Part A of the Supporting Statement

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a)	Title of the Information Collection

	This Information Collection Request (ICR) is entitled "Application
Requirements for the Approval and Delegation of Federal Air Toxics
Programs to State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Agencies" and numbered
as EPA ICR Number 1643.06 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Control Number 2060-0264.  This is a revision of OMB-approved EPA ICR
Number 1643.05.

	1(b)	Short Characterization

	This information collection is an application from State, territorial,
local, or tribal agencies (S/L/Ts) for delegation of regulations
developed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act).  In the time
frame for this submittal, we, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
estimate that the majority of the delegated regulations will be those
developed under section 112(d) of the Act.  The procedures and
requirements that the S/L/Ts will use to request the delegations are
codified as 40 CFR 63, subpart E, in accordance with section 112(l) of
the Act.

	The subpart E regulations contain the following five options for
delegation:

Straight delegation

Rule adjustment

Rule substitution

Equivalency by permit

State program approval.

Straight delegation is the option where the respondents, S/L/Ts, choose
to accept delegation of a section 112 provision and to implement and
enforce the provision as written.  The S/L/Ts may use the rule
adjustment option when they want to substitute a rule and/or requirement
that is unequivocally no less stringent than the otherwise applicable
section 112 standard, such as part 63 national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP).  They may use rule substitution when
they wish to substitute individual rules and/or requirements in place of
the otherwise applicable section 112 standard.  They may use the
equivalency by permit option when they wish to substitute operating
permit terms and conditions for a section 112 standard; this option is
only applicable to a limited number of sources using title V permit
terms and conditions.  Finally, S/L/Ts may use the State program
approval option if they want to substitute their overall air toxics
program for the Federal air toxics program; i.e., the section 112(d)
standards.

	The delegation options vary in the types of changes allowed, the level
of demonstration required, and the amount of time and process needed to
implement them.  Respondents must submit any packages requesting
delegation to their EPA Regional office.  We must then review and
approve, partially approve, or disapprove the request based on the
subpart E approval criteria.  The request may only take effect after our
approval (or partial approval of a subset of the request), public
notice, and, in some cases, public comment.

	Subpart E also contains provisions for delegating accidental release
prevention program authorities (40 CFR part 68) under the authority of
section 112(r) of the Act.  In addition, we also reserve the right to
review and withdraw an approved S/L/T rule, program, or requirement if
we decide it is not as stringent as the otherwise applicable Federal
standard or if the S/L/T is failing to adequately implement or enforce
it.  Subpart E includes the procedures for this the review and
withdrawal process.

	The OMB did not raise any issues related to the Terms of Clearance
applicable to the currently approved collection (EPA ICR Number
1643.05).

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a)	Need / Authority for the Collection

	The information is needed and used to determine if the entity
submitting an application has met the criteria established in the
subpart E rule.  This information is necessary for the Administrator to
determine the acceptability of approving the S/L/T’s rules,
requirements, or programs in lieu of the Federal section 112 rules or
programs.  The collection of information is authorized under 42 U.S.C.
7401-7671q.

	2(b)	Practical Utility / Users of the Data

	This information is necessary for the proper performance of our
functions.  The information will have practical utility because we will
use the information generated from the collection to ensure that the
subpart E approval criteria have been met.

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

	3(a)	Nonduplication

	This information collection is not unnecessarily duplicative of
information otherwise reasonably accessible to us.  Rather, for
instances where other reports required by us would duplicate information
required by this rule (for example, the part 70 operating permits rule),
it is possible to use information previously submitted to the EPA to
meet the requirements of this information collection.

	3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	We solicited public comments on this ICR prior to submitting it to OMB.
 We issued a Federal Register notice requesting comments on the amended
burden estimate reflected in this ICR on April 27, 2007 (72 FR 21003).
No comments were received.

	3(c)	Consultations

	The final rule amendments for subpart E were promulgated on September
14, 2000 (65 FR 55810).  Since then, we have gained extensive
experience in working with the S/L/Ts in delegating section 112(d)
NESHAP.  We have consulted with knowledgeable EPA staff in the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Office of General Council
(OGC), and Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OECA) as well as each
of the EPA Regional Office Air Toxics Coordinators to assess their
experience in the type of delegations used by the S/L/Ts, the overall
number of delegations granted, and the level of effort expended.  We
used this information to prepare this ICR renewal package.

	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Applicants are only required to submit information when they wish to
receive delegation of a promulgated section 112 standard.  Subpart E
specifies the minimum information we require to determine whether their
request is approvable.  The rule clarifies that the respondent only
needs to submit material demonstrating it meets the up-front approval
requirements one-time, unless circumstances change at the S/L/T, which
would require an updated submittal.

	The intent of this voluntary program is to encourage S/L/Ts to accept
delegation of the Federal section 112 standards, and to allow them to
adjust or substitute S/L/T requirements when they can be shown to be at
least as stringent as the Federal requirements.  These provisions for
alternatives will help preserve existing S/L/T programs and prevent dual
regulation of sources.

	We also reserve the right to review and withdraw an approved S/L/T
rule, program, or requirement if we decide it is not as stringent as the
otherwise applicable Federal standard or if the S/L/T is failing to
adequately implement or enforce it.  In this case, the S/L/T would be
asked to submit information regarding permits, monitoring, resources,
etc.  We will use this information to decide if the rule, program, or
requirement should be withdrawn.  Our ability to review and withdraw
approval is needed to ensure we can satisfy our obligations under the
Act to implement and enforce the section 112 standards.

	3(e)	General Guidelines

	None of the general information collection guidelines in 5 CFR
1230.5(d)(2) of the OMB regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction
Act is being exceeded in the subpart E

regulations.

	3(f)	Confidentiality

	All information submitted to us for which a claim of confidentiality is
made will be safeguarded according to the policies set forth in title
40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business
Information.  See 40 CFR; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43
FR 3999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; and 44 FR
17674, March 23, 1979.  Even where we have determined that data received
in response to an ICR is eligible for confidential treatment under 40
CFR part 2, subpart B, we may nonetheless disclose the information if it
is "relevant in any proceeding" under the statute [42 U.S.C. 7414(c); 40
CFR 2.301(g)].  The information collection complies with the Privacy Act
of 1974 and OMB Circular 108.

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

	This section is not applicable.  This ICR does not contain any
sensitive questions relating to sexuality, religious beliefs, or other
matters usually considered private.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a)	Respondents / SIC Codes

	Respondents are S/L/Ts participating in this voluntary program.  These
government establishments are classified as Air and Water Resource and
Solid Waste Management Programs under Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) code 9511 and North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code 92411.  No industries under any SIC or NAICS codes will be
included among respondents.

	4(b)	Information Requested

	(i)	Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements

	The information requirements will vary depending upon the type of
option an S/L/T chooses for accepting delegation of the Federal
standards.  The information requirements are as follows:

For overall approval to receive delegation (§63.91)

Confirmation letter from the State Attorney General.

Demonstration of respondent’s resources.

Copy of the respondent’s statutes, regulations and other requirements
that contain appropriate provisions granting authority to implement and
enforce the respondent’s rule or program upon approval us.

Respondent’s implementation schedule.

Respondent’s compliance plan.

Respondent’s enforcement plan.

	Once respondents have demonstrated they meet the overall approval
criteria, they may request straight delegation (§63.91) of the
unchanged section 112 standards.  This request may be automatic, i.e.,
the overall delegation established that the respondent agreed to accept
delegation of all future NESHAP.  Alternatively, the overall delegation
may establish a procedure where the respondent requests delegation of
individual standards when they are promulgated.  Respondents choosing to
utilize any of the other options to demonstrate the equivalency of their
requirements to the Federal requirements must supply the following
information:

For the rule adjustment option (§63.92):

Stringency and compliance demonstration.

For the rule substitution option (§63.93):

Demonstration of S/L/T rule equivalency with the otherwise applicable
Federal standard.

For the equivalency by permit option (§63.94):

A list of affected sources and standards within the respondent’s
jurisdiction.

Draft permit terms and conditions.

Demonstration of the equivalency of S/L/T permit terms and conditions to
the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

For the State program approval option (§63.97):

Source categories for submission within the respondent’s jurisdiction.

Description of enforcement measures for area sources (if the otherwise
applicable Federal standard applies to area sources).

Collection of the respondent’s rules, regulations, permits,
implementation plans, or other enforceable mechanisms.

Equivalency demonstration of respondents’ alternative rules to the
otherwise applicable Federal standard.

For the accidental release prevention program (§63.95):

Demonstration of adequate resources.

Demonstration of adequate enforcement authority.

Description of coordination mechanisms.

	We also have the option of withdrawing a program if we decide that the
S/L/T is not properly implementing its rule or program in lieu of the
otherwise applicable Federal standard.  Under the EPA review and
withdrawal option (§63.96), the respondents must submit the following:

Information regarding permits, monitoring, resources, etc.

	(ii)	Respondent Activities

	The respondent activities required by the rule are listed in the Table
1a through 1g.  These activities vary by option because of the different
types of information required under each option.  To the maximum extent
practicable, these activities were developed to allow the S/L/Ts to
respond in ways that are consistent and compatible with their existing
reporting and recordkeeping practices.  Note that we only anticipate
activities related to delegation options described in Tables 1a through
1d during the 3-year approval period.

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

	5(a)	Agency Activities

	This section addresses the activities to review the applications
submitted by the S/L/Ts under subpart E.  The activities vary according
to the option used by the S/L/T and are as follows:

For the overall approval to receive delegation (§63.91):

Create a Federal Register notice seeking public comment.

Review public comments.

Evaluate the S/L/T submittal.

Create a Federal Register notice announcing approval or disapproval of
the S/L/T submittal.

	For the straight delegation of individual standards, the Agency will
either automatically delegate them to the S/L/T or delegate them in
response to a written request, depending on the mechanism established
via the overall approval.  If the S/L/T decides to use any of the other
options listed within subpart E to demonstrate the equivalency of their
rules to the Federal rule, then we will complete both the following
activities listed in the applicable option below.

For the rule adjustment option (§63.92):

Create a Federal Register notice seeking public comment.

Review public comments and S/L/T responses.

Evaluate the S/L/T submittal.

Create a Federal Register notice announcing the approval or disapproval
of the S/L/T submittal.

For the rule substitution option (§63.93):

Create a Federal Register notice seeking public comment.

Review public comments and S/L/T responses.

Evaluate the S/L/T submittal.

Create a Federal Register notice announcing approval or disapproval of
the S/L/T submittal.

For the equivalency by permit option (§63.94):

Create a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on the up-front
approval of the S/L/T submittal.

Review public comments and S/L/T responses.

Create a Federal Register notice announcing approval or disapproval of
the S/L/T up-front submittal.

Evaluate the draft permit terms and conditions submitted by the S/L/T.

Create a final Federal Register notice announcing approval or
disapproval of the draft permit terms and conditions.

For the State program approval option (§63.97):

Create a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on the up-front
approval of the S/L/T submittal.

Review public comments and S/L/T responses.

Create a Federal Register notice announcing approval or disapproval of
the S/L/T submittal.

Create a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on the specific
alternative rule submitted by the S/L/T.

Review public comments and S/L/T responses.

Evaluate the equivalency demonstration submitted by the S/L/T.

Create a final Federal Register notice announcing approval or
disapproval of the alternative rules submitted by the S/L/T.

For the accidental release prevention program (§63.95):

Evaluate and approve or disapprove the S/L/T submittal.

	Furthermore, we reserve the right to review and withdraw a S/L/T rule
or program if we decide that the program is not as stringent as the
otherwise applicable Federal standard.  During the EPA review and
withdrawal option (§63.96), we conduct the following activities:

Request information from the affected S/L/T.

Evaluate technical information, data, and results of any site visits
within the jurisdiction of the S/L/T.

Create a Federal Register notice announcing our intent to withdraw the
S/L/T program or rule.

Evaluate public comments and S/L/T responses.

Create a Federal Register notice announcing the final decision.

	The EPA activities required by the rule and the technical hours
associated with them are found in Tables 2a through 2g.  Note that we
only anticipate activities related to delegation options described in
Tables 2a through 2d during the 3-year approval period.

	5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

	All S/L/Ts using subpart E to accept delegation of Federal standards
must submit the proper application to us for review and evaluation.
They should prepare their applications using guidance we issued in April
2001 to facilitate subpart E implementation.  This guidance is available
on the internet at www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112(l)/112-lpg.html.  The
regulations contain no forms.

	Qualified staff that work for the EPA Regional offices as well as EPA
Headquarters will review the subpart E applications.  The S/L/Ts must
supply any calculations and assumptions supporting the technical portion
of the application, and we will review these supporting materials to
verify them.  In regard to information management, we have planned and
allocated resources for the efficient and effective use of the
information, including the processing of the information in a manner
which enhances the utility of the information to us and to the public.
For example, in most cases, existing S/L/T part 70 operating permit
program approvals may be used to meet the up-front approval criteria in
§63.91.

	The subpart E regulations do not require the request of information
through any type of survey.

	Most delegation requests are submitted in hard copy.  Submitting
agencies are encouraged to work with their applicable EPA Regional
office to determine if there are procedures to follow if they wish to
use an electronic format.  Approvals still have to be sent to the
Federal Register for publication, but courtesy copies can be sent to
S/L/Ts via e-mail.

	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

	Minimizing the information collection burden for all sizes of
organizations is a continuing principle for our efforts.  The subpart E
regulations only include the application, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements we need to determine compliance with the rule.  We have
reduced the collection burden to the extent practicable and appropriate,
including consideration of the resources available to the respondents
and clarifying, consolidating, and simplifying the requirements.
Furthermore, we do not anticipate that any small entities will be
participating in this program.

	5(d)	Collection Schedule

	The schedule is tied to the promulgation of Federal section 112
standards.  As these are issued, S/L/Ts may request delegation.  Each
S/L/T may submit an application under one of the five options discussed
in section 1(b).  Preparation of an application in compliance with
subpart E is a one-time per standard activity.  The subpart E
regulations do not require periodic reporting or surveys.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

	This ICR requires the calculation of the amount of burden hours
associated with each activity for each respondent (S/L/T) when complying
with the subpart E regulations.  In calculating the burden hours for
subpart E, we made assumptions about the number of S/L/Ts that would use
each option as well as the total number of Federal standards delegated
by each option.  We also made assumptions about the type and level of
regulatory activity that would result in delegations.  During this ICR
collection period (2007 – 2010), there are three types of section 112
standards potentially relevant to subpart E delegation.  First, the
section 112(d) maximum achievable control technology standards (MACT)
that predominantly apply to major source emitters have all been
promulgated, and the majority of MACT standards have been delegated to
those S/L/Ts willing to accept delegation.  In the upcoming clearance
period we anticipate that there will be 24 delegation requests for the
remaining standards.  For example, in EPA Region 6, most States still
need to adopt the boiler MACT standards.

	We are currently working to propose and promulgate several standards
under the section 112(k) area source program.  We anticipate that 40 of
these standards will be promulgated during the next ICR collection
period, but there is less certainty regarding the number of S/L/Ts that
will accept delegation of these standards.  In some cases, the S/L/Ts
have automatic delegation for all section 112(l) standards (e.g., Region
VIII S/L/Ts), but other Regions have indicated there may be cases where
because of resource constraints, a limited number of affected sources,
and/or a sense that the State rules are more restrictive than the
Federal rules, not all S/L/Ts will accept delegation of these rules.
For purposes of this analysis, we estimate that 80 percent of the S/L/Ts
will accept delegation of the area source rules.

	We are also in the process of reviewing several of the promulgated MACT
standards under a Risk and Technology Review (RTR process), which is a
combined effort to evaluate both risk and technology as required by the
Clean Air Act (CAA) after the application of MACT standards.  Section
112(f)(2) directs us to conduct risk assessments on each source category
subject to MACT standards, and to determine if additional standards are
needed to reduce residual risks.  Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires
us to review and revise the MACT standards, as necessary, taking into
account developments in practices, processes and control technologies.
Three RTRs will be completed in 2007, but we anticipate that these will
not result in any further action.  An additional 12 MACT standards are
undergoing RTR and up to 6 of these may result in significant changes to
the MACT rules.  However, these changes are expected to be revisions to
the MACT rules that have already been delegated (or not) and not actions
requiring new delegations.

	Based on our consultations as described in section 3(c) and information
on the status of the regulatory development efforts, we assumed that 124
S/L/Ts will continue to maintain their subpart E program for the MACT
standards. This annual effort for each S/L/T results in a total of 372
occurrences in the clearance period.

	As described earlier, we assumed that there will be 24 delegation
requests (occurrences) for MACT standards during the clearance period.
Based on input from the Regional coordinators, we think that 12 of these
will be straight delegation, 3 of these will be equivalency by permit, 8
of these will be rule substitutions, and 1 will be a rule adjustment.
Using this methodology, as illustrated in Figure 1, we calculated the
number of occurrences for each option, resulting in an average number of
responses per year of 133.  One reason that these remaining MACTs are
still pending is that the S/L/Ts and Regions are still working on the
alternative in rules or permits. The total number of occurrences shown
in Figure 1 is 399.

	In the case of area source standards, we assumed that 40 will be
promulgated during the 3-year clearance period and that 80 percent (99)
of the S/L/Ts will take delegation.  We assumed the same distribution of
delegation options as in 2004 for this group of standards, i.e., 80
percent straight delegation, 3 percent rule adjustment, 5 percent rule
substitution, 12 percent equivalency by permit.  Of these, we assumed
half (6 percent) would need to obtain initial approval to use the
equivalency by permit options.  The percent of MACT standards delegated
per option was multiplied by the total number of S/L/T taking delegation
(99).  The Equivalency by Permit Option is a two-step process. We
assumed participates of this option that are undergoing step two of the
delegation process lacked initial approval. We also assumed that one
S/L/T might seek to use the program approval option during the 3-year
period. Using this methodology, as illustrated in Figure 2, we
calculated the number of occurrences for each option, resulting in an
average number of responses per year of 1,392.

The average number of responses per year for both, MACT and Area Source
standards is 1,525.  The table below summarizes the number of
occurrences of delegated request by MACT and Area Source standards.

	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 1643.05) for subpart E

	The total hours associated with each option in tables 1a through 1g are
for technical hours only.  Consistent with the previous ICR, we
calculated management hours as 5 percent of technical hours and clerical
hours as 10 percent of technical hours.  Table 4a contains the results
of the burden hours calculation for each activity during each year of
this ICR.  Overall, the promulgated subpart E regulations contain an
average burden of 62,844 hours per year.

	6(b)	Estimating Respondent Cost

	(i) Estimating Labor Costs

	To estimate respondent labor costs, we used State and local government
wage rates and benefit costs obtained from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS).  We chose the different pay grade levels for
management, technical, and clerical personnel by following the example
set by other ICRs.  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 a State worker.  Following is a summary
of the computed wages for S/L/T personnel. Note that the BLS has changed
the way it reports professional staff. In 2004, the wage rate table
distinguished between “professional specialty” at a higher total
wage rate of $45.64 per hour and “technical” at a lower wage rate of
$28.76 (63 percent of the professional rate). In 2007, there is no
separate listing for technical staff, so we pro-rated the professional
rate of $46.62 to a comparable technical rate of $29.37.

	The respondent labor costs are found by multiplying the burden hours
associated with each activity by the hourly rate associated with each
labor type.  In total, the subpart E regulations contain an average
labor cost of $2,959,000 per year.  Table 4a contains the results of
the calculation of labor costs for the respondents.

	(ii) Capital / Start-up Costs

	This ICR does not require any capital or start-up costs for equipment,
machinery, and construction.

	(iii) Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

	Respondents who choose to request delegation under subpart E must
submit a complete application, which results in photocopying and postage
costs.  We determined that two types of documents would be both copied
and mailed: 2-ounce letters and 1-pound packages.  The 2-ounce letter
would contain 5 pages, and the 1-pound package would contain 200 pages.
Based on the typical price to copy a page, we used $0.06 a page as our
price per unit cost of copying.  The cost for mailing a 2-ounce letter
and 1-pound package via the United States Postal Service is $0.58 and
$4.50, respectively.  We also assumed that a total of three copies would
be made for each letter or package.  Tables 5a through 5d show the
activities that would require copying and postage.  Table 6 summarizes
the total copying and mailing costs per year.  For respondents, the
average cost for copying and postage is $53,600 per year.  Therefore,
the average total cost to respondents, including labor cost and
copying/postage cost is $3,012,600 per year.  Table 7 shows this
breakdown by year.

	6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	Under the subpart E regulations, we must review and evaluate the
subpart E applications submitted by the S/L/Ts.  In reviewing and
evaluating these applications, we will carry out the activities listed
in section 5(a) of this ICR.  Managerial activities are considered 5
percent of the technical hours while clerical activities are considered
10 percent of the technical hours.

	We calculated hourly rates for EPA employees using information on
annual salaries from the Internet site for the Office of Personnel
Management for the appropriate pay grade levels for management,
technical, and clerical personnel.  We multiplied this rate by a 1.6
benefit multiplier factor to produce a pay rate that reflects the true
cost to the Federal government to employ a Federal worker.  Following is
a summary of the computed wages for EPA personnel.

	The EPA labor costs are found by multiplying the burden hours
associated with each activity by the hourly rate associated with each
labor type.  Overall, the average burden hours for EPA is 56,800 hours
per year.  Table 4b contains a breakdown of EPA burden hours per year.
The average labor cost for the EPA is $2,738,000 dollars per year.
Table 4b contains a breakdown of EPA labor costs per year.  Copying and
postal costs for the EPA were calculated in the same manner as described
in the last paragraph of section 6(b).  Tables 5a through 5d contain a
detailed listing of EPA copying and postal costs.  Table 6 presents the
total EPA copying and postal costs.  The EPA would spend an average of
$17,900 on copying and postage.  The total cost for EPA, including labor
and copying/postal costs would be an average of $2,755,200 per year.
Table 7 shows a breakdown of the total cost for the EPA by year.

	6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs

	In order to estimate the number of S/L/Ts participating in the subpart
E program, we obtained information from the EPA’s Regional Air Toxic
Coordinator contacts regarding subpart E delegation activity in their
Regions.  We determined that 124 agencies are participating in the
subpart E program.  The breakdown of these agencies is as follows: 49
State agencies, 4 territorial agencies, 66 local agencies, and 5 Tribal
agencies.

	6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

	(i) Respondent Tally

	Over the 3-year period of this ICR, the total average annual burden and
labor cost for the respondents resulting from the subpart E regulations
are 62,844 hours and $2,959,000, respectively.  Table 4a contains the
bottom line estimate of burden hours and labor cost associated with the
subpart E regulations.  There is no capital start-up costs associated
with this collection.  Operation and maintenance costs result from
photocopying and postage expenses, which are a total of $53,600 per
year.   Table 6 shows the O&M costs.  The total average annual cost to
respondents is $3,012,600.  Table 7 contains the total estimate of costs
associated with the subpart E regulations.

	(ii) Agency Tally

	Over the 3-year period of this ICR, the total average annual burden and
labor cost for the EPA is 56,800 hours and $2,738,000, respectively.
Table 4b contains the bottom line estimate of burden hours and labor
cost associated with the subpart E regulations.  Operation and
maintenance costs result from photocopying and postage expenses, which
are a total of $17,900 per year.   Table 6 shows the O&M costs.  The
total average annual cost to EPA is $2,755,200.  Table 7 contains the
total estimate of costs associated with the subpart E regulations.

	6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden

	The currently approved reporting and recordkeeping hour burden, based
on ICR Number 1643.05, is 41,577 hours per year.  We are requesting an
increase in burden to 62,844 hours per year.  The difference, 21,267
hours, is due to a program adjustment.  The following discussion
explains these changes.

The change in burden results from: (1) an increase number of occurrences
related to the number of NESHAP delegated and (2) a change in the
distribution of S/L/Ts using each option. These changes are discussed
below.

First, the number of occurrences has increased because more section 112
standards are being promulgated during the clearance period.  While the
total number of MACT standards being delegated has decreased to only 24
occurrences, we estimate that 80 percent of the S/L/Ts will take
delegation of the 40 area source rules to be promulgated during the
clearance period. This is double the number of MACT standards
promulgated during the previous clearance period.

Second, based on the experience the EPA’s Regional Air Toxics
Coordinators have had with the subpart E program, S/L/Ts’ use of the
various delegation options has changed.  As shown in the table below,
Straight Delegation is still the primary delegation mechanism and we
have assumed that all of the S/L/Ts will continue to maintain their
overall program approval delegation.  However, we found that S/L/Ts are
using the Equivalency by Permit Option and the Rule Substitution Option
with greater frequency than previously assumed.  Generally, sources do
not use the State Program Approval Option; however one is expected to do
so in the upcoming 3-year clearance period.

Overall, the respondent hour burden has increased.  The table below
breaks down this increase by option.  Due to the overall increase in the
amount of occurrences, the overall burden increases by 51 percent.

Similarly, the respondent average total labor cost per year increased by
$1,168,000 (or 65 percent).  The breakdown by option within the subpart
E program is shown in the table below.  Increases in the total average
annual cost for the options reflect the increase in the amount of burden
for that particular option.  The amount of increase is more than the
amount of increase in hours, which is largely due to increases in the
average labor wage rates. These rates were updated to reflect current
estimates.

We are requesting an increase in the reporting and recordkeeping cost
burden due to the increases in mailing costs.  Our assumptions for
copying and postage costs are discussed in section 6(b).  The total
copying and postage cost for S/L/Ts is $53,600 per year, of which 80
percent is associated with obtaining straight delegation of the NESHAP.

6(g)	Burden Statement

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 41 hours per response.

	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 need to
review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and 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.  An 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 regulation 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-2004-0065, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number
for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, 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-2004-0065 and OMB Control Number 2060-0264 in any
correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

	Part B is not applicable because statistical methods are not used in
data collection associated with this regulation.

FIGURES

Figure 1. Allocation of Subpart E Delegation Options-MACT Standards

a Each MACT is delegated to one S/L/T. The number of agencies taking
delegation is equal to the number of MACTs.

b Equivalency by Permit is a two-step process. We assumed S/L/Ts taking
delegation under the second step do not already have initial approval.
Figure 2. Allocation of Subpart E Delegation Options-Area Source
Standards

a Each MACT is delegated to all 99 agencies. The percent of MACT
standards delegated per option is multiplied by 99.

b Equivalency by Permit is a two-step process. We assumed that half of
the S/L/Ts taking delegation under the second step do not already have
initial approval

C We assumed one agency would seek State Program Approval during the
clearance period.

TABLES

		                  †For this renewal period, we assumed that all
agencies have already completed activities

A-K and have received up-front delegation.

			             †Not expected to use this option during 3-year period.

			                    †Not expected to use this option during 3-year
period.

                                      †For this renewal period, we
assumed that all agencies have already

completed activities. A-F and have received up-front delegation.

		             † Assumes that any up-dates by the respondent to the
list of affected sources and standards will

		        be incorporated as part of any individual requests.

			                    †Not expected to use this option during 3-year
period.

            †Not expected to use this option during 3-year period.

a Combined with one-time costs, above.

 a Combined with one-time costs, above.

                   †Falls under maintenance of subpart E program
approval.

                   ‡Falls under the Straight Delegation Option.

                   aAssumes 2-oz. letter.

                   bAssumes 1-lb. package.

                   aAssumes 1-lb. package.

                  bAssumes 2-oz. letter.

aAssumes 1-lb. package.

†Initial Equivalency by Permit Option approval.

‡Per Standard Equivalency by Permit Option approval.

a Assumes 1-lb. package.

b Assumes 2-oz. letter

			        	                            a Assumes 1-lb. package.

			  	                            b Assumes 2-oz. letter

a Combined with one-time costs, above.

a Combined with one-time costs, above.

 PAGE

 PAGE   17

Total S/L/Ts taking delegation: 124

Total MACT to be delegated over 3-year period: 24

Straight Delegation

(Per MACT)

(§63.91)

Rule Adjustment

Option

 (§63.92)

Equivalency by Permit Option (Initial Approval)

(§63.94)

Equivalency by Permit Option (Per MACT)

(§63.94)

Rule Substitution

Option

 (§63.93)

No. Taking Delegation a

Year 1:

4

No. Taking Delegation a

No. Taking Delegation a

No. Taking Delegation b

No. Taking Delegation a

Year 1:

0

Year 1:

3

Year 1:

1

Year 1:

1

Year 2:

4

Total:

12

Year 3:

4

Year 3:

0

Total:

1

Year 2:

1

Year 3:

2

Total:

8

Year 2:

3

Year 3:

 1

Total:

3

Year 2:

 1

Year 3:

1

Total:

3

Year 2:

1

Total No. of Occurrences: 399

Year 1:

124

Year 2:

124

Total: 372

Year 3:

124

Initial Program Approval

 (§63.91)

No. Maintaining Program

Total S/L/Ts taking delegation: 99

Total area source standards to be delegated over 3-year period: 40

Straight Delegation

(Per Standard)

(§63.91)

Rule Adjustment

Option

 (§63.92)

Equivalency by Permit Option (Initial Approval)

(§63.94)

Equivalency by Permit Option (Per Standard)

(§63.94)

Rule Substitution

Option

 (§63.93)

% of MACT Standards Delegated: 80

Year 1:

1056

Year 1:

33

Year 1:

66

Year 1:

79

Year 1:

158

Year 2:

1056

Total: 3,168

Year 3:

1056

Year 3:

33

Total:

99

Year 2:

33

Year 3:

66

Total: 198

Year 2:

66

Year 3:

79

Total

237

Year 2:

79

Year 3:

158

Total:

475

Year 2:

158

Total No. of Occurrences: 4,177

State Program Approval Option (§63.97)

Year 1:

0

Year 3:

0

Total:

1

Year 2:

1

% of MACT Standards Delegated: 3a

% of MACT Standards Delegated: 5a

% of MACT Standards Delegated: 6b

% of MACT Standards Delegated:12 a

Number of Program Approvals: 1c


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20806-20807]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8857]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2011-16]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before May 3, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
1018 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Shaver, ARM-200, (202) 267-
4059, FAA, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR
11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2011.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition For Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2010-1018.

    Petitioner: NetJets Aviation, Inc.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  43.3(g).
    Description of Relief Sought: NetJets requests relief from the
requirements of Sec.  43.3(g) to allow its pilots that are properly
trained and qualified under an approved training program, to perform
supervised updates of navigational software databases of installed
flight management systems.

[FR Doc. 2011-8857 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 31)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7558-7559]
[DOCID:fr18fe09-7]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1231; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-25]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Tulsa, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Tulsa, OK. Additional
controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate Area Navigation (RNAV)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at William R. Pogue
Municipal Airport, Sand Springs, OK. The FAA is taking this action to
enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
operations at William R. Pogue Municipal Airport.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, May 7, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Ft. Worth, TX 76193-0530; telephone (817)
321-7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 16, 2008, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace at Tulsa, OK,
adding additional controlled airspace at William R. Pogue Municipal
Airport, Sand Springs, OK (73 FR 76293, Docket No. FAA-2008-1231).
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9S signed October 3, 2008, and
effective October 31, 2008, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace at Tulsa, OK, adding additional
controlled airspace at William R. Pogue Municipal Airport, Sand
Springs, OK.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it adds additional controlled airspace in the Tulsa, OK airspace
area, at William R. Pogue Municipal Airport, Sand Springs, OK.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface.

* * * * *

ASW OK E5 Tulsa, OK [Amended]

Tulsa International Airport, OK
    (Lat. 36[deg]11'54'' N., long. 95[deg]53'17'' W.)
Tulsa, Richard Lloyd Jones Jr. Airport, OK
    (Lat. 36[deg]02'23'' N., long. 95[deg]59'05'' W.)
Sand Springs, William R. Pogue Municipal Airport, OK
    (Lat. 36[deg]10'31'' N., long. 96[deg]09'07'' W.)
Tulsa VORTAC
    (Lat. 36[deg]11'47'' N., long. 95[deg]47'17'' W.)
Glenpool VOR/DME
    (Lat. 35[deg]55'15'' N., long. 95[deg]58'07'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8-mile radius of Tulsa International Airport and within
1.6 miles each side of the 089[deg] radial of the Tulsa VORTAC
extending from the 8-mile radius to 11.9 miles east of the airport
and within a 6.4-mile radius of Richard Lloyd Jones Jr. Airport, and
within a 7.2-mile radius of William R. Pogue Municipal Airport and
within 4 miles each side of the 355[deg] bearing from William R.
Pogue Municipal Airport extending from the 7.2-mile radius to 10.9
miles north of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the
175[deg] bearing from William R. Pogue Municipal Airport extending
from the 7.2-mile radius to 10.9 miles south of the airport and
within 4.1 miles each side of the 330[deg] radial of the Glenpool
VOR/DME extending from the 7.2-mile radius of William R. Pogue
Municipal Airport to 8.3 miles northwest of the airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on February 5, 2009.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-3006 Filed 2-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P