This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Railroad Washout
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
N/A
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1093-DR |
| Applicant | SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 000-91027 |
| PW ID# | N/A |
| Date Signed | 1999-03-15T05:00:00 |
Appeal Letter
March 15, 1999
Mr. Charles F. Wynne
Governor's Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Box 3321
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-3321
Dear Mr. Wynne:
This is in response to your September 8, 1998, letter supporting the SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority's request for a reconsideration of a second appeal decision. The decision regards the repair of damages caused by FEMA-1093-DR-PA, including railroad washouts. After careful review of all information submitted, I denied SEDA-COG's second appeal on July 22, 1998. Effective May 8, 1998, disaster regulations allow for two appeal levels, one to the Regional Director and one to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) headquarters.
Flooding in January 1996 caused damages to SEDA-COG's facilities that totaled $103,243. Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) to fund repair projects were deemed ineligible because FEMA was unable to determine that SEDA-COG was legally responsible for repairing damages. The operating agreement between SEDA-COG and the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad Company (operator) did not clearly define legal responsibility for necessary repairs as a result of unexpected or uncontrollable events, including floods. In addition, SEDA-COG was unable to establish a history of funding repairs.
With the request for reconsideration, SEDA-COG submitted a version of the operating agreement that was signed and in effect prior to the flooding event. However, this agreement is essentially the same as that referenced in previous analyses and does not clarify legal responsibility, the fundamental issue affecting the eligibility of the work.
Each second appeal proceeds through a comprehensive process and receives full internal scrutiny. This process provides the applicant with an expedited final decision by this agency. Upon review of my second appeal determination and the information included with the request for reconsideration, I have concluded that all relevant facts were considered in the evaluation of the second appeal. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to reconsider my second appeal decision and reevaluate the merits of the case. Accordingly, your request is denied.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Rita A. Calvan
Regional Director
FEMA Region III
Mr. Charles F. Wynne
Governor's Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Box 3321
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-3321
Dear Mr. Wynne:
This is in response to your September 8, 1998, letter supporting the SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority's request for a reconsideration of a second appeal decision. The decision regards the repair of damages caused by FEMA-1093-DR-PA, including railroad washouts. After careful review of all information submitted, I denied SEDA-COG's second appeal on July 22, 1998. Effective May 8, 1998, disaster regulations allow for two appeal levels, one to the Regional Director and one to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) headquarters.
Flooding in January 1996 caused damages to SEDA-COG's facilities that totaled $103,243. Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) to fund repair projects were deemed ineligible because FEMA was unable to determine that SEDA-COG was legally responsible for repairing damages. The operating agreement between SEDA-COG and the Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad Company (operator) did not clearly define legal responsibility for necessary repairs as a result of unexpected or uncontrollable events, including floods. In addition, SEDA-COG was unable to establish a history of funding repairs.
With the request for reconsideration, SEDA-COG submitted a version of the operating agreement that was signed and in effect prior to the flooding event. However, this agreement is essentially the same as that referenced in previous analyses and does not clarify legal responsibility, the fundamental issue affecting the eligibility of the work.
Each second appeal proceeds through a comprehensive process and receives full internal scrutiny. This process provides the applicant with an expedited final decision by this agency. Upon review of my second appeal determination and the information included with the request for reconsideration, I have concluded that all relevant facts were considered in the evaluation of the second appeal. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to reconsider my second appeal decision and reevaluate the merits of the case. Accordingly, your request is denied.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Rita A. Calvan
Regional Director
FEMA Region III