HB 7438 (PETSAFE Act of 2026) amends 6 U.S.C. 762 (Section 662 of the Post‑Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006) to create a new category of eligible activities for grants under that section specifically focused on companion‑animal preparedness and response. The bill inserts a new subsection that lists eligible purchases and activities — from collapsible crates and mobile trailers to veterinary supplies, generators, disaster‑response software, training, and animal response team development — and authorizes a higher federal cost share for those activities.
The change matters because it explicitly recognizes companion animals within an existing federal preparedness grant program and lowers the fiscal barrier for jurisdictions to invest in pet‑inclusive evacuation and sheltering. That could increase local capacity to keep animals with people during disasters, but it also alters how scarce EMPG‑type grant dollars may be allocated and raises implementation questions for FEMA and grant recipients.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Section 662 to add a new subsection authorizing state, local, and tribal governments to spend grant funds on companion‑animal preparedness items and activities. For those listed pet‑related activities, the federal cost share can be increased to 90 percent instead of the standard 50 percent.
Who It Affects
Primary affected parties are jurisdictions that receive Section 662 grants (state emergency management agencies, county/local emergency management, and tribal governments), animal welfare and veterinary partners that participate in response, and FEMA as grant administrator. Vendors of sheltering equipment, mobile trailers, generators, and disaster software would be secondary beneficiaries.
Why It Matters
This is a targeted statutory carve‑out recognizing pets in federal preparedness financing — it reduces the local match needed for pet‑specific investments and may incentivize jurisdictions to include animals in evacuation planning. It does not create a standalone appropriation; instead it changes eligible uses and cost‑sharing within an existing grant.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB 7438 changes one section of the Post‑Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (6 U.S.C. 762). It gives jurisdictions more explicit authority to use grant dollars for companion‑animal preparedness and response by inserting a list of permissible expenditures.
Those items range from basic supplies like collapsible crates and pet food to larger capital purchases such as mobile equipment trailers and emergency generators, plus non‑material investments like training, software, and team development.
Crucially, the bill alters the grant cost share. Where Section 662 normally carries a 50 percent federal share, HB 7438 allows activities that fall under the new pet‑preparedness subsection to be covered at a 90 percent federal share.
In practice, that reduces the local or state matching requirement for these specific line items and lowers the financial barrier for jurisdictions to purchase equipment or provide specialized training that supports animals during disasters.The authority is structured as an eligible‑use expansion within the existing grant framework rather than as a separate funding stream. Jurisdictions must still operate through their Section 662 grant processes — applying, procuring, and reporting under the program rules — but now can program funds to the enumerated animal‑related needs.
The bill also includes a small technical change renaming the old subsection so the new language fits into the statute cleanly.Operationally, this will require emergency managers to add companion‑animal line items to grant applications and budgets, coordinate procurement for items like trailers and generators, and possibly build partnerships with animal welfare organizations and veterinary providers to administer training and field operations. FEMA will need to interpret existing grant rules — procurement, allowable costs, and reporting — in light of these new eligible activities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new subsection to 6 U.S.C. 762 permitting Section 662 grant funds to be used for companion‑animal emergency preparedness and response.
For activities listed in the new subsection, the federal cost share increases to 90 percent instead of the statute’s standard 50 percent.
Enumerated eligible items and activities include collapsible crates; companion‑animal mobile equipment trailers; pet supplies; veterinary and animal health care supplies; emergency sheltering equipment; emergency generators; disaster response software; emergency management training; animal response team development; and field rescue equipment.
The new language is an eligible‑use expansion within Section 662 rather than a new appropriation; jurisdictions must program existing Section 662 funds to these activities.
The bill makes a technical redesignation by moving the prior subsection (f) to (g) to accommodate the inserted companion‑animal subsection (f).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the act’s popular name: the Providing Essential Temporary Shelter Assistance For Emergencies (PETSAFE) Act of 2026. This is housekeeping but signals the bill’s focus for agencies and stakeholders that will interpret its scope.
Higher federal cost share for pet‑related activities
Subsection (c) currently sets the federal cost share for grants under this section at 50 percent. The amendment keeps the 50 percent baseline but adds a second option: where an activity falls under the newly inserted subsection (f) (pet and animal preparedness), the federal share may be 90 percent. Practically, applicants will need to code budget lines to show which costs qualify for the elevated share and justify them as subsection (f) activities when seeking reimbursement.
Permissible companion‑animal preparedness and response activities
The bill lists specific eligible uses for grants: collapsible crates; mobile equipment trailers for companion animals; pet supplies; veterinary medical and animal health care supplies; emergency sheltering equipment and supplies; emergency generators; disaster response software; emergency management and response training; animal response team development; and field rescue equipment and supplies. The list is operationally detailed enough to guide procurement but broad enough that jurisdictions will still face interpretation questions on, for example, software licensing, ongoing supply replenishment, or whether certain medical supplies require licensed veterinary oversight.
Technical housekeeping
The bill renumbers the existing subsection (f) as subsection (g) to accommodate the new subsection (f). This is a non‑substantive revision but important for legal clarity and for future references to the statute.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State emergency management agencies — They can use existing Section 662 grant funds with a lower local match to procure pet‑specific equipment and training, reducing their out‑of‑pocket costs for integrating animals into preparedness plans.
- Local and tribal emergency managers and shelters — Counties, cities, and tribal nations can more affordably purchase mobile trailers, generators, sheltering supplies, and training that keep companion animals with people during evacuations, which typically improves compliance with evacuation orders.
- Animal welfare organizations and veterinary responders — These groups gain a clearer pathway to partner in official preparedness activities and to receive training and equipment support through government grants, improving coordinated field response capacity.
Who Bears the Cost
- FEMA / federal budget — Raising the federal cost share for a set of activities from 50% to 90% increases potential federal outlays for Section 662 grants if jurisdictions take advantage of the higher match; absent offsetting budget changes, this has fiscal implications for appropriations and grant program planning.
- State and local governments — While the match is reduced for listed items, jurisdictions bear administrative costs: budgeting, grant application and reporting, procurement, storage, maintenance (e.g., generator upkeep), and coordination with animal providers.
- Emergency management priorities — Because the change uses existing Section 662 funds, jurisdictions may reallocate limited grant dollars toward pet preparation, potentially crowding out other preparedness investments unless additional funding is provided.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize reducing behavioral barriers to human evacuation (by funding pet‑inclusive preparedness that keeps people with their animals) at the expense of reallocating limited preparedness dollars and adding administrative complexity. The bill lowers the financial hurdle for animal preparedness, but doing so within an existing grant program forces trade‑offs among competing emergency management needs and raises questions about long‑term sustainment and program oversight.
The bill creates a narrow, clearly defined set of eligible uses, but it does not appropriate new funds or create a separate grant account. That means the change simply shifts the permitted uses and cost shares within the existing Section 662 grant envelope; the real-world impact will depend on whether FEMA recipients elect to reprogram their allocations or request larger grants in future budget cycles.
Absent new appropriations, jurisdictions face a zero‑sum choice about how much of their EMPG‑type funds to dedicate to animal preparedness versus other priorities like cyber, communications, or human sheltering.
Operational questions will surface during implementation. The statute lists veterinary medical and animal health care supplies without clarifying whether a jurisdiction may buy prescription‑only veterinary medicines or must subcontract to licensed veterinary providers.
Similarly, disaster response software and training can vary widely in scope and cost; FEMA will need to develop guidance on allowable procurement, performance measures, and maintenance costs. Items with lifecycle costs (generators, trailers) create recurring obligations for jurisdictions that may not be covered by one‑time grants.
Finally, the bill assumes jurisdictions will coordinate with animal welfare partners, but it does not create explicit contracting or liability rules for those partnerships — an area states and FEMA will have to address administratively.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.