[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 186 (Monday, September 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59476-59478]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24588]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65354; File No. SR-CHX-2011-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Change the Status of
Exchange-Registered Institutional Broker Firms

September 19, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on September 14, 2011, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CHX proposes to amend its rules regarding Exchange-registered
Institutional Broker firms to clarify their status. The text of this
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at (http://www.chx.com) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to add Interpretation and Policy .04 to
Article 17, Rule 3 to clarify the status of Exchange-registered
Institutional Broker firms (``Institutional Brokers'') as not operating
on the Exchange. By this proposal, the Exchange believes that it will
enable existing and new Institutional Broker firms to engage in trading
activities in a less restrictive manner than is currently the case. The
Exchange is also proposing to delete Article 20, Rule 7 (Clearing the
Matching System) since that requirement is predicated on Institutional
Brokers being considered as operating on the Exchange. Notwithstanding
this redefinition of the status of Institutional Brokers, the Exchange
continues to believe that a separate pricing schedule for orders
submitted by Institutional Brokers for execution and/or submission for
clearance and settlement is appropriate and represents an equitable
allocation of fees for Exchange Participants.
    Institutional Brokers are an elective sub-category of Exchange
Participants requiring registration with the Exchange. In addition to
the other provisions of Exchange rules, Institutional Brokers are
subject to the obligations of Article 17 of the CHX rules.
Institutional Broker firms typically provide manual order handling and
execution services for other broker-dealers or institutional clients,
and are the successors to the floor brokers under the Exchange's
previous floor-based, auction trading model. This model was eliminated
as part of the implementation of Regulation NMS and Exchange's
transition to its New Trading Model, which features an electronic limit
order matching system as its core trading facility.\3\ The Commission's
order approving the Exchange's New Trading Model noted, ``Institutional
brokers would be deemed to be participants operating on the Exchange,
although they would not effect transactions from a physical trading
floor (since the Exchange will no longer have a physical trading floor)
and could trade from any location. A customer order would be deemed to
be on the Exchange when received by an institutional broker, but would
not have priority in the Matching System until it is entered into the
system.\4\'' Although an Institutional Broker has traditionally been
deemed to be operating on the Exchange, due to certain changes in their
function the CHX is proposing to treat Institutional Brokers as no
longer operating on the Exchange. As such, an order that is sent to an
Institutional Broker shall not be

deemed to be ``on the Exchange'' unless and until such order is entered
into the Exchange's Matching System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange replaced its traditional auction marketplace
with its New Trading Model beginning in 2006. See Securities
Exchange Act Rel. No. 54550 (Sept. 29, 2006), 71 FR 59563 (Oct. 10,
2006) (SR-CHX-2006-05).
    \4\ Id., Section II.C. Institutional Brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 3 of Article 17 would
define an Institutional Broker firm as a CHX Participant firm which
voluntarily elects to register with the Exchange as such, and satisfies
the Exchange's requirements as set forth in Article 17. Under the
current proposal, an Institutional Broker firm shall not be regarded as
operating on the Exchange.\5\ Until fairly recently, Institutional
Brokers were permitted to execute trades outside the Exchange's core
trading facility, the Matching System, while still considered to be on
the Exchange. Utilizing a functionality known as the Validated Cross,
Institutional Brokers were able to execute cross transactions based
upon the state of the national market and orders residing in the
Matching System at the time the parties agreed to the execution, rather
than as of the entry of all essential terms into the electronic systems
used by Institutional Brokers to handle and execute such
transactions.\6\ In December 2010, however, the Exchange eliminated the
Validated Cross functionality and ability of Institutional Brokers to
execute transactions on the CHX otherwise than through the Matching
System.\7\ Given this change, there is no longer any meaningful reason
to treat Institutional Brokers as operating on the Exchange and the
proposed Interpretation and Policy .04 reflects that determination. The
Exchange is also proposing to delete certain references to
Institutional Brokers and/or their activity as being ``on the
Exchange'' in Article 11, Rule 3(e) and in Article 17, Rule 3(a) and in
Interpretation and Policy .01 thereto.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Orders submitted by Institutional Brokers to the CHX's
Matching System would be regarded as being on the Exchange.
    \6\ See, e.g., CHX Market Regulation Department Information
Memorandum MR-07-9 (Dec, 6, 2007).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 63564 (Dec. 16, 2010),
75 FR 80870 (Dec. 23, 2010) (SR-CHX-2010-25).
    \8\ In Article 11, Rule 3(e), we have added language requiring
that Institutional Brokers and Market Makers be registered with the
Exchange for the provisions to be applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is further proposing to delete Article 20, Rule 7
(Clearing the Matching System), which requires Institutional Brokers to
attempt to execute trades on the Exchange before routing the order to
another destination, except if the Institutional Broker is trading for
its own account or its customer specifically requests otherwise. Given
that Institutional Brokers will no longer be treated as operating on
Exchange, the CHX does not believe that these restrictions are
appropriate. Broker-dealers which are not part of our facilities should
have the freedom to route orders to any destination.\9\ Consequently,
we are proposing to delete these requirements from our rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Such ability to route orders to any market center is also
consistent with CHX Article 9, Rule 24 which states ``No rule,
stated policy or practice of this exchange shall prohibit or
condition, or be construed to prohibit, condition or otherwise
limit, directly or indirectly, the ability of any Participant to
effect any transaction otherwise than on this exchange in any
reported security listed and registered on this exchange or as to
which unlisted trading privileges on this exchange have been
extended which is not a covered security.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to this proposal, an Institutional Broker would not be
considered as operating on the Exchange and its trading activity within
the Matching System would be treated the same as any other order
sending Participant which is not registered as an Institutional Broker,
except as to fees as discussed below. Currently, Institutional Brokers
are not permitted to execute transactions directly in the over-the-
counter (``OTC'') marketplace since they are regarded as being part of
the Exchange's trading facilities.\10\ Since the proposed
Interpretation and Policy would define Institutional Brokers as being
``off-Exchange,'' those restrictions would no longer exist and
Institutional Brokers would be permitted to execute trades directly in
the OTC marketplace, subject to the rules of the appropriate self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'').\11\ Accordingly, the Exchange is
proposing to clarify in Article 17, Rule 1 that Institutional Brokers
can effect transactions on the Exchange and in other market centers
since Institutional Brokers will no longer be deemed to be operating on
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CHX Market Regulation Department Information Memorandum
MR-11-09 (July 14, 2011), available on the Exchange's public Web
site, http://www.chx.com.
    \11\ Currently, the SRO for the OTC marketplace is FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act in general,\12\ and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) in particular,\13\ in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transaction in securities, to remove impediments and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest by redefining Institutional Brokers
as no longer operating on the Exchange. With the repeal of the
Validated Cross functionality and rules, there is no longer any reason
to treat Institutional Brokers as trading directly from the Exchange's
facilities. The proposed redefinition of the role of Institutional
Brokers properly aligns our rules with the current operation of those
firms and will permit them to more effectively compete with other
broker-dealers and serve the interests of their customers and
investors. The elimination of the requirement of Institutional Brokers
to clear the Matching System before sending customer orders to other
trading centers will likewise assist them in competing with other
broker-dealers in a free and open market, and will allow them to better
serve the interests of their customers and investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \14\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \15\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and other persons using any facility or
system which the Exchange operates or controls by continuing to provide
for separate billing rates for transactions executed or handled by an
Institutional Broker. The Exchange currently assesses separate fees and
charges for transactions which are submitted to the CHX by
Institutional Brokers.\16\ These fees are charged to the Participant
firm in whose name the transactions are submitted for clearance and
settlement. Typically, the Institutional Broker acts as agent for the
Participant or for a correspondent thereof if the Participant is a
clearing firm. In general, the fee rates associated with transactions
submitted through an Institutional Broker may be higher than other
transactions submitted directly into the Matching System, although
there is a ceiling or cap for such charges which may make the overall
fee lower in some circumstances. Despite the reclassification of
Institutional Brokers as ``off-Exchange,'' the CHX continues to believe
that the separate billing structure for transactions submitted through
an Institutional Broker is appropriate and represents an equitable
allocation of fees to Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4)
    \16\ See CHX Fee Schedule, Sections E.3. and E.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange provides trading and support technology services to
Institutional Brokers without separate charges in order to facilitate
their transactions on and through the Exchange. For example, the
Exchange

makes the Brokerplex[supreg] order management and recordation system
available to Institutional Brokers without charge.\17\ Brokerplex is
used by Institutional Brokers to receive, transmit and hold orders from
their clients while seeking execution within the CHX Matching System or
elsewhere in the National Market System. Reports of orders, including
the terms of any executions thereof, submitted via Brokerplex are kept
by the system. The Exchange also provides operational and back office
support services to Institutional Brokers using Brokerplex to handle
orders and execute transactions on the Exchange. Finally, the Exchange
expends a significant amount of its regulatory resources policing the
activities of Institutional Brokers. The separate fee structure for
orders submitted through Institutional Brokers helps offset these
expenses. The Exchange also provides a credit in its Fee Schedule to
Institutional Brokers in their monthly billings based upon a percentage
of revenue generated to the Exchange as a result of transactions
submitted by that Institutional Broker. This arrangement benefits the
Exchange by incenting Institutional Brokers to register with the CHX
under Article 17 and direct orders to the Exchange for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Use of the Brokerplex system satisfies the requirement that
Institutional Brokers handle orders within an integrated electronic
system. Article 17, Rule 3.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange 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 Regarding the
Proposed Rule Changes Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the Commission may
designated up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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-CHX-2011-29 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-CHX-2011-29. 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 website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2011-29 and should be
submitted on or before October 17, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-24588 Filed 9-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


SOIL ADSORPTION TEST SUBSTANCE Identity: Perfluorooctanoic acid, ammonium salt; may also be referred to as PFOA ammonium salt, Ammonium perfluorooctanoate, PFO, FC 116, FC 126, FC 169, or FC 143. (Octanoic acid, pentadecafluoro, ammonium salt, CAS # 3825 26 l)

Remarks: The test sample is FC 143. It's purity was not sufficiently characterized, though current information indicates it is a mixture of 96.5 100 test substance and 0  3.5% Cs, CT, and Cs perfluoro analogue compounds. The test substance used was "C labeled. This testing is being repeated per current procedures and best available practices.

Met hod: Adsorption Desorption study using the approach recommended by the U. S. EPA for pesticide registration GLP (Y/ N): No Year (study performed): 1978 Statistical methods: Statistical analysis and plotting of the data was done with the MINITAB package of the 3M TRAC computer service. Temperature: 16 l 9° C Stock and test solution preparation: Test solutions were made by diluting a stock solution of "C labeled ammonium perfluorooctanoate. The type of solvent used to make the stock solution is not noted, nor is the activity of the "C labeled test substance.

Remarks field: The Brill sandy loam soil was characterized as having 57% sand, 36% silt, 7% clay, 2.5% organic matter, 1.5% organic carbon, with pH 6.5 and cation exchange capacity of 15.3 meq./ lOO gms. Standard solutions of the 14C labeled compound were prepared in D. I. water at concentrations of 523 mg/ L, 293 mg/ L, 167 mg/ L, 94 mg/ L, 52 mg/ L, and 5.2 mg/ L. Twenty five ml of each solution was shaken with duplicate 5 gram samples of the soil in a 50 ml polypropylene centrifuge tubes for 24 hours on a wrist shaker at room temperature (16 l 9OC).

Desorption extraction were performed with D. I. water after the adsorption phase of the experiment. The samples from the adsorption and desorption experiments were centrifuged individually at 5000 rpm for 10 minutes, after which, three aliquots of each supernatant solution were prepared for scintillation counting. From the raw counting data, compound concentrations were calculated for all of the supernatant solutions. K: 0.21 (N= l) K ,: 14*

* The study report had indicated a K of 0.38. This is the coefficient of C in the regression equation, not the adsorption coefficient value, based on best fit. Taking a mean value for K based on K=( x/ m)/ C,, K = 0.21. The Koc value based on the initially reported organic carbon content of 1.5% and the mean value for K (K,, =K x 100/ I .5(% organic carbon) becomes 14.

CONCLUSIONS The study substance is expected to exhibit high mobility in the kind of soil tested.

Submitter: 3M Company, Environmental Laboratory, P. O. Box 33331, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55133 DATA QUALITY Reliability: Klimisch ranking 3. This study lacks detail on the stock solution and the purity of the 14C labeled test substance. There was no analysis of the soil to verify the amount remaining for mass balance. Discrepancies in the organic carbon content are present. Use of DI water instead of CaC12. Additionally, some calculations have questionable reliability. Additional comments by Professor Stephen A. Boyd, Michigan State University, also indicate the reliability level of this study.

REFERENCES 3M Technical Report "Adsorption of FC 95 and FC 143 on Soil." S. K. Welsh, Project 9970612633 Fate of Fluorochemicals, Report No. 1, Feb. 27,1978 3M requested expert review by Professor Stephen A. Boyd, Michigan State University, May 19, 1993.

OTHER Last changed: 5/ 25/ 00 Attached are comments on the 3M Technical Report "Adsorption of FC 95 and FC 143 on Soil. S. K. Welsh, Project 9970612633 Fate ofFluorochemicals, Report No. 1, Feb. 27, 1978" made by Professor Stephen A. Boyd, Michigan State University, dated May 19, 1993.

. Review of Technical Report Summary Adsorption of FC 95 and FC 143 in Soil Material and Methods Should give recoveries of compoundsin blank (no soil) experiments. States that polypropylene sorbs less than glass on polyethylene, but doesn't give a numerical value.

The large headspace (25 ml in a 50 tube) is undesirable; any losses of the 14C label, e. g., from volatilization or sticking to the tube, will inflate the sorption coefficient since the method calculates the amount sorbed by difference between the initial and final equilibrium solution concentrations. Also the 24 hour mixing period seems arbitrary. Were experiments done for different periods of time to establish that equilibrium was reached within 24 hours?

Details on the stock solution are lacking. What solvent was used and what is the specific activity and radiochemical purity of the 14C FC 95.

The idea of using a cotton swab after the draining step is unusual. Hopefully this didn't remove soil as well as water. The  20% or less decrease in solute concentration due to sorption isn't as high as I'd like to see it. A 50% or greater decrease would be better.

This section generally lacks detail that would normally be required for publication.

Results and Discussion The linearity of the isotherm has been shown over the concentration range used. However, to demonstrate that the entire isotherm is linear, the linearity must extend to equilibrium solution concentrations that approach the water solubility of the compound. Do you know the solubility of FC95 or FC143: If not, how were the initial solution concentrations selected?

The sorption coefficient (K) of FC 95 appears to be about 1 as indicated. The organic matter normalized sorption coefficient CK, = K/ fa is I(, = l/ O. 025 = 40, or log K, = 1.6. This is a soil sorption coefficient intermediate between benzene and toluene. It would be worthwhile to examine some additional soils to confirm this K, value. Generally, the K, values should converge within a factor of 2 to 3 for different soils. This would increase my confidence in the accuracy of the one measured value.

I've spot checked the soil concentrations of FC 95 for both the sorption and desorption experiments and I get essentially the same values. The calculations look good.

The K values for FC 143 is lower than FC 95 indicating that it probably has a higher water solubility. The hystersis in the desorption isotherm is surprising, and has been over interpreted. The sorption isotherm is linear indicating a single sorptive process. The conclusion regarding "three different binding mechanisms . . .with stronger binding at higher concentrations and the converse at lower concentrations" is very speculative based on the single experiment. If one examines column I "Amount Desorbed as a Percent of Amount Adsorbed" the values range from 26 to 212 percent, so it's pretty inconclusive. There is a fairly good discussion of hysteresis in J. Environ. Qual. 12: 325 330 by Koskinen and Cheng who observed this phenomena for the weak acid pesticide 2,4,5 T. The causes of hysteresis are varied and complicated and may include microbial degradation of the compound during desorption, and changes in the physical and/ or chemical properties of the soil solution system. For example, desorption using distilled water (as is the case here) could result in soil dispersion so that a clear supematant solution could not be obtained. This can cause quenching of radioactivity in solution and other problems leading to error.

The "material balance" as presented in the report is a little misleading. To obtain a material balance you should measure the amount of "C activity in soil at the end of the experiment, and add it to the measured solution concentrations.

General Comments. The K, values calculated here use an organic carbon content of 2.2% whereas the value stated in the Materials and Methods is 1.5%?

The water solubilities are cited as 300 mg/ L for FC 95 and > 2Og/ L for FC 143. Surely the latter value is wrong. If the solubilities are truly that different, then the sorptive properties should be vastly different, which they are not. If FC143 has a solubility of > 20,000 mg/ L, then I would expect no sorption. This value must be erroneous.

Recommendations:

1. Obtaining K, K, values on additional soils. Determine if K, is relatively constant.

2. Obtain a true mass balance by measuring 14C activity in soil and solution phase.

3. Interpret desorption data more cautiously.

4. Get correct value of water solubility of FC 143.

003618 .r J ' am .y ' For= 47 11 A TEC. HNICAL REPORT SUMMARY TO: TECHNICAL COhlMUNlCATlO~ S CENTER  201. XN (tmnportant  If report is printed on both sides of peper; send two copies to TCCJ Division 0 t. Numbr EE 6 PC 0222 Prolrt Proloct Numtmr Fate of Fluorochemicals 9970612633 Report Title Report Numbor Adsorption of FC 95 and FC 143 on soil 1 T o J? I* m T a.. on: s Authorlr) SW Emptoyr Numborb)

Stephen K. Welsh 73583 Notebook Rofwanca No. of Pager Including Covorshoat 140673, R47704 .  14 SECURITY b mhat a C l o s e d  3M CHEMICAL REGISTRY b New Chemicals Reporteti q Yes R No KEYWORDS: . &hct term8 from 3M Thesaurus. Suggest other applicable term8. l EE & PC  Div.

Fluorochemical Soil Adsorption Mobility Information Liaison Ini tialr: s# d :URRENl OBJECTIVE: `. c z To obtain an indication of FC 95 and `FC 143 mobility in sandy loam soil.

REPORT ABSTRACT: (200 250 words) This abstract information is distributed by the TecJtnical Communications Center t, blat 3M'ers to Company R& D.

As a part of the Fate of Fluorochemicals Project, an indication of mobility of FC 95 and FC 143 in sandy loam soil was Idesired.

Adsorption desorption experiments (after David&, 1976, and Hamaker;

1975) along with water solubility data can provide such. information.

The adsorption coeffi% nts for FC 95 and FC 143 were determined to be 0.99 and 0.38, respectively. For FC 95 adsorption and desorption ' could be described by a'single valued function whil'e for FC 143,

they could not. Based on these data, both compounds would be judged mobile in the sandy loam soil used in this study. 2 CONCLUSIONS Adsorption coefficient for FC 95 and FC 143 were 0.99 and 0.38,

respectively. For FC 95, adsorption and desorption could be described by a single valued function while for FC 143, they could not, Considering adsorption coefficients, desorption characteristics and water solubilities,

both compounds would be judged mobile in the sandy loam soil used in this study.

INTRODUCTION As a part of the Fate of Fluorochemicals Project, an indication of. c mobility of FC 95 and FC 143 in sandy loam soil was de3iired.

Adsorptiondesorption experiments (after Davidson, 1976, and Hamaker, 1975) along with water solubility data can provide this indication of mobility. This approach is used by the 0. S. EPA in pesticide registration requirements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Duplicate S g samples of air dried Brill sandy loam soil (57% sand,

36% silt, 7% clay, 2.5% organic matter, 1.5% organic carbon, with pH 6.5 and C. E. C. of 15.3 meq./ lOOg) were shaken with 25 ml of solution in SO ml..

poly propylene centrifuge tubes for 24 hours on a wrist action shaker at room temp.

(16 19° c). Polypropylene tubes were used because they were found in separate experiments (3M Tech Notebook #470673, `C. H. Schrandt) to absorb less FC 95 and FC 143 than glass or polyethylene tubes.

Solutions were made by diluting a stock solution of each chemical.

Concentrations o f 14C labeled FC 95 were 282 mg/ l., 158 mg/ l., 90 mg/ l.,

51 mg/. l., 2 8 mg/ l., (lOO%, 56%, 32%, 18%, lo%, 1% of stock). Concentrations o f 14C. labeled F C 1 4 3 w e r e mg/ l., 2 9 3 523 mg/ l., 167 mg/ l., 94 mg/ l., 52 mg/ l.,

and 5.2 mg/ l. After shaking the initial solutions as well as the three desorption extractions with deionized water, the samples Were centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 10 min., and three aliquots of each supernatant solution were taken for scintillation counting.

After the adsorption step, 22.5 ml of solution were recovered.

Therefore, it was assumed that 2.5 ml of liquid remained with the soil in each step and this amount was accounted for in the desorption'calculations (see Results and Discussion section).

In the FC 95 experiment, the supernatant liquid was simply drained `r off at each step and the next 25 ml of liquid were `& t into the tubes.

In the FC 143 experiment, the supernatant liquid remaining after the draining step was absorbed with a cotton swab before putting the iext 25 ml of liquid into the tubes.

The procedures for the FC 95 and FC 143 experiments were recorded in 3M Technical Notebook #40673, p. 49 and p. 51, respectively.

From the raw counting data, disintegrations per minute (DPM) and . FC 95 and FC 143 concentrations were calculated for all of the supernatant solutions.

Statistical analysis and plotting of the data was done with the MINITAB package of the 3M TRAC computer service.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION FC 95 Adsorption data for FC 95 are presented in TABLE I and FIGURE 1.

Comparing the regression equation of the adsorption isotherm (FIGURE 1)

x/ m = 0.29 + 0.99C with the Freundlich equation x/ m = KC l/ N , it could be seen that the adsorption coefficient, K, equaled 0.99 and the exponent, N, GO362: equaled one. The linear shape of the adsorption isotherms (N= l) indicated 4 4 that FC 95 adsorption on sqil would be independent of concentration. The low adsorption coefficient (K= O. 99) indicated that FC 95 would be niohile,

i .e ., it would move readily with the ground water through this sandy loam soil.

TABLE I A A B Initial FC 95 Equil. Cont., Cont., mg/ l C, mg/ l.

2 8 2 .2 2 8 2 .2 2 3 3 .9 2 3 3 .9 1 5 8 .0 1 5 8 .0 1 3 4 .2 1 3 4 .2 9 0 .0 9 0 .0 7 6 .9 7 6 .9 51.0 4 2 .0 4 2 .0 2 8 .0 2 8 .0 2 2 .1 2 2 .1 2 .8 2 .8 2 .0 2 .0 D D Total FC 95 Total FC 95 in In Initial Sol'n Sol'n at Equil;, mg (A x 0.025 liters] (B x 0.025 liters)

7.0500 5.847.50 5.847.50 3 .9 5 0 0 3 .9 5 0 0 3.35soo 3.35soo 2.2soo 2.2soo 1 .9 2 2 5 0 1 .9 2 2 5 0 1 .2 7 5 0 1 .2 7 5 0 1.05000 0 .7 0 0 0 0 .7 0 0 0 0. sszso 0 .0 7 0 0 0 .0 7 0 0 0.05000 FC 95 ADSORPTION DATA E C % Removed A, BBy Soil .( T x 100 > .

(1 7 .1 (1 7 .1 15.1 1 4 .6 1 4 .6 1 7 .8 1 7 .8 2 1 .1 2 1 .1 2 7 .0 2 7 .0 f'.. f'.. ,,\ 3 ,,\ 3 ! !

F I'.`.

F C 95 Adsorbed o n S o i l , x m , Vg/ g (( D E) x 10 5 @/ mg I S g Soil 2 4 0 .8 2 4 0 .8 119.0 6 5 .7 6 5 .7 4 5 .3 4 5 .3 2 9 .5 2 9 .5 3 .8 3 .8 Desorption data for FC 95 are shown in TABLE II and FIGURE 2. For comparison,

desorption isotherms for the pesticide fluometuron are given in FIGURE 3.

For clarity FC 95 desorption isotherms are not drawn in FIGURE 2.

However, all of the data points lie very close to the adsorption isotherms indicating that adsorption and desorption could be described by a single valued function with desorption coefficients, K* ,equaling the adsorption coefficient,

K . K . 4I? x? 36; 22 4I? x? 36; 22 5 240 A A c 0 Regression Eqn.: Y = 0.29 + Regression Eqn.: Y = 0.29 + 0.99 X 0.99 x R Squared = 0.985 R Squared = 0.985 Actual Data Points' Actual Data Points' Predicted Y Values Predicted Y Values 60 120 180 240 300 Equil. Cont., C, mg/ l FIGURE 1 FC 95 Adsorption Isotherm This, along with the observation that approximately all of the adsorbed FC 95 was subsequently desorbed (TABLE II, Column H) indicated that binding forces were weak and would be another indication of high mobility of FC 95.

Material balance data for FC. 95 are presented in TABLE III and these data indicate that all of the chemical was accounted for throughout the experiment. . 6 TABLE II FC 95 DESORPTION ISOTHERM DATA*

A Equil. Cont. in Solution, C, mg/ l.

233.900 134.200 76.900 42.000 22.100 2.000 E Amount Adsorbed on Soil, x/ m ug/ g (Column F, TABLE I)

240.800 67.6000 12.0000 9.1500 119.000 19.4500 14.9000 25.8000 65.700 3.3000 16.7000 23.9500 45.300 13.2000 2.0500 2.0000 29.500 11.4000 4.7000 2.2500 3.800 1.7000 0.9000 0.4500 B Equil. Cont. in First Desorption mg/ I.

52.7000 30.3000 18.3000 9.6000 5.3000 0.6000 C Equil. Cont. in Second Desorption w/ l.

14.9000 9.0000 5.3000 2.9000 1.7000 0.2000 F Amount on Soil After First Desorption, pg/ g G '9 Amount 'on'% Soil After Second Desorption, pg/ g D Equil. Cont. in Third Desorption mg/ l.

5.20000 2.80000 1.80000 1.00000 0.60000 0.10000 H Amount on Soil After Third Desorption, ug/ g *Columns F, G, and H were calculated in the same way as Column F,: TABLE I with correction for the amount of FC 95 in the 2.5 ml of solution remaining from the previous step in each case (See Materials and Methods Section.)

FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FC 95 DESORPTION DATA POINTS AND ADSORPTION ISOTHERM ADSORPTION AND DESORPTION ISOTHERMS FOR FLlJOMEI'URON ON COBB SAND. SOLID AND BROKEN LINES ARE BEST FIT FOR ADSORPTION AND DESORPTION _ RESPECTIVELY fFrom Davidson.  . 7 TABLE III FC 95 Material Balance*

A Total Initial' FC 95 in Solution, mg. fColumn D; TABLE 1) '.

7; 05000 5.84750 1.20250 3.95000 3.35500 0.59500 2.25000 1.99250 0.32750 1.27500 1.0500 0.2250 ' 0.7000 0.55250 0.14750 0.07oofl 0.05000 0.02000 D E . F Amount Removed by Amount Removed by Amount Removed by First Desorption, mg. Second Desorption, mg. Third Desorption, mg.

0.864500 0.278000 0.105750 0.497750 0.171750 0.054500 0.311000 0.100000 0.036250 0.159000 0.055750 0.020250 0.090500 0.033500 0.012250 0.011500 0.004000 0.002250 G Total Amount Desorbed by Three Desorptions, mg (D+ E+ F)

1.2483 0.45750 103.805 0.7240 0.12900 121.681 0.4473 0.11975 136.565 0.2350 0.01000 104.444 0.1363 0.11250 92.373 0.0178 0.002250 88.750 *Columns D, E, and F were obtained by first calculating the amount (mg) B FC 95 in Solution at Equil., mg. '( Column E, TABLE I>

H Amount Remaining on Soil After 3 Desorptions mg. CC  G) C FC 95 on soil at Equil., mg. (A  Bl I Amount Desorbed as Percent of Amount Adsorbed (G/ C x 100).

of FC 95 in 27.5 ml (25 ml added plus 2.5 ml remaining from previous step) of solution in each respective step and then subtracting the amount (mg) in the 2.5 ml of solution remaining from the previous step. 8 FC 143 Data for FC 143 are presented in TABLE IV and TABLE V and in FIGURE 4.

The adsorption isotherm indicated FC 143 mobility similar to that of FC 95 with K= 0.38 and N= l. Regression analyses were not performed on the desorption isotherms, however, the graphed data (FIGURE 4) indicated that adsorption and desorption could not be described by a single valued function. That is, the K' and N' values for desorption would not be the same as K and N for adsorption. Subjective evaluation would indicate that the desorption coefficient I K , would be much smaller than the adsorption Coefficient, K, at solution concentrations greater than about 25 mg/ l, since the slope of the adsorption `1 isotherm was much greater than the slopes of the !& sorption isotherms in i this range. At solution concentrations less than 25 mg/ l., the desorption coefficients would appear to be much greater than the adsorption coefficient.

From this it would appear that two or three different binding mechanisms were involved with stronger binding occuring at the higher concentrations and the converse at lower concentrations. While this may indicate a tendency for FC 143 to be immobile at high concentrations, it would be quite mobile in any situations involving low concentrations. m Material balance data for FC 143 are presented in TABLE VI. While the two concentrations resulting in 212% and 201% desorption (last column in TABLE VI) were erratic, in general, the data indicated that all of the FC 143 was accounted for throughout the experiment; ' .

. 9 . .

TABLE IV FC 143 Adsorption Data A B c Initial FC 143 Cont., mg/ l. .

, Equil. cont., c, q/ l.

522.5 522.5 4 8 5 .8 4 8 5 .8 292.6 292.6 279.1 167.2 167.2 160.3 160.3 9 4 .1 9 4 .1 9 2 .2 9 2 .2 52.3 52.3 4 9 .9 4 9 .9 5 .2 5 .2 5 .1 5 .1 D Total FC 143 in Initial Sol'n,

(? 'x 0.025 liters)

13.0625 13.0625 7.3150 7.3150 4.1800 4.1800 2.3525 2.3525 1.3075 0.1300 0.1300 X Removed By Soil (* T x 100)

7 .0 7 .0 . . 5 5 ' i 4 .6 ' i 4 .6 4.1 4.1 2.0 2.0 4.5 4.5 1.9 E F Total FC 143 in FC 143 Adsorbed Sol'n at Equll., (B" px 0.025 liters) on Soul, x& m, vg/ g (CD Ej (CD Ej X X 10 5 pg/+ nsQ$ _

12.1450 12.1450 183.5 183.5 6.9775 6.9775 6 7 .5 6 7 .5 4.0075 4.0075 34.5 34.5 2.3050 2.3050 9 .5 9 .5 1.2475 1.2475 12.0 12.0 0.1275 0.1275 0.5 0.5 10 TABLE v FC 143 Desorption Isotherm Data*

A B Equil. Cont. in Equil. Cont. Solution, C, in first Desorpmp l tion Solution, mn/ l.

(Column B, Table ry)

485.800 47.6000 279.100 28.8000 160.300 17.2000 92.200 10.7000 49.900 6.1000 5.100 0.6000 E F Amount Adsorbed Amount on Soil on Soil, x/ m, wf3 After First DesorpW R tion (Column F, TABLE IV)

183.500 164.600 67.500 50.850 34.500 20.050 9.500 3.250 12.000 3.400 0.500 0.250 C Equil. Cont. Equil. Cont. in Second Desorp in Third Desorption tion Solution, mg/ l. solution, mg/ l.

6 .8 0 0 0 0 4.80000 3.40000 2.00000 0.80000 0.100G0 .; L t G Amount on Soil Amount on Soil After Second Desorpw f!! tion After Third Desorpw g t i o n 151.000 38.650 9.950 8.900 135.150 25.100 0.650 10.650 2.050  1.350 D 3.50000 2.90000 2.00000 0.50000 0.20000 0.01000 H 0.500 0'. 505 *Columns F, G, and H were calculated in the same way as Column F, TABLE IV with correction for the amount of FC 143 in the 2.5 ml of solution remaining from the previous step in each case (See Materials and Methods Section). . 11 200 150 100 50 0 50 BP B B  .

Y= 16.3 + 0.38. X R SQUARED = 0.936 0 100 200 300 400 500 Equil. Cont., C, mg/ l FIGURE 4 FC 143 ADSORPTION AND DESORF'TION ISOTMERMS Solid line is best fit adsorption isotherm. Dotted lines are esti mated desorption isotherms. A's are adsorption isotherm data points. B, C, D, E, and F are desorption data points for the respective concentrations.

GENERAL COMMENTS The FC 95 and FC 143 adsorption coefficients from these experiments may be converted to the analogous constants based on soil organic carbon content Koc, with the equation Koc = 100 K/(% organic carbon) giving'

a Koc of 45 for FC 95 and 17 for FC 143 (2.2% organic carbon for this soil). Comparing these values to those in TABLE VII, it can be seen that FC 95 and FC 143 are at the low end of the spectrum, again indicating high mobility of these compounds. .

' .

A Total FC 143 Initially in Solution (Co?& D, Table IV}

13.0625 12.1450 7.3150 6.9775 4.1800 4.007s 2.3525 2.3050 1.307s 1.2475 . 0.1300 0.1275 D Amount Removed by First Desorption, mg. Amount Removed by Second Desorption, mg. Amount Removed by Third Desorption, mg.

0.09450 0.06800 0.079250 0.08325 0.06100 0.066750 0.07225 0.05050 0.046500 0.06375 0.02825 0.008750 0.04300 0.00675 0.003500 0.0037s 0.0012s 0.00002s G H Total Amount Desorbed by Three Desorptions, mg (D+ E+ F) Amount Remaining on Soil After 3 Desorptions mg. cc  G) I w Amount Desorbed as percent of Amount Adsorbed (G/ C x 100)

0.2418 0.676750 26.349 0.2120 0.125500 62.815 0.1693 0.003250 98.116 0.1008 0.053250 212.10s O. 'OS35 0.006750 88.750 0.0050 0.002525 201.000 12 TABLE VI FC. 143 MATERIAL BALANCE*

B FC 143 in Solution FC 143 on Soil at Equil., mg. at Equil., mg. (Column E, TABLE IV) (A  91 E C 0.917s . 0.337s 0.1725 0.047s 0.0600 0.0025 '.. t + F *Columns D, E, and F were obtained by first calculating the amount (mg) of FC 343 in 27.5 ml (25 ml added plus 2.5 ml remaining from previous step) of solution in each respective step and then subtracting the amount (mg) in the 2.5 ml of solution remaining from the previous step.

003630 c . . < 13 TABLE VII Comparison of Adsorption Coefficients for a Selected Group of Pesticides I (Hamakcr and Thompson, 1972)

Chemical K oc (mobile] Chloramben 12.8 (FC 143          17) 2 ,4 D 32 (FC 95          45) Propham 51 Bromacil 71 Monuron 8 3 Simazine 135 Propazine 152 Dichlobenil 164 Atrazine 172 Chloropropham 245 Prometone 300 Ametryn 380 Diuron 485 Prometryne 513 . .:: t Chloroxuron Paraqua t 4,986 F,, 2c! zz 20,000 (immobile) DDT 243,000 The small amounts adsorbed and ease of desorption is consistent with the relatively high water solubility of FC 95 (300 mg/ l) and IC 143 (> 20 g/ l.)

and with the chemical nature of the molecules  organic salts which ionize in aqueous solution:

C8FljS03 K+ C7FlSC02 NH4+

FC 95 FC 143 . t

14 Terms DPM  Disintegrations per minute C  Concentration of chemical in solution at equilibrium x/ m  Concentration of chemical adsorbed on soil at equilibrium R2  Coefficient of determination K  Adsorption coefficient K'  Desorption coefficient N  Exponential term in Freundlich Equation . :z 1. t N'  Exponential term for desorption equation QC  Adsorption coefficient based on soil organic carbon content References Davidson J. M., et. al., 1975, Use of Soil Parameters for Describing Pesticide Movement Through Soils, U. S. EPA, EPA 660/ 2 75 009.

Davidson, J. M., 1976, "Vertical Movement and Distribution of Organics in Soils, 11 presented at Symposium on Nonbiological Transport and Transformation of Pollutants on *Land and Water, at National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD., May 11 13, 1976.

Hamaker, J. W. and J. M. Thompson, 1972. "Adsorption" in Organic Chemicals in the Soil Environment. C. A. I. Goring and J. W. Hamaker (eds.). Marcel Dekker, Inc., N. Y.

Hamaker, J. W., 1975, "Interpretation of Soil Leaching Experiments," in Chemicals, Human Health and the Environment, A Collection of Dow Scientific Papers, Vol. 1, Dow Chemical USA, Midland, Mich. 48640


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7284-7285]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01777]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2711-024]

Northern States Power Company--Wisconsin; Notice of Intent To
File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving
Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2711-024.
    c. Date Filed: November 30, 2020.
    d. Submitted By: Northern States Power Company--Wisconsin.
    e. Name of Project: Trego Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Trego Project is located on the Namekagon River in
Washburn County, Wisconsin. No federal lands are occupied by the
project works or located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: James M. Zyduck, Director of Hydro
Plants, Northern States Power Company, 1414 W. Hamilton Ave. P.O. Box 8
Eau Claire, WI 54702-0008; email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Laura Washington at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tyrone Williams at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    j. Northern States filed its request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process on November 30, 2020. Northern States provided public
notice of its request on December 11, 2020. In a letter dated January
21, 2021, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved
Northern States' request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating
consultation with the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer as
required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the
implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Northern States as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and
consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
    m. Northern States filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD);
including a proposed process plan and schedule with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed and/or printed on the
Commission's website (http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY).
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a subsequent license for Project No. 2711. Pursuant to
18 CFR 16.20, each application for a subsequent license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by November 30,
2023.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: January 21, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-01777 Filed 1-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 201 (Thursday, October 19, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48671-48673]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20930]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9435; Product Identifier 2016-NM-108-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening
of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposal to supersede Airworthiness
Directive (AD) 2012-22-15, which applies to all Fokker Services B.V.
Model F28 Mark 0070 and Mark 0100 airplanes. This action revises the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by proposing to require
incorporating new airworthiness limitations into the maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable. We are proposing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions would
impose an additional burden over those in the NPRM, we are reopening
the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these
proposed changes.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on December 16, 2016 (81 FR 91068), is reopened.
    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by December 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Fokker
Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL
Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31
(0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. 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 by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9435; 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 SNPRM, 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: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 425-227-
1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9435;
Product Identifier 2016-NM-108-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this SNPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this SNPRM based on
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 SNPRM.

Discussion

    We issued AD 2012-22-15, Amendment 39-17252 (77 FR 68063, November
15, 2012) (``AD 2012-22-15''). AD 2012-22-15 requires actions intended
to address an unsafe condition on all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28
Mark 0070 and Mark 0100 airplanes.
    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that
would supersede AD 2012-22-15. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on December 16, 2016 (81 FR 91068). The NPRM was prompted by
new and more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The NPRM proposed
to revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the new and more restrictive airworthiness limitations.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, additional airworthiness limitations have
been issued and we have determined it is necessary to require revising
the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
the new airworthiness limitations.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0095, dated May 30, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and
Mark 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Fokker Services Engineering Report SE-623 contains the
Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALIs) and Safe Life Items (SLIs).
This report is Part 2 of the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS
Part 2) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, referred to
in Section 06, Appendix 1, of the Fokker 70/100 Maintenance Review
Board document.
    The complete ALS consists of:
    Part 1--Report SE-473, Certification Maintenance Requirements
(CMRs)--ref. EASA AD 2015-0027 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-11-
22, Amendment 39-18549 (81 FR 36438, June 7, 2016)],
    Part 2--Report SE-623, ALIs and SLIs--ref. EASA AD 2016-0125
[which corresponds to certain requirements in FAA AD 2012-22-15],
and
    Part 3--Report SE-672, Fuel ALIs and CDCCLs--ref. EASA AD 2015-
0032 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-11-15, Amendment 39-18542 (81
FR 36447, June 7, 2016)].
    The instructions contained in those reports have been identified
as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness. Failure to
accomplish these actions could result in an unsafe condition.
    EASA previously issued AD 2016-0125, requiring the actions
described in ALS Part 2, Report SE-623 at issue 15 and 16.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Fokker Services published issue
17 of Report SE-623, containing new and/or more restrictive
maintenance tasks.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of AD 2016-0125, which is superseded, and requires
implementation of the maintenance actions as specified in ALS Part 2
of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Fokker Services
Engineering Report SE-623 at issue 17 (hereafter referred to as `ALS
Part 2' in this [EASA] AD).

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9435.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Engineering Report SE-623, ``Fokker
70/100 ALI's and SLI's,'' Issue 17, dated April 26, 2017. The service
information describes new and more restrictive airworthiness
limitations. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Comments

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

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

    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 the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on
this SNPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this SNPRM affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2012-22-15, and retained in this
proposed AD, take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor
rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost
of the actions that are required by AD 2012-22-15 is $85 per product.
    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the new basic requirements of this SNPRM. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this SNPRM on U.S. operators to be $1,275, or $85 per
product.
    The new requirements of this SNPRM add no additional economic
burden.

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2012-22-15, Amendment 39-17252 (77 FR 68063, November 15, 2012), and
adding the following new AD:

Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2016-9435; Product Identifier
2016-NM-108-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 4, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2012-22-15, Amendment 39-17252 (77 FR
68063, November 15, 2012) (``AD 2012-22-15'').
    (2) This AD affects AD 2012-12-07, Amendment 39-17087 (77 FR
37788, June 25, 2012) (``AD 2012-12-07'').
    (3) This AD affects AD 2008-06-20 R1, Amendment 39-16089 (74 FR
61018, November 23, 2009) (``AD 2008-06-20 R1''), which replaced AD
2008-06-20, Amendment 39-15432 (73 FR 14661, March 19, 2008),
retaining its requirements.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and
Mark 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a revision of an airworthiness
limitations items (ALIs) document, which introduces new and more
restrictive maintenance requirements and

airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Maintenance Program Revision, With Revised Compliance
Language

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2012-22-15, with revised compliance language. Within 3 months after
December 20, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-22-15), revise the
maintenance program to incorporate the airworthiness limitations
specified in Fokker Report SE-623, ``Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness
Limitation Items and Safe Life Items,'' Issue 8, released March 17,
2011. For all tasks and retirement lives identified in Fokker Report
SE-623, ``Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitation Items and Safe Life
Items,'' Issue 8, released March 17, 2011, the initial compliance
times start from the later of the times specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, and the repetitive inspections must be
accomplished thereafter at the applicable interval specified in
Fokker Report SE-623, ``Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitation Items
and Safe Life Items,'' Issue 8, released March 17, 2011. Doing the
revision required by paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the
requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) Within 3 months after December 20, 2012 (the effective date
of AD 2012-22-15).
    (2) At the time specified in Fokker Report SE-623, ``Fokker 70/
100 Airworthiness Limitation Items and Safe Life Items,'' Issue 8,
released March 17, 2011.

(h) Retained Corrective Actions, With Specific Delegation Approval
Language

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2012-22-15, with specific delegation approval language. If any
discrepancy, as defined in Fokker Report SE-623, ``Fokker 70/100
Airworthiness Limitation Items and Safe Life Items,'' Issue 8,
released March 17, 2011, is found during accomplishment of any task
specified in Fokker Report SE-623, ``Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness
Limitation Items and Safe Life Items,'' Issue 8, released March 17,
2011: Within the applicable compliance time specified in Fokker
Report SE-623, ``Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitation Items and
Safe Life Items,'' Issue 8, released March 17, 2011, accomplish the
applicable corrective actions in accordance with Fokker Report SE-
623, ``Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitation Items and Safe Life
Items,'' Issue 8, released March 17, 2011, except as required by
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) If no compliance time is identified in Fokker Report SE-623,
``Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitation Items and Safe Life
Items,'' Issue 8, released March 17, 2011, accomplish the applicable
corrective actions before further flight.
    (2) If any discrepancy is found and there is no corrective
action specified in Fokker Report SE-623, ``Fokker 70/100
Airworthiness Limitation Items and Safe Life Items,'' Issue 8,
released March 17, 2011: Before further flight, contact the Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Fokker Services' EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA); for approved corrective actions,
and accomplish those actions before further flight.

(i) Retained ``No Alternative Actions or Intervals,'' With a New
Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2012-22-15, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(k) of this AD, after accomplishing the revision required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections)
or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are
approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

(j) Retained Method of Compliance With 2008-06-20 R1, With Revised
Compliance Language

    This paragraph restates the terminating action specified in
paragraph (m) of AD 2012-22-15, with revised compliance language.
Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD
terminates the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(5) of
AD 2008-06-20 R1.

(k) New Requirement of This AD: Maintenance or Inspection Program
Revision

    Within 30 days of the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
airworthiness limitations specified in Fokker Services B.V.
Engineering Report SE-623, ``Fokker 70/100 ALI's and SLI's,'' Issue
17, dated April 26, 2017. Accomplishing the revision required by
this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this
AD. Accomplishing the revision required by this paragraph also
terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012-12-07.
    (1) The initial compliance times for the tasks specified in
Fokker Services B.V. Engineering Report SE-623, ``Fokker 70/100
ALI's and SLI's,'' Issue 17, dated April 26, 2017, are at the later
of the applicable compliance times specified in Fokker Services B.V.
Engineering Report SE-623, ``Fokker 70/100 ALI's and SLI's,'' Issue
17, dated April 26, 2017, or within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever is later.
    (2) If any discrepancy is found, before further flight, repair
using a method approved by the Manager, International Section,
Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Fokker B.V.
Service's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.

(l) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has
been revised as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the
actions or intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Fokker B.V. Services' EASA DOA. If approved
by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive AD 2017-0095, dated May 30,
2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9435.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone
425-227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130
EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31
(0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 22, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-20930 Filed 10-18-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47295-47296]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20390]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9984-02--Region 4]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund
Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 announces
the deletion of the Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund Site, also known as
``Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits'', (Site) located in Whitehouse, Florida,
from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant
to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Florida, through the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, have determined that
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and
maintenance, monitoring, and five-year reviews, have been completed.
However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under
Superfund.

DATES: This action is effective September 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002. All documents in the
docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the site information repositories. Locations, contacts,
phone numbers and viewing hours are:
    USEPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-8909,
Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Or
    West Regional Jacksonville Public Library, 1425 Chaffee Road S,
Jacksonville, FL 32221, Monday through Thursday: 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.,
Friday & Saturday: 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Sunday: CLOSED.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-8909,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Whitehouse Oil Pits, Whitehouse, Florida. A Notice of Intent to Delete
for this Site was published in the Federal Register (83 FR 33171) on
July 17, 2018.
    The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was
August 16, 2018. Two public comments were received; one of the public
comments does not address the rulemaking or deletion. The other public
comment was about the risk posed by the waste that was left on the Site
in the containment remedy, the potential to support recreational or
ecological land uses in the future on the Site, and monitoring and
additional cleanup at the Site. This comment is addressed by the
requirements and procedures in the Site Operations, Monitoring and
Maintenance Plan which requires ongoing groundwater sampling and
analysis, as well as requiring Site appropriate operations and
maintenance, including inspections to ensure the on-going remedy is
performing as designed. Also, the ongoing Five Year Review process will
continue as long as there is waste left on the Site to assess remedy
performance and protectiveness and assess any changing site conditions.
This deletion does not preclude future actions under the Superfund
rule-making that EPA can take action after deletion, as needed, and
restore the site to the NPL, if there is any change found in the
protectiveness of the remedy for the Site. Therefore, after evaluating
these comments, EPA believes the deletion action for the Site is
appropriate. A responsiveness summary was prepared and placed in both
the docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002, on www.regulations.gov, and in the
local repositories listed above.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of
the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not
affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future
conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

     Dated: September 10, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended]

0
2. Table 1of appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry
``FL'', ``Whitehouse Oil Pits'', ``Whitehouse''.

[FR Doc. 2018-20390 Filed 9-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P