The Applicant’s claimed materials and mutual aid costs are adequately documented and directly tied to the performance of eligible work. However, the costs for meals are ineligible because the Applicant did not satisfy FEMA’s policy criteria for the provision of meals. Therefore, this appeal is partially granted in the amount of $13,399.18.

The Applicant did not demonstrate that its claimed FAL OT costs were directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds that the Applicant has provided documentation that directly ties its claim for $208,959.06 in FAL overtime costs to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is granted. Appeal Letter SENT VIA EMAIL Manuel Laboy Governor's Authorized Representative Government of Puerto Rico P.O. Box 42001 San Juan, PR 00940-2001 Alejandro E. Salgado-Colón Administrator Puerto Rico Public Housing Administration P.O. Box 363188 San Juan, PR 00936-3188 Re: Second Appeal – Puerto Rico Public Housing Administration., PA ID: 000-U94BL-00, FEMA-4473-DR-PR, Grants Manager Project 144849 – Force Account Labor & Equipment Costs Dear Manuel Laboy and Alejandro E. Salgado-Colón: This is in response to the Central Office for Recovery, Reconstruction, and Resiliency’s (Recipient) letter dated July 21, 2023, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Puerto Rico Public Housing Administration (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s denial of funding in the amount of $208,959.06 for force account labor (FAL) costs associated with operating 34 emergency shelters. As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant has provided documentation that directly ties its claim for $208,959.06 in FAL overtime costs to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is granted. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Administrator to take appropriate action to implement this determination. Additionally, because the Applicant’s appeal related to a newly submitted vendor invoice is not ripe for a second appeal determination at this time, I am requesting FEMA Region 2 issue a determination adjudicating the substantive merits of the additional requested $370,331.41. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals. Sincerely, /S/ Robert Pesapane Division Director Public Assistance Division Enclosure cc: David Warrington Regional Administrator FEMA Region 2 Appeal Analysis Background Earthquakes and aftershocks caused severe damage in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico from December 28, 2019 through July 3, 2020.[1] The Puerto Rico Public Housing Administration (Applicant), a territorial agency, requested Public Assistance (PA) funding for costs associated with contract services it retained to manage 34 emergency shelters for disaster survivors. FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project 144849 to document the work performed and costs claimed. The Applicant provided procurement documents, including emergency services management contracts. FEMA notified the Applicant in September and October 2020 that it needed to work with FEMA on Essential Elements of Information (EEI) questions to continue project development. On July 22, 2021 FEMA notified the Applicant that it must upload the required documentation to the Project EEI section in Grants Portal by August 23, 2021. The Applicant took no action regarding the EEI. FEMA informed the Applicant by Determination Memorandum (DM) dated April 25, 2022 that the Applicant did not provide FEMA with adequate documentation to support its claim. First Appeal The Applicant appealed on June 24, 2022 for $1,123,041.27 and expanded the request to include force account labor (FAL) overtime costs in addition to the previously requested contract costs. The Applicant provided links to contractor invoices and proofs of payment totaling $914,082.21, and to employee timesheets and payroll data totaling $208,959.06. The Central Office for Recovery, Reconstruction and Resiliency (Recipient) submitted the appeal with its support on August 18, 2022. The Recipient noted the Applicant provided detailed Category B expenses which FEMA expected and which were required to support the claim. The Recipient recommended that the matter be remanded for review and eligibility determination. On January 25, 2023, FEMA issued a Request for Information (RFI), seeking timesheets and payroll records to support FAL overtime costs, descriptions of the work performed with samples of daily logs and/or activity reports, and the labor policy in effect during the disaster. The Applicant responded on February 23, 2023 with the predisaster labor policy and the previously provided FAL summary. On March 20, 2023, the FEMA Region 2 Regional Administrator partially granted the appeal, validating contract costs totaling $905,334.53,[2] but noting the Applicant did not substantiate its claimed FAL overtime costs by providing supporting documentation, such as timesheets, payroll records, or activity logs. Second Appeal The Applicant filed a second appeal, reiterating its request for $208,959.06 in FAL overtime costs.[3] The Applicant states that it included a link in its first appeal that contained the information FEMA requested on January 25, 2023, and that it intended, but then failed, to include the link in its RFI response. The Applicant provides a compressed file of documentation that it asserts substantiates the FAL overtime claim, including timesheets, daily logs, and activity reports. The Recipient transmitted the appeal to FEMA, expressing its support. Discussion FEMA is authorized to provide PA funding for costs related to emergency sheltering for disaster survivors, including eligible shelter services and shelter staff costs.[4] FAL overtime costs for budgeted employees performing emergency work may be eligible.[5] Documentation to support FAL costs includes a representative sample of timesheets and daily logs/activity reports.[6] To be eligible, costs must be directly tied to the performance of eligible work.[7] Here, the Applicant requests FAL overtime costs, stating that the employees performed work related to its emergency sheltering. On second appeal, the Applicant provides new documentation that includes timesheets, daily logs, and activity reports. These documents demonstrate that all the FAL costs are overtime and that the costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible work such as interviewing sheltered families to determine needs and processing housing applications for elderly survivors.[8] Conclusion

FEMA finds that the Applicant has neither demonstrated that its claimed FAL premium pay costs were provided under a predisaster labor policy that meets FEMA policy requirements nor established that the claimed costs were directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Appeal Letter SENT VIA EMAIL Jeff Smitherman, Director Alabama Emergency Management Agency 5898 County Road 41 Clanton, Alabama 35046 Mary Murray Moss, Director Mobile Infirmary Association 5 Mobile Infirmary Circle Mobile, Alabama 36607 Re: Second Appeal – Mobile Infirmary Association, PA ID 097-U1EYO-00 FEMA-4503-DR-AL, Grants Manager Project 711591, Force Account Labor & Equipment Costs Dear Jeff Smitherman and Mary Murray Moss: This is in response to Alabama Emergency Management Agency (Recipient) letter dated July 8, 2024, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Mobile Infirmary Association (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding in the amount of $7,424,944.86 for force account labor (FAL) premium pay costs. As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined the Applicant has neither demonstrated that its claimed FAL premium pay costs were provided under a predisaster labor policy that meets FEMA policy requirements nor established that the claimed costs were directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is denied. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals. Sincerely, /S/ Robert Pesapane Director, Public Assistance Enclosure cc: Robert D. Samaan Regional Administrator FEMA Region 4 Appeal Analysis Background The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a major disaster declaration for the state of Alabama on March 29, 2020, with an incident period from January 20, 2020, to May 11, 2023. The Mobile Infirmary Association (Applicant), a Private Nonprofit healthcare system that operates a medical center, requested Public Assistance (PA) reimbursement for force account labor (FAL) premium pay. It provided FAL premium pay for its employees that performed normal duties while exposed to varying levels of risk from COVID-19 between April 1, 2020, and March 31, 2022. Specifically, the Applicant provided its employees an increased rate of pay depending upon the employee’s COVID-19 “risk” level (e.g., employees in very high-risk positions and units like “frontline” workers received 1.5 times their normal rate of hourly pay for hours worked). FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project (GMP) 711591 to capture the Applicant’s claimed costs totaling $7,424,944.86. In support of its claim, the Applicant provided a sampling of pay stubs showing it provided premium pay, along with COVID-19 Care Premium spreadsheets showing personnel who worked in the various units. On October 24, 2023, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum denying the Applicant’s request for FAL premium pay. FEMA found that the Applicant’s claimed costs were not eligible as they were not included in a predisaster written labor policy. First Appeal The Applicant appealed FEMA’s denial, stating that due to the pandemic and staffing shortages, it provided premium pay to recognize frontline employees who were regularly exposed to COVID-19. The Applicant stated its predisaster pay policy outlined procedures for differential, incentive and reward pay for situations like COVID-19. In its appeal, the Applicant included a copy of its March 31, 2016 pay policy and two charts tracking COVID-19-related premium pay, in which it based the pay on levels of exposure to COVID-19 positive patients. The Alabama Emergency Management Agency (Recipient) forwarded the appeal to FEMA on December 19, 2023, requesting FEMA reconsider its denial of all costs. The FEMA Region 4 Regional Administrator denied the Applicant’s first appeal in a letter signed May 7, 2024. FEMA found that the Applicant’s claimed FAL premium pay was not authorized by a written predisaster labor policy as it did not specify the premium pay provided in this case; and did not provide non-discretionary criteria for when the Applicant activates the pay. Additionally, FEMA found the Applicant had not demonstrated the claimed costs were related to the performance of eligible emergency protective measures. Second Appeal In a letter dated July 3, 2024, the Applicant appealed FEMA’s denial. First, the Applicant states its predisaster written policy addressed premium pay because it discusses differential, incentive, and production pay compensation. Second, the Applicant states that it had non-discretionary criteria to activate differential, incentive, or reward pay because the policy noted those types of pay should be invoked to “address [s]ystem needs, interests, or competitive environments.”[1] Finally, the Applicant attaches previously submitted documentation along with decisions by the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, which it argues support its claim.[2] The Recipient submitted the appeal to FEMA on July 8, 2024, requesting reconsideration of the Applicant’s claim. Discussion Eligible emergency work includes emergency protective measures necessary to save lives and protect public health and safety.[3]In response to COVID-19, eligible emergency protective measures include emergency and inpatient clinical care for COVID-19 patients and certain labor costs associated with medical staff providing treatment to COVID-19 patients.[4]FEMA determines the eligibility of overtime, premium pay, and compensatory time costs based on the Applicant’s predisaster written labor policy, provided the policy: (1) does not include a contingency clause that payment is subject to Federal funding; (2) is applied uniformly regardless of a Presidential declaration; and (3) has set non-discretionary criteria for when the Applicant activates various pay types.[5] To be eligible, costs must be directly tied to the performance of eligible work.[6] It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide documentation to substantiate its claim as eligible and to clearly explain how those records support its appeal.[7] In this case, the Applicant provided premium pay to its employees depending on their level of exposure risk to COVID-19 patients. The predisaster pay policy, however, only provides a general description for all forms of compensation included in its policy such as base pay, incentive/production pay, call pay programs, differential, holiday pay, employee benefits and severance. It does not provide specificity on how or when differential or incentive/production pay applied. In contrast to prior second appeal decisions that have found criteria were non-discretionary when automatically triggered based on certain specific circumstances occurring,[8] the Applicant’s predisaster pay policy discussed invoking certain pay types based on the ambiguous language of “[s]ystem needs, interests, or competitive environments,”[9] which provides discretion to the Applicant on when to activate various pay types. Therefore, the Applicant has not demonstrated its predisaster written labor has non-discretionary criteria for when the Applicant activates various pay types.[10] Additionally, the Applicant states it elected to provide premium pay to recognize frontline employees who were regularly exposed to COVID-19. However, the documentation does not demonstrate that employees were conducting eligible emergency protective measures. For example, in the COVID Care Premium Summary spreadsheet submitted with the project, some employees are coded as being within the Emergency Department. This identifies where in the organization they work but does not provide information as to what specifically the personnel were doing in that department, nor does it tie those employees to specifically eligible activities such as providing treatment to COVID-19 patients. Although the Applicant asserts the personnel were involved with COVID-19 care, the documentation does not substantiate that the claimed costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible work in response to COVID-19. Conclusion

FEMA finds that the Applicant has neither demonstrated that its claimed FAL SOE incentive pay costs were provided under a predisaster labor policy that meets FEMA policy requirements nor established that the claimed costs were directly tied to the performance or eligible work. Appeal Letter SENT VIA EMAIL Jeff Smitherman, Director Alabama Emergency Management Agency 5898 County Road 41 Clanton, Alabama 35046 Mary Murray Moss, Director Mobile Infirmary Association 5 Mobile Infirmary Circle Mobile, Alabama 36607 Re: Second Appeal – Mobile Infirmary Association, PA ID 097-U1EYO-00 FEMA-4503-DR-AL, Grants Manager Project 711594, Force Account Labor & Equipment Costs Dear Jeff Smitherman and Mary Murray Moss: This is in response to Alabama Emergency Management Agency’s (Recipient) letter dated July 8, 2024, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Mobile Infirmary Association (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding in the amount of $731,758.00 for force account labor (FAL) State of Emergency (SOE) incentive pay costs. As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined the Applicant has neither demonstrated that its claimed FAL premium pay costs were provided under a predisaster labor policy that meets FEMA policy requirements nor established that the claimed costs were directly tied to the performance or eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is denied. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals. Sincerely, /S/ Robert M. Pesapane Director, Public Assistance Enclosure cc: Robert D. Samaan Regional Administrator FEMA Region 4 Appeal Analysis Background The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a major disaster declaration for the state of Alabama on March 29, 2020, with an incident period from January 20, 2020, to May 11, 2023. The Mobile Infirmary Association (Applicant), a Private Nonprofit healthcare system that operates a medical center, requested Public Assistance (PA) reimbursement for force account labor (FAL) State of Emergency (SOE) incentive pay. It provided FAL SOE incentive pay for its employees that performed normal duties while exposed to varying levels of risk from COVID-19 between March 27, 2020, and June 30, 2022. Specifically, the Applicant provided its employees an increased rate of pay depending upon the employee’s COVID-19 “risk” level (e.g., employees in very high-risk positions and units like “frontline” workers received 1.5 times their normal rate of hourly pay for hours worked). FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project (GMP) 711594 to capture Applicant’s claimed costs totaling $731,758.00. In support of its claim, the Applicant provided a sampling of pay stubs showing it provided SOE incentive pay, along with SOE and COVID care spreadsheets showing personnel who worked in the various units. On December 19, 2023, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum, denying the Applicant’s request for FAL SOE incentive pay. FEMA found that the Applicant’s claimed costs were not eligible as they were not included in a predisaster written labor policy. First Appeal The Applicant appealed FEMA’s denial, stating that due to the pandemic and staffing shortages, it provided SOE incentive pay to recognize frontline employees who were regularly exposed to COVID-19. The Applicant stated its predisaster pay policy outlined procedures for differential, incentive, and reward pay for situations like COVID-19. In its appeal, the Applicant included a copy of its March 31, 2016 pay policy and two charts tracking COVID-19-related premium pay, in which it based the pay on levels of exposure to COVID-19 positive patients. The Alabama Emergency Management Agency (Recipient) forwarded the appeal to FEMA on December 19, 2023, requesting FEMA reconsider its denial of all costs. The FEMA Region 4 Regional Administrator denied the Applicant’s first appeal in a letter signed May 7, 2024. FEMA found that the Applicant’s claimed FAL SOE incentive pay was not authorized by a written predisaster labor policy as it did not specify the premium pay provided in this case; and did not provide non-discretionary criteria for when the Applicant activates the pay. Additionally, FEMA found the Applicant had not demonstrated the claimed costs were related to the performance of eligible emergency protective measures. Second Appeal In a letter dated July 5, 2024, the Applicant appealed FEMA’s denial. First, the Applicant states its predisaster written policy addressed SOE incentive pay because it discusses differential, incentive, and production pay compensation. Second, the Applicant states that it had non-discretionary criteria to activate differential, incentive, or reward pay because the policy noted those types of pay should be invoked to “address [s]ystem needs, interests, or competitive environments.”[1] Finally, the Applicant attaches previously submitted documentation along with decisions by the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, which it argues support its claim.[2] The Recipient submitted the appeal to FEMA on July 8, 2024, requesting reconsideration of the Applicant’s claim. Discussion Eligible emergency work includes emergency protective measures necessary to save lives and protect public health and safety.[3]In response to COVID-19, eligible emergency protective measures include emergency and inpatient clinical care for COVID-19 patients and certain labor costs associated with medical staff providing treatment to COVID-19 patients.[4]FEMA determines the eligibility of overtime, premium pay, and compensatory time costs based on the Applicant’s predisaster written labor policy, provided the policy: (1) does not include a contingency clause that payment is subject to Federal funding; (2) is applied uniformly regardless of a Presidential declaration; and (3) has set non-discretionary criteria for when the Applicant activates various pay types.[5] To be eligible, costs must be directly tied to the performance of eligible work.[6] It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide documentation to substantiate its claim as eligible and to clearly explain how those records support its appeal.[7] In this case, the Applicant provided SOE incentive pay to its employees depending on their level of exposure risk to COVID-19 patients. The predisaster pay policy, however, only provides a general description for all forms of compensation included in its policy such as base pay, incentive/production pay, call pay programs, differential, holiday pay, employee benefits and severance. It does not provide specificity on how or when differential or incentive/production pay applied. In contrast to prior second appeal decisions that have found criteria were non-discretionary when automatically triggered based on certain specific circumstances occurring,[8] the Applicant’s predisaster pay policy discussed invoking certain pay types based on the ambiguous language of “[s]ystem needs, interests, or competitive environments,”[9] which provides discretion to the Applicant on when to activate various pay types. Therefore, the Applicant has not demonstrated its predisaster written labor has non-discretionary criteria for when the Applicant activates various pay types.[10] Additionally, the Applicant states it elected to provide SOE incentive pay to recognize frontline employees who were regularly exposed to COVID-19. However, the documentation does not demonstrate that employees were conducting eligible emergency protective measures. For example, in the COVID Care Premium Summary spreadsheet submitted with the project, some employees are coded as being within the Emergency Department. This identifies where in the organization they work, but does not provide information as to what specifically the personnel were doing in that department, nor does it tie those employees to specifically eligible activities such as providing treatment to COVID-19 patients. Although the Applicant asserts the personnel were involved with COVID-19 care, the documentation does not substantiate that the claimed costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible work in response to COVID-19. Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated its FAL straight-time and fringe benefits’ costs for emergency work were associated with eligible unbudgeted screener employees. Therefore, the appeal is denied.

FEMA finds that the Applicant did not use the pre-positioned pump equipment to perform eligible emergency work. The appeal is denied. Appeal Letter John Benson Mark Bousselot Director Public Works Director Iowa Department of Homeland Security Town Fort Madison and Emergency Management 811 Avenue E 7900 Hickman Road, Suite 500 Fort Madison, Iowa 52627 Windsor Heights, Iowa 50324 Re: Second Appeal – City of Fort Madison, PA ID: 111-28605-00, FEMA-4732-DR-IA, Grants Manager Project 736147, Force Account Labor & Equipment Costs Dear John Benson and Mark Bousselot: This is in response to the Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management’s (Recipient) letter dated December 20, 2024, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Fort Madison (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $50,740.80 for costs associated with pump equipment placed in preparation for potential flooding. As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant did not use the pre-positioned pump equipment to perform eligible emergency work. The appeal is denied. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals. Sincerely, /S/ Robert M. Pesapane Director, Public Assistance Enclosure cc: Catherine Sanders Acting Regional Administrator FEMA Region 7 Appeal Analysis Background Severe storms and flooding caused extensive damage throughout the State of Iowa between April 24 and May 13, 2023. The City of Fort Madison (Applicant) requested reimbursement under FEMA’s Public Assistance (PA) program for costs associated with pump equipment placed in preparation for potential flooding. FEMA wrote Grants Manager Project (GMP) 736147 for $50,740.80, the cost of pumping equipment readied to address potential flooding. FEMA issued a Request for Information (RFI) asking the Applicant to provide the specific dates work was performed using the pumps. The Applicant responded stating equipment was dedicated to emergency protective measures for 1,320 hours between April 24 and June 19, 2023. FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum on March 12, 2024. FEMA stated the claimed standby time was not eligible because FEMA funds pre-positioned resources or applies equipment rates to the time an applicant actually operates equipment in the performance of eligible emergency work. First Appeal In a letter dated April 1, 2024, the Applicant submitted an appeal for $50,740.80. The Applicant explained the pump is a huge trailer-mounted pump that must be pre-positioned and surrounded by sandbags and that it was placed as an emergency protective measure per Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 206.225(a). The Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (Recipient) transmitted the Applicant’s first appeal with a letter of support dated May 24, 2024. The Recipient argued the Applicant’s pre-positioning of the pump to be used as needed in response to the flood threat meets the definition of an emergency protective measure and was reasonable and prudent. The Recipient recommended that FEMA consider allowing reimbursement for standby or deployment time of pre-positioned resources at an acceptable rate. The FEMA Region 7 Regional Administrator denied the appeal in a letter dated August 21, 2024. FEMA found that standby time associated with the pump equipment was not an eligible emergency protective measure and FEMA only applies equipment rates to the time the Applicant operates equipment. Second Appeal The Applicant’s second appeal, dated October 15, 2024, is for a revised amount of $11,563.20 based on the rate for pre-positioned equipment from the Iowa Department of Transportation Construction Manual. The Applicant argues the costs at issue are not standby costs but rather costs for a pump that was used as an eligible pre-positioned resource/emergency protective measure and allowable under the regulation. The Recipient’s transmittal, dated December 20, 2024, supports the second appeal. Discussion FEMA is authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures to save lives and protect public health and safety, as well as threats of significant additional damage to improved property.[1] For emergency protective measures to be eligible, the applicant is responsible for showing the work is required due to an immediate threat resulting from the declared incident.[2] FEMA may provide PA funding for the use of applicant-owned equipment based on hourly rates, however, FEMA only applies equipment rates to the time the applicant is actually operating equipment.[3] Costs related to prepositioning resources for a disaster are eligible if the resources are used in the performance of eligible emergency work.[4] Costs for time in reserve are ineligible unless the equipment operator uses the equipment intermittently for more than half of the working hours for a given day.[5] Here, the Applicant pre-positioned pump equipment in preparation for potential flooding; however, the equipment was not actively used during the disaster. The Applicant acknowledges that the pump was not used during the disaster but argues the pump equipment was pre-positioned as an emergency protective measure in case there was a need for it.[6] Nonetheless, the pump equipment was not used to perform eligible emergency work, even intermittently. Therefore, the claimed costs are ineligible. Conclusion

The Applicant did not demonstrate that the denied force account labor costs are directly related to the performance of eligible emergency work. Therefore, the appeal is denied.

[1] The President issued a major disaster declaration on February 19, 2021. [2] Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide, FP 104-009-2, at 71 (June 1, 2020) [hereinafter PAPPG]. [3] Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act § 403(a), Title 42 United States Code § 5170b(a) (2018); Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 C.F.R.) § 206.225(a) (2020). [4] PAPPG, at 69. The PAPPG sets forth certain requirements that an applicant’s predisaster labor policy must meet, but as those are not at issue in this appeal, they are not addressed in this decision. [5] 44 C.F.R. § 206.228(a)(2)(iii) (stating that the straight-time or regular-time salaries and benefits of a recipient’s or applicant’s permanent employee personnel are not eligible in calculating the cost of eligible emergency protective measures, except for those costs associated with state evacuation and sheltering); PAPPG, at 69-70. [6] PAPPG, at 71. [7] Cf. FEMA Second Appeal Analysis, Broward Cnty. School Dist., FEMA-4283-DR-FL, at 2 (Oct. 11, 2019) (approving extraordinary costs for employees placed on administrative leave and called back to perform eligible emergency work where employee timesheets contained supervisors’ certification that the employees were called in by the supervisor to perform essential recovery related tasks or services during the period of the emergency response, and that eligibility for this extraordinary pay was limited to employees who were directed to return to work in order to perform essential tasks/services and was authorized by the responsible administrator.)

FEMA finds that the Applicant has demonstrated that $21,438.53 for the fringe benefits associated with the additional labor costs approved on first appeal are eligible for PA funding. The remaining costs are denied because the Applicant did not substantiate its request as eligible. Therefore, this appeal is partially granted.

FEMA finds the Applicant has not demonstrated its FAL premium/hazard pay costs are associated with a predisaster written labor policy or directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds the Applicant has not demonstrated that its FAL crisis payments were provided in accordance with a predisaster written labor policy that meets FEMA policy requirements. In addition, FEMA finds the Applicant has not provided documentation that demonstrates the FAL crisis payments are directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency work. Therefore, this appeal is denied. Appeal Letter SENT VIA EMAIL Rayana Gonzalez Deputy Commissioner for Disaster Recovery Programs, Alternate Governor’s Authorized Representative New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services 1220 Washington Avenue Building 7A, Floor 4 Albany, New York 12242 Nicholas Comerford Supervisor - Claims Management Northwell Health Inc. 1111 Marcus Ave, Ste LL26 (Attn: Risk Mgmnt.) New Hyde Park, New York 11042-1069 Re: Second Appeal – Northwell Health Inc., PA ID: 059-UY8YE-00, FEMA-4480-DR-NY, Grants Manager Project (GMP) 675928, Force Account Labor & Equipment Costs, Immediate Threat Dear Rayana Gonzalez and Nicholas Comerford: This is in response to the New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services’ (Recipient) letter dated July 22, 2024, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Northwell Health Inc. (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding in the amount of $134,878,167.39 for force account labor crisis payments (FAL crisis payments) awarded to its employees. As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant has not demonstrated that its FAL crisis payments were provided in accordance with a predisaster written labor policy that meets FEMA policy requirements or provided documentation that demonstrates the FAL crisis payments are directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency work. Therefore, this appeal is denied. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals. Sincerely, /S/ Robert M. Pesapane Director, Public Assistance Enclosure cc: David S. Warrington Regional Administrator FEMA Region 2 Appeal Analysis Background The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a major disaster declaration for the state of New York on March 20, 2020, with an incident period of January 20, 2020, through May 11, 2023. On August 15, 2022, Northwell Health, Inc. (Applicant), a Private Nonprofit organization that operates more than 20 hospitals throughout the state of New York, requested Public Assistance (PA) reimbursement for $134,878,167.39 in force account labor (FAL) crisis payments it made to 56,000 employees who worked at the Applicant’s various hospital locations from March 8 through May 10, 2020. In support of its claim, the Applicant provided a copy of an April 19, 2020 email with a subject line of “your recognition award,” announcing the crisis payment program (COVID-19 Crisis Award Announcement).[1] The COVID-19 Crisis Award Announcement confirmed the Applicant would issue a lump sum payment and one week of paid time off/vacation.[2] The Applicant also provided Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) dated April 19, 2020, which stated the people eligible for recognition were those who worked during March 8 through May 10, 2020, and included team members who provided direct patient care in the Applicant’s hospitals and in post-acute settings, frontline team members who worked on-site or in post-acute settings where patients were seen, and team members in ambulatory and corporate shared services who went above and beyond in their role to provide support. In addition, the Applicant transmitted a project narrative and a spreadsheet listing the FAL crisis payments made to each employee. On September 13, 2023, FEMA denied the requested funding, finding that the Applicant did not provide a predisaster pay policy and that the payment of the FAL crisis payments (a type of premium pay) was discretionary. FEMA also found that because the Applicant did not provide details of what work the employees performed, the costs could not be tied to eligible emergency work. First Appeal In a letter dated November 13, 2023, the Applicant filed a first appeal, reiterating its request for $134,878,167.39 in FAL crisis payments.[3] First, the Applicant stated that the FAL crisis payments addressed the immediate threat of COVID-19 and reduced threats to public health by ensuring there was adequate staffing to care for COVID-19 patients. Second, the Applicant provided its predisaster pay policy with an effective date of 1999 but stated its pay policy in place before the disaster was not applicable to the FAL crisis payments, which it specifically created in response to COVID-19. Third, the Applicant explained that the FAL crisis payments were not discretionary. It stated that managers had to validate that the employee receiving the FAL crisis payment met the Applicant’s criteria for receiving the payment, specifically, that an employee must have been involved in the COVID-19 response effort between March 8 and May 10, 2020. The Applicant explained that most employees were involved in COVID-19 response activities during this time period as the hospital system had paused all non-essential activities. Fourth, the Applicant provided a list of some of the typical activities its employees were involved in, including expanding bed capacity, expanding morgue capacity, triaging patients, distributing personal protective equipment, relocating non-COVID patients, and procuring critical supplies. The Applicant submitted two New York State Executive Orders, information on its predisaster pay policy, including employee garnishments and wage assignments, mealtimes and rest periods, overtime, wage payments, shift differentials, and a staffing alert, copies of FEMA policies, and information on nurse shortages and healthcare employee retention initiatives. In a letter dated January 9, 2024, the New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (Recipient) transmitted the first appeal to FEMA with its support. On April 8, 2024, the FEMA Region 2 Regional Administrator denied the appeal, finding the Applicant’s crisis pay policy was created in response to COVID-19, rather than before the COVID-19 incident. Moreover, FEMA found the Applicant had not substantiated that its applicable pay policy was non-discretionary, citing language from the April 19, 2020 FAQ pertaining to non-union employees that stated “[b]ased on manager discretion, selected team members [were] eligible to receive a lump sum payment of $2,500[.00].”[4] Second Appeal On June 3, 2024, the Applicant submitted a second appeal, reiterating its previously raised arguments and disputing certain findings in the first appeal decision. The Applicant states it created the crisis payment program in response to COVID-19 to curb its healthcare worker attrition rate, noting its employees were performing a significant volume of COVID-19 work from March 8 through May 10, 2020. The Applicant states that none of the COVID-19 responses were usual and customary and that if FEMA applied the approach that written policies had to be in place prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, then most of the nation’s COVID-19 expenses would not have been deemed eligible. The Applicant then addressed FEMA’s prior finding regarding the non-discretionary nature of the crisis payments, stating that the FAQ language “based on manager discretion” was not created with federal nomenclature in mind, and a more accurate wording that reflects what occurred is “based on manager validation.” The Applicant states that “[t]he program criteria were simple, each employee engaged in COVID-19 related work during the first wave of the pandemic, March 8, 2020, through May 10, 2020, received a $2,500[.00] disbursement (prorated based on hours worked, such as for a part-time employee).”[5] Lastly, the Applicant states that almost 100 percent of its employees’ efforts during this period were related to COVID-19 such as patient care, setting up expanded capacity efforts, and re-directing non-COVID-19 patients. On July 22, 2024, the Recipient transmitted the appeal with its support. Discussion FEMA is authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures to save lives and protect public health and safety.[6] FEMA determines the eligibility of overtime, premium pay, and compensatory time costs based on the Applicant’s predisaster written labor policy, provided the policy: (1) does not include a contingency clause that payment is subject to Federal funding; (2) is applied uniformly regardless of a Presidential declaration; and (3) has set non-discretionary criteria for when the applicant activates various pay types.[7] To be eligible, costs must be directly tied to the performance of eligible work and adequately documented.[8] It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide documentation to substantiate its claim as eligible and to clearly explain how those records support its appeal.[9] Here, the Applicant requests reimbursement for FAL crisis payments it made to employees who worked during March 8 through May 10, 2020. However, the Applicant’s predisaster pay policy, with an effective date of 1999, does not specifically mention or provide for crisis payments. Instead, the Applicant acknowledges that it instituted the crisis payments specifically in response to COVID-19; the COVID-19 Crisis Award Announcement was dated April 19, 2020, months after the start of COVID-19’s incident period. Therefore, the Applicant did not issue the FAL crisis payments in accordance with a predisaster written labor policy.[10] Notwithstanding the above, the Applicant has also not demonstrated that these payments were non-discretionary and uniformly applied as FEMA policy requires. The Applicant’s COVID-19 Crisis Award Announcement stated that “[b]ased on manager discretion, selected team members are eligible to receive a lump sum payment of $2,500[.00].”[11] While the Applicant asserts in its second appeal letter that the phrase “based on manager discretion” means “based on manager validation,” the policy as written does not establish non-discretionary criteria for when the Applicant would activate the crisis payments at issue. Additionally, the Applicant acknowledges it instituted the crisis payments specifically to respond to this federally declared disaster; it therefore is not uniformly applied regardless of a Presidential declaration.[12] Additionally, the Applicant has not provided documentation that demonstrates the FAL crisis payments are directly tied to the performance of eligible work. For example, the April 19, 2020 FAQ pertaining to non-union team members states that employees eligible for recognition (i.e., payments) are “[t]eam members providing direct patient care in our hospitals and in post-acute settings between March 8 and May 10 (i.e., the COVID recognition period), and team members in ambulatory and corporate shared services who went above and beyond in their role to provide support during this COVID recognition period.”[13] The plain language of the FAQ shows that employees who may not have been engaged in COVID-19 tasks (i.e. direct patient care unrelated to COVID-19 and team members in ambulatory and corporate shared services) were also eligible to receive the crisis payments. Although the Applicant states the employees who received crisis payments were engaged COVID-19 activities, the Applicant does not provide specific task descriptions to demonstrate the activities were in response to COVID-19 nor does it provide specific time sheets for specific employees. For instance, the project narrative that the Applicant previously provided simply lists, generally, the types of activities its employees performed, including purchasing additional PPE and medical supplies, and enhancing infection control protocols. Finally, FEMA notes that the Applicant’s COVID-19 Crisis Award Announcement characterized each FAL crisis payment as a “recognition award” for employees who worked during a specific time period of great need, rather than payments that were directly tied to the performance of specific eligible emergency work. Conclusion

FEMA finds the Applicant did not demonstrate that its claimed OT FAL costs are eligible. Therefore, this appeal is denied in the amount of $128,238.32. Appeal Letter SENT VIA EMAIL Kevin Guthrie, Director Florida Division of Emergency Management 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 kevin.guthrie@em.myflorida.com; FDEM-PA-Appeals@em.myflorida.com Jane Thompson, Director of Finance Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District 100 Voorhis Street Fort Myers Beach, Florida 33932 jthompson@fmbfire.org Re: Second Appeal – Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District, PA ID: 071-11AC6-00, Grants Manager Project 183046 – Force Account Labor & Equipment Costs; Immediate Threat Dear Kevin Guthrie and Jane Thompson: This is in response to Florida Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) letter received March 1, 2023, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $128,238.32 for overtime force account labor (OT FAL) costs incurred by employees it claims were performing emergency protective measures in response to the Coronavirus pandemic. As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant did not demonstrate that its claimed OT FAL costs are eligible. Therefore, this appeal is denied. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals. Sincerely, /S/ Tod Wells Deputy Director for Policy Public Assistance Division Enclosure cc: Gracia B. Szczech Regional Administrator FEMA Region 4 Appeal Analysis Background The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida on March 25, 2020, with an incident period beginning January 20, 2020, through May 11, 2023. The Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District (Applicant), a local government entity, requested reimbursement under FEMA’s Public Assistance (PA) program for costs associated with overtime (OT) force account labor (FAL) for backfilled firefighters and paramedics incurred from October 8, 2020 through April 16, 2021. The Applicant also requested reimbursement for costs associated with purchasing personal protective equipment and disinfecting supplies, among other items. FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project 183046 to document the Applicant’s request for $144,876.88.[1] FEMA transmitted a Request for Information (RFI) on October 5, 2021, seeking clarification on how the Applicant’s claimed OT FAL hours related to its response to an immediate threat from COVID-19, such as treating suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases. The Applicant responded, clarifying that the OT FAL was for employees backfilling for others who had contracted COVID-19 and entered mandatory quarantine per the Applicant’s internal policy.[2] The Applicant claimed it needed to incur these costs to maintain emergency services in the community. In a Determination Memorandum dated May 24, 2022, FEMA denied the $128,238.32 in claimed OT FAL. FEMA stated the employees who were quarantined were not performing eligible work. Therefore, the backfill employees FAL OT was not eligible. First Appeal The Applicant submitted an appeal dated July 20, 2022, for the $128,238.32 in OT FAL. The Applicant reiterated that its backfilled FAL costs were necessary to maintain staffing levels per the National Fire Protection Association standards and state statutes. Additionally, the Applicant claimed it followed Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidance that employees who present COVID-19 or flu-like symptoms shall not report to work. Furthermore, the Applicant claimed the FAL, who backfilled employees who were quarantined, performed eligible emergency protective measures. In support of its claim, the Applicant provided decontamination procedures, staffing policies, safety directives, and call logs.[3] The Florida Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) transmitted the Applicant’s appeal recommending approval on a letter dated September 12, 2022. The FEMA Region 4 Regional Administrator, in a letter dated November 3, 2022, denied the Applicant’s appeal. FEMA found that the Applicant had not substantiated that the FAL used to backfill quarantined employees performed eligible emergency work. FEMA also found that the call logs provided on first appeal did not identify which personnel were responding to the calls or explain how those calls were COVID-19-specific, rather than routine emergency responses. Second Appeal The Applicant filed a second appeal dated December 28, 2022, reiterating first appeal arguments that the claimed OT FAL is eligible under the policy for backfill employees and also because the costs are associated with work directly related to an immediate response to a suspected or confirmed COVID-19 positive individual. On March 1, 2022, the Recipient transmitted the second appeal, recommending approval. Discussion FEMA is authorized to provide PA funding for emergency protective measures to save lives and protect public health and safety.[4] For emergency protective measures to be eligible, the applicant is responsible for showing the work is required due to an immediate threat resulting from the declared incident.[5] The Applicant may need to temporarily replace an employee who is responding to the incident.[6] OT costs for the backfill employee are eligible even if the backfill employee is not performing eligible work, as long as the employee that they are replacing is performing eligible emergency work.[7] FEMA may also provide assistance for OT FAL costs associated with the performance of eligible emergency work under FEMA’s COVID-19 policies, including those related to medical care.[8] Eligible medical care may include emergency and inpatient treatment for patients both with confirmed and suspected cases of COVID-19 including: medical transport related to COVID-19; triage and medical necessary tests and diagnosis related to COVID-19; medically necessary treatment of COVID-19 patients.[9] To be eligible, costs must be directly tied to the performance of eligible work.[10] Here, the Applicant requested reimbursement for OT FAL hours incurred by employees who were replacing permanent budgeted employees quarantined due to COVID-19. Although the Applicant argues that these quarantined employees were performing emergency protective measures by quarantining in accordance with its policy, quarantining employees does not constitute an eligible emergency protective measure under FEMA’s COVID-19 policies.[11] Therefore, the OT FAL of these employees may not be considered eligible for reimbursement under provisions in FEMA policy applicable to backfill employees. The Applicant alternatively states that the FAL costs are eligible because the employees were responding to COVID-19-related calls, and therefore as it claims, performing eligible emergency protective measures. However, the documentation does not substantiate that the employees were performing eligible work in accordance with FEMA’s COVID-19 medical care policy, or any other applicable COVID-19 policy. For example, the documentation provided does not demonstrate that these employees provided medical treatment to or transportation of COVID-19 patients, with either confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19. Rather, the call logs provided show routine emergency calls.[12] Additionally, the documentation does not identify which employees responded to which calls. Accordingly, the Applicant has not substantiated that the OT FAL hours claimed were for employees that were performing emergency protective measures in response to an immediate threat from COVID-19. Conclusion

The Applicant has demonstrated that $8,181.05 of the overtime costs claimed are associated with eligible emergency work in response to COVID-19 and paid pursuant to a predisaster labor policy meeting FEMA’s criteria. However, the remaining costs were considered straight-time labor performed by budgeted employees and therefore ineligible for PA funding. Therefore, this appeal is partially granted for $8,181.05.

FEMA finds the Applicant has substantiated through documentation the Public Works Department costs were tied to eligible work. However, the documentation for the Police Department does not differentiate potentially eligible work from ineligible, routine work. Therefore, this appeal is partially granted for $190,728.70. Appeal Letter SENT VIA EMAIL W. Nim Kidd, MPA, CEM Chief, Texas Division of Emergency Management Vice Chancellor- The Texas A&M University System Chase Park III, 313 E. Anderson Lane Austin, TX 78752 Diana Lopez Fiscal Manager Office of Emergency Management City of San Antonio P.O. Box 23339 San Antonio, TX 78223 Re: Second Appeal – City of San Antonio, PA ID: 029-65000-00, FEMA-4586-DR-TX, Grants Manager Project 184059/Project Worksheet 821, Force Account Labor & Equipment Costs, Immediate Threat Dear W. Nim Kidd and Diana Lopez: This is in response to Texas Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) letter dated February 14, 2025, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of San Antonio (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $612,067.02 for Force Account Labor overtime for emergency work. As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined the Applicant has substantiated through documentation the Public Works Department costs were tied to eligible work. However, the documentation for the Police Department does not differentiate potentially eligible work from ineligible, routine work. Therefore, this appeal is partially granted for $190,728.70. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Administrator to take appropriate action to implement this determination. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals. Sincerely, /S/ Robert Pesapane Director, Public Assistance Enclosure cc: George A. Robinson Regional Administrator FEMA Region 6 Appeal Analysis Background Texas experienced severe winter storms from February 11 through February 21, 2021.[1] The City of San Antonio (Applicant) claimed $4,148,907.93 in FEMA Public Assistance (PA) funding, including $1,375,234.68 in Force Account Labor overtime for, among other items, the Police Department responding to calls, and assisting in water distribution, highway closures, and Emergency Operation Center (EOC) staffing, and for the Public Works Department assisting in water distribution during the incident.[2] FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project 184059 to document work and costs. From December 2021 through December 2022, FEMA made numerous requests to the Applicant for supporting documentation to substantiate its claimed costs.[3] FEMA issued a determination memorandum on October 5, 2023, granting $2,623,926.93 in costs and denying $1,524,981.00, including $1,375,234.68 in Force Account Labor overtime for lack of supporting documentation and ineligible work.[4] First Appeal On November 21, 2023, the Applicant appealed for $1,386,642.59, including $1,375,234.68 for Force Account Labor overtime, and provided additional documentation to support the costs.[5] In support of its appeal the Applicant provided timesheets, pay stubs, sign-in sheets and Force Account Labor spreadsheets sorted by department. The Texas Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) transmitted the appeal to FEMA on December 4, 2023, expressing its support. On March 7, 2024, FEMA sent the Applicant and Recipient a Request for Information (RFI) for additional documentation in support of the appeal, including overtime spreadsheets, revised to include regular time, and pay stubs for a missing pay period. FEMA asked for clarification regarding much of the documentation the Applicant had already submitted. Lastly, FEMA asked the Applicant to provide information related to locations of water distribution, how many personnel were at each site, and sign-in sheets to confirm meals. In response, the Applicant provided an explanation of its labor summary spreadsheets and supporting documentation, along with additional updated documentation.[6] On December 16, 2024, the FEMA Region 6 Regional Administrator denied costs for Force Account Labor overtime totaling $1,375,234.68, finding the Applicant did not demonstrate that the costs claimed were directly tied to eligible work in response to the declared incident, as the tasks were described in general terms without detail.[7] FEMA found that for the Applicant’s claimed costs for Police Department activities, such as traffic control and roadway closure, and for staff identified as EOC for the Ice Plan Event, the Applicant did not document that the work constituted eligible emergency protective measures rather than routine functions. Additionally, FEMA found that the Public Works Department’s spreadsheet showed overtime claimed for water distribution activities dated prior to the onset of freezing temperatures on February 12, 2021, and even small amounts of claimed overtime from prior to the February 11, 2021, start of the incident period. Therefore, the costs claimed were denied. Second Appeal On February 12, 2025, the Applicant filed a second appeal seeking $612,067.02 for Force Account Labor overtime for the Police and Public Works Departments.[8] The Applicant asserts that its police performed eligible emergency work by closing roadways, sidewalks, and entrance ramps throughout San Antonio during the winter storm as part of the Applicant’s Ice Plan, which required police to facilitate traffic flow, close roadways, and address situations on surface streets when weather conditions indicated freezing. The Applicant claims costs during the period of February 13 to February 17, 2021. The Applicant also claims costs for police that provided security and support to the Convention Center warming center and shelter hotels. The Applicant states its officers assisted with the food and water distribution sites and transported members of the public to stores and other facilities to receive basic needs, services, and follow-up medical treatment. Regarding the Public Works Department Force Account Labor overtime, the Applicant states staff assisted with unloading water, and preparing it to be inventoried and delivered throughout the distribution sites from February 17 to February 26, 2021. The Applicant, in support of its claim, provided revised labor spreadsheets. The Recipient transmitted the second appeal on February 18, 2025, to FEMA with its support. Discussion FEMA is authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures to save lives or to protect public health and safety.[9] For emergency protective measures to be eligible, an applicant is responsible for showing that work is required due to an immediate threat resulting from the declared incident.[10] For costs to be eligible, they must be directly tied to the performance of eligible work and adequately documented.[11] At a minimum, FEMA usually requires the “who, what, when, where, why, and how much” for each item claimed.[12] It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide documentation to substantiate its claim as eligible and to clearly explain how those records support its appeal.[13] With its second appeal, the Applicant provides a narrative explanation, along with updated excel spreadsheets for the Public Works and Police Departments. The narrative describes activities the Public Works Department conducted during the incident period, including distributing water to 13 community water sites throughout the city. Furthermore, the Applicant narrowed its Public Works Department request on second appeal to focus on water distribution activities conducted from February 17 to February 26, 2021. Additionally, the Applicant outlined activities conducted by the Police Department per the city’s Ice Plan, including traffic control of on/off ramps on major roadways, water distribution, and transportation of citizens to medical appointments. For the Public Works Department, the Applicant substantiated that this staff worked specifically on activities related to eligible water distribution during the incident period. Documentation included a description of water distribution activities conducted at the Convention Center and sign-in sheets identifying the employees working at that Convention Center location, which correspond to the force account labor spreadsheets for employees at those locations. Therefore, the work conducted by the Public Works Department and associated costs of $190,728.70 are eligible for PA funding. For the Police Department, however, the Applicant’s documentation does not differentiate between eligible emergency protective measures and routine operations. For example, the Police force account labor spreadsheet identifies all officers under the work category “ICE PLAN EVENT/Water & Food Distribution/Sheltering Support” but does not identify what specific tasks within that description the officers performed.[14] Additionally, the sign-in sheets for the officers either list routine tasks (e.g., Traffic Control) or do not list any tasks.[15] The documentation does not distinguish any potentially eligible work from ineligible work. Therefore, the $421,338.32 claimed for the Police Department is not eligible for PA funding. Conclusion

The Applicant has demonstrated that $13,583.37 of the $1,113,852.87 in labor costs claimed were incurred under a predisaster labor policy that meets FEMA requirements and are for overtime labor directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency work. Therefore, this appeal is partially granted.

The Applicant’s claimed overtime labor costs are not directly tied to eligible emergency protective measures in response to COVID-19. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed costs associated with the drive-thru lane and credit/debit card processing fees are directly tied to the performance of emergency protective measures. Additionally, the Applicant has neither demonstrated it paid hazard pay in accordance with a predisaster labor policy, nor that the hazard pay is directly tied to the performance of emergency protective measures. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant did not demonstrate that its claimed FAL OT costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds the Applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed FAL and FAE costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency protective measures. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The claimed premium pay costs were not provided under a labor policy that meets FEMA policy requirements. In addition, section 705(c) of the Stafford Act does not apply. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The claimed premium pay costs were not provided under a labor policy that meets FEMA policy requirements. In addition, section 705(c) of the Stafford Act does not apply. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant has demonstrated that $179,590.10 in costs associated with eligible emergency work is eligible for PA funding. Therefore, this appeal is partially granted. Appeal Letter SENT VIA EMAIL Kevin Guthrie Director Florida Division of Emergency Management 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee Florida, 32399 Stephanie Sejnoha Director, Public Safety Department Palm Beach County 20 S. Military Trail West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 Re: Second Appeal – Palm Beach County, PA ID: 099-99099-00, FEMA-4468-DR-FL, Grants Manager Project 122932/Project Worksheet 344 - Force Account Labor & Equipment, Immediate Threat Dear Kevin Guthrie and Stephanie Sejnoha: This is in response to the Florida Division of Emergency Management’s (Recipient) letter received July 3, 2023, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Palm Beach County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding in the amount of $241,035.75 for emergency work and costs claimed that were necessary to respond to the immediate threat. As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined the Applicant has demonstrated that $179,590.10 in costs associated with eligible emergency work is eligible for PA funding. Therefore, this appeal is partially granted. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Administrator to take appropriate action to implement this determination. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals. Sincerely, /S/ Robert Pesapane Director Public Assistance Division Enclosure cc: Robert D. Samaan Acting Regional Administrator FEMA Region 4 Appeal Analysis Background From August 28 through September 9, 2019, Hurricane Dorian caused strong winds, torrential rain and tidal surge which resulted in extensive damage throughout Coastal Florida.[1] Palm Beach County (Applicant) requested Public Assistance (PA) funding to reimburse costs for its force account labor (FAL), force account equipment (FAE), materials, and contractor services for various measures including storm preparation and evacuation; security at Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs), shelters, and detention facilities; traffic control and restoration of downed power lines and traffic lights; food and supplies for first responders; and movement of aircraft to secure locations. FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project (GMP) 122932 to document the work and costs claimed by the Applicant, which totaled $1,258,545.46. FEMA sent two Requests for Information (RFIs), on January 26, 2021, and March 18, 2021, to ascertain how FAL overtime (OT), FAE, and materials were used as part of eligible emergency protective measures.[2] The Applicant did not provide a response to the first RFI. The Applicant’s response to the second RFI clarified how the FAL was tabulated in the Applicant’s system and provided clarification on material purchases which were used for either law enforcement tasks or corrections personnel. FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum on July 23, 2021, granting $102,048.06 for certain FAL OT, FAE, materials, and contractor services.[3] These costs related to: installing hurricane shutters; providing security at EOCs and shelters, providing traffic patrol; assisting with the restoration of downed power lines and traffic lights; providing necessary food and supplies to first responders; and moving aircraft to secure locations. FEMA denied $1,156,497.40, finding that the documentation provided by the Applicant for the remaining FAL OT, FAE, and materials did not demonstrate this work was necessary to address an immediate threat and instead, costs were ineligible increased operating expenses. Additionally, FEMA found that the Applicant’s claimed costs for straight-time hours for budgeted employees performing their standard duties, were ineligible. Finally, FEMA determined the Applicant did not substantiate through documentation that costs for materials, including catered meals, and additional food purchases and supplies were eligible. First Appeal The Applicant filed a first appeal dated September 22, 2021, which stated that the amount at issue was $1,111,485.92. The Applicant clarified that it was not claiming straight-time hours for police officers. Instead, the Applicant stated that officers were required to work OT, and, per the Applicant’s pay policy, the OT was necessary to prevent inadequate staffing. Additionally, the Applicant noted that some costs it paid at a straight-time rate were associated with OT hours. The Applicant made similar arguments for its corrections officers and personnel. The Florida Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) forwarded the first appeal on November 19, 2021, with a letter in support. In a letter dated March 7, 2023, the FEMA Region 4 Regional Administrator partially granted the Applicant’s first appeal. FEMA found that out of 2,531 payroll line items provided by the Applicant in a spreadsheet, 28-line items for FAL OT were identified as being associated with eligible emergency protective measures totaling $8,923.10. These included costs related to staging emergency supplies, removing and replacing traffic lights/signals, and providing hanger security for helicopters and marine vessels. FEMA found the remaining $1,102,562.82 were ineligible as the Applicant had not substantiated that the work performed by the rest of its FAL lessened or eliminated an immediate threat; rather, it consisted of standard duties performed during straight-time hours and represented ineligible increased operating expenses. Second Appeal In a letter dated May 5, 2023, the Applicant filed a second appeal requesting $241,035.75 in PA funding.[4] The Applicant claims that for FAL OT FEMA previously found eligible, FEMA’s award of FAL costs was inadvertently calculated at a straight-time rate, and additionally omitted fringe benefits, including retirement and Social Security and Medicare matching. The Applicant provided what it stated was the correct hourly rate for those personnel. Additionally, the Applicant requests: funding for work that it states is similar to what FEMA previously approved for the project; costs for standby time for non-officer correctional personnel who performed asset staging tasks and supply distribution within the detention centers; FAE hours for patrol vehicles used by police who conducted eligible work; costs for materials (e.g., tools purchased for police officers such as antennas, flashlights and lightbars), that its states are similar to other purchases FEMA funded in this project; and meals for employees (e.g., a catered meal for its correctional officers and a large bulk food purchase from a large-scale retailer for correctional detention staff and police officers). The Applicant provided a spreadsheet of the costs at issue and descriptions of tasks conducted during the incident period. The Recipient forwarded the second appeal on July 3, 2023, with its support. Discussion Force Account Labor & Equipment FEMA is authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures to save lives and protect public health and safety.[5] To be eligible, costs must be directly tied to the performance of eligible work and adequately documented.[6] FAL OT for budgeted employees performing emergency work may be eligible based on the Applicant’s predisaster written labor policy, if certain criteria are met.[7] FEMA reimburses FAL based on actual hourly rates plus the cost of the employee’s actual fringe benefits.[8] Fringe benefits may include retirement, Social Security matching, and Medicare matching.[9] FEMA also provides PA funding for costs related to stand-by time incurred in preparation for and directly related to actions necessary to save lives and protect public health and safety.[10] FEMA may provide PA funding for the use of Applicant-owned equipment (FAE), based on hourly rates.[11] Increased costs of operating a facility or providing a service are generally not eligible, even when directly related to the incident.[12] First, the Applicant requests $85,043.34 in additional FAL OT costs related to work and costs previously found eligible. The Applicant claims FEMA previously approved its FAL OT at an incorrect rate and/or without eligible fringe benefits included. Here, the Applicant’s cost documentation provided on second appeal clearly explains how it calculated fringe benefits for each employee while its collective bargaining agreement substantiates that the additional time and one-half rates that were paid were consistent with its predisaster written labor policy for OT hours.[13] FEMA, therefore, approves the total requested funding of $85,043.34 in additional FAL OT costs associated with the work and costs previously approved, to account for the correct OT rates and eligible fringe benefits. Second, the Applicant requests $127,117.76 for FAL OT that FEMA previously found was not related to eligible emergency work. On second appeal, the Applicant has provided a summary spreadsheet detailing the work its FAL performed for those OT hours. The documentation shows that most of the work performed by police officers was required to address the immediate threats presented by the declared incident, including storm preparation, site security for certain disaster-distribution areas, EOC security, traffic control, and evacuation efforts.[14] Therefore, the Applicant has substantiated that $85,231.75 in law enforcement FAL OT was directly tied to eligible work. Conversely, the Applicant has not demonstrated the FAL OT claimed for the correctional officers and non-officer correctional personnel are directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency protective measures, rather than ineligible costs related to normal operations or increased operating costs.[15] For example, one entry for the FAL OT at issue noted that the correctional staff performed internal security checks of the correctional facility during the incident period.[16] Therefore, FEMA denies the FAL OT costs related to the correctional and non-correctional staff. Third, the Applicant requests $971.23 in standby time for two non-officer correctional personnel. However, the descriptions of work associated with this time includes monitoring the activities of inmates in multiple housing units and controlling the movement of staff, inmates, and visitors in and out of the housing units. Therefore, the Applicant has not demonstrated it incurred the standby time costs in preparation for and directly related to actions necessary to save lives and protect public health and safety resulting from the declared incident. Lastly, for the FAE claimed, the Applicant substantiated through its spreadsheet of costs and other documentation that police vehicles were utilized by police officers to provide security at the EOC and travel to improved property also for disaster-related security. Therefore, the FAE costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency work. The Applicant utilized FEMA’s hourly rate for police vehicles at the rate of $16.05 for 559 hours. FEMA approves the $8,971.95 additional FAE claimed by the Applicant. Immediate Threat FEMA is authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures to save lives and protect public health and safety.[17] For emergency protective measures to be eligible, the applicant is responsible for showing the work is required due to an immediate threat resulting from the declared incident.[18] FEMA may provide PA funding for the costs of supplies, including materials, if purchased and justifiably needed to effectively respond to and/or recover from the incident.[19] Under limited circumstances, the provision of food may be an eligible emergency protective measure.[20] Provision of meals, including beverages and meal supplies, for employees and volunteers engaged in eligible emergency work may be eligible provided the individuals are not receiving per diem, and (1) a qualifying labor policy or written agreement requires provision of meals; (2) conditions are sufficiently severe as to require employees to work abnormal, extended work hours without a reasonable amount of time to provide for their own meals; or (3) food or water is not reasonably available for employees to purchase.[21] FEMA only reimburses the cost of meals that are brought to the work location and purchased in a cost effective and reasonable manner, such as bulk meals.[22] To be eligible, costs must be directly tied to the performance of eligible work and adequately documented.[23] It is the Applicant’s responsibility to provide documentation to substantiate its claim as eligible, and to clearly explain how the documentation supports its appeal.[24] For the materials purchased by the Applicant, including items such as flashlights, power tools and lightbars, the documentation does not explain how these items were used during the incident or were needed to respond to the declared incident, rather than being used for normal law enforcement operations.[25] The available documentation only includes the receipt for the materials and a statement that the materials were used for disaster-related law enforcement operations. As the Applicant has not demonstrated the claimed material costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency work, the $3,252.41 claimed for materials purchased are ineligible for PA. Regarding the $15,679.06 in costs claimed for meals, these include different types of meals provided to different personnel. For the costs related to the corrections’ facilities, the meals were identified as bulk catered meals for correctional detention staff. However, the Applicant has not demonstrated these costs relate to meals provided for employees who were engaged in eligible emergency work. In contrast, meals provided to police officers who were performing emergency work of traffic control at broken traffic lights, relocating aircraft, EOC operations, and site security, are eligible. The Applicant has demonstrated the conditions were sufficiently severe as to require employees to work abnormal, extended work hours without a reasonable amount of time to provide for their own meals. The Applicant provides the purchase receipts and demonstrates through other documentation that the employees were not paid per diem, the bulk food purchases were made in a reasonable and cost-effective manner and were brought to their work location.[26] Therefore, $343.06 for police officers’ meals is eligible. Conclusion

The claimed premium pay costs were not provided under a labor policy that meets FEMA policy requirements. In addition, section 705(c) of the Stafford Act does not apply. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

Summary Paragraph In May 2010, severe storms impacted the City of Nashville. Resulting overland floodwaters from the Cumberland and the Stones rivers submerged the grounds at the K.R. Harrington water treatment facility. FEMA initially prepared PW 5504 to reimburse the Applicant for repairs at the K.R. Harrington facility. Separate from the repair work, the Applicant also submitted a HMP. FEMA determined that the Applicant’s HMP was not eligible due to the proposal not being cost effective to the project. On first appeal the Applicant asserts that FEMA erred in determining that the HMP was not cost effective, and that it was in fact cost effective on the basis of a favorable benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 15.86. The Applicant supported this with reference to FEMA Recovery Policy RP9526.1, Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Stafford Act) and asked that FEMA reconsider its determination. The FEMA Region IV Regional Administrator denied the appeal, concluding that the Applicant had both failed to follow FEMA policy in preparing the benefit cost analysis (BCA) and had not provided enough documentation to support recalculation of the BCR. With submission of the second appeal the Applicant provided detailed documentation supporting the preparation of its BCA and the resulting BCR. FEMA evaluated the documentation provided by the Applicant on second appeal and conducted a reanalysis of the BCA, finding that the Applicant’s HMP is cost effective. Authorities and Second Appeals 44 C.F.R. § 206.201(f). 44 C.F.R. § 206.226 (e). FEMA RP9526.1, Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Stafford Act). Headnotes Pursuant to FEMA RP9526.1 Section VI.A.2, Section 406 hazard mitigation work must be cost effective and reasonably performed as part of the work or measure which will reduce the potential for damage to a facility from a disaster event. According to FEMA RP9526.1, Section VII.B.3, cost effectiveness may be demonstrated through an acceptable BCA methodology, and the BCA will be based on a comparison of the total project cost to the total cost of the following projected benefits: (1) damage to the facility and its damaged contents, (2) emergency protective measures required as a result of that damage, (3) temporary facilities required due to the damage, (4) loss of function, (5) casualty (loss of life and injury), and (6) cost avoidance (damages avoided in the future due to mitigation measures). The Applicant submitted documentation to support its determinations for Item (4) loss of function as well as the event recurrence interval. The documentation provided by the Applicant sufficiently demonstrated that the hazard mitigation proposal is cost effective.

: The Town of Keene’s (Applicant) work to extend the east retaining wall of Gulf Brook (Facility) is ineligible for assistance because it did not restore predisaster design and the Applicant did not receive approval from FEMA prior to completion of the work. Similarly, the work is ineligible as a hazard mitigation measure because the work was completed prior to FEMA performing a review of the project for technical feasibility, environmental and historic preservation compliance, and cost effectiveness. Summary Paragraph In late summer of 2011, Hurricane Irene inundated the Town of Keene (Applicant) with heavy rains causing Gulf Brook to overflow its banks. The flooding caused the brook’s channel to shift course, and wash away retaining walls and support footings on both sides of the brook. FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 2380 to document the damage to the 120-foot long retaining wall on the east bank of the brook (Facility), and to a portion of the road above it. The estimated cost of repair was $180,750.00. The PW’s scope of work (SOW) did not identify any hazard mitigation opportunities. Subsequently, the Applicant received a grant from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) under the Emergency Watershed Program (EWP) to construct a 350-foot segment of new retaining wall 250 feet upstream from the original Facility. On December 19, 2012, the New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (Grantee) forwarded to FEMA a SOW change request from the Applicant to extend the Facility an additional 250 feet upstream to connect with the NRCS funded retaining wall. The Applicant also requested inclusion of the 40-foot long retaining wall on the west bank of the brook in the SOW. The Applicant’s engineering consultant estimated the project to cost $438,000.00. In a letter dated July 18, 2013, FEMA denied the request, concluding that extending the Facility beyond its original length of 120 feet constituted an improved project, which the Applicant would need to specifically request from FEMA. The Applicant appealed FEMA’s denial. In support of the Applicant’s appeal, the Grantee argued: (1) the original PW improperly omitted retaining wall repairs on the west bank of the brook; (2) best engineering practices required the extension of the Facility; and (3) the proposed change to the SOW was agreed upon by all parties in the field. The RA agreed PW 2380 omitted eligible work and partially granted the appeal with respect to the repairs for the west bank retaining wall. However, the RA denied the appeal with respect to extension of the Facility. The RA determined the extension of the east retaining wall was an unauthorized improved project and that the work was not necessary to restore the Facility to its predisaster design. The Applicant appealed the RA’s decision. The Grantee endorsed the appeal and argues: (1) the Facility is vulnerable to future flooding unless extended beyond its original length, and (2) FEMA’s denial is inconsistent with federal regulations regarding hazard mitigation and FEMA should approve the work in question as a hazard mitigation measure. Authorities and Second Appeals Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5172. 44 C.F.R. §§ 13.30(d)(1); 206.201(k), 206.203(d)(1), 206.226(e). PA Guide, at 79, 110, 111, 115, 125, 140. RP 9526.1, at 2, 3. Roseau Cty. Hwy. Dept., FEMA-1288-DR-MN, at 7. Headnotes Per 44 C.F.R. § 13.30(d)(1), prior approval is required whenever a revision of the SOW is anticipated. Pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.203(d)(1) and the PA Guide, FEMA must approve improved projects prior to construction when the project will result in significant changes to the pre-disaster configuration of the facility. Per RP 9526.1, FEMA must approve proposed hazard mitigation projects prior to funding. The Grantee previously requested a change in the SOW, which FEMA denied. The Applicant then completed work beyond the approved SOW. The administrative record does not demonstrate when the Applicant requested either an improved project or hazard mitigation prior to completion of the work. FEMA never approved an improved project or hazard mitigation.

Summary Paragraph Between June 1 and August 29, 2010, severe storms and flooding washed out the south embankment of the North Loup River, located in Blaine County (Applicant), for several hundred feet upstream and downstream of the Guggenmos Bridge. To return the river to its original channel, the Applicant built a 500 foot long spur dike along the bank of the river. FEMA prepared project worksheet (PW) 270, Version 0, for Category B emergency work. During review of the PW, FEMA determined the work to be ineligible for PA funding because it was for permanent construction that would not be removed. PW 270 was prepared for zero dollars. On December 2012, FEMA prepared PW 270, Version 1, to amend the scope of work to include deconstruction of the spur dike. The PW was obligated for $76,249.24. On July 3, 2013, the Applicant submitted its first appeal requesting FEMA prepare a Category C permanent work PW to fund the spur dike and Hazard Mitigation Proposal (HMP). On January 13, 2014, the FEMA Region VII Regional Administrator denied the first appeal, determining that: construction of the spur dike was not a result of the disaster; the river bank was an unmaintained natural feature; the spur dike did not exist prior to the disaster, and therefore it cannot be funded as permanent work; and FEMA was not afforded the opportunity to perform an environmental review of the project. On March 10, 2014, the Applicant submitted its second appeal, which reiterates concerns expressed in the first appeal and asserts that the facility is the river bank and construction of the spur dike was done on an emergency basis, but was intended to be permanent in nature. Authorities and Second Appeals Stafford Act §§ 316, 403, 406. 44 C.F.R. §§ 10.4(a), 206.201(b), 206.201(j), 206.223(a)(1). PA Guide, at 66, 71-74, 128-129. Headnotes 44 C.F.R. § 206.201(c) defines facility to mean any publicly or privately owned building, works, system, or equipment, built or manufactured, or an improved and maintained natural feature. The Applicant did not demonstrate that the river bank was an improved and maintained natural feature. 44 C.F.R. § 206.201(j) defines permanent work as “restorative work that must be performed through repairs or replacement, to restore an eligible facility on the basis of its predisaster design and current applicable standards.” The spur dike is not an eligible facility because it did not exist prior to the disaster. Stafford Act § 403(a)(3)(I) permits FEMA to provide essential assistance to reduce immediate threats to life, property, and public health and safety. Construction of a spur dike is not eligible emergency work because the measure was permanent, not temporary.

FEMA finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the box truck rental and FAL OT costs are associated with eligible emergency protective measures in response to COVID-19. Appeal Letter SENT VIA EMAIL Rayana Gonzales Deputy Commissioner for Disaster Recovery Programs New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services 1220 Washington Ave., Bldg. 7A, Floor 4 Albany, New York 12242 Daniel Appler Deputy Director Oneida County Department of Emergency Services 120 Base Road Oriskany, New York 13424 Re: Second Appeal – Oneida County, PA ID: 065-99065-00, FEMA-4480-DR-NY, Grants Manager Project 154610/Project Worksheet 2479, Immediate Threat Dear Rayana Gonzales and Daniel Appler: This is in response to the New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services’ (Recipient) letter dated September 13, 2024, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Oneida County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding in the amount of $30,819.26 for rented equipment and force account labor (FAL) overtime (OT) costs. As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the box truck rental and FAL OT costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency protective measures in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Therefore, this appeal is denied. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals. Sincerely, /S/ Robert M. Pesapane Director, Public Assistance Enclosure cc: David Warrington Regional Administrator FEMA Region 2 Appeal Analysis Background The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a major disaster declaration for New York State on March 20, 2020, with an incident period of January 1, 2020, to May 11, 2023. Relevant to this appeal, Oneida County (Applicant) requested Public Assistance (PA) funding for, among other things, a rented box truck, and force account labor (FAL) overtime (OT) costs incurred between March 13, 2020, and September 28, 2020.[1] FEMA created Grants Manager Project 154610 to capture the claimed costs and on June 11, 2021, issued a Request for Information asking the Applicant what work it performed with the rented box truck and FAL. The Applicant replied, explaining that it relocated essential staff to alternate work sites to facilitate social distancing and used the rented box truck and FAL to move office equipment to the alternate sites after one of its trucks broke down. The Applicant stated its FAL also installed directional signs, cleaned and disinfected equipment, and repaired a county-owned driveway for use as a COVID-19 testing site. On April 17, 2023, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum denying the box truck rental costs ($13,670.69) and FAL OT costs ($24,072.74), explaining that the costs were not tied to the performance of eligible emergency protective measures in response to COVID-19. First Appeal In a letter dated June 9, 2023, the Applicant submitted a first appeal requesting FEMA approve the box truck rental costs and a portion of the denied FAL OT costs ($17,148.57).[2] The Applicant stated that it performed the claimed work during the earliest days of the pandemic based upon COVID-19 related guidance issued by multiple entities.[3] The Applicant noted that the ordinary and necessary work of a county government is to provide a variety of critical and essential services to the public. The Applicant stated its office locations allowed for easy transmission of COVID-19 and could not accommodate social distancing. As such, the Applicant moved essential staff and their office equipment to alternate work sites, limited entry to the county office building, and started a staggered shift schedule so staff could continue to provide essential services while practicing social distancing. The Applicant reiterated the rented box truck was necessary to move office equipment of essential staff to alternate work sites after one of its trucks broke down. In addition, the Applicant asserted its FAL installed a temporary wind barrier outside the county office building’s main entrance to protect people awaiting entry to the building from harsh weather and opened and closed county buildings outside normal hours due to the staggered shift schedule. In a letter dated August 8, 2023, the New York State Homeland Security and Emergency Services (Recipient) transmitted the appeal to FEMA, expressing its support. On May 15, 2024, the FEMA Region 2 Regional Administrator denied $30,819.26 for the Applicant’s claimed costs for the box truck rental and FAL OT. FEMA explained that the box truck rental was not associated with any eligible emergency protective measures included under FEMA Policy 104-21-0003, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic: Safe Opening and Operation Work Eligible for Public Assistance (Interim), Version 2 (O&O Policy). FEMA added that the Applicant installed the wind barrier to protect people from bad weather, not from COVID-19, and noted that the staff providing building access were performing their normal duties, albeit on a different schedule. As such, FEMA found that the Applicant did not demonstrate that the box truck rental was an eligible emergency protective measure under the O&O Policy or that the work performed by the FAL reduced or eliminated an immediate threat from COVID-19; nor did it demonstrate that the costs were directly tied to the performance of eligible work under the O&O Policy. Second Appeal In a letter dated July 15, 2024, the Applicant submits a second appeal requesting $30,819.26 for box truck rental and FAL OT costs and reiterated its prior arguments. In support of the appeal, the Applicant submits a photograph of the county office building main entrance and cost summaries. The Applicant states it is home to the largest refugee center in New York State and notes that the O&O Policy focuses on “Equitable Pandemic Response and Recovery” to ensure underserved populations receive assistance. The Applicant asserts that denial of the FAL OT costs to install the wind barrier is inconsistent with the O&O Policy, which allows for the installation of temporary barriers, and which enabled FEMA to approve funding for certain material purchases in its initial determination. The Applicant states that social distancing in the county office building’s small elevator lobby forced people to line up outside, under the main entrance canopy, to await entry for appointments. In addition, the Applicant clarifies that due to the reduction in on-site personnel, the employees who opened and closed the buildings were not normally assigned to such work but took on these new unbudgeted duties for the duration of the pandemic resulting in FAL OT costs. On September 13, 2024, the New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services transmitted the second appeal to FEMA, expressing its support. Discussion FEMA is authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures to save lives and protect public health and safety.[4] For emergency protective measures to be eligible, the applicant is responsible for showing that the work is required due to an immediate threat resulting from the declared incident.[5] In response to COVID-19, FEMA may provide assistance to eligible PA applicants for measures implemented to reduce immediate threats to public health and safety, as well as certain specific, limited measures to facilitate the safe opening and operation of eligible facilities, including the acquisition and installation of temporary physical barriers, such as plexiglass barriers and screens/dividers, and signage to support social distancing.[6]To be eligible, costs must be directly tied to the performance of eligible work and adequately documented.[7] Here, the Applicant requests PA funding for rental of a box truck to move the office equipment of essential staff to alternate work sites after one of its box trucks broke down. However, the O&O Policy limits eligible emergency protective measures in response to the pandemic to specific categories, and moving office furniture to facilitate social distancing is not an eligible emergency protective measure under that policy, nor is the work associated with any eligible activity listed in FEMA Fact Sheet: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic: Eligible Emergency Protective Measures or FEMA Policy 104-009-19, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic: Work Eligible for Public Assistance (Interim), which were in effect when the Applicant incurred the costs.[8] Consequently, the claimed costs for the truck rental are not directly tied to the performance of eligible work in response to COVID-19. The Applicant is also requesting PA funding for FAL OT costs associated with installing a temporary wind barrier and opening and closing county buildings outside of normal hours due to an implemented staggered shift schedule. The Applicant asserts that FEMA should approve the FAL costs for installation of the wind barrier because the O&O Policy provides for the installation of temporary barriers. However, the Applicant has conversely stated it installed the wind barrier to protect the public against harsh weather while they awaited entry to the office building due to implemented social distancing measures. As such, the wind barrier did not address an immediate threat resulting from COVID-19 nor was it necessary to facilitate social distancing. Therefore, the wind barrier is not considered an eligible temporary barrier under FEMA’s COVID-19 policies and the FAL OT costs associated with its installation are not eligible.[9] Regarding the FAL OT costs claimed for staff opening and closing buildings outside of normal hours, the Applicant has not identified any eligible emergency work performed by its employees during those OT hours, and therefore it has not demonstrated that the costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency protective measures found in FEMA’s COVID-19 policies. Conclusion

The Applicant demonstrated that $5,239.00 in requested costs related to public health information and COVID-19 signage is directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency protective measures in response to COVID-19. However, costs for advertising its regular health services and non-COVID-19 signage are ineligible for PA reimbursement. Accordingly, the second appeal is partially granted in the amount of $5,239.00. Appeal Letter SENT VIA EMAIL Kevin Guthrie Director Florida Division of Emergency Management 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Philip Doyle Chief, Public Safety and Emergency Management Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare, Inc. 1300 Miccosukee Road Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Re: Second Appeal – Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare, Inc., PA ID: 073-UV3QG-00, FEMA-4486-DR-FL, Grants Manager Project (GMP) 678122/ Project Worksheet (PW) 1126, Immediate Threat Dear Kevin Guthrie and Philip Doyle: This is in response to Florida Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) letter dated November 2, 2024, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare, Inc. (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding in the amount of $207,593.00 for dissemination of information under the COVID-19 event. As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that $5,239.00 in requested costs related to public health information and COVID-19 signage is directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency protective measures in response to COVID-19. However, costs for advertising the Applicant’s regular health services and non-COVID-19 signage are ineligible for PA reimbursement. Accordingly, the second appeal is partially granted in the amount of $5,235.55. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Administrator to take appropriate action to implement this determination. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals. Sincerely, /S/ Robert Pesapane Director, Public Assistance Enclosure cc: Robert D. Samaan Regional Administrator FEMA Region 4 Appeal Analysis Background The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a major disaster declaration for the state of Florida on March 25, 2020, with an incident period of January 20, 2020, to May 11, 2023. Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare Inc. (Applicant), a private nonprofit entity that operates a healthcare system, sought Public Assistance (PA) funding for costs associated with its COVID-19 response activities, including $207,589.00 in communication costs for advertising, videos, and signage, incurred from March to December 2020. FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project 678122 to document the Applicant’s total claimed costs. FEMA sent multiple Requests for Information (RFI) to the Applicant about the communication costs.[1] The Applicant provided the following in response:[2] $200,468.00: This cost was related to the “TMH Avoidance Campaign” which used television, radio, and social media to assure the public that it was safe to seek medical treatment at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital because of its COVID-19 safety protocols. The Applicant provided links of the video campaign, showing patients in need of medical services, and promoting its regular non-COVID treatments. $1,400.00: This cost was to produce videos, in which Tallahassee leaders, including state legislators and city and county commissioners, advised the community to follow the direction of health department officials to stop the spread of COVID-19. $600.00: This cost was to advertise a COVID-19 drive-through testing site. $5,125.00: This cost was for printed materials and signage to promote practices that limited the spread of COVID-19 within its properties. Specifically, the signs informed visitors about masking guidance, social distancing, and COVID-19 screening practices. Other signs included messages such as: “Cancer Do Not Enter,” “Magnolia Drop Off,” “Patient Experience,” and “Presurgical Patients Only.” FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum on August 10, 2023, denying the $207,593.00 in communication costs.[3] FEMA found that these costs were not related to emergency protective measures and represented an increased operating cost of providing the Applicant’s routine services in a COVID-19 environment. First Appeal In an October 6, 2023 letter, the Applicant appealed the denied communication costs and stated that they addressed an immediate threat by disseminating public information on COVID-19 health and safety measures, encouraging the public to seek medical treatment during the pandemic, and promoting social distancing and the appropriate use of masks. The Florida Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) transmitted the Applicant’s appeal with a letter of support dated December 5, 2023. The FEMA Region 4 Regional Administrator denied the claimed communication costs on July 23, 2024. FEMA found that the Applicant did not communicate health and safety information or the availability of COVID-19 testing.[4] Second Appeal The Applicant submitted a second appeal on September 18, 2024, requesting $207,593.00 in communication costs, resubmitting the description of the costs, and stating that they were associated with communications of general health and safety information to the public.[5] The Applicant cites previous FEMA second appeal decisions where PA funding was granted for costs associated with public communications of general health and safety information under a COVID‑19 disaster declaration.[6] The Recipient transmitted the Applicant’s second appeal on November 2, 2024, recommending approval. Discussion Eligible emergency work includes emergency protective measures to save lives and protect public health and safety.[7] For emergency protective measures to be eligible, the applicant is responsible for showing the work is required due to an immediate threat resulting from the declared incident.[8] In response to COVID-19, eligible emergency protective measures may include communication of general health and safety information to the public, medical care in accordance with a COVID-19 specific policy, as well as certain specific, limited measures implemented to facilitate the safe opening and operation of eligible facilities, including signage to support social distancing.[9] Costs must be directly tied to the performance of eligible work and adequately documented.[10] On second appeal, the Applicant demonstrated that its video campaign with local and state government officials provided public health and safety information to stop the spread of COVID-19. Additionally, signage related to advertising a COVID-19 testing site, as well as printed materials and signage to disseminate COVID-19 related information within its properties, is eligible under the COVID-19 policies. In this case, the Applicant provided links to videos and copies of some of its signs along with a chart providing descriptions of other signs’ verbiage. Examples include “must wear a mask properly,” “social distancing elevator signs,” and “social distancing floor decals.” Eligible costs associated with the video campaign, advertising a COVID-19 testing site, and other materials and signage totals $5,239.00. Most of the requested costs, however, are associated with the Applicant’s “TMH Avoidance Campaign,” which the Applicant explains urged members of the public to seek routine and necessary medical treatment at its hospital during COVID-19 and informed the public about the COVID-19 safety protocols it had in place at its facility. Here, the campaign promoted the hospital’s regular medical services and did not provide the public with health and safety information regarding COVID-19. As such, $200,468.00 in associated costs are ineligible.[11] Similarly, certain printed materials and signage are unrelated to COVID-19. For example, two signs read “Cancer Do Not Enter” and “Presurgical Patients Only.” Other signs have vague descriptions (for example, “Mustian Sign Update/Surgery”). These signs do not directly communicate health and safety information or support social distancing in response to COVID-19. Therefore, $1,886.00 in associated costs are ineligible. Conclusion

The Applicant’s claimed costs for debris clearance (cut and toss) and associated lodging costs are eligible for assistance in the amount of $1,929,406.93; however, the costs for debris hauling are ineligible. Therefore, this appeal is partially approved. Appeal Letter SENT VIA EMAIL Patrick Sheehan Sharon Spence Director Supervisor, Property Accounting Tennessee Emergency Management Agency Memphis Light, Gas, and Water 3041 Sidco Drive 220 South Main Street Nashville, Tennessee 37204-1502 Memphis, Tennessee 38103 Re: Second Appeal – Memphis Light, Gas, and Water, PA ID: 157-0464A-00, FEMA-4645-DR-TN, Grants Manager Project (GMP) 671765 – Immediate Threat Dear Patrick Sheehan and Sharon Spence: This is in response to the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency’s (Recipient) letter dated October 25, 2024, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Memphis Light, Gas, and Water (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s denial of Public Assistance funding for debris clearance/hauling and lodging costs. As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant’s claimed costs for debris clearance (cut and toss) and associated lodging costs are eligible for assistance; however, the costs for debris hauling are ineligible. Therefore, this appeal is partially approved in the amount of $1,929,406.93. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Administrator to take appropriate action to implement this determination. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals. Sincerely, /S/ Robert M. Pesapane Director, Public Assistance Enclosure cc: Robert D. Samaan Regional Administrator FEMA Region 4 Appeal Analysis Background From February 3 through 4, 2022, a severe winter storm caused damage in the state of Tennessee.[1] Memphis Light, Gas, and Water (Applicant) is a special district government entity that provides electricity, natural gas, and water utility services. Heavy rainfall and freezing rain from the event downed trees and power lines, resulting in power outages to more than 200,000 customers. FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project (GMP) 671765 to document the Applicant’s request for Public Assistance (PA) funding for emergency protective measures (Category B) performed from February 3 to 14, 2022. Relevant to this appeal, the Applicant requested $2,820,775.66 for debris clearance (“cut and toss”) from rights-of-way (ROW) performed by two contractors, ABC Professional Tree Service, Inc. (ABC) and Asplundh Tree Expert, LLC (Asplundh), and $76,728.69 for the contractors’ lodging costs.[2] On October 5, 2022, FEMA sent the Applicant a Request for Information (RFI), asking, among other things, that the Applicant itemize and provide additional detail on its claimed debris clearance costs. On October 23, 2022, the Applicant replied that it could not provide the requested details and instead provided a spreadsheet with costs for cut and toss and hauling away debris based on addresses for both types of work per contractor.[3] On February 7, 2023, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum (DM), denying the Applicant’s claimed debris clearance and lodging costs. FEMA explained that the debris clearance work lacked documentation, such as load tickets, a detailed itemization of the work performed, the labor and equipment used, or the specific locations.[4] First Appeal On April 6, 2023, the Applicant submitted a first appeal, stating that it provided adequate documentation, such as invoices, work orders, and spreadsheets showing the locations and type of work performed, to allow FEMA to verify the costs. The Applicant provided an affidavit from the general supervisor of its line clearance department verifying that the submitted records were accurate to the work performed. On April 19, 2023, the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency (Recipient) transmitted the first appeal to FEMA, expressing its support. On July 1, 2024, the FEMA Region 4 Regional Administrator denied the first appeal, stating that the Applicant did not substantiate the quantity, location, or type of removed debris. FEMA explained that the contractors’ invoices only showed the labor, equipment hours, and miles used in debris removal operations, but did not provide any details about the quantity or type of debris the contractors removed. FEMA added that the Applicant did not provide debris monitoring documentation, such as load tickets, photographs, or videos of debris operations, to validate the performance of eligible work. FEMA stated that while the Applicant provided location documentation to demonstrate where it performed debris removal work, it could not validate that the Applicant performed eligible debris removal work. Finally, FEMA added that hauling away and disposing of debris is considered debris removal, which is ineligible under the Category B project. Second Appeal On August 29, 2024, the Applicant submitted a second appeal, requesting $2,820,775.66 for debris clearance and $69,055.82 in lodging costs.[5] The Applicant states that FEMA improperly combined eligibility requirements for Category A debris removal, Category B emergency access, and Category F utility ROW clearance in the first appeal decision. The Applicant states that its debris clearance costs are eligible under FEMA’s Category F ROW clearance policy and the costs should be obligated under a Category F permanent work public utilities project, rather than associated with a Category B emergency work project (as originally written). The Applicant states that if FEMA finds the debris work to be eligible, then the lodging costs should likewise be eligible as necessary to complete the underlying work. On October 28, 2024, the Recipient transmitted the appeal to FEMA, expressing its support. Discussion Debris clearance for emergency access (often referred to as “cut and toss” or “push”) may be eligible under Category B emergency protective measures work.[6] This includes the clearance of debris, limited to that necessary for an access route to an essential community service that was blocked by disaster-caused damage or debris to remain passable.[7] Debris clearance does not include hauling or disposing of the debris.[8] FEMA may also fund limited debris clearance from the ROW under permanent work Category F utilities as the applicant may need to clear its ROW to obtain access to repair a utility.[9] Regardless of the project’s classification, to be eligible, all costs must be directly tied to the performance of eligible work and adequately documented.[10] Here, the Applicant performed debris clearance work in the immediate aftermath of the storm in efforts to restore power to over 200,000 customers, and FEMA recognizes the urgent nature of this work. The Applicant provided contracts and invoices to document its costs as well as work logs to document work performed, which consisted of work typical of debris clearance, such as tree trimming and removing branches from utility poles, as well as locations where the work was performed.[11] The Applicant acknowledged that its contractors also performed debris hauling, which is not an eligible debris clearance activity. The Applicant utilized the work logs to separate cut and toss from hauling based on the addresses where the work was performed and to distinguish eligible costs associated with debris clearance from ineligible costs associated with debris hauling.[12] Therefore, the Applicant has demonstrated that its claimed costs for debris clearance are eligible for assistance; however, costs for debris hauling remain ineligible. Accordingly, the Applicant’s lodging costs associated with the underlying, eligible debris clearance work are likewise eligible. Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated that work to repair Sites 14 and 20 is required as a result of the disaster and, in the case of Site 20, that it is legally responsible for all of the work. As such, HM costs associated with these Sites are also not eligible for PA funding. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant’s straight-time is not eligible for claimed emergency work performed by its budgeted employees. In addition, the Applicant has not demonstrated its FAL performed eligible emergency protective measures during the overtime hours claimed. Therefore, the appeal is denied.

: While Stafford Act § 403(d) permits reimbursement of basic pay for permanent employees performing emergency protective measures, FEMA has limited funding for such costs through 44 C.F.R. § 206.228(a)(2)(iii). Therefore, basic pay and benefits for the Applicant’s permanent employees performing emergency protective measures is not eligible for PA funding.

The Applicant has not demonstrated the claimed costs for FAL, contract labor, employee and resident meals, or materials are associated with eligible emergency protective measures. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds that SOW #2 is necessary work for SOW #1 because the relocation of the Applicant’s staff at the Facility is necessary to accomplish SOW #1, and that the FEMA previously found the expenses to be cost-effective. Accordingly, the appeal is granted.

The Applicant has demonstrated that $4,934,693.21 in labor costs associated with emergency work is eligible. However, the Applicant has not provided documentation to support the remaining $8,215,616.94 in claimed costs for non-eligible work and equipment used. Accordingly, the second appeal is partially granted.

FEMA finds the Applicant’s straight-time is not eligible because the work was performed by the Applicant’s FAL. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds the Applicant’s straight-time labor costs are not eligible because the work was performed by the Applicant’s budgeted employees. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The predisaster written labor policies are discretionary and, accordingly, the FAL costs claimed are ineligible for PA funding. Therefore, this second appeal is denied.

The Applicant has provided documentation that demonstrates the FAL and FAE costs are project management activities eligible for PA funding. Therefore, this appeal is granted in the amount of $39,384.05.

The Applicant’s pay policy meets FEMA’s criteria for eligibility, and the documentation the Applicant submitted on second appeal supports an additional $1,816.61 in eligible FAL costs. However, the remaining costs are not eligible as they are associated with employees that performed essential functions as normally scheduled.

FEMA finds the claimed premium pay costs were not provided under a labor policy that meets FEMA requirements. In addition, section 705(c) of the Stafford Act does not apply.

The Applicant’s SCL request associated with straight-time labor is denied. However, the Applicant has demonstrated the SCL costs it incurred by budgeted employees performing emergency work during overtime are eligible. Accordingly, the appeal is partially granted for $4,367,664.75.

FEMA finds the Applicant has not demonstrated its FAL premium/hazard pay costs are associated with a predisaster written labor policy or directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds the Applicant has not demonstrated its FAL premium/hazard pay costs are associated with a predisaster written labor policy or directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds the Applicant has not demonstrated its FAL premium/hazard pay costs are associated with a predisaster written labor policy or directly tied to the performance of eligible work.

FEMA finds the Applicant has not demonstrated its FAL premium/hazard pay costs are associated with a predisaster written labor policy or directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds the Applicant has not demonstrated its FAL premium/hazard pay costs are associated with a predisaster written labor policy or directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds the Applicant has not demonstrated its FAL premium/hazard pay costs are associated with a predisaster written labor policy or directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds the Applicant has not demonstrated its FAL premium/hazard pay costs are associated with a predisaster written labor policy or directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds the Applicant has not demonstrated that its claimed FAL premium/hazard pay costs are associated with a predisaster written labor policy or directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the FAL and associated employee meal costs were associated with eligible emergency protective measures. In addition, the Applicant did not demonstrate that the costs for meals for unsheltered residents meets the criteria outlined in FEMA policy. Therefore, the second appeal is denied.

FEMA finds that the Applicant has not provided information to demonstrate that the claimed work is an emergency protective measure required due to an immediate threat and has not provided information to support granting additional funding for material costs. On second appeal, the Applicant has clarified that rental costs were $2,204.38. Therefore, FEMA denies the appeal, and reduces funding for eligible rental costs from $4,408.04 to $2,204.38.

The Applicant did not demonstrate that its claimed FAL OT costs for backfill employees are directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant’s fire department employees were not working eligible overtime hours or performing eligible emergency protective measures in response to COVID-19. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant’s fire department employees were not working eligible overtime hours or performing eligible emergency protective measures in response to COVID-19. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The claimed overtime, equipment, and medical supplies costs are not directly tied to the performance of eligible work.

The Applicant has not demonstrated that the overtime costs at issue are directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency protective measures implemented in response to the pandemic. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The claimed FAL costs are related to straight-time hours worked by the Applicant’s budgeted employees. They are neither associated with overtime labor costs nor are they extraordinary costs for essential employees called back to work during administrative leave to perform eligible emergency work. Therefore, they are ineligible for PA funding. Accordingly, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant has demonstrated the requested $30,295.70 in FAE costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Accordingly, the second appeal is granted.

The Applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed FAL OT costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant has not demonstrated the claimed labor costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency protective measures. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds that the Applicant did not demonstrate that its claimed overtime and supply costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible work.

FEMA finds that the Applicant has shown some of its claimed FAL OT costs are linked to the performance of eligible emergency protective measures in response to COVID-19. Therefore, this appeal is partially granted for $3,600.64 in FAL OT.

The Applicant has not demonstrated it performed eligible emergency protective measures to safely open and operate a facility. Accordingly, the Applicant’s work is not eligible for funding under the PA program. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant has not demonstrated its FAL straight time and fringe benefits’ costs for emergency work were associated with eligible unbudgeted screener employees. Therefore, the appeal is denied.

The claimed costs for unused leave are ineligible. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The claimed FAL costs are neither associated with overtime labor costs nor are they extraordinary costs for essential employees called back to work during administrative leave to perform eligible emergency work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The claimed FAL costs are neither associated with OT labor costs nor are they extraordinary costs for essential employees called back to work during administrative leave to perform eligible emergency work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The claimed FAL costs are related to straight-time hours worked by the Applicant’s budgeted employees; they are not associated with overtime labor costs nor are they extraordinary costs for employees called back to work during administrative leave or a regularly scheduled day off to perform eligible emergency work. Therefore, they are ineligible for PA funding. Accordingly, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds that the Applicant’s claimed FAL costs are for straight-time labor performed by the Applicant’s budgeted employee. Since only overtime labor costs are eligible for budgeted employees performing emergency work, the Applicant’s claimed FAL costs are ineligible for assistance.

The Applicant has provided documentation to substantiate that $18,624.10 for FAL, $13,397.11 for FAE, and $123.85 for meals are directly tied to the performance of eligible work for PA funding. The remaining $775.90 for FAL costs are ineligible because the Applicant did not demonstrate the additional estimated costs are directly tied to eligible emergency protective measures. Therefore, the appeal is partially granted in the amount of $32,145.06.

Although claimed FAL hours for time worked beyond the Applicant’s employee’s normal working hours may constitute unbudgeted labor, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed FAL hours at issue on appeal are directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency protective measures. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds the $2,729.66 in force account labor costs claimed are eligible. However, the $21,700.84 in claimed DAC is not reasonable, necessary, or appropriate. Therefore, this appeal is partially granted.

The Applicant has not demonstrated that its claimed costs are eligible in response to COVID-19. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant has demonstrated 280 hours of overtime are associated with eligible emergency protective measures in response to COVID-19. However, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the remainder of the overtime costs claimed are directly tied to eligible emergency protective measures. Therefore, this appeal is partially granted in the amount of $14,251.48.

The Applicant has demonstrated 344 hours of overtime are associated with eligible measures in response to COVID-19. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the remainder of the overtime costs claimed are directly tied to eligible emergency protective measures. Therefore, this appeal is partially granted in the amount of $14,420.39.

The Applicant did not demonstrate that the claimed overtime labor costs were directly tied to the performance of eligible emergency work, or that straight-time labor costs and employee meal expenses are eligible for PA funding. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant has provided documentation to demonstrate $3,721.62 in force account labor, $2,944.12 in force account equipment, and $628.43 in supplies and commodities, are eligible for funding. The remaining costs are denied because the Applicant did not demonstrate they were associated with eligible emergency protective measures. The appeal is partially approved in the amount of $7,295.17.

The Applicant provided documentation demonstrating $30,281.90 in requested funding are adequately documented and directly tied to the performance of eligible work for GMPs 116528 and 116533. Accordingly, the second appeal is granted.

The Applicant demonstrated that the overtime, standby time, and safety inspections, are all eligible. FEMA is granting the appeal.

: Sediment reworking and bank armoring are ineligible for funding as emergency protective measures because the work went beyond that which was required to lessen or eliminate immediate threats to nearby improved property.

: The City of Atlanta (Applicant) has not demonstrated that it performed emergency protective measures addressing an immediate threat to public health and safety. The overtime and compensatory time and cost of meals and cleaning supplies are therefore also ineligible. Finally, the ice removal requested does not meet severe winter storm designation eligibility requirements.

FEMA finds that the straight-time FAL of 20 permanent employees are eligible because the employees were funded from an external source and were reassigned to perform eligible emergency work at the vaccine clinics that the external source did not fund. However, straight-time FAL associated with three audit employees is ineligible as the Applicant has not demonstrated the employees were funded from non-statutorily dedicated funding sources. Therefore, this appeal is partially granted in the amount of $36,902.83.

The Applicant has demonstrated that $101,530.17 in FAL OT is directly tied to eligible emergency protective measures. However, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the costs requested for FAL straight-time, FAE, or meals are eligible. Therefore, the appeal is partially granted in the amount of $101,530.17.

Costs totaling $12,383.70 for the 35 recovered Hesco bastions are eligible for PA funding; additional deobligations due to their post-disaster disposition are not necessary. Therefore, this appeal is granted.

FEMA finds the claimed premium pay costs were not provided under a labor policy that meets FEMA policy requirements. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds that the claimed premium pay costs were not provided under a labor policy that meets FEMA policy requirements, nor were the costs tied to eligible emergency work. Therefore, the appeal is denied.

FEMA finds that the premium pay costs are ineligible for Public Assistance funding. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds the claimed premium pay costs were not provided under a labor policy that meets FEMA policy requirements. In addition, section 705(c) of the Stafford Act does not apply. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant’s premium pay costs were not based on a predisaster written labor policy, nor were they tied to eligible emergency work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant has not demonstrated that its FAL and FAE costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, the appeal is denied.

The appeal is denied as the Applicant has not demonstrated that its force account labor costs can be tied to the performance of eligible work.

FEMA finds that the Applicant has not substantiated through documentation that the costs are directly tied to the performance of eligible work. In addition, FEMA finds that it is not barred by section 705(c) of the Stafford Act from deobligating the previously awarded funds as the purpose of the grant was not accomplished.

The Applicant’s CLP bonus payments were not tied to eligible emergency work and were not based on a predisaster pay policy. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated the claimed FAL hazard pay costs were directly tied to the performance of eligible work, provided under a labor policy that meets FEMA policy requirements, or associated with eligible overtime labor costs or eligible extraordinary costs for essential employees called back during administrative leave to perform eligible emergency work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

FEMA finds the Applicant has not substantiated through documentation that the costs claimed are tied to the performance of eligible work. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant has not demonstrated its force account labor or equipment costs are eligible. Therefore, this appeal is denied.

The Applicant has not demonstrated that it used its ambulance for eligible medical transports related to COVID-19 beyond the four-month time frame used by FEMA to calculate the FMV of the ambulance. Thus, the appeal is denied.