45212 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

applicable to Honeywell International 

Inc. TPE331–10 and TPE331–11 series 

turboprop engines, was published in the 

Federal Register on June 22, 2010 (75 

FR 35354). The proposed rule would 

have added 360 S/Ns to the 

applicability of AD 2009–17–05. The 

proposed actions were intended to 

prevent uncontained failure of the first 

stage turbine disk and damage to the 

airplane. 

Since we issued that NPRM, we 

decided not to supersede AD 2009–17– 

05, as doing so would require us to 

bring forward the effectivity dates for 

removal or inspection of the suspect 

turbine disks listed in the AD. Instead, 

we are planning to issue a new NPRM 

that will address the additional 360 

turbine disk S/Ns requiring inspection 

or removal. 

Since this action only withdraws a 

notice of proposed rulemaking, it is 

neither a proposed nor a final rule and 

therefore, is not covered under 

Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, 

February 26, 1979). 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Withdrawal 

Accordingly, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, Docket No. FAA–2009– 

0555, published in the Federal Register 

on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35354), is 

withdrawn. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

July 22, 2011. 

Peter A. White, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19048 Filed 7–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0571; FRL–9444–6] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this action, we are 

proposing to approve San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVUAPCD) Rule 3170, 

‘‘Federally Mandated Ozone 

Nonattainment Fee,’’ as a revision to 

SJVUAPCD’s portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). Rule 

3170 is a local fee rule submitted to 

address section 185 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). EPA is also proposing to 

approve SJVUAPCD’s fee-equivalent 

program, which includes Rule 3170 and 

state law authorities that authorize 

SJVUAPCD to impose supplemental fees 

on motor vehicles, as an alternative to 

the program required by section 185 of 

the Act. We are proposing that 

SJVUAPCD’s alternative fee-equivalent 

program is not less stringent than the 

program required by section 185, and, 

therefore, is approvable, consistent with 

the principles of section 172(e) of the 

Act. As part of this action, we are 

inviting public comment on whether it 

is appropriate for EPA to consider 

alternative programs and, if so, what 

would constitute an approvable 

alternative program. We are taking 

comments on these proposals and plan 

to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

August 29, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0571, 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 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: 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: Lily 

Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4114, 

wong.lily@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What did the State submit? 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

III. Background 

IV. What is the legal rationale for this action? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of SJVUAPCD’s 

alternative program? 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What did the State submit? 

On May 19, 2011, SJVUAPCD adopted 

Rule 3170 as part of SJVUAPCD’s 

alternative fee-equivalent program. On 

June 14, 2011, the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) submitted 

SJVUAPCD’s alternative fee-equivalent 

program, including Rule 3170 and 

various state law authorities, to EPA. On 

June 23, 2011, EPA determined that the 

submittal met the completeness criteria 

in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which 

must be met before formal EPA review. 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve 

SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 as a revision to 

SJVUAPCD’s portion of the California 

SIP. Rule 3170 is a local rule that 

applies to all major stationary sources 

emitting VOCs and/or NOX. Rule 3170 

requires certain major stationary sources 

to pay a fee for each ton of VOCs or NOX

emitted in excess of 80% of baseline 

emissions. Rule 3170 includes an 

exemption for ‘‘clean units’’ and a 

different calculation of baseline 

emissions than specified by CAA 

section 185. Therefore, Rule 3170 also 

requires SJVUAPCD to track actual NOX

and VOC emissions from all major 

stationary sources of NOX and VOCs 

and demonstrate that it received 

revenues, pursuant to an alternative 

mechanism described below, equivalent 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 45213 

1 VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and 

smog, which harm human health and the 

environment. NOX helps produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm 

human health and the environment. 

2EPA has previously set forth this reasoning in 

a memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Air 

Division Directors, ‘‘Guidance on Developing Fee 

Programs Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for 

the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS,’’ January 5, 2010. On 

July 1, 2011, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals 

vacated this guidance, on the ground that it was 

final agency action for which notice-and-comment 

rulemaking procedures were required. NRDC v. 

EPA, No. 10–1056, 2011 WL 2601560, C.A.D.C. 

2011. In today’s notice, we are applying the court’s 

directive to follow the rulemaking requirements set 

forth in the Administrative Procedures Act to 

inform our consideration of section 185 and 

alternative fee programs. We are therefore inviting 

the public to comment on whether it is appropriate 

for EPA to consider an alternative program and, if 

so, whether SJVUAPCD’s program would constitute 

an approvable alternative program under the CAA. 

to those that would be imposed through 

section 185 of the Act without the 

‘‘clean unit’’ exemption, and with a 

baseline calculated in a manner 

consistent with CAA 185. Rule 3170 

also requires SJVUAPCD to impose 

additional fees on major stationary 

sources to remedy any shortfall in 

revenue. In this action, EPA is also 

proposing to approve SJVUAPCD’s feeequivalent program as an alternative to 

the program required by section 185 of 

the Act. SJVUAPCD’s alternative feeequivalent program includes Rule 3170 

and state law authorities that authorize 

the District to impose a $12 

supplemental fee on motor vehicle 

registrations. We are proposing that 

SJVUAPCD’s alternative fee-equivalent 

program is not less stringent than the 

program required by section 185, and, 

therefore, is approvable, consistent with 

the principles of section 172(e) of the 

Act as explained more fully below. We 

are taking comments on these proposals 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

In a separate interim final action, 

published in the Rules section in 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

deferring sanctions that would 

otherwise apply to the SJVUAPCD. 

III. Background 

Section 185 Fees 

Under Sections 182(d)(3), (e), (f) and 

185 of the Act, States with ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as severe 

or extreme are required to submit a 

revision to the SIP which requires major 

stationary sources of VOC or NOX to pay 

a fee for each ton of VOC or NOX

emitted in excess of 80% of baseline 

emissions.1 Under section 185(a) of the 

Act, the SIP revision must provide that 

the fees be paid, if the area to which the 

SIP revision applies has failed to attain 

the 1-hour ozone standard by the 

applicable attainment date. A source’s 

baseline emissions are its actual 

emissions during the required 

attainment year. The fee rate is $5,000 

per ton in 1990 dollars, which must be 

adjusted for inflation based on the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District 

SJVUAPCD is an extreme 

nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, and therefore, California was 

required under sections 182(d)(3), (e) 

and (f) to develop and submit a SIP 

revision meeting the requirements of 

section 185, which are discussed above. 

In San Joaquin Valley, under California 

law, the SJVUAPCD is responsible for 

developing rules, such as Rule 3170, 

that are intended to meet CAA SIP 

requirements. Such rules are then 

submitted to EPA after adoption by 

CARB, which is the State agency 

responsible for SIP matters on behalf of 

the State of California. 

CARB previously submitted an earlier 

version of SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 to EPA. 

EPA took final action on this earlier 

version of Rule 3170 on January 13, 

2010. (75 FR 1716). This final action 

was a limited approval/limited 

disapproval because, while EPA found 

that the rule strengthened the SIP, EPA 

also found that it did not fully comply 

with the requirements of section 185. 

EPA identified the following 

deficiencies as preventing full approval: 

(i) An exemption for units that began 

operation after the attainment year; (ii) 

an exemption for ‘‘clean units;’’ (iii) the 

definition of the baseline period as two 

consecutive years; (iv) a provision to 

allow averaging of baseline emissions 

over 2–5 years); and (v) a definition of 

‘‘major source’’ inconsistent with the 

CAA. Because our action was a limited 

approval and a limited disapproval, our 

action started sanctions clocks under 

section 179 of the Act and 40 CFR 52.31. 

On June 14, 2011, CARB submitted 

SJVUAPCD’s alternative fee-equivalent 

program, including amended Rule 3170 

as adopted on May 19, 2011 and other 

state law authorities, to address 

deficiencies identified in EPA’s limited 

disapproval, to stop the sanctions 

clocks, and to satisfy SJVUAPCD’s 

obligations under section 185 of the Act. 

IV. What is the legal rationale for 

equivalent alternative programs? 

EPA is proposing that states can meet 

the 1-hour ozone section 185 obligation 

through a SIP revision containing either 

the fee program prescribed in section 

185 of the Act, or an equivalent 

alternative program. As further 

explained below, EPA is proposing that 

an alternative program may be 

acceptable if EPA determines, through 

notice-and-comment rulemaking, that it 

is consistent with the principles of 

section 172(e) of the CAA.2

Section 172(e) is an anti-backsliding 

provision of the CAA that requires EPA 

to develop regulations to ensure that 

controls in a nonattainment area are 

‘‘not less stringent’’ than those that 

applied to the area before EPA revised 

a national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) to make it less stringent. In 

the Phase 1 ozone implementation rule 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS published 

on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA 

determined that although section 172(e) 

does not directly apply where EPA has 

strengthened the NAAQS, as it did in 

1997, it was reasonable to apply the 

same anti-backsliding principle that 

would apply to the relaxation of a 

standard for the transition from the 1- 

hour NAAQS to the more stringent 1997 

8-hour NAAQS. As part of applying the 

principles in section 172(e) for purposes 

of the transition from the 1-hour 

standard to the 1997 8-hour standard, 

EPA can either require states to retain 

programs that applied for purposes of 

the 1-hour standard, or alternatively can 

allow states to adopt alternative 

programs, but only if such alternatives 

are determined through notice-andcomment rulemaking to be ‘‘not less 

stringent’’ than the mandated program. 

EPA has identified three possible 

types of alternative programs that could 

satisfy the section 185 requirement: (i) 

Those that achieve the same emissions 

reductions; (ii) those that raise the same 

amount of revenue and establish a 

process where the revenues would be 

used to pay for emission reductions that 

will further improve ozone air quality; 

and (iii) those that would be equivalent 

through a combination of both emission 

reductions and revenues. Accordingly, 

we are proposing to determine through 

notice-and-comment rulemaking, that 

States can demonstrate an alternative 

program’s equivalency by comparing 

expected fees and/or emissions 

reductions directly attributable to 

application of section 185 to the 

expected fees and/or emissions 

reductions from the proposed 

alternative program. Under an 

alternative program, states might opt to 

shift the fee burden from a specific set 

of major stationary sources to non-major 

sources, such as owners of mobile 

sources that also contribute to ozone 

formation. EPA also believes that 

alternative programs, if approved as 

‘‘not less stringent’’ than the section 185 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
45214 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3The CAA and EPA’s Section 185 baseline 

guidance (referenced below in this section) allow 

for alternative baseline periods only if a source’s 

emissions are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary 

significantly from year to year. 

4This guidance can be found at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/ 

20080321_harnett_emissions_basline.pdf. 

fee program, would encourage 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas to 

reach attainment as effectively and 

expeditiously as a section 185 fee 

program, if not more so, and therefore 

satisfy the CAA’s goal of attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

In sum, in order for EPA to approve 

an alternative program as satisfying the 

1-hour ozone section 185 fee program 

SIP revision requirement, the state must 

demonstrate that the alternative 

program is not less stringent than the 

otherwise applicable section 185 fee 

program by collecting fees equal to or 

exceeding the fees that would have been 

collected under 185. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of 

SJVUAPCD’s alternative program? 

Summary of SJVUAPCD’s Alternative 

Program 

SJVUAPCD’s alternative feeequivalent program consists of Rule 

3170 and additional state law materials, 

including California Assembly Bill 2522 

(‘‘AB2522’’), now codified at California 

Health and Safety Code 40610–40613. 

Rule 3170 applies to major stationary 

sources of VOCs and NOX, which in the 

SJVUAPCD are sources that emit 10 tons 

per year or more of either pollutant. 

Rule 3170 differs from CAA section 185 

because it exempts ‘‘clean units’’ from 

the assessment of fees and because it 

allows baseline emissions to be 

calculated over a multi-year period, 

rather than a single year as provided in 

CAA section 185.3 Because these 

differences will likely affect the amount 

of fees collected from major stationary 

sources, SJVUAPCD’s alternative feeequivalent program provides for the 

collection of additional fees from motor 

vehicle registrations, specifically, $12 

per year per motor vehicle, as 

authorized by California AB2522. (Cal. 

Health and Safety Code §§ 40610– 

40613). 

Rule 3170 requires the Air Pollution 

Control Officer (APCO) to prepare and 

submit to EPA an ‘‘Annual Fee 

Equivalency Demonstration Report’’ to 

show that the total annual fees collected 

from stationary sources and motor 

vehicle registrations are at least equal to 

the amount of annual fees that would 

have been collected from stationary 

sources under a fee program as 

prescribed in section 185 of the Act. If 

the report shows that the actual 

collected funds are insufficient to 

demonstrate equivalency, Rule 3170 

requires the collection of additional fees 

from stationary sources to make up the 

shortfall. EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about SJVUAPCD’s alternative feeequivalent program. 

How is EPA evaluating SJVUAPCD’s 

alternative program? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act). Guidance and policy documents 

that we use to evaluate enforceability 

requirements consistently include the 

following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble; Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX

Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 

25, 1992. 

Also, SIP revisions must not interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress (RFP) or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act (CAA 

110(l))). 

SJVUAPCD’s alternative feeequivalent program must also be 

evaluated against section 185 of the Act, 

as described above under section III of 

this document. EPA also developed the 

following guidance on establishing 

baselines under section 185: 

4. Memorandum from William 

Harnett, Director of the Air Quality 

Policy Division to the Regional Air 

Division Directors, entitled, ‘‘Guidance 

on Establishing Emissions Baselines 

under Section 185 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) for Severe and Extreme Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas that Fail to Attain 

the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS by their 

Attainment Date,’’ March 21, 2008.4

Does SJVUAPCD’s alternative program 

meet the evaluation criteria? 

We believe SJVUAPCD’s alternative 

fee-equivalent program is consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, 

and sections 172(e) and 185 of the Act. 

First, we propose to determine that 

our approval of Rule 3170 as revised 

would comply with CAA sections 110(l) 

because the proposed SIP revision 

would not interfere with the on-going 

process for ensuring that requirements 

for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS 

are met, and is more stringent than the 

version previously approved into the 

SIP because it corrects the previouslyidentified deficiencies. 

Second, EPA is proposing to find that 

SJVUAPCD has met its 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS section 185 obligation through 

its alternative fee-equivalent program, 

which includes Rule 3170 and 

additional state law authorities. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to find 

that SJVUAPCD’s alternative feeequivalent program is acceptable 

because, consistent with the principles 

of section 172(e), it is not less stringent 

than the requirements of section 185. 

The version of Rule 3170 we are 

proposing to approve today contains 

two provisions that are not directly 

consistent with section 185: (1) An 

exemption for ‘‘clean units;’’ and (2) an 

allowance for an alternate baseline 

period of two consecutive years (2006– 

2010) if the APCO determines it would 

be more representative of normal 

operations. As described below, EPA 

has determined that SJVUAPCD’s 

alternative fee-equivalent program will 

make up for any shortfall in collected 

funds that might result from these two 

provisions and provides adequate 

enforcement and oversight mechanisms, 

as well as a remedy to address any 

shortfalls, to assure equivalency. 

SJVUAPCD’s alternative feeequivalent program provides for the 

collection of additional fees from motor 

vehicle registrations, specifically, $12 

per year per motor vehicle. This 

collection of motor vehicle registration 

fees is authorized by California AB2522 

(now codified at Health and Safety Code 

40610–40613). AB2522 also requires 

SJVUAPCD to use these revenues to 

fund incentive-based programs resulting 

in NOX and VOC emissions reductions 

in the San Joaquin Valley. Rule 3170 

requires the APCO to implement a 

system to track all information with 

respect to emissions data, the 

calculation, assessment, and collection 

of fees from stationary sources, as well 

as tracking of the amount of collected 

motor vehicle registration fees. The 

APCO is required to prepare and submit 

to EPA an ‘‘Annual Fee Equivalency 

Demonstration Report’’ that shows that 

the sum of the total fees collected from 

stationary sources and motor vehicle 

registrations are equal to or greater than 

the fees that would have been collected 

under a direct implementation of 

section 185. In the event that the annual 

equivalency report shows insufficient 

funds collected (i.e., a shortfall), Rule 

3170 requires the collection of 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 145 / Thursday, July 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 45215 

additional funds from stationary 

sources. 

SJVUAPCD has demonstrated that its 

alternative fee-equivalent program will 

be at least as stringent as a CAA section 

185 fee program. Rule 3170 provides 

SJVUAPCD the authority to collect fees 

from certain major sources. To the 

extent that Rule 3170 differs from CAA 

section 185 by exempting certain major 

stationary sources and allowing a 

different baseline calculation, AB2522 

allows SJVUACPD to assess 

supplemental motor vehicle registration 

fees equivalent to those that would be 

collected through a straight section 185 

fee program, and requires SJVUAPCD to 

use those revenues to fund incentivebased programs resulting in NOX and 

VOC emissions reductions in the San 

Joaquin Valley. Although we are not 

approving AB2522 into the SIP, Rule 

3170 provides adequate oversight and 

enforcement mechanisms through the 

Annual Fee Equivalency Demonstration 

Report and the shortfall remedy to 

assure that SJVUAPCD’s fee-equivalent 

alternative program will be at least as 

stringent as a section 185 fee program. 

We therefore conclude that SJVUAPCD’s 

alternative fee-equivalent program is 

consistent with the principles of CAA 

section 172(e) and not less stringent 

than the requirements of CAA section 

185 because it will result in collection 

of fees equal to the fees that would be 

collected under section 185. Based upon 

SJVUAPCD’s demonstration that its 

alternative fee-equivalent program is not 

less stringent than a section 185 

program, EPA proposes to approve Rule 

3170 into the California SIP on the basis 

that SJVUAPCD’s alternative feeequivalent program meets the 

requirements of sections 172(e) and 185 

of the Act. 

The TSD has more information on our 

evaluation. 

VI. Proposed Action 

Because EPA believes SJVUAPCD 

Rule 3170 fulfills all relevant 

requirements, we are proposing to 

approve Rule 3170 as a SIP revision 

under section 110(k)(3) of the Act. EPA 

believes that SJVUAPCD’s alternative 

fee-equivalent program is not less 

stringent than the requirements set forth 

in section 185 of the Act, therefore we 

are proposing to approve SJVUAPCD’s 

alternative fee-equivalent program 

consisting of Rule 3170 and state law 

authorities as fulfilling the requirements 

of sections 185 and 172(e) of the Act. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on these proposals 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 

Rule 3170 into the federally enforceable 

SIP. Our final action would address the 

CAA section 185 requirements for the 1- 

hour ozone standard and therefore 

would permanently terminate the 

sanctions clocks associated with our 

January 13, 2010 action on the effective 

date of the final approval. 

VII. 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 proposed 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); 

• 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 action 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: July 19, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–18991 Filed 7–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2008–0020; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1075] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: On October 27, 2009, FEMA 

published in the Federal Register a 

proposed rule that contained an 

erroneous table. This notice provides 

corrections to that table, to be used in 

lieu of the information published at 74 

FR 55168. The table provided here 

represents the flooding sources, location 

of referenced elevations, effective and 

modified elevations, and communities 

affected for Peoria County, Illinois, and 

Incorporated Areas. Specifically, it 

addresses the following flooding 

sources: Dry Run Creek, Illinois River, 

and Kickapoo Creek. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before October 26, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. FEMA–B– 

1075, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, 

Engineering Management Branch, 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration, Federal Emergency 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS