Emergency Management Priorities and Allocations System (EMPAS), 1288-1292 [2020-29287]
Download as PDF
1288
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
FAST–41 means Title 41 of the Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation Act,
42 U.S.C. 4370m et seq.
Federal Permitting Improvement
Steering Council or Permitting Council
means the Federal agency established
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4370m–1(a).
Mining means the process of
extracting ore, minerals, or raw
materials from the ground. Mining does
not include the process of extracting oil
or natural gas from the ground.
§ 1900.2
FAST–41 sectors.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4370m(6)(A),
the Federal Permitting Improvement
Steering Council has added the
following sectors to the statutorily
defined list of FAST–41 sectors:
(a) Mining.
(b) [Reserved]
Nicholas Falvo,
Attorney Advisor, Federal Permitting
Improvement Steering Council.
[FR Doc. 2021–00088 Filed 1–7–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–PL–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 333
[Docket ID FEMA–2020–0019]
RIN 1660–AB04
Emergency Management Priorities and
Allocations System (EMPAS)
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule adopts, with
minor technical edits, an interim final
rule with request for comments
published in the Federal Register on
May 13, 2020, establishing standards
and procedures by which the Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) may require certain contracts or
orders that promote the national defense
be given priority over other contracts or
orders and setting new standards and
procedures by which FEMA may
allocate materials, services, and
facilities to promote the national
defense under emergency and nonemergency conditions pursuant to
section 101 of the Defense Production
Act of 1950, as amended. These
regulations are part of FEMA’s response
to the ongoing COVID–19 emergency.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective January 8, 2021.
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Jan 07, 2021
Jkt 253001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marc Geier, Office of Policy and
Program Analysis, 202–924–0196,
FEMA-DPA@fema.dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Legal Authority
On May 13, 2020, FEMA published in
the Federal Register an interim final
rule establishing standards and
procedures by which FEMA may require
certain contracts or orders that promote
the national defense be given priority
over other contracts or orders and
setting new standards and procedures
by which FEMA may allocate materials,
services, and facilities to promote the
national defense under emergency and
non-emergency conditions pursuant to
section 101 of the Defense Production
Act of 1950, as amended. See 85 FR
28500.
Section 101 of the Defense Production
Act of 1950, as amended (DPA or the
Act), authorizes the President to require
that performance under contracts or
orders (other than contracts of
employment) which the President
deems necessary or appropriate to
promote the national defense take
priority over performance under any
other contract or order. For the purpose
of assuring such priority, the President
may require acceptance and
performance of such contracts or orders
in preference to other contracts or
orders by any person the President finds
to be capable of their performance.1
Section 101 also authorizes the
President to allocate materials, services,
and facilities in such manner, upon
such conditions, and to such extent as
the President shall deem necessary or
appropriate to promote the national
defense.2 Executive Order 13911,
‘‘Delegating Additional Authority Under
the Defense Production Act With
Respect to Health and Medical
Resources To Respond to the Spread of
COVID–19,’’ 85 FR 18403 (Apr. 1, 2020),
delegated the President’s authority
under Section 101 to the Secretary of
Homeland Security with respect to
health and medical resources needed to
respond to the spread of Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID–19) within the
United States. The Secretary of
Homeland Security has further
delegated these authorities to the FEMA
Administrator.3 FEMA published its
interim final rule to comply with
Section 101(d), which requires agencies
1 50
U.S.C. 4511(a)(1).
U.S.C. 4511(a)(2).
3 DHS Delegation 09052 Rev. 00.1, ‘‘Delegation of
Defense Production Act Authority to the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency’’ (Apr. 1, 2020).
2 50
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
delegated authority under Section 101
to issue final rules to establish standards
and procedures by which the priorities
and allocations authority is used to
promote the national defense.
The interim final rule established the
Emergency Management Priorities and
Allocations System (EMPAS), which
became part of the Federal Priorities and
Allocations System (FPAS), the body of
regulations that establishes standards
and procedures for implementing the
President’s authority under Section
101(a) of the DPA. This rule finalizes
the interim final rule.
II. Discussion Public Comments and
FEMA’s Responses
The public comment period on the
interim final rule closed on June 12,
2020, and four germane public
comments were received. One comment
was generally supportive of the
regulation, pointing out that having the
EMPAS rule in place allows FEMA to
leverage the DPA in response to the
COVID–19 pandemic over an extended
period of time or eventually extend it to
more general emergency preparedness
activities. Given the ongoing COVID–19
pandemic, FEMA is considering use of
the EMPAS regulation to combat the
COVID–19 pandemic over an extended
period of time. Since implementation of
the regulation in May, FEMA has
modified and extended an order
allocating certain scarce and critical
materials for domestic use to ensure the
resources were not exported from the
United States without specific approval
by FEMA, and continues to consider
options for using EMPAS to address
mission needs. See 85 FR 48113 (Aug.
10, 2020). Finalizing the EMPAS
regulation allows FEMA to respond to
public comments in a timely manner
and ensures FEMA’s continued ability
to use its authorities as appropriate in
response to the COVID–19 pandemic.
FEMA is also better prepared should
delegations of priorities and allocations
authority for other types of resources be
issued in the future, as it will already
have a regulatory framework in place.
The commenter suggested that
EMPAS authority should be extended to
include vaccine active ingredients as
well as adjuvant or booster additions to
vaccines; measures to permit fill and
finish of large numbers of vaccine doses,
including glass vials and other
packaging; and provide for distribution
systems and medical facilities to
distribute vaccines when available at
the most rapid rate. FEMA’s authority
pursuant to EMPAS is clear; the
E:\FR\FM\08JAR1.SGM
08JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
President delegated FEMA 4 the
authority to exercise section 101 of the
DPA with respect to health and medical
resources needed to respond to the
spread of COVID–19 within the United
States. The EMPAS regulation defines
‘‘health and medical resources’’ as
‘‘drugs, biological products, medical
devices, materials, facilities, health
supplies, services, and equipment
required to diagnose, mitigate, prevent
the impairment of, improve, treat, cure,
or restore the physical or mental health
conditions of the population.’’ This
definition mirrors the definition of
‘‘health resources’’ established by the
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) in their Health
Resources Priority and Allocations
System (HRPAS) regulation 5 to ensure
consistency across agencies delegated
authority by the President to utilize
these resources to respond to the
COVID–19 pandemic. Vaccines, which
are defined as biological products under
section 351(i) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(i)), are
considered a health and medical
resource and thus would fall within the
scope of the HRPAS and EMPAS
regulations, including any materials
associated with vaccines, including
glass vials and other packaging.6
Similarly, distribution systems and
medical facilities for vaccine
distribution also constitute health and
medical resources under EMPAS.7
Given the need for consistency across
agencies to ensure a unified response in
combating this pandemic and avoid any
confusion in implementation, FEMA is
retaining the definition of ‘‘health and
medical resources’’ from the interim
final rule and believes the definition
provides sufficient clarity regarding the
resources covered by the rule.
The same commenter pointed out
that, while FEMA already possesses
subdelegated authority to use both the
Department of Commerce’s Defense
Priority and Allocations System (DPAS)
and the Department of Agriculture’s
4 See Executive Order 13911, 85 FR 18403 (Apr.
1, 2020), DHS Delegation 09052 Rev. 00 ‘‘Delegation
of Defense Production Act Authority to the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency’’ (Jan. 3, 2017), and DHS
Delegation 09052 Rev. 00.1, ‘‘Delegation of Defense
Production Act Authority to the Administrator of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency’’ (Apr.
1, 2020).
5 See 45 CFR 101.20.
6 HHS has long held resource authority for health
resources. See Executive Order 13603, 77 FR 16651
(Mar. 22, 2012) and more recently Executive Order
13909, 85 FR 16227 (Mar. 23, 2020). While
Executive Order 13911 delegated the same
authorities to DHS, HHS’s extensive expertise in
this area would be required for any vaccine
development-related efforts.
7 See 44 CFR 333.8. See also 45 CFR 101.20.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Jan 07, 2021
Jkt 253001
Agriculture Priority and Allocations
System (APAS) regulations, having the
EMPAS regulations should enhance
predictability. The commenter noted the
EMPAS regulations were generally
patterned after other Federal Priority
and Allocations System (FPAS)
regulations, with some exceptions. For
example, the EMPAS regulations
discuss rated orders placed by FEMA or
a Delegate Agency to facilitate sales to
third parties. The commenter noted this
distinction could refer to contracts
placed in support of hospitals or other
health entities or serve as a more general
reference to the overarching distributorstyle role FEMA and other Federal
entities have played during the COVID–
19 pandemic response to date. The
distinction could also set up a type of
hybrid rated order/allocation action.
FEMA may leverage the EMPAS
regulation to facilitate sales to third
parties with respect to contracts placed
in support of entities seeking scarce and
critical health and medical resources
and to assist in the distribution of these
resources as appropriate. The agency
does not intend to create a hybrid rated
order/allocation action.
This commenter urged FEMA to be
prepared to exercise EMPAS authority
and delegate authority to assure the
ability to produce, manufacture, fill, and
finish coronavirus vaccines, specifically
requesting the regulation make clear
that emergency authority includes the
ability to pre-manufacture vials and
syringes as necessary to provide a large
number of vaccine doses. As explained
above, although vaccines and associated
materials are within the authority
delegated by Executive Order 13911,
HHS is the agency with expertise in
vaccine development and FEMA does
not anticipate having a role in that
process. FEMA believes the regulation
provides sufficient clarity regarding the
resource authority delegated by
Executive Order 13911 and no changes
are required in this final rule.
Another commenter offered suggested
improvements to § 333.13 regarding
timelines for responses to rated order
requests. Specifically, the commenter
recommended changes to § 333.13(d)(2)
to allow for responses within 6 or 12
hours ‘‘after confirmation of receipt by
vendor/contractor personnel during
normal business hours.’’ FEMA
appreciates that the proposed change
would allow vendors and contractors
more time to handle rated order requests
consistent with their normal business
practices, but rated orders are
designated as such specifically because
of the need to handle them differently
than ordinary orders. The language in
§ 333.13(d)(2) mirrors the existing
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1289
Department of Commerce DPAS
regulations at 15 CFR 700.13(d)(2). As
explained in the preamble to the interim
final rule, FEMA adopted language
consistent with the DPAS regulation
because rated orders placed for the
purpose of emergency preparedness
would require a shorter timeframe to
ensure delivery in time to provide
disaster assistance, emergency response,
or similar activities. Further, the
timeframes given in § 333.13(d)(2) are
the minimum allowed and only apply
when ‘‘expedited action is necessary or
appropriate.’’ As such, FEMA does not
expect 6- or 12-hour response deadlines
to be used frequently, and therefore
does not expect the regulatory provision
to impose a substantial burden on
vendors and contractors. To ensure
consistency across FPAS regulations,
and because of the nature of FEMA’s
mission, FEMA is retaining the language
from the interim final rule in the final
rule. Additionally, the commenter
suggested the use of the term
‘‘immediately’’ in § 333.13(d)(3) and
elsewhere could not be realistically
defined. The commenter recommended
alternative language, such as, ‘‘as soon
as reasonably practicable’’ or ‘‘promptly
with commercially reasonable efforts.’’
Again, the language in EMPAS is
consistent with the Department of
Commerce’s DPAS regulations, where
this provision has been in use since
2014. Given the exigent circumstances
under which FEMA must provide
emergency preparedness, mitigation,
response, and recovery services, the
requirement for immediate notification
is necessary to ensure the ultimate
timely delivery of these services. In
addition, FEMA does not believe that
the alternative terms provide a
significantly more definite meaning.
Therefore, FEMA is retaining the
language from the interim final rule to
ensure consistency across FPAS
regulations.
Two commenters focused their
comments exclusively on vaccines, a
topic not directly addressed by EMPAS.
One commenter requested an ethically
produced vaccine that is not developed
from aborted fetal cells. The EMPAS
regulation does not discuss vaccine
development. As explained above,
FEMA’s EMPAS regulation is limited to
establishing standards and procedures
for priority and allocation orders for
‘‘health and medical resources’’ as
defined in the interim final rule at
§ 333.8. Although vaccines fall within
the scope of ‘‘health and medical
resources’’ authority delegated to HHS
and to FEMA, FEMA has not played a
substantial role in the development of
E:\FR\FM\08JAR1.SGM
08JAR1
1290
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
the vaccine given HHS’s expertise in the
field and long-standing resource
authority in the area. Thus, FEMA is not
revising the interim final rule in this
regard. Finally, one commenter stated
her lack of trust in vaccines and
indicated she did not want vaccines to
be required for school attendance. The
EMPAS regulations set standards and
procedures for priority and allocation
orders for health and medical resources
to promote the national defense in
response to the COVID–19 pandemic.
The regulations do not require
individuals to be vaccinated.
III. Technical Changes
This rule makes technical changes to
the interim final rule. The authority
citation for the final rule is being
updated to include DHS Delegation
Number 09052 Rev. 00 (Jan. 3, 2017),
and to make non-substantive formatting
revisions to authorities previously
included. The interim final rule
contained a placeholder reference to an
OMB clearance number for an
information collection under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. See 44 CFR
333.20(c). OMB issued the related
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice of
Action on May 13, 2020, the same day
the interim final rule published in the
Federal Register. As a result of OMB’s
action, FEMA now has a permanent
OMB clearance number. Therefore,
FEMA is removing from § 333.20(c) the
placeholder reference, ‘‘1660–NW122’’
and adding in its place the permanent
number, ‘‘1660–0149.’’
IV. Regulatory Analysis
A. Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
This rule is effective immediately
because the delayed effective date
generally required by the APA is
unnecessary. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The
interim final rule that this final rule
makes final, with only technical
changes, is already in effect.
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
B. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, Executive Order
13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and Executive Order
13771, Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs
Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’) and 13563
(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review’’) direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Jan 07, 2021
Jkt 253001
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. Executive
Order 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs’’) directs
agencies to reduce regulation and
control regulatory costs and provides
that ‘‘for every one new regulation
issued, at least two prior regulations be
identified for elimination, and that the
cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a
budgeting process.’’
This final rule has been drafted and
reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12866. This rule has been
designated a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and economically significant
under Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the rule has been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
This final rule adopts the interim final
rule (IFR) that established standards and
procedures by which FEMA may require
certain contracts or orders that promote
the national defense be given priority
over other contracts or orders and
setting new standards and procedures
by which FEMA may allocate materials,
services, and facilities to promote the
national defense under emergency and
non-emergency conditions pursuant to
section 101 of the Defense Production
Act of 1950, as amended. Accordingly,
relative to a post-IFR baseline, this final
rule has no economic impact. Below,
FEMA also examines the rule’s impacts
relative to a pre-IFR baseline.
This rule sets criteria and procedures
under which FEMA will authorize
prioritization of certain orders or
contracts as well as criteria under which
FEMA will issue orders allocating
materials, services, and facilities. Under
prioritization, FEMA will designate
certain orders as one of two possible
priority levels. Once so designated, such
orders are referred to as ‘‘rated orders.’’
The recipient of a rated order must give
it priority over an unrated order or an
order with a lower priority rating. A
recipient of a rated order may place
orders of the same priority level with
their suppliers and subcontractors for
supplies and services necessary to fulfill
FEMA’s rated order. The suppliers and
subcontractors must treat the request
from the recipient as a rated order with
the same priority level as the original
rated order. The rule does not require
recipients to fulfill rated orders if the
price or terms of sale are not consistent
with the price or terms of sale of similar
non-rated orders. The rule provides a
defense from any liability for damages
or penalties for any action or inaction
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
required to maintain compliance with
the rule.
The impact of EMPAS on private
companies receiving priority orders is
expected to vary. FEMA’s issuance of a
priority-rated order will generally only
modify the timing in which other orders
are completed. Deferred orders may face
delays, which impose a burden on
potential recipients of these orders.
FEMA’s exercise of its priorities and
allocations authorities under section
101 of the DPA and EMPAS is expected
to have an overall positive impact on
the U.S. public and industry by creating
a framework by which FEMA exercises
its delegated authorities, as discussed
above.
Since implementation of the
regulation in May, FEMA has modified
and extended an allocation order
allocating certain scarce and critical
materials for domestic use to ensure
those resources were not exported from
the United States without specific
approval by FEMA, and FEMA
continues to consider options for using
EMPAS to address mission needs. See
85 FR 48113 (Aug. 10, 2020). Finalizing
the EMPAS regulation allows FEMA to
respond to public comments in a timely
manner and ensures FEMA’s continued
ability to use its authorities as
appropriate in response to the COVID–
19 pandemic. FEMA is also better
prepared should delegations of
priorities and allocations authority for
other types of resources be issued in the
future.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency
to consider the impacts of certain rules
on small entities. The RFA’s regulatory
flexibility analysis requirements apply
to only those rules for which an agency
was required to publish a general notice
of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(b) or any other law. See 5
U.S.C. 604(a). As discussed previously,
FEMA did not issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action,
and was not required to do so under any
law. Thus, the RFA’s requirements
relating to a final regulatory flexibility
analysis do not apply.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
As noted above, no notice of proposed
rulemaking was published in advance of
this action. Therefore, the written
statement provisions of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as
amended, do not apply to this
regulatory action. See 2 U.S.C. 1532.
E:\FR\FM\08JAR1.SGM
08JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
E. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule contains information
collections necessary to support FEMA’s
implementation of the President’s
priorities and allocations authority
under Title I of the Defense Production
Act of 1950 (DPA), as amended (50
U.S.C. 4501, et seq.). The purpose of this
authority is to ensure the timely
delivery of products, materials, and
services necessary or appropriate to
promote the national defense.
The Requests for Special Priorities
Assistance collection, 1660–0149, was
submitted under OMB’s emergency
clearance procedures. Currently, FEMA
is seeking public comment on collection
1660–0149 through the normal
clearance process (see 85 FR 65066, Oct.
14, 2020 8).
The new Rated Orders, Adjustments,
Exceptions, or Appeals Under the
Emergency Management Priorities and
Allocations System (EMPAS) collection,
1660–0150, cleared OMB’s emergency
clearance procedures and has an
expiration date of 4/30/21. Additionally,
FEMA will seek public comments on
the collection through the normal
clearance process.
F. Privacy Act
Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5
U.S.C. 552a, an agency must determine
whether implementation of a proposed
regulation will result in a system of
records. A ‘‘record’’ is any item,
collection, or grouping of information
about an individual that is maintained
by an agency, including, but not limited
to, his/her education, financial
transactions, medical history, and
criminal or employment history and
that contains his/her name, or the
identifying number, symbol, or other
identifying particular assigned to the
individual, such as a finger or voice
print or a photograph. See 5 U.S.C.
552a(a)(4). A ‘‘system of records’’ is a
group of records under the control of an
agency from which information is
retrieved by the name of the individual
or by some identifying number, symbol,
or other identifying particular assigned
to the individual. An agency cannot
disclose any record which is contained
in a system of records except by
following specific procedures.
In accordance with DHS policy,
FEMA has completed two Privacy
Threshold Analyses (PTAs). DHS has
determined that this rulemaking does
not affect the 1660–1660–0149 and the
1660–0150 OMB Control Numbers’
compliance with the E-Government Act
of 2002 or the Privacy Act of 1974, as
8 Collection 1660–0149’s 30-day comment period
ended on November 13, 2020.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Jan 07, 2021
Jkt 253001
1291
amended. Specifically, DHS has
concluded that the 1660–0149 and
1660–0150 OMB Control Numbers are
covered by the DHS/ALL/PIA–065
Electronic Contract Filing System
(ECFS) Privacy Impact Assessment
(PIA). Additionally, DHS has decided
that the 1660–0149 and the 1660–0150
OMB Control Numbers are covered by
the DHS/ALL–021 Department of
Homeland Security Contractors and
Consultants, 73 FR 63179 (Oct. 23,
2008) System of Records Notice (SORN).
and to the extent practicable, must
consult with State and local officials
before implementing any such action.
FEMA has determined that this
rulemaking does not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, and therefore does
not have federalism implications as
defined by the Executive order.
G. Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments,’’ 65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000, applies to agency regulations
that have Tribal implications, that is,
regulations that have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes. Under
this Executive order, to the extent
practicable and permitted by law, no
agency shall promulgate any regulation
that has Tribal implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on Indian Tribal governments, and
that is not required by statute, unless
funds necessary to pay the direct costs
incurred by the Indian Tribal
government or the Tribe in complying
with the regulation are provided by the
Federal Government, or the agency
consults with Tribal officials.
FEMA has reviewed this final rule
under Executive Order 13175 and has
determined that this final rule does not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
I. National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA)
Under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., an agency must
prepare an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement for any
rulemaking that significantly affects the
quality of the human environment.
FEMA has determined that this
rulemaking does not significantly affect
the quality of the human environment
and consequently has not prepared an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement.
Rulemaking is a major Federal action
subject to NEPA. Categorical exclusion
A3 included in the list of exclusion
categories at Department of Homeland
Security Instruction Manual 023–01–
001–01, Revision 01, Implementation of
the National Environmental Policy Act,
Appendix A, issued November 6, 2014,
covers the promulgation of rules,
issuance of rulings or interpretations,
and the development and publication of
policies, orders, directives, notices,
procedures, manuals, and advisory
circulars if they meet certain criteria
provided in A3(a–f). This interim final
rule meets Categorical Exclusion A3(a),
‘‘[t]hose of a strictly administrative or
procedural nature,’’ and A3(b), ‘‘[t]hose
that implement, without substantive
change, statutory or regulatory
requirements.’’
H. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999, sets forth
principles and criteria that agencies
must adhere to in formulating and
implementing policies that have
federalism implications, that is,
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’ Federal
agencies must closely examine the
statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the
policymaking discretion of the States,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
J. Congressional Review of Agency
Rulemaking
Under the Congressional Review of
Agency Rulemaking Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C.
801–808, before a rule can take effect,
the Federal agency promulgating the
rule must: Submit to Congress and to
the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) a copy of the rule; a concise
general statement relating to the rule,
including whether it is a major rule; the
proposed effective date of the rule; a
copy of any cost-benefit analysis;
descriptions of the agency’s actions
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;
and any other information or statements
required by relevant Executive orders.
E:\FR\FM\08JAR1.SGM
08JAR1
1292
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
FEMA has submitted this final rule to
the Congress and to GAO pursuant to
the CRA. The Office of Management and
Budget has determined that this rule is
a ‘‘major rule’’ within the meaning of
the CRA. As this rule contains FEMA’s
finding for good cause that notice and
public procedure are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest, there is not a required delay in
the effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 333
Administrative practice and
procedure, Business and industry,
Government contracts, National defense,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Strategic and critical
materials.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the interim rule adding 44
CFR part 333, which was published at
85 FR 28500 on May 13, 2020, is
adopted as final with the following
changes:
PART 333—EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES AND
ALLOCATIONS SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 333
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 6 U.S.C. 313, 314; 50 U.S.C.
4511, et seq.; E.O. 13603, 77 FR 16651; E.O.
13909, 85 FR 16227; E.O. 13911, 85 FR
18403; DHS Delegation 09052, Rev. 00 (Jan.
3, 2017); DHS Delegation 09052 Rev 00.1
(Apr. 1, 2020).
§ 333.20
[Amended]
2. In § 333.20, amend paragraph (c) by
removing ‘‘1660–NW122’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘1660–0149.’’
■
Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020–29287 Filed 1–7–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–19–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2020–0110]
RIN 2127–AL48
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems;
Motorcycle Controls and Displays
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule; technical corrections.
AGENCY:
This document amends
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS) Nos. 122 and 123 to allow the
use of an internationally recognized
symbol. It also relocates the telltale
specifications for anti-lock braking
system (ABS) malfunction from FMVSS
No. 101 to the appropriate table in
FMVSS No. 123 since the latter applies
to motorcycles. In addition, this final
rule makes two technical corrections: It
corrects motorcycle category references
in S6.3.2 of FMVSS No. 122 and an
outdated table reference found in
FMVSS No. 135.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
January 8, 2021.
Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions
for reconsideration of this final rule
must be received by February 22, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration
of this final rule must refer to the docket
number set forth above and be
submitted to the Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Pyne, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, by telephone at
202–366–4171 or Callie Roach, Office of
the Chief Counsel, by telephone at 202–
366–2992. You may send mail to both
officials at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with RULES
I. Summary of the November 2014
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On August 24, 2012, the agency
published a final rule amending Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems.1 The
1 77
FR 51649.
copy of GTR No. 3 was placed in the docket
for the NPRM associated with the final rule revising
FMVSS No. 122. See Docket No. NHTSA–2008–
0150–0002.
2A
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Jan 07, 2021
Jkt 253001
3 73
FR 54020 (Sept. 17, 2008).
CFR 571.121, S5.1.6.2.
5 We referenced FMVSS No. 101, notwithstanding
the fact that it does not apply to motorcycles,
4 49
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
final rule updated provisions of FMVSS
No. 122 to reflect the performance of
modern motorcycle brake systems. The
final rule adopted requirements and test
procedures derived from Global
Technical Regulation (GTR) No. 3 for
motorcycle brakes. Adopted in 2006,
GTR No. 3 combined the best practices
from requirements and test procedures
available internationally, drawn
primarily from FMVSS No. 122, United
Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECE) Regulation No. 78, and
Japanese Safety Standard JSS12–61.2
The revised FMVSS No. 122 adopted
performance requirements for antilock
brake system (ABS) performance.
Although FMVSS No. 122 as amended
in 2012 does not require motorcycles to
be equipped with ABS, it includes
performance requirements for
motorcycles that are equipped with
ABS. These requirements apply to
motorcycles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2014.
Both the GTR and the 2008 notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for
FMVSS No. 122 3 specified that all
motorcycles equipped with ABS must
also be fitted with a yellow warning
lamp that illuminates whenever there is
a malfunction that affects the generation
or transmission of signals in the
motorcycle’s ABS system. The prior
version of FMVSS No. 122 did not
include any requirements for an ABS
malfunction telltale.
The final rule, consistent with other
FMVSS addressing ABS system failure,4
and with FMVSS No. 101, Controls and
displays,5 required that motorcycle ABS
system failure be indicated to the
operator with a telltale identified by the
words ‘‘Antilock’’ or ‘‘Anti-lock’’ or
‘‘ABS.’’ 6 The final rule also added a
specification that the telltale be labeled
in letters at least 3/32 inch (2.4 mm)
high.7 This minimum letter height
specification is consistent with the
existing requirement for a brake failure
telltale identifier for motorcycles.8
Several months after the agency
published the final rule in August 2012,
the American Honda Motor Company
(Honda), manufacturer of Honda
motorcycles, contacted the agency to
inform NHTSA that the ABS-equipped
motorcycles it and other manufacturers
produce already are equipped with ABS
malfunction warning lamps and told the
agency that the current practice is to use
the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) symbol for ABS
because it had an existing labeling requirement for
ABS malfunction in Table 1.
6 49 CFR 571.122, S5.1.10.2(c).
7 49 CFR 571.122, S5.1.10.2(c).
8 49 CFR 571.122a, S5.1.3.1(d).
E:\FR\FM\08JAR1.SGM
08JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1288-1292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29287]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
44 CFR Part 333
[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0019]
RIN 1660-AB04
Emergency Management Priorities and Allocations System (EMPAS)
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule adopts, with minor technical edits, an interim
final rule with request for comments published in the Federal Register
on May 13, 2020, establishing standards and procedures by which the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may require certain
contracts or orders that promote the national defense be given priority
over other contracts or orders and setting new standards and procedures
by which FEMA may allocate materials, services, and facilities to
promote the national defense under emergency and non-emergency
conditions pursuant to section 101 of the Defense Production Act of
1950, as amended. These regulations are part of FEMA's response to the
ongoing COVID-19 emergency.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective January 8, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Geier, Office of Policy and
Program Analysis, 202-924-0196, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Legal Authority
On May 13, 2020, FEMA published in the Federal Register an interim
final rule establishing standards and procedures by which FEMA may
require certain contracts or orders that promote the national defense
be given priority over other contracts or orders and setting new
standards and procedures by which FEMA may allocate materials,
services, and facilities to promote the national defense under
emergency and non-emergency conditions pursuant to section 101 of the
Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended. See 85 FR 28500.
Section 101 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (DPA
or the Act), authorizes the President to require that performance under
contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) which the
President deems necessary or appropriate to promote the national
defense take priority over performance under any other contract or
order. For the purpose of assuring such priority, the President may
require acceptance and performance of such contracts or orders in
preference to other contracts or orders by any person the President
finds to be capable of their performance.\1\ Section 101 also
authorizes the President to allocate materials, services, and
facilities in such manner, upon such conditions, and to such extent as
the President shall deem necessary or appropriate to promote the
national defense.\2\ Executive Order 13911, ``Delegating Additional
Authority Under the Defense Production Act With Respect to Health and
Medical Resources To Respond to the Spread of COVID-19,'' 85 FR 18403
(Apr. 1, 2020), delegated the President's authority under Section 101
to the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to health and
medical resources needed to respond to the spread of Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) within the United States. The Secretary of
Homeland Security has further delegated these authorities to the FEMA
Administrator.\3\ FEMA published its interim final rule to comply with
Section 101(d), which requires agencies delegated authority under
Section 101 to issue final rules to establish standards and procedures
by which the priorities and allocations authority is used to promote
the national defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 50 U.S.C. 4511(a)(1).
\2\ 50 U.S.C. 4511(a)(2).
\3\ DHS Delegation 09052 Rev. 00.1, ``Delegation of Defense
Production Act Authority to the Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency'' (Apr. 1, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The interim final rule established the Emergency Management
Priorities and Allocations System (EMPAS), which became part of the
Federal Priorities and Allocations System (FPAS), the body of
regulations that establishes standards and procedures for implementing
the President's authority under Section 101(a) of the DPA. This rule
finalizes the interim final rule.
II. Discussion Public Comments and FEMA's Responses
The public comment period on the interim final rule closed on June
12, 2020, and four germane public comments were received. One comment
was generally supportive of the regulation, pointing out that having
the EMPAS rule in place allows FEMA to leverage the DPA in response to
the COVID-19 pandemic over an extended period of time or eventually
extend it to more general emergency preparedness activities. Given the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, FEMA is considering use of the EMPAS
regulation to combat the COVID-19 pandemic over an extended period of
time. Since implementation of the regulation in May, FEMA has modified
and extended an order allocating certain scarce and critical materials
for domestic use to ensure the resources were not exported from the
United States without specific approval by FEMA, and continues to
consider options for using EMPAS to address mission needs. See 85 FR
48113 (Aug. 10, 2020). Finalizing the EMPAS regulation allows FEMA to
respond to public comments in a timely manner and ensures FEMA's
continued ability to use its authorities as appropriate in response to
the COVID-19 pandemic. FEMA is also better prepared should delegations
of priorities and allocations authority for other types of resources be
issued in the future, as it will already have a regulatory framework in
place.
The commenter suggested that EMPAS authority should be extended to
include vaccine active ingredients as well as adjuvant or booster
additions to vaccines; measures to permit fill and finish of large
numbers of vaccine doses, including glass vials and other packaging;
and provide for distribution systems and medical facilities to
distribute vaccines when available at the most rapid rate. FEMA's
authority pursuant to EMPAS is clear; the
[[Page 1289]]
President delegated FEMA \4\ the authority to exercise section 101 of
the DPA with respect to health and medical resources needed to respond
to the spread of COVID-19 within the United States. The EMPAS
regulation defines ``health and medical resources'' as ``drugs,
biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health
supplies, services, and equipment required to diagnose, mitigate,
prevent the impairment of, improve, treat, cure, or restore the
physical or mental health conditions of the population.'' This
definition mirrors the definition of ``health resources'' established
by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in their Health
Resources Priority and Allocations System (HRPAS) regulation \5\ to
ensure consistency across agencies delegated authority by the President
to utilize these resources to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Vaccines, which are defined as biological products under section 351(i)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(i)), are considered a
health and medical resource and thus would fall within the scope of the
HRPAS and EMPAS regulations, including any materials associated with
vaccines, including glass vials and other packaging.\6\ Similarly,
distribution systems and medical facilities for vaccine distribution
also constitute health and medical resources under EMPAS.\7\ Given the
need for consistency across agencies to ensure a unified response in
combating this pandemic and avoid any confusion in implementation, FEMA
is retaining the definition of ``health and medical resources'' from
the interim final rule and believes the definition provides sufficient
clarity regarding the resources covered by the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Executive Order 13911, 85 FR 18403 (Apr. 1, 2020), DHS
Delegation 09052 Rev. 00 ``Delegation of Defense Production Act
Authority to the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency'' (Jan. 3, 2017), and DHS Delegation 09052 Rev. 00.1,
``Delegation of Defense Production Act Authority to the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency'' (Apr. 1,
2020).
\5\ See 45 CFR 101.20.
\6\ HHS has long held resource authority for health resources.
See Executive Order 13603, 77 FR 16651 (Mar. 22, 2012) and more
recently Executive Order 13909, 85 FR 16227 (Mar. 23, 2020). While
Executive Order 13911 delegated the same authorities to DHS, HHS's
extensive expertise in this area would be required for any vaccine
development-related efforts.
\7\ See 44 CFR 333.8. See also 45 CFR 101.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same commenter pointed out that, while FEMA already possesses
subdelegated authority to use both the Department of Commerce's Defense
Priority and Allocations System (DPAS) and the Department of
Agriculture's Agriculture Priority and Allocations System (APAS)
regulations, having the EMPAS regulations should enhance
predictability. The commenter noted the EMPAS regulations were
generally patterned after other Federal Priority and Allocations System
(FPAS) regulations, with some exceptions. For example, the EMPAS
regulations discuss rated orders placed by FEMA or a Delegate Agency to
facilitate sales to third parties. The commenter noted this distinction
could refer to contracts placed in support of hospitals or other health
entities or serve as a more general reference to the overarching
distributor-style role FEMA and other Federal entities have played
during the COVID-19 pandemic response to date. The distinction could
also set up a type of hybrid rated order/allocation action. FEMA may
leverage the EMPAS regulation to facilitate sales to third parties with
respect to contracts placed in support of entities seeking scarce and
critical health and medical resources and to assist in the distribution
of these resources as appropriate. The agency does not intend to create
a hybrid rated order/allocation action.
This commenter urged FEMA to be prepared to exercise EMPAS
authority and delegate authority to assure the ability to produce,
manufacture, fill, and finish coronavirus vaccines, specifically
requesting the regulation make clear that emergency authority includes
the ability to pre-manufacture vials and syringes as necessary to
provide a large number of vaccine doses. As explained above, although
vaccines and associated materials are within the authority delegated by
Executive Order 13911, HHS is the agency with expertise in vaccine
development and FEMA does not anticipate having a role in that process.
FEMA believes the regulation provides sufficient clarity regarding the
resource authority delegated by Executive Order 13911 and no changes
are required in this final rule.
Another commenter offered suggested improvements to Sec. 333.13
regarding timelines for responses to rated order requests.
Specifically, the commenter recommended changes to Sec. 333.13(d)(2)
to allow for responses within 6 or 12 hours ``after confirmation of
receipt by vendor/contractor personnel during normal business hours.''
FEMA appreciates that the proposed change would allow vendors and
contractors more time to handle rated order requests consistent with
their normal business practices, but rated orders are designated as
such specifically because of the need to handle them differently than
ordinary orders. The language in Sec. 333.13(d)(2) mirrors the
existing Department of Commerce DPAS regulations at 15 CFR
700.13(d)(2). As explained in the preamble to the interim final rule,
FEMA adopted language consistent with the DPAS regulation because rated
orders placed for the purpose of emergency preparedness would require a
shorter timeframe to ensure delivery in time to provide disaster
assistance, emergency response, or similar activities. Further, the
timeframes given in Sec. 333.13(d)(2) are the minimum allowed and only
apply when ``expedited action is necessary or appropriate.'' As such,
FEMA does not expect 6- or 12-hour response deadlines to be used
frequently, and therefore does not expect the regulatory provision to
impose a substantial burden on vendors and contractors. To ensure
consistency across FPAS regulations, and because of the nature of
FEMA's mission, FEMA is retaining the language from the interim final
rule in the final rule. Additionally, the commenter suggested the use
of the term ``immediately'' in Sec. 333.13(d)(3) and elsewhere could
not be realistically defined. The commenter recommended alternative
language, such as, ``as soon as reasonably practicable'' or ``promptly
with commercially reasonable efforts.'' Again, the language in EMPAS is
consistent with the Department of Commerce's DPAS regulations, where
this provision has been in use since 2014. Given the exigent
circumstances under which FEMA must provide emergency preparedness,
mitigation, response, and recovery services, the requirement for
immediate notification is necessary to ensure the ultimate timely
delivery of these services. In addition, FEMA does not believe that the
alternative terms provide a significantly more definite meaning.
Therefore, FEMA is retaining the language from the interim final rule
to ensure consistency across FPAS regulations.
Two commenters focused their comments exclusively on vaccines, a
topic not directly addressed by EMPAS. One commenter requested an
ethically produced vaccine that is not developed from aborted fetal
cells. The EMPAS regulation does not discuss vaccine development. As
explained above, FEMA's EMPAS regulation is limited to establishing
standards and procedures for priority and allocation orders for
``health and medical resources'' as defined in the interim final rule
at Sec. 333.8. Although vaccines fall within the scope of ``health and
medical resources'' authority delegated to HHS and to FEMA, FEMA has
not played a substantial role in the development of
[[Page 1290]]
the vaccine given HHS's expertise in the field and long-standing
resource authority in the area. Thus, FEMA is not revising the interim
final rule in this regard. Finally, one commenter stated her lack of
trust in vaccines and indicated she did not want vaccines to be
required for school attendance. The EMPAS regulations set standards and
procedures for priority and allocation orders for health and medical
resources to promote the national defense in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. The regulations do not require individuals to be vaccinated.
III. Technical Changes
This rule makes technical changes to the interim final rule. The
authority citation for the final rule is being updated to include DHS
Delegation Number 09052 Rev. 00 (Jan. 3, 2017), and to make non-
substantive formatting revisions to authorities previously included.
The interim final rule contained a placeholder reference to an OMB
clearance number for an information collection under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. See 44 CFR 333.20(c). OMB issued the related Paperwork
Reduction Act Notice of Action on May 13, 2020, the same day the
interim final rule published in the Federal Register. As a result of
OMB's action, FEMA now has a permanent OMB clearance number. Therefore,
FEMA is removing from Sec. 333.20(c) the placeholder reference,
``1660-NW122'' and adding in its place the permanent number, ``1660-
0149.''
IV. Regulatory Analysis
A. Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
This rule is effective immediately because the delayed effective
date generally required by the APA is unnecessary. See 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3). The interim final rule that this final rule makes final,
with only technical changes, is already in effect.
B. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive
Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and Executive
Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives
and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'') directs agencies to reduce regulation
and control regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new
regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.''
This final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. This rule has been designated a ``significant
regulatory action'' and economically significant under Section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
This final rule adopts the interim final rule (IFR) that
established standards and procedures by which FEMA may require certain
contracts or orders that promote the national defense be given priority
over other contracts or orders and setting new standards and procedures
by which FEMA may allocate materials, services, and facilities to
promote the national defense under emergency and non-emergency
conditions pursuant to section 101 of the Defense Production Act of
1950, as amended. Accordingly, relative to a post-IFR baseline, this
final rule has no economic impact. Below, FEMA also examines the rule's
impacts relative to a pre-IFR baseline.
This rule sets criteria and procedures under which FEMA will
authorize prioritization of certain orders or contracts as well as
criteria under which FEMA will issue orders allocating materials,
services, and facilities. Under prioritization, FEMA will designate
certain orders as one of two possible priority levels. Once so
designated, such orders are referred to as ``rated orders.'' The
recipient of a rated order must give it priority over an unrated order
or an order with a lower priority rating. A recipient of a rated order
may place orders of the same priority level with their suppliers and
subcontractors for supplies and services necessary to fulfill FEMA's
rated order. The suppliers and subcontractors must treat the request
from the recipient as a rated order with the same priority level as the
original rated order. The rule does not require recipients to fulfill
rated orders if the price or terms of sale are not consistent with the
price or terms of sale of similar non-rated orders. The rule provides a
defense from any liability for damages or penalties for any action or
inaction required to maintain compliance with the rule.
The impact of EMPAS on private companies receiving priority orders
is expected to vary. FEMA's issuance of a priority-rated order will
generally only modify the timing in which other orders are completed.
Deferred orders may face delays, which impose a burden on potential
recipients of these orders. FEMA's exercise of its priorities and
allocations authorities under section 101 of the DPA and EMPAS is
expected to have an overall positive impact on the U.S. public and
industry by creating a framework by which FEMA exercises its delegated
authorities, as discussed above.
Since implementation of the regulation in May, FEMA has modified
and extended an allocation order allocating certain scarce and critical
materials for domestic use to ensure those resources were not exported
from the United States without specific approval by FEMA, and FEMA
continues to consider options for using EMPAS to address mission needs.
See 85 FR 48113 (Aug. 10, 2020). Finalizing the EMPAS regulation allows
FEMA to respond to public comments in a timely manner and ensures
FEMA's continued ability to use its authorities as appropriate in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. FEMA is also better prepared should
delegations of priorities and allocations authority for other types of
resources be issued in the future.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires an agency to consider the impacts of certain rules on small
entities. The RFA's regulatory flexibility analysis requirements apply
to only those rules for which an agency was required to publish a
general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or
any other law. See 5 U.S.C. 604(a). As discussed previously, FEMA did
not issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for this action, and was not
required to do so under any law. Thus, the RFA's requirements relating
to a final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
As noted above, no notice of proposed rulemaking was published in
advance of this action. Therefore, the written statement provisions of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as amended, do not apply to
this regulatory action. See 2 U.S.C. 1532.
[[Page 1291]]
E. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule contains information collections necessary to support
FEMA's implementation of the President's priorities and allocations
authority under Title I of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA), as
amended (50 U.S.C. 4501, et seq.). The purpose of this authority is to
ensure the timely delivery of products, materials, and services
necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.
The Requests for Special Priorities Assistance collection, 1660-
0149, was submitted under OMB's emergency clearance procedures.
Currently, FEMA is seeking public comment on collection 1660-0149
through the normal clearance process (see 85 FR 65066, Oct. 14, 2020
\8\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Collection 1660-0149's 30-day comment period ended on
November 13, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new Rated Orders, Adjustments, Exceptions, or Appeals Under the
Emergency Management Priorities and Allocations System (EMPAS)
collection, 1660-0150, cleared OMB's emergency clearance procedures and
has an expiration date of 4/30/21. Additionally, FEMA will seek public
comments on the collection through the normal clearance process.
F. Privacy Act
Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, an agency must
determine whether implementation of a proposed regulation will result
in a system of records. A ``record'' is any item, collection, or
grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an
agency, including, but not limited to, his/her education, financial
transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and
that contains his/her name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other
identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or
voice print or a photograph. See 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(4). A ``system of
records'' is a group of records under the control of an agency from
which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some
identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to
the individual. An agency cannot disclose any record which is contained
in a system of records except by following specific procedures.
In accordance with DHS policy, FEMA has completed two Privacy
Threshold Analyses (PTAs). DHS has determined that this rulemaking does
not affect the 1660-1660-0149 and the 1660-0150 OMB Control Numbers'
compliance with the E-Government Act of 2002 or the Privacy Act of
1974, as amended. Specifically, DHS has concluded that the 1660-0149
and 1660-0150 OMB Control Numbers are covered by the DHS/ALL/PIA-065
Electronic Contract Filing System (ECFS) Privacy Impact Assessment
(PIA). Additionally, DHS has decided that the 1660-0149 and the 1660-
0150 OMB Control Numbers are covered by the DHS/ALL-021 Department of
Homeland Security Contractors and Consultants, 73 FR 63179 (Oct. 23,
2008) System of Records Notice (SORN).
G. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments,'' 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000, applies to agency
regulations that have Tribal implications, that is, regulations that
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes. Under this Executive order, to the extent
practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any
regulation that has Tribal implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and that is not
required by statute, unless funds necessary to pay the direct costs
incurred by the Indian Tribal government or the Tribe in complying with
the regulation are provided by the Federal Government, or the agency
consults with Tribal officials.
FEMA has reviewed this final rule under Executive Order 13175 and
has determined that this final rule does not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
H. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999, sets forth principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to
in formulating and implementing policies that have federalism
implications, that is, regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Federal
agencies must closely examine the statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and
to the extent practicable, must consult with State and local officials
before implementing any such action.
FEMA has determined that this rulemaking does not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and
therefore does not have federalism implications as defined by the
Executive order.
I. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., an agency must prepare an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for any
rulemaking that significantly affects the quality of the human
environment. FEMA has determined that this rulemaking does not
significantly affect the quality of the human environment and
consequently has not prepared an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement.
Rulemaking is a major Federal action subject to NEPA. Categorical
exclusion A3 included in the list of exclusion categories at Department
of Homeland Security Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Revision 01,
Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, Appendix A,
issued November 6, 2014, covers the promulgation of rules, issuance of
rulings or interpretations, and the development and publication of
policies, orders, directives, notices, procedures, manuals, and
advisory circulars if they meet certain criteria provided in A3(a-f).
This interim final rule meets Categorical Exclusion A3(a), ``[t]hose of
a strictly administrative or procedural nature,'' and A3(b), ``[t]hose
that implement, without substantive change, statutory or regulatory
requirements.''
J. Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking
Under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act (CRA), 5
U.S.C. 801-808, before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency
promulgating the rule must: Submit to Congress and to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) a copy of the rule; a concise general
statement relating to the rule, including whether it is a major rule;
the proposed effective date of the rule; a copy of any cost-benefit
analysis; descriptions of the agency's actions under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and any other
information or statements required by relevant Executive orders.
[[Page 1292]]
FEMA has submitted this final rule to the Congress and to GAO
pursuant to the CRA. The Office of Management and Budget has determined
that this rule is a ``major rule'' within the meaning of the CRA. As
this rule contains FEMA's finding for good cause that notice and public
procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest, there is not a required delay in the effective date. See 5
U.S.C. 808(2).
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 333
Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry,
Government contracts, National defense, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Strategic and critical materials.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the interim rule adding 44
CFR part 333, which was published at 85 FR 28500 on May 13, 2020, is
adopted as final with the following changes:
PART 333--EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS SYSTEM
0
1. The authority citation for part 333 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 6 U.S.C. 313, 314; 50 U.S.C. 4511, et seq.; E.O.
13603, 77 FR 16651; E.O. 13909, 85 FR 16227; E.O. 13911, 85 FR
18403; DHS Delegation 09052, Rev. 00 (Jan. 3, 2017); DHS Delegation
09052 Rev 00.1 (Apr. 1, 2020).
Sec. 333.20 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 333.20, amend paragraph (c) by removing ``1660-NW122'' and
adding in its place ``1660-0149.''
Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-29287 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P