[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3910-3912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1746]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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) rules@fema.gov.
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) patricia.stahlschmidt@fema.gov.
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
