67322 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this rule. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of significant 

environmental impact from the 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Revise § 117.993 paragraph (c) and 

remove paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 117.993 Lake Champlain. 

* * * * * 

(c) The draw of the New England 

Central Railroad Bridge across 

Missiquoi Bay, mile 105.6, at Swanton, 

Vermont, shall operate as follows: 

(1) From June 15 through September 

15, the draw shall remain in the full 

open position at all times and shall only 

be closed for the passage of rail traffic 

or the performance of maintenance 

authorized in accordance with subpart 

A of this part. 

(2) From September 16 through June 

14, the draw may remain in the closed 

position and shall be opened on signal 

for the passage of vessel traffic after at 

least a twenty four hour notice is given 

by calling the number posted at the 

bridge. 

(3) The draw may be operated either 

remotely by the New England Central 

Railroad train dispatcher located at St. 

Albans, Vermont or manually by a draw 

tender located at the bridge. 

(4) A sufficient number of infrared 

cameras shall be maintained in good 

working order at all times with a clear 

unobstructed view of the channel under 

the bridge, and the up and down stream 

approaches to the bridge. A signal horn 

and message boards located both up and 

down stream, necessary to warn marine 

traffic that the bridge will be closing, 

shall also be maintained in good 

working order at all times. In the event 

that any of the cameras, navigation 

lights, horn, or message board become 

disabled, personnel shall be deployed to 

the bridge to be on scene within two 

hours from the known time of the 

equipment failure. 

(5) The draw may operate remotely as 

follows: Once it is determined that the 

draw must be opened or closed, the 

train dispatcher shall observe the 

waterway both up and down stream via 

the infrared cameras to verify that the 

channel is clear of all approaching 

vessel traffic. All approaching vessel 

traffic shall be allowed to pass before 

the bridge may closed. Once it is 

determined that no vessel traffic is 

approaching the dispatcher shall sound 

the warning horn and activate the up 

and down stream message boards 

indicating that the bridge will be 

closing. After at least a one minute 

delay the draw may then be closed and 

the swing span navigation lights shall 

display as red to indicate the bridge is 

in the closed position. Once the train 

clears the bridge the draw shall be 

returned to the full open position and 

the swing span lights shall display as 

green to indicate the draw is in the full 

open position. 

(6) In the event that the dispatcher 

cannot verify that the channel is clear of 

all vessel traffic and the bridge cannot 

be safely closed, an on-scene train 

crewmember shall observe the waterway 

for any vessel traffic and then 

communicate with the train dispatch 

office either by radio or telephone to 

request the bridge be safely closed. 

Personnel shall then be deployed to the 

bridge to arrive within two hours to 

inspect and repair the bridge remote 

operation equipment. The bridge shall 

be operated manually from the tender’s 

house located at the bridge until all 

necessary repairs are completed to the 

remote operation equipment. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 16, 2012. 

Daniel B. Abel, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27369 Filed 11–8–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0790; FRL–9750–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Placer County 

Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 

(NOx) emissions from biomass boilers. 

We are approving a local rule that 

regulates these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

December 10, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0790, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: 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 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 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

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 email 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 www.regulations.gov 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 67323 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

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: 

Idalia Pe ́rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3248, perez.idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action. 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

PCAPCD ........... 233 Biomass Boilers ............................................................................................ 06/14/12 09/21/12 

On October 11, 2012, EPA determined 

that the submittal for PCAPCD Rule 233 

met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 

Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met 

before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We finalized a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of an earlier version 

of Rule 233 on January 19, 2012 (77 FR 

2643). That action incorporated Rule 

233 into the California SIP, including 

those provisions identified as deficient. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

NOX helps produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and particulate matter, 

which harm human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires States to submit regulations 

that control NOX emissions. Rule 233 

limits NOX emissions from biomass 

boilers. EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about this rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), must require Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for each 

category of sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each major source in 

nonattainment areas (see sections 

182(b)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). The PCAPCD regulates 

an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 

CFR part 81), so Rule 233 must fulfill 

RACT. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

RACT requirements consistently 

include the following: 

1. ‘‘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. 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. ‘‘Determination of Reasonably 

Available Control Technology and Best 

Available Retrofit Control Technology 

for Industrial, Institutional, and 

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, 

and Process Heaters,’’ CARB, July 18, 

1991. 

5. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

(ICI) Boilers,’’ U.S. EPA 453/R–94–022, 

March 1994. 

6. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from Utility 

Boilers,’’ US EPA 452/R–93–008, March 

1994. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP 

relaxations. The TSD has more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD describes additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rule but are not currently the basis for 

rule disapproval. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rule fulfills all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve it as 

described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal 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 this rule 

into the federally enforceable SIP. Final 

approval of Rule 233 would satisfy 

California’s obligation to implement 

RACT under CAA section 182 for this 

source category and thereby terminate 

both the sanctions clocks and the 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) clock 

associated with limited approval and 

limited disapproval of this rule which 

we finalized on January 19, 2012 (77 FR 

2643). 

III. 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
67324 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: October 30, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27324 Filed 11–8–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1233] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: On November 29, 2011 FEMA 

published in the Federal Register a 

proposed rule that contained an 

erroneous table. This document 

provides corrections to that table, to be 

used in lieu of the information 

published at 76 FR 73537. The table 

provided here represents the flooding 

sources, location of referenced 

elevations, effective and modified 

elevations, and communities affected for 

Sullivan County, Pennsylvania (All 

Jurisdictions). Specifically, it addresses 

the flooding sources Big Run, Little 

Loyalsock Creek, Loyalsock Creek, and 

Muncy Creek. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before February 7, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. FEMA–B– 

1233, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, 

Engineering Management Branch, 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4064 

or (email) Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.

gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064 or (email) Luis.

Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) publishes proposed 

determinations of Base (1% annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and 

modified BFEs for communities 

participating in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP), in 

accordance with section 110 of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed BFEs and modified 

BFEs, together with the floodplain 

management criteria required by 44 CFR 

60.3, are minimum requirements. They 

should not be construed to mean that 

the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

These proposed elevations are used to 

meet the floodplain management 

requirements of the NFIP and also are 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new 

buildings built after these elevations are 

made final, and for the contents in those 

buildings. 

Correction 

In the proposed rule published at 76 

FR 73537, in the November 29, 2011, 

issue of the Federal Register, FEMA 

published a table under the authority of 

44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled 

‘‘Sullivan County, Pennsylvania (All 

Jurisdictions)’’ addressed the flooding 

sources Big Run, Little Loyalsock Creek, 

Loyalsock Creek, and Muncy Creek. 

That table contained inaccurate 

information as to the location of 

referenced elevation, effective and 

modified elevation in feet, and/or 

communities affected for Loyalsock 

Creek. In this document, FEMA is 

publishing a table containing the 

accurate information, to address these 

prior errors. The information provided 

below should be used in lieu of that 

previously published. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with