The Executive Order relies on federal statutory authority and the Supremacy Clause: agencies can use Stafford Act authorities and other grant statutes to waive or modify administrative conditions for federal disaster assistance (see 42 U.S.C. §5141) and can impose conditions on federal funding; valid federal laws or regulations can preempt conflicting state/local rules. The EO itself directs FEMA and SBA to issue implementing regulations, but those regulations’ scope would depend on the agencies’ underlying statutory authority and could be subject to judicial review.
In practice "self‑certify to a Federal agency designee" means a licensed builder or contractor signs a formal declaration that work complies with the required substantive health, safety, and building standards and submits it to a federal official or federally‑appointed reviewer instead of waiting for a local permit. That speeds work but typically leaves the project subject to later federal inspection, audit, paperwork review, and potential penalties for false certification.
The fact sheet directs FEMA and SBA to issue regulations but does not set a deadline; timing will depend on each agency’s rulemaking process (notice, comment, publication). If issued as formal federal rules, they must follow the Administrative Procedure Act’s rulemaking timeline and could take months and be legally challenged; agencies can sometimes use expedited rulemaking or emergency waivers where statutes permit, but the EO itself does not specify a statutory effective date.
The Order specifically names the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as federal laws agencies should use to expedite waivers, permits, and approvals.
Expedited environmental and historic reviews can shorten delay for rebuilding but raise risks: faster NEPA/ESA/NHPA actions may mean fewer field studies, compressed public notice and consultation, and greater chance of overlooking impacts to habitat, threatened species, wetlands, archaeological sites, or listed buildings. Those tradeoffs can lead to increased ecological harm or loss of historic fabric if safeguards are reduced or later mitigation proves inadequate.
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) is a FEMA grant program that funds projects to reduce disaster risk (e.g., buyouts, elevation, fuel‑breaks) after a presidential disaster declaration. States receive HMGP allocations based on federal disaster costs; California’s nearly $3 billion unspent HMGP balance reflects multiyear allocations that can be delayed by planning requirements, project selection processes, matching‑fund needs, environmental review, and administrative bottlenecks, per FEMA grant rules and common grant‑management timelines.
If FEMA’s audit finds funds were awarded arbitrarily or contrary to law, possible consequences include administrative recovery or deobligation of federal funds, requirement to repay or reallocate grants, audit findings and corrective action plans, suspension or debarment of responsible parties, and referral to Inspectors General or the Department of Justice for civil or criminal investigation (including False Claims Act or other enforcement actions).