Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Interim final rule.
We, FEMA, are publishing an interim final rule to implement portions of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 that affect large in-lieu contributions (alternate projects), irrigation facilities, critical/non-critical private nonprofit facilities, and community disaster loans.
Effective October 30, 2000. Comments on this interim final rule should be received by July 3, 2001.
Please send any comments to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, room 840, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, or (fax) (202) 646–4536, or (email)
Margaret Earman, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, room 401, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, or call (202) 646–4172 or (email)
Other eligible, but non-critical, PNP facility owners or operators must apply to SBA for a disaster loan, and if SBA declines their application they may apply to FEMA for a grant. In addition, if the maximum loan for which they are eligible does not cover all eligible damages, they may apply to FEMA for the excess damages. The requirement for owners or operators of non-critical facilities to go first to SBA applies only to permanent restoration work. All eligible PNP facility owners and operators may make requests for assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures directly to FEMA.
This interim final rule implements certain mandatory provisions of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 that relate to the Public Assistance Program and the Community Disaster Loan Program, provisions that the Congress intended to go into effect upon enactment. In keeping with that intent, we are making this rule retroactively effective as of the date of enactment, October 30, 2000, for all disasters declared on or after that date. We seek and invite public comments, nevertheless, on this interim final rule,
NEPA imposes requirements for considering the environmental impacts of agency decisions. It requires that an agency prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” If an action may or may not have a significant impact, the agency must prepare an environmental assessment (EA). If, as a result of this study, the agency makes a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), no further action is necessary. If it will have a significant effect, then the agency uses the EA to develop an EIS.
This rule is not subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. It does not require any new information collections and therefore would not revise the number and types of responses, frequency, and burden hours.
We have prepared and reviewed this interim final rule under the provisions of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993, a significant regulatory action is subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
This interim final rule implements certain mandatory provisions of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 that relate to the Public Assistance Program and the Community Disaster Loan Program. The authorities mandated would not of themselves have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. We anticipate that the impacts of the alternate projects provision will be neutral, expecting that the savings from reducing the Federal share of the Federal estimate from 90 percent to 75 percent will be offset by fewer applications for assistance under this authority. We do not anticipate any change in costs by adding irrigation facilities to the definition of eligible private nonprofit facilities inasmuch as the rule reflects the statute and codifies our current policy and practices. Most of the private nonprofit organizations that will have to apply for SBA disaster loans before being eligible to apply for FEMA disaster assistance have damages well below the SBA loan limit of $1,500,000. We do not expect this provision will have an impact of $100,000,000 or more per year. Finally, we do not anticipate that savings from amendments to the Community Disaster Loan provision will exceed $100,000,000 over a several-year period—our experience is that disaster loan forgiveness rates are between 60 and 70 percent. Over the last 25 years, the annual amount of money forgiven has been an average of $2.7 million.
We know of no conditions that would qualify the rule as a “significant regulatory action” within the definition of section 3(f) of the Executive Order. To the extent possible this rule adheres to the principles of regulation as set forth in Executive Order 12866. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under the provisions of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13132 sets forth principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to in formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, that is, regulations that have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Federal agencies must closely examine the statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and to the extent practicable, must consult with State and local officials before implementing any such action.
We have reviewed this interim final rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that the rule does not have federalism implications as defined by the Executive Order. The rule would define and establish the conditions and criteria under which FEMA would grant public assistance and make community disaster loans. The rule would in no way that we foresee affect the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or limit the policymaking discretion of the States.
Administrative practice and procedure, Community facilities, Disaster Assistance, Grant programs, Loan programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
(d)
(2)
(ii) Federal funding for such alternate projects will be 75 percent of the Federal share of the approved Federal estimate of eligible costs.
(iii) If soil instability at the alternate project site makes the repair, restoration or replacement of a State or local government-owned or -controlled facility infeasible, the Federal funding for such an alternate project will be 90 percent of the Federal share of the approved Federal estimate of eligible costs.
(e)
(3)
(b)
(1) The facility provides critical services, which include power, water (including water provided by an irrigation organization or facility in accordance with § 206.221(e)(3)), sewer services, wastewater treatment, communications, emergency medical care, fire department services, emergency rescue, and nursing homes; or
(2) The private nonprofit organization not falling within the criteria of § 206.226(b)(1) has applied for a disaster loan under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.636(b)) and
(i) The Small Business Administration has declined the organization's application; or
(ii) Has eligible damages greater than the maximum amount of the loan for which it is eligible, in which case the excess damages are eligible for FEMA assistance.
(b)
(b)