Stafford Act § 423, as implemented by 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(c), allows an eligible applicant to appeal any PA eligibility determination. Pursuant to § 206.206(c)(1), an applicant must submit an appeal within 60 days of receiving notice of the appealable action. Upon receipt, pursuant to § 206.206(c)(2), a grantee has 60 days to forward it together with a written recommendation to FEMA. Neither the Stafford Act nor 44 C.F.R. provide FEMA with the authority to grant time extensions for filing appeals.

In 2004, Hurricane Ivan damaged the Applicant’s Facility. In PW 1684, Versions 0-3, FEMA authorized $2,440,223.92 based on estimates for eligible permanent repairs and hazard mitigation. After closeout, in Version 4, FEMA determined only $1,185,600.25 was eligible ($8,005,517.45 for repairs and $908,624.38 for hazard mitigation, less $7,728,541.58 for insurance), and deobligated $1,254,623.67. In a first appeal dated Oct. 15 and delivered on Oct. 24, 2012, the Applicant argued that Version 4 deobligated funding in error. It explained that it knowingly incorporated improvements to the Facility that would not be covered by insurance or FEMA, but paid for by local sales tax revenue. However, because at closeout it accounted for all of the costs in its report of total project expenditures, FEMA was unable to distinguish costs for the improvements from eligible work and inadvertently included expenses that should not have been considered. It argued FEMA’s misunderstanding of costs resulted in a deduction of additional anticipated insurance on top of what it reported as actually received. In a support letter dated Jan. 10 but transmitted on Feb.12, 2012, the Grantee forwarded the first appeal. The Grantee sent a clarification letter on Oct. 29, 2013 to revise the Applicant’s first appeal amounts and itemize the improvements funded by the tax. On June 6, 2014, the Regional Administrator (RA) reclassified the work in PW 1684 as an improved project, and capped funding based on FEMA’s estimated repair costs through Version 3, actual mitigation costs claimed at closeout, and actual insurance proceeds claimed on appeal. However, because the Applicant’s insurance proceeds exceeded the capped total for the improved project, the RA limited eligible funding to only the actual mitigation costs. The Applicant was notified on July 2, 2014. In a second appeal dated Aug. 27 and transmitted Aug. 28, 2014, the Applicant revises costs based on discrepancies discovered in an internal audit, and seeks additional costs for repair and mitigation. It argues that the work cited by the RA as improvements does not meet improved project criteria, and that it was separately funded. In a second appeal dated Oct. 22 and forwarded on Dec. 23, 2014, the Grantee also contests the improved project designation.

Stafford Act §§ 423(a), 406(e). 44 C.F.R. §§ 206.206(c), 206.226, 206.203(d)(1). Department of Transportation, FEMA-4068-DR-FL, at 2 (Aug. 5, 2016).