Emergency Protective Measures
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1539/1551/1561-DR-FL, Florida Department Health, PWs 5056, 2525, and 3881, Emergency Protective Measures
Cross-reference: Emergency Protective Measures, Direct Result of Disaster
Summary: During the response of three of the 2004 Florida Hurricanes (FEMA-1539/1551/1561-DR-FL) the Florida Department of Health (Applicant) deployed Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) teams to mitigate the adverse effects of stress on Emergency Operations Center (EOC) staff. FEMA deemed the provision of CISD briefings ineligible because the briefings do not qualify as emergency protective measures. Therefore, FEMA obligated Project Worksheet (PW) 5056 (1539-DR) on August 4, 2005, PW 2525 (1551-DR) on September 27, 2005, and PW 3881 (1561-DR) on July 27, 2005, for $0.
The Applicant filed a first appeal on October 7, 2005, asserting that the CISD costs are directly related to, and the direct result of, the performance of eligible work under the Public Assistance (PA) Program. On August 10, 2006, FEMA denied the Applicants first appeal stating that the provision of the CISD program was not necessary to eliminate or lessen an immediate threat to lives or public health and safety, as there was no immediate threat to the individuals served by the program.
On December 27, 2006, the Applicant filed a second appeal with FEMA appeal reiterating its position presented in its first appeal.
Issues: Are costs related to the provision of CISD briefings to EOC staff eligible under the Public Assistance Program?
Findings: No.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1) and 44 CFR §206.225(a)(3)
Appeal Brief
Disaster | FEMA-1539/15 |
Applicant | Florida Department Health |
Appeal Type | Second |
PA ID# | 000-U03DA-00 |
PW ID# | Project Worksheets 5056, 2525 and 3881 |
Date Signed | 2007-11-19T05:00:00 |
The Applicant filed a first appeal on October 7, 2005, asserting that the CISD costs are directly related to, and the direct result of, the performance of eligible work under the Public Assistance (PA) Program. On August 10, 2006, FEMA denied the Applicants first appeal stating that the provision of the CISD program was not necessary to eliminate or lessen an immediate threat to lives or public health and safety, as there was no immediate threat to the individuals served by the program.
On December 27, 2006, the Applicant filed a second appeal with FEMA appeal reiterating its position presented in its first appeal.
Appeal Letter
November 19, 2007
Mr. W. Craig Fugate
State of Florida Department of Community Affairs
Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Re: Second Appeal- Florida Department of Health, PA ID# 000-U03DA-00
Emergency Protective Measures, FEMA-1539/1551/1561-DR-FL Project Worksheets 5056, 2525, and 3881
Dear Mr. Fugate:
This letter is in response to the referenced second appeal submitted by the Florida Department of Health (Applicant) to your office on September 27, 2006, and transmitted by your letter dated January 3, 2007. The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) determination to deny the mutual aid costs associated with the deployment of Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) teams to support personnel responding to the disasters.
Following the three disasters in 2004, the Applicant, in its capacity as lead agency in the State Emergency Operation Center for ESF-8, deployed CISD teams from local governments to provide stress counseling to staff who performed response activities. The applicant requested reimbursement of $100,379 from FEMA for costs associated with deploying these teams. FEMA denied the request because the teams did not perform activities to lessen or eliminate an immediate threat to public health and safety. The Applicant submitted a first appeal on
October 7, 2005, claiming that the costs were eligible as emergency protective measures necessary to protect the mental health of the responders and the costs were allowable under the Office of Management and Budget Circular, A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments. The Acting Regional Director denied the appeal on August 10, 2006, because the work was not required to eliminate or lessen immediate threats to life, public health or safety pursuant to 44 CFR §206.225. In addition, the Acting Regional Director stated that not every allowable cost under OMB Circular A-87 is an eligible component under the Public Assistance Program. The Applicant submitted a second appeal on September 27, 2006.
Based on a review of all information the Applicant submitted with the appeal, I support the Acting Regional Directors decision on the first appeal. Therefore, the Applicants second appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Major Phil May
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV
Mr. W. Craig Fugate
State of Florida Department of Community Affairs
Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Re: Second Appeal- Florida Department of Health, PA ID# 000-U03DA-00
Emergency Protective Measures, FEMA-1539/1551/1561-DR-FL Project Worksheets 5056, 2525, and 3881
Dear Mr. Fugate:
This letter is in response to the referenced second appeal submitted by the Florida Department of Health (Applicant) to your office on September 27, 2006, and transmitted by your letter dated January 3, 2007. The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) determination to deny the mutual aid costs associated with the deployment of Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) teams to support personnel responding to the disasters.
Following the three disasters in 2004, the Applicant, in its capacity as lead agency in the State Emergency Operation Center for ESF-8, deployed CISD teams from local governments to provide stress counseling to staff who performed response activities. The applicant requested reimbursement of $100,379 from FEMA for costs associated with deploying these teams. FEMA denied the request because the teams did not perform activities to lessen or eliminate an immediate threat to public health and safety. The Applicant submitted a first appeal on
October 7, 2005, claiming that the costs were eligible as emergency protective measures necessary to protect the mental health of the responders and the costs were allowable under the Office of Management and Budget Circular, A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments. The Acting Regional Director denied the appeal on August 10, 2006, because the work was not required to eliminate or lessen immediate threats to life, public health or safety pursuant to 44 CFR §206.225. In addition, the Acting Regional Director stated that not every allowable cost under OMB Circular A-87 is an eligible component under the Public Assistance Program. The Applicant submitted a second appeal on September 27, 2006.
Based on a review of all information the Applicant submitted with the appeal, I support the Acting Regional Directors decision on the first appeal. Therefore, the Applicants second appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Major Phil May
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV
Last updated