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
01/31/2008
01/31/2008
07/31/2008
150,723
0
150,723
5,851,126
0
5,851,126
8,613,000
0
8,613,000
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.
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.
On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that
the collection of information encompassed by this request complies
with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR
1320.8(b)(3).
The following is a summary of the topics, regarding
the proposed collection of information, that the certification
covers:
(i) Why the information is being collected;
(ii) Use of information;
(iii) Burden estimate;
(iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a
benefit, or mandatory);
(v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and
(vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control
number;
If you are unable to certify compliance with any of
these provisions, identify the item by leaving the box unchecked
and explain the reason in the Supporting Statement.