Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules 16125

costs and indirect costs including cost

estimates of various types of permit

related activities. The estimated hourly

cost is $53.60.

Because state law caps hourly fees at

$53.00, Pima’s hourly charges are

capped at $53.00. See 17.12.510.M.

Although this cap is 60 cents per hour

less than the District’s estimated hourly

costs for permit processing, EPA finds

this provision to be fully approvable.

Given the inherent uncertainty in the

cost estimates, EPA believes that the

difference is insignificant and unlikely

to cause a shortfall in revenues. Further,

Pima is tracking its program costs and

revenues and has committed to provide

EPA with periodic updates that will

demonstrate whether fee revenues are

meeting the costs of the program. If EPA

finds that the County is not collecting

fees sufficient to fund the title V

program, it will require a program

revision.

In addition to imposing a cap on

hourly fees, state law also limits the

maximum chargeable fee for issuing and

revising permits. State law and Pima

regulations cap Title V permit issuance

fees at $30,000. See 17.12.510.G. Pima

estimates processing costs for permit

issuance at $21,484. Fees for processing

permit revisions are capped at $25,000

for significant revisions and $10,000 for

minor permit revisions. See 17.12.510.I.

Because the workload associated with

these classes of permit revisions is

likely to vary a great deal, Pima did not

attempt to estimate the cost of these

actions. The County believes that costs

for permit revisions will be less than the

maximum allowable fees. (See letter to

Dave Howekamp, EPA, from David

Esposito, Pima County, dated February

17, 1997.) EPA will periodically review

the County program to ensure adequate

fees are collected.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on

all aspects of this proposed approval.

Copies of Pima’s submittal and other

information relied upon for the

proposed interim approval are

contained in a docket (AZ–Pima–97–1–

OPS) maintained at the EPA Regional

Office. The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

submitted to, or otherwise considered

by, EPA in the development of this

proposed interim approval. The

principal purposes of the docket are:

(1) to allow interested parties a means

to identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the

approval process, and

(2) to serve as the record in case of

judicial review. The EPA will consider

any comments received by May 5, 1997.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA’s actions under section 502

of the Act do not create any new

requirements, but simply address

operating permits programs submitted

to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR

part 70. Because this action does not

impose any new requirements, it does

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to state,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

approval action promulgated today does

not include a federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under state or local law, and imposes no

new federal requirements. Accordingly,

no additional costs to state, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private

sector, result from this action.

D. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 23, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–8691 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA–7211]

Proposed Flood Elevation

Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency, FEMA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Technical information or

comments are requested on the

proposed base (1% annual chance) flood

elevations and proposed base flood

elevation modifications for the

communities listed below. The base

flood elevations are the basis for the

floodplain management measures that

the community is required either to

adopt or to show evidence of being

already in effect in order to qualify or

remain qualified for participation in the

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP).

DATES: The comment period is ninety

(90) days following the second

publication of this proposed rule in a

newspaper of local circulation in each

community.

ADDRESSES: The proposed base flood

elevations for each community are

available for inspection at the office of

the Chief Executive Officer of each

community. The respective addresses

are listed in the following table.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frederick H. Sharrocks, Jr., Chief,

Hazard Identification Branch, Mitigation

Directorate, 500 C Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2796.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA or Agency) proposes to make

determinations of base flood elevations

and modified base flood elevations 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 base flood and

modified base flood elevations, 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
16126 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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.

National Environmental Policy Act

This proposed rule is categorically

excluded from the requirements of 44

CFR part 10, Environmental

Consideration. No environmental

impact assessment has been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Executive Associate Director,

Mitigation Directorate, certifies that this

proposed rule is exempt from the

requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act because proposed or

modified base flood elevations are

required by the Flood Disaster

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104,

and are required to establish and

maintain community eligibility in the

National Flood Insurance Program. As a

result, a regulatory flexibility analysis

has not been prepared.

Regulatory Classification

This proposed rule is not a significant

regulatory action under the criteria of

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of

September 30, 1993, Regulatory

Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

This proposed rule involves no

policies that have federalism

implications under Executive Order

12612, Federalism, dated October 26,

1987.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform

This proposed rule meets the

applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of

Executive Order 12778.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

Administrative practice and

procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 67

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.;

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,

1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367,

3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

§ 67.4 [Amended]

2. The tables published under the

authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be

amended as follows:

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location

#Depth in feet above

ground. *Elevation in feet

(NGVD)

Existing Modified

Connecticut ............ Weston (Town)

Fairfield County.

West Branch Saugatuck

River.

At Westport/Weston corporate limit ..........

Approximately 170 feet upstream of Kramer Lane.

*44

None

*47

*444

Beaver Brook .................... Approximately 40 feet upstream of confluence with Saugatuck River.*78 *77

Approximately 840 feet upstream of

Slumber Corners bridge.

*82 *81

Jenning’s Brook ................ At the confluence with Saugatuck River .. *124 *125

Approximately 420 feet above the confluence with Saugatuck River.*131 *130

Maps available for inspection at the Weston Building Office, 56 Norfield Road, Weston, Connecticut.

Send comments to Mr. George Guidera, First Selectman of the Town of Weston, 56 Norfield Road, Weston, Connecticut 06883.

Connecticut ............ Westport (Town)

Fairfield County.

West Branch, Saugatuck

River.

At approximately 550 feet above confluence with Saugatuck River.*31 *32

At approximately 1,400 feet upstream of

Newton Turnpike.

None *93

Maps available for inspection at the Westport Town Hall, Office of the Town Planner, 110 Myrtle Avenue, Westport, Connecticut.

Send comments to Mr. Joseph P. Arcudi, First Selectman of the Town of Westport, 110 Myrtle Avenue, Town Hall, Westport, Connecticut

06880.

New York ............... Fort Ann (Town)

Washington

County.

Copeland Pond ................ Entire shoreline within community ............ None *453

Hadlock Pond ................... Entire shoreline within community ............ None *458

Lakes Pond ...................... Entire shoreline within community ............ None *864

Lake Nebo ........................ Entire shoreline within community ............ None *843

Lake George ..................... Entire shoreline within community ............ None *321

Maps available for inspection at the Fort Ann Town Clerk’s office, Route 4 in the Village of Fort Ann, Fort Ann, New York.

Send comments to Mr. John Aspland, Fort Ann Town Supervisor, RR 1, Box 1303, Fort Ann, New York 12827.

New York ............... Sag Harbor (Village) Suffolk

County.

Sag Harbor Bay ................ Approximately 400 feet east of the intersection of Harding Terrace and Taft

Place.

*10 *9

Approximately 350 feet north of the intersection of Harding Terrace and Taft

Place.

*12 *11

Maps available for inspection at the Village Office, 55 Main Street, Sag Harbor, New York.

Send comments to The Honorable Pierce W. Hance, Mayor of the Village of Sag Harbor, P.O. Box 660, Sag Harbor, New York 11963.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules 16127

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location

#Depth in feet above

ground. *Elevation in feet

(NGVD)

Existing Modified

New York ............... Southampton

(Town) Suffolk

County.

Seatuck Creek .................. North of Main Street ................................. None *9

Maps available for inspection at the Southampton Town Hall, Building and Zoning Department, 116 Hampton Road, Southampton, New York.

Send comments to Mr. Vincent J. Cannuscio, Southampton Town Supervisor, 116 Hampton Road, Southampton, New York 11968.

Maryland ................ Frederick County

(Unincorporated

Areas).

Fishing Creek ................... Approximately 0.27 mile downstream of

Devilbiss Bridge Road.

None *274

Approximately 0.84 mile upstream of

Mountaindale Road.

None *665

Fishing Creek ................... At confluence with Fishing Creek ............. None *471

Diversion Channel ............ At divergence from Fishing Creek ............ None *523

Maps available for inspection at the Winchester Hall, 12 East Church Street, Frederick, Maryland.

Send comments to Mr. Mark Hoke, President of the Board of County Commissioners, 12 East Church Street, Frederick, Maryland 21701.

Michigan ................ Broomfield (Township) Isabella

County.

Chippewa River ................ Approximately 300 feet downstream of

the downstream corporate limits, approximately 0.4 mile upstream of River

Road.

None *857

Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the

upstream corporate limits, approximately 0.8 mile downstream of School

Road.

None *861

Chippewa River (Lake Isabella).For the entire shoreline within the community.None *899

Maps available for inspection at the Broomfield Township Hall, 2915 South Rolland Road, Remus, Michigan.

Send comments to Ms. Betty Findley, Broomfield Township Supervisor, 4620 South Brinton, Remus, Michigan 49340.

Michigan ................ Chippewa (Township) Isabella

County.

Chippewa River ................ At downstream corporate limits (county

boundary).

None *685

Approximately 2.4 miles upstream of

Leafon Road.

None *730

Maps available for inspection at the Chippewa Town Hall, 11050 East Pickard Road, Mount Pleasant, Michigan.

Send comments to Mr. George Grim, Chippewa Township Supervisor, P.O. Box 459, Shepherd, Michigan 48883.

Michigan ................ Coldwater (Township) Isabella

County.

Chippewa River ................ At Vernon Road ........................................

Approximately 0.47 mile upstream of Vernon Road.

None

None

*939

*941

Maps available for inspection at the Coldwater Township Hall, 7450 West Grass Lake Road, Lake, Michigan.

Send comments to Mr. James Dague, Coldwater Township Supervisor, 11023 West Battle Road, Lake, Michigan 48632.

Michigan ................ Deerfield (Township) Isabella

County.

Chippewa River ................ Approximately 800 feet downstream of

Meridian Road.

Approximately 200 feet upstream of upstream corporate limits.

None

None

*778

*861

Maps available for inspection at the Office of the Deerfield Township Clerk, 4385 West Pickard Road, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.

Send comments to Mr. Edwin Courser, Deerfield Township Supervisor, 1850 South Gilmore Road, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858.

Michigan ................ Mt. Pleasant (City)

Isabella County.

Chippewa River ................ Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of

Mission Road.

Approximately 1.1 miles downstream of

Lincoln Road.

None

*763

*745

*764

Maps available for inspection at the Mt. Pleasant City Hall, 401 North Main Street, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.

Send comments to The Honorable Susan Smith, Mayor of the City of Mt. Pleasant, 401 North Main Street, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858.

Michigan ................ Nottawa (Township)

Isabella County.

Chippewa River ................ Approximately 200 feet downstream of

the downstream corporate limits.

Approximately 900 feet upstream of the

upstream corporate limits.

None

None

*860

*862

Maps available for inspection at the Nottawa Township Supervisor’s Office, 4668 North LaPearl Road, Weidman, Michigan.

Send comments to Mr. James W. Faber, Nottawa Township Supervisor, 4668 North LaPearl Road, Weidman, Michigan 48893.

Michigan ................ Sherman (Township) Isabella

County.

Chippewa River ................ At the downstream corporate limits ..........

At Vernon Road ........................................

None

None

*861

*939
16128 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location

#Depth in feet above

ground. *Elevation in feet

(NGVD)

Existing Modified

Maps available for inspection at the Sherman Township Hall, 3550 North Rolland Road, Weidman, Michigan.

Send comments to Mr. Thayne Sizes, Sherman Township Supervisor, 3550 North Rolland Road, Weidman, Michigan 48893.

Michigan ................ Union (Charter

Township) Isabella County.

Chippewa River ................ Approximately 2.3 miles upstream of

Leaton Road.

At Meridian Road ......................................

None

None

*730

*780

Maps available for inspection at the Union Township Hall, 2010 South Lincoln Road, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.

Send comments to Mr. Jim Collin, Union Charter Township Supervisor, 2010 South Lincoln Road, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858.

North Carolina ....... Raleigh (City) Wake

County.

Neuse River ...................... Approximately 1.13 miles upstream of

State Route 2555.

Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of

Milburn Dam.

*171

*181

*172

*182

Maps available for inspection at the Raleigh City Hall, Planning Department, 222 West Hargett, Room 307, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Send comments to The Honorable Tom Fetzer, Mayor of the City of Raleigh, P.O. Box 590, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.

North Carolina ....... Wake County (unincorporated areas).Neuse River (Basin 15,

Stream 1).

Upstream side of State Route 2509 .........

Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of

Milburn Dam.

*163

*181

*164

*182

Maps available for inspection at the Wake County Office Building, Engineering Department, 336 South Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Send comments to Mr. Richard Stephens, Wake County Manager, 337 South Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601.

South Carolina ....... Mullins (City) Marion County.Fowler Branch .................. At corporate limits .....................................

At State Route 41 .....................................

None

None

*86

*92

White Oak Creek .............. Approximately 1,975 feet downstream of

Cleveland Street.

None *72

Approximately 350 feet upstream of U.S.

Route 76.

None *87

Maps available for inspection at the Mullins City Hall, 161 Northeast Front Street, Mullins, South Carolina.

Send comments to The Honorable Wayne George, Mayor of the City of Mullins, P.O. Box 408, Mullins, South Carolina 29574.

Vermont ................. Waterbury (Town)

Washington

County.

Winooski River ................. At Bolton Falls Dam .................................

Approximately 1,400 feet downstream of

the most upstream corporate limits.

*405

*433

*409

*432

Maps available for inspection at the Waterbury Town Office, 51 South Main Street, Waterbury, Vermont.

Send comments to Mr. William Shepeluk, Waterbury Town Manager, 51 South Main Street, Waterbury, Vermont 05676.

Vermont ................. Waterbury (Village)

Washington

County.

Winooski River ................. At U.S. Route 2 bridge .............................

Approximately 700 feet upstream of U.S.

Route 2 bridge.

*427

*428

*426

*427

Maps available for inspection at the Waterbury Village Office, 51 South Main Street, Waterbury, Vermont.

Send comments to Mr. William Shepeluk, Waterbury Village Manager, 51 South Main Street, Waterbury, Vermont 05676.

Virginia ................... Pulaski County (unincorporated

areas).

Claytor Lake/ New River .. At downstream county boundary ..............

Approximately 6.9 miles upstream of confluence of Sloan Branch.

None

None

*1,666

*1,868

Little River ........................ At confluence with New River ..................

At upstream county boundary ..................

None

None

*1,759

*1,836

Peak Creek ....................... Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of

the confluence of Thorne Springs

Branch.

None *1,865

At Town of Pulaski corporate limit ........... None *1,887

Maps available for inspection at the Pulaski County Administration Building, 143 Third Street NW, Suite 1, Pulaski, Virginia.

Send comments to Mr. Joseph N. Morgan, Pulaski County Administrator, 143 Third Street, NW, Suite 1, Pulaski, Virginia 24301.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)

Dated: March 27, 1997.

Richard W. Krimm,

Executive Associate Director, Mitigation

Directorate.

[FR Doc. 97–8661 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P