Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 4, 2010 / Notices 23785 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Form G–639; Extension of 

an Existing Information Collection; 

Comment Request 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review; Form G–639, 

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act 

Request; OMB Control No. 1615–0102. 

The Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) has 

submitted the following information 

collection request for review and 

clearance in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The 

information collection is published to 

obtain comments from the public and 

affected agencies. Comments are 

encouraged and will be accepted for 

sixty days until July 6, 2010. 

During this 60 day period, USCIS will 

be evaluating whether to revise the 

Form G–639. Should USCIS decide to 

revise Form G–639 we will advise the 

public when we publish the 30-day 

notice in the Federal Register in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. The public will then 

have 30 days to comment on any 

revisions to the Form G–639. 

Written comments and/or suggestions 

regarding the item(s) contained in this 

notice, especially regarding the 

estimated public burden and associated 

response time, should be directed to the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory 

Products Division, 111 Massachusetts 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529– 

2210. Comments may also be submitted 

to DHS via facsimile to 202–272–8352 

or via e-mail at rfs.regs@dhs.gov. When 

submitting comments by e-mail, please 

make sure to add OMB Control No. 

1615–0102 in the subject box. Written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the collection of information should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agencies estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of this Information 

Collection: 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of an existing information 

collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act 

Request. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

sponsoring the collection: Form G–639; 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS). 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Individuals or 

households. Form G–639 is provided as 

a convenient means for persons to 

provide data necessary for identification 

of a particular record desired under 

FOIA/PA. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: 100,000 responses at 15 

minutes (.25) per response. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: 25,000 annual burden hours. 

If you need a copy of the information 

collection instrument, please visit the 

Web site at: http://www.regulations. 

gov/. 

We may also be contacted at: USCIS, 

Regulatory Products Division, 111 

Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20529–2210, 

Telephone number 202–272–8377. 

Dated: April 29, 2010. 

Sunday Aigbe, 

Chief, Regulatory Products Division, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Department of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10412 Filed 5–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0014] 

Assistance to Firefighters Grant 

Program 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of guidance. 

SUMMARY: This Notice provides 

guidelines that describe the application 

process for grants and the criteria for 

awarding grants in the 2010 Assistance 

to Firefighters Grant program year, as 

well as an explanation for any 

differences from the guidelines 

recommended by representatives of the 

Nation’s fire service leadership during 

the annual Criteria Development 

meeting. The program makes grants 

directly to fire departments and 

nonaffiliated emergency medical 

services organizations for the purpose of 

enhancing first-responders’ abilities to 

protect the health and safety of the 

public as well as that of first-responder 

personnel facing fire and fire-related 

hazards. In addition, the authorizing 

statute requires that a minimum of 5 

percent of appropriated funds be 

expended for fire prevention and safety 

grants, which are also made directly to 

local fire departments and to local, 

regional, State or national entities 

recognized for their expertise in the 

field of fire prevention and firefighter 

safety research and development. 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Harrington, Acting Director, Assistance 

to Firefighters Program Office, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security/ 

FEMA, Assistance to Firefighters Grant 

Program, TechWorld Building—5th 

Floor South Tower, 800 K Street, NW., 

Washington, DC, 20472–3620. 

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 2010, Congress 

appropriated $390,000,000 to carry out 

the activities of the AFG Program. The 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) is authorized to use up to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

23786 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 4, 2010 / Notices 

$19,500,000 for administration of the 

AFG program (5 percent of the 

appropriated amount); however, the 

Executive Branch has limited the funds 

available for administration to 4 percent 

of the appropriation ($15,600,000). In 

addition, DHS must set aside no less 

than $19,500,000 of the funds (5 percent 

of the appropriation) for the Fire 

Prevention and Safety Grants (FP&S). 

However, for fiscal year 2010, DHS will 

award $35,000,000 for FP&S. Under 

FP&S, DHS may make grants to, or enter 

into contracts or cooperative agreements 

with, national, State, local or 

community organizations or agencies, 

including fire departments, for the 

purpose of carrying out fire prevention 

grants and firefighter safety research and 

development grants. 

The $339,400,000 will be used for 

competitive grants to fire departments 

and nonaffiliated EMS organizations for 

equipment, training and first 

responders’ safety. Within the portion of 

funding available for these competitive 

grants, DHS must assure that no less 

than 3.5 percent of the appropriation, or 

$13,650,000, is awarded for EMS 

equipment and training. However, 

awards to nonaffiliated EMS 

organizations are limited to no more 

than 2 percent of the appropriation or 

$7,800,000. 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 2010 generally 

mirrors previous years’ AFG programs. 

The program will again segregate the 

FP&S program from the AFG. DHS will 

have a separate application period 

devoted solely to FP&S tentatively 

scheduled to occur in the Fall of 2010. 

All applications will be accessible from 

https://portal.fema.gov. 

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.’’ (15 

U.S.C. 2229(b)(10)(B)). 

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 5 percent of the 

total project cost. Fire departments and 

nonaffiliated EMS organizations serving 

areas with a population between 20,000 

and 50,000, inclusive, must match the 

Federal grant funds with an amount of 

non-Federal funds equal to 10 percent of 

the total project cost. Fire departments 

and nonaffiliated EMS organizations 

that serve populations of over 50,000 

must match the Federal grant funds 

with an amount of non-Federal funds 

equal to 20 percent of the total project 

costs. All non-Federal funds must be in 

cash, i.e., in-kind contributions are not 

eligible. The only waiver granted for 

this requirement will be for applicants 

located in Insular Areas as provided for 

in 48 U.S.C. 1469a. 

The authorizing statute 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 allvolunteer 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 2009 program year, no less 

than 34 percent of the funding available 

for grants will be awarded to 

combination departments, and no less 

than 21 percent will be awarded to allvolunteer departments. These figures 

were obtained from the National Fire 

Protection Association report entitled 

U.S. Department Profile Through 2008, 

issued October 2009. If, and only if, 

other statutory limitations inhibit DHS 

ability to ensure this distribution of 

funding, DHS will ensure that the 

aggregate combined total percent of 

funding provided to both combination 

and volunteer departments is no less 

than 55 percent. 

DHS generally makes funding 

decisions using rank order resulting 

from the panel evaluation. However, 

DHS may deviate from rank order and 

make funding decisions based on the 

type of department (career, 

combination, or volunteer) and/or the 

size and character of the community the 

applicant serves (urban, suburban, or 

rural) to the extent it is required to 

satisfy statutory provisions. 

Fire Prevention and Safety Grant 

Program 

In addition to the grants available to 

fire departments in fiscal year 2010 

through the competitive grant program, 

DHS will set aside $35,000,000 of the 

funds available under the AFG program 

to make grants to, or enter into contracts 

or cooperative agreements with, 

national, State, local or community 

organizations or agencies, including fire 

departments, for the purpose of carrying 

out fire prevention and injury 

prevention projects, and for research 

and development grants that address 

firefighter safety. 

In accordance with the statutory 

requirement to fund fire prevention 

activities, support to Fire Prevention 

and Safety Grant activities concentrates 

on organizations that focus on the 

prevention of injuries to children from 

fire. In addition to this priority, DHS 

places an emphasis on funding 

innovative projects that focus on 

protecting children under 14, seniors 

over 65, and firefighters. Because the 

victims of burns experience both shortand long-term physical and 

psychological effects, DHS places a 

priority on programs that focus on 

reducing the immediate and long-range 

effects of fire and burn injuries. 

DHS will issue an announcement 

regarding pertinent details of the Fire 

Prevention and Safety Grant portion of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 4, 2010 / Notices 23787 

this program prior to the application 

period. 

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 2010. 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.gov. New applicants will 

have to register and establish a 

username and password for secure 

access to their application. Applicants 

that have applied to any AFG funding 

opportunities in the past will have to 

use their established username and 

passwords. 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 and address, 

call volume numbers, etc.). 

The application period for the AFG 

grants will open on or about March 29, 

2010, and close on or about April 30, 

2010. Interested applicants are 

encouraged to read the Program 

Guidance for more details. During the 

approaching application season, the 

program office expects to receive 

between 20,000 and 25,000 

applications. 

Application Review Process 

DHS evaluates all applications in the 

preliminary screening process to 

determine which applications best 

address the program’s announced 

funding priorities. This preliminary 

screening evaluates and scores the 

applicants’ answers to the activity 

specific questions. Applications 

containing multiple activities will be 

given prorated scores based on the 

amount of funding requested for each 

activity. The best applications as 

determined in the preliminary step are 

deemed to be in the ‘‘competitive range.’’ 

Once the competitive range is 

established DHS will review the list of 

applicants that are not included in the 

competitive range to determine if any of 

those applicants are responsible for 

protecting DHS-specified critical 

infrastructure or key resources. If it is 

determined that an applicant has 

responsibility for protecting one or more 

critical infrastructure or key resources 

but is not included in the competitive 

range, DHS will determine whether it is 

appropriate to place that application 

before the peer review panel due to the 

importance of its mission to protect 

these critical resources. Adding 

additional applications to peer review 

will not affect the number of 

applications that would have been 

reviewed by the peer reviewers or 

otherwise undermine the process used 

to determine the competitive range. Peer 

review panelists will not be aware of 

which applications may have been 

added to the universe of applications at 

panel as a result of this initiative. All 

applications will be peer reviewed 

against the criteria described in this 

document. 

All applications in the competitive 

range are subject to a second level 

review by a technical evaluation panel 

made up of individuals from the fire 

service including, but not limited to, 

firefighters, fire marshals, and fire 

training instructors. The panelists will 

assess the application’s merits with 

respect to the clarity and detail 

provided about the project, the 

applicant’s financial need, the project’s 

purported benefit to be derived from the 

cost, and the effectiveness of the project 

to enhance the health and safety of the 

public and fire service personnel. 

Using the evaluation criteria included 

here, the panelists will independently 

score each application before them and 

then discuss the merits and 

shortcomings of the application in an 

effort to reconcile any major 

discrepancies. A consensus on the score 

is not required. The panelists will assign 

a score to each of the elements detailed 

above. DHS will then consider the 

highest scoring applications resulting 

from this second level of review for 

awards. Applications that involve 

interoperable communications projects 

will undergo a separate review by the 

State Administrative Agency to assure 

that the communications project is 

consistent with the Statewide 

Communications Interoperability Plan 

(SCIP). If the State determines that the 

project is inconsistent with the State 

SCIP, the project will not be funded. 

After the completion of the reviews, 

DHS will select a sufficient number of 

awardees from this application period to 

obligate all of the available grant 

funding. DHS will announce the awards 

over several months and will notify 

non-successful applicants as soon as 

feasible. DHS will not make awards in 

any specified order, i.e., not by State, 

program, nor any other characteristic. 

Modification to facility projects 

(including renovations associated with 

equipment installations) are subject to 

all applicable environmental and 

historic preservation requirements. 

Applicants seeking assistance to modify 

their facilities or to install equipment 

requiring renovations may undergo 

additional screening. Specifically, DHS 

is required to ascertain to what degree 

the proposed modifications and 

renovations might affect an applicant’s 

facility relative to the National 

Environmental Policy Act, National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

National Flood Insurance Program 

regulations, and any other applicable 

laws and Executive Orders. No project 

that involves a modification to facility 

can proceed—except for project 

planning—prior to formal written 

approval from DHS. If your award 

includes a modification to a facility, you 

are responsible for contacting the 

Program Office so you can be given 

direction on how to proceed. 

Noncompliance with these provisions 

may jeopardize an applicant’s award 

and subsequent funding. 

Criteria Development Process 

Each year, DHS conducts a criteria 

development meeting to develop the 

program’s priorities for the coming year. 

DHS brings together a panel of fire 

service professionals representing the 

leadership of the nine major fire service 

organizations: 

• Congressional Fire Service Institute 

(CFSI), 

• International Association of Arson 

Investigators (IAAI), 

• International Association of Fire 

Chiefs (IAFC), 

• International Association of Fire 

Fighters (IAFF), 

• International Society of Fire Service 

Instructors (ISFSI), 

• National Association of State Fire 

Marshals (NASFM), 

• National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA), 

• National Volunteer Fire Council 

(NVFC), and 

• North American Fire Training 

Directors (NAFTD). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

23788 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 4, 2010 / Notices 

The criteria development panel is 

charged with making recommendations 

to the grants program office regarding 

the creation and/or modification of 

program priorities as well as 

development of criteria and definitions 

as necessary. 

The governing statute requires that 

DHS publish each year in the Federal 

Register the guidelines that describe the 

application process and the criteria for 

grant awards. DHS must also include an 

explanation of any differences between 

the published guidelines and the 

recommendations made by the criteria 

development panel. The guidelines and 

the statement regarding the differences 

between the guidelines and the criteria 

development panel recommendations 

must be published in the Federal 

Register prior to making any grants 

under the program. (15 U.S.C. 

2229(b)(14)). 

The Fiscal year 2010 criteria 

development panel meeting occurred 

July 20–24, 2009. During the criteria 

development panel meeting, the group 

discussed the 2010 program year under 

the assumption that the changes that 

had been proposed in draft 

reauthorization language would be 

implemented in 2010. But, the 

reauthorization has not been enacted, so 

the 2010 AFG funding opportunity will 

replicate the 2009 program with the 

following exception: 

• In 2009, we gave a higher 

consideration for ‘‘source capture’’ 

vehicle exhaust extraction systems over 

either vehicle mounted systems or 

ambient air systems. For 2010, any 

system that handles vehicle exhaust will 

receive the same consideration. The 

criteria development group did not 

recommend this equality; they 

recommended that ambient air systems 

receive a lower priority. 

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 population served by the 

applicant with higher populations 

afforded a higher consideration than 

applicants with lower populations. DHS 

will further explain program priorities 

in program guidance to be published 

separately. 

(1) Operations and Firefighter Safety 

Program. 

(i) Training Activities. In 

implementing the fire service’s 

recommendations, DHS has determined 

that the most benefit will be derived 

from instructor-led, hands-on training 

that leads to a nationally sanctioned or 

State certification. Training requests 

that include Web-based home study or 

distance learning or the purchase of 

training materials, equipment, or props 

are a lower priority. Therefore, 

applications focused on national or 

State certification training, including 

train-the-trainer initiatives, will receive 

a higher competitive rating. Training 

that (1) involves instructors, (2) requires 

the students to demonstrate their grasp 

of knowledge of the training material via 

testing, and (3) is integral to a 

certification will receive a high 

competitive rating. Instructor-led 

training that does not lead to a 

certification, and any self-taught 

courses, are of lower benefit, and 

therefore will not receive a high 

priority. 

DHS will give higher priority, within 

the limitations imposed by statute, to 

training proposals which improve 

coordination capabilities across 

disciplines (Fire, EMS, and Police), and 

jurisdictions (local, State, and Federal). 

Training related to coordinated incident 

response (i.e., bomb threat or 

Improvised Explosive Device 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, Emergency Medical TechnicianBasic (EMT–B), and Emergency Medical 

Technician-Intermediate (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, 

hazardous materials (HAZMAT), 

advanced rescue and Emergency 

Medical Technician-Paramedic (EMT– 

P), or inspector training. 

Conversely, for departments that are 

serving urban or suburban communities, 

DHS has determined that, due to the 

number of firefighters and the relatively 

high percentage of the population 

protected, any training requests will 

receive a high priority rating regardless 

of the level of training requested. As 

such, when considering applications for 

training from departments serving urban 

and suburban communities, DHS will 

give higher priority to training proposals 

which improve coordination 

capabilities across first-responder 

disciplines (fire, EMS, and law 

enforcement), and jurisdictions (local, 

State, and Federal). Training related to 

coordinated incident response (e.g., 

weapons of mass destruction awareness 

and incident operations, chemical or 

biological operations, or bomb threats), 

tactical emergency communications 

procedures, or similar types of 

interdisciplinary, 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 the provision of the three 

requisite benefits, the criteria 

development panel recommended 

providing the highest consideration to 

candidate physical agility evaluations. 

DHS will give a lower priority to formal 

fitness and injury prevention programs. 

DHS will give the lowest 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 4, 2010 / Notices 23789 

employ the requisite three activities of 

a wellness/fitness program. Finally, 

because participation is critical to 

achieving any benefits from a wellness 

or fitness program, applications that 

mandate participation and are open to 

all personnel or provide incentives for 

participation will receive higher 

competitive ratings. 

(iii) Equipment Acquisition. As stated 

in the AFG statute, DHS administers 

this grant program to protect the health 

and safety of firefighters and the public 

from fire and fire-related hazards. As 

such, equipment that has a direct effect 

on the health and safety of either 

firefighters or the public will receive a 

higher competitive rating than 

equipment that has no such effect. 

Equipment that promotes 

interoperability with neighboring 

jurisdictions (especially for 

communications equipment 

interoperable with a regional shared 

system) will receive additional 

consideration in the cost-benefit 

assessment if the application makes it 

into the competitive range. 

The criteria development panel 

concluded that this grant program will 

achieve the greatest benefits if the grant 

program provides funds to purchase 

firefighting equipment (including 

rescue, EMS, and/or CBRNE 

preparedness) that the applicant has not 

owned prior to the grant, or to replace 

used or obsolete equipment. 

According to the panel, a department 

takes on a ‘‘new mission’’ when it 

expands its services into areas not 

previously offered, such as a fire 

department seeking funding to provide 

emergency medical services for the first 

time. A ‘‘new risk’’ presents itself when 

a department must address risks that 

have materialized in the department’s 

area of responsibility, e.g., the 

construction of a plant that uses 

significant levels of certain chemicals 

could constitute a ‘‘new risk.’’ An 

organization taking on ‘‘new risks’’ 

should be afforded higher consideration 

than departments taking on a ‘‘new 

mission.’’ New missions receive a lower 

priority due to the potential that an 

applicant will not be able to financially 

support and sustain the new mission 

beyond the period of the grant. 

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 

(PPE) Acquisition. The primary purpose 

of AFG is to protect the health and 

safety of the public and of firefighters. 

To achieve this goal and maximize the 

benefit to the firefighting community, 

the FY 2010 AFG will give higher 

priority to funding applicants needing 

to purchase PPE for the first time (i.e., 

for new firefighters) than departments 

replacing old and obsolete or 

substandard equipment (e.g., equipment 

not meeting current NFPA and 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration standards). In 

applications that request funding to 

replace equipment, the age and 

condition of the PPE that is to be 

replaced will be the primary 

consideration with the replacement of 

older or worn-out equipment receiving 

higher consideration than requests for 

replacement of newer equipment. 

For departments replacing equipment 

such as ‘‘turnout gear,’’ the condition of 

the equipment to be replaced will be 

factored into the score with a higher 

priority given to replacing equipment 

that is damaged, torn, or contaminated 

over equipment that is worn but usable. 

For departments replacing old or 

damaged equipment, departments with 

the oldest equipment will receive the 

highest priority, and departments with 

the newest equipment will receive a low 

priority. 

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 highest priority has been assigned 

to initiatives that have an immediate 

effect on life and safety of firefighters. 

Initiatives such as sprinkler systems, 

and fire/smoke alarm systems will be 

afforded the highest priority. The next 

priority has been assigned to generators, 

exhaust evacuation systems, vehicle 

mounted exhaust filtration systems and 

ambient air systems. The frequency of 

use for any structure has a bearing on 

the benefits derived from grant funds. 

As such, DHS will afford facilities 

occupied 24-hours-per-day/7-days-aweek the highest consideration when 

contrasted with facilities used on a parttime or irregular basis. Fire stations with 

sleeping quarters will receive higher 

consideration than stations where there 

are no sleeping quarters for firefighters. 

Facilities open for broad usage and have 

a high occupancy capacity receive a 

higher competitive rating than facilities 

that have limited use and/or low 

occupancy capacity. The frequency and 

duration of 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 2010 program 

year. 

FIREFIGHTING 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′) Quint (Aerial > 76′) Quint (Aerial < 76′) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

23790 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 4, 2010 / Notices 

FIREFIGHTING VEHICLE PROGRAM PRIORITIES—Continued 

Priority Urban 

communities 

Suburban 

communities 

Rural 

communities 

Rescue 

Priority Two Command Command 

HAZMAT HAZMAT HAZMAT 

Light/Air Rescue Rescue 

Rehab Tanker/Tender Aerial 

Foam Truck Brush/Attack Quint (Aerial > 76′) 

Foam Truck Foam Truck 

Priority Three ARFFV1 ARFFV1 ARFFV1

Brush/Attack Rehab Rehab 

Tanker/Tender Light/Air Command 

Ambulance Ambulance Ambulance 

Fire Boat Fire Boat Fire Boat 

Light/Air 

1Airport Rescue and Firefighting Vehicle. 

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. 

Applicants from urban and suburban 

communities 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 multiplevehicles application when the costbenefit justification is adequately 

compelling. 

DHS believes that a greater benefit 

will be derived from funding an 

additional vehicle(s) to departments that 

own fewer or no vehicles of the type 

requested. As such, DHS assigns a 

higher competitive rating in the 

apparatus category to fire departments 

that own fewer firefighting vehicles 

relative to other departments serving 

similar types of communities (i.e., 

urban, suburban, and rural). DHS 

assesses all vehicles with similar 

functions when assessing the number of 

vehicles a department possesses within 

a particular type. For example, the 

‘‘pumper’’ category includes: pumpers, 

engines, pumper/tankers (apparatus that 

carries a minimum of 300 gallons of 

water and has a pump with a capacity 

to pump a minimum of 750 gallons per 

minute), rescue-pumpers, quints (with 

aerials less than 76 feet in length), and 

urban interface vehicles (Type I). 

Apparatus that has water capacity in 

excess of 1,000 gallons and a pump with 

pumping capacity of less than 750 

gallons per minute are considered to be 

a tanker/tender. 

DHS assigns a higher competitive 

rating to departments possessing an 

aged fleet of firefighting vehicles. In 

evaluating the age of an applicant’s 

fleet, DHS will take into account the 

oldest vehicle in the class requested as 

well as the youngest vehicle in the class 

requested. DHS will also take into 

account the average age of the 

applicants’ fleet. In each of these 

instances, older vehicles will receive 

higher consideration. 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 only allow departments 

serving rural communities to apply for 

one vehicle. DHS will limit applications 

from suburban or urban departments to 

one vehicle per station as well as per 

statutory funding limits. DHS will not 

limit 2010 applications because of a 

vehicle award from previous AFG 

program years. 

(3) Administrative Costs. Panelists 

will assess the reasonableness 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 2 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 4, 2010 / Notices 23791 

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 EMS training is a prerequisite to the 

effective use of EMS equipment, 

organizations whose requests are more 

focused on training activities will 

receive a higher competitive rating than 

organizations whose requests are more 

focused on equipment. A higher 

competitive rating will be given to 

nonaffiliated EMS organizations that are 

planning to upgrade services to 

Advanced Life Support (ALS) level of 

response. Specifically, organizations 

that are seeking to elevate their response 

level from EMT–B to EMT–I will receive 

the highest priority and organizations 

that are seeking to elevate their response 

level from EMT–I to EMT–P will receive 

a high priority. Our second priority is to 

elevate emergency responders’ 

capabilities from first-responder to a 

Basic Life Support (BLS) level of 

response (i.e., EMT–B). Due to the time 

and cost, upgrading an organization’s 

response level from EMT–B to EMT–P is 

a lower priority. Organizations seeking 

training in rescue or HAZMAT or rescue 

operations will receive lower 

consideration than organizations 

seeking training for medical services. 

Our lowest priority is to fund first 

responder training. Organizations that 

are seeking to train a high percentage of 

their active first responders will receive 

additional consideration when applying 

under the training activity. 

(ii) EMS Equipment Acquisition. As 

noted above, training received a higher 

competitive rating than equipment. DHS 

believes that equipment is of no use if 

the operator is not trained to use it. As 

such, applicants must demonstrate that 

users of equipment purchased with the 

grant either are or will be sufficiently 

trained to use the equipment. Inability 

to demonstrate and fulfill this training 

requirement will result in ineligibility 

for equipment funding. 

Organizations that request training to 

the ALS level of response, along with 

basic support equipment, will receive a 

higher priority. Requests seeking 

assistance to purchase equipment to 

support BLS level of response are a 

secondary priority. Organizations 

seeking equipment for rescue or 

HAZMAT operations will receive lower 

consideration than organizations 

seeking equipment used to provide 

medical services. Our lowest priority is 

to fund first responder training. 

As discussed previously, 

organizations taking on ‘‘new risks’’ will 

be afforded much higher consideration 

than an organization taking on a ‘‘new 

mission.’’ 

(iii) EMS Personal Protective 

Equipment. DHS gives the same 

priorities for EMS PPE as it did for fire 

department PPE discussed above. 

Acquisition of Personal Alert Safety 

Systems or any firefighting PPE is not 

eligible, however, for funding for EMS 

organizations. 

(iv) Wellness and Fitness Activities. 

DHS believes that to have an effective 

wellness/fitness program, nonaffiliated 

EMS organizations must offer periodic 

health screenings, entry physical 

examinations, and an immunization 

program similar to the programs for fire 

departments discussed previously. 

Accordingly, applicants for grants in 

this category must currently offer or 

plan to offer with grant funds all three 

benefits (periodic health screenings, 

entry physical examinations, and an 

immunization program) to receive 

funding for any other initiatives in this 

activity. The priorities for EMS 

wellness/fitness programs are the same 

as for fire departments as discussed 

above. 

(v) Modification to EMS Stations and 

Facilities. DHS believes that the 

competitive rankings and priorities 

applied to modification of fire stations 

and facilities, discussed above, apply 

equally to EMS stations and facilities. 

(2) EMS Vehicle Acquisition Program. 

DHS gives the highest funding 

priority to acquisition of ambulances 

and transport vehicles due to the 

inherent benefits to the community and 

EMS service provider. Due to the costs 

associated with obtaining and outfitting 

non-transport rescue vehicles relative to 

the benefits derived from such vehicles, 

DHS will give non-transport rescue 

vehicles a lower competitive rating than 

transport vehicles. DHS anticipates that 

the EMS vehicle awards will be very 

competitive due to very limited 

available funding. Accordingly, DHS 

will likely only fund vehicles that are 

listed as a ‘‘Priority One’’ in the 2010 

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 PROGRAM PRIORITIES

Priority one Priority two Priority three 

• Ambulance or transport unit to support EMS functions.• First responder non-transport vehicles ................. • Command vehicles. 

• Special operations vehicles ................................... • Hovercraft 

• Other special access vehicles. 

Along with the priorities illustrated 

above, DHS has accepted the fire service 

recommendation that emerged from the 

criteria development process that 

funding applicants that own few or no 

vehicles of the type sought will be more 

beneficial than funding applicants that 

own numerous vehicles of that same 

type. DHS assesses the number of 

vehicles an applicant owns by including 

all vehicles of the same type. For 

example, transport vehicles will be 

considered the same as ambulances. 

DHS will give a higher competitive 

rating to applicants that have an aged 

fleet of emergency vehicles, and to 

applicants with old, high-mileage 

vehicles. DHS will give a higher 

competitive rating to applicants that 

respond to a significant number of 

incidents relative to applicants 

responding less often. Finally, DHS will 

afford applicants with transport vehicles 

with high mileage more consideration 

than applicants with vehicles that are 

not driven extensively. 

(3) Administrative Costs. Panelists 

assess the reasonableness of the 

administrative costs requested in each 

application and determined whether the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

23792 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 4, 2010 / Notices 

request will be reasonable and in the 

best interest of the program. 

Dated: April 28, 2010. 

W. Craig Fugate, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10385 Filed 5–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–64–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA–1902– 

DR; Docket ID FEMA–2010–0002] 

Nebraska; Major Disaster and Related 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for the State of Nebraska 

(FEMA–1902–DR), dated April 21, 2010, 

and related determinations. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 21, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20472, (202) 646–3886. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that, in a letter dated April 

21, 2010, the President issued a major 

disaster declaration under the authority 

of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 

U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ‘‘Stafford Act’’), 

as follows: 

I have determined that the damage in 

certain areas of the State of Nebraska 

resulting from severe storms, ice jams, and 

flooding during the period of March 6 to 

April 3, 2010, is of sufficient severity and 

magnitude to warrant a major disaster 

declaration under the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ‘‘Stafford 

Act’’). Therefore, I declare that such a major 

disaster exists in the State of Nebraska. 

In order to provide Federal assistance, you 

are hereby authorized to allocate from funds 

available for these purposes such amounts as 

you find necessary for Federal disaster 

assistance and administrative expenses. 

You are authorized to provide Public 

Assistance in the designated areas and 

Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. 

Consistent with the requirement that Federal 

assistance is supplemental, any Federal 

funds provided under the Stafford Act for 

Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will 

be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible 

costs. 

Further, you are authorized to make 

changes to this declaration for the approved 

assistance to the extent allowable under the 

Stafford Act. 

The Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that 

pursuant to the authority vested in the 

Administrator, under Executive Order 

12148, as amended, Stephen R. 

Thompson, of FEMA is appointed to act 

as the Federal Coordinating Officer for 

this major disaster. 

The following areas of the State of 

Nebraska have been designated as 

adversely affected by this major disaster: 

Antelope, Arthur, Boone, Boyd, Butler, 

Cass, Colfax, Cuming, Dakota, Gage, Greeley, 

Hayes, Holt, Howard, Jefferson, Johnson, 

Lancaster, Loup, Madison, Nance, Nemaha, 

Nuckolls, Otoe, Pawnee, Pierce, Platte, Polk, 

Richardson, Saline, Seward, Stanton, 

Thurston, Valley, Wheeler, and York 

Counties for Public Assistance. 

All counties within the State of Nebraska 

are eligible to apply for assistance under the 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. 

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used 

for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 

Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora 

Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 

97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, 

Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 

97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 

97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to 

Individuals and Households in Presidentially 

Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 

Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance— 

Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals 

and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 

Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals 

and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, 

Disaster Grants—Public Assistance 

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, 

Hazard Mitigation Grant. 

W. Craig Fugate, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10331 Filed 5–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–23–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA–1900– 

DR; Docket ID FEMA–2010–0002] 

Minnesota; Major Disaster and Related 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for the State of Minnesota 

(FEMA–1900–DR), dated April 19, 2010, 

and related determinations. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 19, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20472, (202) 646–3886. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that, in a letter dated April 

19, 2010, the President issued a major 

disaster declaration under the authority 

of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 

U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ‘‘Stafford Act’’), 

as follows: 

I have determined that the damage in 

certain areas of the State of Minnesota 

resulting from flooding beginning on March 

1, 2010, and continuing, is of sufficient 

severity and magnitude to warrant a major 

disaster declaration under the Robert T. 

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the 

‘‘Stafford Act’’). Therefore, I declare that such 

a major disaster exists in the State of 

Minnesota. 

In order to provide Federal assistance, you 

are hereby authorized to allocate from funds 

available for these purposes such amounts as 

you find necessary for Federal disaster 

assistance and administrative expenses. 

You are authorized to provide Public 

Assistance in the designated areas and 

Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. 

Direct Federal assistance is authorized. 

Consistent with the requirement that Federal 

assistance is supplemental, any Federal 

funds provided under the Stafford Act for 

Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will 

be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible 

costs. 

Further, you are authorized to make 

changes to this declaration for the approved 

assistance to the extent allowable under the 

Stafford Act. 

The Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that 

pursuant to the authority vested in the 

Administrator, under Executive Order 

12148, as amended, Lawrence Sommers, 

of FEMA is appointed to act as the 

Federal Coordinating Officer for this 

major disaster. 

The following areas of the State of 

Minnesota have been designated as 

adversely affected by this major disaster: 

Big Stone, Blue Earth, Brown, Carver, 

Chippewa, Clay, Kittson, Lac Qui Parle, 

Marshall, Norman, Polk, Redwood, Renville, 

Scott, Sibley, Traverse, Wilkin, and Yellow 

Medicine Counties and the Tribal Nation of 

the Upper Sioux Community for Public 

Assistance. Direct Federal assistance is 

authorized. 

All counties and Tribes within the State of 

Minnesota are eligible to apply for assistance 

under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. 

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used 

for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 

Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora 

Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 

97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, 

Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES