBER: 1230.19

OMD1.2	Description

2	Need and Use of the Collection

2.1	Need / Authority for the Collection

2.2	Practical Utility / Users of the Data

2.3	Caveats and Considerations

3	Non-Duplication, Consultation, and Other Collection Criteria

3.1	Non-Duplication

3.2	Public Notice Requirements

3.3	Consultations

3.4	Less Frequent

	Collection

3.5	General

	Guidelines

3.6	Confidentiality

3.7	Sensitive

	Questions

4	The Respondents and the Information Requested

4.1	Respondents/SIC and NAICS Codes

5.4	Collection

	Schedule

4.2	Information

	Requested

6.2.4	Annualized Capital Costs

5.3.2	Measures to Mitigate Impacts on Small Entities

5.3.1	Measures to Avert Impacts on Small Entities

5.3	Small Entity

	Flexibility

5.1	Agency Activities

5	The Information Collected -   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Agency Activities,
Collection Methodologies, and Information Management

5.2	Collection

	Methodology

	and

	Management

6	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6.1	Estimating Respondent Burden

6.2	Estimating Respondent Costs

6.2.3	Capital/Start-up Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

6.2.2	Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs including
Purchase of Services

6.2.1	Estimating Labor Costs

6.3	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

<IP_ADDRESS>  In-house Labor 	   Rates

<IP_ADDRESS>  State and Local  	  Respondent  	  Labor Rates

<IP_ADDRESS>  Industrial 	  	  Respondent  	  Labor Rates

6.7	Burden Statement

CONCLUSION:

This rulemaking represents a POTENTIAL DECREASE IN BURDEN to sources and
Reviewing Authorities related to permit actions.

This rulemaking represents a ONE-TIME INCREASE IN BURDEN to States and
other Reviewing Authorities to revise SIPS.

Because this rulemaking represents a decrease in burden on sources, the
Agency determined this rulemaking represents

NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SMALL ENTITIES.

6.6	Reasons for Change in Burden

August 2006

EPA # 1230.19

3.8	Environmental Justice Considerations

6.4	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Cost

6.5	Bottom Line Burden and Cost

6.4.1	Estimating the Number of Respondents

6.4.2	Estimating Total Respondent Burden and Cost

6.4.3	Estimating Total Federal Burden and Cost