
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 55 (Thursday, March 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10521-10524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05396]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0005]


Individual Assistance Declarations Factors Guidance

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the availability of the final

[[Page 10522]]

Individual Assistance Declarations Factors Guidance. The Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a notice of availability 
and request for comment for the proposed guidance on September 22, 
2016.

DATES: This policy is effective on June 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: This final guidance is available online at http://www.regulations.gov and on FEMA's website at http://www.fema.gov. The 
proposed and final guidance, all related Federal Register Notices, and 
all public comments received during the comment period are available at 
http://www.regulations.gov under docket ID FEMA-2014-0005. You may also 
view a hard copy of the final guidance at the Office of Chief Counsel, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Room 8NE, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Millican, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (phone) 202-
212-3221 or (email) FEMA-IA-Regulations@fema.dhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 1109 of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 requires 
FEMA, in cooperation with State, local, and Tribal emergency management 
agencies, to review, update, and revise through rulemaking the factors 
found at 44 CFR 206.48(b) that FEMA uses to determine whether to 
recommend provision of Individual Assistance during a major disaster. 
On November 12, 2015, FEMA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) proposing to implement the requirements of section 1109. 80 FR 
70116. On September 22, 2016, FEMA sought comment on its proposed 
Individual Assistance Declarations Factors Guidance, which is intended 
to provide additional information to the public regarding the manner in 
which FEMA is proposing to evaluate a request for a major disaster 
declaration authorizing Individual Assistance. 81 FR 65369.

Public Comments on the Proposed Guidance

    FEMA received 23 comments on the proposed Individual Assistance 
Declarations Factors Guidance. The majority of the comments were 
duplicative of comments that were received on the NPRM and are 
addressed in the Factors Considered When Evaluating a Governor's 
Request for Individual Assistance for a Major Disaster final rule, 
which is published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. Several 
comments were specific to the guidance document and are discussed 
below.
    One commenter suggested that Table 2: Number of IA Requests and 
Granted IA Requests by ICC Ratio could be broken up from a 10-25 range 
into 10-15, 15-20 and 20-25 ranges for the future. FEMA believes that 
the ICC ratios should not be stratified any further at this point. Any 
further stratification is likely to be incorrectly viewed as a 
threshold by the States which is not what FEMA intended ICC to be used 
for. FEMA is providing this information to States as a historical 
reference to help guide States for planning in future disaster 
situations. FEMA will update the table as necessary to provide trends 
and historic data to the States in a timely manner to guide States on 
what level of damage they should likely be prepared to handle on their 
own without supplemental Federal assistance. However, it should be 
noted that there are various other circumstances and factors that may 
impact the President's determination of whether a major disaster 
declaration is necessary that are not captured in the ICC ratio.
    Another commenter suggested that FEMA modify Table 1: Estimated 
Cost of Assistance to Declaration Decision Comparative, to use a 50 
percent benchmark instead of the breakdown of $7.5 million or more, 
$1.5 to $7.5 million, and $1.5 million or less. FEMA has also declined 
to use a 50 percent benchmark because we feel that the three different 
benchmarks are more helpful to States for planning purposes. A 50 
percent benchmark may inevitably lead to certain individuals or States 
use that benchmark as a hard threshold which FEMA seeks to avoid. In 
addition, it should be noted that there are various other circumstances 
and factors that may impact the President's determination of whether a 
major disaster declaration is necessary that are not captured in the 
single data point of the estimated cost of assistance.
    One commenter asked whether the factors were weighted differently 
depending on the IA program. In addition, they suggested casualties 
should have a higher weight for a program such as Crisis Counseling. 
With respect to IA programs other than IHP, FEMA has not identified a 
formula similar to the ICC approach described elsewhere in the 
guidance. Instead, FEMA considers the factors holistically to determine 
which IA programs would best suit the needs of a community after a 
disaster. In addition, there is a table in the guidance correlating 
each Individual Assistance program with the factors that FEMA will 
consider when evaluating a Governor's request for a major disaster 
declaration authorizing such program. States may use this table to 
better understand how the new IA declaration factors align with the 
various IA programs.
    A commenter requested that FEMA include a statement that not all of 
the IA programs will be available as soon as a major disaster is 
declared. FEMA added a clarifying statement to the guidance that 
authorization of Individual Assistance programs under a major disaster 
declaration means that such programs are available for the State. FEMA 
further clarified that a State may be required to submit an additional 
application or additional information post major disaster declaration 
to determine which IA programs are necessary, the scope of each IA 
program, or the amount of each IA program funding.
    Another commenter requested that FEMA clarify that the 
Transportation Infrastructure and Utilities sub-factor to the Impact to 
Community Infrastructure factor encompasses private roads, bridges, and 
tunnels as well as public roads, bridges, and tunnels. The commenters 
felt that this clarification would address situations in rural or other 
areas where a private road allows individuals access to publicly owned 
transportation infrastructure. FEMA agrees with the commenter that this 
clarification was needed and made the requested change to the guidance 
document.
    A commenter proposed that FEMA should use metropolitan statistical 
areas or census tract-level data instead of county-level data to 
identify per capita income or the true impact to a local area and the 
communities within it. Major disasters are generally declared by the 
President on the county or parish level for ease of administration 
because county- or parish-level designations clearly delineate which 
areas within a State are or are not eligible for supplemental Federal 
assistance. Census tracts are not as well known by disaster survivors. 
FEMA has chosen to continue to use county-level data to match with how 
disasters are declared. However, a State is always welcome to provide 
any additional relevant information at the census tract level, or at 
any other level, if such information illustrates the disaster impacted 
local area or community in a different light than the county-level 
data.
    A commenter requested clarification of what a reasonable commuting 
distance from the impacted area was for

[[Page 10523]]

rental resources under the State, Tribal, and Local Government; Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGO); and Private Sector Activity sub-
factor for the Resource Availability factor. Reasonable commuting 
distance is defined in regulation at 44 CFR 206.111 as a distance that 
does not place undue hardship on an applicant. The regulatory 
definition also takes into consideration the traveling time involved 
due to road conditions, e.g., mountainous regions or bridges out and 
the normal commuting patterns of the area.
    Another commenter stated that the Disaster Impacted Population 
Profile factor violates Section 308 of the Stafford Act and recommended 
that FEMA exclude this factor. Section 308 of the Stafford Act covers 
nondiscrimination in disaster assistance and states that activities 
shall be accomplished in an equitable and impartial manner, without 
discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, nationality, 
sex, age, disability, English proficiency, or economic status. FEMA 
notes that in the current practice and regulation, FEMA considers how a 
disaster impacts ``special populations'' such as low-income, the 
elderly, or the unemployed, and whether such populations may have a 
greater need for assistance. 44 CFR 206.48(b)(3). FEMA believes that it 
is important to consider how disasters may disproportionality have a 
negative impact on certain populations. For instance, a disaster may 
disproportionality impact individuals who are 65 years or older because 
they may live on a fixed income with less disposable income and 
therefore may have a difficult time paying for repairs to a disaster 
damaged home. Information on the percentage of the population that are 
non-English speaking assists FEMA in structuring their outreach efforts 
to ensure that any messaging is conducted in the appropriate language 
for the disaster impacted population.
    Another comment stated that with respect to the Impact to Community 
Infrastructure factor, FEMA should define what ``impact'' to community 
infrastructure means, and what a ``significant'' disruption is. The 
commenter also requested that FEMA provide additional guidance 
regarding how it would assess this factor. For purposes of evaluating 
the impact of a major disaster on a community's infrastructure, FEMA 
considers any covered activity (such as search and rescue) or 
disruption (such as power loss) to be sufficiently significant to fall 
under this factor if that activity or disruption lasts for more than 72 
hours. With respect to impact of the disaster on life-saving and life-
sustaining services, FEMA is specifically seeking information on 
disruption to services such as, but not limited to, police, fire/EMS, 
hospital/medical, sewage, and water treatment services because 
prolonged disruption may affect the viability of a community and 
necessitate survivor relocation. Regarding the impact of the disaster 
on transportation infrastructure and utilities, FEMA is seeking 
information on the number of roads, bridges, tunnels, and public 
transit closures and utility outages of water, power, sewage, and gas 
that last longer than 72 hours. A State is welcome to provide any 
additional information that highlights the impact of the disaster on 
the State and local community infrastructure.
    A commenter stated that FEMA should exclude the ``casualties'' 
factor or explain how it is weighted. FEMA does not believe that it is 
appropriate to exclude the casualties factor because it is an important 
factor to help determine the level of trauma that a community and State 
suffered from a disaster. A large amount of injured, missing, or 
deceased individuals can indicate a heightened need for supplemental 
Federal assistance because casualties are indicative of the level of 
trauma in the disaster affected areas. Regarding the weight given to 
the casualties factor, FEMA has not assigned any percentage or given 
weight to the factor. FEMA considers casualties holistically along with 
the other factors in the final rule to determine the need of 
supplemental Federal assistance for a State and local community.
    A commenter recommended that FEMA move the table that correlates 
each IA program to the factors considered earlier in the guidance as 
well as add a column with a tentative timeline for each IA program. 
FEMA declined to move table earlier in the document because it is 
important to have an understanding of the factors considered in 
evaluating the need for a major disaster authorizing IA before 
associating each factor with the applicable IA program. In addition, 
FEMA has declined to add a tentative timeline because the timeline of 
the IA programs varies from disaster to disaster based on numerous 
factors such as the size and scope of the recovery.
    A commenter asked that FEMA include in the guidance the 
calculations that are used to determine the estimated cost of 
assistance so that States can do the calculation themselves based on 
local and State level damage assessments to assist in their evaluation 
of whether or not to request a joint FEMA-State preliminary damage 
assessment. Currently, the estimated cost of assistance is calculated 
by FEMA during completion of the joint FEMA-State preliminary damage 
assessment. Previously, FEMA was not consistent in sharing the results 
of the estimated cost of assistance with the affected States. FEMA 
clarified in the guidance that it would provide the estimated cost of 
assistance to the State during and after the preliminary damage 
assessment. Regarding the calculations, that is beyond the scope of the 
Individual Assistance Declarations Factors guidance and is more 
appropriately considered in any potential future updates to the 
preliminary damage assessment guidance and materials.
    A commenter to the proposed guidance recommended that FEMA include 
in the regulation and guidance sub-factors related to the number of 
rental units impacted, the degree of damage, the percent of disaster 
impacted rental units occupied by persons of low and moderate income, 
and other similar data. FEMA has declined to include this sub-factor 
because during the disaster response phase it may be hard to capture 
this granularity of detail especially the percent of disaster impacted 
rental units occupied by persons of low and moderate income. If a State 
is able to collect this level of detailed data during the preliminary 
damage assessment phase they are welcome to provide this information 
and FEMA will consider it when evaluating the State's request for 
supplemental Federal assistance.

Changes to the Proposed Guidance

    FEMA made four changes to the proposed guidance based on comments 
received on both the NPRM and the proposed guidance. First, as 
discussed above, FEMA added a clarifying statement that a major 
disaster declaration merely authorizes Individual Assistance; 
additional applications or additional information are required to 
determine the program scope or program funding amount. Second, also as 
discussed above, FEMA clarified that it will evaluate the impact of the 
disaster on both private and public roads under the ``Transportation 
Infrastructure and Utilities'' sub-factor in the ``Impact to Community 
Infrastructure'' factor. Third, as discussed the in the final rule 
preamble, FEMA removed the ``Planning After Prior Disasters'' and the 
``State Services'' sub-factors in the ``Resource Availability'' factor 
based on comments received on the NPRM. Fourth, as discussed above in 
the Public

[[Page 10524]]

Comments on the Proposed Guidance section FEMA clarified that it would 
provide the estimated cost of assistance to the State during and after 
the Preliminary Damage Assessment. Finally, FEMA also made changes to 
the two tables that are found in the guidance document based on an 
updated data set that was used in the final rule.
    The final guidance does not have the force or effect of law.

    Authority: Pub. L. 113-2.

Peter Gaynor,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-05396 Filed 3-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


