```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22438-22443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11156]

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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 65

RIN 3067-AD13

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); Letter of Map Revision 
and Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill Requests

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule changes procedures for issuing Letters of Map 
Revision (also referred to as LOMRs) and Letters of Map Revision Based 
on Fill (also referred to as LOMR-Fs). We use these criteria to 
determine whether a LOMR-F can be issued to remove unimproved land or 
land with structures from the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) by 
raising ground elevations using engineered earthen fill.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, 
Hazards Study Branch, Technical Services Division, Mitigation 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3461, (facsimile) (202) 646-4596, or 
(email) [email protected].

[[Page 22439]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments

    On October 10, 2000, we (FEMA) published a proposed rule at 65 FR 
60159 that would revise the procedures under which we issue LOMRs and 
LOMR-Fs.
    We received eight letters and e-mail messages about the proposed 
rule. Many of these contained multiple comments and, in a number of 
cases, the submissions raised similar issues and concerns. One 
organization submitted two sets of comments.
    The following submitted comments on the proposed rule:
     Four State water resource agencies;
     One State association for the building industry;
     One national association for floodplain management;
     One regional association for communities;
     One private legal firm.
    Each of the following sections treats an issue raised by the public 
during the comment period and explains our reasons for adopting, 
modifying, or rejecting a given recommendation.
    General Comments. One commenter supported the proposed rule as 
written and urged its expeditious adoption. One commenter generally 
supported the rule change.
    Our Response: None.
    Burden on Local Officials. Two commenters expressed the opinion 
that the requirement for local communities to assure a building site as 
``reasonably safe from flooding'' would impose a burden on them, and 
one suggested that FEMA should make the review and provide the 
assurance, if appropriate.
    Our Response: It is important to note that the requirement for 
local communities to determine ``whether proposed building sites will 
be reasonably safe from flooding'' is not a new requirement. It has 
been a part of the NFIP regulations since at least January 8, 1973 (36 
FR 24762, December 22, 1971, as amended at 38 FR 1001, January 8, 
1973). Currently, this requirement applies to any community that has 
applied for and been accepted for participation in the NFIP. Further, 
the community may require that the property owner's design professional 
provide the assurance that the structure is ``reasonably safe from 
flooding''. We are also providing Technical Bulletin 10-00 to assist 
communities and design professionals in evaluating structures. This 
final rule simply emphasizes the long-standing requirement outlined in 
paragraph 60.3(a)(3) and therefore, does not impose any new burden on 
local communities.
    Certification of Data. One commenter felt that the determination 
that land or structures are ``reasonably safe from flooding'' was 
beyond the expertise of many registered professional engineers and 
certified land surveyors. They suggested that the determination be made 
by a qualified design professional with appropriate expertise.
    Our Response: The complexity of these determinations is highly 
dependent on site-specific conditions that will vary within the 
participating community. Furthermore, the ability of local governments 
to make these decisions will vary from community to community as will 
State laws regarding professional accreditation, certification, and 
licensing. This variability makes it difficult to prescribe a single 
solution applicable in all cases. We therefore will rely upon the 
judgment of the participating community and expect them to meet all 
State or local requirements regarding the use of design professionals 
when making these determinations.
    Communities May Lack Qualified Staff. One commenter felt that many 
communities may not have qualified staff or resources to determine 
whether land or a structure is ``reasonably safe from flooding'', and 
may choose not to make the determination.
    Our Response: The technical bulletin is being provided to give 
guidance for determining when land or structures can be considered 
``reasonably safe from flooding''. In lieu of using the guidance in the 
technical bulletin, a community may choose to require the floodplain 
map revision requester's qualified design professional assure the land 
or structures to be removed from the SFHA are ``reasonably safe from 
flooding''. The participating community can then rely on the qualified 
design professional's assurance if it so chooses. However, it is 
ultimately the participating community's responsibility for assuring 
that the areas being removed from the SFHA are ``reasonably safe from 
flooding.''
    Conflict with Section 60.3. Three commenters noted that the 
proposed change to paragraph 65.5(a)(4) violates the provisions of 
paragraph 60.3(c)(2), in that it allows lowest floor elevations to be 
below the Base (100-year) Flood Elevation (BFE) and allows the 
structure to be removed from the SFHA, which in turn allows Federal 
financial assistance without the requirement of flood insurance 
coverage.
    Our Response: It is not the intent of the rule to encourage or 
allow violations of existing Federal regulations. Therefore, the rule 
has been reworded to emphasize the minimum floodplain management 
requirements of Sec. 60.3 must be met before a revision to the SFHA can 
be made. The rule does allow for the removal of land or a structure 
when violations have occurred, but only after all violations have been 
remedied by the community to the maximum extent possible and the land 
or structures have been determined by the community to be ``reasonably 
safe from flooding.''
    Use of Design Professionals. Two commenters felt that a 
determination of ``reasonably safe from flooding'' should be made by a 
qualified design professional instead of the participating community.
    Our Response: The participating community may, if it wishes, 
require that the party requesting removal of land or structures from 
the SFHA provide assurance by a qualified design professional that 
standard professional practices have been applied and that the criteria 
described in Technical Bulletin 10-00 have been, or will be met. If it 
so chooses, the community may rely on the design professional for 
assurance that the land or structures being removed from the SHFA are 
``reasonably safe from flooding.'' However, it is ultimately the 
participating community's responsibility to assure areas being removed 
from the SFHA are ``reasonably safe from flooding.''
    Education Needed Before Rule Change. One commenter supported the 
rule change but felt that education for community officials and 
property owners was needed first.
    Our Response: The technical bulletin is being provided to guide and 
educate community officials, design professionals, and property owners 
considering development in SFHAs. The technical bulletin discourages 
unwise and unsafe building practices and emphasizes elevation as the 
preferred means of ensuring land and structures are ``reasonably safe 
from flooding.''
    Flood-Proofed Residential Basements. One commenter felt that the 
rule would create a variance for floodproofed residential basements 
outlined in Sec. 60.6(c) without formal FEMA recognition, which would 
lead to requests for floodproofed rates for the structures. Another 
commenter felt that the requirements outlined in Sec. 60.6(c) should be 
simplified so that all communities could allow floodproofed basements.
    Our Response: The purpose of the rule is not to allow planning and 
construction of lowest floors below the BFE in filled floodplains. 
Rather the purpose is to provide a means of removing from the 
floodplain lands that

[[Page 22440]]

have been filled to or above the BFE. In some situations this process 
may result in revising flood hazard areas where violations of NFIP 
minimum floodplain management regulations have occurred. However, this 
will only occur if the violations are remedied to the maximum extent 
possible and the land or structures have been determined by the 
community to be ``reasonably safe from flooding.'' If the community 
cannot do so, the LOMR-F will not be issued. If an area or structure is 
removed from the SFHA, the federally mandated purchase of flood 
insurance will not apply and the cost of flood insurance will likely go 
down. Flood-proofed residential structures built in communities in 
compliance with approved basement exception procedures are eligible for 
consideration under paragraph 65.5 (a)(4) of this final rule.
    Infrastructure. One commenter asked the meaning of 
``infrastructure'' in the proposed definition in Sec. 65.2(c).
    Our Response: The term ``infrastructure'' has been removed from the 
definition in the final rule.
    Insurance Waiver. Two commenters suggested that, instead of 
allowing removal of land or structures from the SFHA designation, FEMA 
should simply issue a waiver of the insurance requirement.
    Our Response: The requirement for flood insurance coverage for 
property located in an SFHA is statutory (42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)). The 
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended, requires that 
regulated lending institutions, Federal agency lenders, and government 
sponsored enterprises for housing examine the NFIP map to determine 
whether a property for which it is contemplating making, extending, or 
renewing a loan is in an SFHA. If so, they must place the requirement 
for flood insurance coverage on the property before completing the loan 
transaction. The requirement for flood insurance purchase is placed by 
the lending institution underwriting the loan and cannot be waived by 
any other party without a change in the Act.
    Status of States. One commenter asked whether a State is considered 
a ``community'' with respect to the rule.
    Our Response: A State is considered an NFIP community when it 
regulates its own actions on State lands and is exempt from local 
permitting requirements. Most States have separate statutory authority, 
regulations, or executive orders that apply to their own actions. In 
these situations the State agency responsible for overseeing floodplain 
development by the State would determine if an area was ``reasonably 
safe from flooding.'' In some instances a State and a community may 
both have permitting authority over development that takes place in 
that community. In these situations it is a matter of State law to 
determine whether the State or the community is the appropriate body to 
determine if an area is ``reasonably safe from flooding.''
    Unimproved Land Removed From SFHA. Two commenters questioned how 
structures built after filled areas are removed from the SFHA would be 
affected by NFIP and community floodplain management requirements.
    Our Response: Once the filled area is removed from the SFHA, it is 
by definition no longer subject to the minimum Federal requirements of 
Sec. 60.3. However, this does not preclude participating communities or 
States from imposing additional restrictions should they choose to do 
so. Before land or structures can be removed from the SFHA, the 
community must assure that the areas are and will be ``reasonably safe 
from flooding.'' It is up to the participating community to decide how 
this will be accomplished. However, in order to make this assurance 
they will likely have to know the location or proposed location of any 
buildings on the site or have other requirements in place to ensure 
that future development is constructed so that it will not be damaged 
during the base flood. See the Technical Bulletin 10-00 for further 
guidance on this issue.

Revised Procedures

    This section discusses changes in the procedures used to process 
LOMR-F requests. These procedures will apply to single and multi-lot 
LOMR-F requests, which may involve one structure or multiple 
structures. These procedures also apply to LOMRs and they supersede the 
interim procedures published September 1, 1999, at 64 FR 47813. We will 
process all LOMR and LOMR-F requests received after June 4, 2001, as 
follows:
     Paragraphs 65.5(a)(1) through 65.5(a)(7) will apply to 
requests to remove land and structures involving the placement of 
engineered earthen fill.
     Paragraphs 65.6(a)(1) through 65.6(a)(15) will apply to 
requests for LOMRs.
     Community officials must continue to review map revision 
requests involving the placement of engineered earthen fill within the 
SFHA on the community's FIRM. As part of the community acknowledgement 
of LOMR and LOMR-F requests, the community must continue to assure that 
the minimum floodplain management criteria outlined in Sec. 60.3 have 
been met.
     FEMA will not review a request for a LOMR or LOMR-F 
without community assurances that the request meets the requirements of 
Sec. 60.3.
     We will consider structures built in identified SFHAs that 
do not meet the requirements of Sec. 60.3 violations of NFIP 
regulations and will take appropriate action. Further, we will suspend 
review of these requests and others that are potentially in violation 
of NFIP regulations until the issues are resolved and all identified 
violations have been remedied through appropriate State and Federal 
entities including FEMA or its designee. Once all violations have been 
remedied by the community to the maximum extent possible and the 
community assures the land or structures are ``reasonably safe from 
flooding,'' we will process the map revision request using the criteria 
outlined in Sec. 65.5(a). Technical Bulletin 10-00 provides further 
guidance to community officials when determining whether land or 
structures are ``reasonably safe from flooding.''
     FEMA will review previously issued determinations for 
conformity with these revised procedures upon written request.
     New LOMR and LOMR-F requests and requests for 
redeterminations will be subject to the current fee schedule 
established in 44 CFR part 72.

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 rule removes 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 resolves an apparent inconsistency 
in the floodprone status of a subset of structures built on fill within 
the SFHA. These apparent inconsistencies resulted from differences in 
the administrative processes followed by communities who permit 
development in floodplains rather than from physical differences in the 
built environment. We will continue to allow 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 have their lowest floor (including basement) elevated to 
or above the base flood.

[[Page 22441]]

Regulatory Planning and Review

    We have prepared and reviewed this rule under the provisions of 
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Under Executive 
Order 12866, 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993, a significant regulatory 
action is subject to Office of Management and Budget (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 rule changes the criteria that we use to determine whether we 
can issue a LOMR or LOMR-F to remove unimproved land or land with 
structures from the SFHA by raising ground elevations using 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 rule adheres to the 
principles of regulation as set forth in Executive Order 12866. This 
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 OMB approved the collections of 
information applicable to this 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 processing fees by credit card.
    (c) FEMA Form 81-87A. Elevation Information. This form indicates 
what the 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 at or above the BFE.
    (d) FEMA Form 81-87C. Community Acknowledgment of Requests 
Involving Fill. This form ensures that the participating community is 
aware of the revision request and that the requirements of Sec. 60.3 
have been met.
    (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:

Property Information--1.63 hours
Credit Card Form--0.1 hour
Elevation Information--0.63 hour
Community Acknowledgment of Requests Involving Fill--0.88 hour
Summary of Elevations--Individual Lot Breakdown--0.67 hour

    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--3.91
Total hours--9,775

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 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 rule is a clarification of existing policy and removes confusion 
and apparent inconsistencies in the current rule. We expect the rule to 
remove the current rule's adverse impact on property owners, including 
small entities. We expect the rule to enhance the ability of local 
officials to make sound floodplain management decisions more readily 
than under the current rule. We also expect the rule to reduce the 
administrative burden on property owners, including small entities. We 
further expect the rule will reduce certain building costs, without 
increasing the risks of flooding either to the owners or to the 
National Flood Insurance Program.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism, dated August 4, 1999, sets forth 
principles and criteria to which agencies must adhere 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 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 
rule changes the criteria that we would use to determine whether we can 
issue a LOMR or LOMR-F to remove unimproved land or land with 
structures from the 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 rule.
    The OMB has reviewed this rule under the provisions of Executive 
Order 13132.

[[Page 22442]]

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65

    Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, amend 44 CFR part 65 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. Amend Sec. 65.2 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 65.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (c) For the purposes of this part, ``reasonably safe from 
flooding'' means base flood waters will not inundate the land or damage 
structures to be removed from the SFHA and that any subsurface waters 
related to the base flood will not damage existing or proposed 
buildings.

    3. Revise Sec. 65.5 to read as follows:

Sec. 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 engineered earthen 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 
engineered earthen 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) A topographic map or other information indicating existing 
ground elevations and the date of fill. FEMA's determination to exclude 
a legally defined parcel of land or a structure from the area of 
special flood hazard will be based upon a comparison of the base flood 
elevations to the lowest ground elevation of the parcel or the lowest 
adjacent grade to the structure. If the lowest ground elevation of the 
entire legally defined parcel of land or the lowest adjacent grade to 
the structure are at or above the elevations of the base flood, FEMA 
will 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 under Sec. 60.3. This includes the requirements that:
    (i) Existing residential structures built in the SFHA have their 
lowest floor elevated to or above the base flood;
    (ii) The participating community has determined that the land and 
any existing or proposed structures to be removed from the SFHA are 
``reasonably safe from flooding'', and that they have on file, 
available upon request by FEMA, all supporting analyses and 
documentation used to make that determination;
    (iii) The participating community has issued permits for all 
existing and proposed construction or other development; and
    (iv) All necessary permits have been received from those 
governmental agencies where approval is required by Federal, State, or 
local law.
    (5) If the community cannot assure that it has complied with the 
appropriate minimum floodplain management requirements under Sec. 60.3, 
of this chapter, the map revision request will be deferred until the 
community remedies all violations to the maximum extent possible 
through coordination with FEMA. Once the remedies are in place, and the 
community assures that the land and structures are ``reasonably safe 
from flooding,'' we will process a revision to the SFHA using the 
criteria set forth in Sec. 65.5(a). The community must maintain on 
file, and make available upon request by FEMA, all supporting analyses 
and documentation used in determining that the land or structures are 
``reasonably safe from flooding.''
    (6) Data to substantiate the base flood elevation. If we complete a 
Flood Insurance Study (FIS), we will use those data to substantiate the 
base flood elevation. Otherwise, the community may submit data provided 
by an 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. If base flood 
elevations have not previously been established, we may also request 
hydrologic and hydraulic calculations.
    (7) A revision of floodplain delineations based on fill must 
demonstrate that any such fill does not result in a floodway 
encroachment.
    (b) New topographic data. A community may also follow the 
procedures described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section 
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 are at or above the elevations of the 
base flood, where new topographic maps are more detailed or more 
accurate than the current map.
    (c) Certification requirements. A registered professional engineer 
or licensed land surveyor must certify the items required in paragraphs 
(a)(3) and (6) and (b) of this section. Such certifications are subject 
to the provisions under Sec. 65.2.
    (d) Submission procedures. Submit all requests to the appropriate 
address serving the community's geographic area or to the FEMA 
Headquarters Office in Washington, DC.

    4. Amend Sec. 65.6 by adding paragraphs (a)(14) and (15) as 
follows:

Sec. 65.6  Revision of base flood elevation determinations.

    (a) * * *
    (14) The participating community must provide written assurance 
that they have complied with the appropriate minimum floodplain 
management requirements under Sec. 60.3 of this chapter. This includes 
the requirements that:
    (i) Existing residential structures built in the SFHA have their 
lowest floor elevated to or above the base flood;
    (ii) The participating community has determined that the land and 
any existing or proposed structures to be removed from the SFHA are 
``reasonably safe from flooding,'' and that they have on file, 
available upon request by FEMA, all supporting analyses and 
documentation used to make that determination;
    (iii) The participating community has issued permits for all 
existing and proposed construction or other development; and
    (iv) All necessary permits have been received from those 
governmental agencies where approval is required by Federal, State, or 
local law.

[[Page 22443]]

    (15) If the community cannot assure that it has complied with the 
appropriate minimum floodplain management requirements under Sec. 60.3, 
of this chapter the map revision request will be deferred until the 
community remedies all violations to the maximum extent possible 
through coordination with FEMA. Once the remedies are in place, and the 
community assures that the land and structures are ``reasonably safe 
from flooding,'' we will process a revision to the SFHA using the 
criteria set forth under Sec. 65.6. The community must maintain on 
file, and make available upon request by FEMA, all supporting analyses 
and documentation used in determining that the land or structures are 
``reasonably safe from flooding.''
* * * * *

    Dated: April 30, 2001.
Joe M. Allbaugh,
Director.
[FR Doc. 01-11156 Filed 5-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-05-P
```