Information Collection Request for Requirements for Control Technology
Determinations from Major Sources in Accordance with Clean Air Act
Sections, Sections 112(g) and 112(j).

Supporting Statement

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

			

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

	(a)	Title and Number of the Information Collection

		

ICR:	Control Technology for Equivalent Emissions Limitations by Permit
under Section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act.

OMB Control Number: 2060-0266, EPA ICR # 1648.06.

	(b)	Short Characterization

	Section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAAA) requires
that if EPA fails to promulgate a standard for a category or subcategory
of major sources within 18 months after its scheduled date of
promulgation, then sources must submit a title V permit application 
beginning on that date.  States (with approved Title V operating permit
programs) or EPA will issue permits containing MACT emission limitations
determined on a case-by-case basis to be equivalent to what would have
been promulgated by EPA pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 112(d).  EPA
has promulgated regulations implementing Section 112(j).    

	This ICR supports the regulations to implement Section 112(j) (40 CFR
part 63, subpart B, §§63.50-56).  It addresses the information
collection burden (hours and costs) to industry respondents subject to
these provisions; State and Local agencies that review applications
submitted under these provisions; and the EPA oversight review of a
percentage of State/Local decisions. As discussed further below, it may
be that only activities related to the regulatory requirement to submit
Part 1 and Part 2 permit applications are activities for which an
estimate of burden need be calculated.  However, we have estimated the
burden associated with certain permitting activities that follow
submission of Part 1 and Part 2 permit applications for informational
purposes and to provide a conservative estimate of the overall burden. 
Whenever burdens and costs are presented in this Supporting Statement,
we have provided both an estimate that includes only the burden
associated with the submission of Part 1 and Part 2 permit applications
(“application burden”) and an estimate that includes the application
burden and burden associated with certain subsequent permitting
activities (“overall burden”).

	This ICR includes about 2,573 major sources (see Table 1) contained in
4 source categories for which MACT standards have been vacated by the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  We
estimate up to about 2,573 existing and new sources may have to
participate in the development of case-by-case MACT permit applications.
The average administrative cost per source of these activities is
estimated to be $7,322.27 ($3,130.31 application burden only) per
source.  Total estimated administrative costs may be up to $29,986,998
($9,779,849 application burden only) for all sources in all 4 source
categories over the next three years. 

 

	Further, the burden estimate is conservative, because we assume 2,360
boilers are subject to Section 112 and therefore covered by this ICR,
based on the number of initial notifications received following
promulgation of the boiler MACT.  However, this assumption likely
represents an overestimate of the number of such sources.  EPA's major
source boiler MACT was vacated by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, along
with a separate rule defining a “commercial or industrial solid waste
incineration unit” for purposes of Section 129 of the Act (the
definitional rule).  NRDC V. EPA, 489 F.3d. 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).  In
the definitional rule case, the court held that Section 129’s
directive to regulate “any facility which combusts any solid waste
material from commercial or industrial establishments” does not permit
the exclusion of facilities that combust solid waste, but recover
thermal energy for a useful purpose  The court then concluded that the
flaws in EPA’s definitional rule would necessitate revision of the
major source boiler MACT rule as well, because the scope of facilities
subject to the MACT would change.  Therefore the court also vacated the
boiler MACT.  Once EPA revises both the definitional rule and the boiler
MACT, it is likely that the number of sources subject to the boiler MACT
will be smaller than those that would have been subject to the MACT the
court vacated.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

	Section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 contains the
need and authority for this information collection. [42 U.S.C. 7401 (et.
seq.)  as amended by Public Law 101-549]

	Several commenters disputed any need for the information collection
asserting that 112(j) does not apply in the case of vacaturs.  They
argue that in the case of the vacaturs, EPA did not fail to promulgate
applicable standards and a vacatur does not erase a prior promulgation
from history.  They opined that a promulgation in good faith, even if
later to be judged by a court to be not valid should not invoke 112(j)
retroactively.

	We disagree with the commenters.  In light of the complete vacatur of
the rules noted above, the “hammer” requirements of Section 112(j)
apply.  We have previously taken this position in pleadings filed in the
D.C.Circuit. (See, e.g., “Reply in Support of Motion for Voluntary
Vacatur and Remand” and Opposition to Petitioners’ Cross-Motion to
Establish Deadline to Govern Remand in Natural Resources Defense
Council, et. al. v EPA (No. 04-1385 and consolidated cases) and
“EPA’s Petition for Panel Rehearing” in Mossville Environmental
Action Now and Sierra Club v. EPA, (No. 02-1282), attachment A and B,
respectively).  See also Environment Defense v Leavitt,  329 F. Supp 2d
55, 63-64 (D.D.C. 2004) (Court held that when the Court of Appeals
vacated EPA’s rule, the vacatur restored the status quo before the
invalid rule took effect, the status quo presented a situation wherein
EPA had failed to promulgate regulations in accordance with the deadline
set out in the CAA.)  Section 112(j) provides generally that major
sources in a category or subcategory for which standards are not
promulgated must submit permit applications by given dates, and that
federal or state permit writers must then determine on a case-by-case
basis an emission limitation equivalent to the limitation that would
apply if an emission standard had been issued in a timely manner under
Section 112(d) or (h) of the Act.  See CAA 112(j)(5), 40 CFR 63.55(a).  

     

	Several commenters questioned the need for an ICR on other grounds. 
One commenter noted that the CAA itself requires permit applications and
that the Paperwork Reduction Act should not be a vehicle to impede
submission of permit applications for case-by-case MACT.  The commenter
further theorized that because the CAA assigns the permitting obligation
directly to the States, the collection of information is not being
performed on EPA’s behalf and thus the ICR approval is unnecessary. 
They added that OMB did not have discretion to deny approval of the
request because it would interfere with the substantive requirements of
a statute.  Finally, they urged that OMB approve the previous submittal
by EPA for an emergency ICR approval until this one could be approved.

	We agree that the CAA requires permit applications and that the lack of
an approved ICR for EPA’s 112(j) regulations does not affect the
statutory requirement.   We also agree that in most cases the regulatory
process for obtaining a 112(j) limit is implemented by the states. 
However, under the PRA and the regulations implementing the PRA, these
circumstances do not alter EPA’s obligation to have an approved
Information Collection Request (ICR) in place for the information
collection requirements contained in the Section 112(j) regulations. The
ICR supporting implementation of these regulations expired in 2005 and
was renewed only with respect to Section 112(g).  We are working to
expedite the renewal of the ICR for the 112(j) regulations and we hope
that this will be accomplished with a minimum of unnecessary delay.  We
note that OMB’s regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(3) state “[a]
collection of information conducted or sponsored by a Federal agency
that is also conducted or sponsored by a unit of State, local, or tribal
government is presumed to impose a Federal burden except to the extent
that the agency shows that such State, local, or tribal requirement
would be imposed even in the absence of a Federal requirement.”

  

	Another commenter disputed the need for the collection of information
and surmised that reactivating 112(j) would be a waste of time, as EPA
will likely re-establish the boiler MACT before case-by-case MACT would
be implemented.  According to the commenter, the cost of implementing
112(j) would greatly outweigh any benefits.  The commenter also asserts
that EPA has not shown “whether the burden of the collection of
information is justified by its practical utility,” and that EPA
should first perform a reasonably thorough analysis of whether and to
what extent implementation of the 112(j) regulations would be beneficial
in view of the near-term issuance of a national MACT standard for the
appropriate set of boilers.

	We believe that obtaining ICR approval for the Section 112(j)
regulations is important to ensure that an orderly process is in place
for implementing the requirements of Section 112(j).  Without the
ability to rely on the information collection requirements in the
regulations, there is likely to be confusion and inconsistency with
respect to implementation of the statute.    Implementation of 112(j) is
not a discretionary matter that we or the States have the ability to
dismiss as “not worth the effort” as the commenter suggests.  

	Finally, a couple of commenters stated that Section 112(j) of the CAA
is not self-implementing and that we should amend the Section 112(j)
rule to include the vacatur scenario before acting on the ICR. 
Commenters argue that the regulations establish rules only for
“original failures to promulgate” and did not invest into those
regulations any intent or guidance as to vacaturs.  They asserted that
guidance alone should not be used, and any guidance itself should also
go through notice and comment.  

We do not agree that these comments are relevant to the issue of the
need for the collection of information, but note that we do not agree
with the commenters’ position.  The provisions of the current 112(j)
regulations adequately address the circumstances surrounding vacatur. 
The current rule contains provisions addressing timeframes other than
“original failures to promulgate.”  (See, e.g., 63.52(a)(2) (,
63.52(e) (establishing deadlines for Part 2 applications when Part 1
applications becomes due after the “failure to promulgate” dates
established in Table 1 of the regulations).  We also note that it is
appropriate for an Agency to issue guidance when questions arise
concerning a rule’s applicability under particular circumstances. 
Notice and comment may be required under certain circumstances, but not
where, as here, an Agency is for the first time providing guidance as to
how a broadly worded rule applies under a particular set of facts that
may not have been specifically contemplated in promulgating the rules.  
    

	(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	The information collected in the permit applications will be used for
the purposes of permit approval, compliance determination, and the
selection of particular control technology on a case-by-case basis.  The
Federal or State administrator of the operating permits program will use
the information for the case-by-case emission limit determinations. 
Because the information gathered is necessarily source-specific, the
case-by-case determinations cannot be made without it.

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION 		CRITERIA

	3(a)	Nonduplication

	The information collection activities required under the Section 112(j)
regulations are not routinely collected elsewhere by EPA.  However, in
this situation, the permitting authority may likely have collected much,
if not all, of the information items previously in support of other
applications in the course of implementing or preparing to implement the
MACT standards that have been vacated.  Most permitting authorities,
though, will likely accept references to previously submitted
information in lieu of significant duplication, in accordance with
§63.53(b)(1). 

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

	

	A 60-day public review and comment period of the ICR renewal occurred
after publication in the Federal Register on November 2, 2007.

	3(c)	Consultations

	

	Six commenters provided letters with detailed comments during the
public comment period.  One commenter noted that we had not consulted
with potential respondents prior to proposal of this ICR.  The commenter
also suggested that the ICR was incomplete to the point that it did not
provide adequate opportunity for comment on the full range of the
request and should be completely redone and reproposed.

	  While consultations were not conducted specifically on this ICR, we
did discuss with several stakeholders, including potential respondents,
on several occasions the implications of the vacaturs with respect to
112(j).  During these discussions, many of the issues raised in comments
on this ICR were discussed at great length.  Potential respondents have
also provided comments on this ICR and in some cases, we have made
adjustments to the ICR estimates based on those comments.   We disagree
that the ICR should be rewritten and reproposed.  Some of the
information the commenter requests, such as the true universe of
sources, has not yet been settled; we disagree that this is a fatal flaw
as we have included the most sources that would be subject, meaning that
we have overestimated the potential impact.  

	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Each applicant would submit the required information only once (a
permit application) over the term of this ICR.  There is no less
frequent collection.

	3(e)	General Guidelines

	The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the Section
112(j) regulations do not violate any of the Paperwork Reduction Act
guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.6.

	3(f)	Confidentiality

	Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI)  (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

	

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

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

	4(a)	Respondents/SIC Codes

	Respondents include owners/operators of major sources of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) in the following source categories: polyvinyl chloride
and copolymers production, brick and structural clay products
manufacturing, clay ceramics manufacturing, and industrial, commercial,
and institutional boilers and process heaters (Table 1).  A major source
is one that has the potential to emit considering controls, in the
aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per year or
more of any combination of HAP.  The boilers source category cuts across
a wide variety of industries, including both manufacturing and
nonmanufacturing sources.

	One commenter suggested that we include all source categories for which
we project that the court will issue a complete vacatur.

	We believe this to be unnecessary.

  

	4(b)	Information Requested

	(i)	Data items, including recordkeeping requirements

	Implementation of the Section 112(j) program involves information
submitted with the Part 1 and Part 2 applications for a Section 112(j)
determination.  Although we included the burden of developing permit
terms and conditions in our proposed Supporting Statement, we now
believe that such activities may not be information collection that is
subject to the requirements of the PRA for the following reasons. 
First, to be a collection of information under the PRA, ten or more
persons (respondents) need to be asked to report, provide, disclose, or
record information in response to “identical questions.”  In this
case the “identical questions” consist of the information required
in the Part 1 and Part 2 permit applications.  Any
informationsubsequently collected would be on a case by case basis
between unique sources and the permitting authority and thus would not
appear to be subject to the requirements of the PRA.  Second, according
to OMB regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(h)(9)), “[f]acts or opinions obtained
or solicited through nonstandardized follow-up questions designed to
clarify responses to approved collections of information” are not
generally considered “information” under ICRs.

However, we do acknowledge that there is burden associated with
development of permit terms and conditions related to Section 112(j) and
thus, as noted above, for informational purposes and to ensure that we
provide conservative estimates of burden, we will provide estimates
burden associated with certain activities that occur after the
submission or Part 1 and Part 2 permit applications. 

Section 112(j) regulations do not contain recordkeeping requirements.

	The Section 112(j) regulations require a 2-part permit application.
State and local agencies that develop the permit will review the
information provided in the Part 1 and Part 2 permit applications. EPA
will provide oversight to the process.

	Part 1 of the application requires the following basic information
about the source:

(1) The name and address (physical location) of the major source.

(2) A brief description of the major source and an identification of the
relevant source category.

(3) An identification of the types of emission points belonging to the
relevant source category.

(4) An identification of any affected sources for which a Section 112(g)
MACT determination has been made.

This ICR provides an estimate for all sources to submit a Part 1
application.  However, most sources should have already submitted a Part
1 application under the previous ICR approval.  Because we do not know
how many Part 1 applications will be resubmitted (a source can work with
its permitting authority to determine whether or not it needs to
resubmit its Part 1 applications), we have assumed that all will,
resulting in an overestimate of the burden.

	Part 2 of the application requires the following information from the
source:

(1) For a new affected source, the anticipated date of startup of
operation.

(2) Each emission point or group of emission points at the affected
source which is part of a category or subcategory for which a Part 2
MACT application is required, and each of the hazardous air pollutants
emitted at those emission points. When the Administrator has proposed a
standard pursuant to Section 112(d) or 112(h) of the Act for a category
or subcategory, such information may be limited to those emission points
and hazardous air pollutants which would be subject to control under the
proposed standard.

(3) Any existing Federal, State, or local limitations or requirements
governing emissions of hazardous air pollutants from those emission
points which are part of a category or subcategory for which a Part 2
application is required.

(4) For each identified emission point or group of affected emission
points, an identification of control technology in place.

For many sources the permitting authority already has much of this
information, gathered through previous title V permit submittals.  A
source may work with its permitting authority to determine what
additional or revised information is necessary for a complete Part 2
application submittal.

(ii)	Respondent Activities

	

Activities (see Table 2) that the owner or operator must perform are:

- Develop and submit Part 1 and Part 2 applications 

- Submit applicability determination requests, as applicable

- File and maintain the permit applications and applicability
determination requests

- Utilize legal and consulting resources, as desired

	In addition, although we do not consider these to necessarily be
activities that are within the scope of the PRA, the owner or operator
will:

- Work with the permitting authority to develop the permit

- Participate in the public hearing

- File and maintain the final permit

Several commenters indicated that the burden estimates are low because
we did not include burden for several activities and items they thought
should be included, such as costs of compliance with case-by-case MACT
provisions that are different from the vacated MACTs, review by
consultants, applicability determination requests, legal expenses,
responding to public comments, stack testing, development of HAP
emissions data, development of recommended MACT, and gathering
additional information when requested.

	This ICR addresses required information and activities to meet the
information collection provisions of the Section 112(j) rule.  Several
of the activities listed by the commenters are not information
collection requirements that are imposed by the 112(j) regulations, such
as development of recommended MACT, stack testing to develop information
for the Part 2 permit application, and other activities associated with
permit development.  However, we do agree with commenters that legal
review, consultant costs, and applicability determination requests can
be associated with preparation of the Part 1 and Part 2 permit
applications; although there is no basis for how many sources will avail
themselves of these activities, we have assumed that 50 percent will,
for burden estimate purposes.  We have no information with respect to
whether any particular State that would require additional data
associated with the Part 2 application.  Moreover, any such data
requested is not required by the 112(j) rule and is not within the scope
of the information collection that is the subject of this ICR. 
Compliance costs associated with meeting case-by-case MACT are not
appropriate activities to include in information collection activities. 
We mistakenly implied that such costs were included in the prior draft
Supporting Statement.  We did not attribute burden to compliance costs
associated with meeting case-by-case MACT, but stated that it was
because they would have applied after the time horizon of this ICR or
would be pre-empted when the vacated MACTs were re-promulgated.  While
some ICRs may include capital and operational costs to install and
operate systems to collect and submit information, this one does not, as
it only deals with preparation and submittal of permit applications. 
Most of the information required by the permit applications is readily
available to sources and in many cases has already been submitted to the
permitting authorities in previous permit applications and amendments in
preparation for meeting the vacated standards.

	Another commenter took the position that our estimates were far too
high and included activities that should not be considered burden under
the PRA and this ICR, such as those considered as consequences that
might flow from the application submittal, for example, responding to
facility-specific questions, negotiating the permit, and participating
in the public hearing.

	 As noted above, we believe that the commenter may be correct and thus
are providing burden estimates that do not include burden associated
with such activities.  However, we are still providing an estimate for
such activities for informational purposes and to provide a conservative
estimate.

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

	5(a)	Agency Activities

	This section addresses the activities of State and Local agencies, as
the permitting authority, and EPA, in an oversight capacity.  The
permitting authority, typically the State or Local air agency, will
perform the following activities (see Table 3.):

- Review Part 1 and Part 2 applications and deny or approve them

- File and maintain permit applications

- Interact with EPA as appropriate

	In addition, although we do not consider these to be within the scope
of the PRA, the permitting authority will:

- Develop the emission limitations for the source

- Prepare the draft permit

- Conduct a public hearing

- Review and analyze the public comments

- Issue the permit

- File and maintain the permit

Acting in an oversight capacity, EPA will perform the following
activities (see Table 4):

- Review Part 1 and Part 2 applications

- Interact with the permitting authority

	In addition, although we do not consider these to be within the scope
of the PRA, EPA will:

- Review draft permits

- File and maintain the permit

	5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

	The owners or operators of the sources affected by these regulations
will have the responsibility of submitting Part 1 and Part 2
applications to the permitting authority.  It is the responsibility of
the permitting authority to provide information necessary for EPA
oversight review.

	Qualified staff who work for the permitting authority will perform the
permit application reviews and check the quality of data submitted by
the applicant on a case-by-case basis.  The permitting authority’s
employees will handle confidential information submitted by the
applicant according to the permitting authority’s confidential
information handling procedures.

	The Section 112(j) regulations do not require the request of
information through any type of survey.

	5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

	Minimizing the information collection burden for all sizes of
organizations is a continuing effort on EPA’s part.  EPA has reduced
the information required by requiring only basic information needed by
the permitting authority to make a case-by-case MACT determination.

	One commenter suggested that we have not minimized the paperwork burden
and did not consider burden reduction options.  They suggested that we
revise the boiler category to exclude solid waste incineration units,
not send notifications to sources, and provide guidance on how to set
case-by-case MACT limits.

	We disagree that we have not tried to minimize the burden.  We are
ready to provide assistance to any permitting authority that needs help
in setting case-by-case MACT. It is important to note that the court’s
decision in NRDC v. EPA did not address the legality of the Section
112(d)(4) standards that EPA established for certain boiler
subcategories in the boilers rule.  States can consider these vacated
standards in establishing “hazardous air pollutant emissions
limitations equivalent to the limitations that would apply if an
emission standard had been issued in a timely manner under Section
112(d) or (h) of the Act,”  40 C.F.R. 63.55(a).   If States consider
these vacated standards in developing Section 112(j) emission
limitations, they should consider the recent court decisions to the
extent those decisions addressed the legality of the standards at issue
in those rules. One commenter, the National Association of Clean Air
Agencies, has stated it is preparing a model case-by-case MACT that may
assist States in developing permits. 

	

	5(d)	Collection Schedule

	This ICR does not require surveys.  Each source affected by the Section
112(j) regulations is required to submit a permit application which the
permitting authority must then review.

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.  In the Section
112(j) permitting process for major sources, each respondent must submit
the permit application in two parts as specified in Section 4(b)(i) of
this Supporting Statement.  Much of the information required in the Part
2 application will have already been submitted to the permitting
authority in previous permit submittals; we expect the burden to be
relatively low for this activity.

	For the Section 112(j) regulations, burden for the respondents is
administrative costs (preparing and submitting the permit applications).


	Several commenters took issue with our estimates of burden for
different activities.  One commenter used their members and consultants
to develop a better estimate for preparing permit applications; this
commenter recommended using 4 hours as the burden for preparing both
permit applications.  Other commenters came to the opposite conclusion
and believed that sources will spend significantly more hours than
estimated in the proposed ICR, citing that sources will not reference
previously submitted information, that States will require additional
information and not rely on previously submitted information, and permit
negotiations will be much more burdensome than EPA estimates.

	We appreciate the commenters’ input.  Because of the nature of
case-by-case determinations, it is difficult to come up with a
one-size-fits-all estimate.  Some sources will incur burden far less
than we have estimated and others perhaps far more.  The commenters have
offered speculative burdens.  We believe that the burden will be far
more than 4 hours for the activities involved in preparing and
submitting both applications.  We estimate the burden associated with
the preparation and submittal of both applications to be over 90 hours
(see Table 2), (or about 40 hours, excluding activities we do not
believe are within the scope of the PRA).  However, we have assumed
burdens for the sake of this estimate that we believe to be reasonable
for the activities and information involved.  None of the commenters has
convinced us that the burden estimates are unreasonable and should be
revised.

	6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

	(i) 	Labor costs

	

	A couple of commenters questioned the rates used and suggested that
they should be higher.  Although we believe those rates we selected and
documented for the proposed ICR were reasonably acceptable and
representative of full time employment across broad sectors that use
boilers (institutional, manufacturing, academic settings), we have
decided to use rates consistent with those selected for the boiler ICR
proposed on December 7, 2007 (72 FR 69213), which are more
representative of the manufacturing sectors.

	Wage rates were based on May 2006 raw labor rates for the Manufacturing
Sector (NAICS 31 thru 34), loaded using an overhead factor of 110%, and
indexed to June 2007 using the Employment Cost Index.  The resulting
rates are $115.12 for management personnel, $77.77 for technical
personnel, and $30.58 for clerical personnel. These values were taken
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics
Survey Web site and reflect the latest values available (May 2006).  The
Employment Cost Index is located at:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.t02.htm.  Table 2 provides a
breakdown of labor hours and associated costs per occurrence for each
activity in each part of the application process for existing and new
sources.

	(ii) 	Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs

	We do not expect sources to expend additional capital and O&M costs to
gather information required by the Parts 1 and 2 permit applications.  

	6(c)	Estimating State/Local Agency Burden and Cost

	Similar to Sections 6(a) and 6(b), the activities for State/Local
agencies are divided into the activities that would take place for both
parts of the application process as described in Section 4(b)(i) of this
Supporting Statement.  Wage rates for State/Local employees were
retrieved from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (  HYPERLINK
(http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09202007.pdf
http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09202007.pdf , Table 4.
Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a
percent of total compensation:  State and local government workers, by
occupational group and full-time and part-time status, June 2007) and
are as follows: $33.11 per hour for management labor, $33.22 per hour
for technical labor, and $16.39 per hour for clerical labor.  We added
in the value of total benefits in BLS Table 4.  We chose 20 percent of
the base rate as the percentage of salary that constitutes overhead. 
The addition of benefits and overhead to the hourly rate produces a pay
rate that reflects the true cost to employ a State, Local, or Tribal
agency worker.  Following is a summary of the computed hourly wages for
State, Local, and Tribal agency employees.  

 Hourly Labor Rates for State, Local and Tribal Respondents

Labor Type	Hourly Rate	Benefits

	Overhead

(20 % Salary)	Adjusted Hourly Rate

Management	$33.11	$14.18	$6.62	$53.91

Technical	$33.22	$13.79	$6.64	$53.65

Clerical	$16.39	$10.21	$3.28	$29.88



	Table 3 provides a breakdown of labor hours and associated costs for
State/Local/Tribal agencies for existing sources and new sources,
respectively. 

	6(d)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	Under the Section 112(j) regulations, EPA would serve in an oversight
capacity and audit approximately 10 percent of all applications
processed by State/Local agencies.  As recommended in the ICR Handbook,
wage rates for EPA employees are based upon the Federal government pay
scale.  We calculated the hourly rates for EPA employees using
information on annual salaries from the Internet site for the Office of
Personnel Management.  (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/pdf/RUS.pdf" 
http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/pdf/RUS.pdf ; January 2008).  We used
the appropriate pay grade levels for management, technical, and clerical
personnel.  We divided the annual pay rate by 2080, the amount of
working hours during a calendar year, to get the hourly wage rate.  We
then multiplied this rate by 1.6 to produce a pay rate that reflects the
true cost to the Federal government to employ a worker.  The value of
1.6 incorporates the addition of benefits at 40 % of salary and the
addition of overhead at 20% of salary to the hourly rate.  Following is
a summary of the computed wages for EPA personnel.

 Hourly Labor Rates for EPA

Labor Type	Pay Grade	Annual Salary	Hourly Rate	Benefits

(40 % Salary)	Overhead

(20 % Salary)	Adjusted Hourly Rate

Management	GS-15	$107,962	$51.90	$20.76	$10.38	$83.04

Technical	GS-12	$65,315	$31.40	$12.56	$6.28	$50.24

Clerical	GS-6	$33,135	$15.93	$6.37	$3.19	$25.49



	Table 4 provides a breakdown in the amount of hours associated with
each activity and the total burden hours and cost per occurrence for
existing and new sources, respectively.

	6(e) The Respondent Universe

	In order to estimate the number of sources subject to the Section
112(j) regulations in the proposed ICR, EPA reviewed information in the
originally promulgated MACT standards for the 4 source categories and
allowed for a small amount of growth in the industries to the present
time, unless subsequently otherwise provided or updated.  We used the
estimate provided by the Vinyl Institute for the number of polyvinyl
chloride production facilities.  For the boiler source category, two
commenters noted the estimate was far too high; one commenter believed
it was too low.  

After the vacatur of the boiler NESHAP, the Agency began collecting data
from EPA regional offices and delegated state authorities to revise its
estimate of boilers and process heaters that may be impacted under a
revised standard.  Since the last boiler and process heater data
gathering effort, many sources have shut down, others have selected to
operate with a limit on their HAP emissions in order to avoid being
subject to the boiler and process heater NESHAP, and some units have
switched out older solid fuel units for newer equipment due to increased
insurance and maintenance costs.  Therefore, the Agency will base its
boiler respondent pool on a revised list of initial notifications, Title
V permits, and state applicability lists.  Since the proposal of this
ICR, data from Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin has been compiled
and reviewed, and the Agency estimates that 2,360 existing boiler
facilities will be subject to this ICR. However, for the boilers source
category, this estimate is still likely high because in the court
decision vacating the boilers rule, the court indicated that EPA had
inappropriately included certain facilities in the category.  At this
time, though, without additional information, we are unable to determine
a more appropriate estimate.  The estimated number of potentially
affected sources is shown in Table 1.

	6(f)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

	Over the three-year period of this ICR, the estimated average annual
burden and cost associated with the Section 112(j) regulations are
151,730 (45,576 application burden only) hours and $9,995,666
($3,259,950 application burden only)  respectively.  Tables 5 and 5a
contain the total estimated burden and cost breakdown associated with
the Section 112(j) regulations.  Tables 6 and 6a provide a summary of
the estimated bottom line burden hours and costs associated with the
Section 112(j) regulations.

	6(g)	Reasons for Change in Burden					

	The ICR 1648.04 spanned the period in which the Section 112(j) rule
would have applied to any of the 59 source categories covered by the
2000 MACT standards (the 10-year bin).  This ICR would affect only the 4
source categories covered by the MACT standards that have been vacated
by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (see Table 1).  Unlike ICR No. 1648.04, which estimated the
burden from the Part 1 application only (because all the MACT standards
were promulgated before Part 2 applied), this ICR estimates burden for
preparing and submitting both the Parts 1 and 2 permit applications, as
well as for the activities that we believe are not within the scope of
the ICR such as developing the case-by-case title V permit terms and
conditions, and the permit review and approval process.

	This ICR also estimates the number of responses on a facility basis
instead of an individual boiler basis as the previous ICR did, because
each facility will submit one application for the facility, not each
boiler.  We have additionally updated the estimated number of
respondents in the source categories that will be subject to this ICR.

	Finally, EPA has updated the labor rates for respondents, State, Local,
and Tribal agencies, and the EPA as discussed in Sections 6(b), (c), and
(d) of this ICR.  These adjustments were made to more accurately reflect
the true cost of an hour of labor for the respondents, State, Local, and
Tribal agencies, and the EPA   The unloaded hourly rates are different
because they are based on the latest available rates from the BLS and
the OPM.  Table 7 provides a summary of the differences between burden
hours and costs associated with each occurrence for the previous and
current ICR.

	Thus, the difference in the burden estimate is due to the adjustments
discussed above, including number of respondents, submittal of permit
applications, development of the case-by-case permit (non-PRA), and
updated labor rates.

	6(h) 	Burden Statement

	 This estimate includes all activities associated with the respondents
or government agencies.  Overall, the Section 112(j) program will have
the following average annual burden: 79,420 (34,392 application burden
only) hours and $6,280,067 ($2,684,763 application burden  only) for
respondents; 71,444 (10,978 application burden only) hours and
$3,667,100 ($563,170 application burden only) for State/Local/Tribal
agencies; and 866 (206 application burden only) hours and $48,499
(12,018 application burden only) for the EPA.  Tables 5 and 5a present
the annual burden for respondents, State/Local agencies, and the EPA
over the next 3 years.

	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 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.

	Send comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated
collection techniques to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, and to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental
Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.  Include the EPA ICR
number 1648.06 and OMB control number 2060-0266 in any correspondence.



Part B of the Supporting Statement

	This section is not applicable because statistical methods are not used
in the data collection associated with the Section 112(j) regulations.



TABLES

								Table 1.  Source Categories for which MACT Standards have been
vacated

Source Category	Estimated # of sources at promulgation	Estimated growth
rate	Years since promulgation	Total estimated number of sources

Polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production (Part 63, Subpart J)



21 (Vinyl Institute)

Brick and structural clay products manufacturing (Part 63, Subpart
JJJJJ)	68	3/yr	4	80

Clay ceramics manufacturing (Part 63, Subpart KKKKK)	8	1/yr	4	12

Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters
(Part 63, Subpart DDDDD)



2,360 (Revised EPA estimate)a



	Total	2,473



 (1) Totals reflect ½ of actual estimate to account for 50 percent of
sources.

 (1) Totals reflect ½ of actual estimate to account for 50 percent of
sources.



 



 

 



 

 

 

 PAGE   24 

 PAGE   1 

