Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/07/13/2012-17137/disaster-designation-process
Timestamp: 2017-08-22 14:00:39
Document Index: 529611618

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART 1945', '§\u2009759', '§\u2009759', '§\u2009759', '§\u2009759', '§\u2009759', '§\u2009759', 'art 764', 'art 761', 'art 759', 'art 759', '§\u2009759', '§\u2009759', '§\u2009759', '§\u2009759', '§\u2009759', '§\u2009759', '§\u2009759', '§\u2009759', '§\u2009759', '§\u2009759', 'art 762', '§\u2009762', 'art 1945', '§\u2009761', 'art 759', 'art 1945']

Federal Register :: Disaster Designation Process
A Rule by the Farm Service Agency, the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing Service, and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service on 07/13/2012
This rule is effective on July 12, 2012.
41248-41256 (9 pages)
PART 1945 [REMOVED]
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2012-17137 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2012-17137
Steve Peterson; telephone: (202) 720-7641. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communications (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Comment: Removing the list of examples of unusual and adverse weather conditions from the definition of “natural disaster” could lead to potential program abuse and fraud. It would allow nearly any simple event like a spring rain during hay cutting to be considered a natural disaster. Therefore, that change should not be made. The definition and list of examples should not be modified or removed.
Response: The definition of “natural disaster” in this rule adequately describes a disaster as an unusual or severe weather condition or other natural phenomena that causes severe losses. The definition in this rule is consistent with other FSA regulations that use that term. A list of examples could be problematic if it was interpreted to mean that only those disaster conditions listed were possible eligible disaster situations. In those cases where the designation is not automatic (that is, not based on officially-published drought data), the rule provides an ample opportunity for review. No change is made in response to this comment.
Comment: The definition of CEB should be amended to specify that local Cooperative Extension agents or educators who have responsibilities for reporting the occurrence of a disaster, assessing the extent of a disaster, and for requesting approval in declaring a county a disaster are included as members of the CEB. Similarly, the term SEB should likewise be amended to include Cooperative Extension agents having program responsibilities at the State level.
Response: The CEB and SEB do consider input from State and local experts on local disaster conditions. Extension agents can and do attend meetings and provide input. However, USDA does not have the authority to require Extension agents or other local non-federal partners to participate or attend as members of the CEB or SEB. Even if they were willing to participate, the determination must remain within USDA and it has been deemed best to limit the CEB and SEB membership accordingly. This will also assure consistency in the makeup of the CEBs and the SEBs. No change is made in response to this comment.
Comment: FSA should include State government agriculture and emergency management agency representatives on the SEB. They must receive communications about disaster designations, and must be allowed to provide input on the approval process.
Response: FSA agrees that State level persons who are engaged in work related to identifying and reporting disasters and other State or local government work can provide valuable information and input that a CEB or SEB may consider in making a CEB or SEB recommendation. Such representatives are invited to attend and provide input. However, as with the previous comments, FSA believe that the actual boards should be comprised of USDA staff only. This is particularly with respect to nonfederal persons as the designation is a federal function. Also, it is relevant to note that the boards are not outside advisory boards and therefore not subject to the special procedures that can apply to such organizations.
Comment: The definition of contiguous county should be amended to specify how rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water are viewed. For example, if counties are separated by a large body of water (Lake Michigan), are the counties on each side of the lake contiguous?
Response: The definition of “contiguous county” already provides for the inclusion of a county whose boundary touches a “primary county.” The rule makes no distinction for boundaries that touch in water, and is not defining county boundaries in a different way than those boundaries are legally defined by States and local jurisdictions. In the past, counties on each side and separated by a wide body of water, such as Lake Michigan or the Pacific Ocean, have not been viewed as contiguous by USDA because the legal boundaries of those counties are not contiguous. No change in the definition is necessary.
Comment: The definition of “production losses (severe)” needs to be clarified because it is unclear whether production losses include physical losses. If the intention is to limit production losses to only losses of production, the definition should state that physical losses are not included. There is a difference between physical and production losses resulting from natural disaster.
Response: In the context of the rule “physical losses” means losses to a building or to stored goods and the like. Production losses—losses of growing crops—as defined in this rule do not include physical losses. The definition of “production losses (severe)” is clear that a loss of at least 30 percent or more of at least one crop (not property or things included in the rule's definition of physical losses) is a severe production loss for purposes of the rule. FSA does not believe that either the definition of production losses (severe) or the definition of severe physical losses require further amendment or clarification.
Comment: The definition for “normal year's dollar value” is unnecessary as the term is not used in the rule. Additionally, the definition is in conflict with other FSA regulations.
Response: In response to this comment, the proposed definition has been removed and is not in this final rule.
Comment: Of the methods in § 759.5 for declaring a disaster (automatic process for drought, SEB recommendation, production losses of at least 30 percent, and Secretarial discretion for exceptions), only that in paragraph (b) (regarding recommendations by CEBs and SEBs), seems to require review by the FSA Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs. If the intent is not to use the method in paragraph (b) most of the time, but always use the other more lenient methods whenever possible, then there is no point in having that method, so paragraph (b) should be removed.
Response: The CEB and SEB criteria requires the finding of a 30 percent production loss and will likely be the most used option. By nature, those recommendations require review of some kind and therefore the rule provides for review by the Deputy Administrator. However, the rule allows for delegation of that review to the SED. Any SED disaster designation action may be reviewed by the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs (DAFP) as appropriate. The special discretion for special cases where production losses are not at least 30 percent or where the automatic drought criteria are not met is intended for special cases only. We think that the review provisions are necessary and appropriate to assure as much consistency as possible. No change is made in response to this comment.
Comment: USDA should notify Governors and State personnel when it receives a request for a designation from a CEB. It is important for Governors and States to have real time knowledge of agricultural disaster information and to ensure effective coordination and sharing of information. FSA should also notify Governors and State personnel when a disaster declaration is about to be made, before the general publication notification is made by USDA.
Response: FSA will provide that notice when requested once the disaster has occurred with respect to designations for that particular disaster. Because of the streamlined procedures and the desire for a quick determination where such a determination is warranted and possible, FSA does not anticipate that every Governor and State personnel will ask for pre-notification. FSA will amend internal operating guidelines and handbooks to provide procedures for responding to requests for information about pending disaster designations from interested parties, including Governors and Tribal Councils. The procedure will be in the handbooks and internal guidelines rather than in the rule.
Comment: The CEB does not meet regularly and in most cases the FSA County Executive Director (CED) compiles the information necessary for supporting designation requests. Recommend making CEB interchangeable with the CED.
Response: FSA recognizes the valuable contribution by the CED in obtaining the information that will be used by a CEB or SEB to recommend the disaster designation. However, the CEB is comprised of representatives of several USDA agencies, including but not limited to FSA, that have responsibilities for reporting disasters and assessing the resulting damage caused. It provides a valuable coordination function between USDA agencies. CEB will meet as needed to promptly implement the procedures in this rule. No change is made to the rule in response to this comment.
Comment: The regulation does not specify how information required by the CEB and SEB is collected and documented. There should be more specifics about what is required. For example, GIS maps should be required for all disaster designation requests, not just for drought.
Response: The proposed rule provides procedure for the nearly automatic designations based on the Drought Monitor as well as the reliance upon the Loss Assessment Report (LAR) for those designation requests not meeting the automatic designation criteria. Information from which a LAR can be developed or produced can come from various sources. FSA does not intend to restrict or mandate the sources of information that may be considered by a CEB or SEB in assessing losses. However, FSA will issue internal operating guidelines that will provide instructions regarding necessary information and documentation that will be necessary to support recommendations. In the case of drought, the process will be nearly automatic, based on documentation provided by the Drought Monitor itself. We say “nearly” automatic because of the function that will be performed by FSA to identify eligible counties from the official reports and to prepare the notice. No change is made to the rule in response to this comment, but the subject matter will be addressed in FSA handbooks.
Comment: The streamlined automatic designation process for drought could create designations for multiple counties in times of regional disasters. That could be confusing and cause disaster designations when one is not appropriate because the entire county was not impacted.
Response: A disaster declaration is not the only eligibility requirement for FSA disaster assistance programs that depend on a declaration. Most also require some threshold of documented losses. While it is possible that a drought will not impact an entire county that has been declared a disaster, in that case the producers in the county who were not impacted will be unlikely to meet the other criteria for benefit eligibility. The rules for designating a county as a disaster area when requirements are met based on information that may only be applicable to part of the county are not being modified by this rule. Generally, there is no requirement that the peril or perils that cause a county to be designated a disaster area have impacted all or most of a county. The authorizing legislation for FSA programs that rely on disaster designations consistently refer to county level disaster declarations, with no provisions to make designations for smaller areas. Furthermore, even if a more discrete declaration were permitted, attempting to identify specific affected locations within a county would be time-consuming, uncertain, and would slow the process of making aid available without a justifiable and substantial countervailing benefit. Individual producers must still establish their loss and must establish that it is related to the disaster. No change is made in response to this comment.
Comment: In the case of drought, the regulation should specify that when large areas of a State are impacted, counties affected should be combined as much as possible. The regulations should permit the SED to combine declarations, even if that means a 30- to 60-day delay until the data from the additional counties are known. That would make the disaster response process easier for States.
Response: The current regulations permit a disaster declaration that includes multiple counties. That is not changing with this rule. However, in the case of a drought, the Secretary will designate that area a disaster area when the drought intensity threshold is met, without waiting to see if nearby counties reach the severe or extreme drought threshold. We see no persuasive point in delaying the process to see if other counties qualify. No change is made in response to this comment.
Comment: The Drought Monitor is a valid tool; however, the problem is defining the line location for the drought area as it relates to a whole county. There may be instances where the Drought Monitor may accurately show that a small percent of a county has suffered due to drought; however, based on that data, an entire county may get the designation (based on drought). Recommend the CEB or CED determine if drought monitor conditions are reflective of conditions for the county and not just for the location of the monitor.
Response: As specified in § 759.5(a) of this rule, a loss assessment report (LAR) developed by the CEB is not required for disaster designation in the case of severe drought. Also, as noted above, a disaster declaration is not the only eligibility requirement for most FSA disaster assistance programs, and the authorizing legislation for FSA programs that rely on disaster designations consistently refer to county level disaster declarations, with no provisions to make designations for smaller areas. No change is made in response to this comment.
Comment: The rule is unclear how an individual farmer, State Governor, Indian tribal council, or local governing body will initiate a request for designation.
Response: Anyone can contact the Secretary or FSA and request a designation using any means, including a phone call, letter, or email, to report production losses or drought conditions to the CEB, as specified in this rule in § 759.5. Time and prudent considerations may govern how that contact is made. In any case, we do not believe that it is necessary to specify the method of contact in the rule itself to allow flexibility.
Comment: If anyone can request a disaster designation, this could greatly increase the workload for local staff. Recommend keeping the requirement for a request by the Governor or Indian Tribal Council.
Response: The benefits to producers of allowing anyone to report losses, facilitating a more expedited disaster designation process, outweigh any perceived or alleged increases in workload.
Comment: The new process will be more objective for drought. In the past, it was possible that some people could try to use undue influence to force the CEB to request a disaster even though conditions may not warrant a county-wide declaration process. What is being done to ensure that will not happen with the new process?
Response: The general drought authority will rely on published reports. Where the CEB is involved in the process, there will be review of the disaster recommendation by the SEB and by the Secretary's designee. We believe that the provisions for review are sufficient and persons concerned about any disaster declaration are always free to make that feeling known to generate greater review in particular cases. No change is made in response to this comment.
Comment: Governors or Indian tribal councils should have to seek designations. State governments and Indian tribal councils should not be removed from the process. A State may not want a designation approved. The drought might not be as severe as the Drought Monitor makes it seem, and a disaster declaration could scare away tourists.
Response: USDA has the responsibility to designate disasters using consistent criteria for the entire nation, so that producers in all States and counties have an opportunity to be eligible for disaster assistance if they suffered losses in a disaster area. No change is made in response to this comment.
Comment: The proposed designation process could compromise the integrity of the designation process by removing safeguards realized with a National review of designation requests. By removing the FSA National office review by impartial reviewers, politically appointed SEDs will be under increasing pressure to approve disaster designations, perhaps wrongly.
Response: The FSA National office will still be responsible for oversight and spot check of the process as needed and we believe that the opportunity for review in the regulations is sufficient. Also, as indicated, problems with individual determination can always be raised to generate additional review. In this rule, § 759.5 specifies that if the Secretary so chooses, authority may be delegated to make the designation at the State level, but that delegation is not automatic. At the State level, the SED may act based on a recommendation from the SEB. Such delegations may be limited to particular disasters. Section 759.6 has also been changed from the proposed rule to remove proposed language referring to a disaster designation made by the SED to reflect that there must be a specific delegation as no SED is empowered by the regulations themselves to make the designation.
Comment: Keep the old more complex process. Simplifying the process will result in more fraud, increasing the total government deficit.
Response: As noted above, the FSA National office will conduct spot checks of disaster designations to ensure program integrity. The revised process is expected to result in faster disaster designations, but not more eligible disaster designations, as the rule does not materially change the conditions under which a designation could be made.
Comment: Need clarification on the discretionary exceptions from the definition of production losses 7 CFR 1945.6(c)(3)(iii)(C). Are they being removed? The previous definition allowed a disaster declaration if production losses have not met the 30 percent loss threshold, but other conditions exist, including producers unable to get financing. According to the table in the preamble to the proposed rule, and the proposed new definition of production losses, it looks like the discretionary exceptions for production losses are removed from the definition section. Does that mean that the lack of getting a lender to finance is no longer included in the definition of production losses, and that we will be unable to obtain a disaster declaration based on financial hardship?
Response: This rule does not remove the provisions allowing the Secretary discretionary authority to declare a disaster even if the 30 percent production loss threshold has not been met. The discretionary exception provisions have been moved, not removed. The discretionary authority disaster designation process is specified in § 759.5, rather than in the definitions section. It includes the number of farmers unable to obtain emergency financing as one of the factors the Secretary may consider in determining whether to use this discretionary authority. This rule does not modify EM procedures or policies. No change is made in response to this comment.
Comment: The current designation process enables a Governor to best manage an agricultural disaster, including taking the necessary steps within the State in determining how and where the State is best served by seeking Federal relief through a disaster designation. Do not take the Governors out of the process. If each county has to independently advocate relief, the larger counties with more resources will be able to more vigorously and expeditiously make disaster designation requests, at the expense of more rural counties. This would not be fair, and would disable the Governor's ability to prioritize statewide needs.
Response: The simplified and streamlined process does not remove authority of Governors to seek designations for any of the counties located in their respective State. The proposed rule also does not prohibit a Governor from taking any State level action in response to whatever concerns or needs that might arise following an emergency. In fact, the expedited designation process should be able to assist all localities with a faster disaster designation process. Local emergency response resources and their distribution are outside the scope of this rule. FSA will designate counties based on factual information about disaster conditions in counties large and small. No change is made in response to this comment.
Comment: What if the same disaster causes both production and physical losses? Does the rule mean that both a Secretarial declaration and an Administrator's declaration of physical loss would be required in that case? If so, that seems more complicated, not less complicated, than the current procedure.
Response: As specified in this rule in § 759.6, the Administrator's declaration of physical loss process is used when only physical losses occur. When both production and physical losses occur, the Secretarial disaster designation process is used. No change is made in response to this comment.
Comment: Eliminate the Presidential, Secretarial, and Administrator designations processes for the FSA EM and the FSA Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) Program. The current process is complicated and time consuming. Proposed rule is unclear if there will be any reduction of paperwork or other time requirements on county FSA offices. The rule does not appear to have very many benefits for individual producers.
Response: USDA does not have authority to modify the disaster designation eligibility requirements for the SURE (should it be reauthorized) or EM program because these requirements are specified in authorizing laws. The streamlined process of processing requests for designations should benefit producers by providing disaster benefits more quickly. No change is made in response to this comment.
Comment: USDA should consider increasing the maximum income levels for benefit eligibility to allow farmers and ranchers in high cost areas to take advantage of more FSA program benefits.
Response: USDA does not have authority to change the adjusted gross income provisions that apply to FSA program benefit eligibility to the extent that they are mandated by law and in other instances use of those provisions may help target benefits to those whose need is the greatest. In any event, this comment and issue are outside the scope of this rule. No change is made in response to this comment.
Comment: Benefits for adjoining counties should be discontinued to help reduce potential fraud or less than credible claims. Disaster designations should only apply to the county and not other adjoining areas.
Response: The proposed rule was meant to address only the process by which designations are made and hence this comment goes beyond the scope of this rule. The program specific rules include contiguous counties when specifically authorized for that program by law. However, some additional language has been added to clarify that the rules about contiguous counties should be resolved by the regulations particular to each program. That said, the designation regulations have traditionally carried provisions dealing with that issue specifically for the EM program and this rule continues that practice. As some point we will consider moving the substantive EM provisions to the EM regulations themselves. The EM regulations are found in 7 CFR part 764. The EM regulations require a disaster as a predicate for an EM loan and under the general definitions in 7 CFR part 761 a “disaster” requires an FSA designation. This rule specifies that the FSA designation will include not only those that involve a Secretarial designation under these rules but the EM Program will also consider as designated counties eligible to trigger EM loans those counties that are the subject of the other kinds of disaster determinations noted above. The provisions addressing EM qualifications appear in 7 CFR 759.6 of the regulations adopted in this rule. To avoid confusion, 7 CFR part 759 as clarified in this rule will specify that unless otherwise indicated in the regulations for the actual benefit program, or in 7 CFR 759.6, for purpose of administering disaster assistance only the primary county will be considered the disaster county. That is, producers in the contiguous county will only be able to qualify for disaster assistance if the disaster assistance regulations or, in the case of EM, 7 CFR 759.6, provide for such eligibility. This is consistent with long-standing practice, and provisions in authorizing laws, and involves no change in policy.
Comment: The more timely designations may place an even greater burden on local governments who have limited staff to help with disaster response and the recovery process.
Response: This rule does not require any specific action by a local government to assist with USDA's disaster designation process. In fact, it removes the requirement for a request for disaster designation by the Governor or Tribal Council. The more rapid designation of disasters should help identify where response is most urgently needed, allowing local governments to focus resources on where it is needed the most. No change is made in response to this comment.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This final rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined under title II of the UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this proposed rule does not trigger the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
1. Add a new part 759 to read as follows:
§ 759.1
§ 759.2
§ 759.3
Contiguous county is used in reference to a primary county as defined in this section. A contiguous county is any county whose boundary touches at any point with that of the primary county. For programs other than the EM Program, disaster assistance regulations will specify whether benefits will be available only in the primary counties or also in the contiguous counties. For the EM Program that issue is addressed in § 759.6, unless specified otherwise in the disaster assistance regulations for other programs or in § 759.6 for the EM Program, only the “primary” county will be considered the qualifying “disaster county.” Therefore, if the disaster assistance regulations specify that they cover the disaster area and contiguous counties, then the only eligible counties would be the primary county and those contiguous to that county. Coverage would not include coverage of those counties that are in turn contiguous to those counties that are contiguous to the primary county.
Disaster area is the county or counties declared or designated as a disaster area as a result of natural disaster related losses. The disaster area only includes the primary counties, but benefits may be available in the counties contiguous to the primary county if so provided by the disaster assistance regulations or, in the case of the EM Program, in § 759.6.
§ 759.5
§ 759.6
(1) Secretarial designations. When production losses meet the requirements in § 759.5 and the county has been designated as a disaster area for that reason, or when the discretionary exception to production losses for EM under § 759.5(d) has been exercised, the primary and contiguous counties will be areas in which otherwise eligible producers can receive EM loans.
2. The authority citation for part 762 would continue to read as follows:
3. Amend § 762.106(b)(2) and (c)(4) by removing the reference “part 1945, subpart A of this title” and adding in its place each time it appears “§ 761.2(b) and part 759 of this chapter”.
4. Remove part 1945.
[FR Doc. 2012-17137 Filed 7-12-12; 8:45 am]