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

[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