[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 93 (Thursday, May 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27607-27611]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11554]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-1417; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-159-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-20-
14, for all Airbus Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; and
all Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes. AD 2004-
20-14 requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the splice
fitting at fuselage frame (FR) 47 between stringers 24 and 26 (left-
and right-hand sides), and corrective actions if necessary. Since we
issued AD 2004-20-14, we have determined that the inspection compliance
time and repetitive inspection interval must be reduced to allow timely
detection of cracks in the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47. This
proposed AD would reduce the inspection compliance time and repetitive
inspection intervals, and add Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes to
the applicability. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct
cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.

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 this proposed AD, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-1417;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-159-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD 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 proposed AD.

Discussion

    On September 30, 2004, we issued AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819
(69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), which superseded AD 2001-03-14,
Amendment 39-12118 (66 FR 10957, February 21, 2001). AD 2004-20-14
requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus
Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; and all Model A300 B4-
600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes. Since we issued AD 2004-20-
14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), we have
determined that the inspection compliance time and repetitive
inspection interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks
in the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47, and that Model A300 C4-605R
Variant F airplanes must be added to the applicability.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0184R1, dated August 22, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    In order to prevent crack development in the fastener holes at
Frame (FR) 47 splicing joint on A300 aeroplanes, Airbus developed
modification (Mod) 5890 for aeroplanes in production and issued
corresponding Service Bulletin (SB) A300-53-0199 for aeroplanes in
service.
    Subsequently, cracks were found on FR47 splice fitting between
stringers (STRG) 24 and 26 on A300 aeroplanes previously modified by
SB A300-53-0199.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the
structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, DGAC [Direction
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD 2002-
184 http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/2002184tb_superseded.pdf/AD_F-2002-184_2 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-
13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)], superseding [DGAC France] AD
85-152-069 and [DGAC France] AD 1999-515-298 [which corresponds to
FAA AD 2001-03-14, Amendment 39-12118 (66 FR 10957, February 21,
2001)], to require repetitive High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC)
rotating probe inspections of the splice fitting between STRG 24 and
26 and,

depending on findings, corrective action(s). DGAC France AD 2002-
184(B) expanded the applicability to A300-600 aeroplanes, which have
the same design.
    Since that [DGAC France] AD was issued, a fleet survey and
updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses have been performed in
order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal
(ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses have determined that
the inspection threshold and intervals for A300-600 aeroplanes must
be reduced to allow timely detection of these cracks and the
accomplishment of an applicable corrective action.
    For the reasons described above, [EASA] AD 2013-0184 retains the
requirements of DGAC France AD 2002-184, which is superseded, but
requires accomplishment of the actions for A300-600 aeroplanes
within the new thresholds and intervals introduced with Revision 05
of Airbus SB [service bulletin] A300-53-6123 [dated August 1, 2011]
.
    This [EASA] AD was revised to correct the splices Part Numbers
(P/N) in Table 4 of Appendix 1 of this [EASA] AD. Also, reference is
now made to Airbus SB A300-53-6123 Revision 06 [dated September 28,
2011], which corrected this mistake compared to Revision 05.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2015-1417.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service bulletins:
     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 06,
including Inspection Report, dated September 28, 2011. This service
bulletin describes procedures for inspection for cracking of the splice
fitting at fuselage FR 47 between stringers 24 and 26, and corrective
actions.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 03,
including Appendix 03, dated July 26, 2007. This service bulletin
describes procedures for inspection to detect cracking of the splice
fitting at fuselage FR 47 between stringers 24 and 26, and corrective
actions.
    The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. 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 of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to 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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 72 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take up to 14 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $85,680, or $1,190
per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take up to 204 work-hours and require parts costing up to $37,000, for
a cost of up to $54,340 per product. We have no way of determining the
number of aircraft that might need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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)
2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-1417; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-
159-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 29, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809,
October 13, 2004).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622
airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
    (5) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the inspection
compliance time and repetitive inspection interval must be reduced
to allow timely detection of cracks in the splice fitting at
fuselage frame (FR) 47. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47, which could result
in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Repetitive Inspections for Airplanes Defined in Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 02, Dated November 12, 2002,
With New Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD
2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), with
new service information. For airplanes defined in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 02, dated November 12, 2002: Do a
high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracking of
the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47 between stringers 24 and 26
(left- and right-hand sides), at the applicable times specified in
paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at the earlier of the flight-cycle/flight-hour intervals
specified in the applicable column in Table 2 of Figure 1 and Sheet
1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-53-0350, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12,
2002. Do the inspections in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-53-0350, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12,
2002; or Revision 03, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 26, 2007. As
of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-53-0350, Revision 03, excluding Appendix 01, dated July 26,
2007.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 20,000 or more total
flight cycles as of November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD
2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)): Do
the initial inspection at the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) At the earlier of the flight-cycle/flight-hour intervals
after November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-20-14,
Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)), as specified in
the applicable column in Table 1 of Figure 1 and Sheet 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350,
Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002.
    (ii) Within 750 flight cycles or 1,500 flight hours after
November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment
39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)), whichever is first.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 20,000 total
flight cycles as of November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD
2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)): Do
the initial inspection at the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) At the earlier of the flight-cycle/flight-hour intervals
after November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-20-14,
Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)), as specified in
the applicable column in Table 1 of Figure 1 and Sheet 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350,
Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002.
    (ii) Within 1,800 flight cycles or 3,000 flight hours after
November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment
39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)), whichever is first.

(h) Retained Repetitive Inspections for Airplanes Defined in Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 02, Dated November 12, 2002,
With New Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD
2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), with
new service information. For airplanes defined in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 02, dated November 12, 2002: Do the
HFEC inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the
applicable times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
Repeat the inspection thereafter at the earlier of the flight-cycle/
flight-hour intervals specified in the applicable column in Table 2
of Figure 1 and Sheet 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01,
dated November 12, 2002. Do the inspections in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123,
Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002,
excluding Appendix 01; or Revision 06, dated September 28, 2011.
Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD
terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 10,000 or more total
flight cycles as of November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD
2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)): Do
the initial inspection within 750 flight cycles or 1,900 flight
hours after November 17, 2004, whichever is first.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 10,000 total
flight cycles as of November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD
2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)): Do
the initial inspection at the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) At the earlier of the flight-cycle/flight-hour intervals
after November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-2-14,
Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)), as specified in
the applicable column in Table 1 of Figure 1 and Sheet 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123,
Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002.
    (ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 3,800 flight hours after
November 17, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-20-14, Amendment
39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004)), whichever is first.

(i) Retained Repair, With Revised Repair Instructions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (c) of AD
2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), with
revised repair instructions. Repair any cracking found during any
inspection required by paragraphs (g) and (h) this AD before further
flight, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350,
Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002; or
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 02, excluding
Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002; as applicable. Where Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01,
dated November 12, 2002; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123,
Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002; specify
to contact Airbus in case of certain crack findings, this AD
requires that a repair be accomplished before further flight using a
method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate; or the Direction
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its delegated
agent); or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

(j) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive Inspections

    For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(5) of
this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or
(j)(2) of this AD: Remove the fasteners and accomplish an HFEC
rotating probe inspection for cracking of the splice fitting between
stringer 24 and 26, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 06,
excluding Inspection Report, dated September 28, 2011. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD. If no cracking is
found: Before further flight after each inspection, install new
fasteners, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 06, excluding
Inspection Report, dated September 28, 2011. Accomplishment of the
initial inspection required by this paragraph terminates the
requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD for that airplane.
    (1) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5890, or the
actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6131, have not
been done: At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i)
and (j)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that have an average flight time (AFT) that is
more than 1.5 hours: At the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (j)(1)(i)(A) and (j)(1)(i)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Before the accumulation of 2,500 total flight cycles or
5,500 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (B) Within 800 flight cycles or 1,750 flight hours, whichever
occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) For airplanes that have an AFT that is equal to or less
than 1.5 hours: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs
(j)(1)(ii)(A) and (j)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Before the accumulation of 2,700 total flight cycles or
4,100 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (B) Within 800 flight cycles or 1,750 flight hours, whichever
occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes that have accomplished Airbus Modification
5890, or have accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6131: At the applicable time specified in paragraph
(j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that have an AFT that is more than 1.5 hours:
At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(A) and
(j)(2)(i)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Before the accumulation of 6,800 total flight cycles or
14,700 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (B) Within 800 flight cycles or 1,750 flight hours, whichever
occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) For airplanes that have an AFT that is equal to or less
than 1.5 hours: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs
(j)(2)(ii)(A) and (j)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Before the accumulation of 7,300 total flight cycles or
11,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (B) Within 800 flight cycles or 1,750 flight hours, whichever
occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

(k) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive Inspection Intervals for
Actions Specified in Paragraph (j) of This AD

    For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(5) of
this AD: Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD
at the applicable time specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4)
of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes that have an AFT of more than 1.5 hours and
meet the applicable conditions specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i)
through (k)(1)(iv) of this AD: Inspect at intervals not to exceed
800 flight cycles or 1,750 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (i) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5890 has not been
accomplished.
    (ii) Airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6131 have not been accomplished.
    (iii) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5890 has been
accomplished and have splice part number (P/N) A53834139-202/-203
installed.
    (iv) Airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6131 have been accomplished and have splice P/N
A53834139-202/-203 installed.
    (2) For airplanes that have an AFT that is equal to or less than
1.5 hours and meet the applicable conditions specified in paragraphs
(k)(2)(i) through (k)(2)(iv) of this AD: Inspect at intervals not to
exceed 800 flight cycles or 1,750 flight hours.
    (i) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5890 has not been
accomplished.
    (ii) Airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6131 have not been accomplished.
    (iii) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5890 has been
accomplished and have splice P/N A53834139-202/-203 installed.
    (iv) Airplanes on which the actions described in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6131 have been accomplished and have splice P/N
A53834139-202/-203 installed.
    (3) For airplanes that have an AFT of more than 1.5 hours and
meet the applicable conditions specified in paragraphs (k)(3)(i) and
(k)(3)(ii) of this AD: Inspect at intervals not to exceed 800 flight
cycles or 1,750 flight hours.
    (i) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5890 has been
accomplished and have splice P/N A53812635-200/-201/-202/-203
installed.
    (ii) Airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6131 have been accomplished and have splice P/N
A53812635-200/-201/-202/-203 installed.
    (4) For the airplanes that have an AFT that is equal to or less
than 1.5 hours and meet the applicable conditions specified in
paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) of this AD: Inspect at intervals
not to exceed 800 flight cycles or 1,750 flight hours.
    (i) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 5890 has been
accomplished and have splice P/N A53812635-200/-201/-202/-203
installed.
    (ii) Airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-6131 have been accomplished and have splice P/N
A53812635-200/-201/-202/-203 installed.

(l) New Requirement of This AD: Corrective Actions

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (j) or (k) of
this AD, any cracks are found: Before further flight, do the
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 06,
excluding Inspection Report, dated September 28, 2011; except as
provided by paragraph (m) of this AD.

(m) New Requirement of This AD: Exception to Service Information

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (j) or (k) of this AD and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-
6123, Revision 06, excluding Inspection Report, dated September 28,
2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 03, dated
July 26, 2007; specifies to contact Airbus: Before further flight,
repair the crack using a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(n) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (j) and (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service
information specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(7) of this
AD.
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 01, dated
December 18, 2001, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.
    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 02, excluding
Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002, which is incorporated by
reference in AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October
13, 2004).
    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 01, dated
December 18, 2001, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.
    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 02, excluding
Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002, which is incorporated by
reference in AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October
13, 2004).
    (5) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 03, dated
August 20, 2004, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 04, dated
April 25, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (7) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 05, dated
August 1, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(o) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International 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 Branch, send it
to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (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 Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(p) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Airworthiness Directive 2013-0184R1, dated August 22, 2013,
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-2015-1417.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France;

telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 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 April 30, 2015.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-11554 Filed 5-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


trades effected in accordance with the conditions of paragraphs (b)(2)
and (b)(3) of this section that are reported in the consolidated system
during the primary trading session for the security; and
    (vii) The purchase is reported using a special VWAP trade modifier.
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The opening regular way purchase reported in the consolidated
system, the opening regular way purchase in the principal market for
the security, and the opening regular way purchase in the market where
the purchase is effected;
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Does not exceed the highest independent bid or the last
independent transaction price, whichever is higher, quoted or reported
in the consolidated system at the time the Rule 10b-18 purchase is
effected; Provided, however, that Rule 10b-18 VWAP purchases, as
defined in paragraph (a)(14) of this section, shall be deemed to
satisfy paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section;
* * * * *
    (d) Other purchases. (1) No presumption shall arise that an issuer
or an affiliated purchaser has violated the anti-manipulation
provisions of section 9(a)(2) or 10(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78i(a)(2)
or 78j(b)), or Sec.  240.10b-5, if the Rule 10b-18 purchases of such
issuer or affiliated purchaser do not meet the conditions specified in
paragraph (b) or (c) of this section; and
    (2) A Rule 10b-18 purchase of an issuer or affiliated purchaser
that meets the conditions specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section at the time the purchase order is entered but does not meet the
price condition specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section at the
time the purchase is effected due to flickering quotes shall remove
only such purchase, rather than all of the issuer's other Rule 10b-18
purchases, from the safe harbor for that day.

    Dated: January 25, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1856 Filed 1-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 44840]
[DOCID:fr31au09-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12662-001]

Renewable Resources, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

August 24, 2009.
    On July 1, 2009, Renewable Resources, Inc. filed a successive
preliminary permit application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal
Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Swift River
Mill Hydroelectric Project No. 12662, to be located on the Pawcatuck
River near the Towns of Westerly and Hopkinton, in Washington County,
Rhode Island.
    The proposed Swift River Mill Project would consist of: (1) The 10-
foot-high, 112-foot-long Swift River Mill dam; (2) an existing 36-acre
reservoir with a normal water surface elevation of 26.0 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum; (3) an existing powerhouse with two new
turbine generating units with a combined capacity of 360 kilowatts
(kW), and two new vortex aerator turbine generating units with a
combined capacity of 30 kW for a total installed capacity of 390 kW;
(4) a new 300-foot-long underground transmission line; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated annual
generation of about 2,870 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Edward Carapezza, P.O. Box 365, Hopkinton,
RI 02833,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Tom Dean,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``eFiling'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp.
    More information about this project can be viewed or printed on the
``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-12662) in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-
866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20851 Filed 8-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16908-16909]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07960]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 6e-2 and Form N-6EI-1, SEC File No. 270-177, OMB Control
No. 3235-0177

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 6e-2 (17 CFR 270.6e-2) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a) is an exemptive rule that provides
separate accounts formed by life insurance companies to fund certain
variable life insurance products, exemptions from certain provisions of
the Act, subject to conditions set forth in the rule.
    Rule 6e-2 provides a separate account with an exemption from the
registration provisions of section 8(a) of the Act if the account files
with the Commission Form N-6EI-1 (17 CFR 274.301), a notification of
claim of exemption.
    The rule also exempts a separate account from a number of other
sections of the Act, provided that the separate account makes certain
disclosure in its registration statements (in the case of those
separate account that elect to register), reports to contract holders,
proxy solicitations, and submissions to state regulatory authorities,
as prescribed by the rule.
    Since 2008, there have been no filings of Form N-6EI-1 by separate
accounts. Therefore, there has been no cost or burden to the industry
since that time. The Commission requests authorization to maintain an
inventory of one burden hour for administrative purposes.
    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 control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to: [email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: April 11, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07960 Filed 4-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 12)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2454-2458]
[DOCID:fr19ja07-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-8271-2]

 National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final notice of deletion of the Avenue E Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region V is
publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Avenue E
Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site (Site), located in

Traverse City, Michigan 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 appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the
concurrence of the State of Michigan, through the Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), because EPA has determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed, and,
therefore, further remedial action pursuant to CERCLA is not necessary
at this time.

DATES: This direct final notice of deletion will be effective March 20,
2007 unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 20, 2007. If
adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final notice of deletion in the Federal Register informing
the public that the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1986-0005 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: Gladys Beard at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Dave Novak, Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S.
EPA (P-19J), 77 W. Jackson, Chicago, Il 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-
621-8431.
     Hand Delivery: Dave Novak, Community Involvement
Coordinator, (P-19J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1986-0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 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 http://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 instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Superfund Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Gladys Beard, State NPL Deletion Process
Manager at<PHONE_NUMBER>, before visiting the Region 5 office.
    Information Repositories: Comprehensive information about the Site
is available for viewing and copying at the Site information
repositories located at: EPA Region V Record Center, 77 W. Jackson,
Chicago, Il 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Martin, Remedial Project Manager
at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Gladys Beard, State NPL
Deletion Process Manager at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 1-
800-621-8431, (SR-6J), U.S. EPA Region V, 77 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL
60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    EPA Region V is publishing this direct final notice of deletion of
the Avenue E Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site from the NPL. The
EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to
public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of
those sites. As described in section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites
deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions if conditions
at a deleted site warrant such action.
    Because EPA considers this action to be non-controversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of
intent to delete. This action will be effective March 20, 2007 unless
EPA receives adverse comments by February 20, 2007 on this document. If
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period
on this document, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct
final deletion before the effective date of the deletion and the
deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a
response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the
basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already
received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Avenue E Groundwater
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.
Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless
adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making a
determination to delete a release from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in
consultation with the State, 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 Fund-financed (Hazardous Substance Superfund
Response Trust Fund) responses under CERCLA have been implemented, and
no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the deleted site above levels
that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA section
121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), requires that a subsequent review of the
site be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the
remedial action at the deleted site to ensure that the action remains
protective of public health and the environment. If new information
becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may
initiate remedial actions. 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.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of this Site:
    (1) The EPA consulted with the State of Michigan on the deletion of
the Site from the NPL prior to developing this direct final notice of
deletion.
    (2) Michigan concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final notice
of deletion a notice of intent to delete is published today in the
``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register, is being published
in a major local newspaper of general circulation at or near the Site,
and is being distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local
government officials and other interested parties. The newspaper notice
announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the notice of
intent to delete the Site from the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in
the site information repositories identified above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this document, EPA will publish a timely notice of
withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before its effective
date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with a
decision on the deletion based on the notice of intent to delete and
the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The remedy at the Avenue E Site was found to be protective of human
health and the environment. This determination was documented in the
five year review conducted in 2005. All groundwater contaminants
associated with the Coast Guard facility have reached the clean up
standards specified in the 1987 agreement between the Coast Guard and
the State of Michigan. All active remediation has been completed and no
further actions are required for this Site. The following sections
outline additional information reviewed as part of an NPL deletion
determination.

Site Location

    The Avenue E Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site was a
groundwater contamination plume located in East Bay Township in
Traverse County, Traverse City, Michigan. The source of the
contamination was located on the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Air Station.
The plume was located west of the intersection of Parsons Road and Aero
Park Drive. It was traced to the northwest corner of an industrial park
back lot located southwest of Nish-Nah-Bee Industries. The plume
eventually extended to the East Arm of the Grand Traverse Bay.

Site History

    In 1980, residents of Avenue E in East Bay Township complained of
odors and foaming in their well water. Subsequent investigation by the
Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH) and the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources (MDNR) revealed the existence of a plume of
contamination in the underlying aquifer. The plume consisted primarily
of hydrocarbons found in petroleum distillates, including benzene and
toluene, and some solvents.

Removal Actions Performed

    On June 10, 1982, members of the USCG District 9 air station met
with Region V removal staff to discuss the possibilities and procedures
for receiving CERCLA funds to pay for the connection of the homes
within the Avenue E area of concern to the existing public water supply
system while the USCG conducted a hydrogeologic investigation to
further determine the source of contamination identified by MDNR and
MDPH. According to the On Scene Coordinator's (OSC) report, the USCG
could not pay for such connections without knowing their extent of
responsibility. The Coast Guard agreed to enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with USEPA assuring to reimburse the Agency for all
costs incurred for the connections should the USCG be found to be the
responsible party. USEPA then proceeded with the removal action and all
home connections to the existing public water supply were completed on
December 12, 1982. A total of 59 homes received city water with nine
home owners declining to receive full hookups. A total of 67 homes
received some level of service from this action. The total cost
reimbursed by the USCG to USEPA was $137,540. Although not all
residents received full hookups to the public water supply system, the
plume associated with the Coast Guard property no longer exists and
therefore would indicate that no risk currently exists to those not
fully connected to the public water supply from the contamination
associated with the Coast Guard property.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

Groundwater
    The first investigation of the site was conducted by the MDNR in
1982. The State Agency's study objectives were to locate and delineate
the contaminant plume, identify and determine the distribution of its
component parts and locate the probable source area of the plume. The
MDNR drilled 24 wells and two auger holes along Parsons Road and around
the lots of Jacklyn Steel and Nish-Nah-Bee Industries.
    As a result of this investigation, the MDNR determined that the
USCG Air Station property was part of the suspected source area. The
USCG contracted with the United States Geological Service (USGS) in
July 1982 to undertake a study of the area's hydrogeologic conditions.
Objectives of this study were:
    (1) To determine the rate and direction of groundwater flow;
    (2) locate the source or sources of contaminants;

    (3) determine the extent and distribution of contaminants;
    (4) evaluate hydrologically suitable locations for installing purge
wells should that be necessary.
    The USCG installed a total of 138 wells on the Coast Guard
property, up and down gradient of the base in and around the industrial
areas and residential area. Five wells were installed to conduct a pump
test for determining aquifer characteristics.
    At the request of the USCG, a team from the University of Michigan
conducted a study of the site from February through August 1984.
Building on the data and results given in the USCG report, the study
was to be complementary to the USCG effort. By providing data and
analysis on the time variation of contaminants, the effect of soil
adsorptive characteristics on contaminant distribution and movement,
and the potential risk posed by the contamination to public health,
probable contaminant sources could be determined and remedial action
alternatives developed.
    A total of 24 wells including 15 existing and nine new wells were
selected for analysis based on previous information. These wells were
sampled six times at 21-day intervals. Statistical analysis was
performed on the data and various data plots were generated. This
information was used to provide supporting information for developing
response alternatives. A preliminary risk assessment was made for the
various chemical components found in the plume. A contaminant transport
computer model was used to help determine the possible origin of the
plume and the effectiveness of various purge well combinations.
Finally, several cleanup alternatives were identified and discussed.
    Following the 1982 removal action, the Coast Guard also contracted
and supervised additional groundwater investigations complementing
those conducted earlier by the MDNR to aid in the planning of a long
term response. Results of these investigations concluded the following:
     A plume of contamination was found stretching from near
the Hanger/Administration (HA) building on the Coast Guard Property to
East Bay. It was approximately 4300 feet long and from 180 to 400 feet
wide. Hydrocarbon spectra of the contamination were consistent with
that of 115/145 aviation gasoline. Major components were benzene,
toluene and xylene with a maximum concentration of 3640 [mu]g/l, 553000
[mu]g/l and 5410 [mu]g/l, respectively.
     An additional contaminant plume was discovered on the
Coast Guard property with parent origin near the Coast Guard's fueling
station. Around the fueling station several inches of pure JP-4 jet
fuel product were found floating on the water table.
     A third contaminant plume was found along the Coast
Guard's south fence line up-gradient from the fuel farm area. Possible
origins include a 1979 Republic Airlines jet fuel spill and various
underground storage tanks in the area that had since been removed.
     The contaminants were located in a sandy aquifer of high
permeability. Groundwater flow is to the northeast with a velocity of
approximately five feet per day.
     A probable source of the original plume was a fuel spill
in 1969 at the Coast Guard base in which about 2500 gallons of aviation
gasoline leaked into the ground at a fuel station located under the
northwest corner of the new HA building. The second plume may have
originated from leaking JP4 fuel tanks at the current fuel station.
    To mitigate adverse effects discovered during the investigation,
interim responses were implemented. In addition to providing city water
connections to affected residents in the Avenue E area, the USCG also
installed and operated interdiction and purge systems with treatment
capability to prevent additional offsite contaminant migration and
removed and/or repaired tanks at the Coast Guard fueling station. In
addition to the investigation of groundwater, the USGS and the
University of Michigan (UM) reported numerous measurements of organics
in the soils at the Coast Guard Air Station. The UM study found maximum
concentrations of 25.4 [mu]g/g benzene, 27.6 [mu]g/g toluene, and 229
[mu]g/g xylene. Analyses were made for seven other hydrocarbons with
negative results. Soil borings indicate that much of the organic
material was adsorbed on the soil in a 6'' to 12'' thick layer in the
capillary zone immediately above the water table. The UM suggested that
this zone was slowly leaking organic contaminants into the groundwater
over time and was serving as a source for the plume.

Record of Decision Findings

    There was no Record of Decision (ROD) for this site. In 1987, an
agreement between the State of Michigan and the USCG was negotiated.
USCG agreed to pay the cost of implementing the cleanup of
contamination emanating from the USCG air station. All clean up
activities associated with the Ave E site were conducted as part of
this Settlement agreement.

Characterization of Remaining Risk

    The municipal water supply system serving the East Bay township
residences and business currently meets federal and state drinking
water standards and is safe for human consumption. The source of the
township's municipal water system is groundwater wells located in East
Bay Township and monitored every three years. The wells used to supply
water to East Bay Township are quite a distance up-gradient of the
Coast Guard Facility, and the monitoring frequency for these wells is
adequate.
    Currently, soil vapor intrusion is not considered a possible
problem at the Site. Down gradient monitoring wells placed along Avenue
E in the residential area where the plume was traced, have found no
detectable levels of contaminants of concern associated with the USCG
plume.

Response Actions

    In 1987, an agreement between the State of Michigan and the USCG
was negotiated. USCG agreed to pay the cost of implementing the cleanup
of contamination emanating from the site. The cleanup involved
extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater. Some of the other
remedial actions included enhanced biodegradation using hydrogen
peroxide and nitrates to reduce plume contaminates. The USCG also
implemented groundwater sparging with vapor extraction, venting with
vapor extraction, soil venting, natural attenuation and surfactant
injection and extraction. All of these additional remedial measures
helped to reduce the contaminant source in the soil and speed treatment
of the groundwater through the pump and treatment system. The
contaminated groundwater was treated by activated carbon prior to
discharge to the Traverse City Sewer system. By 1996, the contaminant
levels rarely exceeded the cleanup criteria stipulated in the 1987
settlement agreement. In 1999, the wells remained clean.
    A Preliminary Closeout Report (PCOR) was completed by U.S. EPA in
September 2000. The purpose of the PCOR was to document that all
construction activity had been completed at the Site.

Institutional Controls

    There were no provisions for institutional controls in any of the
agreements associated with the clean up and monitoring of this site as
the groundwater was to be remediated to unrestricted use.

Cleanup Standards

    The cleanup standards in the 1987 Settlement Agreement were
designed to meet the contaminant levels for benzene,
tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene as required by the State of
Michigan (MDNR), based on acceptable standards in place at the time the
Settlement Agreement was issued. This was an agreement between the MDNR
and USCG. If these standards were not met, then additional measures
would be taken. This Site is being deleted because the remedial
response met all cleanup standards outlined in the 1987 Settlement
Agreement.

Operation and Maintenance

    USCG has completed monitoring groundwater at the site in accordance
with the Settlement Agreement between the State of Michigan and the
USCG filed on June 1, 1987. Per the Settlement Agreement with the State
of Michigan, the USCG operated two interdiction fields (pump and
treatment systems). There was one at the North of the base and one at
the South of the base. They consisted of wells IN2, IN3, IN4, IN5, and
IN6 in the North field (avgas plume) and PP5, PP7, and PP8 in the South
Field (JP-4 field). Each interdiction point had point of compliance
wells along the USCG property boundary. The North field point of
compliance wells were M56, M1, M4, M3, and M55. The South field point
of compliance wells were M22, M61, M62, and M64. There were a number of
other wells installed over the course of the project for various
reasons. In 2000, with consent of MDEQ, the USCG removed wells PP5,
PP6, PP7 and PP8. In 2001, with the consent of MDEQ, wells IN2, IN3,
IN4, IN5 and IN6 were removed along with the associated piping,
manifolds, carbon treatment units, and discharge lines for both the
North and South interdiction fields. The remaining monitoring wells
will be removed after the 10 year post closure period. The post closure
period started in October 2005.

Five-Year Review

    EPA conducted a five-year review of the Site in 2005. In the
review, EPA concluded that all remedial actions are complete and
monitoring indicates that all clean up goals have been reached in
connection with the 1987 Settlement Agreement. Therefore, no future
five-year review, are required for this Site.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for
recommendation of the deletion of this Site from the NPL are available
to the public in the information repositories, and in http://www.regulations.gov
.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Michigan, determined that
all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed, and that no
further response actions under CERCLA are necessary. Therefore, EPA is
deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be non-controversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective March 20, 2007 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
February 20, 2007. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the
deletion and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to
comments and, as appropriate, continue with the deletion process on the
basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already
received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Dated:January 9, 2007.
Mary A. Gade,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region V.

0
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

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

    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.

Appendix B--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended under ``MI'' by
removing the entry for ``Avenue E Groundwater Contamination'' and the
city ``Traverse City.''

 [FR Doc. E7-694 Filed 1-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P