Disaster Assistance; Factors Considered When Evaluating a Governor's Request for a Major Disaster Declaration

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 206

RIN 3067-AC94

Disaster Assistance; Factors Considered When Evaluating a

Governor's Request for a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

[[Page 3911]]

SUMMARY: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) grants the President the authority

for declarations of major disasters and emergencies. We, FEMA, provide

a recommendation to the President whether Federal disaster assistance

is warranted. This proposed rule would establish the factors that we

take into consideration when evaluating a Governor's request for a

major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act. This proposed rule

would not affect presidential discretion, nor would it change published

regulations and policies established under the Stafford Act.

DATES: We invite your comments, which may be submitted on or before

April 26, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Please send any comments to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office

of the General Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C

Street SW., room 840, Washington, DC 20472, (facsimile) 202-646-4536,

or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Stahlschmidt, Response and

Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street

SW., Washington, DC 20472, 202-646-4066, (facsimile) 202-646-4060, or

(email) [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Stafford Act requires that the Governor of the affected State

submit requests for major disaster assistance to the President. The

Governor's request must be based on a finding that the disaster is of

such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the

capabilities of the State and the affected local governments. Our role

is to evaluate the Governor's request and to make a recommendation to

the President whether major disaster assistance is warranted. We take

this role very seriously and evaluate each request on the basis of a

number of factors. This process ensures that we evaluate requests

fairly and consistently across all States while at the same time it

permits us to look at the unique circumstances and needs of each

request. In recent years the General Accounting Office, our Inspector

General, Congress and some States and local governments have asked that

we publish the criteria that we use to evaluate these requests.

Objectives

We agree that it is time to publish the factors used to evaluate

major disaster declarations and have adopted four objectives for these

factors:

1. They must be easy to understand and administer;

2. They should encourage the State to establish its own funded

disaster assistance programs;

3. They should provide incentives for hazard mitigation and

insurance;

4. They should focus primarily on the Public Assistance Program.

Discussions with Others

We discussed declaration factors with the National Emergency

Management Association and a number of other organizations in the

development of these evaluation factors. There are differences of

opinion whether disaster declaration criteria should be published and

what they should be. Some States want this information so that they

know when a major disaster declaration request is reasonable, and what

size disaster the State should be expected to manage so that they can

have a target level for their own trust funds or disaster assistance

programs. Other States object to criteria, seeing criteria as a ``one-

size-fits-all'' approach and merely a means to transfer costs to State

and local governments. All individuals that we met with saw the need to

preserve the President's discretion.

We believe that the factors outlined below:

Preserve presidential discretion while at the same time

they provide a threshold of damages under the Public Assistance Program

that we can reasonably expect States and local governments to manage;

Are not a mechanism for transferring costs to State and

local governments, but in fact, essentially mirror the process that we

now use to evaluate requests for major disaster declarations;

Would allow us to evaluate the unique circumstances or

needs created by each disaster while permitting us to apply all factors

consistently to each State's request; and

Provide an objective and clear measurement by including a

per capita figure among the factors that we would evaluate. However,

the per capita amount alone does not automatically mean a denial if the

State does not meet it, nor does it guarantee a declaration if the

State meets it.

In summary, the evaluation factors propose a simple, clear and

reasonable means to measure the severity, magnitude and impact of a

disaster, while at the same time ensure that the President can respond

quickly and effectively to a Governor's request for assistance.

National Environmental Policy Act

This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements

of 44 CFR part 10. We have not prepared an environmental assessment.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action within

the meaning of section 2(f) of E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, 58 FR

51735, but attempts to adhere to the regulatory principles set forth in

E.O. 12866. The rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget under E.O. 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule does not contain a collection of information and

therefore is not subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism

implications under E.O. 12612, Federalism, dated October 16, 1987.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of section

2(b)(2) of E.O. 12778.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 206

Administrative practice and procedure, Disaster assistance,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, we propose to amend 44 CFR Part 206 as follows:

PART 206--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 206 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of

1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR

19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 43239, 3 CFR,

1979 Comp., p. 412; and E.O. 12673, 54 FR 12571, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp.,

p. 214.

2. We are adding section 206.48 to read as follows.

Sec. 206.48 Factors considered when evaluating a Governor's request

for a major disaster declaration.

When we review a Governor's request for major disaster assistance

under the Stafford Act, these are the primary factors in making a

recommendation to the President whether assistance is warranted. We

consider other relevant information as well.

[[Page 3912]]

(a) Public Assistance Program. We evaluate the following factors to

evaluate the need for assistance under the Public Assistance Program.

(1) Estimated Cost of the Assistance. We evaluate the estimated

cost of Federal and nonfederal public assistance against the statewide

population to give some measure of the per capita impact within the

State. We use a figure of $1 per capita as an indicator that the

disaster is of such size that it might warrant Federal assistance, and

adjust this figure annually based on the Consumer Price Index for all

Urban Consumers. We are establishing a minimum threshold of $1 million

in public assistance damages per disaster in the belief that we can

reasonably expect even the lowest population States to cover this level

of public assistance damage.

(2) Impact at the County Level. We evaluate the impact of the

disaster at the county level because at times there are extraordinary

concentrations of damages that might warrant Federal assistance even if

the statewide per capita is not met. This is particularly true where

critical facilities are involved or where the per capita impact at the

county level might be extremely high. For example, we have at times

seen localized damages in the tens or even hundreds of dollars per

capita at the county level though the statewide per capita impact was

low.

(3) Insurance coverage in force. We consider the amount of

insurance coverage that is in force or should have been in force as

required by law and regulation at the time of the disaster, and reduce

the amount of anticipated assistance by that amount.

(4) Hazard mitigation. To recognize and encourage mitigation, we

consider the extent to which State and local government measures

contributed to the reduction of disaster damages for the disaster under

consideration. For example, if a State can demonstrate in its disaster

request that a Statewide building code or other mitigation measures are

likely to have reduced the damages from a particular disaster, we

consider that in the evaluation of the request. This could be

especially significant in those disasters where, because of mitigation,

the estimated public assistance damages fell below the per capita

indicator.

(5) Recent multiple disasters. We look at the disaster history

within the last twelve-month period to evaluate better the overall

impact on the State or locality. We consider declarations under the

Stafford Act as well as declarations by the Governor and the extent to

which the State has spent its own funds.

(6) Programs of other Federal assistance. We also consider programs

of other Federal agencies because at times their programs of assistance

might more appropriately meet the needs created by the disaster.

(b) Factors for the Individual Assistance Program. We consider the

following factors to measure the severity, magnitude and impact of the

disaster and to evaluate the need for assistance to individuals under

the Stafford Act.

(1) Concentration of Damages. We evaluate the concentrations of

damages to individuals. High concentrations of damages generally

indicate a greater need for Federal assistance than widespread and

scattered damages throughout a State.

(2) Trauma. We consider the degree of trauma to a State and to

communities. Some of the conditions that might cause trauma are:

(i) Large numbers of injuries and deaths;

(ii) Large scale disruption of normal community functions and

services; and

(iii) Emergency needs such as extended or widespread loss of power

or water.

(3) Special Populations. We consider whether special populations,

such as low-income, the elderly, or the unemployed are affected, and

whether they may have a greater need for assistance.

(4) Voluntary Agency Assistance. We consider the extent to which

voluntary agencies and State or local programs can meet the needs of

the disaster victims.

(5) Insurance. We consider the amount of insurance coverage

because, by law, Federal disaster assistance cannot duplicate insurance

coverage.

(6) Average Amount of Individual Assistance by State. There is no

set threshold for recommending Individual Assistance, but the following

averages may prove useful to States and voluntary agencies as they

develop plans and programs to meet the needs of disaster victims.

Average Amount of Assistance per Disaster

[July 1994 to August 1998]

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

Small States (under 2 million Medium States (2-10 Large States (over 10

pop.) million pop.) million pop.)

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

Average Population (1990 census 1,045,452.................... 4,888,599.............. 15,556,781.

data).

Number of Disaster Housing 1,375........................ 2,434.................. 5,517.

Applications Approved.

Number of Homes Estimated Major 161.......................... 426.................... 895.

Damage/Destroyed.

Dollar Amount of Housing $2.6 million................. $4.3 million........... $10.4 million.

Assistance.

Number of Individual and Family 437.......................... 1,222.................. 2,966.

Grant Applications Approved.

Dollar Amount of Individual and $1.0 million................. $2.6 million........... $4.4 million.

Family Grant Assistance.

Disaster Housing/IFG Combined $3.6 million................. $6.9 million........... $14.8 million.

Assistance.

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

(Note: The high 3 and low 3 disasters, based on Disaster Housing

Applications, are not considered in the averages. Number of Damaged/

Destroyed Homes is estimated based on the number of owner-occupants

who qualify for Eligible Emergency Rental Resources. Data source is

FEMA's National Processing Service Centers. Data are only available

from July 1994 to the present.)

Small Size States (under 2 million population, listed in order

of 1990 population): Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, District of Columbia,

North Dakota, Delaware, South Dakota, Montana, Rhode Island, Idaho,

Hawaii, New Hampshire, Nevada, Maine, New Mexico, Nebraska, Utah,

West Virginia. U.S. Virgin Islands and all Pacific Island

dependencies.

Medium Size States (2-10 million population, listed in order of

1990 population): Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oregon,

Oklahoma, Connecticut, Colorado, South Carolina, Arizona, Kentucky,

Alabama, Louisiana, Minnesota, Maryland, Washington, Tennessee,

Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, Massachusetts, Virginia, Georgia,

North Carolina, New Jersey, Michigan. Puerto Rico.

Large Size States (over 10 million population, listed in order

of 1990 population): Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas,

New York, California.

Dated: January 12, 1999.

James L. Witt,

Director.

[FR Doc. 99-1746 Filed 1-25-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718-02-P