20804 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 75 / Thursday, April 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart H—Implementation of the 

Federal Asset Sales Program 

§ 102–38.360 What must an executive 

agency do to implement the eFAS program? 

(a) An executive agency must review 

the effectiveness of all sales solutions, 

and compare them to the effectiveness 

(e.g., cost, level of service, and value 

added services) of the eFAS SCs. 

Agencies should give full consideration 

to sales solutions utilizing private sector 

entities, including small businesses, that 

are more effective than the solutions 

provided by any eFAS-approved SC. If 

the agency decides that there are more 

effective sales solutions than those 

solutions offered by the eFAS SCs, the 

agency must request a waiver from the 

milestones using the procedures and 

forms provided by the eFAS Planning 

Office. Waivers will be approved by the 

eFAS Planning Office upon presentation 

of a business case showing that 

complying with an eFAS milestone is 

either impracticable or inefficient. 

Waiver approval will be coordinated 

with GSA’s Office of Travel, 

Transportation, and Asset Management. 

Contact the eFAS Planning Office at 

FASPlanningOffice@gsa.gov to obtain 

these procedures and forms. 

(b) An approved waiver for meeting 

one of the eFAS milestones does not 

automatically waive all milestone 

requirements. For example, if an agency 

receives a waiver to the migration 

milestone, the agency must still (1) post 

asset information on the eFAS Web site 

and (2) provide post-sales data to the 

eFAS Planning Office in accordance 

with the content and format 

requirements developed by the eFAS 

ESC, unless waivers to these milestones 

are also requested and approved. 

Waivers to the eFAS milestones will not 

be permanent. Upon expiration of the 

waiver to the migration milestone, an 

agency must either migrate to an 

approved SC, or serve as a fully 

functioning SC, as soon as practicable. 

See the definition of a ‘‘Sales Center’’ at 

§ 102–38.35 for an overview of how 

agency sales solutions become SCs. 

(c) An agency which receives a waiver 

from the eFAS milestones must comply 

with subparts A through G of this part 

as if it were an SC. 

(d) An executive agency must comply 

with all eFAS milestones approved by 

OMB including those regarding the 

completion of an agency-wide sales 

migration plan, the reporting of pre- and 

post-sales data, and the migration to 

approved SCs unless a waiver has been 

submitted by the agency and approved 

by the eFAS Planning Office. The eFAS 

milestones are available for viewing at 

http://www.gsa.gov/govsalesmilestones. 

§ 102–38.365 Is a holding agency required 

to report property in ‘‘scrap’’ condition to 

its selected SC? 

No. Property which has no value 

except for its basic material content 

(scrap material) may be disposed of by 

the holding agency by sale or as 

otherwise provided in § 102–38.70. 

However, the holding agency should 

consult the SC(s) selected by the 

holding agency as to the feasibility of 

selling the scrap material. Agencies 

selling scrap property under authority of 

this subpart are still required to report 

sales metrics in accordance with eFAS 

ESC-approved format and content. 

§ 102–38.370 What does a holding agency 

do with property which cannot be sold by 

its SC? 

All reasonable efforts must be 

afforded the SC to sell the property. If 

the property remains unsold after the 

time frame agreed to between the SC 

and the holding agency, the holding 

agency may dispose of the property by 

sale or as otherwise provided in § 102–

38.70. The lack of public interest in 

buying the property is evidence that the 

sales proceeds would be minimal. 

Agencies selling property under 

authority of this subpart are still 

required to report sales metrics in 

accordance with eFAS ESC-approved 

format and content. 

[FR Doc. E8–8314 Filed 4–16–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 422 and 423 

[CMS–4133–CN] 

RIN 0938–AP25 

Medicare Program; Modification to the 

Weighting Methodology Used To 

Calculate the Low-Income Benchmark 

Amount; Correction 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Correction of final. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects 

mathematical errors that appeared in the 

impact analysis accompanying the final 

rule that appeared in the Federal 

Register on April 3, 2008 entitled, 

‘‘Modification to the Weighting 

Methodology Used to Calculate the 

Low-Income Benchmark Amount.’’

DATES: Effective Date: May 31, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Spitalnic, (410) 786–2328. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc.08–1088 of April 3, 2008 

(73 FR 18176), there were a number of 

technical errors that are identified and 

corrected in the Correction of Errors 

section below. The provisions in this 

correction notice are effective as if they 

had been included in the document 

printed in the Federal Register on April 

3, 2008. Accordingly, the corrections are 

effective May 31, 2008. 

II. Summary of Errors 

This correction notice corrects the 

impact estimates shown in the preamble 

to the final rule, Medicare Program; 

Modification to the Weighting 

Methodology Used to Calculate the 

Low-Income Benchmark Amount (CMS–

4133–F), which appeared in the Federal 

Register on April 3, 2008. That final 

rule introduced an improved weighting 

method in the calculation of the lowincome benchmark premium amount 

under section 1860D–14(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 

the Social Security Act. 

The impact estimates presented in the 

final rule were affected by a 

mathematical calculation error that 

resulted in an overestimate of the 

number of Medicare Part D enrollees 

affected by the final rule and a similar 

overestimate of the additional cost to 

Medicare under the new policy. This 

notice corrects the estimated reduction 

in the future number of low-income 

subsidy eligible beneficiaries who 

would have to be reassigned to a 

different Part D prescription drug 

benefit plan. The original estimate was 

850,000, and the corrected number is 

580,000. Further, the additional cost of 

the rule was originally estimated to total 

$1.68 billion for fiscal years 2009 

through 2018, and the corrected 

estimated cost is $1.23 billion. The 

correction of these estimation errors has 

no effect on the policy adopted in the 

final rule, on the Part D low-income 

subsidy benchmarks previously 

determined for 2008, or on 

beneficiaries’’ enrollment in Part D 

plans in 2008. 

III. Correction of Errors 

In FR Doc. 08–1088 of April 3, 2008 

(73 FR 18176), make the following 

corrections: 

1. On page 18178, in the second 

column, in the first full paragraph, in 

line 27, change the number ‘‘850,000’’ to 

‘‘580,000.’’

2. On pages 18180 through 18182, 

section ‘‘V. Regulatory Impact 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 75 / Thursday, April 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 20805 

Statement’’ is deleted and is replaced in 

its entirety to read as follows: 

V. Regulatory Impact Statement 

A. Overall Impact 

We have examined the impact of this 

rule as required by Executive Order 

12866 (September 1993, Regulatory 

Planning and Review), the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 

1980, Pub. L. 96–354), section 1102(b) of 

the Social Security Act, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4), Executive Order 13132 on 

Federalism, and the Congressional 

Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

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). A regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) must be prepared for 

major rules with economically 

significant effects ($100 million or more 

in any 1 year). This rule allows CMS to 

calculate the low-income premium 

benchmark amounts by weighting the 

premium amounts by total LIS 

enrollment for each plan in order to 

reduce the number of reassignments 

compared to the current regulatory 

framework. We believe this final rule 

will lead to additional Federal costs of 

approximately $60 million for calendar 

year (CY) 2009. The CY 2009 cost of $60 

million represents our best estimate of 

the cost of the final rule. Generally, our 

best estimates reflect an equal 

likelihood of being too high or too low. 

The estimated cost over the next 10 

fiscal years (2009 through 2018) is $1.23 

billion. The year-by-year impacts in 

millions of dollars are shown in Table 

1 below. The $60 million estimate above 

is for CY 2009. The table below 

summarizes the fiscal year (FY) costs. 

Yearly growth is due to an estimated 

increase in the number of enrollees in 

future years and increasing drug trends 

that cause higher estimated bids in 

future years. 

TABLE 1.—FEDERAL COSTS FOR FY 2009 THROUGH FY 2018 

Fiscal year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2009–

2018 

Estimated Costs (in millions) ....... $50 $80 $90 $100 $110 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200 $1,230 

This rule does reach the economic 

threshold of $100 million in the outyears and thus is considered a major 

rule, as outlined by Executive Order 

12866. 

This cost is due to increased Federal 

premium subsidy payments, which are 

the result of generally increasing the 

low-income benchmarks. The higher 

benchmarks allow a greater number of 

low-income beneficiaries to remain in 

their current plan, rather than 

reassigning them to a lower cost plan. 

In each region, the low-income 

benchmark essentially functions as a 

ceiling for the Federal premium subsidy 

for low-income beneficiaries. That is, 

the Federal premium subsidy covers the 

full cost of the plan’s basic Part D 

premium for a full-subsidy beneficiary, 

up to the low-income benchmark 

amount. 

Weighting based on each plan’s share 

of LIS enrollment generally is expected 

to increase the low-income benchmarks. 

We estimated that, in 2008, if the lowincome benchmarks had been calculated 

based on LIS enrollment weighting 

(rather than based on total Part D 

enrollment weighting), the benchmarks 

would have been higher in 21 of the 34 

PDP regions. Generally, the higher the 

low-income benchmarks, the lower the 

number of LIS reassignments. This is 

because, under the higher benchmarks, 

more PDPs are likely to have premiums 

that are equal to or less than the lowincome benchmark and, as a result, will 

be fully covered by the premium 

subsidy. Low-income subsidy 

beneficiaries are able to remain in these 

PDPs and are not reassigned to other 

lower-premium PDPs. 

We expect this rule will reduce the 

administrative costs for plan sponsors 

associated with the reassignment of LIS 

beneficiaries. These costs include the 

production of new member 

informational materials by the new 

plan, increased staffing of call centers to 

field beneficiary questions, and costs 

associated with implementing transition 

benefits for new enrollees. 

Although there is no quantifiable 

monetary value to CMS to reducing 

reassignments, we feel this benefit is 

important as it will increase program 

stability and continuity of care. The rule 

supports pharmacy and formulary 

consistency for the beneficiary. 

Particularly in regions with high MA-PD 

penetration, this rule will reduce the 

year-to-year volatility in reassignments 

of LIS beneficiaries and will help avoid 

the disruption that is inherent any time 

a beneficiary is switched from one plan 

to another. 

Based on the most recent bid results, 

we estimated that if the 2008 

benchmarks had been calculated using 

LIS enrollment weighting, there would 

have been approximately 580,000 fewer 

reassignments than if the benchmarks 

had been calculated using total Part D 

enrollment weighting. Then we 

determined the impact of the revised 

benchmarks and reassignments on 

program payments throughout the 

projection period. We do not explicitly 

project reassignments in future years. 

The expectation is that the net effect of 

future reassignments will result in 

projected cost levels comparable to the 

results of the reassignments modeled on 

the most recent bid results. 

The cost estimate assumes full 

enrollment weighting based on LIS 

enrollment for the calculations of the 

low-income benchmark premium 

amounts. The estimate was developed 

by applying this rule against the 2008 

bids and this impact was projected 

throughout the forecast period. The 

estimate does not anticipate any change 

in bidding strategies or outcomes but 

does include the effect on the level of 

administrative costs plan sponsors will 

include in their bids to account for their 

expected number of LIS beneficiary 

reassignments. 

The proposed rule estimated Federal 

savings of approximately $20 million 

per calendar year. However, the final 

rule estimates an additional $60 million 

in Federal costs for CY 2009. There are 

two reasons that the cost estimate has 

changed. First, the budget baseline has 

been updated since the issuance of the 

proposed rule. The Mid-Session Review 

baseline assumed the continuation of 

the $1 de minimis policy; the 

President’s 2009 Budget baseline does 

not. Because of the change in 

assumptions about the de minimis 

policy, even if we had stayed with the 

five zero-premium organization policy 

in the proposed rule, the cost of the 

final rule would have changed from 

savings of approximately $20 million 

per year to costs of approximately $10 

million per year. Second, this final rule 

changes the weighting methodology 

used to calculate the low-income 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

20806 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 75 / Thursday, April 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

benchmark premium amount. As 

discussed in the rationale, CMS has 

changed the method for calculating the 

Federal premium subsidy for LIS 

beneficiaries so that the subsidy amount 

better reflects the premiums of plans in 

which LIS beneficiaries are enrolled. 

The final rule uses each plan’s share of 

LIS enrollment, rather than each plan’s 

share of total Part D enrollment, to 

weight each plan’s premium. This 

change results in fewer reassignments 

than the proposed rule (approximately 

400,000) and greater low-income 

premium subsidy costs. The 

relationship between reassignments and 

the premium subsidy is described 

above. 

The RFA requires agencies to analyze 

options for regulatory relief of small 

businesses. For purposes of the RFA, 

small entities include small businesses, 

nonprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. Most 

hospitals and most other providers and 

suppliers are small entities, either by 

nonprofit status or by having revenues 

of $6.5 million to $31.5 million in any 

1 year. Individuals and States are not 

included in the definition of a small 

entity. We are not preparing an analysis 

for the RFA because we have 

determined, and the Secretary certifies, 

that this regulation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act 

requires us to prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis if a rule may have a 

significant impact on the operations of 

a substantial number of small rural 

hospitals. This analysis must conform to 

the provisions of section 604 of the 

RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of 

the Act, we define a small rural hospital 

as a hospital that is located outside of 

a Metropolitan Statistical Area for 

Medicare payment regulations and has 

fewer than 100 beds. We are not 

preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) 

of the Act because we have determined, 

and the Secretary certifies, that this 

regulation will not have a significant 

impact on the operations of a substantial 

number of small rural hospitals. 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also 

requires that agencies assess anticipated 

costs and benefits before issuing any 

rule whose mandates require spending 

in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 

dollars, updated annually for inflation. 

That threshold level is currently 

approximately $130 million. This rule 

will have no consequential effect on 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector. 

Executive Order 13132 establishes 

certain requirements that an agency 

must meet when it promulgates a 

proposed rule (and subsequent final 

rule) that imposes substantial direct 

requirement costs on State and local 

governments, preempts State law, or 

otherwise has Federalism implications. 

Since this regulation does not impose 

any costs on State or local governments, 

the requirements of E.O. 13132 are not 

applicable. 

B. Anticipated Effects 

We have estimated the effect this 

regulation will have on the number of 

reassignments, the number of zeropremium plans available to full-subsidy 

eligible individuals in each region, and 

bid incentives. 

This rule will reduce the number of 

reassignments compared to the current 

regulatory framework. In 2008, under 

the provisions of the ‘‘Medicare 

Demonstration to Transition Enrollment 

of Low-Income Subsidy Beneficiaries,’’

approximately 1.19 million LIS 

beneficiaries were reassigned to new 

Part D organizations. We estimated that 

if the 2008 benchmarks had been 

calculated under the current regulation 

(that is, full enrollment weighted using 

all enrollees), the number of LIS 

reassignments would have been 2.18 

million. Under the policy in the 

proposed rule, the number of 

reassignments would have declined by 

approximately 200,000 (compared to the 

current regulation) to 2.0 million. We 

estimate that, if the 2008 benchmarks 

had been calculated using the LIS 

weighting methodology in this final 

rule, the benchmarks would have been 

higher in 21 of the 34 regions and the 

number of reassignments would have 

been 1.60 million—approximately 

580,000 lower than under the current 

regulation. The amount of the 

benchmark increase averaged $2.22. 

We estimate that this final rule, if 

implemented in 2008, would have 

reduced the benchmarks slightly in 13 

regions as compared to the current 

regulation. These regions tend to have 

low MA–PD penetration and a 

concentration of LIS beneficiaries in 

PDPs with relatively low premiums. The 

amount of the benchmark reduction 

averaged $1.13. In 2008, these 

benchmark reductions would have 

increased reassignments in total by 

about 150,000. The 1.60 million 

estimate noted above is net of these 

increased reassignments. 

We estimate that this final rule, if 

implemented in 2008, would have 

increased the number of zero premium 

organizations available to beneficiaries 

in 16 of the 34 PDP regions. This is 

somewhat lower than the number of 

regions where the benchmarks would 

have been higher (21), because some 

regions did not have any new plans that 

landed under the benchmark with the 

new calculation. In addition, in 2008, 

this regulation would have resulted in at 

least four zero-premium organizations 

in every Part D region with the 

exception of one region, which would 

have had three zero-premium 

organizations. 

This approach maintains a strong 

incentive to bid low to keep and 

possibly add LIS beneficiaries. Absent 

the rule, there may be a ‘‘winner take 

all’’ outcome in certain regions with one 

organization acquiring all of the LIS 

beneficiaries in the region. It is difficult 

to predict what will happen in the 

absence of this rule, but we expect some 

organizations will be induced to bid 

even lower while other organizations 

will give up on this population and bid 

higher. 

C. Alternatives Considered 

As stated in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

of this final rule, we considered 

allowing PDP Sponsors to reduce their 

premium to the subsidy amount after it 

was established for LIS-eligible 

individuals without regard to the 

amount of their premium. We also 

considered allowing plans with 

premiums under a fixed dollar amount 

to reduce their low-income premiums to 

the premium subsidy amount (de 

minimis). We determined, however, that 

these options would undermine the 

integrity and competitiveness of the 

bidding process. 

We also considered changing our 

approach to reassignment to an 

approach that would allow LIS-eligible 

individuals to be informed of zeropremium PDP options for full-subsidy 

eligibles, but would remain in their 

current plan, regardless of the premium, 

if they take no action. Beneficiary 

advocacy groups were concerned about 

beneficiaries being charged a premium 

without electing to pay it. 

We also considered changing the 

regulation to calculate the benchmarks 

using MA–PD premiums before they 

have been reduced by Part C rebates. 

That approach, however, is not 

permitted under the statute. 

Finally, we considered the policy in 

the proposed rule itself, which was an 

option for PDP Sponsors in regions with 

less than five zero-premium PDPs to 

offer a separate prescription drug 

premium amount for full subsidy 

eligible individuals subject to certain 

conditions. In response to comments 

received on the proposed rule, we 

determined that this approach did not 

address the reassignment issue as 

effectively as the LIS benchmark 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 75 / Thursday, April 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 20807 

weighting approach recommended by 

commenters. 

D. Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/ 

a004/a-4.pdf), in Table 2 below, we 

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this final rule. This table 

provides our best estimate of the cost 

associated due to increased Federal lowincome premium subsidy payments, 

which are primarily the result of 

allowing a greater number of lowincome beneficiaries to remain in their 

current plan, rather than reassigning 

them to a lower cost plan. All 

expenditures are classified as costs to 

the Federal Government. 

TABLE 2.—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT: CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE

WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY USED TO CALCULATE THE LOW-INCOME BENCHMARK AMOUNT, FINAL RULE

Category: Monetized costs Costs ($ millions) 

Single Year CY 2009 ............................................................................................................................................................... $60 

Annualized Monetized Costs Using 7% Discount Rate FY 2009–FY 2018 ........................................................................... 114.6 

Annualized Monetized Costs Using 3% Discount Rate FY 2009–FY 2018 ........................................................................... 119.3 

Undiscounted Cumulative Costs—FY 2009–FY 2018 ............................................................................................................ 1,230 

Costs reflect transfers from the Federal Government to Health Plans. 

E. Conclusion 

This rule is estimated to result in an 

increased Federal cost of $60 million in 

CY 2009 and $1.23 billion over the next 

10 fiscal years (2009 through 2018). As 

explained above, these costs are 

primarily due to an increase in lowincome premium subsidy payments. 

This rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, so we are not 

preparing an analysis for the RFA. In 

addition, the regulation will not have a 

significant impact on the operations of 

a substantial number of small rural 

hospitals, so we are not preparing an 

analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act. 

The analysis above, together with the 

preamble, provides a Regulatory Impact 

Analysis as it qualifies as a major rule 

under Executive Order 12866. In 

accordance with the provisions of 

Executive Order 12866, this regulation 

was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking 

We ordinarily publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register to provide a period for public 

comment before the provisions of a rule 

take effect in accordance with section 

553(b) of the Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, 

we can waive this notice and comment 

procedure if the Secretary finds, for 

good cause, that the notice and 

comment process is impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest, and incorporates a statement of 

the finding and the reasons therefore in 

the notice. 

This correction notice does not make 

any changes to the final rule printed in 

the Federal Register on April 3, 2008, 

which was the product of a public 

notice and comment process. Rather, 

this notice corrects an arithmetic error 

that was reflected in the impact analysis 

accompanying the final rule. Because 

this error does not affect the substance 

of the final rule or involve any exercise 

of policy discretion, we do not believe 

an additional comment period is 

necessary. 

In addition, because MA 

organizations and PDP Sponsors have 

already begun the process of preparing 

their bids for 2009, and may take the 

erroneous impact analysis in the final 

rule into account in doing so, it is in the 

public interest to publish a corrected 

impact statement as soon as possible. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital 

Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, 

Medicare—Supplementary Medical 

Insurance Program) 

Dated: April 11, 2008. 

Ashley Files Flory, 

Deputy Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 08–1136 Filed 4–11–08; 3:55 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 65 

[Docket No. FEMA–B–7772] 

Changes in Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Interim rule. 

SUMMARY: This interim rule lists 

communities where modification of the 

Base (1% annual-chance) Flood 

Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because 

of new scientific or technical data. New 

flood insurance premium rates will be 

calculated from the modified BFEs for 

new buildings and their contents. 

DATES: These modified BFEs are 

currently in effect on the dates listed in 

the table below and revise the Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect 

prior to this determination for the listed 

communities. 

From the date of the second 

publication of these changes in a 

newspaper of local circulation, any 

person has ninety (90) days in which to 

request through the community that the 

Mitigation Assistant Administrator of 

FEMA reconsider the changes. The 

modified BFEs may be changed during 

the 90-day period. 

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the office of the Chief Executive 

Officer of each community. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering 

Management Branch, Mitigation 

Directorate, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

modified BFEs are not listed for each 

community in this interim rule. 

However, the address of the Chief 

Executive Officer of the community 

where the modified BFE determinations 

are available for inspection is provided. 

Any request for reconsideration must 

be based on knowledge of changed 

conditions or new scientific or technical 

data. 

The modifications are made pursuant 

to section 201 of the Flood Disaster 

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, 

and are in accordance with the National 

Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 

4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES