19238 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 1, 2015. 

Susan Lewis, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.582: 

■ a. Add alphabetically the entries for 

‘‘Dill, seed’’, ‘‘Fruit, stone, group 12– 

12’’, ‘‘Herb subgroup19A’’, and ‘‘Nut, 

tree, group 14–12, except pistachio’’ to 

the table in paragraph (a)(1). 

■ b. Remove the entries for ‘‘Fruit, 

stone, group 12’’, and ‘‘Nut, tree, group 

14’’ in the table in paragraph (a)(1). 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 180.582 Pyraclostrobin; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Dill, seed ............................... 40 

* * * * * 

Fruit, stone, group 12–12 ..... 2.5 

* * * * * 

Herb subgroup 19A .............. 40 

* * * * * 

Nut, tree, group 14–12, except pistachio .................... 0.04 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–08079 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Part 300–3 

[FTR Amendment 2015–02; FTR Case 2014– 

301; Docket No. 2014–0012; Sequence No. 

1] 

RIN 3090–AJ44 

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); 

Terms and Definitions for ‘‘Marriage’’, 

‘‘Spouse’’, and ‘‘Domestic 

Partnership’’ 

AGENCY: Office of Government-wide 

Policy, U.S. General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA) is amending the 

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) by 

adding terms and definitions for 

‘‘Marriage’’ and ‘‘Spouse’’, and by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Domestic 

Partnership’’. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 10, 

2015, subject to retroactivity principles 

as discussed herein. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Mr. Rick 

Miller, Office of Government-wide 

Policy (MA), Travel and Relocation 

Policy Division, U.S. General Services 

Administration, at 202–501–3822 or 

email at rodney.miller@gsa.gov. Contact 

the U.S. General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20405–0001, 202–501– 

4755, for information pertaining to 

status or publication schedules. Please 

cite FTR Amendment 2015–02, FTR 

Case 2014–301. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage 

Act (DOMA), codified at 1 U.S.C. 7, 

provided that, when used in Federal 

law, the term ‘‘marriage’’ would mean 

only a legal union between one man and 

one woman as husband and wife, and 

that the term ‘‘spouse’’ referred only to 

a person of the opposite sex who is a 

husband or a wife. Because of DOMA, 

the Federal Government had been 

prohibited from recognizing marriages 

of same-sex couples for all Federal 

purposes, including travel and 

relocation entitlements. 

On June 17, 2009, President Obama 

signed a Presidential Memorandum on 

Federal Benefits and NonDiscrimination stating that ‘‘[t]he heads 

of all other executive departments and 

agencies, in consultation with the Office 

of Personnel Management, shall conduct 

a review of the benefits provided by 

their respective departments and 

agencies to determine what authority 

they have to extend such benefits to 

same-sex domestic partners of Federal 

employees.’’ As part of its review, GSA 

identified a number of changes to the 

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) that 

could be made. Subsequently, on June 2, 

2010, President Obama signed a 

Presidential Memorandum directing 

agencies to immediately take actions, 

consistent with existing law, to extend 

certain benefits, including travel and 

relocation benefits, to same-sex 

domestic partners of Federal employees, 

and where applicable, to the children of 

same-sex domestic partners of Federal 

employees. 

GSA published an interim rule and a 

final rule, respectively in the Federal 

Register on November 3, 2010, and on 

September 28, 2011 (75 FR 67629 and 

76 FR 59914), that fulfilled the 

Presidential Memorandum by, among 

other things, amending the definition of 

‘‘immediate family’’ in the FTR to 

include same-sex domestic partners and 

their dependents. 

On June 26, 2013, in United States v. 

Windsor, 570 U.S. 12, 133 S. Ct. 2675 

(2013), the Supreme Court of the United 

States (Supreme Court) held Section 3 of 

DOMA unconstitutional. As a result of 

this decision, GSA is now able to extend 

travel and relocation entitlements to 

Federal employees who are legally 

married to spouses of the same sex. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5707, the 

Administrator of General Services is 

authorized to prescribe necessary 

regulations to implement laws regarding 

Federal employees who are traveling 

while in the performance of official 

business away from their official 

stations. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 5738 

mandates that the Administrator of 

General Services prescribe regulations 

relating to official relocation. The 

overall implementing authority is the 

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 

codified in Title 41 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, Chapters 300–304 

(41 CFR Chapters 300–304). 

GSA published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register on June 26, 2014 (79 

FR 36279). The proposed rule 

recommended adding a definition for 

the terms ‘‘Marriage’’ and ‘‘Spouse’’, 

and revising the definition of the term 

‘‘Domestic Partnership’’. 

B. Summary of Comments Received 

In response to the proposed rule, GSA 

received comments from six different 

entities (one Federal agency, one 

Federal employee, two individuals, and 

two associations). Some comments 

received were generally supportive as to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19239 

the implementation of the changes to 

the FTR and some comments opposed 

the changes as written. All comments 

were carefully considered in the 

development of this final rule. 

Two commenters supported the 

proposed rule without any additional 

changes made. One commenter 

requested a minor editorial change in 

section 300–3.1 in the revised definition 

for ‘‘Domestic Partner’’, noting that the 

parenthetical ‘‘or foreign country’’ is not 

used in the term ‘‘Domestic 

Partnership’’. The parenthetical ‘‘or 

foreign country’’ was used in the 

proposed rule for Supplementary 

Information under ‘‘A. Background’’ in 

explaining ‘‘Domestic Partnership’’, and 

is used in the new term ‘‘Marriage’’. 

They recommended further amending 

the term ‘‘Domestic Partnership’’ to add 

the term ‘‘or foreign country’’ after the 

word ‘‘state’’ in proposed paragraph 10 

of the definition. GSA made the minor 

editorial change. 

One commenter suggested that the 

effective date of the final rule be 

retroactive prior to the date of the 

Windsor decision (June 26, 2013). The 

comment stated this would allow 

employees who relocated prior to the 

Windsor decision, and who were legally 

married in states that recognized samesex marriages, to be allowed to claim 

relocation entitlements for their samesex spouses. This rule is effective from 

the date of publication, subject to 

retroactivity principles as discussed 

herein. As to retroactive application, if 

an employee or former employee 

amends a claim for reimbursement 

based upon application of the Windsor 

decision for expenses incurred prior to 

the effective date of this rule or prior to 

the date of the Windsor decision, the 

agency that authorized the travel or 

relocation should make a determination 

based upon the relevant circumstances 

of each individual case, in light of 

governing legal principles and agency 

regulations. 

The two associations submitted 

comments opposing the changes in the 

proposed rule as written. Those 

comments are addressed herein 

together. One comment opposed adding 

to the definition of domestic partnership 

in section 300–3.1, the requirement that 

employees ‘‘certify that they would 

marry but for the failure of their state of 

residence to permit same-sex marriage’’ 

for those employees who reside in a 

state or other jurisdiction (or foreign 

country) whose laws do not permit 

same-sex marriage. In the same 

comment, the association also opposed 

requiring domestic partners, who reside 

in states or jurisdictions (or foreign 

countries) that authorize the marriage of 

two individuals of the same sex, to 

marry to be eligible for relocation 

entitlements as an immediate family 

member, if the employee is relocating to 

a foreign country. 

The commenters stated that the 

changes would apply to Americans 

officially assigned to, or in transit to, 

foreign locations, and these individuals 

and their families would be at risk of 

losing existing legal protections and 

support provided to legally recognized 

partners. They also stated that by 

requiring employees to marry or certify 

their intent to do so, may put these 

employees and their partners and 

families at risk of persecution, 

incarceration, and execution while 

assigned abroad. 

GSA recognizes that the legal 

landscape is rapidly changing, and 

certain states and other jurisdictions, as 

well as foreign countries, currently do 

not allow same-sex marriages. However, 

the proposed definition for the term 

‘‘domestic partnership’’ in the FTR is in 

accordance with the definition used for 

other Federal employees benefit 

programs, and therefore, will not be 

changed. Employees with same-sex 

domestic partners living in states or 

other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) 

that allow them to marry have access to 

many, if not all, of the protections that 

married opposite-sex couples enjoy. 

Therefore, a separate category under the 

FTR’s term ‘‘immediate family member’’ 

will not be created for employees and 

their domestic partners who live in 

states or other jurisdictions (or foreign 

countries) that allow them to marry but 

choose not to marry. 

One comment suggested that GSA 

should make clear that agencies retain 

the authority to assign personnel abroad 

and afford staff and family assigned 

abroad the protections and support that 

will best promote the safety, efficiency, 

and effectiveness of their operation 

overseas. Since recruitment and 

assignment procedures are outside of 

the scope of the FTR, GSA did not 

address this issue. 

Another comment suggested that the 

proposed changes would promote illegal 

discrimination and invidious state or 

other jurisdiction practices towards 

same-sex couples with regard to 

marriage, divorce, adoption, 

inheritance, property, tax filing, and 

spousal benefits. The changing of state 

or other jurisdiction benefit laws for 

marriage and/or domestic partners is 

outside the scope of the FTR, and 

therefore, is not addressed by GSA. 

The associations strongly opposed 

GSA ‘‘abolishing’’ domestic partner 

benefits already extended. The 

associations stated that, given the 

limited access to marriage and other 

forms of non-marital relationship 

recognition for same-sex couples, along 

with the aforementioned issues 

associated with requiring couples to 

marry or certify an intent to marry, the 

proposed change would add further 

burdens for same-sex couples. 

Therefore, they suggested GSA should 

expand the terms for ‘‘spouse’’, 

‘‘marriage’’, and ‘‘domestic partnership’’ 

to apply to both same-sex and oppositesex domestic partners, thus extending 

travel and relocation benefits to partners 

in all relationships. 

GSA is not abolishing already 

extended travel and relocation benefits. 

Rather, GSA is limiting benefits moving 

forward for same-sex domestic partners 

who choose not to marry, despite 

residing in states or other jurisdictions 

(or foreign countries) whose laws 

authorize same-sex marriage. Same-sex 

domestic partners who reside in states 

or other jurisdictions (or foreign 

countries) whose laws do not authorize 

same-sex marriage will still be 

permitted to claim travel and relocation 

benefits based upon the FTR and agency 

procedures for immediate family 

members. At this time, GSA is not 

including opposite-sex domestic 

partners as part of an employee’s 

immediate family. 

C. Major Changes in This Final Rule 

Based upon the comments received 

and suggested changes, the final rule 

updates the FTR by adding the 

definitions ‘‘Marriage’’ and ‘‘Spouse’’, 

and revises the definition of ‘‘Domestic 

partnership’’. 

The term ‘‘marriage’’ is added to 

include any marriage, including a 

marriage between individuals of the 

same sex, that was entered into in a 

state or other jurisdiction (or foreign 

country) whose laws authorize the 

marriage, even if the married couple is 

domiciled in a state or other jurisdiction 

(or foreign country) that does not 

recognize the validity of the marriage. 

The term also includes common law 

marriage in states or other jurisdictions 

where such marriages are recognized, so 

long as they are proven according to the 

applicable state/jurisdiction laws. The 

term ‘‘spouse’’ is added to include any 

individual who has entered into such a 

marriage. 

The term ‘‘marriage’’ will not include 

registered domestic partnerships, civil 

unions, or other similar formal 

relationships recognized under state or 

other jurisdiction (or foreign) law that 

are not denominated as a marriage 

under that state’s or other jurisdiction’s 

(or foreign country’s) law, and the terms 

‘‘spouse’’, ‘‘husband and wife’’, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19240 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘husband’’, and ‘‘wife’’ do not include 

individuals who have entered into such 

a relationship. This conclusion will 

apply regardless of whether individuals 

who have entered into such 

relationships are of the opposite sex or 

the same sex. 

At the time the definition of 

‘‘immediate family’’ in the FTR was 

amended to include same-sex domestic 

partners and their dependents, Section 

3 of DOMA prohibited GSA from 

recognizing same-sex marriages. Thus, 

the availability of same-sex marriage in 

a particular state or other jurisdiction 

was not relevant to the determination of 

coverage eligibility for travel and 

relocation benefits. Now that FTR 

coverage is available to the same-sex 

spouses of Federal employees, pursuant 

to Windsor and the amendments 

finalized by this rule, GSA has 

reconsidered the need and scope of the 

extension of FTR coverage to same-sex 

domestic partners. When the proposed 

rule was published on June 26, 2014, 

only a minority of states recognized 

same-sex marriages. However since 

then, a majority of states currently 

permit same-sex marriage; therefore 

many same-sex couples have the same 

access to marriage that is available to 

opposite-sex couples. However, until 

marriage is available to same-sex 

couples in all fifty states and other 

jurisdictions, the extension of benefits 

to same-sex domestic partners will 

continue to play an important role in 

bridging the gap in legal treatment 

between same-sex and opposite-sex 

couples. Therefore, GSA is tailoring FTR 

coverage to those same-sex couples who 

would marry, but live in states or other 

jurisdictions (or foreign countries) 

where same-sex marriage is prohibited. 

Same-sex couples living in states or 

other jurisdictions that allow them to 

marry have access to many, if not all, of 

the protections that married oppositesex couples enjoy. Therefore, for 

employees living in states or other 

jurisdictions where they are able to 

marry, there is less need to create a 

separate path by which same-sex 

domestic partners are eligible for FTR 

benefits. For those employees unable to 

marry under the laws of the states or 

other jurisdictions in which they live, 

however, it is appropriate to extend FTR 

coverage to same-sex domestic partners 

in the form described in this regulation. 

The term ‘‘domestic partnership’’ is 

updated to read that same-sex domestic 

partners that have a documented 

domestic partnership, and reside in a 

state or other jurisdiction (or foreign 

country) whose laws do not permit 

same-sex marriage or recognize their 

validity, will still be considered an 

immediate family member, under the 

FTR and agency policy, only if they 

certify that they would marry but for the 

failure of their state or other jurisdiction 

(or foreign country) of residence to 

permit same-sex marriage. For those 

individuals who reside in states or other 

jurisdictions (or foreign countries) that 

authorize the marriage of two 

individuals of the same sex, the 

individuals will no longer be considered 

domestic partners or immediate family 

members due to the certification 

requirement. 

Due to current statutory restrictions, 

however, this final rule does not apply 

to the relocation income tax allowance 

or the income tax reimbursement 

allowance for state taxes when the 

applicable state law does not recognize 

same-sex marriage. 

This case is included in GSA’s 

retrospective review of existing 

regulations under Executive Order 

13563. Additional information is 

located in GSA’s retrospective review 

(2015), available at www.gsa.gov/

improvingregulations. 

D. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives, and if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. This is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ and 

therefore, was subject to review under 

section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, dated September 

30, 1993. Accordingly, the final rule has 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. This final rule 

is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804. 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. This 

final rule is also exempt from 

Administrative Procedure Act per 5 

U.S.C. 553(a)(2), because it applies to 

agency management or personnel. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the changes to the 

Federal Travel Regulation do not 

impose recordkeeping or information 

collection requirements, or the 

collection of information from offerors, 

contractors, or members of the public 

that require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under 44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

G. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

This final rule is also exempt from 

Congressional review prescribed under 

5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to 

agency management and personnel. 

List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 300–3 

Government employees, Relocation, 

Travel, and Transportation expenses. 

Dated: April 3, 2015. 

Denise Turner Roth, 

Acting Administrator of General Services. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

Preamble, under 5 U.S.C. 5701–5709, 

5721–5738, and 5741–5742, GSA 

amends 41 CFR part 300–3, as set forth 

below: 

PART 300–3—GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 41 CFR 

part 300–3 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 

49 U.S.C. 40118; 5 U.S.C. 5738; 5 U.S.C. 

5741–5742; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 31 U.S.C. 1353; 

E.O. 11609, as amended; 3 CFR, 1971–1975 

Comp., p. 586, OMB Circular No. A–126, 

revised May 22, 1992. 

■ 2. Amend § 300–3.1 by— 

■ a. In the definition ‘‘Domestic 

partnership’’ by— 

■ 1. Removing from paragraph (8) the 

word ‘‘and’’ at the end of the sentence; 

■ 2. Removing from paragraph (9) the 

period at the end of the sentence and 

adding ‘‘; and’’ in its place; and 

■ 3. Adding paragraph (10); and 

■ b. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definitions ‘‘Marriage’’ and ‘‘Spouse’’. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 300–3.1 What do the following terms 

mean? 

* * * * * 

Domestic Partnership— * * * 

(10) Certify that they would marry but 

for the failure of their state or other 

jurisdiction (or foreign country) of 

residence to permit same-sex marriage. 

* * * * * 

Marriage—A legal union between 

individuals that was entered into in a 

state or other jurisdiction (or foreign 

country) whose laws authorize the 

marriage, even if the married couple is 

domiciled in a state or other jurisdiction 

(or foreign country) that does not 

recognize the validity of the marriage. 

The term also includes common law 

marriage in a state or other jurisdiction 

(or foreign country) where such 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19241 

marriages are recognized, so long as 

they are proven according to the 

applicable state, other jurisdiction, or 

foreign laws. The term marriage does 

not include registered domestic 

partnerships, civil unions, or other 

similar formal relationships recognized 

under state or other jurisdiction (or 

foreign country) law that are not 

denominated as a marriage under that 

state’s or other jurisdiction (or foreign 

country’s) law. 

* * * * * 

Spouse—Any individual who is 

lawfully married (unless legally 

separated), including an individual 

married to a person of the same sex who 

was legally married in a state or other 

jurisdiction (including a foreign 

county), that recognizes such marriages, 

regardless of whether or not the 

individual’s state of residency 

recognizes such marriages. The term 

‘‘spouse’’ does not include individuals 

in a formal relationship recognized by a 

state, which is other than lawful 

marriage; it also does not include 

individuals in a marriage in a 

jurisdiction outside the United States 

that is not recognized as a lawful 

marriage under United States law. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–08193 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2015–0001; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8377] 

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 http://

www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm. 

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 Bret Gates, Federal 

Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4133. 

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. 

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, 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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES