[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56713-56719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22152]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2021-0024]


Request for Information on the National Flood Insurance Program's 
Floodplain Management Standards for Land Management and Use, and an 
Assessment of the Program's Impact on Threatened and Endangered Species 
and Their Habitats

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland 
Security.

[[Page 56714]]


ACTION: Notice and request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is issuing this 
Request for Information to receive the public's input on two topics. 
First, FEMA seeks the public's input on revising the National Flood 
Insurance Program's (NFIP) floodplain management standards for land 
management and use regulations to better align with the current 
understanding of flood risk and flood risk reduction approaches. 
Specifically, FEMA is seeking input from the public on the floodplain 
management standards that communities should adopt to result in safer, 
stronger, and more resilient communities. Additionally, FEMA seeks 
input on how the NFIP can better promote protection of and minimize any 
adverse impact to threatened and endangered species, and their 
habitats.

DATES: Written comments are requested on or before December 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID: FEMA-2021-
0024, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Sears, Supervisory Emergency 
Management Specialist, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, [email protected], 
202-646-4105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this notice by 
submitting written data, views, or arguments using the method 
identified in the ADDRESSES section.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
Docket ID for this notice. All comments received will be posted without 
change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal 
information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes 
it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and Security notice, which 
can be viewed by clicking on the ``Privacy and Security Notice'' link 
on the homepage of www.regulations.gov. Commenters are encouraged to 
identify the number of the specific question or questions to which they 
are responding.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments, go to www.regulations.gov.

II. Background

    The NFIP is a program that makes flood insurance available in those 
States and communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain 
management ordinances to reduce future flood risk. The NFIP enables 
property owners in participating communities to purchase flood 
insurance to provide financial protection against flood losses. Joining 
the NFIP is an important step toward reducing a community's risk from 
flooding and making a faster, more sustained recovery should flooding 
occur.\1\ Participation in the NFIP is voluntary and is contingent on 
community compliance with NFIP floodplain management regulations. FEMA 
does not regulate land use and does not haves authority over local 
development. Rather, it requires participating communities to adopt the 
minimum NFIP requirements through zoning codes, subdivision ordinances, 
and/or building codes or adopt special purpose floodplain management 
ordinances and encourages communities to exceed those requirements and 
improve long-range land management and use of flood-prone areas. More 
than 22,500 communities have agreed to adopt and enforce floodplain 
management ordinances that meet minimum NFIP requirements and provide 
building standards designed to reduce flood loss for new and existing 
development.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See generally 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., 44 CFR parts 59-80.
    \2\ See generally The Community Status Book found at http://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/work-with-nfip/community-status-book 
(last accessed July 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NFIP minimum requirements apply to areas designated as Special 
Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) by FEMA. The SFHA is the area that would be 
flooded by the ``base flood'' (defined as the flood that has a 1 
percent chance of occurring in any given year; also known as the ``100-
year flood''). The minimum NFIP requirements for participating 
communities include, but are not limited to: (1) Requiring permits for 
all proposed construction or other development in the community to 
determine whether such construction or development will be placed in 
flood-prone areas; (2) reviewing proposed development to assure that 
all necessary permits have been received; (3) elevation of new and 
substantially improved residential structures above the base flood 
level; (4) elevation or dry floodproofing (made watertight) of new or 
substantially improved non-residential structures in Zones A; \3\ (5) 
with limited exception, the prohibition of encroachments, including 
fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development 
within the adopted regulatory floodway,\4\ the central portion of a 
riverine floodplain needed to carry deeper and faster moving water; and 
(6) additional requirements to protect buildings in coastal areas from 
the impacts of waves, high velocity, and storm surge. These 
requirements have proved to be an effective way to reduce the flood 
risk to new buildings and infrastructure.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 44 CFR 64.3(a)(1). Zone A--area of special flood hazard 
without water surface elevations determined.
    \4\ See 44 CFR 60.3(d)(3), which prohibits encroachments, 
including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and 
other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it 
has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses 
performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the 
proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood 
levels within the community during the base flood discharge.
    \5\ Structures built to NFIP standards experience 65 percent 
less damage than structures not built to these standards and have 
resulted in $2.4 billion per year in reduced flood losses, saving 
the nation more than $100 billion over the last 40 years. See 
Individuals--Floodplain Management Resources, found at http://www.fema.gov/floodplain-management/manage-risk/individuals (last 
accessed June 16, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to protecting new buildings, the NFIP has substantial 
improvement and substantial damage requirements that ensure flood 
protection measures are integrated in structures built before a 
community adopted its first floodplain management requirements. 
``Substantial improvement'' means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, 
addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals 
or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the 
``start of construction'' of the improvement.\6\ ``Substantial damage'' 
means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of 
restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or 
exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the 
damage occurred.\7\ When substantial improvement or substantial damage 
occurs, the community, which makes the determination, must ensure that 
the NFIP requirements, which the community has adopted, are applied to 
these structures so that they are protected from future flood damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 44 CFR 59.1.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In January 2021, the Association of State Floodplain Managers 
(ASFPM) and the Natural Resources Defense

[[Page 56715]]

Council (NRDC) submitted a rulemaking petition request to FEMA seeking, 
among other things, revisions to the current FEMA floodplain management 
standards for land management and use regulations.\8\ The petition 
requested the agency consider adopting the higher minimum standards 
contained in today's nationally applicable consensus model codes and 
standards from the International Codes Council (I-Codes) and the 
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Flood Resistant Design and 
Construction standard (ASCE-24) as a minimum floodplain management 
standard, and to develop forward-looking minimum construction and land-
use standards for flood-prone areas through regulatory revision. FEMA 
has previously published excerpts and highlights of the flood resistant 
provisions of the I-Codes and ASCE-24 which generally address siting, 
design, construction, and elevation requirements for structures in 
flood hazard areas to assist communities to understand the application 
of consensus standards, but FEMA has not adopted these as the agency's 
floodplain management standards.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See http://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/petition-fema-rulemaking-nfip-20210105.pdf (last accessed June 21, 2021).
    \9\ See FEMA's Flood Building Codes Resource Page at https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/building-science/building-codes/flood (last accessed July 7, 2021). Note that FEMA's 
Community Rating System is a voluntary incentive program that 
recognizes and encourages community floodplain management practices 
that exceed the minimum requirements of the NFIP for floodplain 
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA is issuing this Request for Information to seek information 
from the public on the agency's current floodplain management standards 
to ensure the agency receives public input as part of the agency's 
regular review of programs, regulations, and policies, and to inform 
any action to revise the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards.
    FEMA also requests input from the public on what measures the NFIP 
can take to further protect and minimize any adverse impacts to 
threatened and endangered species and their habitat. The Endangered 
Species Act (ESA) protects threatened and endangered species by 
preserving the ecosystems in which they live and protecting the species 
from harm.\10\ All persons, including individuals and local and state 
jurisdictions, are required to comply with the ESA. Section 7(a)(2) of 
the ESA creates a consultation process between a Federal agency that 
will undertake an action, including implementing a program, and either 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service 
(or both) to insure that the action does not jeopardize the continued 
existence of endangered or threatened species, or result in the adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Section 7(a)(1) mandates Federal 
agencies to use their authorities to conserve threatened and endangered 
species and minimize any adverse impact to them.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
    \11\ 16 U.S.C. 1536.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NFIP floodplain regulations are designed to encourage the 
adoption of adequate State and local floodplain management measures for 
land development.\12\ This creates an opportunity for the NFIP not only 
to work towards its goal of reducing flood risk but simultaneously 
works toward the conservation of federally threatened and endangered 
(T&E) species and critical habitat. Conserving the natural and 
beneficial functions of the floodplain and reducing flood risk can work 
in tandem with the ESA requirement of conserving T&E species and 
critical habitat. Often, measures taken to conserve T&E species and 
their habitat in the floodplain benefit people by reducing the risk of 
flooding and the harm that can result to their person and property, 
while also conserving the natural and beneficial functions of the 
floodplain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 42 U.S.C. 4102(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is seeking input from the public on the floodplain 
management standards that communities should adopt to result in safer, 
stronger, and more resilient communities and also to promote protection 
of T&E species and their habitats. Specifically, FEMA is seeking input 
on opportunities for the agency to improve the minimum floodplain 
management standards for land management and use which better align the 
NFIP with the current understanding of flood risk and flood risk 
reduction approaches. FEMA has not revised current floodplain 
management standards for flood-prone area regulations since they were 
implemented in 1976. The agency is considering revision to these 
regulations based on its current understanding of flood risk and flood 
risk reduction approaches and is now undertaking a thorough review of 
the floodplain management standards, along with prior published studies 
and reports, to determine how these standards can best meet FEMA and 
stakeholder needs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See generally ``National Flood Insurance Program: 
Evaluation Studies'' found at http://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/rules-legislation/2006-evaluation (last accessed July 8, 2021) and 
``Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study of Loss Prevention'' found 
at http://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/building-science/building-codes-save-study (last accessed July 8, 2021) among 
others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA also plans to re-evaluate the implementation of the NFIP under 
the ESA at the national level to complete a revised Biological 
Evaluation \14\ re-examining how NFIP actions influence land 
development decisions; the potential for such actions to have adverse 
effects on T&E species and critical habitats; and to identify program 
changes that would prevent jeopardy to T&E species and/or destruction 
or adverse modification of designated critical habitats as well as to 
promote the survival and recovery of T&E species. Public feedback will 
help FEMA with this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Agencies may submit to the Services, an evaluation on the 
likely effects of an action, if T&E species or critical habitat are 
likely to be affected by Agency action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that FEMA continually evaluates its 
programs and policies, as well as the regulatory program for 
regulations that are candidates for modification, streamlining, 
expansion, or repeal. FEMA does so through legally mandated review 
requirements (e.g., Unified Agenda reviews and reviews under section 
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act \15\ ) and through other informal 
and long-established mechanisms (e.g., use of Advisory Councils, 
feedback from FEMA field personnel, input from internal working groups, 
and outreach to regulated entities and the public). This Federal 
Register notice supplements these existing extensive FEMA regulatory 
and program review efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Request for Input

A. Importance of Public Feedback

    Because the impacts and effects of Federal regulations and policies 
tend to be widely dispersed in society, members of the public are 
likely to have useful information, data, and perspectives on the 
benefits and burdens of FEMA's existing programs, regulations, 
information collections, and policies. Given the importance of public 
input, FEMA is seeking broad public feedback to facilitate FEMA's 
review and revision of existing floodplain management regulations.

B. Maximizing the Value of Public Feedback

    This notice contains a list of questions, the answers to which will 
assist FEMA in reviewing existing floodplain management standards and 
also assessing the influence of NFIP implementation on local floodplain

[[Page 56716]]

development, which subsequently has the potential to impact threatened 
and endangered species and their habitats. FEMA encourages public 
comment on these questions and seeks any other data commenters believe 
are relevant to FEMA's efforts. The type of feedback that is most 
useful to the agency includes feedback that identifies specific 
information that the agency should consider. For example, feedback that 
simply states that a stakeholder feels strongly that FEMA should change 
the floodplain management standards regulation but does not contain 
specific information on how the proposed change would impact the costs 
and benefits of the regulation, is much less useful to FEMA. FEMA is 
looking for new and/or specific information, data, and perspectives to 
support any proposed changes.
    Commenters should consider these principles as they answer and 
respond to the questions in this notice.
     Commenters should identify, with specificity, appropriate 
minimum floodplain management standards and/or measures for increased 
flood risk reduction.
     Commenters should identify, with specificity, appropriate 
measures the agency can take to promote the conservation of T&E species 
and their habitats.
     Commenters should provide specific data that document the 
costs, burdens, and benefits of existing requirements to the extent 
they are available. Commenters might also address how FEMA can best 
obtain and consider accurate, objective information and data about the 
costs, burdens, and benefits of the minimum floodplain management 
standards for increased flood risk reduction and increased species/
habitat protection and whether there are existing sources of data that 
FEMA can use to evaluate the effects of the minimum floodplain 
management standards and increased protection of T&E species and their 
habitats over time.
     Particularly where comments relate to the costs or 
benefits of minimum floodplain management standards and protection of 
T&E species and their habitats, comments will be most useful when there 
are data available and communities have experience utilizing the 
minimum floodplain management standards and/or species/habitat 
protection to ascertain the actual impact.

C. List of Questions for Commenters

    The below non-exhaustive list of questions is meant to assist 
members of the public in the formulation of comments and is not 
intended to restrict the issues that commenters may address:
    (1) FEMA has addressed risk to existing or non-conforming 
construction (buildings not constructed to current minimum floodplain 
management standards) in the regulations through the ``substantial 
improvement/substantial damage'' requirements. These requirements have 
largely been tied to the definitions of ``substantial improvement'' and 
``substantial damage.'' Is ``substantial improvement/substantial 
damage'' the best way to address risk for non-conforming buildings? If 
so, should FEMA consider the use of cumulative ``substantial 
improvement'' and/or ``substantial damage'' requirements over a given 
time period as a requirement? Should ``substantial improvement'' and/or 
``substantial damage'' use an assessment cost value or a replacement 
cost value, or are there other valuation methods that may be more 
appropriate? Should the regulations provide more detail on how the 
``substantial improvement'' and/or ``substantial damage'' 
determinations should be made?
    (2) The elevation of structures above expected base flood levels, 
called ``freeboard,'' is an important precept of floodplain management. 
``Freeboard'' is usually expressed in feet above a base flood elevation 
for purposes of floodplain management. NFIP communities must require 
new, ``substantially improved,'' or ``substantially damaged'' 
structures in the SFHA to be elevated to the height of the one percent 
annual chance flood level, also referred to as the Base Flood Elevation 
or BFE. Some States and communities require newly constructed buildings 
to be built higher than the base flood elevation to further reduce the 
risk of flood damage with freeboard requirements set to a specific 
height to provide the additional margin of risk reduction above the 
BFE. The NFIP has strongly encouraged but not required higher elevation 
standards, such as those included in the I-Codes and ASCE 24. Should 
FEMA update flood elevation requirements for SFHAs by setting higher 
freeboard levels? If so, what should FEMA consider for the higher 
elevation levels for freeboard? What data exists to support higher 
elevation levels for freeboard or methods that provide a more 
consistent level of protection? Will freeboard elevation generally 
raise the market value of properties in SFHAs and if so how would the 
increase in market value compare to the cost of elevation? Are there 
other technology advancements or building standards in design and 
construction that should be considered beyond freeboard levels? If so, 
do they address other floodplain management criteria (e.g., reasonably 
safe from flooding; adequately anchored; methods and practices that 
minimize or are resistant to flood damage; water load values; wind load 
values; substantially impermeable)?
    (3) FEMA has not developed higher minimum floodplain management 
standards for structures and facilities that perform critical actions 
as defined in 44 CFR 9.4. These structures and facilities must 
currently comply with the same minimum requirements as non-critical 
structures and facilities except for structures and facilities that are 
covered by Executive Order (E.O.) 11988, Floodplain Management.\16\ 
Should FEMA develop higher standards for these structures and 
facilities? If so, why? Should FEMA consider differences between 
certain structures and facilities, such as use, occupancy, operational 
size, or public and private operators in developing higher standards? 
Should FEMA consider differences such as use, occupancy, operational 
size, or public and private operators in developing higher standards 
for structures and facilities performing critical actions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 42 FR 26951 (May 24, 1977). Facilities that perform 
critical actions that are covered by Executive Order 11988 include, 
but are not limited to, those facilities which produce, use, or 
store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic, or water-
reactive materials; hospitals and nursing homes, and housing for the 
elderly; emergency operation and data storage centers; and power 
generating facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Recurring flooding events provide evidence that areas adjacent 
to the SFHA experience significant flooding and unacceptable levels of 
disaster suffering, yet the NFIP minimum floodplain management 
standards do not extend to these locations. How can the NFIP take a 
more risk-informed approach to defining flood hazard? Is there a need 
for FEMA's NFIP minimum floodplain management standards to be extended 
by establishing specific requirements for the areas immediately 
adjacent to the SFHA? If so, what specific floodplain management 
standards could be successful to reduce losses and hardship? What 
approaches would be effective for identifying these areas for 
communities to regulate? Would new zones or overlays depicted with the 
SFHA via the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) \17\ serve this need

[[Page 56717]]

or are there other tools that could be more effective? Should FEMA 
expand the SFHA generally from the 1 percent annual chance flood area 
to a 0.2 percent or a 0.1 percent area, and what decision rule should 
FEMA use to choose the appropriate area? Should the SFHA be expanded 
from a certain percent annual chance area to the flood of record (or 
whichever is higher)? Similarly, what standards or restrictions should 
be considered for high risk flood areas that are within the SFHA (e.g., 
flash flood, mudslide, erosion prone, high velocity)? Alternatively, 
should FEMA be aware of and/or use a different metric to identify flood 
risk?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) is a geospatial 
database that contains current effective flood hazard data. This 
information can be used to better understand the level of flood risk 
and type of flooding in an area. See generally http://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/national-flood-hazard-layer (last accessed July 14, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) In the past 30 years, 1 of every 6 dollars paid out in NFIP 
claims has gone to a building with a history of multiple floods.\18\ 
What steps should FEMA take to reduce the disproportionate financial 
impact the multiple loss properties have on the NFIP? Should FEMA 
consider regulatory changes for properties that have repetitive losses? 
\19\ If so, what should the minimum NFIP floodplain management 
standards be for those properties? Should these properties be targeted 
for managed retreat? How should the NFIP consider issues of equity when 
deciding how to address these properties?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As of July 2019, approximately $10.9 billion in claims have 
been paid on properties with two or more losses accounting for over 
15 percent of FEMA's total of $70.6 billion paid claims during the 
same period. See generally ``OpenFEMA Dataset: FIMA NFIP Redacted 
Claims'' found at http://www.fema.gov/openfema-data-page/fima-nfip-redacted-claims (last accessed July 8, 2021).
    \19\ See 42 U.S.C. 4121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) FEMA must ensure that the implementation of the NFIP does not 
jeopardize T&E species and does not result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of their designated critical habitats. FEMA must 
also ensure the NFIP is effective in meeting its goals of providing 
flood insurance, mitigating flood loss, reducing flood risk, and 
encouraging responsible development. What additional considerations 
should FEMA incorporate into the NFIP minimum floodplain management 
standards to promote the protection and conservation of T&E species and 
their designated habitat? In what ways could the NFIP minimum 
floodplain management standards be amended to more explicitly or 
comprehensively protect the natural and beneficial functions of 
floodplains to recognize their intrinsic value and benefits to 
floodplain management, T&E species, and the environment generally? How 
do current Federal environmental requirements and standards work within 
NFIP participating State, local, Tribal, and territories to identify 
and address impacts to T&E species and their habitats? If there are 
State-specific environmental requirements and/or standards, how could 
changes to the NFIP support or interfere with the current State 
regulatory environment?
    (7) How could one or more of the following specific changes to the 
NFIP minimum floodplain management standards benefit T&E species and 
their habitats while furthering the goal of improving resilience to 
flooding? What would the potential impact be on the NFIP participating 
communities?:
    (a) Limiting construction in any identified riparian buffer zone;
    (b) Requiring compensatory storage to have no net increase in 
projected flooding levels for all development in the SFHA;
    (c) Requiring a more restrictive regulatory floodway standard; \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 44 CFR 59.1 defining a regulatory floodway and 44 CFR 
60.3(d)(3) for the current standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Requiring compensatory conservation credits/areas for all 
development in portions of the SFHA that provide natural and beneficial 
functions;
    (e) Requiring low impact development standards and/or permeable 
surfaces that may benefit T&E species and habitat; and/or
    (f) Prohibiting or limiting construction in any portion of the 
SFHA.
    How should the suggested changes listed above be prioritized to 
best benefit T&E species while also furthering the goals of the NFIP? 
Are there additional changes that should be considered and if so, what 
are they and what is their prioritization in comparison to the changes 
listed?
    (8) NFIP participating communities can also improve protection of 
T&E species and their critical habitats through their floodplain 
management activities. In what ways can NFIP participating communities 
demonstrate to FEMA that permitted floodplain development does not 
adversely impact T&E species and their habitats? What changes are 
required to existing NFIP minimum floodplain management standards to 
allow NFIP participating communities to better demonstrate no adverse 
impact? What ways, such as technical assistance or other means, could 
FEMA assist NFIP participating communities to help protect T&E species 
and their habitats?
    (9) Local floodplain managers are often tasked with enforcement of 
NFIP minimum floodplain management standards. In what ways can FEMA 
strengthen the NFIP participation and increase enforcement of NFIP 
minimum floodplain management standards to build community resilience? 
How can FEMA better assist communities to mitigate flood loss and 
reduce risk? In what ways could FEMA better support local floodplain 
managers to effectively enforce the NFIP minimum floodplain management 
standards?
    (10) While the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards are 
broadly applicable nationwide and provide a sound basis from which 
communities can improve their floodplain management programs, there may 
be floodplain uses, occupancies, and flooding characteristics that call 
for more specific regulatory initiatives. Are there any NFIP minimum 
floodplain management standards that currently cause hardship, 
conflict, confusion or create an economic or financial burden? If so, 
what are they and how can they be modified to reduce the burdens while 
still meeting the objectives of mitigating flood loss and reducing 
risk? Some structures in a community may be exempted from the NFIP 
minimum floodplain management standards through a variance. Are there 
changes that can be made to variance requirements to help reduce the 
burdens while still meeting the objectives of mitigating flood loss and 
reducing risk? Are there specific types of development or uses that 
should be considered for exemption from NFIP minimum floodplain 
management standards or should different standards apply? If so, what 
are they, why should specific types of development or uses be 
considered for exemption, and what different standards should be 
applicable?
    (11) There have been recent proposals regarding disclosure of flood 
risk,\21\ recommending development of an affirmative obligation on the 
part of sellers or lessors of residential properties to disclose 
information about flood risk to prospective buyers or lessees. These 
proposals would require States and communities to establish flood risk 
reporting requirements for sellers and lessors as a condition of 
participation in the NFIP. Should States and/or local governments be 
required to establish minimum flood risk reporting requirements for 
sellers and lessors as a condition for participation in the NFIP? 
Should there be an affirmative obligation on the part of sellers and/or 
lessors of residential properties to disclose information about flood 
risk to prospective buyers or lessees? If so,

[[Page 56718]]

what is the most effective way to require this disclosure? Should the 
process be modeled on requirements for sellers to disclose details on 
environmental hazards, such as lead-based paint hazards? What details 
should be included in the disclosure, such as knowledge of past floods 
and/or flood damage, a requirement to maintain flood insurance, 
knowledge the property is located in a SFHA at the time of offering, 
and the cost of existing flood insurance?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See H.R. 2874 ``21st Century Flood Reform Act,'' 115th 
Congress (2017-2018) at http://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2874 (last accessed July 8, 2021) among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (12) The United States is experiencing increased flooding and flood 
risk from climate change.\22\ Climate change may exacerbate the risk of 
flooding to homeowners. Should FEMA base any NFIP minimum floodplain 
management standard changes on future risk and specifically on 
projections of climate change and associated impacts, such as sea level 
rise? What equity considerations should be factored into such decisions 
if climate change disproportionately harms underserved and vulnerable 
areas? What other considerations should be factored into an analysis 
involving climate change? Should the NFIP better distinguish NFIP 
minimum floodplain management standards between riverine and coastal 
communities? Should the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards 
incorporate pluvial (surface/urban) flooding concerns? Are there 
specific measures and standards that should be taken to ensure 
structures can withstand the greater intensity, duration, frequency and 
geographic distribution of flooding events? If so, what are they and 
how can those measures and standards ensure structures and communities 
can readily adapt and increase resilience to the impacts of climate 
change?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Fourth National Climate Assessment, Chapter 3: Water 
found at http://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/3/. Climate change 
means that flood events are on the rise. Climate change is 
increasing flood risk through (1) more ``extreme'' rainfall 
events,'' caused by a warmer atmosphere holding more water vapor and 
changes in regional precipitation patterns; and (2) sea-level rise. 
See Rob Bailey, Claudio Saffioti, and Sumer Drall, Sunk Costs: The 
Socioeconomic Impacts of Flooding 3 and 8, Marsh McLennan (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (13) The current NFIP minimum floodplain management standards can 
be found at 44 CFR part 60 subpart A--Requirements for Floodplain 
Management Regulations. As part of this Request for Information seeking 
input on new and even transformative reforms to the NFIP minimum 
floodplain management standards, FEMA also is exploring potential 
revisions to current regulatory provisions that are unnecessarily 
complicated, create unintended inequities or could be streamlined. Are 
there current regulatory provisions that create duplication, overlap, 
complexity, or inconsistent requirements or unintended inequities with 
other FEMA or other Federal programs? Are there current regulatory 
provisions that present recurring difficulties for local and State 
officials implementing NFIP minimum floodplain management standards and 
if so, what improvements should be made?
    (14) Are there technological advances, building standards, or 
standards of practice that could help FEMA to modify, streamline, or 
improve existing NFIP minimum floodplain management standards? If so, 
what are they and how can FEMA leverage those technologies and 
standards to achieve the agency's statutory and regulatory objectives?
    (15) FEMA recognizes the vital role that State, local, Tribal, and 
territorial governments play in floodplain management and that they may 
have innovative solutions to complex floodplain management challenges. 
What successful mitigation policies, building design standards, 
building construction standards, T&E species protections, and/or other 
floodplain management approaches to mitigate flood loss and reduce risk 
have been taken by State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments? 
In what ways do the current NFIP minimum floodplain management 
standards present barriers or opportunities to the successful 
implementation of those approaches? What capabilities and capacity 
impacts should FEMA address as it considers changes to the NFIP minimum 
floodplain management standards and to strengthen NFIP protection of 
T&E species and their habitats?
    (16) As FEMA undertakes an analysis of potential effects of the 
NFIP on T&E species, the agency must consider the NFIP's effect on 
floodplain development and the extent to which NFIP actions influence 
land development decisions. ``Development'' means any man-made change 
to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to 
buildings or other structures; mining; dredging; filling; grading; 
paving; excavation, or drilling operations; or storage of equipment or 
materials.\23\ Is information available on the NFIP's influence on 
floodplain development? If so, provide or identify any data or 
materials identifying the NFIP's influence. How can FEMA measure the 
NFIP's effect on floodplain development? Are there specific NFIP 
regulations, policies and/or development standards that currently 
influence State, local, Tribal, and/or territorial governments in their 
development decisions that may have a positive or negative impact on 
T&E species and their habitats? If so, what are they and how do they 
influence development decisions that impact T&E species and their 
habitats? Are there changes to those regulations, policies and/or 
standards that, if made, would have a positive impact on T&E species 
and their habitats? If so, what are those changes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 44 CFR 59.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (17) FEMA is developing a national programmatic framework for 
nationwide compliance with the ESA and is re-examining the extent to 
which NFIP actions may have adverse effects on T&E species and their 
habitats. Should FEMA reconsider its mapping practices, including the 
issuance of Letters of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-Fs)? Should the 
placement of fill material, defined as material used to raise a portion 
of a property to or above the Base Flood Elevation within the SFHA, be 
prohibited by NFIP minimum floodplain management standards? What would 
the impact of this change be on T&E species and NFIP participating 
communities?
    (18) Hazard mitigation planning reduces loss of life and property 
by minimizing the impact of disasters, including floods. It begins with 
State, local, and Tribal governments identifying natural disaster risks 
and vulnerabilities that are common in the area and then developing 
long-term strategies for protecting people and property from similar 
events. Mitigation plans are key to breaking the cycle of disaster 
damage and reconstruction. How should FEMA consider integrating 
mitigation planning with other Federal, State, or local mitigation 
planning such as community planning, economic planning, coastal zone 
planning, and other types of planning activities to improve the overall 
effectiveness of mitigation planning and floodplain management 
activities? Are there planning best practices, processes, or data that 
could better inform planning decision-making and the development and 
implementation of floodplain management standards?
    FEMA notes that this notice is issued solely for information and 
program-planning purposes. Responses to this

[[Page 56719]]

notice do not bind FEMA to any further actions related to the response.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22152 Filed 10-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-47-P


