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