Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 54199 

relevant regulations relating to the 

customer’s appeal rights. If the customer 

appeals, his or her appeal letter is 

forwarded to the Judicial Officer 

Department. In the event of an appeal, 

a Postal ServiceTM attorney must consult 

with the postmaster or Post Office box 

clerk and prepare an answer to the 

customer’s petition. In most cases, the 

Postal Service counsel files a summary 

judgment motion with the answer. The 

summary judgment motion often 

includes a declaration from the 

postmaster. After the answer summary 

judgment motion is filed, the customer 

is given a chance to reply. Thereafter, 

the administrative law judge (ALJ) 

renders a decision on the motion. If the 

ALJ decides that summary judgment is 

not warranted, a hearing is scheduled. 

After the hearing, the ALJ decides the 

matter on the merits. If the ALJ grants 

summary judgment, the customer is 

given the opportunity to appeal to the 

judicial officer. In the event of an appeal 

to that level, the law department 

prepares a written response to the 

appeal. Alternatively, if the ALJ decides 

in favor of the customer, the law 

department may file an appeal. 

Considerable resources can be spent 

on a single case. Many of these costs can 

be avoided if the appeals process is 

changed. Also, the appeal process 

should move more swiftly if handled by 

postal management. 

The Postal Service is transferring 

responsibility for adjudication of 

appeals from the Judicial Officer 

Department to a Postal Service 

management level official. There is no 

statutory requirement that Post Office 

box or caller service termination 

decisions or application denials be 

subject to a formal administrative 

hearing before an ALJ. Moreover, past 

decisions by the Judicial Officer 

Department have held there is no right 

to a Post Office box. 

The legal basis for changing 

procedures is grounded in the Postal 

Reorganization Act, which provides that 

the Postal Service is authorized to 

adopt, amend, and repeal such rules and 

regulations as it deems necessary. 

Further, the responsibilities of the 

judicial officer do not require review of 

any particular controversy. Rather, the 

act provides that [t]he judicial officer 

shall perform such quasi-judicial duties 

* * * as the Postmaster General may 

designate’’ (39 U.S.C. 204). 

In lieu of granting a right of appeal to 

the Judicial Officer Department, the vice 

president and Consumer Advocate will 

be given decision-making power to 

review and decide Post Office box and 

caller service appeals. This will be more 

efficient, give the consumer expeditious 

resolution, and save the Postal Service 

considerable professional and labor time 

and travel expense. The Consumer 

Advocate is a neutral and impartial 

arbiter of consumer claims and is 

already the final arbiter for appeals of 

domestic and international indemnity 

claims for loss or damage (Mailing 

Standards of the United States Postal 

Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) 

609.6 and International Mail Manual 

931.3) and for appeals of local handling 

of complaints and inquiries about postal 

products, services or employees (DMM 

608.6.1). 

Any pending actions filed with the 

recorder’s office before the effective date 

will be handled under the regulations in 

effect on the date the appeal was 

received. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Parts 111 and 

958 

Administrative practice and 

procedure. 

■ For the reasons set out in this 

document, the Postal Service removes 

39 CFR part 958 and adopts the 

following amendments to the DMM, 

which is incorporated by reference in 

the CFR. See 39 CFR 111.1. 

■ Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 111—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

part 111 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201–

3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 5001. 

PART 958—[REMOVED AND 

RESERVED] 

■ 2. Remove and reserve Part 958. 

■ 3. Revise the following sections of 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM), as follows: 

Mailing Standards of the United 

States Postal Service, Domestic Mail 

Manual 

* * * * * 

500 Additional Mailing Services 

* * * * * 

508 Recipient Services 

* * * * * 

4.0 Post Office Box Service 

* * * * * 

4.9 Service Refusal or Termination 

* * * * * 

4.9.3 Customer Appeal 

The applicant or box customer may 

file a petition appealing the postmaster’s 

determination to refuse or terminate 

service within 20 calendar days after 

notice as specified in the postmaster’s 

determination. The filing of a petition 

prevents the postmaster’s determination 

from taking effect and transfers the case 

to the USPS Consumer Advocate. The 

Consumer Advocate’s decision 

constitutes the final agency decision. 

* * * * * 

5.0 Caller Service 

* * * * * 

5.7 Service Refusal or Termination 

* * * * * 

5.7.3 Customer Appeal 

The applicant or caller may file a 

petition opposing the postmaster’s 

determination to refuse or terminate 

service within 20 calendar days after 

notice, as specified in the postmaster’s 

determination. The filing of a petition 

prevents the postmaster’s determination 

from taking effect and transfers the case 

to the USPS Consumer Advocate. The 

Consumer Advocate’s decision 

constitutes the final agency decision. 

* * * * * 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Chief Counsel, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. E6–15111 Filed 9–13–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Part 2560 

[WO–350–1410–00–24 1A] 

RIN 1004–AD60 

Alaska Native Veteran Allotments 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) is amending its 

regulations governing Alaska Native 

veteran allotments. The existing 

regulations allowed certain Alaska 

Native veterans another opportunity to 

apply for a Native allotment under the 

repealed Native Allotment Act of 1906. 

This final rule will remove the 

requirement that veteran applicants 

must have posted the land by marking 

all corners on the ground with their 

name and address prior to filing an 

application with BLM. This change to 

the regulations will make the processing 

of Alaska Native veteran allotments 

more like that of allotments adjudicated 

under the 1906 act. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
54200 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective October 16, 2003. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Linda Resseguie, Division of 

Conveyance Management, Bureau of 

Land Management, 222 West 7th 

Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513; 

telephone (907) 271–5422; or Kelly 

Odom, Bureau of Land Management, 

Regulatory Affairs Group, Mail Stop 

401, 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20036; telephone (202) 452–5028. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may contact 

these persons through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, seven 

days a week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Final Rule as Adopted and Response to 

Comment 

III. Procedural Matters 

I. Background 

BLM published the proposed rule to 

remove the posting requirement in the 

Federal Register on October 7, 2005 (70 

FR 58654), for a 60-day comment period 

ending on December 6, 2005. The 

Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Act of 

1998 (Act), (Section 432 of Pub. L. 105–

276), as amended, authorized allotments 

for certain Alaska Native veterans who 

served in the U.S. military during the 

Vietnam era. The Act provided an 

opportunity to file allotment 

applications for veterans who may have 

missed their chance to file under the 

1906 Native Allotment Act as a direct 

result of their military service. The Act 

provided an 18-month application 

period, which began on July 31, 2000, 

and ended on January 31, 2002. 

Regulations promulgated to implement 

the Act included a requirement for 

applicants to post the corners of their 

claims before filing their applications 

with BLM. BLM issued the regulations 

requiring posting before filing because 

we believed that physical markings on 

the land would facilitate the processing 

of the veteran applications and help 

finalize state and Native conveyance 

entitlements. 

II. Final Rule as Adopted and Response 

to Comment 

One set of comments from a private 

individual was received during the 

comment period. The comments oppose 

the removal of the posting requirement 

for three primary reasons. First, the 

comments assert that the Alaska Native 

Veterans Allotment Act made posting a 

statutory requirement that could not be 

removed from the regulations regardless 

of equitable considerations. The Alaska 

Native veteran statute allows qualified 

applicants to ‘‘be eligible for an 

allotment * * * under the Act of May 

17, 1906, as such Act was in effect 

before December 18, 1971.’’ The 

comments assert that the regulations 

implementing the statute on the date of 

repeal required posting and that the 

emphasized language adopts all existing 

rules in effect on December 18, 1971. 

We do not believe this comment is 

legally correct. The Alaska Native 

veteran statute does not say ‘‘as such 

Act and its implanting regulations were 

in effect before December 18, 1971.’’ It 

only says such Act. So Congress did not 

wholesale lock those regulations 

existing in 1971 into the new law. While 

regulations implementing the Act did 

indeed include the posting requirement, 

the posting requirement itself is entirely 

a creature of the regulations and not the 

1906 Act. So before December 18, 1971, 

BLM could have amended the 

regulations through notice and comment 

rule making to eliminate the posting 

requirement without violating the Act. 

This means that BLM may do the same 

now. While most of the 1906 regulations 

were applied to veteran allotments, the 

1906 regulations only apply to the 

extent they are not inconsistent with 

more specific Alaska veteran allotment 

regulations. 43 CFR 2568.21. 

Second, the comments also state that 

there never was a proper or effective 

waiver of the posting requirements in 

the regulations implementing the 1906 

Act. The only posting requirement in 

the 1906 regulations was for the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs to certify that the 

allotment was posted. In 1972, the 

Assistant Secretary, Land and Water 

Resources, waived enforcement of the 

posting certification, and BLM has 

processed allotment applications 

without that certification since that 

time. The comments reference a June 6, 

1973, memorandum from the Assistant 

Secretary, Land and Water Resources, 

which the comment claims shows that 

the posting certification was still 

required. However, the June 6, 1973, 

instructions were superseded by an 

October 18, 1973, directive by the same 

Assistant Secretary that made no 

reference to the posting requirement and 

only required BIA to certify that the 

applicant was an Alaska Native. In any 

event, the Department is not proposing 

to waive a regulation but is properly 

removing a regulatory provision 

pursuant to the Administrative 

Procedures Act. 

Third, the comment asserts that 

removing the posting requirement will 

have adverse practical consequences. 

BLM assessed the practical implications 

of its policy decision and determined 

that no significant practical problems 

will ensue from removing the posting 

requirement at this time. The 

requirement was to post prior to 

application so its initial purpose has 

passed. Mapping and technology 

development since December 1971 

closing of the original 1906 application 

period enable applicants and BLM to 

plat and locate the claimed allotments 

more accurately than was possible 

during the original allotment 

application period. Removing the 

regulatory posting requirement is legal, 

and will put Alaska Native veteran 

allotment applicants on the same 

footing as the rest of Alaska Native 

allotment applicants. 

Lastly, the comment questions the 

constitutionality of the Alaska Native 

Veterans Allotment Act. This matter is 

beyond the authority of this rule to 

determine. 

III. Procedural Matters 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

In accordance with the criteria in 

Executive Order 12866, this rule is not 

a significant regulatory action. OMB 

makes the final determination under 

Executive Order 12866. 

a. This rule will not have annual 

economic effect of $100 million or 

adversely affect an economic sector, 

productivity, jobs, the environment, or 

other units of government. A costbenefit and economic analysis is not 

required. This rule does not alter the 

budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, 

user fees, or loan programs or the rights 

or obligations of their recipients; nor 

does this rule raise novel legal or policy 

issues. Eliminating the posting 

requirements would have a positive 

effect on the limited number of 

individual Alaska Native veteran 

applicants, as well as the Interior 

bureaus, contractors, and compacters 

assisting them, because the applicant’s 

failure to meet the posting requirements 

would otherwise cause their 

applications to be rejected and generate 

administrative appeals. 

b. This rule will not create 

inconsistencies with other agencies’

actions. The effect of this rule will be on 

a limited number of individuals who are 

qualified to apply for allotments and the 

Interior Department agencies 

responsible for administering the 

allotment program. The allotment 

application period was limited by law to 

18 months and has passed; the existing 

staff of responsible agencies will process 

applications following most of the same 

rules that are currently in effect for 

allotment applications under the 1906 

Native Allotment Act. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 54201 

c. This rule will not materially affect 

entitlements, grants, user fees, loan 

programs, or the rights and obligations 

of their recipients. Eliminating the 

posting requirement would affect a 

limited number of individual Alaska 

Native veteran applicants, Interior 

agencies, and tribal offices that are 

assisting applicants. It will have not 

effect on budgetary entitlements, grants, 

user fees, or loan programs. 

d. This rule will not raise novel legal 

or policy issues. This rule will impose 

the same requirements on Alaska Native 

veteran applicants as those imposed on 

applicants who filed under the initial 

1906 Native Allotment Act. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule will not have a significant 

economic effect on a substantial number 

of small entities as defined under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). An initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis is not required. Accordingly, a 

Small Entity Compliance Guide is not 

required. This rule will only apply to 

certain Alaska Native veterans and 

specific classes of heirs of Alaskan 

Native veterans who are eligible to 

apply for allotments. Therefore, the 

Department of the Interior certifies that 

this document will not have any 

significant impacts on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: 

a. Does not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

This rule would result in some costs 

saving to allotment applicants because 

under this rule they would no longer be 

required to post the corners of the lands 

in their applications. The Department of 

the Interior will have to implement the 

allotment program over the next several 

years, but these costs will be far below 

$100 million per year. Enforcing the 

posting requirement would cost the 

Department more than eliminating the 

posting requirements, which we have 

determined to be unnecessary. 

b. Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. This rule will result 

in some costs saving to allotment 

applicants. 

c. Does not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

Eliminating the posting requirement 

would have a positive impact on a 

limited number of individual Alaska 

Native veterans, Interior agencies, and 

tribal offices who are helping the 

applicants. No additional applications 

will be filed because of this revised rule. 

The original regulations provided for 

the filing of applications after all 

corners were marked on the ground and 

posted with the applicant’s name and 

address. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.): 

a. This rule will not ‘‘significantly or 

uniquely’’ affect small governments. A 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. Eliminating the posting 

requirement will potentially result in 

minimal savings to tribal governments 

assisting veteran applicants. 

b. This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights (Takings) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, we find that the rule does not 

have significant takings implications. A 

taking implication assessment is not 

required. This rule does not represent a 

government action capable of interfering 

with constitutionally protected property 

rights. Eliminating the posting 

requirement will have no effect on the 

use or value of protected property 

rights. Therefore, the Department of the 

Interior determines that this rule will 

not cause a taking of private property or 

require further discussion of takings 

implications under this Executive 

Order. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, we find that the rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects. A 

Federalism assessment is not required. 

This rule would not have substantial 

direct effect 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. Eliminating the 

posting requirement would have a 

neutral effect on the State of Alaska. 

Therefore, in accordance with Executive 

Order 13132, the BLM has determined 

that this proposed rule does not have 

sufficient Federalism implications to 

warrant preparation of a Federalism 

Assessment. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform 

Under Executive Order 12988, the 

Office of the Solicitor has determined 

that the final rule would not unduly 

burden the judicial system and that 

these regulations meet the requirements 

of sections (3)(a) and 3(b)(2) of the 

Order. We have reviewed these 

regulations to eliminate drafting errors 

and ambiguity. They have been written 

to minimize litigation, provide clear 

legal standards for affected conduct 

rather than general standards, and 

promote simplification. Drafting the 

regulations in clear language and 

working closely with legal counsel 

assisted in all of these areas. 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13211, this regulation does not have a 

significant effect on the nation’s energy 

supply, distribution, or use, or cause a 

shortfall in supply or price increase. 

This rule is not a significant energy 

action. It will not have an adverse effect 

on energy supplies. This rule will apply 

only to Alaska Native veterans and to a 

specific class of Alaskan Native 

veterans’ heirs who are eligible to apply 

for allotments. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The BLM has determined this rule 

does not contain any new information 

collection requirements that the Office 

of Management and Budget must 

approve under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have analyzed this rule in 

accordance with the criteria of the 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

516 DM. An environmental assessment 

is not required. Section 910 of the 

Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 

December 2, 1980, 43 U.S.C. 1638, made 

conveyances, regulations, and other 

actions which lead to the issuance of 

conveyances to Natives under Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 

(43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) exempt from 

NEPA compliance requirements. Since 

the Alaska Veterans Allotment Act is 

part of ANCSA, NEPA does not apply. 

Author 

The principal author of this rule is 

Linda Resseguie, Division of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
54202 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Conveyance Management, Bureau of 

Land Management, Alaska State Office, 

Anchorage, Alaska; assisted by Kelly 

Odom of the Regulatory Affairs Group, 

Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, DC. 

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2560 

Alaska, Homesteads, Indian lands, 

Public lands, Public lands—sale, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Alaska Native allotments 

for certain veterans. 

Dated: August 31, 2006. 

Julie Jacobson, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and 

Minerals Management. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble and under the authority of the 

Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Act of 

1998 (Section 432, Pub. L. 105–276), 

part 2560 of Title 43 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as set 

forth below: 

PART 2560—ALASKA OCCUPANCY 

AND USE 

■ 1. Revise the authority citation for part 

2560 to read as follows: 

* * * * * 

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1629g(e). 

■ 2. Revise paragraph (d) of § 2568.74 to 

read as follows: 

§ 2568.74 What else must I file with my 

application? 

* * * * * 

(d) A legal description of the land for 

which you are applying. If there is a 

discrepancy between the map and the 

legal description, the map will control. 

The map must be sufficient to allow 

BLM to locate the parcel on the ground. 

You must also estimate the number of 

acres in each parcel. 

§ 2568.77 [Reserved] 

■ 3. Remove and reserve § 2568.77. 

[FR Doc. 06–7661 Filed 9–13–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–M 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket No. FEMA–7943] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Mitigation Division, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), Department of Homeland 

Security. 

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 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. 

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective 

date of each community’s scheduled 

suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) 

listed in the third column of the 

following tables. 

ADDRESSES: If you want to determine 

whether a particular community was 

suspended on the suspension date, 

contact the appropriate FEMA Regional 

Office or the NFIP servicing contractor. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Stearrett, Mitigation Division, 500 

C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–2953. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP 

enables property owners to purchase 

flood insurance which is generally not 

otherwise available. In return, 

communities agree to adopt and 

administer local floodplain management 

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 flood insurance 

coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 

42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 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 et seq. 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. However, 

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 

their eligibility for the sale of insurance. 

A notice withdrawing the suspension of 

the communities will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

In addition, FEMA has identified the 

Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in 

these communities by publishing a 

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). 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 legally 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 flood insurance map of 

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 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 

This rule is categorically excluded 

from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 

10, Environmental Considerations. No 

environmental impact assessment has 

been prepared. 

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, 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES