: The Town of Southampton (Applicant) has not demonstrated its July 28, 2016 letter satisfies the appeal content requirements of 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(a) and the Applicant’s appeal dated December 21, 2016, was untimely under 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(c)(1). Accordingly, the appeal is denied. Summary Paragraph From October 27 through November 9, 2012, Hurricane Sandy caused extensive damage throughout the State of New York. The Applicant requested Public Assistance (PA) for sand/snow fencing replacement at three beaches, which are located within a Coastal Barrier Resources System. In a Determination Memo dated June 1, 2016, FEMA denied the Applicant’s request for PA funding. In consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FEMA determined that sand/snow fencing replacement was not permissible under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. On June 16, 2016 the New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (Grantee) informed the Applicant of FEMA’s determination and also that it had 60 days from receipt to appeal FEMA’s decision. The Applicant received the notification and determination on July 14, 2016. The Applicant sent the Grantee a letter notifying it of its intent to appeal on July 28, 2016, which the Grantee received in October 2016. The Applicant then appealed on December 21, 2016 and the appeal was forwarded to FEMA along with the Grantee’s concurrence on February 15, 2017. The FEMA Region II Regional Administrator (RA) denied the first appeal as untimely. The RA also noted that the the Applicant’s July 2016 letter, which FEMA did not receive until May 2017 in response to FEMA’s Final Request for Information, did not constitute an appeal under FEMA regulations. On second appeal, the Applicant claims its July 2016 letter constitutes an appeal and it then supplemented this appeal with its December 2016 letter. The Grantee also cites to two U.S. Supreme Court cases in support of its argument that FEMA’s filing deadlines are not jurisdictional, but are merely claim processing rules. Authorities and Second Appeals Stafford Act § 423(a). 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(a) and (c). City of Greenville, FEMA-1808-DR-KY, at 2. Dept. of Transp., FEMA-4068-DR-FL, at 3. Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145, 153 (2013). Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 435 (2011) Headnotes Under 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(a), an appeal must specify the monetary figure in dispute and the provisions in Federal law, regulation, or policy with which the appellant believes the initial action was inconsistent. The Applicant’s July 28, 2016 letter did not include a specific monetary amount in dispute and did not reference legal provisions with which FEMA’s determination was inconsistent. Moreover, the plain language in the letter demonstrates it was not an appeal, but rather a notification of the Applicant’s intent to appeal. As such, it does not satisfy the appeal content requirements of 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(a). Stafford Act § 423(a), implemented by 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(c)(1), allows an applicant to appeal any PA determination within 60 days of receiving notice of the appealable action. The Applicant submitted its appeal of PW 1354 more than 60 days after receipt of the Grantee’s notification.