Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 191 / Monday, October 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61069 

19Our proposed approval of the statutory 

provisions and administrative rules would 

supersede the previously-approved versions of the 

administrative rules in the Arizona SIP (i.e., AAC 

Article 9 (‘‘Gasoline Vapor Control’’), Rules R4–31– 

901 through R4–31–910, adopted by the Arizona 

Department of Weights and Measures on August 27, 

1993, submitted on May 27, 1994, and approved on 

November 1, 1994 (59 FR 54521). 

of this document and the Arizona 

Administrative Code (AAC) sections 

listed in table 2 of this document.19

Second, as authorized under CAA 

section 202(a)(6), we are proposing to 

waive the stage II vapor recovery 

requirements at E85 dispensing pumps 

in the Phoenix area under CAA section 

202(a)(6) based on our conclusion that 

ORVR is in widespread use among the 

FFVs that use such facilities. 

In so doing, we propose to conclude 

that the submitted statutory provisions 

and updated administrative rules meet 

the related requirements for stage II 

vapor recovery under CAA section 

182(b)(3) and would not interfere with 

attainment and RFP of any of the 

NAAQS or any other CAA applicable 

requirement, consistent with the 

requirements of CAA section 110(l). 

Final EPA approval of the updated 

statutory provisions and rules and 

incorporation of them into the Arizona 

SIP would make them federally 

enforceable. 

Lastly, under section 110(k)(6) and 

301(a) of the CAA, we are proposing to 

correct and clarify the incorporation of 

the previous version of these 

administrative rules into the Arizona 

SIP. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposed approval for the 

next 30 days. 

IV. 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 

proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed 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) given the limited 

nature of this SIP revision (as to 

geographic scope and vehicle 

applicability); 

• 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 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed 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, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 19, 2011. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25397 Filed 9–30–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0580; FRL–9468–1] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District, Ventura County Air Pollution 

Control District, and Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District (SMAQMD), Ventura County 

Air Pollution Control District 

(VCAPCD), and Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

organic chemical manufacturing, soil 

decontamination, and polyester resin 

operations. We are proposing to approve 

local rules to regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by November 2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0580, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

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 e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

61070 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 191 / Monday, October 3, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are 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 at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps), 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: 

David Grounds, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3019, grounds.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the following local 

rules: SMAQMD Rule 464 (Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing Operations), 

VCAPCD Rule 74.29 (Soil 

Decontamination), and PCAPCD Rule 

243 (Polyester Resin Operations). In the 

Rules and Regulations section of this 

Federal Register, we are approving 

these local rules in a direct final action 

without prior proposal because we 

believe these SIP revisions are not 

controversial. If we receive adverse 

comments, however, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal of the direct final 

rule and address the comments in 

subsequent action based on this 

proposed rule. Please note that if we 

receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: August 16, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25283 Filed 9–30–11; 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–1169] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

Correction 

In proposed rule document 2010– 

31549 appearing on pages 78664–78666 

in the issue of December 16, 2010, make 

the following correction: 

§ 67.4 [Corrected] 

On page 78665, in the fifth row from 

the bottom, immediately beneath the 

sentence ‘‘Maps are available for 

inspection at the Meeker County 

Courthouse, 325 Sibley Avenue North, 

Litchfield, MN 55355.’’, the heading 

which was inadvertently omitted from 

the table, is added to read ‘‘Carroll 

County, Missouri, and Incorporated 

Areas’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2010–31549 Filed 9–30–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 206 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0004] 

RIN 1660–AA02;Formerly 3067–AC69 

Disaster Assistance; Hazard Mitigation 

Grant Program 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: On May 1, 1998, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the 

categories of projects eligible for 

funding under the Hazard Mitigation 

Grant Program (HMGP). The NPRM 

proposed to define eligible mitigation 

activities under the HMGP to include 

minor flood control projects that do not 

duplicate the efforts and authorities of 

other Federal agencies. It proposed to 

include vegetation management 

programs for wildfire hazard mitigation 

and erosion hazard mitigation in the list 

of eligible activities; it proposed to 

remove development or improvement of 

warning systems from the list of eligible 

project types; and modified language 

relating to general, allowable open 

space, recreational, and wetlands 

management uses. FEMA is 

withdrawing the NPRM so that relevant 

issues involved in the NPRM may be 

further considered and because portions 

of it are redundant or outdated. 

DATES: The Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking published on May 1, 1998 

(63 FR 24143), is withdrawn as of 

October 3, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and this withdrawal notice 

may be found under Docket ID: FEMA– 

2011–0004 and are available online by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov, 

inserting FEMA–2011–0004 in the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box, and then clicking 

‘‘Search.’’ The Docket is also available 

for inspection or copying at FEMA, 500 

C Street, SW., Room 840, Washington, 

DC 20472. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cecelia Rosenberg, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation, DHS/FEMA, 1800 South 

Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598–3015. 

Phone: (202) 646–3321. Facsimile: (202) 

646–2880. E-mail: 

Cecelia.Rosenberg@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Authorized by section 404 of the 

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford 

Act), 42 U.S.C. 5170c, the Hazard 

Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) 

provides States, Tribes, and local 

governments financial assistance to 

implement measures that permanently 

reduce or eliminate future damages and 

losses from natural hazards. 

The HMGP regulations at 44 CFR part 

206, subpart N, address the eligibility of 

multi-hazard mitigation projects 

through a list of general eligibility 

criteria: a project must be cost-effective, 

be environmentally sound, must address 

a repetitive problem, and must 

contribute to a long-term solution. 

Further, HMGP funds cannot be used to 

fund projects that are available under 

other Federal authorities. The 

regulations also provide a list of eligible 

types of projects. The project-type 

listing is not all-inclusive. FEMA 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) (63 FR 24143, May 

1, 1998) proposing the following 

revisions to the HMGP regulations. 

Minor Flood Control Projects 

Under the NPRM, minor flood control 

projects that do not duplicate the flood 

prevention activities of other Federal 

agencies would be eligible for HMGP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS