August 10, 2011

Information Collection Request

For the Revisions to 40 CFR Parts 72 & 75

Supporting Statement

1.0 Identification of the Information Collection

1.1 Title of the Information Collection

Revisions to the Emissions Monitoring Rule under the Acid Rain Program, NOx Budget 

Trading Program, Clean Air Interstate Programs, Transport Rule Program; Amendments to the 

Protocol Gas Verification Program and the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air 

Emission Testing, EPA ICR Number 2203.0, OMB Control Number 2060-0626

1.2 Background

Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the Acid Rain Title) established 

goals to reduce annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), and placed a 

national cap on SO2 emissions beginning in the year 2000. To ensure compliance with the 

emissions reduction requirements and to provide the national consistency needed to foster the 

allowance market, Sections 408 and 412 of Title IV require the designated representative of the 

owners and operators of each affected acid rain source to obtain an operating permit for the 

affected source and to certify that an approved emissions monitoring system has been installed 

and is properly operated at each affected unit's source of emissions. In addition, under a Federal

NOx Budget Trading Program developed in conjunction with ozone attainment efforts in the 

eastern United States, many additional sources also had to meet similar requirements as part of a

regional emissions trading program. In May 2005, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR), which has broadened the trading program concept to additional sources. CAIR was 

subsequently remanded by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina (531 F.3d 896), and modified on 

rehearing, (550 F.3d. 1176). The Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Transport Rule) was finalized in August 2011, effectively

ending CAIR at the end of 2011, with the Transport Rule Program beginning in 2012.

Emissions monitoring and reporting is the foundation upon which these allowance 

trading systems are based. Without accurate monitoring and reporting of emissions, the integrity

of the allowance system would be undermined, and there would be no assurance that emissions 

had been reduced.

The legislative requirements in Title IV require all affected Phase I and Phase II sources 

to install SO2 and NOx CEM systems, opacity monitors (COMS), and flow monitors (or 

approved alternatives). Affected gas- and oil-fired units may elect to use approved alternative 

monitoring methods that involve fuel flowmeters and fuel sulfur sampling and analysis. In 

addition, peaking units that burn natural gas and/or fuel oil may use an excepted method for 

calculating NOx emission rates. Finally, EPA allows certain low mass emissions (LME) units to 

use assumed emission factors together with operational data to calculate emissions. EPA has 

followed similar requirements for new emissions trading programs.
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 2

Data handling or reporting is required by the law, but not specified. Under the 

promulgated regulations, however, EPA imposes data handling, reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements. EPA requires that all affected units required to monitor and report emissions 

under these trading programs use a data acquisition and handling system (DAHS) to record and 

submit hourly data in an electronic format. Beginning in April 2009, electronic reporting is 

occurring in a recently developed XML format using EPA's Emissions Collection and 

Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS). The burden associated with most of the Part 75

requirements, including DAHS changes needed to use the ECMPS reporting approach, is

currently included in the program-specific ICR for all affected sources. 

The rulemaking covered by this ICR outlines new, revised reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for facilities subject to Part 75. The final rule requires such facilities to follow 

requirements that assure that facilities properly use Air Emission Testing Bodies (AETBs) that 

meet certain standards and obtain EPA Protocol gas from vendors that participate in EPA's 

Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP). The PGVP program requires any participating EPA 

protocol gas production site to meet certain requirements and notify the Administrator of its 

intent to participate on an annual basis. Under the quality assurance and quality control 

requirements, Part 75 facilities must use AETBs that meet the revised requirements under 

Appendix A to Part 75, Section 6.1.2, which includes a specification that the requirements (e.g., 

qualification exams) of ASTM D7036-04 apply to RATAs, stack testing, and NOx emission 

testing. These new requirements clarify the documentation needed for proof of compliance, 

including certification, quality assurance, and quality control record provisions. Some of these 

changes may in fact, reduce the burden for sources and AETBs by streamlining the process. 

This ICR covers the specific elements and burden that will result from the new AETB 

requirements, including passing the Qualified Stack Test Individual (QSTI) competency exam

and development of a QA manual by affected stack testing companies, and the new PGVP 

requirements including annual notifications and re-notifications that include the specialty gas 

company name; the name, e-mail address, and telephone number of a contact person for that 

specialty gas company; the name and address of each participating EPA Protocol gas production 

site owned or operated by the specialty gas company; and the name, email address and phone 

number of a contact person at each production site. This ICR also covers the burden associated 

with some minor changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under Part 75. The 

cost incurred on affected sources (or respondents) will be in the form of increased fees charged 

by AETBs and vendors participating in the PGVP, which are expected to pass along the costs 

necessitated by the new requirements in the final rule as well as the burden associated with 

ensuring that the minor modifications to the requirements for reporting AETB and PGVP related 

information to EPA are met on an ongoing basis. This ICR also covers the one time Agency cost 

to implement the AETB and PGVP changes to EPA reporting software, along with a small 

increase in Agency burden to manage these programs and track compliance.

In addition to covering the increased fees and burden to Part 75 sources resulting from 

the revisions to AETB and PGVP requirements, this ICR also covers some additional reporting 

requirements. These include revisions to §§75.53, 75.58, and 75.59, that add various data 

elements that were inadvertently left out of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule and the January
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 3

24, 2008 final rule. These data elements have already been incorporated in the DAHS of Part 75 

affected units and are required to ensure that EPA's new reporting software data requirements are 

consistent with the regulatory requirements. 

1.3 Information to Be Collected

The existing requirements in 40 CFR Part 75 are mandatory for all sources subject to the 

Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the Clean Air Act, as well as certain other emissions 

trading programs administered by EPA. These requirements are covered by existing ICRs for 

the Acid Rain Program (ICR No. 1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258), the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0570), and the Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 

(Transport Rule) (ICR 2391.02, OMB Control Number 2060-0667). The information 

requirements in this ICR are based on revisions to the minimum competency requirements for air 

emission testing, and reflect the increase in costs to sources that need to pay for services 

provided by stack testers and stack testing companies. The final rule contains some minor 

reporting and recordkeeping provisions related to the AETB and PGVP requirements, and EPA 

assumes that there will be a small additional burden associated with these requirements. Thus, 

this ICR covers: (1) the incremental increase in testing costs that will be passed along to sources 

from air emission testing bodies (i.e., stack testers and stack testing companies) due to the 

increased burden resulting from revisions to the minimum competency requirements for these 

companies; (2) the incremental increase in the cost of EPA Protocol gas cylinders that will be 

passed along to sources from vendors participating in PGVP due to the increased burden 

resulting from revisions to the cylinder analysis, reporting and notification requirements for these 

companies; (3) the one time labor burden for sources to review the new requirements included in 

the rule; and (4) the increase in burden to Part 75 affected sources for complying with the 

modified recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the AETB and PGVP 

provisions. 

Nearly all burdens associated with Part 72 and 75 requirements for the affected sources 

that report data, will remain covered by the underlying ICRs of the existing programs. The 

burden estimates under the existing program ICRs will be adjusted accordingly to reflect the 

additional burdens and costs summarized in this ICR when those existing program ICRs are 

updated. At that time, EPA will re-examine the overall reporting and recordkeeping burdens 

generally under Part 75 as revised by these AETB and PGVP-related requirements.

The annual respondent reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to 

be 2,306 labor hours, which results in an associated annual cost of $183,642 and reflects the 

small amount of time per year for respondents to review the updated rule requirements. In 

addition, there is an annual operations and maintenance-related cost to respondents of 

$1,284,180 due to the expected increase in fees charged by AETBs and vendors participating in 

PGVP resulting from the additional requirements imposed by this final rule. As such, the total 

annual cost to respondents as a result of this final rule is estimated to be $1,467,822.

2.0 Need For and Use of the Collection
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 4

This section describes EPA's need for the information collection described above and the 

legal authority for conducting collections. The users of collected information are also described.

2.1 Need/Authority for the Collection

Section 412(a) of Title IV requires the use of CEM systems (or alternative monitoring 

systems demonstrated to be equivalent) at each affected unit's source of emissions. Section 

504(a) of Title V requires that the results of any required monitoring be submitted to the 

permitting authority no less often than every six months. The information collection is 

consistent with satisfying these minimum statutory requirements. EPA's model rules for 

implementation of CAIR (40 CFR part 96, subparts AA-end) impose comparable requirements.

Results of continuous emission monitoring system performance tests allow EPA to 

certify that monitors perform well enough to produce accurate emissions data. Emissions data is 

used to monitor compliance with emissions requirements under Title IV and other EPA trading 

programs, and to provide a basis for analyzing progress in meeting air quality objectives.

2.2 Practical Utility/Users of the Data

Data from emissions monitoring is indispensable to successful implementation of EPA 

trading programs. EPA can only monitor compliance with and enforce these trading programs 

by having accurate emissions data for each affected unit.

Electric utilities, energy consultants, and power marketing companies can use the 

emissions data to project future allowance costs and availability. Academic institutions can 

perform data modeling to evaluate environmental benefits and estimate health effects of 

emissions reductions. EPA and other agencies use the data to try to correlate the reduction of 

SO2 and NOx emissions with a decrease in acid precipitation and ambient air quality pollutant 

levels, and also to measure the impacts of other existing and proposed emissions trading 

programs. The emissions data provide the accountability to allow these trading programs to 

function without more stringent command and control approaches.

3.0 Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

This section describes: (1) efforts by EPA to learn whether the information requested is 

available from other sources; (2) consultations with respondents and data users to plan 

collections, monitor their usefulness, and minimize the collection burden; (3) effects of less 

frequent collections; and (4) any issues related to confidentiality.
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 5

3.1 Nonduplication

All information requested from respondents under this ICR is required by statute and/or 

regulation, and the majority of the associated burden and costs of complying are covered by

existing ICRs. This ICR covers the need for respondents to review the revisions to Part 75 and 

update their recordkeeping and reporting procedures necessitated by changes in the AETB and 

PGVP requirements and to pay for any increase in testing fees or cylinder costs that result from 

those requirements. 

3.2 Consultations

As part of the ECMPS project, EPA has met with many stakeholders and received input 

on the changes under consideration and the timetable for action. Stakeholder input is already 

reflected within the Part 75 rule revisions that add simple recordkeeping requirements to allow 

EPA to verify that: 1) Part 75 affected units are using Qualified Individuals and AETBs that meet 

the rule requirements; and 2) Part 75 affected units are using gas cylinders from EPA Protocol 

gas production sites that are participating in the PGVP. In addition, EPA contacted two stack 

testing companies and two gas supply companies to obtain information on the potential increase 

in fees and cylinder costs. The feedback received from these consultations was incorporated into 

the estimates for burden and cost.

3.3 Effects of Less Frequent Collection

The general schedule for submissions is established in the underlying emissions trading 

programs. The minimal data elements imposed by these rule revisions are consistent with the 

process established and implemented generally for all other Part 75 recordkeeping and reporting 

elements and enables sources to build these minimal requirements into their basic Part 75 

reporting process. 

3.4 Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions

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

4.0 The Respondents and the Information Requested

This section lists the major categories of businesses that participate in EPA-administered 

emissions trading programs, the data items requested from program participants, and the 

activities in which the participants must engage to assemble or submit the required data items.

4.1 Respondents/NAICS Codes

Entities regulated by this action primarily are fossil fuel-fired boilers, turbines, and 

combined cycle units that serve generators that produce electricity, generate steam, or cogenerate 

electricity and steam. Although for the Acid Rain Program, Part 75 primarily regulates the 

electric utility industry, certain state and Federal NOx mass emission trading programs rely on 
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 6

Subpart H of Part 75, and those programs may include industrial boilers, turbines, and combined 

cycle units, and certain process units from other industries (such as refinery process heaters or 

cement kilns). 

4.2 Information Requested

This section lists the data items requested from affected sources for the collection

described in this ICR. This section also defines the activities in which respondents must engage 

to assemble, submit, or store these data items.

4.2.1 Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements

There are a small number of new data items requested from respondents under the final

rule. These include revisions to §§75.53, 75.58, and 75.59, that add various data elements that 

were inadvertently left out of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule and the January 24, 2008 final 

rule. These data elements have already been incorporated in the DAHS of Part 75 affected units 

and are required to ensure that EPA's new reporting software data requirements are consistent 

with the regulatory requirements. As such, the incremental changes to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements add only a small additional burden for sources. This ICR covers the 

small one-time burden associated with the respondents' review of the Part 75 revisions included 

in the final rule, the small annual burden associated with ensuring compliance with the additional 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and the marginal increase in fees charged by AETBs 

and vendors participating in the PGVP to respondents (i.e., the increase that can be attributed to 

the new testing competency requirements in the rule and the new cylinder analysis, reporting and 

notification requirements for PGVP vendors). 

Emissions monitoring requirements specify that affected sources must: (1) submit a

monitoring plan for each affected unit at a source; (2) submit data for certification of each

monitor; and (3) record hourly operational, pollutant monitor, and flow monitor data for each 

affected unit and submit quarterly reports of their emissions data to EPA. Respondents are 

required by 40 CFR 75.64 to submit the quarterly emissions data electronically, by direct 

electronic submission to EPA, and must also include a certification statement by the designated 

representative of the unit. Under the 2002 rule revisions, EPA requires the certification 

statement to be submitted electronically unless it approves a hardcopy submission. All records 

are to be kept for three years.

4.2.2 Respondent Activities

The primary tasks that are performed by respondents to meet the emissions monitoring 

requirements are: (1) completing and submitting appropriate monitoring plan forms for each 

affected source and each affected unit at a source; (2) conducting tests to certify the operation of

monitors, and submitting test results to EPA; (3) recording hourly emissions data (this activity

generally is performed electronically); (4) operation and maintenance activities associated with 

the monitoring, including quality assurance activities; (5) assuring data quality, preparing 

quarterly reports of emissions data and submitting these reports to EPA; and (6) responding to 

error messages generated by EPA as a part of automated data checks or electronic audits, or to 
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 7

field audits conducted by EPA. In addition, respondents must purchase the necessary monitoring 

hardware (or pay for fuel sampling and analysis in some cases) and purchase the electronic data 

reporting software (or software upgrades).

This ICR covers the marginal increase in burden associated with respondents' review of 

the new requirements in the rule, the marginal increase in burden associated with ensuring 

compliance with the modified recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., to report AETB 

and PGVP-related information along with other emissions data), and the marginal increase in

fees imposed on respondents by AETBs and PGVP vendors as necessitated by changes in EPA's 

requirements for verification of AETB (including Qualified Individuals) and cylinder analysis, 

notification and re-notification from vendors participating in PGVP. 

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

Information Management

The first part of this section describes Agency (EPA) activities related to the acquisition, 

analysis, storage, and distribution of the information collected from designated representatives of 

affected sources that are required to submit monitoring and emissions data. The second part 

describes the information management techniques employed to increase the efficiency of 

collections. The third part discusses the burden or benefits of the collection activities described 

in this ICR to small entities. The last part outlines the schedule for collecting information.

5.1 Agency Activities

The major EPA activities related to emissions monitoring and reporting include: (1)

reviewing monitoring plans and certification applications; and (2) processing, reviewing and 

evaluating reports of quarterly emissions data from affected units. These activities are covered 

by existing ICRs. This ICR includes the incremental additional burden associated with 

maintaining and updating the list of vendors that participate in the PGVP, annually posting 

cylinder analysis results, reviewing the reported EPA Protocol gas production sites, and 

credentials of Qualified Individuals associated with an AETB. EPA staff will maintain a list of 

participating PGVP vendors (and will update that list on an as-needed, ongoing basis) on EPA's 

website. 

In addition to the annual costs above EPA, will incur a one-time upfront cost associated 

with the modification of the agency reporting software to accommodate and validate the new 

AETB and PGVP data elements.

5.2 Collection Methodology and Management

To ensure consistency nationwide and to expedite (1) data entry, (2) the allocation of 

allowances, and (3) permit issuance, EPA requires that standard reporting forms or equivalent 

formats or standard electronic reporting formats be used to submit all information to be collected 

under this ICR. In 2008, EPA made revisions to Part 75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements to accord with the fundamental changes in EPA's data systems, which are 
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 8

designed to unify and simplify data reporting, as well as to provide flexibility to respondents. 

EPA also has established the Clean Air Markets Home Page on the Internet, which includes 

detailed information collected from emissions reports. Those without access to the Internet may

use the Acid Rain Hotline to request information. EPA will maintain a current list of PGVP 

vendors that is posted and maintained on EPA's website. Sources may use this list to ensure that 

they are purchasing EPA Protocol gas cylinders from a participating vendor.

5.3 Small Entity Flexibility

For purposes of this ICR, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by 

the SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. In determining whether a 

rule has a significant economic impact on small entities, the impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility

analysis is to identify and address regulatory alternatives "which minimize any significant 

economic impact of the rule on small entities." 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may

certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the small entities can pass through costs to their customers or rate payers, if the rule 

generally does not regulate small entities, or the rule relieves regulatory burden or otherwise 

generally has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. 

The marginal increase in burden that is estimated in this ICR will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Nearly all affected sources are large 

electric generating facilities that will face an incremental increase in cost associated with very 

small increases in the testing fees charged by AETBs and PGVP vendors. For AETBs, the main 

costs to comply with the ASTM D7036-04 standard are associated with taking a qualified stack 

test individual competency exam, and developing or revising a quality assurance manual. PGVP 

vendors will be required to have a small number of their cylinders analyzed each year, and 

provide annual notification to EPA staff with basic information on their facility and other 

information relevant to the PGVP. The costs will be passed through to the customers, which are 

generally Part 75 affected sources, including large electric utility and industrial companies. 

5.4 Collection Schedule

Under Part 75, monitoring plans must be submitted initially, and at subsequent intervals 

if elements of the monitoring plan change over time. Quarterly reports are due for each quarter 

during the life of this information collection request. In addition, Part 75 provides for 

notifications to the Agency for semi-annual or annual quality assurance testing and for situations 

where a unit will have a revised certification deadline (for example, notifications of unit start-up 

for new units). This collection schedule is provided for under existing ICRs. The minimal 

AETB and PGVP-related reporting elements as well as the small number of additional reporting 

elements in the final rule are included within this basic Part 75 reporting framework so that 

sources can adapt their reports to add these minimal elements easily into their existing processes.
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 9

6.0 Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collections

This section estimates the annual paperwork burden and cost to sources for adapting their 

recordkeeping and reporting systems to the revised requirements. The information requirements 

in this ICR are based on the revisions to the AETB and PGVP requirements as well as the minor 

additions to required reporting data elements. The estimates in this ICR reflect the increase in 

burden to the AETBs and PGVP vendors that will be necessitated by these new requirements and 

passed on to Part 75 sources in the form of increased testing fees (i.e., for using AETB’s that 

meet ASTM D7036-04) and increased costs associated with EPA Protocol gas purchases. In 

addition, the estimates in this ICR reflect a small burden to Part 75 sources for a one-time rule 

review and an incremental increase in the annual burden associated with minor modifications to 

the recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., for tracking AETB and PGVP-related 

information and data).

6.1 Estimating Respondent Burden

The primary tasks performed by AETBs as a result of the final rule are to comply with 

the ASTM D7036-04, which includes: (1) taking a qualified stack test individual competency

exam; and (2) developing or revising a quality assurance manual. The primary tasks performed 

by vendors participating in EPA's PGVP as a result of the final rule are to have a small number 

of their cylinders analyzed with results reported to EPA, and provide an annual notification to 

EPA. Although AETBs and PGVP vendors are not considered to be respondents to which the 

ICR requirements apply, the resulting increase in costs to comply with these requirements will be 

passed on to Part 75 sources in the form of increased fees. 

For affected sources, the final rule contains some minor reporting and recordkeeping 

provisions related to the AETB and PGVP requirements and also requires a small number of 

other additional data elements to be reported. For the AETB-related requirements, sources need 

to record and report the following information as provided by the AETB in electronic and 

hardcopy format: the name, telephone number and e-mail address associated with the AETB and 

the name of the on-site Qualified Individual. Also, for the reference method(s) that were 

performed, sources need to report the date that the Qualified Individual has passed the relevant 

qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D 7036-04; and the name and email address of the 

qualification exam provider; and certificate of accreditation or interim accreditation for the 

relevant test method issued by a recognized national accreditation body or a letter of certification 

for the relevant test methods signed by a member of the senior management staff of the AETB

(recordkeeping only in electronic or hardcopy format). For the PGVP-related reporting 

requirements, sources need to report certain information for the mid- or high-level EPA Protocol 

gas (as applicable) that is used for daily calibration error tests, the low-, mid-, and high-level 

gases used for quarterly linearity checks (the information required (see (1) through (5) below) is 

reported for each gas monitor and for both low and high measurement ranges), and the EPA 

protocol gases used during RATA performance tests. Note that for O2, instead of reporting this 

information, if purified air is used as the high-level gas for daily calibrations or linearity checks, 

sources need to record the following information for the low- and mid-level EPA Protocol gas 

used for linearity checks:
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 10

(1) Gas level code;

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

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

supplied the EPA Protocol gas cylinder; 

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

(5) The cylinder number.

Since the procedures and systems allowing for these data to be reported are already in 

place and being used, EPA has assumed that the burden associated with these additional 

reporting requirements are relatively small. As EPA renews the underlying ICRs for Part 75 

[i.e., the Acid Rain Program (ICR No. 1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258), and the 

Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone (Transport Rule) (ICR 2391.02, OMB Control Number 2060-0667)], EPA will reevaluate 

the burden associated with these reporting activities in conjunction with reviewing the estimated 

burdens for all other aspects of Part 75 recordkeeping and reporting. 

6.2 Estimating Respondent Costs

The annual respondent costs will consist of: 1) the costs associated with a small labor 

burden for sources to review the new requirements included in the final rule and comply with the 

modified reporting requirements; and 2) the marginal increase in fees resulting from the new 

AETB and PGVP requirements. To estimate labor costs, EPA used the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics' (BLS) National Industry-specific Occupational Wage Estimates (May 2010) for the 

Engine and Turbines Industry under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 351 and 

increased by a factor of 1.6 to account for benefits and overhead. A reference between the 

applicable SIC and NAICS codes used to update hourly rates for this ICR is available on the 

BLS website at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm#17-0000. The mean hourly rate of 

$81.51 used for this ICR is based on an even split between the following two labor categories:

Mechanical Engineers (SOC Code 17-2141) of $39.65($63.44 when increased by a factor of 1.6) 

and Lawyers (SOC Code 23-1011) of $62.23 ($99.57 when increased by a factor of 1.6). 

6.3 Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

EPA estimates that there will be an incremental additional burden associated with 

maintaining and updating the list of vendors that participate in the PGVP, and associated with 

reviewing the reported credentials of Qualified Individuals associated with an AETB. EPA will: 

1. Review PGVP applications, post the PGVP participants on Agency web sites, and make 

adjustments as needed; 

2. Review and post cylinder analysis results; and

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

purposes.
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 11

4. One time update to the Agency reporting software.

EPA estimates that one staff person will need to spend a total of 100 hours per year to 

complete these tasks. In addition, there will be a one-time burden of 600 hours associated with 

software programming that will be necessary to ensure that each Part 75 stack test has basic 

information for the corresponding AETB and Qualified Individual. EPA estimates a burden of 

40 hours per year to review and resolve any issues or problems associated with ensuring that the 

AETB and Qualified Individual information is both accurate and current. 

Government cost is based on GS-13 salary for professional engineers ($44.65/hr), 

adjusted by a factor of 1.6 to account for government benefits, resulting in a final rate of 

$71.44/hr. The hourly rate was obtained from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Salary

Table 2011-GS" (http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/html/gs_h.asp). Agency time is estimated 

for managing the PGVP (which encompass all four activities listed above) in Table 1 below.

Note that there are no capital or operation and maintenance costs associated with the Agency

burden. 

Table 1

Agency Burden and Cost

Information Collection

Activity

Number of 

Responses 

Labor Cost

Per Response

($71.44/hr)

Hours Per 

Response

Total

Hours 

Per 

Year

Total Cost

Per Year

Manage PGVP 50 $142.88 2 100 $7,144 

Software Programming for 

AETB

1 $14,288.00 200 200 $14,288 

Quality Assurance for AETB 

Information

5 $571.52 8 40 $2,858 

TOTAL 340 $24,290

6.4 Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

EPA used a combination of the existing Acid Rain Program (ICR No. 1633.15, OMB 

Control Number 2060-0258),the Clean Air Interstate Rule (ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 

2060-0570), and Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (Transport Rule) (ICR 2391.02, OMB Control Number 2060-0667) to 

estimate the total number of respondents, labor costs, and O&M costs to determine impacts of

the rule. It should be noted that in preparation of this ICR the EPA confirmed estimates of the 

time required to comply with reporting requirements, taking into account respondents' adoption 
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 12

of flexible measure and electronic reporting tools. Based on these previously established 

numbers EPA estimates that there are total of 1,537 facilities that will be respondents affected by 

the requirements of the rule. This includes facilities affected by both ARP, CAIR, and the 

Transport Rule. Each of these respondents will be subject to a total one-time burden of three 

hours (i.e., one hour per year during the time period covered by this ICR) to review the rule 

requirements as well as an annual burden of one-half hour to ensure compliance with the 

modified recordkeeping and reporting requirements (as described in Section 6.1 above) at mean 

hourly labor cost of $81.51,which results in a total annual cost of $183,642 (See Table 2 below). 

Table 2

Burden Cost to Respondents

Information Collection 

Activity

Mean 

Hourly Rate

Hours per 

Activity/

Year

Number of 

Respondents

(Facilities)

Respondent 

Hours/Year

Total Labor 

Cost per 

Year

ARP Respondents One Time 

Rule Review $81.51 1 1,249 1,249 $101,806 

ARP Respondents Compliance 

with Modified Reporting 

Requirements

$81.51 0.5 1,249 625 $50,903 

CAIR Respondents One Time Rule Review 

● Non ARP NBP[1] 

Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only 

States (Facilities) 

$81.51 1 138 138 $11,248 

● Non ARP non-NBP 

Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only 

States (Facilities) 

$81.51 1 104 104 $8,477 

● Non ARP NBP Sources 

in O3 Only States (Facilities) $81.51 1 10 10 $815 

● Non ARP non-NBP 

Sources in O3 Only States 

(Facilities)

$81.51 1 1 1 $82 

CAIR Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting Requirements 

● Non ARP NBP Sources 

in PM/O3 and PM Only States 

(Facilities) 

$81.51 0.5 138 69 $5,624 

● Non ARP non-NBP 

Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only 

States (Facilities) 

$81.51 0.5 104 52 $4,239 

● Non ARP NBP Sources 

in O3 Only States (Facilities) $81.51 0.5 10 5 $408 

● Non ARP non-NBP 

Sources in O3 Only States 

(Facilities)

$81.51 0.5 1 1 $41 

Cont.

 
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 13

Table 2

Burden Cost to Respondents

Information Collection 

Activity

Mean 

Hourly Rate

Hours per 

Activity/

Year

Number of 

Respondents

(Facilities)

Respondent 

Hours/Year

Total Labor 

Cost per 

Year

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

Facilities not previously 

affected in Kansas, Minnesota, 

Nebraska, and Oklahoma

$81.51 1 35 35 $2,853 

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

Facilities not previously 

affected in Kansas, Minnesota, 

Nebraska, and Oklahoma

$81.51 0.5 35 18 $1,426 

Total 1,537 2,306 $183,642 

In addition to the respondent burden associated with rule review and compliance with the 

modified reporting requirements, EPA estimated the burden associated with increased annual 

quality-assurance and maintenance for each unit. Based on information provided by stack testing 

firms, a conservative one percent increase was applied to the previously established annual O&M 

costs per unit at each respondent facility. This is based on the average stack testing industry costs 

of preparing a QA/QC manual ($6,000), obtaining QSTI certification ($1,200), and annual 

operating costs of maintaining the quality control system ($5,000 – $50,000 depending on size). 

The increased stack testing overhead costs translate into an increased performance test cost of 

$68 to $549 per RATA test depending on the size of the company. The increase cost per test 

drops even further if applied to all types of tests performed by typical stack testing companies. 

The PGVP vendors that were contacted estimated an increased cost of two dollars or less 

per cylinder. This estimate was derived from correspondence with both large and small specialty 

gas companies, who based their estimates on the number of cylinders they sold per year and the 

following cost estimates. The estimate assumes that NIST analyzes 4 cylinders from each 

production site, and the total annual cost due to the PGVP would be approximately $7,200 per 

production site. The $7200 estimate includes cylinder analysis and report production by NIST 

($1,667/cylinder), average one-way shipping costs back to the production site ($91/cylinder), and 

average rental ($7/cylinder/month). The total cost of NIST analysis, report production, six 

months cylinder rental, and shipping back to the production site is approximately $1,800 per 

cylinder.

EPA assumes that both the AETB and PGVP costs will be passed on to respondents. To 

calculate increased O&M costs per respondent, EPA assumed an average six cylinders per year 

per unit at an increased cost of two dollars per cylinder which results in an overall increase of

$54,156 per year. As such, the QA testing and maintenance costs for units affected by ARP and 

CAIR along with the increased cylinder costs that are passed along to respondents by PGVP 

vendors, results in an estimated total annual cost of $1,284,180 for Part 75 QA activities (see 

Table 3). Note that only the marginal increase in fees that can be attributed to the requirements 

for AETBs and PGVP vendors in the final rule were included in this estimate. 
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 14

Table 3

Increased Annual QA and Maintenance Costs1

Information Collection Activity

Previously 

Established 

Cont./O&M 

Cost

Increased 

Cont./O&M 

Cost per 

Respondent

Number of 

Respondents

(Units)

Increased Total 

Cost/Year

ARP Perform QA Testing and Maintenance

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

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

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

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

One Time DAHS Upgrade2$500 631 $315,500

CAIR Perform QA Testing and Maintenance

Solid Fuel: SO2, NOx, and 

Flow CEMS (units) PM and 

O3

$31,200 $312 102 $31,824 

Solid Fuel: SO2, NOx, and 

Flow CEMS (units) No PM $20,800 $208 4 $832 

Gas-Oil: NOx CEMS and 

App D (units) $17,400 $174 521 $90,654 

-- Gas-Oil Peaking Units: 

App D, App E, or LME 

methods (units)

$1,800 $18 150 $2,700 

One Time DAHS Upgrade3$500 126 $63,000 

Transport Rule Perform QA Testing and Maintenance

Solid Fuel: SO2, NOX, and 

Flow CEMS (units) $20,800 $208 7 $1,456 

Gas-Oil: NOX CEMS and 

Appendix D fuel 

monitoring (units)

$17,400 $174 17 $2,958 

Gas-Oil Peaking Units: 

Appendix D fuel sampling, 

Appendix E, or LME 

methods (units)

$1,800 $18 29 $522 

PGVP Increased Costs

($2 per cylinder at an 

assumed average of 6 

cylinders per year)

$12 4,566 $54,792 

Total $1,284,180 

 

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

2 To calculate the number of units required to perform a DAHS upgrade, it was assumed that 80% of applicable 

CEMS units would be covered by an existing service contract and not subject to the annualized $1500 fee. It is 

assumed that the newly affected units under the Transport Rule will not require a DAHS upgrade.
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 15

6.5 Reasons for Change in Burden

The burden estimated in the preceding ICR (2203.02) included a one-time burden 

associated with reviewing the January 2008 Part 75 rule revisions, as well as the burden 

associated with DAHS upgrades and debugging. The one-time burden for reviewing the January

2008 Part 75 revisions in the rule no longer applies. As result of the removal of the 2008 Part 75 

revisions review, the net burden change associated with ICR 2203.04 is a reduction of 122,670 

hours and an increase of $788,280. The overall increase in dollars is attributed to increased 

annual quality assurance and maintenance costs, while the large reduction in hours is attributable 

to the removal of the previous ICR’s large rule reading burden. 

This collection request reflects the additional one-time burden for Part 75 sources to review 

the AETB-related and PGVP-related requirements in the rule, the one time burden associated 

with the DAHS upgrade specifically required to support the new reporting requirements, the 

annual burden associated with complying with the modified reporting requirements, and the

additional O&M costs that Part 75 sources will incur as a result of increased AETB and PGVP 

costs for Part 75 testing due to compliance with the revised requirements. EPA assumes that 

these costs may be passed along to Part 75 sources in the form of higher testing fees. This ICR 

also reflects the Agency burden associated with maintenance and quality assurance of the PGVP 

and AETB programs. 

6.6 Burden Statement

The total annual respondent burden is estimated to be 2,306 hours, with total annual labor 

and O&M costs estimated to be $1,467,822. This estimate includes the burden associated with 

the increase in fees from AETBs and PGVP vendors resulting from their compliance with the 

new requirements in the rule as well as the small labor burden for sources to review the new 

requirements and comply with the modified recordkeeping and reporting requirements. When 

the respondent burden is combined with the Agency burden, the overall burden and cost per year 

is estimated to be 2,646 hours and $1,492,112 respectively.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to 

generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This 

includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 

comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection 

of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct 

or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 

regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. 

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 

burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the 

use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under 
Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page 16

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837, which is available for online viewing at 

www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is 

available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, 

access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the 

public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select "search," then key in 

the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, 

Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID

Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837 and OMB Control Number 2060-0626 in any

correspondence.
August 10, 2011

Appendix A

Summary of Revisions in Final Rule 

The Final Rule for Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum 

Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing includes the following:

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

● Amended §72.13 and §75.6 by incorporating by reference a newer August 25, 1999 

version of the EPA Traceability Protocol, and updating certain references.

● Revised §75.21(g) to clarify certain provisions and to require any EPA Protocol gas 

production site that participates in the PGVP to notify the Agency of its intent to 

participate. Program participants would need to notify EPA of their intent to participate 

on an annual basis. EPA would issue a vendor ID number to each participant, which 

would then be a required data element in each electronic quarterly report. EPA will 

maintain a list of participants and other program information on a website.

● Revised the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under §§75.59 and 75.64 to enable 

EPA to verify that Part 75 affected sources are using EPA Protocol gases from 

participating sites and to inform gas cylinder selection for the PGVP audits. The new 

electronic quarterly PGVP data elements in §75.64 would be reported on and after 180 

days from publication of the rule in the Federal Register either prior to or concurrent with 

the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data report.

● Amended §6.5.10 of Appendix A to Part 75 to require that the EPA Protocol gases used 

when performing Methods 3A, 6C, or 7E must be from EPA Protocol gas production 

sites participating in the PGVP. 

● Added simple recordkeeping requirements under §75.59, and reporting requirements 

under §75.63 and §75.64 to allow the Agency to verify that a Qualified Individual and an 

Air Emission Testing Body meet the applicable requirements (see Appendix B). 

Recordkeeping and reporting elements include the name, telephone number and email 

address of the Air Emission Testing Body and the on-site Qualified Individual.

● Amendment to Section 6.1.2 of Appendix A to clarify assumptions with respect to 

ensuring the validity of test data and to post the names of non-complying AETBs on 

Agency web sites. The new electronic quarterly AETB data elements in §75.64 would be 

reported on and after 365 days from publication of the rule in the Federal Register, either 

prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data report.

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

● Clarified self certification and third party accreditation provisions to ensure AETBs 

comply with ASTM D 7036-04.
Appendix A

November 11, 2009

Page A-2

● Amended §75.4(d) to clarify the applicability provisions for units in long-term cold 

storage after having completed initial certification and amended §75.4(e) to ensure that 

all new ARP units are provided the same 90 operating day/180 calendar day flexible 

window of time to perform the necessary monitoring system testing when a new stack is 

constructed or add-on SO2 or NOx emission controls are installed. 

● Amended §75.6 to add Section 3, Small Volume Provers, First Edition to the American 

Petroleum Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, Chapter 4 --

Proving Systems. 

● Amended §§75.53, 75.58, and 75.59, by adding various data elements that were 

inadvertently left out of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule and the January 24, 2008 final 

rule. These data elements have already been incorporated in the data acquisition and 

handling systems of Part 75 affected units, and are needed to make EPA's new reporting 

software data requirements consistent with the regulatory requirements. 

● Revised §75.22(a)(5)(iv) to only allow “dynamic spiking” as an additional Method 7E 

quality assurance check; and paragraph (v) to disallow multiple Method 7E runs to be 

performed before conducting the post-run bias or system calibration error check.

● Removed from §75.47(b)(3) the requirement for an owner or operator to demonstrate that 

emissions for a class-approved alternative monitoring system (AMS) are de minimis and 

removed the requirement for EPA to publish a FR notice for a 30-day public comment 

period prior to granting a class-approved AMS. 

● Added a new paragraph (d) to §§75.62 and 75.63 to require the Designated 

Representative or the Alternate Designated Representative to enclose a hard copy cover 

letter with each hard copy monitoring plan and certification or recertification submittal, 

but to make it optional for electronic submittals. 

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

● Amended Part 75, Appendix A, Section 5.1.4(b) and Section 5.1.5 to clarify the meaning 

of the plus or minus 2.0 percent performance specification for EPA Protocol gases and 

research gas mixtures, and to update the incorporation by reference provision. 
August 10, 2011

Appendix B

Summary of Standard Practice for Competence of Air Emission Testing Bodies 

(ASTM D7036-04)

ASTM D7036-04 specifies general requirements for competence to perform air emissions 

tests of stationary sources. These standards were developed by representatives from large and 

small stack testing companies, state and Federal governments, and private industry. Its scope is 

nationwide and based largely on ISO 17025. Note that any AETB conducting RATAs of CEMS, 

Appendix E testing, or deriving default emission rates for LME units under part 75 must conform 

to ASTM D7036-04. Following is a general overview of some key requirements. 

Organization, Management, and Documentation:

● Maintain a system that allows for monitoring the delivery and improvement of services 

(as measured by performance data);

● Maintain a legally identifiable and clearly defined organizational structure, including 

parent organizations, staff responsibilities, and provisions of support services;

● Employ a technical manager/director, quality manager, and qualified individual on-site 

for each test project (who is qualified for each test method performed); 

● Maintain ability to provide documentation showing compliance with relevant Federal, 

state and local requirements for conducting testing procedures as well as health and 

safety and other relevant requirements; 

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

● Ensure that documents are uniquely identified and reviewed/approved by same group that 

performed the original review; and 

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

Quality System, Audit, and Review:

● Develop and maintain a quality assurance policy and a quality system to ensure 

consistent achievement of data quality objectives; 

● Document the quality system in a manual that covers all elements outlined in Appendix 

X1 of ASTM D7036-04; and 

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

November 11, 2009

Page B-2

Personnel:

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

● Provide "Qualified Individuals" to oversee and supervise test projects and ensure that

these individuals take an exam every five years and meet the experience requirements in 

Section 8.3.4 of ASTM D7036-04.

Environment, Equipment, and Test Methods:

● Ensure that environmental conditions, access to test locations, or cross-contamination do

not invalidate test results;

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

and software; 

● Establish calibration programs for the equipment (including key quantities or values) and 

maintain records for all equipment used; and

● Use appropriate methods and procedures for all testing performed, and document any

deviations from the applicable regulations in the test protocol or report that is established 

for each test project.

Recordkeeping and Reporting:

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

● Retain records of original observations, derived data, information for audit trail, 

calibration records, and other information; 

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

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

or calibration certificate.

Other Information:

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

● Maintain policies and procedures for the purchase and use of outside support and 

supplies; and

● Maintain policies and procedures in the event that nonconforming work is completed, 

including an approach for corrective action.