Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 011-57040-00; Connecticut Department of Transporation
PW ID# 204; Time Limitations
Citation: FEMA-3192-EM-CT; Connecticut Department of Transportation (CT DOT)
Cross-reference: Time Limitations, Identifying and Reporting Damage
Summary: Six counties in Connecticut were designated for snow removal assistance following the record snowfall which occurred on December 5-6, 2003. An Applicants Briefing (the first substantive meeting) was conducted by officials for the State of Connecticut and attended by FEMA Region I and CT DOTs authorized local representatives on January 29, 2004. All applicants at the briefings were provided a package of 54 pages containing forms, sample submittals, storm-specific data and program requirements for claim preparation. Applicants were advised that the Applicants Briefing would serve as the Kickoff Meeting for all applicants in the County who wished to submit a claim for reimbursement of snow removal costs. The regulatory deadline for identifying damages and submitting costs associated with damages was therefore March 29, 2004. Upon receipt of the basic CT DOT claim on March 26, 2004, FEMA determined that the claim contained significant flaws requiring correction before it could be processed. Project Officers assigned to CT DOT maintained regular contact with CT DOT staff to attempt to secure the necessary information (copy of contract) and documentation to process the claim. CT DOT was given an extension to April 23, 2004, to locate and submit the requested materials. On April 23, 2004, the Alternate Governors Authorized Representative (Alternate GAR) submitted a letter to the Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) requesting a further extension for CT DOT. The request was denied, citing the fact that the claim was already 30 days past the 60-day window. The FCOs response to the Alternate GAR did, however, allow that FEMA would process the claim based on any and all materials received by April 27, 2004, the date by which CT DOT staff had assured the Project Officer that all materials would be at the Disaster Field Office.
Issues: Did CT DOTs appeal present justification to support further time extension?
Findings: No. CT DOTs appeal does not provide sufficient justification or rationale for its inability to meet deadlines due to extenuating circumstances beyond its control.