Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6597 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 258 

[EPA–R08–RCRA–2009–0621; FRL–9110–4] 

Determination to Approve Alternative 

Final Cover Request for the Lake 

County, MT Landfill; Opportunity for 

Public Comment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region VIII, is making a 

determination to approve an alternative 

final cover for the Lake County landfill, 

a municipal solid waste landfill 

(MSWLF) owned and operated by Lake 

County, Montana on the Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai Tribes’ Flathead 

Reservation in Montana. EPA is seeking 

public comment on EPA’s 

determination to approve Lake County’s 

alternative final cover proposal. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 12, 2010. If sufficient 

public interest is expressed, EPA will 

schedule and hold a public meeting. If 

a public meeting is scheduled, the date, 

time and location will be announced in 

the Missoulian and the Char-Koosta 

News. (If you are interested in attending 

a public meeting, contact Stephanie 

Wallace at (406) 457–5018). 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

RCRA–2009–0621 by one of the 

following methods: 

• Online: http://www.regulations.gov: 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. 

• E-mail: wallace.stephanie@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (406) 457–5055. 

• Mail: Stephanie Wallace, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region VIII, Montana Office, 10 West 

15th Street, Suite 3200, Helena, MT 

59626. 

• Hand delivery: Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region VIII, 

Montana Office, 10 West 15th Street, 

Suite 3200, Helena, MT 59626. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, which are 

Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. 

until 4:30 p.m. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EP–R08–RCRA–2009– 

0621. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or by e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA rather than going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be captured automatically 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any detects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, e.g., CBI 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

Region VIII, Montana Office, 10 W. 15th 

Street, Suite 3200, Helena, Montana. A 

complete public portion of the 

administrative record for this 

rulemaking is also available for review 

at this location and at the Polson City 

Library. The Environmental Protection 

Agency Region VIII, Montana Office is 

open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays, and is located in a secure 

building. To review docket materials, it 

is recommended that the public make 

an appointment by calling the EPA 

Montana Office at (406) 457–5000 

during normal business hours. The 

Polson City Library, located at 2 First 

Avenue, Polson, MT (telephone (406) 

883–8225) is open from 11 a.m. to 6 

p.m., Monday through Friday and 11 

a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Wallace, EPA Region VIII 

Montana Office, 10 W. 15th Street, Suite 

3200, Helena, MT 59626; telephone 

number: (406) 457–5018; fax number 

(406) 457–5055; e-mail address: 

wallace.stephanie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Submitting Comments to EPA 

1. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The Agency 

may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by 

referencing a Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part or section 

number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

2. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so-marked 

will not be disclosed, except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

3. Docket Copying Costs: Copying 

arrangements will be made through the 

EPA Montana Office and billed directly 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
6598 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

to the recipient. Copying costs may be 

waived, depending on the total number 

of pages copied. 

If sufficient public interest is 

expressed, EPA will hold a public 

meeting. The location, date and time of 

a meeting will be announced in the 

Missoulian and the Char-Koosta News. 

I. General Information 

A. Background 

Under sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 

4010 of the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as 

amended by the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 

EPA established revised minimum 

Federal operating criteria for MSWLFs, 

including landfill location restrictions, 

operating standards, design standards 

and requirements for ground water 

monitoring, corrective action, closure 

and post-closure care, and financial 

assurance. Under RCRA section 4005(c), 

States are required to develop permit 

programs for facilities that may receive 

household hazardous waste or waste 

from conditionally exempt small 

quantity generators, and EPA 

determines whether the program is 

adequate to ensure that facilities will 

comply with the revised criteria. 

The MSWLF criteria are at 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 258. 

These regulations are self-implementing 

and apply directly to owners and 

operators of MSWLFs. For many of 

these criteria, 40 CFR part 258 includes 

a flexible performance standard as an 

alternative to the self-implementing 

regulation. The flexible standard is not 

self-implementing, and use of the 

alternative standard requires approval 

by the Director of a State with an EPAapproved program. 

Because EPA’s approval of a State 

program does not extend to Indian 

country, owners and operators of 

MSWLF units located in Indian country 

cannot take advantage of the flexibilities 

available to those facilities subject to an 

approved State program. However, the 

EPA has the authority under sections 

2002, 4004, and 4010 of RCRA to 

promulgate site-specific rules that may 

provide for use of alternative standards 

in Indian country. See Yankton Sioux 

Tribe v. EPA, 950 F. Supp. 1471 (D.S.D. 

1996); Backcountry Against Dumps v. 

EPA, 100 F.3d. 147 (DC Cir. 1996). EPA 

has developed draft guidance on 

preparing a site-specific request to 

provide flexibility to owners or 

operators of MSWLFs in Indian country 

(Site-Specific Flexibility Requests for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in 

Indian country Draft Guidance, 

EPA530–R–97–016, August 1997). 

The regulation at 40 CFR 258.60(a) 

establishes closure criteria for MSWLF 

units that are designed to minimize 

infiltration and erosion. The regulation 

requires final cover systems to be 

designed and constructed to: 

(1) Have a permeability less than or 

equal to the permeability of any bottom 

liner system or natural sub-soils present, 

or a permeability no greater than 

1×10 ¥5 cm/sec, whichever is less, and 

(2) Minimize infiltration through the 

closed MSWLF by the use of an 

infiltration layer that contains a 

minimum of 18 inches of earthen 

material, and 

(3) Minimize erosion of the final cover 

by the use of an erosion layer that 

contains a minimum of 6 inches of 

earthen material that is capable of 

sustaining native plant growth. 

The regulation at 40 CFR 258.60(b) 

allows for variances from these 

specified MSWLF closure criteria. 

Specifically, the rule allows for the 

Director of an approved State to approve 

an alternative final cover design that 

includes: 

(1) An infiltration layer that achieves 

an equivalent reduction in infiltration as 

the infiltration layer specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of 40 CFR 

258.60, and 

(2) An erosion layer that provides 

equivalent protection from wind and 

water erosion as the erosion layer 

specified in paragraph (a)(3) of 40 CFR 

258.60. 

B. Lake County’s Site-Specific Flexibility 

Request 

The Lake County landfill is a 

municipal solid waste landfill owned 

and operated by Lake County on the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes’ Flathead Reservation in 

Montana. The landfill site is 

approximately 50 acres in size and 

serves approximately 28,000 people in 

Lake County. Most of the county, 

including the landfill, lies within the 

boundaries of the Flathead Reservation. 

The landfill itself consists of a 30-acre 

unlined waste footprint that was used as 

the county’s municipal landfill 

beginning in the 1960s. In the early 

2000s the County built a transfer station 

and converted the landfill to accept 

inert and construction and demolition 

waste only. Of the existing 30-acre 

waste footprint, 14.6 acres were 

previously closed and covered. 

On July 11, 2007, Lake County 

submitted a site-specific flexibility 

application request to EPA and the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes for the Lake County landfill. The 

request seeks EPA approval for the use 

of an alternative final cover that varies 

from the final closure requirements of 

40 CFR 258.60. This request would 

apply to the 15.4 acres of the landfill 

that have not been previously closed. 

Between July 11, 2007, and January 

22, 2009, Lake County made revisions to 

its application request in response to 

concerns raised by EPA and the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes. EPA is basing its determination 

and this proposed rule on the 

application, dated July 11, 2007 and 

March 17, 2008, and the January 22, 

2009 amendments to that application. 

The specific request for EPA approval of 

Lake County’s application is discussed 

below. As set forth in more detail below, 

EPA is proposing to approve the request 

and allow Lake County to install an 

alternative final cover that meets the 

criteria at 40 CFR 258.60(b). 

Lake County is seeking EPA approval 

to use an alternative final cover system 

for 15.4 acres of its existing waste 

footprint. Lake County proposes to 

install a 5.5-feet-thick multi-layer cover 

system comprised of the following from 

bottom to top: An 18-inch intermediate 

and gas vent layer, a 24-inch native sand 

layer, an 18-inch imported silt 

evapotranspiration layer, and a 6-inch 

topsoil layer. Lake County has 

demonstrated that the infiltration layer 

achieves an equivalent reduction in 

infiltration as the infiltration layer 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) 

of 40 CFR 258.60, and the erosion layer 

provides equivalent protection from 

wind and water erosion as the erosion 

layer specified in paragraph (a)(3) of 40 

CFR 258.60. On January 22, 2009, Lake 

County submitted a ‘‘Construction 

Quality Assurance & Control Plan’’ for 

the closure project that specifies that 

testing will be performed on each 

component as it is installed. Testing 

frequencies and standards during 

construction are described in detail in 

the ‘‘Construction Quality Assurance & 

Control Plan.’’ 

II. EPA’s Action 

A. Determination To Approve Lake 

County’s Site-Specific Flexibility 

Request 

After completing a review of Lake 

County’s final site-specific flexibility 

application request, dated July 11, 2007, 

and the amendments to that application 

dated March 17, 2008, and January 22, 

2009, EPA is proposing to approve Lake 

County’s site-specific flexibility request 

to install an alternative final cover. 

EPA is basing its determination on a 

number of factors, including 

unsaturated soil modeling, site-specific 

climatic and soils data, and the results 

of a pilot test of the viability of an 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6599 

evapotranspiration cover conducted at 

the site by the County’s consultants, the 

Desert Research Institute, and EPA. The 

pilot test consisted of the construction 

of two landfill cover test plots at the 

Lake County landfill facility. One plot 

used a landfill cover design with a 

flexible membrane liner, and the other 

plot used an evapotranspiration cover 

design. The results of the pilot test 

indicated that the evapotranspiration 

cover will perform better than the 

standard prescriptive cover in 40 CFR 

258.60(a) in preventing the movement of 

leachate through the system. 

EPA considered certain issues 

pertaining to the proposed alternative 

final cover, including the need for 

stringent quality assurance/quality 

control during construction, such as 

oversight throughout construction to 

ensure soils for each layer of the cover 

have the necessary physical properties 

and are installed so as to perform as 

designed. 

In accordance with its application and 

the ‘‘Construction Quality Assurance & 

Control Plan,’’ Lake County has pledged 

to provide the oversight required. EPA 

is also requiring as part of its approval 

of the final cover design, that Lake 

County: 

• Submit an Operations and 

Maintenance Plan at 50% final design 

that includes an inspection schedule (at 

least quarterly) and remediation plan to 

address any potential rodent damage, 

• Achieve re-vegetation rates of 

greater than 50% by the end of the first 

season and a complete stand of native 

grasses by the end of the third season, 

and 

• Place documentation demonstrating 

compliance with the ‘‘Construction 

Quality Assurance and Control Plan,’’ 40 

CFR 258.60(a)(1), (2), and (3), and the 

above requirements in the landfill 

operating record. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is 

not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

because it applies to a particular facility 

only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. 

Because this rule will affect only a 

particular facility, this proposed rule 

does not have federalism implications. 

It will not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132, 

‘‘Federalism,’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this rule. 

This rule is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is EPA’s 

conservative analysis of the potential 

risks posed by Lake County’s proposal 

and the controls and standards set forth 

in the application. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

As required by section 3 of Executive 

Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 

steps to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 

and provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments,’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), calls for EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

Tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Tribal 

implications.’’ EPA has concluded that 

this action may have Tribal implications 

because it is directly applicable to a 

facility operating on the Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai Tribes’ Flathead 

Reservation. However, this 

determination will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal 

law. This determination to approve Lake 

County’s application will affect only the 

operation of the County’s landfill. 

EPA consulted with the Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai Tribes early in the 

process of making this determination to 

approve the County’s alternative final 

cover request so that the Tribes had the 

opportunity to provide meaningful and 

timely input. Between July 11, 2007 and 

January 22, 2009, technical issues were 

raised and addressed by both the Tribes 

and EPA concerning Lake County’s 

proposal. EPA’s consultation with the 

Tribes culminated in a letter of July 15, 

2009 from the Tribes, in which they 

stated that they have no further issues 

with the Lake County proposal. EPA 

specifically solicits any additional 

comment on this determination from 

Tribal officials of the Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai Tribes. 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards, (e.g., 

materials specification, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standard bodies. 

The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The technical standards included in 

the application were proposed by Lake 

County. Given EPA’s obligations under 

Executive Order 13175 (see above), the 

Agency has, to the extent appropriate, 

applied the standards established by the 

County and accepted by the Tribes. In 

addition, the Agency evaluated the 

proposal’s design against the 

engineering design and construction 

criteria contained in the EPA draft 

guidance document, ‘‘Water Balance 

Covers for Waste Containment: 

Principles and Practice (2009).’’ 

Authority: Sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 

4010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6907, 6912, 6944, and 

6949a. Temporary Delegation of Authority to 

Promulgate Site-Specific Rules To Respond 

to Requests for Flexibility From Owners/ 

Operators of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill 

Facilities in Indian Country, October 14, 

2009, Incorporation by Reference. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258 

Environmental protection, Municipal 

landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waste treatment and 

disposal. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
6600 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: January 15, 2010. 

Carol Rushin, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 258 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 258—CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL 

SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS 

1. The authority citation for part 258 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 

U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c) 

and 6949a(c), 6981(a). 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

2. Add § 258.62 to subpart F to read 

as follows: 

§ 258.62 Approval of site-specific flexibility 

requests in Indian Country. 

(a) Lake County Municipal Landfill 

final cover requirements. Paragraph (a) 

of this section applies to the Lake 

County Landfill, a municipal solid 

waste landfill owned and operated by 

Lake County on the Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes’ Flathead 

Reservation in Montana. The alternative 

final cover request submitted by Lake 

County and dated July 11, 2007, and 

amended March 17, 2008, and January 

22, 2009 is hereby incorporated into this 

provision by this reference. The facility 

owner and/or operator may close the 

facility in accordance with this 

application, including the following 

activities more generally described as 

follows: 

(1) The owner and operator may 

install an evapotranspiration system as 

an alternative final cover for the 15.4 

acre active area. 

(2) The final cover system shall 

consist of a 5.5 feet-thick multi-layer 

cover system comprised, from bottom to 

top, of an 18-inch intermediate and gas 

vent layer, a 24-inch native sand layer, 

an 18-inch imported silt layer and a 6- 

inch topsoil layer, as well as seeding 

and erosion control. 

(3) The final cover system shall be 

constructed to achieve an equivalent 

reduction in infiltration as the 

infiltration layer specified in 

§ 258.60(a)(1) and (a)(2), and provide an 

equivalent protection from wind and 

water erosion as the erosion layer 

specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section. 

(4) In addition to meeting the 

specifications of the Lake County 

landfill ‘‘Alternative Cover’’ application 

of May 2007, and the ‘‘Construction 

Quality Assurance & Control Plan for 

the Lake County Class II Landfill Unit 

Landfill Closure Project’’ of January 

2009, the owner and operator shall: 

(i) At 50% final design, submit to EPA 

for approval an Operations and 

Maintenance Plan that includes an 

inspection schedule (at least quarterly) 

and remediation plan to address any 

potential rodent damage to the final 

cover; and 

(ii) Achieve re-vegetation rates greater 

than 50% by the end of the first season 

and a complete stand of native grasses 

by the end of the third season. 

(5) The owner and operator shall 

place documentation demonstrating 

compliance with the provisions of this 

Section in the operating record. 

(6) All other applicable provisions of 

40 CFR part 258 remain in effect. 

(b) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2010–2794 Filed 2–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1087] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on 

the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed 

BFE modifications for the communities 

listed in the table below. The purpose 

of this notice is to seek general 

information and comment regarding the 

proposed regulatory flood elevations for 

the reach described by the downstream 

and upstream locations in the table 

below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are 

a part of the floodplain management 

measures that the community is 

required either to adopt or show 

evidence of having in effect in order to 

qualify or remain qualified for 

participation in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, 

these elevations, once finalized, will be 

used by insurance agents, and others to 

calculate appropriate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

the contents in those buildings. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before May 11, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The corresponding 

preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each 

community is available for inspection at 

the community’s map repository. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by Docket No. FEMA–B–1087, to Kevin 

C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Mitigation 

Directorate, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2820, 

or (e-mail) kevin.long@dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, 

Engineering Management Branch, 

Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–2820, or (e-mail) 

kevin.long@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) proposes to make 

determinations of BFEs and modified 

BFEs for each community listed below, 

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 the minimum that are required. 

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 are also 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new 

buildings built after these elevations are 

made final, and for the contents in these 

buildings. 

Comments on any aspect of the Flood 

Insurance Study and FIRM, other than 

the proposed BFEs, will be considered. 

A letter acknowledging receipt of any 

comments will not be sent. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This proposed rule is categorically 

excluded from the requirements of 44 

CFR part 10, Environmental 

Consideration. An environmental 

impact assessment has not been 

prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood 

elevation determinations are not within 

the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review. This proposed 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS