Follow FEMA:
Safety Inspections
Main Content
Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Cross-reference: Other Federal Agency; Emergency Protective Measures
Summary: Following Hurricane Wilma, the Florida Department of Transportation
(Applicant) conducted structural inspections of bridges, signs, and lighting
systems in Broward, Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie counties
known as district four. The Applicant seeks reimbursement totaling $1,950,000.
FEMA determined that the work was not eligible because the work falls under the responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and because random damage surveys/inspections are not eligible for FEMA reimbursement. As a result, FEMA obligated PW 9146 for zero dollars.
The Applicant filed a first appeal dated August 13, 2007, stating that the inspections were not eligible for reimbursement under FHWA Emergency Relief (ER) funding, but the work is eligible for Public Assistance reimbursement because the inspections were performed as emergency protective measures to establish if the condition of the facilities posed an immediate threat to public safety. On February 28, 2008, the Regional Administrator denied the first appeal because the Applicant did not establish that the work in question met the definition of emergency work as defined under 44 CFR §206.201(b), . . . work which must be done immediately to save lives and to protect improved property and public health and safety, or to avert or lessen the threat of a major disaster. The Regional Administrator noted that the inspections were performed throughout an eight-month period at which time the roadways remained opened to the traveling public indicating that there was no immediate threat to pubic safety. The Applicant submitted its second appeal in a letter dated May 27, 2008, and reiterates its position presented in the first appeal, specifically, that the inspections were conducted to eliminate an immediate threat and that FEMA may reimburse Applicants for inspections.
Issues: 1. Are the roads part of a Federal-aid road system?
2. Does the work in question meet the definition of emergency work?
Findings: 1. Yes. The roads are under the statutory authority of FHWA.
2. No.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.225; 44 CFR §206.226(a); 44 CFR §206.201(b)
Second Appeal Brief
FEMA-1609-DR
PA ID# 000-U03E9-00; Florida Department of Transportation
PW ID# Project Worksheeet 9146; Safety Inspections
10/14/2008
Citation: FEMA-1609-DR-FL, Florida Department of Transportation, Safety Inspections, Project Worksheet (PW) 9146PA ID# 000-U03E9-00; Florida Department of Transportation
PW ID# Project Worksheeet 9146; Safety Inspections
10/14/2008
Cross-reference: Other Federal Agency; Emergency Protective Measures
Summary: Following Hurricane Wilma, the Florida Department of Transportation
(Applicant) conducted structural inspections of bridges, signs, and lighting
systems in Broward, Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie counties
known as district four. The Applicant seeks reimbursement totaling $1,950,000.
FEMA determined that the work was not eligible because the work falls under the responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and because random damage surveys/inspections are not eligible for FEMA reimbursement. As a result, FEMA obligated PW 9146 for zero dollars.
The Applicant filed a first appeal dated August 13, 2007, stating that the inspections were not eligible for reimbursement under FHWA Emergency Relief (ER) funding, but the work is eligible for Public Assistance reimbursement because the inspections were performed as emergency protective measures to establish if the condition of the facilities posed an immediate threat to public safety. On February 28, 2008, the Regional Administrator denied the first appeal because the Applicant did not establish that the work in question met the definition of emergency work as defined under 44 CFR §206.201(b), . . . work which must be done immediately to save lives and to protect improved property and public health and safety, or to avert or lessen the threat of a major disaster. The Regional Administrator noted that the inspections were performed throughout an eight-month period at which time the roadways remained opened to the traveling public indicating that there was no immediate threat to pubic safety. The Applicant submitted its second appeal in a letter dated May 27, 2008, and reiterates its position presented in the first appeal, specifically, that the inspections were conducted to eliminate an immediate threat and that FEMA may reimburse Applicants for inspections.
Issues: 1. Are the roads part of a Federal-aid road system?
2. Does the work in question meet the definition of emergency work?
Findings: 1. Yes. The roads are under the statutory authority of FHWA.
2. No.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.225; 44 CFR §206.226(a); 44 CFR §206.201(b)