INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
FOR
REGULATORY
INCENTIVES
DESIGNED
FOR
EPA'S
NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE
TRACK
PROGRAM
No.
1949.03
August
6,
2004
Prepared
by:

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Policy,
Economics,
and
Innovation
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue
NW
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
........................................................................
1
1(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection......................................................................................
1
1(
b)
Background
........................................................................................................................
1
1(
c)
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
..........................................................................................
1
2.
Need
for
and
Use
of
the
Collection
.......................................................................................
4
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection.......................................................................................
4
2(
b)
Use/
Users
of
the
Data
.........................................................................................................
5
3.
Non­
duplication,
Consultations,
and
other
Collection
Criteria
..........................................
5
3(
a)
Non­
duplication..................................................................................................................
5
3(
b)
Public
Notice
required
prior
to
ICR
submission
to
OMB
....................................................
5
3(
c)
Consultations
......................................................................................................................
5
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
....................................................................................
6
3(
e)
General
Guidelines
.............................................................................................................
6
3(
f)
Confidentiality
....................................................................................................................
6
3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
............................................................................................................
6
4.
The
Respondents
and
the
Information
Requested...............................................................
6
4(
a)
Industry
Respondents/
SIC
Codes
........................................................................................
6
4(
b)
Information
Requested
from
Industry
Respondents.............................................................
6
(
i)
Data
items,
including
record
keeping
requirements
.......................................................
6
(
ii)
Industry
Respondent
Activities
.....................................................................................
9
4(
c)
State/
Local
Agencies
..........................................................................................................
9
4(
d)
Information
Requested
from
State/
Local
Agencies
.............................................................
9
(
i)
Data
items,
including
record
keeping
requirements
........................................................
9
(
ii)
State/
Local
Agency
Activities.....................................................................................
10
5.
The
Information
Collected
­
Agency
Activities,
Collection
Methodology,
and
Information
Management
...............................................................................................
11
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
.............................................................................................................
11
5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management........................................................................
11
5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility.....................................................................................................
12
5(
d)
Collection
Schedule..........................................................................................................
12
6.
Estimating
the
Burden
and
Cost
of
the
Collection
............................................................
12
6(
a)
Estimating
Industry
Respondent
Burden
...........................................................................
12
6(
b)
Estimating
Industry
Respondent
Costs..............................................................................
13
(
i)
Estimating
Labor
Costs.............................................................................................
13
(
ii)
Estimating
Capital
and
Operations
and
Maintenance
Costs
.......................................
13
iii
6(
c)
Estimating
State/
Local
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
...............................................................
13
6(
d)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
.................................................................................
14
6(
e)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
.................................................................................
14
6(
f)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Cost
.................................................................................
15
(
i)
Industry
Respondent
Tally
.........................................................................................
15
(
ii)
State/
Local
Tally
.......................................................................................................
18
(
iii)
Agency
Tally.............................................................................................................
20
(
iv)
Variations
in
the
Annual
Bottom
Line........................................................................
22
6(
g)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden..........................................................................................
22
6(
h)
Burden
Statement
.............................................................................................................
22
Index
of
Tables
Table
1.1
Projected
Membership
Levels
and
Incentive
Eligibility­
.............................................
3
Table
1.2
Summary
of
Facility
Burden
Estimate
for
Performance
Track
Rule
............................
4
Table
4.1
Primary
NAICS
Codes
of
Current
Performance
Track
Members
................................
7
Table
6.1
Hourly
Labor
Rates
for
Industry
Respondents
..........................................................
13
Table
6.2
Hourly
Labor
Rates
for
State/
Local
Agency
Respondents.........................................
14
Table
6.3
Hourly
Labor
Rates
for
EPA.....................................................................................
14
Table
6.4
Industry
Respondent
Burden,
2004­
2006..................................................................
16
Table
6.5
State/
Local
Agency
Burden,
2004­
2006
...................................................................
18
Table
6.6
EPA
Burden,
2004­
2006...........................................................................................
20
Table
6.7
Aggregate
Burden,
2004­
2006..................................................................................
23
Table
6.8
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Aggregate
Burden,
2004­
2006...............................................
28
0
PART
A
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
1.
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
1(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
­
Implementation
of
Incentives
Designed
for
EPA's
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
program
(
Performance
Track,
or
PT).

1(
b)
Introduction
ICR
1949.03
presents
the
burden
hours
and
costs
associated
with
the
Performance
Track
rule
(
PT
Rule)
that
was
promulgated
on
April
22,
2004
(
69
FR
21737).
The
PT
Rule
makes
changes
to
the
regulatory
system
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
and
the
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology
(
MACT)
standards
under
the
Clean
Air
Act.
EPA
has
developed
numerous
ICRs
under
these
programs.
The
changes
made
by
the
PT
Rule
potentially
affect
many
of
these
individual
ICRs,
particularly
the
ICRs
for
the
MACT
program
of
which
there
are
several
score.
For
an
ICR
such
as
todays,
EPA
typically
would
develop
a
change
worksheet,
an
OMB
83­
C
form,
that
would
reallocate
burden
hours
across
existing
program­
specific
ICRs.
However,
EPA
has
decided
not
to
amend
the
numerous
ICR's
with
83­
Cs
in
order
to
reduce
the
process
burden
for
both
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB),
and
EPA.
EPA
believes
it
would
require
developing
scores
and
scores
of
83­
Cs
each
of
which
would
provide
de
minimus
hour
and
cost
adjustments.
Due
to
the
high
numbers
of
83­
Cs
and
the
associated
administrative
burden
and
the
low
burden
hour
revisions
associated
with
each,
EPA
presents
OMB
with
this
amendment
to
characterize
the
burden
and
cost
of
EPA
regulatory
action.
EPA
notes
that
its
program
offices
will
have
the
opportunity
to
amend
their
burden
hour
estimates
as
specific
ICR's
for
programs
are
renewed.
Finally,
as
required
by
OMB
in
the
83­
I
form,
today's
ICR
presents
only
additional
(
positive)
burden
hours.
The
current
OMB
inventory
for
the
Performance
Track
program
is
109,661
hours
as
amended
in
ICR
1949.04
(
Approved
by
OMB
6­
22­
04).
This
amendment
adds
3,778
new
hours
for
a
total
of
113,439.

The
supporting
statement
analysis
for
EPA's
regulatory
action
demonstrates
a
moderate
increase
of
burden
hours,
and
a
significant
reduction
in
labor
costs.
Further,
EPA
notes
that
these
savings
do
not
appear
in
the
83­
I
summary
form,
yet
they
represent
a
more
accurate
accounting
of
the
true
burden
and
cost
estimate
of
this
regulatory
action.
The
significant
hours
that
are
not
reported
are
as
follows:
reduction
of
respondents
hours
and
costs:
­
11,300
hours;
­$
632,000.
Total
net
hours
and
net
costs
for
respondents
and
States
are:
2,620
hours;
­$
456,490.
Total
net
burden
hours
and
costs
for
respondents,
States
and
EPA
are:
3,223
hours;
­$
197,674.
These
figures
may
be
found
in
Table
6.7,
on
the
last
page
of
this
document.

1(
c)
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
­
This
is
a
new
collection
ICR
No.
1949.03
to
estimate
burden
hours
resulting
from
a
new
EPA
regulation
promulgated
for
members
of
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program.
1
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
developed
the
Performance
Track
program
to
motivate
and
reward
facilities
that
achieve
better
environmental
performance
than
is
required
under
existing
regulations.
This
program
enhances
the
current
regulatory
system
by
offering
1
ICR
No.
1949.02,
National
Environmental
Performance
Track,
addresses
the
application
and
annual
report
requirements
for
the
Performance
Track
Program.
1
recognition,
regulatory,
and
other
incentives
to
facilities
that
have
demonstrated
a
commitment
to
performing
better
than
compliance
with
environmental
regulation.
In
the
program
description,
EPA
committed
to
propose
specific
regulatory
changes
as
incentives
for
participation
in
the
Performance
Track
program.
The
changes
finalized
follow
up
on
this
commitment.
EPA
believes
the
modest
regulatory
changes
finalized
are
appropriate
for
facilities
that
are
accepted
into
the
program.
In
some
cases,
states
must
take
additional
steps
before
a
facility
may
take
advantage
of
an
incentive.
For
example,
responsibility
for
implementing
parts
of
many
environmental
programs
is
delegated
to
states.
In
such
cases,
states
may
need
to
revise
regulations,
agree
on
a
revised
delegation
or
authorization
package,
or
take
other
actions.

In
deciding
which
regulatory
changes
to
include
in
the
final
rule,
EPA
focused
on
those
incentives
that
would
apply
broadly
to
different
types
of
facilities;
that
reduce
the
reporting
and
other
operating
costs
of
the
current
regulatory
system;
and
that
can
be
implemented
nationally.
EPA
specifically
excluded
incentives
that
would
involve
a
relaxation
of
substantive
standards
of
performance
or
that
would
require
statutory
change.

The
following
summarizes
the
RCRA
and
MACT
regulatory
changes
that
offer
incentives
to
Performance
Track
facilities:

$
Reducing
the
frequency
of
reports
required
under
the
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology
(
MACT)
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Through
this
incentive,
EPA
reduced
the
frequency
of
MACT
reporting
for
all
Performance
Track
facilities
to
which
these
requirements
apply.
EPA
also
further
reduced
reporting
requirements
for
Performance
Track
facilities
that
achieve
MACT
or
better
emission
levels
through
pollution
prevention
methods.

$
Allowing
large
quantity
hazardous
waste
generators
participating
in
the
Performance
Track
program
up
to
180
days
(
and
270
days
if
the
waste
is
transported
200
miles
or
more)
to
accumulate
hazardous
waste
without
a
RCRA
permit
or
interim
status,
provided
that
these
generators
meet
certain
conditions.

The
incentives
described
in
the
rulemaking
are
part
of
a
broader
package
of
incentives
that
EPA
continues
to
develop
for
Performance
Track
program
participants.

Performance
Track
facilities
eligible
for
the
incentives
contained
in
the
final
rulemaking
voluntarily
determine
whether
to
avail
themselves
of
these
incentives.
The
rulemaking
changes
finalized
reduce
reporting
and
other
compliance
costs
for
affected
facilities.
Most
of
thee
cost
reductions
result
from
reduced
waste
management
costs
or
reduced
respondent
reporting
burden
hours.
These
changes
also
reduce
the
total
number
of
such
hours
resulting
from
EPA's
regulatory
programs.

As
of
December
2003,
EPA
completed
the
first
six
membership
enrollment
periods
for
the
Performance
Track
program.
This
resulted
in
a
total
of
309
facilities
(
mostly
industrial,
but
also
a
number
of
facilities
in
the
service
sector,
and
several
federal
facilities).
EPA
estimates
that
of
the
current
Performance
Track
membership,
93
facilities
are
eligible
to
take
advantage
of
the
MACT
incentive,
while
125
facilities
are
eligible
to
take
advantage
of
the
RCRA
incentive.
2
This
results
in
a
total
of
175
Performance
Track
facilities
that
are
eligible
to
take
advantage
of
one
or
more
of
the
incentives
contained
in
today's
final
rule,
with
43
facilities
being
eligible
for
both
the
MACT
and
RCRA
incentives.
The
Agency
estimates
that
295
additional
facilities
will
join
the
Performance
Track
program
during
the
three­
year
period
covered
by
the
ICR
(
i.
e.,
2004­
2006).

EPA
anticipates
that
the
incentives
promulgated
will
yield
significant
cost
and
burden
hour
savings
over
the
ICR
period.
The
Agency
estimates
that
the
annual
burden
reduction
per
facility
for
Performance
Track
facilities
availing
themselves
of
the
MACT
incentive
is
25.5
hours
with
cost
savings
of
$
1,427.22.
EPA
estimates
that
eligible
facilities
transporting
waste
for
treatment/
disposal
will
expend
8.9
hours
of
labor
annually
with
costs
of
$
445.40.
In
all
three
years,
these
costs
are
adjusted
to
reflect
transportation
cost
savings
resulting
from
the
additional
accumulation
time
provided
in
the
RCRA
incentive.
EPA
projects
that
member
facilities
will
experience
net
RCRA
costs
of
$
4,730
in
2004;
members
will
experience
net
RCRA
cost
savings
of
$
35,306
and
$
44,012
in
2005
and
2006,
respectively
(
See
Table
6.4
for
more
detail).
Based
on
the
309
facilities
currently
in
the
program
and
EPA's
projections
of
future
membership
levels
and
incentive
eligibility,
the
total
impact
of
the
final
rule
yields
an
estimated
cost
savings
ranging
from
$
160,826
in
2004
to
$
303,766
in
2006;
and
an
annual
burden
hour
savings
ranging
from
1584.4
hours
in
2004
to
3546.5
hours
in
2006.
These
figures
are
based
on
the
number
of
Performance
Track
facilities
eligible
for
the
incentives,
and
dependent
upon
whether
such
facilities
elect
to
avail
themselves
of
the
incentives.
EPA
anticipates
that
additional
facilities
will
join
the
Performance
Track
program
in
the
future
and
experience
similar
annual
changes
in
costs
and
burden
hours
on
a
per
facility
basis.
Table
1.1
below
details
EPA's
projections
of
membership
levels
and
incentives
eligibility
over
the
period
covered
by
this
ICR.

Table
1.1
PROJECTED
MEMBERSHIP
LEVELS
AND
INCENTIVE
ELIGIBILITY
Current
2004
2005
2006
Membership
1
309
386
483
604
MACT
Incentive
2
93
116
145
182
RCRA
Incentive
3
125
156
195
244
RCRA:
200
mile4
6
8
9
12
Total
facilities
in
MACT
and
RCRA
218
272
340
426
Number
and
Percent
of
facilities
in
both
MACT
and
RCRA
43/
20%
20%
=
54
20%
=
68
20%
=
85
Total
eligible
facilities
MACT
and
RCRA
5
175
218
272
341
Mean
number
of
eligible
facilities
2004­
2006,
use
for
83­
I
6
277
3
Notes:
1The
Performance
Track
program
estimates
a
25
percent
annual
growth
rate
in
membership.
See
ICR
No.
1949.02,
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program.
This
renewal
of
the
program
ICR
is
active
until
August
2006,
and
will
be
posted
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
icrlist.
html.

2
Performance
Track
facilities
likely
to
be
eligible
for
the
MACT
incentive
include
those
members
permitted
as
minor
or
synthetic
minor
air
sources
and
in
a
NAICS
sector
likely
to
be
subject
to
a
MACT
requirement.
An
analysis
of
EPA's
IDEA
database
yielded
106
potential
minor
or
synthetic
minor
air
sources.
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
compliance/
planning/
data/
multimedia/
idea/
index.
html.
EPA
then
screened
out
13
Performance
Track
members
in
sectors
unlikely
to
be
subject
to
MACT
requirements
(
i.
e.,
nine
members
in
the
Public
Facilities
and
Institutions
sector;
two
members
in
the
Mining
and
Construction
sector;
and
two
members
in
the
Wholesale
Retail
and
Shipping
sector).
This
analysis
resulted
in
93
eligible
facilities
in
the
current
membership.
EPA
estimates
the
annual
increase
in
Performance
Track
members
likely
to
be
eligible
for
the
MACT
incentive
by
applying
the
percentage
eligible
among
the
current
membership
(
i.
e.,
30
percent)
to
subsequent
years.

3
Analysis
of
the
2001
Biennial
Reporting
System
database
indicates
that
125
current
Performance
Track
members
are
Large
Quantity
Generators
(
LQGs).
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
index.
htm.
EPA
estimates
the
annual
increase
in
LQG
Performance
Track
members
by
applying
the
percentage
eligible
among
the
current
membership
(
i.
e.,
40
percent)
to
subsequent
years.

4
To
estimate
the
number
of
Performance
Track
LQGs
that
may
be
located
more
than
200
miles
from
a
hazardous
waste
treatment/
disposal
facility,
EPA
applied
a
GIS
screening
analysis
to
map
all
current
Performance
Track
LQGs
and
all
TSDFs
that
received
waste
in
the
2001
reporting
year.
EPA
then
applied
a
200
mile
radius
to
each
Performance
Track
LQG
to
determine
the
overlap.
Based
on
this
analysis,
it
appears
that
very
few
current
Performance
Track
members
are
located
more
than
200
miles
from
a
hazardous
waste
treatment/
disposal
facility
and
thus
the
Agency
assigned
a
five
percent
probability
that
Performance
Track
members
would
be
likely
to
ship
their
waste
more
than
200
miles;
the
remaining
95
percent
of
members
are
assumed
to
accumulate
waste
for
180
days
and
ship
within
200
miles.
EPA
believes
this
to
be
a
reasonable
percentage
based
on
the
prevalence
of
Performance
Track
members
and
waste
treatment/
disposal
facilities
in
industrialized
regions
of
the
country.
Furthermore,
our
analysis
was
not
able
to
correlate
specific
Performance
Track
members
with
specific
waste
handling
facilities.
Therefore,
it
may
be
the
case
that
a
Performance
Track
member
would
need
to
ship
its
waste
more
than
200
miles
in
cases
where
a
waste
characterization
requires
treatment/
disposal
at
a
facility
permitted
to
receive
such
waste.

5
Total
eligible
facilities
MACT
and
RCRA.
As
described
on
page
3,
there
are
43
facilities
that
are
eligible
for
both
the
RCRA
and
MACT
incentives.
This
percentage
was
used
for
subsequent
years
to
develop
the
estimates
for
2004
­
2006.

6
Mean
number
of
eligible
facilities
2004­
2006,
used
for
83­
I
was
determined
by
calculating
the
mean
values
from
years
2004
through
2006.

Not
all
of
these
savings
will
be
available
immediately
upon
promulgation
of
the
rulemaking
because
of
the
time
required
for
states
to
pursue
authorization
of
the
rules
from
EPA.
The
Agency
estimates
that
the
full
resource
savings
described
above
will
begin
to
be
realized
about
two
years
after
the
rulemaking's
promulgation
or
after
the
relevant
state
rule
revisions
can
be
promulgated.
Finally,
these
rulemaking
changes
will
result
in
some
increased
administrative
costs
for
EPA
itself.
Table
1.2
summarizes
the
facility
burden
estimate
for
the
implementation
of
incentives
designed
for
EPA's
Performance
Track
program.
4
Table
1.2
SUMMARY
OF
FACILITY
BURDEN
ESTIMATE
FOR
PERFORMANCE
TRACK
RULE
1
Facility
Burden,
2004­
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Hours/
Facility
Cost/
Facility
Total
Hours2
Total
Cost3
MACT
Provisions
2004
­
25.5
­$
1,427.22
­
2958.0
­$
165,557.52
2005
­
25.5
­$
1,427.22
­
3697.5
­$
206,946.90
2006
­
25.5
­$
1,427.22
­
4641.0
­$
259,754.04
MACT
Subtotal
­
76.5
­$
4,281.66
­
11296.5
­$
632,258.46
RCRA
Provisions
2004
8.9
$
445.40
1373.6
$
68,564.18
2004
RCRA
Savings
n/
a
4
­$
368.98
n/
a
­$
63,833.54
2005
8.9
$
445.40
873.7
$
44,393.35
2005
RCRA
Savings
n/
a
­$
368.98
n/
a
­$
79,699.68
2006
8.9
$
445.40
1094.5
$
55,612.33
2006
RCRA
Savings
n/
a
­$
368.98
n/
a
­$
99,624.60
RCRA
Subtotal
26.7
$
229.26
3341.8
­$
74,587.96
Final
Rule
(
MACT
and
RCRA)
2004
­
16.6
­$
1,350.80
­
1584.4
­$
160,826.88
2005
­
16.6
­$
1,350.80
­
2823.8
­$
242,253.23
2006
­
16.6
­$
1,350.80
­
3546.5
­$
303,766.31
Total
Burden
­
49.8
­$
4,052.41
­
7954.7
­$
706,846.42
Notes:
1Table
6.4
provides
detailed
annual
breakdowns
for
2004
through
2006.
For
example,
requirements
associated
with
the
MACT
incentive
occur
on
an
annual
basis;
whereas
the
RCRA
incentive
requires
certain
one­
time
events
(
e.
g.,
prior
written
notification
of
intent
to
accumulate;
contingency
plan
amendment;
and
200­
mile
certification,
if
applicable)
and
an
annual
requirement
to
document
any
impacts
of
additional
accumulation
time
in
the
facility's
annual
Performance
Track
report.
In
addition,
there
will
be
annual
cost
savings
for
each
facility
availing
itself
of
the
RCRA
incentive.
Such
savings
are
realized
on
a
per­
waste
stream
(
rather
than
a
perfacility
basis.
This
Summary
Table
1.2
aggregates
data
by
year
and
distinguishes,
for
RCRA
provisions,
between
costs
and
cost
savings.
2Calculated
by
multiplying
the
labor
hours
(
or
labor
hour
savings)
per
facility
by
the
number
of
eligible
facilities.
3Calculated
by
multiplying
the
labor
cost
(
or
labor
cost
savings)
per
facility
by
the
number
of
eligible
facilities.
4RCRA
savings
result
from
transportation
efficiencies
in
shipping
waste;
EPA
does
not
include
facility
burden
hour
reductions
in
these
estimates.

2.
Need
for
and
Use
of
the
Collection
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
­
EPA's
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
program
is
committed
to
providing
incentives
to
the
environmental
leaders
who
are
members
of
the
program.
Some
of
the
incentives
contained
in
this
final
rulemaking
will
reduce
the
facilities'
regulatory
burden
by
reducing
reporting
requirements
and
reducing
the
costs
of
hazardous
waste
transport.
EPA
views
these
incentives
as
a
way
to
reward
current
Performance
Track
members
and
to
encourage
additional
participants
in
a
program
that
promotes
the
use
of
5
environmental
management
systems,
continuous
environmental
improvement,
public
participation,
and
performance
reporting.

2(
b)
Use/
Users
of
the
Data
­
Each
facility's
notifications
and
reports
to
the
Agency
will
be
used
by
EPA
and
participating
regulatory
entities
to
monitor
the
facility's
compliance
with
the
incentives
finalized
today,
and
to
determine
whether
the
facility
continues
to
be
eligible
for
the
incentives.

3.
Non­
duplication,
Consultations,
and
other
Collection
Criteria
3(
a)
Non­
duplication
­
The
information
to
be
obtained
under
this
ICR
has
not
been
collected
by
EPA
or
any
other
state
or
local
agency.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
required
prior
to
ICR
submission
to
OMB
­
The
proposed
rule
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
prior
to
submitting
a
draft
ICR
to
OMB
for
review;
this
ICR
accompanies
the
final
rule.
The
proposed
and
final
rules
address
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
requirements.

3(
c)
Consultations
­
EPA
has
partnered
with
states,
Performance
Track
member
facilities
including
the
Performance
Track
Participants
Association,
and
the
Performance
Track
Network
to
develop
incentives
to
reward
Performance
Track
members
for
their
top
performance
and
to
motivate
other
facilities
to
implement
environmental
improvements
that
would
qualify
these
facilities
for
meeting
the
eligibility
criteria
of
the
program.
In
addition,
EPA
convened
a
series
of
public
meetings
to
obtain
input
as
the
Agency
developed
the
program.

Today's
final
rulemaking
grew
out
of
the
stakeholders'
collective
interest
in
promoting
incentives
for
participating
facilities.
Since
the
inception
of
the
program,
EPA
has
held
four
meetings
with
state
regulators
in
May
2000
in
Denver,
February
2001
in
Chicago,
November
2001
in
Charleston,
January
2003
in
Denver,
and
February
2004
in
Washington,
D.
C.
At
each
of
these
meetings,
EPA
solicited
feedback
on
potential
Performance
Track
incentives
through
break­
out
sessions
with
state
personnel.

In
addition,
EPA
has
consulted
regularly
with
individual
Performance
Track
participants
and
the
Performance
Track
Participants
Association
(
PTPA).
Comprising
164
Performance
Track
member
facilities,
the
PTPA
is
a
nonprofit
organization
that
provides
a
forum
for
corporations,
trade
associations
and
public
entities
dedicated
to
improving
their
environmental
performance
through
the
Performance
Track
Program.
The
PTPA
met
twice
in
June
and
November
of
2001,
convened
its
first
annual
conference
in
April
2002,
and
recently
held
an
annual
meeting
in
Dallas
in
November
2003.
The
PTPA
also
has
an
Incentives
workgroup
that
focuses
on
identifying
and
advocating
for
incentives
for
Performance
Track
members.
EPA
also
works
with
22
member
organizations
through
the
Performance
Track
Network
to
further
enhance
participation
in
the
program.

Finally,
a
Performance
Track
workgroup
assisted
with
the
internal
review
of
the
proposed
and
final
rulemakings.
The
workgroup
comprised
representatives
from
each
relevant
EPA
6
Program
Office,
as
well
as
representatives
from
EPA's
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance
(
OECA),
Office
of
General
Counsel
(
OGC),
and
Office
of
Environmental
Information
(
OEI).
Regional
Performance
Track
contacts
were
briefed
on
the
development
of
the
regulatory
package
on
a
periodic
basis.
Program
office
representatives
enlisted
additional
Program
staff
on
an
as
needed
basis
to
work
through
issues
and
refine
the
regulatory
language.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
­
For
the
most
part,
today's
final
rule
reduces
the
reporting
burden
for
Performance
Track
members.
The
information
requested
by
the
rule
will
help
EPA
to
determine
whether
Performance
Track
members
continue
to
be
eligible
for
the
incentives.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
­
This
information
collection
adheres
to
the
general
guidelines
set
forth
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget.

3(
f)
Confidentiality
­
Materials
involving
invasion
of
privacy
or
containing
a
trade
secret
should
not
be
included
in
the
Performance
Track
Annual
Report.
EPA
shall
treat
information
claimed
as
confidential
business
information
(
CBI)
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
2.
If
the
participant
fails
to
claim
the
information
as
confidential
upon
submission,
it
may
be
made
available
to
the
public
without
further
notice.
EPA
cannot
guarantee
that
information
submitted
for
reporting
to
EPA
and
claimed
as
confidential
will
be
protected
from
release
under
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(
FOIA).
State
participants
will
maintain
CBI
confidentiality
to
the
extent
allowed
by
relevant
state
law.
Note
that
some
state
laws
provide
for
a
greater
degree
of
access
to
and
narrower
protections
for
information
considered
confidential
under
federal
law.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
­
The
reporting
requirements
addressed
in
this
information
request
do
not
include
sensitive
questions.

4.
The
Respondents
and
the
Information
Requested
4(
a)
Industry
Respondents/
SIC
Codes
­
Potential
respondents
include
all
entities
regulated
by
EPA
pursuant
to
its
authority
under
the
various
environmental
statutes
that
are
accepted
into
the
Performance
Track
program.
Table
4.1
below
summarizes
the
NAICS
codes
of
facilities
accepted
into
the
Performance
Track
program
during
open
enrollment
for
Rounds
1­
6.

Table
4.1
PRIMARY
NORTH
AMERICAN
INDUSTRY
CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
(
NAICS)
CODES
OF
CURRENT
PERFORMANCE
TRACK
MEMBERS
Industry
Group
NAICS
Potash,
Soda,
and
Borate
Mineral
Mining
212391
Hydroelectric
Power
Generation
221111
Fossil
Fuel
Electric
Power
Generation
221112
Electric
Bulk
Power
Transmission
and
Control
221121
Electric
Power
Distribution
221122
Malt
Manufacturing
311213
Fruit
and
Vegetable
Canning
311421
7
Table
4.1
PRIMARY
NORTH
AMERICAN
INDUSTRY
CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
(
NAICS)
CODES
OF
CURRENT
PERFORMANCE
TRACK
MEMBERS
Industry
Group
NAICS
Dry,
Condensed,
and
Evaporated
Dairy
Product
Manufacturing
311514
Cigarette
Manufacturing
312221
Carpet
and
Rug
Mills
314110
Canvas
and
Related
Product
Mills
314912
Wood
Preservation
321114
Reconstituted
Wood
Product
Manufacturing
321219
Wood
Window
and
Door
Manufacturing
321911
Cut
Stock,
Re­
sawing
Lumber,
and
Planing
321912
Pulp
Mills
322110
Paper
(
except
Newsprint)
Mills
322121
Paperboard
Mills
322130
Nonfolding
Sanitary
Food
Container
Manufacturing
322215
Commercial
Screen
Printing
323113
Synthetic
Organic
Dye
and
Pigment
Manufacturing
325132
All
Other
Basic
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
325188
All
Other
Basic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturing
325199
Plastics
Material
and
Resin
Manufacturing
325211
Synthetic
Rubber
Manufacturing
325212
Noncellulosic
Organic
Fiber
Manufacturing
325222
Medicinal
and
Botanical
Manufacturing
325411
Pharmaceutical
Preparation
Manufacturing
325412
In­
Vitro
Diagnostic
Substance
Manufacturing
325413
Adhesive
Manufacturing
325520
Soap
and
Other
Detergent
Manufacturing
325611
Polish
and
Other
Sanitation
Good
Manufacturing
325612
Surface
Active
Agent
Manufacturing
325613
Printing
Ink
Manufacturing
325910
Custom
Compounding
of
Purchased
Resins
325991
All
Other
Miscellaneous
Chemical
Product
and
Preparation
Manufacturing
325998
Unlaminated
Plastics
Film
and
Sheet
(
except
Packaging)
Manufacturing
326113
All
Other
Plastics
Product
Manufacturing
326199
Tire
Manufacturing
(
except
Retreading)
326211
Rubber
Product
Manufacturing
for
Mechanical
Use
326291
All
Other
Rubber
Product
Manufacturing
326299
Concrete
Block
and
Brick
Manufacturing
327331
All
Other
Miscellaneous
Nonmetallic
Mineral
Product
Manufacturing
327999
Iron
and
Steel
Mills
331111
Aluminum
Die­
Casting
Foundries
331521
Plate
Work
Manufacturing
332313
Metal
Can
Manufacturing
332431
Metal
Coating,
Engraving
(
except
Jewelry
and
Silverware),
and
Allied
Services
to
Manufacturers
332812
Ball
and
Roller
Bearing
Manufacturing
332991
Other
Ordnance
and
Accessories
Manufacturing
332995
Farm
Machinery
and
Equipment
Manufacturing
333111
Printing
Machinery
and
Equipment
Manufacturing
333293
Food
Product
Machinery
Manufacturing
333294
Office
Machinery
Manufacturing
333313
Optical
Instrument
and
Lens
Manufacturing
333314
Photographic
and
Photocopying
Equipment
Manufacturing
333315
Turbine
and
Turbine
Generator
Set
Units
Manufacturing
333611
8
Table
4.1
PRIMARY
NORTH
AMERICAN
INDUSTRY
CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
(
NAICS)
CODES
OF
CURRENT
PERFORMANCE
TRACK
MEMBERS
Industry
Group
NAICS
Pump
and
Pumping
Equipment
Manufacturing
333911
Electronic
Computer
Manufacturing
334111
Radio
and
Television
Broadcasting
and
Wireless
Communications
Equipment
Manufacturing
334220
Electron
Tube
Manufacturing
334411
Bare
Printed
Circuit
Board
Manufacturing
334412
Semiconductor
and
Related
Device
Manufacturing
334413
Electronic
Capacitor
Manufacturing
334414
Printed
Circuit
Assembly
(
Electronic
Assembly)
Manufacturing
334418
Search,
Detection,
Navigation,
Guidance,
Aeronautical,
and
Nautical
System
and
Instrument
Manufacturing
334511
Automatic
Environmental
Control
Manufacturing
for
Residential,
Commercial,
and
Appliance
Use
334512
Instruments
and
Related
Products
Manufacturing
for
Measuring,
Displaying,
and
Controlling
Industrial
Process
Variables
334513
Instrument
Manufacturing
for
Measuring
and
Testing
Electricity
and
Electrical
Signals
334515
Prerecorded
Compact
Disc
(
except
Software),
Tape,
and
Record
Reproducing
334612
Magnetic
and
Optical
Recording
Media
Manufacturing
334613
Motor
and
Generator
Manufacturing
335312
Other
Communication
and
Energy
Wire
Manufacturing
335929
Current­
Carrying
Wiring
Device
Manufacturing
335931
Automobile
Manufacturing
336111
Motor
Vehicle
Body
Manufacturing
336211
Truck
Trailer
Manufacturing
336212
Gasoline
Engine
and
Engine
Parts
Manufacturing
336312
Other
Motor
Vehicle
Electrical
and
Electronic
Equipment
Manufacturing
336322
Motor
Vehicle
Transmission
and
Power
Train
Parts
Manufacturing
336350
Motor
Vehicle
Air
Conditioning
Manufacturing
336391
All
Other
Motor
Vehicle
Parts
Manufacturing
336399
Aircraft
Manufacturing
336411
Guided
Missile
and
Space
Vehicle
Manufacturing
336414
Laboratory
Apparatus
and
Furniture
Manufacturing
339111
Surgical
and
Medical
Instrument
Manufacturing
339112
Surgical
Appliance
and
Supplies
Manufacturing
339113
Surgical
and
Appliance
and
Supplies
Manufacturing
339113
Dental
Equipment
and
Supplies
Manufacturing
339114
Ophthalmic
Goods
Manufacturing
339115
Sporting
and
Athletic
Goods
Manufacturing
339920
Musical
Instrument
Manufacturing
339992
All
Other
Miscellaneous
Manufacturing
339999
Heating
Oil
Dealers
454311
Research
and
Development
in
the
Physical,
Engineering,
and
Life
Sciences
541710
Solid
Waste
Combustors
and
Incinerators
562213
Other
Nonhazardous
Waste
Treatment
and
Disposal
562219
Dry
Cleaning
and
Laundry
Services
(
except
Coin­
Operated)
812320
Industrial
Launderers
812332
Regulation
and
Administration
of
Transportation
Programs
926120
Space
Research
and
Technology
927110
National
Security
928110
9
4(
b)
Information
Requested
from
Industry
Respondents
(
i)
Data
items,
including
record
keeping
requirements
­
Performance
Track
members
that
are
eligible
for
the
incentives
contained
in
the
rulemaking
package
will
need
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
each
of
the
incentives.
This
section
identifies
the
data
items
required
of
Performance
Track
facilities
by
rule
provision.
The
activities
required
by
the
components
of
this
information
collection
request
are
not
customary
and
usual
business
practice.

MACT
Provisions:
Area
sources
that
would
need
to
submit
MACT
periodic
reporting
on
a
semi­
annual
basis
are
eligible
under
this
final
rule.
If
such
Performance
Track
facilities
decide
to
avail
themselves
of
this
incentive,
their
periodic
reporting
frequency
would
be
reduced
to
an
annual
basis.
In
addition,
those
Performance
Track
facilities
that
use
pollution
prevention
technologies
or
techniques
to
meet
MACT
may
submit
an
annual
certification,
instead
of
an
annual
report.

RCRA
Provisions:
Performance
Track
facilities
that
avail
themselves
of
the
additional
accumulation
time
for
hazardous
waste
provided
in
the
rulemaking
must
provide
prior
written
notification
to
the
authorized
regulatory
program,
and
amend
facility
contingency
plans
to
reflect
the
potential
risks
of
additional
accumulated
waste.
In
cases
where
facilities
wish
to
accumulate
waste
for
270
days
or
more,
they
must
certify
that
no
treatment/
disposal
facility
(
permitted
or
interim
status,
as
defined
under
40
CFR
270)
exists
within
a
200
mile
radius.
Finally,
such
facilities
are
required
to
report
on
the
impact
of
the
additional
accumulation
time
in
their
Performance
Track
Annual
Report
including
the
number
of
waste
shipments,
types
of
destination
facilities,
changes
in
on­
site
and
off­
site
waste
management
practices
occurring
as
a
result
of
extended
accumulation
times,
and
information
on
any
spills
or
accidents
occurring
at
(
or
from)
extended
accumulation
units.

(
ii)
Industry
Respondent
Activities
­
The
following
are
activities
a
respondent
must
perform
if
the
respondent
chooses
to
avail
itself
of
a
particular
incentive
contained
in
the
rulemaking.

MACT
Provisions:

1.
Submit
annual
periodic
report,
rather
than
semi­
annual
report.

2.
Submit
annual
written
certification,
instead
of
an
annual
report,
that
the
facility
is
meeting
the
emission
standard
by
continuing
to
use
the
relevant
pollution
prevention
technology
or
technique.

RCRA
Provisions:

1.
Submit
prior
written
notification
to
the
authorized
regulatory
program.

2.
Submit
amendment
to
contingency
plan.
10
3.
Report
on
the
impact
of
the
additional
accumulation
time
in
their
Performance
Track
Annual
Report.

4.
Certify
that
no
facility
exists
within
a
200­
mile
radius
in
cases
where
waste
is
accumulated
for
up
to
270
days.

4(
c)
State/
Local
Agencies
include
all
State
and
local
agencies
with
delegated
authority
to
administer
and
enforce
MACT
standards,
and
all
State
agencies
with
delegated
authority
to
administer
and
enforce
RCRA.

4(
d)
Information
Requested
from
State/
Local
Agencies
(
i)
Data
items,
including
record
keeping
requirements
­
To
implement
the
incentives
contained
in
this
rulemaking,
certain
State
and
local
agencies
will
need
to
adopt
revisions
to
their
regulations,
obtain
approval
for
amended
delegation
authority,
approve
program
modifications,
and/
or
re­
open
and
re­
issue
permits.
This
section
identifies
the
data
items
required
of
State/
local
agencies
by
rule
provision
to
implement
these
Performance
Track
incentives.

MACT
Provisions:
Depending
on
the
delegation
option
chosen
by
a
particular
State/
local
agency
for
implementing
the
MACT
rules,
such
agencies
may
need
to
amend
their
regulations
in
order
to
implement
this
MACT
provision.
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.
2
RCRA
Provisions:
With
the
exception
of
Hawaii,
Iowa,
and
Puerto
Rico,
where
EPA
retains
authority
to
administer
and
enforce
RCRA,
all
other
states
with
Performance
Track
member
facilities
will
need
to
apply
to
EPA
for
a
revision
to
their
authorized
program
to
implement
this
incentive.

(
ii)
State/
Local
Agency
Activities
­
The
following
are
activities
certain
State
and
local
agencies
must
perform
in
order
to
make
the
particular
incentive
available
to
Performance
Track
facilities
located
in
their
jurisdictions.

MACT
Provisions:

1.
Gain
MACT
delegation
approval
from
EPA.
States
most
frequently
choose
one
of
the
following
three
options.

2
ICR
No.
1643.04
entitled
"
Application
Requirements
for
the
Approval
and
Delegation
of
Federal
Air
Toxics
Programs
to
State,
Territorial,
Local,
and
Tribal
Agencies"
addresses
the
variety
of
delegations
available
to
State
and
local
air
authorities.
11
(
i)
The
"
Straight
Delegation"
option
involves
rule
adoption
by
State/
local
agencies
of
all
existing
and
future
MACT
standards
unchanged
from
the
Federal
standards.
Depending
on
the
nature
of
this
delegation
option,
State/
local
agencies
may
automatically
receive
approval
of
this
MACT
incentive,
or
there
may
be
a
procedure
whereby
the
state/
local
agency
requests
delegation
of
individual
standards
when
they
are
promulgated.

(
ii)
"
Rule
Adjustment"
delegation
option
requires
that
State/
local
agencies
submit
a
stringency
and
compliance
demonstration.

(
iii)
"
Rule
Substitution"
delegation
option
requires
a
demonstration
of
the
State/
local
agencies'
rule
equivalency
with
the
otherwise
applicable
Federal
standard.

2.
Review
annual
reports
or
annual
certifications
(
for
facilities
meeting
MACT
through
Pollution
Prevention)
for
Performance
Track
members
in
their
jurisdiction.

RCRA
Provisions:

1.
States
with
authorized
RCRA
programs
will
need
to
apply
to
EPA
to
revise
their
authorized
program
to
implement
this
incentive.

2.
Review
notifications
of
waste
accumulation
in
excess
of
90
days,
and
certifications
that
no
facility
exists
within
200
miles
for
facilities
that
wish
to
accumulate
hazardous
waste
up
to
270
days.

5.
The
Information
Collected
­
Agency
Activities,
Collection
Methodology,
and
Information
Management
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
­
EPA
will
need
to
continue
to
provide
oversight
of
its
delegated
programs.
Apart
from
the
one­
time
approval
of
State/
local
delegated
authority
for
the
MACT
and
RCRA
provisions,
the
Agency
does
not
anticipate
a
significant
increase
in
its
administrative
duties
to
implement
these
Performance
Track
incentives.
For
those
facilities
that
avail
themselves
of
the
RCRA
incentive,
the
Agency
will
be
reviewing
the
Performance
Track
Annual
Report
to
learn
more
about
the
impacts
of
the
additional
accumulation
time.
The
Agency
burden
associated
with
reviewing
the
Performance
Track
Annual
Report
is
included
in
the
program
ICR
(
No.
1949.02).

The
following
is
a
list
of
itemized
Agency
activities
resulting
from
implementation
of
the
incentives
contained
in
this
rulemaking:
12
1.
Review
and
approve
State/
local
agencies'
requests
to
amend
their
MACT
delegation
authority.

2.
Review
annual
MACT
reports
or
certifications
(
for
facilities
meeting
MACT
through
Pollution
Prevention).
3.
Review
and
approve
State
agencies'
requests
to
amend
their
RCRA
authorization.
4.
Review
notifications
of
waste
accumulation
in
excess
of
90
days,
and
certifications
that
no
facility
exists
within
200
miles
for
facilities
that
wish
to
accumulate
hazardous
waste
up
to
270
days.

5.
Review
amendments
to
facility
contingency
plans
required
of
members
availing
themselves
of
the
extended
accumulation
time
incentive.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
­
Required
documents
and
reports
submitted
during
the
period
of
participation
for
the
purposes
of
implementation
of
the
incentives
contained
in
the
rulemaking
will
be
sent
to
an
EPA
Performance
Track
contact.
The
annual
report
will
be
posted
on
the
Performance
Track
website.
To
the
extent
practicable,
the
Performance
Track
program
will
utilize
electronic
submissions
of
reporting
requirements.

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
­
EPA
realizes
that
Performance
Track
members
will
vary
in
size.
The
burden
to
small
facilities
has
been
recognized
during
the
development
of
the
program
and
these
incentives,
as
well
as
this
information
collection.
The
need
to
keep
the
program
requirements
flexible
enough
to
stimulate
interest
in
participation
by
small
facilities
was
considered
during
the
planning
of
the
program.
The
incentives
contained
in
the
rulemaking
do
not
include
any
elements
that
create
any
additional
burden
to
small
facilities
beyond
that
imposed
on
large
facilities.

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
­
With
the
exception
of
the
Performance
Track
report
that
is
prepared
and
submitted
annually
by
respondents,
the
collection
schedule
for
implementation
of
these
incentives
will
depend
on
when
Performance
Track
members
decide
to
avail
themselves
of
particular
incentives.

6.
Estimating
the
Burden
and
Cost
of
the
Collection
This
section
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
the
respondent's
burden
hours
and
cost
to
complete
the
activities
associated
with
this
information
collection.
In
using
this
analysis,
it
should
be
noted
again
that
all
responses
to
this
information
collection
are
voluntary.
There
are
expected
benefits
to
those
who
choose
to
participate
in
the
Performance
Track
program,
particularly
if
members
avail
themselves
of
the
incentives
contained
in
the
rulemaking.
EPA
does
not
expect
a
response
from
13
a
facility
where
the
burdens
associated
with
preparing
the
response
outweigh
the
expected
benefits
to
the
facility.

In
addition
to
industry
respondents,
this
section
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
the
State/
local
agency
and
EPA
burden
hours
and
costs
to
implement
the
incentives
associated
with
this
rulemaking.
Some
State
and
local
regulatory
authorities
will
need
to
spend
time
and
money
adopting
revisions
to
their
regulations
to
conform
with
the
rulemaking
changes
finalized
today.
Finally,
these
rulemaking
changes
will
result
in
some
increased
administrative
costs
for
EPA
itself.

6(
a)
Estimating
Industry
Respondent
Burden
­
This
ICR
requires
the
calculation
of
the
amount
of
burden
hours
associated
with
each
activity
for
each
respondent.
For
those
Performance
Track
facilities
eligible
for
the
MACT
incentive
contained
in
this
rulemaking,
there
will
be
a
reduction
in
the
excess
emissions
reporting
burden
from
a
semi­
annual
frequency
to
an
annual
frequency.

For
Performance
Track
facilities
availing
themselves
of
the
increase
in
hazardous
waste
accumulation
time,
there
will
be
burden
and
costs
associated
with
notifying
the
authorized
regulatory
program
of
the
facility's
intent
to
use
this
incentive,
amending
facility
contingency
plans,
and
reporting
on
an
annual
basis
regarding
the
impact
of
such
additional
accumulation
time.
However,
these
minimal
costs
per
facility
will
be
more
than
offset
by
the
transportation
cost
savings
accruing
to
such
facilities
by
this
incentive.

6(
b)
Estimating
Industry
Respondent
Costs
(
i)
Estimating
Labor
Costs
­
As
recommended
in
the
ICR
handbook,
EPA
employed
a
graded
approach
in
calculating
cost.
EPA
used
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics'
Employer
Costs
for
Employee
Compensation
(
ECEC)
data
from
June
2003
(
http://
www.
bls.
gov/
news.
release/
ecec.
t12.
htm)
to
derive
respondent
labor
costs.
Consistent
with
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget's
1999
guidance
Estimating
Paperwork
Burden
(
http://
www.
whitehouse.
gov/
omb/
fedreg/
5cfr1320.
html),
EPA
used
an
adjusted
labor
rate
reflective
of
benefits
and
overhead
costs;
this
ICR
employs
a
multiplier
of
1.5
to
account
for
both
benefits
and
overhead.
Therefore,
EPA
estimated
the
hourly
cost
of
labor
for
industry
respondents
to
be
$
72.62
for
management
labor,
$
62.00
for
technical
labor,
and
$
33.44
for
clerical
labor.
Table
6.1
provides
a
breakdown
of
labor
hours
and
associated
costs
per
activity.
14
Table
6.1
HOURLY
LABOR
RATES
FOR
INDUSTRY
RESPONDENTS
Labor
Type
Hourly
Rate
Benefits/
Overhead
(
1.5
multiplier)
Adjusted
Hourly
Rate
Management
$
48.41
$
24.21
$
72.62
Technical
$
41.33
$
20.67
$
62.00
Clerical
$
22.29
$
11.15
$
33.44
(
ii)
Estimating
Capital
and
Operations
and
Maintenance
Costs
­
Most
of
the
facilities
applying
to
the
Performance
Track
program
maintain
environmental
compliance
data
as
a
customary
business
practice.
EPA
does
not
expect
any
start­
up
or
capital
costs
to
affect
facilities
in
the
Performance
Track
program
beyond
those
labor
costs
outlined
in
the
tables
in
this
section.

6(
c)
Estimating
State/
Local
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
­
EPA
used
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics'
Employer
Costs
for
Employee
Compensation
(
ECEC)
data
from
June
2003
(
http://
www.
bls.
gov/
news.
release/
ecec.
t04.
htm)
to
derive
respondent
labor
costs.
Consistent
with
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget's
1999
guidance
Estimating
Paperwork
Burden,
EPA
used
an
adjusted
labor
rate
reflective
of
benefits
and
overhead
costs.
This
ICR
employs
a
multiplier
of
1.2
for
overhead
costs,
and
accounts
for
standard
benefits
by
using
estimates
in
the
noted
BLS
data.
Therefore,
EPA
estimated
the
hourly
cost
of
labor
for
State/
Local
Agency
respondents
to
be
$
46.70
for
management
labor,
$
49.44
for
technical
labor,
and
$
23.80
for
clerical
labor.
Table
6.2
provides
a
breakdown
of
labor
hours
and
associated
costs
for
State/
local
agencies.

Table
6.2
HOURLY
LABOR
RATES
FOR
STATE/
LOCAL
AGENCY
RESPONDENTS
Labor
Type
Hourly
Rate
Benefits
Overhead
(
20%
Hourly)
Adjusted
Hourly
Rate
Management
$
28.42
$
12.60
$
5.68
$
46.70
Technical
$
31.87
$
11.20
$
6.37
$
49.44
Clerical
$
13.85
$
7.18
$
2.77
$
23.80
6(
d)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
­
As
recommended
in
the
ICR
Handbook,
wage
rates
for
EPA
employees
are
based
upon
the
Federal
government
pay
scale.
EPA
calculated
the
hourly
rates
for
EPA
employees
using
information
on
annual
salaries
from
the
Internet
site
for
the
Office
of
Personnel
Management
(
http://
www.
opm.
gov/
oca/
03tables/
pdf/
RUS.
pdf)
.
EPA
used
the
appropriate
pay
grade
levels
for
management,
technical,
and
clerical
personnel.
EPA
divided
the
annual
pay
rate
by
2080,
the
amount
of
working
hours
during
a
calendar
year,
to
get
the
hourly
wage
rate.
Consistent
with
the
15
Office
of
Management
and
Budget's
1999
guidance
Estimating
Paperwork
Burden,
EPA
used
an
adjusted
labor
rate
reflective
of
benefits
and
overhead
costs.
This
ICR
employs
a
multiplier
of
1.4
for
benefits,
and
a
multiplier
of
1.2
for
overhead
costs.
Therefore,
EPA
estimated
the
hourly
cost
of
Agency
labor
to
be
$
71.55
for
management
labor,
$
43.28
for
technical
labor,
and
$
21.95
for
clerical
labor.

Table
6.3
HOURLY
LABOR
RATES
FOR
EPA
Labor
Type
Pay
Grade
Hourly
Rate
Benefits
(
40%
Salary)
Overhead
(
20%
Salary)
Adjusted
Hourly
Rate
Management
GS­
15
$
44.72
$
17.89
$
8.94
$
71.55
Technical
GS­
12
$
27.05
$
10.82
$
5.41
$
43.28
Clerical
GS­
6
$
13.72
$
5.49
$
2.74
$
21.95
6(
e)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
A
total
of
309
facilities
have
been
accepted
into
the
Performance
Track
program
during
the
first
six
open
enrollment
periods.
Of
those
facilities,
EPA
estimates
that
93
facilities
are
likely
to
be
eligible
for
the
MACT
incentive
in
today's
rule.
Performance
Track
facilities
likely
to
be
eligible
for
the
MACT
incentive
include
those
members
permitted
as
minor
or
synthetic
minor
air
sources
and
in
a
NAICS
sector
likely
to
be
subject
to
a
MACT
requirement.
An
analysis
of
EPA's
IDEA
database
yielded
106
potential
minor
or
synthetic
minor
air
sources
(
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
compliance/
planning/
data/
multimedia/
idea/
index.
html).
The
Agency
then
screened
out
13
Performance
Track
members
in
sectors
unlikely
to
be
subject
to
MACT
requirements
(
i.
e.,
nine
members
in
the
Public
Facilities
and
Institutions
sector;
two
members
in
the
Mining
and
Construction
sector;
and
two
members
in
the
Wholesale
Retail
and
Shipping
sector).
This
analysis
resulted
in
93
eligible
facilities
in
the
current
membership.
EPA
estimates
the
annual
increase
in
Performance
Track
members
likely
to
be
eligible
for
the
MACT
incentive
by
applying
the
percentage
eligible
among
the
current
membership
(
i.
e.,
30
percent)
to
subsequent
years.

EPA
estimates
that
125
facilities
are
likely
to
be
eligible
for
the
RCRA
incentive.
3
The
number
of
Performance
Track
facilities
that
could
potentially
be
affected
by
the
RCRA
portion
of
the
rule
was
assembled
from
the
list
of
all
Performance
Track
facilities
that
identified
themselves
as
hazardous
waste
generators.
EPA
then
relied
on
the
RCRA
2001
Hazardous
Waste
Data
(
i.
e.,
Biennial
Reporting
System)
to
determine
the
quantity
of
waste
generated
by
each
facility
per
year
(
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
index.
htm).
The
next
3
Memorandum
dated
December
5,
2003
from
Industrial
Economics,
Incorporated
(
IEc)
to
EPA's
Office
of
Policy,
Economics,
and
Innovation.
16
step
involved
excluding
Performance
Track
facilities
that
are
small
quantity
generators
(
SQGs)
since
SQGs
may
already
accumulate
hazardous
waste
for
up
to
180
days,
and
thus
would
not
benefit
from
today's
final
rule.
Again,
the
Agency
estimates
the
annual
increase
in
Performance
Track
members
likely
to
be
eligible
for
the
RCRA
incentive
by
applying
the
percentage
of
the
current
membership
to
subsequent
years.
Table
1.1
displays
EPA's
projections
for
incentives
eligibility
over
the
ICR
period.

6(
f)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Cost
(
i)
Industry
Respondent
Tally
­
Table
6.4
presents
a
summary
of
the
annual
burden
and
costs,
or
cost
savings,
associated
with
each
of
the
incentives
finalized
today
for
Performance
Track
facilities,
and
the
total
anticipated
burden
and
cost
savings.
EPA
estimates
that
facilities
will
save
$
706,846
in
the
aggregate
over
the
period
covered
by
this
ICR.
Table
6.4
INDUSTRY
RESPONDENT
BURDEN,
2004­
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Mgr.

($
72.62/
Hour)
Tech.

($
62.00/
Hour)
Clerical
($
33.44/
Hour)
Resp.

Hours/
Year
Labor
Cost/
Year
#
Resp.
Total
Hours/

Year
Total
Cost/
Year
Respondent
Burden,
2004
MACT
Provisions
Reduced
Reporting
Frequency1
­
3.0
­
16.0
­
6.5
­
25.5
­$
1,427.22
116
­
2958.0
­$
165,557.52
2004
MACT
Subtotal
­
3.0
­
16.0
­
6.5
­
25.5
­$
1,427.22
n/
a
­
2958.0
­$
165,557.52
2004
MACT
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
0
$
0
RCRA
Provisions
Prior
Written
Notification
to
Authorized
Regulatory
Program
of
Waste
Accumulation
in
Excess
of
90
Days2
0.1
1.8
1.5
3.4
$
169.02
156
530.4
$
26,367.43
Amendment
to
Contingency
Plan3
0.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
$
95.44
156
312.0
$
14,888.64
Impact
of
Additional
Accumulation
Time
Included
in
Performance
Track
Annual
Report
0.1
2.0
1.3
3.4
$
174.73
156
530.4
$
27,258.50
200­
Mile
Certification4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.10
$
6.20
8
0.8
$
49.60
RCRA
Costs
Subtotal
0.2
4.9
3.8
8.9
$
445.40
n/
a
1373.6
$
68,564.18
Less
Potential
RCRA
Transportation
Cost
Savings5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
­$
368.98
173
0.0
­$
63,833.54
2004
RCRA
Subtotal
0.2
4.9
3.8
8.9
$
76.42
n/
a
1373.6
$
4,730.64
2004
RCRA
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
1373.6
$
68,564.17
2004
Burden
MACT
and
RCRA
Total
­
2.8
­
11.1
­
2.7
­
16.6
­$
1,350.80
n/
a
­
1584.4
­$
160,826.88
Respondent
Burden,
2005
MACT
Provisions
Reduced
Reporting
Frequency
­
3.0
­
16.0
­
6.5
­
25.5
­$
1,427.22
145
­
3697.5
­$
206,946.90
2005
MACT
Subtotal
­
3.0
­
16.0
­
6.5
­
25.5
­$
1,427.22
n/
a
­
3697.5
­$
206,946.90
18
Table
6.4
INDUSTRY
RESPONDENT
BURDEN,
2004­
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Mgr.

($
72.62/
Hour)
Tech.

($
62.00/
Hour)
Clerical
($
33.44/
Hour)
Resp.

Hours/
Year
Labor
Cost/
Year
#
Resp.
Total
Hours/

Year
Total
Cost/
Year
2005
MACT
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
0
$
0
RCRA
Provisions
Impact
of
Additional
Accumulation
Time
Included
in
Performance
Track
Annual
Report
0.1
2.0
1.3
3.4
$
174.73
195
663.0
$
34,073.13
Prior
Written
Notification
to
Authorized
Regulatory
Program
of
Waste
Accumulation
in
Excess
of
90
Days
0.1
1.8
1.5
3.4
$
169.02
39
132.6
$
6,591.86
Amendment
to
Contingency
Plan
0.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
$
95.44
39
78.0
$
3,722.16
200­
Mile
Certification
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
$
6.20
1
0.1
$
6.20
RCRA
Costs
Subtotal
0.2
4.9
3.8
8.9
$
445.40
n/
a
873.7
$
44,393.35
Less
Potential
RCRA
Transportation
Cost
Savings
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
­$
368.98
216
0.0
­$
79,699.68
2005
RCRA
Subtotal
0.2
4.9
3.8
8.9
$
76.42
n/
a
873.7
­$
35,306.33
2005
RCRA
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
873.7
$
44,393.35
2005
Burden
MACT
and
RCRA
Total
­
2.8
­
11.1
­
2.7
­
16.6
­$
1,350.80
n/
a
­
2823.8
­$
242,253.23
Respondent
Burden,
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Mgr.

($
72.62/
Hour)
Tech.

($
62.00/
Hour)
Clerical
($
33.44/
Hour)
Resp.

Hours/
Year
Labor
Cost/

Year
#
Resp.
Total
Hours/

Year
Total
Cost/

Year
MACT
Provisions
Reduced
Reporting
Frequency
­
3.0
­
16.0
­
6.5
­
25.5
­$
1,427.22
182
­
4641.0
­$
259,754.04
2006
MACT
Subtotal
­
3.0
­
16.0
­
6.5
­
25.5
­$
1,427.22
n/
a
­
4641.0
­$
259,754.04
2006
MACT
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
0
$
0
RCRA
Provisions
19
Table
6.4
INDUSTRY
RESPONDENT
BURDEN,
2004­
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Mgr.

($
72.62/
Hour)
Tech.

($
62.00/
Hour)
Clerical
($
33.44/
Hour)
Resp.

Hours/
Year
Labor
Cost/
Year
#
Resp.
Total
Hours/

Year
Total
Cost/
Year
Impact
of
Additional
Accumulation
Time
Included
in
Performance
Track
Annual
Report
0.1
2.0
1.3
3.4
$
174.73
244
829.6
$
42,635.10
Prior
Written
Notification
to
Authorized
Regulatory
Program
of
Waste
Accumulation
in
Excess
of
90
Days
0.1
1.8
1.5
3.4
$
169.02
49
166.6
$
8,282.08
Amendment
to
Contingency
Plan
0.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
$
95.44
49
98.0
$
4,676.56
200­
Mile
Certification
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
$
6.20
3
0.3
$
18.60
RCRA
Costs
Subtotal
0.2
4.9
3.8
8.9
$
445.40
n/
a
1094.5
$
55,612.33
Less
Potential
RCRA
Transportation
Cost
Savings
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
­$
368.98
270
0.0
­$
99,624.60
2006
RCRA
Subtotal
0.2
4.9
3.8
8.9
$
76.42
n/
a
1094.5
­$
44,012.27
2006
RCRA
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
1094.5
$
55,612.33
2006
Burden
MACT
and
RCRA
Total
­
2.8
­
11.1
­
2.7
­
16.6
­$
1,350.80
n/
a
­
3546.5
­$
303,766.31
Total
Industry
Burden
2004­
2006
Total
2004­
2006
Burden
­
8.4
­
33.3
­
8.1
­
49.8
­$
4,052.41
n/
a
­
7954.7
­$
706,846..
42
2004­
2006
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
MACT
Burden
3,328.1
$
156,724.57
2004­
2006
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
RCRA
Burden
8,005.9
$
393,622.80
Total
Respondents
2004­
2006
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
MACT
and
RCRA
3,341.8
$
168,569.86
Total
Annualized
2004­
2006
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
1,114
$
56,190
20
Table
6.4
INDUSTRY
RESPONDENT
BURDEN,
2004­
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Mgr.

($
72.62/
Hour)
Tech.

($
62.00/
Hour)
Clerical
($
33.44/
Hour)
Resp.

Hours/
Year
Labor
Cost/
Year
#
Resp.
Total
Hours/

Year
Total
Cost/
Year
Notes:
Shaded
cells
represent
those
figures
that
are
reportable
to
OMB
through
the
83­
I
form
1
For
purposes
of
estimating
reductions
in
MACT
reporting
burden
associated
with
annual
versus
semi­
annual
reporting
frequency
,
EPA
relies
on
ICR
No.
1984.01,
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Requirements
for
the
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Manufacturing
Plants.

2
Prior
written
notification
of
intent
to
accumulate
is
a
one­
time
event
for
each
facility;
EPA
includes
annual
burden
and
cost
estimates
proportional
to
the
number
of
new
members
likely
to
avail
themselves
of
the
RCRA
incentive
each
year.
Thus,
for
2004,
EPA
incorporates
burden
for
the
156
projected
eligible
members
who
will
be
responsible
for
submitting
the
notification.
For
2005
and
2006,
EPA
incorporates
burden
for
the
projected
number
of
eligible
new
members
in
each
of
those
years
(
39
and
49,
respectively).
To
estimate
the
associated
burden
hours,
EPA
draws
from
ICR
No.
0820.07,
Hazardous
Waste
Generator
Standards.
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
icrs/
0820_
07.
html.

3
Amendments
to
a
facility's
contingency
plan
are
a
one­
time
event
for
each
facility;
EPA
includes
annual
burden
and
cost
estimates
proportional
to
the
number
of
new
members
likely
to
avail
themselves
of
the
RCRA
incentive
each
year
(
See
footnote
2
of
this
table
for
more
detail
on
eligibility
projections).
To
estimate
the
associated
burden
hours,
EPA
draws
from
ICR
No.
0820.07,
Hazardous
Waste
Generator
Standards.
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
icrs/
0820_
07.
html.

4
To
estimate
the
burden
hours
required
by
facilities
to
submit
the
200­
mile
certification,
EPA
reviewed
burden
estimates
for
other
certifications
 
such
major
repair
certifications
under
ICR
No.
0820.07,
Hazardous
Waste
Generator
Standards
 
and
adjusted
burden
downward
to
account
for
relatively
diminished
burden.
For
example,
the
major
repair
certification
requires
the
signature
of
a
qualified
independent
professional
engineer,
while
the
200­
mile
certification
may
be
conducted
by
qualified
internal
personnel.
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
icrs/
0820_
07.
html.
EPA
includes
annual
burden
and
cost
estimates
proportional
to
the
number
of
new
members
likely
to
require
the
certification
annually.
For
example,
in
2004,
EPA
incorporates
burden
for
the
8
projected
eligible
members
who
will
be
responsible
for
submitting
the
certification.
For
2005
and
2006,
EPA
incorporates
burden
for
the
projected
number
of
eligible
new
members
in
each
of
those
years
(
one
and
three,
respectively).

5
December
5,
2003
memorandum
from
Industrial
Economics,
Incorporated
(
IEc)
to
EPA's
Office
of
Policy,
Economics,
and
Innovation.
The
analysis
dis­
aggregates
each
LQG's
waste
streams
into
liquid
and
solid
waste
forms
to
calculate
potential
shipping
efficiencies.
Facility
eligibility,
in
this
case,
is
the
number
of
eligible
waste
streams.
Since
facilities
often
have
solid
and
liquid
waste
streams,
this
number
exceeds
the
number
of
eligible
LQGs.
Consistent
with
the
projected
growth
in
Performance
Track
membership,
EPA
assumes
a
25
percent
annual
growth
rate
for
eligible
waste
streams
(
ii)
State/
Local
Tally
­
Table
6.5
presents
a
summary
of
the
annual
burden
hours
and
labor
costs
associated
with
each
of
the
incentives
finalized
today
for
State/
local
agencies,
and
the
total
anticipated
burden
and
costs.
EPA
estimates
that
State
and
Local
agencies
will
incur
costs
of
$
250,356
over
the
period
covered
by
the
ICR.
21
Table
6.5
State/
Local
Agency
Burden,
2004­
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Mgr.

($
46.70/
Hour)
Tech.

($
49.44/
Hour)
Clerical
($
23.80/
Hour)
Resp.
Hours/

Year
Labor
Cost/
Year
#
Resp.
Total
Hours/
Yr
Total
Cost/
Year
State/
Local
Agency
Burden,
2004
MACT
Provisions
Implement
Rule:
Straight
Delegation1
4.3
85.5
8.6
98.3
$
4,630.25
33
3,244.7
$
152,798.33
Implement
Rule:
Rule
Adjustment1
3.6
72.5
7.3
83.4
$
3,926.24
1
83.4
$
3,926.24
Implement
Rule:
Rule
Substitution1
11.1
221.5
22.2
254.7
$
11,995.33
0
0.0
$
0.00
Review
Annual
Periodic
Reports
or
Review
Annual
Certifications
(
for
facilities
using
P2
technologies
or
techniques
to
meet
MACT)
2
0.0
­
6.0
0.0
­
6.0
­$
296.64
1166
­
696.0
­$
34,410.24
2004
MACT
Subtotal
19.0
373.5
38.0
430.4
$
20,255.18
n/
a
2,632.1
$
122,314.33
2004
MACT
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
3,328.1
$
156,724.57
RCRA
Provisions
Request
Amendment
of
Delegation
Authority3
11.4
120.6
5.1
137.1
$
6,617.17
347
4,662.9
$
224,983.63
Review
Notifications
of
Waste
Accumulation
in
Excess
of
90
Days4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
$
0.00
1478
0.0
$
0.00
Review
200­
Mile
Certification5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
$
4.94
88
0.8
$
39.55
2004
RCRA
Subtotal
11.4
120.7
5.1
137.2
$
6,622.11
n/
a
4,663.7
$
225,023.19
2004
Total
Burden
MACT
and
RCRA
30.4
494.2
43.1
567.7
$
26,877.29
n/
a
7,295.8
$
347,337.52
2004
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
7,991.8
$
381,747.76
State/
Local
Agency
Burden,
2005
MACT
Provisions
Review
Annual
Periodic
Reports
or
Review
Annual
Certifications
(
for
facilities
using
P2
technologies
or
techniques
to
meet
MACT)
0.0
­
6.0
0.0
­
6.0
­$
296.64
145
­
870.0
­$
43,012.80
2005
MACT
Subtotal
0.0
­
6.0
0.0
­
6.0
­$
296.64
n/
a
­
870.0
­$
43,012.80
22
Table
6.5
State/
Local
Agency
Burden,
2004­
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Mgr.

($
46.70/
Hour)
Tech.

($
49.44/
Hour)
Clerical
($
23.80/
Hour)
Resp.
Hours/

Year
Labor
Cost/
Year
#
Resp.
Total
Hours/
Yr
Total
Cost/
Year
2005
MACT
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
0
$
0
RCRA
Provisions
Review
Notifications
of
Waste
Accumulation
in
Excess
of
90
Days
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
$
0.00
37
0.0
$
0.00
Review
200­
Mile
Certification
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
$
4.94
1
0.1
$
4.94
2005
RCRA
Subtotal
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
$
4.94
n/
a
0.1
$
4.94
2005
Total
Burden
MACT
and
RCRA
0.0
­
5.9
0.0
­
5.9
­$
291.70
n/
a
­
869.9
­$
43,007.86
2005
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
.1
$
4.94
State/
Local
Agency
Burden,
2006
MACT
Provisions
Review
Annual
Periodic
Reports
or
Review
Annual
Certifications
(
for
facilities
using
P2
technologies
or
techniques
to
meet
MACT)
0.0
­
6.0
0.0
­
6.0
­$
296.64
182
­
1092.0
­$
53,988.48
2006
MACT
Subtotal
0.0
­
6.0
0.0
­
6.0
­$
296.64
n/
a
­
1092.0
­$
53,988.48
2006
MACT
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
0
$
0
RCRA
Provisions
Review
Notifications
of
Waste
Accumulation
in
Excess
of
90
Days
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
$
0.00
46
0.0
$
0.0
Review
200­
Mile
Certification
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
$
4.94
3
0.3
$
14.83
2006
RCRA
Subtotal
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
$
4.94
n/
a
0.3
$
14.83
2006
Total
Burden
MACT
and
RCRA
0.0
­
5.9
0.0
­
5.9
­$
291.70
n/
a
­
1091.7
­$
53,973.65
2006
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
.3
$
14.83
Total
2004­
2006
Burden
MACT
and
RCRA
30.4
482.4
43.1
555.9
$
26,293.90
n/
a
5334.2
$
250,356.01
Total
2004
­
2006
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
7992.2
$
381,767.53
23
Table
6.5
State/
Local
Agency
Burden,
2004­
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Mgr.

($
46.70/
Hour)
Tech.

($
49.44/
Hour)
Clerical
($
23.80/
Hour)
Resp.
Hours/

Year
Labor
Cost/
Year
#
Resp.
Total
Hours/
Yr
Total
Cost/
Year
Annualized
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
Burden
2664
127,255.84
(
iii)
Agency
Tally
­
Table
6.6
presents
a
summary
of
the
annual
burden
hours
and
labor
costs
associated
with
each
of
the
incentives
finalized
today
for
the
Agency,
and
the
total
anticipated
burden
and
costs.
EPA
estimates
that
the
Agency
will
incur
costs
of
$
258,815
over
the
period
covered
by
the
ICR.

Table
6.6
EPA
Burden,
2004­
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Mgr.

($
71.55/
Hour)
Tech.

($
43.28/
Hour)
Clerical
($
21.95/

Hour)
Resp.
Hours/

Year
Labor
Cost/
Year
#
Resp.
Total
Hours/

Year
Total
Cost/
Year
EPA
Burden,
2004
MACT
Provisions
Review
and
Approve
Straight
Delegation1
3.3
65.0
6.5
74.8
$
3,188.41
33
2466.8
$
105,217.61
Review
and
Approve
Rule
Adjustment1
3.0
60.0
6.0
69.0
$
2,943.15
1
69.0
$
2,943.15
Review
and
Approve
Rule
Substitution11
8.5
170.0
17.0
195.5
$
8,338.93
0
0.0
$
0.00
Review
Annual
Periodic
Reports
or
Review
Annual
Certifications
(
for
facilities
using
P2
technologies
or
techniques
to
meet
MACT)
2
0.0
­
6.0
0.0
­
6.0
­$
259.68
07
0.0
$
0.00
2004
MACT
Subtotal
14.8
289.0
29.5
333.3
$
14,210.81
n/
a
2535.8
$
108,160.76
RCRA
Provisions
Approve
Amendment
of
Delegation
Authority3
9.7
81.4
2.6
93.7
$
4,275.73
348
3186.3
$
145,374.77
24
Table
6.6
EPA
Burden,
2004­
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Mgr.

($
71.55/
Hour)
Tech.

($
43.28/
Hour)
Clerical
($
21.95/

Hour)
Resp.
Hours/

Year
Labor
Cost/
Year
#
Resp.
Total
Hours/

Year
Total
Cost/
Year
Review
Notifications
of
Waste
Accumulation
in
Excess
of
90
Days4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
$
0.00
99
0.0
$
0.00
Review
200­
Mile
Certification5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
$
4.33
09
0.0
$
0.00
Review
Contingency
Plan
Amendment6
0.0
0.5
0
0.5
$
21.64
156
78.0
$
3,375.84
2004
RCRA
Subtotal
9.7
82.0
2.6
94.3
$
4,301.70
n/
a
3264.3
$
148,750.61
2004
Total
Burden
24.5
371.0
32.1
427.6
$
18,512.50
n/
a
5800.0
$
256,911.37
EPA
Burden,
2005
MACT
Provisions
Review
Annual
Periodic
Reports
or
Review
Annual
Certifications
(
for
facilities
using
P2
technologies
or
techniques
to
meet
MACT)
0.0
­
6.0
0.0
­
6.0
­$
259.68
0
0.0
$
0.00
2005
MACT
Subtotal
0.0
­
6.0
0.0
­
6.0
­$
259.68
n/
a
0.0
$
0.00
RCRA
Provisions
Review
Notifications
of
Waste
Accumulation
in
Excess
of
90
Days
0.0
00
0.0
00
$
0.00
2
0.0
$
0.00
Review
200­
Mile
Certification
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
$
4.33
0
0.0
$
0.00
Review
Contingency
Plan
Amendment
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
$
21.64
39
19.5
$
843.96
2005
RCRA
Subtotal
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
$
25.97
n/
a
19.5
$
843.96
2005
Total
Burden
0.0
­
5.4
0.0
­
5.4
­
233.71
n/
a
19.5
$
843.96
EPA
Burden,
2006
MACT
Provisions
Review
Annual
Periodic
Reports
or
Review
Annual
Certifications
(
for
facilities
using
P2
technologies
or
techniques
to
meet
MACT)
0.0
­
6.0
0.0
­
6.0
­$
259.68
0
0.0
$
0.00
25
Table
6.6
EPA
Burden,
2004­
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Mgr.

($
71.55/
Hour)
Tech.

($
43.28/
Hour)
Clerical
($
21.95/

Hour)
Resp.
Hours/

Year
Labor
Cost/
Year
#
Resp.
Total
Hours/

Year
Total
Cost/
Year
2006
MACT
Subtotal
0.0
­
6.0
0.0
­
6.0
­$
259.68
n/
a
0.0
$
0.00
RCRA
Provisions
Review
Notifications
of
Waste
Accumulation
in
Excess
of
90
Days
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
$
0.00
3
0.00
$
0.00
Review
200­
Mile
Certification
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
$
4.33
0
0.0
$
0.00
Review
Contingency
Plan
Amendment
0.0
0.5
0
0.5
$
21.64
49
24.5
$
1,060.36
2006
RCRA
Subtotal
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
$
25.97
n/
a
24.5
$
1,060.36
2006
Total
Burden
0.0
­
5.4
0.0
­
5.4
­$
233.71
n/
a
24.5
$
1,060.36
Total
2004­
2006
Burden
24.5
360.2
32.1
416.8
$
18,045.08
n/
a
5844.0
$
258,815.69
26
Table
6.6
EPA
Burden,
2004­
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Mgr.

($
71.55/
Hour)
Tech.

($
43.28/
Hour)
Clerical
($
21.95/

Hour)
Resp.
Hours/

Year
Labor
Cost/
Year
#
Resp.
Total
Hours/

Year
Total
Cost/
Year
Notes:

1
Delegation
options
are
a
one­
time
event
and
therefore
are
only
included
in
the
ICR
burden
and
cost
during
the
first
year
of
the
ICR.
MACT
delegation
calculations
draw
upon
ICR
No.

1643.04,
Application
Requirements
for
the
Approval
and
Delegation
of
Federal
Air
Toxics
Programs
(
Table
3b),
which
estimates
the
delegation
options
chosen
by
states.
EPA
applies
the
proportions
for
straight
delegation,
rule
adjustment,
and
rule
substitution
to
derive
the
number
of
states
likely
to
choose
each
delegation
option.
Table
1
of
ICR
No.
1643.04
lists
technical
hours
required
for
each
delegation
option,
and
calculates
managerial
and
clerical
hours
at
5
and
10
percent
of
the
technical
hours,
respectively.
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
icrs/
1643_
04.
html.

2
EPA
references
ICR
No.
1871.02,
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants:
Generic
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology,
and
allocates
100
percent
of
the
reduction
in
hours
to
technical
labor.
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
icrs/
1871_
02.
html.

3
Delegation
options
are
a
one­
time
event
and
therefore
are
only
included
in
the
ICR
burden
and
cost
during
the
first
year
of
the
ICR.
EPA
relies
on
ICR
No.
0969.05,
Final
Authorization
for
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Programs,
to
determine
the
burden
hours
associated
with
revisions
to
RCRA
program
delegation.
There
have
been
an
average
of
seven
rules
per
year
included
in
the
State
Program
Advisories
sent
by
EPA
to
all
delegated
programs
over
the
past
seven
years.
This
ICR
assumes
that
the
Performance
Track
rulemaking
will
account
for
approximately
one­
seventh
of
the
total
burden
hours
estimated
in
ICR
No.
0969.05.
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
icrs/
0969_
05.
html.

4
EPA
estimates
that
the
review
of
Prior
Notifications
of
Intent
to
Accumulate
Waste
will
require
a
nominal
amount
of
time.
Prior
notifications
are
a
one­
time
event
for
each
facility,
and
EPA
includes
them
in
annual
burden
and
cost
estimates
proportional
to
the
number
of
new
members
likely
to
avail
themselves
of
the
RCRA
incentive
each
year.
Thus,
for
2004,
EPA
incorporates
burden
for
the
156
projected
eligible
members
who
will
be
responsible
for
submitting
the
notification.
For
2005
and
2006,
EPA
incorporates
burden
for
the
projected
number
of
eligible
new
members
in
each
of
those
years
(
39
and
49,
respectively).
To
estimate
the
associated
burden
hours,
EPA
draws
from
ICR
No.
0820.07,
Hazardous
Waste
Generator
Standards.

See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
icrs/
0820_
07.
html.

5
To
estimate
the
burden
hours
required
by
the
Agency
to
process
the
200­
mile
certification,
EPA
reviewed
burden
estimates
for
other
certifications
 
such
major
repair
certifications
under
ICR
No.
0820.07,
Hazardous
Waste
Generator
Standards
 
and
adjusted
burden
downward
to
account
for
relatively
diminished
burden.
For
example,
the
major
repair
certification
is
certified
by
a
professional
engineer,

and
poor
repair
design
may
result
in
direct
releases
to
the
environment.
The
200­
mile
certification
is
less
complex
and
will
require
less
review
time
on
the
part
of
the
Agency.
EPA
includes
annual
burden
and
cost
estimates
proportional
to
the
number
of
new
members
likely
to
require
the
certification
each
year.
For
example,
in
2004,
EPA
incorporates
burden
for
the
8
projected
eligible
members
who
will
be
responsible
for
submitting
the
certification.
For
2005
and
2006,
EPA
incorporates
burden
for
the
projected
number
of
eligible
new
members
in
each
of
those
years
(
one
and
three,
respectively).
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
icrs/
0820_
07.
html.

6
To
estimate
the
Agency
burden
required
to
process
amendments
to
facilities'
contingency
plans,
EPA
relies
on
ICR
No.
0820.07,
Hazardous
Waste
Generator
Standards.
This
ICR
attributes
all
burden
hours
to
EPA
(
and
none
to
states);
EPA
includes
annual
burden
and
cost
estimates
proportional
to
the
number
of
new
members
likely
to
require
amendments
in
each
of
those
years
(
See
footnote
4
of
this
table
for
more
detail
on
eligibility
projections).
See
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
icrs/
0820_
07.
html.

7
For
the
purposes
of
this
ICR,
EPA
assumes
that
states
are
the
permitting
authorities
for
MACT
delegation.
Therefore,
the
Agency
attributes
all
burden
and
cost
savings
to
states
for
reductions
in
the
frequency
of
reviewing
annual
periodic
reports
or
annual
certifications.

8
To
estimate
the
number
of
states
that
may
need
to
request
an
amendment
to
their
delegation
authority,
EPA
uses
the
number
of
RCRA­
authorized
states
with
one
or
more
Performance
Track
facilities
currently
eligible
for
this
incentive.

9
For
reviews
of
facility
notifications
of
waste
accumulation
in
excess
of
90
days,
as
well
as
reviews
of
200­
mile
certifications,
EPA
attributes
cost
and
burden
proportional
to
the
number
of
RCRA­
authorized
states
approved
to
review
such
notifications
for
their
Performance
Track
facilities.
See
footnote
8
of
table
6.5
for
more
detail.
27
(
iv)
Variations
in
the
Annual
Bottom
Line
­
EPA
anticipates
significant
variation
(
greater
than
25
percent)
in
the
annual
respondent
reporting
burden
over
the
course
of
the
requested
ICR
period.
Facilities,
State/
Local
Agencies,
and
the
Agency
itself
must
incur
several
first­
year
costs
(
e.
g.,
as
related
to
MACT
delegation)
to
lay
the
groundwork
for
the
cost
and
burden
savings
realized
in
ICR
years
two
and
three.

6(
g)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
­
The
incentives
included
in
today's
final
rulemaking
were
not
developed
at
the
time
the
initial
ICR
for
the
Performance
Track
program
was
submitted
to
OMB.

6(
h)
Burden
Statement:
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
3,778
hours
per
year
at
an
average
of
277
facilities
per
year.
The
average
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
is
13.6
hours
per
facility.
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.
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
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

EPA
projects
that
this
rulemaking
will
yield
an
aggregate
savings
of
$
197,674
across
industry,
State
and
Local
agencies,
and
EPA
over
the
three­
year
period
covered
by
this
ICR.
The
cost
and
burden
hour
savings
of
the
MACT
incentives
are
diminished
in
part
by
the
RCRArelated
cost
and
burden
increases
to
State/
Local
agencies
and
EPA.
Performance
Track
members,
however,
receive
net
benefits
for
each
incentive,
and
overall
rulemaking
benefits
of
$
706,846
over
the
ICR
period.
Table
6.7
below
displays
aggregate
burden
calculations
for
2004­
2006.

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
No.
OA­
2004­
0001
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Office
of
Administrator
Docket
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Office
of
Environmental
Information
Docket
(
Where
Office
of
Administrator
documents
are
held)
is
(
202)
566­
1752.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
28
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
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.
Once
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,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
OA­
2004­
0001
and
OMB
control
number
2010­
0032
in
any
correspondence.

Table
6.7
Aggregate
Burden,
2004­
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
Resp.
Hours
Labor
Cost
Total
Hours
Total
Cost
MACT
Provisions
Industry
­
9.0
­
48.0
­
19.5
­
76.5
­$
4,281.66
­
11,296.5
­$
632,258.46
States
19.0
361.5
38.0
418.4
$
19,661.90
670.1
$
25,313.05
Agency
14.8
277.0
29.5
321.3
$
13,691.45
2535.8
$
108,160.76
MACT
Subtotal
24.7
590.5
48.0
663.2
$
29,071.69
­
8090.7
­$
498,784.65
RCRA
Provisions
Industry
0.6
14.7
11.4
26.7
­$
229.25
3341.8
­$
74,587.96
States
11.4
120.9
5.1
137.4
$
6,632.00
4664.1
$
225,042.96
Agency
9.7
83.2
2.6
95.5
$
4,353.63
3308.3
$
150,654.93
RCRA
Subtotal
21.7
218.8
19.1
259.7
$
11,214.88
11,314.1
$
301,109.93
Full
Rulemaking
(
MACT
and
RCRA)
Industry
­
8.4
­
33.3
­
8.1
­
49.8
­$
4,052.41
­
7954.7
­$
706,846.42
States
30.4
482.4
43.1
555.9
$
26,293.90
5334.2
$
250,356.01
Agency
24.5
360.2
32.1
416.8
$
18,045.08
5844.0
$
258,815.69
Total
Burden
46.5
809.3
62.1
922.8
$
40,286.57
3223.5
­$
197,674.72
29
Table
6.8
Summary
OMB
83­
I
Reportable
(
Only
Positive)
Aggregate
Burden,
2004­
2006
Information
Collection
Activity
Total
Hours
Total
Cost
2004
Respondents
MACT
0
$
0
RCRA
1,373.6
$
68,574.16
States
MACT
3,328.1
$
156,724.57
RCRA
4,663.7
$
225,023.18
2005
Respondents
MACT
0
$
0
RCRA
873.7
$
44,393.35
States
MACT
0
$
0
RCRA
0.1
$
4.94
2006
Respondents
MACT
0
$
0
RCRA
1,094.5
$
55,612.34
States
MACT
0
$
0
RCRA
0.3
$
14.83
Respondent
Burden
2004­
2006
Subtotal
3,341.8
$
168,579.85
State
Burden
2004­
2006
Subtotal
7,992.2
$
381,767.52
MACT
2004­
2006
Subtotal
3,328.1
$
156,724.57
RCRA
2004­
2006
Subtotal
8,005.9
$
393,622.8
Total
Reportable
Burden
2004­
2006
11,334
$
550,347.37
Total
Annualized
Burden
2004­
2006
3,778
$
183,449.12
