Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2007/10/31/E7-21264/hazard-mitigation-planning-and-hazard-mitigation-grant-program
Timestamp: 2016-08-28 05:10:18
Document Index: 612169645

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 201', '§ 206', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 206', '§ 206', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', 'art 2', '§ 201', '§ 206', '§ 206', '§ 201', 'art 201', 'art 206', 'art 201', 'art 206', 'art 201', 'art 201', 'art 206', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 206', '§ 206', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 206', '§ 206', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 201', '§ 206', '§ 206', '§ 206', 'art 201', 'art 201', 'art 201', '§ 206', '§ 206', '§ 10', '§ 10', 'arts 201', 'ART 201', '§ 201', '§ 201']

Federal Register | Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Dates: This final rule is effective November 30, 2007.
Effective Date: 11/30/2007
-61565 (14 pages)
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/E7-21264 Related Topics
Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 15 actions from February 26th, 2002 February 26th, 2002
67 FR 8844
Correcting Amendment Effective
69 FR 55094
Table: HMGP Fund Eligibility for States With Enhanced Plans2004—August 2007
On October 1, 2002, FEMA published a second IR at 67 FR 61512. This IR amended the February 26, 2002, IR to extend the date by which State and local governments must develop mitigation plans as a condition of grant assistance in compliance with 44 CFR part 201 from November 1, 2003 to November 1, 2004.
FEMA received 17 public comments on the February 26, 2002 IR, and 3 comments on the October 1, 2002 IR. FEMA received no comments on the October 28, 2003 or September 13, 2004 IRs. Fourteen State emergency management agencies, three organizations, two local governments, and one independent group submitted comments. The comments received, together with FEMA's response, are set forth below. The “Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance under DMA2000” (also known as the Mitigation Planning “Blue Book”) and the FEMA “How-To” series for Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386) are posted on the FEMA Web site (http://www.FEMA.gov/library). Unless otherwise stated, these are the documents referred to in FEMA's response when references to program policy or guidance are made.
FEMA's response: The February 26, 2002 interim rule established new requirements for hazard mitigation planning. FEMA worked to ensure that appropriate guidance was developed for those responsible for developing, evaluating, and reviewing the plans. FEMA believes that the level of detail is reasonable and necessary to ensure that the statutory purposes of the mitigation planning provision are met and result in meaningful and effective mitigation planning. FEMA hosted a series of workshops in both 2002 and 2003 at each FEMA Region at which every State was represented. These workshops provided an opportunity to clarify the planning requirements identified in the regulation and to answer questions regarding these requirements. During the workshops, FEMA clarified the level of information required by the regulations in developing risk assessments for local mitigation plans. FEMA also issued policy related to the possible lack of hazard specific risk information, which allows planners to use the “best available information” that is currently available in doing the risk assessment, and document how that information would be improved over time.
FEMA's response: The list of assets that are most important to protect, as well as the criticality of any given facility, can vary widely from community-to-community. Thus, there is no universal definition of a critical facility, nor is one associated with FEMA's planning requirements. For planning purposes, a jurisdiction should determine criticality based on the relative importance of its various assets for the delivery of vital services, the protection of special populations, and other important functions. FEMA's Mitigation Planning How-To Guide, “Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses” (FEMA 386-2) provides guidance on how to identify critical facilities. Based on a hazard-by-hazard identification of facilities that may be at risk, the Guide's emphasis on determining priorities for inventory data collection will help planners identify assets that are most critical to the jurisdiction. The companion publication “Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning” (FEMA 386-7) details how asset inventory can be tailored to focus on high-risk facilities such as critical infrastructures and key resources. In addition, the inventory information available with FEMA's HAZUS-MH loss estimation software can assist in identifying critical facilities. HAZUS-MH databases include information on essential facilities such as hospitals, police and fire stations, emergency operations centers, shelters, and schools; transportation systems; utility lifelines; high potential loss facilities such as potable water, wastewater, oil, natural gas, electric power, and communication systems; and hazardous material facilities.
Other sources provide additional guidance on identifying facilities that may be critical. FEMA's “Public Assistance Guide” (FEMA 322) states that “[c]ritical facilities are those that serve as emergency shelters; contain occupants who are not sufficiently mobile to avoid death or injury, such as hospitals; house emergency operation or data storage that may become lost or inoperative; are generating plants and principal points of utility lines; or that produce, use, or store volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic, or water reactive materials.” The related regulation at § 206.226, Restoration of damaged facilities, refers to facilities that provide critical services, “which include power, water * * * sewer services, wastewater treatment, communications, emergency medical care, fire department services, emergency rescue, and nursing homes.” Further, the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), issued in 2006, provides a framework for a national strategy that includes State, local, Tribal and regional identification of risks and the protection of “critical infrastructure” and “key resources.” Critical Infrastructure is defined in the NIPP as “[a]ssets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such assets, systems, or networks would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, public health or safety, or any combination of those matters,” and Key Resources is defined as “publicly or privately controlled resources essential to the minimal operations of the economy and government.” Mitigation planning is identified in the NIPP as an activity that can help achieve protection of these assets.
The hazard mitigation plan should provide enough information regarding critical facilities to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions. However, some information may be deemed highly sensitive and should not be made available to the public. Such information that the jurisdiction considers sensitive should be treated as an addendum to the mitigation plan so that it is still a part of the plan, but access can be controlled. For more information on protecting sensitive information See,“Integrating Manmade Hazards into Mitigation Planning” (FEMA 386-7).
FEMA notes that in § 201.4(c)(2)(ii), the regulation contains the phrase “State owned critical or operated facilities,” when in fact FEMA intended to use the phrase “State owned or operated critical facilities.” This typographical error is corrected in this final rule.
FEMA's response: FEMA sees no impact on the sovereignty of Indian tribal governments as a result of these regulations. FEMA recognizes that Native American Tribes are sovereign States. Although § 201.2 states that Indian tribal governments who chose to act as subgrantees are accountable to the State grantee, Indian tribal governments are not required to act as subgrantees. Furthermore, in § 201.3(e), Indian tribal governments may interact directly with the Federal government, or may choose to apply through a State as a subgrantee. This allows for an Indian tribal government to have the flexibility of either applying directly to FEMA for mitigation assistance, or, where the Indian tribal government has a working relationship with a State, apply through the State as a subgrantee. Some Indian tribal governments have participated on local level multi-jurisdictional plans, which have allowed them to participate in FEMA's mitigation programs while they gain expertise and management capability. It is entirely at the discretion of the Indian tribal government and the State whether funding should be sought by Indian tribal governments directly from FEMA or through the State.
Edits to § 206.434(d): One commenter requested that in § 206.434(d), FEMA make available 7 percent of any unspent HMGP funds currently available to the States regardless of declaration date, and remove the word “tribal.”
FEMA's response: In July 2002, FEMA provided guidance titled “Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000” on the development of Enhanced State Mitigation Plans, FEMA revised that guidance in March 2004. These documents are available through FEMA regional offices, and the 2004 guidance, which retains the 2002 guidance but includes more explanations and examples, is available on the FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/index.shtm. These documents provide guidance on implementing each section of the enhanced plan requirements. FEMA established the criteria for enhanced plans to provide a more qualitative and less quantitative basis for evaluating the plans. In addition, FEMA's policy for reviewing enhanced plans has been to establish a panel consisting of two State representatives, staff from two FEMA Regions, and two FEMA Headquarters staff to review and evaluate the plan. This practice makes the plan review process more transparent and fair and provides States with an opportunity to see how the process works. As of August 2007, there are 9 States with approved Enhanced Mitigation Plans.
Confusion regarding § 201.5(b)(4): Commenters wrote that there is confusion regarding § 201.5(b)(4), which states: “Demonstration that the State is committed to a comprehensive state mitigation program, which might include any of the following.”
FEMA's response: The list of items in § 201.5(b)(4)(i) through (vi) are provided as examples of that commitment, and are not expected to be addressed in every plan.
Documentation of capability to manage HMGP: One commenter expressed concern regarding how the Enhanced State Mitigation Plan requirement in § 201.5(b)(2)(iii), “[d]emonstration that the State has the capability to effectively manage the HMGP as well as other mitigation grant programs, including a record of the following,” would be implemented.
FEMA's response: FEMA recognized that it would be difficult for States to provide documentation of their capability in this section, so FEMA developed a policy that allows the Region and State to work together to complete the documentation for this requirement. This policy appears in the “Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance under DMA2000, Part 2 Enhanced State Mitigation Plans, Program Management Capability,” which can be found at: http://www.fema.gov/library. For the initial Enhanced Plan approval, a State would be evaluated on their capability to effectively manage the HMGP as well as other mitigation grant programs over the previous four quarters. For subsequent plan update approvals, the State would be evaluated based on demonstrated capability for the full 3 years the plan had been in effect.
FEMA's response: Multi-jurisdictional utility PNPs, including Rural Electric Cooperatives (RECs), which sometimes span several counties, are eligible subapplicants for assistance under HMGP. Their infrastructure often sustains damage from severe snow and ice storms, and they frequently seek HMGP funding after disaster declarations from these storms to mitigate future similar losses. RECs are treated as PNPs for the purposes of disaster assistance provided by FEMA under the Stafford Act. They are not considered local governments. This distinction is important, because current regulations provide only for local governments, not PNPs, to meet the planning requirement by submitting a local mitigation plan (LMP) to FEMA. For PNPs such as RECs or other multi-jurisdictional utilities, FEMA is identifying two ways in which RECs may meet the mitigation planning requirements to ensure that projects funded by HMGP are consistent with the mitigation strategies of the State, Tribal, and/or local jurisdiction in which the project is located: the local jurisdiction(s) within which the REC mitigation project is located must have FEMA approved LMPs, or the FEMA approved State Mitigation Plan must address RECs. Further guidance is available on this topic on FEMA's Web site at http://www.fema.gov.
FEMA's response: The term “small and impoverished communities” is defined in § 201.2. This definition combines the term in section 203 of the Stafford Act, as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, with criteria for “economically disadvantaged” communities as used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under their National Watershed Initiative. Communities can compare their per capita income to the Bureau of Economic Analysis's per capita income for the U.S. as a whole, issued annually; local unemployment data can be compared with the national unemployment rate according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, also issued annually. Further guidance on FEMA's criteria for determining small and impoverished communities can be found on pages 1-10 of the FY 2007 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program Guidance, which can be found at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2095.
FEMA's response: FEMA's approach to the planning process is to establish a mechanism for State and local governments to make informed decisions regarding their risk reduction activities rather than creating a prescriptive list of requirements. Section 201.4(a) describes the purpose of the State Mitigation Plan: “[t]he 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.” FEMA looks to the State to establish baselines by which the State will measure the effectiveness of the programs and activities that it has identified that reduce its risks. FEMA is evaluating the effectiveness of plans based on how well the States document the planning process. The requirement regarding the “factual basis” for activities means that the State should be developing its mitigation strategy based on the facts (risks and vulnerabilities) established in its risk assessment. State laws would be evaluated based on the criteria established by the State to do so. Regarding the requirement that the plan contain overviews of all natural hazards, FEMA requires the State to identify all natural hazards that can affect the State, but only to evaluate those that pose the greatest risk (as determined by the State). This distinction ensures that natural hazards are not overlooked and can assist in future evaluations of the State's risk, by summarizing the process used to conduct the risk assessment.
Definition of mitigation: Two commenters wrote that the term “sustained” must be clarified to avoid confusion as to what specifically is appropriately termed hazard mitigation and what will be allowed for funding under FEMA programs. The commenters also noted that the term is at odds with the definition found in § 206.2(14).
FEMA's response: As the commenters note, § 206.2(14)'s definition of “Hazard Mitigation” is any cost-effective measure which will reduce the potential for damage to a facility from a disaster event, while § 201.2's definition of “Hazard Mitigation” is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. The difference between the part 201 and part 206 definitions of hazard mitigation is that “sustained” is related to mitigation planning under part 201, and “cost-effective measures” is related to grant activities under part 206. The definition for hazard mitigation found in part 201 is meant to allow State, tribal, and local officials latitude to evaluate a wide range of options that might reduce risk; the term “sustained” was added to the definition in part 201 to make clear that mitigation activities should be a continuous undertaking, and is consistent with the long-term explanation of hazard mitigation projects in part 206.
Assistance affected by lack of plan: One commenter wrote that §§ 201.4(a) and 201.6(a)(1) are inconsistent with each other, as the former eliminates eligibility for all assistance other than emergency measures for all local governments in a State, if the State fails to secure approval of a plan, while the latter only eliminates eligibility for funding if local entities fail to complete a plan. Since the State is dependent upon local mitigation planning efforts for data, the two sections should be consistent.
FEMA's response: The State Mitigation Plan is required in order for non-emergency disaster assistance, as well as mitigation grants, to be made available throughout the State. The local mitigation plan is required in order to receive mitigation project grants. Other non-emergency assistance is not affected by the lack of a local mitigation plan. FEMA recognizes that the initial State planning efforts will be limited by the lack of local mitigation plans, but updated State plans will be able to incorporate local level data as it becomes available.
“Ongoing State planning efforts:” One commenter asked what is meant by “ongoing state planning efforts” in § 201.4(b).
Vulnerability Assessments: One comment stated § 201.4(c)(2)(ii) would require the States to conduct vulnerability assessments based on local assessments of hazards and risk, but that it is not clear if the States would have to abandon their existing Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis methodology. Also, these risk analyses would have to be based on local participation, which cannot be mandated in many States.
State mitigation strategy: One commenter questioned the level of detail required in the mitigation strategy section of the State Mitigation Plan. The commenter wrote that States may not be able to properly represent local actions and projects with respect to the elements in § 201.4(c)(3)(iii) because it would be quite costly to fully incorporate data for every local plan.
In addition, § 201.6(a)(3) allows for an exception, in extraordinary circumstances, for a jurisdiction to receive an HMGP project grant without an approved plan. In this circumstance, the jurisdiction must agree to develop a plan within 12 months of receiving the project grant. This exception allows small or impoverished communities or jurisdictions with limited resources the opportunity to apply for project funds, while meeting the planning requirement. This exception is available after a disaster, which also allows FEMA to provide resources to jurisdictions that need to complete their mitigation plan. These resources can include training and workshops, new data leading to the risk assessment, assistance in holding and facilitating community meetings, as well as the grant funding for plan development. This allows such potentially disadvantaged communities to receive HMGP project grants concurrent with the development of their mitigation plan, and FEMA will work with those jurisdictions to assist them in meeting the planning requirement. Therefore, FEMA has implemented the planning requirement in a manner that addresses any potential disproportionate adverse effect on minority or low income populations by providing technical assistance and funding opportunities to meet the requirement, as well as exceptions allowing project grants to proceed even where the regular planning requirement is not yet met.
FEMA's response: FEMA has developed a guidance document titled “Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning” (FEMA 386-8). This document contains all of the guidance developed to date regarding multi-jurisdictional planning, and provides direction to those considering this type of planning process. This document can be obtained through any FEMA Regional office or on the FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/index/shtm.
FEMA's response: FEMA agrees that assistance to individuals and other emergency disaster assistance should not be impacted by the lack of a State Mitigation Plan, and have provided for this exception in the regulation in § 201.3(c)(1). However, regarding non-emergency disaster assistance, State Mitigation Plans are critical to the disaster recovery process. The State establishes the framework for the recovery regarding how to address specific issues arising from the disaster, how to address building codes in the recovery effort, and to set priorities for mitigation activities. The requirement for this plan is based on over 30 years of experience that State mitigation planning can result in reduced disaster losses. Since State-level mitigation plans have been required for over 30 years, and section 322 of the Stafford Act is intended to increase mitigation activities, FEMA allows for Enhanced Plans, which make States eligible for the increased share of HMGP funding.
Vulnerability information in State Plans: One commenter wrote that every structure, infrastructure, and critical facility is vulnerable to the risk of disasters and the estimated total loss is potentially the total assessed value of all properties in a jurisdiction, excluding land; therefore, the requirement to analyze these losses as indicated in § 201.4(c)(2)(iii) is a meaningless and burdensome task.
Mitigation under the Public Assistance Program: One comment requested that FEMA change § 206.226(c) so that the hazard mitigation measures identified in a FEMA approved local hazard mitigation plan and associated with facilities and sites which subsequently suffer disaster related damage in a declared disaster are automatically incorporated into the entity's public assistance hazard mitigation proposal on the Project Worksheet as an eligible item.
FEMA's response: Activities funded under § 206.226 must meet the basic eligibility requirements of the Public Assistance program. While mitigation measures identified in the approved mitigation plan may be worthwhile actions, they may not meet the requirements of the Public Assistance program, and would not be eligible.
New language for the regulation: A number of comments proposed specific language revisions. One commenter wrote that the following language should be added to the FEMA responsibilities set out in § 201.3(b)(2), “* * * and assist the [S]tate in the identification of the appropriate mitigation actions that a [S]tate or locality must take in order to have a measurable impact on reducing or avoiding the adverse effects of a specific hazard or hazardous situation” because requiring the State to coordinate all State and local activities exceeds the State's capability and authority with regard to local control. Another commenter wrote that § 201.3(c) be revised to read “[t]he key responsibilities of the State are to coordinate all State and regional activities relating to hazard evaluation and mitigation, and to the extent possible, local activities relating to hazard evaluation and mitigation.” One commenter wrote that § 201.3(c)(4) should be removed as it is redundant to Subpart N, and that § 201.4(c)(4)(iii) should be stricken as it conflicts with § 201.4(c)(3)(iii). One comment suggested that FEMA should add the following to § 206.401: “* * * except where the local or [S]tate entity has adopted, in the post disaster period, new codes, standards, and ordinances that decrease risk to facilities from natural and manmade hazards.” One comment asked that the language in § 206.432(b)(1) and (2) replace “not to exceed” with “equal to.”
Regarding the request to revise § 201.3(c) to read “[t]he key responsibilities of the State are to coordinate all State and regional activities relating to hazard evaluation and mitigation, and to the extent possible, local activities relating to hazard evaluation and mitigation;” FEMA understands that some States lack the authority to mandate local actions, but FEMA believes that this section can be (and is) interpreted broadly enough to accommodate this situation. The proposed language change emphasizes regional over local activities, and FEMA believes that if the State coordinates regional activities, it has met the requirements of this section, given the broad interpretation of local activities.
Regarding the comment that § 201.3(c)(4) should be removed as it is redundant to Subpart N; FEMA believes that it is important to identify a potential source of funding for planning within the planning regulation, even if it addressed in Subpart N.
Regarding the comment that § 201.4(c)(4)(iii) should be stricken as it conflicts with § 201.4(c)(3)(iii); FEMA believes that while the two sections are similar, they are not identical and both need to be retained. Under the Mitigation Strategy(§ 201.4(c)(3)(iii)), the intent is to identify a range of mitigation actions and activities that are prioritized based on a variety of criteria and under the Coordination of Local Mitigation Planning (§ 201.4(c)(4)(iii)), the requirement is to prioritize communities who might most benefit from either planning or project grants (i.e. communities with high risk or multiple repetitive loss properties).
Regarding the comment that FEMA add the following to § 206.401: “* * * except where the local or [S]tate entity has adopted, in the post disaster period, new codes, standards, and ordinances that decrease risk to facilities from natural and manmade hazards;” FEMA disagrees with this change since it would conflict with regulations guiding the restoration of damaged facilities under § 206.226(d), and would substitute a very broad qualitative criterion of codes in general, as opposed to the five very specific criteria in the current regulation, which specifically requires that codes must be written, adopted, universally applied, and have demonstrated evidence of prior enforcement.
Regarding the comment that that the language in § 206.432(b)(1) and (2) replace “not to exceed” with “equal to;” it would not be appropriate to lock in the HMGP funding level by replacing “not to exceed” with “equal to” since Congress has already demonstrated a willingness to modify the HMGP funding formula.
FEMA's response: Plans approved prior to the implementation of part 201 must be reevaluated and re-approved by FEMA to ensure that they meet the planning requirements identified in part 201. FEMA has also provided guidance through FEMA's “Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance under DMA2000” on how plans developed under the FMA program can be upgraded to meet the regulations at part 201. This document may be obtained through any Regional office or from the FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/index.shtm. In addition, FEMA is in the process of issuing specific guidance on how to update the State, tribal, and local plans when they expire.
FEMA's response: FEMA will work with State, tribal and local jurisdictions to ensure that they have information generated by FEMA regarding disaster outlays, and has developed guidance through its “Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance under DMA2000” on how to obtain additional data. This document may be obtained through any Regional office or from the FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/index.shtm. Most State, tribal, and local jurisdictions have the authority to develop and implement plans. FEMA encourages the mitigation planning process to be integrated across jurisdictions to ensure that existing data and information is shared and that there is no duplication of effort in gathering and analyzing data.
III. Regulatory Requirements Back to Top
FEMA has prepared and reviewed this rule under the provisions of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Under Executive Order 12866, a significant regulatory action is subject to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. OMB has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. OMB has not reviewed this rule. The Executive Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
After its Enhanced Mitigation Plan is approved, pursuant to § 206.432(b), a State is then able to receive an amount equal to 20 percent of the total estimated Federal assistance (excluding administrative costs) provided for a major disaster declaration, instead of 15 percent. The table below reflects all States with Enhanced Plans, each disaster that has been declared in that State since its Enhanced plan was approved, and reflects the amount of HMGP funds it was eligible for. Each State was given funds at the 20 percent rate, however, the 15 percent rate is provided to determine the economic benefit (transfer) received from having the approved Enhanced Plan. In some cases, these are not final lock-in figures, but it is the most accurate data that FEMA has as of August 2007. Table: HMGP Fund Eligibility for States With Enhanced Plans2004—August 2007 Back to Top
Disaster dates declared after
$989,290.00
$741,967.50
$247,322.50.
6,106,627.00
4,579,970.25
1,526,656.75.
7,209,865.00
5,407,398.75
1,802,466.25.
1,290,726.00
968,044.50
322,681.50.
4,210,525.00
3,157,893.75
1,052,631.25.
128,676.00
32,169.00.
206,250.00.
16,549,000.00
12,411,750.00
4,137,250.00.
2,138,136.00
1,603,602.00
534,534.00.
244,990.00
183,742.50
61,247.50.
746,250.00
559,687.50
186,562.50.
7,592,175.00
5,694,131.25
1,898,043.75.
1,798,019.00
1,348,514.25
449,504.75.
3,411,736.00
2,558,802.00
852,934.00.
1,274,514.00
955,885.50
318,628.50.
1,511,700.00
1,133,775.00
377,925.00.
921,824.00
691,368.00
230,456.00.
687,362.00
515,521.50
171,840.50.
4,044,445.00
3,033,333.75
1,011,111.25.
263,916.00
65,979.00.
1,822,812.00
1,367,109.00
455,703.00.
63,767,588.00
47,825,691.00
15,941,897.00.
Under § 206.434(d), up to 7 percent of the State's HMGP grant may be used to develop State, tribal and/or local mitigation plans. This change does not have any effect on the actual amount of HMGP funds that a State is eligible for, but allows the cost to develop plans described above to be offset by HMGP planning grants. This regulation simply expands the eligible use of HMGP funds to include the development of mitigation plans. States are not required to use the funds for this purpose. Any HMPG funding spent on mitigation planning is accounted for in the analysis above, under each category of planning (Standard State Mitigation Plans, Enhanced State Mitigation Plans, and local mitigation plans). For the reasons stated above, the annual impact of this rule on the economy is approximately $46,000,000. This figure is calculated as follows: ($6,473,376+$339,264+ $82,080+$15,941,897+$23,059,008).
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) implementing regulations governing FEMA activities at § 10.8(d)(2)(ii) categorically exclude the preparation, revision and adoption of regulations from the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, where the rule relates to actions that qualify for categorical exclusions. Mitigation plans to be developed under regulations revised or adopted by this rulemaking include hazard mitigation measures categorically excluded under § 10.8(d)(2)(iii).
FEMA has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, published November 9, 2000). FEMA finds that, while it does have “tribal implications” as defined in Executive Order 13175, it will not have a substantial direct effect 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. Despite this determination, FEMA has, and continues to, consult with Indian tribal governments with respect to hazard mitigation. Before FEMA developed the interim rule, the agency met with representatives from State and local governments and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to discuss the new planning requirements of section 322 of the Stafford Act. The same opportunity for comment was offered to all parties. FEMA received valuable input from all attendees, which helped FEMA to develop the interim rule. Also, since FEMA published the interim rule, it has coordinated more directly with Indian tribal governments, and with organizations that represent them. For example, in conjunction with the National Congress of American Indians, FEMA hosted a Tribal Mitigation Conference in October 2002 at the Ak-Chin Indian Community, Arizona. This conference provided FEMA with an opportunity to better understand its responsibilities related to Indian tribal governments and to build a working relationship with many of the Indian tribal representatives. A follow-up conference was held at the Salish Kootenai Community, Montana in August 2003. As a direct result of these conferences, FEMA developed an EMI resident course titled “Mitigation for Tribal Officials.” This course provides a direct opportunity for coordination and information sharing between Indian tribal representatives and FEMA, resulting in refinements to FEMA's Indian tribal policy and guidance.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the interim rules amending 44 CFR parts 201, 204, and 206 that were published at 67 FR 8844 on February 26, 2002, 67 FR 61512 on October 1, 2002, 68 FR 61368 on October 28, 2003, 69 FR 55094 on September 13, 2004, and the correcting amendment published at 68 FR 63738 on November 10, 2003, are adopted as final with the following changes:
PART 201—MITIGATION PLANNING Back to Top
42 U.S.C. 5121-5206; 6 U.S.C. 101; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 43239; 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 412; E.O. 13286, 68 FR 10619, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 166.
2.Revise § 201.4 (c)(2)(ii) to read as follows: § 201.4 Standard State Mitigation Plans.