Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33897

Source of flooding and location

#Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD).

Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 301

Military Road, North Sioux

City, South Dakota.

Union County (Unincorporated Areas) (FEMA

Docket No. 7310) 

Big Sioux River:

At mouth of Big Sioux

River ............................... *1,090

At Interstate 29 .................. *1,094

At State Route 48 .............. *1,143

Big Sioux River Split at Interstate 29:

Approximately 1,800 feet

downstream of

Westshore Drive ............ *1,108

At divergence from Big

Sioux River .................... *1,110

Maps are available for inspection at Union County

Planning and Zoning Office,

209 East Main, Elk Point,

South Dakota.

WASHINGTON

Clallam County (Unincorporated Areas) (FEMA

Docket No. 7278)

Elwha River:

Approximately 3,250 feet

above mouth .................. *14

Approximately 3,800 feet

above mouth .................. *16

Approximately 5,500 feet

above mouth .................. *24

Approximately 8,000 feet

above mouth .................. *35

Maps are available for inspection at the Clallam

County Planning Department,

223 East Fourth Street, Port

Angeles, Washington.

College Place (City), Walla

Walla County (FEMA Docket No. B-7404)

Garrison Creek:

Approximately 3,300 feet upstream of Mission Road .... *703

Approximately 6,400 feet upstream of Mission Road .... *723

Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 625

South College Avenue, College Place, Washington.

Lower Elwha Indian Reservation, Clallam County (FEMA

Docket No. 7278)

Elwha River:

Approximately 650 feet

above mouth ...................... *7

Approximately 7,550 feet

above mouth ...................... *34

Maps are available for inspection at the Tribal Center, 2851 Lower Elwha Road,

Port Angeles, Washington.

Washtucna (Town), Adams

County (FEMA Docket No.

B–7404)

Washtucna Coulee:

Approximately 2,700 feet

downstream of Cooper

Street ................................. +1,002

Just downstream of Canal

Street ................................. +1,023

At confluence with Staley

Coulee ............................... +1,023

Source of flooding and location

#Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD).

Approximately 800 feet upstream of the confluence

with Staley ......................... +1,025

Staley Coulee:

Just upstream of Canal

Street ................................. +1,023

Approximately 800 feet upstream of North Street ....... +1,032

Maps are available for inspection at the Washtucna

Town Hall, 165 Southeast

Main Street, Washtucna,

Washington.

WYOMING 

Sheridan (City), Sheridan

County (FEMA Docket No.

7318)

Big Goose Creek:

Approximately 1.66 miles upstream of Works Street ..... *3,768

Approximately 4 miles upstream of Works Street ..... *3,800

Little Goose Creek:

Approximately 1,250 feet

downstream of Brundage

Lane ................................... *3,782

Just upstream of County

Road 66 ............................. *3,836

Maps are available for inspection at the City of Sheridan Planning Department, 55

East Grinnell Avenue, Sheridan, Wyoming.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)

Dated: June 18, 2001.

Robert F. Shea,

Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance

Administration and Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 01–15928 Filed 6–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 70

RIN 3067–AD19

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP); Clarification of Letter of Map

Amendment Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We, FEMA, are amending our

procedures for issuing Letters of Map

Amendment (also referred to as LOMAs)

to add a possible outcome to those

already described in our rules. When a

property is outside a designated Special

Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as shown on

the NFIP map we will issue a LOMA but

will not modify the Flood Hazard

Boundary Map (FHBM) or Flood

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 26, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Federal

Insurance Administration, Federal

Emergency Management Agency at (202)

646–3461, or (email)

matt.miller@fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Congress created the 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 floodprone community that chooses to

participate in the program. FEMA makes

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

Title 44, Chapter I, Part 60 of the NFIP

Floodplain Management Regulations (44

CFR Part 60).

Mandatory Purchase of Insurance

The Flood Disaster Protection Act of

1973, as amended by the National Flood

Insurance Reform Act of 1994, mandates

the purchase of flood insurance on

structures located in identified SFHAs

as a condition of Federal or federallyrelated financial assistance for

acquisition or construction of structures

in SFHAs of any community. The Acts

prohibit Federal agency lenders, such as

the Small Business Administration,

United States Department of

Agriculture’s Rural Housing Service,

and Government-Sponsored Enterprises

for Housing (Freddie Mac and Fannie

Mae) from making, increasing,

guaranteeing, or purchasing a loan

secured by improved real estate or

mobile home(s) in an SFHA, unless

flood insurance has been purchased and

maintained on the property during the

term of the loan. The Acts also prohibit

federally-regulated lenders from

making, increasing, 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. The prohibition of

financial assistance also applies to nonparticipating communities.

Need for Clarification of

Determinations

Section 1360 of the National Flood

Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101)

requires the Director of FEMA to

33898 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

identify and map floodplains and to

identify flood risk zones, and also

makes provision for revising and

updating floodplains and flood-risk

zones and requiring public notification

of flood map changes. The requirements

for amending the FIRMs are in 44 CFR

part 70, Procedure for Map Correction.

We amend or 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 criteria for

determining whether to remove

unimproved land or land with

structures from the SFHA because

ground elevations of the land or

structures are above the BFE are in

sections (§§ ) 70.3 and 70.4. If the

criteria are met, we will issue a LOMA.

When requesting a LOMA, property

owners must submit adequate

supporting data according to the criteria

established in §§ 70.3 and 70.4, such as

a legal description of the property,

location of the insurable structure on

the property, and information regarding

the lowest adjacent grade (LAG)

elevation. However, if the structure in

question, when plotted on the NFIP

map, does not touch the mapped SFHA,

we do not require the LAG elevation as

part of the data that support the request.

Under § 70.4, after we review the

scientific or technical information that

the LOMA applicant submitted, we

notify the applicant that we have

compared the ground elevations of the

entire legally defined parcel of land or

the elevation of the lowest adjacent

grade to a structure with the elevation

of the base flood and that:

(a) The property is within a

designated flood-risk zone and we state

the basis for our determination; or

(b) The property should not be

included within a designated flood-risk

zone and we will amend the FHBM or

the FIRM; or

(c) We need an additional 60 days to

make a determination.

There is an alternative outcome that

we sometimes encounter during the

LOMA review process that part 70 does

not describe. After plotting the property

location on the NFIP map, a property or

structure may fall outside the delineated

SFHA. When this happens, the LOMA

states that the property or structure is

‘‘out as shown’’ and there is no need to

take action to correct the map because

the map already indicates that the

property or structure falls outside the

SFHA.

There has been considerable

confusion over the determination made

in some LOMAs that state a property or

structure is ‘‘out as shown’’ on the

effective NFIP map. Specifically, when

a third party determination company

has made a determination for a lender

that a structure is in the SFHA and the

borrower requests a LOMA from FEMA

that results in a determination that the

structure is already mapped outside the

SFHA, lenders are requesting that the

third party change its finding to agree

with FEMA’s. Without comparing the

data used by the determination

company to the data used by FEMA

comparing the property and structure, a

conclusion is unsure. If this conflict

arises during the loan origination

process, there is an established process

for resolving disputes under part 65.17:

‘‘Review of Determinations.’’ We are

amending this rule to clarify the status

of LOMAs that make a determination of

‘‘out as shown.’’

By this rule, we are adding an

additional possible outcome to those

described in § 70.4: The property is not

within a designated SFHA as shown on

the NFIP map and no modification of

the Flood Hazard Boundary Map or

FIRM is necessary.

Administrative Procedure Act

Statement

Under the National Flood Insurance

Program FEMA must identify

floodprone areas throughout the United

States and revise and update flood maps

when sufficient technical data justify a

request for map amendment or map

revision (42 U.S.C. 4101). If an insurable

property is located within an identified

SFHA, the property owner must obtain

flood insurance under specified

conditions (42 U.S.C. 4012a). It follows

that if an insurable property is located

outside an SFHA the mandatory flood

insurance purchase requirements of the

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 do

not apply (although the owner may

purchase flood insurance voluntarily).

This rule is an ‘‘interpretative’’ rule

under the Administrative Procedure Act

(5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). The rule interprets

the National Flood Insurance Act of

1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection

Act of 1973 to clarify that when we find

sufficient technical data and determine

that a property or structure is ‘‘out as

shown’’ on an existing FHBM or FIRM,

that is, when the property is located

outside an SFHA as shown on the map,

we will issue a Letter of Map

Amendment but will not modify the

FHBM or FIRM.

Accordingly, we have determined that

this rule is not subject to the

requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b), and we

are making the rule effective upon

publication under the authority of 5

U.S.C. 553(d)(2). The Office of

Management and Budget, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs, has

reviewed this rule.

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

interpretive rule is to clarify and state

expressly in our rules that when we

determine that a property or structure is

‘‘out as shown’’ on an existing FHBM or

FIRM, we will issue a Letter of Map

Amendment but will not modify the

FHBM or FIRM.

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 under

44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(iv).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule requires the collection of

information. Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (Act) we must consider

the impact of paperwork and other

information collection burdens imposed

on the public. The Act mandates

specific reductions in the amount of

paperwork requirements imposed by

agencies. It requires specific approval by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) of any new requirements for

collection of information imposed on

ten or more persons by an agency;

without such approval, the agency lacks

the authority to enforce any such

requirement. The Act also requires us to

inform respondents that a response is

not required unless the collection of

information displays a valid OMB

control number.

OMB has previously approved the

following information collection

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33899

requirements covered by this final rule

under the provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act, as amended:

OMB Control

Number Title

3067–0147,

Expires

8/31/2001

Report to Submit Technical

or Scientific Data to Correct Mapping Deficiencies

Unrelated to CommunityWide Elevation Determinations (Amendments & Revisions to National Flood

Insurance Program Map)

3067–0148,

Expires

7/31/2001

Consultation with Local Officials to Assure Compliance with Sections 110

and 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of

1973 (Revisions to National Flood Insurance

Program Maps) 81–89/81/

89A 81–89B/81–89C 81/

89D/81/89E 81–89F/81–

89G 81–89H/81–89I 81–

89J/81–89K

3067–0257,

Expires

7/31/2001

Report to Submit Technical

Data to Correct Mapping

Deficiencies Unrelated to

Community-Wide Elevation Determinations for

a Single Residential Lot or

Structure. FEMA–FORM–

81–92.

We will be applying to the Office of

Management and Budget to extend our

authorizations under Control Number

3067–0147, 3067–0148, and 3067–0257.

Any person who is to respond to this

collection of information is not required

to respond unless the collection of

information displays a currently valid

OMB control number.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

We have prepared and reviewed this

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 rule is an ‘‘interpretative’’ rule

under the Administrative Procedure Act

(5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). The rule interprets

the National Flood Insurance Act of

1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection

Act of 1973 to clarify that when we find

sufficient technical data and determine

that a property or structure is ‘‘out as

shown’’ on an existing FHBM or FIRM,

that is, when the property is located

outside an SFHA as shown on the map,

we will issue a Letter of Map

Amendment and that does not modify

the FHBM or FIRM. 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.

Accordingly, this rule is not a major

rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 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 (OMB) has not

reviewed this rule under Executive

Order 12866.

Executive Order 13132, 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 final rule

under Executive Order 13132 and have

concluded that the rule does not have

federalism implications as defined by

the Executive Order. The rule interprets

the National Flood Insurance Act of

1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection

Act of 1973 to clarify that when we find

sufficient technical data and determine

that a property or structure is ‘‘out as

shown’’ on an existing FHBM or FIRM,

that is, when the property is located

outside an SFHA as shown on the map,

we will issue a Letter of Map

Amendment and that does not modify

the FHBM or FIRM.

We have determined that the rule

does not significantly affect the rights,

roles, and responsibilities of States, and

involves no preemption of State law nor

does it limit State policymaking

discretion. Accordingly, the provisions

of Executive Order 13132, Federalism,

do not apply to this rule. The Office of

Management and Budget has reviewed

this rule under the provisions of

Executive Order 13132.

This rule involves no policies that

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132, Federalism,

dated .

Congressional Review of Agency

Rulemaking

We have sent this final rule to the

Congress and to the General Accounting

Office under the Congressional Review

of Agency Rulemaking Act, Pub. L. 104–

121. The rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’

within the meaning of that Act. It is an

interpretive rule in support of normal

day-to-day mapping activities related to

Letters of Map Amendment under the

National Flood Insurance Program.

The rule will not result in a major

increase in costs or prices for

consumers, individual industries,

Federal, State, or local government

agencies, or geographic regions. It will

not have ‘‘significant adverse effects’’ on

competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or on the

ability of United States-based

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises. This final rule is

subject to the information collection

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act and OMB has assigned

Control Nos. 3067–0147, 3067–0148,

and 3067–0257. The rule is not an

unfunded Federal mandate within the

meaning of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–4, and

any enforceable duties that we impose

are a condition of Federal assistance or

a duty arising from participation in a

voluntary Federal program.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 70

Administrative practice and

procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Accordingly, we amend 44 CFR 70 as

follows:

PART 70—PROCEDURE FOR MAP

CORRECTION

1. The authority citation for Part 70

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.

33900 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

2. We revise § 70.4 to read as follows:

§ 70.4 Review by the Director.

The Director, after reviewing the

scientific or technical information

submitted under the provisions of

§ 70.3, shall notify the applicant in

writing of his/her determination within

60 days after we receive the applicant’s

scientific or technical information that

we have compared either the ground

elevations of an entire legally defined

parcel of land or the elevation of the

lowest adjacent grade to a structure with

the elevation of the base flood and that:

(a) The property is within a

designated A, A0, A1–30, AE, AH, A99,

AR, AR/A1–30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/

AH, AR/A, V0, V1–30, VE, or V Zone,

and will state the basis of such

determination; or

(b) The property should not be within

a designated A, A0, A1–30, AE, AH,

A99, AR, AR/A1–30, AR/AE, AR/AO,

AR/AH, AR/A,V0, V1–30, VE, or V Zone

and that we will modify the FHBM or

FIRM accordingly; or

(c) The property is not within a

designated A, A0, A1–30, AE, AH, A99,

AR, AR/A1–30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/

AH, AR/A,V0, V1–30, VE, or V Zone as

shown on the FHBM or FIRM and no

modification of the FHBM or FIRM is

necessary; or

(d) We need an additional 60 days to

make a determination.

* * * * *

Robert F. Shea,

Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–15807 Filed 6–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 206

RIN 3067–AD08

Disaster Assistance; Debris Removal

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We (FEMA) are adding to the

conditions under which we may

determine that debris removal is in the

public interest following a declared

disaster. We may provide funding for

the removal of debris and wreckage

from publicly and privately owned

lands and waters when communities

convert property acquired through a

FEMA program for hazard mitigation

purposes to uses compatible with open

space, recreational, or wetlands

management practices.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

July 26, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melissa M. Howard, Ph.D., Federal

Emergency Management Agency, room

713, 500 C Street SW., Washington DC

20472, (202) 646–4240, or (email)

melissa.howard@fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We

consider that it is in the public interest

to remove substantially damaged

structures and related slabs, driveways,

fencing, garages, sheds, and similar

appurtenances from properties that are

part of a FEMA-funded hazard

mitigation buyout and relocation

project. On May 16, 2000, we published

a proposed rule on debris removal in the

Federal Register, 65 FR 31129, and

invited comments for 60 days ending on

July 15, 2000. We received comments

from three sources representing a

federal agency, a State government, and

a national association.

The proposed rule stated that we

would consider in the public interest

the removal of substantially damaged

structures that a community acquired

through a FEMA-funded hazard

mitigation project. The removal of such

structures would help to mitigate the

risk to life and property by converting

the property to uses that are compatible

with open space, recreational and

wetlands management practices. We

believe that Federal assistance used in

this way supports the effort to break the

cycle of repetitive damage and repair;

such removal is less costly to taxpayers

than paying for repetitive damage and

repair. Mitigation through buyout and

relocation also substantially reduces the

risk of future infrastructure damage and

personal hardship, loss and suffering.

Comment. One commenter asked

whether it is in the public interest to

remove substantially damaged

structures and related appurtenances

during a partial buyout. In these cases,

the commenter said, a FEMA-funded

mitigation program may acquire one

property, but not an adjacent property.

Response. We believe that debris

removal from the acquired property is in

the public interest because that property

will not be built upon in the future. This

type of removal contributes to the goal

of reducing long-term vulnerability. In

the case of an adjacent property, if that

property is not substantially damaged, it

could be removed under section 404 of

the Stafford Act, but it could not be

removed under section 407 since it

would not be debris or wreckage.

Comment. Another commenter stated

that debris and wreckage removal was

just one element of demolition and

suggested that we also fund the razing

of these structures.

Response. We intend to remove only

those structures that may be classed as

debris and wreckage. Razing the

structure in such cases should not be

necessary. However, if a structure and

its appurtenances meet the criteria in

this rule, that is, that the property is

substantially damaged and acquired

through a FEMA-funded hazard

mitigation program, we will fund its

removal and will include razing and

disposal as applicable.

Comment. A related comment asked

that we fund the removal of all damaged

structures acquired through a FEMAfunded mitigation program, not just

those that are substantially damaged.

Section 407 of the Stafford Act allows

for the removal of debris and wreckage.

Response. We do not consider

structures to be debris and wreckage if

they are not substantially damaged. If

we were to fund their removal, we

would have to do so under the authority

of section 404 of the Stafford Act. In

order to lessen the administrative

burden of funding on a structure-bystructure basis in areas where some

structures are substantially damaged

and others are not, we will fund debris

and wreckage removal on a prorated

basis. For example, if 60 percent of

structures are substantially damaged, we

will reimburse 60 percent of the costs

for removing all structures acquired

through a FEMA-funded mitigation

program.

Comment. A final comment raised the

issue of timelines for completion of

debris removal. The commenter thought

that assisting in the buyout process

would prevent the Public Assistance

Program from reaching disaster closeout

objectives. The commenter suggested

that we limit funding to 12 months after

the declaration.

Response. We understand the point of

the commenter and agree that the use of

the authority must be time-limited.

Because we find a one-year deadline to

be impractical, we have established a

two-year deadline, which we do find

reasonable. Therefore, we will allow

two years from the declaration date to

obligate funds and complete the

removal of substantially damaged

structures.

National Environmental Policy Act

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 under

44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(vii).