37808 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued

Facility Address Waste description

Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission of false

or fraudulent statements or representations (pursuant to the applicable

provisions of the Federal Code, which include, but may not be limited to,

18 USC § 1001 and 42 USC § 6928), I certify that the information contained in or accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete.

As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot

personally verify its (their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under

my direct instructions, made the verification that this information is true,

accurate and complete.

In the event that any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this

fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste

will be void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed by EPA and

that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of

the company’s RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company’s reliance on the void exclusion.

(6) Reopener Language

(a) If McDonnell Douglas discovers that a condition at the facility or an assumption related to the disposal of the excluded waste that was modeled

or predicted in the petition does not occur as modeled or predicted, then

McDonnell Douglas must report any information relevant to that condition,

in writing, to the Regional Administrator or his delegate within 10 days of

discovering that condition.

(b) Upon receiving information described in paragraph (a) from any source,

the Regional Administrator or his delegate will determine whether the reported condition requires further action. Further action may include revoking the exclusion, modifying the exclusion, or other appropriate response

necessary to protect human health and the environment.

(7) Notification Requirements: McDonnell Douglas must provide a one-time

written notification to any State Regulatory Agency to which or through

which the delisted waste described above will be transported for disposal

at least 60 days prior to the commencement of such activity. The one-time

written notification must be updated if the delisted waste is shipped to a

different disposal facility. Failure to provide such a notification will result in

a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision.

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–18732 Filed 7–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA–7250]

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 and modified 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:

Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards

Study Branch, Mitigation Directorate,

500 C Street SW., Washington, DC

20472, (202) 646–3461.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Emergency Management 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

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37809

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 Associate Director for Mitigation

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 NFIP. No regulatory

flexibility analysis has 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

Alaska .................... Homer (City) Kenai

Peninsula Borough.

Kachemak Bay ................. At the northern end of Kachemak Bay

Drive.

None *14

Near Coal Point ........................................ None *22

Near the intersection of Lake Street and

Ocean Drive.

None *28

Maps are available for inspection at the City of Homer City Hall, Homer, Alaska.

Send comments to The Honorable Jack Cushing, Mayor, City of Homer, 491 East Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska 99603. To convert from

NGVD to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), subtract 9.7 feet.

Colorado ................ Loveland (City)

Larimer County.

Big Thompson River ......... Approximately 3,800 feet downstream of

U.S. Highway 287.

None *4,922

Approximately 550 feet downstream of

U.S. Highway 287.

None *4,926

Maps are available for inspection at Building and Development Services, 500 East Third Street, Loveland, Colorado.

Send comments to The Honorable Treva Edwards, Mayor, City of Loveland, 500 East Third Street, Loveland, Colorado 80537.

Kansas ................... Perry (City) Jefferson County.Kansas River .................... Approximately 1 mile southeast of Cedar

Street at the southeasternmost corporate limit.

*848 +846

Approximately 200 feet south of Bridge

Street.

*850 +850

Delaware River ................. At Union Pacific Railroad crossing over

the Delaware River.

*850 +850

Maps are available for inspection at the City of Perry City Hall, 119 Elm Street, Perry, Kansas.

Send comments to The Honorable Matt Willkomm, Mayor, City of Perry, P.O. Box 724, Perry, Kansas 66073.

Please note that to convert to NAVD, add 0.26 foot to NGVD elevations.

Louisiana ................ Delhi (Town) Richland Parish.Bayou Macon ................... Approximately 1 mile downstream of U.S.

80.

None *77

Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of U.S.

80.

None *77

Maps are available for inspection at 202 Broadway, Delhi, Louisiana.

Send comments to The Honorable James A. Hopson, Mayor, Town of Delhi, 209 Broadway, Delhi, Louisiana 71232.

Texas ..................... Cameron County

(Unincorporated

Areas).

Gulf of Mexico .................. Approximately 850 feet south of Old

Queen Isabella Causeway.

*11 *12

Approximately 600 feet northeast of the

northern corporate limits.

*13 *16

Laguna Madre .................. Approximately 4,000 feet south of Old

Queen Isabella Causeway.

*10 *8

Approximately 2,000 feet west of Padre

Boulevard.

*6 *8
37810 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location

# Depth in feet above

ground.

*Elevation in feet.

(NGVD)

Existing Modified

Maps are available for inspection at the Cameron County Engineering Office, 805 West Price Road, Brownsville, Texas.

Send comments to The Honorable Gilbert Hinojosa, Cameron County Judge, 964 East Harrison, Brownsville, Texas 78520.

Texas ..................... Mount Pleasant

(City) Titus County.

Hart Creek Tributary ......... Approximately 1,300 feet downstream of

Alexander Road.

None *322

Approximately 130 feet upstream of State

Highway 49.

*359 *359

Approximately 290 feet downstream of

West Sixth Street.

None *407

Tributary 1 ........................ At confluence with Hart Creek Tributary .. None *330

Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of

confluence with Hart Creek Tributary.

None *344

Tributary 2 ........................ At confluence with Hart Creek Tributary .. None *358

Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of

Stark Street.

None *370

Tributary 3 ........................ At confluence with Hart Creek Tributary .. None *377

Approximately 1,620 feet upstream of

West First Street.

None *384

Maps are available for inspection at the City of Mount Pleasant Public Works Facility, 1412 North Washington, Mount Pleasant, Texas.

Send comments to The Honorable Jerry Boatner, Mayor, City of Mount Pleasant, 501 North Madison, Mount Pleasant, Texas 75455–3650.

Muenster (City)

Cooke County.

Brushy Elm Creek ............ Approximately 400 feet downstream of

Eddy Road.

None *957

Approximately 150 feet downstream of

U.S. Highway 82.

None *963

Approximately 200 feet downstream of

Ash Street.

None *967

Tributary 1 ........................ Approximately 150 feet downstream of

U.S. Highway 82.

None *975

Approximately 270 feet upstream of Fifth

Street.

None *997

Approximately 2,150 feet upstream of

Seventh Street.

None *1,020

Tributary 2 ........................ Approximately 150 feet downstream of

Ash Street.

None *971

Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of

Ash Street.

None *995

Tributary 3 Emergency

Spillway.

At confluence with Tributary 3 .................. None *965

Approximately 900 feet downstream of

Sixth Street.

None *1,000

Tributary 3 ........................ At confluence with Tributary 3 Emergency Spillway.None *965

At Sixth Street .......................................... None *1,000

Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of

confluence with Tributary 4.

None *1,018

Tributary 4 ........................ At confluence with Tributary 3 .................. None *1,007

Approximately 180 feet upstream of confluence with Tributary 3.None *1,008

Maps are available for inspection at the City of Muenster City Hall, 400 North Main, Muenster, Texas.

Send comments to The Honorable Henry Weinzepfel, Mayor, City of Muenster, P.O. Box 208, Muenster, Texas 78252.

South Padre Island

(Town) Cameron

County.

Gulf of Mexico .................. Approximately 150 feet northeast of intersection of Gulf Street and Gulf Boulevard.*8 *12

Approximately 500 feet northeast of intersection of Gulf Street and Gulf Boulevard.*13 *16

Laguna Madre .................. At intersection of Palm Street at Laguna

Boulevard.

*6 *8

Maps are available for inspection at the Town of South Padre Island Building Department, 4405 Padre Boulevard, South Padre Island, Texas.

Send comments to The Honorable Edmund Cyganiewicz, Mayor, Town of South Padre Island, 4501 Padre Boulevard, South Padre Island,

Texas 78597.

Travis County and

Incorporated

Areas.

Barton Creek .................... Approximately 4,000 feet downstream of

Fitzhugh Road.

*940 *930
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37811

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location

# Depth in feet above

ground.

*Elevation in feet.

(NGVD)

Existing Modified

Approximately 740 feet upstream of

Fitzhugh Road.

*951 *943

Bear Creek ....................... At confluence with Onion Creek ............... *618 *617

Approximately 4.4 miles upstream of

Rock Dam (Approximately 240 feet upstream of County boundary).

None *805

Bear Creek Tributary ........ At confluence with Bear Creek ................. *655 *656

Approximately 9 feet upstream of FM

1626.

*655 *656

Approximately 20 feet upstream of FM

1626.

*656 *656

Boggy Creek South .......... At confluence with Onion Creek ............... *560 *558

Approximately 300 feet upstream of Bluff

Springs Road.

*560 *559

Approximately 375 feet upstream of Bluff

Springs Road.

*560 *560

Cottonmouth Creek .......... At confluence with Onion Creek ............... *479 *477

Approximately 5,150 feet (0.98 mile) upstream of confluence with Onion Creek.*481 *480

Approximately 5,350 feet (1.01 miles) upstream of confluence with Onion Creek.*481 *481

Little Bear Creek .............. At confluence with Bear Creek ................. *636 *634

Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of confluence with Bear Creek (at County

boundary).

*675 *672

Long Branch ..................... Approximately 1,090 feet downstream of

dam.

*1,015 *1,013

Approximately 1,835 feet upstream of

dam (at County boundary).

*1,036 *1,035

Marble Creek .................... At confluence with Onion Creek ............... *538 *540

Approximately 1,650 feet upstream of

William Cannon Drive.

*543 *544

Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of

William Cannon Drive.

*544 *544

Onion Creek ..................... At confluence with the Colorado River ..... *414 *414

Approximately 2,060 feet upstream of

confluence with the Colorado River.

*416 *417

Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of confluence of Garlic Creek (approximately

150 feet upstream of County boundary).

None *645

Rinard Creek .................... At confluence with Onion Creek ............... *578 *576

Approximately 1,370 feet upstream of

Bradshaw Road.

*578 *577

Approximately 1,405 feet upstream of

Bradshaw Road.

*578 *578

Slaughter Creek ............... At confluence with Onion Creek ............... *572 *571

Approximately 3,850 feet upstream of

confluence with Onion Creek.

*573 *572

Approximately 4,100 feet upstream of

confluence with Onion Creek.

*573 *573

Williamson Creek ............. At confluence with Onion Creek ............... *524 *526

Approximately 2,940 feet upstream of

Jimmy Cliff Drive.

*528 *529

Approximately 3,030 feet upstream of

Jimmy Cliff Drive.

*529 *529

Williamson Creek Tributary 1.At confluence with Williamson Creek ....... *524 *526

Approximately 2,480 feet upstream of

confluence with Williamson Creek.

*525 *526

Approximately 2,520 feet upstream of

confluence with Williamson Creek.

*526 *526

Williamson Creek Tributary 2.At confluence with Williamson Creek ....... *524 *526

Approximately 2,410 feet upstream of

confluence with Williamson Creek.

*526 *526
37812 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 134 /Tuesday, July 14, 1998 / Proposed Rules

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location

# Depth in feet above

ground.

*Elevation in feet.

(NGVD)

Existing Modified

Maps are available for inspection at the Travis County Transportation and Natural Resources Department, Executive Office Building, 411

West 13th Street, Austin, Texas.

Send comments to The Honorable Bill Aleshire, Travis County Judge, P.O. Box 1748, Austin, Texas 78767.

Maps are available for inspection at the City of Austin Watershed Engineering Division, 206 East Ninth Street, Suite No. 17102, Austin,

Texas.

Send comments to The Honorable Kirk Watson, Mayor, City of Austin, P.O. Box 1088, Austin, Texas 78767.

Washington ........... Clark County (Unincorporated

Areas).

East Fork Lewis River ...... Approximately 17,000 feet downstream of

Daybreak Road.

*31 *32

........................................... Approximately 400 feet downstream of

Daybreak Road.

*76 *75

Maps are available for inspection at the Clark County Department of Community Development, Development Services Division, Office of Engineering Review, 1408 Franklin Street, Vancouver, Washington.

Send comments to The Honorable Betty Sue Morris, Chairperson, Clark County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 5000, Vancouver, Washington 98666–5000.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)

Dated: July 7, 1998.

Michael J. Armstrong,

Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 98–18724 Filed 7–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[MM Docket No. 92–264; FCC 98–138]

Horizontal Ownership Limits

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In the Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘Further

Notice’’), the Commission seeks

comment on possible revisions of the

cable television horizontal ownership

rules and the method by which

horizontal ownership is calculated. The

Commission seeks comment on

whether, in light of evolving market

conditions, the horizontal ownership

limit should remain at 30% of homes

passed nationwide by cable, and also

seeks comment on the 35% minoritycontrol allowance. The Further Notice

also seeks comment on whether the

Commission should revise the rules to

consider the presence in the market of

all multichannel video programming

providers (‘‘MVPDs’’) rather than cable

operators alone, and whether to base the

limit on actual subscribers rather than

on homes passed. The Further Notice is

part of a companion Memorandum

Opinion and Order on Reconsideration

which is summarized elsewhere in this

issue of the Federal Register.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

August 14, 1998, and reply comments

are due on or before September 3, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Norton, Cable Services Bureau, (202)

418–7200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM

Docket No. 92–264, FCC 98–138

adopted June 23, 1998, and released

June 26, 1998. The full text of this

decision is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington,

D.C. 20554, and may be purchased from

the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20036.

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

1. In the Second Report and Order in

MM Docket No. 92–264, 58 FR 60135,

November 15, 1993 (‘‘Second Report

and Order’’), the Commission adopted

the horizontal ownership rules, which

provide that no person may hold

attributable interests in cable systems

reaching more than 30% of all homes

passed nationwide by cable. In the

Second Report and Order, the

Commission stated that it planned to

review subscriber limits every five years

to determine whether such limits are

reasonable under the prevailing market

conditions and whether such limits

continue to serve the objectives for

which they were adopted. The rules in

question were adopted in 1993, and the

Commission believes that it is

appropriate to review these rules to

address intervening changes in the

communications marketplace.

2. In the Further Notice, the

Commission seeks comment on whether

30% remains the appropriate horizontal

ownership limit in light of evolving

market conditions. The current rules

further allow ownership of additional

cable systems reaching up to 35% of

cable homes passed, provided such

additional cable systems are minoritycontrolled. The purpose of the 35%

minority-control allowance was to

encourage diversity of viewpoints by

fostering increased minority

participation and ownership in the

cable industry, through increased

multiple systems operator (‘‘MSO’’)

investment in minority-owned cable

systems. The Commission seeks

comment on the constitutionality of the

minority-control allowance in light of

the Supreme Court’s decision in

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515

U.S. 200 (1995). Recognizing that the

minority-control allowance has never

been utilized by any MSO, the

Commission also seeks comment on the

effectiveness of this rule and on the

development of alternative rules to

promote minority participation

consistent with the standards set forth

in Adarand.

3. The Commission also seeks

comment on two specific issues

concerning the method of ownership

calculation: (1) whether the rules should

consider the presence in the market of

all MVPDs rather than cable operators

alone, and (2) whether the rules should

be based on actual subscriber numbers

rather than on homes passed. The rules

proposed in the Further Notice would