Office of Grants and Training; Assistance To Firefighters Grant Program, 52553-52558 [E6-14759]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52553-52558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14759]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY


Office of Grants and Training; Assistance To Firefighters Grant 
Program

AGENCY: Office of Grants and Training, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of guidance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security is publishing this Notice 
to provide details and guidance regarding the 2006 program year 
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. The program makes grants 
directly to fire departments and nonaffiliated emergency medical 
services organizations for the purpose of enhancing first-responders' 
ability to protect the health and safety of the public as well as that 
of first-responder personnel facing fire and fire-related hazards. As 
in prior years, this year's grants are awarded on a competitive basis 
to the applicants that best reflect the program's criteria and funding 
priorities and best address statutory award requirements. This Notice 
describes the criteria and funding priorities recommended by a panel of 
representatives from the Nation's fire service leadership (criteria 
development panel) and accepted by the Department of Homeland Security, 
unless otherwise noted herein. This Notice contains details regarding 
the guidance and competitive process descriptions that have been 
provided to applicants and also provides information on where and why 
the Department deviated from recommendations of the criteria 
development panel.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2229, 2229a.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Cowan, Director, Assistance to 
Firefighters Program Office, Office of Grants and Training, 810 Seventh 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Appropriations

    For fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $539,550,000 to carry 
out the activities of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG 
Program).\1\ The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is authorized to 
spend up to $26,977,500 for administration of the AFG program (five 
percent of the appropriated amount). In addition, DHS has set aside no 
less than $26,977,500 of the funds (five percent of the appropriation) 
for the Fire Prevention and Safety Grants in order to make grants to, 
or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, national, 
State, local or community organizations or agencies, including fire 
departments, for the purpose of carrying out fire prevention and injury 
prevention programs. This leaves approximately $485,595,000 for 
competitive grants to fire departments and nonaffiliated Emergency 
Medical Service (EMS) organizations. Within the portion of funding 
available for competitive grants, DHS must assure that no less than 
three and one-half percent of the appropriation, or $18,884,250, is 
awarded for EMS equipment and training. However, awards to 
nonaffiliated emergency medical service (EMS) organizations are limited 
to no more than two percent of the appropriation or $10,791,000. 
Therefore, at least the balance of the requisite awards for EMS 
equipment and training must go to fire departments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All appropriated fund amounts are net of rescissions after 
enactment of the original appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The purpose of the AFG program is to award grants directly to fire 
departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations to enhance their 
ability to protect the health and safety of the public, as well as that 
of first-responder personnel, with respect to fire and fire related 
hazards. DHS awards the grants on a competitive basis to the applicants 
that best address the AFG program's priorities and provide the most 
compelling justification. Applicants whose requests best address the 
program's priorities were reviewed by a panel made up of fire service 
personnel. The panel reviewed the narrative and assessed the 
application with respect to the clarity of the project to be funded, 
the organization's financial need, the benefit to be derived from their 
project, and the extent to which the grant would enhance the 
applicant's daily operations and/or how the grant would positively 
impact the applicant's ability to protect life and property.
    The AFG Program for fiscal year 2006 generally mirrors previous 
years' programs with only one significant change. The only significant 
change is in the formulation of what the program has referred to as a 
``regional project.'' A regional project, generally, is a project 
undertaken by an applicant to provide services and support to a number 
of other regional participants, such as training for multiple mutual-
aid jurisdictions. For the 2006 program year, organizations that 
applied as a host of a regional project were not able to include 
activities unrelated to the regional project, e.g., activities to 
address specific needs of the host applicant versus the region. Also, 
the host applicant was required to reflect the general characteristics 
of the entire represented region. The population covered by the 
regional project affected the amount of required local contribution to 
the project, i.e. the cost-share required for the project.
    The 2006 program will again segregate the Fire Prevention and 
Safety Grant (FP&S) program from the AFG. DHS will have a separate 
application period devoted solely to Fire Prevention and Safety in the 
Fall of 2006. The AFG Web site (www.firegrantsupport.com) will provide 
updated information on this program.
    Congress has enacted statutory limits to the amount of funding that 
a grantee may receive from the AFG Program in any fiscal year.\2\ 15 
U.S.C. 2229(b)(10). These limits are based on population served. A 
grantee that serves a jurisdiction with 500,000 people or less may not 
receive grant funding in excess of $1,000,000 in any fiscal year. A 
grantee that serves a jurisdiction with more than 500,000 but not more 
than 1,000,000 people may not receive grants in excess of $1,750,000 in 
any fiscal year. A grantee that serves a jurisdiction with more than 
1,000,000 people may not receive grants in excess of $2,750,000 in any 
fiscal year. DHS may waive these established limits to any grantee 
serving a jurisdiction of 1,000,000 people or less if DHS determines 
that extraordinary need for assistance warrants the waiver. No

[[Page 52554]]

grantee, under any circumstance, may receive ``more than the lesser of 
$2,750,000 or one half of one percent of the funds appropriated under 
this section for a single fiscal year.'' In fiscal year 2006, no 
grantee may receive more than $2,697,750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Federal Fire Protection and Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-
498, Sec.  33, as added Pub. L. 106-398, Sec.  1 [Div. A, Title 
XVII, Sec.  1701(a)] 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-360 (2000), as amended 
Pub. L. 107-107, Div. A, Title X, Sec.  1061, 115 Stat. 1231 (2001); 
Pub. L. 108-7, Div. K, Title IV, Sec.  421, 117 Stat. 526 (2003); 
Pub. L. 108-169, Title II, Sec.  205, 117 Stat. 2040 (2003); Pub. L. 
108-375, Div. C, Title XXXVI, Sec.  3602, 118 Stat. 2195 (2004)., 
found at and hereafter cited as 15 U.S.C. 2229.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Grantees must share in the costs of the projects funded under this 
grant program. 15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(6). Fire departments and nonaffiliated 
EMS organizations that serve populations of less than 20,000 must match 
the Federal grant funds with an amount of non-Federal funds equal to 
five percent of the total project cost. Fire departments and 
nonaffiliated EMS organizations serving areas with a population between 
20,000 and 50,000, inclusive, must match the Federal grant funds with 
an amount of non-Federal funds equal to ten percent of the total 
project cost. Fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations that 
serve populations of over 50,000 must match the Federal grant funds 
with an amount of non-Federal funds equal to twenty percent of the 
total project costs. All non-Federal funds must be in cash, i.e., in-
kind contributions are not eligible. No waivers of this requirement 
will be granted except for applicants located in Insular Areas as 
provided for in 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
    The law imposes additional requirements on ensuring a distribution 
of grant funds among career departments and combination/volunteer fire 
departments, and among urban, suburban and rural communities. More 
specifically with respect to department types, DHS must ensure that 
all-volunteer or combination (volunteer and career personnel) fire 
departments receive a portion of the total grant funding that is not 
less than the proportion of the United States population that those 
departments protect. 15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(11). There is no corresponding 
minimum for career departments. Therefore, DHS will ensure that, for 
the 2006 program year, no less than 53.5 percent of the funding 
available for grants will be awarded to volunteer and combination 
departments.
    DHS generally makes funding decisions using rank order resulting 
from the panel evaluation. However, DHS may deviate from rank order and 
make funding decisions based on the type of department (career, 
combination, or volunteer) and/or the size and character of the 
community the applicant serves (urban, suburban, or rural) to the 
extent it is required to satisfy statutory provisions.

Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program

    In addition to the grants available to fire departments in fiscal 
year 2006 through the competitive grant program, DHS will set aside no 
less than $26,977,500 of the funds available under the AFG Program to 
make grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, 
national, State, local or community organizations or agencies, 
including fire departments, for the purpose of carrying out fire 
prevention and injury prevention programs.
    In accordance with the statutory requirement to fund fire 
prevention activities, support to Fire Prevention and Safety Grant 
activities concentrates on organizations that focus on the prevention 
of injuries to children from fire. In addition to this priority, DHS 
places an emphasis on funding innovative projects that focus on 
protecting children under fourteen, seniors over sixty-five, and 
firefighters. Because the victims of burns experience both short- and 
long-term physical and psychological effects, DHS places a priority on 
programs that focus on reducing the immediate and long-range effects of 
fire and burn injuries.
    DHS will issue an announcement regarding pertinent details of the 
Fire Prevention and Safety Grant portion of this program prior to the 
application period. Interested parties should monitor the grant 
program's Web site at www.firegrantsupport.com.

Application Process

    Prior to the start of the application period, DHS conducted 
applicant workshops across the country to inform potential applicants 
about the AFG program for FY2006. In addition, DHS made available an 
online web-based applicant tutorial, and other information for 
applicants to use in preparing a quality application. Applicants were 
advised to access the application electronically at https://
portal.fema.net, or through the AFG Web site at 
www.firegrantsupport.com. In completing the application, an applicants 
provided relevant information on the applicant's characteristics, call 
volume, and existing capacities. Applicants answered questions about 
their assistance request that reflect the funding priorities (iterated 
below). In addition, each applicant completed a narrative addressing 
statutory competitive factors: Financial need, benefits/costs, and 
improvement to the organization's daily operations. During the 
application period, applicants were encouraged to contact either a toll 
free number or e-mail help desk with any questions. The electronic 
application process permitted the applicant to enter data and save the 
application for further use, and did not permit the submission of 
applications that are incomplete. Except for the narrative, the 
application was a ``point-and-click'' selection process, or required 
the entry of information (e.g., name & address, call volume numbers, 
etc.).
    The application period for the AFG grants opened on March 6, 2006, 
and closed on April 7, 2006. During this application season, the 
program office received over 18,000 applications. Statistics on the 
type of department, type of community, and other factors can be found 
on the AFG Web site: https://www.firegrantsupport.com/docs/
2006AFGAppStats.pdf. All applications were evaluated in the preliminary 
screening process to determine which applications best addressed the 
program's announced funding priorities. This preliminary screening was 
based on the applicants' answers to the activity-specific questions. 
Each activity within an application was scored. Applications containing 
multiple activities were given prorated scores based on the amount of 
funding requested for each activity.
    The best applications as determined in the preliminary step were 
deemed to be in the ``competitive range.'' All applications in the 
competitive range were subject to a second level review by a technical 
evaluation panel made up of individuals from the fire service 
including, but not limited to, firefighters, fire marshals, and fire 
training instructors. The panelists assessed the application's merits 
with respect to the clarity and detail provided in the narrative about 
the project, the applicant's financial need, the project's purported 
benefit to be derived from the cost, the effectiveness of the project 
to enhance the health and safety of the public and fire service 
personnel.
    Using the evaluation criteria included here, the panelists 
independently scored each application before them and then discussed 
the merits and shortcomings of the application in an effort to 
reconcile any major discrepancies. A consensus on the score was not 
required. The assigned score reflected how well the applicant clearly 
related the proposed project including the project's budget; 
demonstrated financial need; detailed a high benefit to cost ratio of 
the proposed activities; and demonstrated significant enhancements to 
the daily operation of the organization and/or how the grant would 
positively impact the applicant's

[[Page 52555]]

ability to protect life and property. The panel then considered the 
highest scoring applications resulting from this second level of review 
for award.
    DHS will select a sufficient number of awardees from this one 
application period to obligate all of the available grant funding. DHS 
will announce awards over several months and will notify applicants 
that are not to receive funding as soon as feasible. DHS will not make 
awards in any specified order, i.e., not by State, nor by program, nor 
any other characteristic.

Criteria Development Process

    Each year, the grants program office conducts a criteria 
development meeting to develop the program's priorities for the coming 
year. DHS brings together a panel of fire service professionals 
representing the leadership of the nine major fire service 
organizations:
     International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC),
     International Association of Firefighters (IAFF),
     National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC),
     National Fire Protection Association (NFPA),
     National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM),
     International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI),
     North American Fire Training Directors (NAFTD),
     International Society of Fire Service Instructors (ISFSI),
     Congressional Fire Service Institute (CFSI).
    The criteria development panel is charged with making 
recommendations to the grants program office regarding the creation 
and/or modification of program priorities as well as development of 
criteria and definitions as necessary.
    The governing statute requires that we publish each year in the 
Federal Register the guidelines that describe the process for applying 
for grants and the criteria for awarding grants. DHS must also include 
an explanation of any differences between the published guidelines and 
the recommendations made by the criteria development panel. The 
guidelines and the statement on the differences between the guidelines 
and the criteria development panel recommendations must be published in 
the Federal Register prior to making any grants under the program. 15 
U.S.C. 2229(b)(14).
    Accordingly, DHS provides the following explanation of its 
decisions to modify or decline to adopt the criteria development 
panel's recommendations:
     In the vehicle acquisition program, DHS differed with the 
recommendations made by the criteria development panel for the 2006 
grants to adjust the highest priorities for urban fire departments to 
include command vehicles. DHS has determined to keep the previously 
established priorities for the vehicle acquisition program in place. 
DHS found the recommended changes for the 2006 grants to be, at the 
present time, too broad and not sufficiently defined to enable the 
program office to effectively implement these recommendations.
     In the modifications-to-facilities category, the criteria 
development panel has provided DHS with a directory of initiatives that 
they would like DHS to consider as eligible. DHS has elected to stay 
with a relatively shorter list of eligible initiatives (vehicle exhaust 
extraction systems, sprinkler systems, smoke/fire alarm systems, and 
emergency generators). DHS has limited the number of initiatives to 
those that will provide the most protection for firefighting and 
emergency responders versus providing a more comfortable working 
environment. DHS has limited the number of eligible initiatives because 
any modification to a facility may need to undergo an environmental 
and/or historic review.
     Also under the modifications-to-facilities category, the 
criteria development panel recommended that the grant program fund the 
installation of sprinkler systems in new construction to reinforce the 
importance of sprinkler systems. While DHS supports this type of 
mitigation, the authorizing legislation does not provide for funding of 
new construction. Therefore, DHS did not implement this recommendation.
    There were several other minor modifications that DHS made to the 
recommendations of the criteria development panel. These changes or 
modifications were presented to the panel and the panel concurred with 
the changes.
    In making these modifications, DHS looks to the broader 
Administration priorities established in Homeland Security Presidential 
Directive 8 (HSPD 8), 39 Weekly Comp. Pres. Docs. 1822 (Dec. 17, 2003). 
DHS is mindful of the differences between the AFG statutory mandates 
and HSPD-8 priorities, such as the statutory requirement that DHS make 
AFG grants directly to fire departments and non-affiliated EMS 
organizations, as contrasted with the HSPD-8 preference for funding 
through the States. However, the AFG is consistent with the National 
Preparedness Goal called for by HSPD-8 by prioritizing investments 
based upon the assessment of an applicant's need and capabilities to 
effectively prepare for, and respond to all hazards, including 
terrorism threats, and a consideration of the characteristics of the 
community served (e.g. presence of critical infrastructure, population 
served, call volume) to the extent permitted by law. To the extent 
practical, AFG has attempted to harmonize the directions from the 
President and the Secretary with the requirements and limitations of 
the authorization and the structure of the fire service. Assets devoted 
to basic firefighting should complement all aspects of responding to 
the more complex chemical / biological / radiological / nuclear / 
explosive (CBRNE) threat.

Review Considerations

Fire Department Priorities

    Specific rating criteria for each of the eligible programs and 
activities are discussed below. The funding priorities described in 
this Notice have been recommended by a panel of representatives from 
the Nation's fire service leadership and have been accepted by DHS for 
the purposes of implementing the AFG. These rating criteria provide an 
understanding of the grant program's priorities and the expected cost-
effectiveness of any proposed projects.
(1) Operations and Firefighter Safety Program
    (i) Training Activities. In implementing the fire service's 
recommendations, DHS has determined that the most benefit is derived 
from training that is instructor-led, hands-on, and leads to a 
nationally-sanctioned or State certification. Training requests that 
include Web-based home study or distance learning, and the purchase of 
training materials, equipment, or props are a lower priority. 
Therefore, applications focused on national or State certification 
training, including train-the-trainer initiatives, received a higher 
competitive rating. Training that (1) involves instructors, (2) 
requires the students to demonstrate their grasp of knowledge of the 
training material via testing, and (3) that is integral to a 
certification received a high competitive rating. Training that would 
lead to national certification received a higher competitive rating. 
Instructor-led training that does not lead to a certification, and any 
self-taught courses, are of lower benefit, and therefore were not 
afforded a high priority.

[[Page 52556]]

    Applications were rated more highly if the proposed programs would 
benefit the highest percentage of applicable personnel within a fire 
department or if the proposed programs would be open to other 
departments in the region. Training that brings the department into 
statutory (or OSHA) compliance would provide the highest benefit 
relative to training that is not required, and, therefore, received the 
highest consideration. Training that brings a department into voluntary 
compliance with national standards also received a high competitive 
rating, but not as high as the training that brings a department into 
statutory compliance. Training that does not achieve statutory 
compliance or voluntary compliance with a national standard received a 
low competitive rating.
    Due to the inherent differences between urban, suburban, and rural 
firefighting characteristics, DHS has accepted the recommendations of 
the criteria development panel on the different priorities in the 
training activity for departments that service these different types of 
communities. However, CBRNE awareness training has a high benefit and 
received the highest consideration regardless of the type of community 
served.
    For fire departments serving rural communities, DHS has determined 
that funding basic, operational-level firefighting, operational-level 
rescue, driver training, and first-responder EMS, EMT-B, and EMT-I 
training (i.e., training in basic firefighting and rescue duties) has 
greater benefit than funding officer training, safety officer training, 
or incident-command training. In rural communities, after basic 
training, there is a greater cost-benefit ratio for officer training 
than for other specialized types of training such as mass casualty, 
HazMat, advance rescue and EMT-P, or inspector training for rural 
departments.
    Conversely, for departments that are serving urban or suburban 
communities, DHS has determined that, due to the number of firefighters 
and the relatively-high population protected, any training requests 
received the highest priority regardless of the level of training 
requested. Training designated to enhance multi-jurisdictional 
capabilities was afforded a slightly higher rating.
    (ii) Wellness and Fitness Activities. In implementing the criteria 
panel's recommendations, DHS has determined that fire departments must 
offer periodic health screenings, entry physical examinations, and an 
immunization program to have an effective wellness/fitness program. 
Accordingly, applicants for grants in this category must currently 
offer or plan to offer with grant funds all three benefits to receive 
funding for any other initiatives in this activity. After entry-level 
physicals, annual physicals, and immunizations, DHS gave high priority 
to formal fitness and injury prevention programs. DHS gave lower 
priority to stress management, injury/illness rehabilitation, and 
employee assistance.
    DHS has determined the greatest relative benefit will be realized 
by supporting new wellness and fitness programs. Therefore, applicants 
for new wellness/fitness programs were accorded higher competitive 
ratings when compared with applicants lacking wellness/fitness programs 
and applicants that already employ a wellness/fitness program. Finally, 
because participation is critical to achieving any benefits from a 
wellness or fitness program, applications that mandate or provide 
incentives for participation were given higher competitive ratings.
    (iii) Equipment Acquisition. As stated in the AFG authorization 
statute, the purpose of this grant program is to protect the health and 
safety of firefighters and the public from fire and fire-related 
hazards. As such, equipment that has a direct effect on the health and 
safety of either firefighters or the public received a higher 
competitive rating than equipment that has no such effect. Equipment 
that promotes interoperability with neighboring jurisdictions received 
additional consideration in the cost-benefit assessment if the 
application made it into the competitive range.
    The criteria development panel recommended that this grant program 
will achieve the greatest benefits if the grant program provides funds 
to purchase firefighting, including rescue, EMS, and/or CBRNE 
preparedness, equipment that they have never owned prior to the grant, 
or to replace used or obsolete equipment. However, for the 2006 program 
year, departments seeking to expand into new service or mission areas 
received a lower competitive rating. New services or missions received 
a lower priority due to the risk that an applicant will not be able to 
financially support and sustain the new service or mission beyond the 
period of the grant.
    Departments responding to high call volumes were afforded a higher 
competitive rating than departments responding to lower call volumes in 
similar communities. In other words, those departments that are 
required to respond more often received a higher competitive rating 
then those that respond less frequently.
    The purchase of equipment that brings the department into statutory 
(or OSHA) compliance will provide the highest benefit and therefore 
received the highest consideration. The purchase of equipment that 
brings a department into voluntary compliance with national standards 
also received a high competitive rating, but not as high as for the 
purchase of equipment that brings a department into statutory 
compliance. The purchase of equipment that does not affect statutory 
compliance or voluntary compliance with a national standard received a 
lower competitive rating.
    (iv) Personal Protective Equipment Acquisition. One of the stated 
purposes of this grant program is to protect the health and safety of 
firefighters and the public. To achieve this goal and maximize the 
benefit to the firefighting community, DHS believes that it must fund 
those applicants needing to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) 
to a high percentage of their personnel. Accordingly, a higher 
competitive rating in this category was given to fire departments where 
a larger percentage of active firefighting staff was without compliant 
PPE. A high competitive rating was given to departments that wish to 
purchase enough PPE to equip one hundred percent of their active 
firefighting staff, or one hundred percent of their on-duty staff, as 
appropriate. Also a high competitive rating was given to departments 
that will purchase the equipment for the first time as opposed to 
departments replacing obsolete or substandard equipment (e.g., 
equipment that does not meet current NFPA and OSHA standards), or 
purchasing equipment for a new mission. For those departments that are 
replacing obsolete or substandard equipment, the condition of the 
equipment to be replaced was factored into the score with a higher 
priority given to replacing damaged, torn, and/or contaminated 
equipment.
    DHS only considered funding applications for personal alert safety 
system (PASS) devices that meet current national safety standards, 
i.e., integrated and/or automatic or automatic-on PASS. Finally, the 
number of fire response calls that a department makes in a year was 
considered with the higher priority going to departments with higher 
call volumes, while applications from departments with low call volumes 
were afforded lower competitive ratings. The call volume of rural 
departments was compared only to other rural departments; suburban 
departments were compared only to other suburban departments; and urban 
departments

[[Page 52557]]

were compared only to other urban departments.
    (v) Modifications to Fire Stations and Facilities. One statutory 
purpose of this grant program is to protect the health and safety of 
firefighters. DHS believes that more benefit is derived from modifying 
fire stations than by modifying fire-training facilities or other fire-
related facilities. Facilities that would be open for broad usage and 
have a high occupancy capacity received a higher competitive rating 
than facilities that have limited use and/or low occupancy capacity. 
The frequency of use would also have a bearing on the benefits to be 
derived from grant funds. The frequency and duration of a facility's 
occupancy have a direct relationship to the benefits to be realized 
from funding in this activity. Modification of facilities that are 
occupied or otherwise in use 24-hours-per-day/seven-days-a-week 
received a higher competitive rating than modification of facilities 
used on a part-time or irregular basis.
(2) Firefighting Vehicle Acquisition Program
    Due to the inherent differences between urban, suburban, and rural 
firefighting conventions, DHS has developed different priorities in the 
vehicle program for departments that service different types of 
communities. The following chart delineates the priorities in this 
program area for each type of community. Due to the competitive nature 
of this program and the imposed limits of funding available for this 
program, it is unlikely that DHS will fund many vehicles that are not 
listed as a Priority One or a Priority Two in the 2006 program year.

                                           Vehicle Program Priorities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Priority                   Urban communities       Suburban communities      Rural communities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority One.........................  Pumper.................  Pumper.................  Pumper.
                                       Aerial.................  Aerial.................  Brush/Attack.
                                       Quint (Aerial < 76')...  Quint (Aerial < 76')...  Tanker/Tender.
                                       Quint (Aerial 76' or >)  Quint (Aerial 76' or >)  Quint (Aerial < 76').
                                       Rescue.................  Brush/Attack...........
Priority Two.........................  Command................  Command................  HazMat.
                                       HazMat.................  HazMat.................  Rescue.
                                       Light/Air..............  Rescue.................  Light/Air.
                                       Rehab..................  Tanker/Tender..........  Aerial
                                                                                         Quint (Aerial 76' or >.
Priority Three.......................  Foam Truck.............  Foam Truck.............  Foam Truck.
                                       ARFFV..................  ARFFV..................  ARFFV.
                                       Brush/Attack...........  Rehab..................  Rehab.
                                       Tanker/Tender..........  Light/Air..............  Command.
                                       Ambulance..............  Ambulance..............  Ambulance.
                                       Fire Boat..............  Fire Boat..............  Fire Boat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless of the type of community served, DHS believes that 
greater benefit derives from funding fire departments that own few or 
no vehicles of the type requested than from funding a department with 
numerous vehicles of that same type. When assessing the number of 
vehicles a department has within a particular type, all vehicles with 
similar functions were included. For example, the ``pumper'' category 
includes: pumpers, engines, pumper/tankers, (with less than 1,250 
gallon capacity), rescue-pumpers, quints (with aerials less than 76 
feet in length), and urban interface vehicles (Type I, II or III). 
Pumpers with water capacity in excess of 1,250 gallons were considered 
a tanker/tender.
    A higher competitive rating in the apparatus category was given to 
fire departments that own few or no firefighting vehicles relative to 
other departments serving similar types of communities. A higher 
competitive rating was given to departments that have an aged fleet of 
firefighting vehicles. A higher competitive rating was also given to 
departments that respond to a significant number of incidents relative 
to other departments.
    DHS gave lower priority to funding departments seeking apparatus to 
expand into new mission or service areas due to the risk that the 
requesting department will not be able to support and sustain the new 
mission or service area beyond the grant program.
    DHS assigned no competitive advantage to the purchase of standard 
model commercial vehicles relative to custom vehicles, or the purchase 
of used vehicles relative to new vehicles in the preliminary evaluation 
of applications. DHS has noted that, depending on the type and size of 
department, the technical evaluation panelists often prefer low-cost 
vehicles when evaluating the cost-benefit section of the project 
narratives. DHS also reserves the right to consider current vehicle 
costs within the fire service vehicle manufacturing industry when 
determining the level of funding that will be offered to the potential 
grantee, particularly if those current costs indicate that the 
applicant's proposed purchase costs are excessive.
    Finally, due to the high demand for firefighting apparatus 
exhibited during prior program years and statutory limitations on the 
percentage of grant funds that can be used for the purchase of 
vehicles, DHS allowed each fire department to apply for only one 
vehicle during the 2006 program year. In addition, any department that 
had received a vehicle award from any previous AFG program year was not 
eligible for a second vehicle award in 2006.
(3) Administrative Costs
    Panelists assessed the reasonableness of the administrative costs 
requested in each application and determined if it is reasonable and in 
the best interest of the program.

Nonaffiliated EMS Organization Priorities

    DHS may make grants for the purpose of enhancing the provision of 
emergency medical services by nonaffiliated EMS organizations. Funding 
for these organizations is limited to not more than two percent of the 
appropriated amount. DHS has determined that it is more cost-effective 
to enhance or expand an existing emergency medical service organization 
by providing training and/or equipment than it would be to create a new 
service.

[[Page 52558]]

Communities that do not currently offer emergency medical services but 
are turning to this grant program to initiate such a service received 
the lowest competitive rating. DHS does not believe creating a 
nonaffiliated EMS program is a substantial and sufficient benefit under 
the program.
    Specific rating criteria and priorities for each of the grant 
categories are provided below following the descriptions of this year's 
eligible programs. The rating criteria, in conjunction with the program 
description, provide an understanding of the evaluation standards.
(1) EMS Operations and Safety Program
    There were five different activities available for funding under 
this program area: EMS training, EMS equipment, EMS personal protective 
equipment, wellness and fitness, and modifications to facilities. 
Requests for equipment and training to prepare for response to 
incidents involving CBRNE were available under the applicable equipment 
and training activities.
    (i) Training Activities. DHS believes that upgrading a service that 
currently meets a basic life support capacity to a higher level of life 
support creates the most benefit. Therefore, DHS gave a higher 
competitive rating to nonaffiliated EMS organizations that seek to 
upgrade from first responder to EMT-B level. Since training is a pre-
requisite to the effective use of EMS equipment, organizations whose 
request is more focused on training activities received a higher 
competitive rating than organizations whose request was more focused on 
equipment. The second priority was to elevate emergency responders' 
capabilities from EMT-B to EMT-I or higher.
    (ii) EMS equipment acquisition. As noted above, training received a 
higher competitive rating than equipment. Applications seeking 
assistance to purchase equipment to support the EMT-B level of service 
received a higher priority than requests seeking assistance to purchase 
equipment to support advance level EMS services. Items that were 
eligible but a lower priority include tents, shelters, generators, 
lights, and heating and cooling units.
    (iii) EMS personal protective equipment. DHS gave the same 
priorities for EMS PPE as it did for Fire Department PPE discussed 
above. Acquisition of PASS devices was not funded for EMS programs.
    (iv) Wellness and Fitness Activities. DHS believes that to have an 
effective wellness/fitness program, nonaffiliated EMS organizations 
must offer periodic health screenings, entry physical examinations, and 
an immunization program similar to the programs for fire departments 
discussed above. Accordingly, applicants for grants in this category 
must currently offer or plan to offer with grant funds all three 
benefits (periodic health screenings, entry physical examinations, and 
an immunization program) to receive funding for any other initiatives 
in this activity.
    (v) Modification to EMS stations and facilities. DHS believes that 
the competitive rankings and priorities applied to modification of fire 
stations and facilities, discussed above, apply equally to EMS stations 
and facilities.
(2) EMS Vehicle Acquisition Program
    DHS gave the highest funding priority to acquisition of ambulances 
and transport vehicles due to the inherent benefits to the community 
and EMS service provider. Due to the costs associated with obtaining 
and outfitting non-transport rescue vehicles relative to the benefits 
derived from such vehicles, DHS gave non-transport rescue vehicles a 
lower competitive rating than transport vehicles. Vehicles that have a 
very narrow function, such as aircraft, boats, and all-terrain 
vehicles, received the lowest competitive rating. DHS anticipates that 
the EMS vehicle awards will be very competitive due to very limited 
available funding. Accordingly, it is unlikely that DHS will fund any 
vehicles that are not listed as a ``Priority One'' in the 2006 program 
year. The following chart delineates the priorities in this program 
area for each type of community.

                         EMS Vehicle Priorities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Priority One               Priority Two       Priority Three
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ambulance or transport    First      
 unit to support EMT-B needs and   responder non-      Helicopters/
 functions.                        transport           planes.
                                   vehicles.           Command
                                   Special     vehicles.
                                   operations          Rescue
                                   vehicles..          boats (over 13
                                                       feet in length).
                                                      
                                                       Hovercraft.
                                                       Other
                                                       special access
                                                       vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS has not differentiated priorities in this year's EMS vehicle 
program for different types of communities.
    Along with the priorities illustrated above, DHS has accepted the 
fire service recommendation that emerged from the criteria development 
process that funding applicants that own few or no vehicles of the type 
sought will be more beneficial than funding applicants that own 
numerous vehicles of that same type. DHS assessed the number of 
vehicles an applicant owns by including all vehicles of the same type. 
For example, transport vehicles were considered the same as ambulances. 
DHS gave a higher competitive rating to applicants that have an aged 
fleet of emergency vehicles, and to applicants with old, high-mileage 
vehicles. A higher competitive rating was given to applicants that 
respond to a significant number of incidents relative to applicants 
responding less often while servicing similar communities.
(3) Administrative Costs
    Panelists assessed the reasonableness of the administrative costs 
requested in each application and determined if it is reasonable and in 
the best interest of the program.

    Dated: August 31, 2006.
George W. Foresman,
Under Secretary for Preparedness.
[FR Doc. E6-14759 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P