1 IN FORMAT ION COLLECTI ON REQUEST (ICR) OMB
- 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFI CE OF AIR & RADIATION A. JUSTIFICATION 1. Id entification of the Information Collection
a. Title: Recordkeeping and Reporting for Performance

- Based M easurement Sy stem for Fuels

. EPA Number: 2459.01 b. Short characterization: With this proposed information collection request (I CR), the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) is seeking permission to collect applications from refiners ’ and i mporters ’ fuel testing laboratories , and from independent fuel testing laboratories , in order to permit them to use performance

- based test methods for measuring various characteristics of fuels under 40 CFR Part 80 programs

. In the past, we would set up a designated test method for measuring compliance with various fuel parameters. Ty picall y, this test method was an American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure that our laboratory used. Regulated parties would have to use the same method for compli ance purposes . In certain circumstances, alternative test methods were named in our regulations . I f a regulated party used an alternative test method, all results would have to be correlated to the designated test method. Simply

put, the party

would hav e to develop and apply a correlation equation to all its results to bring them in line with the designated test method. A limited performance

- based test method approach was adopted to address the measurement of sulfur in diesel fuel ; however, outside of the diesel program, there was no real opportunity

for laboratories to use test methods developed outside of voluntary consensus - based standards groups (i.e., “VCSB methods”) or to choose VCSB test methods not designated in our regulations as recognized alte rnative test methods. The proposed regulation seeks to permit laboratories greater flexibility with respect to choosing test methods, while ensuring that adequate accuracy and precision, and the use of good laboratory

practices

. Th e performance

- bas ed approach we are proposing sets up accuracy and precision criteria, but permits regulated parties to qualify their laboratories to use their own test methods. In dustry supported our approach to diesel sulfur and welcome d it as a first step2

to a more comprehensive performance

- based approach to test method issues

. This proposed rule seeks to implement the more comprehensive approach. In order to be qualified to use a test method, a refiner's or importer's laboratory , or an independent laboratory , will have to submit certain information to us. The information submitted will depend upon the nature of the method

– e.g., we anticipate that much less information would be required for a published, voluntary consensus based standards organization method (i.e. , a “VCSB method”) than for a test method developed, in house, by

the individual laboratory (i.e., a “non

- VCSB method.”) . T here will be recordkeeping and reporting burdens associated with qualifying laboratories on test methods. Inaddition, laboratories will have to engage in quality control activities that will have a recordkeeping component

. Statistical quality control (SQC) activities are an industry standard practice, and we do not anticipate an y real increase in that burden do to our proposal. How ever, since we propose to require retention of SQC records in order to demonstrate compliance, we have estimated that burden.
2. Need For, and Use of, the Collection
a. Authority

for the Collection Sections 114 and 208 of the Cle an Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7414 and 7542, authorize EPA to require recordkeeping and reporting regarding enforcement of the provisions of Title II of the CAA. The relevant regulations are in 40 CFR Part 80, Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives.
b. Practical Utility

/Uses of the Data The reported data will enable EPA to: 1) Qualify laboratories to use test methods based upon accuracy and precision criteria supported b y industry. 2) Ensure that various fuels meet the standards required und er the regulations at 40 CFR Part 80 and that the associated benefits to human health and the environment are realized.
3. Non
- duplication, Consultation, and other Collection Criteria a. Non
- duplication Efforts have been made to eliminate duplication in this information collection. Where possible, information requirements from various organizations within the Agency3

have been combined to minimize the submittal of duplicate information in different formats. The information in this collection will not be available from another source. b. Public Notice EPA will submit the I CR to OMB for review , along with the notice of proposed rulemaking

. This proposed supporting statement is being docketed in order to permit interested part ies to full y comment upon the performance

- based approach and the recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with it. c. Consultations EPA is providing an opportunity for notice and comment regarding th e proposed rule and this proposed supporting st atement
. We anticipate that the notice of proposed rulemaking and the proposed information collection will generate comments from interest ed parties. We will consider these comments in generating a supporting statement for submission to OMB in connection with the final rule. d. Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection The frequency

of response is controlled by the submitter of the information

– i.e., a laboratory

would qualify

based upon how many

test methods it wishes to qualify and use . For most parties, this will be a one

- time submission of information.
e. General Guidelines This rule does not exceed any of the OMB guidelines. f. Confidentiality EPA informs respondents that they may assert claims of business confidentiality for an y or all of the information they submit. Information claimed as confidential will be treated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2 and established Agency procedures . The template for qualification that we use for diesel sulfur permits a party to clearly as sert a claim of business confidentiality on the actual submission. The in

- use spreadsheet s /forms for diesel sulfur may be viewed at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/reporting/diesel.htm (ac cessed January 12, 2012.) We anticipate developing a similar form for this approach when it is finalized. In formation th at is received without a claim of confidentialit y may be made available to the public without further notice to the submitter under 40 C FR § 2.203. g. Sensitive Information Individual reporting data may be claimed as sensitive and will be treated as confidential information in accordance with the procedures outline in 40 CFR Part 2.4

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested
a . Respondents/SI C Codes The respondents to this information collection are:  Refiners’ testing laboratories (i.e., refiners)  Importers’ testing laboratories (i.e., importers)  Independent fuel testing laboratories (i.e., laboratories) Recordkeeping and reporting are required b y the following industries, with SIC Code/2002 NAICS Code indicated in parentheses : refiners (2911/324110), importers (5172/424720), and laboratories (8734/541380)

. b. In formation Requested In order to qua lify

a test method, the following information must be provided to the Agency

A) Reporting: Respondents must submit information that will establish that the test method to be used b y the laboratory , in fact, meets the accuracy and precision requirements under the f uel regulation s . B) Recordkeeping: Respondents must retain underl ying records related to qualifying test methods for five (5) years. This time period is consistent with the required record retention for all 40 CFR Part 80 fuels programs. 5. The Information Collected, Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and In formation Management
a. Agency

Activities

 All reported data will be reviewed b y EPA.  EPA will use the data to determine if the test method meets the accuracy and precision criteria of the regulation.  EPA will prepare a written response to the respondent qualifying (or not qualifying) the laboratory to perform the test method.  The data will be stored. b. Collection and Methodology and Management Data will be collected b y in dustry and reported to EPA in the form of a template to be developed , t ypically submitted with an accompanying letter and contact information. We expect to use a form similar to those already approved for diesel sulfur. These in

- use spreadsheets/forms may be viewed at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/reporting/diesel.htm (accessed January 12, 2012.)5

c. Small Entity

Flexibility This collection will not adversel y affect small entities. The proposed regulation provides a means of qualifying test methods that we expect to be welcome by industry and may encourage development of new test methods by entities of all sizes. d. Collection Schedule Test methods are expected to be submitted on a one time basis by nearl y all parties . The time of collection is driven by the respondent. We anticipate that the majority of applications will be received during the period of the proposed I CR (i.e., between November 1, 2013 and October 1, 2014) , with applications dropping off substantially

in future ye ars. This expectation is based upon our experience with laboratory

qualifications on test methods for the existing diesel sulfur program . 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection
a. We drew upon experience implementing similar regulations among the same entities to develop estimates of the burden associated with this collection. We estimated 750 laboratories, based upon our experience with diesel sulfur qualifications. At present, there are a total of 11 fuel parameters for which testing is conducted; we have assumed that each laboratory may submit up to 10 applications to qualify VCSB methods and that each laboratory

w ill also submit one application to qualify a non - VSCB test method

. b. Three labor categories are involved: managerial (includes legal and professional review), technical, and clerical. The estimates use the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures from "Emplo ye r Costs for Employ ee Compensation

- Table 12

- Private Industry , Manufacturing, and Non

- Manufacturing Industries by Occupational Group” (December 2003), with a 3% annual inflation factor applied to bring the values to the present. Using this method, the following wages and benefits apply by category : Wages and Benefi ts Managerial $53.87 per hour Technical $35.29 per hour Clerical $24.56 per hour Doubling for compan y overhead beyond wages and benefits, and for convenience, rounding up to the dollar, gives the following rates for this proposed ICR: Total Employ er Cost Managerial $108 per hour6

Technical $71 per hour Clerical $49 per hour It is assumed that for each hour of activit y the mix will be about 0.1 hour managerial, 0.7 hour technical, and 0.2 hour clerical. This gives an average labor cost of $71 per hour, which will be used in this I CR. We estimate the following burden:

The annual estimates for hours and burden follow: Table I
- Parameters Tested under Current 40 CFR Part 80 Regulations

(as of January

12, 2012) **Fuel Parameter s**  Sulfur in gas oline Sulfur in butane Sulfur in diesel at 15 ppm Sulfur in diesel at 500 ppm Olefins RVP Distillation Benzene Aromatics in gasoline Ox ygen Content Aromatics in diesel fuel

Table II

- Laboratory Qualification Submissions Assumes 750 laborato ries (based upon our experience with diesel sulfur), each

submitting 10 VCSB and one non

- VCSB method. Collection Activity Total

Number of Respondents Number of

Responses per Respondent Total

Number of Responses Hours

Per Response Total

Hours Total Cos t $ Submission of VCSB method documentation 750 10 7,500 0.5 (1.5 hours/3) 3,750 266,250
In formation describing precision of the VCSB method 750 10 7,500 0.5 (1.5 hours/3) 3,750 266,250

In formation showing the 750 10 7,500 0.5 (1.5 3,750 266,2507

method has been evaluated using ASTM D 6708 hours/3)

Development of, and submission of, documentation for the non

VCSB method 750 1 750 13.3 (40 hours/3) 10,000 710,000

In formation describing the precision of the non

- VCSB method 750 1 750 13.3 (40 hours/3) 10 ,000 710,000

In formation showing that method has been evaluated using ASTM D 6708 750 1 750 40 (120 hours/3) 30,000 2,130,000

TOTAL 61,250 4,348,7508 Table III

– Recordkeeping associated with Statistical Quality Control (SQC) Assumes that a SQC record must be generated every two weeks; and creating each record takes 1 hour

.
Collection Activity Total

Number of Respondents Number of

Responses per Respondent Total

Number of Responses Hours Per

Response Total

Hours Total Cost $ Record

Keeping Associated w/ SQC 750 104 78,000 1 78,000 5,538,000

Table IV

- Annual Recordkeeping Burden Associated with Establishing Reference Installations Assumes that 75 laboratories ( 10% of total population) would apply as reference installations, and that preparing and submitting the appropriate records would take 24 hours.

Collection Activity Total

Number of Respondents Number of

Responses per Respondent Total

Number of Responses Hours Per

Response Total

Hours Total Cost $ Record

Keeping Associated w/ SQC 75 1 75 24 1,800 127,800

c. Estimating the Agency Burden and Cost The Agency

burden consist of one GS
- 13 chemist (estimated at $161,000 including overhead; one GS
- 13 statistician (estimated at $161,000 including o verhead); with the assistance of 0.10 of a GS

- 7 clerical worker ($76,000 including overhead), or $7,600. This yields a total of $329,600. We expect nearl y all this expense to be in the first y ear of the ICR. After the first ye ar of the ICR (when most ap plications would be received), we would expect the burden to decrease substantially

. d. Estimating the Respondent Universe We were able to estimate the number of regulated entities drawing upon experience regulating the same entities.9

e. Bottom L ine Annual Burden Hours and Costs We estimate an annual reporting burden of 61,250 hours and $4,348,750. We estimate an annual recordkeeping burden of 78,000 hours and $ 5,538,000. For those laboratories that wish to be reference installations, we esti mate an annual recordkeeping burden of 1,800 and $127,800. f. Reason for Change in Burden This proposed supporting statement has been prepared in anticipation of EPA’s future submi ssion of a proposed, new collection to OMB
. g. Burden Statement We estimate an annual reporting burden of 95 hours per respondent and an annual recordkeeping burden of 104 hours, yielding a total of 199 hours. For those laboratories that elect to be reference installations, the annual reporting burden would be 95 ho urs and the annual recordkeeping burden would be 128 hours. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended b y persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review the instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; ad

just the existing way s to compl y 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 transit or othe rwise 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are lis ted in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. Interested parties are urged to comment on the Agency 's need for this information collection , the accuracy

of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection technique

. To comment on the Agency 's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and an y suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this I CR. Submit any

comments related to the I CR to EPA and OMB. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N W, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the I CR between 30 and 60 day s after10

publication in the Federal Register, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receiv es it within 30 day s of publication. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
**Part B of the Supporting Statement** This part of the supporting statement is not appli cable.