Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 22443

(15) If the community cannot assure

that it has complied with the

appropriate minimum floodplain

management requirements under § 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 § 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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 206

RIN 3067–AD20

Disaster Assistance; Public Assistance

Program and Community Disaster

Loan Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY: We, FEMA, are publishing an

interim final rule to implement portions

of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000

that affect large in-lieu contributions

(alternate projects), irrigation facilities,

critical/non-critical private nonprofit

facilities, and community disaster loans.

DATE: Effective October 30, 2000.

Comments on this interim final rule

should be received by July 3, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Please send any comments

to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the

General Counsel, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, room 840, 500 C

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, or

(fax) (202) 646–4536, or (email)

rules@fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret Earman, Response and

Recovery Directorate, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, room

401, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC

20472, or call (202) 646–4172 or (email)

margie.earman@fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Large in-lieu contributions. The

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA

2000), Pub. L. 106–390, 114 Stat. 1552

et seq., amended the Federal

contribution for Large in Lieu

Contributions, which is known as

‘‘alternate projects’’ and is authorized

under section 406(c) of the Robert T.

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C.

5172, from 90 percent of the Federal

share of the Federal estimate to 75

percent of the Federal share of the

Federal estimate of the cost of repairing,

restoring, reconstructing, or replacing

the facility. There is an exception to this

change for publicly-owned or

-controlled facilities. When a State or

local government applicant selects an

alternate project because unstable soil at

the site of the damaged facility makes

repair or restoration of that facility

infeasible, the Federal contribution

remains at 90 percent. The soil

conditions at the project site, which

make restoration infeasible, will be

established in a geo-technical report that

the applicant must submit. All alternate

projects are still approved on a projectby-project basis.

Irrigation facilities. The DMA 2000

amended section 102(9) of the Stafford

Act, 42 U.S.C 5122 to add ‘‘irrigation’’

to the definition of private nonprofit

(PNP) facilities. However, not all PNP

irrigation facilities are eligible for

assistance. The legislative history

indicates that eligible irrigation facilities

include those that supply water for

‘‘essential services of a governmental

nature to the general public’’ (which is

the requirement for any PNP to be

eligible), such as fire suppression,

generating and supplying electricity,

and drinking water supply. They do not

include those that supply water for

agricultural purposes. If an irrigation

system serves both eligible and

ineligible purposes, assistance for those

portions that serve both purposes will

be prorated on the basis of the

proportional share of water used. For

those portions that serve an eligible

purpose exclusively, all disaster-related

damages to that portion would be

eligible. Those portions serving an

ineligible purpose exclusively will not

be eligible.

Critical/non-critical PNP facilities.

Under section 406(a)(3) of the Stafford

Act, 42 U.S.C. 5172, as amended by the

DMA 2000 and before receiving

assistance under the Stafford Act certain

non-critical PNP facilities must apply

first to the Small Business

Administration (SBA) for a disaster loan

for permanent restoration work in those

disasters when the SBA activates its

disaster loan program. DMA 2000

defines those critical services where the

owner or operator need not apply to

SBA to include: Water (including water

provided by an irrigation organization

or facility as discussed above), sewer,

wastewater treatment, communications,

and emergency medical care. We

propose to add fire department services,

emergency rescue, and nursing homes to

the list of critical services.

Communication services means

transmission, switching and distribution

of telephone traffic. Emergency medical

care includes essential direct patient

care to persons and includes hospitals,

clinics, outpatient services, and nursing

homes. Owners and operators of these

critical service facilities may apply

directly to FEMA for assistance.

Other eligible, but non-critical, PNP

facility owners or operators must apply

to SBA for a disaster loan, and if SBA

declines their application they may

apply to FEMA for a grant. In addition,

if the maximum loan for which they are

eligible does not cover all eligible

damages, they may apply to FEMA for

the excess damages. The requirement for

owners or operators of non-critical

facilities to go first to SBA applies only

to permanent restoration work. All

eligible PNP facility owners and

operators may make requests for

assistance for debris removal and

emergency protective measures directly

to FEMA.

Community Disaster Loans. The DMA

2000 made two amendments to the

Community Disaster Loan (CDL)

program, section 417 of the Stafford Act,

42 U.S.C. 5184. The DMA 2000 sets a

cap of $5,000,000 on the amount of any

community disaster loan that FEMA

might make, and states that a local

government will not be eligible for

further community disaster loan

assistance if the community is in arrears

on any required repayment of a previous

community disaster loan. We propose to

amend 44 CFR 206.361 and 206.363 to

reflect these statutory changes.

Administrative Procedure Act

Statement

This interim final rule implements

certain mandatory provisions of the

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 that

relate to the Public Assistance Program

and the Community Disaster Loan

Program, provisions that the Congress

intended to go into effect upon

enactment. In keeping with that intent,

we are making this rule retroactively

effective as of the date of enactment,

October 30, 2000, for all disasters

declared on or after that date. We seek

and invite public comments,

nevertheless, on this interim final rule,

22444 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

which we will consider in our

preparation of the final rule.

Accordingly, under the authority of 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), I find that notice

and public procedure on this interim

final rule are impracticable and contrary

to the public interest.

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)

NEPA imposes requirements for

considering the environmental impacts

of agency decisions. It requires that an

agency prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) for ‘‘major

federal actions significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment.’’ If

an action may or may not have a

significant impact, the agency must

prepare an environmental assessment

(EA). If, as a result of this study, the

agency makes a Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI), no further

action is necessary. If it will have a

significant effect, then the agency uses

the EA to develop an EIS.

Categorical Exclusions. Agencies can

categorically identify actions (for

example, repair of a building damaged

by a disaster) that do not normally have

a significant impact on the environment.

The purpose of this interim final rule is

to amend our Stafford Act rules to

incorporate part of the changes

mandated by the Disaster Mitigation Act

of 2000 for the Public Assistance

Program and for Community Disaster

Loans. Accordingly, we have

determined that this rule is excluded

from the preparation of an

environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement under

44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii), where the rule is

related to actions that qualify for

categorical exclusion. The changes

reflected in this rule are exempt from

NEPA because they reflect

administrative changes to the programs

that have no potential to affect the

environment. We would perform an

environmental review under 44 CFR

part 10, Environmental Considerations,

on each proposed project that we would

fund and implement under the

authorities covered in this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule is not subject to the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act. It does not require any new

information collections and therefore

would not revise the number and types

of responses, frequency, and burden

hours.

Regulatory Planning and Review

We have prepared and reviewed this

interim final 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 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 interim final rule implements

certain mandatory provisions of the

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 that

relate to the Public Assistance Program

and the Community Disaster Loan

Program. The authorities mandated

would not of themselves have an annual

effect on the economy of $100 million

or more. We anticipate that the impacts

of the alternate projects provision will

be neutral, expecting that the savings

from reducing the Federal share of the

Federal estimate from 90 percent to 75

percent will be offset by fewer

applications for assistance under this

authority. We do not anticipate any

change in costs by adding irrigation

facilities to the definition of eligible

private nonprofit facilities inasmuch as

the rule reflects the statute and codifies

our current policy and practices. Most

of the private nonprofit organizations

that will have to apply for SBA disaster

loans before being eligible to apply for

FEMA disaster assistance have damages

well below the SBA loan limit of

$1,500,000. We do not expect this

provision will have an impact of

$100,000,000 or more per year. Finally,

we do not anticipate that savings from

amendments to the Community Disaster

Loan provision will exceed

$100,000,000 over a several-year

period—our experience is that disaster

loan forgiveness rates are between 60

and 70 percent. Over the last 25 years,

the annual amount of money forgiven

has been an average of $2.7 million.

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. The Office of

Management and Budget has not

reviewed this rule under the provisions

of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132 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 interim final

rule under Executive Order 13132 and

have determined that the rule does not

have federalism implications as defined

by the Executive Order. The rule would

define and establish the conditions and

criteria under which FEMA would grant

public assistance and make community

disaster loans. The rule would in no

way that we foresee affect the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government or limit the

policymaking discretion of the States.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 206

Administrative practice and

procedure, Community facilities,

Disaster Assistance, Grant programs,

Loan programs, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, amend 44 CFR Part 206

as follows:

1. The authority citation of part 206

continues to read:

Authority: Robert T. Stafford Disaster

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42

U.S.C. 5121 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No.

3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.,

p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979

Comp., p. 376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 43239, 3

CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 412; and E.O. 12673, 54

FR 12571, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 214.

2. Amend § 206.203 as follows:

(a) Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2)(iii)

and (d)(2)(iv) as paragraphs (d)(2)(iv)

and (d)(2)(v); and

(b) Revise paragraph (d)(2)(ii) and add

new paragraph (d)(2)(iii) to read as

follows:

§ 206.203 Federal grant assistance.

* * * * *

(d) Funding options—***

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 22445

(2) Alternate projects. * * *

(ii) Federal funding for such alternate

projects will be 75 percent of the

Federal share of the approved Federal

estimate of eligible costs.

(iii) If soil instability at the alternate

project site makes the repair, restoration

or replacement of a State or local

government-owned or -controlled

facility infeasible, the Federal funding

for such an alternate project will be 90

percent of the Federal share of the

approved Federal estimate of eligible

costs.

* * * * *

3. Amend § 206.221 as follows:

(a) Redesignate paragraphs (e)(3)

through (e)(6) as paragraphs (e)(4)

through (e)(7); and

(b) Add new paragraph (e)(3) to read

as follows:

§ 206.221 Definitions.

* * * * *

(e) Private nonprofit facility ***

(3) Irrigation facility means those

facilities that provide water for essential

services of a governmental nature to the

general public. Irrigation facilities

include water for fire suppression,

generating and supplying electricity,

and drinking water supply; they do not

include water for agricultural purposes.

* * * * *

4. Amend § 203.226 as follows:

(a) Redesignate paragraphs (b) through

(i) as paragraphs (c) through (j); and

(b) Add new paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

§ 206.226 Restoration of damaged

facilities.

* * * * *

(b) Private nonprofit facilities. Eligible

private nonprofit facilities may receive

funding under the following conditions:

(1) The facility provides critical

services, which include power, water

(including water provided by an

irrigation organization or facility in

accordance with § 206.221(e)(3)), sewer

services, wastewater treatment,

communications, emergency medical

care, fire department services,

emergency rescue, and nursing homes;

or

(2) The private nonprofit organization

not falling within the criteria of

§ 206.226(b)(1) has applied for a disaster

loan under section 7(b) of the Small

Business Act (15 U.S.C.636(b)) and

(i) The Small Business Administration

has declined the organization’s

application; or

(ii) Has eligible damages greater than

the maximum amount of the loan for

which it is eligible, in which case the

excess damages are eligible for FEMA

assistance.

* * * * *

5. Revise § 206.361(b) to read as

follows:

§ 206.361 Loan program.

* * * * *

(b) Amount of loan. The amount of

the loan is based upon need, not to

exceed 25 percent of the operating

budget of the local government for the

fiscal year in which the disaster occurs,

but shall not exceed $5 million. The

term fiscal year as used in this subpart

means the local government’s fiscal

year.

* * * * *

6. Revise § 206.363(b)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 206.363 Eligibility criteria.

* * * * *

(b) Loan eligibility—(1) General. To be

eligible, the local government must

show that it may suffer or has suffered

a substantial loss of tax and other

revenues as a result of a major disaster

or emergency, must demonstrate a need

for financial assistance in order to

perform its governmental functions, and

must not be in arrears with respect to

any payments due on previous loans.

Loan eligibility is based on the financial

condition of the local government and a

review of financial information and

supporting documentation

accompanying the application.

* * * * *

Dated: April 30, 2001.

Joe M. Allbaugh,

Director.

[FR Doc. 01–11155 Filed 5–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[WT Docket No. 97–207; FCC 01–125]

Calling Party Pays Service Offering in

the Commercial Mobile Radio Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule, petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document denies a

petition for reconsideration of a

previous Declaratory Ruling in this

proceeding. This decision also

terminates this proceeding regarding

calling party pays service offering

without taking any specific action on

the issues raised in the proceeding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph A. Levin or David H. Siehl, 202–

418–1310; [TTY: 202–418–7233].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Reconsideration and Order Terminating

Proceeding in WT Docket No. 97–207,

FCC 01–125, adopted April 9, 2001, and

released April 13, 2001. The complete

text of the released document is

available on the Commission’s Internet

site, at www.fcc.gov. The full text is also

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Information Center

(Courtyard level), 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554, and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services (ITS, Inc.), (202) 857–3800, 445

12th Street, SW., CY–B400, Washington,

DC 20054.

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and

Order on Reconsideration and Order

Terminating Proceeding

1. This Memorandum Opinion and

Order on Reconsideration and Order

Terminating Proceeding (MO&O) denies

a Petition for Reconsideration of the

Declaratory Ruling and Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding

(64 FR 38313, July 16, 1999; 64 FR

38396, July 16, 1999) regarding calling

party pays service, and terminates the

proceeding without action.

2. The Ohio Public Utilities

Commission (Ohio Petition) alleges that

the Declaratory Ruling contains

ambiguous and potentially conflicting

conclusions that should be clarified. As

discussed in paragraphs 7 through 19 of

the MO&O, because the Commission’s

rules permit parties to file petitions for

reconsideration only for final rules, the

MO&O considers only that part of the

Ohio Petition which argues that calling

party pays is not properly classified as

a commercial mobile radio service

because it does not meet the

interconnected service criteria. The

Commission denies the Ohio Petition,

finding that calling party pays service is

an interconnected for profit service to

the public and, therefore, constitutes

commercial mobile radio service under

the Communications Act.

3. The MO&O also terminates the

calling party pays proceeding without

taking action. The MO&O, in paragraphs

20–24 of the full text of the MO&O,

finds that it is unclear that regulatory

intervention by the Commission is

warranted. The Commission

emphasizes, however, that the existing

rules do not prevent a carrier from

offering a calling party pays service to

its subscribers. In terminating this