Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0013
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2010-06-11T04:00Z

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; Amendments to
the Protocol Gas Verification Program and the Minimum Competency
Requirements for Air Emission Testing, EPA ICR Number 2203.03, 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. 

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

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

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

The rulemaking covered by this ICR outlines new, revised reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for facilities subject to Part 75.  The
proposed 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 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 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 proposed 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 small increase in
Agency burden to manage these programs and track compliance.  

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

1.3  Information to Be Collected

	The existing requirements in 40 CFR Part 75 are mandatory for all
sources subject to the Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the Clean Air
Act, as well as certain other emissions trading programs administered by
EPA.  These requirements are covered by existing ICRs for the Acid Rain
Program (ICR No. 1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258) and the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0570).  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 proposed 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 2,254 labor hours, which results in an
associated annual cost of $181,881 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 $900,108 due to the expected increase in fees charged by
AETBs and vendors participating in PGVP resulting from the additional
requirements imposed by this proposed rule.  As such, the total annual
cost to respondents as a result of this proposed rule is estimated to be
$1,081,989.

	

2.0  Need For and Use of the Collection

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

2.1  Need/Authority for the Collection

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

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

2.2  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

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

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

3.0  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

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

3.1  Nonduplication

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

3.2  Consultations

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

	

3.3  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

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

3.4  Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions

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

4.0  The Respondents and the Information Requested

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

4.1  Respondents/NAICS Codes

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

	

4.2  Information Requested

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

	

4.2.1  Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements

	There are a small number of new data items requested from respondents
under the proposed 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 proposed
rule, the small annual burden associated with ensuring compliance with
the additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and the
marginal increase in fees charged by AETBs and vendors participating in
the PGVP to respondents (i.e., the increase that can be attributed to
the new testing competency requirements in the rule and the new cylinder
analysis, reporting and notification requirements for PGVP vendors). 

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

	4.2.2  Respondent Activities

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

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

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

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

5.1  Agency Activities

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

5.2  Collection Methodology and Management

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

5.3  Small Entity Flexibility

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

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

5.4  Collection Schedule

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

6.0  Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collections

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

6.1  Estimating Respondent Burden

	The primary tasks performed by AETBs as a result of the proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 expiration date of the evidence (such as a
certificate from a qualification exam provider) 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, and for the low-, mid-, and high-level gases
used for quarterly linearity checks (the information required is
reported for each gas monitor and for both low and high measurement
ranges).  Note that for O2, instead of reporting this information, if
purified air is used as the high-level gas for daily calibrations or
linearity checks, sources need to record the following information for
the low- and mid-level EPA Protocol gas used for linearity checks:

(1) Gas level code;

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

(3) Start date and hour for EPA Protocol gas type code;

(4) End date and hour (if applicable) for EPA Protocol gas type code;

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

(6) Start date and hour for PGVP vendor ID; and

(7) End date and hour (if applicable) for PGVP vendor ID.

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
Clean Air Interstate Rule (ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0570)],
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 proposed 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 2008) for the Engine and Turbines
Industry under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 351 and
increased by a factor of 1.6 to account for benefits and overhead.  A
reference between the applicable SIC and NAICS codes used to update
hourly rates for this ICR is available on the BLS website at:   
HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics3_336000.htm" 
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics3_336000.htm .  The mean hourly
rate of $80.71 used for this ICR is based on an even split between the
following two labor categories:  Mechanical Engineers (SOC Code 17-2141)
of $33.75 ($54.00 when increased by a factor of 1.6) and Lawyers (SOC
Code 23-1011) of $67.14 ($107.42 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. 

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 21 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
($43.99/hr), adjusted by a factor of 1.6 to account for government
benefits, resulting in a final rate of $70.38/hr.  The hourly rate was
obtained from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Salary Table
2009-GS" (http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/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 ($70.38/hr)	Hours Per Response	Total Hours Per Year	Total Cost
Per Year

Manage PGVP 	50	140.76	2	100	$7,038

Software Programming for AETB	1	492.66	7	7	$493

Quality Assurance for AETB Information	5	563.04	8	40	$2,815

TOTAL	147	$10,346

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) and the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0570) to estimate the total number
of respondents, labor costs, and O&M costs to determine impacts of the
rule.  Based on these previously established numbers EPA estimates that
there are total of 1,502 facilities that will be respondents affected by
the requirements of the rule.  This includes facilities affected by both
ARP and CAIR.  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 $80.71, which results in a total
annual cost of $181,881 (See Table 2 below).  

Table 2

Burden Cost to Respondents

Information Collection Activity	Mean Hourly Rate	Hours per Activity/

Year	Number of Respondents

●	Non ARP NBP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities) 
$80.71/Hr	1	138	138	$11,138

●	Non ARP non-NBP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities) 
$80.71/Hr	1	104	104	$8,394

●	Non ARP NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities) 	$80.71/Hr	1	10
10	$807

●	Non ARP non-NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities)	$80.71/Hr	1	1
1	$81

CAIR Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting Requirements

●	Non ARP NBP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities) 
$80.71/Hr	0.5	138	69	$5,569

●	Non ARP non-NBP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities) 
$80.71/Hr	0.5	104	52	$4,197

●	Non ARP NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities) 	$80.71/Hr	0.5	10
5	$404

●	Non ARP non-NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities)	$80.71/Hr	0.5
1	0.5	$40

Total	1,502	

2,254

	$181,881

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.  The PGVP vendors that were contacted estimated an increased
cost of two dollars or less per cylinder.  EPA assumes that these 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 $900,108 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 proposed rule were included in this estimate.

  

Table 3

Increased Annual QA and Maintenance Costs*

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

(Units)	Increased Total Cost/Year

ARP Perform QA Testing and Maintenance

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

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

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

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

CAIR Perform QA Testing and Maintenance

●	Non ARP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States

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

--	Gas-Oil:  NOx CEMS and App D (units)	$17,400	$174	493	$85,782

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

●	Non ARP Sources in O3 Only States

--	Solid Fuel:  SO2, NOx, and Flow CEMS (units)	$20,800	$208	4	$832

--	Gas-Oil:  NOx CEMS and App D (units)	$17, 400	$174	28	$4,872

--	Gas-Oil Peaking Units:  App D, App E, or LME methods (units)	$1,800
$18	0	$0

PGVP Increased Costs

($2 per cylinder at an assumed average of 6 cylinders per year)

$12	4,513	$54,156

Total	$900,108

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

6.5  Reasons for Change in Burden

	The burden estimated in the preceding ICR (2203.03) included the
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 and the burden associated with
DAHS upgrades is currently included in the program-specific ICR for all
affected sources.  As noted above, 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 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 2,254 hours, with
total annual labor and O&M costs estimated to be $1,081,989.  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 2,401 hours and $1,092,335, respectively. 

	Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are
listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.     

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number
for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.  An
electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the
Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention:  Desk
Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837 and OMB Control Number 2060-0626in any
correspondence.



Appendix A

Summary of Revisions in Proposed Rule 

	The Proposed Rule for Amendments to the Minimum
Compe整据⁹敒畱物浥湥獴映牯䄠物䔠業獳潩⁮敔瑳湩⁧
湡⁤牐瑯捯汯䜠獡嘠牥晩捩瑡潩⁮牐杯慲⁭湩汣摵獥琠
敨映汯潬楷杮ഺ

●	Revised 75.21(g) 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
data elements in §75.64 would be reported on and after January 1, 2011
and would be submitted 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, and the name
and email address of the QI exam provider, and date of the exam.  

●	Amendment to Section 6.1.2 of Appendix A to clarify assumptions with
respect to ensuring the validity of test data.  

●	Removed mercury monitoring provisions.  

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

●	Amended §75.4(d) to clarify the applicability provisions for units
in long-term cold storage after having completed initial certification
and amended §75.4(e) to ensure that all new ARP units are provided the
same 90 operating day/180 calendar day flexible window of time to
perform the necessary monitoring system testing when a new stack is
constructed or add-on SO2 or NOx emission 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
regul瑡牯⁹敲畱物浥湥獴‮ഠ

●	Proposed to revise §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.

●	Proposed to remove 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 proposed to
remove the requirement for EPA to publish a FR notice for a 30-day
public comment period prior to granting a class-approved AMS.  

●	Proposed to add 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.  

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

hX+

^

~

x



¥

®

®

&

&

&

&

&

hX+

&

&

&

&

&

&

  hX+

hX+

&

&

&

&

&

hM

hM

h>

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

␃؁Ĥ☊ଌF愀Ĥ摧夷

kd'

kd

&

&

&

hD(

␱愁Ĥ摧杉

h>

hY

h>

&

ndix 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 contact information for
the National Technical Information Service.  



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.

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; 

&

&

&

he

he

ipment 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. 

-r administering the NOx budget trading program (see, 40 C.F.R. §
51.121(r)(1), text and respondent counts were taken directly from the
previous CAIR ICR and EPA has used the ARP and CAIR ICR respondent
counts for the purposes of this ICR for consistency.  This approach is
appropriate as the same units are covered and this ICR updates existing
ICRs.

DRAFT Information Collection Request

January 7, 2010

Page   PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  16 

January 7, 2010

Appendix A

November 11, 2009

Page A-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2 

Appendix B

November 11, 2009

Page B-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2