Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 19197

proposed disapproval of those

redesignation requests.

These areas differ from Pittsburgh,

however. In the case of the two other

moderate areas, EPA’s 18-month period

for acting on the redesignation requests

has not yet expired and EPA is not yet

legally obligated to take action on those

requests. In contrast, in the case of

Pittsburgh, EPA’s statutory 18-month

period for taking action expired in May

of 1995. See CAA § 107(d)(3)(D). Thus,

the time period for EPA to act on the

Pittsburgh redesignation has expired,

but has not done so in the case of

Muskegon and Cincinnati. Birmingham

is a marginal area that has a less serious

ozone air quality problem than

Pittsburgh, a moderate area. Although

EPA has not yet acted on Birmingham’s

redesignation request, that fact does not

justify further inaction on Pittsburgh’s

request in light of the expiration of the

18-month statutory time period for

acting on Pittsburgh’s November 12,

1993 request.

EPA notes that it has not and may not

(in light of section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) and

107(d)(3)(E)) approve a redesignation

request for an area that is violating the

ozone standard. Thus, the three other

areas just discussed, like Pittsburgh, are

and must remain designated

nonattainment areas until they attain

the standard and satisfy the other

redesignation criteria.

With respect to the comment that EPA

treated Pittsburgh differently by not

approving its redesignation request

while approving others, EPA notes that

Pittsburgh’s request, unlike the others

EPA approved, does not and did not

meet other redesignation criteria of

section 107(d)(3)(E). (See Response to

Comment 4.) Thus, EPA did not treat

Pittsburgh differently from other

similarly situated areas by not

approving its redesignation request

while approving others. The others

satisfied the statutory criteria for

redesignation; Pittsburgh’s did not.

Final Action

Because the Pittsburgh area is not

eligible for redesignation, EPA is

disapproving Pennsylvania’s request for

redesignation of the Pittsburgh area and

the accompanying maintenance plan,

which was originally submitted on

November 12, 1993, and amended on

January 13, 1994 and May 12, 1995.

When the final disapproval of the

maintenance plan is effective, the

Pittsburgh area will no longer be able to

demonstrate conformity to the

submitted maintenance plan pursuant to

the transportation conformity

requirements in 40 CFR 93.128(i). Since

the submitted maintenance plan budget

will no longer apply for transportation

conformity purposes, the build/no-build

and less-than-90 tests will apply

pursuant to 40 CFR 93.122. In addition,

the Commonwealth submitted a 15%

rate-of-progress plan (15% plan) on

March 22, 1996. Ninety days after this

submittal date, the emissions budget

contained in this 15% plan will apply

for conformity purposes pursuant to 40

CFR 93.118 and 93.128(a)(1)(ii), as well

as the build/no-build test under 40 CFR

93.122.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed/promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

As described in the NPR, EPA has

determined that the disapproval of the

redesignation request will not affect a

substantial number of small entities.

EPA’s denial of the Commonwealth’s

redesignation request under section

107(d)(3)(E) of the Act does not affect

any existing requirements applicable to

small entities nor does it impose new

requirements. The area retains its

current designation status and will

continue to be subject to the same

statutory requirements. To the extent

that the area must adopt regulations,

based on its nonattainment status, EPA

will review the effect of those actions on

small entities at the time the

Commonwealth submits those

regulations.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action, pertaining to the

disapproval of Pennsylvania’s

redesignation request and maintenance

plan for the Pittsburgh ozone

nonattainment area, must be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 1, 1996.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 22, 1996.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 96–10698 Filed 4–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Parts 61 and 206

RIN 3067–AC35

National Flood Insurance Program;

Group Flood Insurance Policy for

Individual and Family Grant Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Interim final rule with request

for comments.
19198 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

SUMMARY: This interim final rule

changes FEMA’s Individual and Family

Grant (IFG) regulations by establishing a

minimum damage threshold of $201 or

more in real or personal property losses,

or both, resulting from any type of

incident in order to receive an IFG

award in these damage categories. The

rule also changes our flood insurance

regulations for IFG award recipients in

Presidentially declared major disasters

by establishing a Group Flood Insurance

Policy (GFIP) and the criteria for its

implementation. This interim final rule

also authorizes the GFIP, as a one-time,

pilot project, for recipients of the State

of Alaska’s own, fully funded disaster

assistance grants to help individuals

and families recover from flooding in

September and October 1995.

Comments are being solicited on making

the GFIP available in the future to any

State with a fully funded, disaster

assistance grant program for individuals

and families.

DATES: This interim final rule is

effective on May 1, 1996. Please submit

any comments in writing by July 1,

1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles M. Plaxico, Jr., Federal

Emergency Management Agency,

Federal Insurance Administration, (202)

646–3422, (facsimile) (202) 646–4327; or

Laurence W. Zensinger in FEMA’s

Response and Recovery Directorate,

(202) 646–3642, (facsimile) (202) 646–

2730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 7, 1995, FEMA published in

the Federal Register (Vol. 60, page

7130) an interim final rule changing the

flood insurance regulations for

Individual and Family Grant program

recipients in Presidentially declared

major disasters, in order to meet the

mandates of § 582 of the National Flood

Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (NFIRA),

which the President signed into law on

September 23, 1994.

On March 15, 1995, FEMA then

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 13945) a proposed rule to establish

an IFG eligibility requirement of $201 or

more in real or personal property

damage, or both, resulting from any type

of disaster incident in order to receive

an IFG award for items in these

categories. In the same rule, we

proposed to establish a GFIP and

proposed criteria for the GFIP ’s

implementation by the National Flood

Insurance Program (NFIP) when FEMA

provides IFG awards.

The term of the GFIP will be for 36

months, and, for implementation under

the IFG program, will begin 60 days

from the date of the disaster declaration.

For the pilot project to be conducted in

the State of Alaska, the term of the GFIP

will begin on the date this interim final

rule is published in the Federal

Register. On and after the inception date

of the GFIP, coverage for individual IFG

recipients or the named insureds under

FEMA’s pilot project with the State of

Alaska, will begin on the 30th day after

the NFIP receives from the State the

records of GFIP insureds and their

premium payments. Hereafter and with

this understanding, the GFIP will be

referred to as a 3-year policy.

To meet the NFIRA requirements that

were effective when the President

signed the law on September 23, 1994,

FEMA had to write the February 7, 1995

interim final rule to be effective

retroactively. However, FEMA

welcomed comments for a 60-day

period. The proposed rule, which made

additions to the same paragraphs

changed by the interim final rule,

provided for a 45-day comment period.

To ensure State and Regional personnel

were informed of these two rules, FEMA

staff included a rules presentation at

eight Human Services Automated

Systems Orientation (HSASO) sessions,

at which time issues were discussed and

written comments were encouraged.

FEMA also requested comments on the

estimates for the additional paperwork

or record-keeping reporting burden in

connection with the time it would take

a State to research and compile the

information and send premium

payments to the NFIP. FEMA invited

the public to submit comments to the

agency or to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) on the paperwork

issues including the burden estimates

and any aspects of the information

collection requirements. Neither FEMA

nor OMB received comments in

connection with the collection of

information.

FEMA received four sets of written

comments on each of the two rules—

two of the six respondents commented

on both rules. The tally of comments

included representatives of four state

agencies dealing with emergency

management, a private consultant

service dealing with banking and

legislative issues, and an insurance

committee of an association concerned

with floodplain management issues.

While generally supportive of the

proposal to establish a GFIP the

respondents did express concern for one

or more of the proposed provisions.

One State agency had a series of

concerns. The first concern questioned

how the February 7, 1995 interim final

rule escaped OMB review. OMB does

not require a review of rules where the

aggregate annual impact of the rule is

less than $100 million.

The second concern, which was

shared by another State, was that the

NFIRA would place an administrative

and monitoring burden on the States as

an unfunded mandate. One State felt

this would occur even if NFIP would

track and maintain all information.

FEMA has worked hard to take up the

administrative burden for the States and

will further ease burdens by tracking

flood insurance maintenance beyond

the 3-year requirement that has been in

effect since the Flood Disaster

Protection Act of 1973.

The State’s third concern was that the

NFIRA requirements should be

effectuated after the date FEMA had

notified them by letter of the

requirement. By mandating that the

flood insurance purchase and

maintenance requirement be made

effective upon the signature of the

President, Congress clearly intended to

allow no exemptions. As a result FEMA

had no time to inform States of the

requirements and allow them to prepare

for the consequences.

The next concern was that the cost of

implementing the rule would be greater

to Federal and State governments than

the benefits of tracking data for the life

of each property. Congress clearly

intended NFIRA mandates to be carried

out regardless of the costs. However,

since FEMA already tracks the data

necessary to administer this program,

there should be no additional burden to

States.

This State then proposed alternatives

to NFIRA legislation. However, those

alternatives are already part of NFIRA or

are part of the implementing

regulations.

A second State felt it was punitive to

require new owners to purchase and

maintain flood insurance; this feeling

was shared by many State participants

in the HSASO sessions held during the

comment periods. The NFIRA—not the

rule—requires new owners to maintain

flood insurance. Congress intended for

property owners who buy or build in a

floodplain to protect themselves or bear

the cost. Accordingly, disaster

assistance will not be provided to the

occupant for a second flood when flood

insurance has not been purchased and

maintained by the new owner.

Two States questioned who would be

responsible for informing the buyer of

property upon which the flood

insurance purchase and maintenance

requirements were imposed. The NFIRA

stipulates the ‘‘transferor’’ or seller of

the property must disclose this

requirement to the buyer, and such

written notification must be contained
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 19199

in documents evidencing the transfer of

ownership of the property.

Three States and the association

expressed concern about a database

tracking system for real estate

transactions. Rather than attempt to

undertake the impossible task of

tracking such sales forever, FEMA has

chosen to prohibit Federal flood disaster

assistance from being provided for a

property a second time. To do otherwise

would place a heavy burden on State

and local governments.

The association felt the Federal

government, and not the States, should

maintain any database required to

implement the mandates imposed by

§ 582 of the NFIRA. FEMA agrees and

will maintain the database.

A State and the association expressed

concern that was also voiced by the

majority of attenders at the HSASO

sessions, namely, that the coverage

maintenance requirement, equating to

the IFG maximum grant amount, is a

financial hardship to IFG recipients,

who are predominantly the elderly and

individuals and families receiving

public support. FEMA must implement

laws enacted by the Congress. In

recognizing that maintaining flood

insurance is a hardship on those with

limited income, FEMA is establishing a

GFIP to assist grantees for up to 3 years

of coverage. However, in keeping with

the spirit of NFIRA to increase NFIP

participation and replace disaster

assistance with flood insurance

coverage, we have decided to establish

for all IFG recipients the maximum IFG

award amount as the amount of flood

insurance to be bought and maintained

as a condition for future IFG eligibility

for any uninsured flood-damaged real or

personal property, or both.

The association recommended a longterm, low-cost policy providing a fixed

amount of flood insurance coverage, and

offering the grantee the option of

purchasing either a GFIP or a Standard

Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP). Under a

GFIP, the State will provide the grantee

with up to 3 years of coverage. The

grantee can always switch to an SFIP at

an increased cost.

The association and a State were

concerned that grantees will not

maintain flood insurance beyond the

end of the 3-year term of the GFIP.

FEMA shares this concern. NFIP will

send a notice to GFIP certificate holders

at the end of the 3-year policy period to

alert them to the maintenance

requirement and to the consequences of

not maintaining flood insurance. The

notice will (1) encourage them to apply

for NFIP’s conventional SFIP by

contacting a local insurance agent,

producer, or a private insurance

company selling NFIP policies, and (2)

advise them as to the amount of

coverage they must maintain in order

not to jeopardize their eligibility for

future disaster assistance.

One of the States suggested that the

responsibility of the NFIP to notify the

IFG grantee/policyholder toward the

end of the 3-year coverage period (as

described in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the proposed

rule and as discussed above) be

incorporated into the implementing

regulations. FEMA agrees and a new

paragraph (c) incorporating such

language has been added to § 61.17.

The consultant recommended that the

cost of the flood insurance be deducted

from the grant award and that flood

insurance coverage be placed directly by

FEMA through its regional offices. To

ensure that the IFG recipient will have

coverage as soon after the grant award

as possible, a fixed premium amount

will be added to the IFG awards (subject

to the current grant maximum), but

withheld from the grant and provided

directly to the NFIP Servicing Agent.

Since the Servicing Agent is already

equipped to issue policies, it would not

be cost-effective to duplicate this

capability using the limited FEMA

resources in the regions. The Servicing

Agent will send the IFG recipient a

Certificate of Flood Insurance and

advise the grantee of the option of

securing increased limits of coverage by

purchasing an SFIP at an increased cost.

One of the States suggested we

continue to allow grants of $200 or less,

but exempt those recipients from the

insurance requirement. The law does

not appear to allow us the option of

exempting grantees from maintaining

flood insurance. Therefore, we have

determined it was more cost-effective

for the victim and the government to

disallow grants of $200 or less for

damages or losses to real or personal

property, or both. This minimum-loss

eligibility requirement shall be

applicable not only to floods, but also to

all types of disaster incidents.

The consultant questioned whether

the maximum grant amount (then

$12,600) was for the entire family or

each member of the household, since

there appeared to be an inconsistency in

reference to ‘‘homeowner.’’ The

proposed rule refers to a ‘‘homeowner’’

in context of an insurance ‘‘policy’’,

whereas grants are made to each eligible

property owner to apply to damaged/

lost property. The maintenance

requirement is, therefore, placed on

each property owner who receives a

grant.

The consultant then questioned how

new maps or revised map changes

would affect a homeowner who has

received a grant when the property was

not initially in a special flood hazard

area (SFHA) and, as a result of a new or

revised map, is placed in an SFHA. If a

property was not in an SFHA at the time

the grant was given, there would have

been no flood insurance purchase

requirement. If the homeowner were to

apply for an IFG grant at a later date

after the property had been placed in an

SFHA, the flood insurance purchase

requirement would apply and the State

would follow the procedure for securing

a GFIP for that IFG recipient.

The fourth State objected to the

burdensome requirement of providing

NFIP with weekly reports and

payments. Since FEMA does not want to

burden States, we are asking for weekly

vs. daily reports. FEMA will also

provide States with an automated

system that will support this

requirement.

The same State felt that the NFIRA

flood insurance requirements should

apply to the Disaster Housing

Assistance program, as well as to the

IFG program. FEMA is in the process of

reviewing this proposition.

This State’s last comment was that all

disaster programs should comply with

the same regulations. FEMA is

coordinating with all Federal and State

agencies involved in implementing this

law. We have actively solicited and

welcomed comments from all sources,

and have tried our best to ensure equity

in program assistance provided to all.

In addition to the changes made in

response to the comments, we amended

§ 61.17(b)(2) in this final rule to clarify

that benefits under Article 3 B.3. of the

SFIP Dwelling Form will not be subject

to a separate deductible, but are subject

to the GFIP deductible of $200

(applicable separately to any building

loss and any contents loss).

Additionally, FEMA received a

request from the State of Alaska to make

the GFIP available not only to recipients

of IFG grants but also to recipients of its

own fully funded disaster assistance

program comparable to the IFG program

in benefits and eligibility requirements.

The State’s request, which was

prompted by a recent disaster recovery

effort, has merit. FEMA has determined

that 42 U.S.C. §§ 4014(a)(2) and

4015(b)(2), which authorize FEMA to

make the GFIP available to recipients of

IFG awards, may also apply to

recipients of certain State-funded

disaster assistance programs. We have

modified the interim final rule to apply

the GFIP, as a one-time, pilot project, to

recipients of the State of Alaska’s own

fully funded disaster assistance program

for individuals and families suffering
19200 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

damage from flooding that occurred in

the State during September and October

1995. The decision to make the GFIP

available to these flood disaster victims

is based on the fact that the State of

Alaska’s award program is comparable

to the IFG program, including eligibility

requirements such as income levels. The

State also has the capability to provide

information to the NFIP in a format

compatible with NFIP requirements.

The evaluation of this one-time, pilot

project of the GFIP in the State of Alaska

will help FEMA evaluate whether the

GFIP should be made available to other

States requesting the availability of the

GFIP for 100-percent, State-funded

disaster assistance programs comparable

to the IFG program. Comments are also

being solicited specifically on this issue.

Finally, § 582 of the NFIRA prohibits

future Federal disaster assistance to

anyone who fails to obtain and maintain

flood insurance coverage in connection

with previous flood-related disaster

assistance. Section 582 provides:

‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision

of law, no Federal disaster relief

assistance made available in a flood

disaster may be used to make a payment

(including any loan assistance payment)

to a person for repair, replacement, or

restoration for damage to any personal,

residential, or commercial property if

that person at any time has received

flood disaster assistance that was

conditional on the person first having

obtained flood insurance under

applicable Federal law and

subsequently having failed to obtain and

maintain flood insurance as required

under applicable Federal law on such

property.’’

In light of the requirements of § 582,

and in anticipation of the spring flood

season, there is an urgent need to make

the GFIP available upon publication of

this final rule. FEMA finds that there is

a compelling need and good cause to

waive the 30-day effective date

requirements of the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This

interim final rule is effective on the date

of publication in the Federal Register.

National Environmental Policy Act

This interim final rule is categorically

excluded from the requirements of 44

CFR Part 10, Environmental

Consideration. No environmental

impact assessment has been prepared.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

This interim final rule is not a

significant regulatory action within the

meaning of § 2(f) of E.O. 12866 of

September 30, 1993, 58 FR 51735, but

attempts to adhere to the regulatory

principles set forth in E.O. 12866. The

interim final rule has not been reviewed

by the Office of Management and

Budget under E.O. 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This interim final rule does not

contain a collection of information and

therefore is not subject to the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

This interim final rule involves no

policies that have federalism

implications under E.O. 12612,

Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform

This interim final rule meets the

applicable standards of § 2(b)(2) of E.O.

12778.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Parts 61 and

206

Flood insurance; Disaster assistance.

Accordingly, 44 CFR Parts 61 and 206

are amended as follows:

PART 61—INSURANCE COVERAGE

AND RATES

1. The authority citation for Part 61

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. Section 61.17 is added to read as

follows:

§ 61.17 Group Flood Insurance Policy.

(a) A Group Flood Insurance Policy

(GFIP) is a policy covering all

individuals named by a State as

recipients under § 411 of the Stafford

Act (42 U.S.C. 5178) of an Individual

and Family Grant (IFG) program award

for flood damage as a result of a

Presidential major disaster declaration,

and, as a one-time, pilot project, to

recipients of the State of Alaska’s own

fully funded disaster assistance program

for individuals and families suffering

damage from flooding in September and

October 1995. Alaska’s disaster

assistance program is comparable to the

IFG program in benefits and eligibility

requirements, including income levels.

The State of Alaska has also agreed to

provide information to the National

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in a

data format compatible with NFIP

requirements. The premium for the

GFIP, initially, is a flat fee of $200 per

policyholder. Thereafter, the premium

may be adjusted to reflect NFIP loss

experience and any adjustment of

benefits under the IFG program. The

amount of coverage shall be equivalent

to the maximum grant amount

established under § 411. The term of the

GFIP shall be for 36 months and will

begin, for implementation with the IFG

program, 60 days from the date of the

disaster declaration. For FEMA’s pilot

project with the State of Alaska, the

term of the three-year policy will begin

on May 1, 1996. On and after the

inception date of the GFIP, coverage for

IFG recipients or for recipients of the

one time pilot project of the GFIP for the

State of Alaska’s own comparable fully

funded, disaster assistance program,

will begin on the 30th day after the

NFIP receives the records of GFIP

insureds and their premium payments

from the State. A Certificate of Flood

Insurance shall be sent to each IFG

recipient, and, for the one-time pilot

project in Alaska, to each individual or

family receiving a grant from Alaska’s

own fully funded disaster assistance

program.

(b) The GFIP is the Standard Flood

Insurance Policy Dwelling Form (a copy

of which is included in Appendix A(1)

of this part), except that:

(1) The GFIP provides coverage for

losses caused by land subsidence, sewer

backup, or seepage of water without

regard to the requirement in paragraph

B.3. of Article 3 that the structure be

insured to 80 percent of its replacement

cost or the maximum amount of

insurance available under the NFIP.

(2) Article 7, Deductibles, does not

apply to the GFIP. Instead, a special

deductible of $200 (applicable

separately to any building loss and any

contents loss) applies to insured flooddamage losses sustained by the insured

property in the course of any

subsequent flooding event during the

term of the GFIP. The separate

deductible applicable to Article 3 B.3

does not apply.

(3) Article 9 E., Cancellation of Policy

By You, does not apply to the GFIP.

(4) Article 9 G., Policy Renewal, does

not apply to the GFIP.

(c) A notice will be sent to the GFIP

certificate holders approximately 60

days before the end of the 3-year term

of the GFIP. The notice will (1)

encourage them to contact a local

insurance agent or producer or a private

insurance company selling NFIP

policies under the Write Your Own

program of the NFIP to apply for a

conventional NFIP Standard Flood

Insurance Policy and (2) advise them as

to the amount of coverage they must

maintain in order not to jeopardize their

eligibility for future disaster assistance.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 19201

PART 206—FEDERAL DISASTER

ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTERS

DECLARED ON OR AFTER

NOVEMBER 23, 1988

3. The authority citation for Part 206

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.; 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, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979

Comp., p. 376.

Subpart E—Individual and Family

Grant Programs

4. Section 206.131(a) is amended by

adding a sentence between the sentence

ending, ‘‘* * * to reflect changes in the

Consumer Price Index for all Urban

Consumers,’’ and the sentence

beginning, ‘‘The Governor or his/her

designee is responsible . . .’’ to read as

set forth below, and § 206.131(d)(1)(iii)

(C) and (D) are revised to read as

follows:

§ 206.131 Individual and family grant

programs.

(a) * * * IFG assistance for damages

or losses to real or personal property, or

both, will be provided to individuals or

families with those IFG-eligible losses

totaling $201 or more; those individuals

with damages or losses of $200 or less

to real or personal property, or both, are

ineligible. * * *

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) * * *

(C)(1) The State may not make a grant

for acquisition or construction purposes

in a designated special flood hazard area

in which the sale of flood insurance is

available under the NFIP unless the

individual or family obtains adequate

flood insurance and maintains such

insurance for as long as they live at that

property address. The coverage shall

equal the maximum grant amount

established under § 411(f) of the Stafford

Act. If the grantee is a homeowner, flood

insurance coverage must be maintained

on the residence at the flood-damaged

property address for as long as the

structure exists if the grantee, or any

subsequent owner of that real estate,

ever wishes to be assisted by the Federal

government with any subsequent flood

damages or losses to real or personal

property, or both. If the grantee is a

renter, flood insurance coverage must be

maintained on the contents for as long

as the renter resides at the flooddamaged property address. The

restriction is lifted once the renter

moves from the rental unit.

(2) Individuals named by a State as

eligible recipients under § 411 of the

Stafford Act for an IFG program award

for flood damage as a result of a

Presidential major disaster declaration

will be included in a Group Flood

Insurance Policy (GFIP) established

under the National Flood Insurance

Program (NFIP) regulations, at 44 CFR

61.17.

(i) The premium for the GFIP is a

necessary expense within the meaning

of this section. The State shall withhold

this portion of the IFG award and

provide it to the NFIP on behalf of

individuals and families who are

eligible for coverage. The coverage shall

be equivalent to the maximum grant

amount established under § 411(f) of the

Stafford Act.

(ii) The State IFG program staff shall

provide the NFIP with records of

individuals who received an IFG award

and are, therefore, to be insured.

Records of IFG grantees to be insured

shall be accompanied by payments to

cover the premium amounts for each

grantee for the 3-year policy term. The

NFIP will then issue a Certificate of

Flood Insurance to each grantee. Flood

insurance coverage becomes effective on

the 30th day following the receipt of

records of GFIP insureds and their

premium payments from the State, and

terminates 36 months from the

inception date of the GFIP, i.e., 60 days

from the date of the disaster declaration.

(iii) Insured grantees would not be

covered if they are determined to be

ineligible for coverage based on a

number of exclusions established by the

NFIP. Therefore, once grantees/

policyholders receive the Certificate of

Flood Insurance that contains a list of

the policy exclusions, they should

review that list to see if they are

ineligible for coverage. Those grantees

who fail to do this may find that their

property is, in fact, not covered by the

insurance policy when the next flooding

incident occurs and they file for losses.

Once the grantees find that their

damaged buildings, contents, or both,

are ineligible for coverage, they should

notify the NFIP in writing in order to

have their names removed from the

GFIP, and to have the flood insurance

maintenance requirement expunged

from the NFIP data-tracking system. (If

the grantee wishes to refer to or review

a Standard Flood Insurance Policy, it

will be made available by the NFIP

upon request.)

(D) A State may not make a grant to

any individual or family who received

Federal disaster assistance for flood

damage occurring after September 23,

1994, if that property has already

received federal flood-disaster

assistance in a disaster declared after

September 23, 1994, a flood insurance

purchase and maintenance requirement

was levied as a condition or result of

receiving that Federal disaster

assistance, and flood insurance was, in

fact, not maintained in an amount at

least equal to the maximum IFG grant

amount. However, if that property was

determined to be ineligible for NFIP

flood insurance coverage and is in a

special flood hazard area located in a

community participating in the NFIP,

then the State may continue to make

grants to those individuals or families

that receive additional damage in all

subsequent Presidentially declared

major disasters involving floods.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’; No. 83.516,

‘‘Disaster Assistance’’)

Dated: April 25, 1996.

James L. Witt,

Director.

[FR Doc. 96–10779 Filed 4–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 96–44, Notice 01]

RIN 2127–AG30

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Fuel System Integrity

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule, technical

amendment.

SUMMARY: This document deletes several

obsolete sections of Standard No. 301,

‘‘Fuel System Integrity.’’ They relate to

(1) the standard’s general requirements

in S5 as they apply to light vehicles, (2)

the requirements for schoolbuses in

S5.4, and (3) the requirements for fuel

spillage in S5.5. These sections are

obsolete because the time periods to

which they specify are all in the past.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

May 31, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

nonlegal issues: Dr. William J.J. Liu,

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards,

NPS–12, telephone (202) 366–4923.

For legal issues: Mr. Marvin Shaw,

Office of Chief Counsel, NCC–20, (202)

366–2992. Both may be reached at the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W.,

Washington, D.C., 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the President’s March 4, 1995