View Information Collection Request (ICR) Package

OMB Control No: 2060-0003	ICR Reference No: 200705-2060-001
Status: Historical Inactive	Previous ICR Reference No: 200410-2060-005
Agency/Subagency: EPA/OAR	Agency Tracking No: 1230.19
Title: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Non-Attainment New Source Review: Emissions Test for Electric Generating Units (Proposed Rule)
Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved collection	Common Form ICR: No
Type of Review Request: Regular
OIRA Conclusion Action: Comment filed on proposed rule and continue	Conclusion Date: 08/21/2007
Retrieve Notice of Action (NOA)	Date Received in OIRA: 05/08/2007
Terms of Clearance: Terms of the previous clearance remain in effect. OMB files this comment in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.11( c ). This OMB action is notan approval to conduct or sponsor an information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This action has no effect on any current approvals. If OMB has assigned this ICR a new OMB Control Number, the OMB Control Number will not appear in the active inventory. For future submissions of this information collection, reference the OMB Control Number provided. In accordance with 5 CFR 1320, the information collection is withholding approval at this time. Prior to publication of the final rule, the agency should provide a summary of any comments related to the information collection and their response, including any changes made to the ICR as a result of comments. In addition, the agency must enter the correct burden estimates in the ROCIS system.

	Inventory as of this Action	Requested	Previously Approved
Expiration Date	01/31/2008	01/31/2008	07/31/2008
Responses	150,723	0	150,723
Time Burden (Hours)	5,851,126	0	5,851,126
Cost Burden (Dollars)	8,613,000	0	8,613,000

Abstract: This ICR applies to a rulemaking that proposes to revise the applicability test used to determine whether existing electric generating units (EGUs) are subject to the regulations governing the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment major New Source Review (NSR) programs (collectively major NSR) mandated by parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The rulemaking proposes three options for revising this applicability test. The proposed rule would not affect new EGUs, which would continue to be subject to major NSR preconstruction review.Under Option 1, for existing EGUs we are proposing to compare the maximum hourly emissions rate at that unit during the past 5 years to the maximum hourly emissions rate at that unit after the change to determine whether an emissions increase would occur. If so, the change would qualify as a modification and would be subject to the requirements of the major NSR program. The proposed regulations under Option 1 would simplify applicability determinations for sources and Reviewing Authorities (RAs).Under Option 2, an existing EGU would first be subject to the same hourly emissions test that applies under Option 1. If the change qualifies as a modification under the hourly emissions test, the unit would then be subject to the existing actual-to-projected-actual annual emissions test to determine whether the change would result in a significant net emissions increase. If so, the change would qualify as a ?major modification? and would be subject to the requirements of the major NSR program. Under Option 3, an existing EGU would be subject only to the actual-to-projected-actual annual emissions test to determine whether the change would result in a significant net emissions increase. Because Option 3 entails only a relatively small change from the existing rules, the burden for each permit action would not change under Option 3.We believe that none of the three proposed rule options would change the number of major NSR permit actions for existing sources compared to the actual-to-projected-actual methodology that currently applies to utilities under the major NSR program. The overall effect of proposed Option 1 would be a relaxation of the burden currently imposed on industry sources for each permit action. We also anticipate that proposed Option 1 would have a corresponding effect on the burden imposed on the RAs due to reduced effort needed for review of data submissions and preparation of submissions for processing. However, RAs would be required to submit changes to their existing SIP programs or demonstrate that their existing programs are at least equivalent to EPA?s new requirements, resulting in a small one-time burden to them in the short term. The overall effect of proposed Options 2 and 3 would be no change in the burden currently imposed on industry sources for each permit action. We also anticipate that proposed Options 2 and 3 would have no effect on the burden imposed on the RAs to process each permit. As with Option 1, RAs under Options 2 and 3 would be required to submit changes to their existing SIP programs or demonstrate that their existing programs are at least equivalent to EPA?s new requirements, resulting in a small one-time burden to them in the short term.

Burden increases because of Program Change due to Agency Discretion: Yes

Burden Increase Due to: Changing Regulations

Burden decreases because of Program Change due to Agency Discretion: No

Burden Reduction Due to:

Short Statement: The proposed regulations under Option 1 would simplify applicability determinations for sources and Reviewing Authorities (RAs). It would eliminate the burden of projecting future annual emissions and distinguishing between annual emissions increase caused by the change and those due solely to demand growth, because any increase in the emissions under the hourly emissions test would be logically attributed to the change. It would reduce recordkeeping and reporting burdens on sources because compliance would no longer rely on synthesizing emissions data into rolling average emissions. It would improve compliance by making the rules more understandable, which would correspondingly reduce the RAs' compliance and enforcement burden. The overall effect of proposed Options 2 and 3 would be no change in the burden currently imposed on inductry sources for each permit action. We also anticipate that proposed Options 2 and 3 would have no effect on the burden imposed on the RAs to process each permit.

View ICR - OIRA Conclusion