Published 30 Day Federal Register Notice (FRN)

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2019 / Notices
Project
Boating Accident Report
(BARD) Web System.

Description
Database

National Boating Safety Advisory Council
Grant Management Training .....................
Recreational Boating Safety Program
Travel.
Reimbursable Salaries ..............................
Survey .......................................................

Of the $8.168 million made available
to the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2019,
$1,971,866 has been committed,
obligated, or expended and an
additional $5,307,440 of prior fiscal year
funds have been committed, obligated,
or expended, as of September 30, 2019.
The remainder of the FY18 and FY19
funds made available to the Coast Guard
(approximately $6,231,389) may be
retained for the allowable period for the
National Recreational Boating Survey,
other projects, or transferred into the
pool of money available for allocation
through the state grant program.
Authority
This notice is issued pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552 and 46 U.S.C. 13107(c)(4).
Dated: October 31, 2019.
D.C. Barata,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of
Inspections & Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019–24297 Filed 11–6–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
[Docket ID: FEMA–2018–0006; OMB No.
1660–0103]

Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Property
Acquisition and Relocation for Open
Space
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

The Federal Emergency
Management Agency will submit the
information collection described below
to the Office of Management and Budget
for review and clearance in accordance
with the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. This information

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:55 Nov 06, 2019

Jkt 250001

Cost

Provided for maintaining the BARD Web System, which enables reporting authorities in the 50 States, five U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia to submit
their accident reports electronically over a secure Internet connection.
Provided contract personnel to conduct boating safety-related research and analysis.
Provided for member travel and meeting costs for the National Boating Safety Advisory Council meetings.
Provided to facilitate staff training on new grant management requirements .............
Provided for travel by employees of the Boating Safety Division to gather background and planning information for new recreational boating safety initiatives.
Provided for 18 personnel directly related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational boating safety program.
Provided for collecting data to support the National Recreational Boating Survey ....

Contract Personnel Support .....................

collection concerns the property
acquisition and relocation for open
space process as part of the
administration of FEMA’s mitigation
grant programs, and the withdrawal of
three previously proposed forms (FEMA
Form 086–0–31a, FEMA Form 086–0–
31b, and FEMA Form 086–0–31c) from
the information collection included in
the initial 60-day public comment
period regarding the Severe Risk
Property Acquisition (SRPA) direct
grant to property owners for acquisition
and demolition of severe repetitive loss
structures. After reviewing all the
comments submitted, FEMA has
determined there is no need for SRPA
direct grant-related forms at this time.
At this time, FEMA has decided not to
implement the SRPA direct to property
owners grant.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before January 6, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments
on the proposed information collection
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget. Comments
should be addressed to the Desk Officer
for the Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via
electronic mail to dhsdeskofficer@
omb.eop.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
should be made to Jennie Orenstein,
Grants Policy Branch Chief, FIMA,
FEMA, (202) 212–4071, or the Records
Management Division, email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations at 44 CFR part 80 govern
property acquisitions for the creation of
open space under FEMA’s three hazard
mitigation assistance (HMA) grant
programs: The Pre-Disaster Mitigation
program (PDM) and Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP), authorized

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

60101

250,136
672,553
60,975
109,531
168,301
2,396,677
469,641

under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5207; and the
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
(FMA) authorized under the National
Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.
Acquisition and relocation of property
for open space use is a popular
mitigation activity eligible under PDM,
HMGP, and FMA. These programs
require any property acquired with
FEMA funds to be deed restricted and
maintained as open space in perpetuity
to ensure against future risk from
hazards to life and property, and to
reduce the need for disaster assistance
or insurance payments for damages to
property. This proposed information
collection previously published in the
Federal Register on February 27, 2018,
at 83 FR 8493 with a 60-day public
comment period. The comment period
closed on April 30, 2018. FEMA
received 92 comments in response to
Information Collection 1660–0103,
including comments that express both
support and opposition to different
parts of the collection. Many comments
were similar, but they will be recorded
as 102 distinct comments since they
addressed multiple parts of the
collection. Of the 102 comments
received, 67 comments were opposed to
language in the three new forms
pertaining to the Severe Risk Property
Acquisition (SRPA) direct grants to
property owners that included an option
identified as ‘‘Pathway 2: Demolition of
Structure(s) Only, Property Owner(s)
Retains Ownership.’’ The Pathway
allowed property owners to build new
structures on the land after the existing
structures were acquired and
demolished by FEMA. A commitment to
use the property as open space in
perpetuity was not required. The new
structures were required to meet current
community flood management building
codes, which presumably would be to a
higher standard than the damaged
structure was built to. Mitigation would

E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM

07NON1

60102

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2019 / Notices

thus be accomplished by reducing the
long-term risk to a natural hazard. In
comparison, the other Pathway SRPA
offered was that the subrecipient (local
community) could acquire the property
and commit the property to open space
use in perpetuity. With either Pathway,
the choice was up to the property
owner, assuming the community was
interested in acquisition if the property
owner chose that option. A SRPA grant
would only be offered under FEMA’s
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
program.
Eleven comments were supportive of
SRPA and the three new related forms.
Three comments were neutral and
recommended changes to provide
support to SRPA. Three comments
opposed using the public comment
period for discussing the feasibility of
SRPA. Six comments were beyond the
scope of the information collection and
twelve comments were not germane.
The 67 comments submitted in
opposition to SRPA’s Pathway 2:
Demolition of Structure(s) Only,
Property Owner(s) Retains Ownership
option came from a variety of sources,
including State and local government,
non-profit organizations, individuals,
and anonymous sources. Commenters
listed primary reasons for opposition
such as:
• Inconsistency under the National
Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968
42 U.S.C. 4104c since the forms only
offered property owners one
mitigation option, acquisition, and no
other mitigation activities such as
relocation, structure elevation, or
mitigation reconstruction
• Inconsistency under 44 CFR part 80
Property Acquisition and Relocation
for Open Space, which restricts postacquisition land use to outdoor
recreational activities, wetlands
management, nature reserves, farming
(i.e., cultivation, grazing), camping
and other uses FEMA determines are
compatible with open space and
limits the type of new structures that
can be built on the property
• Inconsistency with current Hazard
Mitigation Assistance (HMA)
Guidance for acquisition of
properties, and inconsistency with the
way FEMA has implemented
acquisition projects for the past 30
years, which require the acquired
property to be dedicated and
maintained in perpetuity as open
space for the conservation of natural
floodplain functions
Several comments cited additional
reasons for opposition to the SRPA
forms for Pathway 2: Demolition of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:55 Nov 06, 2019

Jkt 250001

Structure(s) Only, Property Owner(s)
Retains Ownership, including:
• New structures would endanger first
responders in the flood prone area
• Direct grants discourage conversion of
developed land to open space
• Direct grants fail to reduce the risk
posed to property and human lives
• Lack of robust codes in many
communities would not guarantee a
rebuild to a higher standard
• Lack of information justifying how
Pathway 2 would be cost-effective (an
eligibility requirement for all HMA
projects), and demonstrate savings
over alternative mitigation options
• Risk that direct grants would be
abused to spur coastal development
Commenters also noted that the new
forms were not clear on who would be
responsible for monitoring these
properties post-acquisition to ensure
that new structures and improvements
conform to grant requirements. Without
clear identification of responsibilities,
there was concern that new structures
would not be constructed to meet
community flood building standards.
The 11 comments in support of SRPA
also came from a variety of sources,
including local government, a non-profit
organization and individuals.
Commenters in support of SRPA
provided the following reasons:
• Expedited access to funding that will
help survivors recover more quickly
• Reduced risk of experiencing another
flood at the same property in the
short-term
• Increase in or maintenance of a
community’s tax base
• SRPA would result in reconstruction
to a higher building code
• Provides a good alternative when a
state does not prioritize substantially
damaged homes, or does not expedite
an acquisition project
Of the comments that expressed
support, several of them had
reservations. For example, one
commenter expressed strong support for
the property owner to retain land after
a demolition but expressed concern
regarding what would happen if the
local government did not want the
property owner to do this. Additionally,
the commenter was unsure how the
property would be maintained in
perpetuity and reported every three
years. The comment reflects a
misconception about a SRPA direct
grant as the property owner who retains
ownership would not be required to
commit the property to open space in
perpetuity. Another commenter
supported SRPA but opined that a
property owner should only be eligible
when neither the local jurisdiction nor

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

state have a flood mitigation plan in
place. One association supported SRPA
but only if elevation is included in the
eligible project list.
Three comments neutral to SRPA
came from individuals. The commenters
offered recommendations that if
followed would make SRPA acceptable
to them. One commenter wanted the
added option of elevation, in addition to
the demolition and property owner
retention option. According to the
commenter, elevations would address
the removal of tax bases and provide
more flexibility in areas impacted by
flooding.
One individual recommended that to
make NFIP more fiscally secure,
individuals should be denied NFIP
insurance if they reject the options for
a buyout, elevation, and mitigation
reconstruction project after flooding
multiple times in a set number of years
and once flood insurance payments total
the value of the house. While FEMA
recognizes that denying flood insurance
to property owners who reject the
option to mitigate may incentivize
mitigation, FEMA does not have
statutory authority to implement such a
measure.
Another commenter indicated a
spelling error in the header of a form,
recommended language change in the
Statement of Voluntary Participation
form to align more with what is written
in the FEMA FORM 086–0–31C and
inquired about why the acquisition and
demolition process must be done by
FEMA and not by the local community.
The form with the spelling error is no
longer an instrument of this information
collection.
Three comments opposed using the
public comment period for discussing
the feasibility of SRPA. One commenter
expressed concern about making a
fundamental change to buyout programs
through ‘‘the obscure context and
mechanism of reinstating and changing
a series of federal forms.’’ The comment
reflects a misconception that adding the
forms to the information collection
alone would be enough to implement
this new type of grant. Adding the forms
was a means of FEMA preparing to
implement the SRPA grant if FEMA
received an appropriation for it.
However, FEMA did not receive an
appropriation to implement a SRPA
grant and has no plans to implement a
SRPA grant currently.
Another commenter felt the
information collection lacked
‘‘explanatory material for the
assumptions and procedures in which
the proposed forms are expected to be
used . . .’’ Specifically, the commenter
wanted access to the proposed forms.

E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM

07NON1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2019 / Notices
FEMA is not able to publicly post the
forms because they have not yet been
approved by OMB. However, if the
commenter reaches out to HMA’s Point
of Contact for this information
collection (Jennie Orenstein), they will
be provided access to the forms.
Lastly, one commentator wanted to
‘‘extend and expand the public
comment period to allow more
knowledgeable evaluation.’’ A standard
Paperwork Reduction Act information
collection requires both a 60-day public
comment period, followed by a 30-day
public comment period. The program
office is responsible for responding to
all comments during these two
comment periods. The commenter’s
remark was part of the 60-day comment
period and, thus, there will be another
30-day comment period following
adjudication of responses and potential
changes to forms.
Six comments were beyond the scope
of the information collection and
involved the following topics:
• Inquire into specific mechanisms
used to compel local governments to
participate in SRPA grants
• Inquire about funding streams, which
do not currently exist for SRPA grants
• Inquire about how to determine if a
State and/or community would not
have the capacity to manage direct
grants
• Inquire about addressing urban
flooding by redefining flood zones
and providing a socially equitable
solution to low to middle income
communities when experiencing
flooding
• Express a belief that current
floodplains are based on best guesses
and anecdotal evidence, which leads
to inaccuracies
Following Hurricane Harvey, to
address the dire circumstances of
property owners with substantially
damaged homes, FEMA explored
implementing a statutory provision in
the National Flood Insurance Act, 42
U.S.C 4104c(a)(3), which authorizes
FEMA to provide direct grants to
property owners with severe repetitive
loss (SRL) properties under FMA. After
considering the 102 comments
submitted mostly in opposition to SRPA
but with some supporting it, in some
cases with reservations, FEMA has
decided not to implement SRPA and to
withdraw the three forms related to the
SRPA grant, consisting of FEMA Form
086–0–31a, FEMA Form 086–0–31b,
and FEMA Form 086–0–31c from the
information collection.
FEMA appreciated the input
provided, and felt the commenters
raised many worthy issues for

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:55 Nov 06, 2019

Jkt 250001

discussion concerning a direct grant to
property owners. Consequently, FEMA
intends to pursue an ongoing dialogue
with stakeholders, non-governmental
organizations, and other entities or
individuals, as appropriate, to address
the merits and problems with
implementing this type of grant.
In response to comments, FEMA has
withdrawn three previously proposed
forms (FEMA Form 086–0–31a, FEMA
Form 086–0–31b, and FEMA Form 086–
0–31c) from the information collection
included in the initial 60-day public
comment period regarding the Severe
Risk Property Acquisition (SRPA) direct
grant to property owners for acquisition
and demolition of severe repetitive loss
structures. After reviewing all the
comments submitted, FEMA has
determined there is no need for SRPA
direct grant-related forms at this time.
At this time, FEMA has decided not to
implement the SRPA direct to property
owners grant.
With the withdrawal of the three
SRPA-related forms, the information
collection contains only three new
forms necessary to obtain information
for HMA’s usual grants: Real Property
Status Report, SF–429, Declaration and
Release (Declaracion Y Autorizacion)
(FEMA Form 009–0–3 or 009–0–4
(Spanish)), and FEMA Form 086–035a
(Pages 9–10) NFIP Repetitive Loss
Update Worksheet. The fourth form, the
Property Owners’ Voluntary
Participation Statement (FEMA Form
86–0–31) is necessary for FEMA to
ensure compliance with regulatory
requirements that the property owner’s
participation in an acquisition is
voluntary. See 44 CFR 80.13. This form
was published in previous information
collections.
The Real Property Status Report, SF–
429 is a standard, OMB-approved form
under OMB Collection 4040–0016, with
a current expiration date of 02/28/2022.
It is used to certify that the subrecipient
has inspected properties to ensure
consistency with the terms of the deed
restrictions committing the properties to
open space in perpetuity. The SF–429 is
an addition to this collection as part of
the 2 CFR 200.311 requirements for
property management and disposition.
While FEMA has always collected
property management reports every
three years for acquired properties, the
SF–429 form was not included in
previous collections. Historically, some
recipients and subrecipients used the
SF–429 forms, and others used their
own formats. FEMA is now proposing to
use the SF–429 to have a uniform and
consistent format.
FEMA collects Declaration and
Release, FEMA Form 009–0–3 or

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

60103

Declaracion Y Autorizacion FEMA Form
009–0–4 (Spanish) (OMB No. 1660–
0002), to certify an individual’s
information and eligibility. FEMA will
be adding this form to this information
collection to obtain necessary
information for its eligibility
determinations. This form is already
approved under OMB Collection 1660–
0002, Disaster Assistance Registration,
which expires on August 31, 2022.
FEMA Form 086–0–35a (Pages 9–10)
NFIP Repetitive Loss Update Worksheet,
is a form used by the State, Tribe or
local community when acquiring a
property to update the status of
properties classified as NFIP repetitive
loss to indicate if they have been
previously acquired, retrofitted, or
mitigated through a different eligible
project type. These pages are included
in an already approved OMB Collection
No. 1660–0022, Community Rating
System (CRS) Program—Application
Letter and CRS Quick Check,
Community Annual Recertification and
Environmental and Historic
Preservation Certifications, which
expires on March 31, 2020. This form is
necessary to keep records for flood
insurance purposes, which allows the
NFIP to modify its flood insurance
policies.
This proposed information collection
previously published in the Federal
Register on August 9, 2019, at 84 FR
39356 with a 60 day public comment
period. FEMA received one comment
that did not require a response from the
agency. This information collection,
OMB No. 1660–0103, expired on
January 31, 2018. FEMA is requesting a
reinstatement, with change, of a
previously approved information
collection for which approval has
expired. The purpose of this notice is to
notify the public that FEMA will submit
the information collection abstracted
below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance.
Collection of Information
Title: Property Acquisition and
Relocation for Open Space.
Type of Information Collection:
Reinstatement, with change, of a
previously approved information
collection for which approval has
expired.
OMB Number: 1660–0103.
Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA
Form 086–0–31, Statement of Voluntary
Participation for Acquisition of Property
for Purpose of Open Space, (OMB
No.1660–0103); 009–0–3 (English) and
009–0–4 (Spanish), Declaration and
Release, (OMB No. 1660–0002); 086–0–
35a (Pages 9–10), NFIP Repetitive Loss
Update Worksheet (OMB No. 1660–

E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM

07NON1

60104

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2019 / Notices

0022); SF–429, Real Property Status
Report (OMB No. 4040–0016).
Abstract: FEMA and State, Tribal and
local recipients of FEMA mitigation
grant programs will use the information
collected to meet the Property
Acquisition requirements to implement
acquisition activities under the terms of
grant agreements for acquisition and
relocation activities. FEMA and State/
local grant recipients will also use the
information to monitor and enforce the
open space requirements for all
properties acquired with FEMA
mitigation grants.
Affected Public: State, local or Tribal
Government; Individuals or
Households.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
2,773.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 11,528.
Estimated Cost: The estimated annual
cost to respondents for the hour burden
is $696,085.
Estimated Respondents’ Operation
and Maintenance Costs: There are no
annual costs to respondents’ operations
and maintenance costs for technical
services.
Estimated Respondents’ Capital and
Start-Up Costs: There is no annual startup or capital costs.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to the
Federal Government: The cost to the
Federal Government is $687,687.
Comments
Comments may be submitted as
indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a)
evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper
performance of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through
the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Maile Arthur,
Acting Records Management Branch Chief,
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer,
Mission Support, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2019–24347 Filed 11–6–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–47–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:55 Nov 06, 2019

Jkt 250001

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
[Docket No. DHS–2019–0056]

Automated Solutions for the
Submission of REAL ID Source
Documents
Office of Strategy, Policy, and
Plans, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Request for comments.
AGENCY:

The Department of Homeland
Security is issuing this request for
information to receive input on
technologies that could assist states and
their residents in the digital submission,
receipt, and authentication of
documents and information applicants
must provide when applying for a REAL
ID compliant driver’s license or
identification card.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before
December 9, 2019. Comments received
after that date will be considered to the
extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number DHS–
2019–0056 through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Yonkers, Director, Identity and
Credentialing/REAL ID Program, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security,
Office of Policy, Strategy, and Plans,
Washington, DC 20528, 202–447–3274.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) is issuing this request for
information to receive input on
technologies that could assist states and
their residents in the digital submission,
receipt, and authentication of
documents and information applicants
must provide when applying for a REAL
ID compliant driver’s license or
identification card.
SUMMARY:

I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
Interested persons are invited to
comment on this notice by submitting
written comments, data, or views using
the method identified in the ADDRESSES
section. DHS encourages you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If you cannot
submit your material by using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this notice for
alternate instructions. All comments
received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov.
II. Background and Purpose
The REAL ID Act, passed by Congress
in 2005, prohibits federal agencies from
accepting for official purposes, a state
issued driver’s license or identification
card, unless the state is meeting
minimum security requirements in the
Act and implementing regulations. The
REAL ID Act requires applicants for a
REAL ID-compliant license or card to
present certain identity, and citizenship
or lawful status, documentation and for
states to verify and retain copies of that
information.
The REAL ID Act does not specify the
mode for presenting the various identity
and lawful status and citizenship
documentation. However, the
regulations include requirements for
document authentication and in-person
application. DHS is interested in all
substantive business and technical
proposals that could streamline REAL
ID application requirements in a manner
that continues to ensure the secure and
reliable transmission and receipt of
applicant information.
DHS is therefore seeking public
comment on how the development and
deployment of additional capabilities or
technologies can assist in streamlining
the process for individuals to submit the
required documentation and
information when applying for a REAL
ID-compliant driver’s license or
identification card. We are interested in
concepts that reduce application
burden, processing time, and
administrative workload, and that
effectively ensure security, protect
privacy, and manage risk of fraud. We
are also interested in concepts that
identify the extent to which the
additional capabilities or technologies
will increase the adoption rate of
individuals obtaining REAL IDcompliant identification. In addition,
we are interested in any cost data on the
purchase, installation, or
implementation of these concepts.
DHS requests comments from the
public and interested stakeholders—
including entities engaged in the
development, testing, and integration of
these concepts—for near, medium, and
long-term solutions.
DHS will afford significantly greater
weight to feedback that identifies
specific capabilities and technologies,
includes actionable data, or provides
viable alternatives that meet statutory
objectives and regulatory requirements.
Feedback that simply states that a

E:\FR\FM\07NON1.SGM

07NON1