Office Equipment Restoration
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-0955-DR-FL; National Puerto Rican Forum, DSR 87341, Office Equipment Restoration
Cross Reference: Declared Disaster Area
Summary: Hurricane Andrew caused power outages that damaged typewriters, computers, and other office equipment used by the applicant to assist minorities in overcoming illiteracy, communication problems, and joblessness. FEMA prepared DSRs 71226 and 71542 in the amount of $101,230 to fund the diagnostic testing, repair, and replacement of the damaged equipment. Upon learning that the applicant did not restore this equipment within the disaster area, FEMA prepared DSR 87341 to deobligate the funding ($101,230). The applicant submitted a first level appeal requesting FEMA reconsider the deobligation of this funding. The applicant claimed that they informed the State, prior to receiving funding, that the Florida office would be closed, and the State agreed that the equipment could be shipped to the applicant's New York office. Neither the damaged facility nor its function was restored within the declared disaster area, therefore the Regional Director concluded that the funding associated with DSRs 71226 and 71542 was not eligible and DSR 87341 remained unchanged. The applicant submitted a second appeal again requesting the reconsideration of funding for DSRs 71226 and 71542. The applicant asserts that the State is an agent of FEMA, and the applicant followed the State's direction in shipping the equipment to New York.
Issues:
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-0955-DR |
| Applicant | National Puerto Rican Forum |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 025-90013 |
| PW ID# | 87341 |
| Date Signed | 1999-03-12T05:00:00 |
Cross Reference: Declared Disaster Area
Summary: Hurricane Andrew caused power outages that damaged typewriters, computers, and other office equipment used by the applicant to assist minorities in overcoming illiteracy, communication problems, and joblessness. FEMA prepared DSRs 71226 and 71542 in the amount of $101,230 to fund the diagnostic testing, repair, and replacement of the damaged equipment. Upon learning that the applicant did not restore this equipment within the disaster area, FEMA prepared DSR 87341 to deobligate the funding ($101,230). The applicant submitted a first level appeal requesting FEMA reconsider the deobligation of this funding. The applicant claimed that they informed the State, prior to receiving funding, that the Florida office would be closed, and the State agreed that the equipment could be shipped to the applicant's New York office. Neither the damaged facility nor its function was restored within the declared disaster area, therefore the Regional Director concluded that the funding associated with DSRs 71226 and 71542 was not eligible and DSR 87341 remained unchanged. The applicant submitted a second appeal again requesting the reconsideration of funding for DSRs 71226 and 71542. The applicant asserts that the State is an agent of FEMA, and the applicant followed the State's direction in shipping the equipment to New York.
Issues:
- Can funding provided for damaged equipment in the disaster area be used outside the disaster area?
- Is the State an agent of FEMA?
- No. Neither the facility nor its function were restored within the disaster area, therefore funding is not eligible.
- No. FEMA alone has the right to interpret the governing laws and regulations authorizing disaster assistance.
Appeal Letter
March 12, 1999
Mr. Joseph F. Myers
Governor's Authorized Representative
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Dear Mr. Myers:
This is in response to your December 23, 1997, and October 20, 1998, correspondence transmitting the National Puerto Rican Forum's (applicant's) second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 87341, prepared to deobligate funding for DSRs 71226 and 71542. DSR 87341 deobligated the cost of the diagnostic testing, repair, and replacement of various computers, typewriters, and other office equipment that were damaged by electrical power surges following Hurricane Andrew. The applicant is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) determination that funding is not eligible because the applicant did not replace the facility or its function within the declared disaster area.
On March 16, 1993, DSRs 71542 and 71226 were prepared to fund the cost of diagnostic testing for computers and repairing and replacing electronic equipment. DSRs 71542 and 71226 were written in the amounts of $1,300 and $97,347, respectively. Between March 1993 and March 1995, there were several eligibility issues that affected DSR 71226. In a December 7, 1994, letter to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs (State), FEMA recognized that the Florida office was no longer operating and therefore the applicant was not eligible to receive funding. FEMA requested that the applicant submit documentation confirming an operating office within the disaster area to receive funding. On February 10, 1995, the State notified FEMA that the applicant had secured the documentation requested in the December 7, 1994, letter. On March 23, 1995, DSR 71226 was determined to be eligible and several line item costs were adjusted, which increased the amount of approved funding to $99,930. FEMA was unaware that in January 1995, the applicant decided to consolidate operations and the Miami Florida office was closed.
In November 1996, the State requested a final inspection. The State submitted a package to FEMA that included a September 13, 1995, letter to the State from the applicant. In this letter the applicant contends that the State agreed the applicant should ship the equipment funded by DSR 71226 to the applicant's office in New York, since the Florida office was closed. As in 1994, the applicant did not replace the facility or its function within the disaster area, therefore, FEMA prepared DSR 87341 on December 4, 1996, to deobligate $101,230 (the total amount approved under DSRs 71226 and 71542).
The State transmitted the applicant's first appeal of DSR 87341 by correspondence dated October 6, 1997. The applicant stated that they were contacted by the State about the approval of DSR 71226. The applicant claims they informed the State in May 1995, that they closed the Florida office. The applicant also contends that the State approved of shipping the equipment to the New York office in September 1995. In the State's transmittal letter for the first appeal, the State argues that FEMA did not cite a regulation that mandated FEMA funding must be used to repair or replace losses in the disaster area. FEMA responded to this appeal by discussing the issue of whether disaster funding for equipment in the applicant's Florida office could be used to purchase equipment for its New York office. While the applicant questioned the State regarding eligibility, unfortunately the State did not request guidance from FEMA and instead maintained that its understanding of the Federal regulations was correct. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) Section 406(a)(2) and Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) Section 206.223(a)(2) specify that disaster funding is provided for disaster caused damage in a declared disaster area. The damaged facility and its function were not restored within the declared disaster area, therefore FEMA determined that the funding associated with DSRs 71226 and 71542 was not eligible.
The applicant's second appeal reiterates the issues of the first appeal. The applicant argues that the State is an agent of FEMA and reemphasizes that they were following the directions given by the State. The State's transmittal letter claims that the facility was restored because the equipment was replaced and used for the same function in the New York office.
All available, relevant information has been reviewed and analyzed in relation to the applicant's second appeal of DSR 87341. As in the first appeal, the eligibility issue involves the use of funding to restore the equipment outside the disaster area. FEMA and the State act through a partnership to most effectively aid areas affected by disaster. The Stafford Act authority is delegated to FEMA to administer disaster assistance. Therefore, it is FEMA's responsibility to interpret the governing laws and regulations. FEMA recognizes that the applicant received incorrect guidance from the State, however, this fact cannot affect the eligibility requirements set forth in the Stafford Act. The Act provides assistance to certain private nonprofit organizations because they are performing certain essential services for the public. FEMA has consistently interpreted the intent of this assistance to be that such services will continue to be provided in the declared disaster area. By shipping this equipment to New York, the applicant has not restored the facility or its function in the disaster area. Therefore, DSRs 71226 and 71543 are not eligible and DSR 87341 remains unchanged.
Accordingly, the applicant's appeal is denied. Please inform the applicant of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Mark C. Merritt
Eastern Territorial Closeout Team
FEMA Region IV
Mr. Joseph F. Myers
Governor's Authorized Representative
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Dear Mr. Myers:
This is in response to your December 23, 1997, and October 20, 1998, correspondence transmitting the National Puerto Rican Forum's (applicant's) second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 87341, prepared to deobligate funding for DSRs 71226 and 71542. DSR 87341 deobligated the cost of the diagnostic testing, repair, and replacement of various computers, typewriters, and other office equipment that were damaged by electrical power surges following Hurricane Andrew. The applicant is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) determination that funding is not eligible because the applicant did not replace the facility or its function within the declared disaster area.
On March 16, 1993, DSRs 71542 and 71226 were prepared to fund the cost of diagnostic testing for computers and repairing and replacing electronic equipment. DSRs 71542 and 71226 were written in the amounts of $1,300 and $97,347, respectively. Between March 1993 and March 1995, there were several eligibility issues that affected DSR 71226. In a December 7, 1994, letter to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs (State), FEMA recognized that the Florida office was no longer operating and therefore the applicant was not eligible to receive funding. FEMA requested that the applicant submit documentation confirming an operating office within the disaster area to receive funding. On February 10, 1995, the State notified FEMA that the applicant had secured the documentation requested in the December 7, 1994, letter. On March 23, 1995, DSR 71226 was determined to be eligible and several line item costs were adjusted, which increased the amount of approved funding to $99,930. FEMA was unaware that in January 1995, the applicant decided to consolidate operations and the Miami Florida office was closed.
In November 1996, the State requested a final inspection. The State submitted a package to FEMA that included a September 13, 1995, letter to the State from the applicant. In this letter the applicant contends that the State agreed the applicant should ship the equipment funded by DSR 71226 to the applicant's office in New York, since the Florida office was closed. As in 1994, the applicant did not replace the facility or its function within the disaster area, therefore, FEMA prepared DSR 87341 on December 4, 1996, to deobligate $101,230 (the total amount approved under DSRs 71226 and 71542).
The State transmitted the applicant's first appeal of DSR 87341 by correspondence dated October 6, 1997. The applicant stated that they were contacted by the State about the approval of DSR 71226. The applicant claims they informed the State in May 1995, that they closed the Florida office. The applicant also contends that the State approved of shipping the equipment to the New York office in September 1995. In the State's transmittal letter for the first appeal, the State argues that FEMA did not cite a regulation that mandated FEMA funding must be used to repair or replace losses in the disaster area. FEMA responded to this appeal by discussing the issue of whether disaster funding for equipment in the applicant's Florida office could be used to purchase equipment for its New York office. While the applicant questioned the State regarding eligibility, unfortunately the State did not request guidance from FEMA and instead maintained that its understanding of the Federal regulations was correct. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) Section 406(a)(2) and Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) Section 206.223(a)(2) specify that disaster funding is provided for disaster caused damage in a declared disaster area. The damaged facility and its function were not restored within the declared disaster area, therefore FEMA determined that the funding associated with DSRs 71226 and 71542 was not eligible.
The applicant's second appeal reiterates the issues of the first appeal. The applicant argues that the State is an agent of FEMA and reemphasizes that they were following the directions given by the State. The State's transmittal letter claims that the facility was restored because the equipment was replaced and used for the same function in the New York office.
All available, relevant information has been reviewed and analyzed in relation to the applicant's second appeal of DSR 87341. As in the first appeal, the eligibility issue involves the use of funding to restore the equipment outside the disaster area. FEMA and the State act through a partnership to most effectively aid areas affected by disaster. The Stafford Act authority is delegated to FEMA to administer disaster assistance. Therefore, it is FEMA's responsibility to interpret the governing laws and regulations. FEMA recognizes that the applicant received incorrect guidance from the State, however, this fact cannot affect the eligibility requirements set forth in the Stafford Act. The Act provides assistance to certain private nonprofit organizations because they are performing certain essential services for the public. FEMA has consistently interpreted the intent of this assistance to be that such services will continue to be provided in the declared disaster area. By shipping this equipment to New York, the applicant has not restored the facility or its function in the disaster area. Therefore, DSRs 71226 and 71543 are not eligible and DSR 87341 remains unchanged.
Accordingly, the applicant's appeal is denied. Please inform the applicant of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Mark C. Merritt
Eastern Territorial Closeout Team
FEMA Region IV
Last updated