MEMORANDUM

DATE:		6/26/14

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Michael Gordon, EPA Region 3

SUBJECT:	6/26/2014 Meeting with Environmental Groups Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and several environmental groups on June 26, 2014.  Among the agenda topics was the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Shawn Garvin, Regional Administrator
Diana Esher, Air Protection Division
Ruth Knapp, Air Protection Division
Chris Cripps, Air Protection Division
Donna Mastro, Office of Regional Counsel
Cristina Fernandez, Air Protection Division
Mike Gordon, Air Protection Division

Sierra Club
Mark Kresowik, Eastern Region Deputy Director, Beyond Coal Campaign
Zack Fabish, Staff Attorney, Environmental Law Program
Tom Schuster, Sr. Beyond Coal Campaign Representative for PA & NJ
Jim Wylie, Sierra Club Volunteer

Earthjustice
Charley McPhedran, Staff Attorney
Shannon Fisk, Managing Attorney

Clean Air Council
Joe Minott, Executive Director
Ryan Knapick, Staff Attorney

Environmental Integrity Project
Lisa Widawsky Hallowell, Attorney


MEMORANDUM

To:	Charlotte Mooney, Chief

     	Recycling and Generator Branch

From:	Jim O’Leary

Teena Wooten

Subject: Summary of Waste Determination Meetings with VT and NH State
Officials on September 27-28, 2010

	The following represents a summary of the discussions we had in
meetings with Vermont (VT) and New Hampshire (NH) state officials on
September 27-28, 2010, respectively, on why generators often have a
difficult time making a hazardous waste determination. Region 1 staff
also attended both meetings.  Appendix A provides a list of attendees.

	We started both meetings stressing that we wanted the discussions to be
free-flowing and not focus on the list of questions we had previously
sent them. We believed this would not only foster greater dialogue, but
also address any concerns we might have in complying with Information
Collection Request (ICR) requirements.

	In both meetings, we asked participants to “set the stage” for us
by describing how their hazardous waste determination regulations
differed from the federal program and tell us how many generators they
had. Both states start the waste determination process by asking if a
waste has been generated. In other words, they do not start with whether
a “solid waste” has been generated. If a waste has been generated,
their rules then focus on whether the waste is excluded from either
being a solid waste or hazardous waste. If not excluded from being a
solid waste, or exempt from being a hazardous waste, then their
regulatory frameworks address whether the waste is a listed hazardous
waste, or a characteristically hazardous waste. VT doesn’t have or use
Table 1 in 261.2. However, VT incorporates many of the federal SW/HW
exclusions in our state regulation but lump them under the categories of
“conditional exemptions” and “recycling exemptions.”  Both VT
and NH includes corrosive solids as a characteristic waste.  In
retrospect, their hazardous waste determination frameworks have merit.

	Both states require written documentation for making both hazardous
waste and non-hazardous waste determinations. For NH the documentation
must be an evaluation showing how they arrived at the determination.
This determination must be kept in their files. NH and VT require all
generators no matter what size to notify.  They both also have container
requirements for their CESQGs.

	The table below summarizes the approximate number of generators both VT
and NH have by category. Both states have few large quantity generators.

	           NH	                VT

CESQGs	                   2,054	                      2500

SQGs	                      217	                         255

LQGs	                      112	                           50

Total	                   2,383	                      2,805

VT’s generator requirements for CESQGs (CEGs in VT) include a
requirement to prevent releases and ensure delivery to a variety of
specified disposal options (e.g., a TSDF, permitted solid waste
management facilities other than landfills, “another site in Vermont
that is owned and operated by the owner/operator of the CEG site and
that meets either the SQG or LQG standards, permitted HHW/CEG collection
events coordinated by VT’s solid waste management districts), making
them more stringent than the federal program.  VT is organized into 16
solid waste management districts and each district holds two household
hazardous waste collection events each year.

Why Do Generators Have a Tough Time Making a Hazardous Waste
Determination?

	There was a great deal of overlap in VT and NH’s response to this
question. Both agreed that awareness and knowledge, or conversely, lack
of awareness and knowledge, were the two most important factors
influencing hazardous waste determinations. For awareness, a significant
number of violations occur because generators fail to look at all the
waste they generate. They focus on waste generated from their
manufacturing operations, but not on wastes generated by operations that
support manufacturing operations (e.g., facility maintenance). Two prime
examples were aerosol cans and solvent wipes. One VT staffer thought
more than 50 percent of all waste determination violations occurred from
these peripheral operations. NH also mentioned that these peripheral
wastes were a big problem in their state.

	Another reason why generators may have a difficult time making proper
hazardous waste determinations is the complexity of some manufacturing
operations and the corresponding federal regulations. This was true for
certain types of manufacturing involving small businesses, such as
electroplating (from NH inspections) where generators failed to make the
proper determination.

VT felt that large manufacturing firms had the resources and expertise
to make proper waste determinations while small businesses face
challenges from a lack of resources and expertise.

	Both states spoke about their generators often relying on transporters
to make determinations. With many generators being small businesses with
little expertise in this area, reliance can be both good and bad. Good
in that a determination is being made; bad because the determination may
be wrong, particularly if the transporter is from out-of-state and not
aware of the generator’s state regulations.

        VT mentioned that generators with locations in several states
pose problems because the compliance officer in one state may not be
aware of the rules for wastes going to another state and thus not
account for state specific hazardous waste when making determinations.

	Both states mentioned that state resources available for inspections
are at critically low levels with little beyond the required minimum
inspections for LQGs (and TSDs in VT) occurring; that is, 20 percent
each year or once every five years.  Limited resources impact the
states’ ability to inspect SQGs, thus, they were often under the
state’s radars.

	NH officials mentioned that while the waste determination regulations
are acceptable, generators have a difficult time interpreting the
exemptions, listings and characteristics, as defined in 40 CFR Part 261.
They also mentioned that while generators correctly identify their
hazardous waste, the percentage of inspections with at least 1 hazardous
waste determination violation has ranged from 25 to 75 percent since
2004. These wrong determinations have led to 32 disposal violations in
the same time period.

	NH officials also mentioned that generators often fail to understand
the scope of the hazardous waste listings, in particular F006, F019, and
F001-F005 mixtures. They also fail to recognize contamination of solid
waste with hazardous waste constituents (whether listed or
characteristic).

Factors Influencing Generator Behavior

	One question we asked VT and NH had to do with identifying from their
experience and observations those factors that influence compliance or
non-compliance with hazardous waste determinations. We threw out for
comment those factors we had identified and asked for comment.

The “culture of the firm.” Probably the biggest response and
strongest factor. All participants agreed that firms with strong
leadership, procedures in place, and a commitment to “do things
right” will have a higher likelihood of success in making the right
hazardous waste determinations.

Size of the firm. Direct correlation with making proper waste
determinations.

Specific resources devoted to environmental compliance. Large firms
usually have dedicated environmental compliance officers trained to
address compliance with environmental rules. Conversely, smaller firms
with workers who wear multiple hats have a tougher time because their
priority is producing products.

Age of the firm.  Direct correlation with making proper waste
determinations since workers have gained the necessary experience to
foster better compliance. However, counterbalancing this is worker
turnover and the need to retrain workers.

Industrial sector. Some sectors appear more complex than others, but
size of firm within a sector also influences compliance.

Financial health of the organization.  The more resources available, the
higher the likelihood that some of those resources will be devoted to
environmental compliance.

Trade association assistance. Some more than others, but a direct
correlation when involved. NH identified their Automobile Dealers
Association as having a positive impact.

Community attention. Yes, but feedback was minimal.

Other factors. NH officials identified the complexity of the hazardous
waste listings and the mixture rule as having adverse affects on making
proper waste determinations.

Program Implementation

	We spent a considerable amount of time discussing their outreach and
technical assistance activities. VT had a strong small business outreach
effort, with workshops, brochures (with examples provided), hotline
(always answered by staff), on-site technical assistance and a website.
One VT official brought up how important it is to provide both a visual
approach and written documentation to foster compliance.

	Obviously NH was proud of its state laws and rules requiring generator
training for Full Quantity Generators (FQGs), which includes federal
LQGs and SQGs. Having attended their one day workshop, we can understand
their sentiment. Trainers spent a considerable amount of time describing
their waste determination regulations. We might add that NH is the only
state to require annual generator training and a generator/hazardous
waste coordinator certification program. NH officials felt their
training and certification program was effective and that generators
attending subsequently self-reported waste determination violations.
Note: VT officials were jealous of NH’s program. (As an aside, both VT
and NH brought up in our discussions the difficulty in being able to
measure the effectiveness of their training.) NH had similar outreach
activities as VT, but also produced fact sheets and regulatory
interpretation letters.

What they would do if royalty or had ability to influence change

VT Officials

Training for inspectors in how to get a thorough understanding of what a
facility does and evaluating wastes generated. Not there yet. Inspectors
need more hands-on experience in evaluating processes.

The ability to provide more technical support, particularly “face
time” to generators.

Carrot-and-stick. Targeted training with follow-up to measure
effectiveness.

Plain English regulations.

Field citations (equivalent to federal UST program). Inspectors issue
citation with penalty when violations found. Generators can pay penalty
move into compliance, and enforcement action ends. (Idea raised by
Stuart Gray of Region 1.)

Cheat sheet, or RCRA checklist, to help generators.

Self-certification program.

NH Officials

- Much more specific.  Recommended changing the F006 listing description
to identify what processes were included in the listing, not just those
that were excluded.  Require the presence of Appendix VII constituents
in the waste for it to be a listed hazardous waste.  Develop hazardous
waste listing review documents to explain to generators the scope and
application of individual listings.  Develop an alternative hazardous
waste identification method for listed hazardous waste based on toxic
constituent concentration.

- Increase inspections to include SQGs, CESQGs and non-notifiers.

- Require a written description of generator hazardous waste
determinations.

- Require transporter and consultant training and certification.

- Develop a more user-friendly web-site for generators to help make
determinations.

- Have universities provide training/curriculum in waste determinations.

Other comments

- Need a better process for generators to make HW determinations.

- The suppliers of hazardous materials have a role to play in helping
their customers decide whether the wastes from their materials might be
an HW. Using MSDs just doesn’t cut it.

- Turnover of generator and inspector staff play a big role in losing
institutional knowledge. Need to prepare for these impacts.

- ASTSWMO has a peer matching program that provides an opportunity to
share information for inspectors from different states. Need to expand
and play up.

- RCRA is complicated. Generators need help that is sufficient and
sustainable. NH law and rules require generators to attend annual
training to earn certification (through passing of an initial test and
continued annual training to recertify). Training provides a forum for
discussion. Generators must recertify every year. Upside of this is
NH’s generators are well informed by the state of the requirements to
maintain compliance to better protect the public’s health and the
environment.  Downside of this effort is less revenue to the state's
site cleanup fund from penalty actions.

- In NH, SQGs (federal CESQGs) must self-certify they are in compliance
with the hazardous waste regulations once every 3 years.

- NH mentioned that New Jersey has a “Welcome Wagon” program to
inform businesses of their regulatory responsibilities.  NH doesn’t
have a similar program.

- In NH, generators are occasionally told about notification
responsibilities through coordination with other NHDES outreach programs
(for example, Auto body NESHAP outreach). NHDES also works with their
Department of Resources and Economic Development who contact new
businesses about regulatory compliance requirements.

- Region 1 comment: Require TSDFs to better focus on proper waste
determinations (?) Comment from Steven.

Appendix A

List of Attendees

VT Meeting on September 27, 2010

John Daly

Judy Mirro

Steve Simoes

Lynn Metcalf

Marc Roy

Karen Knaebel

Linda Joyal

Sharon Leitch, EPA Region 1

Stuart Gray, EPA Region 1

Teena Wooten- EPA HQ

Jim O’Leary – EPA HQ

NH Meeting on September 28, 2010

Pamela Hoyt-Denison

John Duclos

Linda Birmingham

Tammy Calligandes

Tod Leedberg

Christie Peshka

Tim Prospert

Susan Francesco

Wendy Bonner

Bob Bishop

Stephen Yee, EPA Region 1

Stuart Gray, EPA Region 1

Sue Nachmann, EPA Region 1

Teena Wooten – EPA HQ

Jim O’Leary – EPA HQ

Tracy Dyke Redmond, IEC


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13237-13238]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04911]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0182; Airspace Docket No. 21-AAL-16]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route
T-225; Galena, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend United States Area Navigation
(RNAV) route T-225 in the vicinity of Galena, AK in support of a large
and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of
Alaska.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0182; Airspace Docket No. 21-AAL-16 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information,
you can contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA,
email: [email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher McMullin, Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would expand the availability of RNAV in Alaska and
improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace
System (NAS) by lessening the dependency on ground based navigation

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-
2022-0182; Airspace Docket No. 21-AAL-16) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0182; Airspace Docket No. 21-AAL-16.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Western Service Center, Operations
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

Background

    In 2003, Congress enacted the Vision 100--Century of Aviation

Reauthorization Act (Pub L., 108-176), which established a joint
planning and development office in the FAA to manage the work related
to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Today,
NextGen is an ongoing FAA-led modernization of the nation's air
transportation system to make flying safer, more efficient, and more
predictable.
    In support of NextGen, this proposal is part of a larger and
comprehensive T-route modernization project in the state of Alaska. The
project mission statement states: ``To modernize Alaska's Air Traffic
Service route structure using satellite based navigation Development of
new T-routes and optimization of existing T-routes will enhance safety,
increase efficiency and access, and will provide enroute continuity
that is not subject to the restrictions associated with ground based
airway navigation.'' As part of this project, the FAA evaluated the
existing Colored airway structure for: (a) Direct replacement (i.e.,
overlay) with a T-route that offers a similar or lower Minimum Enroute
Altitude (MEA) or Global Navigation Satellite System Minimum Enroute
Altitude (GNSS MEA); (b) the replacement of the Colored airway with a
T-route in an optimized but similar geographic area, while retaining
similar or lower MEA; or (c) removal with no route structure (T-route)
restored in that area because the value was determined to be
insignificant.
    The aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the FAA to
transition the Alaskan en route navigation structure away from
dependency on Non-Directional Beacons (NDB), and move to develop and
improve the RNAV route structure. During a recent review of T-225 by
the FAA, it was determined that there are two turn points along the
route that are not included in the legal description contained in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11F. In order to match what is depicted on the
charts, the FAA proposes to amend the legal description to include the
KUHZE, AK, Fix and the FECFO, AK, Fix between the Galena, AK, (GAL) VHF
Omnidirectional Range with Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and
the Tanana, AK (TAL) VOR/DME.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend RNAV
route T-225 in the vicinity of Galena, AK in support of a large
comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.
The proposed amendment is described below.
    T-225: The FAA proposes to amend T-225 by including the KUHZE, AK,
Fix and the FECFO, AK, Fix between GAL and TAL, due to them being turn
points along the route. The rest of the route would remain unchanged.
    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021 and effective
September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The RNAV route listed in this document would be published subsequently
in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-225 Hooper Bay, AK (HPB) to Fairbanks, AK (FAI) [Amended]

Hooper Bay, AK (HPB) VOR/DME
     (Lat. 61[deg]30'51.65'' N, long. 166[deg]08'04.13'' W)
Unalakleet, AK (UNK) VOR/DME
     (Lat. 63[deg]53'30.99'' N, long. 160[deg]41'03.39'' W)
Galena, AK (GAL) VOR/DME
     (Lat. 64[deg]44'17.26'' N, long. 156[deg]46'37.69'' W)
KUHZE, AK Fix
     (Lat. 64[deg]49'38.37'' N, long. 156[deg]01'53.87'' W)
FECFO, AK Fix
     (Lat. 64[deg]51'10.69'' N, long. 155[deg]43'12.09'' W)
Tanana, AK (TAL) VOR/DME
     (Lat. 65[deg]10'37.65'' N, long. 152[deg]10'39.18'' W)
Fairbanks, AK (FAI) VORTAC
     (Lat. 64[deg]48'00.25'' N, long. 148[deg]00'43.11'' W)
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 3, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-04911 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45199-45201]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19245]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8545]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has

adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the
community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary
action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final 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 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 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.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Effective date
                                                  authorization/                                 Date certain
                                   Community     cancellation of     Current effective map    Federal assistance
       State and location             No.         sale of flood               date           no longer available
                                                   insurance in                                    in SFHAs
                                                    community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region IV

South Carolina:
    Edgefield, Town of,                450074  August 14, 1995,     Sep. 14, 2018..........  Sep. 14, 2018.
     Edgefield County.                          Emerg; February 1,
                                                2002, Reg;
                                                September 14,
                                                2018, Susp.
    Edgefield County,                  450229  July 12, 1991,       *......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; April 1,
                                                1993, Reg;
                                                September 14,
                                                2018, Susp.

    McCormick County,                  450226  December 29, 1975,   ......do...............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; October 1,
                                                1989, Reg;
                                                September 14,
                                                2018, Susp.
            Region V

Ohio: Carroll County,                  390763  May 11, 1990,        ......do...............   Do.
 Unincorporated Areas.                          Emerg; September
                                                28, 1990, Reg;
                                                September 14,
                                                2018, Susp.
           Region VI

Louisiana:
    Assumption Parish,                 220017  April 20, 1973,      ......do...............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; May 19,
                                                1981, Reg;
                                                September 14,
                                                2018, Susp.
    Napoleonville, Town of,            220018  April 30, 1973,      ......do...............   Do.
     Assumption Parish.                         Emerg; June 20,
                                                1976, Reg;
                                                September 14,
                                                2018, Susp.
           Region VII

Missouri: Franklin County,             290493  June 21, 1974,       Sep. 14, 2018..........  Sep. 14, 2018.
 Unincorporated Areas.                          Emerg; October 16,
                                                1984, Reg;
                                                September 14,
                                                2018, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: August 27, 2018.
Eric Letvin,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-19245 Filed 9-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P