Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, 13552-13558 [E8-5039]
Download as PDF
13552
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 50 / Thursday, March 13, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
received during the comment period for
the draft supplemental EA.
Viewing the comments and draft
supplemental EA: To view the
comments and draft supplemental EA,
go to https://www.regulations.gov at any
time. Enter the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2008–0035) in the
box under ‘‘Search’’, and click go. You
may also visit the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12–140 on the
ground floor of the DOT West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 30590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. The draft
supplemental EA is also available at
public libraries in Maryland (P.D.
Brown Memorial Library, Accokeek
Library, Potomac Library, La Plata
Library, Calvert Library, Southern
Branch, Prince Frederick Branch,
Fairview Branch and Twin Beaches
Branch, Surratts-Clinton Library, Upper
Marlboro Library, and the Public
Documents Reference Library) and at
the Loudoun County Public Library in
Ashburn, VA.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review the Department of
Transportation’s Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you
may visit https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Proposed Action
On August 8, 2005, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
requested Dominion Cove Point, LP, to
prepare a Waterway Suitability
Assessment (WSA) for the proposed
Cove Point LNG Expansion Project to be
submitted to the United States Coast
Guard. The purpose of the WSA was to
identify credible security threats and
safety hazards associated with increased
LNG marine transportation in the
Chesapeake Bay and identify
appropriate risk management measures.
The Coast Guard Captain of the Port,
Baltimore, and the Captain of the Port,
Hampton Roads, received the WSA from
Dominion Cove Point on January 17,
2006. The conclusions of the WSA were
included in the Federal Register on
February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7791). The
Coast Guard solicited public comments
on the WSA to consider when preparing
preliminary recommendations to FERC
for inclusion in their final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
on the Cove Point Expansion Project,
which was completed April 2006,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
regarding the suitability of the
Chesapeake Bay for the increased LNG
vessel traffic. The FEIS was prepared to
satisfy the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The
FEIS was intended to evaluate all
foreseeable environmental impacts of
the proposed Cove Point LNG
Expansion Project including, but not
limited to, possible environmental
impacts from USCG issuance of the LOR
on the suitability of the waterway for
LNG vessel traffic. The Coast Guard
later discovered that there were issues
associated with issuance of the LOR that
were not fully addressed in the FEIS.
The applicant was notified of those
issues and additional information was
requested from the applicant. These
issues were quickly addressed by
additional information the applicant
submitted to the Coast Guard. The Coast
Guard assessed the applicant-prepared
draft EA that supplements the FERC’s
final EIS for the Cove Point LNG
Expansion Project. Based on Cove
Point’s follow-up research, analysis, and
proposed mitigation measures provided
to the Coast Guard to address issues
needed to support the LOR, the Coast
Guard has preliminarily concluded that
the additional LNG vessel traffic
associated with the Cove Point LNG
Expansion Project does not pose an
undue or significant environmental
hazard to the environment for the LNG
vessel transit route covered by our
proposed LOR.
The Coast Guard will take into
consideration the results of the Cove
Point assessment and public comments
received when making its final
conclusion on whether to adopt the
proffered draft applicant-prepared
supplemental EA and issue a Finding of
No Significant Impact. To make this
decision, the Coast Guard will use
comments received to further assess the
possible impacts on endangered species,
cultural resources, essential fish habitat
issues, general environmental effects,
and the other public interest factors.
The results will also be considered as
the Coast Guard prepares a Letter of
Recommendation which will identify
what actions and resources are
necessary to make the waterway suitable
for increased LNG traffic to the Cove
Point LNG facility.
and assesses their potential
environmental impact.
We are requesting your comments on
environmental concerns that you may
have related to the draft supplemental
EA. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment
period.
Draft Supplemental Environmental
Assessment
The Coast Guard has assessed the
applicant-prepared draft EA that
supplements the FERC’s final EIS. See
‘‘Viewing the comments and draft
supplementary EA’’ above. The draft
supplementary EA identifies and
examines the reasonable alternatives
Brian Cowan, Director, Assistance to
Firefighters Program Office, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security,
FEMA: 5th Floor Suites AFG—
TechWorld Building, SW., Washington,
DC 20472.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
purpose of the Assistance to Firefighters
Grant (AFG) Program is to provide
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: March 7, 2008.
J.G Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and
Standards.
[FR Doc. E8–4922 Filed 3–12–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of Guidance.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This Notice provides
guidelines that describe the application
process for grants and the criteria for
awarding grants in the 2008 Assistance
to Firefighters Grant program year, as
well as an explanation for any
differences with the guidelines
recommended by representatives of the
Nation’s fire service leadership during
the annual Criteria Development
meeting. The program makes grants
directly to fire departments and
nonaffiliated emergency medical
services organizations for the purpose of
enhancing first-responders’ abilities to
protect the health and safety of the
public as well as that of first-responder
personnel facing fire and fire-related
hazards. In addition, the authorizing
statute requires that a minimum of 5
percent of appropriated funds be
expended for fire prevention and safety
grants, which are also made directly to
local fire departments and to local,
regional, State or national entities
recognized for their expertise in the
field of fire prevention and firefighter
safety research and development.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2229, 2229a.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM
13MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 50 / Thursday, March 13, 2008 / Notices
grants directly to fire departments and
nonaffiliated Emergency Medical
Services (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.
Appropriations
For fiscal year 2008, Congress
appropriated $560,000,000 to carry out
the activities of the AFG Program. The
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) is authorized to use up to
$28,000,000 for administration of the
AFG program (5 percent of the
appropriated amount). In addition, DHS
must set aside no less than $28,000,000
of the funds (5 percent of the
appropriation) for the Fire Prevention
and Safety Grants (FP&S). However, for
fiscal year 2008, DHS will award
$35,000,000 for FP&S. Under FP&S,
DHS may 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
grants and firefighter safety research and
development grants.
The remaining $497,000,000 will be
used for competitive grants to fire
departments and nonaffiliated EMS
organizations for equipment, training
and first responders’ safety. Within the
portion of funding available for these
competitive grants, DHS must assure
that no less than 3.5 percent of the
appropriation, or $19,600,000, is
awarded for EMS equipment and
training. However, awards to
nonaffiliated EMS organizations are
limited to no more than 2 percent of the
appropriation or $11,200,000. Therefore,
at least the balance of the requisite
awards for EMS equipment and training
must go to fire departments.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Background
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 will be reviewed by
a panel composed of fire service
personnel. The panel will review the
narrative and evaluate the application in
four different areas: (1) The clarity of the
proposed project description, (2) the
organization’s financial need, (3) the
benefit to be derived from the proposed
project relative to the cost, and (4) the
extent to which the grant would
enhance the applicant’s daily operations
and/or how the grant would positively
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
impact the applicant’s ability to protect
life and property.
The AFG program for 2008 generally
mirrors previous years’ AFG programs
including changes made in 2007. Those
changes included the removal of the
restriction regarding the number of
vehicles that an applicant may request
in a single application; the provision to
allow organizations that protect urban
or suburban communities to apply for
multiple vehicles (with a limit of one
vehicle per station); and an allowance
for applicants to submit as many as
three separate applications: a vehicle
application, an application for
operations and safety, and an
application for 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. Regional applications will
be required to reflect the general
characteristics of the entire represented
region. The population covered by the
regional project will affect the amount
of required local contribution to the
project, i.e. the cost share required for
the project.
The 2008 program will again segregate
the FP&S program from the AFG. DHS
will have a separate application period
devoted solely to FP&S tentatively
scheduled to occur in the Fall of 2008.
The AFG Web site https://
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 (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
grantee, under any circumstance, may
receive ‘‘more than the lesser of
$2,750,000 or .5 percent [one-half of 1
percent] of the funds appropriated
under this section for a single fiscal
year.’’
Grantees must share in the costs of the
projects funded under this grant
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13553
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 nonFederal funds equal to 5 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 10 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 20 percent of the total project
costs. All non-Federal funds must be in
cash, i.e., in-kind contributions are not
eligible. The only waiver granted for
this requirement will be 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, volunteer,
and combination (volunteer and career
personnel) fire departments, and among
urban, suburban and rural communities.
More specifically with respect to
department types, DHS must ensure that
all-volunteer or combination 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, subject to the
other statutory limitations on DHS
ability to award funds, DHS will ensure
that, for the 2008 program year, no less
than 33 percent of the funding available
for grants will be awarded to
combination departments, and no less
than 22 percent will be awarded to allvolunteer departments. If, and only if,
other statutory limitations inhibit DHS
ability to ensure this distribution of
funding, DHS will ensure that the
aggregate combined total percent of
funding provided to both combination
and volunteer departments is no less
than 55 percent.
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.
E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM
13MRN1
13554
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 50 / Thursday, March 13, 2008 / Notices
Fire Prevention and Safety Grant
Program
In addition to the grants available to
fire departments in fiscal year 2008
through the competitive grant program,
DHS will set aside $35,000,000 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 projects, and for research
and development grants that address
firefighter safety.
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 14, seniors
over 65, and firefighters. Because the
victims of burns experience both shortand 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:
https://www.firegrantsupport.com.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Application Process
Prior to the start of the application
period, DHS will conduct applicant
workshops across the country to inform
potential applicants about the AFG
program for 2008. In addition, DHS will
provide applicants an online web-based
tutorial and other information to use in
preparing a quality application.
Applicants are advised to access the
application electronically at https://
portal.fema.net, or through the AFG
Web site at: https://
www.firegrantsupport.com. In
completing the application, applicants
will provide relevant information on the
applicant’s characteristics, call volume,
and existing capacities. Applicants will
answer questions regarding their
assistance request that reflects the
funding priorities (iterated below). In
addition, each applicant will complete a
narrative addressing statutory
competitive factors: financial need,
benefits/costs, and improvement to the
organization’s daily operations. During
the application period, applicants will
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
be encouraged to contact DHS via a toll
free number or online help desk with
any questions. The electronic
application process will permit the
applicant to enter data and save the
application for further use, and will not
permit the submission of incomplete
applications. Except for the narrative,
the application uses a ‘‘point-and-click’’
selection process, or requires the entry
of information (e.g., name & address,
call volume numbers, etc.).
The application period for the AFG
grants will be announced in the full
Program Guidance when posted on the
AFG website. During the approaching
application season, the program office
expects to receive between 20,000 and
25,000 applications. When available,
application statistics on the type of
department, type of community, and
other factors reflected in the submitted
requests will be posted on the AFG Web
site: https://www.firegrantsupport.com.
Application Review Process
DHS evaluates all applications in the
preliminary screening process to
determine which applications best
address the program’s announced
funding priorities. This preliminary
screening evaluates and scores the
applicants’ answers to the activity
specific questions. Applications
containing multiple activities will be
given prorated scores based on the
amount of funding requested for each
activity. The best applications as
determined in the preliminary step are
deemed to be in the ‘‘competitive
range.’’
Once the competitive range is
established DHS will review the list of
applicants that are not included in the
competitive range to determine if any of
those applicants are responsible for
protecting DHS-specified critical
infrastructure or key resources. If it is
determined that an applicant has
responsibility for protecting one or more
critical infrastructure or key resources
but is not included in the competitive
range, DHS will determine whether it is
appropriate to place that application
before the peer review panel due to the
importance of its mission to protect
these critical resources. This action will
not affect any other application or
otherwise undermine the process used
to determine the competitive range. Peer
review panelists will not be aware of
any applicant’s protection of critical
infrastructure/key resources and all
applications will be peer reviewed
against the criteria described in this
document.
All applications in the competitive
range are subject to a second level
review by a technical evaluation panel
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
made up of individuals from the fire
service including, but not limited to,
firefighters, fire marshals, and fire
training instructors. The panelists will
assess the application’s merits with
respect to the clarity and detail
provided about the project, the
applicant’s financial need, the project’s
purported benefit to be derived from the
cost, and 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 will independently
score each application before them and
then discuss the merits and
shortcomings of the application in an
effort to reconcile any major
discrepancies. A consensus on the score
is not required. The panelists will assign
a score to each of the elements detailed
above. DHS will then consider the
highest scoring applications resulting
from this second level of review for
awards. Applications that involve
interoperable communications projects
will undergo a separate review by the
State Administrative Agency to assure
that the communications project is
consistent with the Statewide
Communications Interoperability Plan
(SCIP). If the State determines that the
project is inconsistent with the State
SCIP, the project will not be funded.
After the completion of the reviews,
DHS will select a sufficient number of
awardees from this application period to
obligate all of the available grant
funding. DHS will announce the awards
over several months and will notify
non-successful applicants as soon as
feasible. DHS will not make awards in
any specified order, i.e., not by State,
program, nor any other characteristic.
Criteria Development Process
Each year, DHS 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:
• Congressional Fire Service Institute
(CFSI),
• International Association of Arson
Investigators (IAAI),
• International Association of Fire
Chiefs (IAFC),
• International Association of
Firefighters (IAFF),
• International Society of Fire Service
Instructors (ISFSI),
• National Association of State Fire
Marshals (NASFM),
• National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA),
• National Volunteer Fire Council
(NVFC), and
E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM
13MRN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 50 / Thursday, March 13, 2008 / Notices
• North American Fire Training
Directors (NAFTD).
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
DHS publish each year in the Federal
Register the guidelines that describe the
application process and the criteria for
grant awards. 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 regarding the differences
between the guidelines and the criteria
development panel recommendations
must be published in the Federal
Register prior to awarding any grants
under the program. 15 U.S.C.
2229(b)(14).
When considering the criteria
development panel’s recommendations,
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 some 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 nonaffiliated EMS organizations, as
contrasted with the HSPD–8 preference
for funding through the States.
However, the AFG is consistent with the
National Preparedness Guidelines 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. Federal funding of assets
devoted to basic firefighting should
complement all aspects of responding to
the more complex chemical/biological/
radiological/nuclear/explosive (CBRNE)
threat.
The Fiscal year 2008 criteria
development panel meeting occurred
June 6–7, 2007. For the 2008 program
year, DHS implemented all
recommendations presented by the
criteria development panel. However,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
DHS implemented additional program
changes that were not considered during
the criteria development panel’s
deliberations. Those changes are as
follows:
• In determining which applications
will be reviewed by the peer panelists,
DHS will review the list of applicants
that are not included in the competitive
range to determine if any those
applicants are responsible for protecting
critical infrastructure or key resources
on this classified list. If it is determined
that an applicant has responsibility for
protecting one or more critical
infrastructure or key resources but is not
included in the competitive range, DHS
will determine whether it is appropriate
to place that application before the peer
review panel due to the importance of
its mission to protect these critical
resources. This action will not affect any
other application or otherwise
undermine the process used to
determine the competitive range. Peer
review panelists will not be aware of
any applicant’s protection of critical
infrastructure/key resources and all
applications will be peer reviewed
against the criteria
• For regional communications
requests, DHS will require that any
regional communications projects
comply with the applicant’s Stateapproved Statewide Communications
Interoperability Plan.
• Under the wellness and fitness
activities, DHS will not allow grantees
to request funds for consultants such as
nutritionists and fitness trainers. Also,
costs of incentives to bolster
participation in a wellness and fitness
programs will not be eligible.
• Under the equipment acquisition
activity, DHS will not allow funding for
all-terrain vehicles, rescue boats,
snowmobiles, and other small specialty
vehicles.
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 project(s). The activities listed
below are in no particular order of
priority. Within each activity, DHS will
consider the number of people served
by the applicant with higher
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13555
populations afforded more
consideration than lower populations.
DHS will further explain program
priorities in program guidance to be
published separately.
(1) Operations and Firefighter Safety
Program
(i) Training Activities. In
implementing the fire service’s
recommendations, DHS has determined
that the most benefit will be derived
from instructor-led, hands-on training
that leads to a nationally-sanctioned or
State certification. Training requests
that include Web-based home study or
distance learning or 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, will receive
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) is integral to a
certification will receive a high
competitive rating. Instructor-led
training that does not lead to a
certification, and any self-taught
courses, are of lower benefit, and
therefore will not receive a high
priority.
DHS will give higher priority, within
the limitations imposed by statute, to
training proposals which improve
coordination capabilities across
disciplines (Fire, EMS, and Police), and
jurisdictions (local, State, and Federal).
Training related to coordinated incident
response (i.e. bomb threat or IED
response), tactical emergency
communications procedures, or similar
types of inter-disciplinary, interjurisdictional training will receive the
highest competitive rating.
Due to the inherent differences
between urban, suburban, and rural
firefighting characteristics, DHS has
accepted the recommendations of the
criteria development panel for different
priorities in the training activities of
departments that service these different
types of communities. CBRNE
awareness training has a high benefit,
however, and will receive the highest
consideration regardless of the type of
community served and regardless of the
absence of any national standard.
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, EMS, and
rescue duties) has greater benefit than
funding officer training, safety officer
E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM
13MRN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
13556
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 50 / Thursday, March 13, 2008 / Notices
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.
Conversely, for departments that are
serving urban or suburban communities,
DHS has determined that, due to the
number of firefighters and the relativelyhigh percentage of the population
protected, any training requests will
receive a high priority rating regardless
of the level of training requested. As
such, when considering applications for
training from departments serving urban
and suburban communities, DHS will
give higher priority to training proposals
which improve coordination
capabilities across first-responder
disciplines (fire, EMS, and law
enforcement), and jurisdictions (local,
State, and Federal). Training related to
coordinated incident response (e.g.,
weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
awareness and incident operations,
chemical or biological operations, or
bomb threats), tactical emergency
communications procedures, or similar
types of inter-disciplinary, interjurisdictional training will receive the
highest competitive 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 will give priority to formal fitness
and injury prevention programs. DHS
will give 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 will receive
higher competitive ratings when
compared with applicants whose
wellness/fitness programs lack one or
more of the three top priority items
cited above, and applicants that already
employ the requisite three activities of
a wellness/fitness program. Finally,
because participation is critical to
achieving any benefits from a wellness
or fitness program, applications that
mandate participation or provide
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
incentives for participation will receive
higher competitive ratings.
(iii) Equipment Acquisition. As stated
in the AFG statute, DHS administers
this grant program 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 will receive a
higher competitive rating than
equipment that has no such effect.
Equipment that promotes
interoperability with neighboring
jurisdictions (especially for
communications equipment
interoperable with a regional shared
system) will receive additional
consideration in the cost-benefit
assessment if the application makes it
into the competitive range.
The criteria development panel
concluded that this grant program will
achieve the greatest benefits if the grant
program provides funds to purchase
firefighting equipment (including
rescue, EMS, and/or CBRNE
preparedness) that the applicant has not
owned prior to the grant, or to replace
used or obsolete equipment.
According to the panel, a department
takes on a ‘‘new mission’’ when it
expands its services into areas not
previously offered, such as a fire
department seeking funding to provide
emergency medical services for the first
time. A ‘‘new risk’’ presents itself when
a department must address risks that
have materialized in the department’s
area of responsibility, e.g. the
construction of a plant that uses
significant levels of certain chemicals
could constitute a ‘‘new risk.’’ An
organization taking on ‘‘new risks’’
should be afforded higher consideration
than departments taking on a ‘‘new
mission.’’ New missions receive a lower
priority due to the potential that an
applicant will not be able to financially
support and sustain the new mission
beyond the period of the grant.
However, applicants can mitigate the
impact of ‘‘new missions’’ on the
competitiveness of their application by
providing evidence that the department
will be able to support and sustain the
new mission beyond the period of the
grant.
Departments responding to high call
volumes will be afforded a higher
competitive rating than departments
responding to lower call volumes. In
other words, those departments that are
required to respond more frequently
will receive a higher competitive rating
then those that respond less frequently.
The purchase of equipment that
brings the department into statutory or
regulatory compliance will provide the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
highest benefit and therefore will
receive the highest consideration. The
purchase of equipment that brings a
department into voluntary compliance
with national standards will also receive
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 will receive a lower
competitive rating.
(iv) Personal Protective Equipment
Acquisition. To achieve the Program’s
goals 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, DHS will
assign a higher competitive rating in
this category for fire departments where
a larger number of active firefighting
staff is without compliant PPE. DHS
will assign a high competitive rating 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). For those
departments that are replacing obsolete
or substandard equipment, DHS will
factor the age and condition of the
equipment to be replaced into the score
with a higher priority given to replacing
old, damaged, torn, and/or
contaminated equipment.
DHS will only consider 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, DHS takes into account the
number of fire response calls that a
department makes in a year with the
higher priority going to departments
with higher call volumes, while
applications from departments with low
call volumes are afforded lower
competitive ratings.
(v) Modifications to Fire Stations and
Facilities. DHS believes that more
benefit is derived from modifying fire
stations than by modifying fire-training
facilities or other fire-related facilities.
The frequency of use has a bearing on
the benefits derived from grant funds.
As such, DHS will afford facilities
occupied 24-hours-per-day/seven-daysa-week the highest consideration when
contrasted with facilities used on a parttime or irregular basis. Facilities open
for broad usage and have a high
occupancy capacity receive a higher
competitive rating than facilities that
have limited use and/or low occupancy
capacity. The frequency and duration of
E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM
13MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 50 / Thursday, March 13, 2008 / Notices
a facility’s occupancy have a direct
relationship to the benefits realized
from funding in this activity.
(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 not listed as a
Priority One during the 2008 program
year.
FIREFIGHTING VEHICLE PROGRAM
PRIORITIES
Urban
communities
Suburban
communities
Rural communities
Priority One
Pumper
Aerial
Quint (Aerial
< 76′)
Quint (Aerial
> 76′)
Rescue
Pumper
Aerial
Quint (Aerial
< 76′)
Quint (Aerial
> 76′)
Pumper
Brush/Attack
Tanker/Tender
Quint (Aerial < 76′)
Priority Two
Command
HAZMAT
Light/Air
Rehab
Command
HAZMAT
Rescue
Tanker/
Tender
Brush/Attack
HAZMAT
Rescue
Light/Air
Aerial
Quint (Aerial > 76′)
Priority Three
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Foam Truck
ARFFV
Brush/Attack
Tanker
/Tender
Ambulance
Fire Boat
Foam Truck
ARFFV
Rehab
Light/Air
Foam Truck
ARFFV
Rehab
Command
Ambulance
Fire Boat
Ambulance
Fire Boat
DHS will evaluate the marginal value
derived from an additional vehicle of
any given type on the basis of call
volume. As a result, departments with
fewer vehicles of a given type than other
departments who service comparable
call volumes are more likely to score
competitively than departments with
more vehicles of that type and
comparable call volume unless the need
for an additional vehicle of such type is
made apparent in the application.
As in 2007, applicants in the 2008
program year may submit requests for
more than one vehicle. Applicants must
supply sufficient justification for each
vehicle contained in the request. For
those applications with multiple
vehicles, the panelists will be instructed
to evaluate the marginal benefit to be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
derived from funding the additional
vehicle(s) given the potential use and
the population protected. DHS
anticipates that the panels will only
recommend an award for a multiplevehicles application when the costbenefit justification is adequately
compelling.
DHS believes that a greater benefit
will be derived from funding an
additional vehicle(s) to departments that
own fewer or no vehicles of the type
requested. As such, DHS assigns a
higher competitive rating in the
apparatus category to fire departments
that own fewer firefighting vehicles
relative to other departments serving
similar types of communities (i.e.,
urban, suburban, and rural). DHS
assesses all vehicles with similar
functions when assessing the number of
vehicles a department possesses within
a particular type. For example, the
‘‘pumper’’ category includes: Pumpers,
engines, pumper/tankers (apparatus that
carries a minimum of 300 gallons of
water and has a pump with a capacity
to pump a minimum of 750 gallons per
minute), rescue-pumpers, quints (with
aerials less than 76 feet in length), and
urban interface vehicles (Type I).
Apparatus that has water capacity in
excess of 1,000 gallons and a pump with
pumping capacity of less than 750
gallons per minute are considered to be
a tanker/tender.
DHS assigns a higher competitive
rating to departments possessing an
aged fleet of firefighting vehicles. DHS
will also assign a higher competitive
rating to departments that respond to a
high volume of incidents.
DHS will give lower priority to
funding departments seeking apparatus
with the goal to expand into new
mission areas unless the applicant
demonstrates that they will be able to
support and sustain the new mission or
service area beyond the grant program.
DHS will assign 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 peer
review panelists often prefer low-cost
vehicles when evaluating the costbenefit 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13557
DHS will allow departments serving
urban or suburban communities to
apply for more than one vehicle. DHS,
however, will only allow departments
serving rural communities to apply for
one vehicle. DHS will limit applications
from suburban or urban departments to
one vehicle per station as well as per
statutory funding limits. DHS will not
limit 2008 applications because of a
vehicle award from previous AFG
program years.
(3) Administrative Costs. Panelists
will assess the reasonability of the
administrative costs requested in any
application and determine if the request
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. The
statute limits funding for these
organizations to no more than 2 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 to create a new service.
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. In each
activity, the amount of the population
served by the applicant will be taken
into consideration with higher
populations afforded more
consideration than low populations
served. DHS will further explain
program priorities in the Program
Guidance upon publication thereof.
(1) EMS Operations and Safety Program
Five different activities may be
funded 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.
E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM
13MRN1
13558
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 50 / Thursday, March 13, 2008 / Notices
(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 will give
a higher competitive rating to
nonaffiliated EMS organizations that
seek to upgrade from first responder to
EMT–B level or EMT–I level of service.
Because training is a prerequisite to the
effective use of EMS equipment,
organizations with requests that focused
more on training activities received a
higher competitive rating than
organizations whose requests focused
more on equipment. The second priority
is to elevate emergency responders’
capabilities from EMT–B or EMT–I to a
higher level of service.
(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 or EMT–I level of service
received a higher priority than requests
seeking assistance to purchase
equipment to support advance level
EMS services. Items that are eligible but
a lower priority include tents, shelters,
generators, lights, and heating and
cooling units. Firefighting equipment is
not eligible under this activity.
As discussed previously,
organizations taking on ‘‘new risks’’ will
be afforded much higher consideration
than an organization taking on a ‘‘new
mission.’’
(iii) EMS Personal Protective
Equipment. DHS gives the same
priorities for EMS PPE as it did for fire
department PPE discussed above.
Acquisition of PASS devices or any
firefighting PPE is not eligible, however,
for funding for EMS organizations.
(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 previously.
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. The priorities for EMS
wellness/fitness programs are the same
as for fire departments as discussed
above.
(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 gives 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 will give non-transport rescue
vehicles a lower competitive rating than
transport vehicles. DHS anticipates that
the EMS vehicle awards will be very
competitive due to very limited
available funding. Accordingly, DHS
will likely only fund vehicles that are
listed as a ‘‘Priority One’’ in the 2008
program year.
The following chart delineates the
priorities in this program area for EMS
vehicle program. The priorities are the
same regardless of the type of
community served.
EMS VEHICLE PRIORITIES
Priority one
Priority two
Priority three
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
• Ambulance or transport unit to support EMT–
B needs and functions
• First responder non-transport vehicles
• Special operations vehicles
• Command vehicles.
• Hovercraft.
• Other special access vehicles.
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 assesses the number of
vehicles an applicant owns by including
all vehicles of the same type. For
example, transport vehicles will be
considered the same as ambulances.
DHS will give a higher competitive
rating to applicants that have an aged
fleet of emergency vehicles, and to
applicants with old, high-mileage
vehicles. DHS will give a higher
competitive rating to applicants that
respond to a significant number of
incidents relative to applicants
responding less often. Finally, DHS will
afford applicants with transport vehicles
with high mileage more consideration
than applicants with vehicles that
driven extensively.
(3) Administrative Costs. Panelists
assess the reasonableness of the
administrative costs requested in each
application and determined whether the
request will be reasonable and in the
best interest of the program.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
Dated: March 10, 2008.
David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8–5039 Filed 3–12–08; 8:45 am]
[CA 680–08–5101–ER B266] [CACA 49138]
Notice of Intent and Notice of
Preparation To Prepare a Joint
Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report and
California Desert Conservation Area
Plan Amendment, California
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Intent/Notice of
Preparation.
AGENCY:
BILLING CODE 9111–64–P
PO 00000
Bureau of Land Management
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
together with the County of San
Bernardino, California (County), intend
to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM
13MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 50 (Thursday, March 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13552-13558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5039]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of Guidance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice provides guidelines that describe the application
process for grants and the criteria for awarding grants in the 2008
Assistance to Firefighters Grant program year, as well as an
explanation for any differences with the guidelines recommended by
representatives of the Nation's fire service leadership during the
annual Criteria Development meeting. The program makes grants directly
to fire departments and nonaffiliated emergency medical services
organizations for the purpose of enhancing first-responders' abilities
to protect the health and safety of the public as well as that of
first-responder personnel facing fire and fire-related hazards. In
addition, the authorizing statute requires that a minimum of 5 percent
of appropriated funds be expended for fire prevention and safety
grants, which are also made directly to local fire departments and to
local, regional, State or national entities recognized for their
expertise in the field of fire prevention and firefighter safety
research and development.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2229, 2229a.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Cowan, Director, Assistance to
Firefighters Program Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
FEMA: 5th Floor Suites AFG--TechWorld Building, SW., Washington, DC
20472.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program is to provide
[[Page 13553]]
grants directly to fire departments and nonaffiliated Emergency Medical
Services (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.
Appropriations
For fiscal year 2008, Congress appropriated $560,000,000 to carry
out the activities of the AFG Program. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) is authorized to use up to $28,000,000 for
administration of the AFG program (5 percent of the appropriated
amount). In addition, DHS must set aside no less than $28,000,000 of
the funds (5 percent of the appropriation) for the Fire Prevention and
Safety Grants (FP&S). However, for fiscal year 2008, DHS will award
$35,000,000 for FP&S. Under FP&S, DHS may 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 grants and firefighter
safety research and development grants.
The remaining $497,000,000 will be used for competitive grants to
fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations for equipment,
training and first responders' safety. Within the portion of funding
available for these competitive grants, DHS must assure that no less
than 3.5 percent of the appropriation, or $19,600,000, is awarded for
EMS equipment and training. However, awards to nonaffiliated EMS
organizations are limited to no more than 2 percent of the
appropriation or $11,200,000. Therefore, at least the balance of the
requisite awards for EMS equipment and training must go to fire
departments.
Background
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 will be reviewed by a panel composed of fire
service personnel. The panel will review the narrative and evaluate the
application in four different areas: (1) The clarity of the proposed
project description, (2) the organization's financial need, (3) the
benefit to be derived from the proposed project relative to the cost,
and (4) 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 2008 generally mirrors previous years' AFG
programs including changes made in 2007. Those changes included the
removal of the restriction regarding the number of vehicles that an
applicant may request in a single application; the provision to allow
organizations that protect urban or suburban communities to apply for
multiple vehicles (with a limit of one vehicle per station); and an
allowance for applicants to submit as many as three separate
applications: a vehicle application, an application for operations and
safety, and an application for 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.
Regional applications will be required to reflect the general
characteristics of the entire represented region. The population
covered by the regional project will affect the amount of required
local contribution to the project, i.e. the cost share required for the
project.
The 2008 program will again segregate the FP&S program from the
AFG. DHS will have a separate application period devoted solely to FP&S
tentatively scheduled to occur in the Fall of 2008. The AFG Web site
https://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 (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 grantee,
under any circumstance, may receive ``more than the lesser of
$2,750,000 or .5 percent [one-half of 1 percent] of the funds
appropriated under this section for a single fiscal year.''
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 5 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 10 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 20
percent of the total project costs. All non-Federal funds must be in
cash, i.e., in-kind contributions are not eligible. The only waiver
granted for this requirement will be 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, volunteer, and combination (volunteer and
career personnel) fire departments, and among urban, suburban and rural
communities. More specifically with respect to department types, DHS
must ensure that all-volunteer or combination 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, subject to the other statutory
limitations on DHS ability to award funds, DHS will ensure that, for
the 2008 program year, no less than 33 percent of the funding available
for grants will be awarded to combination departments, and no less than
22 percent will be awarded to all-volunteer departments. If, and only
if, other statutory limitations inhibit DHS ability to ensure this
distribution of funding, DHS will ensure that the aggregate combined
total percent of funding provided to both combination and volunteer
departments is no less than 55 percent.
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.
[[Page 13554]]
Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program
In addition to the grants available to fire departments in fiscal
year 2008 through the competitive grant program, DHS will set aside
$35,000,000 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 projects, and for research and development grants that
address firefighter safety.
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 14, seniors over 65, 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: https://www.firegrantsupport.com.
Application Process
Prior to the start of the application period, DHS will conduct
applicant workshops across the country to inform potential applicants
about the AFG program for 2008. In addition, DHS will provide
applicants an online web-based tutorial and other information to use in
preparing a quality application. Applicants are advised to access the
application electronically at https://portal.fema.net, or through the
AFG Web site at: https://www.firegrantsupport.com. In completing the
application, applicants will provide relevant information on the
applicant's characteristics, call volume, and existing capacities.
Applicants will answer questions regarding their assistance request
that reflects the funding priorities (iterated below). In addition,
each applicant will complete a narrative addressing statutory
competitive factors: financial need, benefits/costs, and improvement to
the organization's daily operations. During the application period,
applicants will be encouraged to contact DHS via a toll free number or
online help desk with any questions. The electronic application process
will permit the applicant to enter data and save the application for
further use, and will not permit the submission of incomplete
applications. Except for the narrative, the application uses a ``point-
and-click'' selection process, or requires the entry of information
(e.g., name & address, call volume numbers, etc.).
The application period for the AFG grants will be announced in the
full Program Guidance when posted on the AFG website. During the
approaching application season, the program office expects to receive
between 20,000 and 25,000 applications. When available, application
statistics on the type of department, type of community, and other
factors reflected in the submitted requests will be posted on the AFG
Web site: https://www.firegrantsupport.com.
Application Review Process
DHS evaluates all applications in the preliminary screening process
to determine which applications best address the program's announced
funding priorities. This preliminary screening evaluates and scores the
applicants' answers to the activity specific questions. Applications
containing multiple activities will be given prorated scores based on
the amount of funding requested for each activity. The best
applications as determined in the preliminary step are deemed to be in
the ``competitive range.''
Once the competitive range is established DHS will review the list
of applicants that are not included in the competitive range to
determine if any of those applicants are responsible for protecting
DHS-specified critical infrastructure or key resources. If it is
determined that an applicant has responsibility for protecting one or
more critical infrastructure or key resources but is not included in
the competitive range, DHS will determine whether it is appropriate to
place that application before the peer review panel due to the
importance of its mission to protect these critical resources. This
action will not affect any other application or otherwise undermine the
process used to determine the competitive range. Peer review panelists
will not be aware of any applicant's protection of critical
infrastructure/key resources and all applications will be peer reviewed
against the criteria described in this document.
All applications in the competitive range are 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 will assess the
application's merits with respect to the clarity and detail provided
about the project, the applicant's financial need, the project's
purported benefit to be derived from the cost, and 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 will
independently score each application before them and then discuss the
merits and shortcomings of the application in an effort to reconcile
any major discrepancies. A consensus on the score is not required. The
panelists will assign a score to each of the elements detailed above.
DHS will then consider the highest scoring applications resulting from
this second level of review for awards. Applications that involve
interoperable communications projects will undergo a separate review by
the State Administrative Agency to assure that the communications
project is consistent with the Statewide Communications
Interoperability Plan (SCIP). If the State determines that the project
is inconsistent with the State SCIP, the project will not be funded.
After the completion of the reviews, DHS will select a sufficient
number of awardees from this application period to obligate all of the
available grant funding. DHS will announce the awards over several
months and will notify non-successful applicants as soon as feasible.
DHS will not make awards in any specified order, i.e., not by State,
program, nor any other characteristic.
Criteria Development Process
Each year, DHS 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:
Congressional Fire Service Institute (CFSI),
International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI),
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC),
International Association of Firefighters (IAFF),
International Society of Fire Service Instructors (ISFSI),
National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM),
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA),
National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC), and
[[Page 13555]]
North American Fire Training Directors (NAFTD).
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 DHS publish each year in the
Federal Register the guidelines that describe the application process
and the criteria for grant awards. 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 regarding the differences between the guidelines and
the criteria development panel recommendations must be published in the
Federal Register prior to awarding any grants under the program. 15
U.S.C. 2229(b)(14).
When considering the criteria development panel's recommendations,
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 some 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 Guidelines 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. Federal funding of assets devoted to basic
firefighting should complement all aspects of responding to the more
complex chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear/explosive (CBRNE)
threat.
The Fiscal year 2008 criteria development panel meeting occurred
June 6-7, 2007. For the 2008 program year, DHS implemented all
recommendations presented by the criteria development panel. However,
DHS implemented additional program changes that were not considered
during the criteria development panel's deliberations. Those changes
are as follows:
In determining which applications will be reviewed by the
peer panelists, DHS will review the list of applicants that are not
included in the competitive range to determine if any those applicants
are responsible for protecting critical infrastructure or key resources
on this classified list. If it is determined that an applicant has
responsibility for protecting one or more critical infrastructure or
key resources but is not included in the competitive range, DHS will
determine whether it is appropriate to place that application before
the peer review panel due to the importance of its mission to protect
these critical resources. This action will not affect any other
application or otherwise undermine the process used to determine the
competitive range. Peer review panelists will not be aware of any
applicant's protection of critical infrastructure/key resources and all
applications will be peer reviewed against the criteria
For regional communications requests, DHS will require
that any regional communications projects comply with the applicant's
State-approved Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan.
Under the wellness and fitness activities, DHS will not
allow grantees to request funds for consultants such as nutritionists
and fitness trainers. Also, costs of incentives to bolster
participation in a wellness and fitness programs will not be eligible.
Under the equipment acquisition activity, DHS will not
allow funding for all-terrain vehicles, rescue boats, snowmobiles, and
other small specialty vehicles.
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 project(s). The activities listed below
are in no particular order of priority. Within each activity, DHS will
consider the number of people served by the applicant with higher
populations afforded more consideration than lower populations. DHS
will further explain program priorities in program guidance to be
published separately.
(1) Operations and Firefighter Safety Program
(i) Training Activities. In implementing the fire service's
recommendations, DHS has determined that the most benefit will be
derived from instructor-led, hands-on training that leads to a
nationally-sanctioned or State certification. Training requests that
include Web-based home study or distance learning or 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, will receive 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) is integral to a certification
will receive a high competitive rating. Instructor-led training that
does not lead to a certification, and any self-taught courses, are of
lower benefit, and therefore will not receive a high priority.
DHS will give higher priority, within the limitations imposed by
statute, to training proposals which improve coordination capabilities
across disciplines (Fire, EMS, and Police), and jurisdictions (local,
State, and Federal). Training related to coordinated incident response
(i.e. bomb threat or IED response), tactical emergency communications
procedures, or similar types of inter-disciplinary, inter-
jurisdictional training will receive the highest competitive rating.
Due to the inherent differences between urban, suburban, and rural
firefighting characteristics, DHS has accepted the recommendations of
the criteria development panel for different priorities in the training
activities of departments that service these different types of
communities. CBRNE awareness training has a high benefit, however, and
will receive the highest consideration regardless of the type of
community served and regardless of the absence of any national
standard.
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, EMS, and rescue duties)
has greater benefit than funding officer training, safety officer
[[Page 13556]]
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.
Conversely, for departments that are serving urban or suburban
communities, DHS has determined that, due to the number of firefighters
and the relatively-high percentage of the population protected, any
training requests will receive a high priority rating regardless of the
level of training requested. As such, when considering applications for
training from departments serving urban and suburban communities, DHS
will give higher priority to training proposals which improve
coordination capabilities across first-responder disciplines (fire,
EMS, and law enforcement), and jurisdictions (local, State, and
Federal). Training related to coordinated incident response (e.g.,
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) awareness and incident operations,
chemical or biological operations, or bomb threats), tactical emergency
communications procedures, or similar types of inter-disciplinary,
inter-jurisdictional training will receive the highest competitive
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 will give priority
to formal fitness and injury prevention programs. DHS will give 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 will receive higher competitive
ratings when compared with applicants whose wellness/fitness programs
lack one or more of the three top priority items cited above, and
applicants that already employ the requisite three activities of a
wellness/fitness program. Finally, because participation is critical to
achieving any benefits from a wellness or fitness program, applications
that mandate participation or provide incentives for participation will
receive higher competitive ratings.
(iii) Equipment Acquisition. As stated in the AFG statute, DHS
administers this grant program 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 will receive a higher competitive
rating than equipment that has no such effect. Equipment that promotes
interoperability with neighboring jurisdictions (especially for
communications equipment interoperable with a regional shared system)
will receive additional consideration in the cost-benefit assessment if
the application makes it into the competitive range.
The criteria development panel concluded that this grant program
will achieve the greatest benefits if the grant program provides funds
to purchase firefighting equipment (including rescue, EMS, and/or CBRNE
preparedness) that the applicant has not owned prior to the grant, or
to replace used or obsolete equipment.
According to the panel, a department takes on a ``new mission''
when it expands its services into areas not previously offered, such as
a fire department seeking funding to provide emergency medical services
for the first time. A ``new risk'' presents itself when a department
must address risks that have materialized in the department's area of
responsibility, e.g. the construction of a plant that uses significant
levels of certain chemicals could constitute a ``new risk.'' An
organization taking on ``new risks'' should be afforded higher
consideration than departments taking on a ``new mission.'' New
missions receive a lower priority due to the potential that an
applicant will not be able to financially support and sustain the new
mission beyond the period of the grant. However, applicants can
mitigate the impact of ``new missions'' on the competitiveness of their
application by providing evidence that the department will be able to
support and sustain the new mission beyond the period of the grant.
Departments responding to high call volumes will be afforded a
higher competitive rating than departments responding to lower call
volumes. In other words, those departments that are required to respond
more frequently will receive a higher competitive rating then those
that respond less frequently.
The purchase of equipment that brings the department into statutory
or regulatory compliance will provide the highest benefit and therefore
will receive the highest consideration. The purchase of equipment that
brings a department into voluntary compliance with national standards
will also receive 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 will
receive a lower competitive rating.
(iv) Personal Protective Equipment Acquisition. To achieve the
Program's goals 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, DHS will assign a higher competitive rating in
this category for fire departments where a larger number of active
firefighting staff is without compliant PPE. DHS will assign a high
competitive rating 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). For those departments that are replacing obsolete
or substandard equipment, DHS will factor the age and condition of the
equipment to be replaced into the score with a higher priority given to
replacing old, damaged, torn, and/or contaminated equipment.
DHS will only consider 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, DHS takes into account the number of fire response calls that
a department makes in a year with the higher priority going to
departments with higher call volumes, while applications from
departments with low call volumes are afforded lower competitive
ratings.
(v) Modifications to Fire Stations and Facilities. DHS believes
that more benefit is derived from modifying fire stations than by
modifying fire-training facilities or other fire-related facilities.
The frequency of use has a bearing on the benefits derived from grant
funds. As such, DHS will afford facilities occupied 24-hours-per-day/
seven-days-a-week the highest consideration when contrasted with
facilities used on a part-time or irregular basis. Facilities open for
broad usage and have a high occupancy capacity receive a higher
competitive rating than facilities that have limited use and/or low
occupancy capacity. The frequency and duration of
[[Page 13557]]
a facility's occupancy have a direct relationship to the benefits
realized from funding in this activity.
(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 not listed as a Priority One
during the 2008 program year.
Firefighting Vehicle Program Priorities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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') Quint (Aerial > 76') Quint (Aerial < 76')
Rescue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Two
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Command Command HAZMAT
HAZMAT HAZMAT Rescue
Light/Air Rescue Light/Air
Rehab Tanker/ Tender Aerial
Brush/Attack Quint (Aerial > 76')
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS will evaluate the marginal value derived from an additional
vehicle of any given type on the basis of call volume. As a result,
departments with fewer vehicles of a given type than other departments
who service comparable call volumes are more likely to score
competitively than departments with more vehicles of that type and
comparable call volume unless the need for an additional vehicle of
such type is made apparent in the application.
As in 2007, applicants in the 2008 program year may submit requests
for more than one vehicle. Applicants must supply sufficient
justification for each vehicle contained in the request. For those
applications with multiple vehicles, the panelists will be instructed
to evaluate the marginal benefit to be derived from funding the
additional vehicle(s) given the potential use and the population
protected. DHS anticipates that the panels will only recommend an award
for a multiple-vehicles application when the cost-benefit justification
is adequately compelling.
DHS believes that a greater benefit will be derived from funding an
additional vehicle(s) to departments that own fewer or no vehicles of
the type requested. As such, DHS assigns a higher competitive rating in
the apparatus category to fire departments that own fewer firefighting
vehicles relative to other departments serving similar types of
communities (i.e., urban, suburban, and rural). DHS assesses all
vehicles with similar functions when assessing the number of vehicles a
department possesses within a particular type. For example, the
``pumper'' category includes: Pumpers, engines, pumper/tankers
(apparatus that carries a minimum of 300 gallons of water and has a
pump with a capacity to pump a minimum of 750 gallons per minute),
rescue-pumpers, quints (with aerials less than 76 feet in length), and
urban interface vehicles (Type I). Apparatus that has water capacity in
excess of 1,000 gallons and a pump with pumping capacity of less than
750 gallons per minute are considered to be a tanker/tender.
DHS assigns a higher competitive rating to departments possessing
an aged fleet of firefighting vehicles. DHS will also assign a higher
competitive rating to departments that respond to a high volume of
incidents.
DHS will give lower priority to funding departments seeking
apparatus with the goal to expand into new mission areas unless the
applicant demonstrates that they will be able to support and sustain
the new mission or service area beyond the grant program.
DHS will assign 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 peer review 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.
DHS will allow departments serving urban or suburban communities to
apply for more than one vehicle. DHS, however, will only allow
departments serving rural communities to apply for one vehicle. DHS
will limit applications from suburban or urban departments to one
vehicle per station as well as per statutory funding limits. DHS will
not limit 2008 applications because of a vehicle award from previous
AFG program years.
(3) Administrative Costs. Panelists will assess the reasonability
of the administrative costs requested in any application and determine
if the request 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. The
statute limits funding for these organizations to no more than 2
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 to
create a new service. 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. In
each activity, the amount of the population served by the applicant
will be taken into consideration with higher populations afforded more
consideration than low populations served. DHS will further explain
program priorities in the Program Guidance upon publication thereof.
(1) EMS Operations and Safety Program
Five different activities may be funded 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.
[[Page 13558]]
(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 will give a higher
competitive rating to nonaffiliated EMS organizations that seek to
upgrade from first responder to EMT-B level or EMT-I level of service.
Because training is a prerequisite to the effective use of EMS
equipment, organizations with requests that focused more on training
activities received a higher competitive rating than organizations
whose requests focused more on equipment. The second priority is to
elevate emergency responders' capabilities from EMT-B or EMT-I to a
higher level of service.
(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 or EMT-I
level of service received a higher priority than requests seeking
assistance to purchase equipment to support advance level EMS services.
Items that are eligible but a lower priority include tents, shelters,
generators, lights, and heating and cooling units. Firefighting
equipment is not eligible under this activity.
As discussed previously, organizations taking on ``new risks'' will
be afforded much higher consideration than an organization taking on a
``new mission.''
(iii) EMS Personal Protective Equipment. DHS gives the same
priorities for EMS PPE as it did for fire department PPE discussed
above. Acquisition of PASS devices or any firefighting PPE is not
eligible, however, for funding for EMS organizations.
(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 previously. 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. The priorities for EMS wellness/
fitness programs are the same as for fire departments as discussed
above.
(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 gives 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 will give non-transport rescue vehicles
a lower competitive rating than transport vehicles. DHS anticipates
that the EMS vehicle awards will be very competitive due to very
limited available funding. Accordingly, DHS will likely only fund
vehicles that are listed as a ``Priority One'' in the 2008 program
year.
The following chart delineates the priorities in this program area
for EMS vehicle program. The priorities are the same regardless of the
type of community served.
EMS Vehicle Priorities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority one Priority two Priority three
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambulance or First Command
transport unit to responder non- vehicles.
support EMT-B needs transport vehicles Hovercraft.
and functions Special Other special
operations vehicles access vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 assesses the number of
vehicles an applicant owns by including all vehicles of the same type.
For example, transport vehicles will be considered the same as
ambulances. DHS will give a higher competitive rating to applicants
that have an aged fleet of emergency vehicles, and to applicants with
old, high-mileage vehicles. DHS will give a higher competitive rating
to applicants that respond to a significant number of incidents
relative to applicants responding less often. Finally, DHS will afford
applicants with transport vehicles with high mileage more consideration
than applicants with vehicles that driven extensively.
(3) Administrative Costs. Panelists assess the reasonableness of
the administrative costs requested in each application and determined
whether the request will be reasonable and in the best interest of the
program.
Dated: March 10, 2008.
David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-5039 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-64-P