[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 80 (Friday, April 25, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22873-22883]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09461]

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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This Final Rule revises the Federal Emergency Management
Agency

(FEMA) regulations by changing submission requirements for State
Mitigation Plans. This Final Rule reduces the frequency by which States
must submit updates to FEMA on their State Mitigation Plans.
Previously, these entities prepared and submitted updates with FEMA for
review and approval every 3 years. Now, these entities will prepare and
submit updates with FEMA for review and approval every 5 years.

DATES: Effective May 27, 2014. Comments regarding the information
collection must be submitted on or before May 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials are available online by going
to www.regulations.gov, and inserting FEMA-2012-0001 in the ``Search''
box, and then clicking ``Search''.
    Submit written comments on the information collection to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.
Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via
electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to (202) 395-
5806.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Bellomo, Division Director, Risk
Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
DHS/FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-3030. Phone:
(202) 646-2903. Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Abbreviations

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

Table of Contents

I. Basis and Purpose
II. Background
    A. Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
    B. Hazard Mitigation Assistance
    C. Regulatory History
    D. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule
    E. 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
    M. Congressional Review Act

I. Basis and Purpose

    This Final Rule will change the frequency of State Mitigation Plan
updates, by extending the update requirement for States from every 3
years to every 5 years. Currently, State, Tribal, and Local Mitigation
Plans submissions are on different schedules: Tribal and local
governments submit Mitigation Plan updates to FEMA every 5 years, while
States submit their mitigation plan updates--both the Standard and the
Enhanced Mitigation Plan \1\ updates--to FEMA every 3 years.\2\ The
Final Rule will put all State, Local, and Tribal Mitigation Plan
updates on the same schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ State Mitigation Plans are divided into tiers: Standard
State Mitigation Plans and Enhanced State Mitigation Plans. Enhanced
State Mitigation Plans have additional requirements and, for States
that comply with the additional requirements, allow for additional
disaster funding.
    \2\ In addition to States, Tribal Governments can also submit
Enhanced State Mitigation Plans. This Final Rule reduces the
frequency for those Tribes who choose to submit Enhanced State
Mitigation Plans; FEMA will now require these updates every 5 years
(no longer every 3 years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA plans to change the frequency of the update requirement for
several reasons. First, the proposed reduction in update frequency will
reduce the regulatory burden on States as well as burden 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 implement additional mitigation actions identified
through the planning process.

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
Stafford Act assistance and FEMA mitigation grants, 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 codes and 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, 44 CFR 206.432(b)(1); 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 206.432(b)(2); 44 CFR 201.5. Enhanced State
Mitigation Plans must meet the requirements for Standard State
Mitigation Plans at 44 CFR 201.4 and must demonstrate further 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. 44 CFR 201.5.

B. Hazard Mitigation Assistance

    FEMA 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. In general,
under each of the three HMA programs, the update of State mitigation
plans is eligible for funding.
    Currently, FEMA administers the following HMA grant programs:
     HMGP assists in implementing long-term hazard mitigation
measures following Presidential disaster declarations. 44 CFR
206.434(c)(5)(iv). Funding is available to implement projects in
accordance with State, Tribal, and local priorities. 44 CFR 206.435.
HMGP grants may fund the updating of mitigation plans. 44 CFR 206.434.
States must have a FEMA-approved State (Standard or Enhanced)
Mitigation Plan at the time of the disaster declaration and at the time
HMGP funding is obligated to the Grantee to receive an HMGP award. 44
CFR 201.4(a) and 201.5(a).
     Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) provides funds on an annual
basis for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of
mitigation projects prior to a disaster. 42 U.S.C. 5133. 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. 42 U.S.C. 5133. States must have a
FEMA-approved State (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan by the
application deadline and at the time of obligation of the grant funds.
44 CFR 201.4(a) and 201.5(a).
     Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program provides funds
on an annual basis for flood mitigation planning and the implementation
of flood mitigation projects. 42 U.S.C. 4104c. The goal of the FMA
Program is to reduce or eliminate claims under the National Flood
Insurance Program. 44 CFR 78.1(b). The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 916, eliminated the
Severe Repetitive Loss and the Repetitive Flood Claims programs and
changed the FMA program to assist mitigation of repetitive loss and
severe repetitive loss properties. States must have a FEMA-approved
State (Standard or Enhanced) Mitigation Plan by the application
deadline and at the time of obligation of the grant funds. 44 CFR
201.4(a) and 201.5(a).
    FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans developed under 44 CFR part
201 are used by FEMA to determine State and Tribal eligibility for
Stafford Act assistance, including HMGP and PDM grant funds, and for
FMA funding under the National Flood Insurance Act.
    FEMA HMA grants are provided to eligible applicants (States/Tribes/
Territories) for eligible activities, who, in turn, provide subgrants
to local governments and other eligible entities. Subgrantees may be a
State agency, local government, private non-profit organization (for
HMGP only), or Indian Tribal government. The applicant selects and
prioritizes subapplications developed and submitted to them by
subapplicants. These subapplications are submitted to FEMA for
consideration of funding. An Indian Tribal government may have the
option to apply for HMA grants through the State as a subapplicant or
directly to FEMA as an applicant. Indian Tribal governments acting as a
subgrantee are accountable to the State grantee.

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 required that Standard State Mitigation
Plans be updated by November 1, 2003 \3\ 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 3 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. 72 FR 61552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Changes to State
                RIN                          Action               Date           Federal Register      Effect on Sec.  Sec.         Mitigation Plan
                                                                                citation          201.3, 201.4, & 201.5         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.   201.3    Changed the requirement to
                                                                                and Sec.   201.4.       update the Standard State
                                                                                Mitigation Plan to
                                                                                November 1, 2004.
1660-AA17 \4\......................  IFR...................         9/13/04  69 FR 55094............  Added Sec.              Allowed a 6 month
                                                                                201.3(c)(7) & Revised   extension to the deadline
                                                                                Sec.   201.4.           for the 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 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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 Public Comments and Final Rule

    On March 1, 2013, FEMA published the ``Change in Submission
Requirements for State Mitigation Plans'' Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) at 78 FR 13844. The NPRM proposed to reduce the frequency of
Standard State and Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates by extending
the update requirement from 3 to 5 years.
    The comment period closed on April 30, 2013. FEMA received twenty-
three comments in response to the NPRM. Of the 23 comments received, 21
comments were supportive, 1 comment was opposed, and 1 comment was not
germane. Following is a discussion of the comments submitted.
    The 21 comments submitted in support of the NPRM came from a
variety of sources, including State and local governments,
associations, and commenters that chose to remain anonymous. Many of
the supportive comments cited reasons consistent with the rationale
provided in the NPRM (78 FR 13847), such as:
     reducing the regulatory burden on States and those Indian
Tribal governments that may choose to develop Enhanced Mitigation
Plans;
     aligning with the local and Tribal Mitigation Plan update
requirements, which may foster closer coordination of mitigation
planning and implementation efforts; and
     relieving the regulatory burden, so resources may be
shifted to other mitigation planning activities, such as increased
delivery of training and technical assistance, and/or to implementing
additional mitigation actions.
    Several comments cited additional reasons in support of the NPRM,
such as:
     maintaining or improving the quality of the plans and/or
program;
     facilitating better data sharing;
     improving integration and coordination with other planning
cycles; and
     providing a more realistic time frame for implementation
of the mitigation plan.
    Six comments referenced or included information regarding costs for
mitigation plan updates. Such mitigation plan update cost estimates
were consistent with the estimates FEMA used to calculate the impacts
of the rule.
    One comment was supportive of the NPRM, provided that planners
remain engaged in mitigation planning and implementation, presuming a
best practice of annual review and evaluation. The current mitigation
planning regulation requires States to include a plan maintenance
process that establishes the method and schedule for monitoring,
evaluating, and updating the plan (44 CFR 201.4(c)(5)). Through
guidance, FEMA encourages, but does not require, States to perform an
annual evaluation of the plan, including any changes to the nature and
magnitude of hazards, as well as the effectiveness of programs,
policies, and projects.
    While supportive of the NPRM, one comment indicated that a 7-year
cycle would be even better. Additional cost savings from a 7-year cycle
compared to a 5-year cycle is approximately $857,000 ($2,855,833
annualized 7-year cost savings -$1,999,083 annualized 5-year cost
savings = $856,750). The following table highlights costs over 3, 5,
and 7 years, as well as provides a comparison.

                                                                         Table 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Mitigation
             State plan type                plan update     Update cost     Update cost     Update cost    7 years  vs.    7 years  vs.    5 years  vs.
                                             unit cost     over 3 years    over 5 years    over 7 years       3 years         5 years         3 years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Plan Update....................        $205,000         $68,333         $41,000         $29,286        -$39,047        -$11,714        -$27,333

Enhanced Plan Update....................        $524,000        $174,667        $104,800         $74,857        -$99,810        -$29,943       -$69,867
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values rounded to nearest dollar which distorts overall reduction over time (e.g. 15 years, 21 years, 35 years).

    FEMA acknowledges that additional cost savings may be realized from
a 7-year update cycle, but FEMA reaffirms the benefits of the 5-year
update cycle as stated in the NPRM that lengthening the State
Mitigation Plan update cycle to 5 years aligns with the local and
Tribal Mitigation Plan update requirements and may foster closer
coordination of mitigation planning and implementation efforts.
Further, as stated in the NPRM, stakeholders, such as the National
Emergency Management Association (NEMA) and Members of Congress, have
asked FEMA to amend 44 CFR Part 201 to extend the update cycle and have
consistently cited 5 years. The NPRM cited a letter dated November 8,
2011 from 23 Members of Congress 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 NPRM also stated that in 2011, the Department of Homeland
Security (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 DHS's 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.

    Extending the update cycle from 3 to 7 years does not align with
the current local and Tribal mitigation planning 5-year update cycle.
Additionally, based on the majority of responses from stakeholders,
FEMA has chosen not to pursue the suggestion of extending the update
cycle from 3 to 7 years.
    Only one comment, submitted by a non-profit environmental advocacy
organization, opposed the NPRM. The comment was submitted to the docket
in the form of a letter along with more than 90 individual documents
totaling almost 7,900 pages (after accounting for documents submitted
in multiple parts and elimination of duplication). The letter cited to
11 of the attachments that the commenter submitted to the docket by
footnoting them. Other than the letter, none of the supporting
attachments referenced the NPRM. As a result, no response is provided
to the attachments.
    The remainder of this section will address the comment from the
non-profit environmental advocacy organization that opposed the NPRM
because, as it stated:

the extension is not accompanied by requirements to ensure the
quality of the State Mitigation Plans increases to compensate for
less frequent updates. FEMA must ensure that the State Mitigation
Plans are as effective and as timely as possible since hazard
mitigation planning is critical to reduce risks to the public and to
improve safety and health. To proceed with the proposed extension as
currently articulated is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law.

    The comment asserted that if the State Mitigation Plans do not
incorporate the most current climate change studies and modeling,
FEMA's NPRM would lead to plans losing relevance and becoming outdated
more quickly, due to climate change implications, and the quality of
hazard mitigation would suffer. The comment further stated that:

    If the [S]tate update requirement is extended, FEMA should take
this opportunity to ensure that [S]tates use the extra [2] years to
significantly improve their plans, especially regarding climate
change. States tend to rely exclusively on historical data to
predict the probability of future hazard events, and determine
priorities for mitigation. Unfortunately, most [S]tates are not
incorporating climate change projections and therefore are not
maximizing accuracy of hazard predictions in risk assessments. FEMA
should only approve State Hazard Mitigation Plans that adequately
address climate change. FEMA also should provide agency guidance in
FEMA's Blue Book on how to incorporate climate change into such
plans. In addition to the current proposed rulemaking, FEMA should
also initiate another new rulemaking to amend 44 CFR Sec.  201.4, in
order to confirm that climate change must be addressed by [S]tates
in their hazard mitigation plans.

    As stated in the NPRM, in order to be effective, plans must be
relevant. Therefore, 44 CFR 201.4(d) requires that the 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 purpose of the NPRM is only to extend the update requirement
from 3 to 5 years and does not change the requirements for the content
of the Mitigation Plan. While section 201.4(c)(2) does not list or
require specific hazards be addressed in the Mitigation Plan, States
are required to include an overview of the type and location of all
natural hazards that can affect the State. In fact, 44 CFR
201.4(c)(2)(i) requires the Mitigation Plan to contain information not
only on previous occurrences but on the probability of future hazard
events. This approach allows States discretion in meeting the Federal
mitigation planning requirements and recognizes differences that exist
among State governments with respect to capability and resources as
well as variations in vulnerability within the planning area.
    In addition, the FEMA Climate Change Adaptation Policy Statement
(2011-OPPA-01) affirms the need to address risks that may be linked to
climate change and identifies initial actions within existing statutes
and authorities to help integrate climate change adaptation
considerations into FEMA programs. Further, the President's Climate
Action Plan, released in June 2013, identifies three major initiatives
to prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change by
building stronger and safer communities and infrastructure, protecting
our economy and natural resources, and using sound science to

manage climate impacts. FEMA is committed to working with partners to
improve the relevance and effectiveness of mitigation planning to
increase the Nation's resilience through improvements to policy,
guidance, training, technical assistance, as well as other products.
    FEMA encourages States to fully engage in the mitigation planning
process and, as stated in 44 CFR 201.4(b), to include coordination with
other State agencies, appropriate Federal agencies, and interested
groups. FEMA also encourages States to integrate their mitigation
planning to the extent possible with other ongoing State planning
efforts and other FEMA mitigation programs and initiatives. By fully
leveraging the mitigation planning process, States may be better able
to identify and incorporate the best available data, studies, and
models to assess changes in current and future hazards as well as
development patterns that may impact vulnerability. Further, States may
be better able to develop and implement a plan maintenance process that
ensures plan relevance over time. The accuracy and relevance of the
plan are important elements to ensure that resources are wisely
invested in implementing measures to reduce risk from future events. As
stated in the NPRM and the planning regulations at 44 CFR 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.
    The comment suggests that FEMA initiate another rulemaking
requiring States to address climate change in State Mitigation Plans.
The current regulation requires the State to include information on
future hazard events in its Mitigation Plan and allows the State
discretion whether to address climate change. 44 CFR 201.4(c)(2)(i).
    The comment also encourages FEMA to implement an ``administrative
trigger'' meaning that following a ``major climate-sensitive hazard
event,'' if the plan did not adequately address climate change, the
State would be required to initiate an update; and if the State did not
incorporate new information into the plan, FEMA hazard mitigation
funding should be withheld. FEMA encourages States to review the plan
after disasters and update, if needed, to reflect changes in
priorities. States may also consider use of FEMA's Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program planning grants for planning related activities to update
risk assessments after catastrophic events. FEMA will work with States
post disaster, based on availability of resources and funding, to
review the State Mitigation Plan, in particular the risk assessment and
mitigation strategies, to guide implementation of mitigation actions
and the development of a recovery strategy as outlined in the National
Disaster Recovery Framework. Requiring plan updates using an
administrative trigger would require a change to the mitigation
planning regulation. FEMA has chosen not to initiate another rulemaking
to implement an administrative trigger, so as not to increase the
burden on States and FEMA, but will continue to monitor the necessity
of initiating another rulemaking requiring States to review the plan
after disasters and update, if needed, to reflect changes in
priorities.
    As previously stated in the preamble, the vast majority of
respondents supported the regulatory change proposed in the March 1,
2013 NPRM; therefore, FEMA is adopting as final the NPRM (78 FR 13844,
Mar. 1, 2013) without change.

E. Implementation

    The Standard State Mitigation Plan and the Enhanced State
Mitigation Plan updates will 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
Final 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 Final 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 Final 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) will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities; and (4) will 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 Final Rule will affect States 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.
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 Standard State Mitigation Plan update unit cost of
$205,000 and an Enhanced State Mitigation Plan update unit cost of
$524,000.\5\ FEMA also assumes that 46 States would submit Standard
State Mitigation Plans and 10 States would submit Enhanced State
Mitigation Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These plan update costs reflect cost and burden estimates in
section III. D. (``Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995''). In
section III. D., ``hour burden'' in Table 3 is calculated by taking
23 percent of the State Mitigation Plan update cost, which
represents personnel costs, and dividing it by the estimated Urban
and Regional Planners wage rate of $45.33. This equates to 1,040
hours (($205,000 x 0.23)/$45.33 = 1,040.15) for Standard State
Mitigation Plan updates and 2,659 hours (($524,000 x 0.23)/$45.33 =
2,658.72) for Enhanced State Mitigation Plan updates. Additionally,
66 percent of the State Mitigation Plan update cost represents
contracting costs and 11 percent of the State Mitigation Plan update
cost represents non-labor costs (for both standard and enhanced plan
updates). The contracting and non-labor costs are used to estimate
the ``cost burden'' in Table 4 below. For Standard State Mitigation
Plan updates, this equates to $135,300 ($205,000 x 0.66 = $135,300)
``annual operations and maintenance costs'' and $22,550 ($205,000 x
0.11 = $22,550) for ``annual non-labor costs''. For Enhanced State
Mitigation Plan updates, this equates to $345,840 ($524,000 x 0.66 =
$345,840) ``annual operations and maintenance costs'' and $57,640
($524,000 x 0.11 = $57,640) for ``annual non-labor costs''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA will 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) will 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 will
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 rule is
approximately $2 million undiscounted ($29,986,240 / 15 = $1,999,083)
and $2.06 million annualized at 7 percent.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In Appendix A of the Regulatory Evaluation available in the
docket, FEMA includes estimated annualized costs at three and seven
percent according to guidance in OMB Circular A-4 (page 45). Office
of Management and Budget, Published September 17, 2003. Available
at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits of This Rule
    The Final Rule will 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 rule will 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
    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this
rule.
    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) and $2.06 million
annualized at 7 percent.
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.
    DHS issued its ``Final Plan for the Retrospective Review of
Existing Regulations'' (Plan) on August 22, 2011. The Plan can be found
on the DHS Open Government Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-ogc-final-retrospective-review-plan-8-22-11-final.pdf. DHS
originally included this rule 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. DHS later moved this rule (1660-AA77)
to its list of current retrospective review projects.
    DHS publishes periodic updates on the progress of its retrospective
review efforts. DHS published its most recent update, ``DHS
Retrospective Review Plan Report,'' in January 2014. That update can be
found on the DHS Open Government Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhs-january-2014-retrospective-review-plan-report.
    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 extending 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.
    In the March 1, 2013 NPRM, FEMA invited comments on the initial
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) determination. FEMA did not receive
any comments regarding the RFA determination. As the Final Rule will
not result in additional costs, FEMA does not anticipate that the rule
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

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 Final Rule will 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 Final Rule, FEMA is seeking a revision to the already
existing collection of information identified as OMB Control Number
1660-0062. This revision reflects the reduction in the annual cost
burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the Final 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 Final Rule serves as the 30-
day comment period for this change

pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. FEMA invites the general public to comment
on the 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 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 priority to
reduce risks from natural hazards. This Final Rule revises FEMA
Mitigation Planning regulations in order to reduce the frequency that
respondents submit Standard State and Enhanced State Mitigation Plan
updates from 3 to 5 years. This change in frequency will reduce 8,899
burden hours on the public and save $1,350,580 annually in respondent
burden costs. 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 Final Rule.
    Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal Governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56 States submit State Mitigation
Plan updates to FEMA. (There are 56 States, per the definition of State
at 44 CFR 201.2.) 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 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average
                                                                              Number of      Total number     burden     Total     Average      Total
        Type of respondent          Form name/form number     Number of     responses per    of responses      per       annual     hourly      annual
                                                             respondents    respondent \1\        \2\        response    burden   wage rate   respondent
                                                                                (hours)    (hours)      \3\       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 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.

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
et seq., 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 will 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 Final Rule revises 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. Indian Tribal governments that wish to
submit an Enhanced Mitigation Plan are required to update that plan
every 3 years; the Final Rule will 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 Final 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. Under this
Executive Order, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, no
agency shall promulgate any regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State
and local governments, and that is not required by statute, unless
funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the State and local
governments in complying with the regulation are provided by the
Federal Government, or the agency consults with State and local
officials. FEMA has analyzed this Final Rule under the Executive Order
and determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
    This Final 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. 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 will 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 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 Final Rule 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 in the federal court system.

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

    This Final Rule 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 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 Final Rule revises FEMA's
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. The 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.

M. Congressional Review Act

    FEMA has sent this Final Rule to the Congress and to the Government
Accountability Office under the Congressional Review of Agency
Rulemaking Act, (``Congressional Review Act''), Public Law 104-121, 110
Stat. 873 (Mar. 29, 1996) (5 U.S.C. 804). This rule is not a ``major
rule'' within the meaning of the Congressional Review Act.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 201

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

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 201 of title
44 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 (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: April 17, 2014.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-09461 Filed 4-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-66-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37210-37211]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14735]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13239-002]

Parker Knoll Hydro, LLC; Notice of Environmental Site Review

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with Commission and are available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 13239.
    c. Date filed: November 30, 2011.
    d. Applicant: Parker Knoll Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Parker Knoll Pumped Storage Hydroelectric
Project.

    f. Location: At Parker Mountain, near the Town of Richfield, Piute
County, Utah. The project would occupy 458.7 acres of federal land
administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Justin Barker, Parker Knoll Hydro, LLC., 975
South State Highway, Logan, UT 84321;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Matt Buhyoff<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
6824.
    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The proposed project would be a closed-loop pumped storage
system, with an initial fill from the existing Otter Creek reservoir.
Parker Knoll would include the following new facilities: (1) An
approximately 175-feet-high upper main dam with a crest length of
approximately 1,650 feet and one saddle dam; (2) an upper reservoir
with a storage capacity of approximately 6,780 acre-feet and a surface
area of approximately 110 acres; (3) an approximately 100-feet-high
lower dam with a crest length of approximately 1,750 feet and two
saddle dams; (4) a lower reservoir with storage capacity of
approximately 6,760 acre-feet and a surface area of approximately 130
acres; (5) a 2,390-feet-long and 27-feet-diameter headrace tunnel; (6)
a 2,200-feet-long and 27-feet-diameter vertical shaft; (7) a 1,000-
feet-long and 27-feet-diameter steel-lined penstock tunnel; (8) a
7,126-feet-long and 35-feet-diameter tailrace tunnel; (9) a powerhouse
containing four variable speed, reversible pump-turbine units with a
minimum rating of 250 megawatt (MW); (10) an approximately 585-feet by
340-feet substation; (11) a 16-inch diameter and 68,000-feet-long fill
pipeline and system; (12) approximately one mile of 345-kV transmission
line; and (13) appurtenant facilities. The project would occupy 458.7
acres of federal land and would have an estimated annual generation of
2,630 gigawatt hours.
    l. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at  http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

m. Environmental Site Review

    The Applicant and FERC staff will conduct a project Environmental
Site Review beginning at 8:00 a.m. on July 16, 2013. All interested
individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend. All
participants should meet at the Richfield City Offices, located at 255
S 100 E in Richfield, Utah. All participants are responsible for their
own transportation to the site. Four-wheel drive vehicles are
recommended. Anyone with questions about the Environmental Site Review
should contact Mr. Justin Barker of Parker Knoll Hydro, LLC. at 435-
752-2580.

    Dated: June 13, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14735 Filed 6-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1066-1068]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1075; Special Conditions No. 25-599A-SC]

Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 6X Airplane;
Hydrophobic Windshield Coatings in Lieu of Windshield Wipers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions, amendment.

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

SUMMARY: These amended special conditions are issued for the Dassault
Model Falcon 6X airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual
design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in
the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This
design feature is hydrophobic windshield coatings in lieu of windshield
wipers. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These
special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Dassault on January 10, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Pellicano, AIR-625, Performance
and Environment Section, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 1, 2012, Dassault Aviation applied for a type certificate
for their new Model Falcon 5X airplane. Special conditions were issued
for that design on September 15, 2015 (80 FR 55226). However, Dassault
has decided not to release an airplane under the model designation
Falcon 5X, instead choosing to change that model designation to Falcon
6X.
    In February of 2018, due to engine supplier issues, Dassault
extended the type certificate application date for their Model Falcon
5X airplane under new Model Falcon 6X. This amendment to the original
special conditions reflects the model-name change. This airplane is a
twin-engine business jet with seating for 19 passengers and a maximum
takeoff weight of 77,460 pounds. The Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane
design remains unchanged from the Model Falcon 5X in all material
respects other than different engines.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, Dassault Aviation must show that the Model Falcon 6X
airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by
Amendments 25-1 through 25-146.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they

are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later
to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual
design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other
model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model Falcon 6X airplane must comply with the fuel-vent
and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane flight deck design
incorporates a hydrophobic coating as a primary means to provide
adequate windshield view in the presence of atmospheric precipitation.
Reliance on such a coating, in lieu of wipers, constitutes a novel or
unusual design feature for which the applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards.

Discussion

    Section 25.773(b)(1) requires a means to maintain a clear portion
of the windshield for both pilots operating a transport-category
airplane to have a sufficiently extensive view along the flight path
during precipitation conditions. The regulations require this means to
maintain such an area of clear vision during heavy-rain precipitation
at airplane speeds up to 1.5 VSR1.
    This requirement has existed in principle since 1953 in part 4b of
the ``Civil Air Regulations'' (CAR). Section 4b.351(b)(1) required that
``Means shall be provided for maintaining a sufficient portion of the
windshield clear so that both pilots are afforded a sufficiently
extensive view along the flight path in all normal flight attitudes of
the airplane. Such means shall be designed to function under the
following conditions without continuous attention on the part of the
crew: (i) In heavy rain at speeds up to 1.6 VS1, flaps
retracted.''
    Effective December 26, 2002, Amendment 25-108 changed the speed for
effectiveness of the means to maintain an area of clear vision from up
to 1.6 VS1 to 1.5 VSR1 to accommodate the
redefinition of the reference stall speed from the minimum speed in the
stall, VS1, to greater than or equal to the 1g stall speed,
VSR1. As noted in the preamble to the final rule for that
amendment, the reduced factor of 1.5 on VSR1 is to maintain
approximately the same speed as the 1.6 factor on VS1.
    The requirement that the means to maintain a clear area of forward
vision must function at high speeds and high precipitation rates is
based on the use of windshield wipers as the means to maintain an
adequate area of clear vision in precipitation conditions. The
requirement in 14 CFR 121.313(b) and 125.213(b) to provide ``. . . a
windshield wiper or equivalent for each pilot station . . .'' has
remained unchanged since at least 1953.
    The effectiveness of windshield wipers to maintain an area of clear
vision normally degrades as airspeed and precipitation rates increase.
It is assumed that because high speeds and high precipitation rates
represent limiting conditions for windshield wipers, they will also be
effective at lower speeds and precipitation levels. Accordingly, Sec.
25.773(b)(1)(i) does not require maintenance of a clear area of forward
vision at lower speeds or lower precipitation rates.
    A forced airflow blown directly over the windshield has also been
used to maintain an area of clear vision in precipitation. The limiting
conditions for this technology are comparable to those for windshield
wipers. Accordingly, introduction of this technology did not present a
need for special conditions to maintain the level of safety embodied in
the existing regulations.
    Hydrophobic windshield coatings may depend to some degree on
airflow to maintain a clear-vision area. The heavy rain and high speed
conditions specified in the current rule do not necessarily represent
the limiting condition for this new technology. For example, airflow
over the windshield, which may be necessary to remove moisture from the
windshield, may not be adequate to maintain a sufficiently clear-vision
area of the windshield in low-speed flight or during surface
operations. Alternatively, airflow over the windshield may be disturbed
during such critical times as the approach to land, where the airplane
is at a higher-than-normal pitch attitude. In these cases, areas of
airflow disturbance or separation on the windshield could cause failure
to maintain a clear-vision area on the windshield.
    In addition to potentially depending on airflow to function
effectively, hydrophobic coatings may also be dependent on water-
droplet size for effective precipitation removal. For example,
precipitation in the form of a light mist may not be sufficient for the
coating's properties to result in maintaining a clear area of vision.
    The current regulations identify speed and precipitation rate
requirements that represent limiting conditions for windshield wipers
and blowers, but not for hydrophobic coatings. Likewise, it is
necessary to issue special conditions to maintain the level of safety
represented by the current regulations.
    These special conditions provide an appropriate safety standard for
the hydrophobic-coating technology as the means to maintain a clear
area of vision by requiring the coating to be effective at low speeds
and low precipitation rates, as well as at the higher speeds and
precipitation rates identified in the current regulation.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA issued Final special conditions, request for comment
Special Conditions No. 25-599-SC for the Dassault Model Falcon 5X
airplane, which was published in the Federal Register on September 15,
2015 (80 FR 55226). No comments were received, and the special
conditions are adopted as proposed, with amendments.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane. Should Dassault apply at a later
date for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type-certification basis for Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplanes.

    The airplane must have a means to maintain a clear portion of the
windshield, during precipitation conditions, enough for both pilots to
have a sufficiently extensive view along the ground or flight path in
normal taxi and flight attitudes of the airplane. This means must be
designed to function, without continuous attention on the part of the
flightcrew, in conditions from light misting precipitation to heavy
rain, at speeds from fully stopped in still air, to 1.5 VSR1
with lift and drag devices retracted.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 4, 2022.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-00129 Filed 1-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11866-11867]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meetings

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), 5
U.S.C. 552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

DATE AND TIME: February 21, 2013, 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda.
    * NOTE--Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the
meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link,
or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

     991st--Meeting, Regular Meeting, February 21, 2013, 10:00 a.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Item No.               Docket No.                Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Administrative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1...................  AD02-1-000...........  Agency Business Matters.
A-2...................  AD02-7-000...........  Customer Matters,
                                                Reliability, Security
                                                and Market Operations.
A-3...................  RM10-12-000..........  Electricity Market
                                                Transparency Provisions
                                                of Section 220 of the
                                                Federal Power Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Electric
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1...................  ER13-85-000..........  Maine Public Service
                                                Company.
E-2...................  ER13-83-000..........  Duke Energy Carolinas LLC
                                                and Carolina Power and
                                                Light Company.
                        ER13-88-000..........  Alcoa Power Generating,
                                                Inc.
E-3...................  RM05-5-020...........  Standards for Business
                                                Practices and
                                                Communication Protocols
                                                for Public Utilities.
E-4...................  RM12-12-000..........  Regional Reliability
                                                Standard PRC-006-NPCC-1-
                                                Automatic Underfrequency
                                                Load Shedding.
E-5...................  OMITTED.
E-6...................  EL12-106-000.........  J. William Foley
                                                Incorporated v. United
                                                Illuminating Company.
E-7...................  OMITTED.
E-8...................  ER12-959-001.........  Southwest Power Pool,
                                                Inc.
E-9...................  EL13-15-000..........  Southwestern Public
                                                Service Company v.
                                                Southwest Power Pool,
                                                Inc.

E-10..................  EL13-35-000..........  Southwestern Public
                                                Service Company v.
                                                Southwest Power Pool,
                                                Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Gas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1...................  RP04-274-000.........  Kern River Gas
                                                Transmission Company.
                        RP04-274-023.........
                        RP04-274-026.........
                        RP04-274-027.........
                        RP04-274-029.........
                        RP10-1406-002........
                        RP11-2356-001........
                        RP11-2356-002........
                        RP11-1499-001........
                        RP13-199-000.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Hydro
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1...................  P-11175-024..........  Crown Hydro, LLC.
H-2...................  P-5730-018...........  River Bounty, Inc.
H-3...................  P-2079-072...........  Placer County Water
                                                Agency.
H-4...................  P-12646-013..........  City of Broken Bow,
                                                Oklahoma.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Certificates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1...................  CP12-464-000.........  Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C.
                                                Hattiesburg Industrial
                                                Gas Sales, L.L.C.
C-2...................  CP12-40-001..........  Questar Pipeline Company.
C-3...................  CP12-5-001...........  Trunkline Gas Company,
                                                LLC. Sea Robin Pipeline
                                                Company, LLC.
C-4...................  CP12-469-000.........  Northern Natural Gas
                                                Company.
C-5...................  CP05-91-000..........  Calhoun LNG, L.P.
                        CP05-380-000.........  Point Comfort Pipeline
                                                Company, LLC.
                        CP05-381-000.........
                        CP05-382-000.........
C-6...................  CP12-503-000.........  CenterPoint Energy Gas
                                                Transmission Company,
                                                LLC.
                                               CenterPoint Energy-
                                                Mississippi River
                                                Transmission, LLC.
C-7...................  CP12-351-000.........  Cheniere Creole Trail
                                                Pipelines, L.P.
C-8...................  OMITTED.
C-9...................  RP13-128-001.........  ConocoPhillips Company v.
                                                Texas Eastern
                                                Transmission, LP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued February 14, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
    A free webcast of this event is available through www.ferc.gov.
Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event
in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The
Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It
also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via
phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Springer or David
Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. 2013-03954 Filed 2-15-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P