o Accomack County submitted an appeal of the closeout action taken by FEMA. Region III stated that the closeout was initiated for two reasons: the budget increase was an unauthorized scope of work (SOW) change; and the submitted documentation included unauthorized alterations in the federally required language. The Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) stated that the SOW was “sufficiently vague”, and that the changes did not constitute a scope change. Additionally, they requested that the absence of assurance documents should be considered ‘de minimus’ rather than a ‘material failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant’.
• Reason for Denial
o Region III based the denial of the 1st appeal on the fact that neither the State nor FEMA received documentation or assurance that the property owner purchased and would maintain flood insurance.
o 44 CFR 206.434 Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals, 44 CFR 206.436(d) Application Procedures, 42 U.S.C. 4012(a)
o The applicant filed a second appeal, stating that the modifications to the scope were consistent with the grant, other projects had been handled differently and the modifications to the required language were minimal.
• FEMA Findings
o FEMA HQ denied the 2nd appeal, supporting Region III’s decision to deny the 1st appeal.
o Rationale: Neither the State nor FEMA received documentation or assurance that the property owner purchased and would maintain flood insurance. Additionally, VDEM returned the funding associated with the subject property.
o Reference(s): 44 CFR 206.440 Appeals; 44 CFR 206.434 Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.436(d) Application Procedures, 42 U.S.C. 4012(a)