Dcxew32
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
FOR
EPA
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
NUMBER
2130.02
TRANSPORTATION
CONFORMITY
DETERMINATIONS
FOR
FEDERALLY
FUNDED
AND
APPROVED
TRANSPORTATION
PLANS,
PROGRAMS
AND
PROJECTS
UNDER
THE
NEW
8­
HOUR
OZONE
AND
PM2.5
NATIONAL
AMBIENT
AIR
QUALITY
STANDARDS
July
27,
2004
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
.............................
1
1(
a)
Title
and
Number
of
the
Information
Collection
..............................................
1
1(
b)
Characterization
of
the
Information
Collection
................................................
1
2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
...................................................
3
2(
a)
Need
and
Authority
for
the
Collection
.............................................................
3
2(
b)
Use
and
Users
of
the
Data
................................................................................
3
3.
NON­
DUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
...............................................................................................................
3
3(
a)
Non­
Duplication
...............................................................................................
3
3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB...............................
4
3(
c)
Consultations
....................................................................................................
4
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
.................................................................
5
3(
e)
General
Guidelines
...........................................................................................
5
3(
f)
Confidentiality
..................................................................................................
6
3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
...........................................................................................
6
4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
.....................
6
4(
a)
State
and
Local
Respondents.............................................................................
6
4(
b)
Information
Requested
.....................................................................................
7
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
­­
FEDERAL
AGENCY
ACTIONS,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
.......................................................................
9
5(
a)
Federal
Agency
Activities
................................................................................
9
5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
......................................................
9
5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
....................................................................................
10
1
5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
.........................................................................................
10
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
..................
10
6(
a)
Estimating
State
and
Local
Respondent
Burden................................................
10
6(
b)
Estimating
State
and
Local
Respondent
Costs..................................................
25
6(
c)
Estimated
Federal
Burden
and
Cost
.................................................................
27
6(
d)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
.............................................................
38
6(
e)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
.........................................................................
40
6(
f)
Burden
Statement
..............................................................................................
40
APPENDIX
A
......................................................................................................................
42
APPENDIX
B
......................................................................................................................
43
APPENDIX
C
......................................................................................................................
44
APPENDIX
D
......................................................................................................................
45
APPENDIX
E
.......................................................................................................................
50
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
Title
and
Number
of
the
Information
Collection
This
information
collection
request
(
ICR)
is
entitled
"
Transportation
Conformity
Determinations
for
Federally
Funded
and
Approved
Transportation
Plans,
Programs
and
Projects
Under
the
New
8­
hour
Ozone
and
PM
2.5
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards,"
ICR
number
2130.02.

1(
b)
Characterization
of
the
Information
Collection
Transportation
conformity
determinations
are
required
under
Clean
Air
Act
section
176(
c)
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7506(
c))
to
ensure
that
federally
supported
transportation
activities
are
consistent
with
("
conform
to")
the
purpose
of
the
state
air
quality
implementation
plan
(
SIP).
Transportation
activities
include
transportation
plans,
transportation
improvement
programs
(
TIPs),
and
federally
2
funded
or
approved
highway
or
transit
projects.
Conformity
to
the
purpose
of
the
SIP
means
that
transportation
activities
will
not
cause
new
air
quality
violations,
worsen
existing
violations,
or
delay
timely
attainment
of
the
relevant
national
ambient
air
quality
standards.

Transportation
conformity
applies
under
EPA's
conformity
regulations
at
40
CFR
part
93,
subpart
A,
to
areas
that
are
designated
nonattainment
and
those
redesignated
to
attainment
after
1990
("
maintenance
areas"
with
plans
developed
under
Clean
Air
Act
section
175A)
for
transportation­
related
criteria
pollutants.
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
published
the
original
transportation
conformity
rule
on
November
24,
1993
(
58
FR
62188),
and
subsequently
published
several
revisions.
EPA
develops
the
conformity
regulations
in
consultation
with
the
Federal
Highway
Administration
(
FHWA)
and
Federal
Transit
Administration
(
FTA).
The
information
collection
requirements
of
EPA's
existing
transportation
conformity
rule
are
covered
under
the
Department
of
Transportation's
(
DOT's)
ICR
entitled,
"
Metropolitan
and
Statewide
Transportation
Planning,"
with
the
OMB
Control
Number
2132­
0529.
The
DOT
ICR
accounts
for
conformity
burden
in
1­
hour
ozone,
CO,
PM
10,
and
NO
2
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas.

On
November
5,
2003,
EPA
proposed
conformity
requirements
for
areas
designated
nonattainment
under
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
standards
(
68
FR
62690)
.
On
July
1,
2004
EPA
finalized
most
elements
of
the
November
2003
proposal
(
69
FR
40004).
This
ICR
only
includes
the
additional
burden
associated
with
making
conformity
determinations
for
the
new
standards
over
the
first
three
years
after
nonattainment
designations,
as
described
further
in
this
document.
Future
ICR
updates
will
consider
any
additional
burden
associated
with
doing
conformity
with
SIPs
for
the
new
standards.
The
ICR
does
not
include
burden
associated
with
the
general
development
of
transportation
planning
and
air
quality
planning
documents
for
meeting
other
federal
requirements.

EPA
considered
the
following
in
developing
this
ICR:

°
Start­
up
resources
needed
for
brand
new
areas
that
have
no
previous
conformity
experience;

°
Additional
burden
or
efficiencies
associated
with
doing
conformity
in
brand
new
areas
that
are
designated
nonattainment
for
both
new
standards;

°
Start­
up
resources
needed
in
experienced
areas
that
are
covered
by
a
brand
new
pollutant
or
have
expanding
boundaries
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard;

°
Differences
in
conformity
resource
needs
in
large
and
small
metropolitan
areas
and
isolated
rural
areas;
and
°
Efficiencies
gained
by
using
existing
transportation
or
air
quality
planning
resources
for
conformity
purposes.
1Projects
that
are
exempt
from
all
or
certain
conformity
requirements
include
projects
listed
in
40
CFR
93.126
and
93.127
(
e.
g.,
safety
projects,
maintenance
of
current
roads)
and
traffic
signal
synchronization
projects
listed
in
40
CFR
93.128.
3
As
background,
conformity
determinations
are
required
before
federal
approval
or
funding
is
given
to
certain
types
of
transportation
planning
documents
as
well
as
non­
exempt
highway
and
transit
projects.
1
In
metropolitan
areas,
conformity
determinations
are
required
for
transportation
plan
and
TIP
updates
and
amendments.
A
metropolitan
transportation
plan
is
a
20­
year
planning
document
that
describes
the
policies,
strategies
and
facilities
that
are
proposed
by
State
and
local
decision­
makers
for
future
implementation
in
a
metropolitan
area.
The
TIP
prioritizes
and
programs
capital
highway
and
transit
projects
for
implementation
in
a
metropolitan
area
over
a
minimum
short­
term
three­
year
period,
consistent
with
the
transportation
plan.

To
meet
the
Clean
Air
Act's
conformity
requirements,
once
a
SIP
is
established
for
a
given
pollutant
and
air
quality
standard,
projected
regional
emissions
from
a
nonattainment
or
maintenance
area's
transportation
system
must
be
at
or
below
the
motor
vehicle
emissions
level
or
"
budget"
for
transportation
sources
in
the
area's
SIP.
Prior
to
EPA
finding
a
budget
adequate
or
approving
a
SIP,
the
conformity
rule
provides
emissions
tests
that
ensure
that
Clean
Air
Act
requirements
in
the
interim
are
met.
See
Appendix
A
for
a
flowchart
on
the
steps
involved
in
the
transportation
conformity
process.

2.
Need
for
and
Use
of
the
Collection
2(
a)
Need
and
Authority
for
the
Collection
The
Clean
Air
Act
gives
EPA
the
statutory
authority
to
establish
the
criteria
and
procedures
for
determining
whether
transportation
activities
conform
to
the
SIP.
EPA
promulgated
the
transportation
conformity
regulations
under
the
authority
of
Clean
Air
Act
section
176(
c).
The
Federal
government
needs
information
collected
under
these
regulations
to
ensure
that
Federal
transportation
actions
are
consistent
with
state
air
quality
goals.

2(
b)
Use
and
Users
of
the
Data
Federal,
state,
and
local
transportation
agencies
use
information
collected
under
the
conformity
regulation
to
ensure
that
federally
funded
or
approved
transportation
actions
conform
with
attaining
and
maintaining
clean
air
throughout
the
country.
Specifically,
transportation
agencies
use
information
they
collect
to
demonstrate
that:

°
the
applicability
requirements
of
the
transportation
conformity
requirements
are
met;
4
°
regional
emissions
and/
or
project­
level
emissions
analysis
requirements
are
satisfied;

°
transportation
control
measures
(
TCMs)
in
approved
SIPs
are
implemented
in
a
timely
manner;

°
state,
local,
and
federal
transportation
and
air
quality
agencies
consult
and
resolve
issues
related
to
conformity
determinations;
and
°
public
comments
are
considered
and
responses
to
comments
are
documented
prior
to
conformity
actions.

3.
NON­
DUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3
(
a)
Non­
Duplication
EPA
wrote
the
transportation
conformity
regulation
and
the
revisions,
in
consultation
with
FHWA
and
FTA,
to
avoid
duplicating
the
collection
efforts
required
by
other
regulatory
programs.
The
conformity
regulation
integrates
existing
transportation
and
air
quality
planning
requirements
from
the
Clean
Air
Act,
the
Transportation
Equity
Act
for
the
21st
Century
(
TEA­
21),
and
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
(
NEPA).

The
conformity
regulation
relies
on
and
does
not
duplicate
DOT's
transportation
planning
regulations
for
developing
transportation
plans,
TIPs,
and
projects.
Many
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas
can
rely
on
travel,
economic,
or
other
forecasts
that
are
already
available
for
other
planning
purposes
to
complete
regional
conformity
analyses.
In
addition,
the
conformity
regulation
does
not
create
any
new
fiscal
constraint
or
public
participation
requirements;
the
regulation
simply
relies
upon
existing
transportation
planning
requirements.

Localized
emissions
analyses
(
or
"
hot­
spot"
analyses)
are
generated
for
project­
level
conformity
determinations
for
certain
criteria
pollutants.
When
hot­
spot
analyses
are
required
for
both
NEPA
and
conformity
approvals,
areas
can
rely
on
the
same
analysis,
assuming
that
it
meet
all
necessary
requirements.
Finally,
although
transportation
actions
are
compared
to
SIP
budgets
for
conformity
determinations
when
they
are
available,
SIPs
are
required
to
be
submitted
for
other
Clean
Air
Act
purposes,
and
are
not
required
by
the
conformity
provisions.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
This
section
is
not
applicable
because
this
is
a
rule­
related
ICR.
5
3(
c)
Consultations
EPA
requested
burden
hour
information
from
our
regional
offices
and
the
FHWA
and
FTA
to
prepare
this
ICR.
Specifically,
we
collected
information
on
the
number
of
hours
required
to
complete
the
following:

°
developing
transportation
plan,
TIP,
and
project
conformity
determinations;

°
training
new
staff
to
perform
conformity­
related
duties;

°
consulting
with
state,
local,
and
federal
agencies
on
conformity
determinations;

°
performing
regional
and
hot­
spot
emissions
analyses;

°
documenting
that
TCMs
in
approved
SIPs
are
implemented
on
time;
and
°
conducting
other
miscellaneous
administrative
activities
(
e.
g.,
reviewing
conformity
documents,
responding
to
public
comments,
etc.).

The
EPA
received
responses
to
its
inquiries
from
seven
FTA
Regional
Offices,
six
FHWA
Division
offices,
FHWA's
Resource
Center,
and
both
the
FHWA
and
FTA
Headquarters
offices.
EPA
also
considered
burden
information
collected
from
nine
of
its
regional
offices.
Appendix
B
provides
a
list
of
the
FTA,
FHWA
and
EPA
offices
contacted
for
this
ICR.

As
discussed
further
in
Section
6
of
this
document,
EPA
also
reviewed
studies
completed
on
the
transportation
conformity
process
that
could
indicate
the
number
of
hours
associated
with
doing
conformity
determinations.
Appendix
C
provides
a
list
of
the
studies
that
EPA
considered
in
the
development
of
this
ICR.

Finally,
EPA
requested
comments
on
the
preliminary
annual
incremental
burden
estimates
provided
in
the
November
3,
2003
transportation
conformity
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking.
Also,
EPA
requested
comments
on
the
revised
annual
incremental
burden
estimates
contained
in
the
January
2004
ICR.
EPA
received
comments
in
response
to
both
of
these
requests.
Appendix
E
contains
summaries
of
the
comments
received
and
EPA's
responses.
The
primary
change
made
in
response
to
the
comments
on
the
burden
estimates
was
to
add
estimates
for
the
annual
average
incremental
burden
associated
with
performing
project­
level
hot­
spot
analyses
in
PM
2.5
areas
as
discussed
Section
6
of
this
supporting
statement.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
The
Clean
Air
Act
also
requires
conformity
for
transportation
plans
and
TIPs
to
be
determined
at
a
minimum
of
every
three
years.
This
statutory
requirement
is
typically
satisfied
when
an
area
updates
its
long­
range
transportation
plan
to
meet
the
three­
year
planning
6
requirement
for
DOT's
transportation
planning
regulations.
TEA­
21
and
DOT's
transportation
planning
regulations
require
TIPs
to
be
updated
every
two
years,
and
as
a
result,
conformity
determinations
are
also
done
for
TIPs
every
two
years.
In
addition,
the
conformity
regulation
requires
a
conformity
determination
for
transportation
plans
and
TIPs
within
18
months
of
certain
EPA
SIP
actions
(
e.
g.,
within
18
months
of
EPA's
finding
that
an
initial
SIP
budget
is
adequate
for
conformity
purposes).
Since
a
metropolitan
area's
plan,
TIP
and
SIP
budgets
often
change
in
many
areas,
reducing
the
frequency
of
required
conformity
determinations
and
consideration
of
transportation
and
air
quality
impacts
in
these
would
compromise
the
goals
of
the
current
Clean
Air
Act.

Conformity
determinations
in
isolated
rural
areas
are
only
required
when
a
new
project
needs
federal
funding
and
approval.
The
Clean
Air
Act's
minimum
three­
year
frequency
requirement
for
transportation
plans
and
TIPs
and
the
conformity
regulation's
18­
month
SIPrelated
"
triggers"
do
not
apply
in
these
areas.
Therefore,
these
areas
are
not
required
to
demonstrate
conformity
as
often
as
metropolitan
areas.
However,
to
not
complete
a
conformity
determination
before
project
approvals
are
made
in
isolated
rural
areas
would
also
compromise
the
goals
of
the
current
Clean
Air
Act.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
This
ICR
adheres
to
the
guidelines
stated
in
the
1995
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
OMB's
implementing
regulations,
EPA's
Information
Collection
Request
Handbook,
and
none
of
these
reporting
or
record
keeping
requirements
violate
any
of
the
regulations
established
by
OMB
in
5
CFR
1320.5.

3(
f)
Confidentiality
Respondents
for
the
transportation
conformity
regulation
do
not
submit
confidential
information
for
approval.
All
information
collected
and
submitted
in
a
conformity
determination
is
already
publically
available,
pursuant
to
40
CFR
93.105(
e)
of
the
conformity
regulation
and
23
CFR
450.316(
b)
of
the
transportation
planning
regulations.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
No
questions
of
a
sensitive
nature
are
included
in
any
of
the
information
collection
requirements
for
the
transportation
conformity
regulation.
Examples
of
sensitive
information
include
information
concerning
sexuality
or
religious
beliefs.

4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4(
a)
State
and
Local
Respondents
7
State
and
local
respondents
vary
according
to
the
type
of
conformity
determination
and
the
type
of
area
involved.
In
metropolitan
areas,
metropolitan
planning
organizations
(
MPOs)
are
the
primary
local
respondent
for
transportation
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations.
Clean
Air
Act
section
176(
c)(
1)
states
that,"...
No
metropolitan
planning
organization
designated
under
section
134
of
Title
23,
shall
give
its
approval
to
any
project,
program,
or
plan
which
does
not
conform
to
an
implementation
plan
approved
or
promulgated
under
section
7410
of
this
title...."
In
metropolitan
areas,
the
policy
board
of
each
MPO
must
formally
make
a
conformity
determination
on
its
transportation
plan
and
TIP
prior
to
submitting
them
to
DOT
for
an
independent
review
and
conformity
determination.
State
or
local
air
agencies
in
some
areas
also
provide
technical
assistance
in
supplying
air
quality
data
or
performing
emissions
factor
modeling
for
regional
conformity
analyses.

State
and
local
respondents
for
conformity
determinations
for
projects
within
metropolitan
areas
can
vary
depending
upon
who
is
the
project
sponsor.
A
project
sponsor
within
a
metropolitan
area
may
be
the
MPO,
local
transit
agency,
state
department
of
transportation,
or
other
state
or
local
agency,
depending
upon
the
individual
project.
Conformity
determinations
for
projects
outside
metropolitan
boundaries
are
also
the
responsibility
of
the
project
sponsor,
which
is
usually
the
State
department
of
transportation.

The
transportation
conformity
rule
also
requires
that
state,
local,
and
federal
transportation
and
air
quality
agencies
develop
interagency
consultation
procedures
for
discussing
and
resolving
issues
related
to
conformity
determinations.
Such
agencies
include
the
MPO,
local
transit
agency,
state
department
of
transportation,
state
and
local
air
agencies,
EPA,
FHWA,
and
FTA.
Federal
respondents
for
conformity
determinations
are
discussed
further
in
Section
5
of
this
ICR.

4(
b)
Information
Requested
The
following
paragraphs
further
describe
the
information
requested
for
and
roles
conducted
by
state
and
local
respondents
for
conformity
determinations.
Some
of
the
information
used
in
conformity
determinations
is
also
used
for
other
transportation
and
air
quality
planning
purposes.
Specific
roles
of
state
and
local
agencies
will
vary
from
area
to
area.

Metropolitan
Planning
Organizations
MPOs
are
the
lead
agency
in
making
transportation
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations
in
metropolitan
areas.
The
level
of
information
collection
requirements
for
completing
such
determinations
will
vary
with
the
size
of
the
area
and
complexity
of
the
air
quality
problem.
The
following
list
includes
MPO
activities
for
transportation
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations:

°
conduct
regional
emissions
analyses
using
the
latest
planning
assumptions
and
models
to
determine
whether
the
emissions
from
the
proposed
transportation
system
are
consistent
with
state
air
quality
goals;
8
°
ensure
timely
implementation
of
TCMs
in
approved
SIPs;

°
consult
with
other
state,
local,
and
federal
transportation
and
air
quality
agencies
throughout
the
conformity
process;

°
circulate
draft
plan/
TIP
conformity
determinations
for
interagency
review
and
public
comment;
and
°
address
comments
from
other
agencies
and
respond
to
public
comments
on
plan/
TIP
conformity
determinations.

State
Departments
of
Transportation
State
departments
of
transportation
are
typically
the
lead
agency
in
developing
conformity
determinations
for
projects
in
isolated
rural
areas.
They
can
also
be
the
lead
agency
for
project­
level
conformity
determinations
in
metropolitan
areas.
The
following
list
includes
state
transportation
activities
for
project­
level
conformity
determinations:

°
conduct
regional
emissions
analyses
on
projects
in
isolated
rural
areas
using
the
latest
assumptions
and
models
to
determine
whether
the
emissions
from
the
proposed
transportation
system
change
is
consistent
with
state
air
quality
goals;

°
ensure
timely
implementation
of
TCMs
in
approved
SIPs;

°
conduct
hot­
spot
analyses
for
projects
when
required;

°
comment
on
draft
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations;

°
consult
with
other
state,
local,
and
federal
transportation
and
air
quality
agencies
throughout
the
conformity
process;
and
°
circulate
draft
project
conformity
determinations
for
interagency
review
and
public
comment
and
respond
to
any
comments
as
appropriate.

Local
Transit
Agencies
Local
transit
agencies
in
metropolitan
areas
are
typically
the
lead
agency
in
developing
project­
level
conformity
determinations
for
transit
projects
in
metropolitan
areas.
The
following
list
includes
local
transit
agency
activities
for
project­
level
conformity
determinations:

°
conduct
hot­
spot
analyses
for
transit
projects
when
required;
9
°
comment
on
draft
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations;

°
consult
with
other
state,
local,
and
federal
transportation
and
air
quality
agencies
throughout
the
conformity
process;
and
°
circulate
draft
project
conformity
determinations
for
interagency
review
and
public
comment
and
respond
to
any
comments
as
appropriate.

State
and
Local
Air
Quality
Agencies
State
and
local
air
quality
agencies
provide
technical
assistance
to
transportation
agencies
in
the
development
of
conformity
determinations.
The
following
list
includes
state
and
local
air
agency
activities
for
conformity
determinations:

°
provide
air
quality
data
or
perform
emissions
factor
modeling
for
regional
emissions
analyses
for
transportation
plans
and
TIPs
in
metropolitan
areas
and
projects
in
isolated
rural
areas;

°
provide
similar
assistance
for
hot­
spot
analyses
for
projects
as
appropriate;

°
consult
with
state,
local,
and
federal
agencies
throughout
the
conformity
process;
and
°
comment
on
draft
conformity
determinations.
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
FEDERAL
AGENCY
ACTIONS,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
Federal
Agency
Activities
FHWA
and
FTA
Activities
The
FHWA
Division
office
and
the
FTA
Regional
office
are
involved
in
several
aspects
of
the
transportation
conformity
process.
The
FHWA
Division
office
and
the
FTA
Regional
office
are
responsible
for
making
conformity
determinations
for
transportation
plans,
TIPs
and
projects
in
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
areas.
These
offices
are
responsible
for
reviewing
the
relevant
materials
that
are
submitted
to
support
the
conformity
determinations
including
comments
submitted
by
the
EPA
Regional
office.
They
are
also
responsible
for
issuing
a
letter
to
the
appropriate
MPO,
State
department
of
transportation
or
project
sponsor
indicating
that
they
have
made
their
conformity
determination.
FHWA
Resource
Centers
provide
technical
assistance
on
an
as
needed
basis.

FHWA
and
FTA
field
offices
will
also
participate
in
the
interagency
consultation
process
10
for
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
areas.
The
interagency
consultation
process
is
used
to
discuss
and
resolve
issues
during
the
development
of
transportation
plans,
TIPs,
projects,
and
conformity
determinations.
The
frequency
of
meetings
varies
from
area
to
area.

EPA
Activities
The
EPA
Regional
office
is
involved
in
several
aspects
of
the
transportation
conformity
process.
Specifically,
the
Regional
office
will
also
participate
in
the
interagency
consultation
process
in
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
areas.
The
Regional
office
reviews
and
comments
on
conformity
determinations
for
plans,
TIPs
and
projects,
including
the
travel
or
emissions
modeling
that
was
performed
to
support
a
conformity
determination.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
Federal
agencies
will
review
draft
and
final
conformity
determinations
for
the
new
standards
in
accordance
with
the
rule's
requirements
and
other
related
guidance,
as
is
currently
the
case
for
conformity
in
existing
areas.
The
interagency
consultation
process
is
used
to
discuss
any
outstanding
issues
on
the
accuracy
or
quality
of
data
used
in
conformity
analyses
and
determinations.
The
general
public
reviews
MPO
conformity
determinations
for
transportation
plans
and
TIPs,
and
federal
agencies
review
MPO
responses
to
these
comments.
The
federal
agencies
will
need
to
maintain
records
of
their
actions,
in
accordance
with
other
federal
record
retention
requirements.
No
special
machines
or
processing
technologies
are
employed
in
reviewing
conformity
determinations.

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
This
section
is
not
applicable
because
the
regulation
primarily
affects
MPOs,
that,
by
definition,
are
designated
under
federal
transportation
laws
only
for
metropolitan
areas
with
a
population
of
at
least
50,000.

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
The
information
collections
described
in
this
ICR
must
be
completed
before
a
transportation
plan,
TIP
or
project
conformity
determination
is
made.
Transportation
plans
must
be
found
to
conform
at
least
every
three
years.
TEA­
21
and
DOT's
planning
regulations
require
that
TIPs
be
updated
at
least
every
two
years,
therefore,
a
conformity
determination
on
the
TIP
in
metropolitan
areas
is
required
at
least
every
two
years.
Conformity
determinations
on
projects
in
metropolitan
and
isolated
rural
areas
are
required
on
an
as
needed
basis.
2"
Metropolitan
and
Statewide
Transportation
Planning,"
OMB
Control
Number
2132
 
0529.
11
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
6(
a)
Estimating
State
and
Local
Respondent
Burden
Scope
of
This
ICR's
Burden
Hour
and
Cost
Estimates
This
ICR
will
only
include
the
additional
burden
associated
with
implementing
conformity
requirements
under
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
standards
for
the
first
three
years
after
nonattainment
designations.
For
the
purposes
of
this
ICR,
"
additional
burden"
is
the
incremental
work
that
occurs
as
a
result
of
doing
conformity
determinations
for
the
new
standards
and
is
not
otherwise
accounted
for
in
an
existing
ICR.
Consequently,
the
burden
associated
with
doing
conformity
determinations
for
current
1­
hour
ozone,
CO,
PM
10,
and
NO
2
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas
is
not
included
in
this
ICR,
since
this
burden
is
related
to
different
air
quality
standards
and
is
already
addressed
in
DOT's
existing
ICR
for
the
transportation
planning
regulations.
2
See
below
for
further
information
regarding
the
types
of
areas
and
burden
considered
under
EPA's
ICR.
3
Information
on
8­
hour
ozone
hypothetical
nonattainment
areas
(
based
on
2000­
2002
air
quality
monitoring
data)
is
taken
from
"
Background
Information
Document,
Hypothetical
Nonattainment
Areas
for
Purposes
of
Understanding
the
EPA
Proposed
Rule
for
Implementing
the
8­
hour
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
in
Relation
to
Re­
Opened
Comment
Period;"
Illustrative
Analysis
Based
on
2000­
2002
Data;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards.
Draft.
October
2003.
Information
on
PM
2.5
hypothetical
nonattainment
areas
is
also
based
on
2000­
2002
air
quality
monitoring
data.
Individual
county
ozone
and
PM
2.5
design
values
for
years
2000­
2002
are
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
airtrends/
values.
html.
12
Variables
for
Estimating
Additional
Burden
and
Cost
In
simple
terms,
EPA
calculated
the
additional
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
this
ICR
based
on
the
following
equation:

Number
of
new
x
number
of
burden
hours
x
cost
per
hour
nonattainment
for
all
conformity
areas/
counties
determinations
doing
conformity
The
following
paragraphs
in
Section
6(
a)
describe
the
information
relied
upon
for
the
first
two
variables
in
this
ICR
for
state
and
local
burden
hour
estimates.
Section
6(
b)
describes
how
state
and
local
costs
were
estimated.
Section
6(
c)
describes
federal
burden
hours
and
costs
for
conformity
under
the
new
standards.

Number
of
New
8­
hour
Ozone
and
PM2.5
Nonattainment
Areas
and
Counties
with
Additional
Burden
Nonattainment
designations
for
8­
hour
ozone
became
effective
on
June
15,
2004.
EPA
anticipates
making
nonattainment
designations
for
the
PM
2.5
standards
in
November
2004.
Since
specific
PM
2.5
nonattainment
area
boundaries
are
still
under
discussion
and
since
the
ICR
was
largely
completed
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
designations,
the
area
information
contained
in
this
conformity
ICR
is
based
on
the
most
recent
ozone
and
PM
2.5
air
quality
data
that
was
available
when
the
ICR
was
initially
developed.
3
EPA
notes
that
the
analysis
and
grouping
of
counties
to
determine
hypothetical
nonattainment
areas
for
this
ICR
was
done
solely
for
the
purpose
of
analyzing
the
additional
burden
of
conformity
under
the
new
NAAQS.
Although
these
hypothetical
areas
are
based
on
actual
air
quality
data
(
2000­
2002),
they
should
not
be
interpreted
as
either
proposed
or
final
nonattainment
designations.
State
boundary
recommendations
and
EPA's
final
nonattainment
designations
may
include
areas
not
considered
for
this
ICR
and/
or
may
exclude
areas
considered
for
this
ICR.
In
addition,
final
designations
may
establish
different
area
boundaries
other
than
those
assumed
for
this
ICR.
Final
designations
will
4
Combined
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
and
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
(
CMSA/
MSA).
For
more
information
on
CMSA/
MSAs
see
the
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
website
at
http://
www.
census.
gov/
population/
www/
estimates/
metrodef.
html.
13
be
based
on
the
most
recent
air
quality
data
available.

Boundaries
for
hypothetical
metropolitan
areas
that
are
considered
in
this
ICR
are
based
on
the
total
CMSA/
MSA4
for
that
area,
plus
any
surrounding
counties
that
contain
a
monitor
that
shows
a
violation
of
the
relevant
standard.
EPA
believes
these
estimates
are
conservative
since
final
area
boundaries
for
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
may
not
include
the
entire
CMSA/
MSA
for
a
given
area
and
will
also
consider
States'
recommendations
and
additional
air
quality
data.
Boundaries
for
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas
assumed
for
this
ICR
consist
of
an
entire
county
plus
any
adjacent
counties
that
include
a
violating
monitor.
The
ICR
will
not
mention
the
details
of
individual
nonattainment
areas.
As
stated
above,
we
do
not
need
to
know
specifically
how
each
area
will
be
designated
and
what
the
boundaries
will
be
for
this
ICR.

Based
on
2000­
2002
air
quality
data,
Table
1
illustrates
the
number
of
hypothetical
areas
that
EPA
is
assuming
could
be
designated
nonattainment
for
8­
hour
ozone,
PM
2.5
or
both
new
standards
for
the
purposes
of
this
ICR.
Note
that
references
to
"
ozone"
in
this
and
other
tables
below
are
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
air
quality
standard.

Table
1:
Total
Hypothetical
8­
hour
Ozone
and
PM2.5
Nonattainment
Areas
Assumed
For
Conformity
ICR
Estimates
Pollutant(
s)
That
Apply
Number
of
Hypothetical
Nonattainment
Areas
Ozone
only
55
PM
2.5
only
11
Ozone
and
PM
2.5
46
Total
112
As
stated
above,
the
purpose
of
this
ICR
is
to
estimate
the
additional
burden
of
the
conformity
requirements
under
the
new
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
is
only
estimating
in
this
ICR
the
additional
burden
associated
with
conducting
conformity
determinations
in
the
following
types
of
areas:

°
brand
new
nonattainment
areas
that
have
never
demonstrated
conformity
for
any
pollutant
and
standard;
5
EPA
considers
an
"
existing
nonattainment
or
maintenance
area"
to
be
any
area
that
is
currently
designated
nonattainment
or
maintenance
for
one
or
more
transportation­
related
mobile
source
criteria
pollutants
and
subject
to
the
conformity
regulations.
These
existing
areas
are
assumed
to
have
previous
experience
with
making
conformity
determinations.
14
°
existing
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas5
that
will
be
doing
conformity
for
an
additional
pollutant
(
e.
g.,
existing
areas
that
will
also
be
doing
conformity
for
PM
2.5,
a
new
pollutant
not
previously
covered
by
the
rule);
and
°
the
new
nonattainment
counties
that
may
be
added
to
some
existing
1­
hour
ozone
areas
that
expand
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.

Table
2
includes
estimates
for
these
different
types
of
hypothetical
nonattainment
areas
that
are
assumed
to
have
additional
conformity
burden
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
standards.

Table
2:
Which
Hypothetical
8­
hour
Ozone
and
PM2.5
Nonattainment
Areas
Have
New
Conformity
Burden?

Nonattainment
Area
Type
Metropolitan
Areas
Isolated
Rural
Areas
Total
200,000+
pop.
50,000­
200,000
pop.
<
50,000
pop.

Nonattainment
for
Ozone
and/
or
PM2.5
83
18
11
112
Brand
New
Nonattainmen
t
Areas
Ozone
or
PM2.5
12
11
6
29
Ozone
and
PM2.5
1
1
1
3
Existing
Nonattainment/
Maintenance
Areas
that
Will
Demonstrate
Conformity
for
One
Additional
Pollutant
Under
the
New
Standards
36
4
1
41
Expanding
1­
hour
Ozone
Areas
that
Include
New
8­
hour
Ozone
Counties
32
4
0
36
Overall,
86
of
the
hypothetical
112
nonattainment
areas
for
the
new
standards
fall
within
one
or
more
of
the
three
categories
of
areas
that
will
incur
additional
burden
described
above.
Some
existing
1­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas
are
assumed
to
incur
6
EPA's
policy
for
8­
hour
EAC's
are
described
in
a
November
14,
2002
memorandum
entitled,
"
Schedule
for
8­
Hour
Ozone
Designations
and
its
Effect
on
Early
Action
Compacts"
and
in
EPA's
June
2,
2003
proposal
for
the
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
(
68
FR
32859­
32860).
Additional
information
on
EACs
and
a
list
of
areas
that
have
submitted
compacts
is
located
on
EPA's
website
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
naaqs/
ozone/
eac/

7
The
populations
of
hypothetical
nonattainment
areas
are
based
on
2000
census
data.
The
populations
of
metropolitan
areas
was
assumed
to
be
for
the
entire
CMSA/
MSA.
The
population
data
used
for
this
ICR
can
be
accessed
from
the
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
website
at
http://
www.
census.
gov/
population/
www/
cen2000/
phc­
t3.
html
15
additional
burden
from
having
to
demonstrate
conformity
for
both
an
additional
pollutant
(
i.
e.,
PM
2.5)
and
for
new
counties
that
expand
the
areas'
geographic
size
under
the
new
standards.
The
remaining
26
hypothetical
nonattainment
areas
are
not
expected
to
assume
significant
new
burden
under
the
new
standards.
For
example,
EPA
assumes
that
no
significant
additional
burden
will
be
placed
on
1­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas
that
are
attainment
for
the
PM
2.5
standard,
designated
nonattainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
and
for
which
the
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
boundary
will
become
smaller
or
remain
the
same.

EPA
also
assumes
that
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
that
may
be
treated
as
Early
Action
Compact
(
EAC)
areas6
and
that
are
not
violating
the
PM
2.5
standard
will
not
incur
additional
burden
under
the
new
standard.
Areas
that
were
eligible
for
an
EAC
include
areas
that
are
violating
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
but
are
attaining
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
 
including
1­
hour
ozone
maintenance
areas.
For
areas
participating
in
an
EAC,
EPA
plans
to
provisionally
defer
the
effective
date
of
the
area's
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
designation
into
the
future.
Therefore,
the
conformity
requirements
will
not
apply
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
in
an
EAC
area
as
long
as
the
area
adheres
to
all
the
terms
and
milestones
of
its
EAC
and
its
nonattainment
designation
remains
deferred.

For
this
ICR,
EPA
also
assumes
that
additional
conformity
burden
will
differ
among:

°
larger
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
(
urbanized
area
populations
over
200,000);

°
smaller
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
(
urbanized
area
populations
between
50,000­
200,000);
and
°
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas
(
populations
under
50,000).
7
Since
conformity
requirements,
complexity
of
air
quality
issues
and
geographic
size
can
vary
dependent
on
an
area's
population,
EPA
believes
it
is
appropriate
to
distinguish
the
additional
conformity
burden
among
these
different
urbanized
and
rural
areas.
EPA
also
assumes
that
brand
new
areas
that
are
designated
nonattainment
for
both
new
standards
will
incur
additional
burden
over
those
brand
new
areas
that
are
designated
nonattainment
for
only
one
of
the
new
8
The
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
includes
county
information
for
its
2000
CMSA/
MSA
population
estimates;
this
information
can
be
accessed
at
http://
www.
census.
gov/
population/
www/
cen2000/
phc­
t3.
html.
To
determine
the
number
of
additional
counties
that
1­
hour
ozone
nonattainment/
maintenance
areas
could
gain
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
EPA
compared
the
2000
census
county
information
to
county
information
for
existing
areas.
Such
information
for
existing
areas
is
included
in
the
EPA
Greenbook
located
on
our
website
at
http://
epa.
gov/
oar/
oaqps/
greenbk/
anay.
html.
16
standards.
Therefore,
Table
2
distinguishes
among
these
different
types
of
urbanized
and
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas
as
well.

Table
2
also
includes
information
on
the
number
of
existing
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas
that
will
be
required
to
demonstrate
conformity
for
one
additional
pollutant
under
the
new
standards.
EPA
notes
that
no
existing
CO,
PM
10
or
NO
2
nonattainment
or
maintenance
area
that
is
currently
subject
to
the
conformity
requirements
for
those
mobile
source
pollutants
is
assumed
to
be
designated
for
both
ozone
and
PM
2.5
under
the
new
standards
based
on
2000­
2002
air
quality
data.
In
other
words,
we
are
not
assuming
that
any
hypothetical
nonattainment
area
with
conformity
experience
would
"
gain"
two
new
pollutants
for
which
conformity
would
be
required
under
the
new
standards.

Finally,
Table
2
includes
information
on
the
number
of
hypothetical
large
and
small
metropolitan
areas
that
are
currently
designated
nonattainment
or
maintenance
for
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
and
that
could
gain
additional
counties
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
Based
on
the
latest
county
information
for
existing
CMSA/
MSAs,
these
areas
may
grow
in
geographic
area
by
an
average
of
40%
(
or
three
additional
counties)
under
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
8
However,
as
previously
stated,
EPA
believes
this
estimate
may
be
conservative
since
final
area
boundaries
for
all
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
may
not
include
the
entire
CMSA/
MSA
for
a
given
area
and
will
also
be
based
on
States'
recommendations
and
additional
air
quality
data,
where
available.

Number
of
State
and
Local
Burden
Hours
Associated
With
Doing
a
Conformity
Determination
For
a
Transportation
Plan,
TIP,
or
Project
EPA
is
relying
on
information
from
several
sources
for
this
ICR's
estimated
state
and
local
burden
hours
for
conformity
determinations
under
the
new
standards.
First,
we
have
reviewed
the
conformity
burden
hour
and
cost
estimates
that
are
assumed
for
existing
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas
in
DOT's
ICR
for
the
transportation
planning
regulations.
Second,
as
described
in
Section
3(
c),
EPA
requested
new
burden
information
from
FHWA
and
FTA
field
and
headquarters'
offices
and
the
EPA
regional
offices.
Finally,
EPA
reviewed
existing
conformity
research
studies
and
considered
whether
any
information
could
be
used
as
a
proxy
for
conformity
burden
under
the
new
air
quality
standards.
These
research
studies
are
listed
in
Appendix
C
of
this
ICR.
17
The
following
paragraphs
describe
estimated
state
and
local
burden
hours
for
conformity
determinations
in
brand
new
and
experienced
metropolitan
and
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas.
The
ICR
assumes
that
all
conformity
determination
work
is
completed
by
State
and
local
employees,
although
in
practice
some
work
may
be
completed
by
consultants.
EPA
also
notes
that
transportation
plan
and
TIP
burden
hour
estimates
are
based
on
demonstrating
conformity
for
3­
year
transportation
plan
and
2­
year
TIP
updates,
rather
than
interim
plan
and
TIP
revisions
or
amendments.

For
each
burden
hour
estimated,
EPA
assumes
that
state
and
local
agencies
work
only
on
conformity­
related
activities.
This
ICR
does
not
include
burden
for
the
general
development
of
transportation
plans,
TIPs,
project,
or
motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets,
since
these
documents
are
developed
to
meet
other
requirements.
However,
EPA
is
assuming
that
some
data
collection
for
transportation
planning
or
SIP
purposes
could
also
be
used
in
conformity
without
additional
conformity­
related
burden.

As
described
above,
this
ICR
only
includes
burden
associated
with
conformity
determinations
over
the
first
three
years
after
nonattainment
designations
for
the
new
standards,
and
future
ICR
updates
will
consider
conformity
burden
for
subsequent
time
periods.
Since
SIPs
for
the
new
standards
are
proposed
to
be
due
starting
in
2007,
this
ICR
does
not
include
conformity
burden
that
may
be
created
once
SIPs
are
submitted
or
approved
for
the
new
air
quality
standards,
such
as
timely
implementation
of
TCMs
in
an
approved
SIP,
or
compliance
with
PM
2.5
SIP
control
measures.
EPA
has
also
accounted
for
a
one­
time
start­
up
cost
for
brand
new
nonattainment
areas
and
counties
that
have
no
previous
experience
with
demonstrating
conformity.
However,
after
these
brand
new
areas
and
counties
have
gained
experience
and
establish
functional
conformity
procedures,
EPA
does
not
expect
this
start­
up
burden
to
persist
once
the
initial
three­
year
period
after
designations
has
concluded.

Plan
and
TIP
Conformity
Determinations
in
Brand
New
Metropolitan
Areas
Tables
3
and
4
include
burden
hour
estimates
per
respondent
for
each
required
transportation
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determination
conducted
in
brand
new
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas.
9
State
and
local
agency
representatives
from
many
new
nonattainment
areas
may
attend
conformity
training
courses
such
as
the
National
Transit
Institutes'
conformity
training
course
entitled,
"
Introduction
to
Transportation/
Air
Quality
Conformity."
This
three­
day
course
offers
an
in­
depth
overview
of
the
criteria
and
procedures
for
implementing
conformity
and
is
designed
for
federal,
State
and
local
agencies
involved
in
the
conformity
process.
18
Table
3:
State
and
Local
Burden
Hours
Associated
with
Each
Transportation
Plan
Conformity
Determination
In
Brand
New
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Metropolitan
Area
Nonattainment
Designation
Start­
up
Consultation
Regional
Emissions
Analysis
Other
Misc.
Activities
Total
Burden
Hours
Pop.
200,000+
ozone
or
PM2.5
120
45
280
45
490
ozone
and
PM2.5
140
60
375
60
635
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
ozone
or
PM2.5
105
45
120
30
300
ozone
and
PM2.5
125
60
160
40
385
Table
4:
State
and
Local
Burden
Hours
Associated
with
Each
TIP
Conformity
Determination
In
Brand
New
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Metropolitan
Area
Nonattainment
Designation
Start­
up
Consultation
Regional
Emissions
Analysis
Other
Misc.
Activities
Total
Burden
Hours
Pop.
200,000+
ozone
or
PM2.5
120
35
280
45
480
ozone
and
PM2.5
140
45
375
60
620
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
ozone
or
PM2.5
105
35
120
30
290
ozone
and
PM2.5
125
45
160
40
370
EPA
has
distributed
start­
up
costs
for
brand
new
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
evenly
between
transportation
plan
and
TIP
burden
estimates.
For
these
areas
with
no
previous
conformity
experience,
EPA
has
estimated
the
burden
hours
per
respondent
associated
with
start­
up
issues,
such
as
reading
the
conformity
regulations,
attending
conformity
training,
9
developing
transportation
and
emissions
models
and
accumulating
modeling
expertise.
Start­
up
burden
for
brand
new
areas
also
considers
the
time
needed
to
establish
conformity
consultation
19
procedures,
however,
EPA
assumes
that
existing
forums
for
most
areas
will
be
used
to
facilitate
the
development
of
such
procedures,
based
on
DOT
and
EPA
field
office
feedback.
Start­
up
burden
for
brand
new
areas
designated
for
both
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
is
increased
slightly
to
allow
for
additional
time
to
adapt
existing
consultation
processes.
EPA
generally
assumes
that
start­
up
burden
hours
will
be
relatively
the
same
for
large
and
small
nonattainment
areas,
although
larger
areas
are
assumed
to
need
some
extra
time
to
adapt
existing
transportation
models
for
conformity
purposes.
Additional
time
is
also
included
to
integrate
transportation
models
with
emissions
factor
models
for
regional
analyses
for
all
areas.

For
each
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determination
in
brand
new
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas,
EPA
has
approximated
the
number
of
burden
hours
for
interagency
consultation
meetings.
However,
EPA
is
assuming
that
conformity­
related
topics
would
be
one
of
many
issues
discussed
at
such
meetings.
In
addition,
EPA
has
estimated
the
burden
hours
associated
with
conducting
a
regional
emissions
analysis
and
completing
other
miscellaneous
conformity­
related
activities.
Such
activities
would
include
additional
consultation
and
technical
assistance,
drafting
the
conformity
determination
and
responding
to
State
and
local
public
comments
that
pertain
to
conformity.

EPA
assumes
that
larger
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
will
incur
more
burden
in
conducting
regional
emissions
analyses
and
miscellaneous
activities
for
the
new
standards
compared
to
smaller
metropolitan
areas,
since
larger
areas
often
have
more
complex
air
quality
issues
with
greater
public
interest,
cover
a
larger
geographic
area
and
typically
have
more
detailed
and
sophisticated
transportation
and
emissions
modeling
capabilities.
However,
EPA
has
assumed
that
the
number
of
agencies
(
approximately
7
State
and
local
agencies
for
each
area)
and
amount
of
time
allocated
to
interagency
consultation
meetings
(
just
over
6
hours
for
plan
updates
and
5
hours
for
TIP
updates)
are
relatively
the
same
in
both
large
and
small
metropolitan
areas.

In
addition,
brand
new
metropolitan
areas
that
are
designated
nonattainment
for
both
new
standards
are
believed
to
incur
more
burden
than
areas
that
are
designated
for
only
one
of
the
new
standards,
since
these
areas
may
be
required
to
conduct
a
regional
emissions
analysis
for
one
additional
year
and
may
have
additional
technical
issues
to
resolve.
As
a
result,
we
have
increased
the
burden
hours
associated
with
consultation,
conducting
regional
emissions
analyses
and
performing
miscellaneous
activities
in
these
areas
by
approximately
one­
third
of
the
total
for
areas
that
are
designated
nonattainment
for
only
one
of
the
new
standards.

Finally,
these
estimates
assume
that
transportation
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations
and
regional
emissions
analysis
are
conducted
separately,
although
EPA
notes
that
the
regional
emissions
analysis
requirements
in
the
conformity
regulation
are
the
same
for
plans
and
TIPs.
Furthermore,
many
areas
rely
on
the
same
regional
emissions
analysis
and
conformity
determination
when
plan
and
TIP
updates
are
done
concurrently.
Some
areas
also
may
rely
on
the
previous
regional
emissions
analysis
and
not
perform
a
new
analysis
for
TIP
updates
that
make
only
minor
changes.
As
a
result,
this
ICR
most
likely
overestimates
the
additional
TIP
conformity
burden
associated
with
state
and
local
actions
under
the
new
20
standards.

Plan
and
TIP
Conformity
Determinations
in
Existing
Metropolitan
Nonattainment/
Maintenance
Areas
Tables
5
and
6
illustrate
the
additional
burden
hours
associated
with
meeting
the
conformity
requirements
for
a
transportation
plan
and
TIP
update
in
an
existing
metropolitan
nonattainment
and
maintenance
area
that
is
covered
by
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
standards.

Table
5:
State
and
Local
Burden
Hours
Associated
with
Each
Transportation
Plan
Conformity
Determination
In
Existing
Metropolitan
Nonattainment/
Maintenance
Areas
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Area
Start­
up
Consultation
Regional
Emissions
Analysis
Other
Misc.
Activities
Total
Burden
Hours
Existing
Area
that
Gains
One
Additional
Pollutant
Pop.
200,000+
10
15
95
15
135
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
10
15
40
10
75
1­
hour
Ozone
Area
with
New
Counties
Pop.
200,000+
50
20
110
20
200
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
40
20
50
10
120
21
Table
6:
State
and
Local
Burden
Hours
Associated
with
Each
TIP
Conformity
Determination
In
Existing
Metropolitan
Nonattainment/
Maintenance
Areas
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Area
Start­
up
Consultation
Regional
Emissions
Analysis
Other
Misc.
Activities
Total
Burden
Hours
Existing
Area
that
Gains
One
Additional
Pollutant
Pop.
200,000+
10
10
95
15
130
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
10
10
40
10
70
1­
hour
Ozone
Area
with
New
Nonattainment
Counties
Pop.
200,000+
50
15
110
20
195
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
40
15
50
10
115
Consistent
with
the
estimated
burden
hours
associated
with
brand
new
nonattainment
areas
(
Tables
3
and
4),
Tables
5
and
6
include
only
the
burden
associated
with
making
a
conformity
determination
for
one
additional
pollutant
in
existing
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas
that
are
already
subject
to
the
conformity
requirements.
EPA
assumes
that
significant
new
burden
in
these
existing
areas
will
be
associated
primarily
with
consultation,
conducting
regional
emissions
analyses
and
completing
miscellaneous
activities
such
as
resolving
technical
issues
and
responding
to
public
comments.
No
significant
new
burden
is
assumed
for
start­
up
in
these
existing
areas,
except
for
reading
the
new
conformity
regulation.
These
areas
already
have
experience
with
the
conformity
process
and
have
established
interagency
consultation
procedures
and
developed
models
for
conducting
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations.

For
estimating
the
burden
associated
with
demonstrating
conformity
for
additional
new
counties
in
expanding
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
that
were
previously
designated
nonattainment
or
maintenance
for
the
1­
hour
standard,
EPA
has
calculated
the
new
burden
for
these
areas
to
be
approximately
40%
of
the
burden
hours
associated
with
meeting
the
conformity
requirements
in
brand
new
nonattainment
areas
(
Tables
3
and
4).
Based
on
2000­
2002
air
quality
data
and
county
information
for
existing
CMSA/
MSAs,
EPA
is
assuming
that
36
large
and
small
1­
hour
ozone
metropolitan
areas
(
out
of
the
112
hypothetical
nonattainment
areas
for
the
new
standards),
could
grow
in
geographic
size
if
they
become
designated
nonattainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
On
average,
these
areas
are
assumed
to
grow
by
40%
or
three
additional
counties
per
nonattainment
area.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
it
is
reasonable
to
estimate
the
additional
burden
of
resolving
start­
up
issues,
holding
consultation
meetings,
conducting
regional
emissions
analyses
and
resolving
technical
issues
in
these
areas
to
be
40%
of
the
burden
estimated
for
brand
new
large
and
small
metropolitan
areas.
However,
EPA
notes
that
additional
start­
up
burden
is
evenly
distributed
between
plan
and
TIP
estimates,
consistent
with
burden
10EPA
did
not
finalize
any
requirements
for
PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analyses
in
the
July
1,
2004
final
rule.
However,
EPA
plans
to
issue
a
Supplemental
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
which
will
contain
a
number
of
options
for
PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analyses.
EPA
would
finalize
any
hot­
spot
22
hour
estimates
assumed
for
brand
new
nonattainment
areas.

Finally,
Tables
5
and
6
assume
that
larger
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
will
incur
more
burden
in
conducting
regional
emissions
analyses
for
the
new
standards
compared
to
smaller
metropolitan
areas,
and
that
transportation
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations
and
regional
emissions
analysis
are
conducted
separately.
EPA
made
similar
assumptions
for
burden
estimates
in
brand
new
metropolitan
areas,
and
as
described
above,
TIP
conformity
burden
hour
estimates
most
likely
are
overestimated
in
this
ICR
for
all
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas.

Project
Conformity
Determinations
in
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Table
7
estimates
the
minimal
burden
associated
with
doing
conformity
determinations
for
projects
in
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
prior
to
adequate
SIP
budgets
being
established
for
the
new
air
quality
standards.
This
table
is
intended
to
illustrate
burden
associated
with
a
typical
project­
level
conformity
determination.

Table
7:
State
and
Local
Burden
Hours
for
Each
Project­
level
Conformity
Determination
in
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Metropolitan
Area
Nonattainment
Designation
Startup
Consultation
Hot­
spot
Analysis
Other
Misc.
Activities
Total
Burden
Hours
Pop.
200,000+
and
50,000­
200,000
Ozone
and/
or
PM2.5
0
4
­
1
5
Pop.
200,000+
and
50,000­
200,000
PM2.5
­
Quantitative
Analysis
0.5
0.5
11
0
12
Pop.
200,000+
and
50,000­
200,000
PM2.5
­
Qualitative
Analysis
0.25
0.25
0.5
0
1
Conformity
determinations
for
projects
in
metropolitan
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
are
fairly
straightforward,
since
projects
only
need
to
come
from
a
conforming
plan
and
TIP
to
meet
conformity
requirements.
Conformity
determinations
for
projects
in
metropolitan
PM
2.5
nonattainment
areas
are
assumed
in
this
ICR
to
involve
some
additional
burden
because
it
is
assumed
that
each
project
will
be
required
to
undergo
either
a
qualitative
or
quantitative
hot­
spot
analysis,
although
EPA
is
still
considering
this
issue
through
the
rulemaking
process.
10
analysis
requirements
in
early
2005
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
PM
2.5
designations.

11EPA
estimates
that
7
state
and
local
agencies
participate
in
1
consultation
meeting
on
each
transportation
project.
23
Consultation
with
other
state
and
local
agencies11
would
be
an
important
activity
that
would
create
only
minimal
conformity
burden.
EPA
is
assuming
that
conformity­
related
consultation
would
be
one
of
many
issues
discussed
through
consultation
meetings
as
a
project
proceeds
through
the
NEPA
process.
EPA
is
also
assuming
that
an
additional
hour
would
be
needed
to
document
in
the
NEPA
document
that
conformity
requirements
are
met
for
each
project.
Projects
in
metropolitan
areas
that
are
from
a
conforming
plan
and
TIP
do
not
require
additional
regional
emissions
analyses.
A
project­
level
hot­
spot
analysis
is
not
required
in
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas.

EPA
assumes
that
there
will
be
a
small
amount
of
additional
start­
up
burden
hours
associated
with
doing
hot­
spot
analyses
as
part
of
project­
level
conformity
determinations
in
PM
2.5
areas
in
the
next
three
years.
Any
other
start­
up
burden
for
brand
new
8­
hour
ozone
areas
or
PM
2.5
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
is
sufficiently
reflected
in
start­
up
estimates
for
doing
transportation
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations.
EPA
is
also
assuming
that
the
total
burden
hours
for
project­
level
conformity
determinations
under
the
new
standards
would
be
approximately
the
same
for
larger
metropolitan
areas
(
urbanized
area
populations
over
200,000)
and
smaller
metropolitan
areas
(
urbanized
area
populations
of
50,000­
200,000).

PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analyses
would
be
done
to
fulfill
both
NEPA
and
transportation
conformity
requirements.
Therefore,
EPA
is
assuming
that
the
estimated
burden
associated
with
start­
up,
consultation
and
preparation
of
these
hot­
spot
analyses
would
be
divided
equally
between
NEPA
and
transportation
conformity.
Accordingly,
the
burden
estimates
in
Table
7
reflect
only
the
share
of
the
burden
attributable
to
fulfilling
transportation
conformity
requirements
for
PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analyses.

Project
Conformity
Determinations
in
Isolated
Rural
Nonattainment
Areas
Table
8
includes
the
additional
burden
estimated
for
doing
a
conformity
determination
for
a
typical
regionally
significant
project
in
an
isolated
rural
nonattainment
area
for
the
new
standards.
It
also
includes
the
additional
burden
associated
with
performing
hot­
spot
analyses
in
PM
2.5
areas.
As
with
metropolitan
areas,
some
isolated
rural
areas
are
expected
to
have
conformity
experience,
while
others
will
be
covered
by
the
conformity
rule
for
the
first
time.
In
general,
conformity
determinations
for
projects
in
isolated
rural
areas
are
more
extensive
than
for
projects
in
metropolitan
areas,
since
a
regional
emissions
analysis
is
also
performed
when
a
regionally
significant
project
"
not
from
a
conforming
transportation
plan
and
TIP"
is
to
receive
12Isolated
rural
areas
are
not
required
by
federal
law
to
develop
local
transportation
plans
or
TIPs.
24
federal
funding
or
approval.
12
Table
8:
State
and
Local
Burden
Hours
for
Each
Project­
Level
Conformity
Determination
in
Isolated
Rural
Nonattainment
Areas
Isolated
Rural
Area
Nonattainment
Designation
Startup
Consultation
Regional
Emissions
Analysis
Other
Misc.
Activities
Hot­
spot
Analysis
Total
Burden
Hours
No
Conformity
Experience
Ozone
or
PM2.5
140
5
60
15
­
220
Ozone
and
PM2.5
160
10
80
20
­
270
Previous
Conformity
Experience
Ozone
or
PM2.5
10
5
60
15
­
90
No
Conformity
Experience
PM2.5
­
Hot­
spot
Analyses
3
1.5
­
­
8
12.5
Previous
Conformity
Experience
PM2.5
­
Hot­
spot
Analyses
1
1
­
­
8
10
EPA
considered
several
factors
in
developing
these
estimates.
As
is
currently
the
case,
EPA
assumes
that
state
departments
of
transportation
will
continue
to
be
the
lead
in
doing
conformity
determinations
in
all
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas
under
the
new
standards.
Some
state
air
quality
agencies
may
also
provide
emissions
modeling
assistance
to
isolated
rural
areas,
as
is
the
case
in
some
areas
under
the
existing
standards.
And
since
many
state
transportation
and
air
quality
agencies
already
have
experience
implementing
the
conformity
regulation
and
doing
transportation
and/
or
emissions
modeling,
EPA
did
not
assume
that
significant
training
of
new
staff
is
necessary
for
any
isolated
rural
areas
under
the
new
standards.
However,
EPA
did
assume
that
local
rural
agencies
in
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas
would
need
time
to
read
the
conformity
regulation,
and
brand
new
areas
would
attend
a
conformity
training
course
(
such
as
the
National
Transit
Institute's
three­
day
course).

For
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas
that
have
no
previous
conformity
experience,
there
would
be
some
additional
start­
up
burden
associated
with
developing
an
interagency
consultation
process
and
a
reasonable
method
for
estimating
vehicle
miles
traveled.
Based
on
responses
received
from
DOT
and
EPA
field
offices,
new
isolated
rural
areas
should
be
able
to
use
existing
available
resources
as
starting
points
for
meeting
conformity
requirements.
Therefore,
we
have
assumed
some
additional
work
will
be
needed
to
modify
existing
consultative
forums
and
VMT
13EPA
estimates
that
4
state
and
local
agencies
would
participate
in
1
consultation
meeting
on
each
transportation
project.
25
estimation
methods
for
regulatory
purposes.
EPA
is
assuming
no
additional
emissions
modeling
start­
up
burden
for
brand
new
isolated
rural
areas
since
EPA's
MOBILE6
model
was
released
about
two
years
ago
for
most
areas,
and
state
transportation
and
air
quality
agencies
should
have
MOBILE6
experience.
In
addition,
data
collection
for
local
information
on
isolated
rural
areas
may
also
be
completed
for
SIP
planning
purposes,
and
if
local
information
is
not
available,
MOBILE6
provides
national
defaults
for
emissions
analyses.
No
significant
new
burden
is
assumed
for
start­
up
in
existing
areas,
except
for
reading
the
new
conformity
regulation.
Existing
areas
already
have
experience
with
the
conformity
process
and
established
interagency
consultation
procedures
and
developed
models
for
conducting
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations.

It
is
also
assumed
that
burden
associated
with
conformity
determinations
for
projects
in
isolated
rural
areas
would
be
the
same
for
8­
hour
ozone
areas
with
and
without
previous
conformity
experience.
It
is
assumed
that
PM
2.5
areas
would
incur
additional
burden
due
to
hotspot
analysis
requirements.
It
is
also
assumed
that
PM
2.5
areas
with
no
experience
would
require
more
start­
up
time
and
consultation
in
order
to
conduct
hot­
spot
analyses.
Consultation
between
state
and
local
agencies
would
occur
for
each
regionally
significant
project
and
each
project
requiring
a
hot­
spot
analysis
in
PM
2.5
areas.
13
Like
metropolitan
projects,
EPA
is
also
assuming
that
conformity­
related
topics
would
be
one
of
many
issues
discussed
through
consultation
meetings
as
a
project
proceeds
through
the
NEPA
process.

Brand
new
isolated
rural
areas
that
are
designated
nonattainment
for
both
new
standards
are
believed
to
incur
more
burden
than
brand
new
areas
that
are
designated
for
only
one
of
the
new
standards,
since
these
areas
may
be
required
to
conduct
a
regional
emissions
analysis
for
one
additional
year
and
may
have
additional
technical
issues
to
resolve.
Therefore,
we
have
increased
the
burden
hours
associated
with
consultation,
conducting
regional
emissions
analyses
and
performing
miscellaneous
activities
in
these
areas
by
approximately
one­
third
of
the
total
for
isolated
rural
areas
that
are
designated
nonattainment
for
only
one
of
the
new
standards.

EPA
notes
that
the
estimates
in
this
ICR
may
overestimate
burden
associated
with
completing
regional
emissions
analyses
for
projects
in
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas,
since
conformity
determinations
for
non­
regionally
significant
projects
may
not
require
that
a
new
regional
emissions
analysis
be
completed
every
time.
Finally,
as
for
metropolitan
projects,
this
ICR
includes
estimated
burden
associated
with
project­
level
hot­
spot
analyses
in
PM
2.5
areas,
including
the
start­
up
burden
hours
associated
with
doing
PM
2.5
project­
level
hot­
spot
analyses
in
the
time
period
covered
by
this
ICR.

PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analyses
would
be
done
to
fulfill
both
NEPA
and
transportation
conformity
requirements.
Therefore,
EPA
is
assuming
that
the
estimated
burden
associated
with
start­
up,
consultation
and
preparation
of
these
hot­
spot
analyses
would
be
divided
equally
between
NEPA
and
transportation
conformity.
Accordingly,
the
burden
estimates
in
Table
8
14
January
2003
U.
S.
Office
of
Personal
Management,
Salary
Table
2003­
GS,
2003
General
Schedule,
http://
www.
opm.
gov/
oca/
03tables/
html/
gs.
asp.
26
reflect
only
the
share
of
the
burden
attributable
to
fulfilling
transportation
conformity
requirements
for
PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analyses.

6(
b)
Estimating
State
and
Local
Respondent
Costs
Appendix
D
includes
Tables
9
through
14
that
estimate
state
and
local
respondent
costs
associated
with
conformity
determinations
for
transportation
plans,
TIPs,
and
projects
in
metropolitan
and
isolated
rural
areas.
EPA
is
not
including
those
tables
here
for
the
sake
of
brevity,
and
because
these
estimates
are
also
reflected
in
the
bottom
line
burden
and
costs
in
Section
6(
d)
below.
The
following
paragraphs
describe
the
assumptions
used
in
the
Appendix
D
estimates.

Estimating
State
and
Local
Agency
Costs
EPA
will
be
relying
upon
cost
estimates
similar
to
what
were
assumed
in
DOT's
existing
ICR
for
the
transportation
planning
regulations.
Specifically,
we
are
estimating
that
each
state
and
local
burden
hour
associated
with
conformity
determinations
is
completed
by
an
experienced
technical
staff
person
at
a
state
or
local
agency
or
contractor.
We
believe
that
this
will
result
in
a
conservative
cost
estimate,
even
though
the
actual
conformity
work
may
be
done
by
a
less
experienced
technical
person
or
secretarial,
management,
or
legal
staff.
In
addition
to
salary
costs,
EPA
is
also
including
overhead
costs
associated
with
employing
an
experienced
technical
staff
person,
such
as
paid
leave,
health
insurance,
retirement
savings,
office
space,
computers,
and
other
business
expenses.

EPA
is
assuming
that
state
and
local
burden
hours
would
be
completed
by
an
experienced
technical
staff
person
being
paid
at
a
GS­
13,
Step
3
federal
government
employee
salary
of
$
65,335/
year.
14
EPA
then
divided
the
annual
2003
GS­
13,
Step
3
salary
rate
by
2080
(
the
number
of
hours
in
a
work
year)
and
multiplied
this
number
by
the
standard
government
overhead
factor
of
1.6.
This
calculation
results
in
a
state
and
local
cost
of
$
50.25/
burden
hour.

State
and
Local
Capital
or
Operating
and
Maintenance
(
O
&
M)
Burden
In
general,
EPA
is
not
expecting
that
additional
computers,
software,
or
other
capital
investments
would
be
needed
to
do
regional
conformity
analyses
under
the
new
standards.
Planners
should
be
able
to
adapt
existing
equipment
and
systems
for
conformity
use.

The
transportation
conformity
regulation
does
not
contain
any
continuing
record
keeping
or
reporting
requirements
that
require
additional
capital
or
O&
M
costs
for
individual
state
or
15
The
average
number
of
project
conformity
determinations
for
large
and
small
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
was
based
on
DOT
field
office
responses
to
a
request
for
this
ICR
and
represents
a
combined
total
of
highway
and
transit
projects.
However,
EPA
notes
that
the
information
on
which
these
averages
are
based
contained
much
variation,
and
we
will
refine
estimates
if
better
information
becomes
available
in
the
future.
27
local
respondent
actions.
Thus,
no
capital
or
O&
M
cost
is
included
for
record
keeping
and
reporting
actions.

Frequency
of
Conformity
Determinations
and
Annualizing
Burden
Estimates
The
tables
included
in
Appendix
D
annualize
the
state
and
local
burden
and
costs
associated
with
conformity
determinations
in
metropolitan
and
isolated
nonattainment
rural
areas.
EPA
has
assumed
the
following
in
annualizing
estimates:

°
Transportation
plans:
Estimates
are
annualized
over
a
three­
year
period,
to
correspond
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
requirement
that
transportation
plans
conform
with
a
new
regional
emissions
analysis
every
three
years.
It
is
assumed
that
only
one
plan
conformity
determination
will
be
done
for
each
metropolitan
nonattainment
area
every
three
years.
EPA
is
not
considering
additional
burden
from
MPOs
updating
or
revising
transportation
plans
voluntarily
on
a
more
frequent
basis.

°
TIPs:
Estimates
are
annualized
over
a
two­
year
period.
Although
the
Clean
Air
Act
similarly
requires
conformity
every
three
years
for
TIPs,
TEA­
21
and
DOT's
transportation
planning
regulations
require
TIPs
to
be
updated
every
two
years.
Since
conformity
is
also
required
when
TIPs
are
updated,
conformity
determinations
are
being
completed
in
practice
every
two
years.
It
is
assumed
that
one
TIP
conformity
determination
is
done
in
each
metropolitan
nonattainment
area
every
two
years.
EPA
is
not
considering
additional
burden
from
MPOs
updating
or
revising
TIPs
voluntarily
on
a
more
frequent
basis.

°
Projects
in
metropolitan
areas:
Estimates
are
annualized
over
a
two­
year
period.
This
period
accounts
for
the
time
for
a
typical
project's
development
and
completion
of
the
NEPA
process
and
conformity
determination.
Burden
may
be
overestimated
in
the
case
of
smaller,
straightforward
projects,
whereas
estimates
may
be
underestimated
for
larger,
more
complex
projects
such
as
those
that
require
an
environmental
impact
statement
(
EIS)
through
the
NEPA
process.
It
is
assumed
that
40
and
24
project
conformity
determinations
are
typically
done
in
each
large
and
small
metropolitan
nonattainment
area,
respectively,
every
two
years.
15
°
Projects
in
isolated
rural
areas:
Estimates
are
annualized
over
a
five­
year
period.
As
is
currently
the
case,
it
is
assumed
that
conformity
determinations
will
continue
to
occur
less
frequently
in
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas
since
such
areas
are
smaller
than
16EPA
is
basing
this
assumption
on
the
following
research:
1)
Draft
report,
"
Transportation/
Air
Quality
Issues
in
Rural
Areas,"
FHWA
and
Dye
Management,
Inc.;
and
2)
July
31,
2003,
draft
report,
"
Rural
Conformity:
A
Survey
of
Practice,"
ICF
consulting,
NCHRPfunded
effort.

17
January
2003
U.
S.
Office
of
Personal
Management,
Salary
Table
2003­
GS,
2003
General
Schedule,
http://
www.
opm.
gov/
oca/
03tables/
html/
gs.
asp.
28
metropolitan
areas
and
have
less
developed
transportation
systems
with
fewer
transportation
projects.
It
is
assumed
that
one
project
conformity
determination
is
done
in
each
isolated
rural
nonattainment
area
every
five
years.
16
Number
of
8­
hour
Ozone
and
PM2.5
Nonattainment
Areas
Assumed
The
estimates
in
Appendix
D
include
the
assumptions
for
hypothetical
8­
hour
and
PM
2.5
nonattainment
areas
that
are
described
in
Section
6(
a)
of
this
ICR.

6(
c)
Estimating
Federal
Burden
and
Cost
EPA
will
be
relying
upon
cost
assumptions
similar
to
what
is
assumed
in
DOT's
existing
ICR
for
the
transportation
planning
regulations.
Specifically,
we
are
estimating
that
each
DOT
and
EPA
federal
burden
hour
associated
with
conformity
determinations
is
completed
by
an
experienced
technical
staff
person.
We
believe
that
this
will
result
in
a
conservative
cost
estimate,
even
though
EPA
believes
that
the
actual
conformity
work
may
be
done
by
a
less
experienced
technical
person
or
secretarial,
management,
or
legal
staff.
EPA
is
also
including
overhead
costs
associated
with
employing
an
experienced
technical
staff
person,
such
as
paid
leave,
health
insurance,
retirement
savings,
office
space,
computers,
and
other
business
expenses.

EPA
is
assuming
that
federal
burden
hours
would
be
completed
by
an
experienced
technical
staff
person
being
paid
at
a
GS­
13,
Step
3
federal
government
employee
salary
of
$
65,335/
year.
17
EPA
then
divided
the
annual
2003
GS­
13,
Step
3
salary
rate
by
2080
(
the
number
of
hours
in
a
work
year)
and
multiplied
this
number
by
the
standard
government
overhead
factor
of
1.6.
This
calculation
results
in
a
federal
cost
of
$
50.25/
burden
hour.

Federal
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
For
Transportation
Plan
and
TIP
Conformity
Determinations
in
Brand
New
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Tables
15
and
16
present
the
estimated
federal
burden
hours
per
transportation
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determination,
respectively,
in
brand
new
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas.
These
estimates
were
drawn
directly
from
FHWA,
FTA
and
EPA
responses
to
a
recent
request
for
new
burden
information
for
this
ICR
and
represent
the
average
29
response
for
a
typical
plan
or
TIP
conformity
determination
in
both
large
and
small
metropolitan
areas.
DOT
and
EPA
burden
associated
with
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations
includes
attending
consultation
meetings,
providing
technical
and
policy
assistance
prior
to
an
MPO's
determination
and
reviewing
the
final
plan
or
TIP
conformity
documentation.
It
is
generally
assumed
that
DOT
has
significantly
more
burden
than
EPA
since
DOT
is
required
to
approve
all
transportation
plan,
TIP,
and
project
conformity
determinations.

Table
15:
Federal
Burden
Hours
Associated
with
Each
Transportation
Plan
Conformity
Determination
for
Brand
New
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Nonattainment
Designation
of
Metropolitan
Area
Activity
FHWA
FTA
EPA
Total
Ozone
or
PM2.5
Attending
Consultation
Meetings
13
3
3
19
Conformity­
Related
Work
Prior
to
MPO
Determination
35
1
10
46
Reviewing
Plan
Conformity
Determination
40
6
20
66
Total
For
Each
Brand
New
Ozone
or
PM2.5
Area:
131
Ozone
and
PM2.5
Attending
Consultation
Meetings
17
4
4
25
Conformity­
Related
Work
Prior
to
MPO
Determination
47
1
13
61
Reviewing
Plan
Conformity
Determination
53
8
27
88
Total
For
Each
Brand
New
Ozone
and
PM2.5
Area:
174
30
Table
16:
Federal
Burden
Hours
Associated
with
Each
TIP
Conformity
Determination
for
Brand
New
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Nonattainment
Designation
of
Metropolitan
Area
Activity
FHWA
FTA
EPA
Total
Ozone
or
PM2.5
Attending
Consultation
Meetings
10
2
2
14
Conformity­
Related
Work
Prior
to
MPO
Determination
35
1
10
46
Reviewing
TIP
Conformity
Determination
40
6
20
66
Total
For
Each
Brand
New
Ozone
or
PM2.5
Area:
126
Ozone
and
PM2.5
Attending
Consultation
Meetings
13
3
3
19
Conformity­
Related
Work
Prior
to
MPO
Determination
47
1
13
61
Reviewing
TIP
Conformity
Determination
53
8
27
88
Total
For
Each
Brand
New
Ozone
and
PM2.5
Area:
168
For
brand
new
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
both
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5,
EPA
assumes
that
the
federal
agencies
will
incur
more
burden
from
additional
work
prior
to
the
MPO's
determination
and
review
of
the
plan
or
TIP
conformity
determination,
than
metropolitan
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
only
one
of
the
new
standards.
Therefore,
for
areas
designated
for
both
new
standards,
EPA
has
assumed
that
the
new
federal
burden
will
increase
by
one­
third
over
that
assumed
for
areas
designated
for
only
one
of
the
new
standards
consistent
with
State
and
local
estimates
for
such
areas.

As
described
above,
EPA
assumes
a
federal
cost
of
$
50.25/
burden
hour
for
this
ICR.
Based
on
the
total
federal
burden
hours
assumed
for
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations
in
metropolitan
areas
that
are
designated
for
either
one
or
both
new
standards,
Table
17
presents
the
total
estimated
federal
annualized
cost
associated
with
making
transportation
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations
in
these
areas.
31
Table
17:
Federal
Annual
Cost
Associated
with
Transportation
Plan
and
TIP
Conformity
Determinations
In
Brand
New
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Action
Nonattainment
Designation
of
Metropolitan
Area
Burden
Hours
Per
Action
No.
of
Areas
Frequency
of
Action
Total
Annual
Burden
Hours
Cost
Per
Hour
Total
Annual
Cost
Plan
Ozone
or
PM2.5
131
23
3
years
1004
$
50.25
$
50,451
Ozone
and
PM2.5
174
2
3
years
116
$
50.25
$
5,829
Total
For
All
Transportation
Plan
Actions:
1120
hours/
year
x
$
50.25/
hour
=
$
56,280
TIP
Ozone
or
PM2.5
126
23
2
years
1449
$
50.25
$
72,812
Ozone
and
PM2.5
168
2
2
years
168
$
50.25
$
8,442
Total
For
All
TIP
Actions:
1617
hours/
year
x
$
50.25/
hour
=
$
81,254
Federal
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
For
Plan
and
TIP
Conformity
Determinations
in
Existing
Metropolitan
Nonattainment/
Maintenance
Areas
Tables
18
and
19
present
the
estimated
federal
burden
per
transportation
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determination,
respectively,
in
new
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
nonattainment
areas
that
have
previous
conformity
experience
(
i.
e.,
areas
that
have
been
previously
designated
nonattainment
or
maintenance
for
one
or
more
mobile­
source
criteria
pollutants
and
subject
to
the
conformity
requirements).
New
federal
burden
is
estimated
for
existing
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas
that
will
"
gain"
one
additional
pollutant
under
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
standards.
In
addition,
federal
burden
is
assumed
for
additional
new
counties
in
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
that
were
previously
designated
nonattainment
or
maintenance
for
the
1­
hour
standard.
32
Table
18:
Federal
Burden
Hours
Associated
with
Each
Transportation
Plan
Conformity
Determination
In
Existing
Metropolitan
Nonattainment/
Maintenance
Areas
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Area
Activity
FHWA
FTA
EPA
Total
Existing
Area
That
Gains
One
Additional
Pollutant
(
Includes
all
areas
with
populations
of
200,000+
and
50,000­
200,000)
Attending
Consultation
Meetings
4
1
1
6
Conformity­
Related
Work
Prior
to
MPO
Determination
12
>
0.5
3
15
Reviewing
Plan
Conformity
Determination
13
2
7
22
Total
For
Each
Existing
Area
With
One
Additional
Pollutant:
43
Expanding
1­
hour
Ozone
Area
with
New
Counties
(
Includes
all
areas
with
populations
of
200,000+
and
50,000­
200,000)
Attending
Consultation
Meetings
5
1
1
7
Conformity­
Related
Work
Prior
to
MPO
Determination
14
>
0.5
4
18
Reviewing
Plan
Conformity
Determination
16
2
8
26
Total
For
Each
1­
hour
Existing
Area
With
New
Counties:
51
33
Table
19:
Federal
Burden
Hours
Associated
with
Each
TIP
Conformity
Determination
In
Existing
Metropolitan
Nonattainment/
Maintenance
Areas
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Area
Activity
FHWA
FTA
EPA
Total
Existing
Area
That
Gains
One
Additional
Pollutant
(
Includes
all
areas
with
populations
of
200,000+
and
50,000­
200,000)
Attending
Consultation
Meetings
3
1
1
5
Conformity­
Related
Work
Prior
to
MPO
Determination
12
>
0.5
3
15
Reviewing
TIP
Conformity
Determination
13
2
7
22
Total
For
Each
Existing
Area
With
One
Additional
Pollutant:
42
Expanding
1­
hour
Ozone
Area
with
New
Counties
(
Includes
all
areas
with
populations
of
200,000+
and
50,000­
200,000)
Attending
Consultation
Meetings
4
1
1
6
Conformity­
Related
Work
Prior
to
MPO
Determination
14
>
0.5
4
18
Reviewing
TIP
Conformity
Determination
16
2
8
26
Total
For
Each
Existing
1­
hour
Area
With
New
Counties:
50
Consistent
with
the
estimated
federal
burden
hours
associated
with
brand
new
areas
(
Tables
15
and
16),
Tables
18
and
19
include
only
the
federal
burden
associated
with
making
a
conformity
determination
for
one
additional
pollutant
in
existing
metropolitan
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas
that
are
already
subject
to
the
conformity
requirements.
EPA
assumes
that
new
federal
burden
in
these
existing
areas
will
be
associated
only
with
conformity­
related
work
prior
to
an
MPO's
determination
and
for
reviewing
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations.
In
addition,
no
significant
new
burden
is
assumed
for
consultation
in
these
areas,
as
these
areas
already
have
established
interagency
consultation
procedures
with
regularly
scheduled
meetings
for
discussing
conformity
issues.
EPA
also
assumes
no
significant
difference
in
the
number
of
federal
burden
hours
associated
with
making
TIP
conformity
determinations
for
large
and
small
metropolitan
areas.

For
reasons
explained
in
Section
6(
a)
for
estimating
federal
conformity
burden
for
additional
new
counties
in
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
that
were
previously
designated
nonattainment
or
maintenance
for
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard,
EPA
has
calculated
the
new
federal
burden
to
be
approximately
40%
of
the
burden
hours
associated
with
meeting
the
conformity
requirements
in
brand
new
nonattainment
areas
(
Tables
15
and
16).
See
Section
6(
a)
for
further
background
on
assumptions
for
these
types
of
areas.

Assuming
$
50.25
per
federal
burden
hour,
Table
20
presents
the
total
federal
annualized
34
cost
associated
with
making
transportation
plan
and
TIP
conformity
determinations
in
metropolitan
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
nonattainment
areas
that
have
previous
conformity
experience.

Table
20:
Federal
Annual
Cost
Associated
with
Transportation
Plan
and
TIP
Conformity
Determinations
In
Existing
Metropolitan
Nonattainment/
Maintenance
Areas
Action
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Area
Burden
Hours
Per
Action
No.
of
Areas
Frequency
of
Action
Total
Annual
Burden
Hours
Cost
Per
Hour
Total
Annual
Cost
Plan
Existing
Area
That
Gains
One
Additional
Pollutant
43
40
3
years
573
$
50.25
$
28,793
Expanding
1­
hour
Ozone
Area
with
New
Counties
51
36
3
years
612
$
50.25
$
30,753
Total
For
All
Transportation
Plan
Actions:
1185
hours/
year
x
$
50.25/
hour
=
$
59,546
TIP
Existing
Area
That
Gains
One
Additional
Pollutant
42
40
2
years
840
$
50.25
$
42,210
Expanding
1­
hour
Ozone
Area
with
New
Counties
50
36
2
years
900
$
50.25
$
45,225
Total
For
All
TIP
Actions:
1740
hours/
year
x
$
50.25/
hour
=
$
87,435
Federal
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
For
Project­
level
Conformity
Determinations
in
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Tables
21
and
22
estimates
the
minimal
federal
burden
hours
associated
with
doing
conformity
determinations
for
projects
in
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas.
This
table
is
intended
to
illustrate
federal
burden
associated
with
a
typical
project­
level
conformity
determination.
35
Table
21:
Federal
Burden
Hours
for
Each
Project­
level
Conformity
Determination
in
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Type
of
Project
Activity
FHWA
or
FTA
EPA
Total
Projects
in
8­
hour
Ozone
and/
or
PM2.5
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
(
Includes
all
areas
with
populations
of
200,000+
and
50,000­
200,000)
Attending
Consultation
Meetings
1
0.5
1.5
Reviewing
Project­
level
Conformity
Determination
1
0.5
1.5
Total
For
Each
Metropolitan
Project­
Level
Determination:
3
Table
22:
Federal
Burden
Hours
for
Each
PM2.5
Quantitative
Hot­
spot
Analysis
in
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Type
of
Project
Activity
FHWA
or
FTA
EPA
Total
Projects
in
PM2.5
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
(
Includes
all
areas
with
populations
of
200,000+
and
50,000­
200,000)
Attending
Consultation
Meetings
0.5
0.25
0.75
Reviewing
Project­
level
Conformity
Determination
1.5
0.25
1.75
Total
For
Each
Metropolitan
PM2.5
Hot­
spot
Analysis:
2.5
Table
23:
Federal
Burden
Hours
for
Each
PM2.5
Qualitative
Hot­
spot
Analysis
in
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Type
of
Project
Activity
FHWA
or
FTA
EPA
Total
Projects
in
PM2.5
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
(
Includes
all
areas
with
populations
of
200,000+
and
50,000­
200,000)
Attending
Consultation
Meetings
0.25
0
0.25
Reviewing
Project­
level
Conformity
Determination
0.25
0
02.5
Total
For
Each
Metropolitan
PM2.5
Hot­
spot
Analysis:
0.5
As
previously
explained,
conformity
determinations
for
projects
in
both
large
and
small
metropolitan
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
would
be
fairly
straightforward,
since
projects
would
only
need
to
come
from
a
conforming
plan
and
TIP
to
proceed.
Conformity
determinations
in
metropolitan
PM
2.5
nonattainment
areas
are
likely
to
require
both
a
finding
that
36
the
project
comes
from
a
conforming
plan
and
TIP
and
a
hot­
spot
analysis.
Consultation
with
state
and
local
agencies
would
create
some
minimal
conformity
burden.
EPA
is
assuming
that
conformity
would
be
one
of
many
issues
discussed
through
consultation
meetings
as
a
project
proceeds
through
the
NEPA
process.
EPA
is
also
assuming
that
minimal
additional
time
would
be
needed
to
review
and
document
that
conformity
requirements
are
met.

For
FHWA
and
FTA
burden
associated
with
metropolitan
project­
level
conformity
determinations,
EPA
is
assuming
that
only
one
of
these
entities
would
be
involved
in
consultation
and
review
of
the
conformity
documentation
for
any
given
project.
In
other
words,
FHWA
would
incur
additional
burden
from
only
highway
project­
level
conformity
determinations,
while
FTA
would
incur
additional
burden
from
only
transit
project
determinations.

PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analyses
would
be
done
to
fulfill
both
NEPA
and
transportation
conformity
requirements.
Therefore,
EPA
is
assuming
that
the
estimated
federal
burden
associated
with
these
hot­
spot
analyses
would
be
divided
equally
between
NEPA
and
transportation
conformity.
Accordingly,
the
burden
estimates
in
Tables
22
and
23
reflect
only
the
share
of
the
burden
attributable
to
transportation
conformity
requirements
for
PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analyses.

Based
on
the
total
federal
burden
hours
assumed
for
each
project­
level
conformity
determination
in
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas,
Tables
24
and
25
presents
the
estimated
total
federal
annualized
cost
associated
with
these
types
of
conformity
actions.
18
The
number
of
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
for
which
Federal
burden
and
costs
associated
with
project­
level
conformity
determinations
are
determined
includes
all
metropolitan
areas
that
will
incur
significant
burden
under
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
air
quality
standards
(
i.
e.,
the
78
large
and
small
metropolitan
areas
out
of
the
86
hypothetical
new
nonattainment
areas
that
will
assume
additional
burden
under
the
new
standards).
This
estimate
includes
all
brand
new
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
and
all
existing
metropolitan
nonattainment/
maintenance
areas
that
will
gain
an
additional
pollutant
and/
or
will
gain
additional
ozone
counties
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
standards.
37
Table
24:
Federal
Annual
Cost
Associated
with
Project­
level
Conformity
Determinations
In
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Type
of
Project
Burden
Hours
Per
Action
No.
of
Actions
Freq.
of
Action
No.
of
Areas
18
Total
Annual
Burden
Hours
Cost
Per
Hour
Total
Annual
Cost
Projects
in
8­
hour
Ozone
and/
or
PM2.5
Metro.
Nonattain
.
Areas
Pop.
200,000+
3
40
2
years
61
3660
$
50.25
$
183,915
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
3
24
2
years
17
612
$
50.25
$
30,753
Hot­
spot
Analyses
in
PM2.5
Metro.
Nonattain
.
Areas
Quantitative
Analyses
2.5
16
2
years
53
1060
$
50.25
$
53,265
Qualitative
Analyses
0.5
48
2
years
53
636
$
50.25
$
31,959
Total
For
All
Project
Level
Conformity
Determinations:
5968
hours/
year
x
$
50.25/
hour
=$
299,892
Federal
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
For
Project­
level
Conformity
Determinations
in
Isolated
Rural
Nonattainment
Areas
Table
25
includes
the
additional
federal
burden
estimated
for
doing
conformity
for
a
typical
regionally
significant
transportation
project
in
an
isolated
rural
nonattainment
area
for
the
new
standards.
In
general,
conformity
determinations
for
projects
in
isolated
rural
areas
are
more
extensive
than
for
metropolitan,
since
isolated
rural
areas
also
need
to
perform
a
regional
emissions
analysis
when
a
regionally
significant
project
is
to
receive
federal
funding
or
approval.
Table
26
presents
the
federal
burden
associated
with
hot­
spot
analyses
isolated
rural
PM
2.5
areas.
38
Table
25:
Federal
Burden
Hours
for
Each
Project
Conformity
Determination
In
Isolated
Rural
Nonattainment
Areas
Nonattainment
Designation
Activity
FHWA
FTA
EPA
Total
Ozone
or
PM2.5
Attending
Consultation
Meetings
5
1
1
7
Conformity­
Related
Work
Prior
to
State
DOT
Determination
6
>
0.5
2
8
Reviewing
Project
Conformity
Determination
20
3
10
33
Total
For
Each
Ozone
or
PM2.5
Isolated
Rural
Area
Project
Determination:
48
Ozone
and
PM2.5
Attending
Consultation
Meetings
7
1
1
9
Conformity­
Related
Work
Prior
to
State
DOT
Determination
8
>
0.5
3
11
Reviewing
Project
Conformity
Determination
27
4
13
44
Total
For
Each
Ozone
and
PM2.5
Isolated
Rural
Area
Project
Determination:
64
Table
26:
Federal
Burden
Hours
for
Each
PM2.5
Hot­
spot
Analysis
in
Isolated
Rural
Nonattainment
Areas
Type
of
Project
Activity
FHWA
or
FTA
EPA
Total
Projects
in
PM2.5
Isolated
Rural
Nonattainment
Areas
Attending
Consultation
Meetings
0.5
0.25
0.75
Reviewing
Project­
level
Conformity
Determination
1.5
0.25
1.75
Total
For
Each
Isolated
Rural
Area
PM2.5
Hot­
spot
Analysis:
2.5
It
is
assumed
that
federal
burden
hours
associated
with
conformity
determinations
for
projects
in
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas
would
be
the
same
for
areas
with
and
without
previous
conformity
experience.
In
addition,
consultation
between
federal,
state
and
local
agencies
would
occur
for
each
regionally
significant
project
and
for
each
project
requiring
a
PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analysis.
Like
metropolitan
projects,
EPA
is
also
assuming
that
conformityrelated
consultation
would
be
one
of
many
issues
discussed
through
consultation
meetings
as
a
project
proceeds
through
the
NEPA
process.

Federal
burden
associated
with
conformity
determinations
in
isolated
rural
areas
that
are
39
designated
nonattainment
for
both
new
standards
is
believed
to
be
greater
than
federal
burden
for
areas
that
are
designated
for
only
one
of
the
new
standards,
since
EPA
and
DOT
may
need
to
provide
additional
technical
assistance
and
allocate
additional
time
to
review
conformity
documentation
in
areas
designated
for
both
new
standards.
As
a
result,
we
have
increased
the
federal
burden
hours
associated
with
these
activities
for
ozone
and
PM
2.5
areas
by
approximately
one­
third
of
the
total
for
isolated
rural
areas
that
are
designated
nonattainment
for
only
one
of
the
new
standards.
EPA
notes
that
these
assumptions
may
overestimate
federal
burden
associated
with
assisting
in
and
reviewing
project
conformity
determinations
in
isolated
rural
areas,
since
conformity
determinations
for
non­
regionally
significant
projects
may
not
require
a
new
regional
emissions
analysis
to
be
completed
every
time.
Finally,
the
ICR
includes
estimated
federal
burden
associated
with
project­
level
hot­
spot
analyses
in
PM
2.5
areas.
Note
that
the
burden
estimates
assume
quantitative
analyses
are
done
in
isolated
rural
areas
consistent
with
our
conservative
estimates
in
the
ICR
for
these
areas.

PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analyses
would
be
done
to
fulfill
both
NEPA
and
transportation
conformity
requirements.
Therefore,
EPA
is
assuming
that
the
estimated
federal
burden
associated
with
consultation
and
review
of
these
hot­
spot
analyses
would
be
divided
equally
between
NEPA
and
transportation
conformity.
Accordingly,
the
burden
estimates
in
Table
26
reflect
only
the
share
of
the
burden
attributable
to
fulfilling
transportation
conformity
requirements
for
PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analyses.

Based
on
the
total
federal
burden
hours
assumed
for
each
conformity
determination
in
isolated
rural
areas
designated
for
one
or
both
new
standards,
Table
27
presents
the
estimated
total
federal
annualized
cost
associated
with
making
determinations
in
all
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas.

Table
27:
Federal
Annual
Cost
Associated
with
Project
Conformity
Determinations
In
Isolated
Rural
Nonattainment
Areas
Nonattainment
Designation
of
Isolated
Rural
Area
Burden
Hours
Per
Action
No.
of
Areas
Frequency
of
Action
Total
Annual
Burden
Hours
Cost
Per
Hour
Total
Annual
Burden
Cost
Ozone
or
PM2.5
48
7
5
years
67
$
50.25
$
3367
Ozone
and
PM2.5
64
1
5
years
13
$
50.25
$
653
PM2.5
­
Hot­
spot
Analyses
2.5
4
5
years
2
$
50.25
$
100
Total
For
All
Isolated
Rural
Areas:
82
hours/
year
x
$
50.25/
hour
=$
4,120
6(
d)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
19
The
number
of
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
for
which
the
total
average
federal,
state
and
local
burden
and
costs
under
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
standards
are
determined
includes
all
metropolitan
areas
that
will
incur
significant
burden
under
the
new
standards
(
i.
e.,
the
78
large
and
small
metropolitan
areas
out
of
the
86
hypothetical
new
nonattainment
areas
that
will
assume
additional
burden
under
the
new
standards).
This
estimate
of
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
that
will
incur
new
burden
includes
all
brand
new
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
and
all
existing
metropolitan
nonattainment/
maintenance
areas
that
will
gain
an
additional
pollutant
and/
or
will
gain
additional
ozone
counties
under
the
new
standards.

20The
number
of
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas
for
which
the
total
average
federal,
state
and
local
burden
and
costs
under
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
standards
are
determined
includes
all
rural
areas
that
will
incur
significant
burden
under
the
new
standards
(
i.
e.,
the
8
isolated
rural
areas
of
the
86
hypothetical
new
nonattainment
areas
that
will
assume
additional
burden
under
the
new
standards).
This
estimate
of
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas
that
will
incur
new
burden
includes
all
brand
new
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas
and
all
existing
isolated
rural
nonattainment/
maintenance
areas
that
will
gain
an
additional
pollutant
under
the
new
standards.
40
The
bottom­
line
annual
burden
for
all
State
and
local
agencies
is
29,413.5
hours,
with
a
cost
of
$
1,478,029.
EPA
assumes
that
86
new
nonattainment
areas
will
have
some
additional
conformity
burden
under
the
new
air
quality
standards,
and
these
areas
will
complete
approximately
1,510
total
conformity
determinations
every
year.

EPA
also
estimates
that
the
average
state
and
local
burden
for
conformity
activities
in
each
metropolitan
nonattainment
area
that
incurs
additional
burden
under
the
new
standards19
to
be
377
hours/
year
at
a
cost
of
$
18,949/
year.
Additional
federal
burden
associated
with
conformity
for
each
of
these
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
is
estimated
to
be
149
hours/
year
at
a
cost
of
$
7,492/
year.
These
average
estimates
on
a
per
area
basis
include
new
burden
associated
with
conducting
transportation
plan,
TIP
and
project­
level
conformity
determinations.

Average
state
and
local
burden
associated
with
conformity
for
isolated
rural
nonattainment
areas
that
incur
new
burden
under
the
new
standards20
is
43
hours/
year
at
a
cost
of
$
2,170/
year.
New
federal
burden
associated
with
each
of
these
areas
is
calculated
to
be
10
hours/
year
at
a
cost
of
$
503/
year.

Finally,
the
bottom­
line
annual
burden
to
all
federal,
state
and
local
agency
respondents
over
the
3­
year
period
covered
by
this
ICR
is
estimated
at
41,125.5
hours,
with
a
cost
of
approximately
$
2,066,556.
The
bottom­
line
annual
burden
and
cost
to
federal
agency
respondents
is
10,014
hours
and
$
503,203,
respectively.

Tables
28
and
29
below
summarize
the
annual
bottom
line
burden
hours
and
costs,
respectively,
for
state,
local,
and
federal
respondents
for
additional
conformity
burden
under
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
standards.
41
Table
28:
Total
Annual
Additional
Burden
Hours
Associated
With
Conformity
Determinations
for
the
8­
hour
Ozone
and
PM2.5
Standards
Type
of
Conformity
Determination
Total
Annual
State
and
Local
Burden
Hours
Total
Annual
Federal
Burden
Hours
Total
Annual
Conformity
Burden
Hours
Transportation
Plan
7,413
2,305
9,718
TIP
10,800
3,357
14,157
Projects
in
Metropolitan
Areas
10,855
5,968
16,823
Projects
in
Isolated
Rural
Areas
345.5
82
427.5
BOTTOM
LINE
BURDEN
HOURS:
41,125.5/
year
Table
29:
Total
Additional
Costs
Associated
With
Conformity
Determinations
for
the
8­
hour
Ozone
and
PM2.5
Standards
Type
of
Conformity
Determination
Total
Annual
State
and
Local
Cost
Total
Annual
Federal
Cost
Total
Annual
Conformity
Costs
Transportation
Plan
$
372,503
$
115,826
$
488,329
TIP
$
542,701
$
168,689
$
711,390
Projects
in
Metropolitan
Areas
$
545,464
$
299,892
$
845,356
Projects
in
Isolated
Rural
Areas
$
17,361
$
4,120
$
21,481
BOTTOM
LINE
COST:
$
2,066,556/
year
6(
e)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
Not
applicable.
This
is
a
new
ICR
submission,
rather
than
a
change
to
an
existing
EPA
ICR.

6(
f)
Burden
Statement
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
377
hours
and
43
hours
per
response
for
metropolitan
and
isolated
rural
42
areas,
respectively.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2003­
0063,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
(
OAR­
2003­
0063).
21Figure
1,
from
DOT's
"
Transportation
Conformity:
A
Basic
Guide
for
State
and
Local
Officials,"
June
19,
2000.
43
Appendix
A:
Steps
in
the
Transportation
Conformity
Process21
44
Appendix
B:
DOT
and
EPA
Field
Offices
Consulted
for
Burden
Hour
Estimates
FTA:

Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
9
FTA
Office
of
Human
and
Natural
Environment
FHWA:

FHWA
Resource
Center
Massachusetts
Division
Office
­
Did
not
respond
New
York
Division
Office
Pennsylvania
Division
Office
North
Carolina
Division
Office
Georgia
Division
Office
Kentucky
Division
Office
Tennessee
Division
Office
­
Did
not
respond
Texas
Division
Office
FHWA
Office
of
Natural
and
Human
Environment
EPA:

Region
1
Region
2
Region
3
Region
4
Region
5
Region
6
Region
7
Region
8
Region
9
Region
10
­
Did
not
respond
45
Appendix
C:
Conformity­
Related
Research
Considered
for
This
ICR
The
following
is
the
conformity
research
studies
that
were
considered
for
this
ICR.
EPA
has
cited
in
the
ICR
when
these
studies
were
utilized
as
appropriate.

1.
March
1999,
"
Linking
Transportation
and
Air
Quality
Planning:
Implementation
of
the
Transportation
Conformity
Regulations
in
15
Nonattainment
Areas,
Arnold
M.
Howitt
and
Elizabeth
M.
Moore.

2.
April
2003,
"
Environmental
Protection:
Federal
Planning
for
Transportation
and
Air
Quality
Protection
Could
Potentially
Be
More
Efficient
and
Better
Linked,"
Government
Accounting
Office,
GAO­
03­
581.

3.
February
1997,
"
Integrating
Transportation
and
Clean
Air
Planning:
An
Overview
of
State
Experiences
with
the
Transportation
Conformity
Requirements,"
National
Governors'
Association
Center
for
Best
Practices.

4.
April
2003,
"
Exhausting
Options:
Assessing
SIP­
Conformity
Interactions,"
Resources
for
the
Future.

5.
April
2003,
"
Transportation/
Air
Quality
Issues
in
Rural
Areas,"
FHWA
and
Dye
Management
Group.

6.
October
2003,
"
Rural
Conformity:
A
Survey
of
Practice,"
NCHRP
and
ICF
Consulting.
46
Appendix
D:
Annualized
State
and
Local
Respondent
Costs
Note:
EPA
estimates
that
the
bottom­
line
annual
burden
for
all
State
and
local
agencies
is
25,669
hours,
based
on
EPA's
assumption
that
86
new
nonattainment
areas
will
have
some
additional
conformity
burden
under
the
new
air
quality
standards,
and
that
these
areas
will
complete
approximately
1,510
total
conformity
determinations
every
year.
See
Section
6(
a)
for
further
background
on
the
number
of
new
nonattainment
areas
assumed,
and
Section
6(
d)
regarding
the
annual
number
of
total
burden
hours
for
state
and
local
agencies.
Finally,
EPA
based
its
estimate
for
the
number
of
total
conformity
determinations
each
year
on
the
information
in
this
appendix.

The
following
tables
illustrate
the
annualized
state
and
local
respondent
costs
for
various
conformity
determinations
as
described
in
Section
6(
b)
of
this
ICR.
"
Frequency
of
Action"
columns
refer
to
the
interval
of
years
required
to
be
completed
for
each
type
of
transportation
action
and
associated
conformity
determination.

Table
9:
State
and
Local
Annual
Cost
for
Transportation
Plan
Conformity
Determinations
In
Brand
New
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Metropolitan
Area
Nonattainment
Designation
Burden
Hours
Per
Action
No.
of
Areas
Frequency
of
Action
Total
Annual
Burden
Hours
Cost
Per
Hour
Total
Annual
Cost
Pop.
200,000+
ozone
or
PM2.5
490
12
3
years
1960
$
50.25
$
98,490
ozone
and
PM2.5
635
1
3
years
212
$
50.25
$
10,636
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
ozone
or
PM2.5
300
11
3
years
1100
$
50.25
$
55,275
ozone
and
PM2.5
385
1
3
years
128
$
50.25
$
6449
Total
for
All
Transportation
Plan
Actions:
3400
hours/
year
x
$
50.25/
hour
=
$
170,850/
year
47
Table
10:
State
and
Local
Annual
Cost
for
TIP
Conformity
Determinations
In
Brand
New
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Metropolitan
Area
Nonattainment
Designation
Burden
Hours
Per
Action
No.
of
Areas
Frequency
of
Action
Total
Annual
Burden
Hours
Cost
Per
Hour
Total
Annual
Cost
Pop.
200,000+
ozone
or
PM2.5
480
12
2
years
2880
$
50.25
$
144,720
ozone
and
PM2.5
620
1
2
years
310
$
50.25
$
15,578
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
ozone
or
PM2.5
290
11
2
years
1595
$
50.25
$
80,149
ozone
and
PM2.5
370
1
2
years
185
$
50.25
$
9,296
Total
for
All
TIP
Actions:
4970
hours/
year
x
$
50.25/
hour
=
$
249,743/
year
Table
11:
State
and
Local
Annual
Cost
for
Transportation
Plan
Conformity
Determinations
In
Existing
Metropolitan
Nonattainment/
Maintenance
Areas
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Area
Burden
Hours
Per
Action
No.
of
Areas
Frequency
of
Action
Total
Annual
Burden
Hours
Cost
Per
Hour
Total
Annual
Cost
Existing
Area
that
Gains
One
Additional
Pollutant
Pop.
200,000+
135
36
3
years
1620
$
50.25
$
81,405
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
75
4
3
years
100
$
50.25
$
5,025
1­
hour
Ozone
Area
with
New
Nonattainment
Counties
Pop.
200,000+
200
32
3
years
2133
$
50.25
$
107,183
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
120
4
3
years
160
$
50.25
$
8,040
Total
for
All
Transportation
Plan
Actions:
4013
hours/
year
x
$
50.25/
hour
=
$
201,653/
year
48
Table
12:
State
and
Local
Annual
Cost
for
TIP
Conformity
Determinations
In
Existing
Metropolitan
Nonattainment/
Maintenance
Areas
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Area
Burden
Hours
Per
Action
No.
of
Areas
Frequency
of
Action
Total
Annual
Burden
Hours
Cost
Per
Hour
Total
Annual
Cost
Existing
Area
that
Gains
One
Additional
Pollutant
Pop.
200,000+
130
36
2
years
2340
$
50.25
$
117,585
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
70
4
2
years
140
$
50.25
$
7,035
1­
hour
Ozone
Area
with
New
Nonattainmen
t
Counties
Pop.
200,000+
195
32
2
years
3120
$
50.25
$
156,780
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
115
4
2
years
230
$
50.25
$
11,558
Total
for
All
TIP
Actions:
5830
hours/
year
x
$
50.25/
hour
=
$
292,958/
year
22
The
number
of
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
for
which
state
and
local
burden
and
costs
associated
with
project­
level
conformity
determinations
are
determined
includes
all
metropolitan
areas
that
will
incur
significant
burden
under
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
air
quality
standards
(
i.
e.,
the
78
large
and
small
metropolitan
areas
out
of
the
86
hypothetical
new
nonattainment
areas
that
will
assume
additional
burden
under
the
new
standards).
This
estimate
includes
all
brand
new
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
and
all
existing
metropolitan
nonattainment/
maintenance
areas
that
will
gain
an
additional
pollutant
and/
or
will
gain
additional
ozone
counties
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
standards.
49
Table
13:
State
and
Local
Annual
Cost
for
Project­
level
Conformity
Determinations
in
Metropolitan
Nonattainment
Areas
Metropolitan
Area
Burden
Hours
Per
Action
No.
of
Actions
No.
of
Areas22
Freq.
of
Each
Action
Total
Annual
Burden
Hours
Cost
Per
Hour
Total
Annual
Cost
Nonattainment
for
Ozone
and/
or
PM2.5
Pop.
200,000
+
5
40
61
2
years
6,100
$
50.25
$
306,525
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
5
24
17
2
years
1,020
$
50.25
$
51,255
Nonattainment
for
PM2.5
­
Quantitative
Hot­
spot
Analyses
Pop.
200,000
+
12
10
45
2
years
2,700
$
50.25
$
135,675
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
12
6
8
2
years
288
$
50.25
$
14,472
Nonattainment
PM2.5
­
Qualitative
Hot­
spot
Analyses
Pop.
200,000
+
1
30
45
2
years
675
$
50.25
$
33,919
Pop.
50,000­
200,000
1
18
8
2
years
72
$
50.25
$
3,618
Total
for
All
Project­
level
Actions:
10,855
hours/
year
x
$
50.25/
hour
=
$
545,464/
year
50
Table
14:
State
and
Local
Annual
Cost
for
Project
Conformity
Determinations
in
Isolated
Rural
Nonattainment
Areas
Isolated
Rural
Area
Nonattainment
Designation
Burden
Hours
Per
Action
No.
of
Areas
Frequency
of
Action
Total
Annual
Burden
Hours
Cost
Per
Hour
Total
Annual
Cost
No
Conformity
Experience
Ozone
or
PM2.5
220
6
5
years
264
$
50.25
$
13,266
Ozone
and
PM2.5
270
1
5
years
54
$
50.25
$
2,714
Previous
Conformity
Experience
Ozone
or
PM2.5
90
1
5
years
18
$
50.25
$
905
No
Conformity
Experience
PM2.5
­
Hot­
spot
Analyses
12.5
3
5
years
7.5
$
50.25
$
377
Previous
Conformity
Experience
PM2.5
­
Hot­
spot
Analyses
10
1
5
years
2
$
50.25
$
101
Total
Cost:
345.5
hours/
year
x
$
50.25/
hour
=
$
17,361/
year
$
16,885/
year
51
Appendix
E:
Response
to
Comments
on
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
Section
of
the
November
5,
2003
Transportation
Conformity
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
and
the
January
5,
2004
Notice
of
Request
for
Comments
on
this
Information
Collection
Request
The
November
5,
2003
transportation
conformity
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
contained
a
burden
estimate
for
conducting
conformity
determinations
of
$
6,750
and
275
hours
for
metropolitan
areas
that
are
designated
nonattainment
for
the
first
time
for
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
air
quality
standards
(
e.
g.,
areas
that
have
never
been
subject
to
transportation
conformity
before).
This
estimate
represented
the
incremental
burden
of
demonstrating
conformity
in
these
new
areas,
and
did
not
include
the
cost
of
preparing
transportation
plans
and
TIPs.
All
metropolitan
areas
are
already
required
to
prepare
these
documents
on
a
regular
basis
and
the
Department
of
Transportation's
(
DOT's)
information
collection
request
(
ICR)
for
Metropolitan
and
Statewide
Planning
(
OMB
control
number
2132­
0529)
addresses
the
burden
of
preparing
these
documents.
Furthermore,
DOT's
ICR
also
includes
burden
estimates
for
transportation
conformity
determinations
in
existing
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas.

EPA
submitted
a
new
ICR
(
EPA
ICR
Number
2130.01)
to
OMB
in
late
2003
that
contained
more
detailed
estimates
of
the
incremental
burden
associated
with
completing
transportation
conformity
determinations
under
the
new
air
quality
standards.
EPA
published
a
notice
of
request
for
comments
on
January
5,
2004
(
69
FR
336)
for
the
new
January
ICR.
In
preparing
the
January
2004
ICR,
EPA
consulted
with
the
Federal
Highway
Administration
(
FHWA),
Federal
Transit
Administration
(
FTA)
and
EPA
field
staff
to
collect
information
on
the
burden
associated
with
various
tasks
in
demonstrating
conformity.
EPA
also
accounted
for
the
costs
associated
with
demonstrating
conformity
for
one
or
both
of
the
new
air
quality
standards
in
areas
with
conformity
experience.
In
the
January
2004
ICR
EPA
estimated
that
the
average
annual
burden
associated
with
demonstrating
conformity
in
metropolitan
areas
that
are
designated
nonattainment
for
one
or
both
of
the
new
standards
is
$
16,320
and
325
hours
per
year
per
respondent.
The
January
2004
ICR
estimated
the
average
annual
burden
associated
with
demonstrating
conformity
in
isolated
rural
areas
that
are
designated
nonattainment
for
one
or
both
of
the
new
standards
to
be
$
2,111
and
42
hours
per
year
per
respondent.

EPA
received
six
comments
on
the
preliminary
burden
estimates
contained
in
the
November
2003
proposal
rulemaking.
All
five
commenters
indicated
that
the
preliminary
burden
estimate
underestimated
the
burden
of
demonstrating
conformity
in
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
the
new
air
quality
standards.
In
general,
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
the
burden
estimates
in
the
November
2003
were
underestimated.
EPA
believes
that
the
revised
estimate
in
the
January
2004
ICR
more
accurately
represents
the
incremental
conformityrelated
burden
placed
on
areas
that
are
designated
nonattainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
air
quality
standards.

Several
of
the
commenters
on
the
November
2003
proposal
provided
estimates
of
the
costs
that
they
believed
are
associated
with
demonstrating
conformity.
These
estimates
ranged
from
$
4,000
to
$
160,000
per
year.
These
cost
estimates
are
generally
substantially
higher
than
52
EPA's
cost
estimates
in
the
November
2003
proposal
for
the
incremental
burden
associated
with
demonstrating
conformity
in
new
nonattainment
areas.
However,
it
is
not
clear
how
the
commenters
arrived
at
their
estimates
or
how
their
estimates
can
be
used
to
further
refine
EPA's
estimates
for
individual
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
nonattainment
areas.
For
example,
one
commenter
estimated
that
his
state
spends
in
excess
of
$
100,000
per
year
running
transportation
demand
models
and
on
emissions
modeling.
The
commenter's
state
contains
several
ozone
nonattainment
areas
and
a
number
of
CO
maintenance
areas.
Additionally,
transportation
modeling
would
most
likely
be
necessary
to
prepare
transportation
plans
and
TIPs
for
other
nonconformity
reasons.
Other
modeling
included
in
the
commenter's
estimate
may
be
needed
to
meet
conformity
requirements
in
existing
areas
for
existing
air
quality
standards.
Since
this
commenter
did
not
provide
an
estimate
of
the
incremental
cost
of
demonstrating
conformity
in
a
given
new
nonattainment
area,
but
rather
provided
an
aggregate
cost
estimate
for
all
transportation
demand
and
emissions
modeling
for
the
entire
state,
EPA
has
no
basis
for
adjusting
the
estimated
cost
of
demonstrating
conformity
for
the
new
standards
based
on
this
comment.

EPA
received
other
comments
related
to
the
November
2003
proposal
estimates
indicating
that:

°
the
local
MPO
spends
$
21,000
per
year
on
air
quality
coordination
and
on
public
involvement;
°
one
state
employs
seven
full
time
staff
members
to
work
on
regional
conformity
analyses
and
additional
staff
to
work
on
conformity­
related
NEPA
tasks;
°
areas
in
one
state
spend
between
$
4,000
and
$
150,000
on
tasks
directly
related
to
conformity;
and
°
one
state
transportation
agency
spends
$
160,000
per
year
in
each
nonattainment
and
maintenance
area
in
the
state
on
conformity.

The
estimates
provided
by
these
commenters,
however,
do
not
necessarily
address
the
incremental
cost
of
demonstrating
conformity
for
the
new
standards.
For
example,
MPOs
are
required
to
periodically
update
transportation
plans
and
TIPs.
As
stated
above,
in
the
process
of
updating
these
plans
and
TIPs
to
comply
with
other
regulations,
they
would
carry
out
some
type
of
transportation
demand
modeling
to
assess
transportation
needs.
Additionally,
MPOs
are
required
by
DOT
regulations
to
conduct
a
public
involvement
process
when
they
update
their
transportation
plans
and
TIPs.
At
a
minimum,
a
portion
of
these
planning
costs
are
already
covered
by
DOT's
existing
ICR
for
Metropolitan
and
Statewide
Planning
(
OMB
control
number
2132­
0529).
It
is
also
unclear
if
commenters
are
including
burden
from
meeting
conformity
requirements
in
existing
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas,
which
is
similarly
covered
by
DOT's
ICR.
Therefore,
given
the
lack
of
detail
related
to
the
burden
of
demonstrating
conformity
for
the
new
standards
as
opposed
to
preparing
plans
and
TIPs
or
meeting
conformity
requirements
in
existing
areas
provided
by
the
commenters,
EPA
has
no
basis
for
adjusting
its
burden
estimate
for
demonstrating
conformity
to
the
new
air
quality
standards
based
on
these
comments.
53
EPA
also
received
seven
comments
on
the
revised
burden
estimates
contained
in
the
January
2004
ICR
(
EPA
ICR
Number
2130.01).
The
comments
on
the
January
2004
ICR
were
mixed.
Some
commenters
said
that
the
estimates
were
low,
some
said
that
the
estimates
were
on
target
and
some
said
that
the
estimates
were
high.

One
commenter
indicated
that
EPA
overestimated
the
burden
for
8­
hour
ozone
areas
that
have
identical
nonattainment
boundaries
to
1­
hour
ozone
areas
because
these
areas
will
not
have
any
additional
burden
once
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
is
revoked.
EPA
agrees
with
this
commenter
and
notes
that
the
ICR
assumes
no
additional
burden
for
areas
with
similar
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
boundaries.
No
revision
to
the
ICR
is
needed
to
respond
to
this
comment.

One
commenter
indicated
that
the
ICR
overestimated
the
burden
on
isolated
rural
areas.
The
commenter
did
not
however
provide
any
information
on
which
to
base
a
revision
to
the
burden
estimate
for
these
areas.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
revising
its
burden
estimate
for
isolated
rural
areas
based
on
this
comment.

Some
commenters
cited
reasons
for
why
the
January
2004
ICR
underestimated
burden
associated
with
demonstrating
conformity
to
the
new
air
quality
standards.
One
commenter
reported
that
several
of
its
members
representing
mid­
size
and
large
urban
areas
indicated
that
conformity
for
the
new
standards
will
cost
approximately
$
40,000
per
area
per
year
and
one
of
its
members
in
a
large
area
that
is
expanding
by
several
counties
reported
that
demonstrating
conformity
to
the
8­
hour
standard
will
cost
$
177,000
per
plan/
TIP
conformity
determination.
Another
commenter
indicated
that
EPA
underestimated
burden
because
the
costs
associated
with
determining
conformity
in
large
areas
are
higher.
Another
commenter
that
polled
its
members
reported
that
its
members
are
spending
between
$
5,000
and
$
150,000
per
year
per
MPO
on
conformity.
EPA
is
not
revising
its
metropolitan
area
burden
estimate
based
on
this
information.

EPA's
annual
burden
estimate
is
an
average
of
the
incremental
burden
for
metropolitan
areas
that
will
be
required
to
demonstrate
conformity
to
the
new
air
quality
standards.
This
average
takes
into
account
the
number
of
nonattainment
areas
that
already
have
established
processes
for
demonstrating
conformity
and
brand
new
areas
that
must
establish
a
process
for
demonstrating
conformity
for
the
first
time.
The
average
annual
burden
also
accounts
for
differences
between
large
and
small
areas.
EPA
believes
that
the
average
burden
estimates
remain
accurate
notwithstanding
this
new
information.
In
addition,
the
cost
estimates
that
were
provided
by
commenters
do
not
contain
sufficient
information
to
use
in
making
any
adjustments
to
EPA's
burden
estimate.

Two
commenters,
referring
to
the
same
state,
indicated
that,
when
EPA
first
started
the
8­
hour
ozone
designation
process
in
the
late­
1990s,
one
area
that
was
to
be
designated
nonattainment
spent
$
60,000
for
consultant
services
to
update
its
transportation
plan.
The
burden
associated
with
transportation
plan
updates
is
covered
by
DOT's
current
Metropolitan
and
Statewide
Planning
ICR
(
OMB
control
number
2132­
0529).
Since
the
commenters
did
not
indicate
what
percentage
of
the
funds
spent
on
consultant
services
was
spent
strictly
on
conformity
and
whether
any
conformity­
related
costs
were
spent
for
conformity
under
the
new
54
air
quality
standards,
EPA
has
no
basis
for
making
any
adjustments
to
its
burden
estimate.
The
ICR
captured
the
incremental
burden
of
demonstrating
conformity
to
the
new
air
quality
standards
whether
the
work
was
performed
by
an
MPO,
state
department
of
transportation
or
contractor.

The
same
commenter
also
indicated
that
a
build/
no­
build
analysis
costs
$
25,000
per
plan
or
TIP
conformity
determination,
which
should
be
reflected
in
the
ICR.
EPA
is
not
changing
its
ICR
in
response
to
this
comment.
The
incremental
burden
estimate
is
an
average
for
the
multitude
of
areas
that
may
do
conformity
under
the
new
air
quality
standards.
The
cost
of
performing
the
build/
no­
build
or
other
emissions
tests
will
vary
between
nonattainment
areas
depending
upon
the
projects
involved,
other
local
factors
and
efficiencies
gained
for
doing
conformity
for
other
pollutants.
EPA
also
notes
that
the
January
ICR's
average
estimates
were
based
on
annual
costs,
rather
than
total
costs
for
completing
a
single
plan
or
TIP
conformity
determination.
When
averaged
over
the
3­
year
plan/
TIP
conformity
cycle,
the
commenter's
estimated
annual
cost
of
completing
a
build/
no­
build
analysis
(
i.
e.,
approximately
$
8,300
per
year)
is
captured
in
EPA's
ICR
estimates.

One
commenter
stated
that
demonstrating
conformity
during
the
grace
period
will
cost
more
because
areas
will
have
to
rush
to
complete
the
determination.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
comment
that
demonstrating
conformity
during
the
grace
period
will
be
more
expensive
because
areas
will
have
to
rush
to
complete
the
conformity
determination.
EPA's
process
for
designating
areas
as
nonattainment
for
the
new
standards
starts
at
least
a
year
before
areas
are
actually
designated
nonattainment
and
therefore
two
years
before
an
area
must
complete
its
first
conformity
determination
for
the
new
air
quality
standards.
New
areas
that
are
likely
to
be
designated
nonattainment
have
been
encouraged
to
begin
establishing
the
groundwork
for
demonstrating
conformity
as
soon
as
the
state
first
recommends
to
EPA
that
an
area
be
designated
nonattainment.
At
that
point
areas
can
begin
familiarizing
themselves
with
the
basic
transportation
conformity
requirements,
take
available
training
courses
on
topics
such
as
conformity
and
use
of
the
MOBILE6.2
model,
begin
gathering
data
that
will
be
useful
in
demonstrating
conformity
and
begin
establishing
an
interagency
consultation
process.
EPA
also
anticipates
that
experienced
areas
will
be
able
to
establish
schedules
for
completing
determinations
prior
to
the
end
of
the
grace
period
in
order
to
avoid
extra
costs
that
may
be
associated
with
completing
conformity
determinations
on
an
expedited
basis.
Finally,
many
8­
hour
ozone
areas
will
also
be
doing
conformity
for
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
during
the
grace
period.
Some
efficiencies
will
be
gained
for
these
areas
by
meeting
conformity
requirements
for
both
ozone
standards
at
the
same
time
during
the
grace
period.

The
same
commenter
also
stated
that
EPA
should
account
for
the
cost
of
interfacing
the
MOBILE6.2
emissions
factor
model
with
travel
demand
models.
The
commenter
stated
that
interfacing
MOBILE6
with
transportation
models
was
time
consuming.
(
An
interface
between
a
travel
demand
model
and
MOBILE6
takes
output
data
from
the
travel
model
such
as
vehicle
miles
traveled
and
speeds
and
puts
them
into
a
format
that
can
be
used
as
input
to
the
MOBILE
model.)
EPA
is
not
making
any
adjustment
to
the
burden
estimate
based
on
this
recommendation
for
many
reasons.
EPA
does
not
have
any
information
on
which
to
base
an
55
adjustment
to
the
estimate,
since
the
commenter
did
not
provide
an
actual
estimate
for
the
specific
cost
of
the
interface
in
his
state.
Furthermore,
the
transportation
conformity
rule
does
not
require
areas
to
create
this
type
of
interface
between
their
transportation
models
and
MOBILE6.2.
It
is
also
unclear
if
additional
areas
will
choose
to
interface
MOBILE6.2
with
their
transportation
model.
It
is
likely
that
many
of
the
larger
metropolitan
areas,
which
have
more
sophisticated
transportation
demand
models,
have
already
paid
for
the
creation
of
an
interface
between
their
transportation
model
and
MOBILE6
for
purposes
of
general
transportation
and
air
quality
planning.
Many
of
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
nonattainment
areas
will
be
smaller
and
do
not
have
sophisticated
transportation
models
that
could
benefit
from
an
interface.
The
cost
of
such
interfaces
could
also
be
related
to
SIP
development
rather
than
conformity.

One
commenter
pointed
out
that
the
burden
estimate
in
the
November
2003
proposal
only
accounted
for
the
burden
on
completely
new
nonattainment
areas.
The
commenter
believed
that
even
experienced
areas
will
have
extra
burden
if
they
are
required
to
demonstrate
conformity
for
the
PM
2.5
air
quality
standard.
EPA
agrees
that
demonstrating
conformity
to
an
additional
air
quality
standard
(
i.
e.,
8­
hour
ozone
or
PM
2.5)
adds
somewhat
to
the
burden
of
current
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas.
The
revised
burden
estimate
in
the
January
2004
ICR
addressed
this
comment
by
including
the
incremental
burden
placed
on
areas
that
are
demonstrating
conformity
for
an
additional
pollutant.

Five
commenters
stated
that
EPA
should
have
used
a
stakeholder
process
to
develop
the
burden
estimates
in
the
November
2003
proposal
and
in
the
January
2004
ICR
that
was
released
for
public
comment.
EPA
considered
the
possibility
of
seeking
input
directly
from
MPOs,
state
departments
of
transportation
and
state
air
agencies;
however,
since
EPA
is
limited
by
federal
guidance
to
making
contact
with
nine
or
fewer
agencies
without
an
ICR
or
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
approval,
we
concluded
that
it
would
not
be
possible
in
the
time
frame
available
to
collect
data
that
would
be
representative
of
all
of
the
types
of
areas
around
the
country
potentially
subject
to
new
conformity
burden.
OMB's
June
1999
draft
guidance
titled
"
Implementing
Guidance
for
OMB
Review
of
Agency
Information
Collection"
indicates
that
an
agency
should
consult
with
a
cross
section
of
potential
respondents
to
obtain
burden
estimates.
However,
these
consultations
should
usually
not
include
more
than
nine
persons
unless
the
information
is
obtained
under
a
general
solicitation
or
with
approval
by
OMB.
The
cost
of
implementing
conformity
varies
with
the
size
of
a
given
nonattainment
area,
the
severity
of
the
air
quality
problem,
the
type
of
tests
that
are
used
to
determine
conformity,
the
geographic
location
of
the
area,
the
sophistication
of
the
models
that
are
used
and
the
area's
experience
level
in
previously
demonstrating
conformity.
There
are
also
many
different
kinds
of
transportation
and
air
quality
agencies
involved
in
the
conformity
process
at
the
state
and
local
level.
Given
the
large
number
of
factors
that
influence
conformity,
EPA
concluded
that
directly
contacting
only
nine
agencies
would
not
provide
sufficient
information
to
address
the
myriad
of
different
situations
that
will
occur
under
the
new
standards.

Instead,
EPA
contacted
its
regional
offices
and
FHWA
and
FTA
contacted
their
division
offices,
resource
centers
and
regional
offices.
These
field
offices
have
significant
and
direct
experience
in
implementing
the
conformity
program
and
in
working
with
MPOs
and
state
56
departments
of
transportation
and
air
agencies
across
the
country.
By
taking
this
approach,
we
were
able
to
gather
information
on
a
wide
variety
of
areas.
EPA
believes
that
this
national
approach
to
collecting
data
to
support
the
burden
estimates
was
superior
to
collecting
information
directly
from
only
nine
individual
state
or
local
stakeholders
consistent
with
OMB
guidance.
The
federal
field
staff
have
relevant
experience
and
knowledge
concerning
the
amount
of
work
that
goes
into
conformity
determinations.
Additionally,
EPA
provided
two
opportunities
for
stakeholders
to
comment
on
the
burden
estimates.
These
two
general
solicitations
for
public
input
occurred
when
the
November
2003
proposal
and
the
January
2004
ICR
were
published
for
public
comment.
Stakeholders
will
also
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
again
when
the
ICR
is
renewed
in
2007.
EPA
welcomes
future
and
on­
going
participation
of
national
organizations
that
represent
the
full
range
of
conformity
practitioners
as
well
as
the
involvement
of
the
individual
practitioners
when
this
ICR
is
renewed
in
2007
and
burden
estimates
are
updated.

Three
commenters
on
the
January
2004
ICR
provided
information
on
the
factors
that
they
believed
could
contribute
to
the
cost
of
determining
conformity.
EPA
took
many
of
these
factors
into
consideration
when
it
developed
the
burden
estimate
included
in
the
January
2004
ICR
(
e.
g.,
frequency
of
conformity
determinations,
the
extent
of
consultation
needed
in
large
and
complex
areas,
start­
up
time
and
outreach).
There
were
also
some
factors
suggested
by
these
commenters
that
we
did
not
address
in
the
January
2004
ICR.
For
example,
we
did
not
address
costs
associated
with
defending
law
suits
filed
on
conformity
determinations
because
these
costs
would
be
outside
the
range
of
costs
associated
with
initially
complying
with
the
conformity
regulation.
We
also
did
not
include
the
cost
of
continuing
to
demonstrate
conformity
to
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
because
currently
those
costs
are
addressed
in
the
DOT's
Metropolitan
and
Statewide
Planning
ICR,
and
EPA
has
finalized
a
rule
(
69
FR
24000)
which
revokes
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
at
the
end
of
the
one
year
new
standards
conformity
grace
period,
i.
e.,
June
15,
2005
for
most
areas.
EPA
believes
that
the
information
it
collected
from
its
field
staff
and
the
FHWA
and
FTA
field
staff
allowed
it
to
develop
a
reasonable
estimate
of
the
average
burden
of
complying
with
conformity
requirements
in
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
quality
standards
which
addressed
the
general
factors
suggested
by
the
commenters.

One
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
should
have
refined
its
cost
estimates
by
estimating
costs
for
several
additional
size
categories
of
urbanized
areas
(
i.
e.,
populations
of
200,000
to
1,000,000,
populations
of
1,000,000
to
5,000,000
and
populations
of
5,000,000
and
above).
EPA
does
not
believe
that
explicitly
calculating
burden
for
additional
size
ranges
of
areas
would
result
in
a
different
average
annual
burden
estimate
for
metropolitan
areas
with
populations
greater
than
200,000.
EPA
used
all
of
the
data
that
it
had
available
when
it
calculated
the
burden
estimates
contained
in
the
ICR.
This
data
included
information
on
cost
and
time
associated
with
demonstrating
conformity
in
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas
of
various
sizes
around
the
country
including
information
on
areas
that
would
fall
into
all
of
the
size
ranges
suggested
by
the
commenter.
EPA
also
notes
that
its
ICR
for
new
nonattainment
area
burden
estimate
is
consistent
with
how
new
transportation
planning
and
conformity
burden
is
calculated
for
existing
areas
under
DOT's
recently
renewed
ICR.
57
One
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
should
shift
all
ozone
conformity
costs
to
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
once
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
is
revoked
in
2005.
EPA
does
not
agree
with
the
commenter's
recommendation.
EPA
believes
that
making
this
adjustment
in
this
ICR
would
result
in
double
counting
of
the
burden
associated
with
determining
conformity
in
existing
1­
hour
ozone
areas
that
are
now
designated
nonattainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
The
DOT
ICR
for
Metropolitan
and
Statewide
Planning
(
OMB
control
number
2132­
0529)
was
recently
renewed
for
three
years.
The
burden
estimate
in
the
Metropolitan
and
Statewide
Planning
ICR
included
the
burden
of
continuing
to
make
ozone­
related
conformity
determinations
in
areas
that
are
nonattainment
or
maintenance
for
the
1­
hour
standard
for
the
full
three
period
of
that
ICR.
EPA's
burden
estimate
included
the
incremental
burden
placed
on
these
areas
for
determining
conformity
to
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
through
2007.
EPA
believes
that
the
combined
burden
estimates
in
these
two
ICRs
accurately
reflect
the
cost
of
making
ozone­
related
conformity
determinations
for
the
next
three
years
in
areas
that
are
currently
nonattainment
or
maintenance
for
the
1­
hour
standard
and
are
now
designated
nonattainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
modifying
its
burden
estimate
as
a
result
of
this
comment.

Three
commenters
on
the
January
2004
ICR
indicated
that
it
was
premature
to
request
comment
on
the
burden
estimates
before
nonattainment
areas
are
designated
and
the
conformity
rule
revisions
are
finalized.
One
commenter
opined
that
more
time
should
be
allowed
to
collect
data
to
refine
the
estimates.
However,
EPA's
standard
procedure
is
to
prepare
rule­
related
ICRs
at
the
same
time
a
rule
is
proposed.
The
January
2004
ICR
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
approximately
two
months
after
the
associated
rulemaking
was
proposed.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
November
2003
proposal
contained
a
preliminary
estimate
of
burden
for
new
nonattainment
areas.
EPA
believes
that
its
standard
practice
of
providing
commenters
with
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
ICR
prior
to
the
finalization
of
a
rule
is
appropriate
because
it
gives
EPA
the
opportunity
to
consider
revising
either
the
burden
estimate
or
the
subject
rulemaking
to
reduce
burden.
The
timing
for
the
ICR
is
also
appropriate
because
the
required
information
that
results
from
a
final
regulation
can
only
be
collected
if
OMB
approves
the
ICR
and
provides
an
approval
number.
Since
conformity
must
be
demonstrated
within
one
year
of
the
effective
dates
of
nonattainment
designations
and
it
is
possible
that
some
areas
may
decide
to
make
conformity
determinations
for
the
new
standards
shortly
after
they
are
designated,
EPA
believes
that
it
is
important
to
gain
OMB's
approval
of
the
ICR
as
soon
as
possible.
Therefore,
EPA
could
not
provide
additional
time
to
collect
data
for
the
ICR
or
wait
until
the
transportation
conformity
rule
was
finalized
and
8­
hour
ozone
designations
were
made
to
solicit
input
on
the
ICR.

Three
commenters
submitted
comments
related
to
PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analyses.
One
commenter
indicated
that
PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analyses
would
likely
cost
$
3,000
per
project;
therefore,
since
the
analyses
are
costly
and
PM
2.5
is
a
regional
pollutant,
EPA
should
not
require
hot­
spot
analyses.
One
commenter
indicated
that
hot­
spot
analyses
cost
anywhere
from
several
hundred
dollars
to
$
5,000
per
project
depending
on
the
nature
of
the
project
and
the
specific
type
of
analysis
that
is
required.
58
EPA
did
not
account
for
the
cost
of
hot­
spot
analyses
either
in
the
November
2003
proposal
or
in
the
January
2004
ICR.
When
EPA
proposed
the
revisions
to
the
conformity
rule
in
November
2003,
the
proposal
included
two
options
for
PM
2.5
hot­
spots,
neither
of
which
would
require
such
analyses
during
the
three­
year
time
period
covered
by
the
ICR.
Under
one
option,
hot­
spot
analyses
would
not
be
required
under
any
circumstances;
the
other
option
would
only
require
hot­
spot
analyses
if
the
SIP
for
the
area
identified
locations
of
potential
localized
air
quality
problems.
Since
attainment
SIPs
for
PM
2.5
may
not
be
due
until
three
years
after
designations,
no
analyses
were
assumed
in
the
November
2003
or
January
2004
ICR
estimates.
If
the
final
rule
required
PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analyses
at
certain
locations,
EPA
planned
to
address
the
cost
of
hot­
spot
analyses
in
the
ICR
renewal.
However,
based
on
comments
received
on
the
options
for
PM
2.5
hot­
spots
in
the
November
2003
proposal,
EPA
now
plans
to
issue
a
supplemental
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
(
SNPRM)
and
take
comments
on
an
additional
range
of
options
for
addressing
PM
2.5
hot­
spots.
This
range
of
options
would
include
options
that
would
require
some
PM
2.5
hot­
spot
analyses
before
PM
2.5
SIPs
are
established.
However,
in
response
to
the
comments
that
were
received
EPA
has
estimated
the
burden
associated
with
conducting
hot­
spot
analyses
in
PM
2.5
areas.
EPA
estimates
that
the
incremental
annual
burden
associated
with
performing
hot­
spot
analyses
in
metropolitan
PM
2.5
areas
is
$
3,541
and
70
hours
per
year
per
respondent.
The
annual
estimate
burden
associated
with
performing
hot­
spot
analyses
in
isolated
rural
$
478
and
9.5
hours
per
year
per
respondent.
The
supporting
statement
has
been
revised
to
include
an
explanation
of
how
this
burden
estimate
was
calculated.
As
was
assumed
throughout
the
ICR
these
annual
burden
estimates
are
based
on
the
assumption
that
large
metropolitan
areas
perform
40
project­
level
determinations
per
year
and
isolated
rural
areas
perform
one
determination
every
five
years.
Since
EPA
has
not
yet
finalized
project­
level
requirements
for
PM
2.5
areas,
EPA
assumed
that
25
percent
of
the
projects
in
metropolitan
areas
would
require
a
quantitative
hot­
spot
analysis
and
the
remaining
projects
would
require
only
a
qualitative
analysis.
It
was
also
assumed
that
projects
in
isolated
rural
areas
would
require
a
quantitative
assessment.
Finally,
it
was
assumed
that
only
half
of
the
burden
associated
with
performing
hot­
spot
analyses
is
attributable
to
satisfying
conformity
requirements.
The
remainder
of
the
burden
is
attributable
to
NEPA
since
hot­
spot
analyses
are
typically
done
as
part
of
the
NEPA
process.

One
commenter
recommended
that
OMB
should
defer
approval
of
this
ICR
and
EPA
should
issue
an
interim
final
new
standards
conformity
rule
until
the
burden
estimates
are
revised.
The
rule
would
remain
an
interim
final
rule
until
OMB
approved
a
revised
burden
estimate.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
this
course
of
action
is
necessary.
EPA
believes
that
its
average
annual
burden
estimates
for
the
incremental
costs
associated
with
determining
conformity
to
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
air
quality
standards
is
accurate.
EPA
believes
that
it
took
all
reasonable
steps
to
collect
information
on
the
burden
of
demonstrating
conformity
to
the
new
standards.
We
believe
that
relying
on
information
gained
from
federal
field
staff
representing
the
entire
country
provided
sufficient
information
on
the
full
range
of
metropolitan
areas
that
will
be
determining
conformity
to
the
new
air
quality
standards.
We
consulted
available
literature
related
to
conformity
determinations
in
metropolitan
and
isolated
rural
areas.
EPA
also
notes
that
the
burden
estimate
contained
in
this
ICR
is
consistent
with
the
burden
estimate
in
DOT's
Metropolitan
and
Statewide
Planning
ICR
(
OMB
control
number
2132­
0529).
The
burden
23However,
where
EAC
areas
were
also
designated
nonattainment
or
maintenance
for
the
1­
hour
standard
they
will
continue
to
demonstrate
conformity
for
the
1­
hour
standard
until
their
8­
hour
designation
becomes
effective
and
the
1­
hour
standard
is
subsequently
revoked.
59
estimates
in
DOT's
recently
renewed
ICR
include
the
burden
associated
with
demonstrating
conformity
to
the
1­
hour
ozone,
carbon
monoxide,
PM
10,
and
nitrogen
dioxide
air
quality
standards.
EPA
does
not
see
the
value
of
delaying
the
final
approval
of
the
conformity
regulation
for
the
new
standards
which
is
needed
by
practitioners
as
soon
as
possible.

Two
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
should
have
calculated
the
burden
associated
with
conformity
over
a
20­
year
period
instead
of
a
3­
year
period.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter.
Under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
EPA
is
required
to
estimate
the
burden
of
complying
with
the
transportation
conformity
regulation
borne
by
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5
air
quality
standards
for
the
duration
of
the
ICR
approval.
ICRs
are
approved
for
3­
year
periods,
which
is
why
EPA
estimated
the
burden
of
complying
with
conformity
for
the
next
three
years.

One
commenter
indicated
that
burden
could
be
reduced
if
additional
8­
hour
ozone
areas
were
allowed
to
submit
Early
Action
Compacts
(
EACs)
or
to
participate
in
a
similar
program
if
it
could
be
shown
that
they
would
attain
by
2007.
EPA
believes
that
the
comment
is
not
germane
to
this
ICR,
since
it
is
a
broader
comment
related
to
EPA's
EAC
policy
and
nonattainment
designations.
EAC
areas
have
deferred
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
designations,
and
they
are
not
subject
to
conformity
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
as
long
as
the
designations
remain
deferred.
23
EPA
announced
8­
hour
ozone
designations
on
April
15,
2004,
which
take
effect
on
June
15,
2004
for
most
areas.
EPA
did
not
provide
an
EAC­
like
option
to
areas
beyond
those
that
already
committed
to
and
are
following
through
on
the
EAC
process.
Thus,
areas
have
already
been
designated
and
are
now
subject
to
conformity
based
in
their
designation.
Now
that
designations
are
final,
EPA
cannot
use
a
transportation
conformity
rule
revision
to
waive
the
requirement
to
demonstrate
conformity
as
it
applies
to
newly
designated
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
Please
see
EPA's
April
30,
2004
final
rule
(
69
FR
23951)
for
further
information
EACs
and
8­
hour
designations.

One
commenter
stated
that
the
January
2004
ICR
does
not
provide
a
complete
explanation
as
to
how
the
burden
estimates
were
derived.
EPA
disagrees.
The
supporting
statement
for
the
January
2004
ICR
contains
a
comprehensive
and
thorough
explanation
as
to
how
EPA
arrived
at
the
burden
estimate.
Additionally,
the
Federal
Register
notice
(
69
FR
336)
that
opened
the
comment
period
on
the
ICR
included
an
EPA
contact
that
could
have
answered
any
clarifying
questions
that
the
commenter
may
have
had.
The
commenter
also
stated
that
DOT's
Metropolitan
and
Statewide
Planning
ICR
could
not
be
found.
FTA
published
a
Federal
Register
notice
on
September
9,
2003
(
68
FR
53215)
that
opened
a
comment
period
on
a
request
to
renew
this
ICR.
That
Federal
Register
notice
designated
a
contact
at
FTA
who
could
have
provided
the
commenter
with
information
on
how
to
receive
a
copy
of
the
supporting
statement
for
the
planning
ICR's
renewal.
60
One
commenter
opined
that
EPA's
burden
estimates
are
not
valid
because
EPA's
definition
of
burden
does
not
account
for
all
costs
associated
with
determining
conformity.
EPA
followed
OMB's
definition
of
burden
when
it
calculated
the
incremental
burden
for
determining
conformity
for
the
new
air
quality
standards.
OMB
defines
burden
as
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.
It
should
be
noted
that
EPA's
ICR
is
consistent
with
DOT's
Metropolitan
and
Statewide
Planning
ICR
(
OMB
control
number
2132­
0529)
that
accounts
for
the
burden
of
determining
conformity
to
the
existing
air
quality
standards
(
i.
e.,
1­
hour
ozone,
carbon
monoxide,
PM
10
and
nitrogen
dioxide).
EPA
is
not
revising
its
burden
estimate
in
response
to
this
comment.
