[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71518-71519]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27853]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form N-17D-1; SEC File No. 270-231, OMB Control No. 3235-0229

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections
of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Section 17(d) (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(d)) of the Investment Company Act
of 1940 (``Act'') authorizes the Commission to adopt rules that protect
funds and their security holders from overreaching by affiliated
persons when the fund and the affiliated person participate in any
joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan.
Rule 17d-1 under the Act (17 CFR 270.17d-1) prohibits funds and their
affiliated persons from participating in a joint enterprise, unless an
application regarding the transaction has been filed with and approved
by the Commission. Paragraph (d)(3) of the rule provides an exemption
from this requirement for any loan or advance of credit to, or
acquisition of securities or other property of, a small business
concern, or any agreement to do any of the foregoing (``investments'')
made by a small business investment company (``SBIC'') and an
affiliated bank, provided that reports about the investments are made
on forms the Commission may prescribe. Rule 17d-2 (17 CFR 270.17d-2)
designates Form N-17D-1 (17 CFR 274.00) (``form'') as the form for
reports required by rule 17d-1.
    SBICs and their affiliated banks use form N-17D-1 to report any
contemporaneous investments in a small business concern. The form
provides shareholders and persons seeking to make an informed decision
about investing in an SBIC an opportunity to learn about transactions
of the SBIC that have the potential for self-dealing and other forms of
overreaching by affiliated persons at the expense of shareholders.
    Form N-17D-1 requires SBICs and their affiliated banks to report
identifying information about the small business concern and the
affiliated bank. The report must include, among other things, the
SBIC's and affiliated bank's outstanding investments in the small
business concern, the use of the proceeds of the investments made
during the reporting period, any changes in the nature and amount of
the affiliated bank's investment, the name of any affiliated person of
the SBIC or the affiliated bank (or any affiliated person of the
affiliated person of the SBIC or the affiliated bank) who has any
interest in the transactions, the basis of the affiliation, the nature
of the interest, and the consideration the affiliated person has
received or will receive.
    There is one SBIC that may file the form annually.\1\ The
Commission estimates the burden of filling out the form is
approximately one hour per response and would likely be completed by an
accountant or other professional. Based on past filings, the Commission
estimates that no more than one SBIC is likely to use the form each
year. Most of the information requested on the form should be readily
available to the SBIC or the affiliated bank in records kept in the
ordinary course of business, or with respect to the SBIC, pursuant to
the recordkeeping requirements under the Act. Commission staff
estimates that it should take approximately one hour for an accountant
or other professional to complete the form.\2\ The estimated total
annual burden of filling out the form is 1 hour, at an estimated total
annual cost of $216.\3\ The Commission will not keep responses on Form
N-17D-1 confidential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As of October 22, 2019, one SBIC was registered with the
Commission.
    \2\ This estimate of hours is based on past conversations with
representatives of SBICs and accountants that have filed the form.
    \3\ The estimated wage figure is based on published rates for
Senior Accountants ($216). The $216/hour figure for a Senior Account
is from Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's
Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013,
modified by Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year
and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not

derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study
of the costs of Commission rules. 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.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
C/O Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 19, 2019.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27853 Filed 12-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54645-54647]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23586]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2018-0008-N-10]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice
announces that FRA is forwarding the Information Collection Requests
(ICRs) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and comment. The ICRs describe the information collections
and their expected burden. On August 1, 2018, FRA published a notice
providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICRs.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
November 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the ICRs to the Office of
Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments
may also be sent via email to OMB at the following address:
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Room W33-497, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202)
493-6292); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Office of Administration, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W34-
212, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On August 1, 2018, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on
the ICRs for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 83 FR 37606. FRA
received no comments in response to this notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5
CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB
believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file
relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public
comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB
within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICRs regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summaries below describe the ICRs that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards and Event Recorders.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0004.
    Abstract: The Locomotive Safety Standards at 49 CFR part 229
require railroads to inspect, repair, and maintain locomotives,
including their event recorders, to ensure they are safe and free of
defects. Crashworthy locomotive event recorders provide FRA with
verifiable factual information about how trains are operated. These
devices are used by FRA and State inspectors for part 229 rule
enforcement. The information garnered from crashworthy event recorders
is used by railroads to monitor railroad operations and by railroad
employees (locomotive engineers, train crews, dispatchers) to improve
train handling, and promote the safe and efficient operation of trains
throughout the country, based on a surer knowledge of different control
inputs.
    Type of Request: Extension with change of a current information
collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (railroads).
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.49A.
    Respondent Universe: 741 Railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 7,509,648.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 3,815,751 hours.

    Title: Railroad Signal System Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0006.
    Abstract: The regulations pertaining to railroad signal systems are
contained in 49 CFR parts 233 (Signal System Reporting Requirements),
235 (Instructions Governing Applications for Approval of a
Discontinuance or Material Modification of a Signal System), and 236
(Rules, Standards, and Instructions Governing the Installation,
Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair of Signal and Train Control
Systems, Devices, and Appliances). Section 233.5 provides that each
railroad must report to FRA within 24 hours after learning of an
accident or incident arising from signal failure (e.g., failure of a
signal appliance, device, method or system to function or indicate as
required by 49 CFR part 236 that results in a more favorable aspect
than intended) or other condition hazardous to the movement of a train.
Section 233.7 provides that each railroad must report signal failures
within 15 days in accordance with the instructions printed on Form FRA
F 6180.14.
    Title 49 CFR part 235 sets forth the specific conditions under
which FRA will approve the modification or discontinuance of railroad
signal systems. These regulations also describe the process that should
be followed by a railroad to seek such an approval. The application
process prescribed under 49 CFR part 235 enables FRA to obtain the
necessary information to make logical and informed decisions concerning
railroad requests to modify or discontinue signaling systems. Section
235.5 requires railroads to apply for FRA approval to discontinue or
materially modify railroad signal systems. However, section 235.7 cites
signal system changes that do not require FRA approval such as removal
of an interlocking where a drawbridge has been permanently closed by
the formal approval of another governmental agency. Section 235.8
allows railroads to seek relief from the requirements in 49 CFR part
236. Sections 235.10, 235.12, and 235.13 explain where the application
must be submitted, what information must be included, what the format
should be, and who is authorized to sign the application. FRA provides
public notice concerning applications for relief and allows individuals
and organizations to protest the granting of an application for relief.
Section 235.20 describes the protest process, including essential
information that must accompany the protest, the address for filing the
protest, the time limit for filing the protest, and the requirement
that a person requesting a public hearing explain why written
statements cannot be used to explain his or her position.
    Title 49 CFR part 236 contains FRA's signal system requirements.
Section 236.110 requires that the results of signal system tests
required under Sec. Sec.  236.102 through 236.109; 236.376 through
236.387; 236.576 and 236.577; and 236.586 through 236.589 be recorded
on pre-printed forms provided by the railroad or by electronic means,
subject to FRA approval. These forms show the name of the railroad,
place and date of the test conducted, type of equipment tested, and
results of the test. They also describe any repairs, replacements, and
adjustments performed on the equipment that has been tested, and the
condition in which the equipment was left. This section

also requires that the employee conducting the test must sign the form
and that the record be retained at the office of the supervisory
official. Test results made in compliance with Sec.  236.587 must be
retained for 92 days. The results of all other tests required under
Sec. Sec.  236.102 through 109; 236.376 through 236.387; 236.576 and
236.577; and 236.586 through 236.589, including results of periodic
tests, must be retained until the next record is filed, but no less
than one year. Additionally, Sec.  236.587 requires each railroad to
make a departure test of the cab signal, automatic train stop, or train
control devices on locomotives prior to a locomotive entering equipped
territory. This section further requires that whoever performs the
departure test must certify in writing that the test was properly
performed. The certification and test results must be posted in the
locomotive cab with a copy of the certification and test results
retained at the office of the supervisory official. However, if it is
impractical to leave a copy of the certification and test results at
the location where the test is conducted, then the test results must be
transmitted to either the dispatcher or another designated official who
must keep a written record of the test results and the name of the
person performing the test. All records prepared under this section are
required to be retained for 92 days. Finally, Sec.  236.590 requires
railroads to clean and inspect the pneumatic apparatus of automatic
train stop, train control, or cab signal devices on locomotives as
required by Sec.  229.29(a).
    Type of Request: Extension with change of a currently approved
information collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.14.
    Respondent Universe: 741 Railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 1,673,437.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 444,820 hours.

    Title: Inspection Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and
Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment (Power Brakes).
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0008.
    Abstract: Recognizing the importance of upgrading rail
technologies, Congress in 1980 passed the Rock Island Railroad
Transition and Employee Assistance Act (the ``Rock Island Act''),
which, inter alia, provides statutory relief for the implementation of
new technologies. More specifically, when certain statutory
requirements preclude the development or implementation of more
efficient railroad transportation equipment or other transportation
innovations, the applicable section of the Rock Island Act, currently
codified at 49 U.S.C. 20306, provides the Secretary of Transportation
with the authority to grant an exemption to those requirements based on
evidence received and findings developed at a hearing. In accordance
with that statute, FRA held a public hearing and invoked its
discretionary authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to provide a limited
exemption from 49 U.S.C. 20303 for freight trains and freight cars
operating with electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake systems.
In doing so, FRA revised the regulations governing freight power brakes
and equipment in October 2008 by adding a new subpart G. The revisions
are designed to provide for and encourage the safe implementation and
use of ECP brake system technologies. These revisions contain specific
requirements on the design, interoperability, training, inspection,
testing, handling of defective equipment, and periodic maintenance
related to ECP brake systems. The final rule also provides flexibility
to facilitate the voluntary adoption of this advanced brake system
technology. The collection of information is used by FRA to monitor and
enforce regulatory requirements related to power brakes on freight
cars, including the requirements related to ECP brake systems. The
collection of information is also used by locomotive engineers and road
crews to verify that the terminal air brake test has been performed in
a satisfactory manner.
    Type of Request: Extension with change of a currently approved
information collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 741 Railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 30,518,808.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 1,045,478 hours.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Juan D. Reyes III,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2018-23586 Filed 10-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


Information Collection Request

For the Revisions to 40 CFR Parts 72 & 75

Supporting Statement

1.0  Identification of the Information Collection

1.1  Title of the Information Collection

	Revisions to the Emissions Monitoring Rule under the Acid Rain Program,
NOx Budget Trading Program, Clean Air Interstate Programs; Amendments to
the Protocol Gas Verification Program and the Minimum Competency
Requirements for Air Emission Testing, EPA ICR Number 2203.03, OMB
Control Number 2060-0626

1.2  Background

	Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the Acid Rain Title)
established goals to reduce annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx), and placed a national cap on SO2 emissions
beginning in the year 2000.  To ensure compliance with the emissions
reduction requirements and to provide the national consistency needed to
foster the allowance market, Sections 408 and 412 of Title IV require
the designated representative of the owners and operators of each
affected acid rain source to obtain an operating permit for the affected
source and to certify that an approved emissions monitoring system has
been installed and is properly operated at each affected unit's source
of emissions.  In addition, under a Federal NOx Budget Trading Program
developed in conjunction with ozone attainment efforts in the eastern
United States, many additional sources also had to meet similar
requirements as part of a regional emissions trading program.  In May
2005, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which has
broadened the trading program concept to additional sources.

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

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

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

The rulemaking covered by this ICR outlines new, revised reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for facilities subject to Part 75.  The
proposed rule requires such facilities to follow requirements that
assure that facilities properly use Air Emission Testing Bodies (AETBs)
that meet certain standards and obtain EPA Protocol gas from vendors
that participate in EPA's Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP).  The
PGVP program requires any participating EPA protocol gas production site
to meet certain requirements and notify the Administrator of its intent
to participate on an annual basis.  Under the quality assurance and
quality control requirements, Part 75 facilities must use AETBs that
meet the revised requirements under Appendix A to Part 75, Section
6.1.2, which includes a specification that the requirements (e.g.,
qualification exams) of ASTM D7036-04 apply to RATAs, stack testing, and
NOx emission testing.  These new requirements clarify the documentation
needed for proof of compliance, including certification, quality
assurance, and quality control record provisions.  Some of these changes
may in fact, reduce the burden for sources and AETBs by streamlining the
process.

This ICR covers the specific elements and burden that will result from
the new AETB requirements, including passing the Qualified Stack Test
Individual (QSTI) competency exam and development of a QA manual by
affected stack testing companies, and the new PGVP requirements
including annual notifications and re-notifications that include the
specialty gas company name; the name and address of each participating
EPA Protocol gas production site owned or operated by the specialty gas
company; and the name, email address and phone number of a contact
person at each site.  This ICR also covers the burden associated with
some minor changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under
Part 75.  The cost incurred on affected sources (or respondents) will be
in the form of increased fees charged by AETBs and vendors participating
in the PGVP, which are expected to pass along the costs necessitated by
the new requirements in the proposed rule as well as the burden
associated with ensuring that the minor modifications to the
requirements for reporting AETB and PGVP related information to EPA are
met on an ongoing basis.  This ICR also covers the small increase in
Agency burden to manage these programs and track compliance.

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

1.3  Information to Be Collected

	The existing requirements in 40 CFR Part 75 are mandatory for all
sources subject to the Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the Clean Air
Act, as well as certain other emissions trading programs administered by
EPA.  These requirements are covered by existing ICRs for the Acid Rain
Program (ICR No. 1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258) and the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0570).  The
information requirements in this ICR are based on revisions to the
minimum competency requirements for air emission testing, and reflect
the increase in costs to sources that need to pay for services provided
by stack testers and stack testing companies.  The proposed rule
contains some minor reporting and recordkeeping provisions related to
the AETB and PGVP requirements, and EPA assumes that there will be a
small additional burden associated with these requirements.  Thus, this
ICR covers:  (1) the incremental increase in testing costs that will be
passed along to sources from air emission testing bodies (i.e., stack
testers and stack testing companies) due to the increased burden
resulting from revisions to the minimum competency requirements for
these companies; (2) the incremental increase in the cost of EPA
Protocol gas cylinders that will be passed along to sources from vendors
participating in PGVP due to the increased burden resulting from
revisions to the cylinder analysis, reporting and notification
requirements for these companies; (3) the one time labor burden for
sources to review the new requirements included in the rule; and (4) the
increase in burden to Part 75 affected sources for complying with the
modified recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the
AETB and PGVP provisions.

	Nearly all burdens associated with Part 72 and 75 requirements for the
affected sources that report data, will remain covered by the underlying
ICRs of the existing programs.  The burden estimates under the existing
program ICRs will be adjusted accordingly to reflect the additional
burdens and costs summarized in this ICR when those existing program
ICRs are updated.  At that time, EPA will re-examine the overall
reporting and recordkeeping burdens generally under Part 75 as revised
by these AETB and PGVP-related requirements.

The annual respondent reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to be 2,254 labor hours, which results in an
associated annual cost of $181,881 and reflects the small amount of time
per year for respondents to review the updated rule requirements.  In
addition, there is an annual operations and maintenance-related cost to
respondents of $900,108 due to the expected increase in fees charged by
AETBs and vendors participating in PGVP resulting from the additional
requirements imposed by this proposed rule.  As such, the total annual
cost to respondents as a result of this proposed rule is estimated to be
$1,081,989.

2.0  Need For and Use of the Collection

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

2.1  Need/Authority for the Collection

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

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

2.2  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

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

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

3.0  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

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

3.1  Nonduplication

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

3.2  Consultations

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

3.3  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

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

3.4  Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions

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

4.0  The Respondents and the Information Requested

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

4.1  Respondents/NAICS Codes

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

4.2  Information Requested

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

4.2.1  Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements

	There are a small number of new data items requested from respondents
under the proposed rule.  These include revisions to §§75.53, 75.58,
and 75.59, that add various data elements that were inadvertently left
out of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule and the January 24, 2008 final
rule.  These data elements have already been incorporated in the DAHS of
Part 75 affected units and are required to ensure that EPA's new
reporting software data requirements are consistent with the regulatory
requirements.  As such, the incremental changes to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements add only a small additional burden for sources.
This ICR covers the small one-time burden associated with the
respondents' review of the Part 75 revisions included in the proposed
rule, the small annual burden associated with ensuring compliance with
the additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and the
marginal increase in fees charged by AETBs and vendors participating in
the PGVP to respondents (i.e., the increase that can be attributed to
the new testing competency requirements in the rule and the new cylinder
analysis, reporting and notification requirements for PGVP vendors).

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

	4.2.2  Respondent Activities

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

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

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

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

5.1  Agency Activities

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

5.2  Collection Methodology and Management

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

5.3  Small Entity Flexibility

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

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

5.4  Collection Schedule

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

6.0  Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collections

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

6.1  Estimating Respondent Burden

	The primary tasks performed by AETBs as a result of the proposed rule
are to comply with the ASTM D7036-04, which includes:  (1) taking a
qualified stack test individual competency exam; and (2) developing or
revising a quality assurance manual.  The primary tasks performed by
vendors participating in EPA's PGVP as a result of the proposed rule are
to have a small number of their cylinders analyzed with results reported
to EPA, and provide an annual notification to EPA.  Although AETBs and
PGVP vendors are not considered to be respondents to which the ICR
requirements apply, the resulting increase in costs to comply with these
requirements will be passed on to Part 75 sources in the form of
increased fees.

For affected sources, the proposed rule contains some minor reporting
and recordkeeping provisions related to the AETB and PGVP requirements
and also requires a small number of other additional data elements to be
reported.  For the AETB-related requirements, sources need to record and
report the following information as provided by the AETB in electronic
and hardcopy format:  the name, telephone number and e-mail address
associated with the AETB and the name of the on-site Qualified
Individual.  Also, for the reference method(s) that were performed,
sources need to report the expiration date of the evidence (such as a
certificate from a qualification exam provider) that the Qualified
Individual has passed the relevant qualification exam(s) required by
ASTM D 7036-04; and the name and email address of the qualification exam
provider; and certificate of accreditation or interim accreditation for
the relevant test method issued by a recognized national accreditation
body or a letter of certification for the relevant test methods signed
by a member of the senior management staff of the AETB (recordkeeping
only in electronic or hardcopy format).  For the PGVP-related reporting
requirements, sources need to report certain information for the mid- or
high-level EPA Protocol gas (as applicable) that is used for daily
calibration error tests, and for the low-, mid-, and high-level gases
used for quarterly linearity checks (the information required is
reported for each gas monitor and for both low and high measurement
ranges).  Note that for O2, instead of reporting this information, if
purified air is used as the high-level gas for daily calibrations or
linearity checks, sources need to record the following information for
the low- and mid-level EPA Protocol gas used for linearity checks:

(1) Gas level code;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since the procedures and systems allowing for these data to be reported
are already in place and being used, EPA has assumed that the burden
associated with these additional reporting requirements are relatively
small.  As EPA renews the underlying ICRs for Part 75 [i.e., the Acid
Rain Program (ICR No. 1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258), and the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0570)],
EPA will reevaluate the burden associated with these reporting
activities in conjunction with reviewing the estimated burdens for all
other aspects of Part 75 recordkeeping and reporting.

6.2  Estimating Respondent Costs

	The annual respondent costs will consist of:  1) the costs associated
with a small labor burden for sources to review the new requirements
included in the proposed rule and comply with the modified reporting
requirements; and 2) the marginal increase in fees resulting from the
new AETB and PGVP requirements.  To estimate labor costs, EPA used the
Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) National Industry-specific
Occupational Wage Estimates (May 2008) for the Engine and Turbines
Industry under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 351 and
increased by a factor of 1.6 to account for benefits and overhead.  A
reference between the applicable SIC and NAICS codes used to update
hourly rates for this ICR is available on the BLS website at:
HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics3_336000.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/naics3_336000.htm .  The mean hourly
rate of $80.71 used for this ICR is based on an even split between the
following two labor categories:  Mechanical Engineers (SOC Code 17-2141)
of $33.75 ($54.00 when increased by a factor of 1.6) and Lawyers (SOC
Code 23-1011) of $67.14 ($107.42 when increased by a factor of 1.6).

6.3  Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

	EPA estimates that there will be an incremental additional burden
associated with maintaining and updating the list of vendors that
participate in the PGVP, and associated with reviewing the reported
credentials of Qualified Individuals associated with an AETB.  EPA will:

1.  Review PGVP applications, post the PGVP participants on Agency web
sites, and make adjustments as needed;

2.  Review and post cylinder analysis results; and

3.  Develop and implement annual work assignments for obtaining
cylinders for auditing purposes.

EPA estimates that one staff person will need to spend a total of 100
hours per year to complete these tasks.  In addition, there will be a
one-time burden of 21 hours associated with software programming that
will be necessary to ensure that each Part 75 stack test has basic
information for the corresponding AETB and Qualified Individual.  EPA
estimates a burden of 40 hours per year to review and resolve any issues
or problems associated with ensuring that the AETB and Qualified
Individual information is both accurate and current.

Government cost is based on GS-13 salary for professional engineers
($43.99/hr), adjusted by a factor of 1.6 to account for government
benefits, resulting in a final rate of $70.38/hr.  The hourly rate was
obtained from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Salary Table
2009-GS" (http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/html/gs_h.asp).  Agency time
is estimated for managing the PGVP (which encompass all four activities
listed above) in Table 1 below.  Note that there are no capital or
operation and maintenance costs associated with the Agency burden.

Table 1

Agency Burden and Cost

Information Collection Activity	Number of Responses 	Labor Cost Per
Response ($70.38/hr)	Hours Per Response	Total Hours Per Year	Total Cost
Per Year

Manage PGVP 	50	140.76	2	100	$7,038

Software Programming for AETB	1	492.66	7	7	$493

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

TOTAL	147	$10,346

6.4  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

EPA used a combination of the existing Acid Rain Program (ICR No.
1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258) and the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0570) to estimate the total number
of respondents, labor costs, and O&M costs to determine impacts of the
rule.  Based on these previously established numbers EPA estimates that
there are total of 1,502 facilities that will be respondents affected by
the requirements of the rule.  This includes facilities affected by both
ARP and CAIR.  Each of these respondents will be subject to a total
one-time burden of three hours (i.e., one hour per year during the time
period covered by this ICR) to review the rule requirements as well as
an annual burden of one-half hour to ensure compliance with the modified
recordkeeping and reporting requirements (as described in Section 6.1
above) at mean hourly labor cost of $80.71, which results in a total
annual cost of $181,881 (See Table 2 below).

Table 2

Burden Cost to Respondents

Information Collection Activity	Mean Hourly Rate	Hours per Activity/

Year	Number of Respondents

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

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

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

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

CAIR Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting Requirements

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

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

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

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

Total	1,502

2,254

	$181,881

In addition to the respondent burden associated with rule review and
compliance with the modified reporting requirements, EPA estimated the
burden associated with increased annual quality-assurance and
maintenance for each unit.  Based on information provided by stack
testing firms, a conservative one percent increase was applied to the
previously established annual O&M costs per unit at each respondent
facility.  The PGVP vendors that were contacted estimated an increased
cost of two dollars or less per cylinder.  EPA assumes that these costs
will be passed on to respondents.  To calculate increased O&M costs per
respondent, EPA assumed an average six cylinders per year per unit at an
increased cost of two dollars per cylinder which results in an overall
increase of $54,156 per year.  As such, the QA testing and maintenance
costs for units affected by ARP and CAIR along with the increased
cylinder costs that are passed along to respondents by PGVP vendors,
results in an estimated total annual cost of $900,108 for Part 75 QA
activities (see Table 3).  Note that only the marginal increase in fees
that can be attributed to the requirements for AETBs and PGVP vendors in
the proposed rule were included in this estimate.

Table 3

Increased Annual QA and Maintenance Costs*

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

(Units)	Increased Total Cost/Year

ARP Perform QA Testing and Maintenance

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

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

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

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

CAIR Perform QA Testing and Maintenance

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

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

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

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

●	Non ARP Sources in O3 Only States

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

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

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

PGVP Increased Costs

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

$12	4,513	$54,156

Total	$900,108

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

6.5  Reasons for Change in Burden

	The burden estimated in the preceding ICR (2203.03) included the
one-time burden associated with reviewing the January 2008 Part 75 rule
revisions, as well as the burden associated with DAHS upgrades and
debugging.  The one-time burden for reviewing the January 2008 Part 75
revisions in the rule no longer applies and the burden associated with
DAHS upgrades is currently included in the program-specific ICR for all
affected sources.  As noted above, this collection request reflects the
additional one-time burden for Part 75 sources to review the
AETB-related and PGVP-related requirements in the rule, the annual
burden associated with complying with the modified reporting
requirements, and the additional O&M costs that Part 75 sources will
incur as a result of increased AETB and PGVP costs for Part 75 testing
due to compliance with the revised requirements.  EPA assumes that these
costs may be passed along to Part 75 sources in the form of higher
testing fees.  This ICR also reflects the Agency burden associated with
maintenance and quality assurance of the PGVP and AETB programs.

6.6  Burden Statement

	The total annual respondent burden is estimated to be 2,254 hours, with
total annual labor and O&M costs estimated to be $1,081,989.  This
estimate includes the burden associated with the increase in fees from
AETBs and PGVP vendors resulting from their compliance with the new
requirements in the rule as well as the small labor burden for sources
to review the new requirements and comply with the modified
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.  When the respondent burden is
combined with the Agency burden, the overall burden and cost per year is
estimated to be 2,401 hours and $1,092,335, respectively.

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

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

Appendix A

Summary of Revisions in Proposed Rule

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

●	Revised 75.21(g) to require any EPA Protocol gas production site
that participates in the PGVP to notify the Agency of its intent to
participate.  Program participants would need to notify EPA of their
intent to participate on an annual basis.  EPA would issue a vendor ID
number to each participant, which would then be a required data element
in each electronic quarterly report.  EPA will maintain a list of
participants and other program information on a website.

●	Revised the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under §§75.59
and 75.64 to enable EPA to verify that Part 75 affected sources are
using EPA Protocol gases from participating sites and to inform gas
cylinder selection for the PGVP audits.   The new electronic quarterly
data elements in §75.64 would be reported on and after January 1, 2011
and would be submitted prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the
relevant quarterly electronic data report.

●	Amended §6.5.10 of Appendix A to Part 75 to require that the EPA
Protocol gases used when performing Methods 3A, 6C, or 7E must be from
EPA Protocol gas production sites participating in the PGVP.

●	Added simple recordkeeping requirements under §75.59, and reporting
requirements under §75.63 and §75.64 to allow the Agency to verify
that a Qualified Individual and an Air Emission Testing Body meet the
applicable requirements (see Appendix B).  Recordkeeping and reporting
elements include the name, telephone number and email address of the Air
Emission Testing Body and the on-site Qualified Individual, and the name
and email address of the QI exam provider, and date of the exam.

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

●	Removed mercury monitoring provisions.

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

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

●	Amended §75.6 to add Section 3, Small Volume Provers, First Edition
to the American Petroleum Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum
Measurement Standards, Chapter 4 -- Proving Systems.

●	Amended §§75.53, 75.58, and 75.59, by adding various data elements
that were inadvertently left out of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule
and the January 24, 2008 final rule.  These data elements have already
been incorporated in the data acquisition and handling systems of Part
75 affected units, and are needed to make EPA's new reporting software
data requirements consistent with the
regul瑡牯⁹敲畱物浥湥獴ഠ

●	Proposed to revise §75.22(a)(5)(iv) to only allow “dynamic
spiking” as an additional Method 7E quality assurance check; and
paragraph (v) to disallow multiple Method 7E runs to be performed before
conducting the post-run bias or system calibration error check.

●	Proposed to remove from §75.47(b)(3) the requirement for an owner
or operator to demonstrate that emissions for a class-approved
alternative monitoring system (AMS) are de minimis and proposed to
remove the requirement for EPA to publish a FR notice for a 30-day
public comment period prior to granting a class-approved AMS.

●	Proposed to add a new paragraph (d) to §§75.62 and 75.63 to
require the Designated Representative or the Alternate Designated
Representative to enclose a hard copy cover letter with each hard copy
monitoring plan and certification or recertification submittal, but to
make it optional for electronic submittals.

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

hX+

^

~

x

¥

®

®

&

&

&

&

&

hX+

&

&

&

&

&

&

  hX+

hX+

&

&

&

&

&

hM

hM

h>

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

␃؁Ĥ☊ଌF愀Ĥ摧夷

kd'

kd

&

&

&

hD(

␱愁Ĥ摧杉

h>

hY

h>

&

ndix A, Section 5.1.4(b) and Section 5.1.5 to clarify the meaning of the
plus or minus 2.0 percent performance specification for EPA Protocol
gases and research gas mixtures, and to update contact information for
the National Technical Information Service.

Appendix B

Summary of Standard Practice for Competence of Air Emission Testing
Bodies

(ASTM D7036-04)

	ASTM D7036-04 specifies general requirements for competence to perform
air emissions tests of stationary sources.  These standards were
developed by representatives from large and small stack testing
companies, state and Federal governments, and private industry.  Its
scope is nationwide and based largely on ISO 17025.  Note that any AETB
conducting RATAs of CEMS, Appendix E testing, or deriving default
emission rates for LME units under part 75 must conform to ASTM
D7036-04.  Following is a general overview of some key requirements.

Organization, Management, and Documentation:

●	Maintain a system that allows for monitoring the delivery and
improvement of services (as measured by performance data);

●	Maintain a legally identifiable and clearly defined organizational
structure, including parent organizations, staff responsibilities, and
provisions of support services;

●	Employ a technical manager/director, quality manager, and qualified
individual on-site for each test project (who is qualified for each test
method performed);

●	Maintain ability to provide documentation showing compliance with
relevant Federal, state and local requirements for conducting testing
procedures as well as health and safety and other relevant requirements;

●	Maintain procedures to control all documents required for the
established quality system;

●	Ensure that documents are uniquely identified and reviewed/approved
by same group that performed the original review; and

●	Maintain a document control system that allows for tracking
revisions or amendments.

Quality System, Audit, and Review:

●	Develop and maintain a quality assurance policy and a quality system
to ensure consistent achievement of data quality objectives;

●	Document the quality system in a manual that covers all elements
outlined in Appendix X1 of ASTM D7036-04; and

●	Conduct internal audits in accordance with Section 7.4.2 of ASTM
D7036-04.

Personnel:

●	Ensure competence of testing staff and maintain requirements for
staff training; and

●	Provide "Qualified Individuals" to oversee and supervise test
projects and ensure that these individuals take an exam every five years
and meet the experience requirements in Section 8.3.4 of ASTM D7036-04.

Environment, Equipment, and Test Methods:

●	Ensure that environmental conditions, access to test locations, or
cross-contamination do not invalidate test results;

●	Ensure adequate access by qualified individuals to fully operational
testing equipment and software;

&

&

&

he

he

ipment used; and

●	Use appropriate methods and procedures for all testing performed,
and document any deviations from the applicable regulations in the test
protocol or report that is established for each test project.

Recordkeeping and Reporting:

●	Maintain procedures for handling and storage of quality and
technical records;

●	Retain records of original observations, derived data, information
for audit trail, calibration records, and other information;

●	Accurately report the results of each test, calibration or series of
tests; and

●	Include the information outlined in Section 15.3 of ASTM D7036-04 in
each test report or calibration certificate.

Other Information:

●	Follow guidelines in Section 16 of ASTM D7036-04 if subcontractors
are used;

●	Maintain policies and procedures for the purchase and use of outside
support and supplies; and

●	Maintain policies and procedures in the event that nonconforming
work is completed, including an approach for corrective action.

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

DRAFT Information Collection Request

January 7, 2010

Page   PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  16

January 7, 2010

Appendix A

November 11, 2009

Page A-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2

Appendix B

November 11, 2009

Page B-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2


[Federal Register: September 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 54089-54090]
[DOCID:fr21se07-147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56444; File No. SR-ISE-2007-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Granting Approval to a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to a Quote Mitigation Plan for
Competitive Market Makers

September 14, 2007.
    On June 8, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt, on a one-year pilot
basis, a quote mitigation plan for the Exchange's Competitive Market
Makers (``CMMs''). On August 1, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No.
1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as amended,
was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 9, 2007.\3\
The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. This
order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56201 (August 3, 2007),
72 FR 44903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful review of the proposal, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\4\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing a quote mitigation plan for its CMMs on a
pilot basis for one year in no more than twenty securities (``Pilot
Program Securities'') to be designated by the Exchange. Under ISE's
current rules, a CMM must enter continuous quotations in all the series
of at least 60 percent of the options classes for the group or ``bin''
to which it is appointed, or 60 options classes in the Group, whichever
is less. Further, once a CMM enters a quote in an options class to
which it is appointed, it must continuously quote in all series of that
options class until the close of trading that day. ISE proposes to
amend its rule so that a CMM will be required to enter continuous
quotations in just 60 percent of the series, rather than in all series,
of the options classes overlying the Pilot Program Securities, to which
the CMM is appointed. Once a CMM enters a quote in a series, it must
continue to quote in that series until the close of trading that
day.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that ISE Rule 804(e)(2)(iii), which
states that a CMM may be called upon to submit quotes in one or more
series of options to which it is appointed in the interest of
maintaining fair and orderly markets, shall continue to apply under
the proposed pilot program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will issue a circular to CMMs identifying the initial
Pilot Program Securities.\7\ The Exchange notes that the Pilot Program
Securities selected by the Exchange are subject to

change based on the quoting activity in these securities. Each time a
change takes place in the Pilot Program Securities, the Exchange will
issue circulars to notify CMMs of this change and shall provide them
with adequate notice in order for them to make any required systems
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The initial proposed pilot will consist of up to 20 of the
most active classes, in terms of the number of quotes generated,
that are in the Exchange's Penny Pilot Program. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 55161 (January 24, 2007), 72 FR 4754
(February 1, 2007) (SR-ISE-2006-62) and 56151 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR
42452 (August 2, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-68).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change, which is
intended to alleviate capacity constraints on some market participants'
systems without adversely affecting the quality of the Exchange's
markets or the timely receipt of quote information, is consistent with
the Act. The Commission notes that it has already approved internal
quote mitigation strategies on other exchanges that relieve some market
makers of the obligation to quote every series of every class to which
they are appointed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(D)(1); see also Amex Rule
994(c)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2007-45), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-18686 Filed 9-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14349-14351]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6097]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0230; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-004-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Regional Aircraft
Model HP.137 Jetstream Mk.1, Jetstream Series 200, Jetstream Series
3101, and Jetstream Model 3201 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated 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:

    As a result of fatigue-testing programme on Jetstream
aeroplanes, cracks have been found on the main landing gear (MLG)
fittings that embody modifications JM5218 or JM8003.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a
MLG collapse on the ground or during landing, possibly resulting in
a fuel tank rupture, consequent damage to the aeroplane or injury to
the occupants.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 2, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://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 service information identified in this proposed AD, contact BAE
Systems (Operations) Ltd, Customer Information Department, Prestwick
International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom;
phone: +44 1292 675207, fax: +44 1292 675704; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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>.

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 this proposed AD, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0230;
Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-004-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2011-0016, dated February 1, 2011 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products..
The MCAI states:

    As a result of fatigue-testing programme on Jetstream
aeroplanes, cracks have been found on the main landing gear (MLG)
fittings that embody modifications JM5218 or JM8003.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a
MLG collapse on the ground or during landing, possibly resulting in
a fuel tank rupture, consequent damage to the aeroplane or injury to
the occupants.
    Analysis of this failure indicates that an inspection regime has
to be implemented in order to ensure the safe operation of the MLG
beyond the accumulation of 41,000 Flight Cycles (FC).
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires initial and
repetitive eddy current inspections, and depending on findings,
accomplishment of corrective actions.

The MCAI requires replacing or repairing any cracked MLG fitting found
during the initial and repetitive inspections. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    BAE Systems has issued British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 &
3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA090240, Revision 1, dated January 18, 2010.
The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the 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 our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 190 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 20 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 $323,000 or $1,700 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $8,000, for a cost of
$8,340 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 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the 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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

    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]

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

British Aerospace Regional Aircraft: Docket No. FAA-2011-0230;
Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-004-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 2, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model
HP.137 Jetstream Mk.1, Jetstream Series 200, Jetstream Series 3101,
and Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are:
    (1) Equipped with main landing gear (MLG) fittings, part number
(P/N) 1379133B1/B2/B3/B4 that incorporate Modifications JM5218 or
JM8003; and
    (2) certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    As a result of fatigue-testing programme on Jetstream
aeroplanes, cracks have been found on the main landing gear (MLG)
fittings that embody modifications JM5218 or JM8003.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a
MLG collapse on the ground or during landing, possibly resulting in
a fuel tank rupture, consequent damage to the aeroplane or injury to
the occupants.
    Analysis of this failure indicates that an inspection regime has
to be implemented in order to ensure the safe operation of the MLG
beyond the accumulation of 41,000 Flight Cycles (FC).
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires initial and
repetitive eddy current inspections, and depending on findings,
accomplishment of corrective actions.

The MCAI requires replacing or repairing any cracked MLG fitting
found during the initial and repetitive inspections. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Upon accumulating 41,000 flight cycles (landings) on the MLG
since first installation or within the next 2,000 flight cycles
(landings) on the MLG after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, eddy current inspect all the MLG leg pivot beam
fastener bores for cracks. Do the inspections following British
Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA090240,
Revision 1, dated January 18, 2010.
    (2) Before further flight after any inspection required in
paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2)(i), and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD in which
cracks are found, replace the MLG fitting or repair any cracks.
Cracks are defined in paragraph 2.D.(4) of British Aerospace
Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA090240, Revision
1, dated January 18, 2010. Replace or repair the MLG fitting
following British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service
Bulletin 32-JA090240, Revision 1, dated January 18, 2010. Any time
the MLG fitting is repaired or replaced, do the following actions as
applicable:
    (i) MLG fitting is replaced with a new MLG fitting as specified
in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD: Upon accumulating 41,000 flight
cycles (landings) after replacement, eddy current inspect all the
MLG leg pivot beam fastener bores for cracks. Do the inspections
following British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service
Bulletin 32-JA090240, Revision 1, dated January 18, 2010.
    (ii) MGL fitting is repaired as specified in paragraph (f)(2) of
this AD: Upon accumulating 27,000 flight cycles (landings) after the
last repair and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed
27,000 flight cycles (landings), eddy current inspect all the MLG
leg pivot beam fastener bores for cracks. Do the inspections
following British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service
Bulletin 32-JA090240, Revision 1, dated January 18, 2010.
    (3) If no cracks are found during any inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1), (f)(2)(i), or (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, repetitively
thereafter upon accumulating 27,000 flight cycles (landings) after
the last inspection, eddy current inspect all the MLG leg pivot beam
fastener bores for cracks.
    (4) As of the effective date of this AD, only install a MLG
fitting specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD that has been eddy
current inspected and found free of cracks following British
Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA090240,
Revision 1, dated January 18, 2010.
    (5) The compliance times of this AD are presented in flight
cycles (landings). If the total flight cycles have not been kept,
multiply the total number of airplane hours time-in-service by 0.75.
For the purposes of this AD:
    (1) 75 cycles equals 100 hours TIS; and
    (2) 750 cycles equals 1,000 hours TIS.

    Note 1: Credit will be given for the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this

AD and the corrective action required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD
if already done before the effective date of this AD following
British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32-
JA090240, original issue dated April 29, 2009; and BEA Systems All
Operator Message: Ref 09-014J-1, issue 1, dated July 31, 2009.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: 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: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2011-0016, dated February 1, 2011; British Aerospace Jetstream
Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA090240, original issue
dated April 29, 2009; British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200
Service Bulletin 32-JA090240, Revision 1, dated January 18, 2010;
and BAE Systems All Operator Message: Ref 09-014J-1, issue 1 dated
July 31, 2009, for related information. For service information
related to this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd, Customer
Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire,
KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 1292 675207, fax:
+44 1292 675704; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 10, 2011.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-6097 Filed 3-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P