1 **SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR THE RENEWAL OF**  **EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 1613.0**  **4 DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE AND LOCAL VEHICLE**  **EMISSION INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE (I/M) PROGRAMS**2 **TABLE OF CONTENTS** 
1. ID ENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTIO N ............................ 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, CONSUL TAT IONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRI TERIA ............................................................................
................................... 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
............................. 1 7 5(a) Federal Agency

Activities ................................................................................ 1 7 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management ...................................................... 1 7 5(c) Small Entity

Flexibility

.................................................................................... 1 8 5(d) Collection Schedule ......................................................................................... 1 8 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION .................. 1 8 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden ........................................................................ 1 9 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs ..........................................................
................. 1 9 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 ................................
...................................................................................... 263

**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 L ocal Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs ” [ EPA IC R 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 co mpile and submit two different reports to the ir 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, en forcement program efforts, qualit y assurance and quality control efforts, a s well as o ther miscellaneous information allowing f or an assessment of the program’ s relative effectiveness; the second is a biennial report addressing any changes to the program over the two

- ye ar period prior to the biennial report’s submission, including the impact of such changes, an y weaknesses discovered during the reporting period, and the corrections made or planned. General program effectiveness is determined b y the degr ee to which the operating program compares to the program described in the state ’ s approved S tate Implementation Plan (S IP ) , 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). Th e information provided b y the annual and biennial I/M reports described above are use d 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 v ariety 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 l iste d under the “Data anal ys is and reporting” section of EPA’s I/M rule ( 40 CFR Part 51, subpart S, section 51.366) . A l ist of the required reporting elements is included in section 4(b) of this Information Collection Request (I CR) renewal
. **2(b) Use and Users of the Data**  There are, in effect, three users of the information required b y this collection

– the primary user, represented by

the state or local agency

or department in charge of managing the I/M p rogram itself (hereafter referred to as “ the state ” and/or “the respondent” ), the secondary user, represented b y the EPA Regional office (henceforth referred to as “the Region”) to help determine the degree to which the program complies with its approved S IP , 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 b y a State or Region are due to national versus local caus es. 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, sufficie nt test data must be gathered to unambiguousl y 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 questi on. This programmatic need

– whic h is distinct from any need and/or burden imposed b y 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 anal yz e this data and compare it to the registration database (in programs enforced through registration denial, per the Act) or otherwis e 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 effectivel y managing its enforcement and quality

assurance efforts, the program must keep records of such ef forts, including the5

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 stat e 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 hardcop y, or b y 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. T his 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 b y the state and Region, EPA Headquarters may be called in to help determine whether a given anomal y 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 b e 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, currentl y managed b y Weber State Universit y 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 I CR are not duplicated. EPA has consulted with State and L ocal environmental programs, and other Federal agencies (such as EPA ’s R egion al O ffices). To the be st of EPA’ s knowledge, data currentl y 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 th e renewal of this IC R 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 request ed 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 th os e 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, in cluding initial test failure rates b y station and the number of initially failing vehicles with no known final outcome. B oth commenters also suggested that the actual cost of producing the annual report was anywh e re from 7

- 12 times greater than EPA’s burd en 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 highl y consistent, with very little difference in the numbers reported. Resp onse 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 b y model ye ar 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 it s own enforcement efforts and to meet local accountability requirements regardless of whether the information was ever formall y summarized and reported to EPA. Regarding the amount of information that must be supplied, this is largel y dependent upon the State’s own program design decisions. For example, c entralized, test

- only networks will tend to have a substantiall y lower reporting burden than decentralized, test

- and

- repair programs by7

virtue of the fact that there are fewer test stations that must be tracked, as opposed to hundreds or thousands of stations in a ty pical decentralized program . Additionally , I/M programs can (and have) reduced their reporting burden b y 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 the ir reports online. T hese latter states can meet their annual reporting requirement b y merel y notifying EPA when the annual report has been posted. Lastl y, many states have lowered their reporting burden by eliminating tailpipe testing in favor of testing based upon the vehic le’s onboard diagnostic (OBD) sy stem. EPA has encouraged states to move in th e 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 elim inates the need to report on all tailpipe

- testing

- related program activities, which are a significant fraction of the overall reporting required. Although man y states have taken these and other steps to reduce overall program costs as well as their report ing 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 specifi c 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 b y 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 man y 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 colle ct these annual reports, with a particular emphasis on the se “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 anal yz ed on a regular basis as part of the business of running an effective program and apart from any requirement that once a ye ar, these internal reports be summarized and submitted to EPA. EPA’s estimate is based upon an average, cost effective and effectivel y - 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 reporting8

requirement, including the greater

- than

- average burden imposed by both states having adopt ed 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 variabili ty in costs associated with having a contractor prepare the annual report can be seen in the fact that while North Carolina tests roughl y one million more vehicles per year than does Georgia, North Carolina’s burden estimate was considerabl y lower than Geo rgia’s

– $33,221 versus $62,300. Balancing high end reporting costs like those suggested b y 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 ye ars, EPA commends the Georgia program for its consistency
. Such consistency is one sign that a program is healthy and functioning properl y. 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 considerabl y from one reporting cycle to the next. Its hould 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 considerati ons 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 IC R 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 IC R renewal to OMB. The public comment period for this additional notice will be 30 day s. **3(c) Consultations**  In an effort to address state concerns regarding a wide

- range of environmental r eporting requirements, EPA and the Environmental C ouncil 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 f or 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 , onl y 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 for9

additional program evaluation guidance
. EPA’s c larification 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 c onduct 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 b y 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 frequentl y would limit its ability to determine a pro gram’ s progress toward meeting requirements under 40 CFR, Part 51 and would delay its ability

to identify

and resolve programmatic deficiencies that may negativel y impact a program’s abilit y to achieve the needed emission reductions, thus magnifying an y po tential 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 h as attempt ed to strike a reasonable balance and believe s 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 unreasonabl e period of time , EPA holds bimonthly conference calls with I/M states as a forum for rais ing , discuss ing , and resolv ing implementation issues as they arise. S tate participation in these calls is voluntary but has remained strong since the calls were initiated
. **3(e) General Guidelines**  This I CR was prepared in accordance with the October 200 9 version of EPA’s Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (or “I CR Handbook”) prepared by EPA’s Office of Environmental In formation, Office of In formation Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The I CR Handbook provides the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance with the 1995 PRA amendments and OMB’s implementing guidelines. **3(f) Confidential**  **ity** No confidential information will be collected as a result of this I CR. **3(g) Sensitive Questions**  No information of a sensitive nature will be collected as a result of this I CR.
**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 (SI C# 91). As of January 2012 , twent y - 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 comprehensivel y involved in gathering the information which must be summ arized for this collection (i.e., those parties responsible for establishing, maintaining, and anal yz ing the program ’ s central database, or overseeing contractor personnel responsible for such activities). Although I/M programs can and do vary by t ype (i. e., basic I/M programs versus enhanced I/M programs), the data elements to be addressed b y this information collection remain consistent across program ty pes, and hence the burden does not vary by program ty

pe. **4(b) Information Requested**  Under current I/M program practice, various internal anal ys es 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 I CR renewal is, in fa ct, based upon the data items currently

collected in and the reports currentl y generated by many of the better run I/M programs. These reports are used primaril y as management tools for internal monitoring and evaluation of the program. Summaries of the information provided in these reports are also currentl y being used b y EPA (primarily the Agency ’s Regional Offices and, secondaril y, E PA Headquarters) to ful fill 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 appro ved information collection (OMB Control Number 2060
- 0252; EPA IC R 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 currentl y colle cted b y 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 b y this information collection or its renewal
. 1) Test record number

2) Inspection station and inspector number 3) Tes t sy stem 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) L icense plate number 8) Test certificate number 9) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) 10) Vehi cle model ye ar, make, and t ype 11) Number of cylinders or displacement 12) Transmission ty

pe 13) Odometer reading 14) Ty pe of test performed (i.e., initial test, first retest, or subsequent retest) 15) Fuel t ype of the vehicle (i.e., gas, diesel, or other fuel) 16) Ty pe 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 catal yt ic converter, air s ystem, 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 evapo rative sy stem 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 reveal ed (where applicable). In addition, I/M program s 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 b y 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 ye ars in biennial programs), and submitted to EPA12

electronically upon request.
B. Reporting Requirements (1) Annual Report Internal data anal ys is and reporting are currentl y 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 propos es to renew, state I/M pro grams 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 s ys tem, the quality control program, and the testing element. Under th e existing ICR, respondents are required to provide their respe ctive EPA Regional Offices with the following data annuall y. Again, as previousl y stated, these reporting requirements we re originally based upon the reporting practices of better

run I/M programs at the time the original information collection was develo ped , and, as such, do not constitute an additional respondent burden. It should be noted that as state programs graduall y 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 b y - pollutant reporting requirements will no longer appl y, and neither will an y of the reporting elem ents that presume dual testing of OBD
- equipped vehicles. Additionally , because OBD

- based testing equipment does not need to be calibrated like tailpipe based s ys tems, the need to perform and record calibration results as part of the overt equipment auditi ng 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

- onl y 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 charac terized as conservative. Test Data Summary I/M programs are required to submit to their EPA Regional Office by July of each ye ar a report providing basic statistics on the testing program for January through December of the previous year, including: (1) The number of vehicles tested b y model year and vehicle t ype; (2) By model year and vehicle ty pe, the number and percentage of vehicles:13 (i) Failing initially , per test ty pe; (ii) Failing the first retest per test ty pe; (iii) Passing the fir st retest per test ty pe; (iv) Initially

failed vehicles passing the second or subsequent retest per test ty pe; (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 a pplicable); (xv) Passing the on

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

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

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

- board diagnostic check and I/M gas cap evaporative sy stem 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 d iagnostic s ys tems; (3) The initial test volume by model year and test station; (4) The initial test failure rate b y model ye ar and test station; and (5) The average increase or decrease in tailpipe emission levels for HC, CO, and NO X (if applicable) after repairs by model year and vehicle ty pe for vehicles receiving a mass emissions test. Quality Assurance Summary I/M p rogram s are required to submit to their EPA Regional Office by July of each ye ar a report providing basic statistics on the quality ass urance program for January through December of the previous ye ar, 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 o perating throughout the ye ar: (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 an y combination of two or more test ty pes; ( iii) Re sulting in a false pass per test type; (iv) Resulting in a false pass for an y combination of two or more test t ypes; (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 c onsider 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 t yp e of violation; (8) The total number of covert vehicl es available for undercover audits over the year; and (9) The number of covert auditors available for undercover audits. Quality Control Summary I/M p rogram s are required to submit to their EPA Regional Office by July of each ye ar a report providing basic statistics on the quality assurance program for January through December of the previous ye ar, 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 Summary15

(1) All varieties of enforcement programs shall, at a minimum, submit to th eir EPA Regional Office by

July of each ye ar 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 anal ys is 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 survey s 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 t ype 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 b y the initial deadline, and b y other milestones in the cycle; (ii) A r eport on the program ’ s efforts to detect and enforce against motorists falsely changing vehicle classifications to circumvent program requirements, and the frequency of this ty pe of activity ; and ( iii) The number of enforcement s ys tem audits, and the error rate found during those audits. (4) Sticker

- based enforcement sy stems 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 ty pe 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 ty pe of activity ; and (iii) The number of parking l ot 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) An y 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) An y weaknesses or problems identified in the program within the two

- ye ar reporting period, what steps have already been taken to correct those problems, the results of those steps, and an y future efforts planned. (ii) Respondent Activities Wh en responding programs were originall y preparing to submit the first round of the above

- listed summary

data for this approved information collection, the respondent s had to pursue the activities identified below . Several of these activities we re essential ly 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 currentl y 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, properl y spe aking, 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 submitt al. 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 th e test and quality control data (CBP)  Based upon anal ys is 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 e nforcement mechanism, the quality

assurance s ys tem, the quality control program, and the testing element based upon existing, internal reports17

 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 an y program weaknesses identified and improvements made. Again, man y 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 ne ed 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 - ye ar reporting period, and the steps taken to correct those problems  Evaluate the results of those steps (CBP)  Assemble and report the ab ove required information, including an y future efforts planned
**5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED**  **- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION**  **METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5(a)**  **Federal Agency Activities** In executing th e original information collection, EPA had to (and, in some instances, still needs to) do the following :

 Develop regulations (one

- time activity)  P repare initial ICR (one

- time activity)  Renew initial I CR (periodic)  Answer respondent questions  Rev iew individual annual and biennial reports  M eet with its Regional Offices to review and discuss collective findings, trends  Through its Regional Offices, c ommunicate the findings of individual reviews to individual respond ing state s18

**5(b) Collection Methodology and Management**  A portion of this inform ation 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 courtes y - copied to EPA , raw program data submitted to EPA for anal ys is , and, since it was originall y approved, the responses to this existing information collection
. Respondents have the option to supply their data in either hardcopy or electronic ally , 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 I CR. 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 rep orts when they

are due
. The information received from the I/M programs has been used b y EPA Regional Offices to assess specific state programs and their success in complying with the I/M rulemaking requirements as well as their approved SIPs . As part of this assessment , EPA’s Regional Office s conduct follow

- up conversations with the ir state s to discuss possible program improvements or corrective action s necessary to address anomalies (if found)
. When an anomal y 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 anomal y is the result of local conditions or is perhaps indicative of a larger, national trend. In such situations, EPA Headquarters has work ed 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 month ly conference calls with the EPA Regions, a bimonthly stakeholder call with the I/M states, and the I/M Clearinghouse web site, currentl y managed b y 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 b y July

1995 , with the first biennial report coming due in July 1996 . Enhanced I/M19

programs were required to b eg in reporting by July 1996 , with the first biennial report coming due in July 1997
. Currentl y
– 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 ye ar . Basic I/M programs must submit the required biennial report in even numbered ye ars, 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 biennia l report with its annual report and submit the combined report annually , EPA will accommodate the state’s preference in th is regard
. **6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION**  In simple terms, EPA calculated the burden and cost estimates f or this I CR using the following equation:
Number of state s X Number of burden hours X C ost per hour implementing I/M for each state to compl y with I/M ICR Section 6(a) describe s 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) Estim**  **ating 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. N onetheless, an hour of burden has been assumed for this category . The estimate of the burden for information gathering b y 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 compilat ion of materials for the office’ s annual Assurance Letter under the Federa l Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). In man y way s, 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 C**  **osts** 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 Analy sis. G iven 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 st ate and local burden hours would be completed b y an experienced staff person being paid h ourly rates at a GS
- 8, step 3, GS
- 13, s tep 3 and GS

- 15, step 3 of federal government employee salary
. 1 Second, EPA multiplied these hourl y rates b y the standard gover nment overhead factor of 1.6. 2 This calculation results in a state and local cost of $ 30.77 /burden hour, $5 8.61 /burden hour, and $ 81.4 7/burden hour, respectivel y. Calendar year 20 12 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) 20 12 base year 19.23 36.63 50.92 Adjusted by

the overhead factor 1.6 **30.77 5**  **8.61 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 $1 40.08

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 $5 8.61

**Total 1**  **42 1**  **4 4**  **$2, 574** 22

**Table 3. Respondent Burden Hours & Cost for Bienn**  **i al 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 = 4 4 + 84/2 = 8 6 **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 respondent s ) **=** 8 6 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 = **$ 1 44,564**  **6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost**  The estimates of each class of hours needed to handle the burdens associated with this I CR 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 hourl y labor rates are the same as those used for the respondent burden estimates,23

and are decidedl y 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**  **1 40**  **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 question s 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 $2 34.44 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 y ears) = 194 + 149/3 = **244**24

**Annual total burden cost for agency** = (annual agency

burden costs) + (Average start up cost over 3 y ears) = $ 11,216 + $ 10,229 /3 = **$1 2,380**  **6(d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs**  The bottom line burden hours and cos ts appear in Table 6. Total annual respondent burden associated with th is I CR is estimated to be approx i mately 2 , 408 burden hours. The corresponding t otal annual respondent costs are estimated to be $1 44,564 . Total national burden, including respondent burden and EPA burden, is estimated to be 2,6 52 hours annually . The total national cost, for respondents and EPA, is estimated to be $ 15 6,944 annually
.

**Table 6. Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost** number of respondents 28 27 states plus D. C. total annual respondent s 28 one response per respondent hours per respondent 8 6 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 $1 44,564 cost per resp. x 28 total agency

hours 244 table 5 total agency

cost $ 12,380 table 5 total burden hours (resp. + agency) 2,6 52 total respondent hours + total EPA hours total burden cost (resp. + agency) $ 156,944 total respo n dent cost + total EPA cost **6(e) Reasons for Change in Burden**  When this I CR was last renewed in 2008, the annual burden hours per respo n dent was 85 hours and the total respondents ’ burden was estimated as 2 , 890 hours (85 hours x 34 respondents)
. During th e current renewal, the total burden hours and costs associated with this I CR are changing for three reasons: 1) a mathematical error was discovered in the previous I CR renewal (the number of burden hours per res pondent actuall y adds up to 86, not 85); 2) the number of25

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 cos t of the respondent’s burden
. **6(f) Burden Statement**  Public reporting burden for collections included in this I CR is detailed above. The annual burden per respon se is estimated to be 8 6 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 agenc y. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology

and sy stems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and provid ing information; adjust the existing way s to comply with an y 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 display s a currently valid OMB control number. To comment on the Agency ’ s need f or 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 I CR under Docket ID No. EPA
- H Q
- 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 333 4, 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 holiday s. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202

- 566
- 1744, and the te lephone 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 electronicall y. When in the sy stem, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, yo u 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 an y 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
- 131232728