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withdrawn.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 Doe. 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

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

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 NON to pay

a fee for each ton of VOC or NOx

emitted in excess of 80% of baseline

emissions.' 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

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.

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

2 EPA 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

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

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.

45213
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 145/Thursday, July 28, 2011/Proposed Rules

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

3 The 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.

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(1))).

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(1)

because the proposed SIP revision

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

www.epa.govlttnloarpgltl/memoranda/

20080321 harnett emissions basline.pdf.

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

45214
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 145/Thursday, July 28, 2011/Proposed Rules

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 Doe. 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-B1075, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief,

Engineering Management Branch,

Federal Insurance and Mitigation

Administration, Federal Emergency

45215