wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS

40952 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 

information provided in the Direct Final 

action of the same title which is located 

in the Rules and Regulations section of 

this Federal Register. 

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

Dated: June 13, 2006. 

Andrew M. Gaydosh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. E6–11345 Filed 7–18–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0583; FRL–8199–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Designation of 

Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of California; PM–10; 

Determination of Attainment for the 

San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment 

Area; Determination Regarding 

Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 


Agency (EPA). 


ACTION: Proposed rule. 


SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

determine that the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area (SJV) in California 

has attained the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

10 micrometers (PM–10). This proposed 

determination is based upon monitored 

air quality data for the PM–10 NAAQS 

during the years 2003–2005. The SJV 

continues to attain the PM–10 NAAQS 

in 2006; no exceedances of the 24 hour 

NAAQS have been recorded at any of 

the SJV monitoring sites from January 1, 

2006 through March 31, 2006. EPA is 

also proposing to determine that, 

because the SJV has attained the PM–10 

NAAQS, certain Clean Air Act (CAA or 

the Act) requirements are not applicable 

for as long as the SJV continues to attain 

the PM–10 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 18, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2006–0583, by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

(2) E-mail: lo.doris@epa.gov. 

(3) Mail or deliver: Doris Lo (AIR–2), 

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 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 the 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

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 

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 

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 directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3959, lo.doris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. The NAAQS for PM–10 

B. Designation, Classification and Air 

Quality Planning for PM–10 in the SJV 

C. Attainment Determinations 

II. Proposed Attainment Determination for 

the SJV 

III. Applicability of Clean Air Act Planning 

Requirements 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. The NAAQS for PM–10 

Particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than or 

equal to 10 micrometers (PM–10) is the 

subject of this action. The NAAQS are 

limits for certain ambient air pollutants 

set by EPA to protect public health and 

welfare. PM–10 is among the ambient 

air pollutants for which EPA has 

established a health-based standard. 

On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA 

revised the NAAQS for particulate 

matter with an indicator that includes 

only those particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers. The 24-

hour primary PM–10 standard is 150 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) 

with no more than one expected 

exceedance per year. The annual 

primary PM–10 standard is 50 μg/m3 as 

an annual arithmetic mean. The 

secondary PM–10 standards, 

promulgated to protect against adverse 

welfare effects, are identical to the 

primary standards. See 40 CFR 50.6. 

B. Designation, Classification and Air 

Quality Planning for PM–10 in the SJV 

In 1990, Congress amended the Clean 

Air Act to address, among other things, 

continued nonattainment of the PM–10 

NAAQS. On the date of enactment of 

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, 

PM–10 areas, including the SJV, 

meeting the qualifications of section 

107(d)(4)(B) of the amended Act, were 

designated nonattainment by operation 

of law. See 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 

1991). EPA codified the boundaries of 

the SJV at 40 CFR 81.305.1 

Once an area is designated 

nonattainment for PM–10, section 188 

of the CAA outlines the process for 

classifying the area and establishes the 

area’s initial attainment deadline. In 

accordance with section 188(a), at the 

time of designation, all PM–10 

nonattainment areas, including the SJV, 

were initially classified as moderate 

nonattainment. On December 24, 1991, 

California submitted a moderate area 

PM–10 Plan for the SJV which 

demonstrated that the area could not 

attain the PM–10 NAAQS by the 

moderate area attainment date, 

December 31, 1994. 

Section 188(b)(1) of the Act provides 

that moderate areas can subsequently be 

reclassified as serious before the 

applicable moderate area attainment 

date if at any time EPA determines that 

the area cannot ‘‘practicably’’ attain the 

PM–10 NAAQS by that deadline. On 

January 8, 1993 (58 FR 3337), EPA made 

such a determination and reclassified 

the SJV as serious. 

On August 19, 2003, the State of 

California submitted the ‘‘2003 PM–10 

1 The San Joaquin Valley PM–10 nonattainment 

area includes the following counties in California’s 

central valley: Fresno, western portion of Kern, 

Kings, Tulare, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Madera and 

Merced. 

wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 40953 

Plan, San Joaquin Valley Plan to Attain 

Federal Standards for Particulate Matter 

10 Microns and Smaller’’ and submitted 

Amendments to that plan on December 

30, 2003 (collectively, 2003 PM–10 

Plan). The State submitted the 2003 

PM–10 Plan to address, among other 

CAA requirements, those of section 

189(d) following EPA’s determination 

that the SJV failed to meet its serious 

area attainment deadline of December 

31, 2001. See 67 FR 48039 (July 23, 

2002). On May 26, 2006, EPA approved 

the 2003 PM–10 Plan except for the 

section 172(c)(9) contingency measure 

requirement. The approved elements 

include emissions inventories as 

meeting the requirements of 172(c)(3), a 

demonstration of best available control 

measures for all significant source 

categories as meeting the requirements 

of section 189(b)(1)(B), a demonstration 

of attainment by December 31, 2010 as 

meeting the requirements of sections 

179(d)(3) and 189(d), and a 

demonstration of reasonable further 

progress as meeting the requirements of 

sections 172(c)(2) and 189(c)(1). A more 

detailed discussion of the history of air 

quality planning and the contents of the 

approved plan can be found in EPA’s 

proposed and final actions at 69 FR 

5412 (February 4, 2004) and 69 FR 

30006. 

C. Attainment Determinations 

On May 8, 2006, the State requested 

that EPA find that the SJV has attained 

the PM–10 standards based on the area’s 

air quality for 2003–2005. See letter 

from Catherine Witherspoon, California 

Air Resources Board (CARB), to Wayne 

Nastri, EPA Region 9, May 8, 2006 

(Witherspoon Letter). Generally, we will 

determine whether an area’s air quality 

meets the PM–10 NAAQS for purposes 

of sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) based 

upon data gathered at established state 

and local air monitoring stations 

(SLAMS) and national air monitoring 

stations (NAMS) in the nonattainment 

area and entered into the EPA’s Air 

Quality System (AQS) database. Data 

from air monitors operated by state/ 

local agencies in compliance with EPA 

monitoring requirements must be 

submitted to AQS. Heads of monitoring 

agencies annually certify that these data 

are accurate to the best of their 

knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies 

primarily on data in AQS when 

determining the attainment status of 

areas. See 40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix J; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 

58, appendix A. We will also consider 

air quality data from other air 

monitoring stations in the 

nonattainment area even if they have 

not been entered into the AQS if the 

stations meet the federal monitoring 

requirements for SLAMS. See August 

22, 1997 Memorandum ‘‘Agency Policy 

on the Use of Special Purpose 

Monitoring Data,’’ from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, to the Regional Air 

Directors (Seitz Memo). All data are 

reviewed to determine the area’s air 

quality status in accordance with our 

guidance at 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. 

Attainment of the annual PM–10 

standard is achieved when the annual 

arithmetic mean PM–10 concentration 

over a three-year period is equal to or 

less than 50 μg/m3. Attainment of the 

24-hour standard is determined by 

calculating the expected number of days 

in a year with PM–10 concentrations 

greater than 150 μg/m3. The 24-hour 

standard is attained when the expected 

number of days per year with levels 

above 150 μg/m3 (averaged over a threeyear period) is less than or equal to one. 

Three consecutive years of air quality 

data are necessary to show attainment of 

the 24-hour and annual standards for 

PM–10. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix 

K. A complete year of air quality data, 

as referred to in 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K, includes all four calendar 

quarters with each quarter containing 

data from at least 75 percent of the 

scheduled sampling days. 

II. Proposed Attainment Determination 

for the SJV 

The SJV has 15 SLAMS sites operated 

by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (District or 

SJVUAPCD) and CARB. These 

monitoring stations are located 

throughout the SJV.2 The District and 

CARB measure ambient (24-houraverage) PM–10 concentrations in the 

SJV at a frequency of once every six 

days, except at the Corcoran SLAMS site 

which operates on a one in three day 

schedule.3 

Table 1 summarizes the PM–10 data 

collected in the SJV from 2003–2005 

and reported by CARB to the AQS 

database. As shown in Table 1, no 

exceedances of the 24-hour PM–10 

NAAQS of 150 μg/m3 were measured in 

SJV during the 2003–2005 period and 

the annual-average PM–10 

concentrations measured during that 

period were below the corresponding 

standard of 50 μg/m3. 

TABLE 1.—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY SLAMS NETWORK PM–10 DATA 2003–2005 

Monitoring site 

24 hour average 3 year annual 

arithmetic average 

(μg/m3) Maximum 

(μg/m3) 

Expected number 

of exceedances 

Bakersfield—California Ave ....................................................................................... 

Bakersfield—Golden State Hwy ................................................................................ 

Clovis ......................................................................................................................... 

Corcoran* ................................................................................................................... 

Fresno—Drummond .................................................................................................. 

Fresno First St. .......................................................................................................... 

Hanford ...................................................................................................................... 

Merced ....................................................................................................................... 

Modesto ..................................................................................................................... 

Oildale ........................................................................................................................ 

Stockton—Hazelton ................................................................................................... 

Stockton—Wagner/Holt ............................................................................................. 

Taft ............................................................................................................................. 

110 

136 

87 

150

102 

106 

140 

74

93 

107 

88 

68 

96 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

44 

46 

34 

44 

41 

33 

43 

29 

29 

42 

29 

22 

31 

2 EPA evaluated the adequacy of the SJV 3 Most PM–10 monitoring sites utilize a manual Corcoran two manual FRM samplers are operated 

monitoring network in connection with its approval sampler, designated as a Federal Reference Method on a staggered once every six day schedule that 

of the 2003 PM–10 Plan. See 69 FR at 30032–30033 (FRM), operated on a once every six day schedule. enables the District to collect a 24-hour PM–10 

and ‘‘Evaluation of the Adequacy of the Monitoring These samplers draw ambient air through a quartz sample every three days. Network for the San Joaquin Valley, California for fiber filter which is weighed before and after 

the Annual and 24-Hour PM–10 Standards,’’ Bob sampling in order to determine the mass of PM–10 

Pallarino, EPA Region 9, September 22, 2003. that is collected after the 24-hour run period. At 

wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS

40954 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1.—SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY SLAMS NETWORK PM–10 DATA 2003–2005—Continued 

Monitoring site 

24 hour average 3 year annual 

arithmetic average 

(μg/m3) Maximum 

(μg/m3) 

Expected number 

of exceedances 

Turlock ....................................................................................................................... 

Visalia ........................................................................................................................ 

87 

122 

0 

0 

30 

43 

Source: U.S. EPA AQS Database. 

* The Federal Reference Monitor at Corcoran did record an exceedance of the 24 hour PM–10 NAAQS on September 3, 2004 (217 μg/m3). 

This exceedance was flagged by CARB as a high wind natural event. EPA concurred with CARB’s request to exclude this data from consideration in attainment findings on July 7, 2005. 

See May 30, 1996 Memorandum ‘‘Areas Affected by PM–10 Natural Events,’’ from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the Regional Air Directors. Moreover, even if EPA had not concurred with the exclusion of this data, the Corcoran site would still attain 

the 24-hour NAAQS because the expected number of exceedances is less than or equal to one per year, averaged over the three year period 

2003–2005. 

As noted above, the 24-hour PM–10 

standard is attained when the expected 

number of days per year with levels 

above 150 μg/m3 (averaged over a threeyear period) is less than or equal to one. 

As can be seen from Table 1, there were 

no exceedances of the 24-hour PM–10 

NAAQS for the 2003–2005 period and 

thus the expected number of days per 

year with levels above 150 μg/m3 

(averaged over that three-year period) is 

zero. Thus we propose to find that the 

SJV has attained the 24-hour PM–10 

NAAQS. Also as noted above, 

attainment of the annual PM–10 

standard is achieved when the annual 

arithmetic mean PM–10 concentration 

over a three-year period is equal to or 

less than 50 μg/m3. Our review of the 

data for calendar years 2003–2005 

reveals that none of the 15 SLAMS sites 

averaged greater than 50 μg/m3. Thus 

we propose to find that the SJV has 

attained the annual PM–10 NAAQS. 

The SJV continues to attain the PM–10 

NAAQS based on data collected through 

March 31, 2006.4 

EPA is aware that the District operates 

a beta attenuation mass (BAM) special 

purpose monitor at the Corcoran 

monitoring site to support the District’s 

daily air quality forecasts. This BAM 

monitor has recorded a sufficient 

number of PM–10 concentrations above 

150 μg/m3 during the years 2003–2005 

to prevent EPA from making a finding 

of attainment if the data were suitable 

for use in an attainment determination. 

However, in the Seitz Memo, EPA stated 

that ‘‘[t]he Agency policy on the use of 

all special purpose monitoring data for 

any regulatory purpose, with the 

exception of fine particulate matter data 

(PM–2.5), is all quality-assured and 

valid data meeting 40 CFR 58 

requirements must be considered within 

the regulatory process.’’ Seitz Memo, 

p.1. With respect to the Corcoran BAM 

4 If EPA makes a final determination of 

attainment, the Agency will consider the most 

current data available at that time. 

monitor, EPA has determined that the 

District did not perform quality control 

checks of the sampler every two weeks 

(see 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, section 

3.1.2). Nor did CARB perform 

independent field audits of the BAM 

sampler as described in 40 CFR part 58, 

appendix A, section 3.2.2. See pp. 5–6 

of attachment (‘‘Supporting Information 

for the San Joaquin Valley PM–10 

Attainment Determination Request’’) to 

letter from Seyed Sadredin, SJVUAPCD, 

to Catherine Witherspoon, CARB, April 

24, 2006, attached to Witherspoon 

Letter. Therefore the BAM data are not 

valid for use in a determination of 

whether the SJV has attained the PM– 

10 standards and, as a result, we have 

not considered them. 

III. Applicability of Clean Air Act 

Planning Requirements 

The air quality planning requirements 

for PM–10 nonattainment areas are set 

out in subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the 

Act. EPA has issued a General 

Preamble 5 and Addendum to the 

General Preamble 6 describing our 

preliminary views on how the Agency 

intends to review state implementation 

plans (SIPs) submitted to meet the 

CAA’s requirements for PM–10 plans. 

These documents provide detailed 

discussions of our interpretation of the 

title I requirements. 

In nonattainment areas where 

monitored data demonstrate that the 

NAAQS have already been achieved, 

EPA has determined that certain 

requirements of part D, subparts 1 and 

2 of the Act do not apply. Therefore we 

do not require certain submissions for 

5 ‘‘General Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 

57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), as supplemented at 

57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). 

6 ‘‘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). 

an area that has attained the NAAQS. 

These include reasonable further 

progress (RFP) requirements, attainment 

demonstrations, RACM, and 

contingency measures, because these 

provisions have the purpose of helping 

achieve attainment of the NAAQS. 

This interpretation of the CAA is 

known as the Clean Data Policy and is 

the subject of two EPA memoranda. EPA 

also finalized the statutory 

interpretation set forth in the policy in 

a final rule, 40 CFR 51.918, as part of 

its ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 2’’ (Phase 2 Final 

Rule). See discussion in the preamble to 

the rule at 70 FR 71612, 71645–46 

(November 29, 2005). 

EPA believes that the legal bases set 

forth in detail in our Phase 2 Final rule, 

our May 10, 1995 memorandum from 

John S. Seitz, entitled ‘‘Reasonable 

Further Progress, Attainment 

Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ and our 

December 14, 2004 memorandum from 

Stephen D. Page entitled ‘‘Clean Data 

Policy for the Fine Particle National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ are 

equally pertinent to the interpretation of 

provisions of subparts 1 and 4 

applicable to PM–10. Our interpretation 

that an area that is attaining the 

standards is relieved of obligations to 

demonstrate RFP and to provide an 

attainment demonstration, RACM and 

contingency measures pursuant to part 

D of the CAA, pertains whether the 

standard is PM–10, ozone or PM–2.5.7 

For detailed discussions of this 

interpretation with respect to the CAA’s 

PM–10 requirements for RFP, 

7 Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have 

upheld EPA rulemakings applying its interpretation 

of subparts 1 and 2 with respect to ozone. Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 99F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Our 

Children’s Earth Foundation v. EPA, N. 04–73032 

(9th Cir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion). 

wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 40955 

attainment demonstrations, RACM and 

contingency measures, see 71 FR 6352, 

6354 (February 8, 2006); 71 FR 13021, 

13024 (March 14, 2006); and 71 FR 

27440, 27443–27444 (May 11, 2006). We 

are relying on these discussions here. 

We also discuss our interpretation with 

respect to contingency measures below. 

As set forth in Section I of this 

proposed rule, we have previously 

approved all of the serious area PM–10 

attainment plan requirements for the 

SJV except for the contingency measure 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9). 

Section 172(c)(9) requires that part D 

nonattainment area plans ‘‘provide for 

the implementation of specific measures 

to be undertaken if the area fails to make 

reasonable further progress, or to attain 

the national primary ambient air quality 

standard by the attainment date 

applicable under this part. Such 

measures shall be included in the plan 

revision as contingency measures to 

take effect in any such case without 

further action by the State or the 

Administrator.’’ 

EPA has determined that these 

contingency measure requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(9) no longer apply 

when an area has attained the standard 

because those ‘‘contingency measures 

are directed at ensuring RFP and 

attainment by the applicable date.’’ (57 

FR at 13564); May 10, 1995 

memorandum at 5–6. As explained at 

length in the memoranda and 

rulemakings cited above, the 

requirements for RFP and attainment 

demonstrations no longer apply once an 

area has attained the standard, since 

their purpose—to achieve attainment by 

the applicable attainment date—will 

already have been fulfilled. Thus it 

follows that the requirement for 

contingency measures is also suspended 

for as long as the area attains the 

standard. Consequently, we propose 

that any final finding that the SJV has 

attained the PM–10 NAAQS would also 

suspend the contingency measure 

requirements for the SJV. 

Consistent with our Clean Data 

Policy, we propose that this suspension 

exist only for as long as the area 

continues to monitor attainment of the 

standards. If the SJV experiences a 

violation of the PM–10 NAAQS in the 

future, the basis for the contingency 

measure requirement being suspended 

would no longer exist. In that event, we 

would notify the State that we have 

determined that the area is no longer 

attaining the PM–10 standards and 

provide notice to the public in the 

Federal Register. 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action 

Based on quality-assured data meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K, we propose to determine 

that the SJV has attained the PM–10 

NAAQS. This proposed action, if 

finalized, would not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment under CAA 

section 107(d)(3), because we would not 

yet have approved a maintenance plan 

as required under section 175(A) of the 

CAA or determined that the area has 

met the other CAA requirements for 

redesignation. The classification and 

designation status in 40 CFR part 81 

would remain serious nonattainment for 

this area until such time as California 

meets the CAA requirements for 

redesignation of the SJV to attainment. 

Consistent with the Agency’s Clean 

Data Policy, EPA also proposes to find 

that the contingency measure 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) 

would no longer apply to the San 

Joaquin Valley PM–10 nonattainment 

area. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely proposes 

a determination based on air quality 

data and does not impose any additional 

requirements. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this proposed rule does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty, it 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). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 97249, November 9, 2000). This 

proposed action also does not have 

federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This proposed action 

merely makes a determination based on 

air quality data and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

The requirements of section 12(d) of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: July 6, 2006. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. E6–11450 Filed 7–18–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket No. FEMA–B–7463] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Mitigation Division. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Technical information or 

comments are requested on the 

proposed Base (1% annual chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed 

BFEs modifications for the communities