Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27975 

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 AD: 

Rolls-Royce plc (Formerly Rolls-Royce 

Limited): Docket No. FAA–2010–0521; 

Directorate Identifier 2009–NE–21–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by July 6, 

2010. 

Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs) 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) 

model RB211–524C2–19 and RB211–524C2– 

B–19 turbofan engines. These engines are 

installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 747 

series airplanes. 

Reason 

(d) A number of low-pressure turbine (LPT) 

casings have been found cracked during 

engine shop visit. Cracking of the LPT casing 

reduces the capability of the casing to 

contain debris in the event of an LPT stage 

1 blade failure. Blade failure in an engine 

with a cracked LPT casing may result in 

release of uncontained high-energy debris. 

We are issuing this AD to detect cracks in 

the LPT casings, which could result in the 

release of uncontained high-energy debris in 

the event of a stage 1 blade failure. 

Uncontained high energy debris could result 

in damage to the airplane. 

Actions and Compliance 

(e) Unless already done, do the following 

actions: 

Initial Inspection Requirements 

(1) Perform a fluorescent penetrant 

inspection (FPI) before the life of the LPT 

casing has reached 4,500 cycles-since-new 

(CSN) or within 4,500 cycles-since-last 

inspection (CSLI) or within 500 cycles after 

the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later. You can find guidance on 

performing the FPI in RR Alert Service 

Bulletin (ASB) RB.211–72–AG076, dated 

November 13, 2008. 

Repetitive Inspection Requirements 

(2) Thereafter, perform an FPI at intervals 

not exceeding 4,500 CSLI. You can find 

guidance on performing the FPI in RollsRoyce plc ASB RB.211–72–AG076, dated 

November 13, 2008. 

Remove Parts With Cracks 

(3) Remove cracked LPT casings, found 

using paragraphs (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD, 

from service before further flight. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(g) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2009–0083, dated April 16, 2009, 

and Rolls-Royce plc Alert Service Bulletin 

No. RB.211–72–AG076, dated November 13, 

2008, for related information. Contact RollsRoyce plc, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, 

United Kingdom; telephone 011 44 1332 

242424; fax 011 44 1332 249936, for a copy 

of this service information. 

(h) Contact Tara Chaidez, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: tara.chaidez@faa.gov; 

telephone (781) 238–7773; fax (781) 238– 

7199, for more information about this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

May 12, 2010. 

Peter A. White, 

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11997 Filed 5–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0740; FRL–9152–9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan; Imperial County 

Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Imperial County Air 

Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern particulate matter 

(PM) emissions from beef feedlots. 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 

June 18, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2008–0740, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://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 

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: 

Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4115, steckel.andrew@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 revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
27976 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. 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 date that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resource Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

ICAPCD ................................................................... 420 Beef Feedlots ......................................................... 10/10/06 08/24/07 

On September 17, 2007, EPA found 

this rule submittal met the completeness 

criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V. 

These criteria must be met before formal 

EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

On February 26, 2003, we approved 

and incorporated into the SIP a previous 

version of Rule 420 (see 68 FR 8839). 

CARB has made no subsequent 

submittals of the rule. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

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 

PM emissions. ICAPCD’s Rule 420 is 

designed to limit the emission of 

particulate matter from beef feedlots 

using a Dust Control Plan based on 

maintaining a target soil moisture 

content and manure removal and 

management practices designed to 

prevent adverse public health 

conditions. 

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? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act) and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). In addition, SIP rules generally 

must implement Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACM), including 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT), in moderate PM 

nonattainment areas, and Best Available 

Control Measures (BACM), including 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT), in serious PM nonattainment 

areas (see CAA sections 189(a)(1) and 

189(b)(1)). 

On August 11, 2004, Imperial County 

was reclassified as a serious PM 

nonattainment area (see 69 FR 48792 

and 40 CFR part 81). On December 11, 

2007, EPA found that Imperial County 

failed to meet the serious area 

attainment deadline of December 31, 

2001 and must now submit a ‘‘5% Plan’’ 

pursuant to Section 189(d) of the CAA 

by December 11, 2008 (please see 72 FR 

70222). The Imperial County Board 

adopted a PM–10 ‘‘5% Plan’’ in August 

2009 and forwarded it to CARB for 

submittal; CARB, however, has not 

submitted the plan to us. 

ICAPCD has produced two reports 

analyzing the significant source 

categories that contribute to violations 

of the PM–10 standard and require 

BACM: ‘‘Draft Final Technical 

Memorandum Regulation VIII BACM 

Analysis,’’ October 2005; and, ‘‘2009 

Imperial County State Implementation 

Plan for Particulate Matter Less Than 10 

Microns in Aerodynamic Diameter,’’ 

August 11, 2009. On the basis of these 

analyses, ICAPCD determined that PM– 

10 emissions from beef feedlots were 

below the estimated ‘‘de minimis’’ or 

significant source threshold. 

Consequently, we are not evaluating 

Rule 420 as a BACM rule; instead, we 

will evaluate this rule for its 

enforceability and whether or not it 

maintains or strengthens the SIP. Please 

see our guidance at 59 FR 41998 for 

determining significant source 

categories and requiring BACM and our 

TSD for further discussion. 

We used the following guidance and 

policy documents to evaluate specific 

enforceability and RACM or BACM 

requirements: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; 

Clarification to Appendix D of 

November 24, 1987 Federal Register 

Notice,’’ (Blue Book), notice of 

availability published in the May 25, 

1988 Federal Register. 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans for 

Serious PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, 

and Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10 

Nonattainment Areas Generally; 

Addendum to the General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 

FR 41998 (August 16, 1994). 

5. ‘‘PM–10 Guideline Document,’’ EPA 

452/R–93–008, April 1993. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability and SIP 

relaxations. We found no deficiencies 

within the rule. The dust control plan 

submittal and implementation 

requirements are clear and enforceable. 

The testable moisture content standard 

and manure management requirements 

are as stringent as any existing 

California rule. The rule contains an 

adequate test method for determining 

moisture content of the livestock corrals 

according to the rule’s requirements. For 

the reasons discussed earlier and in our 

TSD, we are not evaluating Rule 420 as 

a BACM rule. 

The TSD has more information on our 

evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

We have no recommendations for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rule. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes Rule 420 fulfills 

all relevant requirements, we are 

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 30 

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27977 

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, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: April 30, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11984 Filed 5–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 10–754; MB Docket No. 10–81; RM– 

11600] 

FM Table of Allotments, Fairbanks, 

Alaska 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document sets forth a 

proposal to amend the FM Table of 

Allotments. The Commission requests 

comment on a petition filed by 

Educational Media Foundation 

proposing the allotment of FM Channels 

224C2 and 232C2 as the thirteenth and 

fourteenth local service at Fairbanks, 

Alaska. Both stations can be allotted at 

Fairbanks in compliance with the 

Commission’s minimum distance 

separation requirements with a site 

restriction of 9.4 km (5.9 miles) north of 

Fairbanks, at 64–55–20 North Latitude 

and 147–42–49 West Longitude. 

Concurrence in the allotments by the 

Government of Canada is required 

because the proposed allotments are 

located within 320 kilometers (199 

miles) of the U.S.–Canadian border. See 

Supplementary Information infra. 

DATES: The deadline for filing comments 

is 30 days following publication in the 

Federal Register. Reply comments must 

be filed on or before 15 days following 

the deadline for initial comments. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., 

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 

filing comments with the FCC, 

interested parties should serve counsel 

for petitioner as follows: Karen A. Ross, 

Esq., David D. Oxenford, Esq., Davis 

Wright Tremaine LLP, 1919 

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 200, 

Washington, D.C. 20006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau, 

(202) 418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

10–81, adopted April 30, 2010, and 

released May 3, 2010. The full text of 

this Commission decision is available 

for inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the FCC 

Reference Information Center (Room 

CY–A257), 445 12th Street, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20554. The complete 

text of this decision may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s copy 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW, Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC, 20554, (800) 378–3160, 

or via the company’s website, 

www.bcpiweb.com. This document 

does not contain proposed information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506 (c)(4). 

The Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts are 

prohibited in Commission proceedings, 

such as this one, which involve channel 

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for 

rules governing permissible ex parte 

contacts. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 

336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Alaska, is amended 

by adding Channels 224C2 and 232C2 at 

Fairbanks. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1