Establishing a Deductible for FEMA's Public Assistance Program, 3082-3085 [2016-00997]

Download as PDF 3082 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules of the NAAQS if any events occur interfering with attainment. EPA finds PADEP’s SIP submittal contains adequate contingency measures if the Area fails to attain the NAAQS or fails to achieve RFP because the only significant stationary source of lead emissions is no longer in operation, Pennsylvania’s existing rules related to control of fugitive dusts and permitting are sufficient to minimize emissions and prevent NAAQS violations, and additional measures are not reasonably available to serve as contingency measures. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS III. Proposed Action EPA finds the January 15, 2015 SIP submittal attainment plan for the Lower Beaver Valley Area meets the applicable requirements of the CAA for attainment plans in section 172 and 192 of the CAA and in implementing regulations including 40 CFR 51.112 and 51.117. EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania SIP revision attainment plan for the Lower Beaver Valley Area for the 2008 lead NAAQS including the attainment demonstration, base year emissions inventory, RACM/RACT and RFP analyses, and contingency measures. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:49 Jan 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed rule to approve Pennsylvania’s SIP revision containing the attainment plan for the 2008 lead NAAQS in the Lower Beaver Valley Area, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. ACTION: Federal Emergency Management Agency The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is considering the establishment of a disaster deductible, requiring a predetermined level of financial or other commitment from a Recipient (Grantee), generally the State, Tribal, or Territorial government, before FEMA will provide assistance under the Public Assistance Program when authorized by a Presidential major disaster declaration. FEMA believes the deductible model would incentivize Recipients to make meaningful improvements in disaster planning, fiscal capacity for disaster response and recovery, and risk mitigation, while contributing to more effective stewardship of taxpayer dollars. For example, Recipients could potentially receive credit toward their deductible requirement through proactive pre-event actions such as adopting enhanced building codes, establishing and maintaining a disaster relief fund or self-insurance plan, or adoption of other measures that reduce the Recipient’s risk from disaster events. The deductible model would increase stakeholder investment and participation in disaster recovery and building for future risk, thereby strengthening our nation’s resilience to disaster events and reducing the cost of disasters long term. FEMA seeks comment on all aspects of the deductible concept. DATES: Comments must be received by March 21, 2016. ADDRESSES: Comments must be identified by docket ID FEMA–2016– 0003 and may be submitted by one of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 8NE, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472–3100. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jotham Allen, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 202–646–1957. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 44 CFR Part 206 I. Public Participation [Docket ID FEMA–2016–0003] Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https:// www.regulations.gov, and will include List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: December 30, 2015. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 2016–00871 Filed 1–19–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY RIN 1660–AA84 Establishing a Deductible for FEMA’s Public Assistance Program Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM 20JAP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice, which can be viewed by clicking on the ‘‘Privacy Notice’’ link in the footer of www.regulations.gov. You may submit your comments and material by the methods specified in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice. Please submit your comments and any supporting material by only one means to avoid the receipt and review of duplicate submissions. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https:// www.regulations.gov and search for the docket ID. Submitted comments may also be inspected at FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, 8NE, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. II. Background The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121–5207, provides an orderly and continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government to State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which result from disasters. 42 U.S.C. 5121(b). A ‘‘major disaster,’’ as defined by the Stafford Act, is ‘‘any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance . . . to supplement the efforts and available resources of [State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments], and disaster relief organizations, in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.’’ 42 U.S.C. 5122(2). The declaration process is governed by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations at 44 CFR part 206, subpart B. Upon receipt of a declaration request, FEMA formulates a recommendation which is forwarded to the President along with the request. 44 CFR 206.37(c). In developing its recommendation, FEMA considers such factors as the amount and type of damages, the impact of damages on affected individuals, the State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments, the available resources of the State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments, and VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:49 Jan 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 other disaster relief organizations, the extent and type of insurance in effect to cover losses, assistance available from other Federal programs and other sources, imminent threats to public health and safety, recent disaster history, hazard mitigation measures taken by the State, Tribal, Territorial, or local governments (especially implementation of measures required as a result of previous major disaster declarations), and other factors pertinent to a given incident. 44 CFR 206.37(c)(1). A disaster declaration specifies the types of assistance that may be awarded under the Stafford Act, such as Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, or Hazard Mitigation assistance. Public Assistance provides assistance for debris removal, emergency protective measures, and permanent restoration of infrastructure to State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations. 44 CFR part 206, subparts G and H. When evaluating the need for Public Assistance in a major disaster request FEMA evaluates the following factors: Estimated cost of assistance, localized impacts, insurance coverage in force, hazard mitigation, recent multiple disasters, and the availability of other Federal assistance programs. 44 CFR 206.48(a). FEMA evaluates the estimated cost of assistance on a per capita basis using the State population (using the most recent decennial Census population), and has established a per capita indicator of $1 (adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers, the indicator is $1.41 for events occurring in Fiscal Year 2015) as a level at which an event might warrant Federal assistance. 44 CFR 206.48(a)(1). Currently, once Public Assistance is authorized, FEMA documents all projects, including debris removal, emergency protective measures, and repair and replacement of eligible facilities, on Project Worksheets to reimburse the Recipient (formerly known as the Grantee, this is the State, Tribal, or Territorial government that received the disaster declaration) and Subrecipients (formerly known as Subgrantees, these are local and Tribal governments, and certain private nonprofit organizations that apply for and receive funding through the Recipient) for all of their eligible costs at the level of the Federal cost share designated by the President. 44 CFR part 206, subpart G. This practice of funding all eligible costs is somewhat at odds with the principle underlying the Stafford Act that there is a level of disaster activity PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 3083 which the affected State, Tribal, or Territorial government can handle on its own. For simplicity, consider a State that is subject to the $1 million minimum threshold. 44 CFR 206.48(a)(1). An event that causes $999,999 in Public Assistance-eligible damage will most likely not warrant a major disaster declaration and the State and affected Tribal and local governments will need to fund all $999,999 in disaster costs without any supplemental Federal assistance. However, an incident that causes exactly $1 million in damage in the same State likely will result in a major disaster declaration. Once declared, FEMA will reimburse $750,000 under the typical 75% Federal cost share arrangement and the State will only need to fund $250,000. FEMA is arguably supplanting $750,000 that the State should be fully capable to handle itself. III. Deductible Consistent with the principles of the Stafford Act that assistance from the Federal Government is supplemental in nature and that every recipient of disaster assistance has some measureable capacity to independently respond, FEMA is considering the establishment of a disaster ‘‘deductible.’’ To ensure a Recipient’s participation in recovery from disaster losses, following receipt of a major disaster declaration authorizing the Public Assistance Program, the Recipient(s) would be required to demonstrate it has satisfied a predetermined deductible amount before FEMA would provide assistance through a Project Worksheet for eligible Public Assistance work. FEMA would intend for the calculation of the deductible level for each Recipient to be published periodically and to be representative of Recipient capability. In addition to considering how to calculate a deductible amount, FEMA is considering what means by which a Recipient could demonstrate it has satisfied a deductible requirement, including through completion of FEMAeligible projects entirely with its own funding, or through other Recipient activities for which FEMA would calculate an appropriate credit against the deductible. FEMA might provide a credit toward the deductible, for example, for a Recipient’s prior adoption of a building code that reduces risk; for adoption of proactive fiscal planning such as establishing a disaster relief fund or a self-insurance fund; or investment in programs of assistance available when there is not a federal declaration. E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM 20JAP1 3084 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS FEMA anticipates a deductible would be calculated and applied at the Recipient (i.e., State, Tribal, or Territorial level), not Subrecipient, level. However, the deductible would need to be satisfied before any project, at either the Recipient or Subrecipient level, would be eligible for assistance. FEMA believes that a deductible could result in more effective use of taxpayer resources. It could incentivize proactive fiscal planning by Recipients for disasters, encouraging them to set aside funding specifically reserved for disaster response and recovery. The availability of credits toward the deductible could incentivize increased planning and adoption of specific mitigation activities which will result in risk-informed mitigation strategies on a broad scale. States may be encouraged to develop and fund special programs such as emergency management programs and individual assistance programs, as such plans may be credited toward satisfaction of the deductible. Recipients that adopt standardized and enhanced building codes could be rewarded with a credit toward their deductible amount. The results of these efforts may in turn increase our nation’s resiliency to disaster events: Increased self-sufficiency on the part of State and local governments and their ability to support their citizens during and after a disaster, and a decrease in the negative effects of a disaster on our citizens. IV. Public Comment FEMA welcomes public comment on all aspects of the deductible concept, but would derive particular benefit from commenters addressing one or more of the following questions (‘‘Recipient’’ in these questions refers to any possible entity that might be a Grantee for Public Assistance, including States, Tribes, and Territories): 1. Calculating the Deductible: How should FEMA calculate the deductible amount for each Recipient to adequately reflect individual Recipient capacity? a. Using the Public Assistance per capita indicator established by 44 CFR 206.48(a)(1)? Why? b. Using population estimates? Why? i. If so, should FEMA continue to rely upon the decennial census population calculations, consider population estimates, or consider other population calculation sources and why? c. Using the Recipient’s fiscal capacity? Why? i. If so, how should FEMA measure fiscal capacity? Which metrics should be used to assess it and why? Please also identify preferred sources for suggested metrics. Potential metrics include, but are not limited to: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:49 Jan 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 1. Actual revenue. 2. Potential revenue. 3. Total Taxable Resources. 4. Gross Domestic Product. 5. Budget surplus/deficit. 6. Economic projections. 7. Bond ratings. 8. Unemployment rate. 9. Other. d. Using a measurement of disaster risk? Why? i. If so, how should FEMA measure disaster risk? Which metrics should be used to assess it and why? Potential metrics include, but are not limited to: 1. Past presidential declarations. 2. Past FEMA disaster relief. 3. Insurance industry data. 4. Climatological data, including projected future risk. 5. Priority placed on mitigation in the State or local budget. 2. Scope of Deductible: How should FEMA define the applicability of the deductible to ensure it incentivizes meaningful improvements in planning, fiscal capacity, and risk mitigation? a. Should the deductible apply to State governments, Territorial governments, Tribal governments, or all of the above? b. To which of the following types of FEMA Public Assistance should the deductible apply and why? i. Direct Federal Assistance (emergency work performed, or contracted for, by the Federal government at the request of the Recipient). ii. Emergency Work (debris removal and emergency protective measures). iii. Permanent Work (infrastructure repair and replacement). iv. Management Costs. v. Other. 3. Satisfying the Deductible: How should a Recipient be able to satisfy its deductible? a. Should only Recipient actions be allowed to satisfy the deductible, or should Subrecipient actions be considered as well and why? i. If Subrecipient actions should be considered, which of the following Subrecipients should be included and why? 1. Local governments. 2. Indian Tribal governments. 3. Private nonprofit organizations. b. What of the following types of actions should qualify towards satisfying the deductible and why? i. Work that would be eligible for FEMA assistance but for the deductible. ii. Management costs for work that would be eligible for FEMA assistance but for the deductible. iii. Spending on incidents that do not receive a Presidential declaration and PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 supplemental FEMA assistance (for example, emergencies declared by the Governor). iv. For incidents that do receive a Presidential declaration, spending in jurisdictions that were not designated for supplemental FEMA assistance. v. Cost-share requirements for FEMA programs. 1. If so, which programs and why? vi. Spending on projects beyond the cost-share required amount. vii. Investments in emergency management programs using nonFederal funds. viii. Establishment of a disaster relief fund or ‘‘rainy day’’ fund. ix. Expenditures from a disaster relief fund or ‘‘rainy day’’ fund. x. Establishment of an individual assistance program. xi. Expenditures from an individual assistance program. xii. Planning, preparedness, or mitigation programs supported by nonFederal funding. xiii. Adoption of standardized or enhanced building codes. xiv. Proportion of the jurisdiction which is covered by standardized and/ or enhanced building codes. xv. Other. c. How much of an administrative burden would it be for Recipients to track, and submit for verification, documentation related to each manner of satisfying the deductible? i. How would Recipients track the documentation? ii. How should FEMA verify the information? d. How should these actions be counted or credited toward satisfaction the deductible? Why? i. Dollar-for-dollar reductions in the deductible. For example, each dollar spent through a Recipient’s own individual assistance program could count as a dollar toward meeting the deductible. ii. Percentage credits toward the deductible. For example, a Recipient may receive a credit of X percent of the deductible for establishing its own individual assistance program. iii. Other. If so, please provide details regarding these other actions. 4. Incentivizing Change: FEMA believes a deductible could improve the United States’ disaster management system and increase disaster resilience nationally by driving Recipient legislative action, budgeting, planning and other measures that further greater resilience. FEMA seeks comment on this, as follows: a. Will a deductible requirement incentivize potential future Recipients of disaster assistance to adopt measures E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM 20JAP1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules that make them more resilient or more capable to respond to future disasters? If so, how? b. In which of the following areas should FEMA focus the incentives of a deductible approach in order to achieve those improvements in disaster management and resilience and why? i. Increased fiscal capacity to address disasters at the Recipient level. ii. Better planning by Recipients for the financial costs of disaster. iii. Reduced long-term impact of disasters. iv. Reduced risk of loss from disaster. v. Decreased future disaster costs. vi. Better levels of cooperation among neighboring jurisdictions. vii. Increased State emergency management staffing and funding. viii. Other. c. What specific actions should FEMA seek to incentivize and why? Potential actions include: i. Acceptance of greater financial responsibility for disaster costs by nonFederal entities. ii. Increased non-Federal investment in emergency management programs generally. iii. Increased investment in mitigation strategies at Recipient levels. iv. Establishment of Recipient disaster relief funds or ‘‘rainy day’’ funds. 1. Increased spending from such funds where they already exist. v. Establishment of Recipient individual assistance programs. 1. Increased spending from such funds where they already exist. vi. Increased level of Recipient financial relief provided for incidents that do not receive a Presidential declaration pursuant to the Stafford Act. vii. Other. d. How could a deductible incentivize the actions necessary to achieve improvements in the selected areas and how should FEMA design the deductible to provide that incentive? e. Are there alternatives to a deductible that could serve as a better incentive to the selected improvements and actions? i. If so, what are those alternatives? ii. Why would those alternatives be more effective than a deductible? 5. Implementation Considerations: How could FEMA design deductible implementation so as to maximize effectiveness of the deductible as an incentive, but also ensure Recipients have sufficient opportunity to adjust to it? a. What specific actions might Recipients take if a deductible were introduced to FEMA’s Public Assistance Program? What specific types of actions should we seek to incentivize through the establishment of a deductible? VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:49 Jan 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 b. How would Recipients meet the deductible? i. Would Recipients seek to pass the costs of the deductible on to Subrecipients? How? ii. Would the passing on of costs to Subrecipients be appropriate? Why or why not? iii. Should FEMA seek to prevent Recipients from passing the costs on to Subrecipients? Why? iv. If so, what methods could FEMA use to prevent the transfer of responsibility for costs from Recipients to Subrecipients? c. Should the deductible be applied on an annual basis or per disaster? i. If annual, how should FEMA define the year? Why? ii. If per disaster, should there be a cap on the number of deductibles, or total deductible amount, that a Recipient should be responsible for in a given year? Why? In what way can FEMA be sensitive to problems caused by recurrent disasters through a deductible policy? iii. If appropriate, how should FEMA set the cumulative annual deductible cap for repetitive disasters? d. Should FEMA ever consider waiving all or part of the deductible? Why? i. If so, under what circumstances should FEMA consider waiving all or part of the deductible? ii. If so, how should FEMA determine what portion of the deductible should be waived? iii. How frequently should FEMA consider waiving all or a portion of the deductible? Why? e. If FEMA introduced a deductible concept to the Public Assistance Program, what steps would Recipients take to adjust? i. How long would it take Recipients, working with relevant stakeholders, to appropriately adjust to the introduction of a deductible? ii. Should FEMA consider a phased implementation approach through which the deductible would be applied over time? Why? iii. If so, over how much time should the deductible concept be phased in and in what way? Why? 6. Estimating Impacts: Implementation of a deductible as a prerequisite for receiving Public Assistance would have an economic impact on future Recipients of disaster assistance. a. Do Recipients currently maintain a disaster relief or ‘‘rainy day’’ fund? b. If not, how much would it cost to establish and administer a disaster relief or ‘‘rainy day’’ fund? c. If a Recipient could satisfy its deductible through provision of its own PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 3085 individual assistance program, would Recipients establish or expand existing individual assistance programs? d. What are the costs of establishing and running various individual assistance programs? e. If a Recipient could satisfy its deductible through an increase in planning, preparedness, or mitigation programs, would Recipients increase the level of such activities or programs? f. If a Recipient could satisfy its deductible through adoption of enhanced building codes, would Recipients or Recipient communities adopt such codes? g. What are the costs associated with adoption of such building codes? h. What are the costs associated with the specific actions Recipients might take if a deductible were introduced to FEMA’s disaster relief programs? i. What, if any, disproportionate impacts might be borne by small nonprofit entities or small government jurisdictions (populations less than 50,000)? Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. Dated: January 13, 2016. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. 2016–00997 Filed 1–19–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111–23–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 03–123; DA 15–1453] Request for Comment on Petition for Rulemaking Filed by IDT Telecom, Inc., Regarding Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund Contribution Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on a Petition for Rulemaking (Petition) filed by IDT Telecom, Inc. (IDT) requesting that the Commission issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to review and revise its rules and policies on the contribution methodology for the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund to include intrastate revenue within the TRS Fund contribution base. Additionally IDT requests that the Commission remove the rule provision requiring that video relay service (VRS) costs be recovered SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM 20JAP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3082-3085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00997]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 206

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0003]
RIN 1660-AA84


Establishing a Deductible for FEMA's Public Assistance Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is considering 
the establishment of a disaster deductible, requiring a predetermined 
level of financial or other commitment from a Recipient (Grantee), 
generally the State, Tribal, or Territorial government, before FEMA 
will provide assistance under the Public Assistance Program when 
authorized by a Presidential major disaster declaration. FEMA believes 
the deductible model would incentivize Recipients to make meaningful 
improvements in disaster planning, fiscal capacity for disaster 
response and recovery, and risk mitigation, while contributing to more 
effective stewardship of taxpayer dollars. For example, Recipients 
could potentially receive credit toward their deductible requirement 
through proactive pre-event actions such as adopting enhanced building 
codes, establishing and maintaining a disaster relief fund or self-
insurance plan, or adoption of other measures that reduce the 
Recipient's risk from disaster events. The deductible model would 
increase stakeholder investment and participation in disaster recovery 
and building for future risk, thereby strengthening our nation's 
resilience to disaster events and reducing the cost of disasters long 
term. FEMA seeks comment on all aspects of the deductible concept.

DATES: Comments must be received by March 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be identified by docket ID FEMA-2016-0003 and 
may be submitted by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of 
Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 8NE, 500 C Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jotham Allen, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 202-646-
1957.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or 
material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov, and will 
include

[[Page 3083]]

any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this 
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act 
notice, which can be viewed by clicking on the ``Privacy Notice'' link 
in the footer of www.regulations.gov.
    You may submit your comments and material by the methods specified 
in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice. Please submit your comments 
and any supporting material by only one means to avoid the receipt and 
review of duplicate submissions.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov and search for the docket ID. Submitted comments 
may also be inspected at FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, 8NE, 500 C 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

II. Background

    The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 
(Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207, provides an orderly and continuing 
means of assistance by the Federal Government to State, Tribal, 
Territorial, and local governments in carrying out their 
responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which result 
from disasters. 42 U.S.C. 5121(b). A ``major disaster,'' as defined by 
the Stafford Act, is ``any natural catastrophe (including any 
hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave, 
tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, 
or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in 
any part of the United States, which in the determination of the 
President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant 
major disaster assistance . . . to supplement the efforts and available 
resources of [State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments], and 
disaster relief organizations, in alleviating the damage, loss, 
hardship, or suffering caused thereby.'' 42 U.S.C. 5122(2).
    The declaration process is governed by Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) regulations at 44 CFR part 206, subpart B. Upon receipt 
of a declaration request, FEMA formulates a recommendation which is 
forwarded to the President along with the request. 44 CFR 206.37(c). In 
developing its recommendation, FEMA considers such factors as the 
amount and type of damages, the impact of damages on affected 
individuals, the State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments, the 
available resources of the State, Tribal, Territorial, and local 
governments, and other disaster relief organizations, the extent and 
type of insurance in effect to cover losses, assistance available from 
other Federal programs and other sources, imminent threats to public 
health and safety, recent disaster history, hazard mitigation measures 
taken by the State, Tribal, Territorial, or local governments 
(especially implementation of measures required as a result of previous 
major disaster declarations), and other factors pertinent to a given 
incident. 44 CFR 206.37(c)(1).
    A disaster declaration specifies the types of assistance that may 
be awarded under the Stafford Act, such as Public Assistance, 
Individual Assistance, or Hazard Mitigation assistance. Public 
Assistance provides assistance for debris removal, emergency protective 
measures, and permanent restoration of infrastructure to State, Tribal, 
Territorial, and local governments and certain private nonprofit 
organizations. 44 CFR part 206, subparts G and H.
    When evaluating the need for Public Assistance in a major disaster 
request FEMA evaluates the following factors: Estimated cost of 
assistance, localized impacts, insurance coverage in force, hazard 
mitigation, recent multiple disasters, and the availability of other 
Federal assistance programs. 44 CFR 206.48(a). FEMA evaluates the 
estimated cost of assistance on a per capita basis using the State 
population (using the most recent decennial Census population), and has 
established a per capita indicator of $1 (adjusted annually based on 
the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers, the indicator is 
$1.41 for events occurring in Fiscal Year 2015) as a level at which an 
event might warrant Federal assistance. 44 CFR 206.48(a)(1).
    Currently, once Public Assistance is authorized, FEMA documents all 
projects, including debris removal, emergency protective measures, and 
repair and replacement of eligible facilities, on Project Worksheets to 
reimburse the Recipient (formerly known as the Grantee, this is the 
State, Tribal, or Territorial government that received the disaster 
declaration) and Subrecipients (formerly known as Subgrantees, these 
are local and Tribal governments, and certain private nonprofit 
organizations that apply for and receive funding through the Recipient) 
for all of their eligible costs at the level of the Federal cost share 
designated by the President. 44 CFR part 206, subpart G.
    This practice of funding all eligible costs is somewhat at odds 
with the principle underlying the Stafford Act that there is a level of 
disaster activity which the affected State, Tribal, or Territorial 
government can handle on its own. For simplicity, consider a State that 
is subject to the $1 million minimum threshold. 44 CFR 206.48(a)(1). An 
event that causes $999,999 in Public Assistance-eligible damage will 
most likely not warrant a major disaster declaration and the State and 
affected Tribal and local governments will need to fund all $999,999 in 
disaster costs without any supplemental Federal assistance. However, an 
incident that causes exactly $1 million in damage in the same State 
likely will result in a major disaster declaration. Once declared, FEMA 
will reimburse $750,000 under the typical 75% Federal cost share 
arrangement and the State will only need to fund $250,000. FEMA is 
arguably supplanting $750,000 that the State should be fully capable to 
handle itself.

III. Deductible

    Consistent with the principles of the Stafford Act that assistance 
from the Federal Government is supplemental in nature and that every 
recipient of disaster assistance has some measureable capacity to 
independently respond, FEMA is considering the establishment of a 
disaster ``deductible.'' To ensure a Recipient's participation in 
recovery from disaster losses, following receipt of a major disaster 
declaration authorizing the Public Assistance Program, the Recipient(s) 
would be required to demonstrate it has satisfied a predetermined 
deductible amount before FEMA would provide assistance through a 
Project Worksheet for eligible Public Assistance work. FEMA would 
intend for the calculation of the deductible level for each Recipient 
to be published periodically and to be representative of Recipient 
capability. In addition to considering how to calculate a deductible 
amount, FEMA is considering what means by which a Recipient could 
demonstrate it has satisfied a deductible requirement, including 
through completion of FEMA-eligible projects entirely with its own 
funding, or through other Recipient activities for which FEMA would 
calculate an appropriate credit against the deductible. FEMA might 
provide a credit toward the deductible, for example, for a Recipient's 
prior adoption of a building code that reduces risk; for adoption of 
proactive fiscal planning such as establishing a disaster relief fund 
or a self-insurance fund; or investment in programs of assistance 
available when there is not a federal declaration.

[[Page 3084]]

    FEMA anticipates a deductible would be calculated and applied at 
the Recipient (i.e., State, Tribal, or Territorial level), not 
Subrecipient, level. However, the deductible would need to be satisfied 
before any project, at either the Recipient or Subrecipient level, 
would be eligible for assistance.
    FEMA believes that a deductible could result in more effective use 
of taxpayer resources. It could incentivize proactive fiscal planning 
by Recipients for disasters, encouraging them to set aside funding 
specifically reserved for disaster response and recovery. The 
availability of credits toward the deductible could incentivize 
increased planning and adoption of specific mitigation activities which 
will result in risk-informed mitigation strategies on a broad scale. 
States may be encouraged to develop and fund special programs such as 
emergency management programs and individual assistance programs, as 
such plans may be credited toward satisfaction of the deductible. 
Recipients that adopt standardized and enhanced building codes could be 
rewarded with a credit toward their deductible amount. The results of 
these efforts may in turn increase our nation's resiliency to disaster 
events: Increased self-sufficiency on the part of State and local 
governments and their ability to support their citizens during and 
after a disaster, and a decrease in the negative effects of a disaster 
on our citizens.

IV. Public Comment

    FEMA welcomes public comment on all aspects of the deductible 
concept, but would derive particular benefit from commenters addressing 
one or more of the following questions (``Recipient'' in these 
questions refers to any possible entity that might be a Grantee for 
Public Assistance, including States, Tribes, and Territories):
    1. Calculating the Deductible: How should FEMA calculate the 
deductible amount for each Recipient to adequately reflect individual 
Recipient capacity?
    a. Using the Public Assistance per capita indicator established by 
44 CFR 206.48(a)(1)? Why?
    b. Using population estimates? Why?
    i. If so, should FEMA continue to rely upon the decennial census 
population calculations, consider population estimates, or consider 
other population calculation sources and why?
    c. Using the Recipient's fiscal capacity? Why?
    i. If so, how should FEMA measure fiscal capacity? Which metrics 
should be used to assess it and why? Please also identify preferred 
sources for suggested metrics. Potential metrics include, but are not 
limited to:
    1. Actual revenue.
    2. Potential revenue.
    3. Total Taxable Resources.
    4. Gross Domestic Product.
    5. Budget surplus/deficit.
    6. Economic projections.
    7. Bond ratings.
    8. Unemployment rate.
    9. Other.
    d. Using a measurement of disaster risk? Why?
    i. If so, how should FEMA measure disaster risk? Which metrics 
should be used to assess it and why? Potential metrics include, but are 
not limited to:
    1. Past presidential declarations.
    2. Past FEMA disaster relief.
    3. Insurance industry data.
    4. Climatological data, including projected future risk.
    5. Priority placed on mitigation in the State or local budget.
    2. Scope of Deductible: How should FEMA define the applicability of 
the deductible to ensure it incentivizes meaningful improvements in 
planning, fiscal capacity, and risk mitigation?
    a. Should the deductible apply to State governments, Territorial 
governments, Tribal governments, or all of the above?
    b. To which of the following types of FEMA Public Assistance should 
the deductible apply and why?
    i. Direct Federal Assistance (emergency work performed, or 
contracted for, by the Federal government at the request of the 
Recipient).
    ii. Emergency Work (debris removal and emergency protective 
measures).
    iii. Permanent Work (infrastructure repair and replacement).
    iv. Management Costs.
    v. Other.
    3. Satisfying the Deductible: How should a Recipient be able to 
satisfy its deductible?
    a. Should only Recipient actions be allowed to satisfy the 
deductible, or should Subrecipient actions be considered as well and 
why?
    i. If Subrecipient actions should be considered, which of the 
following Subrecipients should be included and why?
    1. Local governments.
    2. Indian Tribal governments.
    3. Private nonprofit organizations.
    b. What of the following types of actions should qualify towards 
satisfying the deductible and why?
    i. Work that would be eligible for FEMA assistance but for the 
deductible.
    ii. Management costs for work that would be eligible for FEMA 
assistance but for the deductible.
    iii. Spending on incidents that do not receive a Presidential 
declaration and supplemental FEMA assistance (for example, emergencies 
declared by the Governor).
    iv. For incidents that do receive a Presidential declaration, 
spending in jurisdictions that were not designated for supplemental 
FEMA assistance.
    v. Cost-share requirements for FEMA programs.
    1. If so, which programs and why?
    vi. Spending on projects beyond the cost-share required amount.
    vii. Investments in emergency management programs using non-Federal 
funds.
    viii. Establishment of a disaster relief fund or ``rainy day'' 
fund.
    ix. Expenditures from a disaster relief fund or ``rainy day'' fund.
    x. Establishment of an individual assistance program.
    xi. Expenditures from an individual assistance program.
    xii. Planning, preparedness, or mitigation programs supported by 
non-Federal funding.
    xiii. Adoption of standardized or enhanced building codes.
    xiv. Proportion of the jurisdiction which is covered by 
standardized and/or enhanced building codes.
    xv. Other.
    c. How much of an administrative burden would it be for Recipients 
to track, and submit for verification, documentation related to each 
manner of satisfying the deductible?
    i. How would Recipients track the documentation?
    ii. How should FEMA verify the information?
    d. How should these actions be counted or credited toward 
satisfaction the deductible? Why?
    i. Dollar-for-dollar reductions in the deductible. For example, 
each dollar spent through a Recipient's own individual assistance 
program could count as a dollar toward meeting the deductible.
    ii. Percentage credits toward the deductible. For example, a 
Recipient may receive a credit of X percent of the deductible for 
establishing its own individual assistance program.
    iii. Other. If so, please provide details regarding these other 
actions.
    4. Incentivizing Change: FEMA believes a deductible could improve 
the United States' disaster management system and increase disaster 
resilience nationally by driving Recipient legislative action, 
budgeting, planning and other measures that further greater resilience. 
FEMA seeks comment on this, as follows:
    a. Will a deductible requirement incentivize potential future 
Recipients of disaster assistance to adopt measures

[[Page 3085]]

that make them more resilient or more capable to respond to future 
disasters? If so, how?
    b. In which of the following areas should FEMA focus the incentives 
of a deductible approach in order to achieve those improvements in 
disaster management and resilience and why?
    i. Increased fiscal capacity to address disasters at the Recipient 
level.
    ii. Better planning by Recipients for the financial costs of 
disaster.
    iii. Reduced long-term impact of disasters.
    iv. Reduced risk of loss from disaster.
    v. Decreased future disaster costs.
    vi. Better levels of cooperation among neighboring jurisdictions.
    vii. Increased State emergency management staffing and funding.
    viii. Other.
    c. What specific actions should FEMA seek to incentivize and why? 
Potential actions include:
    i. Acceptance of greater financial responsibility for disaster 
costs by non-Federal entities.
    ii. Increased non-Federal investment in emergency management 
programs generally.
    iii. Increased investment in mitigation strategies at Recipient 
levels.
    iv. Establishment of Recipient disaster relief funds or ``rainy 
day'' funds.
    1. Increased spending from such funds where they already exist.
    v. Establishment of Recipient individual assistance programs.
    1. Increased spending from such funds where they already exist.
    vi. Increased level of Recipient financial relief provided for 
incidents that do not receive a Presidential declaration pursuant to 
the Stafford Act.
    vii. Other.
    d. How could a deductible incentivize the actions necessary to 
achieve improvements in the selected areas and how should FEMA design 
the deductible to provide that incentive?
    e. Are there alternatives to a deductible that could serve as a 
better incentive to the selected improvements and actions?
    i. If so, what are those alternatives?
    ii. Why would those alternatives be more effective than a 
deductible?
    5. Implementation Considerations: How could FEMA design deductible 
implementation so as to maximize effectiveness of the deductible as an 
incentive, but also ensure Recipients have sufficient opportunity to 
adjust to it?
    a. What specific actions might Recipients take if a deductible were 
introduced to FEMA's Public Assistance Program? What specific types of 
actions should we seek to incentivize through the establishment of a 
deductible?
    b. How would Recipients meet the deductible?
    i. Would Recipients seek to pass the costs of the deductible on to 
Subrecipients? How?
    ii. Would the passing on of costs to Subrecipients be appropriate? 
Why or why not?
    iii. Should FEMA seek to prevent Recipients from passing the costs 
on to Subrecipients? Why?
    iv. If so, what methods could FEMA use to prevent the transfer of 
responsibility for costs from Recipients to Subrecipients?
    c. Should the deductible be applied on an annual basis or per 
disaster?
    i. If annual, how should FEMA define the year? Why?
    ii. If per disaster, should there be a cap on the number of 
deductibles, or total deductible amount, that a Recipient should be 
responsible for in a given year? Why? In what way can FEMA be sensitive 
to problems caused by recurrent disasters through a deductible policy?
    iii. If appropriate, how should FEMA set the cumulative annual 
deductible cap for repetitive disasters?
    d. Should FEMA ever consider waiving all or part of the deductible? 
Why?
    i. If so, under what circumstances should FEMA consider waiving all 
or part of the deductible?
    ii. If so, how should FEMA determine what portion of the deductible 
should be waived?
    iii. How frequently should FEMA consider waiving all or a portion 
of the deductible? Why?
    e. If FEMA introduced a deductible concept to the Public Assistance 
Program, what steps would Recipients take to adjust?
    i. How long would it take Recipients, working with relevant 
stakeholders, to appropriately adjust to the introduction of a 
deductible?
    ii. Should FEMA consider a phased implementation approach through 
which the deductible would be applied over time? Why?
    iii. If so, over how much time should the deductible concept be 
phased in and in what way? Why?
    6. Estimating Impacts: Implementation of a deductible as a 
prerequisite for receiving Public Assistance would have an economic 
impact on future Recipients of disaster assistance.
    a. Do Recipients currently maintain a disaster relief or ``rainy 
day'' fund?
    b. If not, how much would it cost to establish and administer a 
disaster relief or ``rainy day'' fund?
    c. If a Recipient could satisfy its deductible through provision of 
its own individual assistance program, would Recipients establish or 
expand existing individual assistance programs?
    d. What are the costs of establishing and running various 
individual assistance programs?
    e. If a Recipient could satisfy its deductible through an increase 
in planning, preparedness, or mitigation programs, would Recipients 
increase the level of such activities or programs?
    f. If a Recipient could satisfy its deductible through adoption of 
enhanced building codes, would Recipients or Recipient communities 
adopt such codes?
    g. What are the costs associated with adoption of such building 
codes?
    h. What are the costs associated with the specific actions 
Recipients might take if a deductible were introduced to FEMA's 
disaster relief programs?
    i. What, if any, disproportionate impacts might be borne by small 
nonprofit entities or small government jurisdictions (populations less 
than 50,000)?

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.

    Dated: January 13, 2016.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-00997 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.