[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68172-68174]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27456]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0778 Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-034-AD;
Amendment 39-16490; AD 2010-23-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Model
PIAGGIO P-180 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Some cases of corrosion were detected in the interface between
the elevator hinges fittings (metallic) and the horizontal
stabilizer (carbon fibre); investigation identified the cause in
galvanic corrosion between dissimilar materials.
    If left uncorrected, this situation could lead to a structural
failure of the elevator, which could result in possible loss of
control of the aeroplane.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 10, 2010.
    On December 10, 2010, the Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Piaggio Aero
Industries S.p.a., Via Cibrario, 4-16154 Genoa, Italy; phone: +39 010
6481 800; fax: +39 010 6481 374; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.piaggioaero.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2010 (75
FR 47734). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Some cases of corrosion were detected in the interface between
the elevator hinges fittings (metallic) and the horizontal
stabilizer (carbon fibre); investigation identified the cause in
galvanic corrosion between dissimilar materials.
    If left uncorrected, this situation could lead to a structural
failure of the elevator, which could result in possible loss of
control of the aeroplane.
    This AD requires:
    (1) Inspection of the hinges fittings for corrosion and of the
stabilizer for delamination;
    (2) Repair of the stabilizer, if necessary;
    (3) Replacement of the fittings, if corroded;
    (4) Improvement of fittings installation;
    (5) Installation of aluminum strips in the stabilizer to improve
bonding, in accordance with Piaggio Aero Industries (PAI) Service
Bulletin (SB) 80-0262 Revision 2.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 96 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 9 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $73,440, or $765 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 32 work-hours and require parts costing $11,000, for a cost
of $13,720 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-23-01 Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.: Amendment 39-16490;
Docket No. FAA-2010-0778; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-034-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December
10, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model PIAGGIO P-180 airplanes, serial
numbers 1002 and 1004 through 1191, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55:
Stabilizers.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Some cases of corrosion were detected in the interface between
the elevator hinges fittings (metallic) and the horizontal
stabilizer (carbon fibre); investigation identified the cause in
galvanic corrosion between dissimilar materials.
    If left uncorrected, this situation could lead to a structural
failure of the elevator, which could result in possible loss of
control of the aeroplane.
    This AD requires:
    (1) Inspection of the hinges fittings for corrosion and of the
stabilizer for delamination;
    (2) Repair of the stabilizer, if necessary;
    (3) Replacement of the fittings, if corroded;
    (4) Improvement of fittings installation;
    (5) Installation of aluminum strips in the stabilizer to improve
bonding, in accordance with Piaggio Aero Industries (PAI) Service
Bulletin (SB) 80-0262 Revision 2.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 1,500 hours time-in-service (TIS) after
December 10, 2010 (the effective date of this AD) or within 4 years
after December 10, 2010 (the effective date of this AD), whichever
occurs first, do the following:
    (i) Remove the left-hand (LH) and the right-hand (RH) elevators
and do all of the inspections and corrective actions following the
Accomplishment Instructions in Parts A, B, C, D, and E of PIAGGIO
AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A. Service Bulletin (MANDATORY) N.: SB-80-0262,
Revision 2, dated March 17, 2010.
    (ii) Reinstall the LH and RH elevators and do the final checks
following the Accomplishment Instructions, Part F, of PIAGGIO AERO
INDUSTRIES S.p.A. Service Bulletin (MANDATORY) N.: SB-80-0262
Revision 2, dated March 17, 2010.
    (2) We will allow ``unless already done'' credit for inspections
and corrective actions already done, before the effective date of
this AD, following PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A. Service Bulletins
(MANDATORY) N.: SB-80-0262, original issue dated September 24, 2009;
or Revision 1 dated December 23, 2009, for compliance with the
requirements of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to Attn: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2010-0124 (Correction: June 22,
2010), dated June 22, 2010; and PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A.
Service Bulletin (MANDATORY) N.: SB-80-0262, Revision 2, dated March
17, 2010, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A. Service Bulletin
(MANDATORY) N.: SB-80-0262, Revision 2, dated March 17, 2010, to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.a., Via Cibrario, 4-16154 Genoa, Italy;
phone: +39 010 6481 800; fax: +39 010 6481 374; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.piaggioaero.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 21, 2010.
Christina L. Marsh,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-27456 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1) The following assumptions were made in estimating the cost of familiarizing employees with the new requirements:  All costs of familiarization were accounted for during the first year of the program  Industry trade groups would assist in the process of familiarization as they have in the past  167 refiners nationwide. Time required: 2 hours of managerial, 5 hours of technical, and 10 hours of clerical time  25 foreign refiners ( The time required for familiarization with the requirements would be the same as for domestic refiners)  20 importers of gasoline into U. S.  Time required: 2 hours of managerial, 1 hour of technical, and 3 hours of clerical time  1,200 terminals nationwide  Time required: 0.25 hour of managerial, 2 hours of technical, and 2 hours of clerical time  60 pipelines nationwide  Time required: 0.25 hour of managerial, 2 hours of technical, and 2 hours of clerical time  8,000 truckers and other gasoline carriers nationwide  Time required: 0.25 hour of managerial and 1 hour of clerical time  182,596 retailers and WPCs  Time required: 0.05 hour of technician, and 0.05 hours of clerical time  20 users of research and development gasoline nationwide  Time required: 0.25 hour managerial, 0.25 hour technical. * The above estimates of the number of regulated entities were derived from the following sources: the National Petroleum News Factbook, 1998, EPA RFG and antidumping database, EPA enforcement records, and data from the Energy Information Administration.

2) The following assumptions were made in estimating the burden to refiners and importers of complying with the provisions of the early ABT credit and allotment trading programs: 8 See the Regulatory Impact Analysis ( RIA) and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM) associated with the proposed Tier 2 program.

51  79 refiners will participate in the ABT credit and allotments trading programs, many will participate only by generating credits and/ or allotments ( the basis for this estimate as well as some of the other estimates which follow is contained in the RIA for the Tier 2 rulemaking)  Preparing the sulfur baseline for submission to EPA will require 1 hour of technician and 2 hours of clerical time  The additional burden associated with supplying information regarding the generation, acquisition, banking, transfer, and use of credits ( for inclusion on the sulfur averaging report) will be accomplished using 1 hour of a clerical employee's time and 0.25 hours of junior professional time  The results of complying with the RFG program requirements will be used to prepare the early credit/ allotment annual averaging report  preparing the report in the proper format and submitting it to EPA will require 1 hour of a clerical employee's time and 0.25 hour of a manager's time 3) The following assumptions were used in estimating the burden to refiners of participating in the small refiner program:  Submitting an application for small refiner status, which includes a report to obtain a small refinery baseline, will require 1 hour technician time, 2 hours clerical time, and 1 hour managerial time  All small refiners that have gasoline that will exceed the national cap would utilize the small refiner program, since its use will result in a substantial reduction in the overall cost of compliance  Ten small domestic refiners will produce gasoline that exceeds the national cap on sulfur content under the sulfur program, and, therefore, will participate in the small refiner program; 8 two foreign refiners will participate in the small refiner program.

4) The following assumptions were used in estimating the burden to refiners of registering with EPA:  Nearly all, if not all, foreign refiners that supply gasoline for importation into the U. S. that will need to register with EPA to qualify for application for a small refiner baseline under the sulfur program have already registered with EPA to establish an individual refinery baseline under EPA's RFG program. For purposes of this analysis, it is estimated that one additional refiner will register with EPA in order to obtain an individual refiner baseline under the sulfur program and two other refiners will register in order to participate in the early ABT credit program.  The small foreign refiners that will need to register with EPA to allow them to participate in the small refiner program will do so in parallel with their submission for small refiner status  Preparing the EPA registration could be accomplished using 0.25 hour managerial time, and 0.5 hour clerical time 52 5) The following assumptions were used in estimating the burden to refiners and importers of participating in the GPA gasoline program:  Submitting an application which includes a report of the refinery or importer baseline will require 1 hour technician time, 2 hours clerical time and 1 hour managerial time  30 refiners will participate in the GPA gasoline program  All refiners and importers who participate in the GPA program are already registered with EPA under the RFG program, since all parties who supply the GPA as well as any other areas of the U. S. are required to be registered with EPA under the RFG program, and foreign refiners do not participate in the GPA program 6) The following assumptions were used in estimating the burden to refiners who are granted temporary hardship relief:  Submitting an application which includes a report of the refinery baseline will require 1 hour technician time, 2 hours clerical time, and 1 hour managerial time  4 refiners will apply for such relief Accounting Assumptions that Pertain to Activities that are Required During Subsequent Years of the Program ( 2004 and beyond) * Data reported to EPA under the RFG program was used in formulating these assumptions.

1) The following assumptions were made in estimating the burden to refiners and importers of submitting annual sulfur corporate pool and refinery or importer averaging reports to EPA:  There are currently about 80 refiners and 39 importers of gasoline. There are approximately 245 active refineries.  Preparing the report in the proper format and submitting it to EPA will require 0.75 hour of a clerical employee's time and 0.25 hour of a manager's time. Sampling and testing that provides the basis for these reports is already being conducted for purposes of compliance with the RFG/ anti dumping requirements, except for the additional testing required for CG refiners as discussed below.  Reporting associated with ABT credit and/ or allotment activity is estimated to be 0.25 hour of managerial time, 0.25 technical time, and 0.25 clerical time.

2) The following assumptions were used to estimate the additional burden for refiners and importers associated with testing the sulfur content of each batch of CG rather than testing composite samples. The assumptions made in estimating the burden associated with alternate provisions to satisfy the batch testing requirement ( e. g.; for butane blenders) are discussed separately.  There are approximately 75 domestic refiners that produce CG and 30 importers that import CG ( number includes small foreign refiners)  The number of additional sulfur tests required on batches of CG will be approximately 400 for each refiner and 27 for each importer  Composite samples on which tests for the sulfur content of CG have been performed are made up of samples from approximately 10 separate batches of CG 53  Refiners of CG produce an average of approximately 440 batches of CG a year, and importers import an average of 30 batches a year of CG  Thus, each refiner conducted approximately 44 tests of sulfur content on composite samples, and each importer ( or small foreign refiner) conducted approximately 3 tests of sulfur content on composite samples  2/ 3 of refiners will perform their own sulfur testing; 1/ 3 will have the testing done by an independent third party laboratory  Importers will have testing done by an independent third party laboratory  A sulfur test conducted at a private laboratory will cost a refiner or importer $ 50 for the test itself, plus $ 24 for the transportation of the sample to the lab and to perform other administrative functions, for a total cost of $ 74/ test ( this assumes that the cost of the employee to transport the sample and handle the associated administrative duties is $ 24/ hour, and it takes one hour to perform the task)  An annual cost of the additional testing of gasoline sulfur content for refiners who conduct their own testing was calculated using the following assumptions:  The hourly burden associated with batch reports for the additional testing for sulfur is 0.1 hour for managerial time, 0.7 hour for technical time, and 0.2 hour for clerical time. Since the average CG refiner will need to test 400 additional batches, the hourly burden for this additional testing is 400 hours.  The annual cost of the additional testing of gasoline sulfur content for refiners and importers who use an independent third party laboratory was estimated using the following assumptions:  Since the average CG refiner will need to test 400 additional batches, and the cost of a test conducted at a private laboratory is $ 74 per test, the annual cost of the additional testing for those refiners that use a private laboratory is $ 29,600/ year  Since the average importer will need to test 27 additional batches of CG per year, and the cost of a test conducted at a private laboratory is $ 74 per test, the annual cost of the testing for such parties is $ 1,998/ year  There are no additional costs associated with storing the CG batch samples for 30 days beyond those considered above 3) The following assumptions were made in estimating the burden that would result from the use of the alternate provisions to satisfy the CG batch test requirement by refiners that blend blendstocks ( other than butane) into previously certified gasoline: * Oxygenate blenders have no new activities under the sulfur program.  These alternate provisions will be used to the fullest extent possible by all refiners who blend blendstocks into previously certified gasoline, since their use will result in a significant savings in the overall cost of compliance  The refiner already tests each blendstock upon receipt to determine its sulfur content in order to comply with the requirements of the RFG program or as a customary business practice  Fifteen refiners blend blendstocks other than butane into CG  on average, each of these refiners produces 40 batches of gasoline by blendstock addition 54  The costs related to the use of this alternate provision will be related to performing calculations using existing data and of keeping records regarding compliance   these tasks could be accomplished using 0.5 hour of technical time and 0.5 hour of clerical time 4) The following assumptions were made in estimating the burden associated with the use of the alternate provisions to satisfy the CG batch test requirement by refiners who blend butane into previously certified gasoline:  Due to gasoline volatility requirements, butane is blended only during the winter season ( from September 16 through February 28)  Refiner/ blenders at eight terminals, eight pipelines, and four refiners blend butane into previously certified gasoline during the winter season.  On average, each blender blends butane into five batches of gasoline during the winter season  On average, each blender is supplied butane by two suppliers  All tests will be conducted by an independent laboratory at a cost of $ 74 per test  The administrative duties associated with the alternative requirements could be accomplished using 0.5 hour of clerical time, and 0.25 hour of technical time 5) The following additional assumptions may be appropriate in estimating the burden to refiners of participating in the small refiner program:  Only minor changes to the format of the PTDs that are currently used will be required to accommodate the addition of the new information required regarding the small refiner status of the gasoline  this task could be accomplished using 0.5 hour of technician time and 0.5 hour of clerical time  Administrative duties associated with recording, maintaining, and reporting the information required during the participation in the small refiner program ( such as on the annual sulfur averaging report) could be accomplished with an additional 0.5 hour clerical time 6) The following additional assumptions may be appropriate in estimating the burden to refiners and importers of participating in the GPA gasoline program:  Only minor changes to the format of the PTDs that are currently used will be required to accommodate the addition of the new information required regarding the GPA status of the gasoline   this task could be accomplished using 0.5 hour of technician time and 0.5 hour of clerical time  Administrative duties associated with recording, maintaining, and reporting the information required during the participation in the GPA gasoline program ( such as on the annual sulfur averaging report) could be accomplished with an additional 0.5 hour clerical time.

7) The following additional assumptions may be appropriate in estimating the burden to refiners who are granted temporary hardship relief:  Administrative duties associated with recording, maintaining, and reporting the information required during the period of temporary relief ( such as on the annual sulfur averaging report) could be accomplished with an additional 0.5 hour clerical time 55 8) The following assumptions may be appropriate in estimating the burden associated with the use by importers that import gasoline by truck of the alternate provisions to satisfy the requirement to test every batch of CG:  All importers that import by truck will utilize the alternate provisions, since this will result in a significant reduction in the overall cost of compliance  Foreign terminal operators currently have sampling and testing conducted by an independent third party as a customary business practice, and will continue to do so  this will release the terminal operator from additional activities which would otherwise be required  To minimize the number of tests required, samples are already drawn after the receipt of each batch of gasoline into the storage tank at the terminal as a customary business practice  All importers will contract with the independent third party that performs sampling and testing at the terminal( s) from which the importer receives gasoline to keep records of the required data and report it to the importer  by making this arrangement directly, the importer can demonstrate compliance with the requirement to conduct testing at the terminal facility without the need to undertake additional sampling and testing  On average, two importers draw gasoline from the same terminal facility for importation into the U. S.   in such cases, the importers will split the cost of the third party's services.  Twenty five percent of importers use trucks ( 10 importers)  The following costs will be billed to importers by the independent third party for services related to testing conducted at one terminal: Independent third party will use an additional 1 hour of clerical employee time and 0.25 hour of technician time to complete the task ( an additional 10 % of this base cost could be added to account for overhead cost and to provide a profit margin)

9) The following assumptions may be appropriate in estimating the burden for importers who import foreign small refiner gasoline of complying with the requirement that the importer have an independent third party prepare a report on each batch of small refiner gasoline it imports into the U. S.:  Two importers each import gasoline from two foreign small refiners  Each small refiner will produce 12 batches of gasoline for importation into the U. S. ( 6 batches of Sulfur FRGAS and 6 batches of Certified Sulfur FRGAS)  six batches will be imported by one importer and 6 by the other  Applying these assumptions, each importer will need to have an independent third party prepare reports on six batches Sulfur FRGAS ( for submission to EPA), and six batches of Certified Sulfur FRGAS ( for submission to EPA and the refiner)  No new data will need to be generated to prepare these reports  The compilation of the required data, and the preparation and submission of the report to EPA on a batch of Sulfur FRGAS will require 0.5 hour of clerical time ( to account for other costs and to provide a profit margin for the third party, 10% of the cost of the clerical employees time could be added to arrive at the total cost charged by the third party to the importer)  The compilation of the required data, and the preparation and submission of the report to EPA on a batch of Certified Sulfur FRGAS will require 0.5 hour of a clerical employee's 56 time and 0.5 hour of a technical employee's time ( to account for other costs and to provide a profit margin for the third party, 10% of the employee cost could be added to arrive at the total cost charged by the third party to the importers)

10) The following assumptions may be appropriate in estimating the burden to refiners and importers of having an independent third party prepare an attest engagement report for submission to EPA:  The main cost of preparing the attest engagement will be associated with reviewing existing records on gasoline sulfur content  It is estimated this task will require an extra 5 hours of technical employee time ( to account for other costs and to provide a profit margin an additional 10% could be added to the cost derived using the assumptions under the previous bullet)

11) The following assumptions may be appropriate in estimating the burden to refiners, terminals and pipelines who conduct periodic QA testing for sulfur for defense purposes:  60 pipelines and 120 terminals will conduct downstream QA testing for sulfur in addition to many refiners ( RFG refiners typically conduct downstream QA testing). Assume $ 40 cost per periodic test, based on availability of field test equipment. Assume 10 samples per year for QA testing per respondent.

12) The following assumptions may be appropriate in estimating the burden to terminal and pipelines who are required to test S RGAS batches for sulfur content: ( i) 1200 terminals and 60 pipelines will test 2 batches of S RGAS for sulfur annually ( many terminals and pipelines will test none and others more than 2). Assume cost of testing per batch is approximately $ 40, based on availability of field test equipment.

13) The following assumptions may be appropriate in estimating the burden to users of research and development gasoline of adding the required information to the application submitted to EPA to obtain an exemption:  Adding the information on why sulfur compliant gasoline could not be used will require 0.5 hours of clerical time  This information is already available as a customary business practice 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs The estimation of the hourly managerial, technical and clerical employee pay rates for the various regulated parties as well as the accounting assumptions used are discussed in the previous section on respondent burdens. The estimated costs for the early years of the sulfur program for the various regulated parties are contained in Tables 6( b) 1. and 6( b) 2. The estimated costs for subsequent years ( 2004 and beyond) are contained in Tables 6( b) 3 and 6( b) 4.

Table 6( b). 1: Annual Hourly Costs for Gasoline Refiners and Importers  Early Years of the Program 57 Collection Activity Annual Labor Cost per Respondent ($) Frequency Total Annual Cost ($ per respondent) Managerial ($ 77/ hour) Technical ($ 39/ hour) Clerical ($ 39/ hour)

1) Familiarize Employees with New Requirements: Refiners Importers 51 51 65 13 130 39 11 11 246 103 2) Submit Baseline Report for ABT Program ( refiners only) 0 13 26 1 1 39 3) Submit Early Credit Sulfur Averaging Report ( refiners only) 19 10 78 1 107 4) Registration2 6 0 7 1 1 13 5) Small Refiner Application ( including baseline submission) 25 13 26 11 64 6) GPA Application ( including baseline submission) ( refiners and importers) 25 13 26 11 64 7) Temporary Hardship Relief Application ( including baseline submission) ( refiners only) 25 13 26 11 64 8) Request for Adjustment of Small Refiner Per gallon Cap Standard 13 7 13 11 33 1) The total burden for this one time activity was divided by three to reflect the distribution of the burden over the three year period covered by this ICR. 2) Only applies if party is not already registered with EPA under the RFG program. 58 Table 6( b). 2: Annual Costs for Gasoline Terminals, Pipelines, Truckers, Retailers and Wholesale Purchaser Consumers ( WPCs), and Users of Research and Development ( R& D) Gasoline1

Early Years of the Program Collection Activity3 Annual Cost per Respondent ($) Frequency2 Total Annual Burden ($ per respondent Managerial4 Technical4 Clerical4 Familiarize Employees with New Requirements 1) Terminals 6.42 ($ 77/ hour) 23.33 ( 35$/ hour) 16.67 ( 25$/ hour) 1 46.42 2) Pipelines 6.42 ($ 77/ hour) 23.33 ( 35$/ hour) 16.67 ( 25$/ hour) 1 46.42 3) Truckers 6.42 ($ 77/ hour) 0 ( 35$/ hour) 8.33 ( 25$/ hour) 1 14.75 4) Retailers and WPCs 0 ($ 35/ hour) 0.25 ( 15$/ hour) 0.25 ( 15$/ hour) 1 0.5 5) Users of R& D Gasoline 6.42 ( 77$/ hour) 3.25 ( 39$/ hour) 0 ( 25$/ hour) 1 9.67 1) There are no capital start up or operational and maintenance costs for these entities over the time period covered by this ICR. 2) This is a one time activity. The total burden for this one time activity was divided by three to arrive at the above estimates, to reflect the distribution of the burden over the three year period covered by this ICR. 3) Within the three year time span covered by this ICR the activity of these regulated parties is limited to familiarization with the new requirements. 4) The hourly labor cost varies by respondent as shown. 59 Table 6( b). 3: Annual Hourly Costs for Gasoline Refiners and Importers for Subsequent Years ( 2004 and beyond)

Collection Activity Labor Cost per Response ($) Number of Responses per Respondent per Year Total Annual Cost ($ per respondent)

Managerial ($ 94/ hr) Technical ($ 64/ hr) Clerical ($ 41/ hr) Contractor Equivalent 1) Annual corporate pool averaging report: Refiners Importers 23 23 0 0 31 31 0 0 1 1 54 2) Annual refinery/ importer averaging report: Refiners Importers 8 8 0 0 10 10 0 0 3*

1 54 18 3) ABT credit and/ or allotment trading report 23 16 10 0 1 49 4) Addition batch reports for CG: Refs ( own equip)

Refs ( lab $ 74)

Importers ( lab $ 74) 9 0 0 45 0 0 8 0 0 0 74 74 400 400 27 24,800 29,600 1,998 5) Alternative sampling/ testing: PCG Butane 0 0 32 16 21 21 0 0 40 5 2,080 165 6) Small refiners: PTDs Reporting 0 0 64 0 41 21 0 0 1 1 105 21 7) GPA refiners: PTDs Reporting 0 0 64 0 41 21 0 0 1 1 105 21 8) Separate annual averaging report for temporary hardship 0 0 21 0 1 21 9) Alternative sampling/ testing for truck importers 0 16 31 0 12 564 10) Importer independent lab reports for S FRGAS 0 32 21 0 12 636 11) Attest engagements: Refineries Importers 0 0 320 320 0 0 0 0 3.06 1 979 320 12) Refiner Q/ A periodic sampling/ testing for defense ( field test $ 40) 0 0 0 40 10 400 * This estimate is based on an average of 3 refineries per refiner. In reality, larger refiners may own more refineries, while smaller refiners may own only one refinery. 60 Table 6( b). 4: Annual Costs for Gasoline Terminals, Pipelines, Truckers and Users of Research and Development ( R& D) Gasoline Collection Activity Cost per Respondent ($) Number of Responses per Respondent per Year Total Annual Burden ($ per respondent Managerial ($ 94/ hr) Technical ($ 64/ hr) Clerical ($ 41/ hr) Contractor Equivalent ($ 40/ hr  field test)

Q/ A Sampling and Testing for S RGAS Terminals Pipelines 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 1.0 2 2 80 80 Q/ A Periodic Sampling and Testing for Defense Terminals Pipelines 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 1.0 10 10 400 400 R& D Applications 0 0 0.5 0 1 21 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden EPA based its own burden estimates on experience from the information collection activities performed under the RFG program. The requirements under the sulfur program are modifications and extensions of the requirements under the RFG program.

1. Start up costs ( e. g., for developing data bases, guidance, answering questions, preparing and disseminating Q & A documents) have been assumed to have been mostly absorbed by activities already completed under the RFG program. EPA expects to incorporate the data collected under the sulfur program into the existing database for the RFG program. Thus, the additional burden to the Agency would be minimal. For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that the burden associated with the incorporation of the sulfur program data into the RFG database would be 5% of that which EPA experienced in originally setting up the RFG database.

2. Assume maintenance and computer time cost of $ 1000 per year ( i. e., 5% of the $ 20,000 per year assumed for the RFG program).

3. Assume Agency labor cost based on a GS 13 level for an Environmental Protection Specialist ( EPS) or Program Analyst ( PA), and a GS 15 level for Managers. Hourly cost to EPA is calculated by multiplying the annual pay rate times 1.16 ( benefits factor) and dividing by 2,080 ( the number of work hours per year). For a median GS 13 level salary during the first three years of the program, based on an assumption of $ 69,000 per year, the average hourly rate would be $ 38. For subsequent years, based on an assumption of $ 78,000 per year, the average hourly rate would be $ 44. For a median GS 15 level salary during the first three years of the program, based on an assumption of $ 95,000 per year, the 61 average hourly rate would be $ 52. For subsequent years, based on an assumption of $ 108,000 per year, the average hourly rate would be $ 70. There are no capital, operation or maintenance costs for the Agency associated with the requirements of this information collection.

4. Review and approve small refiner status and baseline applications ( 12), GPA applications ( 30) and temporary hardship relief applications ( 4). Review and approve small refiner request for adjustment of per gallon cap sulfur standard ( 1). Assume 8 hours per report for EPS or PA, and 1 hour for managerial review.

5. Review and store ABT program baseline submissions ( 79). Assume 2 hours per report.

6. Review and input refiner and importer registrations ( 3). Assume 0.1 hours per registration.

7. Review and input 2001 2003 sulfur credit generation information associated with the ABT/ allotment trading programs ( 79). Assume 1 hour per report.

8. Activities associated with annual reporting, including ABT credit and/ or allotment activity beginning in 2004( 300). Assume 1.0 hour per report for EPS or PA.

9. Activities associated with attest engagements beginning in 2004 ( 30). Assume 1.0 hour per attest engagement for EPA or PA. 62 Table 6( c). 1 Agency Burden  Early Years of the Program ( GS 13 = $ 38/ hr; GS 15 = $ 52/ hr) Early years of the program ( to January 1, 2004)

Collection Activity Burden Hours Per Incidence Frequency Annual Burden Hours Annual Cost ($)

1) Modify database to manage the collected data, maintenance & computer time 8 11 2.7 1,026 2) Answer respondent questions 1 50 50 1,900 3) Review and approve small refiner ( 12), GPA ( 30) and temporary hardship ( 4) applications, including baseline submissions, requests for adjustment of small refiner per gallon cap standard ( 1)

EPS/ PA Managerial 8 1 471 471 122.66 15.33 4,763 814 4) Review and store ABT program baseline submissions 2 79 1 52.7 2,000 5) Review and input registrations 0.1 11 0.03 1.1 6) Review and input 2001 2003 sulfur credit generation information associated with the ABT program 1 79 79 3,000 1) The one time burden for this activity was divided by three to reflect its distribution over three years. 2) There are no capital start up or O& M costs for the Agency.

Table 6( c) 2. Agency Burden  Subsequent Years of the Program ( 2004 and beyond) ( GS 13 = $ 44/ hr; GS 15 = $ 70/ hr)

Collection Activity Burden Hours per Incidence Frequency Annual Burden Hours Annual Cost ($)

1) Activities associated with annual reporting including ABT credit and/ or allotment activity ( EPS/ PA) 1 300 300 13,200 2) Activities associated with attest requirement ( EPS/ PA) 1 30 30 1,320 Total annual burden for EPA of this collection: 330 hours $ 14,520 63 6( d) Estimating The Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs  Early Years of the Program:

Gasoline Refiners: Number of respondents: 167 Annual burden hours, all refiners*: 1,288 Annual cost, all refiners*: $ 55,636 * These burden estimates are for all collection activities performed by all refiners ( See Table 6( e). 1)

Gasoline Importers: Number of respondents: 20 Annual burden hours, all importers: 40 Annual cost, all importers: 2,067 Gasoline Terminal Operators: Number of respondents: 1,200 Annual burden hours, all terminal operators: 1,700 Annual cost, all terminal operators: $ 55,700 Gasoline Pipeline Operators: Number of respondents: 60 Annual burden hours, all pipeline operators: 85 Annual cost, all pipeline operators: $ 2,785 Gasoline Truckers: Number of respondents: 8,000 Annual burden hours, all truckers: 3,333 Annual cost, all truckers: $ 118,000 Gasoline Retailer Wholesale Purchaser Consumers: Number of respondents: 182,596 Annual burden hours, all retailers and WPCs: 6,087 Annual cost, all retailers and WPCs $ 91,298 Users of Research and Development Gasoline: Number of respondents: 20 Annual burden hours, all R& D gas users: 3 Annual cost, all R& D gas users: $ 193 64 Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs in Subsequent Years of the Program ( 2004 and beyond):

Gasoline Refiners: Number of respondents: 80 Number of responses: 32,426 Annual burden hours, all refiners*: 33,220 Annual cost, all refiners*: $ 2,150,224 * These burden estimates are for all collection activities preformed by all refiners ( see Table 6( e). 3)

Gasoline Importers: Number of respondents: 39 Number of responses: 1,071 Annual burden hours, all importers: 1,201 Annual cost, all importers: $ 82,140 Gasoline Terminal Operators: Number of respondents: 1,200 Number of responses: 3,600 Annual burden hours, all terminal operators: 3,600 Annual cost, all terminal operators: $ 144,000 Gasoline Pipeline Operators: Number of respondents: 60 Number of responses: 720 Annual burden hours, all pipeline operators: 720 Annual cost, all pipeline operators: $ 28,800 Research and Development Applications: Number of respondents: 1 Number of responses: 1 Annual burden, all R& D gasoline users: 0.5 Annual cost, all R& D gasoline users: $ 21 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables ( i) Respondent Tally The total annual hourly burden and cost for the early years of the program was 12,536 hours and $ 325,702, respectively. The total number of responses in the early years of the program was 192,268. The total annual hourly burden and cost for subsequent years ( 2004 and beyond) is estimated to be 38,742 hours and $ 2,405,185, respectively. The total number of responses for 65 subsequent years of the program is estimated to be 37,818. The difference between the total number of responses in the early years of the program and subsequent years is due to the large number of small gasoline distributors and retail gasoline service stations that needed to become familiar with the requirements of the new program. These new requirements, however, do not impose additional recordkeeping burdens on these parties beyond what they are currently required to keep under the reformulated gasoline program.

Table 6( e). 1: Annual Burden and Cost for Gasoline Refiners and Importers  Early Years of the Program Collection Activity Total Annual Burden Hours ( per respondent) Total Annual Cost ($ per respondent) Number of Responses Total Hours per Year ( all refiners and importers) Total Annual Cost ($ all refiners and importers)

1) Familiarize Employees with New Requirements Refiners Importers 5.67 2 41,082 2,067 167 20 9461 401 41,082 2,067 2) Submit Baseline Report for ABT Program ( refiners only) 1 3,081 79 791 3,081 3) Submit Early Credit Sulfur Averaging Report ( refiners only) 2.5 8,453 79 198 8,453 4) Registration2 0.25 13 1 0.251 13 5) Small Refiner Application ( including baseline submission) 1.33 776 12 161 776 6) GPA Application ( including baseline) 0.33 1,940 30 401 1,940 7) Temporary Hardship Relief Application ( including baseline) ( refiners only) 0.33 258 4 5.32 258 8) Request for Adjustment of Small Refiner Per gallon Cap Standard 0.17 32.09 5 3.35 $ 32.09 1) This is a one time activity. The total burden for this one time activity was divided by three to arrive at the above estimates, to reflect the distribution of the burden over the three year period covered by this ICR. 2) Only applies if party is not already registered under the RFG program. 66 Table 6( e). 2: Annual Burdens and Costs for Gasoline Terminals, Pipelines, Truckers, Retailers and Wholesale Purchaser Consumers ( WPCs), and Users of Research and Development ( R& D) Gasoline1  Early Years of the Program Collection Activity2 Total Annual Burden Hours ( per respondent) Total Annual Cost ($ per respondent) Number of Responses3 Total Hours Per Year ( all entities) Total Annual Cost ($ all entities)

Familiarize Employees with New Requirements:

1) Terminals 1.42 46.42 1200 1,700 55,700 3) Pipelines 1.42 46.42 60 85 2,785 4) Truckers 0.42 14.75 8,000 3,333 118,000 5) Retailers and WPCs 0.034 0.50 182,596 6,087 91,298 6) Users of R& D Gasoline 0.17 9.67 20 3.4 193 1) There are no capital start up or operational and maintenance costs for these entities over the time period covered by this ICR. 2) Within the three year time span covered by this ICR the activity of these regulated parties is limited to familiarization with the new requirements. 67 Table 6( e). 3: Annual Burdens and Costs for Gasoline Refiners and Importers  Subsequent Years of the Program ( 2004 and beyond)

Collection Activity Responses per Respondent Number of Respondents Burden Hours per Response Total Annual Cost ($ per respondent) Total Number of Responses Total Hours per Year ( all refiners and importers) Total Annual Cost ($ all refiners and importers)

1) Annual corporate pool Refiners Averaging report : Importers 1.0 1.0 80 39 1.0 1.0 54 54 80 39 80 39 4,320 2,106 2) Annual refiner/ importer Refiners Averaging report Importers 3.0 1.0 80 39 0.33 0.33 54 18 245 39 81 13 4,320 702 3) Credit / allotment report: 1.0 70 0.75 49 70 53 3,430 4) Test add'l batches Refiners ( own equip)

of CG: Refiners ( lab)

Importers ( lab) 400 400 27 50 25 30 1.0 1.0 1.0 24,800 29,600 1,998 20,000 10,000 810 20,000 10,000 810 1,240,000 740,000 59,940 5) Alternative sampling/ testing: PCG Butane 40 5 15 20 1.0 0.75 2,080 165 600 100 600 75 31,200 3,300 6) Small refiners: PTDs Reporting 1.0 1.0 12 12 2.0 0.5 105 21 12 12 24 6 1,260 252 7) GPA refiners: PTDs Reporting 1.0 1.0 30 30 2.0 0.5 105 21 30 30 60 15 3,150 630 8) Annual averaging report for temporary hardship 1.0 2 0.5 21 2 1 42 9) Alternative sampling/ testing for truck importers 12 10 1.0 564 120 120 5,640 10) Importer independent lab reports for S FRGAS 12 2 1.0 636 24 24 1,272 11) Attest engagements: Refiners Importers 3.06 1.0 80 39 5.0 5.0 979 320 245 39 1,225 195 78,320 12,480 12) Refiner Q/ A testing for defense 10 100 1.0 400 1,000 1,000 40,000 68 Total 33,497 34,421 2,232,364 Table 6( e). 4: Annual Burdens and Costs for Gasoline Terminals, Pipelines and Users of Research and Development ( R& D)

Gasoline Collection Activity Annual Responses per Respondent Number of Respondents Burden Hours per Response Total Annual Cost ($ per respondent) Total Number of Responses Total Hours per Year ( all entities) Total Annual Cost ($ all entities)

Q/ A sampling/ testing for S RGAS:

Terminals Pipelines 2 2 1200 60 1.0 1.0 80 80 2400 120 2400 120 96,000 4,800 Q/ A periodic sampling/

testing for defense:

Terminals Pipelines 10 10 120 60 1.0 1.0 400 400 1200 600 1200 600 48,000 24,000 R& D Applications 1 1 0.5 21 1 0.5 21 Total 4,321 4,321 172,821 69 ( ii) Variations in the Annual Bottom Line No annual variations in the respondent reporting/ recordkeeping burden or cost over the course of this clearance period are expected.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden This submittal is a renewal of the ICR initially submitted for this rule. The initial submittal estimated the annual burden and costs associated with the first three years of the program. These burdens are included in this submittal, however, since they will not continue after the initial phase of the program, they are not included in the bottom line annual burden hours and cost estimates included in this submittal. This submittal estimates the bottom line annual burden and cost for years following the early phase of the program ( beginning in 2004).

6( g) Burden Statement This information collection request covers the requirements regarding the control of gasoline sulfur content in Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program. The information collection requirements for certifiers of motor vehicles under the sulfur program are covered under a separate information collection request. Section 6( d) & ( e) presents the total estimated burden on parties involved in the production, distribution, and sale of gasoline under the sulfur program separately for the early years of the sulfur program and for subsequent years ( 2004 and beyond). The total annual burden for the three years covered by this ICR ( 2004 2006) is approximately 38,742 hours and $ 2,405,185. Because the universe of respondents to the sulfur program is quite diverse, there is no " typical" respondent; however, the burden estimates for the various individual activities in Section 6( a) can be used to estimate the burden for a particular respondent. The annual burden is estimated to average between 12 and 500 hours per respondent, depending on the information collection requirements of the particular party. The average number of hours per response is estimated as 1 hour. We estimate there will be 37,818 annual responses.

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 70 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 0171, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation 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 is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET 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. 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 0171) and OMB control number ( 2060 0437) in any correspondence.

C. Attachments Citations regarding the legal authority for the information collection requirements related to the control of gasoline sulfur content under the sulfur program are contained in the attachment. Due to the length and complex technical nature of the regulation under the sulfur program, they are not contained in the attachment. These sulfur regulations are located in the FR for the Tier 2 rulemaking. 71 Attachment Legal Authority Citations Clean Air Act 42 U. S. C. 7414.

Section 114: Inspection, Monitoring, and Entry ( a) For the purpose: ( i) of developing or assisting in the development of any implementation plan under Section 110 or 111( d), any standard of performance under Section 111, any emission standard under Section 112, [, or any regulation of solid waste combustion under Section 129,] [ or any regulation under section 129 ( relating to solid waste combustion),] 1 ( ii) of determining whether any person is in violation of any such standard or any requirement of such a plan, or ( iii) carrying out any provision of this Act ( except a provision of title II with respect to a manufacturer of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines): ( 1) the Administrator may require any person who owns or operates any emission source, who manufactures emission control equipment or process equipment, who the Administrator believes may have information necessary for the purposes set forth in this subsection, or who is subject to any requirement of this Act ( other than a manufacturer subject to the provisions of Section 206( c) or 208 with respect to a provision of title II) on a one time, periodic or continuous basis to  ( A) establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require; and ( 2) the Administrator or his authorized representative, upon presentation of his credentials  ( A) shall have a right of entry to, upon, or through any premises of such 72 person or in which any records required to be maintained under paragraph ( 1) of this section are located, and B) may at reasonable times have access to and copy any records, inspect any monitoring equipment and method required under paragraph ( 1), and sample any emissions which such person is required to sample under paragraph ( 1).

45 U. S. C. 7542.

Section 208: Information Collection: ( a) Manufacturers responsibility. " Every manufacturer shall establish and maintain such records, make such reports, and provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably require to enable him to determine whether such manufacturer has acted or is acting in compliance with this part and the regulations thereunder and shall, upon request of an officer or employee duly designated by the Administrator, permit such officer or employee at reasonable times to have access to and copy such records."


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79243-79244]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26988]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90554; File No. SR-ICEEU-2020-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe Delivery Procedures

December 3, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 25, 2020, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or
the ``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been primarily prepared by
ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(ii)
\4\ thereunder, such that the proposed rule change was immediately
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The principal purpose of the proposed amendments is for ICE Clear
Europe to amend Part Q, Part R and Part B of its Delivery Procedures
(the ``Delivery Procedures'') in connection to make clarifications and
updates with respect to certain delivery specifications.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meaning specified in the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules (the
``Rules'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule
change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe is proposing to amend Part Q, Part R and Part B of
its Delivery Procedures.
    The Part Q delivery specifications, which apply to the ICE Futures
Europe White Sugar Futures Contracts, would be amended to provide that
the contract relates to sugar of any origin of the crop or production
current on the first day of the delivery period (instead of referencing
the time of delivery). The clarification would facilitate
identification of sugar eligible for delivery under the contract.
Further, the related delivery timetable would be amended to provide
that the document notice day (i.e., the day on which delivery document
notifications are made via Guardian (or a successor system)) would be
20 days after the date of issue of the bill of lading (whether the date
of issue is the same as or later than the date of completion of loading
of the vessel), rather than 20 days after the vessel has completed
loading.
    The Part R delivery specifications, for ICE Futures Europe Wheat
Futures Contracts, would be amended to provide that wheat shall be
delivered of an EU or UK origin, rather than an EC origin, to account
for the UK leaving the EU.
    The Part B delivery specifications, for ICE Futures Europe Gasoil
Futures Contracts, would be amended to provide that if the Buyer
chooses the coaster delivery method, the maximum size would be 15,000
DWT instead of 10,000 DWT.
(b) Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody
or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and
the protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed
amendments are designed to clarify and update certain delivery
specifications relating to sugar, wheat and gasoil futures contracts,
consistent with the ICE Futures Europe Rules. These changes are
intended to facilitate continued clearing and physical settlement of
the contracts through enhancements to the delivery requirements and
delivery process. ICE Clear Europe is not otherwise proposing to change
the contractual or delivery terms for these contracts, or its financial
resources, risk management, systems and operational arrangements for
these contracts (and ICE Clear Europe believes such terms and
arrangements are sufficient to continue support continued clearing of
these contracts). As a result, in ICE Clear Europe's view, the
amendments would be consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of the ICE Futures Europe White Sugar Futures Contracts,
ICE Futures Europe Wheat Futures Contracts and ICE Futures Europe
Gasoil Futures Contracts, and the protection of investors and the
public interest consistent with the requirements of Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\7\ (In ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments
would not affect the safeguarding of funds or securities in the custody
or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible,
within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).\8\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(10) \9\ requires that each covered
clearing agency establish and maintain transparent written standards
that state its obligations with respect to the delivery of physical
instruments, and establish and maintain operational practices that
identify, monitor and manage the risks associated with such physical
deliveries. As discussed above, the amendments would clarify and update
the delivery specifications relating to sugar, wheat and gasoil futures
contracts, consistent with the ICE Futures Europe Rules. The amendments
would thus clarify and update the role and responsibilities of the
Clearing House and Clearing Members in the physical delivery process.
As a result, ICE Clear Europe believes the amendments are consistent
with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(10).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(10).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The changes are
being proposed in order to update the Delivery Procedures in connection
with the UK leaving the EU and to provide general drafting
clarifications and updates to delivery specifications. The

amendments would not otherwise affect the terms of the contracts. ICE
Clear Europe does not believe the amendments would adversely affect
competition among Clearing Members, materially affect the cost of
clearing, adversely affect access to clearing in the new contracts for
Clearing Members or their customers, or otherwise adversely affect
competition in clearing services. Accordingly, ICE Clear Europe does
not believe that the amendments would impose any impact or burden on
competition that is not appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of
the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed
rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \12\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2020-015 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2020-015. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE
Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/notices/Notices.shtml?regulatoryFilings.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2020-015 and should be
submitted on or before December 30, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26988 Filed 12-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 39)]
[Notices]
[Page 9273-9274]
[DOCID:fr01mr10-121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61570; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified
by Amendment No. 1, Relating to Routing Fees

February 23, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''), \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 2, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. On February 19, 2010, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Partial Amendment No. 1 includes minor clarifications to the
purpose section of the proposed rule change, and makes a non-
substantive change to the rule text itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Routing Fees.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to recoup costs that the
Exchange incurs for routing and executing customer orders in equity and
index options to certain better-priced away markets.
    In May, 2009, the Exchange adopted Rule 1080(m)(iii)(A) to
establish Nasdaq Options Services LLC (``NOS''), a member of the
Exchange, as the Exchange's exclusive order router.\4\ NOS is utilized
by the Phlx XL II system solely to route orders in options listed and
open for trading on the Phlx XL II system to destination markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange's Fee Schedule includes a Routing Fee of
$0.50 per contract side for customer orders routed to NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSEArca'') in penny options for execution \5\ and a Routing Fee of
$.40 per contract side for orders routed to the NASDAQ Options Market
(``NOM'') in penny options for execution.\6\ The Exchange proposes
adding a Routing Fee of $.56 per contract side for customer orders
routed to NOM in the NASDAQ 100 Index Option (``NDX'') and the mini
NASDAQ 100 Index Option (``MNX'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61374 (January 19,
2010), 75 FR 4123 (January 26, 2010) (SR-PHLX-2010-01).
    \6\ See SR-Phlx-2010-15.
    \7\ See SR-NASDAQ-2010-06. The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``NASDAQ'') recently established pricing for NDX and MNX.
Specifically, NASDAQ established a fee of $.50 per executed contract
for Customers, Firms, and Non-NOM Market Makers to remove liquidity
in NDX and MNX Options and a $.40 per executed contract for NOM
Market Makers to remove liquidity in NDX and MNX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There will be no Routing Fees for orders routed to away markets
other than NYSEArca and NOM in penny options. Also, except for NDX,
there will be no cost for executing orders at away markets in non-penny
classes. The Exchange is currently only proposing to assess a Routing
Fee in NDX and MNX for orders routed to NOM.
    NOS incurs a cost of $.50 in routing to NOM in NDX and MNX.
Additionally, the Exchange incurs a clearing charge from the Options
Clearing Corporation. Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing this fee
to recoup transaction and clearing costs. The Exchange believes that
the routing fees proposed will enable the Exchange to recover these
costs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members because all members and member
organizations would be assessed the same fee for NDX and MNX orders
routed to and executed on NOM. The Exchange believes that this fee
would enable it to recoup costs associated with routing customer orders
on behalf of its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-19 and should be
submitted on or before March 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4135 Filed 2-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA, Certification Compliance Div., Office of Trans. and Air Quality 2. OMB control number b. G None 2060 0322 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: Marine Engine Manufacturer In use Emission Testing Program Reporting and Recordkeeping, 40 CFR Part 91, Subpart N 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1726.03 9. Keywords Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control 10. Abstract: Marine engine manufacturers must perform emission tests on in use engines to statistically determine that engines are in compliance with applicable standards and/ or family emission limits. Manufacturers must generate and submit reports to EPA. These quarterly reports describe engines tested, test results, and the statistical compliance. Manufacturers must also maintain records for test equipment and test engines.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. X Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 10 b. Total annual responses 68 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 100 % c. Total hours requested 10,405 d. Current OMB inventory 12,210 e. Difference ( 1,805) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment ( 1,805) 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 273 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 421 c. Total annualized cost requested 694 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 694 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 694 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. X Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? X Yes Q No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Dennis W. Johnson Phone: 202 564 9278 OMB 83 I 10/ 95