FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency]-Lummi Fishing Disaster

Federal Register/ 64, No. Wednesday, September 1, 1999 Rules and Regulations -progren steadily being achieved Kay Jon 47697 FEDERAL EMERGENCY establishment of any "declaration be expected to manage without Federal MANAGEMENT AGENCY criteria" in regulation on the grounds assistance. Several commentors objected that it limits presidential discretion. to this factor because they did not feel 44 CFR Part 206 Several commented that they prefer the that it adequately addressed localized RIN 3067-AC94 current declaration process because it impacts or unique circumstances of a provides the appropriate level of disaster. We recognize that a straight per Disaster Assistance; Factors executive discretion and flexibility for capita figure may not be the best Considered When Evaluating a the President and for Governors. We do measurement of a State's capability, but Governor's Request for a Major not agree with the perception that the it does provide a simple, clear, Disaster Declaration rule limits presidential discretion. First, consistent and long-standing means of the rule clearly states that it would not evaluating the size of a disaster relative AGENCY: Federal Emergency affect presidential discretion. In fact, the to the size of the State. We also believe Management Agency (FEMA). rule specifically states that these that it is time to begin to peg this ACTION: Final rule. evaluation factors are used to make a indicator to inflation since it has been recommendation to the President in SUMMARY: The Robert T. Stafford in use without change for the past recognition of the fact that it is the fifteen years. One commentor felt that Disaster Relief and Emergency President, not FEMA, who determines we should adjust the $1 per capita Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) grants whether a major disaster declaration is figure now from 1985 to 1999 dollars, the President the authority for warranted. Secondly, the rule generally but we chose to begin adjusting from declarations of major disasters and mirrors the process that we currently this rule forward. Several commentors emergencies. We, FEMA, provide a use in evaluating a Governor's request. noted that the addition of a $1 million recommendation to the President It does not change regulations and minimum indicator for States that are whether Federal disaster assistance is policies established under the Stafford under one million in population is a warranted. This rule establishes the Act. change to current practice. No States or factors that we take into consideration Several commentors approved the territories affected by this provision when evaluating a Governor's request concept of publishing the evaluation commented on it. We continue to for a major disaster declaration under factors but criticized them for being too maintain that even the lowest the Stafford Act. This rule does not vague and subjective. Conversely, some population States can reasonably be affect presidential discretion, nor does it criticized the evaluation factors for expected to cover this level of public change published regulations and being too stringent and inflexible. A assistance damage and have made no policies established under the Stafford number of commentors criticized change in the rule. Act. specific evaluation factors. Saying, for Several commentors objected to using EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective example, that they do not adequately $1 per capita as a statewide indicator October 1. 1999. measure State capability or commitment rather than a localized indicator. This FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: to hazard mitigation. However, statewide indicator is not the sole factor Patricia Stahlschmidt, Response and commentors as a whole offered no that we use in recommending a major Recovery Directorate. Federal specific or consistently agreed-upon disaster. In fact, one of the evaluation Emergency Management Agency. 500 C alternatives to the evaluation factors factors specifically addresses impacts at Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 202- that we proposed. With respect to the the local level as well as specific types 646-4066, (facsimile) 202-646-4060, or lack of specificity in some of the of impacts, such as damage to critical (email) [email protected]. evaluation factors, we are purposely facilities. The proposed rule labels this general because we look at the collective SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On factor "Impacts at the County Level." January 26, 1999, we published a impact of all of the factors when making We have renamed this to be "Localized a recommendation to the President. Our proposed rule on factors considered Impacts" to make it clear that we look goal is to provide consistency in the when evaluating a Governor's request at the impacts for other units of evaluation process and in the types of for a major disaster declaration under government, not just the county. The factors that we consider, while at the the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. history of major disaster declarations same time allowing us to consider the clearly demonstrates that the statewide in the Federal Register at 64 FR 3910. total impact and unique circumstances We invited comments for 90 days $1 per capita indicator is not the sole of a disaster within a particular State. If ending on April 26, 1999. We received determinant in recommending or further specificity or elaboration is granting declarations. Rather, we look at nineteen sets of comments: seven from needed on individual factors, such as all of them in concert to determine States; eight from various organizations; how we might measure the impact of whether a declaration should be and, four from individuals. Comments hazard mitigation on the disaster, or recommended. For this reason we do varied widely. Some commentors how we would measure the impact of not believe that use of this factor is in objected to putting any factors in recent disasters, we believe that such conflict with §320 of the Stafford Act regulation; some thought that certain detail would be more appropriate in evaluation factors were too rigorous and regarding arithmetic formulas or sliding policy than in regulation. scales. restrictive; some thought them too vague The factor that received the greatest One Tribal organization commented and weak or subject to political number of comments is the use of $1.00 that the rule does not address how influence; and, some supported the rule per capita as an indicator for Public Tribal governments fit within the as written. All comments were Assistance; the use of a minimum $1 declaration process. By law, only the appreciated and reviewed carefully. million dollar threshold for this Governor can request a major disaster Following is a summary of the indicator; and, the intent to begin declaration under the Stafford Act. We comments and our responses. adjusting this indicator annually for then evaluate the impacts at the State One State and one nongovernmental inflation using the Consumer Price and local level. While the proposed rule organization supported the proposed Index. Some felt that this indicator does did not mention Tribal governments rule. All other States and most non- not really provide the best measurement specifically, we do, and will continue governmental organizations opposed the of the size disaster that a State should to, evaluate impacts at the Tribal level