[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17533-17534]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7203]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66628; File No. SR-ICEEU-2012-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Revise Rules and Procedures Related
to Certain Technical and Operational Changes Relating to Credit Default
Swap Contracts

March 20, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On January 24, 2012, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear
Europe'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change SR-ICEEU-2012-01 pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on February 13, 2012.\3\ The
Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposal. For the
reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-66341 (January 24,
2012), 77 FR 7652 (February 13, 2012). In its filing with the
Commission, ICE Clear Europe included statements concerning the
purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these
statements is incorporated into the discussion of the proposed rule
change in Section II below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed changes were set out in revisions to the Rules and CDS
Procedures that were described in circular no. C11/170 published on
November 25, 2011 (available on the Internet Web site of ICE Clear
Europe at: https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_europe/circulars/C11170_att1.pdf and https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_europe/circulars/C11170_att2.pdf). According to ICE Clear Europe, the purpose
of these rule changes is to allow the clearing agency to make certain
technical operational changes relating to CDS Contracts (as defined at
ICE Clear Europe Rule 101), including those that arise under its rules
on an occasional basis as part of the end-of-day price submission
process by Clearing Members.
    Specifically, these changes can be grouped into three categories:
    First, under ICE Clear Europe's current rule framework, CDS
Contracts that arise following the end-of-day pricing process give rise
to non-cleared transactions that may later be submitted for clearing.
However, since the applicable CDS Contract is typically intended to be
cleared between the parties, and since trades that arise following end-
of-day pricing arise at the direction of the clearing house, ICE Clear
Europe believes that it is more efficient and reduces risk for such CDS
Contract to arise upon notice by ICE Clear Europe, rather than to
require the applicable parties to submit the CDS Contract later.
Accordingly, the first change establishes Rule 401(a)(xi) to permit ICE
Clear Europe to specify the time and terms of entry into a CDS Contract
arising following the submission of end-of-day prices by a Clearing
Member. Once ICE Clear Europe has notified the two affected clearing
members of a contract under Rule 401(a)(xi), the contract will stand,
unless it is voidable under Rule 404 (for example due to illegality or
manifest error). This change gives rise to the majority of the proposed
rule changes in the text of the ICE Clear Europe Rules and the CDS
Procedures. As a practical matter, this change operationalizes a
technical service by which the terms of a CDS Contract entered into
following submission of end-of-day prices can be promptly cleared by
ICE Clear Europe. In order to operationalize this change, certain
conforming changes are required. For example, various Rules
establishing procedures for other automatically effective CDS Contracts
are amended to include new Rule 401(a)(xi).
    In addition, a new paragraph (c) has been added to Rule 602 which
deems Clearing Members not to be in violation of Position Limits (as
defined in the Rules) as a result of CDS Contracts that arise by notice
of ICE Clear Europe. Rule 602(c) provides a procedure under which the
Clearing Member can close out such a position within five business days
of the applicable Position Limit adoption or determination date. In
this manner, both the policy of ensuring the pricing process through
automatically effective trades and the policy of ensuring Position
Limits are respected. ICE Clear Europe notes that these provisions
relating to accommodation of Clearing Members in respect of Position
Limits that may be applicable to CDS Contracts that are automatically
effective applies not only to Rule 401(a)(xi), but also to Rules
401(a)(v), (vi), and (x). In the case of Rule 401(a)(v), new Rule
602(c) would apply to CDS Contracts that arise from transactions
generated by ICE Futures Europe or the ICE OTC Operator as a result of
the operation of their contra trade, error trade, invalid trade,
cancelled trade, error correction or similar policies and rules and
procedures relating thereto or otherwise. In the case of Rule
401(a)(vi), new Rule 602(c) would apply to CDS Contracts that form as a
result of another Contract being invoiced back by ICE Clear Europe.
Finally, in the case of Rule 401(a)(x), new Rule 602(c) would apply to
CDS Contracts arising pursuant to Rule 903(a)(xii), which generally
governs the creation of new CDS Contracts between ICE Clear Europe and
non-defaulting Clearing Members to replace any remaining CDS Contracts
of a defaulting Clearing Member.
    Under the second category of changes, settlement and coupon
payments under CDS Contracts will take place through the ICE Clear
Europe's payment banking network used for other cleared products, and
not through the CLS Bank International (``CLS'') system. At present,
Section 8.9 of the CDS Procedures provides that where a CDS Contract is
to be settled in circumstances in which Rule 1514 (CDS Alternative
Delivery or Settlement Procedure) does not apply, relevant cash
payments between ICE Clear Europe and CDS Clearing Members will take
place through The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation using CLS,
unless otherwise specified by ICE Clear Europe in a circular prior to
the date on which such cash payments are due. However, following
consultation with Clearing Members, ICE Clear Europe has determined it
is more efficient if settlement and coupon payments are effected
through ICE Clear Europe's current payment system (which is also
permitted by the current CDS Procedures). ICE Clear Europe has
determined to harmonize the system described at Section 8.9 of the CDS
Procedures into a single payment system. This is achieved through the
deletion of Section 8.9 of the CDS Procedures.\4\ It should be noted
that this proposed change also serves to further harmonize the ICE
Clear Europe Rules and CDS Procedures with those of ICE Clear Credit
LLC, the U.S.-based

clearing agency affiliate of ICE Clear Europe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On January 12, 2012, ICE Clear Europe published circular no.
C12/003 (available at: https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_europe/circulars/C12003.pdf), pursuant to which ICE Clear Europe
used its authority under Rule 8.9 of the CDS Procedures to specify
that, effective January 17, 2012, all payments that had been settled
via CLS including Upfront Fees, Quarterly Coupon Payments and Cash
Credit Event Settlements would subsequently be settled in accordance
with standard process set out in the Finance Procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third category of changes involves various cross-reference and
typographical amendments to the processes for submission of CDS
Contracts. The typographical changes are as follows: (i) Section 4.2 of
the CDS Procedures, the words ``Bilateral CDS Contract'' are changed to
``Bilateral CDS Transaction'', and (ii) Section 8.4 of the CDS
Procedures, the words ``submission of'' are added. According to ICE
Clear Europe, these changes are made solely to correct typographical
and cross-reference drafting in the text of the Rules and make no
substantive changes to the Rules.
    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe indicated that
it has engaged in extensive private consultation with its CDS Clearing
Members involving both operational and legal consultation groups and
has presented the changes to its CDS Risk Committee, which approved the
changes. ICE Clear Europe has also engaged in a public consultation
process in relation to all the changes, pursuant to the Circulars
referred to above, and as required under applicable U.K. legislation.
This public consultation involved the publication of such Circulars on
a publicly accessible portion of the Internet Web site of ICE Clear
Europe. ICE Clear Europe has received no opposing views from its
Clearing Members in relation to the proposed rule amendments and
received no responses to its public consultations during the
consultation period.

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\5\ For example, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\
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 the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which
it is responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If approved, the proposed rule change would allow ICE Clear Europe
to implement certain operational changes related to the processing of
CDS contracts, including with respect to (i) CDS Contracts that arise
as a result of the end-of-day pricing process and (ii) and the process
by which settlement and coupon payments under CDS Contracts will be
made. After considering these changes, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act, including ICE Clear Europe's obligation to ensure that its rules
be designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions.

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \7\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\8\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICEEU-2012-01) be,
and hereby is, approved.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7203 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 10200]
[DOCID:fr07mr07-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL05-25-002; EL05-26-002; EL05-27-002]

Southern Company Services, Inc; Notice of Filing

February 27, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 20, 2007, Southern Company Service
filed amended interconnection agreements under the Southern Operating
Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff,
Fourth Revised Volume No. 5, designated as service agreement numbers
172, 310, and 837, pursuant to the Commission's Order issued January
19, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 13, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3965 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 171)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51393-51400]
[DOCID:fr03se08-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0575, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-
0576, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0577, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0579, EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2008-0580, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0581, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0582, EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2008-0583, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0584, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0585, EPA-
HQ-SFUND-2008-0586; FRL-8710-7]
RIN 2050-AD75

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule No. 49

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires that
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow EPA to assess the nature and extent of public
health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule proposes to add 11 sites to the NPL, 10 to the
General Superfund Section and 1 to the Federal Facilities Section. This
rule also withdraws one site from proposal to the NPL.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before November 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate FDMS Docket Number from the table
below.

                                   FDMS Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Site name                      City/state                         FDMS Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.F. Goodrich.....................  Rialto, CA................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574.
Raleigh Street Dump...............  Tampa, FL.................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0575.
Arkla Terra Property..............  Thonotosassa, FL..........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0576.
U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery,     East Chicago, IN..........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0577.
 Inc.
Fort Detrick Area B Ground Water..  Frederick, MD.............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0585.
Curtis Papers, Inc................  Milford, NJ...............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0579.
Behr Dayton Thermal System VOC      Dayton, OH................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0580.
 Plume.
New Carlisle Landfill.............  New Carlisle, OH..........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0581.
Borit Asbestos Tailings Pile......  Ambler, PA................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0582.
Barite Hill/Nevada Goldfields.....  McCormick, SC.............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0583.
U.S. Magnesium....................  Tooele County, UT.........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0584.
Kennecott (South Zone)............  Copperton, UT.............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0586.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate FDMS Docket
number, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket
Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA
Docket Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Express Mail: Send comments (no
facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301
Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room 3340, Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding
Federal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the appropriate FDMS Docket
number (see table above). EPA's policy is that all comments received
will be included in the public Docket without change and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system; that means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public Docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects

or viruses. For additional Docket addresses and further details on
their contents, see section II, ``Public Review/Public Comment,'' of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Myers, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mail Code 5204P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What Is the NCP?
    C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?
    E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?
    G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?
    H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are
Cleaned Up?
    I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
    J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
    A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule?
    B. How Do I Access the Documents?
    C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the
Headquarters Docket?
    D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the
Regional Dockets?
    E. How Do I Submit My Comments?
    F. What Happens to My Comments?
    G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments?
    H. May I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is
Over?
    I. May I View Public Comments Submitted by Others?
    J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed
to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
    B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
    2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866
Review?
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This
Proposed Rule?
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
    2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    1. What Is Executive Order 13045?
    2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
    Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Apply to This Proposed Rule?

I. Background

A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986,
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public
Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What Is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR part
300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and
Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets
guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of
releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may
present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or
welfare. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent
comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix
B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B)
of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list
of ``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and requires
that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended
primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further
investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and
environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance,
however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner
of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean
that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA (the ``General
Superfund Section''), and one of sites that are owned or operated by
other Federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities Section''). With
respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section, these sites are
generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. Under Executive
Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each
Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at
facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although
EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (``HRS'')
score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL. At
Federal Facilities Section sites, EPA's role is less extensive than at
other sites.

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS
that EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The
HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the relative potential of
uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a
threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR
51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to
CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four
pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a
matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the
HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B),
each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed
on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires
that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility
designated by each State as the greatest danger to public health,
welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State. This
mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2).
(3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score,
if all of the following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
     EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat
to public health.
     EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use
its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to
the release.
    EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'')
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. *
* *'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' EPA
may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases,
including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
    EPA regulations provide that the Remedial Investigation (``RI'')
``is a process undertaken * * * to determine the nature and extent of
the problem presented by the release'' as more information is developed
on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the Feasibility Study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5).
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the boundaries of
the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting information to the Agency at any
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.

G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?

    EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the
following criteria have been met: (i) Responsible parties or other
persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required,
(ii) all appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented
and no further response action is required, or (iii) the remedial
investigation has shown the release poses no significant

threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial
measures is not appropriate.

H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are Cleaned
Up?

    In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of
NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995).
Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may
have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

    EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal
significance.
    Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical
construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other
requirements have been achieved, (2) EPA has determined that the
response action should be limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional controls), or (3) the site qualifies
for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the
CCL, see EPA's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund.

J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund
accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority EPA places
on considering anticipated future land use as part of our remedy
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies
to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup
goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are
in place. EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out
remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the
environment, including current and future land users, in a manner that
allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and
economic vitality while ensuring protectiveness for current and future
land users. For further information, please go to http://www.epa.gov/
superfund/ programs/recycle.

II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule?

    Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring
of the sites in this rule are contained in public Dockets located both
at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, in the Regional offices and by
electronic access at www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the
ADDRESSES section above).

B. How Do I Access the Documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters or the Regional Dockets after the publication of this
proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters Docket are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal
holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for hours.
    The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters
Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room
3340, Washington, DC 20004; 202/566-1744. (Please note this is a
visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at
the beginning of this preamble.)
    The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:

Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund
Records and Information Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007-1866;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215-
814-5364.
Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
Forsyth Street, SW, 9th floor, Atlanta, GA 30303;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records
Center, Superfund Division SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Mailcode 6SF-RA, Dallas, TX 75202-2733;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, KS 66101;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Dawn Richmond, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail
Stop ECL-115, Seattle, WA 98101;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Regional
Dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request
under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure
for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note that due to
the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized maps may be
viewed in-person, however EPA dockets are not equipped to either copy
and mail out such maps or scan them and send them out electronically.
    You may use the Docket at www.regulations.gov to access documents
in the Headquarters Docket (see instructions included in the ADDRESSES
section above). Please note that there are differences between the
Headquarters Docket and the Regional Dockets and those differences are
outlined below.

C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters
Docket?

    The Headquarters Docket for this rule contains the following for
the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; Documentation
Records describing the information used to compute the score;
information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements
or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the
Documentation Record.

D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional
Dockets?

    The Regional Dockets for this rule contain all of the information
in the Headquarters Docket, plus, the actual reference documents
containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA in
calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference
documents are available only in the Regional Dockets.

E. How Do I Submit My Comments?

    Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the
beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that
the mailing addresses differ according to

method of delivery. There are two different addresses that depend on
whether comments are sent by express mail or by postal mail.

F. What Happens to My Comments?

    EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that
EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if,
and when, the site is listed on the NPL.

G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments?

    Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the
specific information that EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). EPA will
not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS or
other listing criteria. EPA will not address comments unless they
indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what
particular point in EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. May I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over?

    Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can only
guarantee that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close
of the formal comment period. EPA has a policy of generally not
delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration
of late comments.

I. May I View Public Comments Submitted by Others?

    During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
Docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional
Dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
    All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public
Docket at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business
Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Once in the public Dockets system, select ``search,'' then
key in the appropriate Docket ID number.

J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the
NPL?

    In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA
concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and
comment will not generally be included in the Docket.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

    In today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add 11 sites to the
NPL, 10 to the General Superfund Section and 1 to the Federal
Facilities Section. All of the sites in this proposed rulemaking are
being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites are
presented in the table below.

                   Table 1--General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                Site name                City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA...................  B.F. Goodrich........  Rialto.
FL...................  Raleigh Street Dump..  Tampa.
FL...................  Arkla Terra Property.  Thonotosassa.
IN...................  U.S. Smelter and Lead  East Chicago.
                        Refinery, Inc.
NJ...................  Curtis Papers, Inc...  Milford.
OH...................  Behr Dayton Thermal    Dayton.
                        System VOC Plume.
OH...................  New Carlisle Landfill  New Carlisle.
PA...................  Borit Asbestos         Ambler.
                        Tailings Pile.
SC...................  Barite Hill/Nevada     McCormick.
                        Goldfields.
UT...................  U.S. Magnesium.......  Tooele County.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Table 2--Federal Facilities Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                Site name                City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD...................  Fort Detrick Area B    Frederick.
                        Ground Water.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL

    EPA is withdrawing the proposal to add the Kennecott (South Zone)
site in Copperton, Utah to the NPL, because all cleanup projects have
been completed and no further EPA actions are needed. The proposed rule
can be found at 59 FR 2568 (January 18, 1994). Refer to the Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0586 for supporting documentation regarding
this action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
    No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules,
are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does
not contain any information collection requirements that require
approval of the OMB.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    This proposed rule listing sites on the NPL, if promulgated, would
not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This
proposed rule, if promulgated, also would establish no standards or
requirements that any small entity must meet, and would impose no
direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or
otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous
substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA
107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is
listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not impose any requirements on any small entities.
For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this proposed rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule where a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small-government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    No. EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the
private sector in any one year. This rule will not impose any Federal
intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon
State, tribal or local governments. Listing a site on the NPL does not
itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that EPA necessarily
will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by
a private party or determine liability for response costs. Costs that
arise out of site responses result from site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not

directly from the act of listing a site on the NPL.
    For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the
private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million.
EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Proposed
Rule?
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects 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.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

1. What Is Executive Order 13045?
    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule
present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Usage

Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to
This Proposed Rule?
    No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: August 27, 2008.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. E8-20389 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64788-64791]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25802]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0306; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-176-AD;
Amendment 39-16829; AD 2011-21-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model
4101 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
that applies to the products listed above. This AD results from
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    * * * BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd has issued Revision 33 of the
AMM [airplane maintenance manual] to amend Chapter 05-10-10 by
adding one new Structurally Significant Item (SSI) and increasing
the repeat inspection period on another SSI. Failure to comply with
this revision constitutes an unsafe condition.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is failure of certain structurally significant
items, including the main landing gear and the nose landing gear, which
could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane; and fuel
vapor ignition sources, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and
consequent loss of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require
actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 23, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 23,
2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this
AD as of June 11, 2009 (74 FR 21246, May 7, 2009).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 8, 2011 (76 FR
19716), and proposed to supersede AD 2009-10-02, Amendment 39-15897 (74
FR 21246, May 7, 2009). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    The Jetstream J41 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), includes
the following chapters:

--05-10-10 ``Airworthiness Limitations'',
--05-10-20 ``Certification Maintenance Requirements'', and,
--05-10-30 ``Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations
(CDCCL)--Fuel System.''

    Compliance with these chapters has been identified as mandatory
actions for continued airworthiness and EASA AD 2009-0052 was issued
to require operators to comply with those instructions.
    Since the issuance of that AD, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd has
issued Revision 33 of the AMM to amend Chapter 05-10-10 by adding
one new Structurally Significant Item (SSI) and increasing the
repeat inspection period on another SSI. Failure to comply with this
revision constitutes an unsafe condition.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD, which
supersedes EASA AD 2009-0052, requires the implementation of the new
or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness
limitations as specified in the defined parts of Chapter 05 of the
AMM at Revision 33.

The unsafe condition is failure of certain structurally significant
items, including the main landing gear and the nose landing gear, which
could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane; and fuel
vapor ignition sources, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and
consequent loss of the airplane. You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (76 FR 19716, April 8,
2011) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Revised Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM)

    Since issuance of the NPRM (76 FR 19716, April 8, 2011), we have
reviewed Subjects 05-10-10, ``Airworthiness Limitations''; 05-10-20,
``Certification Maintenance Requirements''; and 05-10-30, ``Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)--Fuel System''; of
Chapter 05, ``Airworthiness Limitations'', of the BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 35, dated
February 15, 2011. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to
reference this revision.
    We have also added paragraph (j) to this AD to give credit for
Subjects 05-10-10, ``Airworthiness Limitations''; 05-10-20,
``Certification Maintenance Requirements''; and 05-10-30, ``Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)--Fuel System''; of
Chapter 05 ``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of the BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 33, dated
February 15, 2010.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 3 products of U.S.
registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2009-10-02 (74 FR 21246, May 7,
2009) and retained in this AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an
average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $85
per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
currently required actions is $85 per product.
    We estimate that it will take about 1 additional work-hour per
product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $255, or $85
per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 19716, April 8, 2011),
the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15897 (74 FR
21246, May 7, 2009) and adding the following new AD:

2011-21-06 BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited: Amendment 39-16829.
Docket No. FAA-2011-0306; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-176-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
23, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2009-10-02, Amendment 39-15897 (74 FR
21246, May 7, 2009).

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited
Model 4101 airplanes, certificated in any category.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections)
and/or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs).
Compliance with these actions and/or CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR
91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified,
altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this AD, the operator
may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the
revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the
operator must request approval of an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC)

according to paragraph (l) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the
continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    * * * BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd has issued Revision 33 of the
AMM [airplane maintenance manual] to amend Chapter 05-10-10 by
adding one new Structurally Significant Item (SSI) and increasing
the repeat inspection period on another SSI. Failure to comply with
this revision constitutes an unsafe condition.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is failure of certain structurally significant
items, including the main landing gear and the nose landing gear,
which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane;
and fuel vapor ignition sources, which could result in a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2009-10-02, Amendment 39-15897 (74 FR
21246, May 7, 2009)

Revise Airworthiness Limitations Section (AWL) of Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness

    (g) Within 90 days after June 11, 2009 (the effective date of AD
2009-10-02, Amendment 39-15897 (74 FR 21246, May 7, 2009)): Revise
the AWL section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by
incorporating the instructions of Subjects 05-10-10, ``Airworthiness
Limitations,'' 05-10-20, ``Certification Maintenance Requirements,''
and 05-10-30, ``Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations
(CDCCL)--Fuel System,'' of Chapter 05, ``Airworthiness
Limitations,'' of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream
Series 4100 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM), Revision 31, dated
February 15, 2009. Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (l)
of this AD, no alternative replacement times or inspection intervals
may be approved for any affected component. Doing the actions
required by paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of
this paragraph.
    (h) Where paragraph 2.A.(2) of Subject 05-10-10, ``Airworthiness
Limitations,'' of Chapter 05, ``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of the
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision
31, dated February 15, 2009, specifies that certain landing gear
units ``must be removed before 31st March 2008,'' this AD requires
compliance within 60 days after June 11, 2009.

New Requirements of This AD With Revised Service Information

Maintenance Program Revision

    (i) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise
the maintenance program by incorporating Subjects 05-10-10,
``Airworthiness Limitations''; 05-10-20, ``Certification Maintenance
Requirements''; and 05-10-30, ``Critical Design Configuration
Control Limitations (CDCCL)--Fuel System''; of Chapter 05,
``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of the BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 35, dated February 15,
2011. Doing the actions required by this paragraph terminates the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. The initial compliance
times for the tasks are at the applicable times specified in
paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD.
    (1) For replacement tasks of life limited parts specified in
Subject 05-10-10, ``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of Chapter 05,
``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of the BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 35, dated February 15,
2011: Prior to the applicable flight cycles (landings) or flight
hours (flying hours) on the part specified in the ``Mandatory Life
Limits'' column in Subject 05-10-10, or within 90 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For structurally significant item tasks specified in Subject
05-10-10, ``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of Chapter 05,
``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of the BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 35, dated February 15,
2011: Prior to the accumulation of the applicable flight cycles
specified in the ``Initial Inspection'' column in Subject 05-10-10,
or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later.
    (3) For certification maintenance requirements tasks specified
in Subject 05-10-20, ``Certification Maintenance Requirements,'' of
Chapter 05, ``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of the BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 35, dated
February 15, 2011: Prior to the accumulation of the applicable
flight hours specified in the ``Time Between Checks'' column in
Subject 05-10-20, or within 90 days after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later; except for tasks that specify ``first
flight of the day'' in the ``Time Between Checks'' column in Subject
05-10-20, the initial compliance time is the first flight of the
next day after doing the revision required by paragraph (i) of this
AD, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (j) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Subjects 05-10-10, ``Airworthiness Limitations'';
05-10-20, ``Certification Maintenance Requirements''; and 05-10-30,
``Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)--Fuel
System''; of Chapter 05, ``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of the BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 33,
dated February 15, 2010; are acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD.

No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or CDCCLs

    (k) After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (i)
of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals,
and/or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, and/or
CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this
AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: Although EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-
0098, dated May 27, 2010, specifies both revising the maintenance
program to include limitations, and doing certain repetitive actions
(e.g., inspections) and/or maintaining CDCCLs, this AD only requires
the revision. Requiring a revision of the maintenance program,
rather than requiring individual repetitive actions and/or
maintaining CDCCLs, requires operators to record AD compliance only
at the time the revision is made. Repetitive actions and/or
maintaining CDCCLs specified in the airworthiness limitations must
be complied with in accordance with 14 CFR 91.403(c).

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (l) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, 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
Branch, send it to ATTN: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (m) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness
Directive 2010-0098, dated

May 27, 2010; Subjects 05-10-10, ``Airworthiness Limitations''; 05-
10-20, ``Certification Maintenance Requirements''; and 05-10-30,
``Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)--Fuel
System''; of Chapter 05, ``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of the BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 31,
dated February 15, 2009; and Subjects 05-10-10, ``Airworthiness
Limitations''; 05-10-20, ``Certification Maintenance Requirements'';
and 05-10-30, ``Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations
(CDCCL)--Fuel System''; of Chapter 05, ``Airworthiness
Limitations,'' of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream
Series 4100 AMM, Revision 35, dated February 15, 2011; for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use the following service information to do the
applicable actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of Subjects 05-10-10,
``Airworthiness Limitations''; 05-10-20, ``Certification Maintenance
Requirements''; and 05-10-30, ``Critical Design Configuration
Control Limitations (CDCCL)--Fuel System''; of Chapter 05,
``Airworthiness Limitations,'' of the BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 35, dated February 15,
2011; under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 on November 23, 2011.
Page 1 of the Publications Transmittal of the BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM is the only page that
shows the revision level of this document.
    (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of Subjects 05-10-10, ``Airworthiness
Limitations''; 05-10-20, ``Certification Maintenance Requirements'';
05-10-30, ``Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations
(CDCCL)--Fuel System''; of Chapter 05, ``Airworthiness
Limitations,'' of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream
Series 4100 AMM, Revision 31, dated February 15, 2009; on June 11,
2009 (74 FR 21246, May 7, 2009).
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE
SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department,
Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United
Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 23, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25802 Filed 10-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P