[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35059-35063]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15420]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0001; FRL-9996-74-Region 4]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Escambia Wood--
Pensacola Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete 50 acres of the Escambia Wood--Pensacola
Superfund Site (Site) located in Pensacola, Florida, from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed
action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the
State of Florida, through the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), have determined that all
appropriate response actions at these identified parcels under CERCLA,
other than operation and maintenance and five-year reviews, have been
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.
    This partial deletion pertains to 50 acres of former residential
property in the former neighborhoods of Oak Park, Escambia Arms, Herman
& Pearl and Clarinda Triangle, part of Operable Unit One (soils). The
remaining areas of Operable Unit One (about 50 acres) and Operable Unit
Two (groundwater) will remain on the NPL and are not being considered
for deletion as part of this action.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 21, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1994-0001, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: Erik Spalvins at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or LaTonya
Spencer at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Erik Spalvins, US EPA Region 4--Superfund &
Emergency Management Divison, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303.
     Hand delivery: US EPA Region 4, Superfund & Emergency
Management Divison Records Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1994-0001. The 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 email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means The EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
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.
    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 the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
    US EPA Region 4, Superfund & Emergency Management Divison Records
Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.<PHONE_NUMBER>
Hours of operation: Monday-Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    West Florida Genealogy Branch Library, 5740 N Ninth Ave.,
Pensacola, Florida 32504.<PHONE_NUMBER> Hours of operation: Tuesday-
Saturday 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik Spalvins, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    The EPA announces its intent to delete 50 acres of former
residential property (in the former neighborhoods of Oak Park, Escambia
Arms, Herman & Pearl and Clarinda Triangle) from Operable Unit One
(soils) of the Escambia Wood--Pensacola Superfund Site (Site), from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and request public comment on this
proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300
which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), which the EPA promulgated pursuant to section
105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The EPA maintains the NPL
as those sites that appear to present a significant risk to public
health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the
subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance
Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Escambia Wood--Pensacola
Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent
with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on
the National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described
in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL
remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions
warrant such actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete this
Site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the
Federal Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is
using for this action. Section IV discusses the 50 acres of former
residential property in the former neighborhoods of Oak Park, Escambia
Arms, Herman & Pearl and Clarinda Triangle, part of Operable Unit One
of the Escambia Wood--Pensacola Superfund Site and demonstrates how it
meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites
from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be
deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In
making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA will
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 response under CERCLA has 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.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, the EPA conducts
five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial
actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain
at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. The EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is
deleted from the NPL. The EPA may initiate further action to ensure
continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes
available that indicates it is appropriate. 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 these 50 acres from
Operable Unit One of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of
Intent for Partial Deletion.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, the EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The State of Florida, through the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, has concurred with the deletion of the 50
acres of parcels from Operable Unit One (soils) of the Escambia Wood--
Pensacola Superfund Site, from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion in the Federal Register, a notice is being published
in a major local newspaper, the Pensacola News Journal. The newspaper
announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of
Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (6) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial
deletion in the deletion docket, made these items available for public
inspection, and copying at the Site information repositories identified
above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this
document, the EPA will evaluate and respond accordingly to the comments
before making a final decision to delete the 50 acres of parcels from
Operable Unit One. If necessary, the EPA will prepare a Responsiveness
Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the
public comment period, if the EPA determines it is still appropriate to
delete the 50 acres of parcels from Operable Unit One of the Escambia
Wood--Pensacola Superfund Site, the Regional Administrator will publish
a final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register. Public
notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary,
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and included
in the site information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself
create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations.
Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter
the 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 Intended Partial Site Deletion

    The following information provides the EPA's rationale for deleting
the 50 acres of parcels from Operable Unit One (soils) of the Escambia
Wood--Pensacola Superfund Site from the NPL:
    The Site (CERCLIS ID: FLD008168346) is located in the City of
Pensacola in Escambia County, Florida. The Site consists of a former
wood-treating facility (about 30 acres) and about 70 acres of former
residential neighborhoods, which were acquired by the EPA. The street
address of the former facility is 3910 North Palafox Street. The former
residential areas include most of the Rosewood Terrace, Oak Park,
Escambia Arms, Herman & Pearl and Clarinda Triangle neighborhoods. From
1942 to 1982, the facility treated wood with creosote and
pentachlorophenol, which resulted in contamination of soil and
groundwater with creosote, pentachlorophenol, and dioxins. The facility
was abandoned in 1991. From October 1991 into 1992, the EPA conducted a
removal action to address three surface impoundments, to stop immediate
exposure, and to stabilize the Site. The EPA excavated about 225,000
cubic yards of contaminated materials and secured it under a heavy-duty
geomembrane cover. The EPA completed the removal action in 1992. The
EPA proposed the Site to the NPL on August 23, 1994 (59 FR 43314) and
the Site was added (final) on the NPL on December 16, 1994 (59 FR
65206). The EPA manages the soils at the Site as Operable Unit One and
manages the groundwater as Operable Unit Two. Operable Unit One
consists of the relocated residential properties and the former
facility and encompasses more than 100 acres. The partial deletion
consists of the 50 or so acres of residential properties acquired by
the EPA in the Oak Park, Escambia Arms, Herman & Pearl and Clarinda
Triangle neighborhoods.

Interim Remedial Action

    EPA's first Remedial Action was an Interim Remedial Action of
voluntary residential relocation. In June 1995, the EPA selected the
Site for the EPA's National Relocation Evaluation Pilot. The Pilot
explored the use of permanent relocations under CERCLA. The EPA
selected relocation as an interim remedial action in a February 12,
1997 Interim Record of Decision. From 1997 to 2001, over 350 households
and over 500 people were successfully relocated from the Rosewood
Terrace, Oak Park, Escambia Arms and Herman & Pearl neighborhoods to
comparable replacement housing in and around Pensacola. The February
13, 2006 Record of Decision (ROD) added the Clarinda Triangle
neighborhood to the Interim remedy. The Clarinda Triangle relocation
began in December 2006, was finished in August 2008, and included 38
properties. From 1997 to 2008, more than 400 households were
successfully relocated as part of the Interim Remedial Action.

Remedial Investigation

    The Remedial Investigation found risk from contaminated soil for
current and future users of the Site. The Feasibility Study evaluated
off-site disposal and on-site disposal of contaminated soil

with different treatment options for both low-level and principal
threat wastes. Site soils were found to be contaminated with dioxins,
furans, pentachlorophenol, a variety of polynuclear aromatics and
methyl napthalenes, arsenic and lead. Site soils posed an unacceptable
human health risk through exposure to dermal contact, ingestion, and
inhalation of soils. The future anticipated land use is commercial and
industrial and was developed through a master planning process by the
community, local governments and the State. Cleanup concentrations were
developed to be protective to human health and are based on the future
anticipated land use.

Selected Remedy

    EPA issued the final Operable Unit One ROD in 2006, selecting
excavation and on-site disposal in a containment cell, treatment of
principal threat waste by solidification/stabilization, monitoring and
institutional controls to restrict future use of the Site. The Remedial
Action Objectives were: (1) Prevent ingestion, inhalation, or direct
contact with surface soil that contains concentrations of contaminants
in excess of the remedial cleanup goals; (2) Control migration and
leaching of contaminants in surface and subsurface soil to ground water
that could result in ground water contamination in excess of EPA
drinking water standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels); (3) Prevent
ingestion or inhalation of soil particulates that contain contaminant
concentrations in excess of remedial cleanup goals; and, (4) Control
future releases of contaminants to ensure protection of human health
and the environment. In 2012, the EPA issued an Explanation of
Significant Differences to update the 2006 Final ROD's soil cleanup
goals to reflect the appropriate level of protectiveness for potential
exposure pathways at the Site and to change construction requirements
in the ROD that were over-specific and found to be impractical once
construction was underway.
    The 2006 ROD included an 18-acre containment cell on the former
facility and on the former Rosewood Terrace Neighborhood, bounded by
Hickory Street to the North. The area for the partial deletion does not
include the former facility or the former Rosewood Terrace
neighborhood. The proposed partial deletion consists of the 50 acres of
former residential property in the former neighborhoods of Oak Park,
Escambia Arms, Herman & Pearl and Clarinda Triangle.

Response Action

    The Interim Remedial Action was designed and implemented by the EPA
and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) via an
Interagency Agreement. The USACE conducted the purchase of properties
and relocation of residents in accordance with the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
    The Final Remedial Action for Operable Unit One began in September
2007. The EPA contractor excavated and stockpiled contaminated soil and
debris on site. The EPA also collected confirmation samples from the
floors and sidewalls of excavations and continued excavating soil if
confirmation samples exceeded cleanup goals. This process was repeated
until cleanup goals were no longer exceeded. The contractor constructed
an 18-acre containment cell with about 20 feet of compacted
contaminated soil and 2 to 3 feet of cement-stabilized soil. Once
filled, the cell was capped with a composite liner, overlaid by a
drainage system, and covered with at least 6 feet of clean fill soil.
Excavation areas were limed, fertilized and seeded to prevent wind and
water erosion. The final cell contains about 527,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil, debris and solidification/stabilization-treated
soil. The State of Florida began the Operations & Maintenance phase of
the Operable Unit One Interim Remedial Action and most of the Operable
Unit One Final Remedial Action on March 1, 2013.

Cleanup Levels

    On March 5, 2012, the EPA issued an ESD to update the 2006 Final
ROD's soil cleanup goals to reflect the appropriate level of
protectiveness for potential exposure pathways at the Site and to
change construction requirements in the ROD that were over-specific and
found to be impractical once construction was underway. The 2006 Final
ROD cleanup goals were updated because they were not developed for all
potential pathways for all contaminants (some cleanup levels were
solely leaching-based, some were solely direct exposure-based) and the
Summers model used for the leaching-based cleanup levels resulted in
cleanup goals that were overly conservative. The 2012 ESD established
cleanup goals for all COCs based on both the direct exposure and
leaching-based groundwater protection pathways. They also replaced the
Summers model-derived cleanup goals with updated site-specific cleanup
goals for groundwater protection.
    The completion of Remedial Actions was documented in three reports
and documented in a Superfund Remedial Action Completion memorandum
signed on July 30, 2018 (Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS)
document identification number 11106221). The reports and the
memorandum are available in the deletion docket and they describe the
cleanup techniques, cleanup concentrations for COCs, confirmation
testing results, and QA/QC methodologies. The interim action is
documented in a Remedial Action Report approved on September 30, 2009
(SEMS number 11096422). The final action, excluding the dewatering
phase of the containment cell construction, is documented in an Interim
Remedial Action Report approved on September 30, 2010 (SEMS number
11096426). The last component of the final action was the dewatering
phase of the remedial action construction and is documented in a
Remedial Action Report Addendum (Leachate) (SEMS number 11106220) and
approved by Superfund Remedial Action Completion memorandum signed on
July 30, 2018.

Operation and Maintenance

    The Site's 2012 Operable Unit One O&M Plan requires the following
activities: (1) Semi-annual inspections of the containment cell, the
subsurface water drainage system, the soil cover, the Operable Unit One
remedy verification groundwater monitoring wells, the surface water
management system and site security features; (2) Groundwater elevation
monitoring in Operable Unit One remedy verification monitoring wells,
annual sampling of Operable Unit One remedy verification groundwater
monitoring wells, leachate removal, sampling and monitoring, and
settlement monitoring for buildings constructed on the containment
cell; and (3) Preventative maintenance for the vegetative cover,
erosion and grading, and stormwater management system. The State of
Florida is responsible for the Operations and Maintenance activities at
the Site.

Institutional Controls

    Restrictive covenants are in place on the 50 or so acres that are
proposed for partial deletion. The restrictions limit use of property
to commercial, industrial, or manufacturing purposes, except that the
property shall not be used for any business involving temporary or
permanent housing of individuals. The instrument is a 2013 Declaration
of Restrictive Covenants, Escambia County Instrument Number

2014029669, recorded in Official Record Book 7164 at Pages 358-388.

Five Year Reviews

    EPA conducts reviews every five years to determine if remedies are
functioning as intended and if they continue to be protective of human
health and the environment. Because contaminants remain in Site soil
above levels that would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, the EPA will continue to conduct five-year reviews, as
required by statute. The EPA issued the Fourth statutory Five-Year
Review Report on September 27, 2017, and concluded that the remedy at
the Site is functioning as intended and is protective of human health
and the environment in the short-term (SEMS number 11070132). There
were three issues and recommendations that do not change the
protectiveness of the remedy. The issues are related to: Institutional
controls on the former facility parcels; leaching-based cleanup levels
on the former facility parcels; and preventing uses not allowed by
restrictive covenants. Two of the unresolved issues identified in the
Five-Year Review are limited to the former facility portion of the
site, which is not included in this proposed partial deletion. The
third recommendation is to prevent uses not allowed by restrictive
covenants, which is being implemented by the local government. The EPA
will conduct the next Five-Year Review in 2022.

Community Involvement

    The EPA held numerous community meetings before and during the
residential relocation and the soil cleanup. The EPA issued fact sheets
and maintained a public website during remedial construction. The EPA
provided Site tours during cleanup to local government staff, elected
officials, and the community's Technical Advisor, provided through an
EPA Technical Advisor Grant. After the cleanup was complete, the EPA
released reuse fact sheets and met with local government to facilitate
redevelopment planning.

Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met

    The EPA has followed all procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e),
Partial Deletion from the NPL. The EPA consulted with the State of
Florida prior to developing this Notice. The EPA determined that both
the EPA and FDEP have conducted all appropriate response actions
required and that no further response action for this portion of the
Site is appropriate. The EPA is publishing a notice in a major local
newspaper, The Pensacola News Journal, of its intent to partially
delete the Site and how to submit comments. The EPA placed copies of
documents supporting the proposed partial deletion in the Site
information repository; these documents are available for public
inspection and copying.
    The implemented Operable Unit One remedy achieved the degree of
cleanup and protection specified in the ROD. The selected remedial
action objectives and associated cleanup levels for the surface soil
are consistent with agency policy and guidance. Based on information
currently available to the EPA, no further Superfund response in the
area proposed for deletion is needed to protect human health and the
environment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

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

    Dated: June 26, 2019.
 Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-15420 Filed 7-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35917]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14594]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0969; FRL-9686-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to
the Georgia State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Department of
Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division on November 16,
2010. This revision consists of transportation conformity criteria and
procedures related to interagency consultation and enforceability of
certain transportation-related control measures and mitigation
measures. The intended effect is to update the transportation
conformity criteria and procedures in the Georgia SIP. This action is
being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal
and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments
are received in response to this rule, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0969, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0969,'' Air Quality Modeling and
Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Amanetta Somerville, Air Quality
Modeling and Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanetta Somerville of the Air Quality
Modeling and Transportation Section at the Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Somerville's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. She can
also be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register.

    Dated: June 1, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-14594 Filed 6-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33764-33766]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13297]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0479; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-070-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2,
and EC225LP helicopters. This proposed AD would require inspecting the
intermediate gearbox (IGB) fairing for a crack and inspecting the IGB
fairing gutter (gutter), if installed, for a crack, separation, or
interference. This proposed AD is prompted by reports of cracks,
separation of the IGB fairing from the gutter and attachment supports,
and subsequent interference with the tail rotor (TR) inclined drive
shaft. The proposed actions are intended to detect a crack and prevent
separation of the IGB fairing, which could result in interference with
the TR inclined drive shaft and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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 economic
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 service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
No. 2011-0189-E, dated September 29, 2011 (AD 2011-0189-E), to correct
an unsafe condition for the Eurocopter Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L,
AS332L1,

AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters with certain IGB fairings installed.
EASA advises that cracks are being found on the IGB fairing and the
gutters, which have caused some fairings to separate and interfere with
the T/R inclined drive shaft. According to EASA, these cracks are
occurring along the rivet line joining the IGB fairing to the gutter
and also in the associated attachment points. Previous corrective
actions mandated by EASA required repetitive inspections of the IGB
fairings, reinforcement of the gutter riveting, and removal of the
gutter. After receiving additional reports of cracks despite those
actions, EASA issued AD 2011-0189-E to continue to require inspecting
the IGB fairing gutter and also require inspecting the IGB fairing and
attachment supports for cracks every 15 flight hours.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued one emergency alert service bulletin (ASB)
with three numbers, revision 4, dated September 27, 2011: ASB No.
53.01.47 for Model AS 332 series helicopters, ASB No. 53.00.48 for
Model AS532 series helicopters, and ASB No. 53A001 for Model EC225 and
EC725 helicopters. That ASB requires inspecting the IGB fairings and
their attachment supports and replacing any cracked or damaged parts
every 15 flight hours.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require:
     For helicopters with an IGB fairing, part number (P/N)
332A24-0303-0501 or 332A24-0303-0601 (with a gutter), installed, within
15 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 15 hours TIS, inspecting the gutter, IGB fairing, and attachment
supports for a crack, separation, or interference between the gutter
and the T/R inclined drive shaft, hydraulic pipes, or flight controls.
     For helicopters with an IGB fairing, P/N 332A081391.00 or
332A081391.01 (without a gutter), installed, within 15 hours TIS and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15 hours TIS, inspecting the IGB
fairing and attachment supports for a crack.
     If during any inspection required by this proposed AD
there is a crack, interference, or separation, replacing the cracked or
damaged part with an airworthy part.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 10 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this AD. Inspecting the IGB fairing and
attachment supports would require about 0.5 work hours at an average
labor rate of $85 per work hour, for a total cost per helicopter of $43
per inspection cycle. The total cost to the U.S. operator fleet would
be $430 per inspection cycle. Replacing a cracked IGB fairing would
require about 2 work hours at an average labor rate of $85 per work
hour, and required parts would cost $1,905, for a total cost per
helicopter of $2,075. Replacing a damaged T/R inclined drive shaft tube
would require about 2 work hours, and required parts would cost
$16,726, for a total cost per helicopter of $16,896. Replacing a
damaged hydraulic pipe would require about 2 work hours and required
parts would cost $1,202, for a total cost per helicopter of $1,372.
Replacing a damaged flight control component would require about 2 work
hours, and required parts would cost $440, for a total cost per
helicopter of $610.

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, 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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Eurocopter France: Docket No. FAA-2013-0479; Directorate Identifier
2011-SW-070-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS332C,
AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters with an
intermediate gearbox (IGB) fairing, part number (P/N) 332A24-0303-
0501, P/N 332A24-0303-0601, P/N 332A081391.00, or P/N 332A081391.01
installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the IGB
fairing, which could result in separation of the IGB fairing from
its attachment supports, resulting in interference with the tail
rotor (T/R) inclined driveshaft, failure of the T/R inclined
driveshaft, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 5, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 15 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 15 hours TIS:
    (1) For all helicopters, inspect the IGB fairing and both
attachment supports for a crack. If there is a crack, replace the
cracked part with an airworthy part.
    (2) For helicopters with an IGB fairing, part number (P/N)
332A24-0303-0501 or P/N 332A24-0303-0601, installed, inspect the IGB
fairing gutter (gutter) for a crack. If there is a crack, replace
the gutter with an airworthy gutter, and inspect the IGB fairing for
separation, or interference between the gutter and the tail rotor
(T/R) inclined drive shaft, hydraulic pipes, or flight controls.
    (i) If there is interference between the gutter and the T/R
inclined drive shaft tube, replace the T/R inclined drive shaft tube
and the IGB fairing/gutter assembly with an airworthy T/R inclined
drive shaft tube and IGB fairing/gutter assembly.
    (ii) If there is interference between the gutter and the
hydraulic pipes, replace the IGB fairing/gutter assembly with an
airworthy IGB fairing/gutter assembly. Inspect the hydraulic pipes
for a dent, score, distortion, or chafing. If there is a dent,
score, distortion, or chafing, replace the affected hydraulic pipe
with an airworthy hydraulic pipe.
    (iii) If there is interference between the gutter and the flight
controls, replace the IGB fairing/gutter assembly with an airworthy
IGB fairing/gutter assembly. Inspect the cables on the left hand
side of the pylon, the quadrant on which the cables are coiled, the
flight control lever, the rod, and the T/R servo-control operating
mechanism for friction, chafing, broken strands, buckling,
distortion, or scoring. If there is any friction, chafing, broken
strands, buckling, distortion, or scoring, replace the affected
flight control component with an airworthy flight control component.
    (iv) If there is any separation of the gutter, replace the IBG
fairing/gutter assembly with an airworthy fairing/gutter assembly.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No.
53.01.47 for Model AS 332 helicopters, EASB No. 53.00.48 for Model
AS532 helicopters, and EASB No. 53A001 for Model EC225 and EC725
helicopters, all revision 4, dated September 27, 2011, which are not
incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the
subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD,
contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(972) 641-3775; or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may
review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency Emergency AD No. 2011-0189-E, dated September 29,
2011.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5350: Aerodynamic
Fairings.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 28, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-13297 Filed 6-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P