48166 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 160 / Monday, August 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of 

Tennessee on October 19, 2007. The 

revision affects the Nashville/Davidson 

County portion of the Tennessee SIP. 

Specifically the revision pertains to the 

Metropolitan Public Health Department, 

Pollution Control Division’s Regulation 

Number 8, ‘‘Inspection and 

Maintenance of Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles.’’ This revision is part of 

Nashville/Davidson County’s strategy to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. Regulation 

Number 8 is amended by reducing the 

vehicle emission inspection fee to $9.00, 

and updating the definitions section. 

This revision is considered by the 

Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation (TDEC) to be at least 

as stringent as the State of Tennessee’s 

preexisting requirements. This action is 

being taken pursuant to section 110 of 

the Clean Air Act. 

In the Final Rules Section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this document. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this 

document should do so at this time. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 17, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–

OAR–2008–0051, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: hou.james@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2008–

0051,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Mr. 

James Hou, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

James Hou, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–8965. 

Mr. Hou can also be reached via 

electronic mail at hou.james@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: July 30, 2008. 

Russell L. Wright Jr., 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E8–18966 Filed 8–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0612; FRL–8705–7] 

Disapproval of State Implementation 

Plan Revision, Yolo Solano Air Quality 

Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a revision to the Yolo Solano 

Air Quality Management District 

(YSAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

concerning the District’s analysis of 

whether its rules meet Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

under the 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). We are proposing to 

disapprove the analysis under the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 17, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2008–0612, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4122, tong.stanley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What document did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this 

document? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

RACT SIP analysis? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP 

analysis? 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 160 / Monday, August 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 48167 

B. Does the analysis meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. What are the deficiencies? 

D. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the RACT SIP Analysis 

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What document did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the document proposed 

for disapproval with the date that it was 

adopted and submitted by the California 

Air Resources Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED DOCUMENT

Local agency Document Adopted Submitted 

YSAQMD ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology ...................................................................... 09/13/06 01/31/07 

This submittal became complete by 

operation of law on July 31, 2007. 

B. Are there other versions of this 

document? 

There is no previous version of this 

document in the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

RACT SIP analysis? 

VOCs and NOX help produce groundlevel ozone and smog, which harm 

human health and the environment. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

States to submit regulations that control 

VOC and NOX emissions. Sections 

172(c)(1) and 182 require areas that are 

designated as moderate or above for 

ozone non-attainment to adopt RACT. 

The YSAQMD is subject to this 

requirement as it is designated as a 

serious ozone non-attainment area 

under the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone (40 

CFR 81.305). Therefore, the YSAQMD 

must, at a minimum, adopt RACT level 

controls for sources covered by a 

Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) 

document and for any major non-CTG 

source. 

Section IV.G. of EPA’s final rule to 

implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

(70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005) 

discusses RACT requirements. It states 

in part that where a RACT SIP is 

required, States implementing the 8- 

hour ozone standard generally must 

assure that RACT is met, either through 

a certification that previously required 

RACT controls represent RACT for 8- 

hour implementation purposes or 

through a new RACT determination. 

The submitted document provides 

YSAQMD’s analysis of their RACT rules 

for the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. EPA’s 

technical support document (TSD) has 

more information about YSAQMD’s 

RACT analysis. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP 

analysis? 

The rules and guidance documents 

that we use to evaluate whether the 

analysis fulfills RACT include the 

following: 

1. Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (70 FR 71612; November 29, 

2005). 

2. Letter from William T. Harnett to 

Regional Air Division Directors, (May 

18, 2006), ‘‘RACT Qs & As—Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

Questions and Answers’’. 

3. State Implementation Plans, 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 

13498; April 16, 1992). 

4. RACT SIPs, Letter dated March 9, 

2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew 

Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) 

describing Region IX’s understanding of 

what constitutes a minimally acceptable 

RACT SIP. 

5. RACT SIPs, Letter dated April 4, 

2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew 

Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) listing 

EPA’s current CTGs, ACTs, and other 

documents which may help to establish 

RACT. 

B. Does the analysis meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

YSAQMD’s staff report included a 

table (Table A) listing all CTG source 

categories and matching those CTG 

categories with the corresponding 

District rule which implements RACT. 

Given its designation as a serious ozone 

non-attainment area, YSAQMD was also 

required to analyze RACT for all sources 

that emit or have the potential to emit 

at least 50 tons per year of NOX or VOCs 

(CAA 182(c)). YSAQMD staff searched 

for all sources that would be subject to 

a CTG and for sources that emitted or 

have the potential to emit at least 25 tpy 

of VOC or NOX. YSAQMD identified 

three sources, Agrium U.S., Inc, Premier 

Industries (now Insulfoam), and 

Woodland Biomass Power Ltd., as major 

sources not subject to a District RACT 

rule. 

YSAQMD points out that under 

Section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, the 

District can submit a plan revision 

based on a commitment to adopt 

specific enforceable measures up to one 

year after the date of approval of the 

plan revision. YSAQMD generally 

committed to submitting the required 

RACT rules for these sources within one 

year of approval of the plan revision. 

Under CAA Section 110(k)(4), however, 

EPA may approve a plan revision only 

where the State commits to adopt 

‘‘specific enforceable measures by a date 

certain’’, not later than one year after the 

approval of the plan revision. 

YSAQMD’s generalized commitment to 

submit RACT rules within a year for the 

sources and source categories that are 

currently not subject to RACT rules fails 

to provide the ‘‘specific enforceable 

measures by a date certain’’ required by 

CAA Section 110(k)(4). Accordingly, 

EPA concludes it is not appropriate to 

grant a conditional approval of the 

District’s RACT certification. 

The RACT certification provisions 

which do not meet the evaluation 

criteria are summarized in the next 

section and discussed further in the 

TSD. 

YSAQMD’s staff report also includes 

a negative declaration listing 13 CTG 

categories for which there are no 

sources in the District subject to the 

CTGs and no District rules covering 

those categories. These categories are 

provided in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS

CTG source category CTG reference document 

Aerospace ................................................................................................. EPA–453/R–97–004—Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
48168 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 160 / Monday, August 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS—Continued 

CTG source category CTG reference document 

Ships ......................................................................................................... 61 FR 44050 Shipbuilding and Ship Repair. 

Metal Coil Container and Closure ............................................................ EPA–450/2–77–008—Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, 

Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. 

Magnetic Wire ........................................................................................... EPA–450/2–77–033—Surface Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire. 

Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants, Equipment Leaks ................... EPA–450/2–83–007—Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline 

Processing Plants. 

Refineries .................................................................................................. EPA–450/2–77–025—Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds. 

EPA–450/2–78–036—VOC Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment. 

Paper and Fabric ...................................................................................... EPA–450/2–77–008—Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, 

Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. 

Dry Cleaning ............................................................................................. EPA–450/3–82–009—Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners. 

Rubber Tires ............................................................................................. EPA–450/2–78–030—Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires. 

Large Appliances, Surface Coating .......................................................... EPA–450/2–77–034—Surface Coating of Large Appliances. 

Wood Coating ........................................................................................... EPA–450/2–78–032—Factory Surface of Flat Wood Paneling. 

Synthetic Organic Chemical ..................................................................... Possible error—YSAQMD listed the polymer/Resin CTG under this category. 

EPA–450/3–83–006—Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic Organic 

Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment. 

Polyester Resin.

EPA–450/3–83–006—Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic Organic 

Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment. 

EPA–450/3–83–008—Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. 

C. What are the deficiencies? 

The following deficiencies prevent 

full approval of YSAQMD’s RACT 

certification. 

1. YSAQMD identified three major 

non-CTG sources in the District that are 

not covered by RACT rules or SIP 

approved permits. Such rules or permits 

should be submitted to EPA for 

approval. 

2. YSAQMD’s pharmaceutical 

manufacturing rule may be less 

stringent than the CTG. Rule 2.35 

should be revised and submitted to EPA 

for approval. 

3. On May 14, 2008, YSAQMD 

amended the solvent cleaning 

provisions in several rules to address 

RACT requirements. These rules need to 

be submitted to, and approved by, EPA. 

4. YSAQMD should submit a negative 

declaration for the Wood Furniture CTG 

or submit Rule 2.39 for SIP approval. 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the RACT SIP Analysis 

The TSD describes additional 

revisions that do not affect EPA’s 

current action but are recommended to 

strengthen the RACT analysis. 

E. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in Section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, we are proposing a disapproval 

of the submitted YSAQMD RACT SIP 

analysis. If finalized, sanctions would 

be imposed unless EPA approves a 

revised RACT SIP analysis and the 

required rules that correct the 

deficiencies discussed above within 18 

months of the disapproval. These 

sanctions would be imposed as 

described in CAA section 179 and 40 

CFR 52.30–52.32. A final disapproval 

would also trigger the 2 year clock for 

the federal implementation plan (FIP) 

requirement under section 110(c)(1). 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed disapproval for 

the next 30 days. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rulemaking does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rulemaking will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because SIP 

disapproval actions under section 110 

and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air 

Act do not create any new requirements 

but simply disapproves for inclusion 

into the SIP requirements that the State 

is already imposing. Therefore, because 

the Federal SIP disapproval does not 

create any new requirements, I certify 

that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 160 / Monday, August 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 48169 

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 

disapproval action proposed 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 

proposes to disapprove a pre-existing 

analysis under State or local law, and 

imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rulemaking will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves a state analysis, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rulemaking. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule 

disapproval does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule disapproval. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule 

disapproval from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rulemaking is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045, 

because it disapproves a state analysis. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rulemaking is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E8–19073 Filed 8–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket No. B–7795] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: On July 23, 2008, FEMA 

published in the Federal Register a 

proposed rule that contained an 

erroneous table. This notice provides 

corrections to that table, to be used in 

lieu of the information published at 73 

FR 42755. The table provided here 

represents the flooding source, location 

of referenced elevation, effective and 

modified elevation, and communities 

affected for Alameda County, California. 

Specifically, it addresses Castro Valley 

Creek (Line J). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, 

Engineering Management Branch, 

Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–3151 or (e-mail) 

bill.blanton@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) publishes proposed 

determinations of Base (1% annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and 

modified BFEs for communities 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS