Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 28509 

FAA–2010–0523 Inspection Report 

(If the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD was done before the effective date of this AD, this report does not need to be 

completed and returned to the Wichita ACO) 

Airplane Model 

Airplane Serial Number 

Airplane Tachometer Hours at Time of Inspection 

Right Hand Starter Generator serial number 

Left Hand Starter Generator serial number 

Does the RH Starter Generator fall within the suspect lot? No If yes, replace and document replacement starter generator serial number. 

Does the LH Starter Generator fall within the suspect lot? No If yes, replace and document replacement starter generator serial number. 

If both Starter Generators serial numbers fell within the suspect 

lot, was only one Starter Generator replaced? 

No If yes, describe and document which starter generator needs to 

be replaced. 

Were any other discrepancies noticed during the inspection? 

Send report to: 

Kevin Schwemmer, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, KS 67209. 

fax: (316) 946-4107. 

e-mail: kevin.schwemmer@faa.gov. 

Figure 1 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(g) The Manager, Wichita 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. Send information to ATTN: Kevin 

Schwemmer, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, 

Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946– 

4174; fax: (316) 946–4107; e-mail: 

kevin.schwemmer@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. 

Related Information 

(h) To get copies of the service information 

referenced in this AD, contact Hawker 

Beechcraft Corporation, 9709 East Central, 

Wichita, Kansas 67201; telephone: (316) 676– 

5034; fax: (316) 676–6614; Internet: https://

www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/service_support/ 

pubs/. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on 

the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

May 14, 2010. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12300 Filed 5–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0430; FRL–9154–1] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) and particulate matter (PM) 

emissions primarily from indirect 

sources associated with new 

development projects as well as NOX

and PM emissions from certain 

transportation and transit projects. We 

are approving a local rule that regulates 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

July 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0430, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
28510 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily 

Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4114, 

wong.lily@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. What action is EPA proposing and why? 

D. EPA Recommendations to Address 

Deficiencies 

E. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the state submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD .................... 9510 Indirect Source Review (ISR) ......................................................... 12/15/05 12/29/06 

On June 29, 2007, the submittal for 

SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 was deemed by 

operation of law to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 9510 in the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

NOX helps produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and particulate matter, 

which harm human health and the 

environment. PM contributes to effects 

that are harmful to human health and 

the environment, including premature 

mortality, aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease, decreased lung 

function, visibility impairment, and 

damage to vegetation and ecosystems. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

States to submit regulations that control 

NOX and PM emissions. 

Rule 9510 establishes limitations on 

NOX and PM. Development projects 

indirectly result in new emissions from 

mobile, stationary, and area sources, 

including those from new vehicle trips, 

fuel combustion from stationary and 

area sources, use of consumer products, 

landscaping maintenance, and 

construction activities. The purpose of 

Rule 9510 is to achieve emission 

reductions from new development 

projects, as well as transportation and 

transit projects where construction 

exhaust emissions are equal to or greater 

than 2 tons of NOX or 2 tons of PM10. 

Rule 9510 requires applicants of new 

development projects to reduce 

construction equipment emissions and 

operational emissions by a specified 

percentage. The reductions can be 

achieved through any number of on-site 

measures implemented by the applicant 

or by paying a fee to SJVUAPCD for all 

emissions in excess of the requirements. 

SJVUAPCD would utilize the fees to 

fund off-site projects to reduce NOX and 

PM emissions. 

Rule 9510 requires the submittal and 

approval of an application which 

identifies, through the use of a computer 

model, the projected air impacts of the 

development project and on-site 

mitigation measures, and the amount of 

fees to be paid. EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about this rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

The CAA (see section 110(a)(2)(E)) 

requires the State and responsible local 

agencies (e.g., SJVUAPCD) to have 

adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority to carry out the SIP, including 

Rule 9510. 

SIP rules must be enforceable (see 

section 110(a) of the Act) and must not 

relax existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193 of the Act). Guidance and 

policy documents that we use to 

evaluate enforceability consistently 

include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble; Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX

Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 

25, 1992. 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs,’’ EPA– 

452/R–01–001, January 2001. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

EPA believes that California and 

SJVUAPCD have demonstrated that they 

have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority to carry out the overall SIP. 

EPA is aware of ongoing legal challenge 

by the National Association of Home 

Builders (NAHB) to SJVUAPCD’s legal 

authority to implement Rule 9510. (See 

National Association of Home Builders 

v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District, No. 08–17309 

(9th Circuit)). In that case, NAHB asserts 

that the SJVUAPCD, through Rule 9510, 

is attempting to establish and enforce an 

emissions standard for new nonroad 

engines without first having received a 

waiver as required by CAA section 209, 

42 U.S.C. 7543. Based on the 

information before EPA for Rule 9510, 

we believe that the SJVUAPCD has the 

authority to adopt and implement Rule 

9510 without such a waiver. The TSD 

has more information on this issue. 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant requirements, policy and 

guidance regarding SIP relaxations since 

this rule does not replace any SIP rule. 

However, we believe this rule is not 

consistent with the relevant 

requirements, policy and guidance on 

enforceability. The TSD has more 

information on this issue. 

C. What action is EPA Proposing and 

why? 

While Rule 9510 does not meet the 

evaluation criteria for enforceability, 

EPA is proposing to fully approve the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 28511 

rule because it is directionally sound 

and would generally strengthen the SIP. 

Rule 9510 is an important effort by 

SJVUAPCD to reduce NOX and PM 

emissions from a sector that has not 

been generally regulated and could also 

result in significant co-benefits by 

reducing emissions of green house 

gases. For these reasons, EPA 

recommends full SIP approval, but in 

light of the deficiencies also 

recommends that the projected emission 

reductions from the rule should not be 

credited in any attainment and rate of 

progress/reasonable further progress 

demonstrations. The TSD has more 

information on this recommendation. 

D. EPA Recommendations to Address 

Deficiencies 

EPA recommendations on how to 

address the enforceability deficiencies 

are described in the TSD. 

E. Public Comment and Final Action 

EPA is proposing to fully approve it 

as described in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act. We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 45 

days. Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 

action that will incorporate this rule 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: May 10, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12281 Filed 5–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1095] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on 

the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed 

BFE modifications for the communities 

listed in the table below. The purpose 

of this notice is to seek general 

information and comment regarding the 

proposed regulatory flood elevations for 

the reach described by the downstream 

and upstream locations in the table 

below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are 

a part of the floodplain management 

measures that the community is 

required either to adopt or to show 

evidence of having in effect in order to 

qualify or remain qualified for 

participation in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, 

these elevations, once finalized, will be 

used by insurance agents and others to 

calculate appropriate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

the contents in those buildings. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before August 19, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The corresponding 

preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each 

community is available for inspection at 

the community’s map repository. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by Docket No. FEMA–B–1095, to Kevin 

C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Mitigation 

Directorate, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2820, 

or (e-mail) kevin.long@dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, 

Engineering Management Branch, 

Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–2820, or (e-mail) 

kevin.long@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) proposes to make 

determinations of BFEs and modified 

BFEs for each community listed below, 

in accordance with section 110 of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed BFEs and modified 

BFEs, together with the floodplain 

management criteria required by 44 CFR 

60.3, are the minimum that are required. 

They should not be construed to mean 

that the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own or 

pursuant to policies established by other 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS