Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 32293

analyze and fully comply with the

requirements of Executive Order 13175

before promulgating the final rule.

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

This proposed rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments because it does not

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities. The addition of sites to

the NPL will not impose any substantial

direct compliance costs on Tribes.

While Tribes may incur costs from

participating in the investigations and

cleanup decisions, those costs are not

compliance costs. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this proposed rule.

TABLE 1.—NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE NO. 36, GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county

CA ..................... Casmalia Resources ................................................................................................ Casmalia.

IL ....................... Matthiessen and Hegeler Zinc Company ................................................................. LaSalle.

MS ..................... American Creosote Works, Inc ................................................................................ Louisville.

NY ..................... MacKenzie Chemical Works, Inc ............................................................................. Central Islip.

PA ..................... Valmont TCE ............................................................................................................ Hazle Township and West Hazleton.

PA ..................... Watson Johnson Landfill .......................................................................................... Richland Township.

TX ...................... Patrick Bayou ........................................................................................................... Deer Park.

TX ...................... R & H Oil Company .................................................................................................. San Antonio.

UT ..................... Eureka Mills .............................................................................................................. Eureka.

VT ...................... Ely Copper Mine ....................................................................................................... Vershire.

Number of Sites Proposed to General

Superfund Section: 10.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Natural

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Dated: June 1, 2001.

Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 01–14617 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Parts 59 and 64

RIN 3067–AD18

Changes to General Provisions and

Communities Eligible for the Sale of

Insurance That Include Future

Conditions Flood Hazard Information

on Flood Maps

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This Proposed Rule will

revises the National Flood Insurance

Program (NFIP) regulations to include

definitions for future conditions

hydrology and for the floodplains that

may be shown on Flood Insurance Rate

Maps (FIRMs), for informational

purposes at the request of the

community, to reflect future conditions

hydrology; and establish the zone

symbol to be used to identify future

conditions flood hazard areas on the

FIRMs.

DATES: We invite comments on this

Proposed Rule. Please submit written

comments on or before August 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Please send written

comments to the Rules Docket Clerk,

Office of the General Counsel, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C

Street SW., Washington, DC; facsimile

(202) 646–4536.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

Study Branch, 500 C Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20472; by telephone at

(202) 646–3461, by facsimile at (202)

646–4596 (not toll-free calls), or by email at matt.miller@fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

It was the expressed intent of the U.S.

Congress, in enacting the Flood

Insurance Act of 1968, to ‘‘encourage

State and local governments to make

appropriate land use adjustments to

constrict the development of land which

is exposed to flood damage and

minimize damage caused by flood

losses, and guide the development of

proposed future construction, where

practicable, away from locations which

are threatened by flood hazards * * *’’

42 U.S.C. 4001(e). These proposed

revisions to the NFIP regulations are a

result of the continuing reappraisal of

the NFIP for the purpose of encouraging

sound floodplain management to reflect

that intent.

Historically, flood hazard information

presented on NFIP flood maps has been

based on the existing conditions of the

floodplain and watershed. When the

32294 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

mapping of flood hazards was initiated

under the NFIP, the intent was to

reassess each community’s flood

hazards periodically and, if needed,

revise the flood map for that

community. Flood hazards may change

significantly in areas experiencing

urban growth. For example, in Flood

Insurance Study Guidelines and

Specifications for Study Contractors

(FEMA 37, January 1995) specifies that

flood hazard determinations should be

based on conditions that are planned to

exist in the community within 12

months following completion of the

draft Flood Insurance Study (FIS).

Examples of future conditions to be

considered in the context of FEMA 37

are public works projects in progress,

including such as channel

modifications, hydraulic control

structures, storm-drainage systems, and

various other flood protection projects.

These are projects that will be

completed in the near future for which

completion can be predicted with a

reasonable degree of certainty and their

completion can be confirmed prior to

the new or revised flood map becoming

effective. By contrast, future land-use

development, such as urban growth, is

uncertain and difficult to predict, and is

not considered in the context of the

FEMA guidelines.

Communities experiencing urban

growth and other changes have

expressed a desire to use future

conditions hydrology in regulating

watershed development. While some

communities do regulate based on

future development, others are hesitant

to enforce more restrictive standards

without Federal support. From a

floodplain management standpoint,

future conditions floodplains can be

used, and are being, used, by

communities to enforce more stringent

floodplain management policies than

those required by FEMA. By displaying

future conditions floodplains on the

flood map, the community and FEMA

are alerting the public that flood hazards

may increase in the future due to urban

development. Many communities

throughout the United States develop

future conditions hydrology and create

their own maps to regulate floodplain

development. This has resulted in two

sets of maps being produced for a

community: future conditions maps for

local floodplain management and FIRMs

for flood insurance determinations. As a

result, these progressive communities

have not had a sense ofhad a sense of

ownership forfor the FIRMs, and their

resources have been directed toward

maintaining their own future conditions

maps.

Recent Evaluation and Conclusions

To assist officials in such progressive

communities, FEMA undertook an

evaluation to determine whether future

conditions flood hazard information

could and should be placed on flood

maps and in the accompanying study

reports. The results of that extensive

evaluation are documented in a FEMA

report entitled ‘‘Modernizing FEMA’s

Flood Hazard Mapping Program:

Recommendations for Using Future

Conditions Hydrology for the National

Flood Insurance Program’’ (see

www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/FT_hydro.htm).

The specific conclusions reached in the

report are as follows:

• The local community should

determine the future conditions landuse and hydrology.

• If the community chooses to adopt

a regulatory floodway based on future

conditions hydrology, the use of this

floodway should be supported by local

ordinances.

• If the community requests that

FEMA do so, the future conditions 100-

year (base flood) floodplain should be

shown on the printed FIRM and be

designated as Zone X with no Bbase

Fflood Eelevations (BFEs) shown.

• When possible, all three

floodplains—existing conditions 100-

year floodplain, existing conditions 500-

year floodplain, and future conditions

100-year floodplain—should be shown

on the FIRM. However, when the future

conditions 100-year floodplain and

existing conditions 500-year floodplain

are so close together as to be confusing

if both are shown on the printed FIRM,

the future conditions 100-year

floodplain should be shown in lieu of

the existing conditions 500-year

floodplain. When this occurs,

appropriate reference should be made to

the existing conditions 500-year

floodplain information being shown in

the FIS report. For a Digital Flood

Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM),

appropriate reference also should be

made to the existing conditions 500-year

floodplain information being included

in an associated database.

• BFEs should be shown on the FIRM

only for the existing conditions 100-year

floodplain. The future conditions BFEs

should be included in the FIS report (on

the Flood Profiles and in the Floodway

Data Table), thus providing necessary

information to the community to meet

their local floodplain management

needs. The existing conditions 500-year

flood elevations also should be shown

on the Flood Profiles in the FIS report

to meet the requirements of Executive

Order No. 11988 and to provide Federal

agencies with information to evaluate

the potential effects of any actions they

may take in a floodplain.

• The community may choose to

show the existing conditions 500-year

floodplain on the FIRM and to include

the future conditions 100-year

elevations only on the Flood Profiles in

the FIS report. Various other

combinations to display the flood

hazard data also are possible. FEMA and

the community should work together to

produce the most useful FIRM and FIS

report for the community.

• From a floodplain management

standpoint, FEMA should continue to

require regulation of floodplain

development based on the existing

conditions data, while local floodplain

managers can regulate development

based on the future conditions data.

• From a flood insurance standpoint,

FEMA must continue to require flood

insurance for structures shown in the

existing conditions 100-year floodplain,

or Special Flood Hazard Area. Showing

the future conditions floodplain as Zone

X should avoid any confusion regarding

the mandatory flood insurance

requirement. It also will and allow

insurance policies to be purchased at a

reduced rate, as insurance is currently

available for structures in the existing

conditions 500-year floodplain.

As recommended in the previously

referenced FEMA report, FEMA intends

to show future conditions flood hazard

information on flood FIRMs and in

collateral FIS reports. This information

will be for informational purposes only.

There will be nNo change will be made

in the use of existing conditions data for

establishing flood insurance rates.

Through community participation in the

Community Rating System, however,

reduced flood insurance rates are

available for those communities that

enforce more stringent regulatory

standards than required by the NFIP.

Synergy With Other FEMA Programs

The inclusion of future conditions

data in FIRMs and related products for

communities that request that such data

be included is part of a larger FEMA

plan to modernize the flood hazard

mapping program and thereby

reducinge the burden on taxpayers for

disaster relief and improving flood

hazard mitigation. FEMA’s plan is to

facilitate ownership of the flood maps

by State and local entities through

greatly increased involvement in the

flood mapping process through

cooperative agreements. FEMA will

provide flood mapping funds, technical

assistance, and mentoring to partners—

termed a ‘‘Cooperating Technical

Community Partners’’—and those

partners will then develop and maintain

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 32295

all of the flood maps or components

thereof. The proposed cooperative

agreements recognize that hazard

identification and mapping must go

hand-in-hand with the responsibility of

managing floodplains locally. By

creating a strong local program that

maintains the connection between

mapping and managing flood hazard

areas, the NFIP also is strengthened in

its ability to reduce the loss of property

and life.

FEMA recognition of future

conditions data will be a key factor in

the State and local communities

assuming increased ownership in the

process. By mapping locally pertinent

information, local ownership of the

NFIP flood maps will increase. Because

flood conditions and hazards vary

locally and regionally, inclusion of

those unique local conditions on the

flood maps may be warranted. For

example, a community may find it

useful to identify areas on the FIRM

with floodplains based on developed/

future hydrologic conditions in addition

to the standard features already

depicted. In effect, FEMA will maintain

national standards while at the same

time providing a useful tool to the

community. These changes also will

directly complement FEMA’s mitigation

activities. Communities will now be

able to better implement proactive

mitigation measures based on awareness

of future conditions in their community

by the public and by the development

community.

In sum, the use of future conditions

hydrology is consistent with

modernizing the mapping program; with

promoting better proactive mitigation

measures; and with FEMA’s desire to be

flexible with, and supportive of, those

communities that would like to

implement stricter land-use regulations.

Planned Implementation

The FEMA plans for implementing

the presentation of future conditions

flood hazard information on NFIP flood

maps are summarized below.

Map Specifications. The new DFIRM

product specifications being developed

by FEMA will include options that can

be invoked depending on the available

data. This new DFIRM product will

include certain basic features and meet

certain minimum mapping

requirements. Additional options will

be included, depending on the

community needs and available

funding. A review of needs and

available data will lead to a time and

cost estimate and a recommendation on

which options to exercise. Procedures

for displaying future conditions

floodplains on the new DFIRM will be

included in these new mapping

specifications.

Cooperating Technical Partners

Activities. As a part of the mapping

activities undertaken by communities

participating in the Cooperating

Technical Partners initiative, an option

could be for communities to show the

100-year future conditions floodplain on

the FIRM in addition to the existing

conditions floodplain. The communities

would develop and map existing and

future conditions and provide the new

FIRM and supporting data to FEMA; in

turn, the communities would receive a

useful tool for risk assessment and flood

hazard mitigation.

Revisions. Because mapping future

conditions floodplains would be

implemented on a community level, the

flood maps will maintain consistency

within community boundaries,

regardless of how many map panels the

community encompasses. When FEMA

receives future conditions data from

communities that wish to participate,

the data could be incorporated easily at

the time of the digital conversion to the

DFIRM product. Alternatively,

communities that require flood hazard

updates can submit future conditions

data to be incorporated with the existing

conditions data updates for the DFIRM

conversion. Displaying future

conditions data will increase

community involvement in the NFIP

and help FEMA to build stronger

partnerships with communities. If these

communities are involved at the

beginning of the digital conversion

process, they will have a stronger sense

of ownership of the flood maps, because

they will have input on the kind of

flood hazard information shown on the

maps.

Once the future conditions

floodplains have been included on a

flood map, all FEMA- or communityinitiated studies, restudies, and

revisions will incorporate the future

conditions hydrology that the

community has determined. FEMA will

perform a technical review of the locally

developed data and will include the

data in all map updates. Additionally,

FEMA will continue to make

determinations on whether structures

and parcels of land are in or out of

existing conditions floodplains shown

on NFIP maps, and will issue Letters of

Map Amendment and Letters of Map

Revisions Based on Fill based on these

determinations. This procedure can be

expanded to determine whether these

structures and parcels of land are in or

out of the future conditions floodplain

when those floodplains are shown on

the NFIP maps.

National Environmental Policy Act

This Proposed Rule is categorically

excluded from the requirements of 44

CFR part 10.8(d)(2)(ii), Environmental

Consideration. No environmental

impact assessment has been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

agencies must consider the impact of

their rulemakings on ‘‘small entities’’

(small businesses, small organizations

and local governments). When an

agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 553 to

publish a notice of proposed

rulemaking, a regulatory flexibility

analysis is required for both the

proposed rule and the final rule if the

rulemaking could ‘‘have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.’’ The Act also

provides that if a regulatory flexibility

analysis is not required, the agency

must certify in the rulemaking

document that the rulemaking will not

‘‘have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.’’

For the reasons that follow I certify

that a regulatory flexibility analysis is

not required for this rule because it

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This proposed rule revises the

NFIP regulations to (1) include the

definitions for future conditions

hydrology and for the flood plains that

may be shown on the FIRMs, for

informational purposes at the request of

the community, to reflect future

conditions hydrology and (2) establish

the zone symbol to be used to identify

future conditions flood hazard areas on

the FIRMs.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, Federalism,

dated August 4, 1999, sets forth

principles and criteria that agencies

must adhere to in formulating and

implementing policies that have

federalism implications, that is,

regulations that have substantial direct

effects on the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Federal agencies

must closely examine the statutory

authority supporting any action that

would limit the policymaking discretion

of the States, and to the extent

practicable, must consult with State and

local officials before implementing any

such action.

We have reviewed this rule under

E.O.13132 and have concluded that the

rule does not have federalism

implications as defined by the Executive

Order. As noted under Regulatory

32296 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Planning and Review, this proposed

rule revises the NFIP regulations to (1)

include the definitions for future

conditions hydrology and for the flood

plains that may be shown on the FIRMs,

for informational purposes at the

request of the community, to reflect

future conditions hydrology and (2)

establish the zone symbol to be used to

identify future conditions flood hazard

areas on the FIRMs. We know of no

substantial direct effects on the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government.

The Office of Management and Budget

has reviewed this rule under the

provisions of Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform

This Proposed Rule meets the

applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2)

of Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

Promulgation of this rule is required

by statute, 42 U.S.C 4014(f) which also

specifies the regulatory approach to be

taken in the proposed rule. To the

extent possible under the statutory

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 4014(f), this

Proposed Rule adheres to the provisions

of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and

Review. Under Executive Order 12866,

58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993, a

significant regulatory action is subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Executive

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as one that is likely to result in

a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

This proposed rule revises the NFIP

regulations to (1) include the definitions

for future conditions hydrology and for

the flood plains that may be shown on

the FIRMs, for informational purposes at

the request of the community, to reflect

future conditions hydrology and (2)

establish the zone symbol to be used to

identify future conditions flood hazard

areas on the FIRMs. We know of no

conditions that would qualify the rule

as a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

within the definition of section 3(f) of

the Executive Order. To the extent

possible this rule adheres to the

principles of regulation in Executive

Order 12866. The Office of Management

and Budget has not reviewed this rule

under the provisions of Executive Order

12866.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Parts 59 and

64

Administrative practice and

procedure, Flood insurance,

Floodplains, and Reporting and record

keeping requirements.

Accordingly, 44 CFR parts 59 and 64

will be amended as follows:

PART 59—[AMENDED]

1. Section 59.1 is revised to include

the following a definition for: Area of

future conditions flood hazard means

the land area that would be inundated

by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood

based on future conditions hydrology.

2. Section 59.1 is revised to include

the following definition: Future

conditions flood hazard area, or future

conditions floodplain—see Area of

future conditions flood hazard.

3. Section 59.1 is revised to include

the following definition: Future

conditions hydrology means the flood

discharges associated with projected

land-use conditions based on a

community’s zoning maps or

comprehensive land-use plans.

PART 64—[AMENDED]

1. The initial text of Paragraph

64.3(a)(1) will be revised to read as

follows:

(1) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM):

This map is prepared after the risk study

for the community has been completed

and the risk premium rates have been

established. The FIRM indicates the risk

premium rate zones applicable in the

community and when those rates are

effective. The FIRM also may indicate,

at the request of the community, zones

to identify areas of future conditions

flood hazards. The symbols used to

designate the risk premium rate zones

and future conditions zones are as

follows:

2. The entry for the zone symbol for

Zones B, X that appears in Paragraph

64.3(a)(1) will be revised to read as

follows:

B, X......Areas of moderate flood hazards

or areas of future conditions flood

hazard

3. The closing text of Paragraph

64.3(a)(1) will be revised to read as

follows:

Areas identified as subject to more

than one hazard (flood, mudslide (i.e.,

mudflow), flood-related erosion) or

potential hazard (i.e., future conditions

flooding) will be designated on the

FIRM by use of the proper zone symbols

in combination.

Dated: June 5, 2001.

Margaret E. Lawless,

Acting Executive Associate Director for

Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 01–15055 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–1337, MM Docket No. 01–116, RM–

10069]

Digital Television Broadcast Service

and Television Broadcast Service;

Hibbing, MN

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by DuluthSuperior Area Educational Television

Corporation, an applicant for a

construction permit for a new

noncommercial educational television

station to operate on NTSC channel *18-

at Hibbing. Duluth-Superior requests the

replacement of DTV channel *31 for

NTSC channel *18-at Hibbing. DTV

Channel *31 can be allotted to Hibbing,

Minnesota, in compliance with Sections

73.622(a) and 73.623(c) of the

Commission’s criteria as set forth in the

Public Notice, released November 22,

1999, DA 99–2605. DTV channel *31

can be allotted at reference coordinates

(47–22–53 N. and 92–57–15 W.) with a

power of 500, a height above average

terrain HAAT of 211 meters and with a

DTV service population of thousand.

However, since the community of

Hibbing is located within 400

kilometers of the U.S.-Canadian border,

concurrence by the Canadian

government must be obtained for this

proposal.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before July 30, 2001, and reply

comments on or before August 14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,