From August 27 to September 2, 2011, Tropical Storm Irene caused flooding in the Town of Killington, Vermont (Applicant). The floodwaters damaged the Applicant’s corrugated metal multi-plate pipe arch culvert. FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 3023, which provided for an in-kind replacement culvert. The Applicant instead built a bridge at the same location, and did not request additional funding until submitting a closeout request after construction completed. FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum denying the Applicant’s request to amend PW 3023, finding that it was an untimely appeal. FEMA also found that even if it was not an untimely appeal, the Applicant did not show that the bridge was required by an applicable code or standard, nor did the Applicant demonstrate that the bridge qualified as hazard mitigation. FEMA declined to deobligate funding, instead finding that the bridge was an improved project and accordingly reduced the award amount, less hazard mitigation costs. The Applicant submitted a first appeal, which FEMA denied on March 30, 2017, finding that the closeout request was an untimely appeal and even if not untimely, 1) the bridge was not required by codes or standards; 2) the bridge did not qualify as hazard mitigation; 3) FEMA had not made any material error or omission in determining eligible costs in PW 3023; and 4) the Applicant had failed to comply with a material term of PW 3023, but because there were no environmental or historic preservation concerns, FEMA would not de-obligate all funds. The Applicant submitted a second appeal, renewing its prior arguments, but also arguing that it did not have proper notice of PW 3023. Authorities and Second Appeals Stafford Act, §§ 406(e), 423(a). 44 C.F.R. §§ 13.30(c)(2)-(d)(1), 13.43(a)(2)-(3), 206.226(d)-(e). PA Guide, at 110-11, 125-26, 139-40. DAP 9527.4, at 3, 7; DAP 9526.1, at 2. Pulaski Cty., FEMA-4144-DR-MO, at 5-6; Essex Cty., FEMA-4020-DR-NY, at 5-6; Town of Springtown, FEMA-1751-DR-AR, at 4; Town of Townshend, FEMA-4022-DR-VT, 1, 3-4. Headnotes Pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 13.30(d)(1), applicants or grantees must obtain prior approval from FEMA whenever there is a revision of the scope of a project. Additionally, 44 C.F.R. § 13.30(c)(2) requires applicants and grantees to obtain prior written approval from FEMA for any budget revision that would require additional funds. FEMA approved funding for a culvert replacement and the Applicant instead built a bridge without receiving prior approval from FEMA. Upgrades required by an eligible code or standard are eligible for funding only if the code or standard satisfies all five elements of 44 C.F.R. § 206.226(d). The Applicant’s Hydraulics Manual, Hydraulic Unit Report, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers General Permits 21 & 28 do not satisfy all five elements because they provide only generic guidelines, do not include specific design criteria, and do not require an upgrade from a culvert to a bridge. The PA Guide provides that Stafford Act § 406 hazard mitigation does not apply to new or replacement facilities, even if hazard mitigation would have applied to repaired portions of the original facility. The Applicant constructed a new bridge which does not qualify as hazard mitigation.