Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60159

Dated: October 3, 2000.

Michael M. Hash,

Acting, Administrator, Health Care Financing

Administration.

Approved: October 4, 2000.

Donna E. Shalala,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–25935 Filed 10–5–00; 1:00 pm]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 65

RIN 3067–AD13

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP); Letter of Map Revision Based

on Fill Requests

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, FEMA, propose to amend

our procedures for issuing Letters of

Map Revision Based on Fill (also

referred to as LOMR–F) under the

criteria of 44 CFR 65. We use the criteria

established in § 65.5 to determine

whether we can issue a LOMR–F to

remove unimproved land or land with

structures from the Special Flood

Hazard Area (SFHA) by raising ground

elevations using engineered earthen fill.

DATES: We invite your comments on this

proposed rule. Please send any

comments on or before November 9,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Please send written

comments to the Rules Docket Clerk,

Office of the General Counsel, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C

Street, SW., room 840, Washington, DC

20472, (facsimile) 202–646–4536, or

(email) rules@fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards

Study Branch, Technical Services

Division, Mitigation Directorate, at (202)

646–3461, or (email)

matt.miller@fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Congress created the National Flood

Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1968 to

provide federally supported flood

insurance coverage, which generally

had not been available through private

insurance companies. The program is

based on an agreement between the

Federal Government and each

community that chooses to participate

in the program. We make flood

insurance available to property owners

within a community provided that the

community adopts and enforces

floodplain management regulations that

meet or exceed the minimum

requirements of the NFIP set forth in

part 60 of the NFIP Floodplain

Management Regulations (44 CFR 60).

Identifying and mapping flood

hazards. FEMA identifies and maps

flood hazard areas by conducting flood

hazard studies and publishing Flood

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). These

flood hazard areas, referred to as Special

Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), are based

on a flood that would have a 1-percent

chance of being equaled or exceeded in

any given year (the 100-year flood or

base flood). We determine the 1-percent

annual chance flood, shown on the

FIRMs as A Zones or V Zones, from

information that we obtain through

consultation with the community,

floodplain topographic surveys, and

detailed hydrologic and hydraulic

analyses.

Floodplain management

requirements. The NFIP minimum

building and development regulations

require that new or substantially

improved buildings in A Zones have

their lowest floor (including basement)

elevated to or above the Base Flood

Elevation (BFE) (the elevation of the 1-

percent annual chance flood). Nonresidential buildings in A Zones can

either be dry floodproofed or elevated to

the BFE. In V Zones, the bottom of the

lowest horizontal structural member of

the lowest floor of all new or

substantially improved buildings must

be elevated to or above the BFE. We

have designed the NFIP floodplain

management requirements at 44 CFR

60.3 to protect buildings constructed in

floodplains from flood damages.

Freeboard and Floodplain Storage.

Freeboard, generally expressed in terms

of feet above a flood level for purposes

of floodplain management, proves to be

a successful method for reducing

damage due to flooding and acts to

compensate for the many uncertain

factors that contribute to flood heights

greater than the base flood. We

recognize communities that incorporate

the concept of freeboard in their

permitting and planning processes

through the Community Rating System,

Project Impact, and insurance rating in

general.

Local officials, developers, and the

public at large should understand that

the placement of fill in the SFHA could

result in an increase in the base flood

elevation by reducing the ability of the

floodplain to convey and store

floodwaters. Communities may want to

consider prohibiting or limiting fill in

floodplains, or requiring compensatory

storage, and zero rise floodways as extra

protection. Furthermore, development

outside the SFHA but within the

watershed can further increase the flood

hazard by aggravating downstream

flooding conditions. Therefore, FEMA

will continue to encourage local

officials, planners, design professionals,

and developers to consider the long

term benefits of elevating above the

published base flood elevation when

constructing projects in and near the

SFHA.

Local responsibility. When a

community joins the NFIP, it must

initially adopt a resolution or ordinance

that expresses a commitment to

recognize and evaluate flood hazards in

all official actions and to take such other

official action as reasonably necessary to

carry out the objectives of the program

[44 CFR 59.22(a)(8)]. This is in addition

to the general requirement that the

community take into account flood

hazards to the extent that they are

known in all official actions relating to

land management and use [44 CFR

60.1(c)]. Furthermore, all communities

participating in the NFIP must

‘‘determine whether proposed building

sites will be reasonably safe from

flooding’’ [44 CFR 60.3(a)(3)]. This

proposed rule emphasizes the role and

responsibility of the community in

permitting development and ensuring

that areas within their jurisdiction are

reasonably safe from flood hazards.

Flood insurance. The National Flood

Insurance Act of 1968 requires that we

charge full actuarial rates reflecting the

complete flood risk to buildings built or

substantially improved on or after the

effective date of the initial FIRM for the

community or after December 31, 1974,

whichever is later, so that the risks

associated with buildings in flood prone

areas are borne by those located in such

areas and not by the taxpayers at large.

We refer to these buildings as PostFIRM. The NFIP bases flood insurance

rates for new construction on the degree

of the flood risk reflected by the flood

risk zone on the FIRM. Flood insurance

rates also take into account a number of

other factors including the elevation of

the lowest floor above or below the BFE,

type of building, and the existence of a

basement or an enclosure.

Mandatory purchase of insurance.

The Flood Disaster Protection Act of

1973 and the National Flood Insurance

Reform Act of 1994 mandate the

purchase of flood insurance as a

condition of Federal or federally-related

financial assistance for acquisition or

construction of buildings in SFHAs of

any community. The two Acts prohibit

Federal agency lenders, such as the

Small Business Administration, United

60160 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules

States Department of Agriculture’s Rural

Housing Service, and GovernmentSponsored Enterprises for Housing

(Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) from

making, guaranteeing, or purchasing a

loan secured by improved real estate or

mobile home(s) in an SFHA of a

participating community, unless flood

insurance has been purchased and

maintained during the term of the loan.

The Acts also prohibit federallyregulated lenders from making,

extending, or renewing any loan secured

by improved real estate located in the

SFHA in a participating community

unless the secured property and any

personal property securing the loan is

covered by flood insurance. Federal

financial assistance may not be

provided in the SFHAs of nonparticipating communities.

Need for Proposed Rule

We revise NFIP flood maps for a

number of reasons, such as the

availability of improved techniques for

assessing the flood risk, changes in the

physical condition of the floodplain or

watershed, or as additional data become

available to improve the identification

of flood hazards. The requirements for

revising the FIRMs are established in

the NFIP Regulations at 44 CFR Part 65,

Identification and Mapping of Special

Hazard Areas. We can also revise a

FIRM when property owners, whose

land is in a SFHA and the elevation is

below the BFE, request a map change as

a result of grading and filling their site

to raise the level of the land above the

1-percent annual chance flood level.

The criteria for determining whether to

remove unimproved land or land with

structures from the SFHA by raising

ground elevations using engineered

earthen fill are established in section

65.5. If the criteria under section 65.5

are met, we will issue a Letter of Map

Revision Based on Fill (also referred to

as a LOMR–F).

Specifically, unimproved land (land

without a structure) can be removed

from the SFHA under 44 CFR 65.5(a)(3)

if the ground elevations of the entire

legally defined parcel of land are at or

above the elevation of the base flood.

Land that is removed under paragraph

65.5(a)(3) is no longer subject to the

NFIP floodplain management

requirements at 44 CFR 60.3, which

includes the requirement that the lowest

floor (including basement) be elevated

to or above the BFE. In addition, future

structures placed on this unimproved

land would not be subject to the

mandatory flood insurance purchase

requirement of the NFIP.

When a structure is involved (see 64

FR 47813, September 1, 1999), we

previously determined whether it could

be removed from the SFHA under 44

CFR 65.5(a)(4) by comparing the

elevation of the lowest floor (including

basement) and the elevation of the

lowest adjacent grade with the elevation

of the base flood. If the entire structure

and the lowest adjacent grade were at or

above the elevation of the base flood,

the structure was removed from the

SFHA. Once we issue a LOMR–F, the

NFIP floodplain management

requirements at 44 CFR 60.3 and the

mandatory flood insurance purchase

requirement of the NFIP no longer

apply. However, if the structure

involved did not meet the lowest floor

and lowest adjacent grade criteria, the

structure was not removed from the

SFHA, thus it remained subject to the

NFIP floodplain management

requirements and the mandatory flood

insurance purchase requirement.

These regulations have caused

confusion for State and local floodplain

managers and permitting officials. This

confusion stems from the fact that

buildings constructed on fill in areas

removed from the SFHA under

paragraph 65.5(a)(3) are not required to

have their lowest floor (including

basement) elevated above the BFE.

However, buildings constructed on fill

in areas not previously removed from

the SFHA under paragraph 65.5(a)(3)

must have their lowest floors elevated to

or above the base flood before they can

be removed from the SFHA as outlined

in paragraph 65.5(a)(4).

We are concerned that this confusion

may lead to unwise construction near

floodplains and that structures built on

land removed from the SFHA under

section 65.5(a)(3) may be subject to

residual flood damages during the base

flood. The risk to structures built in

these areas will vary depending the soil

conditions at the site, the location of the

structure relative to the flooding source,

and whether the structure has a

basement below the BFE. Therefore, to

eliminate this confusion, we propose to

revise portions of 44 CFR 65.2, 65.5, and

65.6(a) to reinforce the existing

requirements of 44 CFR 60.3 and to

ensure land and structures removed

from the SFHA based on fill are

reasonably safe from flooding during the

base flood.

Proposed Revised Procedures

We would process all LOMR–F

requests received after the date of the

final rule as follows (these procedures

would apply to single and multi-lot

LOMR–F requests, which may involve

one structure or multiple structures):

• Paragraph 65.5(a)(3) would apply to

requests to remove from the SFHA land

that is elevated by placement of

engineered fill, whether structures exist

or not.

• We would delete paragraph

65.5(a)(4) and in its place would require

that a local official assure that the land

or structure to be removed from the

SFHA is ‘‘reasonably safe from

flooding’’ as currently required in

section 60.3(a).

• A local community’s determination

that land or a structure is ‘‘reasonably

safe from flooding’’ must consider best

engineering practices, and analyses that

demonstrate that risk from the base

flood would be mitigated must support

the determination. Depending on the

circumstances, communities may wish

to require that the applicant perform

these analyses and that a registered

design professional must certify the

analyses, particularly for construction

below the base flood elevation.

• The Director may request

supporting documentation regarding the

decision process leading to the

conclusion that the land or structure to

be removed from the SFHA is

reasonably safe from flooding.

• We would provide technical

guidance to local officials regarding

standard fill placement and building

practices when avoiding development

in the floodplain is unavoidable. The

guidance would give local officials the

ability to require that all fill be

adequately protected from the forces of

erosion, scour, or differential settlement.

It would also encourage local officials to

require elevation above the base flood.

In addition to existing guidance, we

propose to publish a Technical Bulletin

(FIA–TB–10), entitled ‘‘Ensuring that

Structures Built in or Near Special

Flood Hazard Areas Are Reasonably

Safe From Flooding’’ to provide further

guidance to communities and design

professionals in the implementation of

this proposed rule. A copy of proposed

TB #10 can be obtained either by

downloading it from FEMA’s web site at

www.fema.gov/mit/techbul.htm or by

contacting FEMA’s publication

distribution facility at 1–800–480–2520

and requesting a copy.

• If we learn that the community has

not met the minimum floodplain

management requirements of section

60.3, we could take action to remedy the

violation and we could hold the request

to revise the map in abeyance. This

includes the requirement that

residential structures in mapped SFHAs

be built with their lowest floors

(including basement) above the base

flood.

• We would not actively review

previously issued determinations under

section 65.5 for conformity with these

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60161

revised procedures. We would,

however, review previously denied

applications for a LOMR–F processed

under paragraph 65.5(a)(4) upon written

request.

• New LOMR–F requests and requests

for LOMR–F redeterminations would be

subject to the current fee schedule

established in 44 CFR part 72.

• We would monitor the effectiveness

of this rule change. Factors considered

would include: ease of implementation,

appropriateness of supporting

engineering analyses, impact on

floodplain management practices at the

State and local level, and effectiveness

in mitigating against flood loses. Within

one year after we publish the final rule,

we plan to re-evaluate this decision to

determine whether changes to these or

other related rules are warranted.

Comment Period Exception

Under 44 CFR 1.4(e) it is our normal

policy to afford the public at least 60

days to submit comments on a proposed

rule, unless the Director makes an

exception and explains the reasons for

the exception. The Director makes an

exception to the 60-day comment policy

for this proposed rule on the grounds

that the rule is a clarification of existing

policy and that it is in the public

interest of remove the confusion and

inconsistency that exists in the current

rule, to remove the rule’s adverse

impact on property owners, and to

enhance the ability of local officials to

make sound floodplain management

decisions as soon as possible consistent

with the requirements of the

Administrative Procedure Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

FEMA will not prepare an

environmental analysis under NEPA

since this rule would address an

apparent administrative inconsistency

that has no bearing on building

practices or on the built or natural

environment. This proposed rule would

remove the current distinction between

fill placed in an SFHA containing

structures and fill placed in an SFHA

without structures, both of which are

allowable under current laws and

regulations governing participation in

the National Flood Insurance Program.

Removing this distinction would resolve

an apparent inconsistency in the

floodprone status of a subset of

structures built on fill within the SFHA.

These apparent inconsistencies result

from differences in the administrative

processes followed by communities that

permit development in floodplains

rather than from physical differences in

the built environment. We will continue

to permit earthen fill and other types of

development within the SFHA when

applicable, and we will continue to

require residential structures built in

identified flood hazard areas to have

their lowest floor (including basement)

elevated to or above the base flood.

Regulatory Planning and Review

We have prepared and reviewed this

proposed rule under the provisions of

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and

Review. Under Executive Order 12866,

58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993, a

significant regulatory action is subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Executive

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as one that is likely to result in

a rule that may:

(1) have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

This proposed rule would change the

criteria that we would use to determine

whether we can issue a LOMR–F to

remove unimproved land or land with

structures from the Special Flood

Hazard Area (SFHA) by raising ground

elevations using engineered earthen fill.

We know of no conditions that would

qualify the rule as a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ within the definition

of section 3(f) of the Executive Order. To

the extent possible this proposed rule

adheres to the principles of regulation

as set forth in Executive Order 12866.

This proposed rule has been reviewed

by the Office of Management and

Budget under the provisions of

Executive Order 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the provisions of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

approved the collections of information

applicable to this proposed rule: OMB

Number 3067–0147, Report to Submit

Technical or Scientific Data to Correct

Mapping Deficiencies Unrelated to

Community-Wide Elevation

Determinations (Amendments &

Revisions to National Flood Insurance

Program Map).

Following is a summary of how each

form will be used:

(a) FEMA Form 81–87. Property

Information. This form describes the

location of the property, what is being

requested, and what data are required to

support the request.

(b) FEMA Form 81–87E. Credit Card

Information. This form outlines the

information needed to process a request

when the requester is paying by credit

card.

(c) FEMA Form 82–87A. Elevation

Information. This form indicates what

the Base Flood (100-year) Elevation

(BFE) for the property is, how the BFE

was determined, the lowest ground

elevation on the property, and/or the

elevation of the lowest adjacent grade to

any structures on the property. This

information is required for FEMA to

determine whether the property that is

being requested to be removed from the

SFHA is above the BFE.

(d) FEMA Form 81–87C. Community

Acknowledgment of Requests Involving

Fill. 44 CFR 65.5(a)(6) requires that if fill

is placed to remove an area from the

SFHA then the community must

acknowledge the request. This form

ensures that the requester fulfills this

requirement before submitting the

request to FEMA.

(e) FEMA Form 81–87D. Summary of

Elevations—Individual Lot Breakdown.

This form is used in conjunction with

the Elevation Information Form for

requests involving multiple lots or

structures. It provides a table to allow

the required submitted data to be

presented in a manner for quick and

efficient review.

The estimated burden on individual

property owners is:

Hours

Property Information .......................... 1.63

Credit Care Form ................................ 0.6

Elevation Information ........................ 0.63

Community Acknowledgment of Requests Involving Fill ....................... 0.88

Summary of Elevations—Individual

Lot Breakdown ................................ 0.67

The number of requesters will vary

from year to year, as we have no control

over the number of people who will

seek to have determinations made for

their properties. For the purposes of this

rule we estimate the following annual

burdens:

Requesters ........................................... 2,500

Hours per response ............................ 4.22

Total hours ......................................... 10.550

Total costs @ $50/hour ...................... $527,500

60162 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

agencies must consider the impact of

their rulemakings on ‘‘small entities’’

(small businesses, small organizations

and local governments). When an

agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 553 to

publish a notice of proposed

rulemaking, a regulatory flexibility

analysis is required for both the notice

and the final rule if the rulemaking

could ‘‘have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.’’ The Act also provides that if

a regulatory flexibility analysis is not

required, the agency must certify in the

rulemaking document that the

rulemaking will not ‘‘have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.’’

For the reasons that follow, I certify

that a regulatory flexibility analysis is

not required for this rule because it

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This proposed rule is a

clarification of existing policy and we

propose the rule to remove the

confusion and inconsistency that exists

in the current rule. We expect that the

proposed rule would remove the current

rule’s adverse impact on property

owners, including small entities. This

proposed rule would remove apparent

inconsistencies in the current rule and

would provide a single, uniform set of

floodplain management criteria

applicable to all applicable structures,

regardless of when an area is removed

from the SFHA. We expect the proposed

rule to enhance the ability of local

officials to make sound floodplain

management decisions more readily

than under the current rule. We also

expect that the proposed rule will

reduce the administrative burden on

property owners, including small

entities. We further expect that the rule

may reduce certain building costs,

without increasing the risks of flooding

either to the owners or to the National

Flood Insurance Program.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, Federalism,

dated August 4, 1999, sets forth

principles and criteria that agencies

must adhere to in formulating and

implementing policies that have

federalism implications, that is,

regulations that have substantial direct

effects on the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Federal agencies

must closely examine the statutory

authority supporting any action that

would limit the policymaking discretion

of the States, and to the extent

practicable, must consult with State and

local officials before implementing any

such action.

We have reviewed this proposed rule

under E.O.13132 and have concluded

that the rule does not have federalism

implications as defined by the Executive

Order. As noted under Regulatory

Planning and Review, this proposed

rule would change the criteria that we

would use to determine whether we can

issue a LOMR–F to remove unimproved

land or land with structures from the

Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) by

raising ground elevations using

engineered earthen fill. We know of no

substantial direct effects on the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government that would result

from this proposed rule.

The Office of Management and Budget

has reviewed this rule under the

provisions of Executive Order 13132.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65

Flood insurance, Flood insurance rate

maps, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Accordingly, we propose to amend

Part 65 of Chapter I, Subchapter B, of

Title 44 of the Code of Federal

Regulations as follows:

PART 65—IDENTIFICATION AND

MAPPING OF SPECIAL HAZARD

AREAS

1. The authority citation for part 65

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR

41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O 12127

of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979

Comp., p. 376.

2. Section 65.2 is amended by adding

paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 65.2 Definitions

* * * * *

(c) For the purposes of this part,

‘‘reasonably safe from flooding’’ means

flood waters will not inundate the land

and structures to be removed from the

SFHA during the occurrence of the base

flood and that any subsurface waters

related to the base flood will not damage

or inundate existing or proposed

buildings and infrastructure.

3. Section 65.5 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 65.5 Revision to special hazard area

boundaries with no change to base flood

elevation determinations.

(a) Data requirements for topographic

changes. In many areas of special flood

hazard (excluding V zones and

floodways) it may be feasible to elevate

areas with earth fill above the base flood

elevation. Scientific and technical

information to support a request to gain

exclusion from an area of special flood

hazard of a structure or parcel of land

that has been elevated by the placement

of fill will include the following:

(1) A copy of the recorded deed

indicating the legal description of the

property and the official recordation

information (deed book volume and

page number) and bearing the seal of the

appropriate recordation official (e.g.,

County Clerk or Recorder of Deeds).

(2) If the property is recorded on a

plat map, a copy of the recorded plat

indicating both the location of the

property and the official recordation

information (plat book volume and page

number) and bearing the seal of the

appropriate recordation official. If the

property is not recorded on a plat map,

FEMA requires copies of the tax map or

other suitable maps to help in locating

the property accurately.

(3) If a legally defined parcel of land

and/or a structure is involved, a

topographic map indicating present

ground elevations, and date of fill.

FEMA will base its determination that a

legally defined parcel of land or a

structure is to be excluded from the area

of special flood hazard upon a

comparison of the base flood to the

ground elevations of the parcel or the

lowest adjacent grade to the structure. If

the ground elevations of the entire

legally defined parcel of land or the

lowest adjacent grade to the structure

are at or above the elevation of the base

flood, FEMA may exclude the parcel

and/or structure from the area of special

flood hazard.

(4) Written assurance by the

participating community that they have

complied with the appropriate

minimum floodplain management

requirements outlined in § 60.3 of this

chapter. This includes the requirements

that:

(i) Residential structures built in the

SFHA have their lowest floor elevated to

or above the base flood;

(ii) The community has determined

through best engineering practices that

the land or structures to be removed

from the SFHA are ‘‘reasonably safe

from flooding’’, and that the community

maintains on file all supporting

engineering analyses that it used to

make that determination; and

(iii) The community has issued all

necessary permits for development

within the SFHA.

(5) Data to substantiate the base flood

elevation. If FEMA has completed a

Flood Insurance Study (FIS), FEMA will

use those data to substantiate the base

flood. Otherwise, data provided by an

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60163

authoritative source, such as the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.

Geological Survey, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, State and local

water resource departments, or

technical data prepared and certified by

a registered professional engineer may

be submitted. If base flood elevations

have not previously been established,

hydraulic calculations may also be

requested.

(6) A revision of flood plain

delineations based on fill must

demonstrate that any such fill does not

result in a floodway encroachment.

(b) New topographic data. The

procedures described in paragraphs (a)

(1) through (5) of this section may be

also followed to request a map revision

when no physical changes have

occurred in the area of special flood

hazard, when no fill has been placed,

and when the natural ground elevations,

as evidenced by new topographic maps,

more detailed or more accurate than

those used to prepare the map to be

revised, are shown to be above the

elevation of the base flood.

(c) Certification requirements. A

registered professional engineer or

licensed land surveyor must certify the

items required in paragraphs (a)(3) and

(b) of this section. Such certifications

are subject to the provisions of § 65.2.

(d) Submission procedures. Submit all

requests to the appropriate FEMA

Regional Office servicing the

community’s geographic area or to the

FEMA Headquarters Office in

Washington, DC, and submit the

appropriate payment with the requests,

in accordance with 44 CFR part 72.

4. Paragraph 65.6 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(14) to read as

follows:

§ 65.6 Revision of base flood elevation

determinations.

(a) * * *

(14) Written assurance by the

participating community that they have

complied with the appropriate

minimum floodplain management

requirements outlined in § 60.3 of this

chapter. This includes the requirements

that:

(i) Residential structures built in the

SFHA have their lowest floor elevated to

or above the base flood;

(ii) The community has determined

through best engineering practices that

the land or structures to be removed

from the SFHA are ‘‘reasonably safe

from flooding’’, and that the community

maintains on file all supporting

engineering analyses that it used to

make that determination; and

(iii) The community has issued all

necessary permits for development

within the SFHA.

* * * * *

Dated: October 3, 2000.

Michael Armstrong,

Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 00–25834 Filed 10–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2244, MM Docket No. 00–188, RM–

9969]

Digital Television Broadcast Service;

New Orleans, LA

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by WWL–

TV, Inc., licensee of station WWL–TV,

NTSC channel 4, New Orleans,

Louisiana, requesting the substitution of

DTV channel 36 for station WWL–TV’s

assigned DTV channel 30. DTV Channel

36 can be allotted to New Orleans,

Louisiana, in compliance with the

principle community coverage

requirements of Section 73.625(a) at

reference coordinates (29–54–23 N. and

90–02–23 W.). As requested, we propose

to allot DTV Channel 36 to New Orleans

with a power of 1000 and a height above

average terrain (HAAT) of 305 meters.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before November 27, 2000, and reply

comments on or before December 12,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room

TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: John M. Burgett, Wiley, Rein

& Fielding, 1776 K Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20006 (Counsel for

WWL–TV, Inc.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

00–188, adopted September 29, 2000,

and released December 12, 2000. The

full text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street,

SW, Washington, DC. The complete text

of this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

Federal Communications Commission.

Barbara A. Kreisman,

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–25809 Filed 10–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[I.D. 092200A]

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council; Public Hearings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Public hearings; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

convene public hearings on draft

Amendment 7 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Stone Crab

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico.

Amendment 7 proposes to create a

Federal trap certificate program for the

commercial stone crab fishery in

Federal waters (exclusive economic

zone (EEZ)) off Florida. This program

would be similar to the trap certificate

program adopted by the State of Florida.

In addition, public testimony on

Amendment 7 will be accepted at the

Gulf Council meeting in November

2000. A separate Federal Register notice

will give details about that meeting.

DATES: The Council will accept written

comments through November 3, 2000.