Document ID: FEMA-2012-0001-0028
Agency: fema
Document Type: Rule
Title: Submission Requirements for State Mitigation Plans
Posted Date: 2014-04-25T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 80 (Friday, April 25, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22873-22883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09461]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 201

[Docket ID: FEMA-2012-0001]
RIN 1660-AA77

Change in Submission Requirements for State Mitigation Plans

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Final Rule revises the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency

[[Page 22874]]

(FEMA) regulations by changing submission requirements for State 
Mitigation Plans. This Final Rule reduces the frequency by which States 
must submit updates to FEMA on their State Mitigation Plans. 
Previously, these entities prepared and submitted updates with FEMA for 
review and approval every 3 years. Now, these entities will prepare and 
submit updates with FEMA for review and approval every 5 years.

DATES: Effective May 27, 2014. Comments regarding the information 
collection must be submitted on or before May 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials are available online by going 
to www.regulations.gov, and inserting FEMA-2012-0001 in the ``Search'' 
box, and then clicking ``Search''.
    Submit written comments on the information collection to the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. 
Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of 
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via 
electronic mail to oira.submission@omb.eop.gov or faxed to (202) 395-
5806.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Bellomo, Division Director, Risk 
Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, 
DHS/FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-3030. Phone: 
(202) 646-2903. Facsimile: (202) 646-2787. Email: 
doug.bellomo@fema.dhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Abbreviations

CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
DHS--Department of Homeland Security
DMA 2000--Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
EA--Environmental Assessment
EIS--Environmental Impact Statement
 FEMA--Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMA--Flood Mitigation Assistance
HMA--Hazard Mitigation Assistance
HMGP--Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
IFR--Interim Final Rule
NEMA-- National Emergency Management Association
NEPA--National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
PDM--Pre-Disaster Mitigation
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
RIN--Regulatory Identifier Number
Stafford Act--Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act, as amended

Table of Contents

I. Basis and Purpose
II. Background
    A. Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
    B. Hazard Mitigation Assistance
    C. Regulatory History
    D. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule
    E. Implementation
III. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
    E. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
    F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    H. Executive Order 12630, Taking of Private Property
    I. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice
    J. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
    K. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    L. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management
    M. Congressional Review Act

I. Basis and Purpose

    This Final Rule will change the frequency of State Mitigation Plan 
updates, by extending the update requirement for States from every 3 
years to every 5 years. Currently, State, Tribal, and Local Mitigation 
Plans submissions are on different schedules: Tribal and local 
governments submit Mitigation Plan updates to FEMA every 5 years, while 
States submit their mitigation plan updates--both the Standard and the 
Enhanced Mitigation Plan \1\ updates--to FEMA every 3 years.\2\ The 
Final Rule will put all State, Local, and Tribal Mitigation Plan 
updates on the same schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ State Mitigation Plans are divided into tiers: Standard 
State Mitigation Plans and Enhanced State Mitigation Plans. Enhanced 
State Mitigation Plans have additional requirements and, for States 
that comply with the additional requirements, allow for additional 
disaster funding.
    \2\ In addition to States, Tribal Governments can also submit 
Enhanced State Mitigation Plans. This Final Rule reduces the 
frequency for those Tribes who choose to submit Enhanced State 
Mitigation Plans; FEMA will now require these updates every 5 years 
(no longer every 3 years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA plans to change the frequency of the update requirement for 
several reasons. First, the proposed reduction in update frequency will 
reduce the regulatory burden on States as well as burden on FEMA. 
Second, aligning the update frequency with local and Tribal update 
requirements may foster closer coordination of mitigation planning and 
implementation efforts. Third, by relieving the regulatory burden 
imposed from the frequency of State plan updates, States and FEMA may 
be able to shift resources from the update and review cycle to other 
mitigation planning activities, such as increased delivery of training 
and technical assistance to support local and Tribal Mitigation 
Planning, and to implement additional mitigation actions identified 
through the planning process.

II. Background

    Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or 
eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards 
and their effects. The purpose of hazard mitigation planning is to 
identify policies and actions that can be implemented over the long-
term to reduce risk and future losses. Mitigation plans form the 
foundation for a community's long-term strategy to reduce disaster 
losses and break the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and 
repeated damage. The planning process is as important as the plan 
itself. It creates a framework for risk-based decision making to reduce 
damage to lives, property, and the economy from future disasters. 
State, Tribal, and local governments benefit from mitigation planning 
by identifying publicly-accepted cost-effective actions for risk 
reduction, focusing resources on the greatest risks and 
vulnerabilities, and building partnerships by involving people, 
organizations, and businesses. The planning process, and mitigation 
plans, foster education and awareness of hazards and risk, communicate 
priorities to State and Federal officials, and align risk reduction 
with other community objectives, such as community development. State, 
Tribal, and local governments are required to develop a hazard 
mitigation plan as a condition for receiving certain types of Federal 
non-emergency disaster assistance.

A. Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000

    The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), Public Law 106-390, 
114 Stat. 1552, amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) and provided an opportunity for 
States, Tribes, and local governments to take a new and revitalized 
approach to mitigation planning. Section 104 of DMA 2000 continued the 
requirement for a State mitigation plan as a condition of non-emergency 
Stafford Act assistance and FEMA mitigation grants, and created 
incentives for increased coordination and integration of mitigation 
activities at the State level. DMA 2000 repealed section 409 of the 
Stafford Act, which required mitigation plans and the use of minimum 
standards, and replaced it with two separate sections of the law: 
Mitigation

[[Page 22875]]

planning in section 322 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 5165), and minimum codes 
and standards in section 323 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 5165a). FEMA 
previously implemented section 409 through 44 CFR part 206, Subpart M. 
The DMA 2000 planning requirements were placed in 44 CFR part 201 to 
reflect the broader relevance of planning to all FEMA mitigation 
programs, while the minimum codes and standards remained in 44 CFR part 
206, Subpart M.
    Section 104 of DMA 2000 and FEMA's implementing regulations 
emphasize the need for State, Tribal, and local entities to closely 
coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. The planning 
process provides a link between State, Tribal and local mitigation 
programs. Both State level and local plans should incorporate 
mitigation implementation strategies and sustainable recovery actions. 
FEMA also recognizes that governments are involved in a range of 
planning activities and that mitigation plans may be linked to or 
reference hazardous materials and other non-natural hazard plans. 
Improved mitigation planning will result in a better understanding of 
risks and vulnerabilities, as well as expedite implementation of 
measures and activities to reduce those risks, both pre- and post-
disaster.
    DMA 2000 included a provision for increased Federal funding for 
hazard mitigation measures for States with approved mitigation plans. 
42 U.S.C. 5165(e). FEMA implemented this provision through development 
of a new two-tiered State mitigation plan process: Standard State 
Mitigation Plans, which allow a State to receive Hazard Mitigation 
Grant Program (HMGP) funding ranging from 7.5 to 15 percent of disaster 
grants awarded by FEMA, depending on the total estimated eligible 
Stafford Act disaster assistance, 44 CFR 206.432(b)(1); and Enhanced 
State Mitigation Plans, which allow a State to receive HMGP funds based 
on 20 percent of the total estimated eligible Stafford Act disaster 
assistance. 44 CFR 206.432(b)(2); 44 CFR 201.5. Enhanced State 
Mitigation Plans must meet the requirements for Standard State 
Mitigation Plans at 44 CFR 201.4 and must demonstrate further that the 
State has developed a comprehensive mitigation program, that it 
effectively uses available mitigation funding, and that it is capable 
of managing the increased funding. 44 CFR 201.5.

B. Hazard Mitigation Assistance

    FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs provide 
funding for eligible mitigation activities that reduce disaster losses 
and protect life and property from future disaster damages. In general, 
under each of the three HMA programs, the update of State mitigation 
plans is eligible for funding.
    Currently, FEMA administers the following HMA grant programs:
     HMGP assists in implementing long-term hazard mitigation 
measures following Presidential disaster declarations. 44 CFR 
206.434(c)(5)(iv). Funding is available to implement projects in 
accordance with State, Tribal, and local priorities. 44 CFR 206.435. 
HMGP grants may fund the updating of mitigation plans. 44 CFR 206.434. 
States must have a FEMA-approved State (Standard or Enhanced) 
Mitigation Plan at the time of the disaster declaration and at the time 
HMGP funding is obligated to the Grantee to receive an HMGP award. 44 
CFR 201.4(a) and 201.5(a).
     Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) provides funds on an annual 
basis for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of 
mitigation projects prior to a disaster. 42 U.S.C. 5133. The goal of 
the PDM program is to reduce overall risk to the population and 
structures, while at the same time reducing reliance on Federal funding 
from actual disaster declarations. 42 U.S.C. 5133. States must have a 
FEMA-approved State (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan by the 
application deadline and at the time of obligation of the grant funds. 
44 CFR 201.4(a) and 201.5(a).
     Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program provides funds 
on an annual basis for flood mitigation planning and the implementation 
of flood mitigation projects. 42 U.S.C. 4104c. The goal of the FMA 
Program is to reduce or eliminate claims under the National Flood 
Insurance Program. 44 CFR 78.1(b). The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance 
Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 916, eliminated the 
Severe Repetitive Loss and the Repetitive Flood Claims programs and 
changed the FMA program to assist mitigation of repetitive loss and 
severe repetitive loss properties. States must have a FEMA-approved 
State (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan by the application 
deadline and at the time of obligation of the grant funds. 44 CFR 
201.4(a) and 201.5(a).
    FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans developed under 44 CFR part 
201 are used by FEMA to determine State and Tribal eligibility for 
Stafford Act assistance, including HMGP and PDM grant funds, and for 
FMA funding under the National Flood Insurance Act.
    FEMA HMA grants are provided to eligible applicants (States/Tribes/
Territories) for eligible activities, who, in turn, provide subgrants 
to local governments and other eligible entities. Subgrantees may be a 
State agency, local government, private non-profit organization (for 
HMGP only), or Indian Tribal government. The applicant selects and 
prioritizes subapplications developed and submitted to them by 
subapplicants. These subapplications are submitted to FEMA for 
consideration of funding. An Indian Tribal government may have the 
option to apply for HMA grants through the State as a subapplicant or 
directly to FEMA as an applicant. Indian Tribal governments acting as a 
subgrantee are accountable to the State grantee.

C. Regulatory History

    FEMA's February 26, 2002 Interim Final Rule (IFR), entitled 
``Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program,'' 67 
FR 8844, implemented section 322 of the Stafford Act by adding a new 
Part 201 to 44 CFR. The IFR required that Standard State Mitigation 
Plans be updated by November 1, 2003 \3\ and resubmitted to the 
appropriate Regional Director for approval every 3 years from the date 
of the approval of the previous plan in order to continue program 
eligibility. Additionally, the IFR provided criteria for Enhanced State 
Mitigation Plans and required that for States to be eligible for the 20 
percent HMGP funding, the Enhanced State Mitigation Plan must be 
approved by FEMA within the 3 years prior to the current major disaster 
declaration, and resubmitted for approval every 3 years. On October 31, 
2007, FEMA published a Final Rule adopting, without substantive 
changes, the requirements for hazard mitigation planning pursuant to 
section 322 of the Stafford Act. 72 FR 61552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An October 1, 2002 revision changed the date by which the 
Standard State Mitigation Plans had to be updated from November 1, 
2003 to November 1, 2004. 67 FR 61512. A subsequent revision 
provided for a 6-month extension, up to May 1, 2005, at the request 
of the Governor or Indian Tribal leader. 69 FR 55094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 displays the regulatory history for the mitigation planning 
requirements listed in Sec. Sec.  201.3-201.5 for the Standard and 
Enhanced State Mitigation Plan reporting requirements. Currently, these 
Plans have to be updated every 3 years.

[[Page 22876]]

                                                                         Table 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                   Changes to State
                RIN                          Action               Date           Federal Register      Effect on Sec.  Sec.         Mitigation Plan
                                                                                     citation          201.3, 201.4, & 201.5         requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3067-AD22..........................  IFR...................         2/26/02  67 FR 8844.............  Added Sec.  Sec.        States must have approved
                                                                                                       201.3, 201.4, & 201.5.  Standard State Mitigation
                                                                                                                               Plan by November 1, 2003
                                                                                                                               and every 3 years from
                                                                                                                               the date of the approval
                                                                                                                               of the previous plan.
                                                                                                                               Enhanced State Mitigation
                                                                                                                               Plans resubmitted to the
                                                                                                                               appropriate Regional
                                                                                                                               Director every 3 years.
                                                                                                                               For State to be eligible
                                                                                                                               for 20 percent HMGP
                                                                                                                               funding, the Enhanced
                                                                                                                               State Mitigation plan
                                                                                                                               must be approved by FEMA
                                                                                                                               within the 3 years prior
                                                                                                                               to current major disaster
                                                                                                                               declaration.
3067-AD22..........................  IFR...................         10/1/02  67 FR 61512............  Revised Sec.   201.3    Changed the requirement to
                                                                                                       and Sec.   201.4.       update the Standard State
                                                                                                                               Mitigation Plan to
                                                                                                                               November 1, 2004.
1660-AA17 \4\......................  IFR...................         9/13/04  69 FR 55094............  Added Sec.              Allowed a 6 month
                                                                                                       201.3(c)(7) & Revised   extension to the deadline
                                                                                                       Sec.   201.4.           for the Standard State
                                                                                                                               Mitigation Plan, up to
                                                                                                                               May 1, 2005.
1660-AA17..........................  Final Rule............        10/31/07  72 FR 61552............  Finalized Part 201....  Corrected a typographical
                                                                                                                               error in 201.4(c)(2)(ii).
1660-AA36..........................  IFR...................        10/31/07  72 FR 61720............  Revised Sec.   201.3..  Removed references to
                                                                                                                               November 1, 2004 deadline
                                                                                                                               and made technical
                                                                                                                               corrections.
1660-AA36..........................  Final Rule............         9/16/09  74 FR 47471............  Finalized Sec.   201.3  No changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The RIN changed from 3067-AD22 to 1660-AA17, as a result of FEMA becoming a component of the Department of Homeland Security.

D. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

    On March 1, 2013, FEMA published the ``Change in Submission 
Requirements for State Mitigation Plans'' Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) at 78 FR 13844. The NPRM proposed to reduce the frequency of 
Standard State and Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates by extending 
the update requirement from 3 to 5 years.
    The comment period closed on April 30, 2013. FEMA received twenty-
three comments in response to the NPRM. Of the 23 comments received, 21 
comments were supportive, 1 comment was opposed, and 1 comment was not 
germane. Following is a discussion of the comments submitted.
    The 21 comments submitted in support of the NPRM came from a 
variety of sources, including State and local governments, 
associations, and commenters that chose to remain anonymous. Many of 
the supportive comments cited reasons consistent with the rationale 
provided in the NPRM (78 FR 13847), such as:
     reducing the regulatory burden on States and those Indian 
Tribal governments that may choose to develop Enhanced Mitigation 
Plans;
     aligning with the local and Tribal Mitigation Plan update 
requirements, which may foster closer coordination of mitigation 
planning and implementation efforts; and
     relieving the regulatory burden, so resources may be 
shifted to other mitigation planning activities, such as increased 
delivery of training and technical assistance, and/or to implementing 
additional mitigation actions.
    Several comments cited additional reasons in support of the NPRM, 
such as:
     maintaining or improving the quality of the plans and/or 
program;
     facilitating better data sharing;
     improving integration and coordination with other planning 
cycles; and
     providing a more realistic time frame for implementation 
of the mitigation plan.
    Six comments referenced or included information regarding costs for 
mitigation plan updates. Such mitigation plan update cost estimates 
were consistent with the estimates FEMA used to calculate the impacts 
of the rule.
    One comment was supportive of the NPRM, provided that planners 
remain engaged in mitigation planning and implementation, presuming a 
best practice of annual review and evaluation. The current mitigation 
planning regulation requires States to include a plan maintenance 
process that establishes the method and schedule for monitoring, 
evaluating, and updating the plan (44 CFR 201.4(c)(5)). Through 
guidance, FEMA encourages, but does not require, States to perform an 
annual evaluation of the plan, including any changes to the nature and 
magnitude of hazards, as well as the effectiveness of programs, 
policies, and projects.
    While supportive of the NPRM, one comment indicated that a 7-year 
cycle would be even better. Additional cost savings from a 7-year cycle 
compared to a 5-year cycle is approximately $857,000 ($2,855,833 
annualized 7-year cost savings -$1,999,083 annualized 5-year cost 
savings = $856,750). The following table highlights costs over 3, 5, 
and 7 years, as well as provides a comparison.

                                                                         Table 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Mitigation
             State plan type                plan update     Update cost     Update cost     Update cost    7 years  vs.    7 years  vs.    5 years  vs.
                                             unit cost     over 3 years    over 5 years    over 7 years       3 years         5 years         3 years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Plan Update....................        $205,000         $68,333         $41,000         $29,286        -$39,047        -$11,714        -$27,333

[[Page 22877]]

 
Enhanced Plan Update....................        $524,000        $174,667        $104,800         $74,857        -$99,810        -$29,943       -$69,867
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values rounded to nearest dollar which distorts overall reduction over time (e.g. 15 years, 21 years, 35 years).

    FEMA acknowledges that additional cost savings may be realized from 
a 7-year update cycle, but FEMA reaffirms the benefits of the 5-year 
update cycle as stated in the NPRM that lengthening the State 
Mitigation Plan update cycle to 5 years aligns with the local and 
Tribal Mitigation Plan update requirements and may foster closer 
coordination of mitigation planning and implementation efforts. 
Further, as stated in the NPRM, stakeholders, such as the National 
Emergency Management Association (NEMA) and Members of Congress, have 
asked FEMA to amend 44 CFR Part 201 to extend the update cycle and have 
consistently cited 5 years. The NPRM cited a letter dated November 8, 
2011 from 23 Members of Congress stating:

[m]aintaining high quality up-to-date mitigation plans is a critical 
component of our national disaster response plan. Extending the 
update cycle to [5] years would ensure that our [S]tate planning 
offices can complete this vital task, along with their other duties, 
while maximizing available resources.

    The NPRM also stated that in 2011, the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) received public comments on the mitigation planning 
regulations in response to a Federal Register notice published as part 
of a retrospective review of its regulations. According to DHS's final 
report titled ``Final Plan for the Retrospective Review of Existing 
Regulations'' dated August 22, 2011 (See page 16),

    DHS received a comment (the top-voted comment mentioned above) 
recommending that DHS change the current FEMA State Standard and 
Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan update requirement from every [3] 
years to every [5] years so that it is consistent with current Local 
Hazard Mitigation Plan update requirements. Commenters asserted that 
[5] years would be an appropriate timeframe for [S]tate mitigation 
plan updates for both efficiency and resource-limitation reasons.

    Extending the update cycle from 3 to 7 years does not align with 
the current local and Tribal mitigation planning 5-year update cycle. 
Additionally, based on the majority of responses from stakeholders, 
FEMA has chosen not to pursue the suggestion of extending the update 
cycle from 3 to 7 years.
    Only one comment, submitted by a non-profit environmental advocacy 
organization, opposed the NPRM. The comment was submitted to the docket 
in the form of a letter along with more than 90 individual documents 
totaling almost 7,900 pages (after accounting for documents submitted 
in multiple parts and elimination of duplication). The letter cited to 
11 of the attachments that the commenter submitted to the docket by 
footnoting them. Other than the letter, none of the supporting 
attachments referenced the NPRM. As a result, no response is provided 
to the attachments.
    The remainder of this section will address the comment from the 
non-profit environmental advocacy organization that opposed the NPRM 
because, as it stated:

the extension is not accompanied by requirements to ensure the 
quality of the State Mitigation Plans increases to compensate for 
less frequent updates. FEMA must ensure that the State Mitigation 
Plans are as effective and as timely as possible since hazard 
mitigation planning is critical to reduce risks to the public and to 
improve safety and health. To proceed with the proposed extension as 
currently articulated is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 
discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law.

    The comment asserted that if the State Mitigation Plans do not 
incorporate the most current climate change studies and modeling, 
FEMA's NPRM would lead to plans losing relevance and becoming outdated 
more quickly, due to climate change implications, and the quality of 
hazard mitigation would suffer. The comment further stated that:

    If the [S]tate update requirement is extended, FEMA should take 
this opportunity to ensure that [S]tates use the extra [2] years to 
significantly improve their plans, especially regarding climate 
change. States tend to rely exclusively on historical data to 
predict the probability of future hazard events, and determine 
priorities for mitigation. Unfortunately, most [S]tates are not 
incorporating climate change projections and therefore are not 
maximizing accuracy of hazard predictions in risk assessments. FEMA 
should only approve State Hazard Mitigation Plans that adequately 
address climate change. FEMA also should provide agency guidance in 
FEMA's Blue Book on how to incorporate climate change into such 
plans. In addition to the current proposed rulemaking, FEMA should 
also initiate another new rulemaking to amend 44 CFR Sec.  201.4, in 
order to confirm that climate change must be addressed by [S]tates 
in their hazard mitigation plans.

    As stated in the NPRM, in order to be effective, plans must be 
relevant. Therefore, 44 CFR 201.4(d) requires that the plans be 
reviewed and revised to reflect changes in development, progress in 
statewide mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities. Mitigation 
planning is a continuous process of engaging stakeholders, identifying 
hazards as conditions may change, assessing risk and vulnerabilities as 
development patterns may change, and developing a strategy that can be 
implemented using available resources, programs, and initiatives based 
on current priorities.
    The purpose of the NPRM is only to extend the update requirement 
from 3 to 5 years and does not change the requirements for the content 
of the Mitigation Plan. While section 201.4(c)(2) does not list or 
require specific hazards be addressed in the Mitigation Plan, States 
are required to include an overview of the type and location of all 
natural hazards that can affect the State. In fact, 44 CFR 
201.4(c)(2)(i) requires the Mitigation Plan to contain information not 
only on previous occurrences but on the probability of future hazard 
events. This approach allows States discretion in meeting the Federal 
mitigation planning requirements and recognizes differences that exist 
among State governments with respect to capability and resources as 
well as variations in vulnerability within the planning area.
    In addition, the FEMA Climate Change Adaptation Policy Statement 
(2011-OPPA-01) affirms the need to address risks that may be linked to 
climate change and identifies initial actions within existing statutes 
and authorities to help integrate climate change adaptation 
considerations into FEMA programs. Further, the President's Climate 
Action Plan, released in June 2013, identifies three major initiatives 
to prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change by 
building stronger and safer communities and infrastructure, protecting 
our economy and natural resources, and using sound science to

[[Page 22878]]

manage climate impacts. FEMA is committed to working with partners to 
improve the relevance and effectiveness of mitigation planning to 
increase the Nation's resilience through improvements to policy, 
guidance, training, technical assistance, as well as other products.
    FEMA encourages States to fully engage in the mitigation planning 
process and, as stated in 44 CFR 201.4(b), to include coordination with 
other State agencies, appropriate Federal agencies, and interested 
groups. FEMA also encourages States to integrate their mitigation 
planning to the extent possible with other ongoing State planning 
efforts and other FEMA mitigation programs and initiatives. By fully 
leveraging the mitigation planning process, States may be better able 
to identify and incorporate the best available data, studies, and 
models to assess changes in current and future hazards as well as 
development patterns that may impact vulnerability. Further, States may 
be better able to develop and implement a plan maintenance process that 
ensures plan relevance over time. The accuracy and relevance of the 
plan are important elements to ensure that resources are wisely 
invested in implementing measures to reduce risk from future events. As 
stated in the NPRM and the planning regulations at 44 CFR 201.4(a), the 
mitigation plan is the demonstration of the State's commitment to 
reduce risks from natural hazards and serves as a guide for State 
decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of 
natural hazards.
    The comment suggests that FEMA initiate another rulemaking 
requiring States to address climate change in State Mitigation Plans. 
The current regulation requires the State to include information on 
future hazard events in its Mitigation Plan and allows the State 
discretion whether to address climate change. 44 CFR 201.4(c)(2)(i).
    The comment also encourages FEMA to implement an ``administrative 
trigger'' meaning that following a ``major climate-sensitive hazard 
event,'' if the plan did not adequately address climate change, the 
State would be required to initiate an update; and if the State did not 
incorporate new information into the plan, FEMA hazard mitigation 
funding should be withheld. FEMA encourages States to review the plan 
after disasters and update, if needed, to reflect changes in 
priorities. States may also consider use of FEMA's Hazard Mitigation 
Grant Program planning grants for planning related activities to update 
risk assessments after catastrophic events. FEMA will work with States 
post disaster, based on availability of resources and funding, to 
review the State Mitigation Plan, in particular the risk assessment and 
mitigation strategies, to guide implementation of mitigation actions 
and the development of a recovery strategy as outlined in the National 
Disaster Recovery Framework. Requiring plan updates using an 
administrative trigger would require a change to the mitigation 
planning regulation. FEMA has chosen not to initiate another rulemaking 
to implement an administrative trigger, so as not to increase the 
burden on States and FEMA, but will continue to monitor the necessity 
of initiating another rulemaking requiring States to review the plan 
after disasters and update, if needed, to reflect changes in 
priorities.
    As previously stated in the preamble, the vast majority of 
respondents supported the regulatory change proposed in the March 1, 
2013 NPRM; therefore, FEMA is adopting as final the NPRM (78 FR 13844, 
Mar. 1, 2013) without change.

E. Implementation

    The Standard State Mitigation Plan and the Enhanced State 
Mitigation Plan updates will be due 5 years from the date of the 
approval of the previous plan.

III. Regulatory Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    FEMA has prepared and reviewed this rule under the provisions of 
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, 
Oct. 4, 1993) as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011). This 
Final Rule is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore has 
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This portion of the preamble summarizes FEMA's analysis of the 
economic impacts of this Final Rule. However, readers seeking greater 
detail are encouraged to read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of 
which FEMA has placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting the aforementioned analyses, FEMA has determined that 
the Final Rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an 
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities; and (4) will not 
impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or 
on the private sector by exceeding $100 million or more annually 
(adjusted for inflation with a base year of 1995). These analyses are 
summarized below.
Who Is Potentially Affected by This Rule
    The Final Rule will affect States that choose to submit updated 
Standard State Mitigation Plans or Enhanced State Mitigation Plans to 
FEMA for approval, and Indian Tribal governments that choose to meet 
the requirements for Enhanced State Mitigation Plans in order to 
qualify for increased HMGP funding.
Savings to Society of This Rule
    The cost to update a State's Mitigation Plan is unique to that 
respective State. However, for the purposes of this analysis, FEMA 
estimates an average Standard State Mitigation Plan update unit cost of 
$205,000 and an Enhanced State Mitigation Plan update unit cost of 
$524,000.\5\ FEMA also assumes that 46 States would submit Standard 
State Mitigation Plans and 10 States would submit Enhanced State 
Mitigation Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These plan update costs reflect cost and burden estimates in 
section III. D. (``Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995''). In 
section III. D., ``hour burden'' in Table 3 is calculated by taking 
23 percent of the State Mitigation Plan update cost, which 
represents personnel costs, and dividing it by the estimated Urban 
and Regional Planners wage rate of $45.33. This equates to 1,040 
hours (($205,000 x 0.23)/$45.33 = 1,040.15) for Standard State 
Mitigation Plan updates and 2,659 hours (($524,000 x 0.23)/$45.33 = 
2,658.72) for Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates. Additionally, 
66 percent of the State Mitigation Plan update cost represents 
contracting costs and 11 percent of the State Mitigation Plan update 
cost represents non-labor costs (for both standard and enhanced plan 
updates). The contracting and non-labor costs are used to estimate 
the ``cost burden'' in Table 4 below. For Standard State Mitigation 
Plan updates, this equates to $135,300 ($205,000 x 0.66 = $135,300) 
``annual operations and maintenance costs'' and $22,550 ($205,000 x 
0.11 = $22,550) for ``annual non-labor costs''. For Enhanced State 
Mitigation Plan updates, this equates to $345,840 ($524,000 x 0.66 = 
$345,840) ``annual operations and maintenance costs'' and $57,640 
($524,000 x 0.11 = $57,640) for ``annual non-labor costs''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA will also incur costs to review State Mitigation Plans. FEMA 
estimates that a General Schedule 13, Step 1, Federal employee, at a 
fully loaded wage of $48.08 ($34.34*1.4 = $48.076) will spend 120 hours 
reviewing a Standard or Enhanced State Mitigation Plan. The resulting 
FEMA review cost per plan is $5,770 (120 hours * $48.08 per hour = 
$5,769.60).
    Therefore, the cost of State Mitigation Plan updates in a given 
year, where all

[[Page 22879]]

updates are submitted, is approximately $15 million (($205,000 + 
$5,770)*46 + ($524,000 + $5,770)*10 = $14,993,120). The extension of 
the State Mitigation Plan update frequency from 3 to 5 years will 
reduce the number of State Mitigation Plan updates submitted by 2 over 
15 years. The resulting undiscounted total cost savings is 
approximately $30 million over 15 years ($14,993,120 * 2 = 
$29,986,240); or, $18.8 million total cost savings over 15 years if 
discounted at 7 percent. The annual impact of this rule is 
approximately $2 million undiscounted ($29,986,240 / 15 = $1,999,083) 
and $2.06 million annualized at 7 percent.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In Appendix A of the Regulatory Evaluation available in the 
docket, FEMA includes estimated annualized costs at three and seven 
percent according to guidance in OMB Circular A-4 (page 45). Office 
of Management and Budget, Published September 17, 2003. Available 
at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits of This Rule
    The Final Rule will provide a number of unquantified benefits 
including aligning the State Mitigation Plan update cycle with the 
Local and Tribal Mitigation Plan update cycle and providing greater 
flexibility for States to submit their State Mitigation Plan updates. 
The rule will also provide an opportunity for States to apply cost 
savings from the reduction in State Mitigation Plan update frequency to 
other means of increasing resilience and reducing the Nation's risk to 
natural hazards.
 Significance Determination
    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant 
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 
Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this 
rule.
    The rule is estimated to have a net quantified undiscounted savings 
to society of approximately $30 million over 15 years. The annual 
impact of this rule is an estimated net quantified savings to society 
of approximately $2 million undiscounted ($1,999,083) and $2.06 million 
annualized at 7 percent.
Retrospective Review
    To facilitate the periodic review of existing significant 
regulations, Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to consider how 
best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, 
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, 
streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been 
learned. The Executive Order requires agencies to issue a retrospective 
review plan, consistent with law and the agency's resources and 
regulatory priorities, under which the agency will periodically review 
its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such 
regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so 
as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less 
burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.
    DHS issued its ``Final Plan for the Retrospective Review of 
Existing Regulations'' (Plan) on August 22, 2011. The Plan can be found 
on the DHS Open Government Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-ogc-final-retrospective-review-plan-8-22-11-final.pdf. DHS 
originally included this rule in the Plan as a long-term retrospective 
review candidate, meaning the agency would undertake retrospective 
review of the regulation within 3 years of the date of the Plan. The 
Plan stated that FEMA would consider whether it would be more efficient 
to extend the review period to 5 years for each of the plans as 
requested by public commenters. DHS later moved this rule (1660-AA77) 
to its list of current retrospective review projects.
    DHS publishes periodic updates on the progress of its retrospective 
review efforts. DHS published its most recent update, ``DHS 
Retrospective Review Plan Report,'' in January 2014. That update can be 
found on the DHS Open Government Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhs-january-2014-retrospective-review-plan-report.
    Review of FEMA's existing Mitigation Plan regulations revealed the 
potential for State cost savings, approximately $30 million over 15 
years, as well as other benefits. Therefore, FEMA is extending the 
State Mitigation Plan minimum update frequency from 3 to 5 years.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), FEMA 
evaluated and considered whether this rule would have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term 
``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit 
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not 
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with 
populations of less than 50,000.
    In the March 1, 2013 NPRM, FEMA invited comments on the initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) determination. FEMA did not receive 
any comments regarding the RFA determination. As the Final Rule will 
not result in additional costs, FEMA does not anticipate that the rule 
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 109 
Stat. 48 (Mar. 22, 1995) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), requires Federal 
agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory 
actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal 
government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 
or more in any one year. As the Final Rule will not have an impact 
greater than $100,000,000 or more in any one year, it is not an 
unfunded Federal mandate.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 
Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163, (May 22, 1995) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of 
information displays a valid control number.
    In this Final Rule, FEMA is seeking a revision to the already 
existing collection of information identified as OMB Control Number 
1660-0062. This revision reflects the reduction in the annual cost 
burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the Final Rule, 
as well as refinements to current estimates in 1660-0062 based on 
changes to the way cost burden is reported under the PRA. Annual cost 
burden was previously derived from multiplying total annual burden 
hours, based on subject matter expert average hour estimates per 
mitigation plan, by the associated wage rates. However, FEMA has 
refined how it calculates annual costs and now uses cost estimates 
based on historical mitigation plan grant data, which includes contract 
support and other associated costs. This Final Rule serves as the 30-
day comment period for this change

[[Page 22880]]

pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. FEMA invites the general public to comment 
on the collection of information.
Collection of Information
    Title: State/Local/Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plans.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved 
collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0062.
    Form Titles and Numbers: None.
    Abstract: The purpose of State, Local, and Tribal Hazard Mitigation 
Plan requirements is to support the FEMA Mitigation grant programs, and 
a significant State, local, and Tribal commitment to mitigation 
activities, comprehensive mitigation planning, and strong program 
management. Implementation of planned, pre-identified cost-effective 
mitigation measures will streamline the disaster recovery process. 
Mitigation plans are the demonstration of the goals and priority to 
reduce risks from natural hazards. This Final Rule revises FEMA 
Mitigation Planning regulations in order to reduce the frequency that 
respondents submit Standard State and Enhanced State Mitigation Plan 
updates from 3 to 5 years. This change in frequency will reduce 8,899 
burden hours on the public and save $1,350,580 annually in respondent 
burden costs. Due to the change in reporting methods described above, 
the base line numbers have changed, resulting in an overall increase in 
the estimated total annual cost. This impact is separate from the 
effect of the Final Rule.
    Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal Governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56 States submit State Mitigation 
Plan updates to FEMA. (There are 56 States, per the definition of State 
at 44 CFR 201.2.) In addition, those 56 States also review and submit 
Local and Tribal Mitigation Plans and plan updates to FEMA.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 227,366 hours.
    The previously approved Total Annual Burden Hours was 768,320 
hours. Based on adjustments to how this burden was estimated (see 
Information Collection Request for details) and the rule's reduction in 
burden, the new estimated Total Annual Burden Hours is 227,366 hours. 
This is a decrease of 540,954 hours, of which approximately 8,899 hours 
are attributed to the change in State Mitigation Plan update frequency. 
However, some of the burden hours previously accounted for likely 
reflected some of the costs, including contract support, now included 
in the separately-reported categories under total annual cost burden.
    Table 3 provides estimates of annualized cost to respondents for 
the hour burdens for the collection of information.

                                                                         Table 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Average
                                                                              Number of      Total number     burden     Total     Average      Total
        Type of respondent          Form name/form number     Number of     responses per    of responses      per       annual     hourly      annual
                                                             respondents    respondent \1\        \2\        response    burden   wage rate   respondent
                                                                                                             (hours)    (hours)      \3\       cost \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local or Tribal Government........  New Local and Tribal               56              5               280        289     80,920     $45.33   $3,668,104
                                     Plans.
Local or Tribal Government........  Local and Tribal Plan              56              9               504        249    125,496      45.33    5,688,734
                                     Updates.
State Government..................  State Review of Local              56             14               784          8      6,272      45.33      284,310
                                     and Tribal Plans.
State Government..................  Standard State Plan                46              0.2               9      1,040      9,360      45.33      424,289
                                     Updates.
State Government..................  Enhanced State Plan                10              0.2               2      2,659      5,318      45.33      241,065
                                     Updates.
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................  .....................              56  ...............           1,579  .........    227,366  .........  10,306,502
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standard State Plan Updates and Enhanced State Plan Updates Number of Responses per Respondent represents an annual average over 5 years (1 plan
  update/5 years = 0.2).
\2\ Standard State Plan Updates Total Number of Responses is rounded to the nearest plan.
\3\ The ``Avg. Hourly Wage Rate'' for each respondent includes a 1.4 multiplier to reflect a loaded wage rate and rounded to the nearest cent.
\4\ Rounded to the nearest dollar.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $33,532,730.
    The previously approved Total Annual Cost was $33,452,652. Based on 
adjustments to how this cost was estimated (see Information Collection 
Request for details) and the rule's reduction in cost, the new 
estimated Total Annual Cost is $33,532,730. This is an increase of 
$80,078. This includes a $1,350,580 reduction in cost attributed to the 
change in State Mitigation Plan update frequency.
    Table 4 provides estimates of total annual cost burden to 
respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of 
information.

[[Page 22881]]

                                                     Table 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                * Annual
                                          * Annual capital   operations and   Annual non-labor
                                            start-up cost   maintenance cost        cost
                                           (investments in      (such as      (expenditures on    Total annual
  Data collection activity/ instrument        overhead,      recordkeeping,   training, travel       cost to
                                            equipment and      technical/         and other        respondents
                                           other one-time     professional       resources)
                                            expenditures)    services, etc.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of New Local and Tribal            $12,289,200  ................  ................       $12,289,200
 Plans..................................
Local and Tribal Plan Updates...........  ................       $16,299,360        $2,716,560        19,015,920
State Review of Local and Tribal Plans..  ................  ................  ................                 0
Standard State Mitigation Plan Updates..  ................         1,217,700           202,950         1,420,650
Enhanced State Mitigation Plan Updates..  ................           691,680           115,280           806,960
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................        12,289,200        18,208,740         3,034,790        33,532,730
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall Estimated Total Cost: $43,839,232.
    The overall estimated cost of this collection is $43,839,232 
($10,306,502 + $33,532,730). This is an increase of $10,386,580 
($33,452,652--$43,839,232) from the currently approved OMB inventory.

E. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969

    Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA), Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321 
et seq.) requires agencies to consider the impacts in their decision-
making on the quality of the human environment. The Council on 
Environmental Quality's procedures for implementing NEPA, 40 CFR 1500 
et seq., require Federal agencies to prepare Environmental Impact 
Statements (EIS) for major federal actions significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment. Each agency can develop categorical 
exclusions to cover actions that typically do not trigger significant 
impacts to the human environment individually or cumulatively. Agencies 
develop environmental assessments (EA) to evaluate those actions that 
do not fit an agency's categorical exclusion and for which the need for 
an EIS is not readily apparent. At the end of the EA process the agency 
will determine whether to make a Finding of No Significant Impact or 
whether to initiate the EIS process.
    Rulemaking is a major federal action subject to NEPA. The List of 
exclusion categories at 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii) excludes the preparation, 
revision, and adoption of regulations from the preparation of an EA or 
EIS, where the rule relates to actions that qualify for categorical 
exclusions. The development of plans under 44 CFR part 201 is 
categorically excluded under 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(iii) and (xviii)(E). No 
extraordinary circumstances exist that will trigger the need to develop 
an EA or EIS. See 44 CFR 10.8(d)(3). An EA will not be prepared because 
a categorical exclusion applies to this rulemaking action and no 
extraordinary circumstances exist.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments,'' 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000, applies to agency 
regulations that have Tribal implications, that is, regulations that 
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian Tribes. Under this Executive Order, to the extent 
practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any 
regulation that has Tribal implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and that is not 
required by statute, unless funds necessary to pay the direct costs 
incurred by the Indian Tribal government or the Tribe in complying with 
the regulation are provided by the Federal Government, or the agency 
consults with Tribal officials.
    This Final Rule revises FEMA's Mitigation Planning regulations in 
order to reduce the frequency of Standard State and Enhanced State 
Mitigation Plan updates from 3 to 5 years. Tribal Mitigation Plan 
updates are already required every 5 years; however, in accordance with 
44 CFR 201.3(e)(3), Indian Tribal governments are potentially eligible 
to act as grantee and qualify for increased HMGP funding by submitting 
an Enhanced Mitigation Plan. Indian Tribal governments that wish to 
submit an Enhanced Mitigation Plan are required to update that plan 
every 3 years; the Final Rule will reduce that frequency to every 5 
years. For these reasons, this rule may have ``tribal implications'' as 
defined in the Executive Order. Submission of the plan, however, is 
voluntary, and changing the frequency of the plan from 3 to 5 years 
will not impose direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments. 
Therefore, FEMA finds that this Final Rule complies with Executive 
Order 13175.

G. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), if it has a substantial 
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under this 
Executive Order, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, no 
agency shall promulgate any regulation that has federalism 
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State 
and local governments, and that is not required by statute, unless 
funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the State and local 
governments in complying with the regulation are provided by the 
Federal Government, or the agency consults with State and local 
officials. FEMA has analyzed this Final Rule under the Executive Order 
and determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
    This Final Rule revises FEMA's Mitigation Planning regulations in 
order to reduce the frequency of Standard State and Enhanced State 
Mitigation Plan updates, extending the update requirement from 3 to 5 
years. FEMA has received substantial input requesting that FEMA change 
its Mitigation Planning regulations to

[[Page 22882]]

reduce the frequency of Standard State and Enhanced State Mitigation 
Plan updates. Some of those requests have come from State officials.
    The Standard State and Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates are 
voluntarily submitted by States. Per DMA 2000, Mitigation Plans are a 
condition of receipt of increased Federal funding for hazard mitigation 
measures. If a State chooses not to comply with the regulations in 44 
CFR part 201, it still will be eligible for limited emergency 
assistance under the Stafford Act. (See 42 U.S.C. 5170a, 5170b, 5173, 
5174, 5177, 5179, 5180, 5182, 5183, 5184, and 5192).

H. Executive Order 12630, Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' (53 FR 8859, Mar. 18, 1988).

I. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice

    Under Executive Order 12898, as amended, ``Federal Actions To 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994), FEMA incorporates 
environmental justice into its policies and programs. Executive Order 
12898 requires each Federal agency to conduct its programs, policies, 
and activities that substantially affect human health or the 
environment, in a manner that ensures that those programs, policies, 
and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from 
participation in, denying persons the benefit of, or subjecting persons 
to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin or 
income level.
    This rule relates to the implementation of section 322 of the 
Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5165). Section 322 focuses specifically on 
mitigation planning to identify the natural hazards, risks, and 
vulnerabilities of areas in States, localities, and Tribal areas; 
development of Local Mitigation Plans; technical assistance to local 
and Tribal governments for mitigation planning; and identifying and 
prioritizing mitigation actions that the State will support as 
resources become available. The reduction in burden from the update 
frequency may allow States to focus on implementing additional 
mitigation actions identified through the planning process as a means 
to increase resilience and reduce the Nation's risk to natural hazards; 
thereby also protecting human lives and the environment. No action that 
FEMA can anticipate under this rule will have a disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effect on any segment of the 
population.

 J. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This Final Rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729, 
Feb. 7, 1996), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 
burden in the federal court system.

K. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This Final Rule will not create environmental health risks or 
safety risks for children under Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of 
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, Apr. 23, 1997).

L. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management

    FEMA has prepared and reviewed this rule under the provisions of 
Executive Order 11988, as amended, ``Floodplain Management'' (42 FR 
26951, May 25, 1977). The regulations at 44 CFR part 9 set forth FEMA's 
policy, procedures, and responsibilities in implementing this Executive 
Order. In summary, these are, to the greatest possible degree: to avoid 
long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and 
modification of floodplains; avoid direct and indirect support of 
floodplain development whenever there is a practical alternative; 
reduce the risk of flood loss; promote the use of nonstructural flood 
protection methods to reduce the risk of flood loss; minimize the 
impacts of floods on human health, safety and welfare; restore and 
preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains; and 
adhere to the objectives of the Unified National Program for Floodplain 
Management.
    As stated in the preamble, the planning process provides a link 
between State, Tribal and local mitigation programs. Both State level 
and local plans should address strategies for incorporating post-
disaster early mitigation implementation strategies and sustainable 
recovery actions. FEMA also recognizes that governments are involved in 
a range of planning activities and that mitigation plans may be linked 
to or reference comprehensive plans, land use plans, master plans, and 
other non-natural hazard plans. Improved mitigation planning will 
result in a better understanding of risks and vulnerabilities, as well 
as expediting implementation of measures and activities to reduce those 
risks, both pre- and post-disaster. This Final Rule revises FEMA's 
Mitigation Planning regulations in order to reduce the frequency of 
Standard State and Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates by extending 
the update requirement from 3 to 5 years. The change aligns the State 
update requirements with local and Tribal Mitigation Plan update 
requirements, which does not conflict with the intent of the Executive 
Order.

M. Congressional Review Act

    FEMA has sent this Final Rule to the Congress and to the Government 
Accountability Office under the Congressional Review of Agency 
Rulemaking Act, (``Congressional Review Act''), Public Law 104-121, 110 
Stat. 873 (Mar. 29, 1996) (5 U.S.C. 804). This rule is not a ``major 
rule'' within the meaning of the Congressional Review Act.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 201

    Administrative practice and procedure, Disaster assistance, Grant 
programs, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 201 of title 
44 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 201--MITIGATION PLANNING

0
1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 through 5207; Reorganization Plan No. 
3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; Homeland Security 
Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 101; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 
Comp., p. 376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 43239, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 412; 
E.O. 13286, 68 FR 10619, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 166.

0
2. In Sec.  201.3, revise paragraphs (b)(5), (c)(2), and (c)(3), and 
the second sentence of paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  201.3  Responsibilities.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Conduct reviews, at least once every 5 years, of State 
mitigation activities, plans, and programs to ensure that mitigation 
commitments are fulfilled, and when necessary, take action, including 
recovery of funds or denial of future funds, if mitigation commitments 
are not fulfilled.

[[Page 22883]]

    (c) * * *
    (2) In order to be considered for the 20 percent HMGP funding, 
prepare and submit an Enhanced State Mitigation Plan in accordance with 
Sec.  201.5, which must be reviewed and updated, if necessary, every 5 
years from the date of the approval of the previous plan.
    (3) At a minimum, review and update the Standard State Mitigation 
Plan every 5 years from the date of the approval of the previous plan 
in order to continue program eligibility.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * * The plan must be reviewed and updated at least every 5 
years from the date of approval of the previous plan.

0
3. In Sec.  201.4, revise the first sentence of paragraph (d) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  201.4  Standard State Mitigation Plans.

* * * * *
    (d) * * * Plan must be reviewed and revised to reflect changes in 
development, progress in statewide mitigation efforts, and changes in 
priorities and resubmitted for approval to the appropriate Regional 
Administrator every 5 years. * * *

0
4. In Sec.  201.5, revise the third sentence of paragraph (a), revise 
the first sentence of paragraph (c)(1), and revise (c)(2) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  201.5  Enhanced State Mitigation Plans.

    (a) * * * In order for the State to be eligible for the 20 percent 
HMGP funding, FEMA must have approved the plan within 5 years prior to 
the disaster declaration.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) A State must review and revise its plan to reflect changes in 
development, progress in statewide mitigation efforts, and changes in 
priorities, and resubmit it for approval to the appropriate Regional 
Administrator every 5 years. * * *
    (2) In order for a State to be eligible for the 20 percent HMGP 
funding, the Enhanced State Mitigation plan must be approved by FEMA 
within the 5 years prior to the current major disaster declaration.

    Dated: April 17, 2014.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-09461 Filed 4-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-66-P