Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2004 / Proposed Rules 65393

affected airplanes to continue to operate 

without compromising safety. 

These differences have been 

coordinated with the LBA. 

Clarification of Inspection Terminology 

In this proposed AD, the ‘‘detailed 

visual inspection/check’’ specified in 

the service bulletin is referred to as a 

‘‘detailed inspection.’’ We have 

included the definition for a detailed 

inspection in a note in the proposed AD. 

Interim Action 

We consider this proposed AD 

interim action. If final action is later 

identified, we may consider further 

rulemaking then. 

Costs of Compliance 

This proposed AD would affect about 

49 airplanes of U.S. registry. The 

proposed inspection would take about 1 

work hour per airplane, at an average 

labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based 

on these figures, the estimated cost of 

the proposed AD for U.S. operators is 

$3,185, or $65 per airplane, per 

inspection cycle. 

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); and

3. Will not have a significant economic 

impact, positive or negative, on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES

section for a location to examine the 

regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, 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 adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD):

Fairchild Dornier GmbH (Formerly Dornier 

Luftfahrt GmbH): Docket No. FAA–

2004–19568; Directorate Identifier 2004–

NM–112–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

must receive comments on this AD action by 

December 13, 2004. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Dornier Model 328–

300 series airplanes; certificated in any 

category; equipped with a Dunlop brake unit 

having part number AHA2227–3 or –4. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by reports of 

cracking and breakage of the heat pack rotor 

assemblies. We are issuing this AD to find 

and fix discrepancies of the heat pack rotor 

assembly of the brake unit of the main 

landing gear (MLG) and consequent loss of 

braking capability, which could result in the 

airplane overrunning the runway during 

take-off or landing. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Repetitive Inspections/Replacement if 

Necessary 

(f) At the next brake installation or within 

24 months after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever is first: Accomplish a detailed 

inspection for discrepancies of the heat pack 

rotor assembly and rotor drive clips of the 

brake unit of the MLG by doing all the 

actions specified in the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Dornier Service Bulletin 328J–

32–169, dated November 20, 2002. If any 

discrepancy is found, before further flight, 

replace the heat pack rotor assembly with a 

new assembly in accordance with the service 

bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed the next brake 

installation or 24 months, whichever is first.

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(g) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested in accordance with 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(h) German airworthiness directive D–

2004–003, dated January 8, 2004, also 

addresses the subject of this AD.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 3, 2004. 

Kevin M. Mullin, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–25192 Filed 11–10–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R07–OAR–2004–IA–0005; FRL–7836–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the Iowa state 

implementation plan (SIP) for the 

purpose of adding information to 

establish exemptions for equipment that 

is either used for nonproduction 

activities or exhausted inside a building, 

to establish an exemption for manuallyoperated equipment, and to establish 

exemptions for emission units that can 

be classified as small units. The state 

has determined that air pollution 

emissions from this equipment are 

negligible and these exemptions are 

likely to result in no significant impact 

on human health or the environment.

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received in writing by 

December 13, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Heather Hamilton, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/

courier; please follow the detailed 

instructions in the Addresses section of 

the direct final rule which is located in 

the rules section of this Federal 

Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Heather Hamilton at (913) 551–7039, or 

by e-mail at hamilton.heather@epa.gov.

65394 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of the Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the state’s 

revision to the state implementation 

plan as a direct 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 direct 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 direct 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 direct 

final rule which is located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register.

Dated: November 1, 2004. 

James B. Gulliford, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7.

[FR Doc. 04–24919 Filed 11–10–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R05–OAR–2004–IL–0003; FRL–7831–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Approval of a Site-Specific Sulfur 

Dioxide Plan Revision for CILCO 

Edwards Station

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a July 29, 2003, site-specific sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) SIP revision request for 

the Central Illinois Light Company’s 

Edwards Generating Station in Peoria 

County, Illinois. Illinois’ requested SIP 

revision makes permanent a variance to 

the SO2 SIP which EPA approved on 

April 13, 2000. EPA is proposing to 

approve the SIP revision request. 

In the final rules section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal, because EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial 

revision and anticipate no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this proposed 

rule, no further activity is contemplated 

in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 13, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID No. R05–OAR–2004–

IL–0003 by one of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Agency Web site: http://

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.

Regional Material in EDocket (RME), 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comment system, is EPA’s preferred 

method for receiving comments. Once 

in the system, select ‘‘quick search,’’

then key in the appropriate RME Docket 

identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov.

Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

Mail: You may send written 

comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 

Air Programs Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

Hand delivery: Deliver your 

comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 

Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID 

No. R05–OAR–2004–IL–0003. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change, 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 Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME), regulations.gov, or email. The EPA Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) Web site and the federal 

regulations.gov Web site are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, 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 RME or 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

Regional Material in EDocket (RME) 

index at http://www.epa.gov/rmepub/

index.jsp. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in RME or 

in hard copy at Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

(Please telephone Mary Portanova at 

(312) 353–5954 before visiting the 

Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Portanova, Environmental 

Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), USEPA, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5954. 

portanova.mary@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?