[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47697-47699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22510]



[[Page 47697]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final rule.

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

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 rule establishes the factors that we take into 
consideration when evaluating a Governor's request for a major disaster 
declaration under the Stafford Act. This rule does not affect 
presidential discretion, nor does it change published regulations and 
policies established under the Stafford Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective October 1, 1999.

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: On January 26, 1999, we published a proposed 
rule on factors considered when evaluating a Governor's request for a 
major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et 
seq. in the Federal Register at 64 FR 3910. We invited comments for 90 
days ending on April 26, 1999. We received nineteen sets of comments: 
seven from States; eight from various organizations; and, four from 
individuals. Comments varied widely. Some commentors objected to 
putting any factors in regulation; some thought that certain evaluation 
factors were too rigorous and restrictive; some thought them too vague 
and weak or subject to political influence; and, some supported the 
rule as written. All comments were appreciated and reviewed carefully. 
Following is a summary of the comments and our responses.
    One State and one nongovernmental organization supported the 
proposed rule. All other States and most non-governmental organizations 
opposed the establishment of any ``declaration criteria'' in regulation 
on the grounds that it limits presidential discretion. Several 
commented that they prefer the current declaration process because it 
provides the appropriate level of executive discretion and flexibility 
for the President and for Governors. We do not agree with the 
perception that the rule limits presidential discretion. First, the 
rule clearly states that it would not affect presidential discretion. 
In fact, the rule specifically states that these evaluation factors are 
used to make a recommendation to the President in recognition of the 
fact that it is the President, not FEMA, who determines whether a major 
disaster declaration is warranted. Secondly, the rule generally mirrors 
the process that we currently use in evaluating a Governor's request. 
It does not change regulations and policies established under the 
Stafford Act.
    Several commentors approved the concept of publishing the 
evaluation factors but criticized them for being too vague and 
subjective. Conversely, some criticized the evaluation factors for 
being too stringent and inflexible. A number of commentors criticized 
specific evaluation factors. Saying, for example, that they do not 
adequately measure State capability or commitment to hazard mitigation. 
However, commentors as a whole offered no specific or consistently 
agreed-upon alternatives to the evaluation factors that we proposed. 
With respect to the lack of specificity in some of the evaluation 
factors, we are purposely general because we look at the collective 
impact of all of the factors when making a recommendation to the 
President. Our goal is to provide consistency in the evaluation process 
and in the types of factors that we consider, while at the same time 
allowing us to consider the total impact and unique circumstances of a 
disaster within a particular State. If further specificity or 
elaboration is needed on individual factors, such as how we might 
measure the impact of hazard mitigation on the disaster, or how we 
would measure the impact of recent disasters, we believe that such 
detail would be more appropriate in policy than in regulation.
    The factor that received the greatest number of comments is the use 
of $1.00 per capita as an indicator for Public Assistance; the use of a 
minimum $1 million dollar threshold for this indicator; and, the intent 
to begin adjusting this indicator annually for inflation using the 
Consumer Price Index. Some felt that this indicator does not really 
provide the best measurement of the size disaster that a State should 
be expected to manage without Federal assistance. Several commentors 
objected to this factor because they did not feel that it adequately 
addressed localized impacts or unique circumstances of a disaster. We 
recognize that a straight per capita figure may not be the best 
measurement of a State's capability, but it does provide a simple, 
clear, consistent and long-standing means of evaluating the size of a 
disaster relative to the size of the State. We also believe that it is 
time to begin to peg this indicator to inflation since it has been in 
use without change for the past fifteen years. One commentor felt that 
we should adjust the $1 per capita figure now from 1985 to 1999 
dollars, but we chose to begin adjusting from this rule forward. 
Several commentors noted that the addition of a $1 million minimum 
indicator for States that are under one million in population is a 
change to current practice. No States or territories affected by this 
provision commented on it. We continue to maintain that even the lowest 
population States can reasonably be expected to cover this level of 
public assistance damage and have made no change in the rule.
    Several commentors objected to using $1 per capita as a statewide 
indicator rather than a localized indicator. This statewide indicator 
is not the sole factor that we use in recommending a major disaster. In 
fact, one of the evaluation factors specifically addresses impacts at 
the local level as well as specific types of impacts, such as damage to 
critical facilities. The proposed rule labels this factor ``Impacts at 
the County Level.'' We have renamed this to be ``Localized Impacts'' to 
make it clear that we look at the impacts for other units of 
government, not just the county. The history of major disaster 
declarations clearly demonstrates that the statewide $1 per capita 
indicator is not the sole determinant in recommending or granting 
declarations. Rather, we look at all of them in concert to determine 
whether a declaration should be recommended. For this reason we do not 
believe that use of this factor is in conflict with Sec. 320 of the 
Stafford Act regarding arithmetic formulas or sliding scales.
    One Tribal organization commented that the rule does not address 
how Tribal governments fit within the declaration process. By law, only 
the Governor can request a major disaster declaration under the 
Stafford Act. We then evaluate the impacts at the State and local 
level. While the proposed rule did not mention Tribal governments 
specifically, we do, and will continue to, evaluate impacts at the 
Tribal level

[[Page 47698]]

just as we would evaluate localized impacts at the county or other 
government level. We revised the rule to add a reference to Tribal 
governments under both the Public Assistance and Individual Assistance 
evaluation factors so that this is clear.
    A number of commentors felt that the evaluation factors should be 
more rigorous so that we can ensure that Federal disaster assistance is 
truly supplemental in nature to State and local assistance. Along those 
lines, several noted that the evaluation factors should consider and/or 
encourage State ``Trust Funds'' for disaster assistance. While we do 
not specifically mention trust funds we do encourage States to develop 
their own programs of disaster assistance. If a State were inclined to 
develop its own programs, the statewide $1 per capita indicator under 
the Public Assistance Program and the average amounts of assistance 
shown under the Individual Assistance Program could serve as targets 
for sizing State programs of assistance.

National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR 
part 10, Environmental Considerations. We have not prepared an 
environmental assessment.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning 
of Sec. 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 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 rule involves no policies that have federalism implications 
under E.O. 12612, Federalism, dated October 16, 1987.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of E.O. 
12778.

Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking

    We have submitted this final rule to the Congress and to the 
General Accounting Office under the Congressional Review of Agency 
Rulemaking Act, Pub. L. 104-121. The rule is not a ``major rule'' 
within the meaning of that Act. It is an administrative action in 
support of normal day-to-day activities. It does not result in nor is 
it likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 
or more; it will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions; and it will not have ``significant 
adverse effects'' on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to 
compete with foreign-based enterprises.
    This final rule is exempt (1) from the requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and (2) from the Paperwork Reduction Act. 
The rule is not an unfunded Federal mandate within the meaning of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4. It does not meet 
the $100,000,000 threshold of that Act, and any enforceable duties are 
imposed as a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from 
participation in a voluntary Federal program.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 206

    Administrative practice and procedure, Disaster assistance, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, we 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 Sec. 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.
    (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) Localized impacts. We evaluate the impact of the disaster at 
the county and local government level, as well as impacts at the 
American Indian and Alaskan Native Tribal Government levels, 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 localized per capita impacts might be extremely high. For 
example, we have at times seen localized damages in the tens or even 
hundreds of dollars per capita 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.

[[Page 47699]]

    (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. We also consider 
the effect on American Indian and Alaskan Native Tribal populations in 
the event that there are any unique needs for people in these 
governmental entities.
    (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 July 1999]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Small states  (under 2     Medium states  (2-10    Large states  (over 10
                                            million pop.)            million pop.)            million pop.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Population (1990 census       1,000,057...............  4,713,548..............  15,522,791
 data).
Number of Disaster Housing            1,507...................  2,747..................  4,679
 Applications Approved.
Number of Homes Estimated Major       173.....................  582....................  801
 Damage/Destroyed.
Dollar Amount of Housing Assistance.  $2.8 million              $4.6 million             $9.5 million
Number of Individual and Family       495.....................  1,377..................  2,071
 Grant Applications Approved.
Dollar Amount of Individual and       1.1 million.............  2.9 million............  4.6 million
 Family Grant Assistance.
Disaster Housing/IFG Combined         3.9 million.............  7.5 million............  14.1 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: August 24, 1999.
James L. Witt,
Director.
[FR Doc. 99-22510 Filed 8-31-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P