Time Extension – Appeal, 705(c)

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster1561/1609
Applicant Public Health Trust
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#086-U0NJI-00
PW ID#2177, 1480, 1483, and 4456
Date Signed2016-09-26T00:00:00

Conclusion: The Public Health Trust’s (Applicant) second appeals are time-barred by Stafford Act § 423(a) and 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(c) and, consequently, denied.

Summary Paragraph

As a result of Hurricane Jeanne (DR-1561) in September 2004 and Hurricane Wilma (DR-1609) in October 2005, the Public Health Trust (Applicant) incurred increased force account labor costs tied to emergency medical care and sheltering within Miami-Dade County.  FEMA determined that the claim was largely ineligible for PA funding because it included regular time labor and increased operating expenses related to normal patient care.  FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 2177 (DR-1561) and PWs 1480, 1483, and 4456 (DR-1609) to document the Applicant’s claim.  In its first appeals, the Applicant disputed FEMA’s denials of $6,353,899.58 in funding.  The Applicant argued that the labor costs represented only overtime labor expenses of staff who performed emergency work outside of their normally scheduled work hours.  Additionally, with regard to PWs 1480 and 1483, the Applicant challenged FEMA’s denial of the medical care costs.  The Applicant argued that emergency medical care is a critical service.  The FEMA Region IV Regional Administrator (RA) denied the appeals.  In his analyses of PWs 2177, 1480, and 1483 the RA concluded that the Applicant incurred additional administrative and operational costs generated as a result of an increased patient load, and that such costs were ineligible for PA reimbursement.  In addition, he explained that FEMA had denied PW 4456 upon determining that the claimed costs correlated to ineligible regular time labor which the Applicant paid as overtime.  In actions separate from the appeal process, FEMA provisionally obligated some of the labor costs denied on first appeal.  The PWs contained language stating that FEMA could not determine eligibility without further information and deferred further consideration until closeout.  On second appeal, the Applicant disputes FEMA’s denial of $3,341,851.52 contending that FEMA determined these costs eligible during the closeout process.  In addition, the Grantee argues that Stafford Act § 705(c) precludes FEMA from denying funding for PWs 1480, 1483, and 4456.

Authorities and Second Appeals

  • Stafford Act §§ 423(a) and 705(c).
  • 44 C.F.R. § 206.206.
  • FEMA Recovery Policy FP 205-081-2, Stafford Act Section 705, Disaster Grant Closeout Procedures, at 2.

Headnotes

  • 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(b) establishes two levels of appeal and specifically endows the RA with the sole authority to consider first appeals, and the Assistant Administrator for the Disaster Assistance Directorate with the sole authority to consider second appeals.
    • FEMA denied the disputed costs in the original PWs and the RA upheld the denials on first appeal.  Subsequent obligation and deobligation actions did not and could not vacate or overturn the RA’s first appeal decisions.  Only the Assistant Administrator has the authority to overturn first appeal determinations. 
  • Stafford Act § 423(a) and 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(c)(1) provides an applicant with 60 days to submit an appeal. 
  • The Applicant submitted its second appeals 5 years after the RA denied the first appeals.
  • 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(c)(2) provides the grantee with 60 days to forward an applicant’s appeal together with its written recommendation. 
  • The Grantee forwarded the Applicant’s second appeals 2 years and 7 months after the Applicant submitted its second appeal letters.
  • Stafford Act § 705(c) holds that a State or local government shall not be liable for reimbursement or any other penalty if (1) the payment was authorized by an approved agreement specifying the costs; (2) the costs were reasonable; and (3) the purpose of the grant was accomplished. 
    • In 2016, FEMA promulgated FP 205-081-1, to explain how FEMA implements § 705.  With respect to the application of § 705(c) the policy does not apply to matters for which appeal rights are exhausted and FEMA has taken final administrative action.

 

 

Appeal Letter

Bryan W. Koon
Director
State of Florida Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oaks Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida  32399-2100

Re: Second Appeal – Public Health Trust, PA ID 086-U0NJI-00, FEMA-1561/1609-DRs-FL, Project Worksheets (PWs) 2177, 1480, 1483, and 4456 – Time Extension – Appeal, 705(c)

Dear Mr. Koon:

This is in response to letters from your office dated February 16, 2015, which transmitted one second appeal for FEMA-1561-DR-FL (PW 2177) and three appeals for FEMA-1609-DR-FL (PWs 1480, 1483, and 4456) on behalf of Public Health Trust (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $427,304.22 for DR-1561 and $2,914,547.30 for DR-1609, for a total of $3,341,851.52 in Public Assistance (PA) funding for force account labor expenses.

As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant’s second appeals are time-barred by the Stafford Act § 423(a) and 44 C.F.R. § 206.206.  Accordingly, I am denying the appeals. 

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination is the final Agency decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals.

Sincerely,

/s/

Christopher Logan
Acting Director
Public Assistance Division                                                                       

Enclosure

cc: Gracia Szczech
      Regional Administrator
      FEMA Region IV

Appeal Analysis

Background

Miami-Dade County, Florida was impacted by strong winds and heavy rains from Hurricane Jeanne (DR-1561-FL) in September 2004 and Hurricane Wilma (DR-1609-FL) in October 2005.    As a result of both hurricanes, the Public Health Trust (Applicant) sought Public Assistance (PA) reimbursement for the labor costs it incurred for its employees who worked during the emergency periods at its hospital and shelter facilities.  FEMA determined that the Applicant’s request was largely ineligible because it included expenses tied to regular time labor and increased operating expenses related to normal patient care. 

Using the Applicant’s estimates, FEMA prepared four Category B Project Worksheets (PWs), as follows:

  • PW 2177 (DR-1561) documented $1,618,535.98 in requested force account labor costs worked by employees at Jackson Memorial and Jackson South Hospital facilities to: secure files, work stations, and equipment; move patients and equipment; set up and operate an emergency shelter; and set up and operate an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for medical management facilities.On July 1, 2005, FEMA funded $126,816.98 and denied $1,491,719.00 as ineligible increased operating expenses related to normal patient care.

  • PW 1480 (DR-1609) documented $4,379,648.64 in requested force account labor costs worked by employees at Jackson Memorial Hospital to: secure files, work stations, and equipment; move patients and equipment; assist unattended patients with daily care needs; and provide brief respite care for patients with “rooming-in” parents.On January 28, 2006, FEMA prepared a zero dollar version PW 1480 to deny $2,846,771.62 as ineligible increased operating expenses tied to the provision of medical care and $1,532,877.02 as ineligible regular time labor.

  • PW 1483 (DR-1609) documented $472,266.40 in requested force account labor costs worked by employees at Jackson South Hospital to provide medical care and set up and operate an emergency shelter.On January 28, 2006, FEMA prepared a zero dollar version of PW 1483 to deny $306,973.16 as ineligible increased operating expenses tied to the provision of medical care and $165,293.24 as ineligible regular time labor.

  • PW 4456 (DR-1609) documented $130,816.64 in requested force account labor costs worked by employees to prepare beds, and feed and clothe sheltered patients.On April 7, 2006, FEMA prepared a zero dollar version of PW 4456 to deny $120,551.10 as ineligible increased operating costs and $10,265.54 as ineligible regular time labor.

First Appeals

In two letters dated September 18, 2005[1] and March 18, 2006,[2] the Applicant submitted first appeals for PW 2177 (DR-1561) and PWs 1480, 1483, and 4456 (DR-1609), respectively.  In both appeals, the Applicant emphasized that it is responsible for providing essential medical care facilities and operating and maintaining a public shelter for residents with special medical needs during emergencies.  The Applicant disputed FEMA’s denials to fund $6,353,899.58 in labor costs.

According to the Applicant, the threat to life, public health, and safety required it to utilize labor forces to perform emergency protective measures at its facilities and incur significant costs.  The Applicant argued that its predisaster payroll policy requires it to pay employees at overtime pay rates for all hours worked during emergency periods.  However, during PW development, FEMA instructed it to derive its costs for regular time labor from what was actually paid to employees, which conflicted with the Applicant’s pay policy and FEMA’s own guidance that only overtime labor costs are eligible for emergency work.[3]  Thus, for PWs 2177, 1480, 1483, and 4456, the Applicant argued that the labor costs denied by FEMA actually represented only the overtime labor expenses of its staff who performed emergency work outside of their normally scheduled work hours.  Additionally, with regard to PWs 1480 and 1483, the Applicant challenged FEMA’s denial of costs for medical care, arguing that the emergency medical care it provided was a critical service.[4] 

In two separate decisions issued on November 6, 2006, for PW 2177 and November 13, 2006, for PWs 1480, 1483, and 4456, the FEMA Region IV Regional Administrator (RA) denied the Applicant’s first appeals, upholding the initial eligibility determinations that denied labor costs in all four PWs.  In his analyses of PWs 2177, 1480, and 1483, the RA concluded that the Applicant incurred additional administrative and operational costs generated as a result of an increased patient load, and that such costs were ineligible for PA reimbursement pursuant to FEMA Response and Recovery Policy RRP9525.4, Medical Care and Evacuations.[5]  For PW 4456, the RA denied funding upon determining that the claimed costs correlated to ineligible regular time labor which the Applicant paid as overtime.  The RA cited to Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 C.F.R.) § 206.228(a)(4), which states that regular time labor costs for permanent employees are not eligible for reimbursement.[6] 

Additional Actions Prior to Second Appeals

Between May 2006 and April 2007, in actions separate from the appeal process, FEMA obligated some of the labor costs that were denied on first appeal.  Obligations for the four PWs totaled $4,766,014.88.  FEMA later deobligated all of these costs between August 2010 and April 2012.  These actions are shown in Table 1 (Columns 6 and 7) at the end of this section, and are further discussed below.

Following a meeting with the Applicant in February 2007,[7] FEMA provisionally reinstated funds for PWs 2177, 1480, and 1483, but within the scopes of work explained that it could not distinguish eligible from ineligible labor without additional information and deferred further consideration until closeout.  The amounts reinstated as a result of the meeting had not been determined eligible at that time.[8]  Upon reconciliation of the Applicant’s documented costs, at closeout, FEMA verified actual labor costs for PWs 1483 ($21,547.68)[9] and 4456 ($46,228.00),[10] but concluded that none of the costs were eligible for PW 1480.[11]  Upon reconciliation of PW 2177, FEMA identified $427,304.22 in actual labor costs as potentially eligible, subject to a successful second appeal.[12]

In a letter dated April 13, 2012, the RA notified the Florida Division of Emergency Management (Grantee) that FEMA erroneously reinstated funding to several of the Applicant’s PWs, including the four PWs addressed herein.  In order to correct the funding errors and uphold the first appeal determinations, the RA explained that FEMA would process additional deobligations.  The RA also stated that once the deobligations occur, the Applicant would be afforded second appeal rights.[13]  On April 27, 2012, as a result of the letter, FEMA deobligated the remaining balance of previously denied costs from PWs 2177, 1480, 1483, and 4456.

Table 1: Summary of Actions by PW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

 

PW No.

Applicant's Initial Claim

Amounts Denied by FEMA

Applicant's First Appeal Amounts in Dispute

First Appeal Amounts Denied by FEMA
Nov. 2006

FEMA Obligations May 2006 – Apr. 2007

FEMA Deobligations Aug. 2010 – Apr. 2012

Applicant's Second Appeal Amounts in Dispute

 
 

2177

$1,618,535.98

$1,491,719.00

$1,491,719.00

$1,491,719.00

$1,491,719.00

($1,491,719.00)

$427,304.22

 

1480

$4,379,648.64

$4,379,648.64

$4,379,648.64

$4,379,648.64

$2,846,771.62

($2,846,771.62)

$2,846,771.62

 

1483

$472,266.40

$472,266.40

$472,266.40

$472,266.40

$306,973.16

($306,973.16)

$21,547.68

 

4456

$130,816.64

$130,816.64

$10,265.54

$10,265.54

$120,551.10

($120,551.10)

$46,228.00

 

Total

$6,601,267.66

$6,474,450.68

$6,353,899.58

$6,353,899.58

$4,766,014.88

($4,766,014.88)

$3,341,851.52

 

 

Second Appeals

In four individual letters all dated July 6, 2012, the Applicant submitted second appeals for PW 2177 (DR-1561) and PWs 1480, 1483, and 4456 (DR-1609).  The Applicant seeks a cumulative amount of $3,341,851.52 in funding from FEMA for both disasters.  The Applicant asserts that the costs in dispute represent eligible expenses it incurred for emergency work performed during the hurricanes.  Furthermore, it argues that in versions to all four PWs, FEMA either reinstated costs or substantiated actual costs during closeout. 

In four individual letters all dated February 16, 2015, the Grantee forwarded to FEMA the Applicant’s second appeal packages for PWs 2177, 1480, 1483, and 4456.  The Grantee asserts that the appeals are timely.  In its support of the Applicant’s second appeal of PW 2177, the Grantee states that at closeout, FEMA determined that $427,304.22 in labor costs were eligible.  For the rest of the appeals, the Grantee argues that as a result of a meeting with the Applicant in 2007, FEMA committed to obligate $3,274,295.88 in labor costs pending final reconciliation of all costs during the closeout of each PW.  The Grantee argues that FEMA erred in denying the Applicant’s first appeals since it obligated some of the previously denied costs after issuing the first appeal decisions.  As a result, FEMA should reinstate the labor costs allowed after the meeting in 2007, and/or costs confirmed as eligible during closeout.  According to the Grantee, FEMA should not fault the Applicant for communication errors, administrative errors made solely by FEMA, or confusion during closeout as the Applicant complied with FEMA instruction throughout the PA process.  Furthermore, FEMA’s deobligation of all funding would create a “negative precedent that would then allow FEMA to overturn prior funding approvals” due to such errors.[14] 

In addition, the Grantee contends that Section 705(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act)[15] precludes FEMA from deobligating the costs in dispute for three of the four PWs.  In its analysis, the Grantee argues that the Applicant should not be penalized as the requirements within Section 705(c)(1),(2) and (3) are satisfied for PWs 1480, 1483, and 4456, as follows: (1) FEMA’s provisional obligation of funding in the first versions constitutes the approved agreement and satisfies this condition; (2) the fact that FEMA did not question the reasonableness of costs in the PWs coupled with FEMA’s prior funding of costs establishes that FEMA found the costs reasonable; and (3) the fact that the Applicant completed all of the emergency work as documented satisfies the condition that the purpose of the grant was accomplished.[16]

Discussion

Levels of Appeal / Singular Appeal Decision Authority

On second appeal, the Applicant disputes FEMA’s actions to recover funding that was supported by actual costs documented at closeout, which occurred five years after the RA issued his first appeal decisions.  The Grantee asserts that FEMA’s reinstatement of previously denied costs, even if in conflict with the RA’s first appeal decisions, implies acknowledgment by FEMA that it erred in determining that the labor costs were ineligible.  This assertion is unsupported.

In fact, as stated by the RA in the 2012 notification letter to the Grantee, FEMA erroneously funded the labor costs that the RA denied on first appeal, which would include any costs allowed as a result of the closeout process or any other action at odds with the first appeal determinations.  In the original PWs, FEMA denied the work related to the disputed costs and those denials were upheld by the RA on first appeal.  Title 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(b) establishes two levels of appeal and specifically endows the RA with the sole authority to consider first appeals, and the Assistant Administrator for the Disaster Assistance Directorate with the sole authority to consider second appeals.[17]  Pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(b)(3), “the decision of the FEMA official at the next higher appeal level shall be the final administrative decision of FEMA.”  Consequently, only the Assistant Administrator is authorized to overturn the RA’s eligibility determinations as decided on first appeal.[18]  Based on the documentation provided, neither the RA nor the Assistant Administrator approved the reinstatement of costs tied to work denied on first appeal.

Timeliness of Appeals

Section 423 of the Stafford Act,[19] as implemented by 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, allows an eligible applicant to appeal any PA eligibility determination.  An applicant must submit an appeal within 60 days of receiving notice of the appealable action.[20]  Following receipt of an applicant’s appeal, a grantee has 60 days to forward it together with a written recommendation to FEMA.[21]  Neither the Stafford Act nor 44 C.F.R. provide FEMA with the authority to grant time extensions for filing appeals.

Regardless of subsequent obligations and deobligations, the Applicant was required to file its second appeals within 60 days following receipt of FEMA’s first appeal determinations.  The Stafford Act, 44 C.F.R., and FEMA policies provide predictable standards for evaluating claims for eligibility and for determining whether expenditures are authorized for reimbursement under the PA Program.  PA funding is not guaranteed if documented eligibility criteria are not met, despite FEMA obligating funds on a PW.  On first appeal, the RA determined that the work and costs in dispute for PWs 2177, 1480, 1483, and 4456 were ineligible for PA funding because the work did not meet the eligibility criteria of emergency protective measures.  Therefore, the Applicant had 60 days from receiving notice of the RA’s first appeal decisions to submit its second appeals.

The Applicant failed to submit its second appeals within the required statutory and regulatory timeframe.  The Grantee asserts that the Applicant submitted the second appeals within the required timeframe but does not offer any explanation or specify dates to support its assertion.[22]  The dates the Applicant received notice of the first appeal decisions are unknown, but FEMA can establish the expiration of the statutory and regulatory timeframes for second appeals using the submittal dates of the Grantee’s and Applicant’s second appeal letters.[23]  The Applicant submitted its second appeals on July 6, 2012; more than five years after the RA denied the first appeal of PW 2177 on November 6, 2006, and the first appeals of PWs 1480, 1483, and 4456 on November 13, 2006.  Two years and seven months later, on February 16, 2015, the Grantee forwarded the second appeals to FEMA for final consideration. 

In the 2012 notification letter sent by FEMA to inform the Grantee that corrective deobligations would be taken, the RA noted that the Applicant would be afforded its second appeal rights following completion of the actions.  It must be emphasized that neither the Stafford Act nor FEMA regulation affords any FEMA office, including regional offices, with the authority to extend timeframes to file first or second appeals.[24]  However, even when considering the April 27, 2012, deobligations as the date from which the second appeal timeframe begins, the Applicant submitted its second appeals eleven days beyond the allowable 60-day timeframe, and the Grantee delayed forwarding the appeals for over two years.  As such, the Applicant’s second appeal rights had expired.[25]

Stafford Act Section 705(c)

The Grantee argues that Stafford Act § 705(c) precludes FEMA from deobligating and/or recovering funding it allowed erroneously in PWs 1480, 1483, and 4456.  Section705(c) holds that “a State or local government shall not be liable for reimbursement or any other penalty for any payment made under [the] Act if – (1) the payment was authorized by an approved agreement specifying the costs; (2) the costs were reasonable; and (3) the purpose of the grant was accomplished.”[26]  The Applicant’s second appeals are untimely; moreover, the Grantee delayed in forwarding the appeals to the Assistant Administrator for final consideration until years after the expiration of the timeframe required by 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(c)(2).  As FEMA’s Recovery Policy FP 205-081-2, Stafford Act Section 705, Disaster Grant Closeout Procedures does not apply to matters for which appeal rights are exhausted and the Agency has taken final administrative action, its guidance implementing Stafford Act § 705(c) cannot be applied to the issues raised by the Grantee’s second appeal letter.[27] 

Conclusion

Pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(b)(3), only the Assistant Administrator has the authority to overturn first appeal determinations.  FEMA denied the disputed costs in the original PWs and the RA upheld those denials on first appeal.  Subsequent obligation and deobligation actions did not and could not vacate or overturn the RA’s first appeal decision.  The Applicant did not file its second appeals within the required statutory and regulatory timeframe.  Moreover, the Grantee failed to forward the Applicant’s second appeals together with its written recommendations to FEMA within the required regulatory timeframe.  Stafford Act § 705(c) protections do not apply to untimely appeals.  Consequently, the Applicant’s second appeals are denied and the RA’s first appeal decisions stand for PWs 2177, 1480, 1483, and 4456.  

 


[1] Letter from Assistant Controller, Jackson Health System Public Health Trust, to Director, Florida Division of Emergency Management (Sep. 18, 2005).

[2] Letter from Public Health Trust Jackson Health System, to Director, Florida Division of Emergency Management (Mar. 18, 2006) [hereinafter Applicant’s First Appeal for DR-1609-FL].

[3] Applicant’s First Appeal for DR-1609-FL, at 2-3 (citing Response and Recovery Policy RRP9527.7, Labor Costs – Emergency Work, at 2 (July 20, 2000) and Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322, at 36 (Oct. 1999) [hereinafter PA Guide] for support that only overtime labor costs of an applicant’s permanent staff are eligible for emergency work, and further, that FEMA should rely upon an applicant’s preexisting pay policy to determine labor costs).

[4] Applicant’s First Appeal for DR-1609-FL, at 3-4.

[5] RRP 9525.4, Medical Care and Evacuations, at 1 (Aug. 17, 1999) (stating that costs of “emergency medical treatment of any kind” and “increased administrative and operational cost to the hospital due to increased patient load” are ineligible for FEMA reimbursement).

[6] 44 C.F.R. § 206.228 (2004).

[7] Email from Vice President, Government Relations Executive Office, Jackson Health System, to Jackson Health System (Feb. 28, 2007, 12:47 PM EST) (according to this internal email exchange between Applicant representatives, FEMA and the Applicant met in February of 2007 and as a result, the Applicant agreed to provide supporting documentation for its claims).

[8] Project Worksheet 2177, Public Health Trust (Version 1), at 3-4 (Apr. 20, 2007) (stating that the version “is written for reconsideration of project costs with conditions of satisfactory closeout” and that FEMA could not verify the eligibility of all labor claimed “because the description indicates that workers performed a mix of eligible emergency protective measures and ineligible increased operating expenses”); Project Worksheet 1480, Public Health Trust (Version 1), at 4 (Apr. 24, 2007) (explaining that “it is unclear what portion of the hours claimed were actual overtime versus regularly scheduled hours); and Project Worksheet 1483, Public Health Trust (Version 1), at 4 (Mar. 8, 2007) (determining that “without further information relating hours to specific tasks, the [FEMA] project officer could not distinguish between eligible hours and ineligible hours” and that “[f]ailure to meet the above conditions and eligibility requirements set forth in the Stafford Act, 44 C.F.R. Part 206, FEMA 322 [PA Guide], and all applicable policies, rules, and regulations, may result in a reduction to the amount of this PW”).

[9] Project Worksheet 1483, Public Health Trust, Version 4 (Aug. 18, 2010).

[10] Project Worksheet 4456, Public Health Trust, Version 2 (Aug. 18, 2010).

[11] Project Worksheet 1480, Public Health Trust, Version 2, at 7 (Aug. 27, 2012) (concluding that “inspection of the supporting documentation has substantiated a total eligible amount of $0.00”).

[12] Project Worksheet 2177, Public Health Trust (Version 5), at 8 (Oct. 29, 2013).

[13] Letter from Regional Administrator, FEMA Region IV, to Director, Florida Division of Emergency Management, at 1-2 (Apr. 13, 2012).

[14] Letters from Director and Governor’s Authorized Representative, Florida Division of Emergency Management, to Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate, FEMA, at 2 (Feb. 16, 2015) [hereinafter Grantee’s Second Appeal Letters for PWs 1480, 1483, and 4456].

[15] The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 93-288, § 705, 42 U.S.C. § 5205 (2003).

[16] Grantee’s Second Appeal Letters for PWs 1480, 1483, and 4456, at 2-3.

[17] 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(b)(1)-(2).

[18] Id. at § 206.206(b)(3).

[19] Stafford Act § 423(a).

[20] 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(c)(1).

[21] Id. at § 206.206(c)(2).

[22] Grantee’s Second Appeal Letters for PWs 1480, 1483, and 4456, at 1; Letter from Director and Governor’s Authorized Representative, Florida Division of Emergency Management, to Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate, FEMA, at 1 (Feb. 16, 2015) (Grantee’s Second Appeal Letter for PW 2177).

[23] See FEMA Second Appeal Analysis, Florida Department of Transportation, FEMA-3288-EM-FL, at 2 (June 30, 2015) (determining that the applicant failed to submit its second appeal within the 60-day timeframe as required by 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(c)(1) by calculating the amount of time that elapsed from the date of FEMA’s first appeal decision through the date of the grantee’s second appeal forwarding letter, despite having an undated second appeal from the applicant).

[24] See FEMA Second Appeal Analysis, Broward County School Board of Florida, FEMA-1609-DR-FL, at 2 (Sep. 4, 2014) (determining that the applicant’s second appeal was untimely and that neither the Stafford Act nor the regulations provide FEMA with the authority to extend appeal filing timeframes).

[25] See FEMA Second Appeal Analysis, Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, FEMA-3259-EM-FL (Mar. 27, 2015) (determining that the applicant and grantee failed to submit the second appeal of PW 102 within the required timeframe, and that the costs in dispute were otherwise ineligible as they represented increased operating costs). 

[26] Stafford Act § 705(c).

[27] Recovery Policy FP 205-081-2, Stafford Act Section 705, Disaster Grant Closeout Procedures, at 2 (Mar. 31, 2016). 

Last updated