1

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR THE RENEWAL OF

EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 1613.04

DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE AND LOCAL VEHICLE 

EMISSION INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE (I/M) PROGRAMS
2

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 .................................................................................................... 8

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection ................................................................. 8

3(e) General Guidelines ........................................................................................... 9

3(f) Confidentiality .................................................................................................. 9

3(g) Sensitive Questions ........................................................................................... 9

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ..................... 9

4(a) State and Local Respondents............................................................................. 9

4(b) Information Requested ..................................................................................... 10

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIONS, COLLECTION

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ............................. 17

5(a) Federal Agency Activities ................................................................................ 17

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management ...................................................... 17

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility .................................................................................... 18

5(d) Collection Schedule ......................................................................................... 18

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION ..................18

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden ........................................................................ 19

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs ........................................................................... 19

6(c) Estimated Agency Burden and Cost ................................................................. 22

6(d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs ............................................................. 23

6(e) Reasons for Change in Burden ......................................................................... 24

6(f) Burden Statement .............................................................................................. 24

APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................... 26
3

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 1613.04; 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 different 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 5, 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
4

The collection of a 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 fraud or other problems. In addition, the state 

must gather and analyze quality control data to ensure that motorists are given accurate and 

consistent measurements and/or results. In the interest of effectively managing its enforcement 

and quality assurance efforts, the program must keep records of such efforts, including the 
5

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 

To comply 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 or any weaknesses in 

complying with I/M 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 or unique 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 methods, 

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, 

and 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
6

To comply with the 1995 Amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), EPA has 

solicited public comment on the renewal of this ICR for a 60-day period prior to submittal to 

OMB. These comments, which are used partly to determine realistic burden estimates for 

respondents, must be considered when completing the final Supporting Statement that is 

submitted to OMB.

The announcement of a public comment period for this renewal ICR was published in the 

Federal Register on March 5, 2012 under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0707: Notice-3. 

The notice requested comment on the continued use of the estimated respondent burden and other 

aspects of this ICR renewal (77 FR 13122, see Appendix A). The comment period closed on May

4, 2012 with EPA receiving two sets of comments. Below is a brief summary of the comments 

received and how EPA addressed those comments in this Supporting Statement.

Summary of Comments Received

EPA received comments from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) 

and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Both 

commenters maintained that EPA is requiring states to report on too many program elements, with 

Georgia suggesting that the number be reduced to the top five or ten, while North Carolina singled 

out a handful of specific data items for elimination, including initial test failure rates by station 

and the number of initially failing vehicles with no known final outcome. Both commenters also 

suggested that the actual cost of producing the annual report was anywhere from 7-12 times 

greater than EPA’s burden estimate. Lastly, Georgia questioned the usefulness of the data 

collection, given its experience over the last several years during which its program statistics have 

remained highly consistent, with very little difference in the numbers reported.

Response to Comments Received

The statistical information that I/M programs must track in response to the I/M rule’s 

reporting requirements represents the minimum program information needed to effectively

manage and enforce the programs in question. Failure rate information is required by model year 

and test station because failure rates tend to vary by model year while differences in these failure 

rates across stations is one factor that can be used to identify potential bad actors for enforcement

purposes. The other program elements are those needed for a state to be able to tie specific test 

results to a specific vehicle and owner, as well as to a specific test site and inspector(s). This 

information would need to be collected by the program to support its own enforcement efforts and 

to meet local accountability requirements regardless of whether the information was ever formally 

summarized and reported to EPA. 

Regarding the amount of information that must be supplied, this is largely dependent upon 

the State’s own program design decisions. For example, centralized, test-only networks will tend 

to have a substantially lower reporting burden than decentralized, test-and-repair programs by
7

virtue of the fact that there are fewer test stations that must be tracked, as opposed to hundreds or 

thousands of stations in a typical decentralized program. Additionally, I/M programs can (and 

have) reduced their reporting burden by reducing the frequency of testing from annual to biennial, 

and/or by exempting newer and/or older vehicles which are either statistically unlikely to fail, or 

too few in number to warrant testing. Other states have reduced their reporting burden by

granting the local EPA regional office access to the state’s program information database, thus 

allowing the Agency to generate its own snapshot reports as needed without requiring a separate 

submission by the state, while others summarize their program statistics in response to local 

legislative requirements and publish their reports online. These latter states can meet their annual 

reporting requirement by merely notifying EPA when the annual report has been posted. Lastly, 

many states have lowered their reporting burden by eliminating tailpipe testing in favor of testing 

based upon the vehicle’s onboard diagnostic (OBD) system. EPA has encouraged states to move 

in the direction of OBD-only testing as soon as local conditions allow. The Agency also notes 

that moving in this direction automatically reduces the reporting burden because it eliminates the 

need to report on all tailpipe-testing-related program activities, which are a significant fraction of 

the overall reporting required. Although many states have taken these and other steps to reduce 

overall program costs as well as their reporting burden, EPA has not reduced its original reporting 

burden estimates based upon these changes, preferring to remain conservative, given that not all 

respondents have taken these steps to reduce their reporting burden.

Regarding North Carolina’s specific suggestion that states no longer report on the number 

of initially failed vehicles with no known final outcome, EPA disagrees, noting that the states’ 

failure to track such vehicles was one of the deficiencies identified by the Agency’s Inspector 

General in its October 5, 2006 audit report entitled, “EPA’s Oversight of the Vehicle Inspection 

and Maintenance Program Needs Improvement.” One of the primary findings of that audit report 

was that EPA’s efforts to oversee I/M programs was hampered by the failure of many states to 

submit the annual I/M summary data reports required under section 51.366 of the I/M rule. As 

part of its Corrective Action Plan (CAP) EPA agreed to step up its efforts to collect these annual 

reports, with a particular emphasis on these “no final outcome” vehicles.

Regarding the differences between EPA’s burden estimates and those supplied by the 

commenters, the Agency believes the comments reflect a misunderstanding of how burden 

estimates are derived under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Just as the Internal Revenue Service’s 

estimate of taxpayer burden does not include the hours spent earning the income that is taxed, 

EPA’s I/M burden estimate does not include the burden necessary to simply administer and 

enforce this Clean Air Act mandated program. The statistics that EPA requires states to 

summarize should already be generated and compiled and analyzed on a regular basis as part of 

the business of running an effective program and apart from any requirement that once a year, 

these internal reports be summarized and submitted to EPA. EPA’s estimate is based upon an 

average, cost effective and effectively-run I/M program meeting the I/M rule’s requirements for 

program administration and enforcement. In the cases of both Georgia and North Carolina’s 

burden estimates, EPA believes that these have been inflated as a result of including costs 

associated with activities beyond those required to meet the I/M rule’s minimum reporting 
8

requirement, including the greater-than-average burden imposed by both states having adopted

decentralized programs, annual as opposed to biennial testing, and the decision to use a contractor 

to prepare the reports as opposed to producing them in-house, based upon existing documentation. 

Regarding the last of these, the high degree of variability in costs associated with having a 

contractor prepare the annual report can be seen in the fact that while North Carolina tests roughly 

one million more vehicles per year than does Georgia, North Carolina’s burden estimate was 

considerably lower than Georgia’s – $33,221 versus $62,300. Balancing high end reporting costs 

like those suggested by the commenters and the low end costs of the alternative approaches 

discussed above, EPA believes it has arrived at a reasonable, and reasonably conservative burden

estimate. 

Concerning Georgia’s questioning of the data collection’s usefulness, given the little 

change it has seen in its program statistics over the last several years, EPA commends the Georgia 

program for its consistency. Such consistency is one sign that a program is healthy and 

functioning properly. It should be noted, however, that Georgia’s experience does not reflect the 

norm among I/M programs, where program statistics can and do vary considerably from one 

reporting cycle to the next. It should also be stressed that even when a program’s statistics show 

little variability from one cycle to the next, it is important to continue monitoring program 

performance, to ensure that a healthy program stays that way.

In light of the above considerations as well as the fact that pursuing the commenters’ 

suggestions would require an I/M rule change and a breach of the Corrective Action Plan agreed 

to by the Office of Air and Radiation and the EPA Inspector General, the Agency does not intend 

to change the reporting requirements or the ICR based upon the comments received during this 

first comment period. 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 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 were running I/M programs at the time of 

the BRI, only 5 of the 39 states responding to the BRI – 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. EPA met with ECOS representatives 

concerning the 5 states commenting on I/M reporting requirements as well as the need for 
9

additional program evaluation guidance. EPA’s clarification with regard to the existing reporting 

requirements satisfied the workgroup. Nevertheless, the comments received do appear to warrant 

an educational dialog with the reporting entities to assure they understand the flexibility available 

to them. EPA will conduct such a dialog as part of its ongoing stakeholder discussions. 

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 any potential

impact. 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 voluntary but has remained strong since the calls were initiated.

3(e) General Guidelines

This ICR was prepared in accordance with the October 2009 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.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
10

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 

January 2012, twenty-seven states plus the District of Columbia are required to implement I/M 

programs in compliance with the Clean Air Act and I/M rule. 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, 
11

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 
12

electronically upon request. 

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 ICR EPA proposes to renew, state I/M programs submit summaries of 

this information to the EPA Regional Office with jurisdiction over the I/M program in question. 

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 betterrun 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 can 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:
13

(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;
14

(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
15

(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:
16

(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
17

 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
18

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 ozone and/or carbon monoxide 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 Offices

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 monthly 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 
19

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. 
20

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.

1

 

Second, EPA multiplied these hourly rates by the standard government overhead factor of 1.6.2 

This calculation results in a state and local cost of $30.77/burden hour, $58.61/burden hour, and 

$81.47/burden hour, respectively. Calendar year 2012 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)

2012 base year 19.23 36.63 50.92

Adjusted by the 

overhead factor 1.6

30.77 58.61 81.47

 

1

January 2012, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2012-GS, 

http://www.opm.gov/oca/12tables/html/gs_h.asp.

2 U.S. Department of Labor Department, www.dol.gov.
21

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 $140.08

2. Assess data 

requirements

8 8 $468.88

3. Assemble 

reports & data

16 16 $937.76

4. Review 

information for 

accuracy

8 8 $468.88

5. Summarize 

information

4 4 $234.44

6. Prepare and 

submit report 

4 1 5 $265.21

7. Record, store, 

& maintain files

1 1 $58.61

Total 1 42 1 44 $2,574
22

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 $937.76

2. Track/record 

weakness/correction

16 16 $937.76

3. Assemble/report 

findings/future plans

16 32 4 52 $3,302.12

Total 16 64 4 84 $5,178

Annual burden hours

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

= 44 + 84/2

= 86

Annual burden cost

per respondent = $2,574 + ($5,178) / 2 

= $5,163

Annual total burden hours for all respondents: 

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

respondents)

= 86 x 28

= 2,408

Annual total burden costs for all respondents

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

= $5,163 x 28

= $ 144,564

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, 
23

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 $1,498.08

ICR 

development

2 80 1 83 $4,882.51

Database Set 

Up

2 40 42 $2,507.34

Total 8 140 1 149 $8,888

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

Collection 

Activity

Manage

rial 

Hours

Technical 

Hours

Clerical 

Hours

Burden Hours Annual Costs

1.Answer 

questions

4 34 38 $2,318.62

2. Review data 

submissions

34 34 $1,992.74

3. Record data 

submission

34 34 $1,046.18

4. Analyze data 

and store

4 4 $234.44

5.Summarize data 

& report

8 68 8 84 $4,883.37

Total 12 140 42 194 $10,475

Annual total burden hours for agency 

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

= 194 + 149/3

= 244
24

Annual total burden cost for agency 

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

= $11,216 + $10,229/3

= $12,380

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 2,408 burden hours. The 

corresponding total annual respondent costs are estimated to be $144,564. Total national burden, 

including respondent burden and EPA burden, is estimated to be 2,652 hours annually. The total 

national cost, for respondents and EPA, is estimated to be $156,944 annually.

Table 6. Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost

number of respondents 28 27 states plus D. C. 

total annual respondents 28 one response per respondent

hours per respondent 86 table 2 and 3

cost per respondent $5,163 table 2 and 3

total respondent hours 2,408 hours per resp. x 28

total respondent cost $144,564 cost per resp. x 28

total agency hours 244 table 5

total agency cost $12,380 table 5

total burden hours (resp. + 

agency)

2,652 total respondent hours + total 

EPA hours

total burden cost (resp. + 

agency)

$156,944 total respondent cost + total 

EPA cost

6(e) Reasons for Change in Burden

When this ICR was last renewed in 2008, the annual burden hours per respondent was 85 

hours and the total respondents’ burden was estimated as 2,890 hours (85 hours x 34 respondents). 

During the current renewal, the total burden hours and costs associated with this ICR are changing 

for three reasons: 1) a mathematical error was discovered in the previous ICR renewal (the 

number of burden hours per respondent actually adds up to 86, not 85); 2) the number of 
25

respondents has gone down from 34 to 28, due to areas redesignating to attainment for the criteria 

pollutant(s) that triggered the original I/M program requirement and either dropping the program 

or converting the program to a maintenance measure; and 3) the individual cost per respondent 

has risen, due to increases in the Office of Personnel Management’s hourly wage estimates for 

clerical, technical, and managerial positions used to estimate the cost of the respondent’s burden. 

6(f) Burden Statement

Public reporting burden for collections included in this ICR is detailed above. The annual 

burden per response is estimated to be 86 hours. These estimates include time for summarizing 

data as well as reporting summaries. 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 online viewing at 

www.regulations.gov, 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 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 Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0707

and OMB Control Number 2060-0252 in any correspondence.
26

APPENDIX A

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0707; Notice-3] 

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Data 

Reporting Requirements for State and Local Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 

Programs; Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Notices; pages 13122 -

13123
27
28