BNUMBER:  B-271666
DATE:  April 24, 1996
TITLE:  [Letter]

**********************************************************************

B-271666

April 24, 1996

John P. Carey, Esq.
General Counsel
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, DC  20472

Dear Mr. Carey:

This is in response to your March 28, 1996, letter requesting our 
opinion on whether it is appropriate for the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) to reimburse, from the President's Disaster 
Relief Fund, the hotel costs of 17 federal workers whose services were 
essential to performing urgent disaster relief efforts pursuant to the 
Stafford Act.[1]  

The Director of FEMA, acting for the President, is authorized by 
statute to coordinate the federal government's disaster relief 
efforts.  See 42 U.S.C.  sec.  5170a (1994).  The President has delegated 
to the Director of FEMA the authority to coordinate emergency 
management and assistance functions of the federal government.  See  sec.  
4-203 of Executive Order 12148, July 20, 1979, as amended.[2]  Section 
5122 of the Stafford Act defines major disaster as

     "any natural catastrophe (including . . . snowstorm . . .) . . . 
     which in the determination of the President causes damage of 
     sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster 
     assistance under this chapter to supplement the efforts and 
     available resources of States, local governments, and disaster 
     relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, 
     or suffering caused thereby."  42 U.S.C.  sec.  5122 (1994).   

Your letter states that, pursuant to the Stafford Act, the President 
declared major disasters in the District of Columbia and Maryland on 
January 11 due to the winter storms.  In addition, five more major 
disaster declarations were imminent in other states as a result of the 
winter storm which had occurred on January 6 and 7.  Another severe 
storm was predicted to begin later in the day on January 11.  

Because of the ongoing and imminent disaster response activity, the 
Director of FEMA determined that it was essential for FEMA's response 
efforts to continue through the night of January 11 and into the next 
day.  Therefore, he directed the establishment of an emergency support 
team (EST) at midday on January 11.  The EST served as the federal 
government's mechanism for coordinating the entire federal response to 
the severe winter storm which had struck the eastern part of the 
United States on January 6 and 7 and for the second winter storm which 
was predicted to begin later on January 11.  FEMA identified 30 
employees who were available to form an EST.

Thirteen of the 30 EST team members either had four-wheel drive 
vehicles or lived in the vicinity of underground subway stations and 
were therefore able to work either the day or the night shift of the 
EST and still commute to and from their homes.  However, 17 of the 30 
EST team members were not able to rely on four-wheel drive vehicles or 
underground subway stations to commute to and from the EST, so they 
were directed to remain at FEMA's headquarters through the night of 
January 11 and into January 12 in order to be able to coordinate the 
federal government's disaster response efforts during this critical 
period.  These 17 EST team members were provided rooms at a hotel in 
the same building as FEMA headquarters. 

You ask whether FEMA may reimburse these 17 federal workers for their 
hotel costs from the President's Disaster Relief Fund.

As you point out, it is a well-established rule that the government 
may not pay the subsistence expenses of or furnish free food to 
civilian employees from appropriated funds without specific authority 
of law.  53 Comp. Gen. 71 (1973).  The rule has been upheld even where 
unusual circumstances exist.  William Perkette, 71 Comp. Gen. 517 
(1992).  However, reimbursement has been allowed under very limited 
circumstances.  In 53 Comp. Gen. 71, food was provided to federal 
protective services officers of the General Services Administration 
who were assembled in readiness to reoccupy a building of the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs which had been occupied by force.  We stated that we 
would not object to a determination by the agency that the expenses in 
question were necessary during an extreme emergency involving danger 
to human life and the destruction of federal property.

Also, in B-193034, July 31, 1979, we permitted reimbursement for meals 
and lodgings at headquarters by ACTION employees who train VISTA 
volunteers because the Director, ACTION, had specific statutory 
authority under the Domestic Volunteer Service Act to train volunteers 
and to provide them with supervision and support as deemed necessary 
by the Director.  We allowed the subsistence expenses of the employee 
trainers because, under his statutory authority, the Director had 
determined that these employees must remain at the training facility 
overnight to provide supervision and other necessary services incident 
to the training.

Similarly, the facts of the present case warrant an exception to the 
general prohibition on payment from appropriated funds of employee's 
subsistence expenses at headquarters.  The President declared a major 
disaster in the District of Columbia and Maryland.  The Director of 
FEMA, in implementing his authority under the Stafford Act and 
Executive Order 12148, activated an EST to coordinate the federal 
government's response to the then-current blizzard conditions and the 
impending disaster declaration generally along the East Coast.  The 
Director also determined it was essential that the EST operate through 
the evening of January 11 and into January 12 in order for the EST to 
function as required.  The location of the FEMA headquarters within 
the presidentially declared disaster area led to a determination that 
it would be impossible to staff the EST unless those essential 
disaster workers not having access to four-wheel drive vehicles nor 
residing near an underground subway station, and therefore unable to 
travel between work and home, were provided lodging near FEMA 
headquarters for the night of January 11, 1996.  

Under the particular circumstances of a major winter storm disaster 
with immediate danger to life and property, FEMA could reasonably 
determine that providing lodging for these 17 EST members was 
necessary to fulfill disaster relief duties under the specific 
statutory authority of the Stafford Act and the executive order.

Accordingly, FEMA may reimburse the lodging expenses of the 17 
employees.

Sincerely yours,

Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel
B-271666
April 24, 1996
DIGEST

The Director, FEMA, established an emergency support team (EST) to 
coordinate disaster relief efforts under the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C.  sec.  
5121 et seq. (1994), during the blizzard of 1996 and some team members 
were unable to travel to and from their homes because of the blizzard 
conditions.  The present case warrants an exception to the general 
prohibition on payment of employee's subsistence expenses at 
headquarters from appropriated funds.  The presidentially declared 
major disaster conditions presented immediate danger to human life and 
to property; the Director, FEMA, was authorized to establish the EST 
to coordinate relief efforts under the Stafford Act; and he determined 
it was essential to provide hotel rooms to those team members who were 
unable to travel to and from their homes.  Under the particular 
circumstances, the Director of FEMA may reimburse  the lodging 
expenses of these 17 EST members as necessary to fulfill his statutory 
duties in a major disaster involving danger to life and property.

1. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 
U.S.C.  sec.  5121 et seq. (1994).

2. Exec. Order No. 12148, 3 C.F.R., 1979 Comp., p. 412.