[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70214-70216]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27845]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0461; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-169-AD;
Amendment 39-17670; AD 2013-23-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-06-02,
which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747SR,
and 747SP series airplanes. AD 2009-06-02 required repetitive
inspections for skin cracks at the shear tie end fastener locations of
the fuselage frames, and repair of cracks if necessary. This new AD
also requires repetitive inspections for skin cracks next to the shear
tie on airplanes with certain existing repair doublers, and corrective
actions if necessary. This AD also revises the applicability to include
additional airplanes. This AD was prompted by additional cracking found
on an airplane not affected by AD 2009-06-02. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracks in the fuselage skin that can
propagate and grow, and result in reduced structural integrity and
sudden decompression of the airplane in flight.

DATES: This AD is effective December 30, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 30,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-
917-6577; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2009-06-02, Amendment 39-15838 (74 FR 11013,
March 16, 2009). AD 2009-06-02 applied to the specified products. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2013 (78 FR 33012).
The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections for
skin cracks at the shear tie end fastener locations of the fuselage
frames, and repair of cracks if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to
require repetitive inspections for skin cracks next to the shear tie on
airplanes with certain existing repair doublers, and corrective actions
if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to revise the applicability to
include additional airplanes.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(78 FR 33012, June 3, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise Repetitive Inspection Type

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the NPRM (78 FR
33012, June 3, 2013) to correct the required inspection method for the
repetitive inspections. The NPRM specified repeating the ``external
detailed inspection'' at the times specified in table 4 or table 5 of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2682, Revision 1, dated May 24,
2012. Boeing noted however that the compliance times in those tables
are for internal high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection.
    We agree with the request. Paragraph (h) of this AD requires an
internal HFEC inspection; the inspections that must be repeated are
also internal HFEC inspections. We have revised paragraph (h) in this
final rule to specify that the inspection to be repeated is an internal
HFEC inspection.

Request To Revise Description of Unsafe Condition

    Boeing requested that we revise the description of the unsafe
condition to clarify that the subject of the unsafe condition is the
fuselage area--not the frame shear ties, as stated in the NPRM (78 FR
33012, June 3, 2013).
    We agree with the request and rationale. We have revised paragraph
(e) in this final rule to explain that the fuselage skin--not the ties
themselves--is subject to widespread fatigue damage.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously

and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 33012, June 3, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 33012, June 3, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 234 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
        Action                  Labor cost            Parts cost       Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection............  30 or 49 work-hours                     $0  $2,550 or $4,165 per   Up to $974,610 per
                         (depending on inspection)                   inspection cycle.      inspection cycle.
                         x $85 per hour = $2,550
                         or $4,165 per inspection
                         cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2009-06-02, Amendment 39-15838 (74 FR 11013, March 16, 2009), and
adding the following new AD:

2013-23-15 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17670; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0461; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-169-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 30, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2009-06-02, Amendment 39-15838 (74 FR
11013, March 16, 2009).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2682, Revision 1, dated May 24,
2012.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder indicating that certain fuselage frames are subject to
widespread fatigue damage. The actions were developed to support the
airplane's limit of validity of the engineering data that support
the established structural maintenance program. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the fuselage skin that
can propagate and grow, and result in reduced structural integrity
and sudden decompression of the airplane in flight.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2682,
Revision 1, dated May 24, 2012, except as provided by paragraphs
(i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, do an external detailed or high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for skin cracks at
specified shear tie end fastener locations of the fuselage frames,
and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2682, Revision 1, dated May 24, 2012, except as required by
paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions
before further flight. Repeat the external detailed or HFEC
inspection thereafter at the applicable time specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2682,
Revision 1, dated May 24, 2012.

(h) Post-Repair Inspections

    For any external repair doubler in the inspection area specified
in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2682, Revision 1, dated May 24, 2012, that has an upper or
lower fastener row that is common to a shear tie end fastener: At
the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this
AD, whichever occurs later, do an internal HFEC inspection for
cracks in the skin next to the shear tie, and do all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2682, Revision
1, dated May 24, 2012, except as required by

paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all corrective actions before
further flight. Repeat the internal HFEC inspection thereafter at
the time specified in Table 4 or Table 5 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2682,
Revision 1, dated May 24, 2012, as applicable.
    (1) Before further flight after an inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD.

(i) Service Information Clarifications and Exceptions

    (1) Paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2682, Revision 1, dated May 24, 2012, specifies
certain compliance times in terms of the effective date of AD 2009-
06-02, Amendment 39-15838 (74 FR 11013, March 16, 2009). The
effective date of AD 2009-06-02 is April 20, 2009.
    (2) Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2682, Revision 1, dated May 24, 2012,
specifies counting the compliance time ``after the revision 1 date
of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the
applicable time after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2682, Revision 1,
dated May 24, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing for repair
instructions, this AD requires repair before further flight using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (l) of this AD.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2682, dated May 8, 2008.

(k) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified
in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2682, Revision 1, dated
May 24, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 6, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-27845 Filed 11-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44317-44318]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20273]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0865]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Napa River, Vallejo, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Mare Island Drawbridge across the
Napa River, mile 2.8 at Vallejo, CA. The deviation is necessary to
allow the community to participate in the Waterfront Weekend Triathlon.
This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position during the deviation period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. through 11:30 a.m. on
October 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0865, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The City of Vallejo has requested a
temporary change to the operation of the Mare Island Drawbridge, mile
2.8, over Napa River, at Vallejo, CA. The drawbridge navigation span
provides a vertical clearance of 13 feet above Mean High Water in the
closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR
117.169(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
from 8 a.m. through 11:30 a.m. on October 8, 2017 to allow the
community to participate in the Waterfront Weekend Triathlon. This
temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No
objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and
there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast
Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners

of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel
operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by
the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: September 19, 2017.
Carl T. Hausner,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-20273 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 198 (Wednesday, October 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61797-61798]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26069]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-557-000]

Total Peaking Services, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on September 23, 2015, Total Peaking Services, LLC
775 Oronoque Road, Milford, Connecticut 06460, filed in Docket No.
CP15-557-000, an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural
Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, for a certificate
of public convenience and necessity to upgrade its existing liquefied
natural gas facility (Milford Facility) in Milford, Connecticut.
Specifically, Total Peaking seeks to increase the Plant's vaporization
send out capacity from 90 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) to 105
MMcf/d, and will construct and install an additional boil-off gas
compressor unit. Also, Total Peaking intends to perform certain
additional electrical upgrades, all as more fully set forth in the
application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Joseph Fagan, 1100 New York Ave. NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC or
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties.

However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all
documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except
for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission)
and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's
final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a
subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 28, 2015.

    Dated: October 7, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26069 Filed 10-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 185)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58328-58329]
[DOCID:fr24se10-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R07-RCRA-2008-0830; FRL-9205-3]

Nebraska: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, commonly referred to
as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), allows the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize States to operate
their hazardous waste management programs in lieu of the Federal
program. Nebraska has applied to EPA for final authorization of the
changes to its hazardous waste program under RCRA. EPA has determined
that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization and is authorizing the State's changes through this
immediate final action.

DATES: This Final authorization will become effective on September 24,
2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Haugen, EPA Region 7, AWMD/RESP,
901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, a State must
change its program accordingly and ask EPA to authorize the changes.
Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State
statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other
changes occur. Most commonly, the State must change its program because
of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
    Nebraska initially received final authorization on January 24,
1985, effective February 7, 1985 (50 FR 3345), to implement the RCRA
hazardous waste management program. EPA granted authorization for
changes to Nebraska's program on October 4, 1985, effective December 3,
1988 (53 FR 38950); June 25, 1996, effective August 26, 1996 (61 FR
32699); April 10, 2003, effective June 9, 2003 (68 FR 17553); and
October 4, 2004, effective December 3, 2004.
    On April 29, 2008, Nebraska submitted a final complete program
revision application, seeking authorization of its changes in
accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. On December 30, 2008, EPA published both
an Immediate Final Rule (73 FR 79661) granting Nebraska final
authorization for these revisions to its Federally-authorized hazardous
waste program, along with a companion Proposed Rule announcing EPA's
proposal to grant such a final authorization (73 FR 79761). EPA
announced in both documents that the Immediate Final Rule and the
Proposed Rule were subject to a thirty-day comment period. The public
comment period ended on January 29, 2009. EPA received written comments
from one commenter during the public comment period. Today's action
responds to the comments EPA received and publishes EPA's final
determination granting Nebraska final authorization of its program
revisions. Further background on EPA's Immediate Final Rule and its
tentative determination to grant authorization to Nebraska for its
program revisions appears in the aforementioned Federal Register
notices. The issues raised by the commenter are summarized and
responded to as follows.

B. What were the comments and responses to EPA's proposal?

    The comments did not address specific concerns with EPA's approval
of the additional RCRA regulatory provisions in Nebraska's authorized
hazardous waste program; rather the comments address a previous rule
promulgated by EPA. The commenter's arguments relate specifically to
EPA's promulgation of the Zinc Fertilizer Rule on July 24, 2002 (67 FR
48393). Specifically, the commenter argued that the Phase IV Land
Disposal Restriction (LDR)--which is more stringent than the Zinc
Fertilizer Rule--resulted from an ``affirmative finding of safety''
when zinc-containing hazardous wastes were disposed in Subtitle C
landfills, so it is counterintuitive to claim that the same zinc-
containing hazardous wastes can now ``safely'' be used as fertilizer.
For the reasons set forth below, we do not agree with the commenter.
    EPA promulgated all of the rules included in Nebraska's revision
pursuant to the authority granted to EPA by Congress under RCRA. Those
rules, including the Zinc Fertilizer Rule, were finalized after full
consideration of any and all comments submitted in a timely manner. By
adopting the rule promulgated by EPA, Nebraska revised its hazardous
waste program to be equivalent to and consistent with the Federal
program. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), EPA has the authority to
authorize State programs that are equivalent to and consistent with the
Federal program. The comments submitted speak directly to the Federal
rule and not to EPA's authorization of Nebraska's program revisions.
Therefore, we have determined that there is no basis to deny
authorizing approval based on these comments.
    In addition, the commenter argues that exempting zinc-containing
hazardous wastes from regulation as solid waste is not supported by
Nebraska Revised Statute 75-362. This comment is not relevant to this
action. The criteria for authorization of a State hazardous waste
program are set forth at section 3006 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b). In
reviewing an application under this section, EPA considers whether the
State program (1) is equivalent to the Federal program under subchapter
III, which governs hazardous waste; (2) is consistent with Federal or
``State programs applicable to other States''; and (3) provides
adequate enforcement of compliance with the requirements of subchapter
III of RCRA. As part of this review, EPA considers whether the State is
imposing requirements less stringent than those authorized under
subchapter III respecting the same matter as governed by such
regulation. The commenter's argument with regard to Nebraska Revised
Statute 75-362 falls outside the scope of our review of Nebraska's
application for the hazardous waste rules authorized herein. Therefore,
the comment regarding Nebraska Revised Statute 75-362 is not relevant
to this action.

C. What decisions have we made in this rule?

    Based on EPA's response to public comments, the Agency has
determined that approval of Nebraska's RCRA program revisions should
proceed. EPA has made a final determination that Nebraska's application
to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and
regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant
Nebraska final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program

with the changes described in its application for program revisions.
Nebraska is responsible for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA
program described in its approved program applications, subject to the
limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984.
New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take
effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the
requirements. Thus, EPA will implement any such HSWA requirements and
prohibitions in Nebraska, including issuing HSWA permits, until the
State is granted authorization to do so. For further background on the
scope and effect of today's action to approve Nebraska's RCRA program
revisions, please refer to the preambles of EPA's December 30, 2008,
Proposed and Immediate Final Rules at 73 FR 79761 and 73 FR 79661
respectively.

D. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This
action authorizes state requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action
authorizes pre-existing requirements under State law and does not
impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State
law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this
action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities
of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175,
``Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), because it merely authorizes state requirements as part of the
state RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA.
This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection
of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and
it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety
risks that may affect children. This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
    Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for
authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it
reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
47729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630, ``Government
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings
implications the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's
Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. This rule
does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
action will be effective September 24, 2010.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  This action is issued under the authority of
sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: September 13, 2010.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2010-23990 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P