Regulations on Rulemaking Procedures

CourtFederal Emergency Management Agency
Citation87 FR 11971
Record Number2022-04309
Published date03 March 2022
11971
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
1
5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).
2
ACUS Recommendation 69–8, adopted October
21–22, 1969, available at https://www.acus.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/69-8.pdf. FEMA
established a regulation waiving the exemption
even though the ACUS recommendation did not
specifically recommend such a course of action.
3
Texas RioGrande’s comment on the IHPUG can
be viewed at www.regulations.gov 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Note the IHPUG has been superseded by the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 http://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/fema_iappg-1.1.pdf.
5
The IHPUG can be viewed on FEMA’s website
at http://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/
IHP_Unified_Guidance_FINAL_09272016_0.pdf.
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.
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outdated or do not affect the public and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) kristen.shedd@fema.dhs.gov.
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outdated provisions, update provisions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.
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
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.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 02, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM 03MRR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
11972
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
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 http://www.fema.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/fema_iappg-1.1.pdf.
(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.
9
Recommendation 2014–6, #4.
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
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 www.grants.gov. See 2 CFR 200.203.
Grants.gov 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 regulations.gov (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.
FEMA agrees that in most contexts
online communication is more efficient
than physical mail but declines to adopt
a binding regulation authorizing the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 02, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM 03MRR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
11973
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
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).
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).
13
ACUS Recommendation 2014–6, #2.
14
ACUS Recommendation 2014–6, #3.
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
(www.fema.gov/about/offices/chief-
counsel/rulemaking) 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.
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 (fema-
regulations@fema.dhs.gov) 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.
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 § 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.
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.
The commenters recommend inviting
public comment on petitions as
appropriate, consistent with ACUS
Recommendation 2014–6, #8 and #9.
FEMA has revised § 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 § 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 02, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM 03MRR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
11974
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
15
See 86 FR 47128 (Aug. 23, 2021) and 86 FR
56713 (Oct. 12, 2021).
16
See 85 FR 80719 (Dec.14, 2020).
17
79 FR 10760. Comments received can be
viewed on www.regulations.gov under docket ID
DHS–2014–0006.
18
81 FR 70060. Comments received can be
viewed on www.regulations.gov under docket ID
DHS–2016–0072.
19
82 FR 27460. Comments received can be
viewed on www.regulations.gov under docket ID
FEMA–2017–0023.
20
See 86 FR 21325 (Apr. 22, 2021).
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.
Inclusion of the 60-Day Public
Comment Period in the Regulations
In the NPRM, FEMA proposed to
remove § 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 § 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
§ 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 § 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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 02, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM 03MRR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
11975
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
21
5 U.S.C. 603(a), 605(b).
22
5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3).
23
5 U.S.C. 604(b).
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).
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 § 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.
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
www.regulations.gov, 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.
Adoption of a Final Rule: Support for
Factual Conclusions and Adequately
Addressing Public Comments
In the NPRM, FEMA proposed to
remove § 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.
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 www.fema.gov 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 Proce-
dures 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 commu-
nications
1.6 Introductory lan-
guage. Removed.
1.6(a) ....................... 1.6(a).
1.5(b) ....................... 1.6(b).
1.7 Regulations agen-
das.Removed.
1.8 Regulations review Removed.
1.9 Regulatory impact
analyses.Removed.
1.10 Initiation of rule-
making
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 in-
terested persons.Removed.
1.14 Additional rule-
making 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 recon-
sideration.1.9.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 02, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM 03MRR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
11976
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Current section Final rule
1.18 Petitions for rule-
making.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
www.regulations.gov, and that website,
as well as each FEMA rulemaking
document requesting comments,
includes a Privacy Notice informing the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 02, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM 03MRR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
11977
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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.
§ 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).
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 02, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM 03MRR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
11978
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
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
www.regulations.gov. To access the
docket on www.regulations.gov, 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.
§ 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
www.regulations.gov under the
applicable docket ID.
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 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
www.fema.gov/about/offices/chief-
counsel/rulemaking and petitioners
seeking to confirm whether FEMA has
received or responded to a specific
rulemaking petition may inquire at
fema-regulations@fema.dhs.gov. 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 www.regulations.gov
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.
§ 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 § 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
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 229
[Docket No. 220225–0059]
RIN 0648–BJ09
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental
to Commercial Fishing Operations;
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction
Plan Regulations; Correction
AGENCY
: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION
: Correcting amendment.
SUMMARY
: This document makes
technical corrections to a final rule that
modified the Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Plan. The correction
reinstates paragraphs that were
inadvertently removed from the Code of
Federal Regulations when the final rule
published on September 17, 2021.
DATES
: Effective March 3, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Colleen Coogan, Marine Mammal/Sea
Turtle Branch Chief, phone: (978) 281–
9181 or email: Colleen.Coogan@
noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
Need for Correction
NMFS published a final rule to
implement modifications to the Atlantic
Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
(ALWTRP or Plan) on September 17,
2021 (86 FR 51970), to meet the goals
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:19 Mar 02, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM 03MRR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT