Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 43839 

action, and does not preclude the 

agency from issuing another notice in 

the future, nor does it commit the 

agency to any course of action in the 

future. 

Since this action only withdraws a 

notice of proposed rulemaking, it is 

neither a proposed nor a final rule. 

Therefore, Executive Order 12866, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034, February 26, 1979) do not 

cover this withdrawal. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Withdrawal 

Accordingly, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, Docket No. FAA–2013– 

0056; Directorate Identifier 2012–NE– 

48–AD, published in the Federal 

Register on February 7, 2013 (78 FR 

9001), is withdrawn. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

July 15, 2013. 

Colleen M. D’Alessandro, 

Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17479 Filed 7–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0625; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–013–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing 

Company 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to certain The Boeing 

Company Model 747 series airplanes. 

The existing AD currently requires 

repetitive detailed inspections to detect 

cracking in certain fuselage upper deck 

tension ties, repair or modification of 

any cracked tension ties, and repetitive 

inspections of repaired and modified 

tension ties and repair or modification 

if necessary. The existing AD also 

provides for optional terminating action 

for the repetitive detailed inspections of 

tension ties that have not been repaired 

or modified. This proposed AD was 

prompted by an evaluation by the 

design approval holder indicating that 

the upper deck tension ties of the 

fuselage are subject to widespread 

fatigue damage. This proposed AD 

would retain the repetitive inspections, 

mandate the previously optional 

terminating modification, and add, for 

tension ties that have not been repaired 

or modified, repetitive inspections that 

must be done concurrently with the 

existing repetitive inspections. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent 

widespread fatigue damage of certain 

fuselage upper deck tension ties, which 

could result in reduced structural 

integrity of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 5, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

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 206– 

766–5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Ave. 

SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 

917–6428; fax: (425) 917–6590; email: 

nathan.p.weigand@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0625; Directorate Identifier 

2013–NM–013–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On June 14, 1994, we issued AD 94– 

13–06, Amendment 39–8946 (59 FR 

32879, June 27, 1994), for certain Boeing 

Model 747 series airplanes. That AD 

requires inspections to detect cracking 

in certain fuselage upper deck tension 

ties, and repair or modification of any 

cracked tension ties. That AD resulted 

from reports of fatigue cracking in 

tension ties. We issued that AD to 

prevent failure of two or more tension 

ties and the resultant rapid 

decompression of the airplane. 

Actions Since Existing AD (59 FR 

32879, June 27, 1994) Was Issued 

AD 94–13–06, Amendment 39–8946 

(59 FR 32879, June 27, 1994), provides 

a terminating modification as an option. 

We have determined that it is necessary 

to mandate this modification to 

adequately address the identified unsafe 

condition. 

We can better ensure long-term 

continued operational safety by design 

changes to remove the source of the 

problem, rather than by repetitive 

inspections. Long-term inspections may 

not provide the degree of safety 

necessary for the transport airplane 

fleet. This determination, along with a 

better understanding of the human 

factors associated with numerous 

continual inspections, has led us to 

consider placing less emphasis on 

inspections and more emphasis on 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
43840 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

design improvements. The proposed 

modification requirement is consistent 

with these conditions. 

WFD Program 

Structural fatigue damage is 

progressive. It begins as minute cracks, 

and those cracks grow under the action 

of repeated stresses. This can happen 

because of normal operational 

conditions and design attributes, or 

because of isolated situations or 

incidents such as material defects, poor 

fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, 

dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can 

occur locally, in small areas or 

structural design details, or globally. 

Global fatigue damage is general 

degradation of large areas of structure 

with similar structural details and stress 

levels. Multiple-site damage is global 

damage that occurs in a large structural 

element such as a single rivet line of a 

lap splice joining two large skin panels. 

Global damage can also occur in 

multiple elements such as adjacent 

frames or stringers. Multiple-sitedamage and multiple-element-damage 

cracks are typically too small initially to 

be reliably detected with normal 

inspection methods. Without 

intervention, these cracks will grow, 

and eventually compromise the 

structural integrity of the airplane, in a 

condition known as widespread fatigue 

damage (WFD). As an airplane ages, 

WFD will likely occur, and will 

certainly occur if the airplane is 

operated long enough without any 

intervention. 

The FAA’s WFD final rule (75 FR 

69746, November 15, 2010) became 

effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD 

rule requires certain actions to prevent 

structural failure due to WFD 

throughout the operational life of 

certain existing transport category 

airplanes and all of these airplanes that 

will be certificated in the future. For 

existing and future airplanes subject to 

the WFD rule, the rule requires that 

design approval holders (DAHs) 

establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the 

engineering data that support the 

structural maintenance program. 

Operators affected by the WFD rule may 

not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, 

unless an extended LOV is approved. 

The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, 

November 15, 2010) does not require 

identifying and developing maintenance 

actions if the DAHs can show that such 

actions are not necessary to prevent 

WFD before the airplane reaches the 

LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend 

on accomplishment of future 

maintenance actions. As stated in the 

WFD rule, any maintenance actions 

necessary to reach the LOV will be 

mandated by airworthiness directives 

through separate rulemaking actions. 

In the context of WFD, this action is 

necessary to enable DAHs to propose 

LOVs that allow operators the longest 

operational lives for their airplanes, and 

still ensure that WFD will not occur. 

This approach allows for an 

implementation strategy that provides 

flexibility to DAHs in determining the 

timing of service information 

development (with FAA approval), 

while providing operators with certainty 

regarding the LOV applicable to their 

airplanes. 

Relevant Service Information 

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, 

dated December 11, 2012. For 

information on the procedures and 

compliance times, see this service 

information at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

Docket No. FAA–2013–0625. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of the same 

type design. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

Although this proposed AD does not 

explicitly restate the requirements of AD 

94–13–06, Amendment 39–8946 (59 FR 

32879, June 27, 1994), this proposed AD 

would retain all of the requirements of 

AD 94–13–06. Those requirements are 

referenced in the service information 

identified previously, which, in turn, is 

referenced in paragraphs (g) and (i) of 

this proposed AD. Paragraph (h) of this 

proposed AD would mandate the 

previously optional terminating 

modification for the inspections of 

tension ties that have not been repaired 

or modified. Paragraph (g) of this 

proposed AD would also add, for 

tension ties that have not been repaired 

or modified, repetitive high frequency 

eddy current inspections to be done 

concurrently with the existing detailed 

inspections specified in for tensions ties 

that have not been repaired or modified. 

This proposed AD would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Information.’’ 

In addition, the phrase ‘‘corrective 

actions’’ is used in this proposed AD. 

‘‘Corrective actions’’ are actions that 

correct or address any condition found. 

Corrective actions in an AD could 

include, for example, repairs. 

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Information 

Table 3 in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, 

dated December 11, 2012, specifies 

repeating the detailed inspection for 

cracks in the tension ties; however, that 

inspection is incorrect. This section of 

the service information should specify a 

high frequency eddy current inspection 

(HFEC) inspection, as specified in the 

other related sections. Therefore, the 

inspection required by this proposed 

AD is an HFEC inspection, performed in 

accordance with Part 4 and Figure 8 of 

this service bulletin. This service 

information is being revised to specify 

the correct inspection type. This 

difference has been coordinated with 

Boeing. 

The service bulletin specifies to 

contact the manufacturer for 

instructions on how to repair certain 

conditions, but this proposed AD would 

require repairing those conditions in 

one of the following ways: 

• In accordance with a method that 

we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) whom 

we have authorized to make those 

findings. 

Explanation of Compliance Time 

The compliance time for the 

modification specified in this proposed 

AD for addressing WFD was established 

to ensure that discrepant structure is 

modified before WFD develops in 

airplanes. Standard inspection 

techniques cannot be relied on to detect 

WFD before it becomes a hazard to 

flight. We will not grant any extensions 

of the compliance time to complete any 

AD-mandated service bulletin related to 

WFD without extensive new data that 

would substantiate and clearly warrant 

such an extension. 

Clarification of Applicability 

We have revised the applicability of 

existing AD 94–13–06, amendment 39– 

8946 (59 FR 32879, June 27, 1994), to 

identify model designations as 

published in the most recent type 

certificate data sheet for the affected 

models. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 113 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 43841 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators 

Detailed inspections [retained 

action from existing AD 94– 

13–06, amendment 39– 

8946 (59 FR 32879, June 

27, 1994)].

5 work-hours × $85 per hour 

= $425.

$0 $425 per inspection cycle ...... $48,025 per inspection cycle. 

Post-mod/repair inspections ... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = 

$85.

0 $85 ......................................... $9,605. 

Modification [new proposed 

action].

Up to 112 work-hours × $85 

per hour = up to $9,520.

0 Up to $9,520 .......................... Up to $1,075,760. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition actions 

specified in this proposed 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 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing airworthiness directive (AD) 

94–13–06, Amendment 39–8946 (59 FR 

32879, June 27, 1994), and adding the 

following new AD: 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0625; Directorate Identifier 2013– 

NM–013–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

The FAA must receive comments on this 

AD action by September 5, 2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 94–13–06, 

Amendment 39–8946 (59 FR 32879, June 27, 

1994). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 747–100, 747–200B, and 747–200F 

series airplanes, certificated in any category, 

as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 

11, 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 

the upper deck tension ties of the fuselage are 

subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent widespread fatigue 

damage of certain fuselage upper deck 

tension ties, which could result in reduced 

structural integrity of the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspections and Repair/Modification 

Except as required by paragraph (k)(3) of 

this AD, at the applicable time specified in 

Tables 1 and 3 of paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated 

December 11, 2012: Do detailed and surface 

high frequency eddy current (HFEC) 

inspections for cracks in the tension ties, as 

applicable, and do all applicable corrective 

actions, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, 

dated December 11, 2012, except as required 

by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. The effective 

date of AD 94–13–06, Amendment 39–8946 

(59 FR 32879, June 27, 1994) is July 27, 1994. 

Do all applicable corrective actions before 

further flight. Repeat the detailed and HFEC 

inspection thereafter at the time specified in 

paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, 

Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012, except 

as specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. 

Repair of a tension tie, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, 

Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012, except 

as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, 

terminates the requirements of this paragraph 

for that tension tie only. 

(h) Modification 

Except as provided by paragraph (k)(3) of 

this AD, at the applicable time specified in 

Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, 

Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012: Modify 

the tension ties, including doing an openhole HFEC inspection for cracks before 

enlarging the hole, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, 

dated December 11, 2012. Modification of the 

tension ties terminates the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of this AD. If any cracking is 

found, before further flight, do the repair 

using a method approved in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of 

this AD. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
43842 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Post-Repair/Modification Inspections 

At the applicable time specified in Table 

2 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, 

Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012: Do a 

detailed inspection of all repaired and 

modified tension ties, and do all applicable 

corrective actions, except as required by 

paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, 

Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012, except 

as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. 

Repeat the inspection thereafter at the times 

specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2371, 

Revision 2, dated December 11, 2012. Do all 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. 

(j) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for the 

modification required by paragraphs (g) and 

(h) of this AD if that modification was done 

before the effective date of this AD using 

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53–2371, dated 

July 29, 1993; or Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 1, dated 

April 27, 1995; which are not incorporated 

by reference in this AD. 

(k) Exception to Service Information 

(1) Where Row 2 of Table 3 of paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated 

December 11, 2012, specifies repeating a 

‘‘detailed’’ inspection, ‘‘as given in Part 4’’ of 

this service information, the repetitive 

inspections required by this AD are ‘‘HFEC’’ 

inspections, done in accordance with Part 4 

and Figure 8 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 

11, 2012. 

(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 

11, 2012, specifies contacting Boeing for 

repair instructions, or does not include repair 

instructions for a crack found in an area other 

than the aft tension tie area: Before further 

flight, do the repair using a method approved 

in accordance with the procedures specified 

in paragraph (l) of this AD. 

(3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

747–53A2371, Revision 2, dated December 

11, 2012 specifies a compliance time of ‘‘after 

the Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,’’ 

this AD requires compliance within the 

specified compliance time after the effective 

date of this AD. 

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), 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 the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(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 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. 

(4) AMOCs approved for AD 94–13–06, 

Amendment 39–8946 (59 FR 32879, June 27, 

1994), are approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding actions required by 

paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD. 

(m) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace 

Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6428; fax: 

(425) 917–6590; email: 

nathan.p.weigand@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766– 

5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. 

You may review copies of the 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 

425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 12, 

2013. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17412 Filed 7–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R07–RCRA–2013–0447; FRL–9833–6] 

State of Kansas; Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Kansas has applied to EPA for 

final authorization for changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final 

authorization to Kansas. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received in writing by 

August 21, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by 

one of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: haugen.lisa@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Lisa Haugen, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7, 

Enforcement Coordination Office, 11201 

Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 

66219. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to Lisa Haugen, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, Enforcement Coordination 

Office, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation of 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

Please see the immediate 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: Lisa 

Haugen, Region 7, Enforcement 

Coordination Office, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, 

Phone number: (913) 551–7877, or email 

address: haugen.lisa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of the Federal 

Register, EPA is authorizing the changes 

by an immediate final rule without prior 

proposal because the Agency views this 

as a noncontroversial revision 

amendment and anticipates no relevant 

adverse comments to this action. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the immediate final rule. If no 

relevant adverse comments are received 

in response to this action, no further 

activity is contemplated in relation to 

this action. If EPA receives relevant 

adverse comments, the immediate final 

rule will be withdrawn and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed action. EPA will not institute 

a second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on part of this rule and if that 

part can be severed from the remainder 

of the rule, EPA may adopt as final 

those parts of the rule that are not the 

subject of an adverse comment. For 

additional information, see the 

immediate final rule which is located in 

the rules section of this Federal 

Register. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1