# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 76 Fed. Reg. 1532 2011

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Apr 18 10:29:13 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 7/Tuesday, January 11, 2011/Rules and Regulations

State
State citation Title/subject approval/ EPA approval date Explanation submittalEPaprvldtExanio

date

Section 116.922

........ Notice of Final Action

................. 12/16/1999 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins]. Section 116.926

........ Permit Fee

.................................. 5/22/2002 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins]. Section 116.928

........ Delegation

.................................. 5/22/2002 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins]. Section 116.930

........ Amendments and Alterations 5/22/2002 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page numIssued Under this Subchapter. ber where document begins]. Section 116.931

........ Renewal

..................................... 12/16/1999 1/11/2011, [Insert FR page number where document begins].

* 3.Section 52.2273 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f)to read as follows:
§52.2273 Approval status.

(f)EPA is disapproving the Texas SIP revision submittals under 30 TAC Chapter 116-Control ofAir Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification as follows: (1) Subchapter I-Electric Generating Facility Permits-Section 116.911(a)(2) (Electric Generating Facility Permit), adopted December 16, 1999, and submitted January 3, 2000.

[FRDoe. 2011-222 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0718; FRL-9250-1]

Determinations of Attainment bythe Applicable Attainment Date for the Hayden, Nogales, Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 Nonattainment Areas, Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is making final determinations that the Hayden, Nogales, and Paul Spur/Douglas nonattainment areas in Arizona attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM 1 o)by their applicable attainment dates ofDecember 31, 1994. Onthe basis ofthese determinations, EPA concludes that these three "moderate" nonattainment areas are not subject to reclassification by operation oflawto "serious." EPA is not finalizing determinations with respect to the air quality in these areas subsequent to their 1994 attainment dates. DATES: EffectiveDate:This rule is effective on February 10, 2011. ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0718 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically athttp:// www.regulations.govand inhard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information maybe publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and

some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normalbusiness hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax at telephone number: (415) 947-4192; e-mail address: tax.wienke@epa.gov,orthe above EPA, Region IX address. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever "we", "us" or "our" are used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as follows:

Table ofContents

I. Context for Today's Actions II. Summary ofProposed Actions III. Public Comments and EPA Responses IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Context for Today's Actions

On November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67220),

we published a direct final rulethat made certain determinations we are making in this document. On November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67303), we also published a corresponding proposed rule in the event that we received adverse comment leading us to withdraw the direct final rule. In our direct final rule, we indicated that we would withdraw the direct final rule if we received adverse comments, and address public comments in a subsequent final rulebased on the proposed rule. On November 3, 2010,

we received adverse comments, and subsequently withdrew the direct final rule (75 FR 72964, November 29, 2010). Today, we take final actionbased on our November 2, 2010 proposed rule and

our consideration ofthe public
comments received.

II. Summary ofProposed Actions

In our November 2, 2010 proposed rule, we proposed to determine, pursuant to section 188(b)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act, thatthree Arizona "moderate" PM10 nonattainment areas (Hayden,Nogales, and Paul Spur/ Douglas) had attained the PM1oNAAQS by the applicable attainment date (December 31, 1994), and that,based on these proposed determinations, we concluded that none ofthese areas is subject to reclassification to seriousby operation oflaw. We also proposed to find thatmore recent data for 2007- 2009 show none ofthe areas is currently attaining the standard. More detailed information is contained in the November 2direct final rule, which is summarized in the paragraphs that follow.

First, our direct final rule described the relevant NAAQS, 150 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/ms), 24-hour average, against which monitored ambient concentrations ofPM10 in the three subject areas (Hayden,1 Nogales,2

'The Hayden planning area straddles Gila and Pinal counties at the confluence ofthe Gila and San Pedro rivers in east central Arizona. The nonattainment area covers roughly 700 square miles ofmountainous terrain. Cities and towns within this area include Kearney (populationroughly 2,800), Hayden (populationroughly 800), and Winkelman (populationroughly 400).

2The Nogales planning area covers approximately
70 square miles along theborder withMexico within Santa Cruz County. The only significant population center in this area is the city of Nogales with a population ofroughly 21,000. The population ofNogales, Mexico, which liesjust 

### 1532

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 1532 2011

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 7/Tuesday, January 11, 2011/Rules and Regulations

and Paul Spur/Douglas 3) are to be compared in evaluating whether the

areas attained the standard. Next, we described the designations and classifications ofthese three areas, all of which are classified as "moderate" nonattainment with an applicable attainment date ofDecember 31, 1994 under CAA section 188(c). Also, we discussed the status ofthe various air quality plans submitted by the State of Arizona to address moderate area PM10 requirements in the three subject areas (Hayden,Nogales, Paul Spur/Douglas).

In our direct final rule, we also described howEPA makes attainment determinations. As explained therein, the 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the expected number ofdays per calendar year with a 24-hour concentration in excess ofthe standard (referredto herein as an "exceedance"),

as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is equal to or less than one. 4 See 40 CFR 50.6 and40 CFR part 50, appendix K. Generally, EPA determines whether an area's air quality is meeting the PM1oNAAQS based upon complete (minimum of 75 percent ofscheduled PM1osamples recorded in each quarter), qualityassured data gathered at established
state and local airmonitoring stations (SLAMS) and national air monitoring stations (NAMS) in the nonattainment

area and entered into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS)database. Attainment ofthe 24-hour PM10 standard is determined by calculating the expected number ofexceedances of the standard in a year.The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the expected number ofexceedances averaged over a three-year period isless than or equal to one at each monitoring site within the nonattainment area. Generally, three consecutive years of air quality data are required to show attainment ofthe 24-hour PM10 standard. See 40 CFR part 50 and appendix K.

across the border from Nogales, Arizona is roughly 160,000.

3The Paul Spur/Douglas planning area covers approximately 220 squaremiles along the border with Mexico within Cochise County. Cities and
towns within this area include Douglas (population roughly 20,000) and Pirtleville (populationroughly 1,500). Thepopulation ofAgua Prieta, Mexico, which lies justacross the border from Douglas is roughly 70,000.

4An exceedance is defined as a daily valuethat is abovethe level ofthe 24-hour standard (150 gg/
M 3) after rounding to the nearest 10 pg/m 3 (i.e., values ending in 5 or greater are to berounded up). Thus, a recorded value of 154pg/m 3 wouldnotbe

an exceedance since itwould be rounded to 150 pg/

m 3whereas a recorded value of155 pg/m 3 would bean exceedance since itwould berounded to 160 pg/m 3

. See 40CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0. Based on the available monitoring data for the 1992-1994 period collected in the three subject Arizona nonattainment areas (Hayden, Nogales, 5

and Paul Spur/Douglas) and the application ofthe PM10 NAAQS attainment criteria described above, we proposed to determine that allthree

areas attained the PM10 NAAQS by the December 31, 1994 attainment date for "moderate" areas, andthus, are not subject toreclassification to "serious" by operation oflawunder CAA section 188(b)(2). In addition, we proposed to find that, although the three areas attained the standard bythe applicable attainment date, none appears tobe currently attaining based on the most recent available data, although Hayden
appears likely to attain in the near future ifcurrent trends continue. We indicated that we plan to address the PM1oneeds for Nogales and Paul Spur/ Douglas areas over the nextfew years. In today's action, EPA is not finalizing
any ofthe proposed determinations with respect to recent data. Instead, we plan to further assess recent data, including data available for 2010 and 2011, in the context offuture rulemaking actions on the submitted, but not yet approved, air quality plans for these areas. Section 188(b)(2) obligates EPA to make a determination only as to whether these areas have attained by their applicable 1994 attainment dates, and we are not required by that section tomake determinations regarding subsequent time periods. Other portions ofthe Clean Air Act authorize EPA to address
current air quality issues as needed through separate statutory authority and mechanisms.

Please see our November 2, 2010 direct final rule for more information about ourproposal ofthe same date.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

As noted previously, we published a proposed rule (75 FR 67303) on

5 Table 2 ("Summary of PM10 Monitoring Data, Nogales Nonattainment Area, 1992-1994"), as published in our November 2, 2010 direct finalrule, contains a publisher's error that erroneously combines certain columns and rows and thereby

causes a mismatch between concentrations and the corresponding years in which they were monitored. The correct values for the highest 24-hour PM10 concentrations (pg/m 3) are 153 in 1992, 119 for 1993, and 116 for 1994 from the Nogales Post Office monitor. Also, the maximum concentrations shown for the other three monitors located in Nogales were collected in 1994, not 1993. These errors do not appear inthe version ofthe direct finalrule that

was signedby the EPA Region IX Regional Administrator. In any event, these errors would not have affected the outcome ofour attainment determinations sincenone of the values for any of
the years exceeded 154 pg/m 3

. November 2, 2010. We received
comments from WildEarth Guardians ("WildEarth"), dated November 3, 2010, challenging EPA's interpretation ofCAA section 188(b)(2) that limits reclassifications by operation oflaw to the air quality conditions as ofthe applicable attainment date.

Comment:WildEarth contends that section 188(b)(2) ofthe CleanAir Act does not state that the EPA is limited onlyto considering air quality dataup until the attainment date when it makes its finding,but rather requires any moderate nonattainment area that fails
to attain "after the applicable attainment date" to be reclassified to "serious" regardless ofwhether EPA makes a timely finding.

WildEarth finds further support for its interpretation by noting that CAA section 188(b)(2) uses both past-tense andpresent-tense wording with regards
to the context ofEPA's assessment of an area's attainment status. Specifically, the statute states that EPA's finding "shall determine whether the area attained* * "(emphasis added), but then states "Ifthe Administrator finds that any Moderate Area is notin attainment* * "(emphasis added). WildEarth contends that use ofboth the past-tense andpresent-tense inthis
context indicates that, although the Clean Air Act intended EPA to assess an area's attainment status based on whether itattained the NAAQS by the attainment date, it also required that a moderate nonattainment area be reclassified to "serious"ifit "is not in attainment" at the time the EPA makes its finding. IfEPA's assessment were to be limited only to whether an area "attained" inthe past, WildEarth contends that itwould render meaningless the Clean Air Act's substantive requirement that a moderate

area bebumped up to "serious" ifit "is
not in attainment" when EPA makes its finding. WildEarth contends that, as such, EPA's interpretation reads a substantive provision out ofthe Clean Air Act.

Response:First, we note that WildEarth does not object to any aspect ofEPA's proposed rulemaking other than the interpretation as tothe legal consequences thatthey contend would flow from finalizing determinations that, although the three areas attained by their applicable 1994 attainment dates, sixteenyears later they are not currently in attainment. First, we note that in today's rulemaking EPA is not finalizing any proposed determinations with respect to the air quality in these

areas subsequent tothe areas' applicable dates. Nor does section 188(b)(2) impose such an obligation. Pursuant to section 1533

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 1533 2011

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 7/Tuesday, January 11, 2011/Rules and Regulations

188(b)(2), EPA is finalizing here its determinations that the areas attained the standard "by that [applicable attainment] date." Section 188(b)(2) does
not impose upon EPA any obligation to make a final determination of attainment except with respect to an area's applicable attainment date.

Thus, it isnot necessary for the purposes ofour final actions here, which are limited to determinations of attainment as ofthe areas' applicable attainment dates, torespond to WildEarth's assertions regarding the legal consequences ofdeterminations regarding air quality in subsequent decades. Nevertheless, we note our disagreement with WildEarth's interpretation that CAA section 188(b)(2) would require reclassification ofany moderate PM10 nonattainment

area ifEPA were to make a final determination that the area was not attaining after the applicable attainment date, regardless ofthe air quality conditions as ofthe applicable attainment date itself.

EPA's interpretation ofsection 188(b)(2) as requiring and authorizing reclassification to serious based only on air quality conditions as ofthe applicable attainment date, and not thereafter, is confirmed by areading of that section in its entirety:

Within 6 months following the applicable attainment date fora PM-10 nonattainment
area, the Administrator shall determine whether the area attained the standard by that date. Ifthe Administrator finds that any Moderate Area is not in attainment afterthe applicable attainment date-

(A)The area shallbe reclassified by operation oflaw as a Serious Area; and

(B) the Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register nolater than 6 months following the attainment date, identifying the area as having failed to attain and identifying the reclassification described under subparagraph (A).

While the second sentence of section 188(b)(2) contains the language quoted by WildEarth ("any Moderate Area is not in attainment after the applicable attainment date"), it is clear thatin the
context ofthe first sentence ofthe provision, which is the sentence that establishes the duty to make an attainment determination, thatthe duty is to "determine whether the area attained the standard by that date [referring to the phrase "applicable attainment date" in the opening clause ofthe first sentence]." Thus, EPA's duty is to determine whether the area attained by its attainment date and the language in the second sentence regarding a finding after the attainment date may reasonably be interpreted as referring to the date the finding ismade, which would necessarily be after the attainment date, not to the date usedin the determination as the benchmark for determining attainment.

Further, the second sentence ofCAA section 188(b)(2), i.e., the one that includes the language citedby WildEarth ("anyModerate Area isnot in attainment after the applicable attainment date"), includes two subparagraphs, one ofwhich provides for reclassification ofamoderate area to serious by operation oflaw and another that refers to publication ofa notice in the Federal Register six months after the attainment date, identifying the area "as having failed to attain"that clearly relates backto the earlier, legally relevant attainment date (inthis case, December 31, 1994). Thus, whether EPA's obligation under CAA section 188(b)(2) isviewed in its entirety, or whether the second sentence ofCAA section 188(b)(2) is viewed in isolation, it isclear thatthe question ofwhether

an area must be reclassified is considered along with the question of whether an area has achieved attainment by the attainment date.6 To accept WildEarth's interpretation would be to ignore the reference to a specific point in time ("nolater than 6 months following the attainment date") for publishing anotice in subparagraph (B) ofCAA section 188(b)(2) inidentifying the appropriate benchmark for reclassifying moderate areas to serious under subparagraph (A). 7

6EPA's sole obligation under CAA section 188(b)(2) is to determine whether the three Arizona

areas attained the PM10 standardby the applicable
attainment date, and while the statute requires EPA to make this determination within six months ofthe applicable attainment date, the applicable
attainment date (in this case, December 31, 1994) remains the same no matter when EPA actually makes the determination. EPA was not obligated in
the November 2, 2010 proposed rule, nor in this final rule, to determine whether the areas are attaining the standard at the present time. As stated above, EPA is not herefinalizing any determinations as to the current airquality inthe
area, but is merely noting what morerecent monitoring data suggest about the current air quality area qualityin these areas, sixteen years after the 1994 attainment dates that arethe subject ofthe final rulemaking here.We included the observations about current airquality inour proposed rule because we believe that such observations, and therelated discussion offuture Agency actions, is of as much public interest, ifnot
more, as are the determinations ofthe aft quality conditions that occurred sixteen years ago.

7While EPAbelieves thatthe plain language of section 188(b)(2) supports EPA's interpretation that reclassifications to "serious" areto bebased only on aft quality conditions as ofthe applicable attainment date, and not thereafter, EPA believes that, to the extent section 188(b)(2) is ambiguous, EPA's interpretation is reasonable in that itis consistent with the statutory scheme for SIP revisions upon findings offailure to attain under subpart 1 and for mandatory reclassifications under subparts 2 and 3 for ozone and carbon monoxide

areas. See CAA sections 179(c) and (d), 181(b)(2) Commenter's interpretation ofsection 188(b)(2) fails toharmonize the second
sentence ofthe section with the first
sentence and with the sentences that follow. Indeed, it could more plausibly be argued thatthe second sentence adds

a cumulative condition for reclassification-that is, an area will be reclassified ifand only itfails to attain by its attainment date and "ifthe Administrator finds [the area] is not in attainment after the applicable attainment date." Contrary to commenter's contention, EPA does not believe that Congress intended for the language regarding determining attainment as ofthe attainment date not to apply when an attainment determination occurs more than six months after the attainment date. The second sentence of section 188(b)(2) does not somehow override the language ofthe first sentence and require reclassification ifan area slips back into nonattainment afterits attainment date. EPA's reading is consistent with the language ofsection 188(b)(2) and with other provisions of the Clean Air Act, as well aswith its
structure and purpose. EPAbelieves that other parts ofthe Act, notably section 110(k)(5), provide the means to address nonattainment that occurs after

an area's attainment date. Contrary to commenter's contention, EPA's reading does not "nullif[y]" applicable text. Rather, EPA isproperly reading 188(b)(2) as requiring EPA to determine whether an area has attained by its attainment date, with reclassification as

a consequence for areas thatfail to do SO.

In the present case, the air quality data from the years 1992-1994 are the relevant data for determining whether the three Arizona areas must be reclassified to serious because their applicable attainment date is December 31, 1994, and because we have

and 186(b)(2) and compare the language from these sections to section 188(b)(2). While the language for such SIPrevisions under subpart 1 and for reclassifications for ozone and carbonmonoxide

areas undersubparts 2 and 3 uses slightly different language to link SIPrevisions and reclassifications solely to air quality "as ofthe attainment date" than the language for reclassification ofPMo areas under subpart 4, we find no reason that Congress would have established a different scheme for PM10 areas under subpart 4 than generally applicable under subpart 1 or forozone orcarbon monoxide areas under subparts 2 and 3. For further explanation of EPA's interpretation ofreclassification under the Clean Air Act, see the responses to comments in EPA's final Determination ofAttainment of 1-hour Ozone Standard as ofNovember 15,1993 for the Birmingham, AL Marginal Ozone Nonattainment
Area (67 FR 67113, November 4, 2002). To the extent relevant here, EPA reaffirms and incorporates by reference the responses to comments contained in ourNovember 4, 2002 final rule. 

### 1534

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 1534 2011Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 7/Tuesday, January 11, 2011/Rules and Regulations

determined that the areas did in fact attain by the applicable attainment date, they are not subject to reclassification to serious by operation oflaw underCAA section 188(b)(2).

This does not mean thatthe Clean Air Act provides no means to address NAAQS violations in areas that had initially attained the standard by the applicable attainment datebut then experience subsequent violations years after the applicable attainment date. For example, EPA could issue a "SIP call" under CAA section 110(k)(5) ifEPA

were to determine thatthe SIP is "substantially inadequate" to attain the PM1oNAAQS in areas where violations ofthe PM10 NAAQS occur after the applicable attainment date. Such SIP calls require the State to revise the SIP

as necessary to correct the inadequacies. The SIP call, unlike reclassification, is capable of addressing and correcting the specific circumstances causing nonattainment sixteen years after the applicable attainment date. While EPA has no current plans to issue SIP calls for any ofthe three subject Arizona moderate PM10 nonattainment areas, EPA is working with the State of Arizona toupdate the state's earliersubmitted, but notyet EPA-approved air quality plans. EPA intends to ensure that theplans meet all applicable requirements for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas throughboth cooperative efforts with the State and through subsequent EPA rulemaking actions onthe updated plans.

IV. Final Action

EPA has reviewed the comments that have been submitted, and concluded that none ofthem convince us to change

our action as proposed on November 2, 2010 with respect to determinations of attainment as ofthe applicable attainment date. Thus, under section 188(b)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act, and based on sufficient, quality-assured data, we take final action to determine that the Hayden, Nogales, and Paul Spur/Douglas PM10 nonattainment areas attained the 24-hour PM1oNAAQS by the applicable attainment date, December 31, 1994. On thebasis ofthis determination, EPA concludes that these three "moderate"nonattainment

areas are not subject to reclassification
to "serious"by operation oflaw.

V. Statutoryand Executive Order Reviews

This action merely make determinations based on air quality data and does not impose any additional Federal requirements. For thatreason, this action: * Is not a "significant regulatory action" subject to reviewby 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 CAA; and

* Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does nothave tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because itwill not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added bythe Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides thatbefore a rulemay take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and tothe Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a "majorrule" as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed inthe United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by March 14, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does
not affect the finality ofthis action for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the timewithin which a petition forjudicial review maybe filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness ofsuch rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in40 CFRPart81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Particulate matter, Wilderness areas.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Dated: December 30, 2010. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator,EPARegionIX.
[FRDoe. 2011-221 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67 [Docket IDFEMA-2010-0003]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community isrequired either to adopt orto show evidence ofbeing already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The date ofissuance ofthe Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date maybe obtained by contacting the office where the maps
are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection
atthe office ofthe ChiefExecutive Officer ofeach community. The 1535

HeinOnline -- 76 Fed. Reg. 1535 2011