STATEMENT SUPPORTING THE RENEWAL OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
REQUIREMENTS FOR RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS and PETITIONS TO
MODIFY THE LIST OF REGULATED SUBSTANCES UNDER SECTION 112(r) OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT

EPA # 1656.13

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a)	Title of the Information Collection Request 

Risk Management Program Requirements and Petitions to Modify the List of
Regulated Substances under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
(Renewal).

1(b) 	Short Characterization

This information collection request (ICR) renews a previously approved
ICR (1656.12), OMB Control No. 2050-0144, expiring January 31, 2009.  

This information collection request (ICR) addresses the following
information requirements:

(1)	Documenting sources’ risk management programs and submitting a
source risk management plan (RMP) under CAA Section 112(r)(7)

The regulations include requirements for covered sources to implement
and maintain documentation for a risk management program and submit a
RMP (including information on a source’s hazard assessment, prevention
program, and emergency response program) to EPA.  EPA has assumed
responsibility for maintaining a database of submitted RMPs, which will
be made available electronically to the implementing agency, states,
local governments, and (except for the Offsite Consequence Analysis
data) to the public.  

(2)	Collecting and submitting information to support petitions to modify
the list of regulated substances under CAA Section 112(r)(3)

The regulations include requirements for a petitioner to submit
sufficient information in support of a petition to scientifically
support the request to add or delete a chemical from the list of
regulated substances.  The Agency will use this information in making
the decision to grant or deny a petition.  All the information collected
requesting modification of the chemical listings is stored in a docket
created for that purpose.

CAA section 112(r)(7) required EPA to promulgate regulations and
appropriate guidance to provide for the prevention and detection of
accidental releases and for responses to such releases.  EPA issued the
final rule on June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31668).  The regulations include
requirements for submittal of an RMP, including source registration, to
EPA.  The RMP includes information on a source’s hazard assessment,
prevention program, and emergency response program.  The RMP
requirements have been amended few times since the 1996 final rule.  
The regulations are codified in 40 CFR part 68.  The rule requires
sources to submit their RMPs every five years beginning June 21, 1999.  

The final rule establishing the list of regulated substances and
threshold quantities under CAA section 112r was published on January 31,
1994 (59 FR 4478), which also includes provisions and procedures for
submitting a petition to add or delete a substance.  

Part 68 provides for tiering of the regulatory requirements to take into
consideration differences between various types and classes of sources,
as well as the risk posed by the different sources.  The regulatory
program consists of three tiers of risk management programs.  Sources
are classified into program tiers based on the degree of risk posed by
potential releases and coverage by OSHA’s Process Safety Management
(PSM) standard.  Sources with processes classified as Program 1 pose
little risk and face minimal compliance requirements.  Sources with
processes classified as Program 2 must implement a streamlined list of
prevention program requirements.  Sources with processes classified in
Program 3 must complete a prevention program identical to that required
by the OSHA PSM Standard (29 CFR 1910.119).	

The compliance schedule for the Part 68 requirements, established by
rule on June 20, 1996, requires the implementation of the source risk
management programs and the submission of initial RMPs by June 21, 1999,
and every five years after the initial submission.   After the initial
submission, few sources re-submitted their RMPs because they had some
changes to their processes or changes in the thresholds. These sources
were then assigned a five-year compliance deadline based on the date of
their revised plan submission.   The remaining sources submitted their
second submissions on June 21, 2004.  Some sources submitted their
revised RMP after the second submission deadline for various reasons and
therefore EPA assigned a new compliance deadline.  The remaining
sources’ next submission is June 21, 2009.  Because of different
anniversary (compliance deadline), only a portion of the RMP regulated
universe have submission deadline specified in Part 68 (June 21).  

Other than the costs for gathering information and filling out the RMP
form, the regulations require sources to maintain on-site documentation,
perform compliance audit every three years, provide refresher training
to employees, perform hazard analysis atleast every five years, etc. 
Some of these activities are expected to occur annually or on-going. 
Some are required every three years or every five years, unless there
are some changes at the facility.  Therefore, the burden and costs
incurred by sources vary from ICR to ICR.  The five-year compliance
deadline set by the regulations or assigned by EPA based on the revised
RMP submission also will cause the burden to vary from ICR to ICR.  

This ICR period is from January 2009 to January 2011.  The first year of
this ICR period consider the burden for the majority of sources
submitting their RMP with the compliance deadline in calendar year 2009.
 The remaining two years covered by this ICR will account for burden for
sources that have RMP compliance deadline.  These sources that will
submit RMP in this ICR period will also comply with prevention program
activities and on-site documentation of their prevention program.   For
those sources that have submitted their RMPs prior to this ICR period
will have to comply with updating certain parts of their prevention
program, which will also be accounted for in this ICR period  This ICR
will also estimate new sources that may be required to comply with RMP
requirements.  For new sources, this ICR will account for rule
familiarization, program implementation as well as the submission of the
risk management plan.  

The burden for currently covered sources for initial rule compliance,
including rule familiarization and program implementation have taken
place prior to the period covered by this ICR.  Also, there are some
sources that did not submit their RMPs on their scheduled deadline.  The
burden for these sources will be accounted in this ICR. 

For the past two submissions, sources used RMP*Submit which was
available on the EPA website which sources were able to download, fill
the form and mail the diskette.  For the June 2009 submission and on,
this will no longer be available.  Instead, sources will be required to
submit RMPs online (RMP*eSubmit) via EPA’s secure website.  The
RMP*eSubmit will be available in early 2009.  

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

Risk Management Plans

Information collection for on-site documentation is authorized by CAA
sections 112(r)(7)(B)(i) and (ii), which state that “The Administrator
shall promulgate reasonable regulations and appropriate guidance to
provide ... for the prevention and detection of accidental releases of
regulated substances....” and “The regulations ... shall require the
owner or operator ... to prepare and implement a risk management plan to
detect and prevent or minimize accidental releases...”  Information
collection for submitting an RMP is authorized under CAA section
112(r)(7)(B)(iii), which states in relevant part that “The owner or
operator of each stationary source...shall register a risk management
plan...with the Administrator before the effective date of the
regulations...in such form and manner as the Administrator shall, by
rule, require...and shall be available to the public under section
114(c).”  Information collection for on-site documentation and
submittal of RMPs is also authorized by CAA 114(a)(1).  The list and
thresholds promulgated under CAA section 112(r)(3) determine which
sources must comply with the accident prevention regulations; a source
must comply with the CAA section 112(r)(7) regulations if it  holds more
than a threshold quantity of a listed substance in a process.  State and
local authorities will use the information in RMPs to modify and enhance
their community response plans.  The agencies implementing RMP rule will
use RMPs to evaluate compliance with part 68 and identify sources for
inspection because they may pose significant risks to the community. 
Citizens may use RMPs to assess and address chemical hazards in their
communities.

Petitions

This information collection is authorized under CAA section 112(r)(3),
which states in relevant part that “The Administrator shall establish
procedures for the addition and deletion of substances from the list
established under this paragraph consistent with those applicable to the
list in subsection (b).”  The information collected during the
petition process will provide the primary basis for EPA to determine if
it is appropriate to add or delete a chemical.  To be consistent with
the petition process under CAA section 112(b), EPA is required to
consider and respond to petitions to modify the list of regulated
substances within 18 months of submission of the petition; complete data
supporting the petition are necessary to allow EPA to finish its review
within that time period.

2(b)	Use/Users of the Data

Risk Management Plans.  The information collected in the RMP is critical
for assisting government agencies in assessing the quality and
thoroughness of a source’s hazard assessment, prevention program, and
emergency response program.  The information also would be used by state
and local emergency planners to prepare or modify community response
plans and to identify hazards to the community and provide a basis for
working with sources to prevent accidents.

Risk Management Programs.  Documentation of the implementation of risk
management programs is necessary to assist government agencies in
determining whether a source has complied with the regulations. In some
cases (e.g., safety information and operating procedures), the
documentation is a critical requirement of the rule, providing the basis
for other rule elements.

Petitions.  The information collected in support of a petition to modify
the list of regulated substances is to be used by EPA to determine
whether to grant or deny a petition to add or delete a chemical from the
list. 

3.	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a)	Nonduplication

Risk Management Plans.  Some sources may have submitted information to
EPA Headquarters or Regions under other regulations (i.e., Form R or
RCRA Biennial Reports) that is similar to the information requested in
the registration form under these regulations.  For example, EPCRA
Section 312 Tier II forms, which include similar information, are
submitted only to states and local planning authorities, not EPA.  For
EPA to best comply with the Act, it is most beneficial if the
information requested for registration is submitted in a concise and
organized format, using the RMP form.

Confidential Business Information.  Some sources may have submitted
substantiation of CBI claims for chemical identity or other information
to EPA Headquarters or Regions under other regulations that is similar
to the information requested under these regulations.  For EPA to best
comply with the Act and most effectively evaluate such claims, it is
most beneficial if the CBI substantiation accompanies the submission of
the RMP.

3(b)	Consultations

Prior to developing this ICR, the Agency contacted a few sources to
obtain information on the number of hours sources spend on collecting
data and submitting RMP.  Some of the sources contacted have
re-submitted the RMP between the two reporting periods (June 21, 1999
and 2004) for changes in their processes or changes in their worst-case
scenario or alternative scenario.  Others had re-submitted only minor
changes to their previous RMP.  The following sources were contacted.

Arkema, Inc.						The Valvoline Company

Piffard, NY						Hernando, MS

Hill Brothers Chemical Co.				TVA – Paradise Fossil Plant

	Phoenix AZ						Drakesboro, KY

Dow Chemical 					Dow Chemical

Plaquemine, LA					Freeport, TX

	Exxon Mobil						Occoquan Water Treatment 

	Baytown, TX						Fairfax, VA

	Daiken America

	Decatur, AL

	The sources that were contacted were in various sectors, waste water
treatment plant, chemical manufacturers, petroleum refinery etc. of
different sizes (small, medium and large). The number of hours reported
by these sources ranged from 8 hours for small manufactures to 200 hours
for large manufacturers.  These hours are spent to comply with
prevention program activities, preparing and submitting an RMP. 
Although currently covered sources already have a prevention program in
place, these sources are expected to review and update any changes as
well as submit the RMP on their compliance deadline.  

3(c)	Public Notice

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
the Agency notified 

the public through the Federal Register notice on the renewal of this
ICR on August 14, 2008

(73 FR 47594).  EPA did not receive any comments.  

3 (d) 	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Sources are required to register and submit an RMP only once every five
years, unless there are significant changes in the information provided.
 There is a statutory requirement for sources to register, submit, and
update an RMP.

3(e)	General Guidelines

CAA section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii) requires that sources update their RMPs
periodically.  To maintain consistency with OSHA PSM requirements,
EPA’s implementing rule requires sources to update PHAs and hazard
assessments every five years.  Thus, sources are required to maintain
such documentation for five years, which is greater than the three years
specified in OMB’s general guidelines.

3(f)	Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions

(i)	Confidentiality

Some of the elements mandated in the regulation for the risk management
plan may require the submittal of data viewed as proprietary, trade
secret, or confidential.  As described above, EPA has adopted procedures
for sources to claim certain information as confidential business
information.

(ii)	Sensitive Questions

No questions of a sensitive nature are included in any of the
information collection requirements.  The information submitted in an
RMP includes information on a source’s hazard assessment, prevention
program, and emergency response program, and the information submitted
in support of a petition to modify the list of regulated substances
includes toxicity data and accident history data.  The information
collection requested under the EPA rulemaking is in compliance with the
Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)	Respondents/NAICS Codes

Risk Management Programs and Plans

The accidental release prevention program under the CAA was developed
for sources that manufacture, react, mix, store, or use regulated
substances in processes that require equipment designed, constructed,
installed, operated, or maintained in specific ways to prevent
accidental releases and ensure safe operations.  The CAA requires
sources to comply with the regulations if they have more than a
threshold quantity of a listed regulated substance.  Based on
submissions of RMPs, the rule applies to manufacturers (i.e., sources
categorized in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes 31-33), as well as some non-manufacturers, including federal
sources, utilities (NAICS code 221:  electric utilities, drinking water
systems, wastewater treatment works), warehouses, large ammonia
refrigeration systems (e.g. food processors and distributors),
wholesalers, ammonia retailers, and gas processors. 

As of June 2008, approximately 13,640 sources are currently subject to
40 CFR part 68 requirements.  RMPs are due every five years.  The first
submission was June 21, 1999.  The second submission was received in
June 2004. The third five-year compliance deadline is June 21, 2009,
which is the first year covered by this ICR.  As mentioned in the
previous section of this document, some of the sources re-submitted
their RMPs for various reasons specified in 40 CFR 68.190 after the
second submission deadline (June 21, 2004), therefore, EPA assigned a
five-year deadline, which is not the deadline specified in part 68 (June
21).  So, for these sources, their next five-year compliance deadline
may fall in the last two years of this ICR period.  Approximately 8,005
sources of the total universe (13,700) have a compliance deadline in the
first year of this ICR period (Jan to Dec 2009).  The remaining sources,
1,456 sources have compliance deadline in the second year and 1,234
sources have compliance deadline in the third year covered by this ICR. 
The remaining of the universe have compliance deadline beyond the period
covered by this ICR.  Of the total universe, 645 sources are out of
compliance since June 2004 compliance deadline.  Based on the number of
new sources that reported between 2004 and 2006, EPA estimates that
approximately 384 new sources may come into compliance each year covered
by this ICR period.  

During the period covered by this ICR, approximately 16 State and local
agencies obtained delegation to implement the RMP program.  These 16
agencies are expected to carry out their implementing functions each
year covered by this ICR.  

	As mentioned above, although only 10,695 sources have a compliance
deadline in the three years covered by this ICR, 2,300 sources
(compliance deadline beyond this ICR) will be subject to maintaining
on-site documentation and conducting some or most of the prevention
program activities.  EPA also assumes that atleast 323 sources (out of
total of 646 sources out of compliance) may submit their RMP during the
three year covered by this ICR.  

	Total number of annual respondents for this ICR is 4573 (13,718 for
three years), which includes currently covered facilities with
compliance deadlines for this ICR period and those sources required to
comply with prevention program activities, new sources expected to be in
compliance, sources that are out of compliance but may be in compliance
in this ICR period and the implementing agencies.  Exhibit 1 shows the
number of sources that have compliance deadlines from January 2009 to
December 2013. Exhibit 2 shows the number of new sources expected to be
in compliance this ICR period. 

Petitions

Any person may petition EPA to modify, by addition or deletion, the list
of regulated substances.  Potential petitioners are likely to include
environmental groups, industry, and state and local agencies.  Due to
the nature of their activities, the chemical manufacturing sector is
likely to be the primary industry producing, using, or storing listed
regulated substances affected by the petition process.  Since the list
rule was promulgated in January 1994, however, only one petition has
been submitted to EPA; this petition was withdrawn.  Based on this
record, EPA assumes that no additional petitions will be submitted in
the period covered by this ICR.

4(b)	Information Requested

Data requirements and respondent activities vary by program level. 
Program 1 requires the least amount of data and time from respondents,
while Program 3 requires the most.  Sources with Program 3 processes are
those that do not meet Program 1 but subject to OSHA’s PSM standard,
or those with any of the nine NAICS codes listed in section 68.10(d)(1).
 Program 2 processes are those that do not meet  Program 1 or 3
eligibility requirements.  See section 68.10 for more detailed
description of each Program.  

All sources are required to update and submit every five years an RMP
that includes basic facility data, an executive summary, five-year
accident history, data on the worst-case release scenarios (at least one
for toxics and one for flammables), and data on emergency response
regardless of their program classification.  In addition, Program 2 and
3 sources must also submit data on alternative release scenarios (one
for each toxic and one for flammables) and their prevention programs (by
process).  If a change at the source (e.g., a substantial change in the
quantity held, a major modification of a source) leads to a change in
certain data submitted in the previous RMP or requires an update to add
a new process, the RMP must be revised and resubmitted.  Depending on
the event that triggers the need for an update, the source must resubmit
the revised RMP either before the change is implemented (e.g., the
addition of a new regulated substance) or within six months of the
change (e.g., a major process modification).

(i)	Data Items

Risk Management Plans

Registration.   Sources must submit the following information to EPA in
the registration section of the RMP:

Name and location of the stationary source, and latitude and longitude,
as well as the method used to determine the latitude and longitude and
an indication of the specific location at the source that it represents;

The name, telephone number, and mailing address of the owner/operator of
the source;

Name and title or position of the person responsible for RMP
implementation at the source;

Name, title, phone number, 24-hour telephone number and the email
address of the emergency contact at the source;

Name, the mailing address, and the telephone number of the contractor
who prepared the RMP (if any);

The source’s (and parent company’s, if applicable) Dun and
Bradstreet number, which is a common identifier for sources and would
allow EPA to cross-reference the data with other EPA databases;

For each covered process, the names, CAS numbers, and quantities (to two
significant digits) of all regulated substances and the applicable NAICS
code(s);

Number of full-time employees at the source;

Whether the source is covered under the OSHA PSM program and EPCRA 302;

The sources CAA Title V permit number (if applicable); and

The type of and reason for any changes being made to a previously
submitted RMP;

Voluntary data elements that may be provided as part of the registration
include the LEPC for the planning district in which the source is
located and, to support communication with the public, a public contact
phone number for the source, the www homepage address of the source or
its parent company, and the e-mail address of the source.

Program 1.  Sources with Program 1 processes are required to prepare an
executive summary and include a five-year accident history and emergency
response data in their RMP.  In addition, for Program 1 processes,
owners/operators are required to document the worst-case release in the
RMP and certify that: 

(1)	Their worst-case release would not reach any public receptors; 

(2)	The process has had no accidents in the previous five years that
resulted in certain impacts offsite; and 

(3)	Public emergency responders will not enter within certain distances
except as previously arranged.

Programs 2 and 3.  Sources with Program 2 and Program 3 processes are
required to submit an RMP that includes the following information:  

An executive summary;

A five-year accident history for each incident that caused specific
on-site or offsite impacts from a release of a regulated substance held
above its threshold in a covered process; 

The results of the offsite consequence analysis (OCA) (worst-case and
alternative release scenarios);

Information concerning the prevention program and process hazards,
controls, mitigation systems, and detection systems identified during
the PHA or hazard review for each covered process;

Information concerning emergency response steps and coordination with
the LEPC plan; and

Certification of the accuracy of the information submitted.

The requested information in the RMP is critical in assisting government
agencies in assessing the quality and thoroughness of a source’s
prevention, detection, and response program.  The information will
assist agencies in identifying sources that should be visited to ensure
safe source operations.

Deregistration.  Sources that are no longer subject to Part 68 are
required to notify EPA in writing within six months of the date on which
they are no longer covered.

Risk Management Programs

Prevention Program Documentation

All covered sources with Program 2 or 3 processes will need to conduct
and document a compliance audit within the three-year period of this
ICR.  All previously covered sources are assumed to incur costs for
accident investigation.  Other on-going costs for documentation for
Program 2 processes are for keeping the safety information and operating
procedures up-to-date. For Program 3 processes, the on-going costs
include keeping Process Safety Information (PSI) and Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) up-to date, documenting refresher training, training
of new employees, maintenance, and management of change. Any source that
has an emergency response plan is subject to OSHA HAZWOPER; all costs
for updating the plan accrue to the OSHA rule.  Only chemical
wholesalers are expected to change their OCAs over the three-year
period.  The documentation for those costs is considered in the RMP
costs.

Program 1.  New Program 1 sources will need to maintain only on-site
records of their worst-case release analysis, and their simplified RMP. 
Maintaining copies of these submissions is expected to require no
additional effort by these sources. 

Program 2.  New Program 2 sources will need to maintain on-site records
supporting the contents of their RMP and compliance with other rule
requirements.  These sources must also maintain records of any
compliance audits performed and any accident investigation reports.  

The on-site documentation associated with the risk management program
for Program 2 sources consists of information that will be generated
automatically during the development of the hazard assessment, the SOPs,
compliance audits, and safety information.  Each required data item is
an integral element of a good program; maintenance of these data on site
will allow EPA or state or local authorities to conduct effective source
audits without requiring submittal of sensitive business information. 
Under the requirements, Program 2 sources must maintain the following
specific on-site documentation:

(	Records of the hazard assessment, including data and assumptions used,
and descriptions of alternative and worst-case release scenarios
(updated once every five years);

(	Applicable parameters and other documentation associated with the
safety information requirements;

(	Written operating procedures for each Program 2 process;

(	Hazard review report using models, checklists, or What Ifs (updated
once every five years); 

(	Compliance audit reports; 

(	The emergency response plan, including procedures for warning
employees and the public, a list of response personnel and equipment,
and response action procedures.

Program 3.   EPA’s risk management program identifies specific
information that Program 3 sources are required to maintain on site, as
well as specific information to be included in the RMP.  Most Program 3
processes are covered by OSHA’s PSM program.  Therefore, these sources
are expected to incur the costs of maintaining on-site documentation for
only those activities performed for processes and substances not already
covered under OSHA’s PSM program.  

The on-site documentation consists of information that will be generated
automatically during the development and performance of the hazard
assessment, the PHA, safety information, the SOPs, the maintenance and
training programs, compliance audits, management of change, accident
investigations, and emergency response.  On-site documentation for
Program 3 sources will include the following:

Records of the hazard assessment, including data and assumptions used,
and descriptions of alternative and worst-case release scenarios
(updated once every five years);

Chemical and process information, including equipment specifications,
and diagrams of equipment, piping, pumps, valves, controls, and
instrumentation (P&IDs) f or each Program 3 process; 

Process hazard analysis report and management steps to address
identified hazards (updated once every five years); 

Written operating procedures for each Program 3 process; 

Records of all training programs;

Records of the maintenance program, including inspection and testing
schedules; 

Procedures for conducting pre-startup reviews; 

Procedures used for managing changes in processes, operations, and
procedures; 

Compliance audit reports; 

Accident investigation procedures.

The emergency response plan, including procedures for warning employees
and the public, a list of response personnel and equipment, and response
action procedures.

All information cited above is integral to an efficient and effective
risk management program.  Sources and processes covered by OSHA’s rule
are already required to maintain all of this information (except the
hazard assessment) on site and are assumed to incur only the additional
costs to maintain on-site records of the hazard assessment.  For
example, there are assumed to be no additional costs associated with
developing pre-startup review and management of change procedures
because all Program 3 sources are already required to have such
procedures in place under the OSHA PSM program.  Any source that has an
emergency response plan is subject to 29 CFR 1910.120, all costs for
updating the plan accrue to the OSHA rule.  

Confidential Business Information

Section 68.210 provides that information will be available to the public
under CAA section 114(c), which provides for protection of trade
secrets.  To clarify procedures for submitting RMPs that contain
confidential business information (CBI), EPA added two sections to the
rule.  In general, however, the rules governing CBI that already exist
in 40 CFR part 2 will also apply and provide procedures for determining
the appropriateness of CBI claims as well as the substantive criteria
that must be met to assert such claims.  Based on the CBI claims that we
received for the reporting year 2004, we expect only 35 CBI claims for
the three years covered by this ICR.

To qualify for CBI protection, the substantive criteria set forth at 40
CFR 2.301 must be met.  These criteria generally require that the data
not be available to the public through other means, that the source take
appropriate steps to prevent disclosure, and that disclosure of the data
would be likely to cause substantial harm to the source’s competitive
position.

To assert a CBI claim, a source is required to submit a sanitized
version of its RMP, which would then become part of the RMP database. 
The sanitized version will identify each data element, except chemical
identity, claimed as CBI by the notation “CBI” in the data field. 
For chemical identity, the source is required to provide a generic
chemical category or class name in lieu of the actual chemical name.  At
the same time, the source is also required to submit to EPA the data
claimed as confidential on a separate, paper form.  The source must also
substantiate why each item claimed as CBI meets CBI criteria. 
Substantiation information may be claimed as CBI; if all or part of the
substantiation is claimed as CBI, a sanitized version of substantiation
must also be filed with EPA.  Review of the CBI claims will be handled
as provided for in 40 CFR part 2.

Claiming data as CBI must be done at the time of submittal.  The
source’s owner, operator, or senior official is required to certify
the accuracy of the CBI substantiation claims.

Petitions

Any person may petition the Administrator to modify, by addition or
deletion, the list of regulated substances in 40 CFR 68.130.  Based on
the information presented by the petitioner, EPA may grant or deny a
petition.  Under § 68.120(g), all petitions must contain the following
information:

	Name and address of the petitioner and a brief description of the
organization(s) that the petitioner represents, if applicable;

	Name, address, and telephone number of a contact person for the
petition;

	Common chemical name(s), common synonym(s), Chemical Abstract
Service (CAS) number(s), and chemical formula and structure;

	Action requested (addition or deletion of a substance);

	Rationale supporting the petitioner’s position — how the
substance meets the criteria for addition or deletion.  A short summary
of the rationale must be submitted along with a more detailed narrative;
and

	Supporting data — the petition must include sufficient information
to scientifically support the request to modify the list.  EPA believes
that the information required to be submitted in support of a petition
is the minimum information that would enable the Agency to determine
whether to grant or deny a petition within the 18-month time frame.  The
information must include:

--	A list of all supporting documents;

--	Documentation of literature searches conducted, including, but not
limited to, identification of the database(s) searched, the search
strategy, dates covered, and printed results;

--	Effects data (animal, human, and environmental test data) indicating
the potential for death, injury, or serious adverse human and
environmental impacts from acute exposure following an accidental
release.  Printed copies of the data sources, in English, should be
provided; and

		--	Exposure data or previous release accident history data indicating
the potential for serious adverse human health or environmental effects
from accidental releases.  These data might include, but are not limited
to, physical and chemical properties of the substance (such as vapor
pressure); modeling results (including data and assumptions used and
model documentation); and historical accident data, citing data sources.

(ii)	Respondent Activities

Rule Familiarization

All newly affected sources are expected to spend time to read and
understand the requirements when they first become subject to part 68. 
Burden for currently covered sources for rule familiarization was
included in previous ICRs.  

Risk Management Programs and Plans

Deregistration.  Any source that is no longer subject to Part 68 is
required to notify EPA in writing within six months of the date on which
they are no longer covered. 

Program 1.  Burden for new sources to prepare and submit a RMP is
included in this ICR.  Burden for existing program 1 sources that will
be resubmitting their RMP by June 21, 1999 is included in this ICR.  New
and existing sources are required to maintain records supporting the
implementation of the risk management program.

Program 2.  Program 2 sources incur the burden of preparing or revising
an RMP and maintaining specific on-site documentation of the items
listed in the previous section.  The burden estimates for preparing the
RMP and maintaining on-site documentation for sources with Program 2
processes are presented in section 6(a) of this ICR.  

Program 3.  Program 3 sources will incur the burden of assembling
information for the purpose of maintaining on-site documentation and
preparing and submitting an RMP.  

Confidential Business Information

Based on the CBI claims received for reporting years 1999 and 2004, EPA
believes that sources with processes in Program 2 and Program 3 may seek
to claim certain RMP information as confidential business information
during the June 21, 2009 compliance deadline.  The activities required
for such sources include the preparation of a sanitized RMP (estimated
as described above for all sources) and a substantiation of the claim
for each data element (and potentially the substantiation itself)
claimed as confidential, the list of unsanitized data elements and the
submission of these documents to EPA at the time of the submission of
RMP.   Burden estimates for these activities are presented in section
6(a) of this ICR.  

Petitions

To submit a petition to modify the list of regulated substances, a
petitioner would be expected to perform the following activities:

	Read EPA guidance document and consult with EPA;

	Plan activities;

	Prepare literature search;

	Conduct literature search;

	Process information;

	Review and focus information;

	Write petition;

	Review and edit petition; and

	Submit petition to EPA and file.

The burden estimates developed for these activities are presented in
section 6(a) of this ICR.

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

5(a)	Federal, State, and Local Government Activities

Burden to State and Local Agencies and Others

The burden and cost estimates developed for the following state and
local government activities are presented in section 6(b) of this ICR.

Program Management

Approximately 16 State and local agencies have been approved to serve as
the implementing agencies for part 68.  We do not expect any more
agencies seeking delegation to implement the program during the period
of this ICR.  These states will be required to implement and enforce the
program for all or some of the sources in their states.  Implementing
agencies will need to keep records of reviews, audits, and inspections
conducted, any administrative and legal actions taken, and other
correspondence between the agency and sources, other agencies, EPA, and
the public.  Implementing agencies will also need to document their
budgets, for internal purposes, and any agreements they reach with other
state, local, or federal agencies.  To receive delegation of the program
from EPA, a state must be able to show that it has the personnel and
other resources to perform these tasks.   

During the period covered by this ICR, we expect that all 16 agencies
will be implementing the program each year. 

Burden to the Federal Government

The burden estimates developed for the following federal government
activities are presented in section 6(c) of this ICR.

Federal Program Management

EPA will serve as the implementing agency for any state that does not
seek or is not granted delegation.  EPA will need to keep records of
reviews, audits, and inspections conducted, any administrative and legal
actions taken, and other correspondence between the agency and sources,
other agencies, and the public.  EPA will also need to document its
budgets, for internal purposes, and any agreements it reaches with other
state, local, or federal agencies.

Risk Management Plans

In 1999, at the RMP program’s inception, EPA developed and made
available a software suite of applications which perform various
functions to assist with the RMP program.   They include RMP*Submit, the
software application that creates an electronic file for submission. 
RMP*Submit includes pick lists for certain data elements, chemical
names, LEPCs from which a source may choose.  EPA has posted the
software and accompanying documentation on its web site.  EPA also
accepts RMPs on a paper form, although fewer than 3 % of RMP facilities
file on paper.    

	Other RMP software applications allow processing of the RMPs and
creation of a database, functions to be performed by contractors who
operate the RMP Reporting Center to which facilities mail their RMPs.  
The suite of applications also includes RMP*Info, a database formerly on
the EPA website, with extracts from the main RMP database and query
functions; and RMP*Review, software to assist in querying the database. 

The Agency performs the following activities:

•	Make the RMP software and forms available;

•	Process the RMPs submitted by sources into a database and make the
information available through various means; 

•	Answer any questions from sources concerning the process; 

•	Process any claims of confidential business information; 

•	Notify each submitter of the status of their RMP (complete or
incomplete);

•	Store RMP submissions and retrieve information;

•	Provide technical assistance to sources; and

•	Maintain the RMP database.

RMPs are mailed on disks or CDs to a contractor operating the reporting
center that EPA has established.  The reporting center processes RMPs
submitted on disks and CDs and manually enters RMPs submitted on paper. 
The center also responds to questions from sources and handles any CBI
information.   

At the first five-year reporting anniversary in 2004, EPA added a
limited number of new administrative requirements for RMP reporting.  To
accommodate these requirements, EPA made available a web-based
application in its Central Data Exchange (CDX).  The CDX web tool,
RMP*WebRC, allows facilities who need only to correct a limited number
of RMP data elements to do so easily through the web.  

EPA is developing a new web-based submission tool, RMP*eSubmit,  to
replace both RMP*WebRC and the original RMP*Submit downloadable
application which allows mailed diskettes.  EPA plans to make the new
web application available in early calendar year 2009, in time for the
second five-year reporting deadline for RMPs.  The web-based system will
reduce burden for facilities by simplifying the process.  It will also
improve data quality and security. 

EPA has also provided web-based access to the database by state and
local officials and by the facilities themselves through RMP*Info now
available on CDX.  

Petitions

We do not expect any petition during this ICR period.  However, for any
petition submitted under 40 CFR 68.120, EPA would perform the following
activities:

(	Answer respondent’s questions;

(	Review petition for completeness; 

(	Publish notice of petition receipt and request for comments;

(	Review data submissions;

(	Record or enter the data submissions;

(	Store the data; and 

(	Prepare and publish the final decision.

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

Respondents complete an RMP electronically or on paper.  EPA manages the
data as discussed above.

5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

	The rule includes several measures to reduce the burden to small
entities.  Most sources subject to Program 3 requirements are already
required to comply with the OSHA PSM program.  These sources therefore
have already completed the prevention program elements specified in
Subpart D of 40 CFR part 68.  

	All other small sources face reduced requirements under Programs 1 and
2.  In addition, the quantity of information submitted in the RMP and
the associated burden varies with the size of the source (i.e., smaller
sources would have a lower burden).  EPA has developed industry-specific
guidance documents to help smaller sources comply with the rule. 
Therefore, the RMP regulations do not impose a disproportionate burden
of compliance on small sources.

	Also, as mentioned in the end of section 1 of this document, the RMP
online reporting (RMP*eSubmit) will be available from January 2009. 
This will also reduce burden for small entities since the information
reported will be available to make any changes and submit on-line rather
than printing and/or mailing in diskette with the changes.  	

5(d)	Collection Schedule

  

Risk Management Plans.  Sources with more than a threshold quantity of a
listed substance in a process are required to be in compliance with the
risk management program beginning June 21, 1999, and every five years
after.  After submitting an RMP, a source must update it by the time it
adds a new (to the source) listed substance in a process above threshold
quantity or for any other reasons specified in 40 CFR 68.190.  Also, if
certain other information provided in the RMP becomes inaccurate at any
time after submission, the source is required to submit an amended RMP
within six months of the change.  Otherwise, sources are required to
resubmit their RMP within five years of their last submittal even if
other RMP data change during the five-year period (e.g., RMPs need not
be updated in cases such as change in number of employees, contact names
etc.).

Petitions.  Each petitioner need only submit information once in support
of a petition.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

The unit burden applied to various sectors is based on the complexity of
the processes at the sources.  Exhibits 3 to 6 show the unit burden for
currently covered and new sources.  

6(a)	Respondent Burden

Because of the schedule for certain activities established in Part 68,
some costs do not occur in the three-year time period covered by this
ICR.  In this ICR period, most of the currently covered sources (approx.
10,695 sources) will be submitting their RMPs according to their
scheduled compliance deadline.  These sources will update their process
hazard analyses, hazard reviews, offsite consequence analyses etc.  The
burden incurred by sources that submit their RMPs in the two years after
this ICR period (2,300) will be complying with some of the prevention
program elements in this ICR period.  The reason for this is that, these
sources submitted their RMPs, either three or five years prior to this
ICR period.  Therefore, some of the prevention program elements
(compliance audits, refresher training for their employees etc.) will be
conducted three years or five years after their RMP submission.  Also,
as mentioned in section 1 of this document, this ICR will also include
burden incurred by any new facilities that may become subject to the
regulations.  The record keeping and reporting costs for Part 68 will
fluctuate considerably from ICR to ICR.

Respondent Burden for Rule Familiarization (New Sources)

The burden associated with rule familiarization was estimated in
previous ICRs for those sources that are currently subject to the
regulations.  This ICR only estimates rule familiarization burden for
any new sources that may become subject to the regulations during the
period covered by this ICR.  Based on the data of the new sources
submitted from 2004 (reporting year) to 2006, EPA estimates that the
number of new sources in this ICR period will be 384 annually.  Exhibit
2 shows the number of new sources expected to be in compliance in this
ICR period.  The number of new sources estimated in each category
(manufacturers/non-manufactures, PSM/non-PSM) is calculated based on the
number of new sources that submitted RMPs from 2004 to 2006.  

The new sources are estimated to be mainly in the non-manufacturing
sectors (small to medium size facilities).  The distribution of new
sources among various sectors is similar to the previous ICR, therefore
the unit burden is applied the same to these sectors as in the previous
ICR.  The unit burden for rule familiarization for new sources is
estimated to range from 12 to 32 hours for the various sectors covered
by the regulations.  The total annual burden for all new sources to
become familiar with the rule is estimated to be 6,430 hours at a cost
of $273,746.00 dollars (19,288 hours at a cost of $821,240.00 for three
years) (Exhibits 8 and 12).

Respondent Burden for Initial RMP Preparation and Submission (New
Sources)

Exhibit 3 presents the estimated unit burden hours for preparing and
submitting an RMP for new sources that may be subject to the regulations
during the period covered by this ICR.  As stated above, based on the
RMPs submitted between 2004 and 2006, about 384 new sources will submit
RMPs annually.  Based on the information provided by some of the sources
that EPA contacted and the estimates developed in previous ICRs, the
average unit burden to prepare and submit an RMP range from 8.25 to 33
hours for the various sectors covered by the regulations.  The total
annual burden for new sources for preparing and submitting an RMP is
estimated to be 4,947 hours at a cost of $232,040.00 dollars (14,840
hours at a cost of $696,121.00 dollars for three years) (Exhibits 8 and
12).

Respondent Burden for Prevention Program (New Sources)

New sources also have costs for developing documentation for prevention
program elements.    Estimates of the respondent burden hours for
maintaining on-site documentation vary, depending on the size of the
source and the complexity of the on-site processes as well as on whether
the source is already covered by OSHA PSM rule.  As stated in section
4(b)(i) of this document, these sources are expected to incur the costs
of maintaining on-site documentation for only those activities performed
for processes and substances not covered under OSHA’s PSM program. 
EPA developed an estimate based on the ratio of the PSM/non-PSM sources
currently subject to the regulations to estimate how many new sources
will be in these categories.  The estimated unit burden for prevention
program for the new sources range from 7 to 188 hours (see Exhibit 4). 
The total annual burden for the new sources to comply with prevention
program is estimated to be 19,150 hours at a cost of $848,740.00 dollars
(57,452 hours at a cost of $2,546,222.00 dollars for three years)
(Exhibits 8 and 12).   

RMP Submission, Prevention Program Documentation (currently covered
sources with compliance deadline this ICR period)

Initial RMPs were submitted in June 1999 and second submission deadline
was 2004 (five year after the initial submission as specified in the
regulations) for most facilities.  As mentioned in the previous sections
of this document, many sources re-submitted their RMP in-between the two
regulatory compliance deadline. Therefore, these sources were assigned a
new five-year submission deadline.  Adding new processes or other
activities at these sources were the result of the revision and the
re-submission of the RMP.  Although, the total RMP universe is 13,640,
only 10,695 sources have to submit their RMPs during this ICR period.

As mentioned earlier in this document, EPA contacted few sources that
resubmitted RMP for the reporting years 1999 and 2004 on the burden
imposed to revise and re-submit RMP.  See Section 3(b) of this document.
 EPA contacted small, medium and large sources in various sectors.  
Since sources submitted their RMPs previously electronically on
diskettes, there is no additional burden for entering information on the
RMP form.  For the upcoming reporting deadline, June 21, 2009, the
Agency has developed an on-line submission system, RMP*eSubmit, via
EPA’s secure website which manages thousands of data submissions from
States and industry.  On-line submission saves time, improves data
quality and security.  If after the June 21, 2009 submission, if these
sources have to revise their RMP anytime, EPA believes that the
administrative costs in submitting their RMPs will be reduced.  The unit
burden for RMP submission and prevention program documentation are shown
in exhibit 6. 

The total number of hours for 10,695 sources for RMP submission in this
ICR period is 33,267 hours annually at a cost of $1,549,924 (99,802
hours at a cost of $4,649,774 for three years).  The total number of
hours for 10,695 sources to comply with prevention program documentation
is 15,835 hours annually at a cost of $5,198,069 (47,507 hours at a cost
of $15,594,209 for three years) (Exhibits 9 and 13).  

Prevention Program Documentation (currently covered sources with
compliance deadline in 2012 and 2013)

	

	These sources have submitted their RMPs prior to this ICR period since
they were assigned a five-year compliance deadline based on the
re-submission date.  So, these are only required to conduct certain
activities of their prevention program (compliance audits, refresher
training, etc) in this ICR period.  Some of the prevention program
elements must be conducted annually or every three years.  EPA
encourages sources to review all the prevention program elements and
update them periodically although not required by any dates.  

As above, estimates of the respondent burden hours for conducting
prevention program activities and maintaining on-site documentation
vary, depending upon the size of the source and the complexity of
on-site processes as well as on whether the source is already covered by
the OSHA PSM rule.  However, EPA assumes that these sources may only use
half of the time than the sources that will be complying with all the
elements of the prevention program.  

For the 2,300 sources that have the compliance deadline in 2012 and
2013, the total number of hours for prevention program documentation is
2,651 hours annually at a cost of $1,212,025 (7,954 hours at a cost of
$3,636,077 for three years) (Exhibits 9 and 13).

Overdue Sources (expected to be in compliance this ICR period)

There are 646 sources that have not submitted their RMPs on their
assigned compliance deadline since 2004.  EPA assumes that some of these
may be no longer subject to 40 CFR part 68 requirements to submit RMPs
or some other reasons.  EPA assumes that atleast half of these sources
(323) may submit their RMPs in this ICR period.  

The total number of hours estimated for 323 sources to submit RMP is 907
hours at a cost of $40,322 annually (2,721 hours at a cost of $120,967
for three years).  The total number of hours estimated for 323 sources
to comply with prevention program and documentation is 802 hours at a
cost of $125,999 (2408 hours at a cost of $377,998 for three years)
(Exhibits 9 and 13).

Respondent Burden for Confidential Business Information (CBI) Claims

The requirement that substantiation for CBI claims be submitted with the
claims will impose costs on those sources making the CBI claims. 

Previous ICRs estimated that the time required to develop and submit CBI
substantiation is 9.5 hours per claim.  There have been no changes to
these requirements, so the same estimates are used for this ICR. 
Exhibit 5 shows the unit burden for this activity.  EPA received 50
claims for the reporting year 2004 for about 16,000 sources that
submitted RMP.  EPA assumes the same for this reporting year although
the number of sources that will be submitting the RMPs will be lower. 
For the estimated 50 sources preparing and submitting CBI claims, the
estimated industry annual burden is 158 hours at cost of $10,683 (475
hours at a cost of $32,050.00 for three years) (Exhibit 14). 

Respondent Burden for Petitions

Since the list of chemicals was published in 1994, EPA only received one
petition to remove a chemical from the list.  The Agency do not expect
to receive any petition during the period covered by this ICR. 
Therefore, we did not account any burden for filing petitions.  

De-registration

Based on the number of letters we received in the last three years, we
estimate that approximately 580 sources may submit de-registration
letters to EPA annually.  Most of the sources were in the small/medium
non-manufacturing sectors.  The form letter is available on the RMP
information website that sources will be able to download or sources can
create their own letter to be sent in to EPA.  We estimate that it takes
1 hour for the technical staff to produce the letter.  The total annual
burden for this activity is 580 hours at a cost of $15,660 annually
(1,740 hours at a cost of $46,980 for three years).  

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs (Sources & State Implementing Agencies)

(i)	Estimating Labor Costs

Sources

	The estimated unit costs for private firms were based on three
categories of labor (legal, managerial, and technical) and wage rates
reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in its June 2007
edition of Occupational Employment and Wages.   The wage rates include
benefits, based on BLS data.  Exhibit 7 provides the wage rates for
various industries affected.

The estimated labor and wage rates for state and federal employees were
based on three categories of labor (attorney, environmental engineer,
and clerical) and wage rates as reported by BLS’s, Employer Cost for
Employee Compensation, June 2007 costs for state employees and the
Federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Salary Table, effective
January 2008.

Implementing Agency Costs                    

Although EPA does not require states to obtain delegation to implement
part 68 program, to date, there are 16 state and local agencies that
obtained delegation to implement the program.  Since EPA will not be
granting funds to states as part of the delegation process, the burden
and cost that the states will incur is added to the respondent burden in
this ICR.  For the states that do not obtain delegation of the program,
EPA will be the implementing agency.  

The Agency does not expect any new delegation for this ICR period. 
These 16 state and local agencies are expected to carry out the
implementation duties during each year covered by this ICR.  EPA will
serve as the implementing agency for all other states.  Implementing
agencies are expected to review RMPs, audit RMPs, inspect sources,
provide technical assistance, and conduct standard program management
activities (e.g., developing budgets, filing administrative orders and
enforcement actions).   Initial reviews, which are first checks of the
RMPs to identify any problems (e.g., clear inconsistencies in reported
data, failure to list obvious hazards such as flammability for a listed
flammable) are estimated to require one to five hours, depending on the
number and complexity of processes covered in the RMP.  Audits are
assumed to be detailed reviews of the RMPs, requiring from two to twelve
hours per RMP; audits require technical staff capable of identifying
data that may indicate safety problems (e.g., failure to report chemical
or process hazards, which could indicate an inadequate PHA, or lack of
normal process controls, which could indicate either an incomplete RMP
or inadequate safety practices). Audits may be totally off-site or may
include a site visit to review documentation and other aspects of the
program.  The results of the audits will help select sources that may
require inspection to determine whether the source is in compliance with
the rule and operating safely.  Initial reviews are expected to take 1
to 5 hours, audits of the RMPs are expected to take 2 to 12 hours. 
Inspections are site visits to review the activities and documentation.
Inspections are estimated to take 8 to 50 hours.  Report writing is
assumed to take 12.5 percent of the inspections and recordkeepting
related to this is assumed to take 10 percent of the inspection.  There
are a total of 2,235 sources under these 16 agencies, averaging each to
have 140 sources.  The implementing agencies are expected to complete
the inspection in five years which means each will have approximately 28
sources to review RMPs, inspect the facility etc.  This ICR account for
any reporting and recordkeeping burden and costs related to inspection. 
For each agency, it will take 580 hours annually at a cost of $17,384. 
The total annual hours for the 16 agencies is 9,253 hours at a cost of
$278,158 (27,759 hours at a cost of $834,476 for three years).

(ii)	Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

Capital Costs (State and Local agencies)

Because RMPs will be available electronically and EPA will provide to
anyone who does not have Internet access, state and local agencies are
expected to incur no capital costs related to RMPs.  Implementing
agencies will incur limited capital costs to maintain documents on
program implementation.  The paper files associated with these programs
will be limited and will vary with the size of the regulated community
overseen.  Previous ICRs have calculated the required amount of file
cabinets for the states.  File cabinets are expected to last for at
least 15 years.  Therefore, the Agency will not be accounting costs for
any file cabinets in this ICR.

Operating & Maintenance Costs  (Sources)

This section considers capital or startup costs, annual operating and
maintenance costs, or costs for services, such as consultant services,
incurred by respondents for the collection of information.

Sources are not required or expected to use consultants to prepare and
submit their RMP or their on-site documentation.  The RMP program has
been specifically designed, by simplifying the requirements and allowing
sources to use prepared forms and models, to eliminate the need for
sources to use consultants to meet the requirements of this program.

Sources are required to submit the data electronically on disk.  EPA has
developed an on-line reporting system to submit the RMP which will be
available in January 2009, at no cost to the regulated community.  All
sources already may have access to the Internet; therefore, the
connection charge associated with Internet access is not applied to this
ICR.  

In previous ICRs, EPA estimated mailing costs as part of the operating
costs.  However, there are no such costs associated with this ICR since
EPA requires all sources to submit their RMP on-line.  

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

EPA developed a software system for submission of RMPs (RMP*Submit) at
the inception of the RMP program in 1998. This software could be
downloaded from the agency’s website; facilities created a file and
mailed it on diskette or CD to the contractor-operated reporting center.
This software was refined in 2004 at the first five-year reporting
anniversary of the program, to accommodate regulatory changes introduced
for that year.  In 2009, for the second five-year reporting deadline,
EPA plans to introduce a web-based reporting application, RMP*eSubmit.  
Other parts of the suite of applications for the RMP system (SRMP)
include RMP Maintain, an oracle application maintaining a secure
database with complete RMP data.   (RMP*Review) allows queries and
program management for federal, state and local agencies and the public.
 RMP*Info is a user-friendly version of the database now available on
the agency’s Central Data Exchange (CDX)  that makes RMPs available to
the government officials.  Extramural costs for the software maintenance
and development for the RMP program over the three year period FY 09-11
are estimated to be $3,347,272 ($1,115,272 annually). 

To operate the records center, including answering questions from the
public, entering paper submissions (if any) into the system etc, is
estimated to be $3,536,000 over three years ($1,178,667 annually). 

As stated in section 6(b) of this document, for those states that are
not delegated to implement the program, EPA will be the implementing
agency for those sources in those states.  Of the RMP universe,
approximately 11,406 sources will be managed by EPA.  Of these, EPA
expects to audit and inspect only 5 percent of the sources for this ICR
period.  For reviewing an RMP, inspecting the source and preparing
report, it takes an average of 20.7 hours per source.  Total annual
burden for all 10 Regions to inspect and prepare reports in this ICR
period is estimated at 11,799 hours (or 35,397 hours for three years) at
a cost of $424,758 annually (or $1,274,274 for three years).

The total Agency burden is thus $2,719,182 annually (or $8,157,546 total
over the three-year period).

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

For this ICR period, there are a total of 13,702 sources and 16
implementing agencies.   The number of sources change weekly and
sometimes daily depending on how many new sources come into compliance,
the number of RMP revisions and on how many sources de-register.  Since
the compliance deadline is every five years since 1999 and the next
deadline is June 2009, the number of annual respondents during this ICR
period only include new sources, sources that have assigned five-year
compliance deadline during the period of this ICR, and sources that have
compliance deadline two years after this ICR period since these sources
will be complying with certain prevention program activities in this ICR
period and the implementing agencies.  The total number of annual
respondents for this ICR period is 4,573. 

Although 13,702 sources do not submit their RMPs annually during this
ICR period, they are required to comply with prevention program
documentation.  The burden hours and costs are developed for new sources
to get familiar with the regulations, prepare and submit RMPs, develop
prevention program documentation, and CBI submissions.  For existing
sources, we have estimated burden hours and costs for revising their
RMPs (some of the sources) and to maintain documentation for prevention
program.  The total annual burden for sources is 84,729 hours at a cost
of $9,507,213 (or 254,187 hours at a cost of $28,521,638 for three
years).  See Exhibit 14.

During the period covered by this ICR, there are 16 state and local
agencies to implement the RMP program in their states.  We assume that
these 16 agencies will carry out their functions every year covered by
this ICR.  The total annual burden for 16 agencies to implement the
program is 9,253 hours at a cost of $278,158 (or 27,759 hours at a cost
of $834,476 for three years).  See section 6(b)(i) of this document. 

6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Exhibits 8, 9, 12 and 13 presents the estimated total hours and costs
for all sources for the three years covered by this ICR.  The summary is
presented in Exhibit 14.

Annual Respondent Burden & Cost

	Sources	State Agencies	TOTAL

Responses	4,573	16	4,589

Hours	84,729	9,253	93,982

Costs	$9,507,213	$278,158	$9,785,371



The total annual estimated cost to EPA for all activities is estimated
to be $2,719,182. Most of the burden incurred by EPA is for managing
RMPs. 

6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden

There is a decrease of 4,617 hours for all sources and states from the
previous ICR.   There are two primary reasons for this decrease in
burden.  First, as explained in section 1 of this document, the burden
varies from ICR to ICR due to different compliance deadlines based on
the sources’ RMP re-submission deadline and other regulatory
deadlines.   Therefore, the burden increases or decreases each year
depending on how many sources have to submit their RMP and comply with
certain prevention program requirements.  Second, as mentioned in
section 6(d), the number of sources subject to the regulations
fluctuates regularly, and is lower than in the previous ICR (16,634 in
the previous ICR vs. 13,718 sources in this ICR period).  

6(g)	Burden Statement

The public reporting burden will depend on the size of the sources
complying with 40 CFR part 68 requirements.  In this ICR, the public
reporting burden for rule familiarization for new sources is estimated
to range from 12 to 32 hours per source.  The public reporting burden to
prepare and submit a RMP for new sources is estimated to range from 8.25
to 33 hours.  The public reporting burden for new sources to develop a
prevention program is estimated to range from 7 to 188 hours per source.
 The public reporting burden for those sources that claim CBI is
estimated to be 9.5 hours per source.  The public reporting burden for
currently covered sources to prepare and submit RMP is estimated to
range from 5 to 28 hours.  The public record keeping burden to maintain
on-site documentation for currently covered sources is estimated to
range from 4.5 to 124 hours.  The total annual public reporting burden
for all sources is 84,729 hours (254,187 hours over three years).  The
total annual burden estimated for 16 implementing agencies is 9,253
hours (27,759 hours for three years).  Therefore, the total annual
burden for all sources and states is estimated to be 93,982 hours
(281,946 hours for three 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 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.     

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ -OAR-2003-0052, which is available for online viewing at  
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or in
person viewing at the Air & Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The
telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the Air & Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.   An
electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in
the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0052 and OMB Control Number 2050-0144 in any
correspondence.APPENDIX

EXHIBIT 1

 Currently Covered Sources with submission deadlines January 1, 2009 to
December 31, 2013

	Manufacturers	Non-Manufacturers	



	PSM	Non-PSM	PSM	Non-PSM

	Year	Large	S/M	Large	S/M	Large	S/M	Large	S/M	Total

2009	1156	688	96	122	139	2049	243	3512	8005

2010	216	134	17	35	40	397	53	564	1456

2011	198	133	8	25	36	340	72	422	1234

2012	214	162	14	12	56	424	50	346	1278

2013	151	125	4	13	27	282	48	372	1022

Total







	12995



EXHIBIT 2

Number of New Sources expected to be in compliance this ICR Period

	Manufacturers	Non-Manufacturers

	PSM	Non-PSM	PSM	Non-PSM

Year	Large	S/M	Large	S/M	Large	S/M	Large	S/M

2009	63	79	5	14	19	98	32	167

2010	44	44	3	11	13	79	17	112

2011	39	54	2	10	12	96	23	118

Total 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  146 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  177 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  10 	 
=SUM(ABOVE)  35 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  44 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  273 	  =SUM(ABOVE) 
72 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  397 

Note:  These estimates are based on the number of sources submitted in
calendar year 2004 (reporting year) to 2006.  This ICR period also
includes a reporting year (2009).

EXIHIBIT 3

RULE FAMILIARIZATION and RMP SUBMISSION – Unit Burden

New Sources

	Rule Familiarization 	RMP Preparation and Submission

	Management	Technical 	Management	Technical

Small/Medium Manufacturers	4	8	0.25	16

Large Manufacturers	8	24	1	32

Small/Medium Non-Manufacturers	4	8	0.25	8

Large Non-Manufacturers	8	24	0.5	12



EXIHIBIT 4

PREVENTION PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION – Unit Burden

New Sources

	Management

	Technical

Small/Medium Manufacturers	2	48

Large Manufacturers	8	180

Small/Medium Non-Manufacturers	1	6

Large Non-Manufacturers	2	24



EXHITBIT 5

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION – Unit Burden

Legal	Management	Technical

1	3	5.5



EXHIBIT 6

RMP SUBMISSION, PREVENTION PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION  - Unit Burden

Currently covered sources

	RMP Preparation and Submission	Prevention Program Documentation

(Non-PSM sources)

	Management	Technical	Management	Technical

Small/Medium Manufacturers	1	9	1	32

Large Manufacturers	4	24	4	120

Small/Medium Non-Manufacturers	1	4	0.5	4

Large Non-Manufacturers	2	6	1	16







Note:  Prevention program documentation burden for sources that are
covered by the OSHA PSM program is accounted for under OSHA PSM.  

EXHIBIT 7

WAGE RATES 

(including benefits)

	Management	Technical

Large  Manufacturers	$74.00	$58.00

Small/Medium Manufacturers	$60.00	$54.00

Large Non-Manufacturers	$41.00	$41.00

Small./Medium Non-Manufacturers	$27.00	$27.00

State/Local	$55.50	$28.70

		Source:  Bureau of Labor and Statistics, June 2007

EXIHIBIT 8

TOTAL BURDEN – Three Years

(Hours)

New Sources





New Sources	





Rule Familiarization	RMP Preparation & Submission	Prevention Program
Documentation

(non-PSM) 

	Manufacturers







Small/Medium	2,544	3,445	10,600



Large	4,992	6,996	39,856

	Non-Manufacturers







Small/Medium	8,040	1,749	1,484



Large	3,712	2,650	5,512

	Total

19,288	14,840	57,452	91,580



EXHIBIT 9                                                               
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                          

TOTAL BURDEN – Three Years

(Hours)

Currently Covered Sources, Overdue Sources



Currently Covered Sources (compliance deadline 2009 to 2011)	Overdue
Sources (expected to be in compliance this ICR period)	Currently Covered
Sources (compliance deadline 2012 and 2013)

	

Total 





RMP Preparation & Submission	Prevention Program documentation

(non-PSM)*	RMP Preparation & Submission 	Prevention Program 
documentation 

(non-PSM)*	Prevention Program and documentation 

(non-PSM)*

	Manufacturers









Small/Medium 	11,370	6,006	410	462	825



Large	47,348	15,004	1,008	1,116	2,232











Non-Manufacturers









Small/Medium	36,420	20,241	1,115	711	3,231



Large	4,664	6,256	188	119	1,666

	Total 

99,802	47,507	2,721	2,408	7,954	160,392









	*Note:  Prevention program documentation burden for sources covered by
PSM is accounted for in OSHA PSM program.  

EXHIBIT 10

Costs  - Unit Burden

New Sources



New Sources



Rule Familiarization	RMP Preparation & Submission	Prevention Program and
Documentation

(non-PSM)* 

Manufacturers





	Small/Medium	$672.00	$879.00	$2,712.00

	Large	$1,984.00	$1,930.00	$11,032.00

Non-Manufacturers





	Small/Medium	$324.00	$222.75	$189.00

	Large	$1,312.00	$512.50	$1,066.00







*Note:  Prevention program documentation burden for sources covered by
PSM is accounted for in OSHA PSM program.  

EXHIBIT 11

Costs – Unit Burden 

Currently Covered Source, Overdue Sources



Currently Covered Sources (compliance deadline 2009 to 2011)	Overdue
Sources (expected to be in compliance this ICR period)	Currently Covered
Sources (compliance deadline 2012 and 2013)







RMP Preparation & Submission	Prevention Program and Documentation

(non-PSM)*	RMP Preparation & Submission 	Prevention Program and
Documentation 

(non-PSM)*	Prevention Program and Documentation 

(non-PSM)*

Manufacturers







	Small/Medium 	$546.00	$1,788.00	$546.00	$1,788.00	$1,788.00

	Large	$1,688.00	$7,256.00	$1,688.00	$7,256.00	$7,256.00









Non-Manufacturers







	Small/Medium	$135.00	$121.50	$135.00	$121.50	$121.50

	Large	$328.00	$697.00	$328.00	$697.00	$697.00









*Note:  Prevention program documentation burden for sources covered by
PSM is accounted for in OSHA PSM program.  

EXHIBIT 12

TOTAL COSTS – Three Years



New Sources	





Rule Familiarization	RMP Preparation & Submission	Prevention Program and
Documentation

(non-PSM)* 

	Manufacturers







Small/Medium	$142,464	$186,348	$574,944



Large	$309,504	$301,080	$1,720,992

	Non-Manufacturers







Small/Medium	$217,080	$149,243	$126,630



Large	$152,192	$59,450	$123,656

	Total

$821,240	$696,121	$2,546,222	$4,063,583

*Note:  Prevention program documentation burden for sources covered by
PSM is accounted for in OSHA PSM program.  

EXHIBIT 13

TOTAL COSTS – Three Years

Currently Covered Sources, Overdue Sources

	

o

p

hz

h¨

hV

h	

G

f

u

{

|

“

•

–

$–

™

ž

¥

¦

º

¾

À

Á

Ä

ã

ç

é

$

+

0

5

6

K

R

d

Œ

Ž

µ

¾

¿

Ï

è

é

Ž

¶

·

@

p

p

p

h

# h

h

h

@

h

h

h

h

hz

@

@

@

@

@

?

@

?

@

?

@

?

?

?

 

˜

@

@

 

˜

@

@

 

˜

@

@

@

@

$

@

$

@

@

順

@

$

@

順

@

$

@

順

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

順

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

順

$

@

$

@

順

@

$

@

$

@

順

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

順

# h)

h)

h)

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

順

# h)

h)

# h)

@



@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

@

$

@

$

@

@

$

@

$

@

@

$

@

 

렆

@

$

@

 

렆

$

@

@

 

렆

$

@

$

@

 

렆

$

@

 

렆

$

@

$

@

 

렆

$

@

$

@

 

렆

$

@

 

렆

@



@

$

@

$

@

$

@

@

$

@

$

@

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

@

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

$

@

 Currently Covered Sources (compliance deadline 2009 to 2011)	Overdue
Sources (expected to be in compliance this ICR period)	Currently Covered
Sources (compliance deadline 2012 and 2013)

	

Total 





RMP Preparation & Submission	Prevention Program and Documentation

(non-PSM)*	RMP Preparation & Submission 	Prevention Program and
Documentation 

(non-PSM)*	Prevention Program and Documentation 

(non-PSM)*

	Manufacturers









Small/Medium 	$620,802	$2,032,956	$22,386	$73,308	$557,856



Large	$2,854,408	$12,269,896	$60,768	$261,216	$2,779,048











Non-Manufacturers









Small/Medium	$983,340	$885,006	$30,105	$27,095	$173,016



Large	$191,224	$406,351	$7,708	$16,380	$126,157



	$4,649,774	$15,594,209	$120,967	$377,998	$3,636,077	  =SUM(LEFT)  $
24,379,025

*Note:  Prevention program documentation burden for sources covered by
PSM is accounted for in OSHA PSM program.  

EXHIBIT 14

SUMMARY – TOTAL BURDEN and COSTS (Three Years)

Sources and Implementing Agencies

	New Sources	Currently Covered Sources

(compliance deadline 2009 to 2011)	Currently Covered Sources (compliance
deadline 2012, 2013)	Overdue Sources expected to be in compliance this
ICR period	CBI Claims	De-Registration	Implementing Agencies	

Total

Total Burden (Hours)	

91,580	

147,309	

7,954	

5,129	

475	

1,740	

27,759	

281,946













Total Costs ($)

	

$4,063,583	

$20,243,983	

$3,636,077	

$498,965	

$32,050	

$46,980	

$834,476	

 PAGE   

  PAGE  1 

