Given its size, strength, location and the enormity of its impact, Hurricane Sandy was a storm of historic proportions and importance. The damage inflicted by this huge storm rivaled the damages of the Gulf Coast storms during the summer of 2005, particularly due to the population density and overall development of the areas that received the brunt of the storm's impact. As with other major natural disaster events, Members of Congress responded to Hurricane Sandy by holding a series of hearings, visiting the affected region, and introducing and acting on legislation. In addition to evaluating the need for supplemental appropriations in response to this catastrophic disaster, the 112 th and 113 th Congresses considered reforming provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288 as amended). Generally, concerns were raised that the recovery from Hurricane Sandy would be plagued by perceived delays and bureaucratic burdens that inhibited the recovery following Hurricane Katrina. The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, as passed as Division B of P.L. 113-2 , the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, revises the Stafford Act as a result of these concerns as well as other considerations. Division A of P.L. 113-2 provided a $50.7 billion package of disaster assistance largely focused on responding to Hurricane Sandy. Additionally, Congress increased the National Flood Insurance Program's borrowing authority by $9.7 billion, from $20.725 billion to $30.425 billion ( P.L. 113-1 , To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program). Both of these supplemental relief laws are discussed separately in CRS Report R42869, FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief . This report examines the potential effect of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 on disaster assistance procedures and programs. Part of the legislative intent of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 is to streamline administrative procedures and improve the effectiveness of several disaster assistance programs authorized by the Stafford Act, namely the Public Assistance Program, the Individual Assistance Program, and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The law reforms the Stafford Act in part by reauthorizing several "pilot" programs established previously in Title VI of P.L. 109-295 , the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA). P.L. 113-2 also authorizes tribes to request a declaration of an emergency or major disaster, as was previously only allowed for states. It also directs FEMA to establish procedures for arbitrating disputes relating to disaster assistance, and directs FEMA to create a national strategy for mitigating the cost of future disasters. In the context of overall supplemental funding for disaster relief being debated by the Congress, the disaster assistance programs modified by the law are funded by the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). More detailed explanations of the modifications enacted by the law are provided below. On December 28, 2012, near the end of the 112 th Congress, the Senate approved H.R. 1 , the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013. The bill would have provided $60.41 billion in supplemental appropriations for disaster assistance and mitigation, and included a suite of legislative provisions that included reforms to several disaster assistance authorities. Included within the bill was the Disaster Recovery Act of 2012 (provided as a general provision, Section 609, to the Homeland Security title). No further action was taken on this bill during the 112 th Congress. On January 14, 2013, the House passed H.R. 219 , the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013. This bill had many similarities to the Disaster Recovery Act of 2012, as passed by the Senate in the 112 th Congress, including many provisions that were identical or very similar to each other. For more on these similarities, see the Appendix . Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 23 , in the engrossment of H.R. 152 , the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, the text of H.R. 219 as passed by the House was added as new matter at the end of H.R. 152 (Division B—Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013). H.R. 152 was passed by the House on January 15, 2013, and received by the Senate on January 22, 2013. The Senate passed H.R. 152 unchanged on January 28, 2013, and it was signed into law as P.L. 113-2 the next day. The following sections of the report examine the effect of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 on disaster assistance procedures and programs. The provisions are not analyzed in numerical order, but rather consolidated by the program or policy subject affected by the provisions. Section 1110 of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 amends Sections 401 and 501 of the Stafford Act which contain the procedures for requesting types of disaster declarations. Previously, tribal groups were treated as local governments and thus not permitted to directly request disaster declarations from the federal government. As with local governments, the tribes were dependent on a request being made by the governor of the state where their territory is located. Tribal governments argued that the previous provision in the Stafford Act undermined their independence and sovereignty. This change in declaration policy for tribal groups had been sought by FEMA to strengthen its government-to-government relationships with tribal groups and improve emergency management in those areas. As FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate stated in testimony before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee: The updated policy reiterates the Agency's view of tribal governments as inherently sovereign nations and not political subdivisions of states. To this end, and to the extent permitted by law, FEMA consults with tribal governments and addresses any concerns before taking actions that may affect those nations. In addition, the new policy expressly states that FEMA will identify and take reasonable, appropriate steps to eliminate or diminish procedural impediments to working directly and effectively with tribal governments. In particular, the policy states that FEMA will review portions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and other laws, policies, and administrative rules in emergency management activities to determine how FEMA may work more directly with local tribal communities. Currently, the Stafford Act includes "an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization" in the definition of local governments. With this amendment, tribes are also now equivalent to states in their ability to request a major disaster declaration or an emergency declaration from the President. Tribes had sought this authority for various reasons. While tribes and Native Americans have long received assistance under Stafford Act declarations, working through the state government for all assistance has been viewed as an issue of tribal sovereignty. States might at times be reluctant to request on behalf of a tribe when the damage was localized on tribal property. Other challenges to administering disaster relief involved language barriers and the physical isolation of some tribal lands. Also the tribes wished to have the same ability as states to help manage the response and recovery from a disaster. All of these factors created challenges for emergency management following disaster events in tribal areas. Under this amendment, the "Chief Executive of an Indian Tribal Government" is able to submit a request for a declaration by the President. In addition, the "Savings provision" of this section ensures that a tribal government is not prohibited from receiving assistance under a declaration made by the President at the request of the governor, if the President has not made a separate declaration for the tribal government. In effect, a tribal government will retain the ability to be treated as a local government in those situations. Section 1110 also includes a cost-share adjustment for tribal governments. Under current law, states must provide up to 25% of certain disaster costs, with some adjustments possible under regulatory guidelines. Section 1110 of P.L. 113-2 adds a new Section 401(c)(1) to the Stafford Act which permits the President to: waive or adjust any payment of a non-federal contribution with respect to the assistance if – (A) the President has the authority to waive or adjust the payment under another provision of this Act; and (B) the President determines that the waiver or adjustment is necessary and appropriate. The degree of flexibility that is available for the President to set the cost-share for a tribal government is dependent upon the type of assistance being provided. For example, this new Section 401(c)(1)(A) of the Stafford Act appears to retain the cost-share under Section 404 for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program which states that the President may contribute "up to 75 percent of the cost of hazard mitigation measures." However, the President may have greater discretion under this provision to waive cost-shares for tribal governments for the Public Assistance (Section 406) program which, by FEMA regulation, adjusts to a 90% federal, 10% state and local cost share. As with Section 206 of the Stafford Act, the President is charged with establishing the criteria for such adjustments. FEMA's past judgments involving the Individual Assistance program and the declaration process have provoked interest in the factors FEMA considers when deciding whether to provide Individual Assistance during disasters and how those factors are interpreted. Since it helps determine the extent of federal supplemental assistance, both Congress and state governments share an interest in the declaration policy. Section 1109 of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 calls for FEMA to review its existing regulations that set forth the factors it considers when deciding whether to provide Individual Assistance during disasters (44 C.F.R. §206.48). This review is required within one year of enactment (which is January 29, 2014). One significant argument for mandating such a review of Individual Assistance factors is that these factors have not been adjusted since they first appeared in regulation in 1999. FEMA is to undertake this review in cooperation with representatives of state, tribal, and local emergency management agencies. The intent of the section is to speed up the declaration process through this review.