[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56889-56893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15271]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2024-0022]


Request for Information on the National Flood Insurance Program's 
Community Rating System Redesign Effort

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS).

ACTION: Request for information and notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is issuing this 
Request for Information (RFI) to receive the public's input on 
potential future changes to the Community Rating System (CRS) under the 
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This RFI seeks further input 
on suggested alternative program features and approaches for a 
redesigned CRS program, based upon public input from the August 23, 
2021 ``Request for Information on the National Flood Insurance 
Program's Community Rating System'' published in the Federal Register. 
FEMA will host virtual public meetings at the times and dates listed 
below.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 9, 2024. 
Submissions received after that date may not be considered.
    For Public Meetings: FEMA will hold virtual public meetings on 
Wednesday, August 21, 2024 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT and 
Thursday, August 22, 2024 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT for a general 
audience and on Tuesday, August 27, 2024 from 3:00-4:30 p.m. EDT 
focused on issues specific to Indian Tribal governments. Depending on 
the number of speakers, the meeting may end before the time indicated, 
following the last call for comments. Requests to participate must be 
received via the virtual meeting website no later than Monday, August 
19, 2024. Registration must be completed using the links below specific 
to each meeting:
     Register for the August 21, 2024 meeting using https://cgstrategy.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_4lNLtBUUQaqI2dxRPJtwHg.
     Register for the August 22, 2024 meeting using https://cgstrategy.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_qKV8jzlgQe6rt2LnpDqWOA.
     Register for the August 27, 2024 Tribal focused meeting 
using https://cgstrategy.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_t7ex0KIyRJGX8J0qYHHqDg.
    Reasonable accommodations are available for people with 
disabilities. To request a reasonable accommodation (e.g., 
Communication Access Real-Time Translation [CART], sign language 
interpretation), contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section below by Monday, August 19, 2024. Last 
minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to fulfill.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may submit comments responsive to this 
RFI electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments 
and use docket ID: FEMA-2024-0022. Submitting this information makes it 
public; you may wish to read the

[[Page 56890]]

Privacy and Security Notice on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters are encouraged to identify specific question or 
questions they are responding to by number. All submissions received 
must include the agency name and Docket ID, and will be posted, without 
change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you 
provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You 
may wish to read the Privacy and Security Notice that is available via 
a link on the homepage of https://www.regulations.gov. Responses should 
not include any personally identifiable information or confidential 
commercial information.
    For Public Meetings: Public meetings for a general audience will be 
held virtually on Wednesday, August 21, 2024 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 
p.m. EDT and Thursday, August 22, 2024 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT 
and for issues specific to Indian Tribal governments on Tuesday, August 
27, 2024 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT. Links to register for the 
meetings are provided above. If you would like to speak at a meeting, 
please so indicate on the registration form. For the August 27, 2024 
Tribal meeting, FEMA will be prioritizing comments from representatives 
and members of Indian Tribal governments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shilpa Mulik, CRS Redesign Program 
Manager, Hazard Mitigation Directorate, Resilience, FEMA. Phone: (202) 
212-7313; Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. The Community Rating System

    Between 2000 and 2024, floods have cost approximately $107.7 
billion dollars in damage throughout the United States.\1\ Standard 
homeowners and commercial property insurance policies do not cover 
flood losses.\2\ To meet the need for vital flood insurance coverage, 
FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which 
offers flood insurance coverage for buildings and/or contents in 
communities that comply with the NFIP's minimum standards for 
floodplain management.\3\ To be covered by an NFIP flood insurance 
policy, a property must be in a community that participates in the 
NFIP.\4\ To qualify to participate in the NFIP, a community adopts and 
enforces local floodplain management standards which regulate 
development in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).\5\ Today, over 
22,600 communities in the United States participate in the NFIP.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. 
Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2024). Found at 
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/2000-2024?disasters[]=flooding (last accessed June 28, 2024).
    \2\ Insurance Information Institute, Which Disasters Are Covered 
By Homeowners Insurance? Found at https://www.iii.org/article/which-disasters-are-covered-by-homeowners-insurance (last accessed June 
28, 2024).
    \3\ 42 U.S.C. 4022(a)(1).
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ 44 CFR 59.2(b); 44 CFR 59.1 (Special Flood Hazard Area ``is 
the land in the flood plain within a community subject to a 1 
percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The area 
may be designated as Zone A on the FHBM. After detailed ratemaking 
has been completed in preparation for publication of the flood 
insurance rate map, Zone A usually is refined into Zones A, AO, AH, 
A1-30, AE, A99, AR, AR/A1-30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, VO, or V1-
30, VE, or V'').
    \6\ FEMA, Flood Insurance, found at: https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance (last accessed June 28, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1990, FEMA implemented the Community Rating System (CRS) as a 
voluntary program for recognizing and encouraging community floodplain 
management activities exceeding the NFIP's minimum standards for 
floodplain management.\7\ Communities that undertake floodplain 
management activities exceeding the NFIP's minimum standards for 
floodplain management may apply to join the CRS program and the 
community will earn CRS program credits (often referred to as ``points/
credits'') for those activities exceeding the minimum floodplain 
management requirements of the NFIP which are approved by FEMA. In CRS 
communities, credits lead to flood insurance premium discounts to 
reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from the community's higher 
floodplain management standards or programs. As of October 2023, 
approximately 1,500 communities participate in the CRS program 
nationwide.\8\ This represents about seven percent of NFIP 
participating communities, which represent nearly 3.6 million (more 
than 70 percent) of all NFIP policies that are written.\9\ CRS program 
discounts on flood insurance premiums range from 5 percent up to 45 
percent based on the level of CRS program credits awarded to 
communities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 42 U.S.C. 4022(b); Public Law 103-325, 108 Stat. 2255 (1994) 
(Congress authorized the CRS program under the National Flood 
Insurance Reform Act of 1994).
    \8\ FEMA, Communities Participating in the Community Rating 
System, found at fema_crs_eligible-communities_oct-2023.xlsx (last 
accessed June 28, 2024).
    \9\ FEMA, Community Rating System, found at http://www.fema.gov/fact-sheet/community-rating-system (last accessed June 28, 2024).
    \10\ FEMA NFIP Community Rating System Coordinator's Manual at 
110-3, found at https://www.fema.gov/floodplain-management/community-rating-system#manual (last accessed June 28, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA is exploring changes and improvements to the CRS program 
through a programmatic review and improvement effort (called ``CRS 
Redesign''). With the continuous learning around flood, flood risk 
management, and flood risk reduction techniques, FEMA now has more 
information about, and understanding of, multi-frequency analysis, 
pluvial flooding, climate change, and the extent of flood risk outside 
of the SFHA. This new understanding has led FEMA to take a holistic 
look at the CRS program to determine how the program can best meet FEMA 
and NFIP consumer needs through the CRS Redesign.
    FEMA seeks input on ways the agency can improve the CRS program, 
specifically: (1) to incentivize communities to take measurable actions 
and make sustained progress to reduce current and future flood risk; 
(2) to embed equity as a foundation of the CRS program; (3) to 
incentivize communities to encourage property owners to purchase flood 
insurance and thus reduce their financial exposure to flood risk; and 
(4) to deliver a community participant-centered and modernized program.
    FEMA continually evaluates its programs, regulations, and policies 
to identify opportunities to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal, as 
appropriate. FEMA does so through legally mandated review requirements 
(e.g., Unified Agenda reviews and reviews under section 610 of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act \11\), through existing RFIs, and through 
other informal and long-established mechanisms (e.g., use of Advisory 
Councils, feedback from FEMA field personnel, input from internal 
working groups, outreach to regulated entities and the public, and 
Government Accountability Office program reports). This Federal 
Register notice supplements these existing extensive FEMA regulatory 
and program review efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Overview of 2021 CRS RFI and Public Comments on Suggested Changes to 
the CRS Program

1. 2021 CRS RFI Summary
    On August 23, 2021, FEMA published a request for information 
entitled ``Request for Information on the

[[Page 56891]]

National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System'' in the 
Federal Register \12\ (called ``2021 CRS RFI''). The 2021 CRS RFI 
sought input from the public that would help the agency determine 
public interest in potential improvements to the CRS program. 
Specifically, the 2021 CRS RFI sought public input on broad CRS 
programmatic issues, such as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 86 FR 47128 (Aug. 23, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Strengths and challenges of the CRS program;
     Methods to increase equity and participation of 
disadvantaged communities;
     Methods to reduce flood risk to communities through the 
CRS program;
     Methods to incentivize participation and increase 
floodplain management standards;
     Methods to streamline administrative burdens, CRS program 
credits, and decrease program participation burdens of the CRS program;
     Methods to decrease future losses to repetitive loss 
structures; and
     Methods to increase collaboration and participation 
through cross jurisdictional entities and increase integration with 
other floodplain management activities, such as building standards.
2. 2021 CRS RFI Comments
    FEMA received comments from 211 commenters addressing 116 unique 
topics in response to the 2021 CRS RFI. Commenters included private 
citizens; State, local, and Tribal governments; non-profit 
organizations; and professional associations. FEMA completed a thorough 
review of the comments and considered whether to explore alternative 
CRS program features and approaches suggested by stakeholders. 
Stakeholder feedback proposed a wide range of alternative program 
features and approaches for the CRS program. FEMA also hosted virtual 
public meetings to solicit input about the CRS program during the 2021 
CRS RFI comment period. A non-exhaustive overview of the comments from 
the 2021 CRS RFI and associated public meetings is provided below:
Comments on CRS Strengths
    Commenters indicated that the CRS program offers flexibility for 
communities to select among many CRS activities, that the CRS program 
has strengthened communities' floodplain management efforts, and that 
CRS' incentives resulted in reduced flood risk.
Comments on CRS Challenges
    Commenters stated that the complexity and administrative burden of 
the CRS program make it difficult for communities to participate in 
CRS, that the CRS program raises equity concerns, and commenters 
questioned the degree to which the CRS incentivizes (or does not 
sufficiently incentivize) increases in community flood risk reduction. 
Commenters also expressed concern regarding CRS's alignment with the 
NFIP's current pricing approach and the overall affordability of NFIP 
flood insurance. Additionally, commenters questioned whether the CRS 
program is needed given the NFIP's current pricing approach which 
calculates actuarially based premiums, whether the CRS discount classes 
should be modified, and whether NFIP policy premiums will need to 
increase to support CRS's premium discounts.
Comments on CRS and Equity
    Commenters suggested providing direct technical assistance and 
grant funds to underserved communities to increase CRS participation 
and to build local floodplain management capacity. Commenters also 
expressed a desire for CRS to provide more effective outreach tools for 
underserved communities and for a CRS scoring system that accounts for 
multiple aspects of a community including, but not limited to, a 
community's size, development density, economic status, and 
administrative capacity.
    Commenters also suggested that CRS program credits should be shared 
with the community, if not fully provided to the community instead of 
only being provided to the policyholders as communities are doing the 
work to reduce flood risk. Commenters also suggested that the 
communities should be allowed to decide how to use the available CRS 
program credits, including the ability to get a cost share to support 
local CRS staff or mitigation funds to reduce a community's flood risk.
Comments on CRS and Future Conditions
    Commenters indicated a desire to better incorporate future 
conditions through mapping and modeling of future risk, to incentivize 
communities to adopt programs related to future conditions, to create a 
flexible credit system for creative efforts and innovative approaches 
that improve communities' resilience, and for FEMA to disseminate more 
guidance and data to communities to better incorporate future 
conditions and climate resiliency into a community's CRS program.
Comments on Floodplain Management and Flood Risk Management
    Commenters stated that the CRS program should continue to support 
and should expand incentives for community-level action and floodplain 
management and to better align measurable risk reduction in communities 
of both current and future risks with program incentives (e.g., 
creditable activities and discounts). Commenters also suggested that 
FEMA should continue to incentivize effective floodplain management and 
community involvement through more effective outreach, technical 
assistance, capability-building, and funding to support floodplain 
management efforts in the CRS program.
    Commenters also suggested that CRS activities and credits should be 
limited to those activities that lower flood risk and result in 
development that is less susceptible to flooding. Commenters noted that 
the cost of CRS to the NFIP is too high, that credits must be given 
more carefully, and that enforcement of compliance with NFIP minimum 
floodplain management requirements within CRS communities must be 
improved. Commenters noted that many CRS activities and credits are 
unrelated to flood risk reduction, such as providing credits to 
incentivize community activities to protect endangered species.
Comments on CRS Simplification
    Commenters requested simplification of the CRS program application 
process and simplification of CRS credits and activities. Commenters 
suggested that the document submittal procedures to initially join the 
CRS program and the scoring system in the CRS Coordinator's Manual 
should be simplified to increase transparency. Commenters also 
suggested that the CRS activities should be simplified by reducing the 
number of activities that receive credit to allow communities to focus 
on activities that result in the largest flood risk reduction (e.g., 
higher elevation standards or limiting development in the SFHA).
Comments on CRS Collaboration, Integration, and Alignment
    Comments suggested that FEMA should establish a grant program to 
fund local CRS positions or establish a cost-share program across 
multiple municipalities to support CRS implementation. Commenters also 
suggested the FEMA should increase the sharing of success stories and 
best practices among CRS participating

[[Page 56892]]

communities and allow multi-jurisdictional or regionalized activities/
elements where communities could work together to submit regional 
documentation allowing multi-jurisdictional partnerships to make CRS 
more accessible (e.g., communities could work together through a multi-
jurisdictional entity to regionally implement the CRS program).
    Commenters also suggested that the CRS should be fully integrated 
into the NFIP by reimagining the NFIP's current pricing approach and 
enrolling all communities into the CRS program as part of NFIP 
participation starting at a CRS class 0 if the community only meets the 
NFIP minimum floodplain management standards. Under this suggestion, 
communities could move up in CRS class rating to increase their CRS 
discount with a maximum discount of up to a 50%. Commenters also 
suggested that a community should also be penalized for actions that 
increase flood risk in the community (e.g., such as allowing violations 
of adopted floodplain management development standards) down to a CRS 
negative class with corresponding premium surcharges on all NFIP 
policies in that community.

C. Overview of GAO-23-105977 Report's Findings and Agency 
Recommendations

    On July 31, 2023, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued 
report number GAO-23-105977, Flood Insurance: FEMA's New Rate-Setting 
Methodology Improves Actuarial Soundness but Highlights Need for 
Broader Program Reform.\13\ GAO-23-105977 included the following two 
FEMA agency recommendations relating to improving the CRS program:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ GAO-23-105977, Flood Insurance: FEMA's New Rate-Setting 
Methodology Improves Actuarial Soundness but Highlights Need for 
Broader Program Reform, found at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105977 (last accessed June 28, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Assistant Administrator of FEMA's Federal Insurance 
Directorate (FID) should adjust CRS by calculating a community's rating 
based only on community activities that reduce flood risk and by 
incorporating discounts into the full-risk premium based on the 
actuarial evaluation of risk reduction. (Recommendation 1); and
     The Assistant Administrator of FEMA's FID should evaluate 
other means for incentivizing desirable community activities that 
cannot be actuarially justified but are currently a basis for discounts 
in CRS. (Recommendation 2).
    The GAO-23-105977 report stated that the premium discounts provided 
under the CRS program are not actuarially justified and are paid for, 
in large part, through a cross-subsidization by NFIP policyholders that 
are not receiving the CRS discount. The GAO-23-105977 report also 
stated that it is likely that policyholders receiving CRS discounts are 
paying lower premiums that do not fully reflect their flood risk. The 
amounts of CRS discounts--both to individual properties and program 
wide--are not closely linked to potential loss reduction of currently 
insured properties. While the activities that FEMA promotes through CRS 
are important, few of them directly mitigate flood risk to the 
property. For example, the GAO-23-105977 report noted that the CRS 
discounts related to public information, warning and response, and 
mapping and regulations do not reduce the potential for flood loss to 
currently insured properties. The GAO-23-105977 report also stated that 
the NFIP's new pricing approach accounts for some individual premium 
rating variables, such as a structure's elevation in relation to flood 
sources, which are also included in CRS' community-wide activities and 
credits. This may result in NFIP double counting risk reduction 
techniques/measures during rating and discount determination and 
policyholders in certain CRS communities receiving a CRS discount that 
is not based on the actuarial reduction of flood risk to currently 
insured properties.

II. Maximizing the Value of Public Feedback

    The impacts of Federal regulations and policies tend to be widely 
dispersed on society. Members of the public are likely to have useful 
information, data, and perspectives on the benefits and burdens of 
FEMA's existing programs, regulations, information collections, and 
policies. FEMA seeks additional public feedback relevant to FEMA's 
potential redesign and improvement efforts for the CRS program given 
the 2021 CRS RFI comments and the findings and agency recommendations 
summarized above from the GAO-23-105977 report.
    The following is meant to assist members of the public in 
formulating comments. This notice contains a list of questions, the 
answers to which will assist FEMA in understanding which suggested 
alternative program features and approaches CRS program stakeholders 
support or oppose and why. FEMA encourages public comment on these 
questions and seeks any other national-level data commenters believe 
are relevant to FEMA's CRS redesign efforts. Commenters should 
identify, with specificity, the program feature, policy, or process at 
issue. Below are recommendations for commenters to use when making 
comments in response to this RFI, so that FEMA can better evaluate the 
suggested changes to the CRS program:
     Commenters should explain, with as much detail as 
possible, why an aspect of the CRS program should be modified, 
streamlined, expanded, or repealed, and provide specific suggestions of 
ways the agency can better achieve its objectives;
     Commenters should provide specific national-level data 
that document the costs, burdens, and benefits of potentially new 
requirements to the extent they are available. Commenters might also 
address how FEMA can best obtain and consider accurate, objective 
information and data about the costs, burdens, and benefits of a 
redesigned CRS program and whether there are existing sources of data 
that FEMA can use to evaluate the effects of the CRS program over time; 
and,
     Commenters should identify with specificity administrative 
burdens, CRS program requirements, information collection burdens, 
waiting time, or unnecessary complexity that may impose unjustified 
barriers in general, or that may have adverse effects on equity for 
all, including those in underserved communities.

III. Specific Information Requested

    FEMA seeks comments on all suggested program features of a 
redesigned CRS program, and specifically, FEMA has additional follow-up 
questions from the 2021 CRS RFI on suggested CRS program changes. 
FEMA's goal is to obtain diverse feedback on the CRS program that helps 
inform FEMA decision-making on the future of the CRS program.

List of Questions for Commenters

    (1) Should FEMA provide each community with a report highlighting 
potential CRS program credits (often referred to as ``points/credits'') 
that the community could earn to mitigate risk and reduce insurance 
premiums, explaining strategies on how to receive more points, and 
flagging NFIP minimum floodplain management standards compliance 
issues? Why or why not?
    (2) Should FEMA auto enroll all NFIP participating communities into 
the CRS program to give the community CRS credit for activities that 
they already undertake that exceed NFIP minimum floodplain management 
standards (e.g., community has an open space preservation program to 
reduce flooding)? Auto enrollment means all

[[Page 56893]]

communities would automatically participate in CRS by virtue of 
participating in the NFIP.
    (3) Would there be any advantage if FEMA were to assess an 
escalating surcharge on NFIP policy premiums for NFIP participating 
communities that are not in compliance with the NFIP minimum floodplain 
management standards? This would be in addition to the NFIP Probation 
policy surcharge that is in 44 CFR 59.24(b).
    (4) What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of providing 
technical assistance to communities to support CRS participation? Would 
communities take advantage of technical assistance and if so, what 
type(s) of technical assistance would be most helpful? Examples of 
suggested technical assistance include assisting communities with the 
preparation of required CRS documents, CRS project management, CRS 
program support, and preparation of repetitive loss analysis.
    (5) FEMA currently offers premium discounts for many CRS activities 
through the NFIP's current pricing approach. In CRS participating 
communities, this may lead to policyholders receiving ``double'' 
discounts for the same CRS activities (e.g., elevation of individual 
structure above the NFIP's minimum elevation requirement resulting in a 
structure level discount through the NFIP's current pricing approach 
and a CRS credit for a community-wide higher structure elevation 
regulation).
    (a) If FEMA were to provide NFIP premium discounts to individual 
policyholders for CRS activities, through the NFIP's current pricing 
approach, should FEMA offer duplicate CRS discounts for the same 
activities that are already reflected in individual premiums? Why or 
why not?
    (b) Assuming no to (a), would communities be incentivized to adopt 
measures in excess of FEMA's minimum floodplain management standards 
for community-wide activities that reduce future flood risk (e.g., 
stormwater management regulations or enhanced future land use planning) 
if FEMA were to only offer CRS discounts for those community-wide 
activities that reduce future flood risk?
    (6) Are there additional community-level activities that are not 
currently included in the CRS program that measurably reduce flood risk 
to property? Please describe and, if available, provide national-level 
data that demonstrate how the activities measurably reduce current and/
or future flood risk reduction to property.
    (7) Would a participating CRS community be willing to exchange CRS 
insurance policyholder premium discounts (e.g., all, some, or none) in 
a community for other comparable community-level benefits, such as 
enhanced technical assistance for the local CRS program or capacity-
building grants? For example, if the aggregate amount of CRS discounts 
offered to individuals in the community totals $100,000, would the 
community be interested in redistributing the total individual CRS 
discounts (e.g., $100,000) among the community and the individual 
policyholders (e.g., $50,000 to the community for enhanced technical 
assistance grants and $50,000 to be distributed to individual 
policyholders in the form of CRS discounts)? By redistributing the CRS 
insurance policyholder premium discount benefits from the policyholders 
to the community, there would be a potential for both wider risk 
reduction and larger financial benefit to the community. Would such an 
approach make non-participating CRS communities more inclined to join 
the CRS program?
    (8) Besides individual flood insurance financial premium discounts, 
what other benefits would best incentivize communities to maintain 
participation in or to join the CRS program?
    (9) The current CRS program credits 19 activities and 90+ elements 
recognized by the CRS program and identified in the CRS Coordinator's 
Manual along with the credit points assigned to each activity. An 
activity is a floodplain management activity for which CRS credit has 
been established (e.g., mapping and regulations--higher regulatory 
standards). Elements are discrete parts of an activity that if 
implemented result in CRS credit points under that activity (e.g., 
community-wide prohibition of outdoor storage in the SFHA, which is an 
element of the activity of higher regulatory standards). What are some 
advantages and/or disadvantages of reducing the number of activities 
and elements, and streamlining CRS reporting requirements?
    (10) What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of communities 
working with other communities to implement CRS under a regional 
approach? For example, a regional approach may include a regional 
watershed or planning commission that implements a CRS program for 
multiple communities or a shared CRS coordinator position among several 
communities.
    (11) What else should FEMA consider for potential improvements to 
the CRS program and how can FEMA better engage with stakeholders to 
effectively implement the CRS program?
    FEMA notes that this notice is issued solely for information and 
program-planning purposes. The suggested approaches do not reflect an 
agency position or official action. Responses to this notice do not 
bind FEMA to any further actions related to the response.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-15271 Filed 7-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-47-P