Point East Three Condominium Corporation
|Applicant||Point East Three Corporation, Inc.|
Citation:FEMA-1609-DR-FL, Point East Three Condominium Corporation, Inc.
Cross-reference:PNP Facility Eligibility; Deadline Extension
Summary:Hurricane Wilma stuck the Point East Three Condominium Corporation (Corporation) on or about October 25, 2005. The Corporation submitted a Request for Public Assistance (RPA) on December 13, 2005. After a review of the information provided in the application, FEMA determined that the Corporation did not own or operate a facility eligible for assistance under the Public Assistance (PA) Program and the Corporation submitted a late RPA.
In its first appeal, dated March 6, 2006, the Corporation contested the denial of the RPA, asserting that it was an eligible private non-profit facility. In addition, the Corporation states that they had been notified by a FEMA representative that the RPA submission deadline was extended through January 7, 2006, and that its December 13, 2005, RPA submittal was timely.
The Corporation’s first appeal was denied by Region IV on October 24, 2006. The Corporation was deemed ineligible for Public Assistance based on the fact that the Corporation does not own or operate an eligible PNP facility as defined under Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 206.221(e). Based on the documentation provided, the Corporation did not identify an extenuating circumstance as to why it submitted the RPA past the regulatory deadline as identified in 44 CFR§ 206.202(e)(f)(2).
On January 27, 2007, the Applicant submitted a second appeal. The information in the second appeal reiterates the Corporation’s argument from the first appeal. No additional documentation was provided to support the Corporation’s claim of eligibility nor did it demonstrate any extenuating circumstances that would justify a late RPA submittal.
Issues:(1) Did Point East submit a late RPA?
(2) Does Point East Three Condominium Corporation, Inc. own and operate an eligible PNP facility?
Rationale:Section 102(9), Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §5172, as amended; 44 CFR §206.221(e)(7)(f); FEMA Policy 9521.3 Private Nonprofit (PNP) Facility Eligibility; and Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 322, pages 10-15).
February 19, 2008
W. Craig Fugate, Director
State of Florida Department of Community Affairs
Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
RE: Second Appeal – Point East Three Condominium Corporation, Inc., FEMA-1609-DR-FL
Dear Mr. Fugate: This is in response to the letter dated May 9, 2007, transmitting the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Point East Three Condominium Corporation, Inc. (Corporation). The Corporation is requesting that the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reconsider the denial of its status for eligibility as a Private Nonprofit Facility (PNP) and request for Public Assistance (RPA).
In its first appeal, dated March 6, 2006, the Corporation states that their contractual agreement with South Florida Medical Associates – Miami Dade Fire rescue qualifies it as an eligible PNP by definition. Also, the Corporation states that they were misinformed regarding the deadline date for submitting a RPA. The Corporation maintains that their December 13, 2005, application was timely based on the false deadline date provided by FEMA representatives of
January 7, 2006. The Applicant clearly misinterpreted the January 7, 2006 deadline that was for the Individual Assistance Program and not the Public Assistance Program.
The Regional Director contended that the facility did not meet the requirements of an eligible private non-profit (PNP) facility providing essential services of a governmental nature as defined in 44 CFR §206.221(e) (6) and (7) and further defined in the Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 322) and as such denied the first appeal. The RPA submission deadline for FEMA-1609-DR-FL had not been extended beyond December 2, 2005, and the Corporation failed to demonstrate any extenuating circumstances that would justify a late RPA submittal.
On March 27, 2006, the Corporation submitted a second appeal. In its second appeal, the Corporation reiterated its first appeal arguments without including any additional information such as the damage to the facility and the amount the Corporation had claimed. We have reviewed all information submitted with the second appeal and have determined that the Regional Director’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with PA Program statute and regulations. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform Point East Three Condominium Corporation, Inc. of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision in this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Carlos J. Castillo
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Major P. May
FEMA Region IV