[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10805-10813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04041]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0018]
RIN 1660-ZA23


Hazard Mitigation Assistance: Building Resilient Infrastructure 
and Communities

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is issuing the 
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Policy. This policy 
describes a new hazard mitigation grant program to assist States, 
territories, Tribes, and local governments with mitigating the impacts 
of natural hazards, including those created, aggravated, or amplified 
by climate change. The new program is funded by a FEMA 6 percent set 
aside of estimated disaster expenses for each major disaster, 
supersedes the Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant program, and promotes a 
national culture of preparedness through encouraging investments to 
protect communities and infrastructure by increasing pre-disaster 
hazard mitigation and strengthening national resilience.

[[Page 10806]]


DATES: This policy is effective April 26, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this policy is available for inspection using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov and can be 
viewed by following that website's instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Janda, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, 202-646-2659, 
[email protected]. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may 
access this number through TTY by calling (800) 462-7585.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Proposed Policy

    On October 5, 2018, the President signed into law the Disaster 
Recovery Reform Act \1\ (DRRA). The DRRA contains fifty-six provisions 
that, among other things, (1) emphasize the shared responsibility for 
disaster response and recovery, (2) stress the importance of building 
the nation's capacity to deal with coming disasters and catastrophic 
events, and (3) recognize the need to reduce the complexity of, and 
administrative burdens in, FEMA's programs. Some of the highlights of 
the DRRA include new and additional authorities to reduce risk from 
future damage after a fire, increase State capacity to manage disaster 
recovery, provide greater flexibility to survivors with disabilities, 
and retain skilled response and recovery personnel. DRRA also contains 
provisions directing FEMA to produce plans, guidance, and reports to 
clarify terms and requirements, to identify best practices, and to 
simplify information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 115-254, 132 stat. 3438.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 10, 2020, FEMA published a proposed policy entitled 
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) (85 FR 20291). 
The BRIC policy addresses Section 1234 of the DRRA, titled ``National 
Public Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation,'' which amended 
section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. Section 1234 of 
the DRRA authorizes FEMA to set aside 6 percent of estimated disaster 
expenses for each major disaster to fund the new BRIC grant program. 
BRIC supersedes the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program \2\ and 
promotes a national culture of preparedness through encouraging 
investments to protect our communities and infrastructure, 
strengthening pre-disaster mitigation capabilities, and fostering 
national resilience. The following principles guide the BRIC program:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On September 9, 2019, FEMA posted a PDM notice of funding 
opportunity (NOFO) at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=320395. The NOFO clarified that fiscal year 
(FY) 2019 would be the last year that FEMA offered the PDM program, 
and that the PDM program would be superseded by BRIC in FY 2020. As 
the NOFO explains, the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) 
Guidance applies to the FY 2019 PDM grant program application cycle.

 Support communities through capability- and capacity-building
 Encourage and enable innovation
 Promote partnerships
 Enable large projects
 Maintain flexibility
 Provide consistency and equal treatment
 Promote equity (including by eliminating unnecessary 
complexity and administrative burdens)
 Adapt to the various and growing hazards associated with 
climate change

    The BRIC Policy provides a consistent framework and standing 
requirements for the program. FEMA will calculate the 6 percent set 
aside within 180 days after each major disaster and may set aside that 
amount from the Disaster Relief Fund into the National Public 
Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund.\3\ The total amount will 
vary year to year based on the estimated amount of disaster assistance 
for each major Presidentially-declared disaster, and the number of 
Presidentially-declared disasters in each year. On an annual basis, 
FEMA will assess the amount available in the National Public 
Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund and determine what portion 
of it will be available for the next year's grant cycle. FEMA will 
announce this determination in the annual Notice of Funding Opportunity 
(NOFO),\4\ which it will post for a period of time on its website prior 
to opening the application period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 42 U.S.C. 5133(i).
    \4\ 2 CFR 200.203 sets forth the requirement to post a NOFO and 
the required contents of a NOFO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 203 of the Stafford Act limits eligible applicants to 
States and territories that have had a major disaster declaration in 
the 7 years prior to the annual application period start date, and 
federally-recognized Tribes entirely or partially located in a State 
that has had a major disaster declaration in the 7 years prior to the 
application period start date.\5\ Subapplicants include local 
governments and non-federally recognized Tribes,\6\ who may apply to 
States and territories for funding. (Note that federally-recognized 
Tribes may apply as either applicants or subapplicants).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 42 U.S.C. 5133(g).
    \6\ 42 U.S.C. 5122(8).
    \7\ 42 U.S.C. 5123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to determining annually the total amount to be made 
available for BRIC, FEMA may allocate from that amount to eligible 
States and territorial applicants, with a specific set-aside for 
Tribes, an allocation for mitigation capability- and capacity-building 
activities and mitigation projects, and make the remainder of the 
funding available competitively for mitigation projects. FEMA may also 
make a portion of funding available for management costs (costs to 
manage the grant) and non-financial technical assistance to all 
eligible entities. Funding for capability- and capacity-building 
activities and mitigation projects will generally be subject to a 
Federal cost share of up to 75 percent, and up to 90 percent for small 
impoverished communities.\8\ Management costs may be funded up to 100 
percent Federal share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 42 U.S.C. 5133(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA provides stakeholders with more detailed information about the 
program requirements through an annual NOFO process.\9\ The NOFO 
addresses a variety of topics, including but not limited to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 2 CFR 200.203.

 Important application dates
 Specific funding amounts and allowances
 Provision of technical assistance
 Codes and standards activities
 Application review process, including competition structure 
and merit criteria
 Method for determining cost-effectiveness
 Award administration information
 Additional requirements and guidelines

    The guidance does not have the force or effect of law.

II. Discussion of Public Comments on the Proposed Policy

    FEMA received 147 distinct public comments to the proposed policy. 
These included two mass mailings comprised of 11,068 comments from 
members of the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund and 19,665 
comments from members of the National Audubon Society. Many of the 
public comments included several unique topic areas, each of which FEMA 
analyzed separately. In total, the comments addressed 902 unique 
topics. Commenters included Tribes, Tribal consortiums, non-profit 
organizations, private citizens, municipalities, state agencies and 
offices, professional

[[Page 10807]]

networks and associations, businesses, a school district and a public 
official.
    FEMA reviewed and discussed each unique comment and considered 
whether to change the policy in response to the comment. Stakeholder 
feedback was taken into account in the design of the policy and in the 
updates to the policy. Because many commenters had similar comments 
about the same topics, FEMA organized the response to comments by 
topic. Some comments related to more than one topic and were therefore 
considered and counted under all applicable topics. A summary of these 
comments and FEMA's response is provided below.

Favorable Comments

    FEMA received 108 favorable comments that noted direct support for 
the BRIC policy or program. These are summarized below.
    Commenters wrote favorably about the stakeholder engagement process 
for the proposed policy. Many commenters expressed appreciation for the 
opportunity to provide comments on the proposed policy. Commenters also 
expressed appreciation for the stakeholder engagement process 
throughout the development of the proposed policy, including the 
comprehensive stakeholder engagement effort that occurred in the summer 
of 2019. FEMA is grateful to stakeholders for their engagement 
throughout the development of the proposed policy; they have provided 
meaningful input into the development of the BRIC program.
    Many commenters provided favorable comments about the BRIC program. 
Commenters supported the principles of the BRIC program as follows:
    Principle 1. Support State and local governments, Tribes, and 
Territories through capability- and capacity-building to enable them to 
identify mitigation actions and implement projects that reduce risks 
posed by natural hazards. Commenters were encouraged to see the 
importance of capability- and capacity-building as highlighted in the 
proposed policy. Commenters recognized that the continual funding for 
these activities will allow communities to use these funds to build and 
maintain capacity over time. FEMA notes the continual growth of 
community capacity is an intent of the BRIC program. FEMA is 
prioritizing that continual growth. FEMA further recognizes that the 
Nation's capability- and capacity-building needs will far exceed 
amounts available through BRIC, and intends for the allocation to 
support an applicant's highest priority requirements.
    Principle 2. Encourage and enable innovation while allowing 
flexibility, consistency, and effectiveness. Commenters expressed 
support for the flexibility of the BRIC program, which allows not only 
for traditional mitigation projects, but also encourages and supports 
innovation. Commenters were energized and excited by the focus on 
innovation as a cornerstone of the proposed policy, but also stressed 
that traditional mitigation projects should always be eligible. FEMA 
notes its intent to maintain a wide variety of project type eligibility 
in the BRIC program.
    Principle 3. Promote partnerships and enable high-impact 
investments to reduce risk from natural hazards with a focus on 
critical services and facilities, public infrastructure, public safety, 
public health, and communities. Commenters across all sectors expressed 
support for Principle 3. FEMA recognizes that many non-profits and 
other organizations have the capacity to assist communities in meeting 
non-Federal cost-share requirements and developing mitigation projects. 
For this reason, FEMA encourages communities to look for opportunities 
to partner with other organizations. Communities are best positioned to 
identify and develop mitigation projects for their citizens, and the 
communities' effort can be supported by non-profits and other 
organizations.
    Principle 4. Provide a significant opportunity to reduce future 
losses and minimize impacts on the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). 
Commenters expressed support for FEMA's forward-thinking approach of 
looking to reduce future losses. FEMA recognizes that adequately 
addressing future loss requires the consideration of the climate crisis 
and changing future conditions. FEMA will provide information on how 
future risk will be considered in the implementation of the BRIC 
program within the NOFO and program support materials.
    Principle 5. Promote equity, including by helping members of 
disadvantaged groups and prioritizing 40 percent of the benefits to 
disadvantaged as referenced in Executive Order (E.O.) 14008 in line 
with the Administration's Justice40 initiative. This principle was 
added after the public comment period, so FEMA did not have an 
opportunity to receive comments on it.
    Principle 6. Support the adoption and enforcement of building 
codes, standards, and policies that will protect the health, safety, 
and general welfare of the public, taking into account future 
conditions, prominently including the effects of climate change, and 
have long-lasting impacts on community risk-reduction, including for 
critical services and facilities and for future disaster costs. Many 
commenters noted the importance of utilizing modern building codes in 
ensuring the resiliency of community infrastructure. FEMA strongly 
concurs, and encourages adoption and enforcement of, as well as require 
compliance with, all relevant consensus codes and standards for all 
projects in the BRIC program.
    Commenters also expressed support for the 90 percent cost share for 
small impoverished communities and for the new definition of ``small 
impoverished,'' which no longer includes an unemployment metric. FEMA 
agrees that these changes will support small impoverished communities 
in need of assistance.

Information for Notice of Funding Opportunity and Program Support 
Materials

    FEMA received 409 comments related to the NOFO and program support 
materials. These are summarized below.
    Additional Information and Assistance. Many commenters requested 
additional information in the policy such as example projects, details 
about scoring criteria, technical assistance information, and an 
explanation of how funds will be allocated. FEMA appreciates the 
request and notes that the purpose of the policy is to provide the 
high-level requirements that will remain consistent in the BRIC 
program. Other information, such as annual allocations and scoring 
criteria, is more suitable for the annual NOFO as these matters relate 
to implementation and may change annually in the BRIC program. With the 
request in mind, FEMA will provide additional guidance, such as 
eligible project examples and information about technical assistance, 
in program support materials. Program support materials will include a 
variety of example projects ranging widely in scale and in geographic 
location. A central goal of those materials will be to decrease 
complexity and to make the various goals and requirements simpler and 
easier to navigate.
    Types of Projects. Many commenters provided recommendations for the 
types of projects that FEMA should prioritize within the BRIC program. 
The most frequent recommendations included: Projects that incorporate 
nature-based solutions and green infrastructure; traditional, 
nonstructural flood reduction measures (such as acquisitions and 
buyouts); and projects that leverage existing projects, plans, and 
partnerships. The mass mailings received from the National Wildlife

[[Page 10808]]

Federation Action Fund and National Audubon Society promoted 
prioritization of nature-based solutions: The National Wildlife 
Federation Action Fund urged FEMA to prioritize community-wide, nature-
based mitigation with pre-disaster funds, and the National Audubon 
Society urged FEMA to promote natural infrastructure solutions with 
BRIC funding. FEMA is strongly supportive of nature-based solutions and 
has released a Guide for Local Communities, ``Building Community 
Resilience With Nature-Based Solutions,'' on that topic. Additionally, 
FEMA is strongly supportive of nature-based solutions because FEMA 
considers these solutions to be consistent with the Federal Flood Risk 
Management Standard (FFRMS) under the reinstated Executive Order 13690 
(Jan. 30, 2015).\10\ FEMA will address priorities through the NOFO, as 
priorities are identified on an annual basis to allow for the 
development and flexibility of the BRIC program over time as new 
priorities are identified. FEMA will provide additional information 
about nature-based solutions in program support materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ On May 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 
(E.O.) 14030, Climate-Related Financial Risk, reinstating E.O. 
13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a 
Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input 
(Jan. 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions

    Some commenters asked FEMA to define the terms used in the proposed 
policy. Commenters requested definitions, or changes to existing 
definitions, for the following terms: ``Critical facilities'', ``small 
impoverished communities'', ``resiliency'', ``large-scale public 
infrastructure'', ``non-construction'', and ``innovative''. FEMA 
appreciates the request and will provide definitions of new terms used 
in the policy in an ``Additional Information'' section of the policy. 
FEMA provides the following information to address comments:
     FEMA defines ``critical facilities'' in the glossary of 
the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Guidance (2015) \11\ to include 
structures and institutions necessary, in the community's judgment, for 
response to and recovery from emergencies. Critical facilities must 
continue to operate during and following a disaster to reduce the 
severity of impacts and accelerate recovery. This definition is for HMA 
program use and clarification and is not meant to provide a definition 
for use under other programs or supersede any FEMA regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, Hazard Mitigation 
Assistance Guidance, Feb. 27, 2015, available at https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1424983165449-38f5dfc69c0bd4ea8a161e8bb7b79553/HMA_Guidance_022715_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The term ``small impoverished communities'' is statutorily 
defined at 42 U.S.C. 5133(a) to mean a community of 3,000 or fewer 
individuals that is economically disadvantaged, as determined by the 
state in which the community is located and based on criteria 
established by the President. As the term is statutorily defined, the 
maximum number of community members of 3,000 cannot be exceeded.
     FEMA will use the longstanding National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST) definition of ``community resilience'' 
\12\ to define ``resiliency'', which is the ability to prepare for 
anticipated hazards, adapt to changing conditions, and withstand and 
recover rapidly from disruptions. This definition of resilience is 
similar to the definition of ``resilience'' used in the Presidential 
Policy Directive 21 (2013).\13\ FEMA provides the definition of 
``resilience'' in policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ https://www.nist.gov/topics/community-resilience.
    \13\ https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ISC-PPD-21-Implementation-White-Paper-2015-508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FEMA understands the concerns of small communities that 
public infrastructure size will differ for different size communities, 
and that small communities and large communities have different 
understandings of ``large-scale public infrastructure'' in the context 
of their communities. FEMA deleted the phrase ``large-scale'' before 
``public infrastructure'' in the policy to avoid ambiguity or 
implication of a size requirement for public infrastructure.
     FEMA removed the sentence referencing ``non-construction'' 
from the policy and added a sentence to explain capability- and 
capacity-building activities that have already been initiated or 
completed are not eligible for funding. The term ``non-construction'' 
was intended to mean capability- and capacity-building activities.
     The term ``innovative'' should be defined by the 
community. FEMA will encourage communities to describe how their 
projects represent innovative actions.

Capability- and Capacity-Building

    FEMA received 188 comments related to capability- and capacity-
building. These are summarized below. FEMA will provide more 
information related to capability- and capacity-building in the NOFO 
and additional program support materials.
    Activity Types. Commenters asked how applicants may use funds for 
capability- and capacity-building activities. FEMA notes that eligible 
capability- and capacity-building activities are listed in 42 U.S.C. 
5133(e)(1)(B). Capability- and capacity-building activities enable 
communities to identify mitigation actions and implement projects that 
reduce risks posed by natural hazards. These activities are broad and 
flexible so communities may use funds to address specific community 
needs, but they must clearly contribute to the capability- and 
capacity-building of the applicant or subapplicant to mitigate hazards. 
FEMA offers the following clarifications in response to questions about 
capability and capacity building activities:
     Eligible planning activities may include creating or 
updating a community's hazard mitigation plan, building codes, zoning 
or land use plans.
     Capability- and capacity-building funds can be used for 
development or updates to mitigation priorities and plans. FEMA has 
edited the policy to make clear that updates may also be funded.
     Non-FEMA technical assistance providers and other 
educational expenses for staff are eligible capability- and capacity-
building activities when consistent with program requirements.
     Capability- and capacity-building funds cannot be used to 
simply hire staff. If capability- and capacity-building funds 
contribute to a salary, there must be a deliverable that is tied to 
that position, such as updating a community's hazard mitigation plan.
     Capability- and capacity-building funds cannot be 
allocated toward the administration of approved projects. Management 
Costs can be applied for and funded to administer approved projects.
    Technical Assistance (financial). FEMA received many requests for 
technical assistance to implement the proposed policy, including 
requests for technical assistance for specific project types including 
microgrids, coastal zone projects, and large-scale retrofits. 
Commenters also asked for clarity about the types of technical 
assistance that will be offered and who would receive it. FEMA 
appreciates these comments, because they fit with FEMA's general goal 
of increasing clarity and reducing complexity. To that end, FEMA will 
provide technical assistance through program support materials and 
webinars that will be available to all

[[Page 10809]]

communities, including Tribes. While FEMA does not have capacity to 
provide individual technical assistance to each and every community 
assembling an application to the BRIC program, applicants may receive 
individual technical assistance from their FEMA regional offices. The 
level of technical assistance from FEMA regional offices might vary by 
region. FEMA will continue to provide benefit-cost analysis (BCA) 
technical assistance through the BCA Helpdesk, as well as helplines for 
the application system, FEMA GO, Environmental and Historic 
Preservation, and the HMA Program. FEMA will continue to pursue and 
prioritize additional opportunities to provide technical assistance in 
response to stakeholder feedback in future years. FEMA will also 
welcome continued feedback about how to improve technical assistance 
and make it as useful and available as possible.

Eligibility

    FEMA received 564 comments relating to eligibility. These are 
summarized below with FEMA responses. FEMA will provide more 
information related to eligibility in the NOFO.
    Applicant Eligibility. Commenters requested that eligibility be 
expanded to include other entities beyond States, territories and 
Tribes that have had a major disaster declaration under the Stafford 
Act in the seven years prior to the annual application period start 
date. Commenters also noted a gap in assistance available to homeowners 
and businesses to improve resiliency of properties. FEMA notes that 42 
U.S.C. 5133(b) defines eligible applicants as State and local 
governments. FEMA also notes that 42 U.S.C. 5133(g) requires that the 
State or territory must have had a major disaster declaration under the 
Stafford Act in the seven years prior to the annual application period 
start date in order to be eligible. Consistent with other HMA programs, 
local governments are eligible as subapplicants within the BRIC 
program, but the award is made directly to the State or Territory.
    Section 5133(g) also addresses an Indian Tribal government's 
eligibility. An Indian Tribal government (federally-recognized Tribe) 
that has received a major Federal disaster declaration under the 
Stafford Act in the seven years prior to the annual application period 
start date, or is entirely or partially located in a state that 
received a major Federal disaster declaration under the Stafford Act in 
the seven years prior to the annual application period start date, is 
eligible to apply under BRIC.\14\ A federally recognized Tribe may 
apply as an applicant or subapplicant. If the Indian Tribal government 
chooses to apply as a subapplicant through the State, the State must 
have had a major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act in the 
seven years prior to the annual application period start date. FEMA has 
edited the policy to clarify that only federally recognized Tribes are 
eligible as applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 42 U.S.C. 5123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 5133 does not authorize private non-profits and other 
private sector entities such as businesses, industry associations, 
native corporations, and individuals to apply as applicants or 
subapplicants. However, FEMA edited the policy to highlight that 
applicants and subapplicants may apply for funding on behalf of 
individuals, and businesses, and non-profit organizations.
    Hazard Mitigation Plans. Many commenters suggested eliminating the 
requirement of having a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan (HMP) at 
the time of application, citing this as a barrier to many communities 
applying to the BRIC program. Commenters recommended only requiring a 
FEMA-approved HMP at the time of award obligation, as this is all that 
is required under 44 CFR part 201. FEMA is maintaining the current 
requirement for an HMP at the time of application. Since an approved 
HMP is a condition of receiving assistance under 44 CFR part 201, FEMA 
checks for compliance with this condition at the time of application 
and obligation to ensure that the applicant meets the eligibility 
requirements. Requiring the HMP to be in the place at the time of 
application reduces the likelihood that applicants or subapplicants 
will not have a FEMA-approved HMP at the time of the award, and be 
ineligible for funding. If an HMP lapses after a BRIC award has been 
made, funding will not be stopped. FEMA will, however, encourage the 
HMP to be made effective as soon as possible, as a lapsed HMP could 
jeopardize the applicant's receipt of funds under other FEMA programs.
    Discrimination and Social Equity. A number of commenters requested 
that FEMA distribute BRIC funding in a non-discriminatory manner and 
give priority to historically marginalized and disadvantaged groups to 
promote social equity. Commenters also asked FEMA to use a tiered 
approach where under-resourced or otherwise disadvantaged communities 
are considered separately from the larger competitive applicant pool. 
On January 20, 2021, the President issued Executive Order 13985, 
``Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities 
Through the Federal Government,'' \15\ which is designed to pursue a 
comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of 
color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, 
and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. The 
Executive Order required each agency to assess whether, and to what 
extent, its programs and policies create or perpetuate systemic 
barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of color and other 
underserved groups with the goal of developing policies and programs 
that deliver resources and benefits equitably to all. The policy 
already includes three items that contribute toward equity: 1. 
Inclusion of equity promotion in the Principles of the policy; 2. An 
increased Federal cost share for small impoverished communities; and 3. 
A requirement that recipients and subrecipients ensure that the program 
is accomplished in an equitable and impartial manner. In addition, FEMA 
is committed to equity and is continuing to assess through the NOFO 
process how to prioritize funding to deliver resources and benefits 
equitably. As OMB has emphasized,\16\ one approach is to reduce 
paperwork and administrative burdens, which might cause serious 
problems in terms of equity. Regarding a tiered approach, FEMA is 
researching this topic for future program design considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 86 FR 7009 (Jan. 25, 2021).
    \16\ The White House, Meeting a Milestone of President Biden's 
Whole-of-Government Equity Agenda, (Aug. 6, 2021), available at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/08/06/meeting-a-milestone-of-president-bidens-whole-of-government-equity-agenda/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, recipients of FEMA funding are required to comply with 
federal statutes that prohibit discrimination in federally funded 
programs and activities. FEMA will vigorously enforce these 
nondiscrimination statutes and require recipients to sign assurances of 
compliance with these laws.
    Project Eligibility. Commenters asked if specific project types 
would be eligible for BRIC funding. The policy allows for traditionally 
eligible mitigation projects, and also encourages applicants to be 
innovative with their proposed projects. FEMA will provide more 
information about eligible project types in the program support 
materials and webinars. Clarity on some of the project types in 
response to comments received is provided below:
     Phased projects are eligible.

[[Page 10810]]

     Project-scoping activities (formerly known as Advance 
Assistance) are eligible as a capability- and capacity-building 
activity and will be limited by the allocation amount.
     Project monitoring is the responsibility of the applicant 
as stated in 2 CFR part 200 and will be stated in the NOFO. All work 
funded by the BRIC program must be completed within the period of 
performance of the grant, which does not allow costs for long-term 
monitoring after the end of the period of performance.
     Pre-award work that begins construction prior to award or 
prior to completion of compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act and other applicable environmental laws such as the 
Endangered Species Act and the National Historical Preservation Act 
cannot be funded. This requirement applies to the project as a whole 
regardless of what the Federal share of the project will fund. However, 
FEMA may approve and fund development of the mitigation application as 
pre-award costs in a subapplication. FEMA has edited the policy to 
clarify this point.
     For other Federal agencies' large projects, FEMA will not 
provide financial assistance if FEMA determines another Federal agency 
has more specific authority to support the project. FEMA understands 
commenters' concerns that the BRIC program could potentially fund very 
large, expensive projects (such as levee systems and dams), leaving 
less funding for smaller scale projects that are quicker to implement. 
However, there is no minimum on the amount of funding requested in the 
national competition. Additionally, there is a State and Territory 
allocation that could be used to fund smaller scale projects. Further, 
consistent with appropriation law principles, BRIC mitigation funds 
cannot be used as the non-federal cost-share for other federal agency 
grants.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ General Accounting Office Redbook, GAO-06-382SP, Vol. II 
(3rd ed. Feb. 2006), p. 10-93. https://www.gao.gov/assets/210/202819.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Managed Retreat and Relocation. Commenters asked about the 
eligibility of managed retreat and relocation projects. Managed retreat 
and relocation projects are eligible for BRIC funding. Managed retreat 
and relocation of entire communities are extensive projects with many 
different components. Applicants that seek funding for retreat and 
relocation activities should try to align the project components that 
the BRIC program will be funding with the annual priorities established 
each year in the NOFO.
    Flood Insurance Requirements. Some commenters asked FEMA to waive 
flood insurance purchase requirements, and others asked FEMA to clarify 
when flood insurance requirements apply. Commenters also asked how 
flood insurance requirements are enforced. The purchase of flood 
insurance for federally-funded acquisition or construction projects in 
a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is a statutory requirement under 42 
U.S.C. 4012a of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA). Community 
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is 
required under 42 U.S.C. 4106 of the NFIA in order to receive Federal 
assistance for projects in a SFHA. FEMA does not have discretion to 
waive flood insurance requirements for federally-funded acquisition or 
construction projects in an SFHA. This requirement is only applicable 
to NFIP insurable structures. This requirement does not apply to non-
building infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, or acquisition or 
demolition projects. Maintaining private flood insurance as an 
alternative to NFIP insurance is allowable as long as it is 
functionally equivalent to a standard NFIP flood insurance policy as 
stated in 42 U.S.C. 4012(a). Flood insurance requirements are enforced 
through deed restrictions that ensure flood insurance is maintained for 
the life of the property.
    Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Commenters requested edits to the 
proposed policy to address the threat of disease outbreaks directly and 
to allow for eligibility of projects that contribute directly to 
pandemic-resiliency activities. The statute that establishes the BRIC 
program, Section 1234 of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, includes an 
instruction by Congress to focus mitigation projects on making 
infrastructure more resilient to natural hazards. Thus, FEMA declines 
to make any changes to the policy based on these comments. However, due 
to the nature of the BRIC program, there is an opportunity to use BRIC 
funds to support critical infrastructure that will also support the 
COVID-19 response efforts. For example, mitigating the risks to 
hospitals from hurricanes so that they can remain operational during a 
disaster. FEMA encourages projects that provide multiple benefits to 
society.
    Code Requirements. FEMA received comments seeking clarity on the 
code requirements of the BRIC program and requesting that additional, 
stronger language around codes be added to the policy. FEMA received 
many suggestions to call out additional codes in the policy, such as 
plumbing, fire, mechanical, solar, hydronics and geothermal codes. The 
policy requires that a project must conform with the latest published 
editions (meaning either of the two most recently published editions) 
of relevant consensus-based codes, specifications, and standards, even 
if the State, Indian Tribal government, or community the project is 
located in has not adopted the required code(s). A State or Indian 
Tribal government does not need to have adopted current codes to be an 
eligible applicant. A project can always go beyond the minimum 
requirements, and States are encouraged to require subapplicants to 
meet stronger codes. As there are a plethora of codes that exist, and 
BRIC is a multi-hazard program, FEMA intentionally did not list all 
applicable codes for all the different project types. FEMA is in strong 
support of modern, disaster-resistant codes and encourages projects to 
implement the most recent codes applicable. The NOFO and program 
support materials will provide additional information.
    Scoring Criteria. Many commenters provided recommendations for 
project attributes to score higher in FEMA review of projects. The 
following suggestions were the most frequently requested to receive a 
higher score: States or Indian Tribal governments with approved 
enhanced mitigation plans, small impoverished communities, historically 
disadvantaged communities, critical infrastructure, projects that 
utilize partnerships, use of best available climate science, 
communities on frontlines of climate threats, nature-based solution 
projects, and non-monetary benefits. There were also additional 
requests for other project attributes to receive higher scores. FEMA is 
taking these considerations into account as it develops the NOFO, 
particularly to the extent that the recommendations are consistent with 
the objectives of Executive Orders 14008,\18\ 13990 \19\ and 13985. 
Scoring criteria are identified on an annual basis through the NOFO to 
allow the program to remain flexible and evolve over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ E.O. 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, 
86 FR 7619 (Jan. 27, 2021).
    \19\ E.O. 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment 
and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis, 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 
20, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small Impoverished Communities

    FEMA received 64 comments relating to small impoverished 
communities. These are summarized below with FEMA responses.
    Ten Percent Cost Share. Commenters asked FEMA to eliminate the 
minimum ten percent non-Federal cost share requirement for small 
impoverished

[[Page 10811]]

communities, noting that even a ten percent non-Federal cost share can 
serve as an impediment to funding. FEMA understands these concerns, but 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5133(h)(2) FEMA's contribution is limited to 90 
percent of project costs. Contributions of cash, third-party in-kind 
services, materials, or any combination thereof, may be accepted as 
part of the non-Federal cost share.
    Eligible Communities. FEMA received requests to allow more types of 
communities, such as States and Tribes with enhanced mitigation plans, 
to be eligible for a 90 percent Federal cost share. Pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. 5133(h)(2), however, FEMA may contribute up to 90 percent only 
to small impoverished communities. Otherwise, the maximum cost share 
authorized is 75 percent per 42 U.S.C. 5133(h)(1).
    Meeting the Needs of Small Impoverished Communities. Commenters 
requested that more be done to respond to the needs of small 
impoverished communities beyond the increased allowable Federal cost 
share. FEMA appreciates this concern and has removed the unemployment 
metric from ``small impoverished communities'' to be more inclusive and 
is also taking all comments into consideration as it develops the 
scoring criteria in the NOFO, technical assistance and program support 
materials.
    Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) process. Commenters noted the BCA 
process makes it more difficult for smaller, less densely populated 
communities to show cost effectiveness compared to urban communities. 
FEMA notes that 42 U.S.C. 5133(f) requires all financial assistance 
awarded on a competitive basis for BRIC to be used for mitigation 
activities that are cost effective. FEMA is evaluating ways to better 
capture the value of critical facilities, including specific 
implications for small impoverished communities.

Funding

    FEMA received 135 comments relating to funding. These are 
summarized below with FEMA responses.
    DRRA Funding Requirements. Commenters expressed concerns about the 
methodology of determining the amount of funding available for the BRIC 
program annually. Commenters thought the phrasing that FEMA ``may'' set 
aside 6 percent indicates uncertainty as to the amount of funding 
available. FEMA notes the funding source and related provisions, 
including the 6 percent set aside, and the 180-day requirement to 
estimate the aggregate amount of grants following major disasters, are 
set forth at 42 U.S.C. 5133. FEMA is required to perform the 6 percent 
calculation within 180 days of the disaster and is authorized to set it 
aside to fund the BRIC program. Funding amounts will be announced in 
the NOFO for each grant cycle.
    Competitiveness. Commenters requested clarification and changes to 
the competitive and non-competitive aspects of the BRIC program. FEMA 
offers the following clarifications:
     State and territory allocations (set asides) are non-
competitive.
     The Tribal set aside is non-competitive, unless the 
submitted applications exceed the allocated amount.
     The remaining funding will be competitive at the national 
level for mitigation projects.
    Commenters also asked for BRIC funding to be structured as a block 
grant or revolving loan fund (RLF) program. FEMA notes that the BRIC 
program is statutorily defined as a categorical project-based grant 
program, which does not allow for a block grant or RLF structure. 
Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 5133(f) requires that the majority of the 
funding be awarded competitively.
    Other Funding Clarifications. Commenters asked for clarity about 
cost share and management costs. FEMA offers the following 
clarifications:
     The policy permits applicant and third party in-kind 
contributions.
     Private funding is eligible for the non-Federal cost 
share. More information about the cost share will be provided in the 
NOFO.
    Additionally, FEMA agrees with commenters requesting support for 
management costs and has changed the policy to provide 100 percent 
Federal funding for management costs. This approach is also consistent 
with FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

Benefit Cost Analysis

    FEMA received 49 comments relating to benefit-cost analysis (BCA). 
These are summarized below with FEMA responses.
    Discount Rate. Commenters inquired about the discount rate of 7.0 
percent used for BCA for HMA grant programs. They believe the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-94, ``Guidelines and 
Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs'' (rev. 
October 29, 1992) \20\ is ``outdated'' and discount rates listed in the 
circular do not accurately reflect current economic conditions nor do 
they address the non-stationarity of changing natural hazard conditions 
that many BRIC projects will likely address. Pre-disaster hazard 
mitigation measures must be cost-effective under 42 U.S.C. 5133(b). OMB 
Circular A-94 applies to Federal programs and sets the requirements for 
conducting benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analyses. FEMA cannot 
revise OMB Circular A-94 and is required to follow it. Thus, FEMA 
declines to make any changes to the policy based on these comments. 
Commenters who believe OMB Circular A-94 is outdated should reach out 
directly to OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/assets/OMB/circulars/a094/a094.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changing Frequency and Magnitude of Future Natural Hazard Events. 
Commenters indicated that accounting for non-stationarity of future 
natural hazard events, including the impacts of the climate crisis, 
will be necessary and should be mandatory, and inquired how to account 
for changing frequency and magnitude of natural hazard events over the 
life of a project in a benefit-cost analysis. While FEMA's BCA tool 
does have a sea level rise component, the commenters stated the current 
tool does not account for changes in precipitation, stream flow, snow 
melt, or severe storm frequency. FEMA appreciates the comment. In order 
to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change, FEMA is 
currently looking into how to incorporate the full range of benefits 
that address changing hazard risk and mitigate the risk of climate 
change into its hazard mitigation project BCAs. For example, FEMA is 
working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to leverage their research into 
the quantification of benefits from nature-based solutions and green 
infrastructure which will help FEMA fund these project types. If the 
jurisdiction or community has studies or other information from 
authoritative sources that model future risks, that information can be 
incorporated into the BCA by the applicant or subapplicant. The data 
used to adjust the default data in the BCA tool must be provided to 
FEMA to ensure that the data source is reliable and that the adjustment 
to the default data was correct and meets the requirements of OMB 
Circular A-94.
    Streamlining the BCA Process. Commenters inquired about 
opportunities to streamline the benefit-cost analysis process. They 
find the current process to be quite challenging, particularly the 
amount of time and effort to assemble the backup documentation. Many 
subapplicants have limited staff and do not have the resources 
available to compile this

[[Page 10812]]

documentation. Commenters suggested various solutions, including using 
other Federal agencies' BCA tools, conducting analyses at the 
neighborhood or watershed scale, accepting reasonable assumptions by 
applicants and subapplicants, and allowing small impoverished 
communities to have projects with benefit-cost ratios less than 1.0. 
FEMA appreciates the concern and allows the use of alternate BCA tools. 
At the same time, FEMA must approve the use of such tools in writing 
prior to the applicant/subapplicant submitting the grant application. 
FEMA intends to make this process as simple as possible. Applicants and 
subapplicants are allowed to use reasonable assumptions and supporting 
data in applications. FEMA is required to comply with the requirements 
of OMB Circular A-94 to demonstrate cost-effectiveness.
    Pre-Calculated Benefits. FEMA received multiple inquiries about 
pre-calculated benefits. Commenters asked when updates to currently 
used standard values will occur to reflect current market conditions 
and if adjustment factors can be applied to reflect differences in 
local market conditions. They also inquired about developing pre-
calculated environmental, social, and cultural benefits and/or 
incorporating these elements into existing pre-calculated benefits. 
Lastly, some comments about generators and flood risk reduction 
projects requested more pre-calculated benefits related to these types 
of projects. FEMA is constantly working to improve the BCA process, 
including regularly updating current values and developing additional 
pre-calculated benefits. FEMA does allow applicants and subapplicants 
to adjust pre-calculated benefit amounts using the most current 
locality multipliers included in industry accepted construction cost 
guides. If a multiplier is used, a copy of the source document must be 
included as part of the grant application. FEMA already has developed 
some pre-calculated ecosystem services benefits. Their use previously 
was restricted to specific project types but now can be applied more 
broadly.
    Co-Benefits. In addition to ecosystem and environmental benefits, 
commenters want to be able to include other co-benefits in their BCAs. 
These co-benefits generally center around disadvantaged communities; 
cultural, historic, and sacred sites; and subsistence-related resources 
and activities. Some of these types of benefits are not easily 
quantified and captured in a traditional BCA. Even if they cannot be 
quantified, they can and should be mentioned as relevant benefits. (OMB 
Circular A-4, and OMB's Regulatory Impact Analysis: A Primer, contains 
helpful guidance on how to deal with benefits that are difficult or 
impossible to quantify.) FEMA recognizes that culturally significant 
resources are unique, and allows the applicant or subapplicant to refer 
to cultural, historic, and sacred resources, and to the extent 
feasible, to assign a monetary value to them. Established methods may 
be available to allow such assignments. See George Alexandrakis et al., 
Economic and Societal Impacts on Cultural Heritage Sites, Resulting 
from Natural Effects and Climate Change, 2 Heritage 279 (2019). The 
applicant or subapplicant must provide documentation from reliable 
sources that substantiates how the value of the resource was 
determined. FEMA encourages applicants and subapplicants to include 
additional relevant information in their project narrative, such as 
those associated with co-benefits that may not be easily quantified, to 
provide FEMA with a more comprehensive understanding of the project 
that could help to inform award decisions. This approach is consistent 
with Executive Order 13563, which recognizes that some costs may not be 
quantifiable, and also Executive Order 13990, which acknowledges that 
``accurate social cost is essential for agencies to accurately 
determine the social benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions when 
conducting cost-benefit analyses of regulatory and other actions.'' 
\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ E.O. 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment 
and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis, 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 
20, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grant Administration and Management

    FEMA received 86 comments relating to grant administration and 
management. These are summarized below with FEMA responses.
    Period of Performance. FEMA received comments to clarify the period 
of performance (POP). Commenters requested a longer POP than the 36 
months currently defined. FEMA changed the policy to clarify when the 
start of the POP occurs and when a longer POP may be requested. The 
beginning of the POP remains linked to the date of Federal award. FEMA 
removed the reference to ``highly complex projects'' in the policy to 
allow broader flexibility for FEMA to grant a longer POP on a case-by-
case basis.
    Monitoring. Commenters asked if FEMA will be monitoring the BRIC 
program and projects. FEMA will monitor as required by 2 CFR part 200 
and will be stated in the NOFO. FEMA continuously assesses processes 
and the success of its programs to identify opportunities for 
improvement.

III. Final Policy

    FEMA is finalizing the policy as follows. Line numbers refer to 
numbering from the final policy.
     In response to concerns of small communities that public 
infrastructure size will differ for differently sized communities, FEMA 
removed ``large-scale'' before ``public infrastructure'' in line 42.
     In lines 46-48, FEMA added the following principle: 
``Promote equity, including by helping members of disadvantaged groups 
and prioritizing 40 percent of the benefits to disadvantaged 
communities as referenced in Executive Order (E.O.) 14008 in line with 
the Administration's Justice40 Initiative.''
     To address requests from commenters to support 
consideration of future conditions, FEMA edited lines 49-53 to read: 
``Support the adoption and enforcement of building codes, standards, 
and policies that will protect the health, safety, and general welfare 
of the public, taking into account future conditions, prominently 
including the effects of climate change, and have long-lasting impacts 
on community risk-reduction, including for critical services and 
facilities and for future disaster costs.''
     In lines 107-108, FEMA added: ``FEMA may identify 
additional criteria in the annual NOFO to allocate available funding.''
     To address requests from commenters to support management 
costs, FEMA added a new sub-bullet in line 113: ``FEMA will provide 100 
percent Federal funding for management costs.''
     For commenters who noted that the Funding section has 
numerous references to eligible entities and applicants that would be 
better understood if the eligibility section came before it, FEMA 
reordered the ``Requirements'' section so that ``Applicant and 
Subapplicant Eligibility'' comes before ``Funding'' in lines 54 to 128.
     To address comments asking for clarification of 
eligibility for different types of entities:
    [cir] FEMA added ``Federally recognized'' to predicate ``Indian 
Tribal governments'' in line 61 in order to clarify that the Tribal-set 
aside is limited to federally-recognized Tribes.
    [cir] FEMA added ``Individuals, businesses, and non-profit 
organizations

[[Page 10813]]

are not eligible to apply for HMA funds; however, an eligible Applicant 
or subapplicant may apply for funding on behalf of individuals, 
businesses, and non-profit organizations'' to lines 69 to 72. This text 
clarifies how individual homeowners and businesses may receive further 
assistance.
     To address commenters' requests to clarify that updates to 
mitigation plans are eligible for capability- and capacity-building 
funds, FEMA edited line 138 to read: ``. . . develop or update 
mitigation priorities and plans.''
     To address commenters' request for a sentence structure 
edit in lines 1596 to 162, FEMA reordered the sentence to end with the 
citation in order to emphasize that the requirement is to comply with 
environmental and historic preservation regulations.
     To address commenters' request for a sentence structure 
edit in lines 163 to 164, FEMA reordered the sentence to end with the 
citation in order to clarify the intent is to require compliance with 
floodplain and other applicable land use laws and regulations.
     In lines 165-166, FEMA added: ``Any FEMA directive or 
policy implementing the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard 
(FFRMS).''
     For commenters who asked FEMA to define the term ``non-
construction,'' FEMA intended to mean capability- and capacity-building 
activities. FEMA replaced the term ``non-construction'' with 
``Capability- and capacity-building activities,'' and moved the 
sentence to line 174. FEMA also added on lines 178-179 the sentence, 
``Already initiated or completed capability- and capacity-building 
activities are not eligible for funding.'' FEMA also added a new 
sentence on lines 194-195 to completely address limits on eligibility: 
``Projects for which ground disturbance has already been initiated or 
completed are not eligible for funding.''
     For editorial purposes, FEMA edited lines 196-199 to read: 
``It must be cost-effective and designed to increase resilience and 
reduce risk of injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of 
property, including critical services and facilities.''
     In line 202, FEMA removed the phrase: ``. . . through 
completion of a benefit cost analysis conducted in compliance with OMB 
Circular A-94.''
     To address commenters' requests, lines 207-211 were edited 
to clarify that if a project is located in the Special Flood Hazard 
Area (SFHA), the jurisdiction in which the project is located must be 
participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and not on 
probation, suspension, or withdrawn. FEMA also added in lines 215-218 
the following clarification: ``If there is a transfer of ownership of 
the structure, the requirement of obtaining and maintaining flood 
insurance for the life of the structure applies to the new owner and 
any successive owners.''
     In lines 219-220, FEMA added, ``The project must comply 
with any FEMA directive or policy implementing the Federal Flood Risk 
Management Standard (FFRMS).''
     In response to commenters' notes to clarify that eligible 
pre-award costs should be limited to development of the mitigation 
application, FEMA edited line 234 to add the words ``the application 
for'' after the words ``the development of.''
     In order to address commenters' requests to clarify the 
POP, and requests to allow for a longer POP, FEMA edited text in lines 
249 to 253. FEMA deleted ``effective'' and ``generally'' as the 
beginning of the POP remains linked to the date of Federal award. FEMA 
also deleted ``for highly complex projects'' and changed language on 
lines 250-252 to: ``The applicant may submit a request for a longer POP 
in the application for FEMA to review and approve.'' This change gives 
FEMA broader flexibility to grant a request for a longer POP.
     In answer to commenters' questions, FEMA edited lines 312 
to 313 to confirm that the policy will remain intact after it is 
incorporated into guidance. FEMA deleted the following language: ``at 
which point this policy will be superseded.''
     To add clarity, FEMA added subsections titled 
``Definitions'' and ``Monitoring and Evaluation'' to the Additional 
Information section.
     FEMA also made minor, nonsubstantive corrections for 
grammar and clarity. FEMA is now issuing the final BRIC policy, which 
is available at http://www.regulations.gov and on the FEMA website at 
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/building-resilient-infrastructure-communities. The final policy will not have the force 
and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. The 
guidance document is intended only to provide clarity to the public 
regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
    Under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act (CRA), 
before guidance can take effect, the Federal agency promulgating the 
guidance must submit to Congress and to the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) a copy of the guidance; a concise general statement 
describing the guidance, including whether it is ``major'' within the 
meaning of the CRA; and the proposed effective date of the 
guidance.\22\ A ``major'' guidance document is one that has an annual 
effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; results in a major 
increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, 
Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or 
has significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, 
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based 
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and 
export markets. Pursuant to the CRA, the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs designated this guidance as ``major'' within the 
meaning of the CRA as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), as the annual effect 
on the economy will be over $100,000,000 in transfers. As such FEMA has 
sent the final BRIC policy to the Congress and to GAO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 5 U.S.C. 801-808. Although the statutory language only 
discusses rules, Congress has made it clear that the CRA covers 
guidance documents as well. See, e.g., ``The Congressional Review 
Act (CRA): Frequently Asked Questions,'' Congressional Research 
Service, at 7 (Jan. 14, 2020), available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43992 (last accessed Aug. 31, 
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Authority: Sec. 1234, Pub. L. 115-254, 132 Stat. 3438.

Deanne B. Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-04041 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-47-P


