The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Implementation Updates for Select Provisions

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Implementation Updates for Select Provisions

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018
April 27, 2021
(DRRA): Implementation Updates for Select
Elizabeth M. Webster,
Provisions
Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency
Numerous natural disasters—including Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria in 2017 and the
Management and Disaster
devastating wildfires in California during 2017 and 2018—served as catalysts for significant
Recovery
recent changes in federal emergency management policy. Most of these policy changes were

included in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA; Division D of the FAA
Bruce R. Lindsay,
Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254)). DRRA is the most comprehensive reform of the
Coordinator
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) disaster assistance programs since the
Specialist in American
passage of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA, Division B of P.L. 113-2) and
National Government
the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA, P.L. 109-295).

Diane P. Horn
As with past disaster legislation, lessons learned from incidents and exercises revealed areas that
Analyst in Flood Insurance
could be improved through legislative and programmatic changes. DRRA was intended to
and Emergency
improve disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation, including pre-disaster
Management
mitigation; clarify assistance program eligibility, processes, and limitations, including on the

recoupment of funding; and increase FEMA’s transparency and accountability. To accomplish
these objectives, DRRA amended many sections of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Natalie Keegan
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended; 42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.),
Analyst in American
which is the foundational legislation for federal emergency authorities and disaster relief, as well
Federalism and Emergency
as emergency management policy. In addition, DRRA included standalone authorities, and
Management Policy

required rulemaking, reports to Congress, and other actions.
Erica A. Lee
In DRRA’s 46 sections, FEMA has identified 56 discrete requirements that are its responsibility
Analyst in Emergency
to implement. As of December 7, 2020, FEMA reported that it has implemented 46 of these. This
Management and Disaster
report examines select DRRA provisions that FEMA has implemented or is in the process of
Recovery
implementing, and focuses primarily on the DRRA provisions related to mitigation, Public

Assistance, and oversight, for which FEMA is responsible for implementation. Particular
Anna E. Normand
attention is given to DRRA’s provisions related to enhancing mitigation efforts. For example, a
Analyst in Natural
topic of significant congressional interest following DRRA’s enactment related to the additional
Resources Policy
mitigation funding that would be made available through FEMA’s new Building Resilient

Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Grant Program, which replaced the Pre-Disaster
Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program. Some of the in-progress DRRA provisions that are discussed

herein relate to FEMA’s rulemaking requirements. In particular, DRRA requires FEMA to
review and revise the factors for evaluating a governor’s request for Public Assistance (PA) pursuant to a major disaster
declaration, which FEMA uses to make a recommendation to the President regarding whether to authorize the request for
assistance. The effects of some of DRRA’s provisions are interconnected. For example, the rulemaking to update the PA
factors could result in fewer declared disasters. That, in turn, could result in a reduction in the amount of funding available
for grant programs, such as BRIC. This could raise concerns about resilience if a decrease in federal assistance for response
and recovery also results in a decrease in funding for preparedness and pre-disaster mitigation. Efforts to increase agency
accountability, including with regard to recouping improper payments, a perennial subject of congressional interest, are also
examined.
This report describes select significant implementation updates since DRRA’s enactment, and includes policy considerations
for Congress. A companion product, CRS Report R46774, The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA):
Implementation Update Tables for Select Provisions, provides tables that include updates on the status of FEMA’s
implementation of select DRRA provisions (i.e., implemented, in progress, or unverified). Further, detailed overviews of
many DRRA sections, including descriptions of how various disaster assistance programs operated prior to DRRA’s
implementation and analysis of how DRRA’s provisions modified these programs, as well as policy considerations, were
previously examined in CRS Report R45819, The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): A Summary of Selected
Statutory Provisions.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 18 link to page 21 link to page 26 link to page 27 link to page 29 link to page 30 link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 37 link to page 38 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 40 link to page 41 link to page 43 link to page 31 link to page 47 link to page 45 link to page 47 link to page 48 The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
DRRA’s Implementation ................................................................................................................. 2
Mitigation .................................................................................................................................. 4
Section 1234: National Public Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation ................... 4
Sections 1206(a) and 1206(b): Eligibility for Code Implementation and
Enforcement ..................................................................................................................... 8
Section 1204: Wildfire Mitigation .................................................................................... 10
Section 1233: Additional Hazard Mitigation Activities .................................................... 10
Public Assistance ..................................................................................................................... 12
Section 1207(c) and (d): Program Improvements (Public Assistance Alternative
Procedures) .................................................................................................................... 12
Section 1235(b) and (d): Additional Mitigation Activities ............................................... 14
Section 1232 and Section 1239: Factors to Authorize PA for Major Disasters ................. 17
Accountability and Oversight Provisions ................................................................................ 22
Management Costs ............................................................................................................ 23
Timely Closeout Incentives .............................................................................................. 25
FEMA Accountability and Oversight ................................................................................ 26
Audit and Review Requirement for Reimbursement ........................................................ 30
Prohibition on Recoupment .............................................................................................. 30
Policy Considerations .................................................................................................................... 33
Enforcement of Implementation Deadlines ............................................................................. 34
DRRA Implementation Considering the COVID-19 Pandemic .............................................. 35
DRRA Section 1234 Available BRIC Funding Based on the Estimated Aggregate
Amount of Funding Awarded for COVID-19 ................................................................ 35
DRRA Section 1239 Rulemaking and the Adoption of Total Taxable Resources ............ 36
DRRA Section 1215 Management Cost Caps During the Pandemic ................................ 37
Concluding Observations .............................................................................................................. 39

Figures
Figure 1. Delivery Sequence ......................................................................................................... 27

Figure B-1. Disaster Assistance Sequence of Delivery ................................................................. 43

Appendixes
Appendix A. History of FEMA Management Cost Rate Calculations .......................................... 41
Appendix B. Delivery Sequence ................................................................................................... 43

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 44
Congressional Research Service

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

Congressional Research Service

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

Introduction
The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA, Division D of P.L. 115-254) was enacted on
October 5, 2018, and is the most comprehensive reform of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency’s (FEMA’s) disaster assistance programs since the passage of the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA, Division B of P.L. 113-2) and the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA, P.L. 109-295). DRRA’s purpose is to improve pre-
disaster planning and mitigation, response, and recovery, and increase FEMA accountability.1 To
accomplish these objectives, through DRRA, Congress amended many sections of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended;
42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.). The Stafford Act is the foundational legislation for federal emergency
authorities, emergency management policy, and disaster relief to local, state, territorial, and
Indian tribal governments, certain private nonprofit organizations, and individuals and families.
DRRA also provided FEMA with new standalone authorities, and required rulemaking, reporting
to Congress, and other actions.
DRRA is comprised of 46 sections (DRRA Sections 1201-1246). Most DRRA sections assign
FEMA—specifically FEMA’s Administrator—responsibility for implementing various required
actions. In some cases, other federal entities or officers, such as the Department of Homeland
Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG), are assigned responsibility for implementation.
This report examines select DRRA provisions assigned to FEMA for implementation that the
agency has reportedly implemented or is in the process of implementing. It focuses primarily on
the DRRA provisions related to mitigation, Public Assistance, and accountability and oversight,
for which FEMA is responsible for implementation. DRRA provisions assigned to non-FEMA
federal entities or officers are not discussed herein.
As of December 7, 2020, FEMA reported that it had implemented 46 of DRRA’s 56 discrete
provisions assigned to the agency.2 DRRA sections that FEMA is reportedly still in the process of
implementing include provisions related to:
 rulemaking (see DRRA Sections 1211(a); 1235(d); and 1239(b));
 reporting to Congress (see DRRA Sections 1204(c); 1211; 1239(a); and 1240);
and
 updating policies and issuing guidance (see DRRA Sections 1216(c); and 1228).
This report also offers policy considerations for Congress related to the enforcement of DRRA’s
implementation deadlines, and DRRA’s implementation in light of the nation’s response to the
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
Some of the DRRA provisions described in this report are included in the tables of the companion
report, CRS Report R46774, The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Implementation

1 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Disaster Recovery Reform Act: Summarizing
Division D of H.R. 302, As Amended, 115th Cong, last accessed December 2018. This document is no longer available
online, but copies may be requested by contacting CRS.
2 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “FEMA Bulletin: Week of December 21, 2020,” December 23,
2020, https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSFEMA/bulletins/2b2c129/. See also the Disaster Recovery
Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA; Division D of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254)); and FEMA,
Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) Annual Report, October 2019, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
07/fema_DRRA-annual-report_2019.pdf (hereinafter FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report). With regard to DRRA’s various
provisions exceeding the number of DRRA sections, some DRRA sections include subsections that require one or more
specific implementation actions.
Congressional Research Service

1

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

Update Tables for Select Provisions. These provisions are indicated with an asterisk (*) in the
tables of the companion report.
Additional background information on many of DRRA’s provisions can be found in CRS Report
R45819, The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): A Summary of Selected Statutory
Provisions, which includes:
 an overview of the federal assistance programs as they existed prior to DRRA’s
enactment, and a discussion of how they were modified following DRRA’s
enactment;
 the context or rationale for program modifications or changes to disaster
assistance policies following DRRA’s enactment;
 potential considerations and issues for Congress;
 a table of amendments to the Stafford Act following DRRA’s enactment; and
 tables of deadlines associated with DRRA’s reporting, rulemaking and
regulations, and other implementation actions and requirements (note that the
tables included in this report are more up-to-date than the tables included in CRS
Report R45819, and the tables in this report are organized by implementation
status rather than the type of implementation action required).
Report Limitations and Caveats
The fol owing limitations and caveats apply to this report:

This report provides implementation updates for select aspects of provisions enacted in DRRA. It does not
provide a universal analysis.

The information included in this report is subject to change, including due to subsequent administrative or
congressional actions.

The implementation information included represents the best available information as of February 11, 2021
(or the date noted in the associated text or footnote).
Implementation status information is based on publicly available information and information
reported by FEMA, including through correspondence between CRS staff and FEMA Office of
External Affairs staff, FEMA’s Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) Annual Report, 2019
(hereinafter FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report), and FEMA’s “Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018”
website, available at https://www.fema.gov/disasters/disaster-recovery-reform-act-2018.
DRRA’s Implementation
The following sections provide detailed information related to FEMA’s actions to implement
select DRRA provisions, including provisions prioritized by FEMA for implementation and other
provisions that significantly changed federal assistance or authorities under the Stafford Act.
FEMA stated that it prioritized the implementation of five DRRA provisions that reduce risks
from hazards and build capabilities:
1. Section 1215 (Management Costs);
2. Section 1222 (Stafford Act to Title V Hiring Authority (Performance of Services));
3. Section 1232 (Major Disaster Declaration Factors (Local Impact));
4. Section 1234 (National Public Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation); and
Congressional Research Service

2

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

5. Section 1239 (Public Assistance Declaration Factors (Cost of Assistance Estimates)).3
In the two years since DRRA’s enactment, FEMA has reported making progress towards
implementing these provisions.4
Select DRRA provisions that significantly changed federal assistance or authorities under the
Stafford Act are also discussed in more detail in this report, including with regard to:
 increasing support for mitigation efforts, including by replacing FEMA’s Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Grant Program with the Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities (BRIC) Grant Program, and by providing funding for building code
adoption and enforcement, authorizing Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) funding for Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) declarations,
and authorizing the use of BRIC and HMGP assistance for activities that reduce
earthquake risk and build early warning capability;
 amending FEMA’s Public Assistance (PA) program, including with regard to the
PA Alternative Procedures program and by allowing FEMA to provide PA to
repair, reconstruct, or replace eligible facilities in accordance with “the latest
published editions of relevant consensus-based codes, specifications, and
standards that incorporate the latest hazard-resistant designs”;
 requiring FEMA to issue rules, including to define the term “resilience,” and
revise the procedures for evaluating requests for PA pursuant to a major disaster
declaration;
 increasing FEMA’s accountability by requiring FEMA to publicly report
information;
 preventing waste, fraud, and abuse of program assistance, including by amending
the Stafford Act’s duplication of benefits provision and providing clarification
regarding the delivery sequence; and
 establishing statutes of limitations for the recoupment of federal assistance
provided to individuals and households, and to PA Applicants.
These additional provisions focus on issues of congressional interest since DRRA’s enactment.5
This report organizes discussion of DRRA implementation updates by:
 the type of FEMA assistance the provision relates to, including Mitigation and
Public Assistance; or
 the function of the DRRA provision with regard to FEMA accountability and
oversight, including management costs, timely closeout incentives, audit and
review requirements for reimbursement, and prohibition on recoupment.

3 FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report, pp. v and 3. FEMA did not publish a DRRA Annual Report in 2020, but DRRA
implementation updates can be found on FEMA’s “Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018” webpage, available at
https://www.fema.gov/disasters/disaster-recovery-reform-act-2018 (email from FEMA Office of External Affairs staff,
October 15, 2020).
4 FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report, p. 1. According to FEMA, in order to expedite DRRA’s implementation, FEMA
identified accountable executives for each provision and established a Policy Coordination Group to oversee FEMA’s
implementation efforts.
5 See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, Disaster Preparedness: DRRA Implementation and
FEMA Readiness, 116th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 2019, p. vi.
Congressional Research Service

3

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

FEMA’s implementation priorities (with the exception of DRRA Section 1222) as well as select
DRRA provisions that significantly changed federal assistance or authorities under the Stafford
Act are described in more detail below.
Mitigation
FEMA provides the majority of funding for both pre- and post-disaster mitigation. It administers
three mitigation programs, collectively referred to as Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA): (1)
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); (2) the Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant
Program (FMA); and (3) the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM), which was reframed
in 2020 as the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program.6
The HMGP is authorized by Stafford Act Section 404—Hazard Mitigation7 and is funded through
the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). HMGP’s key purpose is to ensure that the opportunity to take
critical mitigation measures is not lost during the reconstruction process following a disaster.
HMGP funding is made available when it is requested by a governor or tribal chief executive
following a major disaster declaration or the approval of a Fire Management Assistance Grant
(FMAG). Eligible applicants include state, territorial, and local governments; federally
recognized tribes or tribal organizations; and certain nonprofit organizations. The HMGP funding
available for a given disaster is based on a percentage of the estimated total federal assistance
provided under the Stafford Act.8 The HMGP recipient must provide a 25% cost share, which can
include a combination of cash and in-kind sources.
Funding for FMA and BRIC are awarded competitively. Applicants for all three programs must
have hazard mitigation plans that meet the requirements of Stafford Act Section 322—Mitigation
Planning9 and 44 C.F.R. Part 201. The following sections provide updates on select DRRA
provisions affecting FEMA’s HMA programs.
Section 1234: National Public Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation10
DRRA Section 1234 authorized the President to annually set aside 6% of the estimated aggregate
amount of grants made under seven sections of the Stafford Act, and move those funds from the
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) into a new National Public Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Fund.11 FEMA’s expectation was that this fund would receive, on average, $300-$500 million per
year to be used for pre-disaster mitigation.12 The disaster assistance associated with the COVID-

6 FEMA, “Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC),” https://www.fema.gov/bric.
7 42 U.S.C. §5170c.
8 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding is based on the estimated aggregate grant amount made under 42
U.S.C. §§5170b, 5172, 5173, 5174, 5177, and 5173. See 44 C.F.R. §206.432(b) for the sliding scale to calculate HMGP
assistance.
9 42 U.S.C. §5165.
10 This section authored by Diane P. Horn, Analyst in Flood Insurance and Emergency Management.
11 Stafford Act Sections 403, 406, 407, 408, 410, 416, and 428. For additional information, see CRS Report R45819,
The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): A Summary of Selected Statutory Provisions, coordinated by
Elizabeth M. Webster and Bruce R. Lindsay.
12 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, Disaster Preparedness: DRRA Implementation and FEMA Readiness,
Serial No. 116-17 (House Hearing), 116th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 2019, p. 90, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
CHRG-116hhrg40590/pdf/CHRG-116hhrg40590.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

4

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

19 major disaster declarations,13 however, has resulted in additional funding for pre-disaster
mitigation. As of February 28, 2021, there was $1.055 billion set aside in the DRF for pre-disaster
mitigation.14 FEMA has not decided whether it will use all of BRIC’s 6% set-aside funds each
year, or retain some for future use.15 If FEMA does not use all of the set-aside funding in a given
year, it is unclear whether the funds will remain set aside for pre-disaster mitigation or be used for
other disaster-related expenses.
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Grant Program
As mentioned, the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Grant Program16
has replaced the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program. Any state that has had a major disaster
declaration in the seven years prior to the application start date is eligible to apply.
All states, territories, and recognized tribal governments were eligible in FY2020 due to the
COVID-19 disaster declarations. BRIC’s FY2020 Notice of Funding Opportunity17 was published
on August 4, 2020. The application period opened on September 30, 2020, and applications had
to be submitted by January 29, 2021.
A total of $500 million was made available in three categories:
1. state/territory allocation: $33.6 million;
2. tribal set-aside: $20 million; and
3. national competition: $446.4 million.
The priorities for BRIC in FY2020 are to incentivize:
 public infrastructure projects;
 projects that mitigate risk to one or more lifelines;
 projects that incorporate nature-based solutions; and
 adoption and enforcement of the latest published editions of building codes.
The maximum allocation for a state or territory in category (1) is $600,000. The state/territory
allocation may be used for capability and capacity-building (C&CB) activities and/or mitigation
projects. Up to $300,000 of the state/territory allocation may be used for mitigation planning and
planning-related activities per applicant. States are no longer guaranteed a minimum amount as
they were under PDM. However, according to FEMA, projects submitted in category (1) should
be funded up to the $600,000 maximum if they submit eligible applications up to this limit.18
The maximum that a tribe may be awarded in category (2) is $600,000 for C&CB activities;
however, a tribal applicant applying for assistance under the tribal set-aside can be awarded more
than $600,000 if they also pursue mitigation projects. No single tribal entity can receive more
than $600,000 federal cost share for C&CB activities. Up to $300,000 of the tribal set-aside may
be used for mitigation planning and planning-related activities per applicant. Up to 10% of any

13 FEMA, COVID-19 Disaster Declarations, https://www.fema.gov/disasters/coronavirus/disaster-declarations.
14 FEMA, Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Report as of February 28, 2021, Fiscal Year 2021 Report to Congress, p. 4,
March 11, 2021, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_mar-2021-disaster-relief-fund-report.pdf.
15 FEMA briefing on BRIC for House Homeland Security Committee staff and CRS, September 2, 2020.
16 FEMA, “Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC),” https://www.fema.gov/bric.
17 Department of Homeland Security, Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) FY 2020 Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_fy20-bric-notice-of-funding-
opportunity_federal-register_August-2020.pdf.
18 FEMA briefing on BRIC for House Homeland Security Committee staff and CRS, September 2, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

5

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

sub-application may be used for information dissemination activities. If the $20 million tribal set-
aside is not fully used for C&CB activities, the remainder will be available to tribes for mitigation
projects. If more than $20 million in applications are submitted under the tribal set-aside, the
highest-ranked C&CB activities and mitigation projects applications will be selected. All
remaining tribal mitigation project applications will be evaluated under the national competition.
Applicants may submit an unlimited number of mitigation project applications in category (3),
each valued up to $50 million. There is no minimum amount that applicants can request. BRIC’s
$50 million cap for an individual mitigation project represents a significant increase; the largest
amount available to an individual for PDM activities in FY2019 was $10 million. Since the PDM
program was established in 2003, only two projects have been awarded more than $4 million, and
280 projects (approximately 7%) have been awarded more than $1 million.19 A new feature of
BRIC is that it will provide nonfinancial direct technical assistance20 for communities to build
capacity and develop applications.
Another feature of BRIC is that projects submitted to the national competition will be reviewed
on both technical criteria21 and qualitative criteria,22 such as risk reduction effectiveness,
partnerships, and future conditions. If needed, based on the number of applications, FEMA is to
use the technical criteria evaluation as a screening tool for the qualitative evaluation review and is
to send applications valued up to twice the amount of available funding for qualitative evaluation.
At least one eligible application from each applicant is to be sent for qualitative review. FEMA is
to convene a National Review Panel to score applications on qualitative criteria. This panel is to
include FEMA Regional Office and Headquarters staff, as well as representatives from state,
local, tribal, and territorial governments and other federal agencies.
The most heavily weighted technical criteria relate to building code activities,23 reflecting
FEMA’s emphasis on disaster resilience through strong building codes. Applications can receive
technical criteria points for mandatory building code adoption requirements and rating in the
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule.24 Incorporation of nature-based solutions25 also
attracts technical points, as does mitigating risk to one or more community lifelines,26 such as
safety and security, health and medical, energy, communications, transportation, hazardous
material management, and food, water, and shelter.
BRIC’s focus on future conditions represents a departure from PDM, and applications will be
evaluated on how the project would anticipate future conditions, such as population and

19 CRS analysis of OpenFEMA data set on Hazard Mitigation Assistance Projects—v2, at https://www.fema.gov/
openfema-data-page/hazard-mitigation-assistance-projects-v2. Accessed January 25, 2021.
20 FEMA, BRIC Direct Technical Assistance, program support material, August 2020, https://www.fema.gov/sites/
default/files/2020-08/fema_bric-direct-techinical-assistance_support_document_08-2020.pdf.
21 FEMA, BRIC Technical Criteria, program support material, August 2020, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/
2020-08/fema_bric-technical-criteria-support-document_08-01-2020_0.PDF.
22 FEMA, BRIC Qualitative Criteria, program support material, August 2020, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/
2020-08/fema_bric-qualitative-criteria_support_document_08-2020.pdf.
23 FEMA, BRIC Building Code Activities, program support material, August 2020, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/
files/2020-08/fema_bric-and-building-codes_support_document_August_2020.pdf.
24 Insurance Services Office (ISO), ISO’s Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS),
https://www.isomitigation.com/bcegs/.
25 FEMA, Building Community Resilience with Nature-Based Solutions: A Guide for Local Communities,
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_riskmap_nature-based-solutions-guide_2020.pdf.
26 FEMA, “Community Lifelines,” https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/practitioners/lifelines.
Congressional Research Service

6

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

demographics, climate change, and sea level rise. BRIC also puts a new emphasis on
partnerships,27 which can receive both technical and qualitative points.
The increase in funding for pre-disaster mitigation may lead to challenges in meeting the
nonfederal cost share for small, impoverished, or rural communities. Generally, BRIC’s cost
share is 75% federal and 25% nonfederal, but small, impoverished communities are eligible for
an increase in cost share up to 90% federal and 10% nonfederal. FEMA encourages innovative
use of public and private-sector partnerships to meet the nonfederal cost share, which may consist
of cash, donated or third-party in-kind services, materials, or any combination thereof.28 Despite
this, many communities have found it difficult to meet the cost share requirements, particularly as
state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) resources have been reduced during the pandemic.
Requests for increases in the federal cost share have received bipartisan support.29
Some stakeholders have expressed concern that smaller or more traditional projects may be less
likely to obtain support in BRIC, and that small, impoverished, or rural communities may not
have the capacity to apply for and administer larger amounts, which could be funded by BRIC.30
FEMA has tried to mitigate such concerns through the introduction of new criteria for assessing
applications, such as Qualitative Criterion 4: Population Impacted,31 which includes factors such
as the percentage of the population that will directly benefit from the project and the impacts of
the project on socially vulnerable populations. FEMA’s intention with this criterion is to ensure
that a small community proposing a project that would benefit 95% of the population would score
higher than a large city proposing a project that would only benefit one or two neighborhoods.32
FEMA has released some information about the applications to BRIC in FY2020. FEMA received
980 applications for BRIC, the highest number received to date for pre-disaster mitigation, with
total requests of nearly $3.6 billion. Fifty-three states and territories applied for BRIC funding.
Tribes submitted 62 sub-applications requesting an estimated $20.2 million in funding. Twenty-
five states each submitted multiple projects totaling $50 million or more federal share, and five
states each submitted applications totaling over $200 million federal share. FEMA received seven
applications for which project amounts reached the maximum of $50 million.33 Congress may
wish to examine the awards under BRIC to look at the balance of funding between large and
small awards. Congress may also wish to require FEMA to report on lessons learned from the
first year of the BRIC program.

27 FEMA, BRIC Partnership Activities, program support material, August 2020, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/
files/2020-08/fema_bric-partnership-activities_support_document_08-2020.pdf.
28 FEMA briefing on BRIC for House Homeland Security Committee staff and CRS, September 2, 2020.
29 See, for example, Letter from Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-NJ, Rep. John Rutherford, R-FL, et al. to President Donald J.
Trump, April 20, 2020, https://pascrell.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fema_cost_share_letter_to_potus_-_final.pdf; and
Letter from Max Rose, D-NY, https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/reps-rose-calls-for-fema-to-expand-hazard-
funding-to-include-covid-19-pandemic-response-efforts.
30 See, for example, FEMA, “Summary of Stakeholder Feedback: Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
(BRIC),” https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/fema_bric-summary-of-stakeholder-feedback-report.pdf.
31 FEMA, “BRIC Qualitative Criteria,” program support material, August 2020, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/
files/2020-08/fema_bric-qualitative-criteria_support_document_08-2020.pdf.
32 FEMA briefing on BRIC for House Homeland Security Committee staff and CRS, September 2, 2020.
33 FEMA, Fiscal Year 2020 Flood Mitigation Assistance and Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
Update, provided by FEMA Congressional Affairs Staff, March 17, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 39 link to page 39 The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

Information on how the COVID-19 pandemic may affect the BRIC program, as well as
considerations for Congress, can be found in the “DRRA Section 1234 Available BRIC Funding
Based on the Estimated Aggregate Amount of Funding Awarded for COVID-19” section.
Sections 1206(a) and 1206(b): Eligibility for Code Implementation and
Enforcement34
DRRA Section 1206(a) amended Stafford Act Section 402—General Federal Assistance 35 to
allow state and local governments to use general federal assistance funds for the administration
and enforcement of building codes and floodplain management ordinances. This section included
assistance for inspections for substantial damage36 compliance, a requirement of the National
Flood Insurance Program. If a building in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)37 is determined to
be substantially damaged, it must be brought into compliance with local floodplain management
standards. FEMA does not make a determination of substantial damage. This is the responsibility
of local governments, and making such determinations may be challenging, particularly after a
major flood where many properties may need to be assessed at the same time. DRRA Section
1206(a) provides an additional source of funding for local governments to carry out such
activities.
Section 1206(b) amended Stafford Act Section 406—Repair, Restoration, and Replacement of
Damaged Facilities38 to add base and overtime wages for extra hires to facilitate implementation
and enforcement of adopted building codes as an allowable expense for a period of not more than
180 days after the major disaster is declared.
FEMA implemented these two sections by publishing the “Building Code and Floodplain
Management Administration and Enforcement” Policy on October 19, 2020. The policy went into
effect on November 1, 2020.39 The policy’s intent is to provide communities with the resources
needed to administer and enforce state and local building codes and local floodplain ordinances.
FEMA chose to implement this policy only for Public Assistance.40 For all disasters declared on
or after November 1, 2020, eligible costs under Section 1206(b) can be reimbursed under the
provisions of this policy. For major disaster declarations that were declared between August 1,
2017, and November 1, 2020, PA Applicants could choose whether or not to opt in to the policy
and have eligible costs reimbursed. However, they were required to opt in no later than February
1, 2021, or 90 days after the date of the Recovery Scoping Meeting (RSM) for Applicants that
have not yet participated in their RSM.41

34 This section authored by Diane P. Horn, Analyst in Flood Insurance and Emergency Management.
35 42 U.S.C. §5170a.
36 44 C.F.R. §59.1 defines substantial damage as damage of any origin sustained by a structure in a Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA) whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed
50% of the structure’s market value before the damage occurred.
37 An SFHA is defined by FEMA as an area with a 1% or greater risk of flooding every year.
38 42 U.S.C. §5172.
39 FEMA, Building Code and Floodplain Management Administration and Enforcement, FEMA Policy FP 204-079-01,
October 19, 2020, pp. 1-2, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/fema_building-dode-floodplain-
management-ddministration-enforcement-policy_drra-1206_signed_10-15-2020.pdf (hereinafter FEMA, Building Code
and Floodplain Management Administration and Enforcement).
40 FEMA, Building Code and Floodplain Management Administration and Enforcement, p. 1.
41 FEMA, Building Code and Floodplain Management Administration and Enforcement, p. 12.
Congressional Research Service

8

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

FEMA instituted a separate procedure to support communities who lack the capacity to perform
or contract for data collection for substantial damage determinations due to the extreme
catastrophic nature of an event or a demonstrated lack of resources. Such work can be funded on
request through FEMA’s Substantial Damage Data Collection Contract, which is funded as a task
order under the Risk Management Division of FEMA’s Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration.42
Building Codes
Building codes are officially adopted comprehensive specifications regulating building
construction, materials, and performance to protect public health, safety, and welfare.43 Building
codes in the United States are not regulated at the federal level, and there are no national building
codes. Rather than create and maintain their own codes, most states and local jurisdictions adopt
model codes that are created on a national or international level by standards-developing
organizations, and amend them prior to adoption into state laws and local ordinances, making
compliance a requirement for builders and building owners. The most commonly-used building
codes are developed by the International Code Council (ICC),44 known as International Codes, or
I-Codes, which are updated every three years. The most recently released version is the 2021
edition; however, FEMA has defined ‘modern building codes’ as the two most recent editions of
the I-Codes (2015 and 2018 editions).45
Although the process of developing building codes is often initiated at the state level through a
legislative and public policy process, the final adoption, administration, and enforcement of a
building code is a local responsibility. The federal government cannot mandate the level of code
enforcement in states or communities. Currently, most states adopt building codes at the state
level, though many do not require or enforce building codes at the local level, allowing local
jurisdictions to manage their own adoption practices. To address local concerns, states and
communities typically make amendments and modifications, including higher or lower standards,
additions, and deletions.46 Some states have rigorous enforcement programs, some designate
responsibility for code enforcement to local jurisdictions, and some states and other jurisdictions
do not require enforcement.47 Adoption of building codes is uneven within and across states, even
in areas with high levels of hazard. Less than half of jurisdictions have hazard-resistant codes,
with residential buildings accounting for over 80% of damage.48
Risk reduction from the implementation of building codes is due to both the extent of the code as
it applies to new construction and the degree of local adoption and enforcement. The
implementation of provisions of a strict building code depends on both the permitting and the
inspection process.49 However, building code adoption and enforcement is an ongoing process

42 FEMA, Building Code and Floodplain Management Administration and Enforcement, pp. 8-9.
43 FEMA, Building Science Branch Brochure, January 2016, p. 2, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/
fema_bsb_factsheet_02112016.pdf.
44 The International Code Council (ICC) is a non-profit organization which was formed to develop national model
construction codes. See https://www.iccsafe.org/ for further information.
45 FEMA, Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study, Losses Avoided as a Result of Adopting Hazard-Resistant
Building Codes, Washington, DC, November 27, 2020, p. 1-1, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/
fema_building-codes-save_study.pdf (hereinafter FEMA, Building Codes Save).
46 FEMA, Building Codes Save, p. 1-5.
47 FEMA, Building Codes Save, pp. 3-4 and 3-5.
48 FEMA, Building Codes Save, p. 1-1 (see “Natural Disaster Snapshot of the US” textbox).
49 Ellen Vaughan and Jim Turner, The Value and Impact of Building Codes, 2014, pp. 1-27,
Congressional Research Service

9

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

that must be continuously maintained. Many jurisdictions across the United States face budgetary
challenges, particularly since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the local level, where
code adoption and enforcement is conducted, the financial and technical lack of resources can
affect the ability of local officials to ensure that new buildings satisfy the code requirements.50
The provisions of DRRA Section 1206 provide some additional resources to assist local
governments under the circumstances described above.
Section 1204: Wildfire Mitigation51
Section 1204 of DRRA amended Stafford Act Sections 420—Fire Management Assistance and
404(a)—Hazard Mitigation52 to add Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding as an
available form of assistance for Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) declarations. HMGP
funds mitigation and resiliency projects and programs. The receiving state, territory, or tribal
government can use HMGP funding for any eligible activity that reduces risk and builds
resilience. Prior to Section 1204, HMGP was only provided for a major disaster declared pursuant
to the Stafford Act. There have been 107 FMAG declarations since DRRA’s enactment: 4 in
2018, 25 in 2019, and 78 in 2020.53 Information is not readily available on publicly accessible
websites indicating how much HMGP funding has been awarded for FMAG declarations.
DRRA Section 1204 also required FEMA’s Administrator to submit a report one year after
enactment (and annually thereafter) summarizing any mitigation projects carried out under an
FMAG declaration (including funding amounts) to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. At the time of this writing, the DRRA 1204
congressional report is drafted and moving through the concurrence review process within
FEMA’s Mitigation Directorate.54
Section 1233: Additional Hazard Mitigation Activities55
DRRA Section 1233 authorized FEMA to provide hazard mitigation assistance through the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities Program (BRIC) for activities that reduce earthquake risk and build early warning
capability. One approach to accomplish these goals is developing an earthquake early-warning
(EEW) system that would send a warning after the occurrence of an earthquake, but before the
damaging seismic waves reach a potentially affected community.56 Section 1233 addressed three
areas of earthquake mitigation, all related to improving the capability for an EEW system:

http://www.coalition4safety.org/ccsc-toolkit/.
50 Ellen Vaughan and Jim Turner, The Value and Impact of Building Codes, 2014, p. 18,
http://www.coalition4safety.org/ccsc-toolkit/.
51 This section authored by Bruce R. Lindsay, Specialist in American National Government.
52 Stafford Act Section 420, 42 U.S.C. §5187; Stafford Act Section 404(a), 42 U.S.C. §5170c(a).
53 CRS analysis of Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) declarations at https://www.fema.gov/disasters/
disaster-declarations. No data for 2021 is available on this website. Information regarding the FMAG declaration
process can be found on the FEMA “Fire Management Assistance Grants” website, available at https://www.fema.gov/
assistance/public/fire-management-assistance.
54 Per email from FEMA Office of External Affairs staff on January 5, 2021.
55 This section authored by Anna E. Normand, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy.
56 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Earthquake Hazards, “Early Warning,” https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/
earthquake-hazards/early-warning (hereinafter USGS, “Early Warning”).
Congressional Research Service

10

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

1. improvements to regional seismic networks;
2. improvements to geodetic networks; and
3. improvements to seismometers, global positioning system (GPS) receivers, and
associated infrastructure.
On September 30, 2020, FEMA published a factsheet titled “Disaster Recovery Reform Act and
Earthquake Early Warning Systems” describing how FEMA would begin to consider proposals
for certain assistance under this authority and how the agency continues discussing how to
evaluate other authorized assistance.57 Because FEMA’s hazard mitigation assistance programs
require long-term effectiveness, FEMA determined that any improvements awarded by the
programs must be part of a system that enables end user notification of EEW.58 Currently, the
Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) ShakeAlert system, which the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) and the states of California, Oregon, and Washington are building cooperatively,
is the only EEW system that enables end user notification.59 For now, FEMA will consider
proposals under both HMGP and BRIC to fund the purchase and installation of seismometers,
GPS receivers, and associated infrastructure (telemetry and signal processing) to build additional
capability for ANSS ShakeAlert.60 Increasing the density of this infrastructure can reduce
earthquake detection times, thus allowing warnings to be issued faster.61
In the factsheet, FEMA reported that it was coordinating with the USGS and other key
stakeholders to determine how to document and evaluate other EEW instrumentation projects and
activities. Other seismically active western states, such as Alaska, may also be incorporated into
an early-warning system and eligible for assistance, but such expansion may include challenges
(e.g., the vast size and remote locations of the seismically active area).62 Another challenge facing
EEW systems is the current limitations of mass messaging technologies that are unable to send
messages to large numbers of cell phones without delays.63 Section 1233 assistance does not
address that challenge.
FEMA stated that additional earthquake risk reduction activities already eligible under the current
Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance of 2015, including seismic retrofits, remained eligible.64

57 FEMA, “Disaster Recovery Reform Act and Earthquake Early Warning Systems,” fact sheet, September 30, 2020,
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/fema_drra-earthquake-early-warning-systems_fact-sheet_September-
2020.pdf.
58 FEMA also stated that the public must be able to access data for free and that FEMA would not fund operations or
maintenance cost for support of a network or earthquake early-warning (EEW) system operations.
59 D.D. Given et al., Revised Technical Implementation Plan for the ShakeAlert System—An Earthquake Early Warning
System for the West Coast of the United States, USGS, Open-File Report 2018–1155, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3133/
ofr20181155. ShakeAlert is operational in California and Oregon. Washington’s EEW program is scheduled to be
operational in May 2021 (personal correspondence between CRS and USGS Legislative Affairs, March 12, 2021; J.J.
McGuire et al., Expected Warning Times from the ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System for Earthquakes in the
Pacific Northwest, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2021–1026, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20211026).
60 FEMA stated that it would evaluate proposals for technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and other program
requirements, but would not need a traditional benefit-cost analysis.
61 USGS, “Early Warning.”
62 J.B. Salisbury et al., Earthquake Early Warning System for Alaska: Fact Sheet, Alaska Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys, DGGS IC 88, May 2020, https://dggs.alaska.gov/webpubs/dggs/ic/text/ic088.pdf.
63 USGS, “Early Warning”; David J. Wald, “Practical Limitations of Earthquake Early Warning,” Earthquake Spectra
36, no. 3 (August 2020), pp. 1412-1447, https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020911388.
64 FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance, February 27, 2015, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
07/fy15_HMA_Guidance.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

11

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

Public Assistance65
FEMA’s Public Assistance (PA) program, authorized in the Stafford Act, provides grant
assistance to state, tribal, territorial, and local governments as well as eligible nonprofits
(Applicants) for eligible response and recovery costs following a Stafford Act emergency or
major disaster declaration.66 Following an incident, a governor or tribal chief executive may find
that state, local, tribal, or territorial (SLTT) resources are insufficient to meet the demands of
response and recovery, and then request federal assistance. The President may then authorize PA
through a Stafford Act declaration.67 The Stafford Act authorizes the President, through FEMA, to
reimburse Applicants for at least 75% of the eligible costs of response (called Emergency Work)
and reconstruction (called Permanent Work). The following sections provide updates on select
DRRA provisions affecting FEMA’s PA program.
Section 1207(c) and (d): Program Improvements (Public Assistance Alternative
Procedures)
DRRA Sections 1207(c) and (d) modify the process known as PA Alternative Procedures. The
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA) amended the Stafford Act to authorize Alternative
Procedures in the wake of Hurricane Sandy in 2012, in order to reduce costs, reward timely and
adept completion of PA projects, and allow Applicants to complete projects on basis of need
rather than pre-disaster design.68 Alternative Procedures modify the standard procedures used to
deliver PA to Applicants. Under standard procedures, PA awards are based on the actual costs of
executed response and recovery work. Under Alternative Procedures, the awards are capped
based on up-front estimates of the cost of work to be completed.69 Applicants are responsible for
any costs that exceed estimates, but they may retain excess funds if estimates exceed actual costs,
in addition to other flexibilities. Applicants have followed Alternative Procedures on a project-
by-project basis in disasters in 49 states and five territories as of August 2020, according to
FEMA data.70
Section 1207(c)—Conditioning of Assistance on Use of Alternative Procedures
DRRA Section 1207(c) reinforced SRIA’s requirement that Applicants must voluntarily elect to
use Alternative Procedures.71 Congress revisited this issue again following the declaration of a

65 This section authored by Erica A. Lee, Analyst in Emergency Management and Disaster Recovery.
66 Public Assistance is authorized under Stafford Act Sections 402, 403, 406, 407, 418, 419, 428, and 502; 42 U.S.C.
§§5170a, 5170b, 5172, 5173, 5185, 5186, 5189f, and 5192. See also 44 C.F.R. §§206.200-209, §§206.220-228, and
§§206.250-253; and FEMA, Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG), FP 104-009-2, effective June 1,
2020, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_pappg-v4-updated-links_policy_6-1-2020.pdf
(hereinafter FEMA, PAPPG 2020).
67 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11529, A Brief Overview of FEMA’s Public Assistance Program, by
Erica A. Lee.
68 The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA), P.L. 113-2, 127 Stat. 39; Stafford Act Section 428. The Public
Assistance Program Alternative Procedures are codified at Section 1102 of SRIA; 42 U.S.C. §5189(f).
69 For more information, see CRS Report R46609, The Status of Puerto Rico’s Recovery and Ongoing Challenges
Following Hurricanes Irma and María: FEMA, SBA, and HUD Assistance, coordinated by Elizabeth M. Webster, pp.
15-18.
70 CRS Analysis of data provided to CRS by the FEMA Office of External Affairs, as of August 2020. The data do not
reflect any Section 428 projects for the state of Utah.
71 Section 1207(c) of DRRA, P.L. 115-254, as it amends §428(d) of the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §5189f(d). See also The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA), P.L. 113-2, 127 Stat. 39; Stafford Act
Congressional Research Service

12

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

major disaster in Puerto Rico for Hurricanes Irma and María. In November 2017, President
Donald J. Trump increased the federal cost share for PA for hurricane recovery in Puerto Rico
from 75% to 90% on the condition that all large PA reconstruction projects proceed under
Alternative Procedures.72 Members of Congress expressed concern over whether Puerto Rico had
voluntarily elected to use Alternative Procedures in this case,73 as required by SRIA.74
Subsequently, the enactment of DRRA Section 1207(c) explicitly prohibited the President from
conditioning the provision of Stafford Act assistance on the use of Alternative Procedures.
In October 2019, FEMA reported on the provision’s implementation. FEMA explained that the
provision “reinforces current law and policy that use of PA Alternative Procedures is voluntary
and optional for each applicant.”75 Additionally, FEMA incorporated this guidance into the most
recent Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide.76
Section 1207(d)—Alternative Procedures Cost Estimates
DRRA Section 1207(d) modified FEMA’s
Defining “Reasonable” Costs
authorities to evaluate PA Alternative
Federal regulations define a cost as reasonable “if, in its
Procedures cost estimates.77 The provision
nature and amount, it does not exceed that which
requires that FEMA consider costs
would be incurred by a prudent person under the
“reasonable and eligible” once estimates are
circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was
made to incur the cost.” 2 C.F.R. §200.404.
accepted by FEMA and certified by a
professionally licensed engineer, unless there
is evidence of fraud.78 Previously, FEMA had the discretion to determine the reasonability and
eligibility of these costs.
In October 2019, FEMA reported that this provision was “immediately effective” upon DRRA’s
enactment.79 FEMA released additional guidance explaining that after FEMA and Applicants
agree to PA Alternative Procedures cost estimates, “FEMA will not adjust Federal funding on the

Section 428. The Public Assistance Program Alternative Procedures are codified at Section 1102 of SRIA; 42 U.S.C.
§5189(f).
72 FEMA, “Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration,” 82 Federal Register 53514,
November 16, 2017. In FY2017, large projects were defined as those that exceed $123,100. FEMA, “Per Capita Impact
Indicator and Project Thresholds,” https://www.fema.gov/assistance/public/applicants/per-capita-impact-indicator.
73 Letter from Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Bennie G.
Thompson, Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, and Frank Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee
on Energy and Commerce, to William B. “Brock” Long, FEMA Administrator, March 20, 2018; Letter from Senators
Robert Menendez, Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, and Catherine Cortez Masto, to Kathy Kraniger, OMB Program
Associate Director, July 10, 2018, pp. 2-3; Rep. DeFazio, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Emergency Response and Recovery: Central Takeaways from the Unprecedented Hurricane Season,
hearing, 115th Cong., 1st sess., Nov. 2, 2017, H.Hrg. 115-29 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2017), p. 95.
74 Section 1102 of SRIA, P.L. 113-2, 127 Stat. 41, as codified at 42 U.S.C. §5189f(f), Section 428(d)(1) of the Stafford
Act.
75 FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report, p. 16.
76 FEMA, PAPPG 2020.
77 Section 1207(d) of DRRA, P.L. 115-254, as it amends §428(e)(1) of the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §5189f(e)(1).
78 Section 1207(d) of DRRA, P.L. 115-254, as it amends §428(e)(1) of the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §5189f(e)(1).
79 FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report, p. 16.
Congressional Research Service

13

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

basis of reasonableness or eligibility provided the Applicant completes the approved scope of
work.”80
Section 1235(b) and (d): Additional Mitigation Activities
DRRA Section 1235 modifies PA authorities to support Congress’s stated aim to incentivize
“building and rebuilding better to facilitate recovery efforts … [and] save [through] avoided
disaster recovery costs.”81 FEMA explained that new authorities will “increase the resiliency of
communities after a disaster … protect lives and property … and support the efficient use of
federal dollars.”82
Section 1235(b)—PA to Repair to Hazard-Resistant and Resilient Standards
DRRA Section 1235(b) requires FEMA to provide PA for the costs of repairing, reconstructing,
and replacing eligible disaster-damaged facilities in accordance with the most recent, consensus-
based building codes and standards and hazard-resistant design.
Prior to DRRA’s enactment, the Stafford Act authorized FEMA to provide PA for the costs of
reconstructing a disaster-damaged facility
(i) on the basis of the design of the facility as the facility existed immediately before the
major disaster; and
(ii) in conformity with codes, specifications, and standards (including floodplain
management and hazard mitigation criteria required by the President or under the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)) applicable at the time at which the disaster
occurred.83
Under this authority, FEMA regulations required facilities receiving PA to rebuild in accordance
with codes that met specific criteria established in regulations, with additional standards
established in evolving agency policy.84

80 FEMA, “Fact Sheet: Disaster Recovery Reform Act Public Assistance Program Amendments,” July 2019, pp. 1-2,
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_pa_disaster-recovery-reform-act_factsheet.pdf.
81 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Disaster Recovery Reform Act, report to
accompany H.R. 4460, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 115-1098, part 1 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2018), pp. 15-16; see
also U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Disaster Recovery Reform
Act of 2018, report to accompany S. 3041, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 115-446 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2018), pp.
2-4.
82 FEMA, “Interim Policy: Consensus-Based Codes, Specifications and Standards for Public Assistance (Version 2),”
December 20, 2019, p. 18, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/
DRRA1235b_Consensus_BasedCodes_Specifications_and_Standards_for_Public_Assistance122019.pdf (hereinafter
FEMA, “Interim Policy: Consensus-Based Codes V. 2”).
83 Stafford Act Section 406 (e)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. §5172(e)(1)(A) (2012 Supplement V, January 12, 2018); see also
Stafford Act Section 323; 42 U.S.C. §5165a.
84 See 44 C.F.R. §§206.400-402 and §206.226(d). For the most recent guidance on the provision of PA with respect to
building codes and standards prior to the enactment of DRRA, see FEMA, Public Assistance Program and Policy
Guide, v. 3.1, FP 104-009-2, April 2018, pp. 87-94, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_pappg-
v3.1-archived_policy_5-4-2018.pdf. See also, FEMA, Disaster Risk Reduction Minimum Codes and Standards, FEMA
Policy 204-078-2, September 6, 2016, https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/FP-204-078-2.pdf; and FEMA,
Public Assistance Required Minimum Standards, FEMA Recovery Policy FP-104-009-4, September 30, 2016,
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/FEMA_Public_Assistance_Minimum_Standards_Policy_signed_9-
30-16.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

14

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

Prior to DRRA’s enactment, some Members of Congress expressed concern that PA may have
been provided to rebuild facilities to pre-disaster condition—even if those facilities were subject
to weak building codes and/or situated in disaster-prone areas. As Representative Peter DeFazio
explained:
As I have noted many times before, it is nonsensical that the Federal Government pays to
rebuild communities after disaster back to inadequate standards only to have those facilities
destroyed in another disaster with the Federal Government once again coming in and
building back to the original standard as opposed to a more resilient and more robust
standard. It is time to get smarter about how we respond and how we rebuild after
disasters.85
DRRA Section 1235(b) requires FEMA to estimate the cost of PA to repair, reconstruct, or replace
eligible facilities in accordance with “the latest published editions of relevant consensus-based
codes, specifications, and standards that incorporate the latest hazard-resistant designs.”86 DRRA
Section 1235(b) also requires FEMA to estimate the cost of reconstructing “in a manner that
allows the facility to meet the definition of resilient,” following the definition of resilient to be
determined in FEMA rulemaking undertaken per DRRA Section 1235(d) (see following
section).87 The provision applies to
disasters declared on or after August 1, 2017, disaster in which a cost estimate has not yet
been finalized for a project, or for any project for which the finalized cost estimate is on
appeal.88
FEMA released two iterations of interim guidance implementing DRRA Section 1235(b), the
most recent published in December 2019.89 The guidance interprets this provision to generally
require that reconstruction of specific types of facilities funded through PA comply with the most
recently published standards by the International Code Council for relevant hazards or standards
(e.g., the International Building Code) and codes by other national and international bodies (e.g.,
the American Social of Civil Engineers).90
FEMA’s guidance requires certain facilities to comply with these requirements, including
buildings, electric power facilities, roads, bridges, and potable water and wastewater facilities
owned or legally maintained by Applicants.91 Facilities not explicitly included in this list that are
eligible for PA include flood control, navigation, irrigation, and reclamation projects not covered
by codes identified for potable water structures, as well as parks and certain recreational

85 Rep. Peter DeFazio, oral testimony, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, FEMA: Prioritizing a Culture of Preparedness, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., April 11, 2018, S.Hrg. 115-442, pp. 6-7.
86 Section 1235(b) of DRRA, Division D of P.L. 115-254, as it amends §406(e)(1)(A) of the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. §5172(e)(1)(A).
87 Section 1235(b) of DRRA, Division D of P.L. 115-254, as it amends §406(e)(1)(A) of the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. §5172(e)(1)(A).
88 Section 1235(b) of DRRA, Division D of P.L. 115-254, as it amends §406(e)(1)(A) of the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. §5172(e)(1)(A).
89 FEMA, “Interim Policy: Consensus-Based Codes V. 2.”
90 Appendix A of FEMA, “Interim Policy: Consensus-Based Codes V. 2,” p. 9. See the collected volumes of the
International Code Council at https://codes.iccsafe.org/.
91 FEMA, “Interim Policy: Consensus-Based Codes V. 2,” p. 5.
Congressional Research Service

15

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

facilities.92 These facilities remain subject to FEMA’s other policies and regulations on minimum
codes and standards according to the date of the relevant declaration.93
The guidance requirements apply only to facilities damaged in disasters that received declarations
on or after November 6, 2019.94 Applicants for earlier disasters may request to opt in if the
projects meet certain criteria.95 Applicants may also use locally adopted codes if the Applicant’s
engineer or design professional certifies that local codes are more stringent than the listed
consensus-based codes and standards.96
Section 1235(d)—Defining Resiliency
DRRA Section 1235(d) requires FEMA to define the terms “resilient” and “resiliency” that apply
in other DRRA authorities.97 FEMA is required to issue definitions in interim guidance (due 60
days after enactment, December 4, 2018), final rulemaking (due 18 months after enactment, April
5, 2020), and guidance on final rulemaking (due 90 days after the issuance of final rulemaking).98
These definitions would apply to PA authorized for the costs of repairing or replacing eligible
facilities to a resilient standard, as authorized in DRRA Section 1235(b).
As of January 15, 2021, implementation of DRRA Section 1235(d) is incomplete. In July 2019,
FEMA’s then-Deputy Administrator of Resilience reported that FEMA was evaluating different
definitions of resilience, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
definition:
the ability to prepare for anticipated hazards, adapt to changing conditions, and withstand
and recover rapidly from disruptions.99
In October 2019, FEMA reported that it would conduct required rulemaking to adopt the NIST
definition of resilience.100 FEMA subsequently discussed the rulemaking in December 2019
guidance, explaining the implementation of DRRA Section 1235(b) (see above). FEMA explained
that the building standards issued in the guidance on DRRA Section 1235(b) “will be effective
regardless of whether a final rulemaking defining resilient and resiliency has been completed.”101
Since that time, FEMA has used definitions of resilience different from the NIST definition. In a
November 2020 report on hazard-resistant building codes, FEMA used the Department of

92 See definition of “Public Facility,” §102(10) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C §5122(10).
93 FEMA, Frequently Asked Questions: Consensus-Based Codes, Specifications and Standards for Public Assistance,
February 2020, p. 5, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_DRRA-1235b-public-assistance-codes-
standards-faqs.pdf (hereinafter FEMA, FAQ: Consensus-Based Codes, Specifications and Standards for PA).
94 FEMA, FAQ: Consensus-Based Codes, Specifications and Standards for PA, p. 1.
95 FEMA, “Interim Policy: Consensus-Based Codes V. 2,” p. 3; FEMA, FAQ: Consensus-Based Codes, Specifications
and Standards for PA, pp. 5-6.
96 FEMA, FAQ: Consensus-Based Codes, Specifications and Standards for PA, p. 4.
97 Section 1235(d) of DRRA, Division D of P.L. 115-254, as it amends §406(e) of the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §5172(e).
98 Section 1235(d) of DRRA, Division D of P.L. 115-254, as it amends §406(e) of the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §5172(e).
99 FEMA then-Deputy Administrator for Resilience Daniel Kaniewski, submitted testimony, U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management, Disaster Preparedness: DRRA Implementation and FEMA Readiness, hearing, 116th Cong.,
1st sess., May 22, 2019, no. 116-18, p. 105 (hereinafter House T&I, DRRA Implementation), https://www.congress.gov/
116/chrg/CHRG-116hhrg40590/CHRG-116hhrg40590.pdf.
100 FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report, October 2019, pp. 10-11.
101 FEMA, “Interim Policy: Consensus-Based Codes V. 2,” p. 8.
Congressional Research Service

16

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

Homeland Security’s definition of resilience.102 As of January 25, 2021, FEMA is in the drafting
stage for this rulemaking.103
DRRA Section 1235(d) also requires FEMA to report to Congress on this rulemaking and related
guidance within 24 months of enactment. It is unclear whether FEMA has reported to Congress as
required by the provision.
Congressional oversight may include the monitoring of FEMA guidance and rulemaking
regarding the definition of resilience and resiliency. In addition, Congress may wish to consider
whether these definitions should be incorporated in guidance for other FEMA programs, such as
Individual Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Assistance. Congress may also wish to monitor
guidance from FEMA regarding the incorporation of these definitions into PA guidance. Congress
may also wish to monitor guidance on what personnel and procedures will determine whether
Applicants’ PA proposals and facilities meet the definition of resilient, per DRRA Sections
1235(b) and 1235(d).
Section 1232 and Section 1239: Factors to Authorize PA for Major Disasters104
DRRA Sections 1232 and 1239 require FEMA to review and revise the procedures for evaluating
requests for PA for a major disaster declaration. To assess a PA request, FEMA determines
whether there are unmet needs that may warrant assistance. Based on this assessment, FEMA
recommends to the President whether the request should be authorized.
For requests to authorize PA for major disasters, FEMA considers relevant information, including
but not limited to six mostly quantifiable factors.105 Historically, the primary factor has been the
Cost of Assistance estimates.106 To determine the cost of assistance, FEMA estimates the cost of
PA across the affected jurisdiction using a Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) conducted by
federal and SLTT representatives.107 The PDA measures work eligible for PA, particularly the
uninsured costs to reconstruct eligible disaster-damaged facilities. FEMA typically recommends
PA when these estimates exceed $1 million across a state or territory or $250,000 across a tribe.108
Additionally, FEMA generally recommends PA only when damages exceed a certain per capita
threshold—for FY2021, these thresholds are $1.55 across a state, tribe, or territory and $3.89
across affected counties, municipalities, and parishes.109 FEMA annually updates the thresholds to
reflect inflation, as required by federal regulation.110

102 FEMA, Building Codes Saves: A Nationwide Study, November 2020, p. xiii, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/
files/2020-11/fema_building-codes-save_study.pdf.
103 Emails from FEMA Office of External Affairs staff, January 25, 2021, and February 4, 2021. FEMA has not issued
interim guidance to specifically define the terms “resilient” and “resiliency,” but has relied on the “Consensus-Based
Codes, Specifications, and Standards for Public Assistance Interim Policy” (see FEMA, “Interim Policy: Consensus-
Based Codes V. 2.”).
104 This section authored by Erica A. Lee, Analyst in Emergency Management and Disaster Recovery.
105 44 C.F.R. §206.48.
106 44 C.F.R. §206.48(a)(1).
107 For more information, see CRS Report R44977, Preliminary Damage Assessments for Major Disasters: Overview,
Analysis, and Policy Observations, by Bruce R. Lindsay.
108 44 C.F.R. §206.48(a)(1); FEMA, Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance, January 2017, https://www.fema.gov/sites/
default/files/2020-04/tribal-declaration-pilot-guidance.pdf.
109 FEMA, “Per Capita Impact Indicator and Project Thresholds,” https://www.fema.gov/assistance/public/applicants/
per-capita-impact-indicator.
110 44 C.F.R. §206.48(a)(1).
Congressional Research Service

17

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

While no single factor determines whether FEMA recommends PA authorization, the cost of
assistance estimates have historically proved crucial. In 2012, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) found that FEMA used the estimates as “eligibility thresholds”—99% of major
disaster declaration approvals reflected damage estimates where these thresholds were met or
exceeded.111 However, regulations provide that FEMA may exercise discretion. For example,
regulations specify that FEMA may consider a hazard’s particularly severe impacts on a locality,
how mitigating measures may have reduced damages, or a recent history of disasters that
exhausted SLTT capacity.112 FEMA may recommend PA authorization, given such factors, even
when the thresholds have not been met.
Section 1232: Local Impact
Prior to DRRA’s enactment, some Members of Congress expressed concern that FEMA did not
sufficiently consider a hazard’s severe impacts in a particular locality when assessing PA
requests.113 As written, federal regulations authorize FEMA to evaluate the impact of a disaster at
the county, local, and tribal level where “there are extraordinary concentrations of damages that
might warrant Federal assistance” even where cost of assistance thresholds are not met.114 Some
Members of Congress proposed legislation that required FEMA to give greater weight to such
severe localized impacts when evaluating requests for major disaster declarations.115
Subsequently, Section 1232 of DRRA required FEMA to “give greater consideration” to severe
local impacts and recent disasters when considering requests for PA.116 The provision also stated
that FEMA “shall make corresponding adjustments to the Agency’s policies and regulations
regarding such consideration.”117 The provision additionally required FEMA to report to the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs on the provision’s implementation.118
FEMA reported that it had implemented this provision by soliciting relevant information in
FEMA’s cover letter for declaration requests.119 FEMA also issued guidance to Regional
Administrators on May 1, 2019, directing them to include in their recommendations appropriate

111 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Federal Disaster Assistance: Improved Criteria Needed to Assess a
Jurisdiction’s Capability to Respond and Recover on Its Own, GAO-12-838, September 2012, p. 24,
https://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648162.pdf (hereinafter GAO, Improved Criteria).
112 44 C.F.R. §206.48(a)(2)-(5).
113 See, for example, Todd Gleason and Jim Meadows, “Duckworth Raises Questions About FEMA Aid During Tour
of Taylorville Tornado Damage,” Illinois Public Media, December 10, 2018, https://will.illinois.edu/news/story/
duckworth-raises-questions-about-fema-aid-during-tour-of-taylorville-tornad; website of Rep. Rodney Davis, “Reps.
Davis, Bustos Win Provision to Bring Fairness to Disaster Declaration Process in FEMA Reform Bill,” April 15, 2015,
https://rodneydavis.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398640.
114 44 C.F.R. §206.48(a)(2).
115 44 C.F.R. §206.48(a)(2). See Section 309 of H.R. 1471, FEMA Disaster Assistance Reform Act of 2015, as passed
in the U.S. House of Representatives, 114th Cong., 2nd sess., February 29, 2016; S. 600, Fairness in Federal Disaster
Declarations Act of 2017, as Introduced in 115th Cong., 1st sess., March 9, 2017.
116 Section 1232 of DRRA, Division D of P.L. 115-254, as it amends §401 of the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §5170.
117 Section 1232 of DRRA, Division D of P.L. 115-254, as it amends §401 of the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §5170.
118 Section 1232 of DRRA, Division D of P.L. 115-254, as it amends §401 of the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §5170.
119 FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report, p. 5.
Congressional Research Service

18

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

information regarding severe local impacts and the history of recent multiple disasters.120
Additionally, FEMA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in December 2020 that solicited
comment on whether the current regulations sufficiently consider recent multiple disasters. Under
current regulations, FEMA considers disasters that took place over the previous 12 months.
FEMA solicited comment on whether the “12-month time limit currently in place is sufficient to
address [recent multiple disasters], as required by the DRRA.”121 It is unclear whether FEMA
reported its implementation of this section to Congress, as DRRA’s Section 1232 requires.
Congressional oversight could include the monitoring of FEMA’s authorization of PA since the
publication of updated declaration request templates to gauge the consideration of particularly
severe impacts on localities, parishes, and municipalities. For example, Congress may wish to
review declarations for major disasters that do not meet state per capita thresholds but did cause
severe damages at the local level.122
Section 1239: Cost of Assistance Estimates
DRRA Section 1239 requires FEMA to review and initiate rulemaking to revise the factors
considered when evaluating a governor’s request for a major disaster authorizing PA. In
December 2020, FEMA proposed a rule increasing the thresholds that generally must be met in
order for FEMA to recommend that the President authorize PA for a major disaster. FEMA
estimates that the proposed rule, had it been finalized, would have reduced the number of major
disaster declarations authorizing PA by approximately 27% and reduced the total amount of PA
provided by several billion dollars over the rule’s study period.123
In 2012, GAO and the DHS OIG assessed FEMA’s procedures to assess PA requests.124 Both
entities found that the thresholds FEMA used to identify unmet needs that may warrant
authorization of PA for major disasters had not consistently kept pace with inflation and per-
capita income gains.125 GAO concluded that FEMA had recommended PA authorization for major
disasters where SLTTs may have had the capacity to respond and recover.126
In response, GAO recommended in 2012 that FEMA increase the thresholds or identify another
metric to assess SLTT capacity to respond and recover.127 The DHS OIG concurred. In response
to the recommendation, FEMA published a notice of proposed rulemaking creating a “disaster
deductible” in January 2016.128 The proposal required each state or territory requesting PA to

120 Jeff Byard, Associate Administrator, FEMA Office of Response and Recovery, Memorandum for Regional
Administrators on Declaration Factors for Local Impact and Recent Multiple Disasters, May 1, 2019,
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_final-byard-memo_declaration-factors.pdf.
121 FEMA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance Estimates in the Disaster
Declaration Process for the Public Assistance Program,” 85 Federal Register 80719-80745, December 14, 2020
(hereinafter FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance”), quote at 80725.
122 Decisions regarding PA authorization and declaration requests may be found in PDA Reports, available at FEMA,
“Preliminary Damage Assessment Reports,” https://www.fema.gov/disasters/preliminary-damage-assessment-reports.
123 FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance,” p. 80732.
124 GAO, Improved Criteria. Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG), Opportunities
to Improve FEMA’s Public Assistance Preliminary Damage Assessment Process, OIG-12-79, pp. 5-7,
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2012/OIG_12-79_May12.pdf (hereinafter DHS OIG, Opportunities).
125 GAO, Improved Criteria, pp. 24-29; DHS OIG, Opportunities, pp. 5-7.
126 GAO, Improved Criteria, pp. 24-29.
127 GAO, Improved Criteria, pp. 24-33.
128 FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Establishing a Deductible for FEMA’s Public Assistance Program,” 81 Federal Register
3082, January 20, 2016; FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Establishing a Deductible for FEMA’s Public Assistance Program,”
Congressional Research Service

19

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

meet a minimum financial contribution specific to the jurisdiction. FEMA would provide PA only
after the jurisdiction met its deductible. In 2018, FEMA reported to GAO that it would not be
promulgating the rule due to concerns that the proposal was overly complex.129
Following this debate, DRRA Section 1239 required FEMA to revise the PA cost of assistance
estimates.130 FEMA initiated rulemaking pursuant to this provision in December 2019 and
published a notice of proposed rulemaking in December 2020.131 FEMA held public meetings on
the proposed rule on February 24, 2021, March 22, 2021, and March 23, 2021.132 Comments for
the proposed rule could be submitted until April 12, 2021.133
FEMA proposed to increase the cost of assistance thresholds that must be met in order for states
and territories to receive PA for permanent work. As a result, less costly disasters may not receive
PA. Under the proposed rule, total PA-eligible costs across a state or territory associated with a
disaster would be required to meet or exceed $1.535 million in order for FEMA to recommend
PA.134 The current threshold is $1 million. Additionally, if the proposed rule were to be finalized,
the costs of assistance would be required to exceed a baseline value of $2.32 per capita across the
state or territory.135 FEMA has proposed to adjust this value annually based on a calculation of the
state or territory’s individual “Total Taxable Resources,” a value calculated by the U.S.
Department of the Treasury that estimates a state or territory’s fiscal capacity (including taxable
resources from business income, undistributed corporate profits, and out-of-state residents).136
Currently, the per-capita threshold is $1.55 across all states and territories and no adjustments are
made according to Total Taxable Resources. FEMA estimates, based on the FY2019 per capita
threshold, that the state and territory per capita thresholds may increase between 2% and 149%.137
FEMA forecasted that the rule, if finalized, would reduce the number of major disaster
declarations and associated costs authorized under the Stafford Act. FEMA estimated that 159
fewer major disaster declarations authorizing PA would have been declared between 2008 and
2017, an average of 16 fewer per year.138 This represents a 27% reduction in disasters authorized
during the specified time period.139 According to FEMA, 7,456 Applicants that received PA

82 Federal Register 4064, January 12, 2017.
129 GAO, Emergency Management: FEMA Has Made Progress, but Challenges and Future Risks Highlight Imperative
for Further Improvements, GAO-19-617T, June 25, 2019, p. 14, https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/699957.pdf.
130 Section 1239 of DRRA, Division D of P.L. 115-254, as it amends §401 of the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §5170.
131 FEMA, “Cost of Assistance Estimates in the Disaster Declaration Process for the Public Assistance Program,” RIN
1660-AA99, December 2019, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201910&RIN=1660-
AA99&operation=OPERATION_PRINT_RULE; hereinafter FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance,” p. 80719.
132 FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance Estimates in the Disaster Declaration Process for the Public Assistance
Program; Public Meeting,” 86 Federal Register 8334, February 5, 2021; and FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of
Assistance Estimates in the Disaster Declaration Process for the Public Assistance Program; Public Meeting; Extension
of Comment Period,” 86 Federal Register 14067, March 12, 2021.
133 FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance Estimates in the Disaster Declaration Process for the Public Assistance
Program; Public Meeting; Extension of Comment Period,” 86 Federal Register 14067, March 12, 2021.
134 FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance,” p. 80731.
135 FEMA, “Per Capita Impact Indicator and Project Thresholds,” https://www.fema.gov/assistance/public/applicants/
per-capita-impact-indicator; FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance,” p. 80731.
136 See U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Total Taxable Resources,” https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/
economic-policy/total-taxable-resources; FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance,” p. 80720.
137 These calculations are based on FY2019. FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance,” p. 80728.
138 FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance,” p. 80732.
139 FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance,” p. 80732.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 40 link to page 40 The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

between 2008 and 2017 would have experienced a reduction in grant funding if the proposed rule
had been in effect.140
Congress may wish to review the forecasted impacts of the proposed rulemaking on federal and
SLTT emergency management partners and their budgets, particularly given the costs of the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.141 One recent study has concluded that state spending on response
and recovery is highly variable and not consistently tracked.142 However, SLTT representatives
have noted the sizeable response and recovery costs borne by nonfederal entities under the current
PA thresholds.143 For example, the National Association of Counties noted that in 2003 FEMA
estimated that 3,500-3,700 disasters are handled without requests for federal assistance.144 FEMA
conceded that “[s]tate and local governments respond on their own to countless small incidents.”
However, FEMA explained that the current, low thresholds for PA disincentivize SLTT
investment in response, recovery, and mitigation, “since Federal assistance will be provided.”145
FEMA claimed that redistributing costs to states will incentivize SLTT investment in emergency
management and mitigation and thereby promote a “resilient and prepared Nation.”146 Public
comments submitted in response to the proposed rule question whether the proposed rulemaking
will, in fact, incentivize mitigation or could potentially reduce funding for mitigation (for further
discussion, see “DRRA Section 1239 Rulemaking and the Adoption of Total Taxable
Resources”).147
Congressional oversight may include the monitoring of FEMA’s rulemaking process, including
feedback FEMA was provided during the public meeting and comments submitted on the
proposed rulemaking,148 and consideration of (1) additional opportunities to support SLTT

140 FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance,” p. 80732.
141 For more information on state budgets, see CRS Report R46298, General State and Local Fiscal Assistance and
COVID-19: Background and Available Data, by Grant A. Driessen; and “How the COVID-19 Pandemic Is
Transforming State Budgets,” Urban Institute, updated March 12, 2021, https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-
center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/projects/state-fiscal-pages-covid-edition. For more information on
Public Assistance and the proposed rule, see CRS Insight IN11534, Authorizing Stafford Act Public Assistance, by
Erica A. Lee. See also FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance Estimates in the Disaster Declaration Process for the
Public Assistance Program,” comment # FEMA-2020-0038-0032 by representatives of Pew Charitable Trust, p. 5, and
comment #-2020-0038-0028 by representatives of the U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency
Managers, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FEMA-2020-0038-0001/comment.
142 Pew Charitable Trusts, What We Don’t Know About State Spending on Natural Disasters Could Cost Us, June 2018,
p. 10, https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2018/06/statespendingnaturaldisasters_v4.pdf.
143 For further information and discussion, see comments for Proposed Rule on Cost of Assistance Estimates, available
at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FEMA-2020-0038-0001/comment.
144 Testimony of Sallie Clark, then President of National Association of Counties, U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Controlling the Rising Cost of Federal Response to Disaster, hearing, 114th Cong.,
2nd sess., May 12, 2016, no. 114-40, p. 13, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg20214/pdf/CHRG-
114hhrg20214.pdf.
145 FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance,” p. 80723.
146 FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance,” p. 80720.
147 See, for example, Proposed Rule on Cost of Assistance Estimates, comment # FEMA-2020-0038-0032 by
representatives of Pew Charitable Trust, pp. 4-5, and comment #FEMA-2020-0038-0025 by representatives of South
Carolina Emergency Management Division, p. 1, https://www.regulations.gov/document/FEMA-2020-0038-0001/
comment. See also National Governor’s Association, “Coalition Letter on FEMA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
‘Cost of Assistance Estimates in the Disaster Declaration Process for the Public Assistance Program,’” March 5, 2021,
https://www.nga.org/advocacy-communications/letters-nga/coalition-letter-fema-assistance-estimates/.
148 Comments received during the rulemaking process are generally available on www.Regulations.gov. The docket for
this rule, “Cost of Assistance Estimates in the Disaster Declaration Process for the Public Assistance Program,” Docket
ID: FEMA-2020-0038, is available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FEMA-2020-0038.
Congressional Research Service

21

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

investment in response, recovery, and mitigation capabilities; and (2) how the increased cost of
assistance thresholds may encumber rural or less wealthy counties seeking PA, as well as
populous states with high Total Taxable Resources.149
For example, PA authorization is based on the estimated costs of PA-eligible work; commercial,
personal, and federal property are ineligible. Some Members of Congress and SLTT stakeholders
have noted that the use of the higher thresholds may disadvantage small, rural, or less wealthy
areas with less costly eligible facilities.150 Also, states with relatively high Total Taxable
Resources may find it more difficult to qualify for federal assistance.151
Another issue of congressional interest is the challenges faced by states and localities that
experience recurring or slow-onset events. PDAs only measure costs incurred during a certain
time period (the FEMA-defined “incident period”).152 FEMA may consider a recurring flood or
episode of slow-onset events like sea level rise to be multiple discrete incidents, none of which
may independently meet or exceed the cost of assistance thresholds.153 Increased cost of
assistance thresholds may make it harder for jurisdictions to qualify for federal assistance for such
events. As a result, states and localities facing such hazards may not receive major disaster
declarations authorizing PA and thus face greater demands on SLTT disaster response and
recovery resources.
Accountability and Oversight Provisions
Congress has the authority to require executive agencies to take specific actions through
legislation, and to oversee executive agencies’ fulfillment of assigned responsibilities by using
the tools of congressional oversight.154 The following sections describe some of DRRA’s
provisions that support effective congressional oversight and increase FEMA’s accountability and
transparency.

149 See concerns raised in National Low Income Housing Coalition, “Proposed FEMA Rule Would Create Roadblocks
for Presidential Disaster Declarations,” December 22, 2020, https://nlihc.org/resource/proposed-fema-rule-would-
create-roadblocks-presidential-disaster-declarations; Thomas Frank, “FEMA Seeks to Slash Disaster Aid as Trump
Heads for Exit,” December 14, 2020, E&E News, https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063720573.
150 See, for example, testimony of former Senator Begich, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, The Path to Efficiency: Making FEMA More Effective for Streamlined Disaster Operations,
113th Cong., 2nd sess., July 24, 2014, pp. 9-11; Rep. Rodney Davis, “Davis Urges FEMA to Consider Local Impact
When Determining Latest Illinois Disaster Request,” March 9, 2016, https://rodneydavis.house.gov/news/
documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398970. See also Proposed Rule on Cost of Assistance Estimates, comments
#FEMA-2020-0038-003, submitted December 17, 2020, and #FEMA-2020-0038-0020, submitted February 5, 2021,
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FEMA-2020-0038-0001/comment.
151 See concerns raised in National Low Income Housing Coalition, “Proposed FEMA Rule Would Create Roadblocks
for Presidential Disaster Declarations,” December 22, 2020, https://nlihc.org/resource/proposed-fema-rule-would-
create-roadblocks-presidential-disaster-declarations.
152 44 C.F.R. §206.32(f).
153 United Nations Climate Change, “Slow Onset Events,” https://unfccc.int/process/bodies/constituted-bodies/
executive-committee-of-the-warsaw-international-mechanism-for-loss-and-damage-wim-excom/areas-of-work/slow-
onset-events.
154 For additional information on congressional oversight authorities and activities, see CRS In Focus IF10015,
Congressional Oversight and Investigations, by Todd Garvey and Walter J. Oleszek.
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 45 The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

Management Costs
Section 1215: Management Costs155
DRRA Section 1215 amends Section 324 of the Stafford Act to expand the definition of
“management cost” to include direct and indirect costs for both the state management costs and
project level administrative costs.156 Section 1215 also establishes caps on the percentage of
reimbursable management costs. For the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP),
reimbursable management costs cannot exceed 15% of the grant award, with not more than 10%
retained by the state and not more than 5% provided to the sub-grantee. Reimbursable
management costs for the PA program cannot exceed 12% of the total award amounts provided
under Stafford Act Sections 403, 406, 407, and 502, with not more than 7% provided to the state,
and not more than 5% provided to the sub-grantees.
Prior to DRRA’s enactment, both FEMA and Congress debated various approaches to providing
funding for the administrative costs associated with federal disaster assistance. The processes and
procedures utilized by federal, state, and local agencies to determine eligible management costs
related to disaster assistance generally includes two types of management costs: (1) state-level
management costs associated with administering all the federal disaster assistance provided under
the Stafford Act, and (2) sub-grantee management costs specific to individual eligible projects.
Management costs can generally be further broken down by costs associated with specific
funding streams provided by the Stafford Act, such as the PA program and the HMGP.
Consequently, state grant recipients traditionally have management costs associated with
administering funding provided by PA and HMGP broadly, and sub-grantees traditionally have
management costs associated with specific projects awarded funding under PA and HMGP. A
history of the rate calculations for PA and HMGP is included in Appendix A.
The implementation of the management cost provisions in Section 1215 of DRRA deviated from
past FEMA policies on management costs for Stafford Act programs in some areas, while
aligning with past practice in other areas.
 First, in implementing DRRA provisions, FEMA deviated from previous
definitions of “management costs” by expanding the definition to include both
state administrative costs and project-specific administrative costs. As discussed,
this appears to be the first time FEMA defined “management costs” to be all
encompassing of both state and sub-grantee administrative costs.
 Second, DRRA implementation deviated from past procedures by establishing a
cap on the percentage rate for management costs rather than setting a flat
percentage rate. Both the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K, P.L. 106-
390) and the FEMA voluntary, alternative recovery policy, Public Assistance
Alternative Procedures for Direct Administrative Costs (DAC), provisions
established a flat percentage rate, while DRRA set caps for the amounts that
could be reimbursed for management costs.
 Third, DRRA implementation deviated from past practice by using the total PA
and HMGP amount provided to the state, after insurance and other reductions, as
the base amount for the percentage calculation. DMA2K applied the flat

155 This section authored by Natalie Keegan, Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency Management Policy.
156 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended by the Disaster
Recovery Reform Act, P.L. 115-254.
Congressional Research Service

23

link to page 45 The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

percentage to the federal share only, while a new voluntary, alternative recovery
policy issued by FEMA used the full eligible project costs at the sub-grantee
level, prior to insurance reductions.157
 Finally, FEMA deviated from previous approaches by not promulgating the
management cost rates in regulations. In previous changes in the law discussed in
more detail in Appendix A, FEMA issued both a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register promulgating the proposed
management cost rates.158
According to FEMA’s latest DRRA implementation report, Section 1215 is “Implemented.”159
However, FEMA has not issued any notices in the Federal Register regarding implementation of
DRRA’s management cost percentage cap provisions. According to the FEMA DRRA Annual
Report 2019 and other FEMA documents, as of February 2021, FEMA had only issued grant
program guidance to implement the DRRA Section 1215 provisions.160 Unlike federal
regulations, grant guidance can be changed by FEMA at any time and without public comment.
While agency discretion to adjust grant policy guidance without traditional rulemaking
requirements may help FEMA adapt to the challenges created by the pandemic, only amending
internal policy and documents, such as grant guidance, reduces transparency and accountability in
DRRA implementation.
The implementation of DRRA management cost provisions in Section 1215 aligned with past
FEMA policies and practices in some ways. First, FEMA continues to allow two types of
management cost reimbursements: (1) the costs directly associated with specific PA or HMGP
projects that can be itemized as part of the allowable project costs (i.e., project-specific
management costs); and (2) the more general management costs associated with administration of
federal funding that are not already reimbursed as project-specific expenses. Notably, however,
the current implementation represents the first time that both types of management cost
reimbursements have been combined under the expanded definition of “management costs” set
forth in DRRA. Prior to DRRA, there was a clearer distinction between project-specific
management costs and general management costs.161
The implementation of the expanded definition of “management costs” raises the risk of
duplication of payments. There is also the possibility of increased administrative burden on the

157 The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K, P.L. 106-390). The new voluntary, alternative recovery policy was
issued by FEMA on October 25, 2017, and was called the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures for Direct
Administrative Costs policy, which used the full eligible project costs at the sub-grantee level, prior to insurance
reductions.
158 See FEMA, “Management Costs,” 67 Federal Register 56130- 56136, August 30, 2002; and FEMA, “Management
Costs,” 72 Federal Register 57869- 57879, October 11, 2007.
159 FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report, p. 3.
160 FEMA, “Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Management Costs, (Interim),” FEMA Policy FP 104-11-1, November
14, 2018, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_DRRA-1215-hazard-mitigation-grant-program-
management-costs-interim-policy.pdf; FEMA, “Public Assistance Management Costs,” FEMA Recovery Policy FP
104-11-2, November 14, 2018, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/
pa_management_costs_interim_policy.pdf; FEMA, “Public Assistance Management Costs Interim Policy,” fact sheet,
February 8, 2019, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/
pa_fact_sheet_management_costs_interim_policy.pdf; FEMA, “HMGP Management Costs Policy (Interim),”
frequently asked questions, February 28, 2020. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/hma_management-
cost-faq_3-23-2020.pdf.
161 For example, see the definition of “management costs” in FEMA, “Management Costs,” 67 Federal Register 56130-
56136, August 30, 2002.
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 41 link to page 41 The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

states to ensure that sub-grantees do not receive reimbursements twice for the same management
cost by claiming the cost under a general management cost category and a project-specific
management cost category. DRRA implementation also aligns with the past practice of providing
management cost reimbursements separately for PA and HMGP. While FEMA initially proposed
consolidating PA and HMGP management costs into a single grant award to the states, ultimately,
the interim final rule continued to separate PA and HMGP management cost reimbursements and
FEMA implemented different flat percentage rates depending on the program.162 While separating
management costs by program possibly increases state and sub-grantee administrative burdens,
combining the programs may create other concerns, such as reducing state flexibility in the use of
funds and possibly generating divisive policy at the state and sub-state level.163
Considerations related to how the COVID-19 pandemic may affect the implementation of the
DRRA Section 1215 can be found in the “DRRA Section 1215 Management Cost Caps During
the Pandemic” section.
Timely Closeout Incentives
Section 1221: Closeout Incentives164
Section 1221 of DRRA amends Section 705 of the Stafford Act to add a new section addressing
challenges to disaster assistance grant closeouts by providing FEMA’s Administrator authority to
develop incentives and penalties to encourage state, local, and tribal governments to close out
disaster assistance grants in a timely fashion. DRRA Section 1221 further directs FEMA’s
Administrator to issue regulations to implement procedures that “improve closeout practices and
reduce the time to close disaster program awards.”165
According to the FEMA DRRA Annual Report 2019, this section’s implementation is in
progress.166 However, FEMA has developed incentives and penalties for Stafford Act program
grant closeouts in previous grant guidance. In 2017, FEMA issued guidance on PA Alternative
Procedures for direct administrative costs for eligible projects that provided an additional 1%
closeout incentive to sub-grantees. Under the PA Alternative Procedures, sub-grantees could opt
to receive management cost reimbursements based on 4% of the full eligible project costs prior to
insurance reductions, and could receive the additional 1% closeout incentive if the projects were
closed out within 90 days of the end of the period of performance.167 FEMA has also utilized
penalties as a mechanism to encourage timely closeout. In 2020, FEMA issued grant guidance
that withheld up to 3% of eligible management cost reimbursements from grantees until closeout
documents were submitted by the grantee.168 FEMA may consider similar approaches in the
implementation of DRRA Section 1221.

162 See FEMA, “Management Costs,” 67 Federal Register 56130-56136, August 30, 2002; and FEMA, “Management
Costs,” 72 Federal Register 57869-57879, October 11, 2007.
163 FEMA, “Management Costs,” 72 Federal Register 57870-57871, October 11, 2007.
164 This section authored by Natalie Keegan, Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency Management Policy.
165 DRRA Section 1221, P.L. 115-254.
166 FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report, p. 8.
167 FEMA, “Recovery Policy, Public Assistance Alternative Procedures for Direct Administrative Costs,” October 25,
2017. Pursuant to 2 C.F.R. §200.343, the Office of Management and Budget guidance to federal agencies recommends
that federal grant closeout documentation be submitted by the sub-grantees within 90 days of the end of the period of
performance.
168 FEMA, “Frequently Asked Questions: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Management Costs Policy (Interim),”
Congressional Research Service

25

link to page 31 The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

FEMA Accountability and Oversight
Section 1210: Duplication of Benefits169
Section 312(a) of the Stafford Act prohibits “financial assistance to persons, business concerns, or
other entities suffering losses as a result of a major disaster or emergency ... [for] which [they
have] received financial assistance under any other program or from insurance or any other
source.”170 Further, Stafford Act Section 312(c) states that the recipient of duplicative assistance
is liable to the United States and that the agency that provided the duplicative assistance is
responsible for debt collection.
While Section 312 is intended to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, its application has led to
financial hardships for some disaster victims. This can occur when individuals and households
receive multiple sources of assistance to recover from an incident. For example, if a disaster
victim has recovery needs that are not covered by insurance, they can receive assistance from
FEMA and/or the Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Community Development Block
Grant—Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR), often in the form of a grant, as well as a disaster loan
from the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Disaster Loan Program.171 The use of multiple
recovery sources is allowable provided the assistance does not exceed the recipient’s unmet
recovery need. Generally, a duplication of benefit occurs when an agency provides disaster
assistance that was another agency’s primary responsibility, and the agency with primary
responsibility later mistakenly provides recovery assistance for the same incident. Additionally,
duplication may occur when multiple applicants in a household receive an award for the same
item or type of assistance from another program, from insurance, or from any other recovery
source.
In some cases, disaster victims have received repayment notifications long after they had already
applied their assistance for recovery purposes.172 For some, repaying or appealing the duplication
can be financially and emotionally burdensome. Critics argue that unintentional duplication
stems, in part, from the procedural guidance outlined in 44 C.F.R. §206.191 (known as a
“delivery sequence”). The delivery sequence identifies duplication of benefits, and determines
which agency must be repaid for the duplication. According to critics, the delivery sequence is
confusing and lacks specificity. For example, HUD’s CDBG-DR Program is often duplicated
with other assistance sources, but is not listed in the delivery sequence (see Figure 1).

February 28, 2020, p. 8.
169 This section authored by Bruce R. Lindsay, Specialist in American National Government.
170 42 U.S.C. §5155.
171 For more information on the SBA Disaster Loan Program, see CRS Report R44412, SBA Disaster Loan Program:
Frequently Asked Questions, by Bruce R. Lindsay.
172 For example, some Hurricane Sandy victims did not get notifications until two years after the incident. See Miles
Park, “For Some Superstorm Sandy Victims, the Government Wants Its Money Back,” National Public Radio, April
13, 2015, https://www.npr.org/2015/04/13/390442517/for-some-superstorm-sandy-victims-the-government-wants-its-
money-back.
Congressional Research Service

26

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

Figure 1. Delivery Sequence
44 C.F.R. §206.191(d)(2)

Source: Based on CRS interpretation of 44 C.F.R. §206.191.
Note: Other Needs Assistance (ONA) under Section 408 includes both SBA-dependent and non-SBA-
dependent ONA. SBA-dependent ONA may be available for applicants who do not qualify for an SBA disaster
loan, or whose loan amount is insufficient; this type of ONA includes personal property, transportation, and
moving and storage assistance. With regard to the “Cora Brown Fund,” Cora Brown of Kansas City, MO, died in
1977, leaving a portion of her estate to the United States to be used as a special fund to relieve human suffering
caused by natural disasters.
To improve clarity and reduce confusion, Congress passed DRRA Section 1210(5)(A), requiring
FEMA’s Administrator, in coordination with relevant federal agencies, to provide a report with
recommendations to improve “the comprehensive delivery of disaster assistance to individuals
following a major disaster or emergency declaration.”173 On June 22, 2020, FEMA provided the
report to Congress addressing each of the requirements, which are summarized below.174
Coordination Between Agencies
According to the report, FEMA has taken steps to improve disaster assistance coordination efforts
between agencies. Some of the steps include:
 incident planning and exercises to enhance interagency collaboration and coordination
and identify areas in need of improvement;
 unity of effort webinars on Emergency Support Function #6, the coordinating structure
led by FEMA that organizes agencies and resources for mass care, emergency assistance,
temporary housing, and human services;175

173 DRRA Section 1216, P.L. 115-254.
174 FEMA, Delivery of Post-Disaster Assistance to Individuals, Report to Congress, June 22, 2020.
175 For more information on Emergency Support Function #6, see FEMA, “Emergency Support Function #6: Mass
Care, Emergency Assistance, Temporary Housing, and Human Services Annex,” June 2016, https://www.fema.gov/
sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_ESF_6_Mass-Care.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

27

link to page 47 link to page 47 The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

 planning and leading the National Mass Care Exercise to ensure disaster assistance
providers are collaborating and identifying potential flaws in assistance delivery;176 and
 holding Individual Assistance (IA) symposiums that bring together federal, state, tribal,
and territorial officials to enhance their knowledge of IA programs and policies and to
build capacity for implementing IA during disaster operations.
Clarification of the Delivery Sequence and Interpretation of Stafford Act Section 312
The report did not substantively change the delivery sequence. Rather, it elaborated on the
existing structure by describing in detail which assistance programs fall within each delivery
sequence. The report also provided an organizational chart of the delivery sequence (see Figure
B-1).
FEMA reported the following interpretations of Stafford Act Section 312:
 FEMA views individuals applying for IA with insurance coverage as being ineligible for
a waiver under Section 1210 of DRRA;177 and
 a CDBG-DR grantee is prohibited from making a blanket determination that CDBG-DR
assistance does not duplicate another category or source of assistance. The Stafford Act
requires an individualized review of each applicant to determine that the amount of
assistance will not cause a duplication of benefits by exceeding the applicant’s unmet
needs. The report also stated that “CDBG-DR grantees have discretion to develop
policies and procedures that tailor their duplication of benefits analyses to their own
programs and activities so long as the grantee’s policies and procedures are consistent
with duplication of benefits requirements.”178
Communications
According to the report, FEMA has taken or plans to take steps to improve communications to
disaster assistance applicants. These include:
 developing standardized communication templates to provide information to
disaster survivors in a more timely, relevant, and comprehensible manner;
 redesigning the FEMA.gov website to ensure it provides correct information
using the most up-to-date and easy-to-use technology; and
 translating information on the FEMA website and news releases into other
languages (including American Sign Language), if necessary, and activating
language interpreters.
The new Computer Matching Agreements (CMA) with FEMA, HUD, and SBA clarify data
sharing agreements between the agencies and address duplication of benefits.179 In addition to the
CMA, in 2019, HUD launched a computer system that enables FEMA “to automatically transfer
survivor data to HUD on a re-occurring basis.” The system also “allows HUD to send data to

176 For more information on the National Mass Care Exercise, see FEMA, National Mass Care Exercise,
https://nationalmasscarestrategy.org/the-national-mass-care-exercise/ (hereinafter FEMA, National Mass Care
Exercise).
177 FEMA, Delivery of Post-Disaster Assistance to Individuals, Report to Congress, June 22, 2020, p. 12.
178 FEMA, Delivery of Post-Disaster Assistance to Individuals, Report to Congress, June 22, 2020, pp. 12-13.
179 FEMA, Delivery of Post-Disaster Assistance to Individuals, Report to Congress, June 22, 2020, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service

28

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

FEMA about assistance that HUD has provided to an applicant in order to prevent duplication of
benefits.” Further, the system allows states, tribes, and territories to access the shared data.180
FEMA also “granted a small number of SBA employees full access to the FEMA National
Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS) for additional data that may be needed
during their loan review process,” and enabled SBA to view specific FEMA information to
determine which benefits those disaster survivors are receiving from FEMA.181
FEMA’s data sharing efforts may help prevent duplication of benefits from occurring and make
duplication notifications timelier. Greater delivery sequence detail may also help clarify agency
roles and responsibilities with respect to duplication.182
Section 1224: Agency Accountability183
Section 1224 of DRRA amends Title VI of the Stafford Act to add a new subsection on agency
accountability. The new subsection requires the FEMA Administrator to publish information on
select PA grant awards, mission assignments, monthly Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) obligations,
select federal contracts, and select state-level contracts executed using PA funds to the FEMA
website.184 According to FEMA, the agency already posts the required data and information on
the FEMA.gov website, and FEMA updated its DRF monthly report to include the required
information.185
The DRRA provisions requiring federal and grantee contract information remain in progress as
FEMA updates its grant management systems to collect the required contract information.186
FEMA began an extensive grant system modernization initiative in 2015 when the agency

180 FEMA, Delivery of Post-Disaster Assistance to Individuals, Report to Congress, June 22, 2020, p. 4.
181 FEMA, Delivery of Post-Disaster Assistance to Individuals, Report to Congress, June 22, 2020, p. 4.
182 DRRA Section 1210 applies to any emergency or major disaster between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021.
The effective date of DRRA Section 1210 has been of congressional interest because it makes Hurricane Sandy disaster
victims ineligible for duplication of benefits relief as Hurricane Sandy was declared a major disaster on October 30,
2012 (see FEMA, “New Jersey Hurricane Sandy (DR-4086-NJ),” https://www.fema.gov/ru/disaster/4086). According
to a report issued by the New Jersey Resource Project:
After Sandy ... numerous homeowners received money from insurance carriers ... or SBA loans
after they had signed an [Reconstruction, Elevation, and Mitigation] grant. Frequently,
homeowners were ... told ... that [Increased Cost Compliance] funds and SBA loans would not be
considered a duplication of benefit, only to find out later on that this information was inaccurate.
Adding to the confusion is the fact that homeowners were previously permitted to use CDBG
money to pay off SBA loans, but guidance issued by HUD in November 2011 clarified that the
entire SBA loan amount for which someone is deemed eligible is a benefit that cannot be
duplicated. Because most homeowners were still short of funds necessary to rebuild even after
receiving various forms of assistance available to them, they were baffled and frustrated by the
notion that they were somehow ‘double dipping.’
(New Jersey Resource Project, “The Long Road Home: Understanding Sandy Recovery and Lessons Learned for
Future Storms Five Years Later,” October 2017, pp. 24-25). It is likely that Congress will reexamine duplication issues
related to Hurricane Sandy during the 117th Congress.
183 This section authored by Natalie Keegan, Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency Management Policy.
184 DRRA Section 1224, P.L. 115-254. For additional information on the required information to be included for each
category under section 1224, see CRS Report R45819, The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): A Summary
of Selected Statutory Provisions.
185 FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report, p. 20.
186 FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report, p. 20.
Congressional Research Service

29

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

implemented the Grants Management Modernization Program (GMM).187 As part of GMM,
FEMA is developing an IT platform known as FEMA Grants Outcomes (FEMA GO) that will be
utilized by a variety of grant stakeholders. Even though the GMM has been underway for
approximately six years, it is unclear when FEMA will complete the grant management system
updates sufficient to collect and report on the contract data required by Section 1224.
Audit and Review Requirement for Reimbursement
Section of 1225: Audit of Contracts188
Section 1225 of DRRA restricts FEMA’s Administrator from reimbursing states, local, or tribal
governments and certain nonprofit organizations for costs associated with activities pursuant to a
contract that prohibits FEMA’s Administrator or the Comptroller General of the United States
from auditing or reviewing all aspects of the contract.189 According to FEMA, this provision has
been implemented.190 FEMA updated the Procurement Disaster Assistance Team (PDAT) Field
Manual in July 2020 to reflect this requirement.191
Prohibition on Recoupment
Section 1216: Flexibility192
DRRA Section 1216(a) authorized FEMA to waive debts owed by individuals who received
assistance through the Individuals and Households Program (IHP), which is a form of Individual
Assistance, provided the debt does not involve fraud, a false claim, or misrepresentation by the
debtor or party having an interest in the claim,193 if certain requirements are met (see the “Four
Required Conditions for a Waiver” text box for more information).194 This expanded FEMA’s
discretion with regard to debt collection.
Additionally, DRRA Section 1216(b) established a three-year statute of limitations on FEMA’s
ability to recoup IHP assistance received more than three years before FEMA provided notice of
intent to recoup the funds.195 According to a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

187 FEMA, “Grant Management Modernization: Frequently Asked Questions,” July 2020, p. 3.
188 This section authored by Natalie Keegan, Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency Management Policy.
189 DRRA Section 1225, P.L. 115-254.
190 FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report, p. 21.
191 FEMA, “Procurement Disaster Assistance Team (PDAT) Field Manual,” July 2020.
192 This section authored by Elizabeth M. Webster, Analyst in Emergency Management and Disaster Recovery. For
more information, see the “Section 1216: Flexibility” section of CRS Report R45819, The Disaster Recovery Reform
Act of 2018 (DRRA): A Summary of Selected Statutory Provisions, coordinated by Elizabeth M. Webster and Bruce R.
Lindsay.
193 DRRA Section 1216(a)(2)(B), P.L. 115-254.
194 DRRA Section 1216(a)(2)(A), P.L. 115-254. DRRA Section 1216(a)(1) defines covered assistance as assistance
provided under Stafford Act Section 408 in relation to a presidential declaration of major disaster or emergency under
Stafford Act Sections 401 or 501, respectively, on or after October 28, 2012.
195 DRRA Section 1216(b)(2), P.L. 115-254. For purposes of DRRA Section 1216(b), covered assistance is assistance
provided under Stafford Act Section 408 in relation to a presidential declaration of major disaster or emergency under
Stafford Act Sections 401 or 501, respectively, on or after January 1, 2012.
Congressional Research Service

30

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

report, this provision is intended to “ensure that FEMA initiates any collection actions as quickly
as possible ... and provide more certainty to individuals recovering from disasters.”196
To support its implementation of DRRA
Four Required Conditions for a Waiver
Sections 1216(a) and (b), FEMA issued
According to FEMA’s “Instruction 116-1-2: Individuals and
an instruction on May 14, 2019, updating
Households Program Recoupment,” the fol owing four
its recoupment process for IA
conditions must be met before a waiver may be granted
recipients.197 The instruction provides
(emphasis was added to the quoted text below):
specific guidance on how a debtor can
1. “The covered assistance was distributed based on
satisfy the four elements that must be met
FEMA error. Even in circumstances where no debtor fault
exists, not all ineligible assistance results from FEMA error.”
before a waiver may be granted per
For example, FEMA payments provided in advance of other
DRRA Section 1216(a).198 It also notes,
funds, such as insurance, would not be considered to be
per DRRA Section 1216(b), that the “IAD
assistance that was distributed based on FEMA error.
[Individual Assistance Division] will
2. “There was no fault on behalf of the debtor. ‘Fault’
prioritize reviews of potential debt
exists if, considering all circumstances, it is determined that
nearing the end of the 3-year period.”
the debtor knew or should have known that an error existed
199
but failed to take action to have it corrected.” For example,
Additionally, FEMA added a waiver
fault could be the result of a direct or indirect act or
notice to all debt recoupment letters to
omission by the debtor that was “erroneous or inaccurate
instruct recipients on the waiver
or otherwise wrong.” Fault is also presumed if the debtor
process.200 The information provided to
misuses FEMA assistance, including to pay expenses not
caused by the disaster, or using funds “in a manner
individuals focuses on affirmations that
inconsistent with their intended use.”
they were not at fault (i.e., there was no
3. “The collection of the debt would be against
“Misrepresentation,” “Failure to
equity and good conscience. ... The legal obligation to
Disclose,” “Knowledge of Error,”
pay a debt to FEMA may be overcome by other
“Misuse,” or “Other Fault”), and that
consideration if enforcement of the debt would be unfair to
collection of the debt would be against
the point of violating equity and good conscience.” For
example, if the col ection of the debt would result in undue
equity and good conscience (i.e., they
hardship, such as by depriving the debtor of basic necessities,
must show they “gave up a benefit
it may be considered against equity and good conscience.
because of the overpayment, or ...
4. “There is no indication the debt involves fraud, the
changed ... [their] position for the worse
presentation of a false claim, or misrepresentation by the
because of the overpayment” or
debtor or any party having an interest in the claim.”
“[c]ollection of the overpayment would

196 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (House Transportation and Infrastructure),
Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) Report, committee print, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., December 21, 2018, H.Rept.
115-1098, p. 18.
197 FEMA, “Instruction 116-1-2: Individuals and Households Program Recoupment,” v. 2, May 2019.
198 FEMA, “Instruction 116-1-2: Individuals and Households Program Recoupment,” v. 2, May 2019, pp. 15-17.
199 FEMA, “Instruction 116-1-2: Individuals and Households Program Recoupment,” v. 2, May 2019, p. 3.
200 FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report, p. 18; and FEMA, “DRRA Provisions 1210(A)-1219,” last accessed December 18,
2020, https://www.fema.gov/disasters/disaster-recovery-reform-act-2018/provisions-1210-1219 (see “Debt Waiver and
Recoupment (Section 1216 a and b)”). FEMA’s process for considering an IHP waiver request is detailed in
“Instruction 116-1-2: Individuals and Household Program Recoupment.” The general process is described as follows.
After a debt has been established, individuals who would like to request a waiver may contact FEMA, and then the
Office of Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) will mail them a waiver fact sheet to aid in their application. The OCFO then
forwards completed waiver requests to FEMA’s IHP staff for analysis and a recommendation. “The OCFO makes the
final agency determination [as to] whether the criteria for [a] waiver [as] mandated by DRRA have been met and
notifies the applicant.” (Email from FEMA Office of External Affairs staff, February 11, 2021). A template debt letter
can be found in “Appendix B: Template for a Notice and Debt Letter Resulting from a Major Disaster or Emergency
Declared on or after October 28, 2012” and “Appendix C: Waiver Information Sheet” of FEMA, “Instruction 116-1-2:
Individuals and Households Program Recoupment,” v. 2, May 2019, pp. 37-42.
Congressional Research Service

31

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

be unduly difficult, grossly unfair, or would prevent ... [them] or [their] family members from
obtaining basic necessities”).201
DRRA Section 1216(c) changed the start of the three-year PA statute of limitations,202 such that
new administrative actions to recover payments cannot be initiated “after the date that is 3 years
after the date of transmission of the final expenditure report for project completion [emphasis
added]”203 (rather than the final expenditure report for the disaster or emergency).204 Prior to
DRRA, FEMA could potentially recoup funding from projects completed and closed because the
disaster was still open. The project-by-project statute of limitations may ease the administrative
and financial burden that the management of disaster recovery programs places on state,
territorial, and Indian tribal governments because it creates certainty as to the projects that may be
subject to recoupment. It may also incentivize the timely closeout of PA projects by state and
local governments, which may also ease FEMA’s administrative and financial burdens.205
To support its implementation of DRRA Section 1216(c), FEMA is currently updating its
“Recovery Policy: Stafford Act Section 705, Disaster Grant Closeout Procedures.”206 The public
comment period for the draft policy ended on December 10, 2020, and as of February 2021,
FEMA was adjudicating the public comments, which are focused on questions such as “what will
constitute certification by the grantee (recipient) of project completion that will represent the
statute of limitations start date, for both large and small projects.”207 Congress could continue
monitoring FEMA’s efforts to update its guidance to reflect the change to the statute of
limitations, as the DHS OIG recommended.208
Section of 1237: Certain Recoupment Prohibited209
DRRA Section 1237 directs FEMA to deem certain disaster assistance to have been “properly
procured, provided, and utilized” if FEMA deployed a technical assistance contractor to assist the
local government with project activities and the technical assistance contractor provided

201 “Appendix C: Waiver Information Sheet” of FEMA, “Instruction 116-1-2: Individuals and Households Program
Recoupment,” v. 2, May 2019, p. 41.
202 DRRA Section 1216(c), P.L. 115-254, as it amends §705 of the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§5205.
203 42 U.S.C. §5205(a)(1).
204 42 U.S.C. §5205(a)(1) (2017), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2017-title42/pdf/USCODE-2017-
title42-chap68-subchapV-sec5205.pdf.
205 According to FEMA, however, “this provision would not necessarily impact the timeliness/rate of closure of
projects as the provision does not speak to the period of performance for the projects” (email from FEMA’s Office of
External Affairs staff, February 11, 2021).
206 The current version of FEMA’s “Recovery Policy: Stafford Act Section 705, Disaster Grant Closeout Procedures,”
FP 205-081-2, issued March 31, 2016, is available at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_stafford-
act-section-705-policy-FP-205-081-2_3-31-2016.pdf (last accessed April 26, 2021).
207 Emails from FEMA Office of External Affairs staff, January 5, 2021, and February 11, 2021. See also FEMA, 2019
DRRA Report, p. 18.
208 DHS OIG, FEMA Needs Revised Policies and Procedures to Better Manage Recovery of Disallowed Grant Funds,
OIG-21-28, March 11, 2021, pp. 5 and 10, https://www.oig.dhs.gov/reports/2021/fema-needs-revised-policies-and-
procedures-better-manage-recovery-disallowed-grant-funds/oig-21-28-mar21. The DHS OIG found FEMA’s internal
guidance was not compliant with DRRA’s amendment to Stafford Act Section 705(a), which established new time
limits for debt recovery, and noted that “FEMA did not effectively communicate the changes to its staff and some
officials were unaware the statute of limitations changed. In addition, FEMA did not update its guidance to remain
compliant in a timely manner. As a result, FEMA may attempt to recover payments beyond the time limit.”
209 This section authored by Natalie Keegan, Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency Management Policy.
Congressional Research Service

32

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

inaccurate information to the local government, and the local government relied on the inaccurate
information to make project management decisions.210 In cases where the project management
decisions made under such conditions result in the withdrawal or de-obligation of disaster
assistance after the DHS OIG conducts an audit of project costs, DRRA Section 1237 directs
FEMA to restore the funding to the local government.211
According to FEMA, “this provision applied to a single instance for a single applicant in a single
event”212 and the provision was implemented pursuant to the agency directing the relevant FEMA
Region to implement this provision for relevant PA projects, and by FEMA reinstating relevant
PA project worksheets.213 Although it appears that FEMA has interpreted DRRA Section 1237 to
apply solely to a specific recoupment,214 the text of DRRA Section 1237 appears to be broad
enough that should the provision’s criteria be met in a future recoupment instance, FEMA would
have the authority to restore funding. FEMA acknowledged that this could be the case, and that
future instances where DRRA 1237 may apply will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.215 Thus,
FEMA’s implementation of this provision is limited to a specific recoupment, and Congress may
wish to consider whether to require FEMA to provide guidance that broadly implements DRRA
Section 1237.
Even though Section 1237 provisions do not expressly stipulate an assumption of good faith on
the part of relevant grant recipients, prohibitions on recoupment may encounter challenges when
a grant recipient may be subject to prosecution. For example, in June 2020, the U.S. Department
of Justice intervened in a lawsuit involving a FEMA technical assistance contractor who received
more than $300 million under a FEMA contract to conduct site evaluations, prepare and review
damage estimates, and make applicant eligibility determinations for PA funding.216 According to
the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the technical assistance contractor was “responsible for providing
FEMA with truthful and accurate information,” but the lawsuit alleges that the contractor
knowingly submitted false claims on behalf of applicants seeking PA program funds.217
Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that “certain applicants falsely certified the accuracy of the
information and are thus jointly and severally liable for false claims prepared and submitted by”
the technical assistance contractor on their behalf. Although there has yet to be any determination
of liability in that particular case, the lawsuit raises questions regarding implementation of
recoupment prohibition provisions in general, and the extent to which such prohibitions might or
might not protect disaster assistance recipients who may have knowingly submitted false claims
for disaster funding.
Policy Considerations
The following sections address some additional potential DRRA implementation challenges and
considerations that may be of interest to Congress, including enforcement of DRRA’s

210 DRRA Section 1237, P.L. 115-254.
211 DRRA Section 1237, P.L. 115-254.
212 Email from FEMA Office of External Affairs staff, March 17, 2021.
213 FEMA, 2019 DRRA Report, p. 23.
214 Email from FEMA Office of External Affairs staff, April 8, 2021.
215 Email from FEMA Office of External Affairs staff, April 8, 2021.
216 U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, United States Joins Lawsuit
Against AECOM Alleging False Claims in Connection with Hurricane Disaster Relief, press release, June 3, 2020.
217 U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, United States Joins Lawsuit
Against AECOM Alleging False Claims in Connection with Hurricane Disaster Relief, press release, June 3, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

33

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

implementation deadlines as established in the enacted legislation, and considerations related to
DRRA’s implementation in light of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Enforcement of Implementation Deadlines
FEMA’s Administrator is identified as the officer charged with implementing many of DRRA’s
provisions. In some cases, other federal entities or officers, such as the DHS OIG, are assigned
responsibility for implementation. Many of the DRRA provisions do not include specific
deadlines; however, in some instances, FEMA’s Administrator or another federal entity is
required to take specific actions (e.g., promulgation of regulations) by a specific date (e.g., not
later than two years after the date of DRRA’s enactment).
As noted above, some of DRRA’s implementation deadlines have passed, yet FEMA is still
working toward implementation. In some cases, FEMA is working through final comments before
issuing its final guidance. In other cases, FEMA’s ability to implement DRRA’s provisions may
be affected by the change in Administration that occurred following the inauguration of President
Joseph R. Biden Jr. in January 2021.218 For example, FEMA extended the comment period for the
rulemaking219 undertaken pursuant to DRRA Provision 1239, citing the January 20, 2021, Biden
Administration memorandum entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.”220
There are various avenues that Congress or other actors may pursue to enforce deadlines
established in legislation, including congressional oversight and judicial review.221 As explained
in CRS Report R45336, Agency Delay: Congressional and Judicial Means to Expedite Agency
Rulemaking:
Congress has a number of tools that it can use to combat agency delay. To encourage
agencies to act in a timely fashion, Congress may set nonbinding time frames or statutory
deadlines for particular agency actions, or impose penalties on agencies should they fail to
meet those deadlines. Even if Congress does not impose any specific timing requirements
for a required agency action, the agency still must act within a “reasonable time” under the
[Administrative Procedures Act].
Persons alleging unreasonable delay by agencies may sue in court to compel agency action.
However, the recourse such individuals will have, if any, depends on the statutory scheme
and the severity of the delay. In the absence of specific deadlines, most courts employ a
multifactor balancing test to determine whether the agency’s delay is “unreasonable”; this
test examines, among other things, the length of the delay, the importance of the regulation
at issue, and the interests harmed by the delay. Courts are generally deferential to agencies
in this analysis. In other situations, such as when Congress has imposed a specific statutory
deadline, courts are more willing to compel agency action, with some courts holding that

218 FEMA’s Office of External Affairs noted that the Biden Administration’s Presidential Actions should have no
impact on the agency’s DRRA implementation efforts, including related to its rulemaking requirements established in
DRRA Sections 1235(d), 1211(a), and 1239(b) (email from FEMA Office of External Affairs staff, February 10, 2021).
219 For additional information on the rulemaking process, including the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA),
which is the statute governing the rulemaking process, see CRS Report R43056, Counting Regulations: An Overview of
Rulemaking, Types of Federal Regulations, and Pages in the Federal Register, by Maeve P. Carey.
220 FEMA, “Cost of Assistance Estimates in the Disaster Declaration Process for the Public Assistance Program; Public
Meeting,” 86 Federal Register 8334-8335, February 5, 2021, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-02-05/
pdf/2021-02459.pdf. See the memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies from Ronald A. Klain,
Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, regarding “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” January 20, 2021,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/regulatory-freeze-pending-review/.
221 For additional information on the rulemaking process, see CRS In Focus IF10003, An Overview of Federal
Regulations and the Rulemaking Process, by Maeve P. Carey.
Congressional Research Service

34

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

an order compelling agency action is mandatory whenever a statutory deadline is
violated.222
To enforce DRRA’s implementation deadlines, Congress has and may continue to use its
oversight authority, including by conducting hearings,223 and requiring FEMA to report on the
agency’s implementation progress for specific provisions. DRRA includes many such reporting
requirements.224
DRRA Implementation Considering the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has presented significant challenges for all 50 states, 5 territories, the
District of Columbia, and the federally recognized Indian tribal governments, as well as local
governments, private and nonprofit organizations, and individuals and households. Because
DRRA was enacted prior to the onset of the pandemic, the pandemic environment may affect the
application of some of DRRA’s provisions in unforeseen ways. Select examples of this are
included below.
DRRA Section 1234 Available BRIC Funding Based on the Estimated
Aggregate Amount of Funding Awarded for COVID-19
Despite the substantial increase in overall funding for pre-disaster mitigation, post-disaster
mitigation, realized in the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Public Assistance (PA),
still receives more resources. GAO found that most of the hazard mitigation funding obligated by
FEMA from FY2010 though FY2018 was for post-disaster mitigation. Of the approximately
$11.3 billion obligated during that period, 88% ($10 billion) was for post-disaster grants through
HMGP and PA. FEMA’s competitive pre-disaster grant programs, FMA and PDM, accounted for
about 12% ($1.3 billion) of the total.225
The 6% Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) set-aside has increased pre-
disaster mitigation funding significantly. However, post-disaster mitigation, awarded through
both HMGP and PA mitigation measures funded under Section 406 of the Stafford Act, still
receives far more resources.226 Because HMGP and PA mitigation funds are only available to
states following a major disaster declaration, they cannot be targeted at areas with greater risk of
future losses. As a result, disasters determine, to a great extent, where the federal government

222 See CRS Report R45336, Agency Delay: Congressional and Judicial Means to Expedite Agency Rulemaking, by
Kevin J. Hickey, p. 2 (citations omitted). For additional information and a legal overview of the methods by which
agencies may promulgate rules, see CRS Report R41546, A Brief Overview of Rulemaking and Judicial Review, by
Todd Garvey. Further, for additional information on how both individuals and entities that are affected by a federal
agency’s actions may be able to challenge that action in federal court, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10536, Judicial
Review of Actions Legally Committed to an Agency’s Discretion, by Daniel J. Sheffner.
223 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, Disaster Preparedness: DRRA
Implementation and FEMA Readiness, 116th Cong., 1st sess., May 22, 2019.
224 For additional information on the status of FEMA’s implementation of select DRRA provisions, including their
associated deadlines for implementation, see CRS Report R46774, The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA):
Implementation Update Tables for Select Provisions, coordinated by Elizabeth M. Webster.
225 GAO, Disaster Resilience: FEMA Should Take Additional Steps to Streamline Hazard Mitigation Grants and Assess
Program Effects, GAO-21-140, February 2, 2021, pp. 12-13, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-140.
226 CRS analysis of OpenFEMA data set on Hazard Mitigation Assistance Projects—v2, at https://www.fema.gov/
openfema-data-page/hazard-mitigation-assistance-projects-v2 (last accessed January 25, 2021).
Congressional Research Service

35

link to page 8 link to page 8 The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

invests in disaster resilience. This emphasis on post-disaster funding may not incentivize states
sufficiently to mitigate future risks prior to a disaster occurring.227
The funding differential between pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation could be further
widened if FEMA were to award HMGP funding for the COVID-19 disaster declarations
(described below).228 Additionally, as described in more detail in the following section, FEMA’s
proposed rulemaking under DRRA Section 1239 could reduce available funding for both pre- and
post-disaster mitigation.
Currently, because of the COVID-19 disaster declarations, the amount of funding set aside in the
Disaster Relief Fund for pre-disaster mitigation is significantly larger than FEMA’s initial
expectations when the BRIC program was established. FEMA’s initial estimates suggested that as
much as $3.7 billion could be provided for BRIC as a result of the COVID-19 major disaster
declarations.229 As of February 28, 2021, there was $1.055 billion set aside in the DRF for pre-
disaster mitigation.230
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Funding for the COVID-19 Disasters
HMGP funding is awarded as a formula grant triggered by a major disaster declaration or FMAG
declaration.231 Virtually every state, territory, and tribal government requested HMGP funding for
the COVID-19 disasters. These requests have been under review since March 2020, 232 despite
support from congressional offices to approve these requests,233 and are still under review by the
Biden Administration.234 According to FEMA, there are no other instances of a major disaster
declaration where HMGP funding was not awarded.235
Additional information on the BRIC program is included in the “Section 1234: National Public
Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation” section.
DRRA Section 1239 Rulemaking and the Adoption of Total Taxable Resources
As noted, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its lasting effects may affect some DRRA
provisions once they are implemented. For example, the rule revising PA cost of assistance
estimates required by DRRA Section 1239 proposes to “increase the per capita indicator to
account for increases in inflation ... and to adjust the individual States’ indicators by their Total
Taxable Resources (TTR).”236 FEMA began estimating how this new rule may affect SLTT

227 GAO, Disaster Resilience: FEMA Should Take Additional Steps to Streamline Hazard Mitigation Grants and Assess
Program Effects, GAO-21-140, February 2, 2021, p. 16, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-140.
228 FEMA, “COVID-19 Disaster Declarations,” https://www.fema.gov/disasters/coronavirus/disaster-declarations.
229 FEMA, Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Report as of December 31, 2020, Fiscal Year 2021 Report to Congress,
Washington, DC, January 8, 2021, p. 7, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_jan-2021-disaster-
relief-fund-report.pdf.
230 FEMA, Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Report as of February 28, 2021, Fiscal Year 2021 Report to Congress, p. 4,
March 11, 2021, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_mar-2021-disaster-relief-fund-report.pdf.
231 For additional information on HMGP and other FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance, see CRS Insight IN11187,
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance, by Diane P. Horn.
232 Emails from FEMA Congressional Affairs Staff, most recently March 29, 2021.
233 See, for example, Senator Ben Cardin, “Maryland Delegation Presses FEMA for Approval of Additional Federal
Disaster Assistance Resources to Support COVID-19 Recovery,” press release, June 29, 2020.
234 Emails from FEMA Congressional Affairs Staff, most recently March 29, 2021.
235 Email from FEMA Office of External Affairs staff, November 10, 2020.
236 FEMA, “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance,” 80720. Total Taxable Resources (TTR) is defined as “the
Congressional Research Service

36

link to page 23 The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

governments before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic response efforts and the
economic effects of the pandemic have negatively affected SLTT government finances,237 and
may affect their TTR. TTR data, however, lags two years behind the current calendar year.238
Depending on when the rule is finalized, the TTR data may or may not accurately reflect the
state’s ability to manage disaster response and recovery without federal assistance.
Additionally, the guidance for the recently updated rule for evaluating a governor’s request for IA
pursuant to a major disaster declaration accommodates this challenge by permitting states to
provide supplemental information explaining why TTR data may not accurately reflect the state’s
ability to respond to and recover from the disaster.239 It is unclear how this potential challenge
may be resolved for the PA rule.
Given these factors, Congress is likely to consider how the proposed higher PA thresholds may
affect the likelihood of a major disaster being declared, particularly for states with relatively high
reported income flows.240 Further, Congress may review the public meetings and comments on
the proposed rulemaking to consider the burdens placed on SLTT governments.
Additional information can be found in the “Section 1239: Cost of Assistance Estimates” section.
DRRA Section 1215 Management Cost Caps During the Pandemic
DRRA Section 1215 establishes caps on state and sub-state grantee reimbursements for
management costs.241 FEMA implemented this provision by issuing several grant program
guidance documents.242 Notably, these documents were issued before the COVID-19 pandemic

unduplicated sum of the income flows produced within a state (GSP) and the income flows received by its residents
(SPI) which a state can potentially tax. The distinction between flows, which a state can potentially tax, and the actual
fiscal choices made by states is critical. TTR says nothing about, nor does it consider, the actual fiscal choices made by
the states. In sum, TTR is a flow concept, a comprehensive measure of all the income flows a state can potentially tax”
(U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Treasury Methodology for Estimating Total Taxable Resources (TTR),” revised
November 2002, p. 2, https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economic-policy/Documents/nmpubsum.pdf).
237 For additional information on the nature and characteristics of state and local debt in light of the coronavirus disease
2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, see CRS In Focus IF11502, State and Local Government Debt and COVID-19, by Grant
A. Driessen; and CRS Insight IN11351, COVID-19 and State and Local Fiscal Conditions: Select Resources on
Current Status, Impacts, and Federal Relief, by Grant A. Driessen, Jared C. Nagel, and Maria Kreiser.
238 FEMA, Individual Assistance Declarations Factors Guidance, June 2019, p. 8, https://www.regulations.gov/docket?
D=FEMA-2014-0005.
239 FEMA, Individual Assistance Declarations Factors Guidance, June 2019, p. 8, https://www.regulations.gov/docket?
D=FEMA-2014-0005. The guidance states that “[t]he state’s request should explain the circumstances that explain why
TTR is inaccurate or misleading. It is possible that a State’s TTR data could be strong or trending upwards when in fact
recent events may have caused a significant drop in the State fiscal capacity that is not yet reflected. This significant
drop could be caused by events such as a previous disaster or a financial downturn.” and that “‘Other Factors’ is
included ... to provide the State the opportunity to raise and discuss any other additional factors related to the State’s
fiscal capacity such as burdens on a State treasury or a State’s inability to collect funds. For example, a hurricane may
cause extensive damage in a coastal area and negatively impact tourism, which in turn, will have a negative impact on
the tax base and fiscal capacity.”
240 See concerns raised in National Low Income Housing Coalition, “Proposed FEMA Rule Would Create Roadblocks
for Presidential Disaster Declarations,” December 22, 2020, https://nlihc.org/resource/proposed-fema-rule-would-
create-roadblocks-presidential-disaster-declarations; Thomas Frank, “FEMA Seeks to Slash Disaster Aid as Trump
Heads for Exit,” December 14, 2020, E&E News, https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063720573.
241 Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, P.L. 115-254.
242 FEMA, “Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Management Costs (Interim),” FEMA Policy FP 104-11-1, November
14, 2018, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_DRRA-1215-hazard-mitigation-grant-program-
management-costs-interim-policy.pdf; FEMA, “Public Assistance Management Costs, FEMA Recovery Policy FP 104-
11-2,” November 14, 2018, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/
Congressional Research Service

37

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

caused significant changes in state and local government disaster response activities. Establishing
caps on management cost reimbursements at both the state and the sub-grantee level potentially
reduces the flexibility for state and local governments to respond to unexpected disaster events.
For example, prior to the pandemic, FEMA issued guidance on the DRRA management cost
provisions that provided the following list of management activities that would be eligible for
reimbursement:
These activities may include, but are not limited to:
a. Preliminary Damage Assessments,
b. Meetings regarding the PA Program or overall PA damage claim,
c. Organizing PA damage sites into logical groups,
d. Preparing correspondence,
e. Site inspections,
f. Travel expenses,
g. Developing the detailed site-specific damage description,
h. Evaluating Section 406 hazard mitigation measures,
i. Preparing Small and Large Projects,
j. Reviewing PWs,
k. Collecting, copying, filing, or submitting documents to support a claim,
l. Requesting disbursement of PA funds,
m. Training.243
The list of activities detailed in this guidance reflects the types of grant management activities
that states and sub-grantees would undertake in administering PA grant projects. However,
administering FEMA funding provided for the pandemic presents unique management challenges
that likely increase the overall disaster grant management costs incurred by states and sub-
grantees. For example, in November 2020, FEMA issued a policy that states “work and
associated costs to support the distribution and administration of COVID-19 vaccines may be
eligible for PA.”244 Given that this is the first time PA funding has been used for nationwide
vaccine distribution, the associated management costs for such activities is unclear. Generally,
management costs are higher when implementing a new program compared to administering
awards under an existing program.
Although FEMA officials may broaden the list of eligible management activities to accommodate
unexpected expenses, the statutory cap on management costs prohibits the reimbursement of any
management costs in excess of the capped amount. Consequently, it is possible that unusual
management expenses associated with the pandemic may not be reimbursed. For example, there
were likely unforeseen administrative costs associated with state and local grant management

pa_management_costs_interim_policy.pdf; FEMA, “Public Assistance Management Costs Interim Policy,” fact sheet,
February 8, 2019, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/
pa_fact_sheet_management_costs_interim_policy.pdf; FEMA, “HMGP Management Costs Policy (Interim),”
frequently asked questions, February 28, 2020, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/hma_management-
cost-faq_3-23-2020.pdf.
243 FEMA, “Public Assistance Management Costs, FEMA Recovery Policy FP 104-11-2,” November 14, 2018, p. 4,
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/pa_management_costs_interim_policy.pdf.
244 FEMA, “COVID-19 Pandemic: Vaccination Planning Frequently Asked Questions,” November 19, 2020, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service

38

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

personnel administering grant projects while on mandatory telework. When combined with
traditional disaster assistance grant management costs, these additional costs may cause overall
management costs to exceed DRRA’s management cost caps.
Additionally, the pandemic has not necessitated large-scale repair and replacement construction
work, as could be needed following a natural disaster. Instead, it has required the purchase of
supplies, such as personal protective equipment (PPE), which are smaller by comparison, but may
require similar levels of administration and management costs. The administrative burden of
managing the pandemic costs therefore may exceed traditional natural disaster levels, while the
total dollar amount of grant awards may be lower under a pandemic disaster declaration. Given
that the allowable reimbursement for management costs is based on the total award amount, it is
possible that management costs to administer federal disaster assistance during a pandemic
exceed the allowable amount under the DRRA management cost percentage caps. Congress may
wish to consider whether waiver authority for the FEMA management cost caps would be
necessary for events such as a pandemic.
Concluding Observations
The full effects of recently issued guidance and policies and regulatory changes remain to be
determined. For example, the first application period for the new Building Resilient Infrastructure
and Communities Grant Program closed at the end of January 2021, and any state, territory, or
federally recognized tribe that had a major disaster declaration in the seven years prior to the
application start date was eligible to apply for a portion of BRIC’s $500 million—subject to the
program funding caps. The COVID-19 major disaster declarations alone ensured the eligibility of
all 50 states, 5 territories, the District of Columbia, and 1 federally recognized tribal government
in FY2020. It remains to be seen which entities will be awarded BRIC funding,245 and whether
the projects completed with the funding will address BRIC’s pre-disaster mitigation priorities.
Congress may continue overseeing the implementation of DRRA’s provisions through hearings
or other inquiries to ensure that the post-DRRA changes to disaster assistance programs and
policies fulfill congressional intent. Congress may also review the effectiveness and impacts of
FEMA’s DRRA-related regulations and policy guidance, including assessing the effects of
DRRA-related changes to federal assistance for past and future disasters, and other grant
programs. The implementation of some DRRA provisions may directly affect the implementation
of other provisions. For example, there could be a connection between FEMA’s Public Assistance
rulemaking and funding available for pre-disaster mitigation. FEMA has begun the rulemaking
process to revise the factors that are evaluated when determining whether to authorize a request
for a major disaster declaration authorizing PA. Although DRRA requires FEMA to give greater
consideration to severe local impacts and recent disasters when considering PA requests, the
rulemaking is focused on revising the PA cost of assistance estimates. FEMA proposed to increase
the cost of assistance thresholds that must be met in order for states and territories to receive PA
for permanent work. As a result, less costly disasters may not receive PA. It remains to be
determined whether this may, in fact, reduce the number of incidents that are determined to be
eligible for a major disaster declaration because the rule has not yet been issued and the President
retains discretion to approve such requests. Ultimately, however, if the number of declared major
disasters decreases, federal assistance for state, territorial, tribal, and local response and recovery

245 The Pre-Award Selection Notice is scheduled for June 2021. FEMA, “Notice of Funding Opportunity for Hazard
Mitigation Assistance Grants: Fiscal Year 2020 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities,” fact sheet, August
2020, p. 3, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/fema_bric_fy-2020_nofo_fact-sheet.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

39

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

could decline, which, in turn, could reduce funding for programs such as BRIC that receive a
percentage of the estimated aggregate amount of funding awarded.246 Thus, the effect of the PA
rulemaking could directly affect funding to support pre-disaster mitigation and resiliency.
Disaster preparedness, mitigation, prevention, protection, response, and recovery operate on a sort
of cyclical continuum,247 and some DRRA provisions, such as those just mentioned, are
interconnected in their potential effects. Issues of continuing congressional interest include the
interconnected effects of these provisions as they are implemented, and whether these regulatory
changes create outcomes that meet congressional intent. As novel disasters arise, Congress may
continue evaluating whether the Stafford Act and FEMA have the authority and capacity to
adequately support disaster response and recovery.

246 Stafford Act Sections 403, 406, 407, 408, 410, 416, and 428. See CRS Report R45819, The Disaster Recovery
Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): A Summary of Selected Statutory Provisions for further details. See also Andrew Olson,
“FEMA Proposed Rule Incorporates State Fiscal Capacity,” Federal Funds Information for States, Issue Brief 21-02,
January 29, 2021, pp. 6-7.
247 See, for example, the “Recovery Continuum” detailed in FEMA’s National Disaster Recovery Framework, 2nd ed.,
June 2016, figure 1, p. 5, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/
national_disaster_recovery_framework_2nd.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

40

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

Appendix A. History of FEMA Management Cost
Rate Calculations
FEMA has taken several approaches to calculating management cost reimbursements over time.
Prior to the enactment of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K, P.L. 106-390), FEMA
provided reimbursement for management costs on a sliding scale based upon grant program
guidance, which resulted in states and sub-grantees each receiving separate reimbursements for
PA projects and HMGP projects. DMA2K established a new section of the Stafford Act, Section
324, that expanded the program-level definition of management costs to encompass multiple
Stafford Act programs, and directed the President to establish management cost rates by
regulation.248 DMA2K defined management costs as including:
any indirect cost, any administrative expense, and any other expense not directly
chargeable to a specific project under a major disaster, emergency, or disaster preparedness
or mitigation activity or measure.249
In response to these statutory provisions, FEMA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2002
that proposed creating a new management cost grant program that awarded funds based on a flat
percentage rate.250 The proposed rate was 4.41% of the combined PA and HMGP total federal
share for management costs for major disasters declared after October 1, 2002.251 Notably,
management costs were defined in the proposed rule as those expenses “including any direct or
indirect cost, any administrative expense, and any other expense not directly chargeable to a
specific project for PA and HMGP.”252
The proposed rule would have changed the process for administering management costs to states
for Stafford Act programs by creating three silos for management costs:
 a state management cost silo funded by the new management cost grant program;
 a sub-grantee silo for PA project-specific administrative costs funded under the
PA program; and
 a sub-grantee silo for HMGP project-specific administrative costs.
The 4.41% flat rate for the proposed management cost grant program was intended to reimburse
costs to the state for administering PA and HMGP disaster assistance and, unlike the DRRA
provisions, there was not an additional breakout percentage for sub-grantees. It was left to the
states, or any grant recipient defined in program regulation as a “state,” to determine the
reimbursement for sub-grantees for management costs not directly chargeable to a specific project
funded by PA and HMGP. Comments on the proposed rule raised several concerns from states
and other stakeholders, including the following:
 rates were inadequate to provide effective program management;
 the proposed process did not align with Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular No. A-87 allowing for indirect costs;

248 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K, P.L. 106-390, 114 Stat. 1560).
249 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K, P.L. 106-390, 114 Stat. 1560).
250 FEMA, “Management Costs,” 67 Federal Register 56134, August 30, 2002.
251 FEMA, “Management Costs,” 67 Federal Register 56134, August 30, 2002.
252 FEMA, “Management Costs,” 67 Federal Register 56130, August 30, 2002.
Congressional Research Service

41

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

 the new grant process led to increased costs to grantees and sub-grantees;
 the combined rate for PA and HMGP reduced state flexibility to distribute
funding as needed; and
 the combined rate for grantee and sub-grantee could create conflict when
determining what percentage the state versus the sub-state level entity could
receive.253
In response to these concerns, FEMA’s Interim Final Rule in 2007 eliminated the proposed new
management cost grant program and, instead, set three management cost rates for select Stafford
Act programs:
 PA administrative costs for major disasters;
 HMGP administrative costs for major disasters; and
 PA administrative costs for emergency declarations.
For major disasters declared under the Stafford Act on or after November 13, 2007, the flat
percentage rate of the federal share of projected eligible program costs was 3.34% for PA and
4.89% for HMGP.254 For emergencies declared under the Stafford Act on or after November 13,
2007, the flat percentage rate of the federal share of projected eligible program costs was 3.90%.
This approach to management cost rates remained until October 2017, when FEMA issued a
recovery policy that established alternative procedures for measuring PA direct administrative
costs.
On October 25, 2017, FEMA attempted to reduce the administrative burden at the project level by
issuing a new voluntary, alternative recovery policy, Public Assistance Alternative Procedures for
Direct Administrative Costs (DAC). DAC’s voluntary alternative procedures allowed sub-
grantees to use a flat 4% of the full eligible project costs for all PA projects.255 The amount of
project costs was calculated prior to reductions for insurance proceeds, cost shares, or other
reductions. DAC also provided a closeout incentive of an additional 1% for projects that were
closed out within 90 days of the end of the period of performance. The additional funds could be
used for a variety of eligible activities selected by the sub-grantee, including for cost effective
hazard mitigation activities. The management cost provisions in DRRA differed from both the
DMA2K provisions and the DAC procedures.

253 FEMA, “Management Costs,” 72 Federal Register 57870-57871, October 11, 2007.
254 FEMA, “Management Costs,” 72 Federal Register 57877, October 11, 2007.
255 FEMA, “Recovery Policy: Public Assistance Alternative Procedures for Direct Administrative Costs,” October 25,
2017, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_PAAP-direct-admin-costs-policy-V1_10-25-2017.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

42

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

Appendix B. Delivery Sequence
Figure B-1. Disaster Assistance Sequence of Delivery

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Delivery of Post-Disaster Assistance to Individuals, Report to
Congress, June 22, 2020, p. 21.

Congressional Research Service

43

The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA): Select Implementation Updates

Author Information

Elizabeth M. Webster, Coordinator
Natalie Keegan
Analyst in Emergency Management and Disaster
Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency
Recovery
Management Policy

Bruce R. Lindsay, Coordinator
Erica A. Lee
Specialist in American National Government
Analyst in Emergency Management and Disaster

Recovery

Diane P. Horn
Anna E. Normand
Analyst in Flood Insurance and Emergency
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Management

Acknowledgments
Robert Jay Dilger, Senior Specialist in American National Government, William L. Painter, Specialist in
Homeland Security and Appropriations, Shawn Reese, Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Security Policy, Maeve P. Carey, Specialist in Government Organization and Management, Edward C. Liu,
Legislative Attorney, and Kevin J. Hickey, Legislative Attorney, provided editorial comments and
suggestions. Jared C. Nagel, Senior Research Librarian, provided research support.
Shelley Harlan, Editor, helped edit the report text and footnotes.
Lauren R. Stienstra, Federalism and Emergency Management Section Research Manager, provided
structural and editorial comments and suggestions.
CRS would like to thank Adam C. Shapiro, Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs Liaison, FEMA
Office of External Affairs, and all the program staff within the various offices of Response and Recovery
and Resilience for contributing information to this report.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46776 · VERSION 1 · NEW
44