55466 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

boxes is other than First Class Mail) 

seems reasonable. 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is Ordered: 

1. The Petition of the United States 

Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a 

Proceeding to Consider Further 

Proposed Methodology Changes for the 

FY 2008 ACR (Proposals Ten and 

Eleven), filed September 12, 2008, is 

granted. 

2. Interested persons may submit 

initial comments on or before 

September 26, 2008. The proposals 

described in this order will be 

considered under the current procedural 

schedule in Docket No. RM2008–2. 

3. Reply comments may be submitted 

on or before October 3, 2008. 

4. William C. Miller is designated as 

the Public Representative representing 

the interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

5. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3652. 

By the Commission. 

Steven W. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–22639 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0705; FRL–8720–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Nevada; Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA 

is proposing to approve certain 

revisions, and to disapprove certain 

other revisions, of the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection. These revisions relate to the 

application of the State’s vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program to 

vehicles operated on Federal 

installations. EPA is also proposing to 

correct certain plan revisions related to 

this subject that EPA previously 

approved in error. The intended effect is 

to ensure that vehicles operated on 

Federal installations are subject only to 

those requirements of the State’s vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program 

that apply in the same manner and to 

the same extent to nongovernmental 

entities. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

October 27, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2008–0705, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• E-mail: kaplan.eleanor@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Eleanor Kaplan 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105. 

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 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eleanor Kaplan, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4147, 

kaplan.eleanor@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. The State’s SIP Revision Submittal 

A. What revisions did the State submit? 

B. What is our evaluation of the revisions? 

III. Correction of Previously-Approved 

Provisions 

A. What provisions did we previously 

approve? 

B. What is our evaluation of the approved 

provisions? 

IV. Public Comment and Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1175), EPA 

proposed, under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or ‘‘Act’’), to approve certain submittals 

by the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP) of 

revisions to the Nevada state 

implementation plan (SIP). The 

submittals that were the subject of our 

January 7, 2008 proposed rule primarily 

relate to attainment and maintenance of 

the carbon monoxide (CO) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

in the Truckee Meadows nonattainment 

area. In our January 7, 2008 proposed 

rule, we also proposed to approve the 

State’s submittal of an update to the 

regulatory element of the State’s mobile 

source SIP, including statutory 

provisions and rules related to the 

State’s vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) programs 

administered in Truckee Meadows 

(located within Washoe County) and Las 

Vegas Valley and Boulder City (located 

within Clark County). 

As part of our January 7, 2008 

proposed rule, we proposed to approve 

all of the State’s vehicle I/M rules with 

the exception of a particular subsection 

(subsection (2)) of a single rule, Nevada 

Administrative Code (NAC) section 

445B.595 (‘‘Inspections of vehicles 

owned by State or political subdivisions 

or operated on federal installations’’) 

(‘‘NAC 445B.595(2)’’), for which we 

proposed neither approval nor 

disapproval. We explained our ‘‘no 

action’’ proposal for NAC 445B.595(2) 

as follows: 

The Federal I/M rule requires that vehicles 

operated on Federal installations located 

within an I/M program area be tested 

regardless of whether the vehicles are 

registered in the state or local I/M area. See 

40 CFR 51.356(a)(4). However, we are not 

requiring states to implement 40 CFR 

51.356(a)(4) at this time. The Department of 

Justice has recommended to EPA that this 

Federal regulation be revised since it appears 

to grant states authority to regulate Federal 

installations in circumstances where the 

Federal government has not waived 

sovereign immunity. It would not be 

appropriate to require compliance with this 

regulation if it is not constitutionally 

authorized. EPA will be revising this 

provision in the future and will review state 

I/M SIPs with respect to this issue when this 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55467 

1Under NAC 445B.443, ‘‘Person’’ includes the 

Federal Government, the State of Nevada, or any of 

its political subdivisions and any other 

administrative agency, public or quasi-public 

corporation, or other legal entity. NDEP and the 

Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) 

interpret NAC 445B.443 in light of the ‘‘basic’’ 

definition of the term ‘‘person’’ as codified at NRS 

0.039: ‘‘Except as otherwise expressly provided in 

a particular statute or required by the context, 

‘‘person’’ means a natural person, any form of 

business or social organization and any other 

nongovernmental legal entity including, but not 

limited to, a corporation, partnership, association, 

trust or unincorporated organization. The term does 

not include a government, governmental agency or 

political subdivision of a government.’’ EPA 

approved NRS 0.039 into the Nevada SIP in 2006. 

See 71 FR 51766 (August 31, 2006). To clarify that 

NAC 445B.443 builds upon the ‘‘basic’’ definition 

of person, we understand that NDEP and Nevada 

DMV intend to amend NAC 445B.443 to include a 

specific reference to NRS 0.039. 

new rule is final. Therefore, for these reasons, 

EPA is neither approving nor disapproving 

the specific requirements which apply to 

Federal facilities at this time. Specifically, we 

are taking no action on submitted rule NAC 

445B.595(2), which extends the State’s I/M 

requirements to motor vehicles operated on 

Federal installations located within I/M 

areas. 

See 73 FR 1175, at 1182. See also 73 FR 

1175, at 1176 and 1194 for summaries 

of our proposed action in this regard. 

The recommendation by the Department 

of Justice (DOJ) referred to in the above 

excerpt was made in a letter from Lois 

J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, 

DOJ Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, to Scott Fulton, 

Acting General Counsel, EPA, dated July 

29, 1998. 

In our January 7, 2008 proposed rule, 

we also proposed, under CAA section 

110(k)(6), to rescind our previous 

approval of an earlier codification of 

NAC 445B.595(2), once again, based on 

sovereign immunity concerns. We had 

approved the earlier codification of 

NAC 445B.595(2) in connection with 

our approval of the State’s vehicle I/M 

program as administered in Las Vegas 

Valley and Boulder City. See 69 FR 

56351, at 56354 (September 21, 2004). 

Our January 7, 2008 proposed rule 

provided for a 30-day public comment 

period, and we received comments 

related to our proposal from NDEP 

concerned about our proposed error 

correction related to NAC 445B.595(2). 

On July 3, 2008, we took final action on 

all aspects of the January 7, 2008 

proposed rule with the exception of our 

proposed action on NAC 445B.595(2) for 

which we agreed to reconsider action in 

a future proposed rule. See 73 FR 38124 

(July 3, 2008). We have now 

reconsidered the issue of sovereign 

immunity in relation to the State’s 

vehicle I/M program and propose, in 

today’s action, to approve paragraphs 

(a), (b) and (c) of NAC 445B.595(2) 

(‘‘NAC 445B.595(2)(a), (b), and (c)’’), to 

disapprove paragraph (d) of NAC 

445B.595(2) (‘‘NAC 445B.595(2)(d)’’), to 

rescind our previous approval of NAC 

445B.595(2)(d) and our previous 

approvals of another State vehicle I/M 

requirement, NAC 445B.461(3)(d). 

II. The State’s SIP Revision Submittal 

A. What revisions did the State submit? 

On May 11, 2007, NDEP submitted, 

among other provisions, rules 

implementing the State’s vehicle I/M 

program in Truckee Meadows and Las 

Vegas Valley/Boulder City. Among the 

rules are NAC 445B.461 (‘‘Compliance 

by Federal Government, state agencies 

and political subdivisions’’) and NAC 

445B.595 (‘‘Inspections of vehicles 

owned by State or political subdivisions 

or operated on federal installations’’). 

NAC 445B.461 provides in relevant part: 

1. A license may be issued to the Federal 

Government * * * to inspect motor vehicles 

* * * for the purpose of compliance with 

NAC 445B.400 to 445B.735, inclusive. 

2. * * *. 

3. The holder of a license issued pursuant 

to subsection 1 is exempt from the 

requirements set forth in the following 

sections for the limited purposes indicated: 

(a) Bond, NAC 445B.465; (b) Evidence of 

compliance, NAC 445B.583 to 445B.586, 

inclusive; (c) Sign, NAC 445B.469; and (d) 

Use of waiver, NAC 445B.590. 

NAC 445B.595 provides in relevant part: 

1. * * *. 

2. Motor vehicles operated on federal 

installations located within an area requiring 

a program for the inspection of exhaust 

emissions must be inspected and certified 

annually. The provisions of this subsection: 

(a) Apply to all motor vehicles which are 

owned, leased or operated by an employee of, 

or military personnel stationed at, a federal 

installation; 

(b) Apply to all motor vehicles which are 

owned, leased or operated by any agency of 

the Federal Government on a federal 

installation; 

(c) Do not apply to tactical military 

vehicles operated on a federal installation; 

and 

(d) Do not apply to motor vehicles which 

are owned, leased or operated on a federal 

installation by visiting federal employees or 

military personnel when the visit does not 

exceed 60 days within any 1 calendar year. 

A federal installation shall annually submit 

to the Department evidence showing that it 

has complied with the provisions of this 

paragraph, in a form prescribed by the 

Department. 

We approved NAC 445B.461 in 2004 

in connection with our approval of the 

State’s I/M program in Las Vegas Valley 

and Boulder City (see 69 FR 56351, at 

56354 (September 21, 2004)), and again 

on July 3, 2008 in connection with our 

final approval of the State’s update 

(submitted on May 11, 2007) to the 

regulatory element of the State’s mobile 

source SIP, including the rules for the 

State’s vehicle I/M program in Truckee 

Meadows and Las Vegas Valley/Boulder 

City. We also approved NAC 445B.595 

in connection with our approval of the 

State’s I/M program in Las Vegas Valley 

and Boulder City but, as noted above, 

proposed to rescind our previous 

approval of NAC 445B.595(2) in our 

January 7, 2008 proposed rule, and have 

as yet taken no action on NAC 

445B.595(2) as submitted to us on May 

11, 2007. The versions of NAC 445B.461 

and NAC 445B.595 approved by us in 

2004 and those submitted to us on May 

11, 2007 are identical. 

B. What is our evaluation of the 

revisions? 

CAA section 118(a) requires that each 

agency and employee of the Federal 

government comply with all Federal, 

State, interstate, and local requirements, 

administrative authority, and process 

and sanctions respecting the control and 

abatement of air pollution in the same 

manner, and to the same extent as any 

nongovernmental entity. In our 

evaluation of the State’s I/M program as 

it relates to Federal installations, we 

also rely upon EPA’s guidance 

document, ‘‘Interim Guidance for 

Federal Facility Compliance with Clean 

Air Act Sections 118(c) and 118(d) and 

Applicable Provisions of State Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Programs,’’ 

Draft, December 1999. 

Generally, the State of Nevada has 

made the State’s mobile source rules, 

including many such rules related to the 

vehicle I/M program, applicable to 

Federal installations by including the 

Federal Government in the State’s rule 

defining ‘‘person’’ for the purposes of 

the State’s mobile source regulations. 

See NAC 445B.443.1 With respect to 

specific testing, standards, and 

certification requirements, the State has 

made the vehicle I/M program 

applicable to the Federal Government 

through adoption of NAC 445B.595(2) 

(including paragraphs (a) through (d)), 

which is set forth above. Through NAC 

445B.595(2), the same types of emission 

tests and the same emissions standards 

apply to the motor vehicles owned by 

the Federal Government as apply to 

motor vehicles owned by 

nongovernmental entities. Thus, with 

the exception of the two specific 

provisions discussed below, we find 

that the State’s I/M program complies 

with CAA section 118(a) and must be 

complied with by Federal installations 

and employees. We therefore propose to 

approve NAC 4454B.595(2)(a), (b), and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
55468 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

2We have discussed this issue with NDEP and 

Nevada DMV, and on April 30, 2008, NDEP 

submitted a letter to EPA expressing its agreement 

that the subject provisions are not consistent with 

CAA section 118(a) and its support for EPA’s 

proposal to remove the provisions from the Nevada 

SIP. See letter from Michael Elges, Chief, NDEP 

Bureau of Air Quality Planning, to Jeff Wehling, 

Office of Regional Counsel, EPA Region IX, dated 

April 30, 2008. 

(c), as submitted by NDEP on May 11, 

2007. 

Under the State’s vehicle I/M 

program, there are only two significant 

requirements that apply to Federal 

installations and employees that do not 

also apply in the same manner, and to 

the same extent to nongovernmental 

entities. These requirements are found 

in NAC 445B.595(2)(d) and NAC 

445B.461(3)(d). NAC 445B.595(2)(d) 

requires I/M testing and certification for 

non-resident Federal employees whose 

visits to Federal installations in I/M 

areas exceed 60 days. No such 

requirement under the State’s vehicle I/ 

M program applies to nonresident 

visitors who are not Federal employees. 

Likewise, NAC 445B.461(3)(d) 

disqualifies the Federal Government 

from eligibility for a waiver that 

nongovernmental entities, under the 

same circumstances, are eligible. 

Waivers are generally allowed under the 

I/M program for vehicles that cannot 

pass the emissions test but for which 

qualifying repairs costing over certain 

thresholds have been made. Both 

provisions discriminate against Federal 

installations or employees relative to the 

requirements for nongovernmental 

entities and thus are inconsistent with 

the limits on the waiver of sovereign 

immunity established in CAA section 

118(a). 

Therefore, we propose to approve 

NDEP’s submittal on May 11, 2007 of 

NAC 445B.595(2)(a), (b), and (c) but to 

disapprove paragraph (d) of the same 

subsection. We recently approved 

NDEP’s submittal on May 11, 2007 of 

NAC 445B.461 and address NAC 

445B.461(3)(d) in the following section 

of this document. 

III. Correction of Previously Approved 

Provisions 

A. What provisions did we previously 

approve? 

We approved NAC 445B.461, 

including NAC 445B.461(3)(d), and 

NAC 445B.595, including NAC 

445B.595(2)(d), in connection with our 

2004 approval of the State’s vehicle I/M 

program in Las Vegas Valley and 

Boulder City. Moreover, we approved 

NAC 445B.461 again in our July 3, 2008 

final rule. 

B. What is our evaluation of the 

approved provisions? 

Section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act, 

as amended in 1990, provides, 

‘‘Whenever the Administrator 

determines that the Administrator’s 

action approving, disapproving, or 

promulgating any plan or plan revision 

(or part thereof), area designation, 

redesignation, classification or 

reclassification was in error, the 

Administrator may in the same manner 

as the approval, disapproval, or 

promulgation revise such action as 

appropriate without requiring any 

further submission from the State. Such 

determination and the basis thereof 

shall be provided to the State and the 

public.’’ 

We interpret this provision to 

authorize the Agency to make 

corrections to a promulgated regulation 

when it is shown to our satisfaction that 

(1) we clearly erred in failing to 

consider or in inappropriately 

considering information made available 

to EPA at the time of the promulgation, 

or the information made available at the 

time of promulgation is subsequently 

demonstrated to have been clearly 

inadequate, and (2) other information 

persuasively supports a change in the 

regulation. See 57 FR 56762, at 56763 

(November 30, 1992). 

In this instance, we have found clear 

error in our 2004 approval of NAC 

445B.461(3)(d) and NAC 445B.595(2)(d), 

and our subsequent 2008 approval of 

NAC 445B.461(3)(d), as a part of the 

Nevada SIP because at the time of our 

2004 and 2008 actions such 

discriminatory provisions were not 

authorized under CAA section 118(a). 

Moreover, since such provisions remain 

unauthorized under CAA section 118(a), 

we believe that an error correction 

action under CAA section 110(k)(6) 

under these circumstances is 

appropriate. Therefore, we propose to 

rescind our previous approvals of NAC 

445B.461(3)(d) and NAC 445B.595(2)(d) 

since they would otherwise set forth 

additional requirements under the I/M 

program for Federal installations and 

employees that do not apply to 

nongovernmental entities and thus 

would be inconsistent with the limits of 

sovereign immunity established in CAA 

section 118(a).2

IV. Public Comment and Final Action 

Under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean 

Air Act, we propose to approve NDEP’s 

submittal on May 11, 2007 of NAC 

445B.595(2)(a), (b), and (c) as consistent 

with all applicable CAA requirements 

but to disapprove NAC 445B.595(2)(d) 

as inconsistent with the limits on 

sovereign immunity established in CAA 

section 118(a). In addition, under CAA 

section 110(k)(6), we propose to rescind 

our previous approvals of NAC 

445B.461(3)(d) and 445B.595(2)(d) since 

they would otherwise set forth 

additional requirements under the I/M 

program for Federal installations and 

employees that do not apply to 

nongovernmental entities and thus 

would be inconsistent with CAA section 

118(a). 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document 

and will accept comments for the next 

30 days. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55469 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 15, 2008. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E8–22557 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket No. FEMA–B–1007] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on 

the proposed Base (1 percent annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and 

proposed BFE modifications for the 

communities listed in the table below. 

The purpose of this notice is to seek 

general information and comment 

regarding the proposed regulatory flood 

elevations for the reach described by the 

downstream and upstream locations in 

the table below. The BFEs and modified 

BFEs are a part of the floodplain 

management measures that the 

community is required either to adopt 

or show evidence of having in effect in 

order to qualify or remain qualified for 

participation in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, 

these elevations, once finalized, will be 

used by insurance agents, and others to 

calculate appropriate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

the contents in those buildings. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before December 24, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: The corresponding 

preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the community’s map repository. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by Docket No. FEMA–B–1007, to 

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. 

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) proposes to make 

determinations of BFEs and modified 

BFEs 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 BFEs and modified 

BFEs, 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. 

Comments on any aspect of the Flood 

Insurance Study and FIRM, other than 

the proposed BFEs, will be considered. 

A letter acknowledging receipt of any 

comments will not be sent. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

Statement. This matter is not a 

rulemaking governed by the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood 

elevation determinations for notice and 

comment; however, they are governed 

by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 

1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National 

Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 

4001 et seq., and do not fall under the 

APA. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This proposed rule is categorically 

excluded from the requirements of 44 

CFR part 10, Environmental 

Consideration. An environmental 

impact assessment has not been 

prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood 

elevation determinations are not within 

the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review. This proposed 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This proposed rule involves no policies 

that have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards of Executive Order 

12988. 

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: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS