  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 



			

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR THE RENEWAL OF

EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST:

DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE AND LOCAL VEHICLE EMISSION
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE (I/M) PROGRAMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. 	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
............................ 3

	1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection
..............................................	3

	1(b) Characterization of the Information Collection
................................................	3

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
........................................................................
........	4

3. 	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION

	CRITERIA
........................................................................
.......................................	5

	3(a) Non-Duplication
........................................................................
.......................	5

	3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to
OMB............................... 5

	3(c) Consultations
........................................................................
............................	6

	3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection
.................................................................	7

	3(e) General Guidelines
........................................................................
...................	7

	3(f) Confidentiality
........................................................................
..........................	7

	3(g) Sensitive Questions
........................................................................
................... 7

4. 	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION COLLECTED .....................
7

	4(a) State and Local
Respondents.............................................................
................	7

	4(b) Information Requested
........................................................................
.............	8

5. 	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIONS, COLLECTION

	METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT .............................
15

	5(a) Federal Agency Activities
........................................................................
........	15

	5(b) Collection Methodology and Management
......................................................	16

	5(c) Small Entity Flexibility
........................................................................
............	16

	5(d) Collection Schedule
........................................................................
.................	17

6. 	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION ..................
17

	6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden
........................................................................
17

	6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs
........................................................................
...	18

	6(c) Estimated Agency Burden and Cost
.................................................................	20

	6(d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs
.............................................................	22

	6(e) Reasons for Change in Burden
........................................................................
.	22

	6(f) Burden Statement
........................................................................
......................	23

APPENDIX A
........................................................................
..............................................	24

1. 	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) 	Title and Number of the Information Collection

	This information collection request (ICR) renewal is entitled “Data
Reporting Requirements for State and Local Vehicle Emission Inspection
and Maintenance (I/M) Programs” [EPA ICR Number 1613.03; Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 2060-0252].

1(b) 	Characterization of the Information Collection

	To provide general oversight and support to state and local I/M
programs, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that
state or local program management for both basic and enhanced I/M
programs compile and submit two varieties of reports to their Regional
EPA office.  The first reporting requirement is the submittal of an
annual report providing general program operating data and summary
statistics, addressing the program’s current design and coverage, a
summary of testing data, enforcement program efforts, quality assurance
and quality control efforts, as well as other miscellaneous information
allowing for an assessment of the program’s relative effectiveness;
the second is a biennial report addressing  any changes to the program
over the two-year period prior to the biennial report’s submission,
including the impact of such changes, any weaknesses discovered during
the reporting period, and the corrections made or planned.  

	General program effectiveness is determined by the degree to which the
operating program compares to the program described in the state’s
approved State Implementation Plan (SIP), which, in turn, must meet or
exceed the minimum requirements for mandatory I/M programs, as
promulgated under 40 CFR, Part 51, Subpart S in response to requirements
established in section 182 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(Act). The information provided by the annual and biennial I/M reports
described above are used by the EPA Regional office to determine whether
a given I/M program is meeting its obligations under the approved SIP. 
The information may also be used by EPA Headquarters to assess national
trends in the implementation of both basic and enhanced I/M programs, as
well as to help determine when anomalous reporting results are due to
national versus local causes.

	

2. 	Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)	Need and Authority for the Collection

	The collection of a wide variety of program operating and summary data
is essential to the assessment of an I/M program’s overall
effectiveness and the degree to which it complies with requirements
established in response to sections 182(a)(2)(b)(ii); 182(b)(4); and
182(c)(3) of the Act, under which EPA is authorized to impose these
collection and recordkeeping requirements.  The specific program data to
be collected are listed under the “Data analysis and reporting”
section of EPA’s I/M rule (40 CFR Part 51, subpart S, section 51.366).
 A list of the required reporting elements is included in section 4(b)
of this Information Collection Request (ICR) renewal.

2(b) 	Use and Users of the Data

	There are, in effect, three users of the information required by this
collection – the  primary user, represented by the state or local
agency or department in charge of managing the I/M program itself
(hereafter referred to as “the state” and/or “the respondent”),
the secondary user, represented by the EPA Regional office (henceforth
referred to as “the Region”) to help determine the degree to which
the program complies with its approved SIP, and finally, EPA
Headquarters, to help identify national trends in the implementation of
both basic and enhanced I/M programs, as well as to help determine when
anomalous results being observed by a State or Region are due to
national versus local causes.

	The State

	For the purpose of effectively managing its I/M program, the state must
gather a wide range of program data, including data from the testing
program, quality control and assurance efforts, and the enforcement
program.  For example, sufficient test data must be gathered to
unambiguously link specific test results to a specific vehicle, I/M
program registrant, test site, and inspector, to help determine whether
or not the correct test parameters were observed for the specific
vehicle in question.  This programmatic need – which is distinct from
any need and/or burden imposed by this ICR – is reflected in the fact
that current testing equipment specifications include extensive data
capture requirements to serve just this purpose.  In turn, the state can
analyze this data and compare it to the registration database (in
programs enforced through registration denial, per the Act) or otherwise
use it to establish a vehicle’s compliance with program requirements. 
Owners of vehicles found to be out-of-compliance are not allowed to
register said vehicle(s) (again, in programs enforced through
registration denial) or must be otherwise prevented from operating the
non-complying vehicle(s) in the program area.  Penalties may also be
assessed for non-compliance with program requirements.  

	Data collected as part of the testing program can also be used to
target audits of inspection stations and inspectors, with irregularities
such as unusually high pass or fail rates, mismatched vehicle
information, etc. acting as flags to possible problems.  In addition,
the state must gather and analyze quality control data to ensure that
motorists are given accurate and consistent measurements.  In the
interest of effectively managing its enforcement and quality assurance
efforts, the program must keep records of such efforts, including the
number of investigations conducted (including internal control reviews
to detect weaknesses within the program itself, as well as
investigations of testing sites and inspectors), the methodology used,
and the results of investigations and other enforcement and quality
assurance activities.

	EPA Regional Office 

	For the purposes of complying with this information collection, the
state must summarize and report the above data to the EPA Regional
Office with jurisdiction over the state in question.  The state will
have maximum flexibility to use pre-existing, internal reporting
mechanisms to meet these summary data reporting requirements, and may
submit the required reports in whatever format is most convenient for
the state, including electronically, via hardcopy, or by directing the
EPA Regional Office to web resources which include the required
information.  The Regional Office will use this information to assess
specific state programs and their success in complying with the I/M
rulemaking requirements.  This assessment will lead to follow-up
conversations with the state to discuss possible program improvements or
corrective action necessary to address anomalies, and in some instances
may lead to site visits and audits of the programs in question.    

	EPA Headquarters

	When anomalies are discovered in the reported summary information and
cannot be resolved by the state and Region, EPA Headquarters may be
called in to help determine whether a given anomaly is the result of
local conditions or is perhaps indicative of a larger, national trend. 
In such situations, EPA Headquarters will work with the state and the
Region to identify and address the causes of the anomaly.  Information
regarding the resolution of such cases – to the extent it may be
relevant outside the program in question – will be made available to
other states, Regions, and the public in general through various
communication vehicles, including biweekly conference calls with the EPA
Regions, a bimonthly stakeholder call with the I/M states, and the I/M
Clearinghouse web site, currently managed by Weber State University
under a grant from EPA. 

3. 	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a)	Non-Duplication

	EPA has made an effort to ensure that the data collection efforts
associated with renewal of this ICR are not duplicated.  EPA has
consulted with State and Local environmental programs, other Federal
agencies (such as EPA’s Regional Offices). To the best of EPA’s
knowledge, data currently required by this information collection are
not available from any other source.

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

	To comply with the 1995 Amendments to the PRA, EPA has solicited public
comment on the renewal of this ICR for a 60-day period before the
renewal request was submitted to OMB. Specifically, EPA published a
notice in the Federal Register requesting comment on the continued use
of the estimated respondent burden and other aspects of this ICR renewal
(73 FR 57095, 10/1/2008).  An additional Federal Register notice will be
published prior to submission of this request for ICR renewal to OMB. 
The public comment period for this additional notice will be 30 days.

3(c)	Consultations

In an effort to address state concerns regarding a wide-range of
environmental reporting requirements, EPA and the   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ecos.org/"  Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) 
launched the Burden Reduction Initiative (BRI) in October 2006.  As
part of this initiative, EPA invited states to identify their top five
reporting requirements with potential for streamlining or elimination. 
A total of 39 states responded to this invitation, identifying more than
200 reporting requirements as candidates for possible burden reduction
or elimination.  

Although 33 states plus the District of Columbia currently run I/M
programs subject to the reporting requirements covered by the
information collection currently up for renewal, only 5 of the 39 states
responding to the reporting burden reduction initiative – Illinois,
Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Virginia – identified some
aspect of the I/M reporting requirements as potential candidates for
burden reduction.  It should be noted, however, that there was no
consensus among the 5 states regarding what sort of relief was needed.  

In addition to their comments on I/M reporting requirements, 2 of the 5
states identified a need for additional EPA guidance regarding how to
conduct program evaluation testing in programs which no longer conduct
tailpipe testing, relying instead on periodic scans of the vehicle’s
onboard diagnostic (OBD) system.  EPA has met with ECOS representatives
concerning the 5 states commenting on I/M reporting requirements as well
as the need for additional program evaluation guidance.  Clarification
with regard to the existing reporting requirements satisfied the
workgroup and EPA has agreed to pursue a work assignment to develop the
additional program evaluation guidance requested as a byproduct of the
Burden Reduction Initiative.

Since clarifying the above-discussed I/M reporting-related issues as
part of the joint ECOS-EPA BRI, EPA has published the first 60 day
notice soliciting comments on its proposed renewal of the I/M ICR on
October 1, 2008 (73 FR 57095).  The public comment period closed on
December 1, 2008.  EPA did not receive comments on any portion of its
proposal from the states which originally identified I/M reporting
requirements as warranting relief under the BRI.  In fact, neither
EPA’s proposal nor its draft supporting statement received any
comments at all.         

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	The I/M Rule requires annual and biennial reporting by the I/M programs
to ensure that states are achieving the emission reductions claimed by
such programs in their approved SIPs.  EPA has considered a range of
alternatives for data reporting requirement frequency.  It is EPA’s
judgment that collecting the required information less frequently would
limit its ability to determine a program’s progress toward meeting
requirements under 40 CFR, Part 51 and would delay its ability to
identify and resolve programmatic deficiencies that may negatively
impact a program’s ability to achieve the needed emission reductions,
thus magnifying the potential shortfall.  It may be argued that more
frequent reporting would therefore shrink the potential for negative
impacts by identifying deficiencies sooner, relative to the current
reporting frequency.  In setting the current reporting frequency, EPA
has attempted to strike a reasonable balance and believes that more
frequent reporting would be unduly burdensome.  To supplement the
current reporting cycle and thus ensure that major program deficiencies
do not go undetected for an unreasonable period of time, EPA holds
bimonthly conference calls with I/M states as a forum for raising,
discussing, and resolving implementation issues as they arise.  State
participation in these calls is, of course, voluntary. 

3(e)	General Guidelines

	This ICR was prepared in accordance with the November 2005 version of
EPA’s Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (or “ICR Handbook”) prepared
by EPA’s Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information
Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides
the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance
with the 1995 PRA amendments and OMB’s implementing guidelines.

3(f)	Confidentiality

	No confidential information will be collected as a result of this ICR.

3(g)	Sensitive Questions

	

	No information of a sensitive nature will be collected as a result of
this ICR.	

	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)	State and Local Respondents 

	The respondents to this information collection are the state government
agencies or departments responsible for oversight and operation of the
I/M programs (SIC# 91).  As of September 2008, thirty-three states plus
the District of Columbia are affected by I/M program requirements.  This
category of respondent was selected because it represents the entities
most comprehensively involved in gathering the information which must be
summarized for this collection (i.e., those parties responsible for
establishing, maintaining, and analyzing the program’s central
database, or overseeing contractor personnel responsible for such
activities).  Although I/M programs can and do vary by type (i.e., basic
I/M programs versus enhanced I/M programs), the data elements to be
addressed by this information collection remain consistent across
program types, and hence the burden does not vary by program type.  

4(b)	Information Requested

	Under current I/M program practice, various internal analyses and
reports are routinely generated using the data collected on vehicle
tests, as well as quality control, quality assurance, and enforcement
efforts.  The information requested in this ICR renewal is, in fact,
based upon the data items currently collected in and the reports
currently generated by many of the better run I/M programs.  These
reports are used primarily as management tools for internal monitoring
and evaluation of the program.  Summaries of the information provided in
these reports are also currently being used by EPA (primarily the
Agency’s Regional Offices and, secondarily, EPA Headquarters) to
fulfill the Agency’s statutory obligation to provide oversight to
mandatory I/M programs and to ensure that such programs are achieving
the emission reductions claimed in their approved SIPs.  The purpose of
this current request is to renew a previously approved information
collection (OMB Control Number 2060-0252; EPA ICR Number 1613.03) so
that EPA can continue to meet is statutory obligation with regard to
providing I/M program implementation guidance and oversight.

(i)	Data items

A.	Recordkeeping Requirements

	In fulfilling the requirements of this information collection,
respondents gather and maintain records on the following data items per
vehicle inspected as part of the I/M program.  As stated previously,
similar information is currently collected by existing I/M programs and
is written into the data recording requirements of their testing
equipment specifications.  As stated in the introduction to this
section, these records represent information which a program needs to
gather and maintain as part of the day-to-day administration and
enforcement of the program, and, as such, do not constitute an
additional burden triggered by this information collection or its
renewal.

	1) Test record number

	2) Inspection station and inspector number

	3) Test system number

	4) Date of the test

5) Emission test start time and the time final emission scores are
determined

	6) Vehicle Identification Number (VIN)

	7) License plate number

	8) Test certificate number

	9) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR)

	10) Vehicle model year, make, and type

	11) Number of cylinders or displacement

	12) Transmission type

	13) Odometer reading

	14) Type of test performed (i.e., initial test, first retest, or
subsequent retest)

	15) Fuel type of the vehicle (i.e., gas, diesel, or other fuel)

	16) Type of vehicle preconditioning performed (if any)

	17) Emission test sequence(s) used

	18) Hydrocarbon emission scores and standards for each applicable test
mode

19) Carbon monoxide emission scores and standards for each applicable
test mode

20) Carbon dioxide emission scores (CO+CO2) and standards for each
applicable        test mode

21) Nitrogen oxides emission scores and standards for each applicable
test mode

22) Results (Pass/Fail/Not Applicable) of the applicable visual
inspections for the catalytic converter, air system, gas cap,
evaporative system, positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valve, and fuel
inlet restrictor

23) Results of the evaporative pressure test expressed as a pass or fail
(where applicable) 

24) Results of the evaporative system purge test expressed as a pass or
fail along with the total purge flow in liters achieved during the test
(where applicable)

25) Results of the on-board diagnostic check expressed as pass or fail
along with the diagnostic trouble codes revealed (where applicable).

	In addition, I/M programs must gather and maintain records on the
results of all applicable quality control checks conducted in response
to 40 CFR 51, subpart S, section 359, identifying each check by station
number, system number, date, and start time.  The record shall also
contain the concentration values of the calibration gases used to
perform the gas characterization portion of the quality control checks
(if applicable).  Raw test data (both vehicle inspections and quality
control checks, if applicable) shall be saved for a minimum of two
complete inspection cycles (i.e., two years in annual programs, and four
years in biennial programs), and submitted to EPA electronically upon
request.  Current practice is for states to save data for five to nine
years, typically.

		

B.	Reporting Requirements

	(1) Annual Report

	Internal data analysis and reporting are currently employed in
better-run I/M programs as management tools to facilitate the monitoring
and evaluation of the program by program management.  Under the approved
ICR EPA is proposing to renew, summaries of this information are
provided to the EPA Regional Office with jurisdiction over the I/M
program area submitting the report.  To be considered complete, these
reports must include information regarding the types of program
activities performed and their final outcomes, including summary
statistics and effectiveness evaluations of the enforcement mechanism,
the quality assurance system, the quality control program, and the
testing element.  Under the existing ICR, respondents are required to
provide their respective EPA Regional Offices with the following data
annually.  Again, as previously stated, these reporting requirements
were originally based upon the reporting practices of better-run I/M
programs at the time the original information collection was developed,
and, as such, do not constitute an additional respondent burden.  

	It should be noted that as state programs gradually phase-out tailpipe
testing and begin to move toward the exclusive use of onboard diagnostic
(OBD) based testing, an added benefit of doing such will be a
significant reduction in the number of reporting elements that need to
be gathered, summarized, and reported.  For example, all the
by-pollutant reporting requirements will no longer apply, and neither
will any of the reporting elements that presume dual testing of
OBD-equipped vehicles.  Additionally, because OBD-based testing
equipment does not need to be calibrated like tailpipe based systems,
the need to perform and record calibration results as part of the overt
equipment auditing process is likewise eliminated.  Although EPA notes
this eventuality, the Agency has not attempted to quantify the impact on
respondent burden because individual respondent programs will vary
greatly with regard to when such a change to OBD-only testing may be
possible and/or desirable.  Because most programs will eventually reach
the stage described above (varying only with regard to when) EPA is
confident that the respondent burden estimates in this proposed
information collection renewal reflect a worst-case scenario and can
therefore be characterized as conservative.     

	Test Data Summary

	I/M programs are required to submit to their EPA Regional Office by
July of each year a report providing basic statistics on the testing
program for January through December of the previous year, including:

(1) The number of vehicles tested by model year and vehicle type;

(2) By model year and vehicle type, the number and percentage of
vehicles:

(i) Failing initially, per test type;

(ii) Failing the first retest per test type;

(iii) Passing the first retest per test type;

(iv) Initially failed vehicles passing the second or subsequent retest
per test type;

(v) Initially failed vehicles receiving a waiver; and

(vi) Vehicles with no known final outcome (regardless of reason).

(vii)–(x) [Reserved]

(xi) Passing the on-board diagnostic check;

(xii) Failing the on-board diagnostic check;

(xiii) Failing the on-board diagnostic check and passing the tailpipe
test (if applicable);

(xiv) Failing the on-board diagnostic check and failing the tailpipe
test (if applicable);

(xv) Passing the on-board diagnostic check and failing the I/M gas cap
evaporative system test (if applicable);

(xvi) Failing the on-board diagnostic check and passing the I/M gas cap
evaporative system test (if applicable);

(xvii) Passing both the on-board diagnostic check and I/M gas cap
evaporative system test (if applicable);

(xviii) Failing both the on-board diagnostic check and I/M gas cap
evaporative system test (if applicable);

(xix) MIL is commanded on and no codes are stored;

(xx) MIL is not commanded on and codes are stored;

(xxi) MIL is commanded on and codes are stored;

(xxii) MIL is not commanded on and codes are not stored;

(xxiii) Readiness status indicates that the evaluation is not complete
for any module supported by on-board diagnostic systems;

(3) The initial test volume by model year and test station;

(4) The initial test failure rate by model year and test station; and

(5) The average increase or decrease in tailpipe emission levels for HC,
CO, and NOX (if applicable) after repairs by model year and vehicle type
for vehicles receiving a mass emissions test.

	

	Quality Assurance Summary

	I/M programs are required to submit to their EPA Regional Office by
July of each year a report providing basic statistics on the quality
assurance program for January through December of the previous year,
including:

(1) The number of inspection stations and lanes:

(i) Operating throughout the year; and

(ii) Operating for only part of the year;

(2) The number of inspection stations and lanes operating throughout the
year:

(i) Receiving overt performance audits in the year;

(ii) Not receiving overt performance audits in the year;

(iii) Receiving covert performance audits in the year;

(iv) Not receiving covert performance audits in the year; and

(v) That have been shut down as a result of overt performance audits;

(3) The number of covert audits:

(i) Conducted with the vehicle set to fail per test type;

(ii) Conducted with the vehicle set to fail any combination of two or
more test types;

(iii) Resulting in a false pass per test type;

(iv) Resulting in a false pass for any combination of two or more test
types;

(v)–(viii) [Reserved]

(4) The number of inspectors and stations:

(i) That were suspended, fired, or otherwise prohibited from testing as
a result of covert audits;

(ii) That were suspended, fired, or otherwise prohibited from testing
for other causes; and

(iii) That received fines;

(5) The number of inspectors licensed or certified to conduct testing;

(6) The number of hearings:

(i) Held to consider adverse actions against inspectors and stations;
and

(ii) Resulting in adverse actions against inspectors and stations;

(7) The total amount collected in fines from inspectors and stations by
type of violation;

(8) The total number of covert vehicles available for undercover audits
over the year; and

(9) The number of covert auditors available for undercover audits.

	

	Quality Control Summary

	I/M programs are required to submit to their EPA Regional Office by
July of each year a report providing basic statistics on the quality
assurance program for January through December of the previous year,
including:

(1) The number of emission testing sites and lanes in use in the
program;

(2) The number of equipment audits by station and lane;

(3) The number and percentage of stations that have failed equipment
audits; and

(4) Number and percentage of stations and lanes shut down as a result of
equipment audits.

	Enforcement Summary

(1) All varieties of enforcement programs shall, at a minimum, submit to
their EPA Regional Office by July of each year a report providing basic
statistics on the enforcement program for January through December of
the previous year, including:

(i) An estimate of the number of vehicles subject to the inspection
program, including the results of an analysis of the registration data
base;

(ii) The percentage of motorist compliance based upon a comparison of
the number of valid final tests with the number of subject vehicles;

(iii) The total number of compliance documents issued to inspection
stations;

(iv) The number of missing compliance documents;

(v)  The number of time extensions and other exemptions granted to
motorists; and

(vi) The number of compliance surveys conducted, number of vehicles
surveyed in each, and the compliance rates found.

(2) Registration denial based enforcement programs shall provide the
following additional information:

(i) A report of the program’s efforts and actions to prevent motorists
from falsely registering vehicles out of the program area or falsely
changing fuel type or weight class on the vehicle registration, and the
results of special studies to investigate the frequency of such
activity; and

(ii) The number of registration file audits, number of registrations
reviewed, and compliance rates found in such audits.

(3) Computer-matching based enforcement programs shall provide the
following additional information:

(i) The number and percentage of subject vehicles that were tested by
the initial deadline, and by other milestones in the cycle;

(ii) A report on the program’s efforts to detect and enforce against
motorists falsely changing vehicle classifications to circumvent program
requirements, and the frequency of this type of activity; and

(iii) The number of enforcement system audits, and the error rate found
during those audits.

(4) Sticker-based enforcement systems shall provide the following
additional information:

(i) A report on the program’s efforts to prevent, detect, and enforce
against sticker theft and counterfeiting, and the frequency of this type
of activity;

(ii) A report on the program’s efforts to detect and enforce against
motorists falsely changing vehicle classifications to circumvent program
requirements, and the frequency of this type of activity; and

(iii) The number of parking lot sticker audits conducted, the number of
vehicles surveyed in each, and the noncompliance rate found during those
audits.

	(2) Biennial Report

	In addition to the annual reports identified above, programs shall
submit to their EPA Regional Office by July of every other year,
biennial reports addressing:

(1) Any changes made in program design, funding, personnel levels,
procedures, regulations, and legal authority, with detailed discussion
and evaluation of the impact on the program of all such changes; and

(2) Any weaknesses or problems identified in the program within the
two-year reporting period, what steps have already been taken to correct
those problems, the results of those steps, and any future efforts
planned.

	(ii)	Respondent Activities

	When responding programs were originally preparing to submit the first
round of the above-listed summary data for this approved information
collection, the respondents had to pursue the activities identified
below.  Several of these activities were essentially one-time efforts
(such as pursuing legal authority and constructing testing sites)
required to comply with the Act’s mandate that such programs be
implemented in the first place, while others are activities that are
currently conducted in better-run I/M programs for the sake of program
implementation, management, and enforcement, and would therefore be
pursued regardless of this information collection.  Such activities have
been identified here as common business practice (CBP), even though,
properly speaking, the respondent entities are representatives of state
government agencies or departments.  Respondent activities have been
separated for the annual and biennial reports, and separate burden
estimates are provided for each in section 6 of this submittal.

	Annual Report

Read the I/M regulation (CBP)

Review the regulatory provisions addressing the annual reporting
requirement and assess respondent responsibility

Prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) and submit to EPA (CBP)

Secure necessary legal authority to establish program (CBP)

Develop regulatory basis for program (CBP)

Receive appropriate training relative to program operation (CBP)

Begin program implementation (i.e., establish testing sites, begin
testing, etc.) (CBP)

Gather test and quality control information and review for accuracy
(CBP)

Analyze the test and quality control data (CBP)

Based upon analysis of data, begin enforcement efforts against
motorists, stations, and inspectors (CBP)

Complete written or electronic “paperwork” associated with
enforcement and program oversight efforts (CBP)

Store, file, and maintain all relevant program records and information
(CBP)

Assemble existing reports in preparation for summarization

Prepare annual summaries of program operating statistics for the
enforcement mechanism, the quality assurance system, the quality control
program, and the testing element based upon existing, internal reports

Review summary information for accuracy

Prepare and submit annual report to EPA (or otherwise provide EPA access
to the required information)

	Biennial Report

	In addition to the above activities associated with the submittal of
the annual information collection, I/M programs must also submit a
biennial report that addresses program changes since the last reporting
period, including any program weaknesses identified and improvements
made.  Again, many of these activities, given their importance in the
areas of effective program management and helping to ensure that program
resources are not wasted or abused, will need to be pursued internally
regardless of this external reporting requirement.  As such, many of
these activities are designated as CBP.  

Track and record all changes made in program design, funding, personnel
levels, procedures, regulations, and legal authority 

Conduct an evaluation of the impact on the program of all such changes
(CBP)

Conduct periodic internal investigations to discover and correct
weaknesses (CBP)

Track and record all such weaknesses or problems identified in the
program within the two-year reporting period, and the steps taken to
correct those problems

Evaluate the results of those steps (CBP)

Assemble and report the above required information, including any future
efforts planned

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

5(a)	Federal Agency Activities

	In executing the original information collection, EPA had to (and, in
some instances, still needs to) do the following:

Develop regulations (one-time activity)

Prepare initial ICR (one-time activity)

Renew initial ICR (periodic) 

Answer respondent questions

Review individual annual and biennial reports

Meet with its Regional Offices to review and discuss collective
findings, trends

Through its Regional Offices, communicate the findings of individual
reviews to individual responding states

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

	A portion of this information has been assembled in one form or another
since the inception of I/M programs as a result of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of l977 which required urban areas failing to meet the
National Air Quality Standards to implement in-use vehicle I/M programs.
 Historically, the sources of this information have included, among
other things, on-site audits by EPA personnel, internal program data
reports courtesy-copied to EPA, raw program data submitted to EPA for
analysis, and, since it was originally approved, the responses to this
existing information collection.  

	Respondents have the option to supply their data in either hardcopy or
electronically, and are free to adopt whatever reporting format results
in the least burden for the respondent, while also addressing the data
elements listed in this ICR.  EPA is aware of at least one Regional
Office which has been granted limited, online access to a state’s I/M
database so the Region itself may generate the required data summary
reports when they are due.  

	The information received from the I/M programs has been used by EPA
Regional Offices to assess specific state programs and their success in
complying with the I/M rulemaking requirements as well as their approved
SIPs.  As part of this assessment, EPA’s Regional Office conduct
follow-up conversations with their states to discuss possible program
improvements or corrective actions necessary to address anomalies (if
found).  When an anomaly discovered in the reported summary information
cannot be resolved by the state and/or Region, EPA Headquarters has been
called in to help determine whether the anomaly is the result of local
conditions or is perhaps indicative of a larger, national trend.  In
such situations, EPA Headquarters has worked with the state and the
Region to identify and address the causes of the anomaly.  Information
regarding the resolution of such cases – to the extent it may be
relevant outside the program in question – are made available to other
states, Regions, and the public in general through various communication
vehicles, including biweekly conference calls with the EPA Regions, a
bimonthly stakeholder call with the I/M states, and the I/M
Clearinghouse web site, currently managed by Weber State University
under a grant from EPA.  The last of these may be accessed at the
following:  

		http://www.obdclearinghouse.com/

5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

	This section is not applicable.  Our respondents are not small business
entities but state governments and their representatives.

5(d)	Collection Schedule

	Under the original 1992 I/M rulemaking, basic I/M programs were
required to begin reporting by July 1995, with the first biennial report
coming due in July 1996.  Enhanced I/M programs were required to begin
reporting by July 1996, with the first biennial report coming due in
July 1997.  Currently – and for simplicity sake – the reporting
schedule is as follows: all required I/M programs must submit their
annual I/M summary data reports by July of each year.  Basic I/M
programs must submit the required biennial report in even numbered
years, and enhanced I/M programs must submit the biennial report in odd
numbered years.  If, for administrative reasons, it is easier for a
given program to combine its biennial report with its annual report and
submit the combined report annually, EPA will accommodate the state’s
preference in this regard.  

	

6. 	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

	In simple terms, EPA calculated the burden and cost estimates for this
ICR using

the following equation:

Number of states        X	Number of burden hours 	      X 	Cost per hour

implementing I/M 		for each state to comply 

				with I/M ICR

					

Section 6(a) describes the information used to develop numbers for the
first two variables above.  Section 6(b) describes how the last variable
above – state and local costs per hour – were estimated.  Section
6(c) describes federal burden hours and costs for managing this
information collection activity.

6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

	The burden estimates for both the recordkeeping and annual reporting
requirements were made using professional judgment.  Recordkeeping
activities are assumed to be routine, automated, and conducted primarily
for the effective management of the program.  Nonetheless, an hour of
burden has been assumed for this category.  The estimate of the burden
for information gathering by technical staff for the annual report is a
conservative one based upon EPA’s previous experience working with
states as they respond to the I/M reporting requirements.  

	Estimates of respondent burden for the biennial report are based upon
OTAQ program management staff experience with the assemblage and
compilation of materials for the office’s annual Assurance Letter
under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA).  In many
ways, the biennial report most resembles the Assurance Letter in its
requirement that program changes and internal control activities be
tracked, evaluated, and reported.  

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

	Since the information gathering and recordkeeping requirements costs
for the I/M rule are very minor compared with other costs for this rule,
no estimates of information collection labor costs were made in the
original Regulatory Impact Analysis.  Given that the respondents to this
ICR are state government employees, in managerial, technical, and
clerical positions, the General Schedule was adopted as a yardstick for
estimating hourly labor rates.  To ensure that our estimates are
conservative, only the higher ranges of these categories were used.  For
the clerical category, GS-8 was used, while GS-13 was selected to
represent the technical position, and GS-15 was used as the base for
calculating management labor rates.  First, EPA is assuming that state
and local burden hours would be completed by an experienced staff person
being paid hourly rates at a GS-8, step 3, GS-13, Step 3 and GS-15, step
3 of federal government employee salary.  Second, EPA multiplied these
hourly rates by the standard government overhead factor of 1.6.  This
calculation results in a state and local cost of $26.69/burden hour,
$50.83/burden hour, and $70.67/burden hour, respectively.  Calendar year
2004 was chosen as the base year. The resulting labor rates are shown in
the table below:

Table 1.  Hourly Labor Rates, By Category, Adjusted for Overhead Factor

Hours Rates	Clerical (GS-8.3)	Technical (GS-13.3)	Managerial (GS-15.3)

2004 base year	16.68	31.77	44.17

Adjusted by the overhead factor 1.6	26.69	50.83	70.67



Table 2. 	Respondent Burden Hours & Cost for Annual Report 

Collection Activity	Managerial Hours	Technical Hours	Clerical Hours
Burden Hours	Annual Costs

1. Read regulatory provisions	1	1

2	$121.50

2.Assess data requirements

8

8	$406.64

3. Assemble reports & data

16

16	$813.28

4. Review information for accuracy

8

8	$406.64

5. Summarize information

4

4	$203.32

6. Prepare and submit report 

4	1	5	$230.01

7. Record, store, & maintain files

1

1	$50.83

Total	1	42	1	43	$2,232



Table 3. 	Respondent Burden Hours & Cost for Biennial Report 

Collection Activity	Managerial Hours	Technical Hours	Clerical Hours
Burden Hours	Annual Costs

1. Track/record program change

16

16	$813.28

2. Track/record weakness/correction

16

16	$813.28

3. Assemble/report findings/future plans	16	32	4	52	$2,864.04

Total	16	64	4	84	$4,491



Annual burden hours

per respondent		= (Hr. of annual report) + (Hr of biennial report)/2

			=  43 + 84/2

			=  85		

Annual burden cost	

per respondent 		=  $2,232 + ($4,491) / 2 

			=  $4,478

Annual total burden hours for all respondents: 

=  (annual burden hours per respondent) x (total number of respondents) 

			=   85 x 34

			=   2890

Annual total burden costs for all respondents

			=   (annual burden cost per respondent) x (total number of
respondent)

			=   $4,478 X 34

			=   $ 152,252

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	The estimates of each class of hours needed to handle the burdens
associated with this ICR are based upon the experience EPA has had in
handling similar tasks such as assembling and processing pre-audit
information from individual states on an as-needed basis.  The labor
categories and hourly labor rates are the same as those used for the
respondent burden estimates, and are decidedly conservative.

Table 4.  Agency Burden for One Time ICR Costs

One- time  Activity	Managerial Hours	Technical Hours	Clerical Hours	
Burden Hours	Annual Costs

Reg Development	4	20

24	$1,299.36



ICR development	2	80	1	83	$4,234.43

Database Set Up	2	40

42	$2,174.54

Total	8	136	1	149	$7,708

								

Table 5.  Agency Burden Hours & Cost per Annual & Biennial Report 

Collection Activity	Managerial Hours	Technical Hours	Clerical Hours	
Burden Hours	Annual Costs

1.Answer  questions	4	34

38	$2010.9

2. Review data submissions

34

34	$1728.22

3. Record data submission

	34	34	$907.46

4. Analyze data and store

4

4	$203.32

5.Summarize data & report	8	68	8	84	$4235.32

Total	12	140	42	194	$9,085



Annual total burden hours for agency  

	= (annual agency burden hours) +  (Average start up hours over 3 years)

	= 194 + 149/3

	= 244

Annual total burden cost for agency 

	=  (annual agency burden costs) +  (Average start up cost over 3 years)

	= $9,085 + $7,708/3

	= $11,654

	

6(d)  Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

	The bottom line burden hours and costs appear in Table 6.  Total annual
respondent burden associated with this ICR is estimated to be
approximately 2,890 burden hours.  The corresponding total annual
respondent costs are estimated to be $152,252.  Total national burden,
including respondent burden and EPA burden, is estimated to be 3,134
hours annually.  The total national cost, for respondents and EPA, is
estimated to be $163,906 annually.

Table 6.  Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost

number of respondents	34 	33 states plus D. C. (2008) 

total annual responses	34	one response per respondent

hours per respondent	85	table 2 and 3

cost per respondent 	$4478	table 2 and 3

total respondent hours	2890	hours per resp. x 34

total respondent cost	$152,252	cost per resp. x 34

total agency hours	244	table 5

total agency cost	$11,654	table 5

total burden hours (resp. + agency)	3134	total respondent hours + total
EPA hours

total burden cost (resp. + agency)	$163,906	total respondent cost +
total EPA cost



6(e)	Reasons for Change in Burden

	The total annual burden estimated in 1992, I/M Program Proposed Rule
ICR, approved by OMB, was 2,282 hours.  The annual burden hours per
respondent was 85 hours.  When the original ICR was subsequently renewed
– as indicated in Table 6 – the annual burden hours per respondent
was retained at 85 hours but the estimate of total respondents’ burden
has changed to 2,890 hours.  The reason for that change was that the
number of states (respondents) implementing the I/M program had
increased to 34.  Since the last renewal of this ICR was approved, there
have been no additional changes.  

6(f)	Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 85 hours per response.  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. 

	To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0707, which is available for   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
online viewing at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
www.regulations.gov ,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 or in person viewing at the
Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA/DC Public Reading Room  
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 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 at
www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in
the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0707 and OMB Control Number 2060-0252 in any
correspondence.

 All light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, model year 1996 and
newer are required to have OBD computers that alert the driver when the
vehicle’s emission controls are in need of service or replacement. 
EPA has found that testing vehicles by downloading fault codes from the
OBD system is at least as effective as traditional tailpipe testing and
EPA has amended the I/M rule to allow for OBD-only testing on MY 1996
and newer vehicles, as opposed to the previous requirement which
stipulated that such vehicles were to receive both an OBD inspection as
well as a tailpipe test.  As given I/M program areas have seen their
in-use fleets come to be dominated by MY 1996 and newer vehicles, EPA
has encouraged them to consider switching to an OBD-only I/M program
design.  

	 January 2004 U.S. Office of Personal Management, Salary Table 2004-GS,
2004 General Schedule,   HYPERLINK
http://www.opm.gov/oca/04tables/html/gs_h.asp
http://www.opm.gov/oca/04tables/html/gs_h.asp 

	Insert Labor Department website for this overhead factor.

	 Page 1-1, “United States Motor vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
(I/M) Programs,” by Sierra Research, Inc.  November 2003.

>> DRAFT: July X, 2008: For EPA review only <<

