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

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 findguidance 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 thebody 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?


### 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—S UBMITTED 

### R ULES

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.


### 27977 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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.