[Federal Register: March 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 13289-13296]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21mr07-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of Grants and Training


Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program

AGENCY: Office of Grants and Training, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of guidance.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice is to provide guidelines that describe the
application process for grants and the criteria for awarding grants in
the 2007 Assistance to Firefighters Grant program year, as well as an
explanation for any differences with the guidelines recommended to the
Department by representatives of the Nation's fire service leadership
during the annual Criteria Development meeting held November 1-2, 2006.
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 five 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.
As in prior years, this year's grants will be awarded on a
competitive basis to the applicants that best reflect the program's
criteria and funding priorities, and best address statutory award
requirements. As referenced above, this Notice describes the criteria
and funding priorities recommended by a panel of representatives of the
Nation's fire service leadership (criteria development panel) and
accepted by the Department of Homeland Security, unless otherwise noted
herein. This Notice contains details regarding the guidance and
competitive process descriptions that the Department has provided to
applicants and also provides information on how and why the Department
deviated from recommendations of the criteria development panel.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Cowan, Director, Assistance to
Firefighters Program Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 245

[[Page 13290]]

Murray Lane, Building 410, SW., Washington, DC 20528-7000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program is to provide 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 2007, Congress appropriated $547,000,000 to carry
out the activities of the AFG Program. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) is authorized to use up to $27,350,000 for
administration of the AFG program (five percent of the appropriated
amount). In addition, DHS has set aside no less than $27,350,000 of the
funds (five percent of the appropriation) for the Fire Prevention and
Safety Grants in order to make grants to, or enter into contracts or
cooperative agreements with, national, state, local or community
organizations or agencies, including fire departments, for the purpose
of carrying out fire prevention grants and firefighter safety research
and development grants. The remaining $492,300,000 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 three and one-half percent of the
appropriation, or $19,145,000, is awarded for EMS equipment and
training. However, awards to nonaffiliated EMS organizations are
limited to no more than two percent of the appropriation or
$10,940,000. 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 2007 generally mirrors previous years' programs
with a few significant changes. The first significant change is the
removal of the restriction regarding the number of vehicles that an
applicant may request in a single application. In prior years, all
applicants were limited to one vehicle per request and previous vehicle
awardees were not eligible for additional vehicle awards. For the 2007
program year, organizations that protect urban or suburban communities
will be allowed to apply for multiple vehicles. However, DHS will limit
eligible applicants' awards to one vehicle per station. In addition,
the total amount of funds that can be awarded to any one applicant will
continue to be limited by the statutory limitations detailed below.
The second significant change is to allow 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. During the 2006 program year, organizations that
applied as a host of a regional project were not able to include
activities unrelated to the regional project, e.g., activities to
address specific needs of the host applicant versus the region. For the
2007 program year, we will allow host applicants to satisfy their own
needs via separate application(s).
As in previous years, 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 2007 program will again segregate the Fire Prevention and
Safety Grant (FP&S) program from the AFG. DHS will have a separate
application period devoted solely to FP&S in the Fall of 2007. The AFG
Web site (http://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 one half of one percent of the funds appropriated under
this section for a single fiscal year.'' In fiscal year 2007, no
grantee may receive more than $2,735,000 (one half of one percent of
the $547,000,000 appropriated for 2007).
Grantees must share in the costs of the projects funded under this
grant program (15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(6). Fire departments and nonaffiliated
EMS organizations that serve populations of less than 20,000 must match
the Federal grant funds with an amount of non-Federal funds equal to
five percent of the total project cost. Fire departments and
nonaffiliated EMS organizations serving areas with a population between
20,000 and 50,000, inclusive, must match the Federal grant funds with
an amount of non-Federal funds equal to ten percent of the total
project cost. Fire departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations that
serve populations of over 50,000 must match the Federal grant funds
with an amount of non-Federal funds equal to twenty percent of the
total project costs. All non-Federal funds must be in cash, i.e., in-
kind contributions are not eligible. 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 2007 program year, no less

[[Page 13291]]

than thirty-three percent (33%) of the funding available for grants
will be awarded to combination departments, and no less than twenty-two
percent (22%) 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 fifty-five 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.

Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program

In addition to the grants available to fire departments in fiscal
year 2007 through the competitive grant program, DHS will set aside no
less than $27,350,000 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 fourteen, seniors over sixty-five, and
firefighters. Because the victims of burns experience both short- and
long-term physical and psychological effects, DHS places a priority on
programs that focus on reducing the immediate and long-range effects of
fire and burn injuries.
DHS will issue an announcement regarding pertinent details of the
Fire Prevention and Safety Grant portion of this program prior to the
application period. Interested parties should monitor the grant
program's Web site at http://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 2007. 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 http://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. During the approaching application season, the
program office expects to receive between 25,000 and 30,000
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: http://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.'' 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.
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 applicants
that will not receive funding 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, the 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:
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC),
International Association of Firefighters (IAFF),
National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC),
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA),
National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM),
International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI),
North American Fire Training Directors (NAFTD),
International Society of Fire Service Instructors (ISFSI),
Congressional Fire Service Institute (CFSI).
The criteria development panel is charged with making
recommendations to the grants program office regarding the creation
and/or modification of program priorities as well as development of
criteria and definitions as necessary.

[[Page 13292]]

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).
Accordingly, DHS provides the following explanation of its
decisions to modify or decline to adopt the criteria development
panel's recommendations:
The criteria development panel recommended allowing
multiple vehicle requests for departments serving urban communities but
did not provide a similar recommendation for departments serving
suburban communities. DHS concurs with this recommendation but believes
there is also sufficient benefit to be realized by extending the same
consideration to departments serving suburban communities. As such, DHS
will allow urban and suburban departments to apply for multiple
vehicles during the 2007 program year. The applications, however, will
be limited to one vehicle per station and any applicable statutory
funding limits.
In recent years, DHS has prohibited previous vehicle
awardees from receiving a second vehicle grant. The criteria
development panel recommended that DHS allow certain vehicle grantees
an opportunity to receive a second vehicle grant. Specifically, they
recommended that DHS implement a five-year moratorium on applying for a
second vehicle allowing vehicle grantees from 2001 and 2002 to receive
vehicle funding in 2007. DHS believes that in light of the
recommendation to allow certain departments to apply for multiple
vehicles, placing any restriction on previous awardees would not be
equitable. As such, for the 2007 program year, DHS will allow any
applicant to apply for a vehicle regardless of the applicant's previous
grant history.
The criteria development panel recommended that any
multiple vehicle requests be restricted to multiple vehicles of the
same class. The criteria development panel's rationale was that a
department could otherwise request several high priority vehicles as
well as lower priority vehicles which could result in funding of lower
priority vehicles in lieu of high priorities. DHS believes limiting
applicants to one type of vehicle is overly restrictive and not
responsive to organizations' needs. Therefore, DHS will not implement
this recommendation and will allow departments to apply for any need.
While risk is taken into consideration when determining
which applications should go to panel, DHS did not believe that the
criteria development group provided sufficient consideration for risks
that a community faces. As such, DHS will provide higher consideration
for departments that protect a higher population than departments that
protect lower populations. Another measure of benefit will be the
frequency in which any equipment or training would be used. As such,
the number of incidents (call volume) that an organization responds to
is directly relevant to the frequency at which any equipment or
training would be used--i.e., the higher levels of incidents should
afford higher consideration for benefit/cost to an application. In the
implementation of previous years' programs, DHS had utilized separate
matrices for departments that protected urban, suburban and urban
communities when determining the consideration for incidents. DHS
believes that when using separate matrices, urban departments receive
too little consideration relative to the incidents of an urban
department. In order to remove this inequity, DHS will utilize a
single, combined matrix when determining consideration for an
applicant's level of incidents for fire departments.
The criteria development group disagreed with DHS that
vehicle awardees must strictly adhere to National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) guidelines regarding driver/operator training.
Specifically, NFPA 1002 requires that drivers not only undergo driver
and operator training, but also pass a firefighter physical (NFPA 1582)
and be trained in basic firefighting (NFPA 1001). The criteria
development group recommended that DHS require only the driver/operator
training and a physical that did not meet NFPA standards. Finally, they
recommended that DHS ignore the NFPA requirement that all drivers be
sufficiently trained in basic firefighting. DHS will adhere to the
standards provided by NFPA and require any vehicle awardee to
administer a comprehensive driver/operator training program consistent
with NFPA 1002.
There are more EMS incidents than fire incidents. The
criteria development group did not take the different response levels
into account when recommending the matrices to determine consideration
for the number of incidents. When evaluating EMS organizations'
applications, therefore, DHS will use a different matrix than that used
for evaluating fire departments' applications. DHS will also take into
account existing vehicle's mileage.
The criteria development committee did not make any
recommendations to limit the items eligible for funding under the Fire
Prevention and Safety Grants program. However, the purchase of certain
items has been criticized as unnecessary to fire prevention efforts.
Accordingly, when considering requests for fire prevention safety
activities, DHS will limit the items that may be purchased to include,
for example, mobile safety education trailers and model homes that are
not usable for habitation or commercial purposes; curriculum materials
and appropriate supplies; CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) training
tools; fire extinguisher training tools; and media equipment.
The criteria development committee included formal
physical fitness equipment and programs as a high priority and
prerequisite (along with physicals and immunizations) for any other
wellness and fitness funding. DHS disagrees that federal funding of
exercise equipment should be a prerequisite for other wellness and
fitness activities and placing a high priority on federal funding of
exercise equipment over-emphasizes exercise in relation to physicals
and immunizations. Therefore, DHS includes this activity as a lower
priority.
The criteria development committee recommended that the
eligible activities under modifications to facilities be expanded to
include storm doors and storm windows. While DHS appreciates the
recommendation to mitigate losses from certain natural disasters, DHS
determined that the previously eligible activities were sufficient.
Specifically, under modifications to facilities, DHS will only fund:
(1) Installation of sprinkler systems; (2) vehicle exhaust extraction
systems; (3) smoke and fire alarm notification systems; and (4)
emergency facility generators.
DHS also made several minor modifications to the automated
scoring matrix meant to correct unintended inconsistencies between the
recommendations provided by the panel and DHS' interpretation of the
intent of the recommendations.
In making these modifications, DHS looks to the broader
Administration priorities established in Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 8 (HSPD

[[Page 13293]]

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 Goal
called for by HSPD-8 by prioritizing investments based upon the
assessment of an applicant's need and capabilities to effectively
prepare for and respond to all hazards, including terrorism threats,
and a consideration of the characteristics of the community served
(e.g. presence of critical infrastructure, population served, call
volume) to the extent permitted by law. To the extent practical, AFG
has attempted to harmonize the directions from the President and the
Secretary with the requirements and limitations of the authorization
and the structure of the fire service. 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.

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
the authorizing statutes, 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
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 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 or provide incentives for participation will receive
higher competitive ratings.
(iii) Equipment Acquisition. As stated in the AFG authorization
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

[[Page 13294]]

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.
For the 2007 program year, the criteria development panel has
recommended that DHS make a distinction between ``new missions'' and
``new risks.'' 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, for example, 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 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 to 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 which 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 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 2007 program year.

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

[[Page 13295]]


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.
In 2007, applicants 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 allow departments
serving rural communities to apply for only one vehicle. DHS will limit
applications from suburban or urban departments to one vehicle per
station as well as by the statutory funding limits. DHS will not limit
applications because of a vehicle award from previous AFG program
years, i.e., previous vehicle awardees are eligible for funding for
additional vehicles in 2007.
(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
authorizing statute limits funding for these organizations to no more
than two percent of the appropriated amount. DHS has determined that it
is more cost-effective to enhance or expand an existing emergency
medical service organization by providing training and/or equipment
than 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.
(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. Because training is a pre-
requisite to the effective use of EMS equipment, organizations with
requests more focused on training activities received a higher
competitive rating than organizations whose request is more focused on
equipment. The second priority is to elevate emergency responders'
capabilities from EMT-B to EMT-I or higher.
(ii) EMS Equipment Acquisition. As noted above, training received a
higher competitive rating than equipment. Applications seeking
assistance to purchase equipment to support the EMT-B level of service
received a higher priority than requests seeking assistance

[[Page 13296]]

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 gave 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 gave the highest funding priority to acquisition of ambulances
and transport vehicles due to the inherent benefits to the community
and EMS service provider. Due to the costs associated with obtaining
and outfitting non-transport rescue vehicles relative to the benefits
derived from such vehicles, DHS will give non-transport rescue vehicles
a lower competitive rating than transport vehicles. Vehicles that have
a very narrow function, such as aircraft, boats, and all-terrain
vehicles, received the lowest competitive rating. DHS anticipates that
the EMS vehicle awards will be very competitive due to very limited
available funding. Accordingly, DHS will likely only fund vehicles that
are listed as a ``Priority One'' in the 2007 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 transport unit First responder non- Helicopters/planes.
to support EMT-B needs and transport vehicles Command vehicles.
functions Special operations vehicles Rescue boats (over 13 feet
in length).
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.

Dated: March 16, 2007.
George W. Foresman,
Under Secretary for Preparedness.
[FR Doc. 07-1380 Filed 3-16-07; 12:58 pm]

BILLING CODE 4410-10-P