SF-83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commercial
Appliances (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart NNNN)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

	1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

	NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commercial
Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN) (Renewal)

	1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

	The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP),
for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commercial Appliances
published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN were proposed on June 23,
2002, and promulgated on December 22, 2000.  These regulations apply
existing facilities and new facilities that perform surface coating of
large household and commercial appliances and related parts where the
total Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) emitted are greater than or equal
to 10 tons per year of any one HAP; or where the total HAPs emitted are
greater than or equal to 25 tons per year of any combination of HAPs.
New facilities include those that commenced construction or
reconstruction after the date of the proposal.  This information is
being collected to ensure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN.

	In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities.  They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative.  These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all
affected facilities subject to NESHAP.

	Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports,
and records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regional office.

	Based on our consultations with industry representatives, there is an
average of one affected facility at each plant site and each plant site
has only one respondent (i.e., the owner/operator of the plant site).

	Approximately 90 sources are currently subject to the standard, and it
is estimated that an additional four sources per year will become
subject to the regulation in the next three years.

	OMB approved the currently active ICR without any “Terms of
Clearance.”

	2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

	The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory
of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants.  These
standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air
pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.
In addition, Section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require
any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act 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.

	In the Administrator's judgment, hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions from large household and commercial appliance surface coating
facilities cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, NESHAP for
this source category were promulgated at 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN.

	2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard(s) ensure
compliance with the applicable regulations, which were promulgated in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.  The collected information is also
used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

	Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected
facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard(s).
 Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the
standard(s) at all times.

	The notifications required in the standard(s) are used to inform the
Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the
requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then
inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operated (and/or) leaks are being detected and
repaired and the standard(s) are being met.  The performance test may
also be observed.

	The required semiannual reports are used to determine periods of excess
emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify
operation/maintenance procedures and for compliance determinations.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

	The recordkeeping and reporting requested is required under 40 CFR part
63,

subpart NNNN.

	3(a)  Nonduplication

	If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the information
is sent directly to the delegated state or local Agency.  If a state or
local agency has adopted their own similar standards to implement the
Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local
agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required
by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication exists.

	3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)

	An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 24020) on May 6, 2005.  No
comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

	3(c)  Consultations

	The Agency has taken a number of steps to determine if consultations
are needed to estimate the burden to industry.  Any comments received
since the last ICR renewal including those submitted in response to the
first federal register notice announcing the renewal of this ICR have
been reviewed.  In this case, no comments were received.  The Agency’s
industry experts have been consulted.  The Agency’s internal data
sources and any projections of industry growth over the next three years
have been considered.  Based on this information, we have concluded that
additional consultations would not change our estimate of burden.

	The Agency’s primary source of information as reported by industry is
the AFS (AIRS Facility Subsystem) which is operated and maintained by
EPA's Office of Compliance.  AFS is EPA’s database for the collection,
maintenance, and retrieval of all compliance data.  Approximately 90
respondents are currently subject to the regulation, and our
consultations with Agency industry experts regarding the growth rate for
the industry indicated that an additional four respondents per year will
become subject to the regulation over the next three years.

	Estimates of industry size, growth rate, and burden were developed with
extensive participation and consultation with large appliance surface
coating industry representatives during recent rulemaking for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart NNNN.  EPA believes that these estimates remain valid,
and are the best information available.  The Agency currently collects
the minimum amount of information necessary to ensure compliance with
the standard.

	3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the required standards.
 Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required
by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of
detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and
noncompliance would decrease.

	3(e)  General Guidelines

	None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of
the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

 	These standards require affected facilities to maintain all records,
including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is
consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA
believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent
with the part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations
on which the permit program is based.  Also, the retention of records
for five years would allow EPA to establish the compliance history of a
source and any pattern of compliance for purposes of determining the
appropriate level of enforcement action.  Historically, EPA has found
that the most flagrant violators frequently have violations extending
beyond the five years.  EPA would be prevented from pursuing the worst
violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of records if records
were retained for less than five years.

	3(f)  Confidentiality

	Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, part 2, subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR
42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

	3(g)  Sensitive Questions

	None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive
questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

	4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

	The respondents of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
those that perform surface coating of large household and commercial
appliances and related parts.

Standard	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN	3631	335221

	3632	335222

	3633	335224

	3639	335228

	3582	333312

	3585	333415

	3589	333319

	4(b)  Information Requested

		(i)  Data Items

	All data in this ICR that is recorded and/or reported is required by 40
CFR part 63, subpart NNNN.

	A source must make the following reports:

	Notifications

Initial notification	63.4110(a)(1), 63.9(b)

Notification of compliance status	63.4110(a)(2), 63.4110(b), 63.9(h)

Notification of construction or reconstruction	63.5

Notification of actual startup	63.9(b)

Notification of performance test	63.7(b)

Notification Reports

Semiannual report	63.4120

Excess emissions report	63.4120(c),(d),(e),

(f),(g)

Report of performance test	63.4120(h)

Startup, shutdown, malfunction report	63.4120(j)

	A source must keep the following records:

	Recordkeeping

Five year retention of records	63.4131(b), 63.10(b)

Material formulation data	63.4130(b)

Records of HAP content calculations	63.4131(c)

Copies of notifications and reports	63.4131(a)

Records of names of materials used	63.4131(d)

HAP fractions in each material used	63.4131(e)

Coating solids fraction in each material used	63.4131(f)

Density of materials used	63.4131(g)

Documentation of waste material shipped offsite	63.4131(h)

Start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan/records	63.4131(j),(k),63.6

(e)

Documentation of control device performance tests	63.4131(k),63.10(b)

Values measured by continuous monitoring systems	63.4131(k)

Monitoring system calibrations, maintenance	63.4131(k)

Periods of monitoring system failure/shutdown	63.4131(j),(k)

Electronic Reporting

	Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides
parameter data in an automated way, e.g., inlet and outlet
concentrations when determining percent efficiency.  Although personnel
at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring
equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with
monitoring and recordkeeping.  In addition, some regulatory agencies are
setting up electronic reporting systems to allow sources to report
electronically which is reducing the reporting burden.  However,
electronic reporting systems are still not widely used by the regulatory
agencies.  It is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the
respondents use electronic reporting.

		(ii)  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for temperature, for gas
flow, or for pressure drop for oxidizer, carbon adsorber, condenser,
concentrator, or capture system.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
2F, 2G, 3, #A, 3B, 4, 24, 25, 25A, 204, 204A, 204B, 204C, 204D, 204E,
204F, 311, or ASTM Method D1475-98, D2697-86, D6093-97 test, and repeat
performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

5.  The Information Collected -- Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

	5(a)  Agency Activities

	EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the
acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required
information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if
necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports,
excess emissions reports, startup, shutdown, malfunction plan, and
quality control plan for CMS required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the AIRS Facility System (AFS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

	Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might
inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices
are properly installed and operated.  Performance test reports are used
by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with
the emission standard.  Data and records maintained by the respondents
are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement
programs.  The semiannual reports are used for problem identification,
as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance
determinations.

	Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is
operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance.  AFS is EPA’s
database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance
data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned
facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and
enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices
and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit,
store, retrieve and analyze the data.

	The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner
or operator for five years.

	5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

	A majority of the respondents are large entities (i.e., large
businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small
businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the
regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process
operations and the types of control equipment employed, the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and
large entities.  The Agency considers these requirements the minimum
needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further
for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses can use
economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be
reduced.

	5(d)  Collection Schedule

	The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost,
NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commercial
Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

	Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for
the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed
under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept
of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate,
specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to
this information collection are mandatory.

	The 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.

	6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

	The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 28,845
(Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency
studies and background documents from the development of the regulation,
Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously
approved ICR, and any comments received.

	6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

		(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

	This ICR uses the following labor rates:

		Managerial	$97.46   ($46.41 + 110%)

		Technical	$83.71   ($39.86 + 110%)

		Clerical	$42.55   ($20.26 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by
occupational and industry group.”  The rates are from column 1, Total
compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110% to account for
the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

		(ii)  Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

	This section covers the costs associated with all types of continuous
monitoring equipment [e.g., continuous emissions monitoring systems
(CEMS) and continuous parameter monitors.]  The type of industry costs
associated with the information collection activity in the subject
standards are both labor costs which are addressed elsewhere in this ICR
and the costs associated with continuous monitoring.  The
capital/startup costs are one-time costs when a facility becomes subject
to the regulation.  The annual operation and maintenance costs are the
ongoing costs to maintain the monitor(s) and other costs such as
photocopying and postage.

	6(b)  Capital/Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent	(C)

Number of New Respondents 	(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost,

(B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

CEM	$16,000	4	$64,000	$1,200	90	$108,000

	The total Capital/Start-up costs for this ICR are $64,000.  This is the
total of column D in the above table.  These costs are shown on the OMB
83-I form in block 14(a), Total annualized capital/startup costs.

	The total Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs for this ICR are
$108,000.  This is the total of column G.  These costs are shown on the
OMB 83-I form in block 14(b), Total annual costs (O&M).

	The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the
addition of the capital/startup costs, and the annual operation and
maintenance costs.  The average annual cost for capital/startup and
operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of
the ICR is estimated to be $172,000.  This cost is shown on the OMB 83-I
form in block 14(c), Total annualized cost requested.  The numbers in
block 14 of the OMB 83-I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands
of dollars.  The continuous monitoring costs that are included in this
section consist only of those capital/start-up and O&M costs that a
source incurs as a result of the standard.  Some continuous monitoring
costs may not be included in this section.  For instance, if a
particular industry typically utilizes a control device that must have a
continuous monitor (e.g., temperature, pressure drop, etc.) to function
properly, and the recordation of additional measurements beyond the
minimum are required by the standard, then there is no capital/startup
or O&M cost, but there is a labor cost to record the additional
readings.  Such a cost would not appear in this section, but in the
industry burden Section 6(d) below.

	6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis
of the reported information.  EPA's overall compliance and enforcement
program includes activities such as the examination of records
maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of
emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected
information.

	The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $110,772 [see Table 2 in Section (F).]

	This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

		Managerial	$56.02   (GS-13, Step 5, $35.01 x 1.6)

		Technical	$41.57   (GS-12, Step 1, $25.98 x 1.6)

		Clerical	$22.50   (GS-6, Step 3, $14.06 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2005
General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  Details upon
which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Annual Respondent Burden
and Cost, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commercial
Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN).

	6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	Based on our research for this ICR, there are approximately 82 existing
sources currently subject to the standard.  It is estimated that an
additional four sources per year will become subject to the regulation
in the next three years.

	The Number of respondents is calculated using the following table which
addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

	Respondents That Submit Reports	Respondents That Do Not Submit Any
Reports

	Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents 1	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit
Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	4	82	0	0	86

2	4	86	0	0	90

3	4	90	0	0	94

Average	4	86	0	0	90

1 New respondents include sources with constructed, reconstructed and
modified affected facilities.

	To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown
above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of
this ICR is 90.  This number appears on the OMB 83-I form in block
13(a), Number of respondents.

	The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Initial notification	4	1	0	4

Notification of compliance status	4	1	0	4

Notification of construction/reconstruction	4	1	0	4

Notification of actual startup 	4	1	0	4

Notification of performance test 	4	1.2	0	4.8

Report of performance test	4	1.2	0	4.8

Semiannual report 	90	2	0	180

Excess emissions report	90	0.5	0	45

Startup, shutdown, malfunction report	90	.5	0	45

	Total	296 (Rounded)

The number of Total Annual Responses is 296 (rounded).  This number is
shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(b), Total annual responses.

Note that the total annual capital and O&M costs to the regulated entity
are $172,000.  This number is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 14(c),
Total annualized cost requested.  These costs are detailed in Section
6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the
respondents appear below.  The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 97
hours per response.

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the
respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively,
and summarized below.

		(i) Respondent Tally

	The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(c).
 The total annual labor costs are $2,326,984.  The annual labor costs
are not shown on the OMB 83-I form.  Details regarding these estimates
may be found in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost: National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Surface
Coating of Large Household and Commercial Appliances (40 CFR part 63,
subpart NNNN).  Furthermore, the annual public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to
average 97 hours per response.

	The total annual capital and O&M costs to the regulated entity are
$172,000.  This number is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 14(c),
Total annualized cost requested.  These costs are detailed in Section
6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

		(ii) The Agency Tally

	The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is
estimated to be 2,732 labor hours at a cost of $110,772.  See Table 2:
Annual Agency Burden and Cost,  National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Surface Coating of Large
Household and Commercial Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN).

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

The increase in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to an
adjustment.  The adjustment increase in burden is due to a transition in
the types of activities undertaken by facilities to comply with 40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart NNNN.  The previous ICR included only the burden
incurred by facilities initiating activities related to compliance in
advance of the compliance date.  The increase in burden reflects the
need for facilities to fully comply with the rule requirements.  The
increase in O&M costs is due to installation and maintenance of
equipment used to verify compliance with the rule requirements.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 97 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 valid OMB
Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are
listed at 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-OECA-2005-0042, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov,  or in person viewing at the Enforcement and
Compliance  Docket and  Information Center in the EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC),  EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and
Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the
public docket is available through EPA Dockets 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.  You can also send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention Desk Officer for EPA.
Please include the EPA Docket Number: EPA-HQ OECA-2005-0042, and OMB
Control Number 2060-0457 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

	This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Surface Coating
of Large Household and Commercial Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart
NNNN) (Renewal)

Burden Item

(A) Person-hours per occurrence

(B)

Number of occurrences per year

(C) Person-hrs. per respondent per year

 (C=A*B)

(D) Respondents per year

(E) Technical person-hrs. per year (E=C*D)

(F) Management person-hrs. per year

(F=E*0.05)

(G) Clerical person-hrs. per year (G=E*0.1)

(H)

Annual costs ($)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions	4	1	4	90	360	18	36	$33,422

2.0 Plan Activities	8	1	8	90	720	36	72	$66,843

3.0 Training	8	1	8	90	720	36	72	$66,843

4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development	1	0	0	90	0	0	0	0

5.0 Gather Information, Monitor, and Inspect	12	12	144	90	12,960	648
1,296	$1,203,180

6.0 Process/Compile and Review	8	12	96	90	8,640	432	864	$802,120

7.0 Complete Reports	8	2	16	90	1,440	72	144	$133,687

8.0 Record/Disclose	1	2	2	90	180	9	18	$16,711

9.0 Store/File	0.25	2	0.5	90	45	2.25	4.5	$4,178

10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Total Burden (Hrs) and Costs

	  =SUM(ABOVE)  25,065 	1,253.25	2,507.5	$2,326,984

	28,845

Table 2:  Annual Agency Burden and Cost, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Surface Coating of Large
Household and Commercial Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN)
(Renewal)

Burden Item

(A)

Person-hours per activity

(B)

Number of activities per year

(C)

Technical person-hours per year

(C=A*B)

(D)

Management person-hours per year

(D=C*0.05)

(E)

Clerical person-hours per year

(E=C*0.1)

(F)

Annual costs ($/yr)

1.0 Initial performance and test

24

4

96	4.8	9.6	$4,476

2.0 Repeat performance test

24

1

24	1.2	2.4	$1,119

3.0 Report review

  a) Initial notification

8

4

32	1.6	3.2	$1,492

  b) Notif. of performance test

8

4

32	1.6	3.2	$1,492

  c) Notif. of compliance status

8

4

32	1.6	3.2	$1,492

  d) Semiannual report

12

180

2,160	108	216	$100,701

Total Burden (Hrs) and Costs

  =SUM(ABOVE)  2,376

  =SUM(ABOVE)  118.8

  =SUM(ABOVE)  237.6

  =SUM(ABOVE)+g2+g3  $110,772

2,732

 PAGE   12

 PAGE   15


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 [Front Panel]

Model ____

Disposable

Bull Run

YELLOWJACKET TRAP E

Catches eight yellowjacket species.

No killing agents — insects drown.

Effective and responsible.

More effective than traps baited with food alone.

Complete with attractant.

Just add water & hang.

Non-toxic mode of action.

Will not trap beneficial honeybees.

INGREDIENTS

Active Ingredients:

     2-Methyl-1-butanol	5.1%

     Calcium Acetate *	19.8%

Other Ingredients	   75.1%

Total	100.0%

* Equivalent to 15.0% acetic acid.

KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN

CAUTION

NET WT: 1.03 oz

Yellowjacket gauge: ½” equals approximately 300 yellowjackets

[Top Panel]

Read instructions before opening.

Cut here on dotted line.

[Back Panel]

-----------------------------  FILL LINE  -----------------------------

The Bull Run Disposable Yellowjacket Trap is proven to lure the following species: Aerial Yellowjacket (Dolichovespula arenaria), Common Yellowjacket (Vespula vulgaris), Eastern Yellowjacket (V. maculifrons), German Yellowjacket (V. germanica), Southern Yellowjacket (V. squamosa), Transition Yellowjacket (V. flavopilosa), Western Yellowjacket (V. pensylvanica), and Northeastern Yellowjacket (V. vidua).

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.

[Insert graphics]

1. 	Cut plastic on top at dotted line.

2. 	Pull open and attach string or wire.

3. 	Add water to fill line on bag.  Attractant pouch inside will dissolve and activate within 2-5 hours.

4. 	Hang outdoors away from human activity, and at least 20 feet from a known yellowjacket nest.

5.	Replace trap when full, when contents dry out, or after 30 days – whichever comes first.

Use Rate:  Use 2-4 traps for a 10,000 square foot area or 8 to 16 traps per acre.  For areas with heavy infestation, use a maximum of 48 traps per acre.

CAUTION:  Due to the extreme effectiveness of the attractant, use caution when hanging traps.  Place traps in late evening or early morning when yellowjackets are less active.  People allergic to yellowjacket stings should allow others to hang traps.  Yellowjacket stings can be fatal.

STORAGE AND DISPOSAL

Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal.

STORAGE: 	Store in a cool, dry, well-ventilated location out of reach of children and pets.

DISPOSAL: 	Close trap and deposit in trash for collection. Wash hands with soap and water.

Made under one or more of the following U.S. patents: _________, _________ ; Canada: ___________ ; Australia: ___________.

Made in USA with 90% U.S. parts

Bull Run Scientific, VBT

3900 Westerre Parkway, Suite 300

Richmond, VA 23233

1-800-___-____

© ____, ______________

EPA Reg. No. 84565-__

EPA Est. No. _________

Learn more about yellowjackets and other insects by visiting our web site at www.__________.com


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24081-24084]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08585]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0468; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01243-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2018-13-08 which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series
airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and
-232 airplanes. AD 2018-13-08 requires repetitive inspections for
cracking of the radius of the front spar vertical stringers and the
horizontal floor beam on frame (FR) 36, repetitive inspections for
cracking of the fastener holes of the front spar vertical stringers on
FR 36, and repair if necessary, and, for certain airplanes, a potential
terminating action modification of the center wing box area. Since the
FAA issued AD 2018-13-08, Airbus has determined that additional
airplanes are subject to the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would
revise the applicability by adding airplanes and retain the
requirements of AD 2018-13-08, as specified in a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation
by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 6,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0468.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-
0468; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0468; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-01243-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA 98198; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2018-13-08, Amendment 39-19320 (83 FR 33809, July
18, 2018) (AD 2018-13-08) which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model
A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -
132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232,
and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -
231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2018-13-08 requires repetitive inspections
for cracking of the radius of the front spar vertical stringers and the
horizontal floor beam on FR 36, repetitive inspections for cracking of
the fastener holes of the front spar vertical stringers on FR 36, and
repair if necessary, and, for certain airplanes, a potential
terminating action modification of the center wing box area. The FAA
issued AD 2018-13-08 to address fatigue cracking of the front spar
vertical stringers on the wings, which could result in the reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2018-13-08 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2018-13-08, Airbus has determined that
Model A321 airplanes that have incorporated modification 160021
(structural reinforcement for Airbus SAS Model A321 airplanes sharklet
installation) are also subject to the identified unsafe condition. In
addition, Airbus determined that, for airplanes in configuration 5, 6,
or 7, an optional modification of the center wing box after
accumulating a certain number of total flight cycles and total flight
hours terminates the repetitive inspections.
    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0241, dated November 8, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0241) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -
112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211,
-212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-
111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. EASA AD
2021-0241 supersedes EASA AD 2017-0099, dated June 8, 2017 (which
corresponds to FAA AD 2018-13-08). Model A320-215 airplanes are not
certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type
certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those
airplanes in the applicability.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report that, during a center
fuselage certification full-scale fatigue test, cracks were found on
the front spar vertical stringer at a certain frame. This proposed AD
was also prompted by a determination that Model A321 airplanes that
have incorporated modification 160021 are also subject to the unsafe
condition. The FAA is proposing this AD to address fatigue cracking of
the front spar vertical stringers on the wings, which, if not
corrected, could result in the reduced structural integrity of the
airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Model A320-216 Airplanes

    The Airbus SAS Model A320-216 was U.S. type certificated on
December 19, 2016. Before that date, any EASA ADs that affected Model
A320-216 airplanes were included in the U.S. type certificate as part
of the Required Airworthiness Actions List (RAAL). One or more Model
A320-216 airplanes have subsequently been placed on the U.S. Register,
and will now be included in FAA AD actions. For Model A320-216
airplanes, the requirements that correspond to AD 2018-13-08 were
mandated by the MCAI via the RAAL. Although that RAAL requirement is
still in effect, for continuity and clarity the FAA has identified
Model A320-216 airplanes in paragraph (c) of this proposed AD; the MCAI
that is specified in paragraph (g) in this proposed AD includes
retained requirements, which would therefore apply to those airplanes.

Explanation of Retained Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2018-13-08, this proposed AD would retain all of the
requirements of AD 2018-13-08. Those requirements are referenced in
EASA AD 2021-0241, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of
this proposed AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0241 describes procedures for repetitive special
detailed inspections for cracking of the radius of the front spar
vertical stringers, horizontal floor beam radius and fastener holes of
the front spear vertical stringers on frame 36. EASA AD 2021-0241
further describes procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) for cracking of the horizontal floor beam, repetitive HFEC
inspections for cracking of the fastener holes of the front spar
vertical stringers on FR 36, repetitive rototest inspections of the
fastener holes of the spar vertical stringers, and repair. EASA AD
2021-0241 also describes procedures for the modification of the center
wing box area. The modification is required for airplanes in
configuration 1, 2 or 3; and for airplanes in configuration 5, 6, or 7,
the modification is optional and is a terminating action for the
repetitive inspections when done within a specified time frame. The
modification includes related investigative and corrective actions.
Related investigative actions include an HFEC inspection on the radius
of the rib flanges, a rototest inspection of the fastener holes,
detailed and HFEC inspections for cracking on the cut edges, detailed
and rototest inspections on all open fastener holes, and an inspection
to determine if secondary structure brackets are installed. Corrective
actions include reworking the secondary structure bracket and repair.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties
have access to it through their normal course of business

or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2021-0241 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2021-0241 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2021-0241 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0241 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2021-
0241. Service information required by EASA AD2021-0241 for compliance
will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0468 after the FAA final rule is
published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 1,549 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                Labor cost           Parts cost           Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2018- Up to 273 work-   $87,500...............  Up to $110,705........  Up to
 03-08.                         hours x $85 per                                                   $1,107,050 for
                                hour = $23,205.                                                   certain
                                                                                airplanes.*
New proposed inspections.....  25 work-hours x   $100..................  $2,225................  $3,446,525.
                                $85 per hour =
                                $2,125.
New proposed modification (5   Up to 403 work-   Up to $316,900........  Up to $351,1555.......  Up to
 airplanes).                    hours x $85 per                                                   $1,755,775.
                                hour = $34,255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This estimate is based on the determination in AD 2018-13-08 that only 10 airplanes of U.S. registry needed to
  accomplish all required actions, including the modification; other airplanes were only required to accomplish
  the terminating actions.

                                      Estimated Costs for Optional Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Labor cost                             Parts cost                       Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 409 work-hours x $85 per hour =     Up to $66,050.....................  Up to $100,815.
 $34,765.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-13-08, Amendment 39-
19320; (83 FR 33809, July 18, 2018); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2022-0468; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-
01243-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by June 6, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2018-13-08, Amendment 39-19320 (83 FR 33809,
July 18, 2018) (AD 2018-13-08).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any
category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2021-0241, dated November 8, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0241).
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that, during a center fuselage
certification full-scale fatigue test, cracks were found on the
front spar vertical stringer at a certain frame. This AD was also
prompted by a determination that Model A321 airplanes that have
incorporated modification 160021 are also subject to the unsafe
condition. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking of
the front spar vertical stringers on the wings, which, if not
corrected, could result in the reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2021-0241.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0241

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0241 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0241 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0241 specifies actions
for airplanes repaired ``in accordance with instructions approved by
EASA or approved under Airbus DOA,'' for this AD use ``using a
method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA
DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.''
    (4) Where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2021-0241 specifies to
``contact Airbus for approved corrective action instructions and
accomplish those instructions accordingly'' if cracks are detected,
for this AD if any cracking is detected, the cracking must be
repaired before further flight using a method approved by the
Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch,
FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (5) Where paragraph (8) of EASA AD 2021-0241 specifies actions
for airplanes inspected by additional instructions ``approved before
the effective date of this AD by Airbus DOA,'' for this AD use
``approved before the effective date of this AD by the Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or
EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.''

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0241
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2018-13-08 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2021-0241 that are
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2021-0241 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2021-0241, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2022-0468.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

    Issued on April 15, 2022.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-08585 Filed 4-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21076-21078]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9045]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64267; File No. SR-EDGA-2011-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGA Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

April 8, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 7, 2011, the EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or the
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGA Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGA Members. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.directedge.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer, or any person
associated with a registered broker or dealer, that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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 Exchange proposes to increase the rebate on Flag P from $0.0025
per share to $0.0027 per share for adding liquidity on EDGX via an
EDGA-originated ROUC routing strategy, as defined in Rule
11.9(b)(3)(a).
    The Exchange proposes to reduce the rate on Flag T from $0.0020 per
share to $0.0012 per share for routing using the ROUD/ROUE routing
strategies, as defined in Rules 11.9(b)(3)(b) and (c)(i).
    Currently, for orders routed during the Pre-Opening \4\ and Post-
Closing Sessions, \5\ a charge of $0.0030 per share applies (yielding
Flag ``7''). The Exchange proposes to reduce the rate to $0.0027 per
share for routing during these trading sessions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As defined in EDGA Rule 1.5(q).
    \5\ As defined in EDGA Rule 1.5(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, when an order is routed using the ROUT routing strategy,
(as defined in Rule 11.9(b)(3)(c)(ii), a flag ``RT'' is yielded and a
fee of $0.0025 per share is assessed. However, when an order routes to
EDGX using the ROUT routing strategy, a Flag ``I'' is yielded, and a
fee of $0.0030 per share is assessed. The Exchange proposes that when
an order is routed using the ROUT routing strategy to EDGX Exchange, a
Flag ``RX'' is yielded and a fee of $0.0027 per share will be assessed.
This proposed language is included in footnote 10 of the fee schedule.
Thus, the Exchange notes that when an order is routed using the ROUT
routing strategy, it can either yield either a Flag ``RT'' or ``RX.''
The Exchange also notes that a Flag ``RX'' can also be yielded when an
order is routed using the ROUX routing strategy, as defined in Rule
11.9(b)(3)(c)(iii).
    As a result of the insert of new language in footnote 10,
conforming changes have been made to re-number existing footnotes 10-12
as footnotes 11-13. New footnote 11 is also proposed to be clarified to
insert ``per share'' after the fee of $0.0030 to conform it with other
footnotes on the fee schedule.
    EDGA Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to the
Exchange fee schedule on April 7, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Exchange Act,\6\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\7\ in particular, as it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed increased rebate for Flag P
from $0.0025 to $0.0027 per share is an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges. The ROUC routing strategy, as
defined in Rule 11.9(b)(3)(a), checks the System for available shares
and then is sent sequentially to destinations on the System routing
table, Nasdaq OMX BX, and NYSE. If shares remain unexecuted after
routing, they are posted to EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''). The
increased rebate is designed to incentivize Members to route through
EDGA to reach multiple sources of liquidity before routing to other low
cost destinations, and thereby potentially increases volume on EDGA to
the extent an order using the ROUC routing strategy executes on EDGA.
The increased rebate allows Members to reach multiple sources of
liquidity by routing order flow through EDGA rather than going directly
to various venues. The increased rebate also provides Members with
superior economics as the $0.0027 per share rebate represents a flat
rate if the ROUC routing strategy posts to EDGX, and thus allows EDGA
Members to share in potential volume tier savings realized by the
Exchange.\8\ If the Member had routed to EDGX directly and the order
had added liquidity to EDGX, the Member could receive rebates ranging
from $0.0023-$0.0033, depending on if a volume threshold were
satisfied.\9\ The $0.0027 per share rebate thus represents a rate in
between these various tiered and non-tiered rebates provided for adding
liquidity to EDGX. This type of rate is also similar to EDGA's rate for
removing liquidity from LavaFlow (Flag M). The standard removal rate of
$0.0029 per share is reduced to $0.0023 per share for orders routed to
LavaFlow that achieve certain volume thresholds, as EDGA Members are
able to share in potential volume tier savings realized by EDGA when
routing to LavaFlow.\10\ This type of rate is also similar to other
rates that EDGA charges, such as ``one-under'' pricing for routing to
Nasdaq using the INET order type and is consistent with the processing
of similar routing strategies by EDGA's competitors.\11\ In

this rate, EDGA takes into account the rates that it is charged or
rebated when routing to other low cost destinations, such as EDGX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See EDGX fee schedule, footnote 1.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ See footnote 6 of the EDGA fee schedule.
    \11\ See footnote 7 of the EDGA fee schedule. See also BATS BZX
fee schedule: Discounted Destination Specific Routing (``One
Under'') to NYSE, NYSE ARCA and NASDAQ. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 62858, 75 FR 55838 (September 14, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-
023) (modifying the BATS fee schedule in order to amend the fees for
its BATS + NYSE Arca destination specific routing option to continue
to offer a ``one under'' pricing model).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the rebate of $0.0027 is reasonable as
it is consistent with how other exchanges pass through rebates for
orders routed to a different exchange that add liquidity. For example,
when Nasdaq routes to Nasdaq BX, Nasdaq passes back Nasdaq BX's
standard rebate of $0.0014 per share. When NYSE Arca routes to NYSE,
NYSE Arca passes back the standard NYSE rebate of $0.0015 per share.
These rebates generally approximate what the originating exchange
receives from the exchange that is routed to plus or minus a certain
differential. EDGA's pricing is consistent with this premise.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rebate is non-
discriminatory in that it applies uniformly to all Members.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed reduced rate for Flag T
(routing using ROUD/ROUE routing strategies) of $0.0012 per share is an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges. Lower
fees are directly correlated with a higher number of intermediate low
cost destinations as the more intermediate low cost destinations that
there are creates a greater potential for an execution at a lower cost
destination before reaching a higher cost destination. For example, the
ROUQ routing strategy, as defined in Rule 11.9(b)(3)(c)(iv),\12\ routes
to the lowest number of low cost destinations compared to the ROUD/ROUE
\13\ and ROUZ \14\ routing strategies. As a result, the Exchange
charges a higher fee for such strategy of $0.0020 per share (Flag Q).
The ROUD/ROUE routing strategies route to a medium number of low cost
destinations and the ROUZ routing strategy routes to the highest number
of low costs destinations amongst these routing strategies. As a
result, the Exchange will assess a proposed fee of $0.0012 per share
for the ROUD/ROUE routing strategies and assesses the lowest fee for
the ROUZ routing strategy of $0.0010 per share. The more low cost
destinations that an order routes to allows the Exchange to pass on the
savings it receives from such destinations to its members in lower
fees. Therefore, it is equitable that ROUQ has the highest fee of
$0.0020 per share, while ROUD/ROUE has an intermediate fee of $0.0012
per share, and ROUZ has the lowest fee of the three strategies of
$0.0010 per share. The Exchange also notes that a difference between
ROUQ and ROUZ routing strategies is that the additional routing
destinations in the ROUZ routing strategy are intermediate between the
routing destinations in ROUQ. This also accounts for the differences in
fees. Therefore, for each additional intermediate low cost destination
that an order routes to, the prices of the strategies mentioned above
(ROUQ, ROUD/ROUE, ROUZ) decrease accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See SR-EDGA-2011-09 (April 1, 2011).
    \13\ The Exchange notes that ROUD/ROUE routing strategies route
to the identical number of low cost destinations.
    \14\ See SR-EDGA-2011-09 (April 1, 2011). See Rule
11.9(b)(3)(c)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the rate is reasonable when compared to
other market centers using similar routing strategies. The comparable
routing strategy to the ROUD/ROUE routing strategies is Parallel D or
Parallel 2D with the DRT (Dark routing technique) option on BZX. BZX
charges $0.0020 per share for its DRT option. The Exchange believes
that the proposed rebate is non-discriminatory in that it applies
uniformly to all Members.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed reduced rate for Flag 7
executions of $0.0027 per share is an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges. The reduced rate is designed
to incentivize Members to increase volume on EDGA during the Pre-
Opening and Post-Closing Sessions, which have limited trading hours. In
addition, it represents a blended flat-rate for customers which EDGA
has derived by taking into account its costs of routing to various
destinations on its fee schedule. The blended, flat-rate provides
simplicity for customers, instead of passing through the actual rates
that EDGA receives from various destinations on its schedule. This type
of rate is similar to other rates that EDGA charges, such as ``one-
under'' pricing for routing to Nasdaq using the INET order type and is
consistent with the processing of similar routing strategies by EDGA's
competitors.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See footnote 7 of the EDGA fee schedule. See also BATS BZX
fee schedule: Discounted Destination Specific Routing (``One
Under'') to NYSE, NYSE ARCA and NASDAQ. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 62858, 75 FR 55838 (September 14, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-
023) (modifying the BATS fee schedule in order to amend the fees for
its BATS + NYSE Arca destination specific routing option to continue
to offer a ``one under'' pricing model).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange notes that fewer Members generally trade
during pre and post trading hours because of the limited time
parameters associated with these trading sessions. The Exchange
believes that the rate is equitable in that it is lower than comparable
routing strategies that route during regular trading hours (i.e., Flag
X, $0.0029 per share). The Exchange believes that the proposed rebate
is non-discriminatory in that it applies uniformly to all Members.
    Currently, when a Member uses the ROUT strategy, it is charged
$0.0030 per share (Flag ``I'') when it routes to EDGX. The Exchange
proposes to lower this fee to $0.0027 per share and yield Flag ``RX''
instead. The Exchange believes that the proposed decreased rate for
orders that route to EDGX Exchange, Inc. using the ROUT routing
strategy (as noted in footnote 10) represents an equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges since the decreased fee is
designed to cap Member's routed fees at $0.0027 per share. The
decreased fee is also designed to incentivize Members to sweep
liquidity through EDGA before going to other destinations while
allowing Members to reach multiple source of liquidity by routing order
flow through EDGA rather than going directly to various venues.
    The rate does not favor routing to EDGX as it is higher than the
rate for routing to any other destination (i.e., Nasdaq) using the ROUT
routing strategy, in which a fee of $0.0025 per share is assessed. For
example, if a Member uses EDGA to route to Nasdaq using the ROUT
routing strategy, the Member is charged $0.0025 per share (Flag RT).
However, EDGA is charged Nasdaq's standard removal rate of $0.0030 per
share. Analogously, when a member uses EDGA to route to EDGX using the
ROUT routing strategy, the member is proposed to be charged $0.0027 per
share. However, EDGA is charged EDGX's standard removal rate of $0.0030
per share. Therefore, a Member is more likely to use the ROUT routing
strategy to route to Nasdaq rather than EDGX since the potential costs
savings that is achieved by the Member is greater. ($0.0005 vs.
$0.0003).
    The comparable routing strategy to the ROUT strategy is either
Parallel D or Parallel 2D with the DRT (Dark routing technique) option
on BZX or SCAN/STGY on Nasdaq OMX Exchange (``Nasdaq.'') BATS BZX
Exchange charges $0.0028 per share for its Parallel D and Parallel 2D
routing strategies and $0.0020 per share for its DRT option. Nasdaq
charges $0.0030 per share for its SCAN and STGY routing strategies. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rebate is non-discriminatory in
that it

applies uniformly to all Members. Based on these comparisons, the
Exchange believes that the rate is reasonable as it is line with the
fees assessed by BATS BZX Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing structure
designed to incent market participants to direct their order flow to
the Exchange. The Exchange believes the fees and credits remain
competitive with those charged by other venues and therefore continue
to be reasonable and equitably allocated to Members.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is 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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \17\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 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-EDGA-2011-10 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-EDGA-2011-10. 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,\18\ 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 the 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-
EDGA-2011-10 and should be submitted on or before May 5, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on
Exchange's Web site at http://www.directedge.com, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at EDGA, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9045 Filed 4-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P