Much like she did before the last FOMC meeting, Lael Brainard advises caution, concluding:
A variety of evidence suggests that the longer-run neutral rate is lower now than it has been historically, and that the very low shorter-run neutral rate may adjust to it very slowly, due to a combination of weaker foreign demand growth, greater risk sensitivity as a result of the crisis, higher risk premiums for productive investment, and lower growth in potential output.
The lower neutral rate means the normalization of the federal funds rate is likely to follow a more gradual and shallower path than in previous cycles, although the actual path will be determined by economic conditions.
It also implies that the likelihood of the federal funds rate hitting the zero lower bound will be persistently greater than it has been previously, which could make it more difficult to achieve our objectives of full employment and 2 percent inflation. With the nominal neutral interest rate lower than in the past, and with policy options being more limited if conditions deteriorate than if inflationary pressures accelerate, the asymmetry in risk-management considerations counsels a cautious and gradual approach.
If she listened to herself, she would conclude that what needs “normalization” is not the federal funds rate but the level and growth rate of nominal spending (NGDP).
Historinhas 
Egads, what a cluttered way of thinking has Lael Brainard. I think she means to say, “A deflationary recession is a possibility.”
You bet.
Maybe Brainard should ask, “Why is the Fed paying banks not to lend money?” IOER?
Or, “What is wrong with conducting more QE operations?”
Instead, we hear all sorts fretting about a quarter-point rise in the Fed funds rate.