44 C.F.R. 206.226(g)(1) provides that the RA may approve funding for and require the restoration of a destroyed facility at a new location when: 1) the facility is and will be subject to repetitive heavy damage; 2) approval is not barred by other provisions of title 44 C.F.R.; and; 3) the overall project; including all costs; is cost effective.However; the Applicant has not shown that FS5 is and will be subject to repetitive heavy damage nor that relocation would be cost effective.The Applicant did not demonstrate that relocation of FS5 satisfied all elements of 44 C.F.R. 206.226(g)(1) as it did not show that FS5 is and will be subject to repetitive heavy damage; nor did it show that relocation would be cost effective. The RA properly applied his discretion to deny funding for relocation; therefore; this appeal is denied.

Headnotes44 C.F.R. § 206.226(g)(1) provides that the RA may approve funding for and require the restoration of a destroyed facility at a new location when: 1) the facility is and will be subject to repetitive heavy damage; 2) approval is not barred by other provisions of title 44 C.F.R.; and; 3) the overall project; including all costs; is cost effective.However; the Applicant has not shown that FS5 is and will be subject to repetitive heavy damage nor that relocation would be cost effective.ConclusionThe Applicant did not demonstrate that relocation of FS5 satisfied all elements of 44 C.F.R. § 206.226(g)(1) as it did not show that FS5 is and will be subject to repetitive heavy damage; nor did it show that relocation would be cost effective. The RA properly applied his discretion to deny funding for relocation; therefore; this appeal is denied.