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

19 Our 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


### 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