29518 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 11, 1996 / Proposed Rules

sale in the Puget Sound CO

nonattainment area during the winter

months to contain an average oxygenate

content of at least 2.7 percent by weight.

Program requirements would be

identical to those incorporated into the

current oxygenated gasoline program

(Chapter 173–492, Washington

Administrative Code, Motor Fuel

Specifications for Oxygenated Gasoline,

adopted October 6, 1992 and PSAPCA

Regulation II, Section 2.09, Oxygenated

Gasoline, adopted October 14, 1993).

This contingency measure will be

triggered in the event of a qualityassured violation of the NAAQS for CO

at any one of the permanent monitoring

sites in the nonattainment area. Thus,

this triggering will occur when any one

monitoring site records two 8-hour

average CO concentrations that equal or

exceed 9.5 ppm in a single calendar

year.

The oxygenated fuels program will be

fully implemented no later than the next

full winter season following the date

when the trigger was activated.

Implementation will continue

throughout the balance of the CO

maintenance period, or until such time

that a reassessment of the ambient CO

monitoring data establishes that the

contingency measure is no longer

necessary.

As mentioned above, the WDOE has

chosen to convert its oxygenated fuels

requirement in the Seattle-TacomaEverett CMSA to a contingency measure

in its maintenance plan upon

redesignation. EPA is approving the

WDOE’s contingency measure for the

Seattle-Tacoma-Everett area.

E. Subsequent Maintenance Plan

Revisions

In accordance with section 175A(b) of

the CAA, the State has agreed to submit

a revised maintenance SIP eight years

after the area is redesignated to

attainment. That revised SIP will

provide for maintenance for an

additional ten years.

Conclusion

EPA proposes to approve the SeattleTacoma-Everett, Washington CO

maintenance plan and request for

redesignation to attainment because

WDOE has demonstrated compliance

with the requirements of section

107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation.

In addition, EPA, after notification of

and consultation with the affected tribal

governments, proposes to redesignate to

attainment those areas in the SeattleTacoma-Everett CO nonattainment area

that are located within the Tulalip

Reservation, the Puyallup Reservation

and the Muckleshoot Reservation. The

Agency believes that the redesignation

requirements are effectively satisfied

here based on information provided by

WDOE and requirements contained in

the WDOE SIP and maintenance plan.

EPA is soliciting public comments on

this notice and on issues relevant to

EPA’s proposed action. Comments will

be considered before taking final action.

Interested parties may participate in the

federal rule making procedure by

submitting written comments to the

person and address listed in the

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of

this notice.

IV. Administrative Review

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C.

§§ 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

state is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

federal-state relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

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.

EPA has determined that the

proposed action promulgated 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.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2224), as

revised by a July 10, 1995,

memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

and Wilderness areas.

Authority: 42 U.S.C 7401–7671q.

Dated: May 22, 1996.

Jane S. Moore,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–14679 Filed 6–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA–7182]

Proposed Flood Elevation

Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency, FEMA.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 11, 1996 / Proposed Rules 29519

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:

Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief, Hazard

Identification Branch, Mitigation

Directorate, 500 C Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2756.

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

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 Acting 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:

Source of flooding and location

#Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

Pennsylvania

Jenkintown (Borough),

Montgomery County

Tacony Creek:

Approximately 200 feet upstream of Greenwood Avenue .................................. *206

At the confluence of Baeder

Run ................................... *220

Baeder Run:

At the confluence with

Tacony Creek ................... *220

Approximately 586 feet upstream of confluence with

Tacony Creek ................... *220

Maps available for inspection

at the Jenkintown Borough Offices, 700 Summit Avenue,

Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.

Send comments to Mr. John

Plunkett, President of the

Jenkintown Borough Council,

P.O. Box 2176, Jenkintown,

Pennsylvania 19046.

———

Lower Salford (Township),

Montgomery County

Skippack Creek:

At Quarry Bridge Road ........ *176

Near Wampole Road approximately 950 feet upstream of State Highway

63 ...................................... *199

Skippack Creek Tributary No. 2:

Approximately 150 feet

downstream of Wampole

Road ................................. *211

Approximately 525 feet upstream of Wampole Road *212

Maps available for inspection

at the Township Office, 474

Main Street, Harleysville,

Pennsylvania.

Send comments to Mr. Douglas

Gifford, Chairman of the Lower

Salford Township Board of

Commissioners, 474 Main

Street, Harleysville, Pennsylvania 19438.

§ 67.4 [Amended]

3. The tables published under the

authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be

amended as follows:
29520 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 11, 1996 / Proposed Rules

State City/town/

county Source of Flooding Location

#Depth in feet above

ground. *Elevation in feet

(NGVD)

Existing Modified

North Carolina ........ Marion (City)

McDowell County.

Catawba River .................. Approximately 340 feet (or 0.1 mile)

downstream of the U.S. Route 221

bridgex.

*1226 *1222

Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the

U.S. Route 221 Bypass bridge.

*1234 *1228

Maps available for inspection at the Marion City Hall, 200 North Main Street, Marion, North Carolina.

Send comments to The Honorable A. Everette Clark, Mayor of the City of Marion, P.O. Drawer 700, Marion, North Carolina 28752.

Tennessee ............. La Vergne (City)

Rutherford County.

Hurricane Creek ............... Approximately 0.9 mile downstream of

U.S. Routes 41 and 70.

*517 *510

At confluence of East and West

Branches Hurricane Creek.

*573 *575

West Branch Hurricane

Creek.

Approximately 820 feet downstream of

Bridgestone Parkway.

*576 *575

Approximately 200 feet downstream of

Heil Quaker Boulevard.

*586 *585

Rock Spring Branch ......... Approximately 900 feet downstream of

Waldron Road.

*656 *654

At Waldron Road ...................................... None *660

East Branch Hurricane

Creek.

Approximately 0.18 mile upstream of

Bridgestone Parkway.

*578 *579

Approximately 0.16 mile upstream of

Waldron Road.

*581 *582

J. Percy Priest Resevoir ... Entire shoreline within community ............ None *506

East Branch Hurricane

Creek.

Approximately 100 feet downstream of

Industrial Boulevard.

*586 *587

Maps available for inspection at the La Vergne City Hall, 5093 Murfreesboro Road, La Vergne, Tennessee.

Send comments to The Honorable Mike Webb, Mayor of the City of La Vergne, 5093 Murfreesboro Road, La Vergne, Tennessee 37086.

Tennessee ............. Murfreesboro (City)

Rutherford County.

Lytle Creek ....................... Approximately 200 feet upstream of Old

Fort Parkway at the upstream side of

Louisville and Nashville Railroad.

*582 *581

Approximately 200 feet upstream of

County Club Drive.

None *604

Bushman Creek ................ At upstream side of Compton Road ......... *549 *546

Approximately 200 feet downstream of

New Lascassas Road.

*587 *585

Maps available for inspection at the Murfreesboro City Hall, City Planning Department, 111 West Vine Street, Murfreesboro, Tennesse.

Send comments to The Honorable Joe B. Jackson, Mayor of the City of Murfreesboro, P.O. Box 1139, Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37133–

1139.

Tennessee ............. Rutherford County

(Unincorporated

Areas).

East Fork Stones River .... Approximately 1.45 miles downstream of

U.S. Route 231 (Lebanon Pike).

*530 *529

Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of State

Route 96.

*565 *561

J. Percy Priest Resevoir ... Entire shoreline within county .................. None *506

Bear Branch ..................... At confluence with East Fork Stones

River.

*542 *539

At downstream side of Dejarnette Lane ... *584 *580

Overall Creek ................... At confluence with West Fork Stones

River.

*533 *532

Approximately 4.0 miles upstream of

State Route 96.

*632 *634

Lytle Creek ....................... Approximately 500 feet upstream of

Sanbyrn Road (at downstream corporate limits).

None *601

Approximately 100 feet downstream of

Dilton-Mankin Road.

*644 *643

Rock Spring Branch ......... Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of

Waldron Road.

*654 *653

Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of

Waldron Road.

None *673

Olive Branch ..................... At confluence with Stewart Creek ............ *531 *532
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 11, 1996 / Proposed Rules 29521

State City/town/

county Source of Flooding Location

#Depth in feet above

ground. *Elevation in feet

(NGVD)

Existing Modified

Approximately 0.45 mile upstream of

Rocky Ford Road.

*582 *583

Stewart Creek ................... Approximately 0.5 mile downstream of

8th Avenue.

None *506

Approximately 50 feet upstream of

Almaville Road.

None *603

Lees Spring Branch .......... At confluence with Lytle Creek ................. None *623

Approximately 150 feet upstream of

Dilton-Mankin Road.

None *630

Wades Branch .................. At confluence with East Fork Stones

River.

*535 *531

Approximately 0.65 mile upstream of

State Route 102.

*535 *534

Bradley Creek ................... At confluence with East Fork Stones

River.

*564 *559

Approximately 264 feet upstream of

Browns Mill Road.

* *

Puckett Creek ................... At confluence with Overall Creek ............. *570 *572

Approximately 0.12 mile upstream of confluence with Overall Creek.*571 *572

Bushman Creek ................ At confluence with East Fork Stones

River.

*549 *546

Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of

New Lascassas Road.

*590 *591

Maps available for inspection at the Rutherford County Courthouse, County Engineering Department, #1 Public Square South, Room 101,

Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Send comments to Ms. Nancy Allen, Rutherford County Executive, Rutherford County Courthouse, #1 Public Square South, Room 101,

Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37130.

Tennessee ............. Smyrna (Town)

Rutherford County.

Stewart Creek ................... Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of

8th Avenue.

None *506

Approximately 500 feet upstream of I–24

Eastbound.

*542 *547

Rock Spring Branch ......... Approximately 0.29 mile upstream of confluence with Harts Branch.*542 *543

Approximately 0.33 mile upstream of Last

Crossing of Rock Spring Road.

None *702

J. Percy Priest Resevoir ... For its entire shoreline within community None *506

Olive Branch ..................... At the confluence with Stewart Creek ...... *531 *532

Approximately 375 feet upstream of

Rosewood Drive.

*553 *560

Maps available for inspection at the Smyrna Town Hall, 315 South Lowry Street, Smyrna, Tennessee.

Send comments to The Honorable Paul H. Johns, Mayor of the Town of Smyrna, 315 South Lowry Street, Smyrna, Tennessee 37167.

West Virginia .......... Moorefield (Town)

Hardy County.

South Branch Potomac

River.

At a point approximately 2,000 feet upstream of corporate limits.*806 *807

At confluence of the South Fork of the

South Branch Potomac River.

*808 *807

South Fork of the South

Branch Potomac River.

At confluence with the South Branch Potomac River.*808 *807

Approximately 700 feet upstream of

southern corporate limits.

*828 *829

Maps available for inspection at the Moorefield Town Hall, 206 Winchester Avenue, Moorefield, West Virginia.

Send comments to The Honorable LeMar Sager, Mayor of the Town of Moorefield, 206 Winchester Avenue, Moorefield, West Virginia 26836.
29522 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 11, 1996 / Proposed Rules

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)

Dated: May 31, 1996.

Richard W. Krimm,

Acting Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 96–14727 Filed 6–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 10

[Docket No. OST–96–1437; Notice 96–19]

RIN 2105–AC57

Privacy Act; Maintenance of and

Access to Records Pertaining to

Individuals; Amendment

AGENCY: Department of Transportation

(DOT), Office of the Secretary.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: DOT proposes to amend its

regulations in implementing the Privacy

Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. This revision

updates organizational changes since

the last revision and streamlines the

regulations in order to make the

regulations more useful. Public

comment is invited.

DATES: Comments are due August 12,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Documentary Services

Division, Attention: Docket Section,

Room PL401, Docket No. OST–96–1437,

Department of Transportation, C–55,

Washington, DC 20590. Any person

wishing acknowledgment that his/her

comments have been received should

include a self-addressed stamped

postcard. Comments received will be

available for public inspection and

copying in the Documentary Services

Division, Room PL401, Department of

Transportation Building, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC, from 10

AM to 5 PM ET Monday through Friday

except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dorothy A. Chambers, Office of the

General Counsel, C–12, Department of

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590,

telephone (202) 366–4542, FAX (202)

366–7152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

President instituted a Regulatory

Review initiative, for the reinvention of

regulations by eliminating duplicate,

redundant or unnecessary language and

revising regulations to meet the need of

users. In response to this initiative, we

have reviewed part 10 and are

proposing to revise this section to

update and streamline information on

maintenance and access to records

pertaining to individuals. The main

revision is to remove from the Code of

Federal Regulations Appendices B

through J to this part and remove

references to the appendices throughout

the part. These appendices contain

information that is available through the

Notice of Records Systems published by

the Federal Register, National Archives

and Records Administration, which

describes the systems of records

maintained by all Federal agencies,

including the Department and its

components. Therefore, it is

unnecessary to repeat this information

in the regulations. Several other

housekeeping corrections have also

been made.

Analysis of regulatory impacts.

This amendment is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaning

of Executive Order 12866. It is also not

significant within the definition in

DOT’s Regulatory Policies and

Procedures, 49 FR 11034 (1979), in part

because it does not involve any change

in important Departmental policies.

Because the economic impact should be

minimal, further regulatory evaluation

is not necessary. Moreover, I certify that

this proposal will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

This proposal does not significantly

affect the environment, and therefore an

environmental impact statement is not

required under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It has

also been reviewed under Executive

Order 12612, Federalism, and it has

been determined that it does not have

sufficient implications for federalism to

warrant preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

Finally, the proposal does not contain

any collection of information

requirements, requiring review under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 10

Privacy.

In accordance with the above, DOT

proposes to amend 49 CFR part 10 as

follows:

PART 10—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation would

continue to be as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a; 49 U.S.C. 322.

§ 10.1 [Amended]

2. In § 10.1, paragraphs (b), (c), and (d)

would be removed and the paragraph

designation (a) would be removed.

3. In § 10.5, within the definition of

Department, paragraph (f) would be

revised, and a new paragraph (i) would

be added to read as follows

§ 10.5 Definitions.

Unless the context requires otherwise,

the following definitions apply in this

part:

* * * * *

Department * * *

* * * * *

(f) Federal Transit Administration.

* * * * *

(i) Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

* * * * *

4. In § 10.31, paragraph (a) would be

revised to read as follows:

§ 10.31 Requests for records.

(a) Ordinarily, each person desiring to

determine whether a record pertaining

to him/her is contained in a system of

records covered by this part or desiring

access to a record covered by this part,

or to obtain a copy of such a record,

shall make a request in writing

addressed to the system manager. The

‘‘Notice of Records Systems’’ published

by the Office of the Federal Register,

National Archives and Records

Administration, describes the systems of

records maintained by all Federal

agencies, including the Department and

its components. In exceptional cases

oral requests are accepted. See

§ 10.13(b) regarding inquiries

concerning Privacy Act matters or

requests for assistance.

* * * * *

5. In § 10.35, paragraph (a)(12) would

be added to read as follows:

§ 10.35 Conditions of disclosure.

(a) No record that is contained within

a system of records of the Department is

disclosed by any means of

communication to any person, or to

another agency, except pursuant to a

written request by, or with the prior

written consent of, the individual to

whom the record pertains, unless

disclosure of the record would be:

* * * * *

(12) To a consumer reporting agency

in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(f).

* * * * *

6. In § 10.37, the last sentence would

be revised to read as follows:

§ 10.37 Identification of individual making

request.

* * * In such cases, these additional

requirements are listed in the public

notice for the system.

7. Section 10.39 would be revised to

read as follows: