[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50874-50877]
[DOCID:fr18au10-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0782; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-053-AD;
Amendment 39-16396; AD 2010-11-51]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model
AS350B, BA, B1, B2, C, D, and D1 Helicopters and Model AS355E, F, F1,
F2, and N Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document publishes in the Federal Register an amendment
adopting Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-11-51, which was sent
previously to all known U.S. owners and operators

of the specified Eurocopter model helicopters by individual letters.
This AD requires visually inspecting the tail gearbox (TGB) control
lever for a crack. If a crack is found, this AD also requires replacing
the cracked TGB control lever with an airworthy TGB control lever.
Optional terminating actions for the inspection requirements of this AD
can be done by either replacing a TGB control lever with an airworthy
TGB control lever that is marked with an ``X'' near the part number or
stripping the rework area and dye-penetrant inspecting that area for a
crack, and if no crack is found, reworking and marking the TGB control
lever. If a crack is found, removing and replacing the cracked TGB
control lever with an airworthy TGB control lever is required. This AD
is prompted by several reports of cracking in a TGB control lever. The
actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent failure of the TGB
control lever, loss of tail rotor control, and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

DATES: Effective September 2, 2010, to all persons except those persons
to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2010-11-51,
issued on May 11, 2010, which contained the requirements of this
amendment.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of September 2, 2010.
    Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before October 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this AD:
     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.
    You may get the service information identified in this AD from
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas
75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at http://
www.Eurocopter.com.
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the docket that contains the
AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J.R. Holton, Jr., Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety Management Group, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(817) 222-5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 11, 2010, the FAA issued Emergency AD
2010-11-51 for the specified Eurocopter model helicopters, which
requires visually inspecting the TGB control lever for a crack. If a
crack is found, the AD requires replacing the cracked TGB control lever
with an airworthy TGB control lever. Optional terminating actions for
the inspection requirements of the AD can be done by either replacing a
TGB control lever with an airworthy TGB control lever that is marked
with an ``X'' near the part number or stripping the rework area and
dye-penetrant inspecting that area for a crack, and if no crack is
found, reworking and marking the TGB control lever. If a crack is
found, the AD requires removing and replacing the cracked TGB control
lever with an airworthy TGB control lever. The AD was prompted by
several reports of cracking in a TGB control lever, including an
accident involving a Eurocopter Model AS350B2 helicopter. An
investigation revealed that a few surface anomalies may lead to a crack
in the TGB control lever. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in failure of the TGB control lever, loss of tail rotor control,
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    We have reviewed Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB)
No. 05.00.62, for Model AS350 helicopters and EASB No. 05.00.57 for
Model AS355 helicopters. Both EASBs are Revision 1, dated April 23,
2010, and both describe procedures for a visual inspection of the TGB
control lever for a crack that must be performed after the last flight
of each day and prior to exceeding 10 flying hours for each inspection.
The EASBs also describe a rework procedure for affected TGB control
levers, which must be accomplished within 660 flying hours or no later
than June 30, 2011, or before installing an affected TGB control lever
on a helicopter. The one Eurocopter EASB contains four different
service bulletin numbers (Nos. 05.00.62, 05.00.57, 05.00.38, and
05.00.35) applicable to four different Eurocopter model helicopters.
EASB No. 05.00.38 relates to Eurocopter Model AS550 helicopters, and
EASB No. 05.00.35 relates to Eurocopter Model AS555 helicopters.
Eurocopter Model AS550 and AS555 helicopters are military models and
are not type-certificated in the United States. This AD does not
incorporate EASB No. 05.00.38 nor EASB No. 05.00.35.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist
on these helicopter models. EASA advises of a crack discovered in a TGB
control lever, which could lead to a loss of tail rotor control and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. EASA classified the
service bulletin as mandatory and issued EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-
0082-E, dated April 27, 2010, to ensure the continued airworthiness of
these helicopters. The AD differs from EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-0082-
E as follows:
     We include the Eurocopter Model AS350C and AS350D1
helicopters that may contain the affected TGB control lever;
     We use the term ``hours time-in-service'' rather than
``flight hours'';
     We do not require replacing the TGB control lever within
660 hours TIS or 14 months, but instead offer optional terminating
actions for the repetitive inspection requirements; and
     We do not require you to contact Eurocopter if a crack is
found during any inspection.
    These helicopter models are type certificated for operation in the
United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable
bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the applicable bilateral agreement,
EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described. The FAA has
examined the findings of EASA, reviewed all available information, and
determined that AD action is necessary for products of these type
designs that are certificated for operation in the United States.
    Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop
on other Eurocopter model helicopters of these same type designs, the
FAA issued Emergency AD 2010-11-51 to prevent failure of the TGB
control lever, loss of tail rotor control, and subsequent loss of

control of the helicopter. The AD requires within 10 hours time-in-
service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS,
visually inspecting the TGB control lever for a crack. If a crack is
found, the AD requires replacing the cracked TGB control lever with an
airworthy TGB control lever before further flight. Optional terminating
actions for the inspection requirements of the AD can be accomplished
by either replacing a TGB control lever with an airworthy TGB control
lever that is marked with an ``X'' near the part number or stripping
the rework area and dye-penetrant inspecting that area for a crack, and
if no crack is found, reworking and marking the TGB control lever
before further flight. If a crack is found, removing and replacing the
cracked TGB control lever with an airworthy TGB control lever is
required before further flight. The actions must be done by following
the specified portions of the service bulletin described previously.
    The short compliance time involved is required because the
previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the
controllability and structural integrity of the helicopter. Therefore,
visually inspecting the TGB control lever for a crack is required
within 10 hours TIS replacing any cracked TGB is required before
further flight, and this AD must be issued immediately.
    Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required,
notice and opportunity for prior public comment thereon were
impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause
existed to make the AD effective immediately by individual letters
issued on May 11, 2010, to all known U.S. owners and operators of the
specified Eurocopter model helicopters. These conditions still exist,
and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment
to 14 CFR 39.13 to make it effective to all persons.
    The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 791 helicopters of U.S.
registry. The initial and repetitive inspections for a crack in the TGB
control lever will take a minimal amount of time. The average labor
rate is $85 per work hour. Replacing a control lever, will take about 3
work hours, and the required parts will cost about $2,103 per
helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the
AD on U.S. operators to be $1,865,178, assuming the control lever is
replaced on the entire fleet. If you choose to dye-penetrant inspect,
remove, rework, and replace the lever, it will take about 5 work hours,
and the parts will cost about $20 per helicopter. Based on these
figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be
$351,995, assuming no control levers are found cracked.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect
flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for
public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written data,
views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0782; Directorate
Identifier 2010-SW-053-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light 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
with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of our
docket Web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment. You
may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the 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 an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic evaluation.

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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to
read as follows:

2010-11-51 Eurocopter France: Amendment 39-16396. Docket No. FAA-
2010-0782; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-053-AD.

    Applicability: Model AS350B, BA, B1, B2, C, D, and D1
helicopters and Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters, with a
tail gearbox (TGB) control lever, part number (P/N) 350A33-1058-00,
P/N 350A33-1058-01, P/N 350A33-1058-02, or P/N 350A33-1058-03, that
is not marked with an ``X'' near the P/N, installed, certificated in
any category.
    Compliance: Required as indicated.
    To detect cracking in a TGB control lever and prevent failure of
the TGB control lever, loss of tail rotor control, and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
    (a) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), unless accomplished
previously, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS,
visually inspect the affected TGB control

lever for cracking in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 2.B.1.a., in Eurocopter Emergency Alert
Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 05.00.62, Revision 1, dated April 23,
2010, for Model AS350 helicopters or EASB No. 05.00.57, Revision 1,
dated April 23, 2010, for Model AS355 helicopters.
    (b) If a crack is found, before further flight, remove and
replace the cracked TGB control lever with an airworthy TGB control
lever in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph
2.B.2., in the EASB appropriate for your model helicopter.
    (c) Either of the following options constitutes a terminating
action for the inspection requirements of this AD:
    (1) Replace a TGB control lever with an airworthy TGB control
lever that is marked with an ``X'' near the P/N; or
    (2) Strip the rework area ``B'' as shown in Figure 4 of each
EASB and perform a dye-penetrant inspection on that area for a
crack. If no crack is found, rework and mark the TGB control lever
in accordance with paragraph 2.B.3.b. of the EASB appropriate for
your model helicopter, except you are not required to contact
Eurocopter France. If a crack is found, before further flight,
remove and replace the cracked TGB control lever with an airworthy
TGB control lever in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 2.B.2., in the EASB.

    Note 1: One Eurocopter EASB contains four different service
bulletin numbers but only portions of 2 EASBs are being
incorporated.

    Note 2: Installing a reinforced TGB control lever, P/N 350A33-
1524-00 or P/N 350A33-1526-00, that does not need to be marked with
an ``X'' constitutes compliance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

    (d) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, ATTN: J.R.
Holton, Jr., Aviation Safety Engineer, ASW-112, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (817) 222-
5961, for information about previously approved alternative methods
of compliance.
    (e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where
the inspection requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD can be
accomplished.
    (f) The Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code is 6720:
Tail Rotor Control System.
    (g) Inspecting, replacing the control lever or removing,
reworking, and replacing the control lever shall be done in
accordance with the specified portions of Eurocopter Emergency Alert
Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 05.00.62, Revision 1, dated April 23,
2010, for Model AS350 helicopters or EASB No. 05.00.57, Revision 1,
dated April 23, 2010, for Model AS355 helicopters. The Director of
the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive,
Grand Prairie, Texas 75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (972)
641-3710, or at http://www.Eurocopter.com. Copies may be inspected
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas, or at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (h) This amendment becomes effective on September 2, 2010, to
all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately
effective by Emergency AD 2010-11-51, issued May 11, 2010, which
contained the requirements of this amendment.

    Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (France) Emergency AD No. 2010-0082-E, dated April 27,
2010.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 2, 2010.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19818 Filed 8-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 82 (Thursday, April 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20096-20098]
[FR Doc No: E9-9973]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT

Noise Exposure Map Notice and Receipt of Noise Compatibility
Program and Request for Review for Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by the City of Los
Angeles for Van Nuys Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et
seq. (Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act) and 14 CFR Part 150 are
in compliance with applicable requirements. The FAA also announces that
it is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program that was
submitted for Van Nuys Airport under Part 150 in conjunction with the
noise exposure map, and that this program will be approved or
disapproved on or before October 16, 2009.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's determination on
the noise exposure maps and of the start of its review of the
associated noise compatibility program is April 20, 2009. The public
comment period ends June 18, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victor Globa, Environmental Protection
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles Airports
District Office, Mailing Address: P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA
90009-2007. Street Address: 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne,
California 90261. Telephone 310/725-3637. Documents reflecting this FAA
action may be reviewed at the same location. Comments on the proposed
noise compatibility program should also be submitted to the above
office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the noise exposure maps submitted for Van Nuys Airport are in
compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective April
20, 2009. Further, FAA is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility
program for that airport which will be approved or disapproved on or
before October 16, 2009. This notice also announces the availability of
this program for public review and comment.
    Under 49 U.S.C., section 47503 (the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as ``the Act''), an airport
operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet
applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of
the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected
aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect
such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation
with interested and affected parties in the local community, government
agencies, and persons using the airport.
    An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are
found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act,
may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets
forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce
existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional
non-compatible uses.
    The City of Los Angeles submitted to the FAA on December 5, 2008,
noise exposure maps, descriptions and other documentation that were
produced during the Van Nuys Airport Part 150 Study December 1, 1988 to
December 5, 2008. It was requested that the FAA review this material as
the noise exposure maps, as described in section 47503 of the Act, and
that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the
airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a noise
compatibility program under section 47504 of the Act.
    The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and
related descriptions submitted by the City of Los Angeles. The specific
documentation determined to constitute the noise exposure maps
includes: Exhibit 1 ``Official Noise Exposure Map Existing
Conditions--2001'' and Exhibit 3 ``Official Noise Exposure Map
Future Conditions--2006 With Mitigation Measures.'' The Noise Exposure
Maps contain current and forecast information including the depiction
of the airport and its boundaries, the runway configurations, land uses
such as residential, commercial, industrial, community facilities,
libraries, schools, churches, open space, hospitals, landmarks, and
those areas within the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) 65, 70
and 75 noise contours. Estimates for the number of people within these
contours for the year 2001 are shown in Exhibit 1. Estimates of the
future residential population within the 2006 noise contours are shown
in Exhibit 3. Flight tracks for the existing and the five-year forecast
Noise Exposure Maps are found in Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The
type and frequency of aircraft operations (including nighttime
operations) are found in Table 4. The FAA has determined that these
maps for Van Nuys Airport are in compliance with applicable
requirements. This determination is effective on April 20, 2009. FAA's
determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited
to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the
procedures contained in appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such determination
does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or
plans, or constitute a commitment to approve a noise compatibility
program or to fund the implementation of that program.
    If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific
properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map
submitted under section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the
FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of
specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in
interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning,
for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of
section 47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the
ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local
government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way
under Part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps.
Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise
exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface
rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted those maps,
or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which
consultation is required under section 47503 of the Act. The FAA has
relied on the certification by the airport operator, under section
150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has
been accomplished.
    The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for
Van Nuys Airport, also effective on April 20, 2009. Preliminary review
of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to the
requirements for the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but
that further review will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval
of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum
of 180 days, will be completed on or before October 16, 2009.
    The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the
provisions of 14 CFR Part 150, section 150.33. The primary
considerations in the evaluation process are whether the

proposed measures may reduce the level of aviation safety, create an
undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, or be reasonably
consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing non-compatible
land uses and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible
land uses.
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program
with specific reference to these factors. All comments, other than
those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be
considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the noise
exposure maps, the FAA's evaluation of the maps, and the proposed noise
compatibility program are available for examination at the following
locations:

Federal Aviation Administration, National Headquarters, Planning and
Environmental Division, APP-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Office,
Airports Division, Room 3012, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne,
California 90261.
Federal Aviation Administration, LAX Airports District Office, 15000
Aviation Boulevard, Room 3000, Hawthorne, California 90261.
Roger Johnson, Deputy Executive Director, Los Angeles World Airports, 1
World Way, Los Angeles, CA 90045-5803.

    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California, on April 20, 2009.
Mia Paredes Ratcliff,
Acting Manager, Airports Division, Western-Pacific Region, AWP-600.
[FR Doc. E9-9973 Filed 4-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NSPS for Standards of Performance for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction or Modification Commenced After June 11, 1973, and Prior to May 19, 1978 ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart K)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NSPS for Standards of Performance for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction or Modification Commenced After June 11, 1973, and Prior to May 19, 1978 ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart K).

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for the regulations published at 40 CFR part 60, subpart K were proposed on June 11, 1973, and promulgated on March 8, 1974. These regulations apply to facilities in 40 CFR part 60, subpart K that store petroleum liquids in: storage vessels with petroleum liquids which have a storage capacity greater than 151,416 liters ( 40,000 gallons), and for which construction commenced after June 11, 1973, and prior to May 19, 1978; storage vessels greater than 151,416 liters ( 40,000 gallons) but not exceeding 246,052 liters ( 65,000 gallons), and where construction or modification commenced after March 8, 1974, and prior to May 19, 1978; storage vessels that have a capacity greater than 246,052 liters ( 65,000 gallons), and where construction or modification commenced after June 11, 1973, and prior to May 19, 1978. Affected facilities report only if a storage vessel is no longer subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart K and will now be subject to the current storage vessel standard, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. The subpart K standards also require the owner/ operator to document ( recordkeeping) the activities of the storage period, the maximum true vapor pressure, and the type of petroleum liquid stored. This information is recorded only when a petroleum liquid is changed in the storage vessel. Facilities that are not subject to the Standards of Performance for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids, 40 CFR part 60, subpart K, are storage vessels of petroleum or condensate stored, processed, and/ or treated at a drilling and production facility prior to custody transfer. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart K.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, are required of all sources subject to NSPS. 2 Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) regional office.

Approximately 5,500 sources are currently subject to the regulation, and it is estimated that no new sources will become subject to the regulation in the next three years. The number of respondents was determined from a data pull of the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) Facility Subsystem ( AFS), discussions with EPA Regional staff, and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance staff working on projects relating to the petroleum refinery sector. Storage vessels built, reconstructed or modified after May 19, 1978, are subject to the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ka or 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb requirements. It is further assumed that there is an average of 25 affected facilities per plant ( respondent). The estimated number of respondents under this regulation is estimated to be 220, with an estimated overall burden imposed on the regulated industry of 669 hours, at a total estimated cost of $ 42,903. The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) approved the currently active information collection request ( ICR) without any " Terms of Clearance."

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA), as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which ( taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. Section 111( a)( l)

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology ( BDT). Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years. In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

( A) Establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such a manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment 3 parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) emissions from storage vessels for petroleum liquids cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 60, subpart K.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of emissions of volatile organic compounds from storage vessels for petroleum liquids requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of volatile organic compounds from these vessels for petroleum liquids are the result of operation of the affected facilities. The subject standards are achieved by the reduction of volatile organic compound emissions using vapor recovery, floating roof, or their equivalent. The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source became subject to the requirements of the regulations. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and the regulations are being met. The information generated by the ( monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting) requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NSPS continue to operate the control equipment in compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart K.

3( a) Nonduplication If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency. If a state or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, no duplication exists. 4 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2003 ( 68 FR 27059). No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations The number of respondents was determined from a data pull of the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) Facility Subsystem ( AFS), discussions with EPA Regional staff, and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance staff working on projects relating to the petroleum refinery sector.

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

3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR Part 1320, Section 1320.5.

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

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions. 5 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC and NAICS Codes The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are:

Regulation SIC Codes NAICS Codes 40 CFR part 60, subpart K 2911 32411 2951 324121 2952 324122 2922 324191 2999 324199 4( b) Information requested ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart K, Standards of Performance for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids.

A source must make the following reports.

Notification Reports Construction/ reconstruction. 60.7( a)( 1)

Physical or operational change. 60.7( a)( 4)

A source must keep the following records.

Recordkeeping Records are required to be retained for 2 years. 60.7( f)

Owner/ Operator shall maintain a record of the petroleum liquid stored, the period of storage and the maximum true vapor pressure of that liquid during the respective storage period. 60.113( a)

Maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction. 60.7( b) 6 ( ii.) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate floating roof or vapor recovery system.

Perform an initial performance test, according to manufacturers' instructions, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

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

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

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

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.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System ( AFS). 7 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard. This information will be used to monitor vapor recovery, floating roof or their equivalent pollution control devices, thus ensuring continuous compliance with the standard. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

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

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility There is a distribution of business sizes for the businesses that have storage vessels for petroleum liquids. A majority of the affected facilities are large entities ( e. g., large businesses). However, the impact on small entities ( e. g., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation. Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Burden of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements as a Result of the Standards for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction or Modification Commenced After June 11, 1973, and Prior to May 19, 1978/ NSPS subpart K.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the Subpart included in this ICR. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the 8 concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 669 ( Total Labor Hours from Table 1). These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses a Technical Labor Rate of $ 64.13 per hour. This rate is from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2003, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rate has been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The only costs to the regulated industry resulting from information collection activities required by the subject standard( s) are labor costs. There are no capital/ startup or operation and maintenance costs.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the regulations are labor costs. There are no capital/ startup or operation and maintenance costs.

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

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 158. This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate at a GS 12, Step 1, times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses for a total of $ 39.49. These 9 rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2003 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: EPA Annual Burden of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements as a Result of the Standards for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction or Modification Commenced After June 11, 1973, and Prior to May 19, 1978/ NSPS subpart K, below.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Based on our research, approximately 5,500 sources are currently subject to the standard. It is estimated that no additional sources will become subject to the regulation in the next three years.

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

Number of Respondents Respondents That Submit Reports Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports Year ( A) Number of New Respondents ( B) Number of Existing Respondents ( C) Number of Existing Respondents that keep records but do not submit reports ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents ( E) Number of Respondents ( E= A+ B+ CD

1 0 2 218 N/ A 220 2 0 2 218 N/ A 220 3 0 2 218 N/ A 220 Average 0 2 218 N/ A 220 To avoid double counting respondents column D is subtracted. As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three year period of this ICR is 220. This number appears on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a), Number of respondents. 10 The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses ( A) Number of New Respondents ( B) Number of Reports for New Respondents ( C) Number of Existing Respondents ( D) Number of Reports for Existing Respondents ( F) Number of Existing Respondents that keep records but do not submit reports ( E) Total Annual Responses E=( AxB)+( CxD)+ F N/ A N/ A 2 1 218 220 The number of Total Annual Responses is 220. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses.

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 42,903. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Burden of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements as the Result of the Standards for Storage Vessels For Petroleum Liquids For Which Construction, Reconstruction or Modification Commenced After June 11, 1973, and Prior to May 19, 1978.

Note that the total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 0. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. These costs are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Tables The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents appear below. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to an adjustment. Calculation errors from the previous ICR in reference to the number of respondents were corrected in this ICR.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, 11 install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA 2003 0019, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is ( 202) 566 1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number OECA 2003 0019 and OMB Control Number 2060 0442 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. 12 Table 1: ANNUAL BURDEN OF RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AS A RESULT OF THE STANDARDS FOR STORAGE VESSELS FOR PETROLEUM LIQUIDS FOR WHICH CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION COMMENCED AFTER JUNE 11, 1973, AND PRIOR TO MAY 19, 1978/ NSPS SUBPART K.

Requirements Hours/ Occurr. ( A) Occurrences/ Respondent/ Year ( B) Hours/ Respondent / Year ( C= AxB) a Respondents / Year ( D) Hours/ Year ( E= CxD) Cost/ Year ($) b ( F)

1. Applications .................................... not applicable............................................

2. Surveys and Studies .................................... not applicable............................................

3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions Included in 3E B. Required Activities Included in 3E C. Create Information Included in 3E D. Gather Information Included in 3E E. Write Report Notification of reconstruction or modification 4 1 4 220 x 0.01c 8.8 564 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions Included in 4E.

B. Plan Activities Included in 4E.

C. Implement Activities Included in 4E.

D. Develop Record System Included in 4E.

SUBTOTAL 8.8 564 13 Table 1: ANNUAL BURDEN OF RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AS A RESULT OF THE STANDARDS FOR STORAGE VESSELS FOR PETROLEUM LIQUIDS FOR WHICH CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION COMMENCED AFTER JUNE 11, 1973, AND PRIOR TO MAY 19, 1978/ NSPS SUBPART K. ( Continued)

Requirements Hours/ Occurr. ( A) Occurrences/ Respondent/ Year ( B) Hours/ Respondent / Year a ( C= AxB) Respondent s/ Year ( D) Hours/ Year ( E= CxD) Cost/ Year ($) ( F) b 4. Recordkeeping Requirements ( cont.)

E. Time to Enter Information Record startup, shutdown or malfunction 1 1 1 220 220 14,108 Record petroleum liquid stored .50 1 .50 220 110 7,054 Record period of storage .50 1 .50 220 110 7,054 Record true vapor pressure of liquid stored 1 1 1 220 220 14,108 F. Train Personnel .................................... not applicable............................................

G. Audits .................................... not applicable............................................

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 669 42,903 a Assume that there will be no new sources subject to the requirements of this regulation. b Assume an hourly wage of $ 64.13 per hour for Technical. This rate is from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2003, " Table 10. Private industry by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The wage rate has been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry. c There are 220 existing sources subject to the requirements of subpart K, of which only 1% will modify or reconstruct their tanks in such way to trigger the reporting requirements under subpart K. 14 Table 2: EPA ANNUAL BURDEN OF RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AS A RESULT OF THE STANDARDS FOR STORAGE VESSELS FOR PETROLEUM LIQUIDS FOR WHICH CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION COMMENCED AFTER JUNE 11, 1973, AND PRIOR TO MAY 19, 1978/ NSPS SUBPART K.

Requirements EPA Hours/ Occurrence ( A) b Occurrences / Plant/ Year ( B) EPA Hours/ Plant/ Year ( C = A x B) Plants/ Year ( D) a EPA Hours/ Year ( E = C x D)

Report Review: Existing Plant Notification of reconstruction or modification 2.0 1.0 2.0 2 4 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 4 Travel Expenses: No Travel anticipated to collect information Salary: 4 hr/ year x $ 39.49/ hrc = $ 158/ yr TOTAL ANNUAL COST = $ 158 a Assume that there will be no new sources subject to the requirements of this regulation. All new sources are subject to subpart Kb. b Assume at most one notification for each Region at 2 hours each. There is an incentive not to modify or reconstruct the storage vessel because to do so creates the potential to subject the storage vessel to the more stringent 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb requirements. c GS 12 step 1 employee rate, ($ 24.68 hr * 1.6 = $ 39.49). This rate is from OPM's 2003 General Schedule, excluding locality pay, basic rates.


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76512-76513]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30881]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63417; File No. SR-NSCC-2010-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Discontinue the Cost Basis Reporting Service

December 2, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on November 23, 2010,
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change described in Items I and II below, which items have been
prepared primarily by NSCC.\2\ NSCC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder so
that the proposed rule change was effective upon filing with the
Commission.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit
5 to NSCC's filing, which is available at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2010/nscc/2010-17.pdf.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change will discontinue NSCC's Cost Basis
Reporting Service (``CBRS'').

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by the NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to delete the rule
regarding NSCC's CBRS as the CBRS offered by NSCC will be terminated.
The effective date of the termination of CBRS as a NSCC service
offering will be December 10, 2010.
    For purposes of efficiency and enhanced customer service, DTCC
Solutions LLC (``DTCC Solutions''), a wholly-owned subsidiary of The
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, which offers services similar
in nature to the CBRS, will offer the CBRS. CBRS as offered by DTCC
Solutions will support a broader group of financial institutions and
entities that are currently not eligible to become NSCC members, such
as transfer agents and securities issuers. NSCC believes that
discontinuing CBRS at NSCC and reestablishing the service at DTCC
Solutions will not disadvantage NSCC members in any way.

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a national system for prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.\5\ NSCC believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with these requirements of Section 17A of the
Act \6\ and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to
NSCC because discontinuing the CBRS will allow for more efficient
allocation of NSCC's resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

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

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

    No written comments relating to the proposed rule change have been
solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by NSCC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \8\
thereunder because it effects a change in an existing service of NSCC
that: (i) Does not adversely affect the safeguarding of securities or
funds in the custody or control of NSCC or for which it is responsible
and (ii) does not significantly affect the respective rights or
obligations of the clearing agency or persons using the service. At any
time within sixty days of the filing of such rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2010-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2010-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on NSCC's
Web site, http://www.dtcc.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NSCC-2010-17 and should be submitted on or before
December 29, 2010.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30881 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


The results of both of these models indicate that there may be effects on choices unrelated to the described attributes. In the alternative specific constant model, both constant terms are statistically significant, indicating that there is an effect on choices unrelated to the quantities of the individual attributes, but is instead related to the choices themselves. The positive and significant coefficient for " Action" indicates that people are more likely to choose an action rather than " No New Action," independent of the action's specific effects on natural resources. Similarly, the negative and 122 significant coefficient for " Program B" indicates that, even if Program A and Program B produced the same results in terms of preservation of natural resources, respondents are more likely to choose Program A. The coefficient on Action indicates that there is an 87 percent probability that the average respondent would select action over no action, if that action cost nothing and provided zero resource protection. Similarly, conditional on taking action, there is a 55 percent probability that the representative respondent would choose Program A over Program B if their costs and levels of resource protection were identical.

Table B 1  Comparison of Model Results Coefficient Value / Acre 95% Confidence Interval Avg. Value / Acre/ Year*

Conditional Logit Model: Farmland 0.000511 $ 0.136 $ 0.122 $ 0.150 $ 9,979 Undeveloped Land 0.000107 $ 0.028 $ 0.025 $ 0.032 $ 2,080 Wetlands 0.000336 $ 0.089 $ 0.079 $ 0.100 $ 6,560 Shellfish Areas 0.000233 $ 0.062 $ 0.053 $ 0.071 $ 4,555 Eelgrass 0.000419 $ 0.111 $ 0.098 $ 0.125 $ 8,186 Cost  0.003765  2= 1( L (  )/ L ( 0)) .138 Model with Alternative Specific Constants: Action 1.2866 Program B  0.1799 Farmland .000300 $ 0.094 $ 0.078 $ 0.109 $ 6,872 Undeveloped Land .000057 $ 0.018 $ 0.014 $ 0.022 $ 1,304 Wetlands .000179 $ 0.056 $ 0.045 $ 0.066 $ 4,090 Shellfish Areas .000108 $ 0.034 $ 0.023 $ 0.044 $ 2,467 Eelgrass .000214 $ 0.067 $ 0.052 $ 0.081 $ 4,909 Cost . 003207  2 .171 Nested Logit Model: Program B . 1586 Farmland .000300 $ 0.087 $ 0.073 $ 0.101 $ 6,398 Undeveloped Land .000056 $ 0.016 $ 0.013 $ 0.019 $ 1,203 Wetlands .000228 $ 0.066 $ 0.056 $ 0.077 $ 4,863 Shellfish Areas .000128 $ 0.037 $ 0.031 $ 0.044 $ 2,724 Eelgrass .000281 $ 0.082 $ 0.069 $ 0.094 $ 6,003 Cost . 003441   .3397  2 .309 *  Calculated based on 73,423 households. 123 These constant terms for taking action and for differences in probability of selecting A and B may be interpreted as representing a qualitative or symbolic dimension of respondents' preferences, while the coefficients on the natural resources represent the quantitative dimension that can be attributed to the stated levels of resource protection. Thus, if respondents exhibit a tendency to a resource protection action, rather than " No New Action," beyond that which can be associated with the stated levels of resource protection and the cost, they may be expressing a symbolic willingness to pay to take action to protect the environment of the East End. Similarly, the coefficient on the constant term for Program B indicates that there is some qualitative reason that people choose Program A, and measures the degree of preference for A over B which cannot be explained by the described attributes of the two programs. Note that this constant term is statistically significant, but quantitatively small.

The higher probability of choosing to take action is not surprising, given the level of concern among residents of the area for the environment of the Estuary. However, the preference of one program over another beyond the described effects is not expected, and could occur for a variety of reasons. For example, the effect could be related to the ordering of the two programs, their placement on the page, or could possibly indicate that respondents infer some preference from the labels ( e. g., an A is better than a B).

The constant for the choice of action versus no action accounts for qualitative aspects of the decision to choose an action rather than no new action. However, it is estimated as a constant term and thus assumes a fixed effect, where the constant represents a mean " bias" towards action versus no action, beyond that which can be explained by the described levels of resource protection and cost. An alternative approach to modeling is to use a random effects model, where the random components of preferences for the two action programs are correlated. This implies that an action/ no action bias might exist, but that the bias is randomly distributed across choices. For example, some individuals might exhibit a bias towards taking action, while others might exhibit a bias against taking action.

The random effects model can be implemented using the nested logit approach, which captures the correlation of the random components of utility associated with the two action alternatives. Tests of the inclusive value parameter in the nested logit model indicate that there is greater substitutability between Program A and Program B than between taking action or not, and that there is significant correlation between the Program options. The constant term for Program B is similar in magnitude to that estimated in the previous model.

Economic values for the conditional logit model were estimated based on Hanemann ( 1984), and are measured by the cost, C, that would make a person indifferent between the choice selected and the baseline, no action, which has zero cost. Thus, for the conditional logit model, 124 ( 6) U R M U R M C ij i ik i k ( , ) ( , ) =     for all k j,

where j represents the " No New Action" alternative, or the baseline levels of the resources, so that Cj= 0; k is the option selected; and Ck is the maximum willingness to pay for option k. For the linear approximation of the utility function presented above, this can be solved for Ck as follows:

( 7)             R M R M C C R R ij i ik i k k ik ij + = +   =    ( ) ( ) ( ). and Thus, for the conditional logit model, the dollar value to the average respondent for a unit change in each of the natural resources is calculated as the ratio of the coefficient on the resource,  , to the coefficient on cost,  .

The calculation of dollar values for the nested logit model must account for the nested structure and the inclusive value parameter,  . The formula for the compensating variation associated with a change in one of the attributes of the choice is ( Kling and Thomson 1996; Hanemann 1982):

( 8) CV V V jk j k K j J jk j k K j J j j j j =                                                                                = = = =         1 2 1 1 1 1 1           ln exp( / ) ln exp( / )

where V is the utility function, the superscripts on V indicate whether the attributes are set at the new level or the old level, and   is the coefficient on cost.

The estimated dollar values and relative values, calculated as ratios between the coefficients on each pair of resources, were compared for each model using Friedman's test for more than two related samples ( Neave and Worthington, 1988). Based on this test, the hypothesis of equality of the estimated dollar values for the three models is rejected. However, a comparison of the estimated dollar values for the nested logit model and the alternative specific constants model using the Wilcoxon signed rank test does not reject the hypothesis of equality of values for these two models.

The Friedman test does not reject the hypothesis that the relative values for natural resources are equal for all three models. Additionally, the ordinal priorities for all three models are the same, with farmland most important, followed by eelgrass, wetlands, shellfishing areas and undeveloped land. These results indicate that priorities and relative values are robust with respect to different model specifications, and are independent of symbolic effects, but that the estimated dollar values vary somewhat between the base model and the two alternative specifications. However, the estimated dollar values for the three models are close in magnitude. Therefore, it may be concluded that the model is relatively robust to different specifications, and that the proportion of value that is " symbolic" is not great. 125 These results indicate, however, that there may be a statistically significant symbolic component to choices, which is comprised of an effect that is unrelated to the described levels of resource protection provided by the hypothetical programs and the associated cost. The similarity of results from the nested logit and conditional logit with constants models, and the fact that the results are not statistically different, indicate that these biases are likely overwhelmingly in one direction   towards taking action rather than no action. Thus, both of these models appear to account for a " symbolic" aspect of values, and to separate that from estimated values for specific natural resource improvements. Note, however, the Nested Logit model provides considerable improvement in fit, as measured by the  2 statistic. 126