Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Notices 10805 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Docket ID FEMA–2021–0022; OMB No. 

1660–0062] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; State/Local/Tribal 

Hazard Mitigation Plans 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

ACTION: 30-Day notice of revision and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) will 

submit the information collection 

abstracted below to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review and 

clearance in accordance with the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. The submission 

will describe the nature of the 

information collection, the categories of 

respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., 

the time, effort and resources used by 

respondents to respond) and cost, and 

the actual data collection instruments 

FEMA will use. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before March 28, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

should be made to Director, Information 

Management Division, 500 C Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20472, email address 

FEMA-Information-CollectionsManagement@fema.dhs.gov or Kathleen 

Smith, Planning & Safety Branch Chief, 

Planning, Safety, and Building Science 

Division, Risk Management Directorate, 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration, FEMA; 

Kathleen.Smith2@fema.dhs.gov and 

(202) 646–4372. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed information collection 

previously published in the Federal 

Register on September 14, 2021, at 86 

FR 51174 with a 60-day public comment 

period. One public comment was 

received. FEMA acknowledges and 

appreciates the comment made; 

however, the comment was not germane 

to the program, meaning no further 

action was taken. The purpose of this 

notice is to notify the public that FEMA 

will submit the information collection 

abstracted below to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review and 

clearance. 

Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency 

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

5165, as amended by the Disaster 

Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), 

Public Law 106–390, provides the 

framework for linking pre-and postdisaster mitigation planning and 

initiatives with public and private 

interests to ensure an integrated, 

comprehensive approach to disaster loss 

reduction. Title 44 CFR part 201 

provides the mitigation planning 

requirements for State, local, Tribal, or 

Territorial governments to identify the 

natural hazards that impact them, to 

identify actions and activities to reduce 

any losses from hazards, and to 

establish a coordinated process to 

implement the plan, taking advantage of 

a wide range of resources. 

Collection of Information 

Title: State/Local/Tribal Hazard 

Mitigation Plans. 

Type of Information Collection: 

Revision of a currently approved 

information collection. 

OMB Number: 1660–0062. 

FEMA Forms: FEMA Form not 

applicable. 

Abstract: In order to be eligible for 

certain types of Federal emergency 

management non-emergency assistance, 

state, local, Tribal or Territorial 

governments are required to have a 

current FEMA-approved hazard 

mitigation plan that meets the criteria 

established in 44 CFR part 201. 

Affected Public: State, local, Tribal or 

Territorial government. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

224. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

1,131. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 175,928. 

Estimated Total Annual Respondent 

Cost: $10,291,788. 

Estimated Respondents’ Operation 

and Maintenance Costs: $30,760,976. 

Estimated Respondents’ Capital and 

Start-Up Costs: $10,497,648. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to the 

Federal Government: $1,936,738. 

Comments 

Comments may be submitted as 

indicated in the ADDRESSES caption 

above. Comments are solicited to (a) 

evaluate whether the proposed data 

collection is necessary for the proper 

performance of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) evaluate the 

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(c) enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) minimize the burden 

of the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including through 

the use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Maile Arthur, 

Deputy Director, Information Management 

Division, Office of the Chief Administrative 

Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04055 Filed 2–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Docket ID FEMA–2019–0018] 

RIN 1660–ZA23 

Hazard Mitigation Assistance: Building 

Resilient Infrastructure and 

Communities 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is issuing 

the Building Resilient Infrastructure and 

Communities Policy. This policy 

describes a new hazard mitigation grant 

program to assist States, territories, 

Tribes, and local governments with 

mitigating the impacts of natural 

hazards, including those created, 

aggravated, or amplified by climate 

change. The new program is funded by 

a FEMA 6 percent set aside of estimated 

disaster expenses for each major 

disaster, supersedes the Pre-Disaster 

Mitigation grant program, and promotes 

a national culture of preparedness 

through encouraging investments to 

protect communities and infrastructure 

by increasing pre-disaster hazard 

mitigation and strengthening national 

resilience. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
10806 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Notices 

1Public Law 115–254, 132 stat. 3438. 

2On September 9, 2019, FEMA posted a PDM 

notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) at https://

www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.

html?oppId=320395. The NOFO clarified that fiscal 

year (FY) 2019 would be the last year that FEMA 

offered the PDM program, and that the PDM 

program would be superseded by BRIC in FY 2020. 

As the NOFO explains, the 2015 Hazard Mitigation 

Assistance (HMA) Guidance applies to the FY 2019 

PDM grant program application cycle. 

3 42 U.S.C. 5133(i). 

4 2 CFR 200.203 sets forth the requirement to post 

a NOFO and the required contents of a NOFO. 

5 42 U.S.C. 5133(g). 

6 42 U.S.C. 5122(8). 

7 42 U.S.C. 5123. 

8 42 U.S.C. 5133(h). 

9 2 CFR 200.203. 

DATES: This policy is effective April 26, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this policy is 

available for inspection using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov and can be viewed 

by following that website’s instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ryan Janda, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20472, 202–646–2659, 

Ryan.Janda@fema.dhs.gov. Hearing- or 

speech-impaired individuals may access 

this number through TTY by calling 

(800) 462–7585. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Proposed Policy 

On October 5, 2018, the President 

signed into law the Disaster Recovery 

Reform Act 1 (DRRA). The DRRA 

contains fifty-six provisions that, among 

other things, (1) emphasize the shared 

responsibility for disaster response and 

recovery, (2) stress the importance of 

building the nation’s capacity to deal 

with coming disasters and catastrophic 

events, and (3) recognize the need to 

reduce the complexity of, and 

administrative burdens in, FEMA’s 

programs. Some of the highlights of the 

DRRA include new and additional 

authorities to reduce risk from future 

damage after a fire, increase State 

capacity to manage disaster recovery, 

provide greater flexibility to survivors 

with disabilities, and retain skilled 

response and recovery personnel. DRRA 

also contains provisions directing 

FEMA to produce plans, guidance, and 

reports to clarify terms and 

requirements, to identify best practices, 

and to simplify information collection. 

On April 10, 2020, FEMA published 

a proposed policy entitled Building 

Resilient Infrastructure and 

Communities (BRIC) (85 FR 20291). The 

BRIC policy addresses Section 1234 of 

the DRRA, titled ‘‘National Public 

Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Hazard 

Mitigation,’’ which amended section 

203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

(Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. 

Section 1234 of the DRRA authorizes 

FEMA to set aside 6 percent of 

estimated disaster expenses for each 

major disaster to fund the new BRIC 

grant program. BRIC supersedes the PreDisaster Mitigation (PDM) program 2 and 

promotes a national culture of 

preparedness through encouraging 

investments to protect our communities 

and infrastructure, strengthening predisaster mitigation capabilities, and 

fostering national resilience. The 

following principles guide the BRIC 

program: 

• Support communities through 

capability- and capacity-building 

• Encourage and enable innovation 

• Promote partnerships 

• Enable large projects 

• Maintain flexibility 

• Provide consistency and equal 

treatment 

• Promote equity (including by 

eliminating unnecessary complexity 

and administrative burdens) 

• Adapt to the various and growing 

hazards associated with climate 

change 

The BRIC Policy provides a consistent 

framework and standing requirements 

for the program. FEMA will calculate 

the 6 percent set aside within 180 days 

after each major disaster and may set 

aside that amount from the Disaster 

Relief Fund into the National Public 

Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation 

Fund.3 The total amount will vary year 

to year based on the estimated amount 

of disaster assistance for each major 

Presidentially-declared disaster, and the 

number of Presidentially-declared 

disasters in each year. On an annual 

basis, FEMA will assess the amount 

available in the National Public 

Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation 

Fund and determine what portion of it 

will be available for the next year’s grant 

cycle. FEMA will announce this 

determination in the annual Notice of 

Funding Opportunity (NOFO),4 which it 

will post for a period of time on its 

website prior to opening the application 

period. 

Section 203 of the Stafford Act limits 

eligible applicants to States and 

territories that have had a major disaster 

declaration in the 7 years prior to the 

annual application period start date, 

and federally-recognized Tribes entirely 

or partially located in a State that has 

had a major disaster declaration in the 

7 years prior to the application period 

start date.5 Subapplicants include local 

governments and non-federally 

recognized Tribes,6 who may apply to 

States and territories for funding. (Note 

that federally-recognized Tribes may 

apply as either applicants or 

subapplicants).7

In addition to determining annually 

the total amount to be made available 

for BRIC, FEMA may allocate from that 

amount to eligible States and territorial 

applicants, with a specific set-aside for 

Tribes, an allocation for mitigation 

capability- and capacity-building 

activities and mitigation projects, and 

make the remainder of the funding 

available competitively for mitigation 

projects. FEMA may also make a portion 

of funding available for management 

costs (costs to manage the grant) and 

non-financial technical assistance to all 

eligible entities. Funding for capabilityand capacity-building activities and 

mitigation projects will generally be 

subject to a Federal cost share of up to 

75 percent, and up to 90 percent for 

small impoverished communities.8

Management costs may be funded up to 

100 percent Federal share. 

FEMA provides stakeholders with 

more detailed information about the 

program requirements through an 

annual NOFO process.9 The NOFO 

addresses a variety of topics, including 

but not limited to: 

• Important application dates 

• Specific funding amounts and 

allowances 

• Provision of technical assistance 

• Codes and standards activities 

• Application review process, including 

competition structure and merit 

criteria 

• Method for determining costeffectiveness 

• Award administration information 

• Additional requirements and 

guidelines 

The guidance does not have the force 

or effect of law. 

II. Discussion of Public Comments on 

the Proposed Policy 

FEMA received 147 distinct public 

comments to the proposed policy. These 

included two mass mailings comprised 

of 11,068 comments from members of 

the National Wildlife Federation Action 

Fund and 19,665 comments from 

members of the National Audubon 

Society. Many of the public comments 

included several unique topic areas, 

each of which FEMA analyzed 

separately. In total, the comments 

addressed 902 unique topics. 

Commenters included Tribes, Tribal 

consortiums, non-profit organizations, 

private citizens, municipalities, state 

agencies and offices, professional 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Notices 10807 

networks and associations, businesses, a 

school district and a public official. 

FEMA reviewed and discussed each 

unique comment and considered 

whether to change the policy in 

response to the comment. Stakeholder 

feedback was taken into account in the 

design of the policy and in the updates 

to the policy. Because many 

commenters had similar comments 

about the same topics, FEMA organized 

the response to comments by topic. 

Some comments related to more than 

one topic and were therefore considered 

and counted under all applicable topics. 

A summary of these comments and 

FEMA’s response is provided below. 

Favorable Comments 

FEMA received 108 favorable 

comments that noted direct support for 

the BRIC policy or program. These are 

summarized below. 

Commenters wrote favorably about 

the stakeholder engagement process for 

the proposed policy. Many commenters 

expressed appreciation for the 

opportunity to provide comments on the 

proposed policy. Commenters also 

expressed appreciation for the 

stakeholder engagement process 

throughout the development of the 

proposed policy, including the 

comprehensive stakeholder engagement 

effort that occurred in the summer of 

2019. FEMA is grateful to stakeholders 

for their engagement throughout the 

development of the proposed policy; 

they have provided meaningful input 

into the development of the BRIC 

program. 

Many commenters provided favorable 

comments about the BRIC program. 

Commenters supported the principles of 

the BRIC program as follows: 

Principle 1. Support State and local 

governments, Tribes, and Territories 

through capability- and capacitybuilding to enable them to identify 

mitigation actions and implement 

projects that reduce risks posed by 

natural hazards. Commenters were 

encouraged to see the importance of 

capability- and capacity-building as 

highlighted in the proposed policy. 

Commenters recognized that the 

continual funding for these activities 

will allow communities to use these 

funds to build and maintain capacity 

over time. FEMA notes the continual 

growth of community capacity is an 

intent of the BRIC program. FEMA is 

prioritizing that continual growth. 

FEMA further recognizes that the 

Nation’s capability- and capacitybuilding needs will far exceed amounts 

available through BRIC, and intends for 

the allocation to support an applicant’s 

highest priority requirements. 

Principle 2. Encourage and enable 

innovation while allowing flexibility, 

consistency, and effectiveness. 

Commenters expressed support for the 

flexibility of the BRIC program, which 

allows not only for traditional 

mitigation projects, but also encourages 

and supports innovation. Commenters 

were energized and excited by the focus 

on innovation as a cornerstone of the 

proposed policy, but also stressed that 

traditional mitigation projects should 

always be eligible. FEMA notes its 

intent to maintain a wide variety of 

project type eligibility in the BRIC 

program. 

Principle 3. Promote partnerships and 

enable high-impact investments to 

reduce risk from natural hazards with a 

focus on critical services and facilities, 

public infrastructure, public safety, 

public health, and communities. 

Commenters across all sectors expressed 

support for Principle 3. FEMA 

recognizes that many non-profits and 

other organizations have the capacity to 

assist communities in meeting nonFederal cost-share requirements and 

developing mitigation projects. For this 

reason, FEMA encourages communities 

to look for opportunities to partner with 

other organizations. Communities are 

best positioned to identify and develop 

mitigation projects for their citizens, 

and the communities’ effort can be 

supported by non-profits and other 

organizations. 

Principle 4. Provide a significant 

opportunity to reduce future losses and 

minimize impacts on the Disaster Relief 

Fund (DRF). Commenters expressed 

support for FEMA’s forward-thinking 

approach of looking to reduce future 

losses. FEMA recognizes that adequately 

addressing future loss requires the 

consideration of the climate crisis and 

changing future conditions. FEMA will 

provide information on how future risk 

will be considered in the 

implementation of the BRIC program 

within the NOFO and program support 

materials. 

Principle 5. Promote equity, including 

by helping members of disadvantaged 

groups and prioritizing 40 percent of the 

benefits to disadvantaged as referenced 

in Executive Order (E.O.) 14008 in line 

with the Administration’s Justice40 

initiative. This principle was added 

after the public comment period, so 

FEMA did not have an opportunity to 

receive comments on it. 

Principle 6. Support the adoption and 

enforcement of building codes, 

standards, and policies that will protect 

the health, safety, and general welfare of 

the public, taking into account future 

conditions, prominently including the 

effects of climate change, and have 

long-lasting impacts on community riskreduction, including for critical services 

and facilities and for future disaster 

costs. Many commenters noted the 

importance of utilizing modern building 

codes in ensuring the resiliency of 

community infrastructure. FEMA 

strongly concurs, and encourages 

adoption and enforcement of, as well as 

require compliance with, all relevant 

consensus codes and standards for all 

projects in the BRIC program. 

Commenters also expressed support 

for the 90 percent cost share for small 

impoverished communities and for the 

new definition of ‘‘small 

impoverished,’’ which no longer 

includes an unemployment metric. 

FEMA agrees that these changes will 

support small impoverished 

communities in need of assistance. 

Information for Notice of Funding 

Opportunity and Program Support 

Materials 

FEMA received 409 comments related 

to the NOFO and program support 

materials. These are summarized below. 

Additional Information and 

Assistance. Many commenters requested 

additional information in the policy 

such as example projects, details about 

scoring criteria, technical assistance 

information, and an explanation of how 

funds will be allocated. FEMA 

appreciates the request and notes that 

the purpose of the policy is to provide 

the high-level requirements that will 

remain consistent in the BRIC program. 

Other information, such as annual 

allocations and scoring criteria, is more 

suitable for the annual NOFO as these 

matters relate to implementation and 

may change annually in the BRIC 

program. With the request in mind, 

FEMA will provide additional guidance, 

such as eligible project examples and 

information about technical assistance, 

in program support materials. Program 

support materials will include a variety 

of example projects ranging widely in 

scale and in geographic location. A 

central goal of those materials will be to 

decrease complexity and to make the 

various goals and requirements simpler 

and easier to navigate. 

Types of Projects. Many commenters 

provided recommendations for the types 

of projects that FEMA should prioritize 

within the BRIC program. The most 

frequent recommendations included: 

Projects that incorporate nature-based 

solutions and green infrastructure; 

traditional, nonstructural flood 

reduction measures (such as 

acquisitions and buyouts); and projects 

that leverage existing projects, plans, 

and partnerships. The mass mailings 

received from the National Wildlife 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
10808 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Notices 

10On May 20, 2021, President Biden issued 

Executive Order (E.O.) 14030, Climate-Related 

Financial Risk, reinstating E.O. 13690, Establishing 

a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a 

Process for Further Soliciting and Considering 

Stakeholder Input (Jan. 30, 2015). 

11Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance, Feb. 27, 

2015, available at https://www.fema.gov/medialibrary-data/1424983165449-38f5dfc69c0bd4

ea8a161e8bb7b79553/HMA_Guidance_022715_

508.pdf. 

12https://www.nist.gov/topics/communityresilience. 

13https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

publications/ISC-PPD-21-Implementation-WhitePaper-2015-508.pdf. 

Federation Action Fund and National 

Audubon Society promoted 

prioritization of nature-based solutions: 

The National Wildlife Federation Action 

Fund urged FEMA to prioritize 

community-wide, nature-based 

mitigation with pre-disaster funds, and 

the National Audubon Society urged 

FEMA to promote natural infrastructure 

solutions with BRIC funding. FEMA is 

strongly supportive of nature-based 

solutions and has released a Guide for 

Local Communities, ‘‘Building 

Community Resilience With NatureBased Solutions,’’ on that topic. 

Additionally, FEMA is strongly 

supportive of nature-based solutions 

because FEMA considers these solutions 

to be consistent with the Federal Flood 

Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) 

under the reinstated Executive Order 

13690 (Jan. 30, 2015).10 FEMA will 

address priorities through the NOFO, as 

priorities are identified on an annual 

basis to allow for the development and 

flexibility of the BRIC program over 

time as new priorities are identified. 

FEMA will provide additional 

information about nature-based 

solutions in program support materials. 

Definitions 

Some commenters asked FEMA to 

define the terms used in the proposed 

policy. Commenters requested 

definitions, or changes to existing 

definitions, for the following terms: 

‘‘Critical facilities’’, ‘‘small 

impoverished communities’’, 

‘‘resiliency’’, ‘‘large-scale public 

infrastructure’’, ‘‘non-construction’’, and 

‘‘innovative’’. FEMA appreciates the 

request and will provide definitions of 

new terms used in the policy in an 

‘‘Additional Information’’ section of the 

policy. FEMA provides the following 

information to address comments: 

• FEMA defines ‘‘critical facilities’’ in 

the glossary of the Hazard Mitigation 

Assistance (HMA) Guidance (2015) 11 to 

include structures and institutions 

necessary, in the community’s 

judgment, for response to and recovery 

from emergencies. Critical facilities 

must continue to operate during and 

following a disaster to reduce the 

severity of impacts and accelerate 

recovery. This definition is for HMA 

program use and clarification and is not 

meant to provide a definition for use 

under other programs or supersede any 

FEMA regulation. 

• The term ‘‘small impoverished 

communities’’ is statutorily defined at 

42 U.S.C. 5133(a) to mean a community 

of 3,000 or fewer individuals that is 

economically disadvantaged, as 

determined by the state in which the 

community is located and based on 

criteria established by the President. As 

the term is statutorily defined, the 

maximum number of community 

members of 3,000 cannot be exceeded. 

• FEMA will use the longstanding 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) definition of 

‘‘community resilience’’ 12 to define 

‘‘resiliency’’, which is the ability to 

prepare for anticipated hazards, adapt to 

changing conditions, and withstand and 

recover rapidly from disruptions. This 

definition of resilience is similar to the 

definition of ‘‘resilience’’ used in the 

Presidential Policy Directive 21 

(2013).13 FEMA provides the definition 

of ‘‘resilience’’ in policy. 

• FEMA understands the concerns of 

small communities that public 

infrastructure size will differ for 

different size communities, and that 

small communities and large 

communities have different 

understandings of ‘‘large-scale public 

infrastructure’’ in the context of their 

communities. FEMA deleted the phrase 

‘‘large-scale’’ before ‘‘public 

infrastructure’’ in the policy to avoid 

ambiguity or implication of a size 

requirement for public infrastructure. 

• FEMA removed the sentence 

referencing ‘‘non-construction’’ from the 

policy and added a sentence to explain 

capability- and capacity-building 

activities that have already been 

initiated or completed are not eligible 

for funding. The term ‘‘nonconstruction’’ was intended to mean 

capability- and capacity-building 

activities. 

• The term ‘‘innovative’’ should be 

defined by the community. FEMA will 

encourage communities to describe how 

their projects represent innovative 

actions. 

Capability- and Capacity-Building 

FEMA received 188 comments related 

to capability- and capacity-building. 

These are summarized below. FEMA 

will provide more information related to 

capability- and capacity-building in the 

NOFO and additional program support 

materials. 

Activity Types. Commenters asked 

how applicants may use funds for 

capability- and capacity-building 

activities. FEMA notes that eligible 

capability- and capacity-building 

activities are listed in 42 U.S.C. 

5133(e)(1)(B). Capability- and capacitybuilding activities enable communities 

to identify mitigation actions and 

implement projects that reduce risks 

posed by natural hazards. These 

activities are broad and flexible so 

communities may use funds to address 

specific community needs, but they 

must clearly contribute to the 

capability- and capacity-building of the 

applicant or subapplicant to mitigate 

hazards. FEMA offers the following 

clarifications in response to questions 

about capability and capacity building 

activities: 

• Eligible planning activities may 

include creating or updating a 

community’s hazard mitigation plan, 

building codes, zoning or land use 

plans. 

• Capability- and capacity-building 

funds can be used for development or 

updates to mitigation priorities and 

plans. FEMA has edited the policy to 

make clear that updates may also be 

funded. 

• Non-FEMA technical assistance 

providers and other educational 

expenses for staff are eligible capabilityand capacity-building activities when 

consistent with program requirements. 

• Capability- and capacity-building 

funds cannot be used to simply hire 

staff. If capability- and capacity-building 

funds contribute to a salary, there must 

be a deliverable that is tied to that 

position, such as updating a 

community’s hazard mitigation plan. 

• Capability- and capacity-building 

funds cannot be allocated toward the 

administration of approved projects. 

Management Costs can be applied for 

and funded to administer approved 

projects. 

Technical Assistance (financial). 

FEMA received many requests for 

technical assistance to implement the 

proposed policy, including requests for 

technical assistance for specific project 

types including microgrids, coastal zone 

projects, and large-scale retrofits. 

Commenters also asked for clarity about 

the types of technical assistance that 

will be offered and who would receive 

it. FEMA appreciates these comments, 

because they fit with FEMA’s general 

goal of increasing clarity and reducing 

complexity. To that end, FEMA will 

provide technical assistance through 

program support materials and webinars 

that will be available to all 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Notices 10809 

14See 42 U.S.C. 5123. 

15 86 FR 7009 (Jan. 25, 2021). 

16The White House, Meeting a Milestone of 

President Biden’s Whole-of-Government Equity 

Agenda, (Aug. 6, 2021), available at https://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/08/ 

06/meeting-a-milestone-of-president-bidens-wholeof-government-equity-agenda/. 

communities, including Tribes. While 

FEMA does not have capacity to provide 

individual technical assistance to each 

and every community assembling an 

application to the BRIC program, 

applicants may receive individual 

technical assistance from their FEMA 

regional offices. The level of technical 

assistance from FEMA regional offices 

might vary by region. FEMA will 

continue to provide benefit-cost analysis 

(BCA) technical assistance through the 

BCA Helpdesk, as well as helplines for 

the application system, FEMA GO, 

Environmental and Historic 

Preservation, and the HMA Program. 

FEMA will continue to pursue and 

prioritize additional opportunities to 

provide technical assistance in response 

to stakeholder feedback in future years. 

FEMA will also welcome continued 

feedback about how to improve 

technical assistance and make it as 

useful and available as possible. 

Eligibility 

FEMA received 564 comments 

relating to eligibility. These are 

summarized below with FEMA 

responses. FEMA will provide more 

information related to eligibility in the 

NOFO. 

Applicant Eligibility. Commenters 

requested that eligibility be expanded to 

include other entities beyond States, 

territories and Tribes that have had a 

major disaster declaration under the 

Stafford Act in the seven years prior to 

the annual application period start date. 

Commenters also noted a gap in 

assistance available to homeowners and 

businesses to improve resiliency of 

properties. FEMA notes that 42 U.S.C. 

5133(b) defines eligible applicants as 

State and local governments. FEMA also 

notes that 42 U.S.C. 5133(g) requires 

that the State or territory must have had 

a major disaster declaration under the 

Stafford Act in the seven years prior to 

the annual application period start date 

in order to be eligible. Consistent with 

other HMA programs, local governments 

are eligible as subapplicants within the 

BRIC program, but the award is made 

directly to the State or Territory. 

Section 5133(g) also addresses an 

Indian Tribal government’s eligibility. 

An Indian Tribal government (federallyrecognized Tribe) that has received a 

major Federal disaster declaration under 

the Stafford Act in the seven years prior 

to the annual application period start 

date, or is entirely or partially located in 

a state that received a major Federal 

disaster declaration under the Stafford 

Act in the seven years prior to the 

annual application period start date, is 

eligible to apply under BRIC.14 A 

federally recognized Tribe may apply as 

an applicant or subapplicant. If the 

Indian Tribal government chooses to 

apply as a subapplicant through the 

State, the State must have had a major 

disaster declaration under the Stafford 

Act in the seven years prior to the 

annual application period start date. 

FEMA has edited the policy to clarify 

that only federally recognized Tribes are 

eligible as applicants. 

Section 5133 does not authorize 

private non-profits and other private 

sector entities such as businesses, 

industry associations, native 

corporations, and individuals to apply 

as applicants or subapplicants. 

However, FEMA edited the policy to 

highlight that applicants and 

subapplicants may apply for funding on 

behalf of individuals, and businesses, 

and non-profit organizations. 

Hazard Mitigation Plans. Many 

commenters suggested eliminating the 

requirement of having a FEMAapproved hazard mitigation plan (HMP) 

at the time of application, citing this as 

a barrier to many communities applying 

to the BRIC program. Commenters 

recommended only requiring a FEMAapproved HMP at the time of award 

obligation, as this is all that is required 

under 44 CFR part 201. FEMA is 

maintaining the current requirement for 

an HMP at the time of application. Since 

an approved HMP is a condition of 

receiving assistance under 44 CFR part 

201, FEMA checks for compliance with 

this condition at the time of application 

and obligation to ensure that the 

applicant meets the eligibility 

requirements. Requiring the HMP to be 

in the place at the time of application 

reduces the likelihood that applicants or 

subapplicants will not have a FEMAapproved HMP at the time of the award, 

and be ineligible for funding. If an HMP 

lapses after a BRIC award has been 

made, funding will not be stopped. 

FEMA will, however, encourage the 

HMP to be made effective as soon as 

possible, as a lapsed HMP could 

jeopardize the applicant’s receipt of 

funds under other FEMA programs. 

Discrimination and Social Equity. A 

number of commenters requested that 

FEMA distribute BRIC funding in a nondiscriminatory manner and give priority 

to historically marginalized and 

disadvantaged groups to promote social 

equity. Commenters also asked FEMA to 

use a tiered approach where underresourced or otherwise disadvantaged 

communities are considered separately 

from the larger competitive applicant 

pool. On January 20, 2021, the President 

issued Executive Order 13985, 

‘‘Advancing Racial Equity and Support 

for Underserved Communities Through 

the Federal Government,’’ 15 which is 

designed to pursue a comprehensive 

approach to advancing equity for all, 

including people of color and others 

who have been historically underserved, 

marginalized, and adversely affected by 

persistent poverty and inequality. The 

Executive Order required each agency to 

assess whether, and to what extent, its 

programs and policies create or 

perpetuate systemic barriers to 

opportunities and benefits for people of 

color and other underserved groups 

with the goal of developing policies and 

programs that deliver resources and 

benefits equitably to all. The policy 

already includes three items that 

contribute toward equity: 1. Inclusion of 

equity promotion in the Principles of 

the policy; 2. An increased Federal cost 

share for small impoverished 

communities; and 3. A requirement that 

recipients and subrecipients ensure that 

the program is accomplished in an 

equitable and impartial manner. In 

addition, FEMA is committed to equity 

and is continuing to assess through the 

NOFO process how to prioritize funding 

to deliver resources and benefits 

equitably. As OMB has emphasized,16

one approach is to reduce paperwork 

and administrative burdens, which 

might cause serious problems in terms 

of equity. Regarding a tiered approach, 

FEMA is researching this topic for 

future program design considerations. 

In addition, recipients of FEMA 

funding are required to comply with 

federal statutes that prohibit 

discrimination in federally funded 

programs and activities. FEMA will 

vigorously enforce these 

nondiscrimination statutes and require 

recipients to sign assurances of 

compliance with these laws. 

Project Eligibility. Commenters asked 

if specific project types would be 

eligible for BRIC funding. The policy 

allows for traditionally eligible 

mitigation projects, and also encourages 

applicants to be innovative with their 

proposed projects. FEMA will provide 

more information about eligible project 

types in the program support materials 

and webinars. Clarity on some of the 

project types in response to comments 

received is provided below: 

• Phased projects are eligible. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
10810 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Notices 

17 General Accounting Office Redbook, GAO–06– 

382SP, Vol. II (3rd ed. Feb. 2006), p. 10–93. https:// 

www.gao.gov/assets/210/202819.pdf. 

18E.O. 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at 

Home and Abroad, 86 FR 7619 (Jan. 27, 2021). 19E.O. 13990, Protecting Public Health and the 

Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the 

Climate Crisis, 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 20, 2021). 

• Project-scoping activities (formerly 

known as Advance Assistance) are 

eligible as a capability- and capacitybuilding activity and will be limited by 

the allocation amount. 

• Project monitoring is the 

responsibility of the applicant as stated 

in 2 CFR part 200 and will be stated in 

the NOFO. All work funded by the BRIC 

program must be completed within the 

period of performance of the grant, 

which does not allow costs for longterm monitoring after the end of the 

period of performance. 

• Pre-award work that begins 

construction prior to award or prior to 

completion of compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

other applicable environmental laws 

such as the Endangered Species Act and 

the National Historical Preservation Act 

cannot be funded. This requirement 

applies to the project as a whole 

regardless of what the Federal share of 

the project will fund. However, FEMA 

may approve and fund development of 

the mitigation application as pre-award 

costs in a subapplication. FEMA has 

edited the policy to clarify this point. 

• For other Federal agencies’ large 

projects, FEMA will not provide 

financial assistance if FEMA determines 

another Federal agency has more 

specific authority to support the project. 

FEMA understands commenters’ 

concerns that the BRIC program could 

potentially fund very large, expensive 

projects (such as levee systems and 

dams), leaving less funding for smaller 

scale projects that are quicker to 

implement. However, there is no 

minimum on the amount of funding 

requested in the national competition. 

Additionally, there is a State and 

Territory allocation that could be used 

to fund smaller scale projects. Further, 

consistent with appropriation law 

principles, BRIC mitigation funds 

cannot be used as the non-federal costshare for other federal agency grants.17

Managed Retreat and Relocation. 

Commenters asked about the eligibility 

of managed retreat and relocation 

projects. Managed retreat and relocation 

projects are eligible for BRIC funding. 

Managed retreat and relocation of entire 

communities are extensive projects with 

many different components. Applicants 

that seek funding for retreat and 

relocation activities should try to align 

the project components that the BRIC 

program will be funding with the 

annual priorities established each year 

in the NOFO. 

Flood Insurance Requirements. Some 

commenters asked FEMA to waive flood 

insurance purchase requirements, and 

others asked FEMA to clarify when 

flood insurance requirements apply. 

Commenters also asked how flood 

insurance requirements are enforced. 

The purchase of flood insurance for 

federally-funded acquisition or 

construction projects in a Special Flood 

Hazard Area (SFHA) is a statutory 

requirement under 42 U.S.C. 4012a of 

the National Flood Insurance Act 

(NFIA). Community participation in the 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP) is required under 42 U.S.C. 4106 

of the NFIA in order to receive Federal 

assistance for projects in a SFHA. FEMA 

does not have discretion to waive flood 

insurance requirements for federallyfunded acquisition or construction 

projects in an SFHA. This requirement 

is only applicable to NFIP insurable 

structures. This requirement does not 

apply to non-building infrastructure, 

such as roads and bridges, or acquisition 

or demolition projects. Maintaining 

private flood insurance as an alternative 

to NFIP insurance is allowable as long 

as it is functionally equivalent to a 

standard NFIP flood insurance policy as 

stated in 42 U.S.C. 4012(a). Flood 

insurance requirements are enforced 

through deed restrictions that ensure 

flood insurance is maintained for the 

life of the property. 

Coronavirus 2019 (COVID–19). 

Commenters requested edits to the 

proposed policy to address the threat of 

disease outbreaks directly and to allow 

for eligibility of projects that contribute 

directly to pandemic-resiliency 

activities. The statute that establishes 

the BRIC program, Section 1234 of the 

Disaster Recovery Reform Act, includes 

an instruction by Congress to focus 

mitigation projects on making 

infrastructure more resilient to natural 

hazards. Thus, FEMA declines to make 

any changes to the policy based on these 

comments. However, due to the nature 

of the BRIC program, there is an 

opportunity to use BRIC funds to 

support critical infrastructure that will 

also support the COVID–19 response 

efforts. For example, mitigating the risks 

to hospitals from hurricanes so that they 

can remain operational during a 

disaster. FEMA encourages projects that 

provide multiple benefits to society. 

Code Requirements. FEMA received 

comments seeking clarity on the code 

requirements of the BRIC program and 

requesting that additional, stronger 

language around codes be added to the 

policy. FEMA received many 

suggestions to call out additional codes 

in the policy, such as plumbing, fire, 

mechanical, solar, hydronics and 

geothermal codes. The policy requires 

that a project must conform with the 

latest published editions (meaning 

either of the two most recently 

published editions) of relevant 

consensus-based codes, specifications, 

and standards, even if the State, Indian 

Tribal government, or community the 

project is located in has not adopted the 

required code(s). A State or Indian 

Tribal government does not need to 

have adopted current codes to be an 

eligible applicant. A project can always 

go beyond the minimum requirements, 

and States are encouraged to require 

subapplicants to meet stronger codes. 

As there are a plethora of codes that 

exist, and BRIC is a multi-hazard 

program, FEMA intentionally did not 

list all applicable codes for all the 

different project types. FEMA is in 

strong support of modern, disasterresistant codes and encourages projects 

to implement the most recent codes 

applicable. The NOFO and program 

support materials will provide 

additional information. 

Scoring Criteria. Many commenters 

provided recommendations for project 

attributes to score higher in FEMA 

review of projects. The following 

suggestions were the most frequently 

requested to receive a higher score: 

States or Indian Tribal governments 

with approved enhanced mitigation 

plans, small impoverished 

communities, historically disadvantaged 

communities, critical infrastructure, 

projects that utilize partnerships, use of 

best available climate science, 

communities on frontlines of climate 

threats, nature-based solution projects, 

and non-monetary benefits. There were 

also additional requests for other project 

attributes to receive higher scores. 

FEMA is taking these considerations 

into account as it develops the NOFO, 

particularly to the extent that the 

recommendations are consistent with 

the objectives of Executive Orders 

14008,18 13990 19 and 13985. Scoring 

criteria are identified on an annual basis 

through the NOFO to allow the program 

to remain flexible and evolve over time. 

Small Impoverished Communities 

FEMA received 64 comments relating 

to small impoverished communities. 

These are summarized below with 

FEMA responses. 

Ten Percent Cost Share. Commenters 

asked FEMA to eliminate the minimum 

ten percent non-Federal cost share 

requirement for small impoverished 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Notices 10811 

20https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

whitehouse.gov/files/omb/assets/OMB/circulars/ 

a094/a094.html. 

communities, noting that even a ten 

percent non-Federal cost share can serve 

as an impediment to funding. FEMA 

understands these concerns, but 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5133(h)(2) 

FEMA’s contribution is limited to 90 

percent of project costs. Contributions of 

cash, third-party in-kind services, 

materials, or any combination thereof, 

may be accepted as part of the nonFederal cost share. 

Eligible Communities. FEMA received 

requests to allow more types of 

communities, such as States and Tribes 

with enhanced mitigation plans, to be 

eligible for a 90 percent Federal cost 

share. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5133(h)(2), 

however, FEMA may contribute up to 

90 percent only to small impoverished 

communities. Otherwise, the maximum 

cost share authorized is 75 percent per 

42 U.S.C. 5133(h)(1). 

Meeting the Needs of Small 

Impoverished Communities. 

Commenters requested that more be 

done to respond to the needs of small 

impoverished communities beyond the 

increased allowable Federal cost share. 

FEMA appreciates this concern and has 

removed the unemployment metric from 

‘‘small impoverished communities’’ to 

be more inclusive and is also taking all 

comments into consideration as it 

develops the scoring criteria in the 

NOFO, technical assistance and 

program support materials. 

Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) process. 

Commenters noted the BCA process 

makes it more difficult for smaller, less 

densely populated communities to show 

cost effectiveness compared to urban 

communities. FEMA notes that 42 

U.S.C. 5133(f) requires all financial 

assistance awarded on a competitive 

basis for BRIC to be used for mitigation 

activities that are cost effective. FEMA 

is evaluating ways to better capture the 

value of critical facilities, including 

specific implications for small 

impoverished communities. 

Funding 

FEMA received 135 comments 

relating to funding. These are 

summarized below with FEMA 

responses. 

DRRA Funding Requirements. 

Commenters expressed concerns about 

the methodology of determining the 

amount of funding available for the 

BRIC program annually. Commenters 

thought the phrasing that FEMA ‘‘may’’ 

set aside 6 percent indicates uncertainty 

as to the amount of funding available. 

FEMA notes the funding source and 

related provisions, including the 6 

percent set aside, and the 180-day 

requirement to estimate the aggregate 

amount of grants following major 

disasters, are set forth at 42 U.S.C. 5133. 

FEMA is required to perform the 6 

percent calculation within 180 days of 

the disaster and is authorized to set it 

aside to fund the BRIC program. 

Funding amounts will be announced in 

the NOFO for each grant cycle. 

Competitiveness. Commenters 

requested clarification and changes to 

the competitive and non-competitive 

aspects of the BRIC program. FEMA 

offers the following clarifications: 

• State and territory allocations (set 

asides) are non-competitive. 

• The Tribal set aside is noncompetitive, unless the submitted 

applications exceed the allocated 

amount. 

• The remaining funding will be 

competitive at the national level for 

mitigation projects. 

Commenters also asked for BRIC 

funding to be structured as a block grant 

or revolving loan fund (RLF) program. 

FEMA notes that the BRIC program is 

statutorily defined as a categorical 

project-based grant program, which does 

not allow for a block grant or RLF 

structure. Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 

5133(f) requires that the majority of the 

funding be awarded competitively. 

Other Funding Clarifications. 

Commenters asked for clarity about cost 

share and management costs. FEMA 

offers the following clarifications: 

• The policy permits applicant and 

third party in-kind contributions. 

• Private funding is eligible for the 

non-Federal cost share. More 

information about the cost share will be 

provided in the NOFO. 

Additionally, FEMA agrees with 

commenters requesting support for 

management costs and has changed the 

policy to provide 100 percent Federal 

funding for management costs. This 

approach is also consistent with 

FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant 

Program (HMGP). 

Benefit Cost Analysis 

FEMA received 49 comments relating 

to benefit-cost analysis (BCA). These are 

summarized below with FEMA 

responses. 

Discount Rate. Commenters inquired 

about the discount rate of 7.0 percent 

used for BCA for HMA grant programs. 

They believe the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A–94, 

‘‘Guidelines and Discount Rates for 

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal 

Programs’’ (rev. October 29, 1992) 20 is 

‘‘outdated’’ and discount rates listed in 

the circular do not accurately reflect 

current economic conditions nor do 

they address the non-stationarity of 

changing natural hazard conditions that 

many BRIC projects will likely address. 

Pre-disaster hazard mitigation measures 

must be cost-effective under 42 U.S.C. 

5133(b). OMB Circular A–94 applies to 

Federal programs and sets the 

requirements for conducting benefit-cost 

and cost-effectiveness analyses. FEMA 

cannot revise OMB Circular A–94 and is 

required to follow it. Thus, FEMA 

declines to make any changes to the 

policy based on these comments. 

Commenters who believe OMB Circular 

A–94 is outdated should reach out 

directly to OMB. 

Changing Frequency and Magnitude 

of Future Natural Hazard Events. 

Commenters indicated that accounting 

for non-stationarity of future natural 

hazard events, including the impacts of 

the climate crisis, will be necessary and 

should be mandatory, and inquired how 

to account for changing frequency and 

magnitude of natural hazard events over 

the life of a project in a benefit-cost 

analysis. While FEMA’s BCA tool does 

have a sea level rise component, the 

commenters stated the current tool does 

not account for changes in precipitation, 

stream flow, snow melt, or severe storm 

frequency. FEMA appreciates the 

comment. In order to bolster resilience 

to the impacts of climate change, FEMA 

is currently looking into how to 

incorporate the full range of benefits 

that address changing hazard risk and 

mitigate the risk of climate change into 

its hazard mitigation project BCAs. For 

example, FEMA is working with 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) to leverage 

their research into the quantification of 

benefits from nature-based solutions 

and green infrastructure which will help 

FEMA fund these project types. If the 

jurisdiction or community has studies 

or other information from authoritative 

sources that model future risks, that 

information can be incorporated into the 

BCA by the applicant or subapplicant. 

The data used to adjust the default data 

in the BCA tool must be provided to 

FEMA to ensure that the data source is 

reliable and that the adjustment to the 

default data was correct and meets the 

requirements of OMB Circular A–94. 

Streamlining the BCA Process. 

Commenters inquired about 

opportunities to streamline the benefitcost analysis process. They find the 

current process to be quite challenging, 

particularly the amount of time and 

effort to assemble the backup 

documentation. Many subapplicants 

have limited staff and do not have the 

resources available to compile this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
10812 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Notices 

21E.O. 13990, Protecting Public Health and the 

Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the 

Climate Crisis, 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 20, 2021). 

documentation. Commenters suggested 

various solutions, including using other 

Federal agencies’ BCA tools, conducting 

analyses at the neighborhood or 

watershed scale, accepting reasonable 

assumptions by applicants and 

subapplicants, and allowing small 

impoverished communities to have 

projects with benefit-cost ratios less 

than 1.0. FEMA appreciates the concern 

and allows the use of alternate BCA 

tools. At the same time, FEMA must 

approve the use of such tools in writing 

prior to the applicant/subapplicant 

submitting the grant application. FEMA 

intends to make this process as simple 

as possible. Applicants and 

subapplicants are allowed to use 

reasonable assumptions and supporting 

data in applications. FEMA is required 

to comply with the requirements of 

OMB Circular A–94 to demonstrate costeffectiveness. 

Pre-Calculated Benefits. FEMA 

received multiple inquiries about precalculated benefits. Commenters asked 

when updates to currently used 

standard values will occur to reflect 

current market conditions and if 

adjustment factors can be applied to 

reflect differences in local market 

conditions. They also inquired about 

developing pre-calculated 

environmental, social, and cultural 

benefits and/or incorporating these 

elements into existing pre-calculated 

benefits. Lastly, some comments about 

generators and flood risk reduction 

projects requested more pre-calculated 

benefits related to these types of 

projects. FEMA is constantly working to 

improve the BCA process, including 

regularly updating current values and 

developing additional pre-calculated 

benefits. FEMA does allow applicants 

and subapplicants to adjust precalculated benefit amounts using the 

most current locality multipliers 

included in industry accepted 

construction cost guides. If a multiplier 

is used, a copy of the source document 

must be included as part of the grant 

application. FEMA already has 

developed some pre-calculated 

ecosystem services benefits. Their use 

previously was restricted to specific 

project types but now can be applied 

more broadly. 

Co-Benefits. In addition to ecosystem 

and environmental benefits, 

commenters want to be able to include 

other co-benefits in their BCAs. These 

co-benefits generally center around 

disadvantaged communities; cultural, 

historic, and sacred sites; and 

subsistence-related resources and 

activities. Some of these types of 

benefits are not easily quantified and 

captured in a traditional BCA. Even if 

they cannot be quantified, they can and 

should be mentioned as relevant 

benefits. (OMB Circular A–4, and 

OMB’s Regulatory Impact Analysis: A 

Primer, contains helpful guidance on 

how to deal with benefits that are 

difficult or impossible to quantify.) 

FEMA recognizes that culturally 

significant resources are unique, and 

allows the applicant or subapplicant to 

refer to cultural, historic, and sacred 

resources, and to the extent feasible, to 

assign a monetary value to them. 

Established methods may be available to 

allow such assignments. See George 

Alexandrakis et al., Economic and 

Societal Impacts on Cultural Heritage 

Sites, Resulting from Natural Effects and 

Climate Change, 2 Heritage 279 (2019). 

The applicant or subapplicant must 

provide documentation from reliable 

sources that substantiates how the value 

of the resource was determined. FEMA 

encourages applicants and 

subapplicants to include additional 

relevant information in their project 

narrative, such as those associated with 

co-benefits that may not be easily 

quantified, to provide FEMA with a 

more comprehensive understanding of 

the project that could help to inform 

award decisions. This approach is 

consistent with Executive Order 13563, 

which recognizes that some costs may 

not be quantifiable, and also Executive 

Order 13990, which acknowledges that 

‘‘accurate social cost is essential for 

agencies to accurately determine the 

social benefits of reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions when conducting costbenefit analyses of regulatory and other 

actions.’’ 21

Grant Administration and Management 

FEMA received 86 comments relating 

to grant administration and 

management. These are summarized 

below with FEMA responses. 

Period of Performance. FEMA 

received comments to clarify the period 

of performance (POP). Commenters 

requested a longer POP than the 36 

months currently defined. FEMA 

changed the policy to clarify when the 

start of the POP occurs and when a 

longer POP may be requested. The 

beginning of the POP remains linked to 

the date of Federal award. FEMA 

removed the reference to ‘‘highly 

complex projects’’ in the policy to allow 

broader flexibility for FEMA to grant a 

longer POP on a case-by-case basis. 

Monitoring. Commenters asked if 

FEMA will be monitoring the BRIC 

program and projects. FEMA will 

monitor as required by 2 CFR part 200 

and will be stated in the NOFO. FEMA 

continuously assesses processes and the 

success of its programs to identify 

opportunities for improvement. 

III. Final Policy 

FEMA is finalizing the policy as 

follows. Line numbers refer to 

numbering from the final policy. 

• In response to concerns of small 

communities that public infrastructure 

size will differ for differently sized 

communities, FEMA removed ‘‘largescale’’ before ‘‘public infrastructure’’ in 

line 42. 

• In lines 46–48, FEMA added the 

following principle: ‘‘Promote equity, 

including by helping members of 

disadvantaged groups and prioritizing 

40 percent of the benefits to 

disadvantaged communities as 

referenced in Executive Order (E.O.) 

14008 in line with the Administration’s 

Justice40 Initiative.’’ 

• To address requests from 

commenters to support consideration of 

future conditions, FEMA edited lines 

49–53 to read: ‘‘Support the adoption 

and enforcement of building codes, 

standards, and policies that will protect 

the health, safety, and general welfare of 

the public, taking into account future 

conditions, prominently including the 

effects of climate change, and have longlasting impacts on community riskreduction, including for critical services 

and facilities and for future disaster 

costs.’’ 

• In lines 107–108, FEMA added: 

‘‘FEMA may identify additional criteria 

in the annual NOFO to allocate 

available funding.’’ 

• To address requests from 

commenters to support management 

costs, FEMA added a new sub-bullet in 

line 113: ‘‘FEMA will provide 100 

percent Federal funding for 

management costs.’’ 

• For commenters who noted that the 

Funding section has numerous 

references to eligible entities and 

applicants that would be better 

understood if the eligibility section 

came before it, FEMA reordered the 

‘‘Requirements’’ section so that 

‘‘Applicant and Subapplicant 

Eligibility’’ comes before ‘‘Funding’’ in 

lines 54 to 128. 

• To address comments asking for 

clarification of eligibility for different 

types of entities: 

Æ FEMA added ‘‘Federally 

recognized’’ to predicate ‘‘Indian Tribal 

governments’’ in line 61 in order to 

clarify that the Tribal-set aside is 

limited to federally-recognized Tribes. 

Æ FEMA added ‘‘Individuals, 

businesses, and non-profit organizations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Notices 10813 

22See 5 U.S.C. 801–808. Although the statutory 

language only discusses rules, Congress has made 

it clear that the CRA covers guidance documents as 

well. See, e.g., ‘‘The Congressional Review Act 

(CRA): Frequently Asked Questions,’’ Congressional 

Research Service, at 7 (Jan. 14, 2020), available at 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/ 

R43992 (last accessed Aug. 31, 2020). 

are not eligible to apply for HMA funds; 

however, an eligible Applicant or 

subapplicant may apply for funding on 

behalf of individuals, businesses, and 

non-profit organizations’’ to lines 69 to 

72. This text clarifies how individual 

homeowners and businesses may 

receive further assistance. 

• To address commenters’ requests to 

clarify that updates to mitigation plans 

are eligible for capability- and capacitybuilding funds, FEMA edited line 138 to 

read: ‘‘. . . develop or update mitigation 

priorities and plans.’’ 

• To address commenters’ request for 

a sentence structure edit in lines 1596 

to 162, FEMA reordered the sentence to 

end with the citation in order to 

emphasize that the requirement is to 

comply with environmental and historic 

preservation regulations. 

• To address commenters’ request for 

a sentence structure edit in lines 163 to 

164, FEMA reordered the sentence to 

end with the citation in order to clarify 

the intent is to require compliance with 

floodplain and other applicable land use 

laws and regulations. 

• In lines 165–166, FEMA added: 

‘‘Any FEMA directive or policy 

implementing the Federal Flood Risk 

Management Standard (FFRMS).’’ 

• For commenters who asked FEMA 

to define the term ‘‘non-construction,’’ 

FEMA intended to mean capability- and 

capacity-building activities. FEMA 

replaced the term ‘‘non-construction’’ 

with ‘‘Capability- and capacity-building 

activities,’’ and moved the sentence to 

line 174. FEMA also added on lines 

178–179 the sentence, ‘‘Already 

initiated or completed capability- and 

capacity-building activities are not 

eligible for funding.’’ FEMA also added 

a new sentence on lines 194–195 to 

completely address limits on eligibility: 

‘‘Projects for which ground disturbance 

has already been initiated or completed 

are not eligible for funding.’’ 

• For editorial purposes, FEMA 

edited lines 196–199 to read: ‘‘It must be 

cost-effective and designed to increase 

resilience and reduce risk of injuries, 

loss of life, and damage and destruction 

of property, including critical services 

and facilities.’’ 

• In line 202, FEMA removed the 

phrase: ‘‘. . . through completion of a 

benefit cost analysis conducted in 

compliance with OMB Circular A–94.’’ 

• To address commenters’ requests, 

lines 207–211 were edited to clarify that 

if a project is located in the Special 

Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the 

jurisdiction in which the project is 

located must be participating in the 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP) and not on probation, 

suspension, or withdrawn. FEMA also 

added in lines 215–218 the following 

clarification: ‘‘If there is a transfer of 

ownership of the structure, the 

requirement of obtaining and 

maintaining flood insurance for the life 

of the structure applies to the new 

owner and any successive owners.’’ 

• In lines 219–220, FEMA added, 

‘‘The project must comply with any 

FEMA directive or policy implementing 

the Federal Flood Risk Management 

Standard (FFRMS).’’ 

• In response to commenters’ notes to 

clarify that eligible pre-award costs 

should be limited to development of the 

mitigation application, FEMA edited 

line 234 to add the words ‘‘the 

application for’’ after the words ‘‘the 

development of.’’ 

• In order to address commenters’ 

requests to clarify the POP, and requests 

to allow for a longer POP, FEMA edited 

text in lines 249 to 253. FEMA deleted 

‘‘effective’’ and ‘‘generally’’ as the 

beginning of the POP remains linked to 

the date of Federal award. FEMA also 

deleted ‘‘for highly complex projects’’ 

and changed language on lines 250–252 

to: ‘‘The applicant may submit a request 

for a longer POP in the application for 

FEMA to review and approve.’’ This 

change gives FEMA broader flexibility 

to grant a request for a longer POP. 

• In answer to commenters’ 

questions, FEMA edited lines 312 to 313 

to confirm that the policy will remain 

intact after it is incorporated into 

guidance. FEMA deleted the following 

language: ‘‘at which point this policy 

will be superseded.’’ 

• To add clarity, FEMA added 

subsections titled ‘‘Definitions’’ and 

‘‘Monitoring and Evaluation’’ to the 

Additional Information section. 

• FEMA also made minor, 

nonsubstantive corrections for grammar 

and clarity. FEMA is now issuing the 

final BRIC policy, which is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov and on the 

FEMA website at https://www.fema.gov/ 

grants/mitigation/building-resilientinfrastructure-communities. The final 

policy will not have the force and effect 

of law and is not meant to bind the 

public in any way. The guidance 

document is intended only to provide 

clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency 

policies. 

Under the Congressional Review of 

Agency Rulemaking Act (CRA), before 

guidance can take effect, the Federal 

agency promulgating the guidance must 

submit to Congress and to the 

Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) a copy of the guidance; a concise 

general statement describing the 

guidance, including whether it is 

‘‘major’’ within the meaning of the CRA; 

and the proposed effective date of the 

guidance.22 A ‘‘major’’ guidance 

document is one that has an annual 

effect on the economy of $100,000,000 

or more; results in a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions; or has significant 

adverse effects on competition, 

employment, investment, productivity, 

innovation, or on the ability of United 

States-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises in 

domestic and export markets. Pursuant 

to the CRA, the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs designated this 

guidance as ‘‘major’’ within the meaning 

of the CRA as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2), as the annual effect on the 

economy will be over $100,000,000 in 

transfers. As such FEMA has sent the 

final BRIC policy to the Congress and to 

GAO. 

Authority: Sec. 1234, Pub. L. 115–254, 

132 Stat. 3438. 

Deanne B. Criswell, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04041 Filed 2–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–47–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Docket ID FEMA–2022–0010; OMB No. 

1660–0076] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; Hazard Mitigation 

Grant Program (HMGP) Application 

Reporting 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

ACTION: 60-Day notice of revision and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

and respondent burden, invites the 

general public to take this opportunity 

to comment on a revision of a currently 

approved information collection. In 

accordance with the Paperwork 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1