52158 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(B) Within the next 10 days after the 

inspection, report the cracks to PILATUS 

AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Liaison Manager, 

CH–6371 STANS, Switzerland, using the 

Crack Report Form (Figure 4) in PILATUS 

PC–7 Service Bulletin No. 32–024, Rev. No. 

1, dated November 17, 2008. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) approved 

the information collection requirements 

contained in this regulation under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

and assigned OMB Control Number 2120– 

0056. 

(ii) If no cracks are found during the 

inspection required in paragraph (f)(3) of this 

AD, no further action is required. Make an 

entry in the airplane logbook to show 

compliance with this AD. 

(4) As of 30 days after the effective date of 

this AD, do not install any main-gear support 

struts, P/N 532.10.09.039 or P/N 

114.48.07.172, with chamfered clevis lugs. 

Note 1: If you have any main-gear support 

struts, P/N 532.10.09.039 or P/N 

114.48.07.172, with chamfered clevis lugs 

held as spares, you may return them to 

PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Liaison 

Manager, CH–6371 STANS, Switzerland, for 

replacement with a new main-gear support 

strut, P/N 532.10.09.128. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4059; fax: (816) 329– 

4090; e-mail: doug.rudolph@faa.gov. Before 

using any approved AMOC on any airplane 

to which the AMOC applies, notify your 

appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the 

FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), 

or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI FOCA AD HB–2009–011, 

dated September 10, 2009; and PILATUS PC– 

7 Service Bulletin No. 32–024, Rev. No. 1, 

dated November 17, 2008; and PILATUS PC– 

7 Service Bulletin No. 32–025, Rev. No. 1, 

dated November 17, 2008, for related 

information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

October 5, 2009. 

John Colomy, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–24450 Filed 10–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0754] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch, 

Norfolk, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

temporarily change the regulations that 

govern the operation of the Berkley 

Bridge, mile 0.4, across the Eastern 

Branch of the Elizabeth River, Norfolk, 

VA. Due to the temporary closure of two 

area bridges, the Berkley Bridge has 

experienced an increase in traffic 

volume. The proposed change would 

provide set opening periods for the 

bridge during the day, relieving 

vehicular traffic congestion during the 

weekday daytime hours while still 

providing for the reasonable needs of 

navigation. 

DATES: Comments, related material, and 

requests for public meeting must be 

received by the Coast Guard on or before 

December 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2009–0754 using any one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

• Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these methods. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Waverly Gregory, 

Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard 

District, telephone 757–398–6222, 

e-mail Waverly.W.Gregory@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related material. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2009–0754), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (http:// 

www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand delivery, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an e-mail 

address, or a phone number in the body 

of your document so that we can contact 

you if we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2009–0754’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52159 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit them by 

mail and would like to know that they 

reached the Facility, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period and may change 

the rule based on your comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2009– 

0754’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008 issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one using one of the four methods 

specified under ADDRESSES. Please 

explain why one would be beneficial. If 

we determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

On behalf of the cities of Chesapeake 

and Norfolk Virginia, the Virginia 

Department of Transportation (VDOT) 

who owns and operates the lift-type 

Berkley Bridge has requested a 

temporary change to the existing bridge 

regulations. The current regulation set 

out in 33 CFR 117.1007(b) and (c) 

allows the Berkley Bridge, mile 0.4, in 

Norfolk, Virginia to remain closed one 

hour prior to the published start of a 

scheduled marine event regulated under 

§ 100.501, and remain closed until one 

hour following the completion of the 

event unless the Patrol Commander 

designated under § 100.501 allows the 

bridge to open for commercial vessel 

traffic. In addition, the bridge shall open 

on signal any time except from 5 a.m. 

to 9 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays, and shall open at any time for 

vessels with a draft of 18 feet or more, 

provided that at least 6 hours advance 

notice has been given to the Berkley 

Bridge Traffic Control Room AT (757) 

494–2490. Vessel traffic on this 

waterway consists of pleasure craft, tug 

and barge traffic, and ships with assist 

tugs seeking repairs. There is no 

alternate waterway route. 

Due to the temporary closure of two 

area bridges, this bridge and its 

approaches have experienced traffic 

back-ups, delays, and traffic congestion 

due to an increase in vehicular traffic. 

This temporary change will allow from 

March 9, 2010 to October 5, 2012, the 

draw of the Berkley Bridge to open on 

signal to vessels at 9 a.m., 11 a.m., 1 

p.m., and 2:30 p.m. and permit VDOT 

to monitor, measure, and identify 

congested roadway locations during 

heavy traffic periods. By implementing 

scheduled bridge openings, we 

anticipate a decrease in vehicular traffic 

congestion during the daytime hours. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a 

Test Deviation [USCG–2009–0754] has 

been issued to allow VDOT to test the 

proposed schedule and to obtain data 

and public comments. The test period 

will be in effect during the entire Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking comment 

period. Also, a count of the delayed 

vessels during the closure periods will 

be taken to ensure any future regulation 

will not have a significant impact on 

navigation. This NPRM has been 

coordinated with the main commercial 

waterway user group that has vessels 

transiting in this area and there is no 

expectation of any significant impacts 

on navigation. The Berkley Bridge is the 

principle arterial route in and out of the 

city of Norfolk and serves as the major 

evacuation highway in the event of 

emergencies. The monthly vehicular 

traffic count submitted by VDOT for the 

last quarter of calendar year 2008 shows 

the average daily traffic volumes at the 

Berkley Bridge as shown below: 

October .... 2008 83,296 vehicles. 

November 2008 99,643 vehicles. 

December 2008 106,856 vehicles. 

The traffic counts reveal that from 

October 2008 to December 2008, the 

Berkley Bridge has experienced a seven 

percent (or 23,560-car) increase in traffic 

flow during the morning and evening 

rush hours. The Coast Guard believes 

that this traffic increase is due to the 

previously referenced temporary closure 

of two area bridges in November, 2008. 

The Coast Guard anticipates a continued 

increase in vehicular traffic over the 

bridge until one or both bridges are 

reopened to traffic at which time the 

vehicular traffic on the Berkley Bridge 

will subside. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to 

temporarily amend the regulations 

governing the Berkley Bridge, mile 0.4, 

at Norfolk, Virginia, at 33 CFR 117.1007, 

by inserting a new paragraph(c)(3) to 

read as follows: From March 9, 2010 to 

October 5, 2012, the draw shall open on 

signal to vessels at 9 a.m., 11 a.m., 1 

p.m. and 2:30 p.m. This temporary 

change will reduce the daytime 

openings to specific times which will 

help to alleviate the congestion on the 

Berkley Bridge and its approaches from 

the increased vehicular traffic during 

repair work of the aforementioned 

bridges. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. It is not 

‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory 

policies and procedures of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). We expect the economic impact 

of this proposed rule to be so minimal 

that a full Regulatory Evaluation under 

the regulatory policies and procedures 

of DHS is unnecessary. We reached this 

conclusion based on the fact that the 

proposed changes have only a minimal 

impact on maritime traffic transiting the 

bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in 

accordance with the scheduled bridge 

openings, to minimize delays. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52160 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because the rule only adds minimal 

restrictions to the movement of 

navigation, in allowing four scheduled 

openings during the day, outside of the 

advance notice request opening. 

Mariners who plan their transits in 

accordance with the scheduled bridge 

openings can minimize delay. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact Waverly W. 

Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth 

Coast GuardDistrict, (757) 398–6222. 

The Coast Guard will not retaliate 

against small entities that question or 

complain about this rule or any policy 

or action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520.). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule will not 

result in such expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not affect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. This proposed rule 

does not use technical standards. 

Therefore, we did not consider the use 

of voluntary consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment because it 

simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No.0170.1. 

2. In § 117.1007 add a new paragraph 

(c)(3) to read as follows: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52161 

§ 117.1007 Elizabeth River—Eastern 

Branch 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) From March 9, 2010 to October 5, 

2012, the draw shall open on signal at 

9 a.m., 11 a.m., 1 p.m. and 2:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

Dated: August 20, 2009. 

Wayne E. Justice, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E9–24485 Filed 10–7–09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[FRL–8967–7] 

Michigan: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Michigan has applied to EPA 

for final authorization of the changes to 

its hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed 

Michigan’s application and has 

preliminarily determined that these 

changes satisfy all requirements needed 

to qualify for final authorization, and is 

proposing to authorize Michigan’s 

changes. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received on or before November 

9, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

RCRA–2009–0762 by one of the 

following methods: 

http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

E-mail: greenberg.judith@epa.gov. 

Mail: Ms. Judith Greenberg, Michigan 

Regulatory Specialist, RCRA Programs 

Section (LR–8J), Land and Chemicals 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, 

IL 60604. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–R05–RCRA– 

2009–0762. 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 or any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epagov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some of the 

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. 

You may view and copy Michigan’s 

application Mondays through Fridays, 

excluding Federal holidays, from 9 a.m. 

to 4 p.m. at the following addresses: 

U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 

Chicago, Illinois, contact: Judith 

Greenberg, (312) 886–4179; or Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

Constitution Hall, 525 W. Allegan St., 

Lansing, Michigan (mailing address P.O. 

Box 30241, Lansing, Michigan 48909), 

contact Ronda Blayer, (517) 373–9548. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Judith Greenberg, Michigan Regulatory 

Specialist, RCRA Programs Section, 

Land and Chemicals Division (LR–8J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–4179, e-mail 

greenberg.judith@epa.gov. 

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, States must change their 

programs 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, States must 

change their programs because of 

changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 

260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. 

B. What Decisions Have We Made in 

This Rule? 

We have preliminarily determined 

that Michigan’s application to revise its 

authorized program meets all of the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

established by RCRA. Therefore, we 

propose to grant Michigan final 

authorization to operate its hazardous 

waste program with the changes 

described in the authorization revision 

application. Michigan will have 

responsibility for permitting treatment, 

storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) 

within its borders (except in Indian 

Country) and for carrying out the 

aspects of the RCRA program described 

in its revised program revision 

application, subject to the limitations of 

the Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). 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 those requirements and 

prohibitions in Michigan, including 

issuing permits, until the State is 

granted authorization to do so. 

C. What Will Be the Effect If Michigan 

Is Authorized for These Changes? 

If Michigan is authorized for these 

changes, a facility in Michigan subject 

to RCRA will have to comply with the 

authorized State requirements instead of 

the equivalent Federal requirements in 

order to comply with RCRA. 

Additionally, such persons will have to 

comply with any applicable Federal 

requirements, such as HSWA 

regulations issued by EPA for which the 

State has not received authorization and 

RCRA requirements that are not 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1