### 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 ofAD 2009-17-05. The proposed actions were intended to prevent uncontained failure ofthe 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 ofthe 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

orremoval.

Since this action only withdraws a notice ofproposed rulemaking, itis neither aproposed nor a finalrule and therefore, is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects in 14 CFRPart 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal

Accordingly, the notice ofproposed rulemaking, Docket No. FAA-2009- 0555, published in the Federal Register

onJune 22, 2010 (75 FR 35354), is withdrawn.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 22, 2011. PeterA. White, ActingManager, EngineandPropeller Directorate, AircraftCertification Service.
[FRDoe. 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]

Revisionsto the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified AirPollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, we are proposing to approve SanJoaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Rule 3170, "Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee," as a revision to SJVUAPCD's portion ofthe California State Implementation Plan (SIP). Rule 3170 is a local fee rule submitted to address section 185 ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA or Act). EPA is also proposing to approve SJVUAPCD's fee-equivalent program, which includes Rule 3170 and
state lawauthorities that authorize SJVUAPCD toimpose 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 thanthe program required by section 185, and, therefore, is approvable, consistent with the principles of section 172(e) ofthe Act. As part ofthis action, we are inviting public comment on whether it is appropriate for EPA to consider alternative programs and, ifso, 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 ofthe following methods: 1.FederaleRulemakingPortal: www.regulations.gov. Followthe on-line instructions.

2. E-mail:steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 3.Mailordeliver: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 maybe made available online athttp://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or otherinformation 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.govor e-mail. http://www.regulations.govis an "anonymous access" system, and EPA will not knowyour identity or contact information unlessyou provide it inthe body ofyour comment. Ifyou send email directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe public
comment. IfEPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may notbe able to consideryour comment. Docket:Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http:// www.regulations.govandin 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 maybe 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 normalbusiness 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 ofContents

I.What did the State submit? II.What action isEPAtaking? III. Background IV.What isthe legalrationale for this action? V.What isEPA's analysis ofSJVUAPCD's alternative program? VI. Proposed Action VII. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews

I. Whatdidthe State submit?

On May 19, 2011, SJVUAPCD adopted Rule 3170 aspart ofSJVUAPCD'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 thatthe submittal met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which
must be met before formal EPAreview.

II. Whataction is EPAtaking?

EPA isproposing to approve SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 as arevision to SJVUAPCD's portion ofthe 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 ofVOCs orNOx emitted in excess of 80% ofbaseline emissions. Rule 3170 includes an exemption for "clean units" and a different calculation ofbaseline emissions than specified by CAA section 185. Therefore, Rule 3170 also requires SJVUAPCD totrack actual NOx and VOC emissions from allmajor stationary sources ofNOx and VOCs and demonstrate thatit 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 wouldbe imposed through section 185 ofthe Act without the "clean unit" exemption, and with a baseline calculated in amanner consistent with CAA 185. Rule 3170 alsorequires SJVUAPCD toimpose 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 toimpose a $12 supplemental fee on motorvehicle registrations. We are proposing that SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent
program is not less stringentthan the program required by section 185, and, therefore, is approvable, consistent with the principles of section 172(e) ofthe Act as explained more fully below. We

are taking comments on these proposals andplan to follow with a final action.

In aseparate interim final action, published in the Rules section in today's Federal Register,we are deferring sanctions thatwould otherwise apply to the SJVUAPCD.

III.Background

Section185Fees

Under Sections 182(d)(3), (e), (f)and 185 ofthe 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 ofVOC or NON to pay
afee for each ton ofVOC or NOx emitted in excess of 80% ofbaseline emissions.' Under section 185(a) ofthe Act, the SIP revision must provide that the fees be paid, ifthe area towhich the SIP revision applies has failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard bythe applicable attainment date. A source's baseline emissions are its actual emissions during therequired attainment year. The fee rate is $5,000
per ton in 1990 dollars, which mustbe adjusted for inflationbased on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

SanJoaquinValley Unified Air PollutionControlDistrict

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 SanJoaquin Valley, underCalifornia 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 isthe State agency responsible for SIP matters onbehalf of the State ofCalifornia.

CARB previously submitted an earlier version ofSJVUAPCD Rule 3170 to EPA. EPA tookfinal action onthis earlier version ofRule 3170 onJanuary 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 itdid notfully comply with therequirements 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 ofthe baseline period astwo consecutive years; (iv)a provision to allow averaging ofbaseline 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 ofthe Act and40 CFR 52.31.

OnJune 14, 2011, CARB submitted SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent program, including amended Rule 3170

as adopted on May 19, 2011 and other
state lawauthorities, to address deficiencies identified in EPA's limited disapproval, to stop the sanctions clocks, and to satisfy SJVUAPCD's obligations under section 185 ofthe Act.

IV. What isthe legal rationalefor equivalent alternative programs?

EPA isproposing that states can meet the 1-hour ozone section 185 obligation through aSIP revision containing either the fee program prescribed in section 185 ofthe Act, or an equivalent alternative program. As further explained below, EPA is proposing that

an alternative program may be acceptable ifEPA determines, through notice-and-comment rulemaking, that it is consistent with the principles of section 172(e) ofthe CAA.2

2EPA has previously set forth thisreasoning in

a memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, to Air DivisionDirectors, "Guidance on Developing Fee Programs Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for the 1-hour OzoneNAAQS," January 5, 2010. On July 1, 2011, the DC Circuit Court ofAppeals 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. Intoday's notice, we are applying the court's Section 172(e) is an anti-backsliding provision ofthe CAA thatrequires 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 1ozone 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 ofa standard for the transition from the 1- hour NAAQS to the more stringent 1997 8-hour NAAQS. As part ofapplying the principles in section 172(e) forpurposes ofthe 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 ifsuch alternatives

are determined through notice-andcomment rulemaking tobe "not less stringent" than the mandated program.

EPA has identified three possible types ofalternative programs that could satisfy the section 185 requirement: (i) Those that achieve the same emissions reductions; (ii)those thatraise the same amount ofrevenue and establish a process where therevenues wouldbe used to pay for emission reductions that will further improve ozone air quality; and (iii)those that wouldbe equivalent through a combination ofboth 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 ofsection 185 tothe 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 ofmajor stationary sources to non-major
sources, such as owners ofmobile

sources that also contribute to ozone formation. EPA also believes that alternative programs, ifapproved as "not less stringent" than the section 185

directive to followthe rulemaking requirements set forth inthe Administrative Procedures Act to inform our consideration ofsection 185 and alternative fee programs. We aretherefore 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, ifnot more so, andtherefore satisfy the CAA's goal ofattainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS.

In sum, in order for EPAto approve
an alternative program as satisfying the 1-hour ozone section 185 fee program SIP revision requirement, the state must demonstrate thatthe alternative
program is not less stringentthan the otherwise applicable section 185 fee program by collecting fees equal to or exceeding the fees that wouldhave been collected under 185.

V.What isEPA's analysis of SJVUAPCD's alternative program? SummaryofSJVUAPCD'sAlternative Program

SJVUAPCD's alternative feeequivalent program consists ofRule 3170 and additional state lawmaterials, including California Assembly Bill 2522 ("AB2522"), now codified at California Health and Safety Code 40610-40613. Rule 3170 applies to major stationary

sources ofVOCs and NOx, which in the SJVUAPCD are sources that emit 10 tons per year or more ofeither pollutant. Rule 3170 differs from CAA section 185 because it exempts "clean units" from the assessment offees and because it allows baseline emissions tobe 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 offees collected from major stationary
sources, SJVUAPCD's alternative feeequivalent program provides forthe collection ofadditional 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) toprepare and submit to EPA an "Annual Fee Equivalency Demonstration Report" to show thatthe total annual fees collected from stationary sources and motor vehicle registrations are at least equal to the amount ofannual fees thatwould have been collected from stationary

sources under a fee program as prescribed in section 185 ofthe Act. If the report shows thatthe actual collected funds are insufficient to demonstrate equivalency, Rule 3170

3 The CAA and EPA's Section 185 baseline guidance (referencedbelow inthis section) allow for alternative baseline periods onlyifa source's emissions are irregular, cyclical, orotherwise vary significantly from year to year. requires the collection ofadditional 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 isEPA evaluatingSJVUAPCD's alternative program? Generally, SIP rules mustbe enforceable (see section 110(a) ofthe Act). Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability requirements consistently include the following: 1. "Issues Relating to VOCRegulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations," EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook). 2. "Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC &OtherRule Deficiencies," EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (theLittle Bluebook).

3. "State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule," (theNOx Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.

Also, SIP revisions must notinterfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act (CAA 110(1))).

SJVUAPCD's alternative feeequivalent program must also be evaluated against section 185 ofthe 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 oftheAir Quality Policy Division to the Regional Air Division Directors, entitled, "Guidance

on Establishing Emissions Baselines under Section 185 ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA)for Severe andExtreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas thatFail to Attain the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS by their Attainment Date," March 21, 2008.4

DoesSJVUAPCD'salternative program meet theevaluationcriteria?

We believe SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent program is consistent with therelevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, and sections 172(e) and 185 ofthe Act.

First, we propose to determine that

our approval ofRule 3170 as revised would comply with CAA sections 110(1) because the proposed SIP revision

4This guidance can befound 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 ofthe NAAQS

are met, and is more stringentthan the version previously approved into the SIPbecause itcorrects the previouslyidentified deficiencies.

Second, EPA is proposing to findthat 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 isproposing to find that SJVUAPCD's alternative feeequivalent program is acceptable because, consistent with theprinciples ofsection 172(e), itis not less stringent than the requirements ofsection 185.

The version ofRule 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 oftwo consecutive years (2006- 2010) ifthe APCO determines it would be more representative ofnormal operations. As described below, EPA has determined that SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent program will make up for any shortfallin 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 forthe collection ofadditional fees from motor vehicle registrations, specifically, $12
per year per motor vehicle. This collection ofmotor vehicle registration fees is authorized byCalifornia AB2522 (nowcodified 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 SanJoaquin Valley. Rule 3170 requires the APCO toimplement a systemto track all information with respect to emissions data, the calculation, assessment, and collection offees from stationary sources, aswell

astracking ofthe amount ofcollected
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 ofthe totalfees collected from stationary sources and motor vehicle registrations are equal to or greater than the fees that wouldhave been collected under a direct implementation of section 185. In the event thatthe 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 aCAA section 185 fee program. Rule 3170 provides SJVUAPCD the authority to collect fees from certain major sources. To the
extentthat Rule 3170 differs from CAA section 185by 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 tofund 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 willbe atleast as stringent as a section 185 fee program. We therefore conclude that SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent program is consistent with the principles ofCAA section 172(e) and not less stringent than the requirements ofCAA section 185because itwill result in collection offees equal to the fees thatwould be collected under section 185. Based upon SJVUAPCD's demonstration thatits alternative fee-equivalent program is not less stringent than a section 185 program, EPAproposes to approve Rule 3170 into the California SIP on thebasis that SJVUAPCD's alternative feeequivalent program meets the requirements of sections 172(e) and 185 ofthe Act.

The TSDhas more information on our evaluation.

VI. Proposed Action

Because EPAbelieves SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 fulfills all relevant requirements, we are proposing to approve Rule 3170 as a SIP revision under section 110(k)(3) ofthe Act. EPA believes that SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent program is notless stringent than the requirements set forth in section 185 ofthe Act,therefore we

are proposing to approve SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent program consisting ofRule 3170 and state law authorities as fulfilling the requirements of sections 185 and 172(e) ofthe 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 ofthe final approval. VII. Statutoryand Executive Order
Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act,the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions ofthe Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role isto approve State choices, provided that theymeet the criteria ofthe Clean AirAct. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposedby State law. For that reason, this proposed action: * Is not a "significant regulatory action" subject toreview by the Office ofManagement and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); * Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.); * Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 etseq.);

*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 actionbased on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

* Is not a significant regulatory action subject toExecutive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

* Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)because application ofthose 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, andlegally 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 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Dated: July 19, 2011. JaredBlumenfeld,
Regional Administrator,RegionIX. [FRDoe. 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 IDFEMA-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 noticeprovides corrections tothat table, to be used in lieu ofthe information published at 74 FR 55168. The table provided here represents the flooding sources, location ofreferenced elevations, effective and modified elevations, and communities affectedfor Peoria County, Illinois,and Incorporated Areas. Specifically, it addresses the following flooding

sources: Dry Run Creek, Illinois River, and Kickapoo Creek. DATES: Comments are tobe submitted

on orbefore 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