INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT Information Requirements for Nonroad Diesel Engines ( Nonroad Large SI Engines and Marine Diesel Engines) ( Proposed Rule)

Spring 2003 Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality Office of Air and Radiation U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Information Collection Request 1( a). Title Information Requirements for Nonroad Diesel Engines ICR Tracking Number: 1897.05 1( b). Short Characterization The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to adopt emission standards for new nonroad engines. We need information to verify that manufacturers comply with emission standards   before production begins, during production, and after units have been placed into service. In the rulemaking we require manufacturers to generate or retain information to demonstrate that engines comply with emission standards.

Manufacturers generally send us the data they collected and keep these records and other pertinent information. We may request to see any of these records.

We and the regulated companies will use the data exclusively to ensure compliance with emission standards. Information such as engine family, total numbers of engines built, and emission rates for specific pollutants, are examples of what we require.

This ICR is a revision to the existing information collection approved under OMB control number 2060 0460. The revisions generally include new standards, testing, and reporting requirements for nonroad diesel engines.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection 2( a). Need/ Authority for the Collection The data we require in this ICR is necessary to comply with Title II of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. The Act directs us to adopt regulations for nonroad engines if we determine those engines contribute significantly to air pollution in the U. S. Now that we have made this determination, the Act directs us to set emission standards for any category of nonroad engines that contributes to air quality nonattainment in two or more areas in the U. S. We can only meet the requirements of the Act by collecting data from the regulated industry. Also, we will only have an effective program if we know that these engines maintain their certified emission level throughout their operating lives.

2( b). Use/ Users of the Data We will oversee the certification process and maintain the program database. We will use the data items to verify compliance with the following requirements associated with the new emission standards.

determine whether or not a prototype engine may adequately represent an engine family.

ensure compliance of production line engines.

issue a recall to correct a noncompliant family of engines.

confirm actual emission benefits gained by the program.

ensure proper maintenance and setting of physically adjustable parameters.

aid in the production projections to randomly select the engines which are to undergo testing.

determine whether a prototype or freshly manufactured engine should be issued a certificate of conformity.

ensure that durability of emission controls is consistent with the manufacturer's stated useful life.

ensure control of emissions across the range of engine operation expected in the normal course of its lifetime

manage the importation of engines that meet requirements 3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and other Collection Criteria 3( a). Nonduplication Emissions from the engines and vehicles subject to the new emission standards have been largely unregulated in the United States. Moreover, state and local governments are preempted from adopting emission standards for many of the engines covered by this rulemaking. For this reason, the information requested under this ICR is not available from other sources.

3( b). Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB We will publish a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register regarding emission standards for nonroad diesel engines. The proposed rule will include invitations to comment on the ICR. We have already received comments on several issues related to information collection as part of our effort to develop the proposal. These comments and our responses are reflected in the proposal and will be addressed in the summary and analysis of comments and this ICR for the final rule.

3( c) Consultations We have met with companies that will be subject to the new emission standards. These contacts are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Industry Contacts Regarding Information Collection Date Contact July 30 31, 2002 William Passie Caterpillar passie_ william_ c@ cat. com August 13, 2002 Tom Haley Vermeer ( 641) 628 3141 September 16, 2002 SER Outreach Meeting # 1 W. Josh Sutherland Wisconsin Motors ( 901) 229 0715 Eric Ramsey Sweepster, Inc. ( 734) 996 9116 x391 Darrin Drollinger Association of Equipment Manufacturers ( AEM) ( 312) 321 1470 November 13, 2002 SER Outreach Meeting # 2 Bob Ball, Mike Spear, Phil Jenkins Sweepster, Inc. ( 734) 996 9116 Sensors, Inc.

November 12, 2002 Bob Ball, Mike Spear Sweepster, Inc. ( Site visit) ( 734) 996 9116 March 21, 2003 Engine Manufacturers Association ( EMA) Meeting 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Annual reporting for certifying engine families is necessary to align with the regulatory requirement to certify engine families every year. Quarterly reporting of test results from production line testing is necessary to allow adequate response to any problem that may arise.

3( e) General Guidelines This ICR complies with the general guidelines, except for the requirement to retain records for up to eight years, as described in 4( b)( ii) below.

3( f) Confidentiality We hold information from the engine manufacturers as confidential until the associated engines are available for purchase. Manufacturers may submit proprietary information, consisting generally of sales projections and certain sensitive technical descriptions. We grant confidentiality in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, and class determinations issued by our Office of General Council.

3( g) Sensitive Questions We do not ask sensitive questions. This collection complies with The Privacy Act and OMB Circular A 108.

4. Respondents and Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS and SIC Codes The respondents are generally involved in the industries shown in Table 2.

Table 2 NAICS and SIC Codes for Respondent Categories Respondent Categories NAICS Codesa SIC Codesb Manufacturers of new nonroad diesel engines 333618 3519 Manufacturers of farm machinery and equipment 333111 3523 Manufacturers of lawn and garden tractors ( home) 333112 3524 Manufacturers of industrial trucks 333924 3537 Manufacturers of construction machinery 333120 3531 Manufacturers of mining machinery and equipment 333131 3532 Manufacturers of oil and gas field machinery and equipment 333132 3533 aNorth American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) bStandard Industrial Classification ( SIC) system code.

4( b) Respondents and Information Requested ( i) Data Items Manufacturers must send us an application for certification, including emission data and other descriptive information. In addition, manufacturers create engine labels and send us information in some cases regarding engines that are exempt from emission standards or other specific requirements.

( ii). Respondent Activities Companies retain records as hard copy and may also reduce the information to microfilm, computer disks, etc. We require very little submission of information to process applications for certification. This reduces the resource burden, both for the industry and for us. However, because we don't have the information on file, we depend on manufacturers to retain the records to allow us to verify compliance throughout the useful life of the engines. Eight years is sufficient time for this information for most engines. Any investigation of in use engines generally does not start until three or more years after the manufacturer completes the application for certification. The certification information includes records related to the deterioration of an engine's emission controls with age. Some manufacturers also participate in emission credit programs, in which they produce some engines with emissions above the standard and others with emissions below the standard. This is an optional program, so we don't include specific estimates related to any additional reporting or recordkeeping for generating or using emission credits.

Manufacturers must also report to us if they learn that a substantial number of their engines have emission related defects. This is normally not a requirement to collect information, but if manufacturers learn that there is or might be a substantial number of emission related defects, then they must send us information describing the defects.

Many companies import engines. First, some companies import engines that are not subject to emission standards; they must, however, fill out a form documenting the status of their engine and the reason for their exemption. Since most engines are now covered by emission standards, this has become much less common. It is now generally limited to engines used for stationary, underground mining, and hobby applications. Second, some companies import engines as Independent Commercial Importers, meaning that they do their own testing instead of importing engines that have been certified by engine manufacturers.

We have also adopted special provisions that allow equipment manufacturers to sell equipment with uncertified engines ( or engines certified to less stringent standards). This involves a one time notification before using this flexibility and annual reporting to document compliance with these provisions. This is a voluntary program that substantially reduces the costs of compliance for engine manufacturers, so we have not included specific costs related to these reporting or recordkeeping activities here.

All reports, submissions, notifications, and requests for approval must be addressed to: Manager, Engine Programs Group ( 6405 J), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460. Respondents must submit information in an approved EPA information format.

5. The Information Collected Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5 ( a) Agency Activities Our certification and tracking process involves reviewing applications and emission data from engine and vehicle manufacturers. From this data, we issue certificates of conformity, and may confirm that production and in use engines continue to comply with standards. We may also select families to be tested in a given production year and require additional testing, based on an analysis of the submitted data.

5 ( b) Collection Methodology and Management We currently use computers extensively to collect information from vehicle manufacturers. Based on this approach as a model, much routine information ( test results, projections) can be electronically transmitted directly from the manufacturers to our computer database. We expect to publish this information on our website once certified engines go into production ( www. epa. gov/ otaq/).

5 ( c) Small Entity Flexibility We have included provisions to ease the compliance burden on small businesses. For instance, some small manufacturers of nonroad diesel engines will be allowed the option to delay compliance with emission standards. For small manufacturers of nonroad diesel equipment, use of a limited number of previous Tier engines will be permitted.

5( d) Collection Schedule The principal reporting requirements are associated with certification to the emission standards, which begin to apply in the 2010 time frame, depending on the size of the engine. Reporting requirements therefore do not begin until the end of the preceding year at the earliest. Annual reporting is based on the beginning of the model year, which can vary for each manufacturer and for each engine family.

6. Estimating Burden and Cost of the Collection Engine manufacturers comply with emission standards by submitting an application for certification, which obligates them to do a certain amount of testing to show they comply with the standards. The following discussion develops burden and cost estimates for the first three years of the program.

6 ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The estimates of respondent burden utilize data from the affected industries or commercially available databases. Burden hours per engine family are based upon established hour amounts for engine families, as published in the " Application for Motor Vehicle Emission Certification and Fuel Economy Labeling" ( OMB No. 2060 0104).

The burden for certification testing is generally based on conducting four engine tests for each engine family, then using that test data for several years. The estimated cost for full certification testing, including durability demonstration testing, is $ 15,000 per engine test ( combining labor and O& M expenses). The manufacturer's application for certification involves an extensive effort the first year, followed by relatively little effort in subsequent years. We estimate that manufacturers will conduct new certification testing every five years; the costs have been estimated on an annual average basis.

In addition to testing, manufacturers must prepare the application for certification and maintain appropriate records. We have estimated the cost of these combined activities, which include engineering and clerical effort, to be $ 10,000 per engine family per certification cycle. As with the testing costs, we are presenting annual average costs.

Manufacturers are also expected to conduct testing on their engines after they have been placed into service to confirm that they continue to meet emission standards. Testing selected families using field testing equipment instead of full laboratory equipment allows for substantial data collection for much lower costs than would be incurred by pulling engines out and testing them on a dynamometer. We base the estimated costs on testing 10 percent of engine families, at approximately $ 8,000 per family. This allows for testing multiple engines in each family.

These burden estimates apply equally whether the manufacturer conducts the required activities, or if the manufacturer hires a third party for some of these activities.

6 ( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs Labor rates on a per hour basis, are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site at http:// stats. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. t12. htm ( accessed November 24, 2000). Technical labor is $ 42.89/ hr, managerial labor is $ 65.19/ hr, clerical labor is $ 27.11/ hr. Labor rates were multiplied by 1.5 to account for fringe benefits and other overhead expenses.

( ii) Estimating Operations and Maintenance Costs Operation and maintenance costs include expenses related to engine testing. Costs are for laboratory time, the use of test equipment, engine parts, fuel and other supplies, and fabrication of test tools and fixtures. Direct labor costs and operations and maintenance costs combine for the total test costs described above.

( iii) Capital/ Start up Costs Companies required to conduct testing generally either have testing facilities or are expected to conduct testing at a contractor's laboratory. Thus, no capital or startup costs are anticipated for purchasing emission testing equipment.

( iv) Annualizing Capital Costs With no estimated capital or start up costs, there is no need to annualize these costs.

6 ( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Our Engine Programs Compliance Group administers emission certification programs. This group has approximately 17 full time employees. We project 50 hours per week of staff time ( at $ 40 per hour, loaded) to manage engine compliance programs related to new emission standards. This comes to approximately 2,500 hours or $ 100,000 per year to oversee the requirements of the final rule.

6 ( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs The following tables shows the labor and other costs associated with meeting the new requirements for each engine family. This includes certification costs, plus the cost of any additional testing. Per family costs are multiplied by the number of engine families and added to estimated capital costs ( if any) to arrive at an estimated total cost. Table 3 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost   Nonroad Diesel Engine Manufacturers Information Collection Activity Average annual burden and cost per family # of Familie s Annualized Capital &

Startup cost Total Hours and Costs Mgr. @

$ 65/ hr Tech. @

$ 43/ hr Cler. @

$ 27/ hr Hours per family Labor cost per family O& M Cost Total Hours/ yr Total Cost/ yr Cert. application* 2 36 6 44 $ 1,840 $ 0 665 $ 0 29,260 $ 2,657,340 Recordkeeping 0.2 2.2 2 4.4 $ 162 $ 0 665 $ 0 2,926 $ 12,107,464 Cert./ durability testing 168 168 $ 7,224 $ 4,776 665 $ 0 111,720 $ 7,980,000 Selective enforcement audits 5 100 10 115 $ 4,895 $ 75,105 10 $ 0 1,150 $ 800,000 In use testing 5 60 5 70 $ 3,040 $ 4,960 67 $ 0 4,655 $ 532,000 Defect reporting 6 40 80 126 $ 830 $ 0 67 $ 0 8,379 $ 283,955 Subtotal Total O& M cost = $ 4,256,930   $ 0 158,090 $ 24,360,759 * Costs for certification application include fees assessed at $ 2,156 per family. Table 4 Average Annual Respondent Burden and Cost   Importers Information Collection Activity Average annual burden and cost per family # of Families Annualized Capital &

Startup cost Total Hours and Costs Mgr. @

$ 65/ hr Tech. @

$ 43/ hr Cler. @

$ 27/ hr Hours per family Labor cost per family O& M Cost Total Hours/ yr Total Cost/ yr Reporting 1 0 6.5 7.5 $ 241 $ 0 15 $ 0 113 $ 3,608 Recordkeeping 1 0 6.5 7.5 $ 241 $ 0 15 $ 0 113 $ 3,608 Testing 0 16 0 16 $ 688 $ 10,000 15 $ 0 240 $ 160,320 Exemption forms ( 3520 21) 0 0 0.5 0.5 $ 14 $ 0 125 $ 0 63 $ 1,688 Subtotal Total O& M cost = $ 150,000   $ 0 529 $ 169,224 6 ( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables ( i) Respondent Tally Bottom line burden and cost for the first three years of the rulemaking are shown in Table 5. The table shows industry totals and average values for each respondent by category. These estimated costs include startup expenses ( for example, the purchase of emission sampling equipment and new recordkeeping software).

Table 5 Summary of Bottom line Burden Hours and Cost Affected Entities Number of Respondents Industry Totals Average per Respondent Annualized Capital Costs Total O& M Costs per Year Total Hours per Year Total Costs per Year Total Hours per Year Total Costs per Year Nonroad diesel engine manufacturers 55 $ 0 $ 4,256,930 158,090 $ 12,360,759 2,874 $ 224,741 Independent Commercial Importers 15 $ 0 $ 150,000 465 $ 167,535 31 $ 11,169 Exempt importers 25 $ 0 $ 0 63 $ 1,688 3 $ 68 Total 95 0 4,406,930 158,618 12,529,982 1,670 $ 131,895 ( ii) Agency Tally Our estimated burden is approximately 2,500 hours or per year ( or $ 100,000) to oversee the requirements of the final rule, as described in Section 6( c).

6 ( f) Burden Statement As shown in Table 5, these new requirements account for almost 160,000 burden hours and almost $ 13 million dollars in cost annually. These estimates include time to conduct testing, prepare applications, prepare and submit reports, and record and keep required information.

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,670 hours per response. 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 No. OAR 2003 0012, which is available for public viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. 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 and the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1744. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. EDOCKET is available for submitting or viewing public comments, accessing the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and accessing those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once 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, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OAR 2003 0012) and OMB control number ( 2060 0460) in any correspondence.

6 ( g) Reason for Change in Burden We are proposing emission standards for nonroad diesel engines. This information collection request updates the estimated burden to reflect the additional effort required to meet the new standards and consolidates all the various recordkeeping and reporting items for these engines. Appendix to ICR # 1897.05 Original ICR (# 1897.02) for marine diesel engines; approved Oct. 12, 2001:

Summary of Bottom line Burden Hours and Cost Affected Entities Number of Respondents Industry Totals Average per Respondent Annualized Capital Costs Total O& M Costs per Year Total Hours per Year Total Costs per Year Total Hours per Year Total Costs per Year Manufacturers and Marinizers 12 $ 0 $ 200,000 20,280 $ 2,453,632 1,690 $ 204,469 Dressers 20 $ 0 $ 0 40 $ 1,840 2 $ 92 Rebuilders 200 $ 0 $ 0 1,200 $ 38,800 6 $ 194 Total 232 $ 0 $ 200,000 21,520 $ 2,494,272 93 $ 10,751 ICR supplement (# 1897.04) for multiple engine categories, approved January 31, 2003:

Summary of Bottom line Burden Hours and Cost Affected Entities Number of Respondents Industry Totals Average per Respondent Annualized Capital Costs Total O& M Costs per Year Total Hours per Year Total Costs per Year Total Hours per Year Total Costs per Year Large SI engine manufacturers 12 $ 174,419 $ 2,507,790 21,986 $ 3,617,683 1,832 $ 301,474 Recreational marine diesel engine manufacturers 12 $ 0 $ 870,238 7,273 $ 1,178,061 606 $ 98,172 Category 3 marine diesel engine manufacturers 6 $ 0 $ 67,104 1,812 $ 144,022 302 $ 24,004 Engine rebuilders 200 $ 0 $ 0 1,200 $ 38,800 6 $ 194 Total 230 $ 174,419 $ 3,445,132 32,271 $ 4,978,566 140 $ 21,646


EPA estimates that no sources will submit opt-in permit applications in the years covered by this ICR. Sources that file an application must select a designated representative, report operating and fuel consumption data from past years, and report the actual and allowable emissions rates for 1985 (or their first year of operations, if after 1985) as well as the current allowable emission rate. As shown below in Exhibit 9, EPA estimates a burden of zero hours and a no additional cost for this activity.

          B.  Emissions Data Reporting

 	Emissions reporting is performed only by operating sources. The tasks for opt-in sources are identical to other affected sources and are listed in Exhibit 5. The burden and costs for emissions reporting from opt-in sources are included in the total in Exhibit 5.

          C.  Annual Reconciliation

 	Annual reconciliation is performed by all opt-in sources. Each unit at an opt-in source is required to submit an opt-in utilization form. Additionally, if the source is covered by a thermal energy compliance plan, it must submit a thermal energy compliance report. If an opt-in source has reduced utilization due to energy conservation or improved unit efficiency measures, it has the option of submitting an energy confirmation and improved unit efficiency confirmation report to verify the savings and offset the corresponding reduced utilization. To date none of the opt-in sources have verified energy conservation or improved unit efficiency measures, so EPA is assuming no sources will do so during the three years covered by this ICR. Finally, EPA assumes that half of the opt-in units will submit an optional allowance deduction form, which specifies the serial numbered allowances for deduction.

 	Total respondent burden and costs for annual compliance certification by opt-in sources are an estimated 484 hours and $34,450, respectively. Exhibit 10 presents respondent burden and costs for annual reconciliation by opt-in sources.

       6.6.2  Agency Burden/Cost Estimates for the Opt-in Program

 	In 2013 through 2015, the Agency's burden includes; processing opt-in applications, processing quarterly emissions reports (which is included in Exhibit 8), and processing annual reconciliation reports. The Agency's total annual estimated burden and cost related to the opt-in program are 45 hours and $2,227 respectively. Exhibit 11 presents the Agency's burden and costs for opt-in program.

                                   EXHIBIT 9
        RESPONDENT BURDEN/COST ESTIMATES FOR OPT-IN PERMIT APPLICATIONS

                                     Tasks
                          Burden Hours per Occurrence
                             Cost per Occurrence[a]
                              Total Burden (hours)
                                   Total Cost
 Select a designated representative.[b]

    Managerial.
                                       20
                                   $1,838.80
                                       0
                                       $0
    Technical.
                                       7
                                    $446.18
                                       0
                                       $0
 Prepare opt-in permit application.[b]

    Managerial.
                                       20
                                   $1,838.80
                                       0
                                       $0
    Technical.
                                       85
                                   $5,417.90
                                       0
                                       $0
 Prepare thermal energy compliance plan.

    Managerial.
                                       15
                                   $1,379.10
                                       0
                                       $0
    Technical.
                                       55
                                   $3,505.70
                                       0
                                       $0
 Complete withdrawal notification.[d]

    Managerial.
                                       2
                                    $183.88
                                       0
                                       $0
    Technical.
                                       3
                                    $191.22
                                       0
                                       $0
 TOTAL
                                       0
                                       $0

         a	2012 dollars.
         [b]	Assumes zero opt-in sources submit applications.
         [c]	Assumes no sources file a thermal energy compliance plan.
         [d]	Assumes that sources that have made the investment to opt-in will not withdraw.

                                   EXHIBIT 10
                 ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN/COST ESTIMATES FOR
                    OPT-IN ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION

                                     Tasks
                          Burden Hours per Occurrence
                            Cost per Occurrence[a]
                             Total Burden (hours)
                                  Total Cost
Opt-in Utilization form.[b]

   Managerial.
                                       2
                                    $204.34
                                      40
                                   $4,086.80
   Technical.
                                      16
                                   $1,056.48
                                      320
                                  $21,129.60
Thermal energy compliance report (shutdown opt-in sources and replacement units).[c]

   Managerial.
                                      10
                                   $1,021.70
                                      40
                                   $4,086.80
   Technical.
                                      21
                                   $1.386.63
                                      84
                                   $5,546.52
Allowance deduction form (optional).[d]

   Managerial.
                                       1
                                    $91.94
                                       0
                                      $0
   Technical.
                                       2
                                    $127.48
                                       0
                                      $0
Energy conservation/improved unit efficiency confirmation report.[e]

   Managerial.
                                       5
                                    $459.70
                                       0
                                       0
   Technical.
                                      25
                                   $1,593.50
                                       0
                                       0
Excess emissions penalty payment.[e]

   Managerial.
                                       4
                                    $367.76
                                       0
                                       0
   Technical.
                                       5
                                    $318.70
                                       0
                                       0
TOTAL

                                      484
                                  $34,849.72

         [a]	2012 dollars.
         [b]	Assumes 5 opt-in sources and 20 opt-in units.
         [c]	Assumes 5sources file reports.
         [d]	Assumes zero opt-in units submit allowance deduction forms.
         e	EPA assumes no sources will claim savings from energy conservation or improved unit efficiency or have excess emissions.
                                   EXHIBIT 11
               ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN/COSTS FOR THE OPT-IN PROGRAM

                                     Tasks
                          Burden Hours per Occurrence
                            Cost per Occurrence[a]
                             Total Burden (hours)
                                  Total Cost
 Review certificates of representation and record information.[b]
                                       1
                                     $49.49
                                       0
                                       $0
 Review permit application, issue proposed and final permit, and assign allowances.[b]
                                       80
                                   $3,959.20
                                       0
                                       $0
 Review and process annual reconciliation submissions.[c]
                                       2
                                     $98.98
                                       40
                                   $1,979.60
 Deduct allowances and send reconciliation reports.[c]
                                       1
                                     $49.49
                                       5
                                    $247.45
 TOTAL
                                       45
                                   $2,227.05

         [a]	2012 dollars.
         [b]	Assumes zero opt-in sources submit a permit application.
         [c]	Assumes five opt-in sources and 20 opt-in units each year.

    6.7  NOx Permitting

 	This section estimates the burden and cost of renewing and revising Phase II NOx compliance plans.

       6.7.1  Estimate of Respondent Burden and Costs

 	Exhibit 12 presents the burden and costs to applicants for preparing and submitting NOx Compliance Plan renewal applications and revising NOx compliance plans. Permits, including NOx Compliance Plans for units affected for NOx, must be renewed every five years. Therefore, EPA assumes 20 percent of all units affected for NOx  (i.e., 200 units) will submit NOx Compliance Plan renewal applications each year. Based on previous years of the program, EPA expects to receive 27 NOx compliance plan revisions each year.

 	For each compliance plan renewal, EPA estimates that the applicant will require about five hours, while compliance plan revisions will require about ten hours. The total respondent burden for NOx permitting, as shown in Exhibit 14, is estimated to be 1,270 hours each year. The costs associated with NOx permitting are estimated at $103,193 per year.

                                   EXHIBIT 12
              RESPONDENT BURDEN/COST ESTIMATES FOR NOx PERMITTING

                                     Tasks
                          Burden Hours per Occurrence
                            Cost per Occurrence[a]
                             Total Burden (hours)
                                  Total Cost
Prepare NOx Compliance Plan renewal applications.[b]

   Managerial.
                                       2
                                    $204.34
                                      400
                                  $40,868.00
   Technical.
                                       3
                                    $198.09
                                      600
                                  $39,618.00
Revise NOx Compliance Plan (e.g., emissions averaging plans).[c]

   Managerial.
                                       5
                                    $510.85
                                      135
                                  $13,792.95
   Technical.
                                       5
                                    $330.15
                                      135
                                   $8,914.05
TOTAL
                                     1,270
                                  $103,193.00

         [a]	2012 dollars.
         [b]	Assumes 200 units (20 percent of all NOx affected units) submit NOx compliance plan renewals each year.
         [c]	Assumes 27 respondents revise emissions averaging plans each year.

       6.7.2.  Estimate of Agency/Permitting Authority Burden and Costs for NOx

 	Exhibit 15 presents the burden and costs to EPA for NOx permitting. The total annual burden and cost for renewing and revising NOx compliance plans is estimated at 127 hours and $6,285.23, respectively.

 	The tasks involved in reviewing applications will include reviewing forms for completeness and entering the revised data from the plans into a NOx compliance database.

                                   EXHIBIT 13
                AGENCY BURDEN/COST ESTIMATES FOR NOx PERMITTING

                                     Tasks
                          Burden Hours per Occurrence
                            Cost per Occurrence[a]
                             Total Burden (hours)
                                  Total Cost
 Renew NOx compliance plans.[b]
                                      0.5
                                     $24.75
                                      100
                                   $4,949.00
 Revise NOx emissions averaging plans.[c]
                                       1
                                    $49.49
                                       27
                                   $1,336.23
 TOTAL
                                      127
                                   $6,285.23

         [a]	2012 dollars.
         [b]	Assumes 200 units (20 percent of all NOx affected units) submit NOx compliance plan renewals each year.
         [c]	Assumes 27 respondents revise emissions averaging plans each year.

    6.8  Summary of Burden Hours and Costs

 	Exhibit 14 summarizes the annual aggregate burden and cost estimates to respondents for the period of January 2013 through December  31, 2015 for collections associated with allowance transfers, , permits, emissions monitoring and reporting, auctions, the opt-in program, and NOx permitting. Exhibit 15 summarizes the aggregate burden and cost estimates to EPA and permitting authorities for these collections.

    6.9  Reasons for Change in Burden

 	This ICR renewal reflects a few differences from the previous ICR. This section discusses the changes in burden since the last clearance.

 	Overall, the estimated annual burden in 2012 from the last clearance was 2,056,946 hours. This ICR estimates the annual burden in 2013 will be 2,123,405 hours, which increases the burden by 66,459 hours, about three percent. The reasons for this burden increase are explained below.

 	Most of the change in burden for this collection is due to adjustments. Adjustments stem from actions outside the Agency's control. Adjustments include changes to the number of responses and the time it takes to respond to a particular activity. Some new estimates for the number of responses are based on queries of EPA databases for activities reported in recent years. At this time, EPA does not believe any changes in burden are warranted as a result of the change to ECMPS. Although the process may impact average burden, the basic information being requested remain basically the same, and it is too early at this juncture to determine if the new process will significantly impact a source's reporting burden. The adjustments and corresponding change in burden are as follows:

●	Increased numbers of units and different mix reporting and monitoring methodology.  Overall the number of ARP affected respondents increased from 2009 to 2012. Additionally the number of CEMs, COMs, etc. has changed since the previous iteration of this ICR.

●	Incorporation of the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Air Emissions Protocol Testing Body ICR requirements from the EPA ICR Number 2203.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0626.

●	Conclusion of the Conservation and Renewable Energy Allowances program.

   ●	Reduction is the number of expected Opt-in Units

    6.10  Burden Statement

 	The respondent reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 2,123,405 hours each year for the years 2013 through 2015. The burden to EPA is estimated to be 18,303 hours in each year for the years 2013 through 2015.

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 83 hours per response. 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-2009-0022, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation docket 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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-2009-0022 and OMB Control Number 2060-0258 any correspondence.
                                   EXHIBIT 14
                    AGGREGATE ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND
                              COST OF COLLECTIONS

                                    Program
                              Total Burden (hours)
                                 Total Costs[a]
 Allowance transfers and deductions.
                                     5,880
                                  $544,455.70
 Permits
                                     19,481
                                 $1,740,465.67
 Emissions reporting.
                                   2,096,206
                                  $299,937,634
 Auctions.
                                       84
                                   $7,974.96
 Opt-in.[b]
                                      484
                                   $34,849.72
 NOx permitting.
                                     1,270
                                  $103,193.00
 TOTAL
                                   2,123,405
                                $302,368,573.05

         [a]	2012 dollars.
         [b]	Includes permitting and annual reconciliation burdens for opt-in sources.
                                   EXHIBIT 15
             AGGREGATE ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTIONS

                                    Program
                              Total Burden (hours)
                                 Total Costs[a]
 Allowance transfers and deductions.
                                       50
                                   $4,454.60
 Permits.

    Permitting Authority.
                                     2,132
                                  $105,512.68
    EPA.
                                      870
                                    $43,056
 Emissions reporting.
                                     14,954
                                    $790,073
 Auctions.
                                       85
                                   $4,206.65
 Opt-in.
                                       45
                                    $2227.05
 NOx permitting.
                                      127
                                   $6,285.23
 Operation & Maintenance of data systems.[b]
                                      N/A
                                 $1,500,000.00
 TOTAL
                                     18,303
                                 $2,455,815.97

         [a]	2012 dollars.
         [b]	Average annual operation and maintenance costs associated with running electronic data systems are assumed to be incurred by an EPA contractor. Therefore, EPA will not incur any labor burden for these activities.

                                   Appendix A

                    Acid Rain Program Forms and Instructions

 	EPA Acid Rain Program Forms and Instructions are shown below, and can be downloaded from the Forms for Clean Air Markets Programs website, http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/business/forms.html.

Acid Rain Program and CAIR Forms

Certificate of Representation Form

Certificate of Representation data can also be submitted online using the CAMD Business System (CBS)
Allowance Transfer Form (see also:  single signature requirement)

General Account Form

Retired Unit Exemption Form

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid Rain Program
EPA SO2 Allowance Auction

2012 How to Bid Factsheet
2012 Bid Form and Instructions
2012 Offer Form and Instructions
Notification for Distribution of Proceeds from EPA Auctions
	(This document is used for changing a recipient name on proceeds checks.)
2012 Letter of Credit Form and Instructions
For more information, see the Acid Rain Program Allowance Auction Fact Sheet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid Rain Permitting

Acid Rain Permit Application
Acid Rain NOx Compliance Plan
Acid Rain NOx Averaging Plan
Acid Rain New Unit Exemption
For more information, see Acid Rain Permits and Applicability

Monitoring

EPA form 7610-14, Certification Application, is no longer required. For information on monitoring, see Emissions Monitoring and Report Emissions

Monitoring, QA, and Emissions Data Reporting Instructions (Data Elements)

Phase II Annual Reconciliation

Allowance Deduction Form
For more information, see the Acid Rain Program Annual Reconciliation Fact Sheet

 For information and forms for opting into the Acid Rain Program, see:  http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/arp/opt-in.html#how.

                                   Appendix B

Summary of ARP Burdens Incorporated from Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing, EPA ICR Number 2203.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0626

1.0  Identification of the Information Collection (To be Incorporated)

   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 (PGVP)and the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing (AETB), EPA ICR Number 2203.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0626

   1.2  Background

      The PVGP AETB 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.

      The PVGP AETB 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.  The PVGP AETB 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. The PVGP AETB 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, the PVGP AETB 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 the PVGP AETB 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, the PVGP AETB 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.

 	.
       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. The PVGP AETB 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 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).

 	The PVGP AETB 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 the PVGP AETB 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. The PVGP AETB 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 the PVGP AETB 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.

 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 the PVGP AETB 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 the PVGP AETB 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 the PVGP AETB 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).

    6.3  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.

    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 ($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
                                      200
                                      200
                                    $14,076
Quality Assurance for AETB Information
                                       5
                                    563.04
                                       8
                                      40
                                    $2,815
TOTAL
                                      340
                                    $23,929

       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.
               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
                                       -
                                      $-
Model C (App D -- NOx CEM)
                                    $17,818
                                     $178
                                       -
                                      $-
Model D (App D and E)
                                    $1,843
                                      $19
                                       -
                                      $-
Model E (LME)
                                    $1,991
                                      $20
                                       -
                                      $-
One Time DAHS Upgrade

                                     $500
                                       -
                                      $-
PGVP Increased Costs
($2 per cylinder at an assumed average of 6 cylinders per year)

                                      $12
                                       -
                                      $-
 Total
                                       $-


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38175-38177]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13913]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9947-63-Region 2]

Notice of Availability of Final NPDES General Permit for Small
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems and Federal Facilities Within
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Final NPDES General Permit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Director of the Caribbean Environmental Protection
Division (CEPD), Environmental Protection Agency--Region 2 (EPA), is
issuing this Notice of a Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) general permit, PRR040000/PRR04000F, for discharges from
small municipal separate storm sewer systems (small MS4) from urbanized
areas within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to waters of the United
States. This NPDES general permit establishes Notice of Intent (NOI)
requirements, standards, prohibitions and management practices for
discharges of storm water from small MS4s urbanized areas. A prior
Notice of Availability of a general permit was issued by EPA in
November 2006. EPA has substantially modified and reissuing the general
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 124. The EPA is issuing this permit for
five years.

DATES: The general permit will become effective on July 1, 2016. This
effective date is necessary to provide dischargers with the immediate
opportunity to comply with Clean Water Act requirements in light of the
expiration of the 2006 Small MS4 General Permit on November 5, 2011. In
accordance with 40 CFR part 23, this permit shall be considered issued
for the purpose of judicial review on July 1, 2016. Under section
509(b) of the Clean Water Act, judicial review of this general permit
can be requested by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals within 120 days after the permit is considered issued.
Under section 509(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, the requirements in
this permit may not be challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings to enforce these requirements. In addition, this permit may
not be challenged in other agency proceedings. Deadlines for submittal
of notices of intent are provided in Section 1.2 of the 2016 Small MS4
General Permit. The 2016 Small MS4 General Permit also provides
additional dates for compliance with the terms of these permits.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the final
NPDES Small MS4 General Permit, contact the Multimedia Permits and
Compliance Branch, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, US EPA
Region 2, City View Plaza II, Suite 7000, 48 Road 165 Km 1.2, Guaynabo,
Puerto Rico 00968-8069; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The general permit is based on an administrative record available
at EPA--Region 2, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, at the
above mentioned address. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
requests. However, the general permit and fact sheet are available at
EPA's updated Web site posting of June 11, 2014: www.epa.gov/region02/water/permits.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is reissuing the NPDES general permit
for the discharge of stormwater from small MS4s to waters within the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The permit describes four distinct small
MS4s. These are the Conventional cities and towns; Non-Conventional
State, Federal and other publicly owned systems; Non-Conventional
transportation systems; and Non-Conventional State flood control pump
station.
    The conditions in the general permit are established pursuant to
Clean Water Act (CWA) Part 402(p)(3)(iii) to ensure that pollutant
discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer systems (small
MS4s) are reduced to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), protect
water quality, and satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements
of the CWA. The term small municipal separate storm sewer system is
available in 40 CFR part 122.26(b). In addition, this term also
includes systems similar to separate storm sewer systems and flood
management conveyances in municipalities such as military bases, large
hospital, highways, and flood control pump stations, and other
thoroughfares. The term does not include separate storm sewers in very
discrete areas, such as individual buildings. For example, an armory
located in an urbanized area would not be considered a regulated small
MS4.
    The general permit sets forth the requirements for the small MS4 to
``reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable,
including management practices, control techniques, and system, design
and engineering methods'' (See Section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the CWA).
MEP is the statutory standard that establishes the level of pollutant
reductions that MS4 operators must achieve. EPA believes that
implementation of best management practices (BMPs) designed to control
storm water runoff from the MS4 is generally the most appropriate
approach for reducing pollutants to satisfy the MEP standard. Pursuant
to 40 CFR 122.44(k), the permit contains BMPs, including development
and implementation of a comprehensive stormwater management program
(SWMP) as the mechanism to achieve the required pollutant reductions.
    Section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of CWA also authorizes EPA to include in
an MS4 permit ``such other provisions as [EPA] determine[s] appropriate
for control of . . . pollutants.'' This provision forms a basis for
imposing water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs), consistent
with the authority in Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA. See Defenders of
Wildlife v. Browner, 191 F.3d 1159, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 1999); 64 FR
68722, 68753, 68788 (Dec. 8, 1999). Accordingly, the permit contains
the water quality-based effluent limitations, expressed in terms of
BMPs, which EPA has determined are necessary and appropriate under the
CWA.
    EPA issued a final general permit to address stormwater discharges
from small MS4s on November 6, 2006. The 2006 general permit required
small MS4s to develop and implement a SWMP designed to control
pollutants to the maximum extent practicable and protect water quality.
The 2016 general permit builds on the requirements of the previous
general permit.
    EPA views the MEP standard in the CWA as an iterative process. MEP
should continually adapt to current conditions and BMP effectiveness.
Compliance with the requirements of this general permit will meet the
MEP standard. The iterative process of MEP consists of a conventional
and/or a non-conventional municipality developing a program consistent
with specific permit requirements, implementing the program, evaluating
the effectiveness of the BMPs included as part of the program, then
revising those parts of the program that are not effective at
controlling pollutants, then implementing the revisions, and evaluating
again. The changes contained in the general permit reflect the
iterative process of MEP. Accordingly, the general permit contains more
specific tasks and details than the 2006 general permit.
    EPA has explained in the general permit fact sheet a summary of
permit conditions. The general permit and fact sheet are available at
EPA's Web site posting of June 11, 2014: www.epa.gov/region02/water/permits.html.

Other Legal Requirements

A. Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    The provisions related to the ESA have been enhanced from those in
the 2006 permit. EPA consulted with the appropriate Federal services
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries
Service

(NMFS)) in connection with the 2014 draft Small MS4 General Permit.
    On July 8, 2014, EPA initiated an informal consultation with the
USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, for
the reissuance of a proposed 2014 NPDES Small MS4 General Permit. Based
on the information, EPA believes that the issuance of the NPDES Small
MS4 General Permit (PRR040000), may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect any threatened or endangered species.
    On August 22, 2014, the USFWS indicated that the Antillean manatee
may be affected. This species is found near shore waters around Puerto
Rico where stormwater may be discharged. In addition, USFWS indicated
they concur with EPA's determination.
    On August 28, 21014, NMFS had questions regarding EPA's proposed
2014 NPDES Small MS4 General Permit. EPA ensured to provide a response
to each of NMFS's questions by October 1, 2014. A follow up conference
call was held on October 7, 2014 to discuss the responses. On December
18, 2014, EPA held another conference call where the NMFS requested to
see examples of EPA inspection reports performed to MS4s and Municipal
Stormwater Management Program. EPA provided six (6) documents of
coastal municipalities on December 19, 2014. EPA followed up with a
letter dated July 24, 2015 seeking NMFS to concur on EPA's
determination that stormwater discharges from MS4s and discharge
related activities are not likely to adversely affect any federal
threatened or endangered listed species or designated habitat.
    EPA's decision to issue this general permit is consistent with
section 7(d) because it does not foreclose either the formulation by
the NMFS, or the implementation by EPA, of any alternatives that might
be determined in the consultation to be needed to comply with section
7(a)(2). If the completion of consultation results in new information
warranting modifications or conditions to protect listed species or
critical habitat, EPA will modify this permit under 40 CFR 122.62(a)(2)
to incorporate those non-numerical effluent limits or conditions.

B. Executive Order 12866

    EPA has determined that this general permit is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements of this permit were
previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
and assigned OMB control number 2040-0004.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
requires that EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules
subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) that have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, general
NPDES permits are not ``rules'' subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C.
553(b) and are therefore not subject to the RFA.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law
104-4, generally requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their ``regulatory actions'' (defined to be the same as ``rules''
subject to the RFA) on Tribal, State, and local governments and the
private sector. However, general NPDES permits are not ``rules''
subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and are therefore not
subject to the RFA or the UMRA.

    Authority:  This action is being taken under the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: May 18, 2016.
Jos[eacute] C. Font,
Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-13913 Filed 6-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P