Information Collection Request

For the Revisions to 40 CFR Parts 72 & 75

Supporting Statement

1.0  Identification of the Information Collection

1.1  Title of the Information Collection

	Revisions to the Emissions Monitoring Rule under the Acid Rain Program,
NOx Budget Trading Program, Clean Air Interstate Programs, Transport
Rule Program; Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and
the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing, EPA ICR
Number 2203.0, OMB Control Number 2060-0626

1.2  Background

	Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the Acid Rain Title)
established goals to reduce annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx), and placed a national cap on SO2 emissions
beginning in the year 2000.  To ensure compliance with the emissions
reduction requirements and to provide the national consistency needed to
foster the allowance market, Sections 408 and 412 of Title IV require
the designated representative of the owners and operators of each
affected acid rain source to obtain an operating permit for the affected
source and to certify that an approved emissions monitoring system has
been installed and is properly operated at each affected unit's source
of emissions.  In addition, under a Federal NOx Budget Trading Program
developed in conjunction with ozone attainment efforts in the eastern
United States, many additional sources also had to meet similar
requirements as part of a regional emissions trading program.  In May
2005, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which has
broadened the trading program concept to additional sources. CAIR was
subsequently remanded by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina (531 F.3d
896), and modified on rehearing, (550 F.3d. 1176).  The Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone (Transport Rule) was finalized in August 2011,
effectively ending CAIR at the end of 2011, with the Transport Rule
Program beginning in 2012. 

	Emissions monitoring and reporting is the foundation upon which these
allowance trading systems are based.  Without accurate monitoring and
reporting of emissions, the integrity of the allowance system would be
undermined, and there would be no assurance that emissions had been
reduced.

	The legislative requirements in Title IV require all affected Phase I
and Phase II sources to install SO2 and NOx CEM systems, opacity
monitors (COMS), and flow monitors (or approved alternatives).  Affected
gas- and oil-fired units may elect to use approved alternative
monitoring methods that involve fuel flowmeters and fuel sulfur sampling
and analysis.  In addition, peaking units that burn natural gas and/or
fuel oil may use an excepted method for calculating NOx emission rates. 
Finally, EPA allows certain low mass emissions (LME) units to use
assumed emission factors together with operational data to calculate
emissions.  EPA has followed similar requirements for new emissions
trading programs.

	Data handling or reporting is required by the law, but not specified. 
Under the promulgated regulations, however, EPA imposes data handling,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.  EPA requires that all
affected units required to monitor and report emissions under these
trading programs use a data acquisition and handling system (DAHS) to
record and submit hourly data in an electronic format.  Beginning in
April 2009, electronic reporting is occurring in a recently developed
XML format using EPA's Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System
(ECMPS).  The burden associated with most of the Part 75 requirements,
including DAHS changes needed to use the ECMPS reporting approach, is
currently included in the program-specific ICR for all affected sources.
 

The rulemaking covered by this ICR outlines new, revised reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for facilities subject to Part 75.  The final
rule requires such facilities to follow requirements that assure that
facilities properly use Air Emission Testing Bodies (AETBs) that meet
certain standards and obtain EPA Protocol gas from vendors that
participate in EPA's Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP).  The PGVP
program requires any participating EPA protocol gas production site to
meet certain requirements and notify the Administrator of its intent to
participate on an annual basis.  Under the quality assurance and quality
control requirements, Part 75 facilities must use AETBs that meet the
revised requirements under Appendix A to Part 75, Section 6.1.2, which
includes a specification that the requirements (e.g., qualification
exams) of ASTM D7036-04 apply to RATAs, stack testing, and NOx emission
testing.  These new requirements clarify the documentation needed for
proof of compliance, including certification, quality assurance, and
quality control record provisions.  Some of these changes may in fact,
reduce the burden for sources and AETBs by streamlining the process.  

This ICR covers the specific elements and burden that will result from
the new AETB requirements, including passing the Qualified Stack Test
Individual (QSTI) competency exam and development of a QA manual by
affected stack testing companies, and the new PGVP requirements
including annual notifications and re-notifications that include the
specialty gas company name; the name, e-mail address, and telephone
number of a contact person for that specialty gas company; the name and
address of each participating EPA Protocol gas production site owned or
operated by the specialty gas company; and the name, email address and
phone number of a contact person at each production site.  This ICR also
covers the burden associated with some minor changes to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements under Part 75.  The cost
incurred on affected sources (or respondents) will be in the form of
increased fees charged by AETBs and vendors participating in the PGVP,
which are expected to pass along the costs necessitated by the new
requirements in the final rule as well as the burden associated with
ensuring that the minor modifications to the requirements for reporting
AETB and PGVP related information to EPA are met on an ongoing basis. 
This ICR also covers the one time Agency cost to implement the AETB and
PGVP changes to EPA reporting software, along with a small increase in
Agency burden to manage these programs and track compliance. 

In addition to covering the increased fees and burden to Part 75 sources
resulting from the revisions to AETB and PGVP requirements, this ICR
also covers some additional reporting requirements.  These include
revisions to §§75.53, 75.58, and 75.59, that add various data elements
that were inadvertently left out of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule
and the January 24, 2008 final rule.  These data elements have already
been incorporated in the DAHS of Part 75 affected units and are required
to ensure that EPA's new reporting software data requirements are
consistent with the regulatory requirements.   

1.3  Information to Be Collected

	The existing requirements in 40 CFR Part 75 are mandatory for all
sources subject to the Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the Clean Air
Act, as well as certain other emissions trading programs administered by
EPA.  These requirements are covered by existing ICRs for the Acid Rain
Program (ICR No. 1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258), the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0570), and the
Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Transport Rule) (ICR 2391.02, OMB Control
Number 2060-0667).  The information requirements in this ICR are based
on revisions to the minimum competency requirements for air emission
testing, and reflect the increase in costs to sources that need to pay
for services provided by stack testers and stack testing companies.  The
final rule contains some minor reporting and recordkeeping provisions
related to the AETB and PGVP requirements, and EPA assumes that there
will be a small additional burden associated with these requirements. 
Thus, this ICR covers:  (1) the incremental increase in testing costs
that will be passed along to sources from air emission testing bodies
(i.e., stack testers and stack testing companies) due to the increased
burden resulting from revisions to the minimum competency requirements
for these companies; (2) the incremental increase in the cost of EPA
Protocol gas cylinders that will be passed along to sources from vendors
participating in PGVP due to the increased burden resulting from
revisions to the cylinder analysis, reporting and notification
requirements for these companies; (3) the one time labor burden for
sources to review the new requirements included in the rule; and (4) the
increase in burden to Part 75 affected sources for complying with the
modified recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the
AETB and PGVP provisions.  

	Nearly all burdens associated with Part 72 and 75 requirements for the
affected sources that report data, will remain covered by the underlying
ICRs of the existing programs.  The burden estimates under the existing
program ICRs will be adjusted accordingly to reflect the additional
burdens and costs summarized in this ICR when those existing program
ICRs are updated.  At that time, EPA will re-examine the overall
reporting and recordkeeping burdens generally under Part 75 as revised
by these AETB and PGVP-related requirements.  

The annual respondent reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to be 2,306 labor hours, which results in an
associated annual cost of $183,642 and reflects the small amount of time
per year for respondents to review the updated rule requirements.  In
addition, there is an annual operations and maintenance-related cost to
respondents of $1,284,180 due to the expected increase in fees charged
by AETBs and vendors participating in PGVP resulting from the additional
requirements imposed by this final rule.  As such, the total annual cost
to respondents as a result of this final rule is estimated to be
$1,467,822.

	

2.0  Need For and Use of the Collection

	This section describes EPA's need for the information collection
described above and the legal authority for conducting collections.  The
users of collected information are also described.

2.1  Need/Authority for the Collection

	Section 412(a) of Title IV requires the use of CEM systems (or
alternative monitoring systems demonstrated to be equivalent) at each
affected unit's source of emissions.  Section 504(a) of Title V requires
that the results of any required monitoring be submitted to the
permitting authority no less often than every six months.  The
information collection is consistent with satisfying these minimum
statutory requirements.  EPA's model rules for implementation of CAIR
(40 CFR part 96, subparts AA-end) impose comparable requirements.

	Results of continuous emission monitoring system performance tests
allow EPA to certify that monitors perform well enough to produce
accurate emissions data.  Emissions data is used to monitor compliance
with emissions requirements under Title IV and other EPA trading
programs, and to provide a basis for analyzing progress in meeting air
quality objectives.

2.2  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	Data from emissions monitoring is indispensable to successful
implementation of EPA trading programs.  EPA can only monitor compliance
with and enforce these trading programs by having accurate emissions
data for each affected unit.

	Electric utilities, energy consultants, and power marketing companies
can use the emissions data to project future allowance costs and
availability.  Academic institutions can perform data modeling to
evaluate environmental benefits and estimate health effects of emissions
reductions.  EPA and other agencies use the data to try to correlate the
reduction of SO2 and NOx emissions with a decrease in acid precipitation
and ambient air quality pollutant levels, and also to measure the
impacts of other existing and proposed emissions trading programs.  The
emissions data provide the accountability to allow these trading
programs to function without more stringent command and control
approaches.

3.0  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

	This section describes:  (1) efforts by EPA to learn whether the
information requested is available from other sources; (2) consultations
with respondents and data users to plan collections, monitor their
usefulness, and minimize the collection burden; (3) effects of less
frequent collections; and (4) any issues related to confidentiality.

3.1  Nonduplication

	All information requested from respondents under this ICR is required
by statute and/or regulation, and the majority of the associated burden
and costs of complying are covered by existing ICRs.  This ICR covers
the need for respondents to review the revisions to Part 75 and update
their recordkeeping and reporting procedures necessitated by changes in
the AETB and PGVP requirements and to pay for any increase in testing
fees or cylinder costs that result from those requirements.   

3.2  Consultations

	As part of the ECMPS project, EPA has met with many stakeholders and
received input on the changes under consideration and the timetable for
action.  Stakeholder input is already reflected within the Part 75 rule
revisions that add simple recordkeeping requirements to allow EPA to
verify that: 1) Part 75 affected units are using Qualified Individuals
and AETBs that meet the rule requirements; and 2) Part 75 affected units
are using gas cylinders from EPA Protocol gas production sites that are
participating in the PGVP.  In addition, EPA contacted two stack testing
companies and two gas supply companies to obtain information on the
potential increase in fees and cylinder costs.  The feedback received
from these consultations was incorporated into the estimates for burden
and cost.

	

3.3  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	The general schedule for submissions is established in the underlying
emissions trading programs.  The minimal data elements imposed by these
rule revisions are consistent with the process established and
implemented generally for all other Part 75 recordkeeping and reporting
elements and enables sources to build these minimal requirements into
their basic Part 75 reporting process. 

3.4  Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions

	Information collected through this activity is not confidential or of a
sensitive nature.

4.0  The Respondents and the Information Requested

	This section lists the major categories of businesses that participate
in EPA-administered emissions trading programs, the data items requested
from program participants, and the activities in which the participants
must engage to assemble or submit the required data items.

4.1  Respondents/NAICS Codes

	Entities regulated by this action primarily are fossil fuel-fired
boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units that serve generators that
produce electricity, generate steam, or cogenerate electricity and
steam.  Although for the Acid Rain Program, Part 75 primarily regulates
the electric utility industry, certain state and Federal NOx mass
emission trading programs rely on Subpart H of Part 75, and those
programs may include industrial boilers, turbines, and combined cycle
units, and certain process units from other industries (such as refinery
process heaters or cement kilns).   

	

4.2  Information Requested

	This section lists the data items requested from affected sources for
the collection described in this ICR.  This section also defines the
activities in which respondents must engage to assemble, submit, or
store these data items.

	

4.2.1  Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements

	There are a small number of new data items requested from respondents
under the final rule.  These include revisions to §§75.53, 75.58, and
75.59, that add various data elements that were inadvertently left out
of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule and the January 24, 2008 final
rule.  These data elements have already been incorporated in the DAHS of
Part 75 affected units and are required to ensure that EPA's new
reporting software data requirements are consistent with the regulatory
requirements.  As such, the incremental changes to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements add only a small additional burden for sources. 
This ICR covers the small one-time burden associated with the
respondents' review of the Part 75 revisions included in the final rule,
the small annual burden associated with ensuring compliance with the
additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and the marginal
increase in fees charged by AETBs and vendors participating in the PGVP
to respondents (i.e., the increase that can be attributed to the new
testing competency requirements in the rule and the new cylinder
analysis, reporting and notification requirements for PGVP vendors). 

	Emissions monitoring requirements specify that affected sources must: 
(1) submit a monitoring plan for each affected unit at a source; (2)
submit data for certification of each monitor; and (3) record hourly
operational, pollutant monitor, and flow monitor data for each affected
unit and submit quarterly reports of their emissions data to EPA. 
Respondents are required by 40 CFR 75.64 to submit the quarterly
emissions data electronically, by direct electronic submission to EPA,
and must also include a certification statement by the designated
representative of the unit.  Under the 2002 rule revisions, EPA requires
the certification statement to be submitted electronically unless it
approves a hardcopy submission.  All records are to be kept for three
years.

	4.2.2  Respondent Activities

	The primary tasks that are performed by respondents to meet the
emissions monitoring requirements are:  (1) completing and submitting
appropriate monitoring plan forms for each affected source and each
affected unit at a source; (2) conducting tests to certify the operation
of monitors, and submitting test results to EPA; (3) recording hourly
emissions data (this activity generally is performed electronically);
(4) operation and maintenance activities associated with the monitoring,
including quality assurance activities; (5) assuring data quality,
preparing quarterly reports of emissions data and submitting these
reports to EPA; and (6) responding to error messages generated by EPA as
a part of automated data checks or electronic audits, or to field audits
conducted by EPA.  In addition, respondents must purchase the necessary
monitoring hardware (or pay for fuel sampling and analysis in some
cases) and purchase the electronic data reporting software (or software
upgrades).

	This ICR covers the marginal increase in burden associated with
respondents' review of the new requirements in the rule, the marginal
increase in burden associated with ensuring compliance with the modified
recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., to report AETB and
PGVP-related information along with other emissions data), and the
marginal increase in fees imposed on respondents by AETBs and PGVP
vendors as necessitated by changes in EPA's requirements for
verification of AETB (including Qualified Individuals) and cylinder
analysis, notification and re-notification from vendors participating in
PGVP.  

5.0  The Information Collected -- Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

	The first part of this section describes Agency (EPA) activities
related to the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the
information collected from designated representatives of affected
sources that are required to submit monitoring and emissions data.  The
second part describes the information management techniques employed to
increase the efficiency of collections.  The third part discusses the
burden or benefits of the collection activities described in this ICR to
small entities.  The last part outlines the schedule for collecting
information.

5.1  Agency Activities

	The major EPA activities related to emissions monitoring and reporting
include:  (1) reviewing monitoring plans and certification applications;
and (2) processing, reviewing and evaluating reports of quarterly
emissions data from affected units.  These activities are covered by
existing ICRs.  This ICR includes the incremental additional burden
associated with maintaining and updating the list of vendors that
participate in the PGVP, annually posting cylinder analysis results,
reviewing the reported EPA Protocol gas production sites, and
credentials of Qualified Individuals associated with an AETB.  EPA staff
will maintain a list of participating PGVP vendors (and will update that
list on an as-needed, ongoing basis) on EPA's website.  

In addition to the annual costs above EPA, will incur a one-time upfront
cost associated with the modification of the agency reporting software
to accommodate and validate the new AETB and PGVP data elements.

5.2  Collection Methodology and Management

	To ensure consistency nationwide and to expedite (1) data entry, (2)
the allocation of allowances, and (3) permit issuance, EPA requires that
standard reporting forms or equivalent formats or standard electronic
reporting formats be used to submit all information to be collected
under this ICR.  In 2008, EPA made revisions to Part 75 monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to accord with the fundamental
changes in EPA's data systems, which are designed to unify and simplify
data reporting, as well as to provide flexibility to respondents.  EPA
also has established the Clean Air Markets Home Page on the Internet,
which includes detailed information collected from emissions reports. 
Those without access to the Internet may use the Acid Rain Hotline to
request information.  EPA will maintain a current list of PGVP vendors
that is posted and maintained on EPA's website.  Sources may use this
list to ensure that they are purchasing EPA Protocol gas cylinders from
a participating vendor.

5.3  Small Entity Flexibility

	For purposes of this ICR, a small entity is defined as:  (1) A small
business as defined by the SBA's regulations at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=28040ec960b490ca0aafa21f4
6de6efc&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b73%20FR%20
4312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=16&_butInline=1
&_butinfo=13%20CFR%20121.201&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLb
Vlb-zSkAl&_md5=20cdd3754bc5031f8663e9a8648d753a"  13 CFR 121.201 ; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.  In determining whether a rule has a significant economic
impact on small entities, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of
the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify and address
regulatory alternatives "which minimize any significant economic impact
of the rule on small entities."    HYPERLINK
"http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=029eb2ac646aec65a263af3d0
12c208e&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b73%20FR%20
4312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=17&_butInline=1
&_butinfo=5%20USC%20603&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVlz-z
SkAW&_md5=7706f7a5b57e6c8ffe73a18a42323923"  5 U.S.C. 603  and  
HYPERLINK
"http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=029eb2ac646aec65a263af3d0
12c208e&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b73%20FR%20
4312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=18&_butInline=1
&_butinfo=5%20USC%20604&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVlz-z
SkAW&_md5=d18efe794c4aab9071be778414940e8e"  604 .  Thus, an agency may
certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if the small entities can pass
through costs to their customers or rate payers, if the rule generally
does not regulate small entities, or the rule relieves regulatory burden
or otherwise generally has a positive economic effect on all of the
small entities subject to the rule. 

The marginal increase in burden that is estimated in this ICR will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.  Nearly all affected sources are large electric generating
facilities that will face an incremental increase in cost associated
with very small increases in the testing fees charged by AETBs and PGVP
vendors.  For AETBs, the main costs to comply with the ASTM D7036-04
standard are associated with taking a qualified stack test individual
competency exam, and developing or revising a quality assurance manual. 
PGVP vendors will be required to have a small number of their cylinders
analyzed each year, and provide annual notification to EPA staff with
basic information on their facility and other information relevant to
the PGVP.  The costs will be passed through to the customers, which are
generally Part 75 affected sources, including large electric utility and
industrial companies.  

5.4  Collection Schedule

	Under Part 75, monitoring plans must be submitted initially, and at
subsequent intervals if elements of the monitoring plan change over
time.  Quarterly reports are due for each quarter during the life of
this information collection request.  In addition, Part 75 provides for
notifications to the Agency for semi-annual or annual quality assurance
testing and for situations where a unit will have a revised
certification deadline (for example, notifications of unit start-up for
new units).  This collection schedule is provided for under existing
ICRs.  The minimal AETB and PGVP-related reporting elements as well as
the small number of additional reporting elements in the final rule are
included within this basic Part 75 reporting framework so that sources
can adapt their reports to add these minimal elements easily into their
existing processes.

6.0  Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collections

	This section estimates the annual paperwork burden and cost to sources
for adapting their recordkeeping and reporting systems to the revised
requirements.  The information requirements in this ICR are based on the
revisions to the AETB and PGVP requirements as well as the minor
additions to required reporting data elements.  The estimates in this
ICR reflect the increase in burden to the AETBs and PGVP vendors that
will be necessitated by these new requirements and passed on to Part 75
sources in the form of increased testing fees (i.e., for using AETB’s
that meet ASTM D7036-04) and increased costs associated with EPA
Protocol gas purchases.  In addition, the estimates in this ICR reflect
a small burden to Part 75 sources for a one-time rule review and an
incremental increase in the annual burden associated with minor
modifications to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., for
tracking AETB and PGVP-related information and data). 

6.1  Estimating Respondent Burden

	The primary tasks performed by AETBs as a result of the final rule are
to comply with the ASTM D7036-04, which includes:  (1) taking a
qualified stack test individual competency exam; and (2) developing or
revising a quality assurance manual.  The primary tasks performed by
vendors participating in EPA's PGVP as a result of the final rule are to
have a small number of their cylinders analyzed with results reported to
EPA, and provide an annual notification to EPA.  Although AETBs and PGVP
vendors are not considered to be respondents to which the ICR
requirements apply, the resulting increase in costs to comply with these
requirements will be passed on to Part 75 sources in the form of
increased fees.  

For affected sources, the final rule contains some minor reporting and
recordkeeping provisions related to the AETB and PGVP requirements and
also requires a small number of other additional data elements to be
reported.  For the AETB-related requirements, sources need to record and
report the following information as provided by the AETB in electronic
and hardcopy format:  the name, telephone number and e-mail address
associated with the AETB and the name of the on-site Qualified
Individual.  Also, for the reference method(s) that were performed,
sources need to report the date that the Qualified Individual has passed
the relevant qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D 7036-04; and the
name and email address of the qualification exam provider; and
certificate of accreditation or interim accreditation for the relevant
test method issued by a recognized national accreditation body or a
letter of certification for the relevant test methods signed by a member
of the senior management staff of the AETB (recordkeeping only in
electronic or hardcopy format).  For the PGVP-related reporting
requirements, sources need to report certain information for the mid- or
high-level EPA Protocol gas (as applicable) that is used for daily
calibration error tests, the low-, mid-, and high-level gases used for
quarterly linearity checks (the information required (see (1) through
(5) below) is reported for each gas monitor and for both low and high
measurement ranges), and the EPA protocol gases used during RATA
performance tests.  Note that for O2, instead of reporting this
information, if purified air is used as the high-level gas for daily
calibrations or linearity checks, sources need to record the following
information for the low- and mid-level EPA Protocol gas used for
linearity checks:

(1) Gas level code;

(2) A code for the type of EPA Protocol gas used;

(3) The PGVP vendor ID issued by EPA for the EPA Protocol gas production
site that supplied the EPA Protocol gas cylinder; 

(4) The expiration date for the EPA Protocol gas cylinder; and

(5) The cylinder number.

Since the procedures and systems allowing for these data to be reported
are already in place and being used, EPA has assumed that the burden
associated with these additional reporting requirements are relatively
small.  As EPA renews the underlying ICRs for Part 75 [i.e., the Acid
Rain Program (ICR No. 1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258), and the
Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Transport Rule) (ICR 2391.02, OMB Control
Number 2060-0667)], EPA will reevaluate the burden associated with these
reporting activities in conjunction with reviewing the estimated burdens
for all other aspects of Part 75 recordkeeping and reporting.  

6.2  Estimating Respondent Costs

	The annual respondent costs will consist of:  1) the costs associated
with a small labor burden for sources to review the new requirements
included in the final rule and comply with the modified reporting
requirements; and 2) the marginal increase in fees resulting from the
new AETB and PGVP requirements.  To estimate labor costs, EPA used the
Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) National Industry-specific
Occupational Wage Estimates (May 2010) for the Engine and Turbines
Industry under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 351 and
increased by a factor of 1.6 to account for benefits and overhead.  A
reference between the applicable SIC and NAICS codes used to update
hourly rates for this ICR is available on the BLS website at:   
HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm%2317-0000" 
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm#17-0000 .  The mean hourly
rate of $81.51 used for this ICR is based on an even split between the
following two labor categories:  Mechanical Engineers (SOC Code 17-2141)
of $39.65($63.44 when increased by a factor of 1.6) and Lawyers (SOC
Code 23-1011) of $62.23 ($99.57 when increased by a factor of 1.6).  

	

6.3  Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

	EPA estimates that there will be an incremental additional burden
associated with maintaining and updating the list of vendors that
participate in the PGVP, and associated with reviewing the reported
credentials of Qualified Individuals associated with an AETB.  EPA will:
 

1.  Review PGVP applications, post the PGVP participants on Agency web
sites, and make adjustments as needed; 

2.  Review and post cylinder analysis results; and

3.  Develop and implement annual work assignments for obtaining
cylinders for auditing purposes. 

4.  One time update to the Agency reporting software.

EPA estimates that one staff person will need to spend a total of 100
hours per year to complete these tasks.  In addition, there will be a
one-time burden of 600 hours associated with software programming that
will be necessary to ensure that each Part 75 stack test has basic
information for the corresponding AETB and Qualified Individual.  EPA
estimates a burden of 40 hours per year to review and resolve any issues
or problems associated with ensuring that the AETB and Qualified
Individual information is both accurate and current.  

Government cost is based on GS-13 salary for professional engineers
($44.65/hr), adjusted by a factor of 1.6 to account for government
benefits, resulting in a final rate of $71.44/hr.  The hourly rate was
obtained from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Salary Table
2011-GS" (http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/html/gs_h.asp).  Agency time
is estimated for managing the PGVP (which encompass all four activities
listed above) in Table 1 below.  Note that there are no capital or
operation and maintenance costs associated with the Agency burden.   

Table 1

Agency Burden and Cost

Information Collection Activity	Number of Responses 	Labor Cost Per
Response ($71.44/hr)	Hours Per Response	Total Hours Per Year	Total Cost
Per Year

Manage PGVP 	50	$142.88	2	100	$7,144 

Software Programming for AETB	1	$14,288.00	200	200	$14,288 

Quality Assurance for AETB Information	5	$571.52	8	40	$2,858 

TOTAL	340	$24,290



6.4  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

EPA used a combination of the existing Acid Rain Program (ICR No.
1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258),the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0570), and Federal Implementation
Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone (Transport Rule) (ICR 2391.02, OMB Control Number 2060-0667)  to
estimate the total number of respondents, labor costs, and O&M costs to
determine impacts of the rule.  It should be noted that in preparation
of this ICR the EPA confirmed estimates of the time required to comply
with reporting requirements, taking into account respondents' adoption
of flexible measure and electronic reporting tools. Based on these
previously established numbers EPA estimates that there are total of
1,537 facilities that will be respondents affected by the requirements
of the rule.  This includes facilities affected by both ARP, CAIR, and
the Transport Rule.  Each of these respondents will be subject to a
total one-time burden of three hours (i.e., one hour per year during the
time period covered by this ICR) to review the rule requirements as well
as an annual burden of one-half hour to ensure compliance with the
modified recordkeeping and reporting requirements (as described in
Section 6.1 above) at mean hourly labor cost of $81.51,which results in
a total annual cost of $183,642 (See Table 2 below).  

Table 2

Burden Cost to Respondents

Information Collection Activity	Mean Hourly Rate	Hours per Activity/

Year	Number of Respondents

(Facilities)	Respondent Hours/Year	Total Labor Cost per Year

ARP Respondents One Time Rule Review	$81.51 	1	1,249	1,249	$101,806 

ARP Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting Requirements	$81.51 
0.5	1,249	625	$50,903 

CAIR Respondents One Time Rule Review 

● Non ARP NBP[1] Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities) 
$81.51 	1	138	138	$11,248 

● Non ARP non-NBP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities) 
$81.51 	1	104	104	$8,477 

● Non ARP NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities) 	$81.51 	1	10	10
$815 

● Non ARP non-NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities)	$81.51 	1	1	1
$82 

CAIR Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting Requirements 

● Non ARP NBP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities) 	$81.51
	0.5	138	69	$5,624 

● Non ARP non-NBP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities) 
$81.51 	0.5	104	52	$4,239 

● Non ARP NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities) 	$81.51 	0.5	10	5
$408 

● Non ARP non-NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities)	$81.51 	0.5	1
1	$41 

Cont.

Transport Rule Respondents One time Rule Review (Not Previously Affected
by CAIR) 

Facilities not previously affected in Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and
Oklahoma	$81.51 	1	35	35	$2,853 

Transport Rule Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting
Requirements (Not Previously Affected by CAIR) 

Facilities not previously affected in Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and
Oklahoma	$81.51 	0.5	35	18	$1,426 

Total	1,537	2,306	$183,642 



In addition to the respondent burden associated with rule review and
compliance with the modified reporting requirements, EPA estimated the
burden associated with increased annual quality-assurance and
maintenance for each unit.  Based on information provided by stack
testing firms, a conservative one percent increase was applied to the
previously established annual O&M costs per unit at each respondent
facility. This is based on the average stack testing industry costs of
preparing a QA/QC manual ($6,000), obtaining QSTI certification
($1,200),  and annual operating costs of maintaining the quality control
system ($5,000 – $50,000 depending on size).  The increased stack
testing overhead costs translate into an increased performance test cost
of $68 to $549 per RATA test depending on the size of the company. The
increase cost per test drops even further if applied to all types of
tests performed by typical stack testing companies. 

	The PGVP vendors that were contacted estimated an increased cost of two
dollars or less per cylinder.  This estimate was derived from
correspondence with both large and small specialty gas companies, who
based their estimates on the number of cylinders they sold per year and
the following cost estimates. The estimate assumes that NIST analyzes 4
cylinders from each production site, and the total annual cost due to
the PGVP would be approximately $7,200 per production site.  The $7200
estimate includes cylinder analysis and report production by NIST
($1,667/cylinder), average one-way shipping costs back to the production
site ($91/cylinder), and average rental ($7/cylinder/month).  The total
cost of NIST analysis, report production, six months cylinder rental,
and shipping back to the production site is approximately $1,800 per
cylinder.

EPA assumes that both the AETB and PGVP costs will be passed on to
respondents.  To calculate increased O&M costs per respondent, EPA
assumed an average six cylinders per year per unit at an increased cost
of two dollars per cylinder which results in an overall increase of
$54,156 per year.  As such, the QA testing and maintenance costs for
units affected by ARP and CAIR along with the increased cylinder costs
that are passed along to respondents by PGVP vendors, results in an
estimated total annual cost of $1,284,180 for Part 75 QA activities (see
Table 3).  Note that only the marginal increase in fees that can be
attributed to the requirements for AETBs and PGVP vendors in the final
rule were included in this estimate.  

Table 3

Increased Annual QA and Maintenance Costs

Information Collection Activity	Previously Established Cont./O&M Cost
Increased Cont./O&M Cost per Respondent	Number of Respondents

(Units)	Increased Total Cost/Year

ARP Perform QA Testing and Maintenance

Model A (CEMS)	$31,949	$319	1,046	$333,674

Model C (App D -- NOx CEM)	$17,818	$178	2,107	$375,046

Model D (App D and E)	$1,843	$19	438	$8,322

Model E (LME)	$1,991	$20	145	$2,900

One Time DAHS Upgrade

$500	631	$315,500

CAIR Perform QA Testing and Maintenance

Solid Fuel:  SO2, NOx, and Flow CEMS (units) PM and O3	$31,200 	$312 
102	$31,824 

Solid Fuel:  SO2, NOx, and Flow CEMS (units) No PM	$20,800 	$208 	4	$832


Gas-Oil:  NOx CEMS and App D (units)	$17,400 	$174 	521	$90,654 

-- Gas-Oil Peaking Units:  App D, App E, or LME methods (units)	$1,800 
$18 	150	$2,700 

One Time DAHS Upgrade3	 	$500 	126	$63,000 

Transport Rule Perform QA Testing and Maintenance

Solid Fuel:  SO2, NOX, and Flow CEMS (units)	$20,800 	$208 	7	$1,456 

Gas-Oil:  NOX CEMS and Appendix D fuel monitoring (units)	$17,400 	$174 
17	$2,958 

Gas-Oil Peaking Units:  Appendix D fuel sampling, Appendix E, or LME
methods (units)	$1,800 	$18 	29	$522 

PGVP Increased Costs

($2 per cylinder at an assumed average of 6 cylinders per year)	 	$12 
4,566	$54,792 

Total	$1,284,180 

6.5  Reasons for Change in Burden

	The burden estimated in the preceding ICR (2203.02) included a one-time
burden associated with reviewing the January 2008 Part 75 rule
revisions, as well as the burden associated with DAHS upgrades and
debugging.  The one-time burden for reviewing the January 2008 Part 75
revisions in the rule no longer applies.  As result of the removal of
the 2008 Part 75 revisions review, the net burden change associated with
ICR 2203.04 is a reduction of 122,670 hours and an increase of $788,280.
 The overall increase in dollars is attributed to increased annual
quality assurance and maintenance costs, while the large reduction in
hours is attributable to the removal of the previous ICR’s large rule
reading burden.  

This collection request reflects the additional one-time burden for Part
75 sources to review the AETB-related and PGVP-related requirements in
the rule, the one time burden associated with the DAHS upgrade
specifically required to support the new reporting requirements, the
annual burden associated with complying with the modified reporting
requirements, and the additional O&M costs that Part 75 sources will
incur as a result of increased AETB and PGVP costs for Part 75 testing
due to compliance with the revised requirements.  EPA assumes that these
costs may be passed along to Part 75 sources in the form of higher
testing fees.  This ICR also reflects the Agency burden associated with
maintenance and quality assurance of the PGVP and AETB programs.  

6.6  Burden Statement

	The total annual respondent burden is estimated to be 2,306 hours, with
total annual labor and O&M costs estimated to be $1,467,822.  This
estimate includes the burden associated with the increase in fees from
AETBs and PGVP vendors resulting from their compliance with the new
requirements in the rule as well as the small labor burden for sources
to review the new requirements and comply with the modified
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.  When the respondent burden is
combined with the Agency burden, the overall burden and cost per year is
estimated to be 2,646 hours and $1,492,112 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.     

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number
for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 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-2009-0837 and OMB Control Number 2060-0626 in any
correspondenceമഌ灁数摮硩䄠匋浵慭祲漠⁦敒楶楳湯⁳湩
䘠湩污删汵⁥഍ऍ桔⁥楆慮⁬畒敬映牯䄠敭摮敭瑮⁳潴
琠敨倠潲潴潣⁬慇⁳敖楲楦慣楴湯倠潲牧浡愠摮䴠湩浩
浵䌠浯数整据⁹敒畱物浥湥獴映牯䄠物䔠業獳潩⁮敔瑳
湩⁧湩汣摵獥琠敨映汯潬楷杮ഺ

●	Amended §72.2 by adding two new definitions, and updating others.

●	Amended §72.13  and §75.6 by incorporating by reference a newer
August 25, 1999 version of the EPA Traceability Protocol, and updating
certain references.

●	Revised §75.21(g) to clarify certain provisions and to require any
EPA Protocol gas production site that participates in the PGVP to notify
the Agency of its intent to participate.  Program participants would
need to notify EPA of their intent to participate on an annual basis. 
EPA眠畯摬椠獳敵愠瘠湥潤⁲䑉渠浵敢⁲潴攠捡⁨慰瑲捩
灩湡ⱴ眠楨档眠畯摬琠敨⁮敢愠爠煥極敲⁤慤慴攠敬敭
瑮椠⁮慥档攠敬瑣潲楮⁣畱牡整汲⁹敲潰瑲‮䔠䅐眠汩
⁬慭湩慴湩愠氠獩⁴景瀠牡楴楣慰瑮⁳湡⁤瑯敨⁲牰杯
慲⁭湩潦浲瑡潩⁮湯愠眠扥楳整മ

●	Revised the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under §§75.59
and 75.64 to enable EPA to verify that Part 75 affected sources are
using EPA Protocol gases from participating sites and to inform gas
cylinder selection for the PGVP audits.   The new electronic quarterly
PGVP data elements in §75.64 would be reported on and after 180 days
from publication of the rule in the Federal Register either prior to or
concurrent with the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data
report. 

●	Amended §6.5.10 of Appendix A to Part 75 to require that the EPA
Protocol gases used when performing Methods 3A, 6C, or 7E must be from
EPA Protocol gas production sites participating in the PGVP.  

●	Added simple recordkeeping requirements under §75.59, and reporting
requirements under §75.63 and §75.64 to allow the Agency to verify
that a Qualified Individual and an Air Emission Testing Body meet the
applicable requirements (see Appendix B).  Recordkeeping and reporting
elements include the name, telephone number
a摮攠慭汩愠摤敲獳漠⁦桴⁥楁⁲浅獩楳湯吠獥楴杮䈠
摯⁹湡⁤桴⁥湯猭瑩⁥畑污晩敩⁤湉楤楶畤污‮ഠ

●	Amendment to Section 6.1.2 of Appendix A to clarify assumptions with
respect to ensuring the validity of test data and to post the names of
non-complying AETBs on Agency web sites.  The new electronic quarterly
AETB data elements in §75.64 would be reported on and after 365 days
from publication of the rule in the Federal Register, either prior to or
concurrent with the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data
report.

●	Removed specific references to mercury monitoring systems throughout
Part 75.  

●	Clarified self certification and third party accreditation
provisions to ensure AETBs comply with ASTM D 7036-04.

●	Amended §75.4(d) to clarify the applicability provisions for units
in long-term cold storage after having completed initial certification
and amended §75.4(e) to ensure that all new ARP units are provided the
same 90 operating day/180 calendar day flexible window of time to
perform the necessary monitoring system testing when a new stack is
constructed or add-on SO2 or NOx emission
c湯牴汯⁳牡⁥湩瑳污敬⹤†ഠ

●	Amended §75.6 to add Section 3, Small Volume Provers, First Edition
to the American Petroleum Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum
Measurement Standards, Chapter 4 -- Proving Systems.  

●	Amended §§75.53, 75.58, and 75.59, by adding various data elements
that were inadvertently left out of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule
and the January 24, 2008 final rule.  These data elements have already
been incorporated in the data acquisition and handling systems of Part
75 affected units, and are needed to make EPA's new reporting software
data requirements consistent with the regulatory requirements.  

●	Revised §75.22(a)(5)(iv) to only allow “dynamic spiking” as an
additional Method 7E quality assurance check; and paragraph (v) to
disallow multiple Method 7E runs to be performed before conducting the
post-run bias or system calibration error check.

●	Removed from §75.47(b)(3) the requirement for an owner or operator
to demonstrate that emissions for a class-approved alternative
monitoring system (AMS) are de minimis and  removed the requirement for
EPA to publish a FR notice for a 30-day public comment period prior to
granting a class-approved AMS.  

●	Added a new paragraph (d) to §§75.62 and 75.63 to require the
Designated Representative or the Alternate Designated Representative to
enclose a hard copy cover letter with each hard copy monitoring plan and
certification or recertification submittal, but to make it optional for
electronic submittals.  

Revised Part 75, Appendix A, Section 4 to update reporting formats.

hX+

t

”

Ž

Ž

•

»

Ä

萑ː葠ː摧墼ó

hX+

  hX+

hX+

hM

摧㢻L

hM

hM

&

&

&

kdÕ

kdm

h

h

h

&

&

&

	”

	”

kd

摧㢻L

h>

hY

h>

h

摧昔÷

 ecification for EPA Protocol gases and research gas mixtures, and to
update the incorporation by reference provision.  



Appendix B

Summary of Standard Practice for Competence of Air Emission Testing
Bodies 

(ASTM D7036-04)

	ASTM D7036-04 specifies general requirements for competence to perform
air emissions tests of stationary sources.  These standards were
developed by representatives from large and small stack testing
companies, state and Federal governments, and private industry.  Its
scope is nationwide and based largely on ISO 17025.  Note that any AETB
conducting RATAs of CEMS, Appendix E testing, or deriving default
emission rates for LME units under part 75 must conform to ASTM
D7036-04.  Following is a general overview of some key
requirements.†ഠ伍杲湡穩瑡潩Ɱ䴠湡条浥湥ⱴ愠摮䐠捯
浵湥慴楴湯ഺ

●	Maintain a system that allows for monitoring the delivery and
improvement of services (as measured by performance data);

●	Maintain a legally identifiable and clearly defined organizational
structure, including parent organizations, staff responsibilities, and
provisions of support services;

●	Employ a technical manager/director, quality manager, and qualified
individual on-site for each test project (who is qualified for each test
method performed); 

●	Maintain ability to provide documentation showing compliance with
relevant Federal, state and local requirements for conducting testing
procedures as well as health and safety and other relevant requirements;


●	Maintain procedures to control all documents required for the
established quality system; 

●	Ensure that documents are uniquely identified and reviewed/approved
by same group that performed the original review; and 

●	Maintain a document control system that allows for tracking
revisions or amendments.   

Quality System, Audit, and Review:

●	Develop and maintain a quality assurance policy and a quality system
to ensure consistent achievement of data quality objectives; 

●	Document the quality system in a manual that covers all elements
outlined in Appendix X1 of ASTM D7036-04; and 

●	Conduct internal audits in accordance with Section 7.4.2 of ASTM
D7036-04.

Personnel:

●	Ensure competence of testing staff and maintain requirements for
staff training; and

●	Provide "Qualified Individuals" to oversee and supervise test
projects and ensure that these individuals take an exam every five years
and meet the experience requirements in Section 8.3.4 of ASTM D7036-04.

Environment, Equipment, and Test Methods:

摧㢻L

he

he

6 not invalidate test results;

●	Ensure adequate access by qualified individuals to fully operational
testing equipment and software; 

●	Establish calibration programs for the equipment (including key
quantities or values) and maintain records for all equipment used; and

●	Use appropriate methods and procedures for all testing performed,
and document any deviations from the applicable regulations in the test
protocol or report that is established for each test project.

Recordkeeping and Reporting:

●	Maintain procedures for handling and storage of quality and
technical records; 

●	Retain records of original observations, derived data, information
for audit trail, calibration records, and other information; 

●	Accurately report the results of each test, calibration or series of
tests; and 

●	Include the information outlined in Section 15.3 of ASTM D7036-04 in
each test report or calibration certificate.

Other Information:

●	Follow guidelines in Section 16 of ASTM D7036-04 if subcontractors
are used; 

萏ː萑ﺘ葞ː葠ﺘ摧琺ê᐀●	Maintain policies and procedures
for the purchase and use of outside support and supplies; and

●	Maintain policies and procedures in the event that nonconforming
work is completed, including an approach for corrective action. 

 As discussed in text, no increased labor burdens; marginal O&M cost
increases only.

 To calculate the number of units required to perform a DAHS upgrade, it
was assumed that 80% of applicable CEMS units would be covered by an
existing service contract and not subject to the annualized $1500 fee.
It is assumed that the newly affected units under the Transport Rule
will not require a DAHS upgrade.

Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page   PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  15 

August 10, 2011

Appendix A

November 11, 2009

Page A-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2 

Appendix B

November 11, 2009

Page B-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2 

