Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 13289 

Dated: March 14, 2007. 

Randall W. Lutter, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy and 

Planning. 

[FR Doc. E7–5152 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

National Antimicrobial Resistance 

Monitoring System Program 

Subcommittee of the Science Advisory 

Board to the Food and Drug 

Administration; Notice of Public 

Meeting 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

The Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) is announcing the following 

public meeting: Science Board to the 

FDA National Antimicrobial Resistance 

Monitoring System (NARMS) Program 

Subcommittee meeting. The topic to be 

discussed is the National Antimicrobial 

Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) 

Program. The subcommittee will 

provide advice to the Science Advisory 

Board to FDA regarding the NARMS 

program. 

Date and Time: The public meeting 

will be held on April 10, 2007, 

beginning at 9 a.m. 

Location: The DoubleTree Hotel and 

Executive Meeting Center, 1750 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. 

Contact: Carlos Pena, Office of 

Science and Health Coordination, Office 

of the Commissioner (HF–33), Food and 

Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane 

(for express delivery, rm. 14B–08), 

Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827–3340, email: Carlos.Pena@fda.hhs.gov. 

Agenda: The subcommittee will 

evaluate the NARMS program and 

address four questions relevant to the 

continued success of the program 

including: 

(1) Are there inherent biases in the 

sampling strategies employed in 

NARMS? If so, how can they be 

improved to ensure that the data and 

interpretation are scientifically sound 

given current resources? 

(2) Are there epidemiological and/or 

microbiological research studies that 

would better serve the goals of NARMS 

and the regulatory work of FDA? 

(3) Are current plans for data 

harmonization and reporting 

appropriate? If not, what are the top 

priorities for advancing harmonized 

reporting? and 

(4) Are the current NARMS 

international activities adequate to 

address the worldwide spread of 

antimicrobial-resistant foodborne 

bacteria? 

The subcommittee will discuss the 

NARMS Program and hear comments on 

the NARMS Program, including oral 

presentations from the public on scope, 

strengths, weaknesses, and areas for 

improvement. 

Registration and Requests for Oral 

Presentations: Send registration 

information (including name, title, firm 

name, address, telephone and fax 

number, and e-mail address), and 

written material and requests to make 

oral presentations, to the contact person 

on or before March 28, 2007. Interested 

persons may present data, information, 

or views, orally or in writing, on the 

issues pending before this 

subcommittee. Written submissions may 

be made to the contact person on or 

before March 28, 2007. Oral 

presentations from the public will be 

scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. on April 

10, 2007. Those desiring to make formal 

oral presentations should notify the 

contact person and submit a brief 

statement of the general nature of the 

evidence or arguments they wish to 

present, the names and addresses of 

proposed participants, and an 

indication of the approximate time 

requested to make their presentation on 

or before March 20, 2007. Time allotted 

for each presentation may be limited. If 

the number of registrants requesting to 

speak is greater than can be reasonably 

accommodated during the scheduled 

open public hearing session, FDA may 

conduct a lottery to determine the 

speakers for the scheduled open pubic 

hearing session. The contact person will 

notify interested person regarding their 

request to speak by March 20, 2007. 

If you need special accommodations 

due to a disability, please notify the 

hotel (301–468–1100) at least 7 days in 

advance of the meeting. 

Transcripts: Transcripts of the public 

meeting may be requested in writing 

from the Freedom of Information Office 

(HFI–35), Food and Drug 

Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 

6–30, Rockville, MD 20857, 

approximately 15 working days after the 

meeting at a cost of 10 cents per page. 

Dated: March 14, 2007. 

Randall W. Lutter, 

Associate Commissioner for Policy and 

Planning. 

[FR Doc. E7–5153 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
13290 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 

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 costshare 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 nonFederal 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 nonFederal 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
13292 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 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 interdisciplinary, 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 relativelyhigh 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 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
13294 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 

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-daysa-week the highest consideration when 

contrasted with facilities used on a parttime 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 13295 

VEHICLE PROGRAM PRIORITIES—Continued 

Priority Urban communities Suburban communities Rural communities 

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 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. 

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 costeffective 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 prerequisite 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
13296 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 

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 to support EMT-B 

needs and functions 

• First responder nontransport vehicles 

• Special operations vehicles 

• Helicopters/planes. 

• Command 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 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection 

[CBP Dec. 07–06] 

Re-Accreditation and Re-Approval of 

Camin Cargo Control Inc., as a 

Commercial Gauger and Laboratory 

AGENCY: Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Notice of re-approval of Camin 

Cargo Control Inc., of Chelsea, 

Massachusetts, as a commercial gauger 

and laboratory. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13, 

Camin Cargo Control Inc., 471 Eastern 

Avenue, Chelsea, Massachusetts 02150, 

has been re-approved to gauge 

petroleum and petroleum products, 

organic chemicals and vegetable oils, 

and to test petroleum and petroleum 

products for customs purposes, in 

accordance with the provisions of 19 

CFR 151.12 and 151.13. Anyone 

wishing to employ this entity to conduct 

laboratory analysis or gauger services 

should request and receive written 

assurances from the entity that it is 

accredited or approved by the Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection to 

conduct the specific test or gauger 

service requested. Alternatively, 

inquiries regarding the specific tests or 

gauger services this entity is accredited 

or approved to perform may be directed 

to the Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection by calling (202) 344–1060. 

The inquiry may also be sent to 

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/ 

operations_support/labs_scientific_ 

svcs/org_and_operations.xml. 

DATES: The re-approval of Camin Cargo 

Control Inc., as a commercial gauger and 

laboratory became effective on August 

22, 2006. The next triennial inspection 

date will be scheduled for August 2009. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES