This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Susquehanna County Bridge #22
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
PURPOSE: Respond to third appeal submitted by the Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners asking for funding to replace a one-lane bridge with a two-lane bridge.
DISCUSSION: Flooding in 1996 (FEMA-1093-DR) destroyed the one-lane Susquehanna County Bridge #22. DSR 36466 obligated $295,878 to replace the bridge in kind. The County's first appeal asked FEMA to fund a two-lane bridge, claiming that Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) standards required the wider bridge. FEMA denied the appeal based on the facility's predisaster use. The State asked FEMA to reconsider and also submitted a second appeal on behalf of the applicant. The State claimed that a letter from FEMA (sent prior to the first appeal response) suggested the County would be fully reimbursed if it submitted a hydraulic report. FEMA's response explained that the report simply confirmed the dimensions of the bridge. The County's third appeal was approximately six months late and contained no new information. FEMA has consistently replaced one-lane bridges with one-lane bridges based on policy guidance and its interpretation of 44 CFR 206.226(b). Therefore, there is no reason to fully fund this bridge.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign letter denying this appeal.
Flooding in January of 1996 destroyed the 100-year-old Susquehanna County Bridge #22. The one-lane bridge measured 16' 65'. On July 19, 1996, Damage Survey Report (DSR) 36466 obligated $295,878 and approved replacing the bridge and both abutments in kind. The scope of work described the needed restoration: a new 16' 68' superstructure with guardrail, new approach guardrails, replacement of the far abutment with concrete or stone (Class A concrete used for cost estimate), and restoration of the 14.7'-wide roadway approaches with 2A material.
The Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners (County) replaced the bridge with a structure that measured 22' wide, a two-lane bridge. Its first appeal, submitted on October 10, 1996, asked FEMA to reimburse the extra cost for widening the bridge. The County based its design on Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) standards that require a minimum bridge width of 22'. The County claimed that in the previous 12 years it had consistently replaced bridges to this standard. In addition, its liability insurance carrier and the rules of using Liquid Fuels Tax monies required replacing the bridge to PennDOT standards.
FEMA initially responded to this appeal on March 27, 1997. Citing the requirements of 44 CFR 206.226(b), FEMA stated that the County had not formally adopted PennDOT standards in writing. In addition, the wider bridge exceeded the predisaster use of the facility. The requirements of the insurance company and other sources of funding did not affect the findings; FEMA does not consider such requirements when assessing eligibility. The reviewer suggested that the County's demonstrated practice of constructing bridges to PennDOT standards might substitute for formal adoption of these standards. The reviewer also asked the County to submit a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (Penn DEP) hydraulic report to indicate whether the bridge had been raised or lengthened to dimensions not to exceed the 25-year frequency flood flow criteria for rural bridges. The reviewer implied that the submission of Penn DEP certification would determine eligibility of the project.
In a May 30, 1997, letter, the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) submitted Penn DEP certification on behalf of the County. FEMA acknowledged receipt of this documentation in the formal appeal response dated August 11, 1997. From the Penn DEP report, FEMA concluded that the only change made to the design of the bridge was the increase in width. The appeal was denied because the new bridge did not meet eligibility criteria, according to 44 CFR 206.226(b). However, an additional $6,487 was obligated based on a revised estimate for a 16'-wide bridge submitted by the County's engineer.
On October 17, 1997, the State asked FEMA to reconsider its first appeal decision. PEMA stated that the transmittal of Penn DEP documents satisfied the requirements needed to grant full reimbursement, as inferred from the March 27, 1997, letter. FEMA formally responded to this request on January 10, 1997. It stated that the Penn DEP report only confirmed that the new bridge was not higher or longer than the previous bridge. Therefore, the only improvement was widening the bridge, thereby changing it from a one-lane to a two-lane bridge. FEMA denied the request saying the new bridge exceeded its predisaster use.
Prior to receiving this response, PEMA submitted a second appeal, dated December 8, 1997, on behalf of the County. PEMA again claimed that the transmittal of Penn DEP documents satisfied eligibility requirements. FEMA denied this appeal on April 30, 1998. The response stated that document submission alone does not ensure eligibility, rather the documentation must demonstrate that the work meets eligibility criteria. It addressed the Liquid Fuels Tax issue again, explaining that FEMA does not consider requirements of other funding sources when determining eligibility. The response concluded that because a one-lane bridge was replaced with a two-lane bridge, the project exceeded the predisaster use of the facility.
THIRD APPEAL
The County's third appeal, dated November 9, 1998, supplied no new information. Instead, it restated that the County consistently adheres to PennDOT standards and is required by PennDOT and its insurance carrier to build bridges to these design standards. PEMA forwarded this appeal on December 28, 1998. In its transmittal letter, PEMA supported the County claiming that the County acted in good faith, risked loss of its liability insurance if the bridge did not conform to current standards, and met every criterion of 44 CFR 206.226(b), except having a written adopted standard. PEMA also cited "a clear public safety issue" saying, "one-lane bridges are universally recognized as unsafe given today's traffic environment."
DISCUSSION
The fact that PennDOT standards require minimum bridge widths of 22' is not in dispute. It is also apparent that the Liquid Fuels Tax Act and the County's liability insurance carrier require the County to adhere to PennDOT standards. Though it has not shown that it has formally adopted these standards, the County has provided evidence to suggest that it consistently followed PennDOT standards when rehabilitating bridges. The County needed to build a 22'-wide bridge; however, this does not obligate FEMA to fully fund the project. If standards require changes to the predisaster construction of a facility, the standards must conform to all of the criteria listed in 44 CFR 206.226(b) in order for the work to be eligible.
FEMA's consistent interpretation of 44 CFR 206.226(b), which states that standards must "be appropriate to the predisaster use of the facility," precludes full reimbursement of this project. The facility was designed and used as a one-lane bridge prior to the disaster. Its predisaster use was as a one-lane bridge, not a two-lane bridge. In addition, based on the legislative history from 1974, FEMA has determined that a one-lane bridge and a two-lane bridge are different facilities. In order to consider applying standards to change the predisaster construction of a one-lane bridge, the standards must be applicable to a one-lane bridge. The PennDOT standards apply to two-lane bridges.
CONCLUSIONS
FEMA acknowledges that state standards required the County to build a two-lane bridge; however, this does not obligate FEMA to fund the entire project. FEMA policy guidance, which is based on the requirements of 44 CFR 206.226(b) and its legislative history, dictates funding one-lane bridges to replace one-lane bridges. FEMA has provided the County with funding to replace Susquehanna County Bridge #22 in kind. Therefore, this appeal is denied.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1093-DR |
| Applicant | Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners |
| Appeal Type | Third |
| PA ID# | 115-00000 |
| PW ID# | 36466 |
| Date Signed | 1999-06-16T04:00:00 |
DISCUSSION: Flooding in 1996 (FEMA-1093-DR) destroyed the one-lane Susquehanna County Bridge #22. DSR 36466 obligated $295,878 to replace the bridge in kind. The County's first appeal asked FEMA to fund a two-lane bridge, claiming that Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) standards required the wider bridge. FEMA denied the appeal based on the facility's predisaster use. The State asked FEMA to reconsider and also submitted a second appeal on behalf of the applicant. The State claimed that a letter from FEMA (sent prior to the first appeal response) suggested the County would be fully reimbursed if it submitted a hydraulic report. FEMA's response explained that the report simply confirmed the dimensions of the bridge. The County's third appeal was approximately six months late and contained no new information. FEMA has consistently replaced one-lane bridges with one-lane bridges based on policy guidance and its interpretation of 44 CFR 206.226(b). Therefore, there is no reason to fully fund this bridge.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign letter denying this appeal.
Appeal Letter
June 16, 1999
Robert E. Churchman
Governor's Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Box 3321
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-3321
Re: Third Appeal - Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners, Susquehanna County Bridge #22, FEMA-1093-DR-PA, DSR 36466
Dear Mr. Churchman
This is in response to the referenced third appeal, submitted December 28, 1998. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 36466 was originally prepared for $295,878 to fund the replacement of the one-lane Susquehanna County Bridge #22. An additional $6,487 was later obligated based on revised cost estimates. The Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners (County) is asking for an additional $177,377 to fully reimburse the cost of a new two-lane bridge.
In previous appeals, the County and the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) have claimed that the bridge was designed according to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) minimum standards. The County provided documentation to indicate that it has historically followed these standards on a consistent basis. In addition, its liability insurance carrier and the Liquid Fuels Tax Act, from which it received monies, require that bridges be built to these standards. FEMA has denied these appeals based on 44 CFR 206.226(b). Specifically it has been FEMA's position that the new bridge was not appropriate to the predisaster use of the existing bridge.
FEMA has consistently viewed one-lane and two-lane bridges as different facilities. FEMA policy guidance says that FEMA will only fund one-lane bridges to replace one-lane bridges. As explained in the enclosed analysis, this policy is based on the legislative history of 44 CFR 206.226(b). Standards to change the predisaster construction of a facility must be appropriate to the predisaster use of the facility. The PennDOT standards apply to two-lane bridges and, therefore, cannot be used to justify changes to the design of the one-lane bridge. For this reason, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the applicant of my decision, which constitutes the final level of appeal in accordance with 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
James L. Witt
Director
Enclosure
cc: Rita A. Calvan
Regional Director
FEMA Region III
Robert E. Churchman
Governor's Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Box 3321
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-3321
Re: Third Appeal - Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners, Susquehanna County Bridge #22, FEMA-1093-DR-PA, DSR 36466
Dear Mr. Churchman
This is in response to the referenced third appeal, submitted December 28, 1998. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 36466 was originally prepared for $295,878 to fund the replacement of the one-lane Susquehanna County Bridge #22. An additional $6,487 was later obligated based on revised cost estimates. The Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners (County) is asking for an additional $177,377 to fully reimburse the cost of a new two-lane bridge.
In previous appeals, the County and the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) have claimed that the bridge was designed according to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) minimum standards. The County provided documentation to indicate that it has historically followed these standards on a consistent basis. In addition, its liability insurance carrier and the Liquid Fuels Tax Act, from which it received monies, require that bridges be built to these standards. FEMA has denied these appeals based on 44 CFR 206.226(b). Specifically it has been FEMA's position that the new bridge was not appropriate to the predisaster use of the existing bridge.
FEMA has consistently viewed one-lane and two-lane bridges as different facilities. FEMA policy guidance says that FEMA will only fund one-lane bridges to replace one-lane bridges. As explained in the enclosed analysis, this policy is based on the legislative history of 44 CFR 206.226(b). Standards to change the predisaster construction of a facility must be appropriate to the predisaster use of the facility. The PennDOT standards apply to two-lane bridges and, therefore, cannot be used to justify changes to the design of the one-lane bridge. For this reason, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the applicant of my decision, which constitutes the final level of appeal in accordance with 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
James L. Witt
Director
Enclosure
cc: Rita A. Calvan
Regional Director
FEMA Region III
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDFlooding in January of 1996 destroyed the 100-year-old Susquehanna County Bridge #22. The one-lane bridge measured 16' 65'. On July 19, 1996, Damage Survey Report (DSR) 36466 obligated $295,878 and approved replacing the bridge and both abutments in kind. The scope of work described the needed restoration: a new 16' 68' superstructure with guardrail, new approach guardrails, replacement of the far abutment with concrete or stone (Class A concrete used for cost estimate), and restoration of the 14.7'-wide roadway approaches with 2A material.
The Susquehanna County Board of Commissioners (County) replaced the bridge with a structure that measured 22' wide, a two-lane bridge. Its first appeal, submitted on October 10, 1996, asked FEMA to reimburse the extra cost for widening the bridge. The County based its design on Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) standards that require a minimum bridge width of 22'. The County claimed that in the previous 12 years it had consistently replaced bridges to this standard. In addition, its liability insurance carrier and the rules of using Liquid Fuels Tax monies required replacing the bridge to PennDOT standards.
FEMA initially responded to this appeal on March 27, 1997. Citing the requirements of 44 CFR 206.226(b), FEMA stated that the County had not formally adopted PennDOT standards in writing. In addition, the wider bridge exceeded the predisaster use of the facility. The requirements of the insurance company and other sources of funding did not affect the findings; FEMA does not consider such requirements when assessing eligibility. The reviewer suggested that the County's demonstrated practice of constructing bridges to PennDOT standards might substitute for formal adoption of these standards. The reviewer also asked the County to submit a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (Penn DEP) hydraulic report to indicate whether the bridge had been raised or lengthened to dimensions not to exceed the 25-year frequency flood flow criteria for rural bridges. The reviewer implied that the submission of Penn DEP certification would determine eligibility of the project.
In a May 30, 1997, letter, the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) submitted Penn DEP certification on behalf of the County. FEMA acknowledged receipt of this documentation in the formal appeal response dated August 11, 1997. From the Penn DEP report, FEMA concluded that the only change made to the design of the bridge was the increase in width. The appeal was denied because the new bridge did not meet eligibility criteria, according to 44 CFR 206.226(b). However, an additional $6,487 was obligated based on a revised estimate for a 16'-wide bridge submitted by the County's engineer.
On October 17, 1997, the State asked FEMA to reconsider its first appeal decision. PEMA stated that the transmittal of Penn DEP documents satisfied the requirements needed to grant full reimbursement, as inferred from the March 27, 1997, letter. FEMA formally responded to this request on January 10, 1997. It stated that the Penn DEP report only confirmed that the new bridge was not higher or longer than the previous bridge. Therefore, the only improvement was widening the bridge, thereby changing it from a one-lane to a two-lane bridge. FEMA denied the request saying the new bridge exceeded its predisaster use.
Prior to receiving this response, PEMA submitted a second appeal, dated December 8, 1997, on behalf of the County. PEMA again claimed that the transmittal of Penn DEP documents satisfied eligibility requirements. FEMA denied this appeal on April 30, 1998. The response stated that document submission alone does not ensure eligibility, rather the documentation must demonstrate that the work meets eligibility criteria. It addressed the Liquid Fuels Tax issue again, explaining that FEMA does not consider requirements of other funding sources when determining eligibility. The response concluded that because a one-lane bridge was replaced with a two-lane bridge, the project exceeded the predisaster use of the facility.
THIRD APPEAL
The County's third appeal, dated November 9, 1998, supplied no new information. Instead, it restated that the County consistently adheres to PennDOT standards and is required by PennDOT and its insurance carrier to build bridges to these design standards. PEMA forwarded this appeal on December 28, 1998. In its transmittal letter, PEMA supported the County claiming that the County acted in good faith, risked loss of its liability insurance if the bridge did not conform to current standards, and met every criterion of 44 CFR 206.226(b), except having a written adopted standard. PEMA also cited "a clear public safety issue" saying, "one-lane bridges are universally recognized as unsafe given today's traffic environment."
DISCUSSION
The fact that PennDOT standards require minimum bridge widths of 22' is not in dispute. It is also apparent that the Liquid Fuels Tax Act and the County's liability insurance carrier require the County to adhere to PennDOT standards. Though it has not shown that it has formally adopted these standards, the County has provided evidence to suggest that it consistently followed PennDOT standards when rehabilitating bridges. The County needed to build a 22'-wide bridge; however, this does not obligate FEMA to fully fund the project. If standards require changes to the predisaster construction of a facility, the standards must conform to all of the criteria listed in 44 CFR 206.226(b) in order for the work to be eligible.
FEMA's consistent interpretation of 44 CFR 206.226(b), which states that standards must "be appropriate to the predisaster use of the facility," precludes full reimbursement of this project. The facility was designed and used as a one-lane bridge prior to the disaster. Its predisaster use was as a one-lane bridge, not a two-lane bridge. In addition, based on the legislative history from 1974, FEMA has determined that a one-lane bridge and a two-lane bridge are different facilities. In order to consider applying standards to change the predisaster construction of a one-lane bridge, the standards must be applicable to a one-lane bridge. The PennDOT standards apply to two-lane bridges.
CONCLUSIONS
FEMA acknowledges that state standards required the County to build a two-lane bridge; however, this does not obligate FEMA to fund the entire project. FEMA policy guidance, which is based on the requirements of 44 CFR 206.226(b) and its legislative history, dictates funding one-lane bridges to replace one-lane bridges. FEMA has provided the County with funding to replace Susquehanna County Bridge #22 in kind. Therefore, this appeal is denied.