Rule2022-04309
Regulations on Rulemaking Procedures
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 3, 2022
Effective
April 4, 2022
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentFederal Emergency Management Agency
Abstract
This final rule revises Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations pertaining to rulemaking. It removes sections that are outdated or do not affect the public and it updates provisions that affect the public's participation in the rulemaking process.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11971-11978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04309]
[[Page 11971]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
44 CFR Part 1
[Docket ID FEMA-2017-0016]
RIN 1660-AA91
Regulations on Rulemaking Procedures
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule revises Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) regulations pertaining to rulemaking. It removes sections that
are outdated or do not affect the public and it updates provisions that
affect the public's participation in the rulemaking process.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 4, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Shedd, Associate Chief
Counsel, Regulatory Affairs, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, 202-646-4381,
or (email) <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97fce5fee4e3f2f9b9e4fff2f3f3d7f1f2faf6b9f3ffe4b9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d465f445e594843035e454849496d4b48404c0349455e034a425b">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on June 7, 2017, at 82 FR 26411, proposing revisions
to its regulations on rulemaking procedures. The NPRM proposed to
remove outdated provisions, update provisions that affect the public,
and modify FEMA's waiver of the Administrative Procedure Act exemption
for matters relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, and
contracts. FEMA received five public comments in response to the
proposed rule. Two commenters, the law offices of Texas RioGrande Legal
Aid, Inc. (Texas RioGrande) and the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association (NRECA), expressed concern that the proposed regulations
would result in a reduction in transparency and stakeholder involvement
in FEMA's rulemaking process. One comment, submitted by former research
consultants to the Administrative Conference of the United States
(ACUS), recommended further revisions to the petitions for rulemaking
section. Two comments were unrelated to the subject matter of the
rulemaking and are not the subject of further discussion below.
FEMA now finalizes the proposed regulations with some revisions
made in response to the relevant comments received. FEMA describes
these revisions and addresses the specific concerns of each commenter
below.
Administrative Procedure Act Exemption for Public Property, Loans,
Grants, Benefits, or Contracts
The Administrative Procedure Act exempts from notice and comment
rulemaking matters relating to public property, loans, grants,
benefits, or contracts.\1\ FEMA's regulations currently waive this
exemption in keeping with a 1969 ACUS Recommendation which recommended
that Congress remove this exemption from the Administrative Procedure
Act and that, even in the absence of legislative action, agencies
should subject these matters to notice and comment rulemaking in the
interest of transparency and public participation.\2\ In the NPRM, FEMA
noted that one of its main functions is to administer grant programs
for emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. FEMA
proposed to modify its waiver of the exemption for three separate and
independent reasons: (1) It is not feasible to go through the
rulemaking process for annual grant programs, which comprise the
majority of FEMA grant programs; (2) the Administrative Procedure Act
does not require grant program requirements (for annual grant programs
or otherwise) to be in regulation; and because (3) FEMA requires
flexibility to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates. 82 FR 26413.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).
\2\ ACUS Recommendation 69-8, adopted October 21-22, 1969,
available at <a href="https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/69-8.pdf">https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/69-8.pdf</a>. FEMA established a regulation waiving the exemption even
though the ACUS recommendation did not specifically recommend such a
course of action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas RioGrande submitted a comment expressing concern over this
proposed modification of the waiver of the Administrative Procedure Act
exemption. Texas RioGrande stated that it had consistently expressed
concern about lack of transparency in FEMA's administration of its
Individuals and Households Program (IHP), and that it filed lawsuits on
behalf of clients in south Texas who were impacted by the use of FEMA's
``unpublished rules'' following Hurricane Dolly in 2008 and other
disasters in 2015 and 2016. The commenter noted that it had also
discussed these concerns in its comments submitted on FEMA's
Individuals and Households Program Unified Guidance (IHPUG).\3\ The
IHPUG \4\ compiled FEMA policy for each type of assistance under IHP
into one comprehensive document and was intended to serve as a singular
policy resource for State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments,
and other entities who assist disaster survivors with post-disaster
recovery. The IHPUG replaced all stand-alone IHP policies and policy
statements that were previously located in FEMA documents and standard
operating procedures.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Texas RioGrande's comment on the IHPUG can be viewed at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket ID FEMA-2016-0011, document number
FEMA-2016-0011-0085.
\4\ Note the IHPUG has been superseded by the Individual
Assistance Program and Policy Guide (IAPPG) for any disaster
declared after March 1, 2019. See <a href="http://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_iappg-1.1.pdf">http://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_iappg-1.1.pdf</a>.
\5\ The IHPUG can be viewed on FEMA's website at <a href="http://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/IHP_Unified_Guidance_FINAL_09272016_0.pdf">http://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/IHP_Unified_Guidance_FINAL_09272016_0.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter stated that ``FEMA's current published materials do
not provide anyone outside FEMA a fair idea of how FEMA decides who
gets what disaster assistance.'' The commenter stated that FEMA's
current regulations and guidance are ``not a recipe for fair and
efficient administration of any government program'' and that
``[w]hether in regulations or informal guidance, FEMA should provide a
full and fair picture of how it makes its disaster assistance
decisions, and whether it changes its standards from disaster to
disaster . . . .'' The commenter stated that ``FEMA already keeps
hundreds of its IHP standards from being accessible to the public.''
The commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule would ``inhibit
the transparency that policy makers and the public need.''
Finally, the commenter suggested that the public interest in
participation outweighs FEMA's need for flexibility to sometimes forego
notice and comment rulemaking. The commenter opined that current 44 CFR
1.4(f) and (h) \6\ include a sufficient mechanism for FEMA to bypass
notice and comment in order to address emergency situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Section 1.4(f) generally tracks the ``good cause''
exemptions to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act. Section 1.4(h) relates to emergency
situations and generally tracks section 6(a)(3)(D) of Executive
Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter, FEMA notes that the specific contents of the
IHP regulations and guidance are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
As the commenter recognized, FEMA already has IHP regulations at 44 CFR
206.110-206.117, and has already published the IHPUG for notice and
comment and
[[Page 11972]]
made the final IHPUG available on FEMA's website.\7\ This rule, as
proposed and as finalized, would not directly affect the transparency
of FEMA's current IHP regulations or guidance. While the rule makes
clear that FEMA can change the current rules without notice and
comment, FEMA has no plans to remove the IHP regulations or to reduce
the transparency of such regulations and guidance.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Individual Assistance Program and Policy Guide (IAPPG)
that superseded the IHPUG is also available on FEMA's website. See
Individual Assistance Program and Policy Guide (IAPPG), Version 1.1,
May 2021 at <a href="http://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_iappg-1.1.pdf">http://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_iappg-1.1.pdf</a>. (last accessed on Nov. 4, 2021)
\8\ As FEMA noted in the proposed rule, the proposed change with
respect to the grants exemption was partly intended to allow FEMA to
operate certain annual grants programs without rulemaking. An annual
grant program is a program for which Congress on an annual basis (1)
appropriates a certain amount of money for the program, and (2)
potentially revises requirements associated with the program. IHP is
not such a program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA agrees with the commenter that it is important to provide fair
notice of FEMA policies, but FEMA disagrees that this rule will inhibit
such notice. This rule, as proposed and as finalized, has no bearing on
the availability of FEMA's policies and procedures to the public. For
instance, the Administrative Procedure Act and the Freedom of
Information Act each contain provisions directed at the transparency of
government programs. See 5 U.S.C. 552; 6 CFR part 5; see also 42 U.S.C.
5165c(c) (FEMA ``shall promote public access to policies governing the
implementation of the public assistance program,'' i.e., disaster
assistance to State, local, and Tribal governments and certain private
non-profit organizations). And consistent with 2 CFR part 200, FEMA
posts notices of funding opportunities on <a href="http://www.grants.gov">www.grants.gov</a>. See 2 CFR
200.203. <a href="http://Grants.gov">Grants.gov</a> provides a common website for Federal agencies to
post discretionary funding opportunities and for grantees to find and
apply for them. It helps the grant community learn more about available
opportunities, facilitates interaction with the Federal government, and
simplifies the grant application process. This rule does not affect the
applicability of any of these transparency measures. FEMA will continue
to provide fair notice of its policies consistent with all applicable
legal requirements.
Finally, with respect to public participation, FEMA agrees with the
commenter that FEMA should maintain its general policy in favor of
public participation. Consistent with the proposed rule, FEMA has
retained the general policy in favor of public participation in this
final rule. FEMA disagrees, however, that existing regulations provide
sufficient flexibility, as the agency's past experience demonstrates
the challenges in issuing or revising regulations in sufficient time to
support some grant programs. FEMA acknowledges that even in the absence
of the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment exemption for
rules relating to grants, FEMA may be able to avail itself of other
exceptions to notice and comment (such as the ``good cause'' exception
at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) when action is urgently required. FEMA prefers
to avoid relying solely on such exceptions, however, because the
Administrative Procedure Act makes the grants exemption available to
FEMA and because some exceptions from notice and comment requirements
are narrowly construed by courts. For instance, the ``good cause''
exception at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) might not in all cases accommodate
circumstances where FEMA perceives a need to bypass notice and comment
in situations of an ongoing emergency such as a global pandemic, where
a court applying the ``good cause'' standard rigorously might question
whether FEMA should have acted to address a specific problem sooner.
There may also be circumstances where, by virtue of multiple concurrent
disasters or emergencies, there are limited regulatory development
personnel to expedite multiple rulemaking projects through the notice
and comment process.
With respect to the commenter's statement that FEMA's existing
regulation at 44 CFR 1.4(h) provides an exception to notice and comment
requirements, that exception is limited to an emergency situation; is
more narrowly focused on requirements associated with Executive Order
12866; and calls for the preparation of additional materials for which
FEMA may at times be inadequately resourced. FEMA does not believe this
emergency situation exception is sufficient to ensure the flexibility
needed to effectively implement its grants programs.
FEMA believes the revisions made in this rule will signal the
appropriate policy intention to generally favor public participation,
while providing the degree of flexibility that the Administrative
Procedure Act provides and that FEMA believes appropriate.
FEMA notes that the general policy is not the only applicable law
or regulation relating to public participation in rulemaking. For
instance, 42 U.S.C. 5165c requires notice and comment before adopting
any new or modified policy that governs implementation of the Public
Assistance program and could result in a significant reduction of
assistance under the program. This statutory requirement ensures that
one of FEMA's largest grant programs, the Public Assistance program,
includes opportunities for public participation before any new or
modified policy that could result in a significant reduction of
assistance is implemented. FEMA will of course continue to abide by any
legal or regulatory requirement relating to notice and comment
rulemaking.
FEMA is therefore finalizing this aspect of the proposed rule
without change. As noted above and in the proposed rule, however, FEMA
does not anticipate a significant change in practice as a result of
these amendments.
Petitions for Rulemaking
In the NPRM, FEMA proposed to revise its regulations regarding
petitions for rulemaking to update and clarify terminology and to
require that petitions be labeled ``petition for rulemaking'' or
``rulemaking petition'' to avoid situations where simple correspondence
is confused with a petition.
FEMA received a comment from two former co-consultants to ACUS who
assisted with the ACUS 2014 petitions for rulemaking project. This
project resulted in ACUS Recommendation 2014-6, ``Petitions for
Rulemaking.'' See 79 FR 75114, 75117 (Dec. 17, 2014). The commenters
approved of the revisions FEMA proposed in the NPRM but requested that
FEMA make additional changes to its petitions for rulemaking
regulations in accordance with Recommendation 2014-6.
The commenters proposed that FEMA should accept electronic
submissions of petitions for rulemaking. FEMA's current regulations as
well as the proposed regulations only provide for a physical mailing
address. The commenters quoted from ACUS Recommendation 2014-6, which
recommends that agencies accept the electronic submission of petitions,
via email or through <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a> (such as by maintaining an open
docket for the submission of petitions for rulemaking) or their
existing online docketing system.\9\ The commenters stated that at a
minimum, FEMA should provide an appropriate and permanent email address
for submitting petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Recommendation 2014-6, #4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA agrees that in most contexts online communication is more
efficient than physical mail but declines to adopt a binding regulation
authorizing the
[[Page 11973]]
electronic submission of petitions at this time. FEMA believes allowing
electronic submission of petitions could lead to confusion or
inappropriate mass submissions without the proper infrastructure and
procedures. At this time, FEMA cannot reliably support efficient online
petitioning and therefore has not revised its regulations to
permanently authorize the electronic submission of petitions. FEMA is
open to experimenting with electronic submissions in the future,
however, and has revised the regulatory text to make clear that FEMA
will post to its website (<a href="http://www.fema.gov/about/offices/chief-counsel/rulemaking">www.fema.gov/about/offices/chief-counsel/rulemaking</a>) additional acceptable methods for submitting petitions. If
FEMA decides to maintain a public docket system for petitions, it will
revise the above web page to reference that docket system.
The commenters also recommended that FEMA develop a default
timeline for responding to petitions or publish online individual
timelines for responding to each received petition, consistent with
Recommendation 2014-6, #12 and #13, and with the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act to respond to petitions ``within a
reasonable time.'' \10\ FEMA does not agree to develop a default
timeline for responding to petitions. The Administrative Procedure Act
requires FEMA to respond ``within a reasonable time'' and what is
considered to be a reasonable time will vary depending on the degree of
complexity of individual petitions and surrounding circumstances. The
ACUS recommendations cited do not recommend that agencies issue binding
regulations for these timeframes, but rather that an agency should
``adopt in its procedures'' a default timeline for responding or
otherwise make publicly available the timeframe by which it will
respond to an individual petition.\11\ Given limited agency resources,
specific timelines published in regulation could bind FEMA in a way the
underlying report nor the ACUS recommendation require, creating an
undue burden on the agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 5 U.S.C. 555(b).
\11\ See Admin. Conf. of the U.S., Recommendation 2014-7,
Petitions for Rulemaking, 79 FR 75114 (Dec. 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters recommended that FEMA create a way for petitioners
and the public to learn the status of their pending petitions,
consistent with ACUS Recommendation 2014-6, #7. That recommendation
suggests either using online dockets or designating a single point of
contact authorized to provide information about the status of
petitions. The commenters further stated that FEMA should provide a
permanent email address and telephone number at which interested
members of the public can inquire about the status of petitions.
FEMA is interested in promoting more seamless interactions with the
public in general, including this particular issue.\12\ FEMA intends to
experiment with an online docketing system, and does not believe it is
appropriate to require such a system by regulation at this time. If
FEMA establishes such a system, FEMA will include a link to the system
at the web page identified above. Similarly, although FEMA declines to
include in regulation the name and/or phone number of a point of
contact for all rulemaking petitions, FEMA is including an email
address (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d3b38303c702f383a28313c293432332e1d3b38303c7339352e733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e781828a86ca958280928b86938e888994a781828a86c9838f94c9808891">[email protected]</span></a>) as a point of contact to
confirm whether FEMA has received or responded to a specific rulemaking
petition. FEMA may publish additional information on its website at a
future date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This interest is consistent with Executive Order 14058
``Transforming Federal Customer Experience and Service Delivery to
Rebuild Trust in Government,'' 86 FR 71357 (Dec. 16, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters stated that FEMA may also consider making additional
changes as recommended by ACUS, including detailing how FEMA will
coordinate consideration of petitions with other processes used to
determine agency priorities, such as the Unified Agenda and
retrospective review of existing rules.\13\ As stated in Sec. 1.8(b)
of this final rule, if the FEMA Administrator finds that a petition
contains adequate justification, a rulemaking proceeding will be
initiated or a final rule will be issued as appropriate. Prioritization
would be commensurate with the agency's regulatory priorities, as
determined by the Administrator. FEMA does not believe that it is
appropriate to include this internal process in regulation as such
internal processes are exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 and
should be subject to change at the Administrator's discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ACUS Recommendation 2014-6, #2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters also suggest further explaining what type of data
and arguments are most useful for petitioners to provide to aid agency
evaluation.\14\ The current and proposed regulations request the
petition to provide the substance of the rule or amendment proposed, or
specify the rule sought to be repealed or amended, and set forth all
data and arguments available to the petitioner in support of the action
sought. FEMA believes that this level of detail is sufficient. FEMA
does not want to be overly prescriptive, considering the wide variety
of changes that may be requested by a petitioner, and the wide variety
of potential petitioners. The current regulations allow flexibility to
the petitioner by providing general guidelines rather than dictating
particular data points. If FEMA finds that a particular petition
requires clarification or additional support before a determination can
be made, it is its current practice to indicate such to the petitioner.
This is consistent with ACUS Recommendation 2014-6, #6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ACUS Recommendation 2014-6, #3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters recommend inviting public comment on petitions as
appropriate, consistent with ACUS Recommendation 2014-6, #8 and #9.
FEMA has revised Sec. 1.8 to make clear that it will consider on a
case-by-case basis whether to solicit public comment on a petition.
FEMA has further revised this section to clarify that the agency can
take action to accept comments, by removing text stating that ``No
public procedures will be held directly on the petition before its
disposition.'' In making the decision whether to solicit public comment
on a petition, the agency will consider a variety of factors, including
the nature and complexity of the petition, to determine if public
comment is appropriate in advance of a decision on the petition. FEMA
does not find it necessary to add a provision to the regulations
regarding a specific public comment process for petitions given this
change.
Finally, the commenters recommend posting additional information on
FEMA's website about how to submit petitions, consistent with ACUS
Recommendation 2014-6, #16. As noted, FEMA has included a provision
directing readers to the FEMA website. FEMA may, in its discretion,
include additional information there.
Early and Meaningful Opportunity To Participate in the Development of
Rules
In the NPRM, FEMA proposed to remove Sec. 1.4(d), which describes
FEMA's general policy of giving the public, including small entities
and consumer groups, an early and meaningful opportunity to participate
in the development of rules such as through advance notices of proposed
rulemaking, holding open conferences, and convening public forums or
panels. The NRECA submitted a comment expressing disagreement with
FEMA's proposal to remove this text. The NRECA stated that the current
language creates the appropriate impression for the public and
interested stakeholders looking to become involved in the
[[Page 11974]]
process that FEMA is open to such participation.
Although FEMA is removing this section from its regulations, FEMA
continues to support early and meaningful opportunity for the public to
participate in the development of rules. As a matter of internal
policy, FEMA sends copies of regulatory actions during the public
comment period to publications likely to be read by those affected and
solicits comment from interested parties by such means as direct mail.
FEMA does not plan to change this policy. FEMA also has a general
internal policy of publishing requests for information and advance
notices of proposed rulemaking as appropriate to the rulemaking
project, specifically to give the public an early and meaningful
opportunity to participate in the development of a rule. FEMA generally
favors this approach for rules likely to be deemed significant under
Executive Order 12866. FEMA followed this policy by publishing two
requests for information related to the National Flood Insurance
Program \15\ in advance of considering rulemaking and two advance
notices of proposed rulemaking (one in 2016, one in 2017) for the
public assistance program, in order to receive public input before FEMA
fully developed the proposed rule.\16\ See 82 FR 4064 (Jan. 12, 2017);
81 FR 3082 (Jan. 20, 2016). The removal of the text streamlines the
regulations and ensures the agency retains the flexibility to utilize a
range of public engagement options in advance of rulemaking where
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 86 FR 47128 (Aug. 23, 2021) and 86 FR 56713 (Oct. 12,
2021).
\16\ See 85 FR 80719 (Dec.14, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inclusion of the 60-Day Public Comment Period in the Regulations
In the NPRM, FEMA proposed to remove Sec. 1.4(e), which states
FEMA's general policy of affording the public a 60-day comment period
for notices of proposed rulemaking, unless the Administrator makes an
exception and sets forth the reasons for the exception in the preamble
to the notice of proposed rulemaking. The NRECA submitted a comment
disagreeing with this proposed removal, stating that for the novice
member of the public or interested stakeholder trying to become
meaningfully involved in a process that will have impact on livelihoods
and economic success or failure, there is no harm in including the
length of the comment period in the regulations.
As stated in the NPRM, the 60-day comment period is recommended by
Executive Order 12866. 60 days is also the time frame that FEMA
generally follows. While the comment period is specifically stated in
each proposed rule when published in the Federal Register and the
public would generally be reviewing the proposed rule that may impact
them instead of FEMA's overall regulatory scheme, FEMA is retaining the
60-day comment period requirement in this final rule. FEMA still
believes there are specific situations in which a shorter or longer
comment period is appropriate. Such situations may include emergency
situations where public comment is important, but the agency must still
act in an expeditious manner for shorter comment periods. Longer
comment periods may be appropriate for more technically complex,
lengthy proposed rules. Longer comment periods may also be appropriate
where the rulemaking may impact areas recently struck by a disaster to
allow potentially impacted individuals more time to fully review the
rulemaking. FEMA will continue to provide an explanation for departing
from a 60-day comment period under the final rule, but consistent with
other changes in this rule, will reserve discretion to depart from this
standard as FEMA determines appropriate, in its discretion.
Bypassing Notice and Comment for Good Cause or for Statements of
Policy, Interpretive Rules, and Rules of Organization and Procedure
In the NPRM, FEMA proposed to remove Sec. 1.4(f), which echoes the
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act to exempt from notice
and comment rulemaking statements of policy, interpretive rules, and
rules of organization and procedure, or to bypass notice and comment
for good cause. The NRECA disagreed with the proposed removal for the
reasons it disagreed with the proposed removals of Sec. 1.4(d) and
(e). As stated in the NPRM and as noted in response to Texas
RioGrande's comment above, these exemptions are included in the
Administrative Procedure Act and FEMA does not need to restate them in
its regulations in order to follow them. As these are statutory
exemptions, FEMA has the authority to exempt these items from
rulemaking without regulations. As such, there is no need to repeat the
exemptions in FEMA's regulations.
Periodic Review of Regulations
In the NPRM, FEMA proposed to remove Sec. 1.8 which describes
FEMA's intent to publish in the Federal Register, and keep updated, a
plan for periodic review of existing rules at least within 10 years
from the date of publication of a final rule. The NRECA disagreed with
this proposal and recommended that FEMA update section 1.8 to indicate
that FEMA will continue to participate in reviews of existing rules.
FEMA proposed to remove this section from part 1 because the
process for review of existing rules has changed over time and may
continue to change. FEMA has actively participated in retrospective
reviews of existing regulations and will continue to do so. As the
requirements are continually evolving, FEMA finds that including them
in its rulemaking regulations would not be appropriate, as it would
continually need to update the regulations as the requirements evolve
and new executive orders are issued. This does not mean that the public
will not be informed or involved, however. For example, in August 2011
DHS finalized a retrospective review plan that established a
retrospective review process for seeking input from the public on a
three-year cycle. Pursuant to that plan, DHS published Federal Register
documents on February 26, 2014 \17\ and October 11, 2016 \18\ seeking
public comment on existing regulations that DHS should consider as
candidates for streamlining or repeal. Moreover, on June 15, 2017, FEMA
published a Federal Register document requesting public input on its
regulatory reform efforts.\19\ The agency also recently issued a
request for information seeking input on FEMA's programs, regulations,
collections of information, and policies and where the public believes
the agency should consider modifying, streamlining, expanding, or
repealing.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 79 FR 10760. Comments received can be viewed on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under docket ID DHS-2014-0006.
\18\ 81 FR 70060. Comments received can be viewed on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under docket ID DHS-2016-0072.
\19\ 82 FR 27460. Comments received can be viewed on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under docket ID FEMA-2017-0023.
\20\ See 86 FR 21325 (Apr. 22, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to FEMA's commitment to retrospective review of
existing regulations, FEMA is obligated by law to perform periodic
review of rules that have or will have a significant economic impact
upon a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 610. Because
this requirement is included in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, FEMA is
statutorily bound to follow the requirement, regardless of whether the
requirement is stated in the regulation. Eliminating this provision
does not eliminate FEMA's requirement to follow the statutory
requirement and reduces
[[Page 11975]]
the potential confusion any statutory change to this requirement may
cause until the regulation can be updated.
Review of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis by the Small Business
Administration
In the NPRM, FEMA proposed to remove Sec. 1.13(c), which states
that copies of regulatory flexibility analyses shall be furnished to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to transmit a
copy of the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, or if the agency
is certifying the rule, a copy of the factual basis for certification,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.\21\ It is not necessary to include this statutory
requirement in regulation. The NRECA disagreed with this removal, and
recommended that FEMA retain the provision, because it informs members
of the public who are trying to follow the rulemaking process and may
not be aware of the ability of the Small Business Administration's
Office of Advocacy to become involved. FEMA declines to incorporate the
RFA's statutory requirements into regulation. As explained above, FEMA
is streamlining these regulations and eliminating references to
specific statutory requirements as FEMA is already required to follow
those provisions. Members of the public seeking more information on the
RFA process can review the statutory requirements as the Act is cited
in each rulemaking where it is applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA also notes that the RFA requires the agency to respond to any
comments received from the Small Business Administration.\22\ The
agency must provide the response to these comments in the final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which must be posted for public
viewing, and a summary published in the Federal Register.\23\ FEMA
posts the final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the docket for
the rule on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, and a summary is also included in the
preamble to the final rule. Therefore, the public has full visibility
of any Small Business Administration involvement. FEMA concludes that
it is not necessary to include this requirement in its regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3).
\23\ 5 U.S.C. 604(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adoption of a Final Rule: Support for Factual Conclusions and
Adequately Addressing Public Comments
In the NPRM, FEMA proposed to remove Sec. 1.16(d)(2), which
requires FEMA to make a determination that the factual conclusions upon
which a final rule is based have substantial support in the agency
record, viewed as a whole, with full attention to public comments in
general and the comments of persons directly affected by the rule in
particular. The NRECA disagreed with this proposed removal and
recommended that this requirement be maintained as a testament to
FEMA's attention to the record and stakeholder input in particular.
FEMA notes that the Administrative Procedure Act requires that a
final rule take into consideration the relevant matter presented during
the public comment period and requires the agency to provide a
statement of the basis and purposes of the final rule.\24\ This is a
legal requirement that the agency must meet regardless of whether the
requirement appears in the agency's own regulations on rulemaking.
There is robust jurisprudence that has arisen out of this particular
requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act, which has resulted in
very detailed and thorough statements of bases and purpose in agency
rulemakings.\25\ FEMA concludes that this requirement is not necessary
to be in regulation, as the agency is bound by law to meet it and the
agency's internal controls ensure the requirement is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 5 U.S.C. 553(c).
\25\ The statement of basis and purpose, commonly referred to as
the ``preamble,'' has become one of the primary documents that
judges turn to in deciding the validity of challenged rules. See A
Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking, 6th ed., Jeffrey S. Lubbers,
Part III, Chap. 8, B. See, e.g., Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n
v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983);
Independent U.S. Tanker Owners Committee v. Dole, 809 F.2d 847 (D.C.
Cir. 1987); Action on Smoking & Health v. CAB, 699 F.2.d 1209 (D.C.
Cir. 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Availability of Internal Rulemaking Procedures to the Public
The NRECA objected generally to the proposed removal of regulations
that reflect FEMA's internal policies because ``those internal
processes are not available to the public and therefore reduce
transparency.'' The NRECA also stated its concern that reliance on
internal processes means that a rulemaking process ``will have a head
start, gather a head of steam prior to stakeholders including the
public being able to provide input, and therefore not truly open to
public participation.''
As noted earlier, FEMA does not expect that this rule will have any
material impact on its public outreach as part of the rulemaking
process. As a matter of policy, FEMA engages in a number of processes
to ensure appropriate early and meaningful public participation. FEMA
also publishes its planned regulatory actions semi-annually in the
Unified Agenda. With respect to transparency and public access to non-
regulatory policies, FEMA notes that <a href="http://www.fema.gov">www.fema.gov</a> makes many FEMA
policies available to the public, and that FEMA makes other internal
documents available to the public as dictated by the Freedom of
Information Act and other laws on public access to agency information.
See generally, e.g., 6 CFR part 5.
Change Chart
The following chart lists the current section and its disposition
via the final rule:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current section Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1 Purpose ............................
1.1(a)................................ 1.1(a).
1.1(b)................................ Removed.
1.1(c)................................ Removed.
1.1(d)................................ Removed.
1.1(e)................................ Removed.
1.2 Definitions ............................
1.2(a)................................ 1.2(a).
1.2(b)................................ 1.2(b).
1.2(c)................................ 1.2(c).
1.2(d)................................ 1.2(d).
1.2(e)................................ Removed.
1.3 Scope ............................
1.3(a)................................ 1.1(a).
1.3(b)................................ Removed.
1.3(c)................................ 1.1(b).
1.4 Policy and Procedures Removed, except 1.4(b) and
1.4(e) moved to 1.3.
1.5 Rules docket ............................
1.5(a)................................ 1.4(a) & 1.5.
1.5(b)................................ 1.4(b).
1.6 Ex parte communications ............................
1.6 Introductory language............. Removed.
1.6(a)................................ 1.6(a).
1.5(b)................................ 1.6(b).
1.7 Regulations agendas................... Removed.
1.8 Regulations review.................... Removed.
1.9 Regulatory impact analyses............ Removed.
1.10 Initiation of rulemaking ............................
1.10.................................. 1.8/partially removed.
1.11 Advance notice of proposed rulemaking Removed.
1.12 Notice of proposed rulemaking........ Removed.
1.13 Participation by interested persons.. Removed.
1.14 Additional rulemaking proceedings.... 1.7(c)/partially removed.
1.15 Hearings ............................
1.15(a)............................... 1.7(a)/partially removed.
1.15(b)............................... 1.7(b).
1.16 Adoption of a final rule............. Removed.
1.17 Petitions for reconsideration........ 1.9.
[[Page 11976]]
1.18 Petitions for rulemaking............. 1.8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Regulatory Analyses
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'') directs agencies to reduce regulation
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this rule
a ``significant regulatory action'' although not economically
significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
the rule has been reviewed by OMB.
This final rule revises FEMA regulations pertaining to rulemaking
by removing sections that are outdated or do not affect the public and
update provisions that affect the public's participation in the
rulemaking process. FEMA does not believe this rule imposes additional
direct costs on the public or government.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended, 5 U.S.C.
601-612, agencies must consider the impact of their rulemakings on
``small entities'' (small businesses, small organizations and local
governments). When the Administrative Procedure Act requires an agency
to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, the RFA
requires a regulatory flexibility analysis for both the proposed rule
and the final rule if the rulemaking could ``have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' The RFA
also provides that in lieu of a regulatory flexibility analysis, the
agency may certify in the rulemaking document that the rulemaking will
not ``have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities'' along with a statement providing the factual basis for
such certification. FEMA has voluntarily published a notice of proposed
rulemaking in this case, notwithstanding that this rule is a rule of
agency organization, procedure, or practice exempt from notice and
comment rulemaking requirements. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
This rule revises FEMA regulations pertaining to rulemaking by
removing sections that are outdated or do not affect the public and
update provisions that affect the public's participation in the
rulemaking process. This rule does not impose direct costs on small
entities. Accordingly, and although FEMA is not required to make such
certification, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
the Administrator of FEMA certifies that this rule does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 658, 1501-1504,
1531-1536, 1571, pertains to any notice of proposed rulemaking which
implements any rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year. If the rulemaking includes a Federal mandate, the Act requires an
agency to prepare an assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits
of the Federal mandate. The Act also pertains to any regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Before establishing any such requirements, an agency must
develop a plan allowing for input from the affected governments
regarding the requirements.
FEMA has determined that this rule will not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
nor by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year as a
result of a Federal mandate, and it will not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), as amended, 44
U.S.C. 3501-3520, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the
agency obtains approval from OMB for the collection and the collection
displays a valid OMB control number. See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507. FEMA has
determined that this rulemaking does not contain any collections of
information as defined by that Act. PRA regulations exempt general
solicitations of comments from the public such as rulemakings. See 5
CFR 1320.3(h)(4).
Privacy Act/E-Government Act
Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, an agency must
determine whether implementation of a proposed regulation will result
in a system of records. A ``record'' is any item, collection, or
grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an
agency, including, but not limited to, his/her education, financial
transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and
that contains his/her name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other
identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or
voice print or a photograph. See 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(4). A ``system of
records'' is a group of records under the control of an agency from
which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some
identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to
the individual. An agency cannot disclose any record which is contained
in a system of records except by following specific procedures.
The E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501 note, also requires
specific procedures when an agency takes action to develop or procure
information technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates
information that is in an identifiable form. This Act also applies when
an agency initiates a new collection of information that will be
collected, maintained, or disseminated using information technology if
it includes any information in an identifiable form permitting the
physical or online contacting of a specific individual.
This final rule does not create a new, nor impact a current, system
of record. Therefore, this proposed rule does not require coverage
under an existing or new Privacy Impact Assessment or System of Records
Notice. Any member of the public or any non-Federal entity may submit
comments on a rulemaking; all comments are posted on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, and that website, as well as each FEMA rulemaking
document requesting comments, includes a Privacy Notice informing the
[[Page 11977]]
commenter that any comments will be posted for public viewing.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments,'' 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000, applies to agency
regulations that have Tribal implications, that is, regulations that
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes. Under this Executive order, to the extent
practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any
regulation that has Tribal implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and that is not
required by statute, unless funds necessary to pay the direct costs
incurred by the Indian Tribal government or the Tribe in complying with
the regulation are provided by the Federal Government, or the agency
consults with Tribal officials.
This rule does not have Tribal implications. Any member of the
public and any non-Federal entity, including Tribes and Tribal members,
may participate in Federal rulemaking as outlined in this proposed
rule, and it is FEMA's policy that ex parte restrictions in rulemaking
do not apply to Tribal consultations.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999, sets forth principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to
in formulating and implementing policies that have federalism
implications, that is, regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Federal
agencies must closely examine the statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and
to the extent practicable, must consult with State and local officials
before implementing any such action.
FEMA has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and has
determined that this rule does not have substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and therefore does not have federalism
implications as defined by the Executive order. It addresses agency
procedures for rulemaking that affect the public; such rulemaking is a
Federal process and does not affect State rulemaking processes.
Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking
Under Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA),
5 U.S.C. 801-808, before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency
promulgating the rule must submit to Congress and to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) a copy of the rule; a concise general
statement relating to the rule, including whether it is a major rule;
the proposed effective date of the rule; a copy of any cost-benefit
analysis; descriptions of the agency's actions under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and any other
information or statements required by relevant executive orders. 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1).
FEMA has sent this rule to the Congress and to GAO pursuant to the
CRA. OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined
that this rule is not a ``major rule'' within the meaning of the CRA. 5
U.S.C. 804(2). It will not have an annual effect on the economy of
$100,000,000 or more; it will not result in a major increase in costs
or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or
local government agencies, or geographic regions; and it will not have
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and
export markets.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency revises 44 CFR part 1 to read as follows:
PART 1--RULEMAKING, POLICY, AND PROCEDURES
Sec.
1.1 Purpose and scope.
1.2 Definitions.
1.3 Regulatory policy.
1.4 Public rulemaking docket.
1.5 Public comments.
1.6 Ex parte communications.
1.7 Hearings.
1.8 Petitions for rulemaking.
1.9 Petitions for reconsideration.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551, 553; 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation 9001.1.
Sec. 1.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) This part contains FEMA's procedures for informal rulemaking
under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) that affect the
public.
(b) This part does not apply to rules issued in accordance with the
formal rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 556, 557).
Sec. 1.2 Definitions.
(a) Rule or regulation have the same meaning as those terms are
defined in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551(4)).
(b) Rulemaking means the FEMA process for considering and
formulating the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
(c) Administrator means the Administrator, FEMA, or an official to
whom the Administrator has expressly delegated authority to issue
rules.
(d) FEMA means Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Sec. 1.3 Regulatory policy.
(a) It is the general policy of FEMA to provide for public
participation in rulemaking regarding its programs and functions,
including matters that relate to public property, loans, grants, or
benefits, or contracts, even though these matters are not subject to a
requirement for notice and public comment rulemaking by law.
(b) It is the general policy of FEMA that its notices of proposed
rulemaking are to afford the public at least 60 days for submission of
comments unless the Administrator makes an exception and sets forth the
reasons for the exception in the preamble to the notice of proposed
rulemaking.
(c) The general policies contained in this section are not intended
to and do not create a right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable against the United States or its agencies or officers. FEMA
may depart from such policies in its absolute discretion, including for
its annual grant programs and in other cases as circumstances warrant.
Sec. 1.4 Public rulemaking docket.
(a) FEMA maintains a public docket for each rulemaking after it is
published in the Federal Register and until the rulemaking is closed
and archived at the National Archives and Records Administration. The
public docket includes every document published in the Federal Register
in conjunction
[[Page 11978]]
with a rulemaking. It also includes regulatory assessments and
analyses, written comments from the public addressed to the merits of a
proposed rule, comments from the public received in response to
notices, or to withdrawals or terminations of a proposed rulemaking,
requests for a public meeting, requests for extension of time,
petitions for rulemaking, grants or denials of petitions or requests,
and transcripts or minutes of informal hearings. The public rulemaking
docket is maintained by the Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of
Chief Counsel.
(b) After FEMA establishes a public rulemaking docket, any person
may examine docketed material during established business hours by
prearrangement with the Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief
Counsel, FEMA, 500 C St. SW, Washington, DC 20472, and may obtain a
copy of any docketed material (except for copyrighted material). FEMA
also maintains a copy of each public docket electronically, with the
exception of copyrighted material, on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. To access
the docket on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, search for the docket ID associated
with the rulemaking.
(c) The docket for flood hazard elevation rules issued by the
National Flood Insurance Program are partially maintained at the
locality that is the subject of the rule. FEMA includes in the preamble
of each flood hazard elevation rule the repository address for
supporting material.
Sec. 1.5 Public comments.
A member of the public may submit comments via mail or courier to
the Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C St. SW, Washington, DC 20472, or may
submit comments electronically to the rulemaking docket at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under the applicable docket ID.
Sec. 1.6 Ex parte communications.
(a) All oral or written communications from outside the Federal
Executive branch of significant information and argument respecting the
merits of a rulemaking document, received after publication of a notice
of proposed rulemaking, by FEMA or its offices and divisions or their
personnel participating in the decision, must be summarized in writing
and placed promptly in the public docket. This applies until the agency
publishes a final regulatory action such as a withdrawal of the notice
of proposed rulemaking or a final rule.
(b) FEMA may conclude that restrictions on ex parte communications
are necessitated at other times by considerations of fairness or for
other reasons.
(c) This section does not apply to Tribal consultations.
Sec. 1.7 Hearings.
(a) When FEMA affords an opportunity for oral presentation, the
hearing is an informal, non-adversarial, fact-finding proceeding. Any
rulemaking issued in a proceeding under this part in which a hearing is
held need not be based exclusively on the record of such hearing.
(b) When such a hearing is provided, the Administrator will
designate a representative to conduct the hearing.
(c) The transcript or minutes of the hearing will be kept and filed
in the public rulemaking docket.
Sec. 1.8 Petitions for rulemaking.
(a) Any interested person may petition the Administrator for the
issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. For purposes of this section,
the term person includes any member of the public and any entity
outside the Federal Executive branch of Government. Each petitioner
must:
(1) Submit the petition to the Regulatory Affairs Division, Office
of Chief Counsel, FEMA, 8NE, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472;
(2) Label the petition with the following: ``Petition for
Rulemaking'' or ``Rulemaking Petition'';
(3) Set forth the substance of the rule or amendment proposed or
specify the rule sought to be repealed or amended;
(4) Explain the interest of the petitioner in support of the action
sought; and
(5) Set forth all data and arguments available to the petitioner in
support of the action sought.
(b) FEMA will specify additional methods of submitting rulemaking
petitions on its website at <a href="http://www.fema.gov/about/offices/chief-counsel/rulemaking">www.fema.gov/about/offices/chief-counsel/rulemaking</a> and petitioners seeking to confirm whether FEMA has received
or responded to a specific rulemaking petition may inquire at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d5b3b0b8b4f8a7b0b2a0b9b4a1bcbabba695b3b0b8b4fbb1bda6fbb2baa3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96f0f3fbf7bbe4f3f1e3faf7e2fff9f8e5d6f0f3fbf7b8f2fee5b8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a>. The website may also contain other
information about the petition for rulemaking process.
(c)(1) FEMA may solicit public comment on the petition in its
discretion. If the Administrator finds that the petition contains
adequate justification, a rulemaking proceeding will be initiated, or a
final rule will be issued as appropriate. If the Administrator finds
that the petition does not contain adequate justification, the petition
will be denied by letter or other notice, with a brief statement of the
ground for denial. The disposition will be posted on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under docket ID FEMA-2022-0011.
(2) The Administrator may consider new evidence at any time;
however, FEMA will not consider repetitious petitions for rulemaking.
Sec. 1.9 Petitions for reconsideration.
Petitions for reconsideration of a final rule will not be
considered. Such petitions, if filed, will be treated as petitions for
rulemaking in accordance with Sec. 1.8.
Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-04309 Filed 3-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 3, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.