[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43183-43184]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18074]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

Docket No. FAA-2012-0569; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-17

Proposed Modification of Class E Airspace; Wolf Point, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace at Wolf Point,
MT. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using
Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB) standard instrument approach
procedures at L M Clayton Airport, Wolf Point, MT. The FAA is proposing
this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations
at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-
0569; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-17, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2012-0569 and Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-17) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ``ADDRESSES'' section
for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2012-0569 and Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-17''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ``ADDRESSES'' section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace at L M
Clayton Airport, Wolf Point, MT. Controlled airspace is necessary to
accommodate aircraft using the NDB standard instrument approach
procedures at L M Clayton Airport, and would enhance the safety and
management of aircraft operations.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would modify controlled airspace at Wolf Point, L M Clayton
Airport, Wolf Point, MT.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal

Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Wolf Point, MT [Modified]

Wolf Point, L M Clayton Airport, MT
    (Lat. 48[deg]05'40'' N., long. 105[deg]34'30'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8-mile radius of L M Clayton Airport; that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 48[deg]02'00'' N., long. 104[deg]13'00'' W.; to
lat. 47[deg]48'00'' N., long. 104[deg]33'00'' W.; to lat.
47[deg]48'00'' N., long. 106[deg]00'02'' W.; to lat. 48[deg] 20'00''
N., long. 106[deg]00'02'' W.; to lat. 48[deg]20'00'' N., long.
104[deg]17'00'' W.; thence to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 16, 2012.
Robert Henry,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-18074 Filed 7-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68179-68181]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27609]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1055; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-35-AD;
Amendment 39-16498; AD 2010-23-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Austro Engine GmbH Model E4 Diesel
Piston Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Several power loss events have been reported, due to rail
pressure control failures. Analyses have shown that high pressure
(HP) fuel pumps failed as a result of pressure oscillations in the
fuel supply line.

We are issuing this AD to prevent engine power loss or in-flight
shutdown, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 22, 2010.
    We must receive comments on this AD by December 6, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of Austro Engine GmbH Work Instruction No. WI-MSB-E4-009,
dated October 7, 2010, listed in the AD as of November 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.

     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the same as
the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2010-0206-E, dated October 8, 2010 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Several power loss events have been reported, due to rail
pressure control failures. Analyses have shown that high pressure
(HP) fuel pumps failed as a result of pressure oscillations in the
fuel supply line.

    Frequent inspections of the fuel pressure supply for excessive
oscillations are required to determine if high-pressure fuel pumps have
been exposed to damaging pressure oscillations. Pumps that have been
exposed require replacement before further flight. We are issuing this
AD to prevent engine power loss or in-flight shutdown, which could
result in loss of control of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    Austro Engine GmbH has issued Work Instruction No. WI-MSB-E4-009,
dated October 7, 2010. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Austria
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with Austria, they have notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information
provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections of the fuel
pressure supply for excessive oscillations and replacement before
further flight of the high-pressure fuel pump if the fuel pressure
supply oscillations are excessive.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of
the short compliance time of within 10 flight hours, in the AD.
Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment
before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-1055; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NE-35-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of the
Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets,
including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment
(or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-23-09 Austro Engine GmbH: Amendment 39-16498; Docket No. FAA-
2010-1055; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-35-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
22, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Austro Engine GmbH model E4 diesel piston
engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Diamond
Aircraft Industries DA 40 NG and DA 42 NG airplanes.

Reason

    (d) Several power loss events have been reported, due to rail
pressure control failures. Analyses have shown that high pressure
(HP) fuel pumps failed as a result of pressure oscillations in the
fuel supply line.

We are issuing this AD to prevent engine power loss or in-flight
shutdown, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Inspect the fuel pressure supply for excessive oscillations
using the inspection schedule in Table 1 of this AD.

                      Table 1--Inspection Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Accumulated time-since-new:                Compliance time:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
45 flight hours or more, on the          Within 10 flight hours after
 effective date of this AD..              the effective date of this AD.
Fewer than 45 flight hours, on the       At the next scheduled 50 flight
 effective date of this AD..              hour inspection.
Repetitive inspections.................  At each 50 flight-hour
                                          scheduled inspection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) Replace the high-pressure fuel pump before further flight
with a serviceable high-pressure fuel pump if the oscillations
exceed 300mV (750hPa).
    (3) Use Austro Engine GmbH Work Instruction No. WI-MSB-E4-009,
dated October 7, 2010, to do the inspections.

FAA AD Differences

    (f) None.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2010-0206-E, dated October 8, 2010, and Austro Engine GmbH
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB-E4-009, dated October 7, 2010,
for related information. Contact Austro Engine GmbH, Rudolf-Diesel-
Strasse 11, A-2700 Weiner Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622
23000; fax: +43 2622 23000-2711, or go to: http://www.austroengine.at, for a copy of this service bulletin.
    (i) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7199, for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Austro Engine GmbH Work Instruction No. WI-MSB-
E4-009, dated October 7, 2010, to do the inspections required by
this AD.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Austro Engine GmbH, Rudolf-Diesel-Strasse 11, A-2700 Weiner
Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 23000; fax: +43 2622 23000-
2711, or go to: http://www.austroengine.at.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 27, 2010.
Karen M. Grant,
Acting Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-27609 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                  EPA's Questions for Reverse Distributors

General Questions about the Returns Process
   1. Who initiates the return? Generally the entity seeking credit initiates the return.  In a recall or withdrawal situation the manufacturer or manufacturer's agent will initiate the return. Does the RD alert the healthcare facility that credit is available for certain pharmaceuticals or do health care facilities periodically go through inventory to return un-needed items? Manufacturers provide return policy to clients as well as to the RD being used.  However, the RD does not know exactly what the healthcare facility will be sending back each time so it does not identify that the credit is available in advance.  Most healthcare facilities return un-needed items on a periodic basis, often without regard to credit.  It is more an inventory maintenance issue.  There are some health care facilities that have the RD provide this service and manage credits.
   2. Does the RD have reps that go to healthcare facilities to pull and prepare pharmaceuticals for shipment to the RD?  Many RDs have representatives who will go to healthcare facilities to perform these functions and prepare returns, but not all.  Typically this is an additional service and will depend on the resources of the healthcare facility.  If so, does the rep know which items will/will not receive credit?  Generally speaking, they will know common items which will receive credit, but there are instances when policies change without the knowledge of the representative or the facility.  Occasionally, product line ownership changes will change the credit policy and items that previously received credit may not under the new owner's policy or vice versa.
   3. Is credit received per container?  Manufacturer's policies vary, but most provide credit based on the NDC (Consumer Container, case or shelf pack).  Per pill if container has been opened?  Some manufacturers provide credit for partial containers.  This is where there is a large variation in the way policies are established and applied.
   4. Do healthcare facilities return pharmaceuticals from the patient floors (e.g., drugs that have been re-packaged)? If it is established that items can receive credit, a facility will return pharmaceuticals from any location throughout the healthcare system.  However, some healthcare facilities have policies which do not allow patient floor pharmaceuticals to be returned to the pharmacy and these facilities may have a different return process.  Are re-packaged pharmaceuticals creditable?  Generally not.
   5. Once the shipment arrives at the RD facility, what is the timeframe for processing?  RD's are paid for credit percentage or per item processed, so they are incentivized to process a return quickly.  On average returns are processed within 3-7 business days, but backlogs in excess of weeks could occur.  It will depend on the type and size of the RD.  In the event of a large recall, facilities which are not properly prepared can become overwhelmed; this would drastically increase the processing time.
   6. Are generic brands creditable?  Again, this will depend on the generic manufacturers' return policies.  Damaged shipments are almost always creditable.
   7. Do expired items typically get credit?  Yes.  Some manufacturer's policies do not allow for the credit of unexpired pharmaceuticals.  Generally manufacturer's policy does not allow for credit prior to 30, 60, or 90 days in advance of the expiration date.  This will vary greatly among manufacturers and types of pharmaceuticals.
   8. How is the RD paid for its services? Most RD's are paid on a percentage of credit received, if they work for the healthcare facility.  They may receive payment based on a per item basis if they work for the manufacturer.  There are additional fees for onsite services, consulting, tracking, destruction, etc. Does the RD receive a percentage of the credit? Usually the percentage of credit is paid by the healthcare facility or other creditee.  Is there a flat fee?  Some RDs working on behalf of the manufacturer tend to have flat fees per service.  Services such as processing an NDC, NDC look up, partial container count, damage codes are examples of services for which a flat fee per service is charged.   Recall services will vary greatly and may have some flat fee components once the recall is established such as storage and destruction fees.  Generally a flat fee per month is not the only charge.  Are there additional charges to the healthcare facility for waste management?  Yes, usually there are additional fees depending on the type of material to be managed.  This will also vary greatly if there are controlled substances which need to be managed.
   9. Under what circumstances would a healthcare facility return pharmaceuticals to a (forward) distributor in lieu of sending to a RD?  In cases when a shipment is damaged or it was not ordered,  it would be returned to the forward distributor for credit from the forward distributor. The returns to forward distributors are contractual between the healthcare facility and the forward distributor. Do you process pharmaceuticals from (forward) distributors? Yes.
   10. When pharmaceuticals are received at the RD, are they ever shipped to another RD's facility for crediting? Yes.  RD's working for the healthcare facility on a percentage of credit usually forward returns from their facility to the various RD's for manufacturers.  RD's working for a manufacturer will forward returns shipped incorrectly or when ownership changes occur.  In some instances RDs with multiple facilities will experience a backlog at one facility and forward returns to another internal facility that does not have a backlog.
   11. Do you accept non-pharmaceutical products? Yes
   12. How long are pharmaceuticals kept on-site after providing credit?  This could vary greatly depending on contractual requirements as well as the space restrictions within a facility.  Generally, contracts mandate that pharmaceuticals are maintained for 30 days after processing.  This allows the manufacturer to audit returns and resolve disputes.  The contractual timeline can vary and a manufacturer may ask that a particular shipment be kept longer or shorter for a variety of reasons.  During recall events pharmaceuticals could be held indefinitely depending on legal requirements.   How long are the pharmaceuticals that become hazardous wastes kept on-site?  Pharmaceuticals that become hazardous waste are kept the average 30 days as previously described.  When the manufacturer releases the return the pharmaceuticals are "generated" as waste.  The generated hazardous waste pharmaceuticals are kept up to the mandatory maximum of 90 days if the facility is a large quantity generator.  Most waste is not stored up to this time.  The average time currently at our facility is around 45 days from point of generation.  Recall materials are kept longer as the manufacturer and/or regulatory agencies such as the FDA may not release the pharmaceuticals and require them to be kept as evidence for legal proceedings.  On average how long does it take a pharmaceutical to cycle through your facility?  On average 45 days for non-hazardous pharmaceuticals 85 days for hazardous waste pharmaceuticals.  The hazardous waste pharmaceuticals are generated much less frequently and thus accumulated to transfer to a hazardous waste facility within the 90 day requirement as we are a large quantity hazardous waste generator.

Shipment
   1. Are returned pharmaceuticals shipped to the RD via commercial mail carrier or USPS or private hauler?  The size of the return and the client's transportation arrangements dictate the shipment method.  USPS mail carriers deliver returns, as do common shipping companies such as UPS and Fed-ex, as well as common carriers such as ABF and Yellow freight.  It is highly unusual for the creditee to return credits with their own vehicles, however it does happen occasionally and it may depend on size of shipment, security and location. Is the shipment tracked and is the healthcare facility notified by the RD that the shipment has been received?  The RDs request and encourage the shippers to use track able methods and tamper evident devices.  However, unless the RD has supplied the shipping method, there is no way for the RD to control that process.    Do healthcare facilities notify the RD that a shipment has been sent? RDs often request notification, but do not always receive it.  A Return Authorization Form (RAF) is frequently required, but large shippers are either provided many RAFs or are able to create their own.  Controlled substances as regulated by the DEA are usually shipped under the specifications under the statute and regulation.  Notification is often dependant on the contractual agreements made between the shipper and the RD.
   2. Does the board of pharmacy require RDs to keep an inventory of everything received at an RD? Generally speaking yes, however these requirements vary greatly from state to state.  All controlled substances are required to be inventoried.  Some Over the Counter medications (OTCs) are required to be inventoried; again this will depend on the adoption of requirements by states.  Stericycle maintains an inventory of all processed items at a minimum for our records.
   3. Are controlled substances shipped separately from other pharmaceuticals?  Depends on the level of the controlled substance.  RDs encourage clients to separate the controlled substances, however again this is in the control of the shipper.  Schedule III, IV, and V are usually shipped together and frequently with non-scheduled items, however they must be properly identified.  Schedule II's are generally separated due to the additional requirements for tracking under DEA regulations. Can you explain more about the process of handling returned controlled substances?  First both the entity in possession of the controlled substance (CS) and the receiver of the CS must be registered with the DEA.  As a registrant, there are very specific protocols for tracking, handling, storage and securement of these materials.  For Schedule II CS the shipper must notify the RD in advance.  The RD then must create a Form 222 requesting the shipper to send specific quantities of specific NDC's.  The shipper communicates the quantities to the RD in advance.  The shipper does not need to ship everything identified on the Form 222 but must identify on the Form 222 what has been shipped.  The shipper may not ship any amount in excess of what is identified on the Form 222.  If there are excess amounts the RD is required to create another Form 222.  Each Form 222 may have up to 10 line items.  Each line item is for a specific drug in a specific dosage and presentation (NDC specific).  One return may have multiple Forms 222 associated with it.  Stericycle issues a unique RAF for each Form 222.  Each Form 222 must be verified to the item level usually requiring a pill count or liquid measurement for opened containers.  For Schedules III, IV, and V a Form 222 is not required.  A registrant must track inventory so usually there is an inventory with the shipment either physically or electronically and the inventory will be verified and discrepancies resolved.  Non scheduled items are managed in much the same way as credit is requested but not always required by regulation.
   4. Have there been incidences where shipments have been lost or stolen?  This happens but is rare.  Stericycle has procedures in place to verify shipments and reconcile inventories as part of our best management practices for all shipments we have pre-inventory for.  CSs have specific requirements and if necessary a Form 106 will be provided to the DEA describing missing or lost controlled substances.  In the event of any kind of diversion full cooperation is provided to law enforcement to prevent further diversion and retrieve any missing pharmaceuticals.  Controlled substances are highly desired and security measures are constantly evaluated and tested.

Waste Determination and Management
   1. What percentage of returned pharmaceuticals is typically RCRA hazardous waste once it is determined credit will or will not be given?  Approximately 5.5-6% Typically, do pharmaceuticals that meet RCRA's definition of a hazardous waste get credit?  Yes.  RCRA status has no effect on credit status.  Credit status is determined by manufacturer policy which is generally based on expiration date, order quantities, and other factors.  Do you ever manage non-hazardous pharmaceuticals as RCRA hazardous waste?  Occasionally.  For items that are hard to dispose of via non-RCRA incinerators or pose a health risk but are not RCRA, regulated hazardous waste incinerators may be utilized.  There may be some circumstances where the manufacturer dictates the final disposal method.
   2. Is the manufacturer always contacted prior to disposal of a creditable pharmaceutical?  Yes, based on the contracts Stericycle has with their clients.  Typically, the credit information is sent to the manufacturer for review prior to disposal.  Again, this may vary depending on contract.  For materials under a recall again it will be dictated by the client therefore those policies will be followed. For a non-creditable pharmaceutical?  If an item is presented for credit but will not receive credit then the manufacturer is still notified prior to disposal.  If an item is sent for disposal only, then there is no notification.  The generator may be notified if they present pharmaceuticals for disposal that are otherwise creditable.
   3. What percentage of returned pharmaceuticals is sent back to the manufacturer versus being disposed of directly by the RD?  This varies greatly and will be dependent on if the material is sent for credit versus recall.  Approximately 50% are sent back to the manufacturer or their designee.  In the cases where they are shipped to another RD then most of the material is ultimately destroyed.  It is rare that Stericycle is requested to keep the material when it is anything other than for a recall.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 41 (Friday, March 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13844-13853]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04794]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 201

[Docket ID: FEMA-2012-0001]
RIN 1660-AA77

Change in Submission Requirements for State Mitigation Plans

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule revises the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Mitigation Planning regulations in order to reduce the
frequency of Standard State and Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates
by extending the update requirement from 3 to 5 years.

DATES: Comment on the proposed rule, including the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection, is due on or before April 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID: FEMA-2012-
0001, by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of
Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. All
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For

instructions on submitting comments, see the Public Participation
portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Sharrocks, Branch Chief,
Assessment and Planning Branch, Risk Analysis Division, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, DHS/FEMA, 1800 South Bell
Street, Arlington, VA 20598-3030. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Facsimile:
(202) 646-2787. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DMA 2000 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance
HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
IFR Interim Final Rule
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
RFC Repetitive Flood Claims
RIN Regulatory Identifier Number
Stafford Act Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, as amended
SRL Severe Repetitive Loss

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation
    A. Privacy Act
    B. Submission of Sensitive Information
    C. Public Meeting
    D. Public Input
II. Background
    A. Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
    B. Hazard Mitigation Assistance
    C. Regulatory History
    D. Discussion of the NPRM
    E. Stakeholder Involvement
    F. Proposed Revisions
    G. Implementation
III. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
    E. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
    F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    H. Executive Order 12630, Taking of Private Property
    I. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice
    J. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
    K. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    L. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management

I. Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Comments that will provide the
most assistance to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in
developing this rule will refer to a specific provision of the NPRM,
explain the reason for any comments, and include other information or
authority that supports such comments. All comments received will be
posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have provided. If you submit a comment,
please include the Docket ID for this rulemaking, FEMA-2012-0001,
indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

A. Privacy Act

    Please be aware that anyone is able to search the electronic form
of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual who submitted the comment (or signed the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may want to review the Federal Docket Management System system of
records notice published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2005 (70
FR 15086).

B. Submission of Sensitive Information

    Do not submit comments that include trade secrets, confidential
commercial or financial information to the public regulatory docket.
Please submit such comments separately from other comments on the rule.
Comments containing this type of information should be appropriately
marked as containing such information and submitted by mail to the
address specified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM. If FEMA
receives a request to examine or copy this information, FEMA will treat
it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5
U.S.C. 552, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)'s FOIA
regulation found in 6 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 5 and
FEMA's regulations found in 44 CFR part 5.

C. Public Meeting

    FEMA does not plan to hold a public meeting on this NPRM, but you
may submit a request for one at the address specified in the ADDRESSES
section of this NPRM explaining why one would be beneficial. If FEMA
determines that a public meeting would aid this rulemaking, FEMA will
hold one at a time and place announced by a notice in the Federal
Register.

D. Public Input

    FEMA welcomes comments on all aspects of the regulatory analysis;
particularly comments regarding the cost and benefit estimates of this
rulemaking, as well as the assumptions used to derive those estimates.
Comments that would be most useful are those that include supporting
data and/or provide suggestions that decrease cost or increase
benefits, while still obtaining State Mitigation Planning objectives.

II. Background

    Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or
eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards
and their effects. The purpose of hazard mitigation planning is to
identify policies and actions that can be implemented over the long-
term to reduce risk and future losses. Mitigation plans form the
foundation for a community's long-term strategy to reduce disaster
losses and break the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and
repeated damage. The planning process is as important as the plan
itself. It creates a framework for risk-based decision making to reduce
damage to lives, property, and the economy from future disasters.
State, Tribal, and local governments benefit from mitigation planning
by identifying publicly-accepted cost-effective actions for risk
reduction, focusing resources on the greatest risks and
vulnerabilities, and building partnerships by involving people,
organizations, and businesses. The planning process, and mitigation
plans, foster education and awareness of hazards and risk, communicate
priorities to state and Federal officials, and align risk reduction
with other community objectives, such as community development. State,
Tribal, and local governments are required to develop a hazard
mitigation plan as a condition for receiving certain types of Federal
non-emergency disaster assistance.

A. Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000

    The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), Public Law 106-390,
114 Stat. 1552, amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) and provided an opportunity for
States, Tribes, and local governments to take a new and revitalized
approach to mitigation planning. Section 104 of DMA 2000 continued the
requirement for a State mitigation plan as a condition of non-emergency
disaster assistance, and created incentives for increased coordination
and integration of mitigation activities at the State level. DMA 2000
repealed Section 409 of the Stafford Act, which required mitigation
plans and the use of minimum standards, and replaced it with two
separate sections of the law: Mitigation planning in section 322
(codified at 42 U.S.C. 5165), and minimum codes and standards in
section 323 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 5165a). FEMA previously implemented
section 409 through 44 CFR part 206, Subpart M. The DMA 2000 planning
requirements were placed in 44 CFR part 201 to reflect the broader
relevance of planning to all FEMA mitigation programs, while the
minimum standards remained in 44 CFR part 206, Subpart M.
    Section 104 of DMA 2000 and FEMA's implementing regulations
emphasize the need for State, Tribal, and local entities to closely
coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. The planning
process provides a link between State, Tribal and local mitigation
programs. Both State level and local plans should incorporate
mitigation implementation strategies and sustainable recovery actions.
FEMA also recognizes that governments are involved in a range of
planning activities and that mitigation plans may be linked to or
reference hazardous materials and other non-natural hazard plans.
Improved mitigation planning will result in a better understanding of
risks and vulnerabilities, as well as expedite implementation of
measures and activities to reduce those risks, both pre- and post-
disaster.
    DMA 2000 included a provision for increased Federal funding for
hazard mitigation measures for States with approved mitigation plans.
42 U.S.C. 5165(e). FEMA implemented this provision through development
of a new two-tiered State mitigation plan process: Standard State
Mitigation Plans, which allow a State to receive Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP) funding ranging from 7.5 to 15 percent of disaster
grants awarded by FEMA, depending on the total estimated eligible
Stafford Act disaster assistance, and Enhanced State Mitigation Plans,
which allow a State to receive HMGP funds based on 20 percent of the
total estimated eligible Stafford Act disaster assistance. 44 CFR
201.5. Enhanced State Mitigation Plans must meet the requirements for
Standard State Mitigation Plans at 44 CFR 201.4 and must also
demonstrate that the State has developed a comprehensive mitigation
program, that it effectively uses available mitigation funding, and
that it is capable of managing the increased funding.

B. Hazard Mitigation Assistance

    FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs provide
funding for eligible mitigation activities that reduce disaster losses
and protect life and property from future disaster damages. Currently,
FEMA administers the following HMA grant programs:
     Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) assists in
implementing long-term hazard mitigation measures following
Presidential disaster declarations. Funding is available to implement
projects in accordance with State, Tribal, and local priorities. HMGP
grants may fund the updating of mitigation plans.
     Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) provides funds on an annual
basis for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of
mitigation projects prior to a disaster. The goal of the PDM program is
to reduce overall risk to the population and structures, while at the
same time reducing reliance on Federal funding from actual disaster
declarations. PDM grants may fund the updating of mitigation plans.
     Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) provides funds on an
annual basis so that measures can be taken to reduce or eliminate risk
of flood damage to buildings insured under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). FMA grants may fund the updating of mitigation plans.
     Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) provides funds on an annual
basis to reduce the risk of flood damage to individual properties
insured under the NFIP that have had one or more claim payments for
flood damages.
     Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) provides funds on an annual
basis to reduce the risk of flood damage to residential structures
insured under the NFIP that are qualified as SRL structures.

FEMA's HMA grants are provided to eligible applicants (States/Tribes/
Territories) that, in turn, provide subgrants to local governments and
other eligible entities. Subgrantees may be a State agency, local
government, private nonprofit organization (for HMGP only), or Indian
Tribal government. Indian Tribal governments acting as a subgrantee are
accountable to the State grantee. The applicant selects and prioritizes
subapplications developed and submitted to them by subapplicants. These
subapplications are submitted to FEMA for consideration of funding.
    Under FEMA's mitigation grant programs there is a standard cost
share formula in which the Federal government provides 75 percent of
the project cost and the State or subgrantee provides 25 percent. In
general, hazard mitigation assistance is restricted to a percentage of
total Federal contributions for a major disaster, which currently
ranges from 7.5 to 15 percent depending on the estimated aggregate
amount of Federal grants for that disaster. 42 U.S.C. 5170c(a). Indian
Tribal governments that meet the requirments for Enhanced State
Mitigation Plans may also be considered for increased HMGP funding. 44
CFR 201.3(e)(3).

C. Regulatory History

    FEMA's February 26, 2002 Interim Final Rule (IFR), entitled
``Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program,'' 67
FR 8844, implemented section 322 of the Stafford Act by adding a new
part 201 to 44 CFR. The IFR discontinued the requirement under former
section 409 of the Stafford Act that States revise their mitigation
plan after every disaster declaration, but included the requirement
that Standard State Mitigation Plans had to be updated by November 1,
2003 \1\ and resubmitted to the appropriate Regional Director for
approval every 3 years from the date of the approval of the previous
plan in order to continue program eligibility. Additionally, the IFR
provided criteria for Enhanced State Mitigation Plans and required that
for States to be eligible for the 20 percent HMGP funding, the Enhanced
State Mitigation Plan must be approved by FEMA within the 3 years prior
to the current major disaster declaration, and resubmitted for approval
every three years. On October 31, 2007, FEMA published a Final Rule
adopting, without substantive changes, the requirements for hazard
mitigation

planning pursuant to section 322 of the Stafford Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An October 1, 2002 revision changed the date by which the
Standard State Mitigation Plans had to be updated from November 1,
2003 to November 1, 2004. 67 FR 61512. A subsequent revision on
September 13, 2004 provided for a 6 month extension, up to May 1,
2005, at the request of the Governor or Indian Tribal leader. 69 FR
55094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 displays the regulatory history for the mitigation planning
requirements listed in Sec. Sec.  201.3-201.5 for the Standard and
Enhanced State Mitigation Plan reporting requirements. Currently, these
Plans have to be updated every 3 years.

                                                                         Table 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Federal Register      Effect on Sec.  Sec.   Changes to state mitigation
                RIN                          Action               Date              citation          201.3, 201.4, & 201.5       plan  requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3067-AD22..........................  IFR...................         2/26/02  67 FR 8844............  Added Sec.  Sec.        States must have approved
                                                                                201.3, 201.4, & 201.5.  Standard State Mitigation
                                                                                Plan by November 1, 2003
                                                                                and every 3 years from the
                                                                                date of the approval of
                                                                                the previous plan.
                                                                                Enhanced State Mitigation
                                                                                Plans resubmitted to the
                                                                                appropriate Regional
                                                                                Director every 3 years.
                                                                                For State to be eligible
                                                                                for 20 percent HMGP
                                                                                funding, the Enhanced
                                                                                State Mitigation plan must
                                                                                be approved by FEMA within
                                                                                the 3 years prior to
                                                                                current major disaster
                                                                                declaration.
3067-AD22..........................  IFR...................         10/1/02  67 FR 61512...........  Revised Sec.  Sec.      Changed the requirement to
                                                                                201.3 and 201.4.        update the Standard State
                                                                                Mitigation Plan to
                                                                                November 1, 2004.
1660-AA17 \2\......................  IFR...................         9/13/04  69 FR 55094...........  Added Sec.              Allowed a 6 month extension
                                                                                201.3(c)(7) & Revised   to the deadline for the
                                                                                Sec.   201.4.           Standard State Mitigation
                                                                                Plan, up to May 1, 2005.
1660-AA17..........................  Final Rule............        10/31/07  72 FR 61552...........  Finalized Part 201....  Corrected a typographical
                                                                                error in Sec.
                                                                                201.4(c)(2)(ii).
1660-AA36..........................  IFR...................        10/31/07  72 FR 61720...........  Revised Sec.   201.3..  Removed references to
                                                                                November 1, 2004 deadline
                                                                                and made technical
                                                                                corrections.
1660-AA36..........................  Final Rule............         9/16/09  74 FR 47471...........  Finalized Sec.   201.3  No changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \2\ The RIN changed from 3067-AD22 to 1660-AA17 as a result of
FEMA becoming a component of the Department of Homeland Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Discussion of the NPRM

    Currently, under the mitigation planning regulations found at 44
CFR Part 201, State Mitigation Plans (Standard and Enhanced) are
required to be updated every 3 years as a condition of receiving non-
emergency Stafford Act assistance and FEMA mitigation grants. This
proposed rule would reduce the frequency of Standard State and Enhanced
State Mitigation Plan updates by extending the update requirement from
3 to 5 years.
    The purpose of mitigation planning is to develop and maintain a
continuous process leading to implementation of actions that reduce the
Nation's losses from future natural disasters and promote more
resilient communities, thus reducing disaster response and recovery
costs. Mitigation planning may differ from other types of planning in
that this inclusive process is designed to encourage coordination with
other agencies, stakeholders, programs, and initiatives. Further, in
order to be effective, plans must be relevant. Therefore, Sec.
201.4(d) requires that mitigation plans be reviewed and revised to
reflect changes in development, progress in statewide mitigation
efforts, and changes in priorities.
    Mitigation planning is a continuous process of engaging
stakeholders, identifying hazards as conditions may change, assessing
risk and vulnerabilities as development patterns may change, and
developing a strategy that can be implemented using available
resources, programs, and initiatives based on current priorities. The
outcome of the mitigation planning process is implementation of
mitigation actions that reduce vulnerabilities identified in the risk
assessment.
    As stated in the planning regulations at Sec.  201.4(a), the
mitigation plan is the demonstration of the State's commitment to
reduce risks from natural hazards and serves as a guide for State
decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of
natural hazards. In addition, per Sec.  201.4(c)(4)(i), States have the
responsibility to support, through funding and technical assistance,
the development of Local Mitigation Plans. Through mitigation planning,
States build partnerships as well as capacity to increase resilience
and reduce the Nation's risk to natural hazards.
    As mitigation planning is a performance-based approach rather than
prescriptive, there is a wide range in the level of effort invested to
meet the minimum requirements for FEMA approval. This performance-based
approach allows State, local, and Tribal governments the ability to
tailor mitigation strategies and actions to meet specific risks and
vulnerabilities identified through risk assessments. In many instances,
mitigation plan updates provide opportunities for State, local, and
Tribal governments not only to verify that the plans are still
relevant, but also to strengthen and improve mitigation strategies and
specific actions to reduce risk and improve resilience.
    FEMA proposes the change in the frequency of the update requirement
for several reasons. First, the proposed reduction in update frequency
will reduce the regulatory burden on States and those Indian Tribal
governments that may choose to develop Enhanced Plans, as well as on
FEMA. Second, aligning the update frequency with local and Tribal
update requirements may foster closer coordination of mitigation
planning and implementation efforts. Third, by relieving the regulatory
burden imposed from the frequency of State plan updates, States and
FEMA may be able to shift resources from the update and review cycle to
other mitigation planning activities, such as increased delivery of
training and technical assistance to support Local

and Tribal Mitigation Planning, and to implementing additional
mitigation actions identified through the planning process.

E. Stakeholder Involvement

    Since 2008, stakeholders, such as the National Emergency Management
Association (NEMA), have voiced concerns to FEMA about the frequency of
the update requirement for State Mitigation Plans. For example, the
NEMA Mitigation Committee prepared a position paper, dated September 8,
2008, stating that the

disparity between update cycles of [S]tate and local-[T]ribal plans
creates an undue hardship on a number of [S]tates with limited
staffing or that have experienced multiple disasters within a plan
lifecycle. These [S]tates feel compelled to begin the plan review
and update process immediately after their plan was reapproved.

This position paper included a recommendation to support

a revision to 44 CFR Part 201 to extend State Hazard Mitigation
Plans revision and revision requirements, and FEMA review of [S]tate
mitigation activities, from [3] years to [5] years to match the
review cycles for local and [T]ribal hazard mitigation plans.

    In 2011, DHS received public comments on the mitigation planning
regulations in response to a Federal Register notice published as part
of a retrospective review of its regulations. According to the final
report titled ``Final Plan for the Retrospective Review of Existing
Regulations'' dated August 22, 2011 (See page 16),

DHS received a comment (the top-voted comment mentioned above)
recommending that DHS change the current FEMA State Standard and
Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan update requirement from every [3]
years to every [5] years so that it is consistent with current Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan update requirements. Commenters asserted that
[5] years would be an appropriate timeframe for [S]tate mitigation
plan updates for both efficiency and resource-limitation reasons.

    As part of the review, DHS determined that FEMA will consider
possible changes to the mitigation planning regulations as part of a
long-term retrospective review over the next 3 years. The ``Final Plan
for the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations'' is available at
the following link: https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-ogc-final-retrospective-review-plan-8-22-11-final.pdf.
    On November 8, 2011, 23 Members of Congress sent a letter to FEMA
Administrator Fugate requesting that FEMA

alter its regulations under 44 CFR Part 201 and extend to [5] years
the cycle by which State Hazard Mitigation Plans must be submitted.
The existing [3]-year time frame for FEMA to review and approve new
mitigation plans has become increasingly burdensome for many [S]tate
planning offices.

The letter further stated that

[t]he shorter cycle creates an undue hardship on [S]tates with
limited staffing or those that have experienced multiple disasters
within a plan lifecycle. In order to prevent a disqualifying lapse,
these [S]tates are compelled to restart the process immediately
following the approval of the previous plan.

Finally, the letter closed by stating

[m]aintaining high quality up-to-date mitigation plans is a critical
component of our national disaster response plan. Extending the
update cycle to [5] years would ensure that our [S]tate planning
offices can complete this vital task, along with their other duties,
while maximizing available resources.

    The 23 Members of Congress asked FEMA to amend 44 CFR Part 201 to
accommodate this change.

F. Proposed Revisions

    FEMA proposes to amend Sec. Sec.  201.3-201.5, based on the reasons
listed earlier in this preamble and to address the comments it has
received from stakeholders. Every reference to FEMA Standard State and
Enhanced State Mitigation Plan update requirements would be changed
from 3 years to 5 years, so that it is consistent with current Local
and Tribal Mitigation Plan update requirements. Based on stakeholder
input received to date, FEMA is proposing that 5 years would be an
appropriate timeframe for Standard State and Enhanced State Mitigation
Plan updates.

G. Implementation

    If the proposed revisions are adopted, the Standard State
Mitigation Plan and the Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates would be
due 5 years from the date of the approval of the previous plan.

III. Regulatory Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    FEMA has prepared and reviewed this rule under the provisions of
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
Oct. 4, 1993) as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011). This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This portion of the preamble summarizes FEMA's analysis of the
economic impacts of this proposed rule. However, readers seeking
greater detail are encouraged to read the full regulatory evaluation, a
copy of which FEMA has placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting the aforementioned analyses, FEMA has determined that
the proposed rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not
an economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and (4)
would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal
governments, or on the private sector by exceeding $100 million or more
annually (adjusted for inflation with a base year of 1995). These
analyses are summarized below.
Who Is Potentially Affected by This Rule
    The proposed rule would affect States \3\ that choose to submit
updated Standard State Mitigation Plans or Enhanced State Mitigation
Plans to FEMA for approval, and Indian Tribal governments that choose
to meet the requirements for Enhanced State Mitigation Plans in order
to qualify for increased HMGP funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined by section 102 of the Stafford Act, ``State''
means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 42 U.S.C. 5122 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Savings to Society of This Rule
    The cost to update a State's Mitigation Plan is unique to that
respective State. However, for the purposes of this analysis, FEMA
estimates an average Standarad State Mitigation Plan update unit cost
of $205,000 and an Enhanced State Mitigation Plan update unit cost of
$524,000. FEMA also assumes that 46 States would submit Standard State
Mitigation Plans and 10 States would submit Enhanced State Mitigation
Plans.
    FEMA would also incur costs to review State Mitigation Plans. FEMA
estimates that a General Schedule 13, Step 1, Federal employee, at a
fully loaded wage of $48.08 ($34.34 * 1.4 = $48.076) would spend 120
hours reviewing a Standard or Enhanced State Mitigation Plan. The
resulting FEMA review cost per plan is $5,770 (120 hours * $48.08 per
hour = $5,769.60).
    Therefore, the cost of State Mitigation Plan updates in a given
year, where all

updates are submitted, is approximately $15 million (($205,000 +
$5,770) * 46 + ($524,000 + $5,770) * 10 = $14,993,120). The extension
of the State Mitigation Plan update frequency from 3 to 5 years would
reduce the number of State Mitigation Plan updates submitted by 2 over
15 years. The resulting undiscounted total cost savings is
approximately $30 million over 15 years ($14,993,120 * 2 =
$29,986,240); or, $18.8 million total cost savings over 15 years if
discounted at 7 percent. The annual impact of this proposed rule is
approximately $2 million undiscounted ($29,986,240 / 15 = $1,999,083).
Benefits of This Rule
    The proposed rule would provide a number of unquantified benefits
including aligning the State Mitigation Plan update cycle with the
Local and Tribal Mitigation Plan update cycle and providing greater
flexibility for States to submit their State Mitigation Plan updates.
The proposed rule would also provide an opportunity for States to apply
cost savings from the reduction in State Mitigation Plan update
frequency to other means of increasing resilience and reducing the
Nation's risk to natural hazards.
Significance Determination
    Under Executive Order 12866, a significant regulatory action is
subject to the OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order.
The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    The rule is estimated to have a net quantified undiscounted savings
to society of approximately $30 million over 15 years. The annual
impact of this rule is an estimated net quantified savings to society
of approximately $2 million undiscounted ($1,999,083). As such, this
rule is not an economically significant regulatory action and has not
been reviewed by OMB.
Retrospective Review
    To facilitate the periodic review of existing significant
regulations, Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to consider how
best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded,
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify,
streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been
learned. The Executive Order requires agencies to issue a retrospective
review plan, consistent with law and the agency's resources and
regulatory priorities, under which the agency will periodically review
its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such
regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so
as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less
burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.
    The Department of Homeland Security issued its ``Final Plan for the
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations'' (Plan) on August 22,
2011. The Plan can be viewed at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-ogc-final-retrospective-review-plan-8-22-11-final.pdf. This rule was
included in the Plan as a long-term retrospective review candidate,
meaning the agency would undertake retrospective review of the
regulation within 3 years of the date of the Plan. The Plan stated that
FEMA would consider whether it would be more efficient to extend the
review period to 5 years for each of the plans as requested by public
commenters. Review of FEMA's existing Mitigation Plan regulations
revealed the potential for State cost savings, approximately $30
million over 15 years, as well as other benefits. Therefore, FEMA is
proposing to extend the State Mitigation Plan minimum update frequency
from 3 to 5 years.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), FEMA
evaluated and considered whether this rule would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term
``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
    As the proposed rule would not result in additional costs, FEMA
does not anticipate that the rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, FEMA invites
comments on this initial determination.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 109
Stat. 48 (Mar. 22, 1995) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), requires Federal
agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory
actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal
government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000
or more in any one year. As the proposed rule would not have an impact
greater than $100,000,000 or more in any one year, it is not an
unfunded Federal mandate.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163, (May 22, 1995) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of
information displays a valid control number.
    In this NPRM, FEMA is seeking a revision to the already existing
collection of information identified as OMB Control Number 1660-0062,
and withdraws the previous Federal Register notice regarding this
information collection which published on February 24, 2012 (77 FR
11142). This revision reflects the reduction in the annual cost burden
to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the proposed rule, as
well as refinements to current estimates in 1660-0062 based on changes
to the way cost burden is reported under the PRA. Annual cost burden
was previously derived from multiplying total annual burden hours,
based on subject matter expert average hour estimates per mitigation
plan, by the associated wage rates. However, FEMA has refined how it
calculates annual costs and now uses cost estimates based on historical
mitigation plan grant data, which includes contract support and other
associated costs. This NPRM serves as the 60-day comment period for
this proposed change pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. FEMA invites the
general public to comment on the proposed collection of information.
Collection of Information
    Title: State/Local/Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plans.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0062.

    Form Titles and Numbers: None.
    Abstract: The purpose of State, Local, and Tribal Hazard Mitigation
Plan requirements is to support the administration of FEMA Mitigation
grant programs, and a significant State, local, and Tribal commitment
to mitigation activities, comprehensive mitigation planning, and strong
program management. Implementation of planned, pre-identified cost-
effective mitigation measures will streamline the disaster recovery
process. Mitigation plans are the demonstration of the goals and
prioritization to reduce risks from natural hazards. This proposed rule
revises FEMA Mitigation Planning regulations in order to reduce the
frequency of Standard State and Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates
by extending the update requirement from 3 to 5 years. This reduction
in frequency will result in a reduction of 8,899 hours in the burden
hours on the public and a $1,350,580 reduction in the annual cost
burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of
information. Due to the change in reporting methods described above,
the base line numbers have changed, resulting in an overall increase in
the estimated total annual cost. This impact is separate from the
effect of the proposed rule.
    Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56 States submit State Mitigation
Plan updates to FEMA. In addition, those 56 States also review and
submit Local and Tribal Mitigation Plans and plan updates to FEMA.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 227,366 hours.
    The previously approved Total Annual Burden Hours was 768,320
hours. Based on adjustments to how this burden was estimated (see
Information Collection Request for details) and the proposed rule's
reduction in burden, the new estimated Total Annual Burden Hours is
227,366 hours. This is a decrease of 540,954 hours, of which
approximately 8,899 hours are attributed to the change in State
Mitigation Plan update frequency. However, some of the burden hours
previously accounted for likely reflected some of the costs, including
contract support, now included in the separately-reported categories
under total annual cost burden.
    Table 3 provides estimates of annualized cost to respondents for
the hour burdens for the collection of information.

                                                                         Table 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Number of
                                                                             responses      Total      Avg burden     Total      Avg hourly     Total
         Type of respondent            Form name/form number   Number of        per       number of       per         annual     wage rate      annual
                                                              respondents   respondent    responses     response      burden        \3\       respondent
                                                                                \1\          \2\        (hours)      (hours)                   cost \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local or Tribal Government..........  New Local and Tribal             56           5            280          289       80,920       $45.33   $3,668,104
                                       Plans.
Local or Tribal Government..........  Local and Tribal Plan            56           9            504          249      125,496        45.33    5,688,734
                                       Updates.
State Government....................  State Review of Local            56          14            784            8        6,272        45.33      284,310
                                       and Tribal Plans.
State Government....................  Standard State Plan              46           0.2            9        1,040        9,360        45.33      424,289
                                       Updates.
State Government....................  Enhanced State Plan              10           0.2            2        2,659        5,318        45.33      241,065
                                       Updates.
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................  ......................           56  ............        1,579  ...........      227,366  ...........   10,306,502
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standard State Plan Updates and Enhanced State Plan Updates Number of Responses per Respondent represents an annual average over 5 years (1 plan
  update/5 years = 0.2).
\2\ Standard State Plan Updates Total Number of Responses is rounded to the nearest plan.
\3\ The ``Avg. Hourly Wage Rate'' for each respondent includes a 1.4 multiplier to reflect a loaded wage rate and rounded to the nearest cent.
\4\ Rounded to the nearest dollar.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $33,532,730.
    The previously approved Total Annual Cost was $33,452,652. Based on
adjustments to how this cost was estimated (see Information Collection
Request for details) and the proposed rule's reduction in cost, the new
estimated Total Annual Cost is $33,532,730. This is an increase of
$80,078. This includes a $1,350,580 reduction in cost attributed to the
change in State Mitigation Plan update frequency.
    Table 4 provides estimates of total annual cost burden to
respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of
information.

                                                     Table 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 *Annual
                                           *Annual capital   operations and   Annual non-labor
                                            start-up cost   maintenance cost        cost
                                           (investments in       (such as     (expenditures on    Total annual
   Data collection activity/instrument        overhead,      recordkeeping,   training, travel       cost to
                                            equipment and      technical/         and other        respondents
                                           other one-time     professional       resources)
                                            expenditures)    services, etc.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of New Local and Tribal            $12,289,200  ................  ................       $12,289,200
 Plans..................................
Local and Tribal Plan Updates...........  ................       $16,299,360        $2,716,560        19,015,920
State Review of Local and Tribal Plans..  ................  ................  ................                 0
Standard State Mitigation Plan Updates..  ................         1,217,700           202,950         1,420,650
Enhanced State Mitigation Plan Updates..  ................           691,680           115,280           806,960
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................        12,289,200        18,208,740         3,034,790        33,532,730
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall Estimated Total Cost: $43,839,232.
    The overall estimated cost of this collection is $43,839,232
($10,306,502 + $33,532,730). This is an increase of $10,386,580
($33,452,652-$43,839,232) from the currently approved OMB inventory.
Comments
    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

E. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969

    Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) requires agencies to consider the impacts in their decision-
making on the quality of the human environment. The Council on
Environmental Quality's procedures for implementing NEPA, 40 CFR 1500
through 1508, require Federal agencies to prepare Environmental Impact
Statements (EIS) for major federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. Each agency can develop categorical
exclusions to cover actions that typically do not trigger significant
impacts to the human environment individually or cumulatively. Agencies
develop environmental assessments (EA) to evaluate those actions that
do not fit an agency's categorical exclusion and for which the need for
an EIS is not readily apparent. At the end of the EA process the agency
will determine whether to make a Finding of No Significant Impact or
whether to initiate the EIS process.
    Rulemaking is a major federal action subject to NEPA. The List of
exclusion categories at 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii) excludes the preparation,
revision, and adoption of regulations from the preparation of an EA or
EIS, where the rule relates to actions that qualify for categorical
exclusions. The development of plans under 44 CFR Part 201 is
categorically excluded under 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(iii) and (xviii)(E). No
extraordinary circumstances exist that would trigger the need to
develop an EA or EIS. See 44 CFR 10.8(d)(3). An EA will not be prepared
because a categorical exclusion applies to this rulemaking action and
no extraordinary circumstances exist.

F. 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 proposed rule would revise FEMA's Mitigation Planning
regulations in order to reduce the frequency of Standard State and
Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates from 3 to 5 years. Tribal
Mitigation Plan updates are already required every 5 years; however, in
accordance with 44 CFR 201.3(e)(3), Indian Tribal governments are
potentially eligible to act as grantee and qualify for increased HMGP
funding by submitting an Enhanced Mitigation Plan. Under the current
regulations, Indian Tribal governments that wish to submit an Enhanced
Mitigation plan are required to update that plan every 3 years; the
proposed rule would reduce that frequency to every 5 years. For these
reasons, this rule may have ``tribal implications'' as defined in the
Executive Order. Submission of the plan, however, is voluntary, and
changing the frequency of the plan from 3 to 5 years will not impose
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments. Therefore, FEMA
finds that this proposed rule complies with Executive Order 13175.

G. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), if it has a substantial
direct effect 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. FEMA has
analyzed this NPRM under the Executive Order and determined that it
does not have implications for federalism.
    This proposed rule would revise FEMA's Mitigation Planning
regulations in order to reduce the frequency of Standard State and
Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates, extending the update
requirement from 3 to 5 years. As stated under the Stakeholder
Involvement heading, FEMA has received substantial input requesting
that FEMA change its Mitigation Planning regulations to reduce the
frequency of Standard State and Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates.
Some of those requests have come from State officials.
    The Standard State and Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates are
voluntarily submitted by States. Per DMA 2000, Mitigation Plans are a
condition of receipt of increased Federal funding for hazard mitigation
measures. If a State chooses not to comply with the regulations in 44
CFR Part 201, it still would be eligible for limited emergency
assistance under the Stafford Act. (See 42 U.S.C. 5170a, 5170b, 5173,
5174, 5177, 5179, 5180, 5182, 5183, 5184, and 5192).

H. Executive Order 12630, Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' (53 FR 8859, Mar. 18, 1988).

I. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice

    Under Executive Order 12898, as amended, ``Federal Actions To
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994), FEMA incorporates
environmental justice into its policies and programs. Executive Order
12898 requires each Federal agency to conduct its programs, policies,
and activities that substantially affect human health or the

environment, in a manner that ensures that those programs, policies,
and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from
participation in, denying persons the benefit of, or subjecting persons
to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin or
income level.
    This rule relates to the implementation of section 322 of the
Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5165). Section 322 focuses specifically on
mitigation planning to identify the natural hazards, risks, and
vulnerabilities of areas in States, localities, and Tribal areas;
development of Local Mitigation Plans; technical assistance to local
and Tribal governments for mitigation planning; and identifying and
prioritizing mitigation actions that the State will support as
resources become available. The proposed reduction in burden from the
update frequency may allow States to focus on implementing additional
mitigation actions identified through the planning process as a means
to increase resilience and reduce the Nation's risk to natural hazards;
thereby also protecting human lives and the environment. No action that
FEMA can anticipate under this rule will have a disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effect on any segment of the
population.

J. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This NPRM meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729, Feb. 7,
1996), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

K. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This NPRM will not create environmental health risks or safety
risks for children under Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, Apr. 23, 1997).

L. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management

    FEMA has prepared and reviewed this rule under the provisions of
Executive Order 11988, as amended, ``Floodplain Management'' (42 FR
26951, May 25, 1977). The regulations at 44 CFR Part 9 set forth FEMA's
policy, procedures, and responsibilities in implementing this Executive
Order. In summary, these are, to the greatest possible degree: To avoid
long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and
modification of floodplains; avoid direct and indirect support of
floodplain development whenever there is a practical alternative;
reduce the risk of flood loss; promote the use of nonstructural flood
protection methods to reduce the risk of flood loss; minimize the
impacts of floods on human health, safety and welfare; restore and
preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains; and
adhere to the objectives of the Unified National Program for Floodplain
Management.
    As stated in the preamble, the planning process provides a link
between State, Tribal and and local mitigation programs. Both State
level and local plans should address strategies for incorporating post-
disaster early mitigation implementation strategies and sustainable
recovery actions. FEMA also recognizes that governments are involved in
a range of planning activities and that mitigation plans may be linked
to or reference comprehensive plans, land use plans, master plans, and
other non-natural hazard plans. Improved mitigation planning will
result in a better understanding of risks and vulnerabilities, as well
as expediting implementation of measures and activities to reduce those
risks, both pre- and post-disaster. This proposed rule revises FEMA's
Mitigation Planning regulations in order to reduce the frequency of
Standard State and Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates, extending
the update requirement from 3 to 5 years. The proposed change aligns
the State update requirements with Local and Tribal Mitigation Plan
update requirements, which does not conflict with the intent of the
Executive Order.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 201

    Administrative practice and procedure, Disaster assistance, Grant
programs, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FEMA proposes to amend
44 CFR part 201, as follows:

PART 201--MITIGATION PLANNING

0
1. The authority citation for Part 201 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 through 5207; Reorganization Plan No.
3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; Homeland Security
Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 101; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979
Comp., p. 376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 43239, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 412;
E.O. 13286, 68 FR 10619, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 166.

0
2. In Sec.  201.3, revise paragraphs (b)(5), (c)(2), and (c)(3), and
the second sentence of paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  201.3  Responsibilities.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Conduct reviews, at least once every 5 years, of State
mitigation activities, plans, and programs to ensure that mitigation
commitments are fulfilled, and when necessary, take action, including
recovery of funds or denial of future funds, if mitigation commitments
are not fulfilled.
    (c) * * *
    (2) In order to be considered for the 20 percent HMGP funding,
prepare and submit an Enhanced State Mitigation Plan in accordance with
Sec.  201.5, which must be reviewed and updated, if necessary, every 5
years from the date of the approval of the previous plan.
    (3) At a minimum, review and update the Standard State Mitigation
Plan every 5 years from the date of the approval of the previous plan
in order to continue program eligibility.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * * The plan must be reviewed and updated at least every 5
years from the date of approval of the previous plan.
0
3. In Sec.  201.4, revise the first sentence of paragraph (d) to read
as follows:

Sec.  201.4  Standard State Mitigation Plans.

* * * * *
    (d) * * * Plan must be reviewed and revised to reflect changes in
development, progress in statewide mitigation efforts, and changes in
priorities and resubmitted for approval to the appropriate Regional
Administrator every 5 years. * * *
0
4. In Sec.  201.5, revise the third sentence of paragraph (a), revise
the first sentence of paragraph (c)(1), and revise paragraph (c)(2) to
read as follows:

Sec.  201.5  Enhanced State Mitigation Plans.

    (a) * * * In order for the State to be eligible for the 20 percent
HMGP funding, FEMA must have approved the plan within 5 years prior to
the disaster declaration.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) A State must review and revise its plan to reflect changes in
development, progress in statewide mitigation efforts, and changes in
priorities, and resubmit it for approval to the appropriate Regional
Administrator every 5 years. * * *
    (2) In order for a State to be eligible for the 20 percent HMGP
funding, the Enhanced State Mitigation plan must be approved by FEMA
within the 5 years

prior to the current major disaster declaration.

    Dated: February 22, 2013.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-04794 Filed 2-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-66-P