[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13970-13975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05437]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
44 CFR Part 206
[Docket ID: FEMA-2014-0013]
RIN 1660-AA80
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); Program Administration by
States
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is seeking
public comment on implementing a provision of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act regarding State
administration of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The
provision directs FEMA to establish criteria to delegate authority to
States to administer HMGP. FEMA is seeking input from the public to
help inform the development of this new method of program delivery.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before May 12, 2014.
ADDRESSES: mailto: You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID:
FEMA-2014-0013, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of Chief Counsel,
Federal Emergency
[[Page 13971]]
Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. All
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For
instructions on submitting comments, see the Public Participation
portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cecelia Rosenberg, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, DHS/FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street,
Arlington, VA 20598-3015. Phone: (202) 646-3321. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). FEMA specifically
invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or
federalism effects that might result from implementation of any final
rule stemming from this ANPRM. Comments most helpful to FEMA will
address one or more of the questions identified in this notice, and
will include as much explanation of the commenter's views as possible.
All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided. If you submit a comment, please include the Docket ID for
this rulemaking, FEMA-2014-0013.
A. Privacy Act
Please be aware that anyone is able to search the electronic form
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual who submitted the comment (or signed the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
For more information, you may want to review the Federal Docket
Management System system of records notice published in the Federal
Register on March 24, 2005 (70 FR 15086).
B. Submission of Sensitive Information
Do not submit comments that include trade secrets, or confidential
commercial or financial information to the public regulatory docket.
Please submit such comments separately from other comments on the rule.
Comments containing this type of information should be appropriately
marked as containing such information and submitted by mail to the
address specified in the ADDRESSES section of this ANPRM. If FEMA
receives a request to examine or copy this information, FEMA will treat
it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5
U.S.C. 552, and the Department of Homeland Security's FOIA regulation
found in 6 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 5 and FEMA's
regulations found in 44 CFR part 5.
II. Background
A. General Description of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP or Program) provides
grants to States, Indian Tribal governments, and U.S. Territories (all
of which are collectively called ``State'' or ``States'' in this
notice) to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major
disaster declaration. The HMGP is intended to reduce the loss of life
and property resulting from natural hazards and to help States
implement mitigation measures during recovery from a disaster. The HMGP
is authorized by Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5170c.
States wishing to participate in the program must request an HMGP grant
as part of their request for disaster assistance. See 44 CFR
206.36(c)(4), 206.40(a), and 206.432.
HMGP funds may be used for mitigation planning and mitigation
projects that will reduce or eliminate damage, loss, or suffering from
future disasters. Projects must contribute to a long-term solution to
an existing or anticipated hazard. For example, elevation of a home to
reduce the risk of flood damages is considered hazard mitigation, but
buying sandbags and pumps to fight the flood is not. In addition, a
project's anticipated benefits must be equal to or more than the cost
of implementing the project, which is demonstrated through a benefit
cost analysis that compares the cost of the project to the benefits
anticipated to occur over the lifetime of the project. Funds may be
used to protect either public or private property. In the post-disaster
context, the quicker the program is implemented, the more effectively
it aids individuals and communities in their recovery efforts.
Both at the time of the request for assistance and at the time FEMA
obligates funds to the State, the State must have a FEMA-approved State
Mitigation Plan. Section 322 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5165(a). As
part of the State planning process, States identify and rank mitigation
activities that the State will support if funding is available. HMGP
project applications, known as subapplications, are developed and
submitted to the State by State agencies, local jurisdictions, Indian
Tribal governments, and private non-profit organizations. Section 322
of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5165(b) requires local or Tribal
governments to each have a mitigation plan as a condition of receiving
HMGP funding. Proposed projects must be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the State Mitigation Plan and relevant Local or Tribal
Mitigation Plan. The projects selected must also meet minimum criteria
identified in 44 CFR part 206. The criteria are designed to ensure that
cost-effective and beneficial projects are selected for funding.
To properly manage its HMGP grant, the State is required by 44 CFR
206.437 to prepare an Administrative Plan, which is different than a
State Mitigation Plan. The Administrative Plan details the State's HMGP
processes and procedures. It governs program operations and describes
how the State will ensure that proposed projects meet all regulatory
criteria. Among other requirements, the Administrative Plan must
identify the general staffing and resource needs to manage the HMGP;
provide details on how the State will seek, review, and select
applications for projects; describe how the State will forward selected
applications to FEMA; and describe how the State will manage projects
approved by FEMA.
The Stafford Act sets forth criteria to calculate the amount of
funding available for the HMGP under any particular declaration for
disaster assistance. FEMA may provide a State with an HMGP grant that
is an amount up to 15 percent of the estimated total disaster grants
awarded by FEMA for the major disaster. States may qualify for a larger
percentage if they have an Enhanced State Mitigation Plan. 42 U.S.C.
5170c. In addition to meeting the State Mitigation Plan requirements,
the Enhanced plan must demonstrate, among other factors, that the State
is committed to a comprehensive mitigation program, that the State uses
available mitigation funding effectively, and that it is capable of
managing the increased funding.
For a declared disaster, FEMA can fund up to 75 percent of eligible
costs for FEMA-approved projects. The State must provide a 25 percent
match, which can be cash, in-kind, or fashioned from a combination of
cash and in-kind sources. The State generally sets its own deadline for
subapplication submittal, but all subapplications must be submitted by
the State to FEMA within
[[Page 13972]]
12 months from the date of disaster declaration. 44 CFR 206.436(d).
After a disaster, the State is encouraged to coordinate HMGP activities
with recovery and reconstruction efforts so that States can maximize
mitigation opportunities.
Upon Presidential approval of a State's request for disaster
assistance and upon signing of a FEMA/State HMGP grant management
agreement, the State becomes a grantee and is responsible for providing
and managing subgrants from the overall grant award to eligible
entities. The State establishes funding priorities and criteria for
selecting proposed mitigation activities, solicits program interest,
and helps subapplicants determine eligibility and develop their
subapplications. Eligible subapplicants include State agencies, local
governments, Indian Tribal Governments, and some private not-for-profit
organizations (all of which are also known as ``program
participants''). The State, as grantee, establishes deadlines for
submission of those subapplications, and selects and forwards
subapplications to FEMA for final project eligibility review. FEMA
reviews the entire subapplication, with an emphasis on technical
feasibility--whether the project will substantially reduce the risk of
future damage--as well as engineering and cost-effectiveness.
Concurrently, FEMA reviews the subapplication to ensure that it
contains all required information regarding potential impacts to
environmental and historic resources, and that FEMA has the necessary
information to fulfill its environmental planning and historic
preservation (EHP) review responsibilities.
Prior to making funding decisions for the HMGP, FEMA is required by
law to evaluate the impacts of the proposed mitigation action on the
quality of the human environment. The EHP requirements include
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq., and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq. Other requirements contained in Executive Orders
ensure that FEMA evaluates and avoids adverse impacts to floodplains
and wetlands, and avoids adverse and disproportionate environmental
impacts on low-income and minority populations. Executive Order (EO)
11988 Floodplain Management, EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands, and EO
12898 Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority Populations.
If a subapplication is approved by FEMA, funds are obligated to the
State as part of the overall grant. The State then disburses the
funding to the successful subapplicant who becomes the subgrantee. The
State must ensure that subgrantees adhere to all programmatic,
administrative and audit requirements. The State does this by
monitoring and evaluating compliance with programmatic requirements and
monitoring the progress of completing funded projects. The State
submits quarterly reports to FEMA indicating the status and completion
date for each approved project. The State must ensure project
completion and closeout, or settlement, of all the financial
obligations related to the subgrant. In addition, the State evaluates
the effectiveness of completed projects as part of their mitigation
planning processes.
States perform all of these functions in a managerial role as they
do not make the final eligibility and funding decisions. Those
decisions fall within FEMA's purview, as the overall administrator of
the grant.
B. Early Steps Towards Delegation--The Managing State Concept
In 1998, FEMA introduced the Managing State Concept (MSC) for
implementation of the HMGP in selected States. Thirteen States that
wished to assume a greater role in the application review and approval
process participated in the MSC. No Indian Tribal governments or
Territories participated in the MSC. The MSC was seen as a means to
enhance FEMA-State collaborative partnerships, and an opportunity to
provide States with an increased level of flexibility in program
management. The MSC was also aimed at streamlining the implementation
of the HMGP, which is a significant consideration for program delivery
in the aftermath of a disaster; and facilitates incorporating
mitigation into the recovery process.
FEMA first initiated the MSC through the use of three individual
FEMA-State operational agreements. The first agreement was entered into
in May 1998 with Florida. In August 1998, North Dakota and Ohio signed
agreements. Each agreement was formalized through a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) specifically tailored to each State.
During implementation of the MSC, FEMA conducted partnership
evaluations to review the MSC's progress. These evaluations included
State staffs, FEMA program and financial specialists, attorneys, and
Inspector General auditors. Based on these evaluations, in March of
2000 FEMA expanded the MSC to other interested States. Fundamental
elements from the three initial agreements served as the basis for
agreements with the new States. These fundamentals included negotiating
Managing State roles based on a State's capabilities and continuing
partnership evaluations as an essential element. Ultimately, ten
additional States were selected for participation.
Significantly, under the MSC, FEMA retained program administration
responsibilities including final approval of subapplications and
environmental reviews. The MSC consisted of agreements to implement
processes that would expedite program delivery, but FEMA still retained
sole authority to administer the program. Eventually, States stopped
participating in the program for various reasons, and FEMA effectively
dissolved the MSC with the publication of the 2010 Hazard Mitigation
Assistance Unified Guidance.
C. Next Steps Toward Delegation--Program Administration by States
On October 30, 2000, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000, Public Law 106-390, 114 Stat. 1552 (Oct. 30, 2000). The Act
amended Section 404 of the Stafford Act by adding statutory authority
for HMGP ``Program Administration by the States'' (PAS), including
Indian Tribal governments and Territories. The amendment contained many
provisions similar to the MSC but with several significant changes.
Specifically, the amendments to Section 404 of the Stafford Act
direct FEMA to delegate program administration responsibilities to
eligible, interested States. The amendments require the President to
establish criteria for the approval of requests. The criteria, which
must be developed in consultation with States and local governments,
must require, at a minimum, that the State have an approved State
Hazard Mitigation Plan, demonstrated ability to manage the HMGP, and
demonstrated commitment to mitigation activities. Finally, the
amendments provide FEMA with the authority to withdraw delegated
program responsibilities if the State is not administering the program
in a satisfactory manner. These PAS provisions provide FEMA with a
statutory mandate to advance beyond the former MSC and fully develop
State administration of the HMGP.
Since passage of the Disaster Mitigation Act, FEMA did not
implement PAS because it was implementing the MSC. After the MSC was
terminated, one State expressed interest in PAS participation. That
State submitted an application to FEMA, but
[[Page 13973]]
criteria had not been developed for that method of program delivery so
the application could not be adequately reviewed.
In January of 2013, the President signed into law the Sandy
Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA), Public Law 113-2, 127 Stat. 4
(Jan. 29, 2013). SRIA amended Section 404(c) of the Stafford Act,
adding a provision allowing FEMA to carry out a pilot program for PAS
if FEMA determines it is necessary to expeditiously implement PAS and
until such time as the Administrator promulgates regulations to
implement PAS. Consistent with the SRIA mandate, FEMA is currently
carrying out a pilot program for PAS.
Concurrently and consistent with the authority under the Stafford
Act to promulgate program implementation regulations, FEMA is
publishing this ANPRM and requesting the public's input on a number of
general PAS-related concepts to develop a comprehensive program and
implementing regulations.
SRIA's amendment to Section 404(c) applies to all major disasters
or emergencies declared on or after SRIA's enactment date, January 29,
2013, and for major disasters or declarations for which the application
period for processing requests for HMGP funding is still open as of
SRIA's enactment date. Under the PAS pilot, FEMA delegates certain
program responsibilities to the State. Participation in the program is
voluntary and States can select the grants management activities they
would like to perform. To participate in the program, States must have
an approved State Mitigation Plan, demonstrated ability to manage the
HMGP, and demonstrated commitment to mitigation activities.
To determine whether a State has a ``demonstrated ability to manage
the HMGP'' FEMA reviews HMGP grants activity within the past four
quarters from the date of the State's request. FEMA's review for State
demonstrated ability to manage HMGP includes reviewing documentation to
determine the following:
Whether in the past the State has submitted (and FEMA has
approved) the State HMGP Administrative Plan within 90 days of the
disaster declaration date;
Whether the State has submitted applications in an
electronic data system such as FEMA's National Emergency Management
Information System (NEMIS) or has completed a FEMA data collection form
and application review checklist (or beginning in FY13, the Eligibility
and Completeness checklist);
Whether the State has submitted an Eligibility and
Completeness checklist for all applications;
Whether the State has provided requested information to
FEMA for an application, enabling FEMA to approve the application
within 60 days of subgrant application submittal for at least 75% or
more of the applications (depending on the number of applications
submitted); Whether 100% of the applications can be approved by FEMA
within 90 days of application;
Whether within the past five years from the date of
application submittal, State staff have completed FEMA sponsored
trainings (for instance, on Hazard Mitigation Assistance, Benefit Cost
Analysis, Environment and Historic Preservation and Mitigation
Planning);
If the State has submitted a request to extend the
application period, whether the request was submitted 30 days before
the end of the application period; and
If the State submitted a request to extend the period of
performance, whether the request was submitted at least 60 days before
the end of the application period and/or period of performance.
A State must meet additional requirements before FEMA will delegate
responsibility for specific activities. Depending on the nature of the
requested delegation, FEMA's review may include determining the
following:
Whether past quarterly progress and financial reports are
complete and were submitted on time;
Whether past extension requests were supported by
information in quarterly progress reports;
Whether subgrant close-out and financial reconciliation
were completed within six months of work completed;
Whether grant program and financial close-out activities
were completed within 90 days of the end of the period of performance;
Whether there were no drawdowns requested or performed
after the liquidation period has ended;
Whether financial procedures and systems meet FEMA grants
management standards;
Whether there are any major findings on the last single
audit obtained by the State related to Hazard Mitigation Assistance
activities; and
Whether all local hazard mitigation plans submitted to
FEMA in the past four quarters are at least ``approvable pending
adoption.''
Under the pilot, applicants are required to use FEMA forms or
documentation agreed upon by FEMA for application completeness review,
benefit cost analysis, progress reporting, and financial reporting.
To document a State's ``Demonstrated Commitment to Mitigation
Activities,'' FEMA requires States to provide documentation of existing
processes and activities in the following categories: (1) State
management of a mitigation, hazard safety, and/or insurance program;
(2) planning capability and authority to support risk reduction in the
planning processes of local communities (e.g., statewide building
codes); (3) State provision of resources and funding to support
mitigation activities within local communities; and (4) State
commitment to floodplain management.
If the State PAS application is approved, the State enters into an
operational agreement with FEMA and updates the Administrative Plan to
document how the State will implement the HMGP with reduced oversight
from FEMA. As part of the rulemaking process, FEMA will use insight
gained from implementing the pilot to draft program regulations.
D. Developing PAS Regulations
To successfully implement PAS, FEMA must determine how the program
will operate, and how available resources can facilitate program
performance. FEMA performs numerous and varied responsibilities in the
administration of the HMGP. These include keeping States informed of
the anticipated amount of available funding, reviewing subapplications
selected by a State, and deciding if the subapplication proposals meet
program requirements and merit funding. As part of this process, FEMA
conducts detailed reviews of project information, examines the
schedule, scope of work, engineering and technical feasibility, and
cost-effectiveness, and performs environmental analyses. All of these
reviews can affect a project's scope of work, budget, and delivery.
Following an award of subgrant funding to the State, FEMA provides
additional technical assistance and monitors quarterly reports to
ensure subgrants are implemented as planned and on schedule.
To develop PAS, FEMA is exploring the extent to which its
determinations regarding cost-effectiveness, technical feasibility and
engineering, and final eligibility and funding can be made at the State
level. FEMA is also exploring whether there are EHP responsibilities
that FEMA may legally delegate to the States under applicable Federal
law, and that the grantee or subgrantee would be interested in
assuming. Consistent with Federal EHP laws,
[[Page 13974]]
including NEPA, the NHPA, the ESA, as well as EOs 11988 (Floodplain
Management) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), FEMA has final review
and approval authority on the environmental impact of a proposed
Federal action or undertaking. Only FEMA can perform certain EHP
responsibilities, such as formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the ESA, or preparing an
environmental impact statement under NEPA. However, FEMA may delegate
EHP responsibilities related to preparation for environmental review to
the States. Those responsibilities include providing enough background
information to assess the environmental impact of the Federal action on
historic properties, endangered and threatened species, critical
habitats, wetlands, floodplains, and on low income and minority
populations. The responsibilities could also include initiating
communication with appropriate Federal agencies, such as the USFWS, or
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and with State
regulatory agencies including the State or Tribal Historic Preservation
Office for the purposes of allowing those agencies to identify any
potential impacts from the project, and to allow FEMA to prepare the
required documentation on project impacts and decisions.
PAS eligibility criteria may consider the quality of State planning
activities (administrative and mitigation planning), the availability
of State financial resources for program administration, and a State's
ability to perform all grant objectives in a timely manner. The PAS
program will continue to support HMGP principles of fairness and
transparency, and incorporate long term recovery. FEMA will provide
appropriate guidance tools, and include standards for meeting and
maintaining PAS status, and processing appeals. In summary, to
participate in PAS a State should demonstrate an expanded ability to
manage the Program to ensure that they will be able to successfully
assume Federal-level responsibilities.
III. Questions for Commenters
FEMA welcomes public comment on all aspects of PAS, but would
derive particular benefit from commenters addressing one or more of the
following questions:
1. Criteria for PAS Designation: FEMA seeks input on how to assess
the State's ability to manage the HMGP throughout the program
lifecycle. What approval criteria and documentation should FEMA
consider when reviewing State requests for PAS designation? What
metrics should be used? How should these be measured? How far back
should past performance be measured (the last four quarters, 3 years, 5
years)? Possible considerations are:
a. The extent of technical and organizational resources committed
to the program, such as whether staff have completed FEMA Hazard
Mitigation Assistance-related trainings;
b. Ability to prepare and approve cost effective applications and
to adhere to technical and program requirements; ability to use
anticipated benefits or losses avoided in ranking projects for funding;
ability to calculate actual losses avoided as a result of completed
mitigation activities;
c. Ability to submit complete and eligible subapplications,
prepared by the State or local communities, within 12 months of the
disaster declaration date and any additional extensions (for example,
whether FEMA needs to request additional information to complete
subapplication reviews, and if the State uses the minimum application
review checklist to validate that subapplications are complete);
d. Ability to perform EHP responsibilities that can be delegated to
States by FEMA under applicable Federal laws;
e. Past experience in assisting and monitoring local governments in
developing and completing mitigation activities (whether there is a
monitoring and auditing process in place, and whether quarterly reports
are submitted to FEMA on time);
f. Ability to maintain sound financial management (no major
findings in audit reports);
g. Ability to complete the grant in the regulatory timeframe (for
instance, closeout activities are completed 90 days after the end of
the period of performance, extension requests are supported by
information in quarterly reports, and no more than two six-month
extensions are required);
h. Ability to close out the subgrants and the grant within the
existing programmatic timeframe (i.e., whether subgrant activities are
closed out within 90 days after the activities have been completed);
i. Ability to manage other FEMA grants especially when the State
has no recent experience with HMGP (evaluating past performance using
data from Flood Mitigation Assistance Grants, Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Grants, or other FEMA grants).
2. Enhanced State or Tribal Mitigation Plan: What should the
relationship be, if any, between having a FEMA-approved Enhanced
Mitigation Plan and receiving a PAS designation? Questions include the
following:
a. Should PAS approval be required before FEMA approves an Enhanced
Plan?
b. Should a FEMA-approved Enhanced Plan be required for PAS
designation?
c. Should an Enhanced Plan have no relationship to PAS designation?
d. Should there be another relationship between the two?
e. If Enhanced Plans are not required, how should States document
losses avoided for completed mitigation projects?
3. Commitment to Mitigation: FEMA seeks input on how to assess the
State's demonstration of commitment to mitigation. Possible examples of
commitment to mitigation include State management of mitigation, hazard
safety or insurance programs, statewide planning or building code
authorities, State resources that are dedicated to support mitigation
activities in local communities, and demonstrated State commitment to
floodplain management. What documentation should FEMA consider in
reviewing a State's request and granting a PAS designation?
4. Model Federal Performance Measures: What performance measures
from other State-administered Federal programs could be considered or
incorporated in PAS designation requests?
5. Administrative Planning: FEMA's program regulations at 44 CFR
206.437 and the State Administrative Plan set out minimum criteria.
What additional elements, if any, should FEMA consider requiring in
Administrative Plans for States with PAS designation?
6. Decision Making Processes: When States have an expanded role in
application approval, how can States demonstrate impartial and
consistent selection and management of applications when they are also
eligible to be program participants and submit and manage their own
subapplications (independent panels, blind applications, cost benefit
ratio or other means)? What decision making documentation should FEMA
consider?
7. Interaction: FEMA seeks input on the level and type of
coordination necessary between eligible applicants and the public where
the State has an expanded role in administering HMGP. What should be
the level of interaction between FEMA, the State, local governments,
and other program participants regarding day-to-day program
administration (e.g., solicitation of applications, progress reporting,
record-keeping, and closeout)?
[[Page 13975]]
8. Factors Affecting Delegation: Should PAS designation include
limits or factors (such as the magnitude of the declared disaster or
the number of open events) that would affect the level of State
responsibility granted by FEMA? If so, what should these limits or
factors be?
9. EHP Requirements and Responsibilities Under PAS: FEMA seeks
input from States and other stakeholders as to which EHP
responsibilities should be delegated to States under applicable Federal
law. For instance:
a. Should States be able to initiate communication with appropriate
agencies such as the USFWS, USACE, or State regulatory agencies (for
instance, the State or Tribal Historic Preservation Office) for the
purposes of identifying potential project environmental impacts or
other considerations within these agencies' jurisdiction?
b. Should States be delegated the responsibility to collect
information necessary for performing categorical exclusions and the
eight-step floodplain or wetland analyses?
c. Could the States, rather than FEMA, engage other Federal
agencies to streamline unified review where possible?
d. What abilities and resources are needed to assume these types of
responsibilities?
e. What guidance from FEMA would States need to assume these or
other similar EHP responsibilities?
f. What methods or processes from other Federal programs should be
considered?
g. Are there existing State processes that perform a similar
function?
10. Performance Evaluation: FEMA seeks input on criteria to assess
performance of those States that receive PAS designations (e.g., grants
management, technical and engineering feasibility, cost effectiveness,
plan requirements, and EHP responsibilities and requirements):
a. What elements/metrics should be used in this assessment?
b. How frequently should FEMA assess a State's performance under
PAS (quarterly, annually, 3 years, 5 years, or other)?
c. What measures should FEMA use to address or correct deficiencies
in performance?
d. What level of monitoring or oversight should FEMA use to assess
compliance with Federal EHP requirements?
11. Program Evaluation: How could the analysis of program benefits
(economic, environmental, public health and safety, equity) justifying
program costs be an indicator of state performance?
12. Significant Non-compliance: FEMA seeks input on what would
constitute a significant non-compliance deficiency warranting temporary
withdrawal or full termination of PAS designation. Areas of concern
include subgrant eligibility determinations, cost effectiveness
reviews, grant management, plan requirements, and EHP responsibilities
and requirements. Under what circumstances should failure to meet
requirements and responsibilities established by FEMA result in removal
of a PAS designation? What criteria should FEMA consider using for PAS
reinstatement? What other remedies should FEMA consider if a PAS
jurisdiction fails to comply with Program requirements?
13. Electronic Systems: What, if any, are the States' concerns
regarding the use of existing FEMA grant reporting and management
electronic systems (such as NEMIS) when mandated for PAS participation?
14. Participation: What factors could FEMA consider and use to
facilitate and encourage State participation in PAS?
15. Tribal Considerations: What factors should FEMA consider and
use to encourage Tribal participation in PAS? What are the potential
challenges for Tribes in applying for and maintaining PAS designation?
16. Challenges and Resources: What are the potential challenges for
States in maintaining PAS designation (such as keeping key personnel,
covering multiple disaster and recovery needs, or liability concerns)?
What resources do States need to successfully implement PAS (management
cost support, training, guidance, job-aids, or other resources)?
17. Program Participants Impacts: How would program participants be
impacted when their State administers HMGP under a PAS designation?
What are the potential benefits (increased access to funding, decreased
duplication, faster obligation of funding, or other benefits)? What are
the potential costs (e.g., increased time and paperwork, longer
obligation timeframes)?
18. State Impacts: How would States be impacted by administering
HMGP under a PAS designation? What are the potential benefits? What are
the potential costs?
19. State Interest: For FEMA's State, Indian Tribal government and
Territory stakeholders: Would your State or Tribe consider applying for
the PAS option for your next disaster declaration?
20. Overall Effect: Do you think PAS would be beneficial in
streamlining the provision of funding under the HMGP? Do you think PAS
would be beneficial in implementing more effective hazard mitigation
projects? If so, how?
IV. Conclusion
Comments most helpful to FEMA will address one or more of the
questions identified above, and will include a detailed explanation of
the commenter's views. FEMA also invites comments that relate to the
economic, environmental, or federalism effects that commenters believe
might result from any PAS program implementation model. All comments
received will be considered by FEMA in designing future PAS program
implementation regulations.
Dated: March 6, 2014.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-05437 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-13-P