PSGP Program Guidance

FY 2012 PORT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (PSGP)
FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT (FOA)
OVERVIEW INFORMATION
Issued By
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number
97.056
CFDA Title
Port Security Grant Program
Funding Opportunity Announcement Title
Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Port Security Grant Program (PSGP)
Authorizing Authority for Program
Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, as amended (Public
Law 107-295)
Appropriation Authority for Program
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, Division D (Public Law 112-74)
FOA Number
DHS-12-GPD-056-000-01
Key Dates and Time
Application Start Date: 02/17/2012
Application Submission Deadline Date: 05/04/2012 at 11:59:59 p.m. EDT
Anticipated Funding Selection Date: 06/29/2012
Anticipated Award Date: 09/30/2012
Other Key Dates
Applying for FY 2012 PSGP funds requires a two-step process. Step One: initial
submission to determine eligibility and Step Two: full application. Applicants are
encouraged to initiate Step One immediately after the FOA is published but no later
than April 27, 2012. This involves submitting a complete Standard Form 424 to
Grants.gov. Successful completion of this step is necessary for FEMA to determine
eligibility of the applicant. Late submissions of Step One to Grants.gov could result in
applicants missing the application deadline in Step Two. Once FEMA has determined
an applicant to be eligible, applicants can proceed to Step Two which involves
submitting the full application package via the Non Disaster (ND) Grants system. The

1

submission deadline for the full application package is May 4, 2012. For additional
details see Section X within the full FOA.
Intergovernmental Review
Is an intergovernmental review required?
Yes

No

2

FOA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Program Type
Select the applicable program type:
New

Continuing

One-time

Date of origin for Program: 11/25/2002
Opportunity Category
Select the applicable opportunity category:
Discretionary

Mandatory

Competitive

Non-competitive

Sole Source

Application Process
DHS makes all funding opportunities available through the common electronic
“storefront” Grants.gov, accessible on the Internet at http://www.grants.gov. If you
experience difficulties accessing information or have any questions please call the
Grants.gov customer support hotline at (800) 518-4726.
Application forms and instructions are available at Grants.gov. To access these
materials, go to http://www.grants.gov, select “Apply for Grants,” and then select
“Download Application Package.” Enter the CFDA and/or the funding opportunity
number located on the cover of this announcement. Select “Download Application
Package,” and then follow the prompts to download the application package. To
download the instructions, go to “Download Application Package” and select
“Instructions.”
For additional details on how to apply, please refer to Section X within the full FOA.
Eligible Applicants
The following entities are eligible to apply directly to FEMA under this solicitation:
Others
For additional information, see the Eligibility Criteria section of this FOA.
Type of Funding Instrument
Select the applicable funding instrument:
Grant

Cooperative Agreement

3

Cost Share or Match
Select the applicable requirement:
Cost Match

Cost Share

None Required

Cash and in-kind matches must consist of eligible costs (i.e., purchase price of
allowable contracts, equipment). A cash match includes cash spent for project-related
costs while an in-kind match includes the valuation of in-kind services. In-kind matches
may not be used to meet matching requirements for any other Federal grant program
(e.g., FY 2012 funds are used to purchase a mobile command center from a vendor, the
vendor contributes or donates communications equipment associated with the mobile
command center, the value of the donated equipment may be considered as an in-kind
match for the PSGP award only). Please see Title 44, Part 13, Section 24 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (44 CFR 13.24) (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?type=simple;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=183d717ad04a78067db6a831421874ea;idno=44;re
gion=DIV1;q1=13;rgn=div5;view=text;node=44%3A1.0.1.1.14). See FEMA Grant
Programs Directorate (GPD) Information Bulletin (IB) 376, dated January 4, 2012 for
further information on the PSGP cost match waiver process
(http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/bulletins/info376.pdf).
The following match requirements apply for the FY 2012 PSGP (including ferry systems):




Public Sector. Public sector applicants must provide a non-Federal match (cash
or in-kind) supporting at least 25 percent of the total project cost for each
proposed project.
Private Sector. Private sector applicants must provide a non-Federal match
(cash or in-kind) supporting at least 50 percent of the total project cost for
each proposed project.
Exceptions. There is no matching requirement for grant awards where the total
award is $25,000 or less (with the exception of national and/or regional
corporations submitting 11 or more projects throughout their system[s]). If the
Secretary of Homeland Security determines that a proposed project merits
support and cannot be undertaken without a higher rate of Federal support, the
Secretary may approve grants with a matching requirement other than that
specified above in accordance with Title 46, Section 70107 of the United States
Code of Federal Regulations (46 U.S.C. 70107[c][2][B]).

Cost match requirements must be included in applicant’s Detailed Budgets. Public and
private entities are encouraged to work together to meet the cost match requirements.
While applications must demonstrate the cost match, applicants are reminded that the
cost match does not have to be provided up-front and that they have up to the full 24
month award period to provide the cost match funding.
The non-Federal share can be cash or in-kind, with the exception of construction
activities, which must be a cash-match (hard).

4

Cost match waivers may be granted only if the Secretary of DHS determines that (1) a
proposed project merits support in light of the overall grant purpose and mission goals;
and (2) the Secretary of DHS determines that the meritorious project cannot be
undertaken without a higher rate of Federal support.
Maintenance of Effort
Is there a Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement?
Yes

No

Management and Administration
A maximum of five percent (5%) of the total award may be retained by the applicant.
Any funds retained are to be used solely for management and administration (M&A)
purposes associated with the PSGP award. FY 2012 PSGP M&A funds may be used
for the following M&A costs:





Hiring of full-time or part-time staff, contractors or consultants, and M&A
expenses related to compliance with grant reporting or data collection
requirements, including data calls
Development of operating plans for information collection and processing
necessary to respond to DHS data calls
Travel expenses

5

FULL FOA
I.

Funding Opportunity Description

Program Overview and Priorities
The PSGP is one of the DHS’s FY 2012 grant programs which directly support
transportation infrastructure security activities. The PSGP is one tool in the
comprehensive set of measures authorized by Congress and implemented by the
Administration to strengthen the Nation’s critical infrastructure against risks associated
with potential terrorist attacks.
The vast majority of U.S. critical infrastructure is owned and/or operated by State, local,
and private sector partners. The PSGP funds available to these entities are intended to
support increased port-wide risk management; enhanced domain awareness; training
and exercises; expansion of port recovery and resiliency capabilities; and further
capabilities to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from attacks involving
improvised explosive devices (IED) and other non-conventional weapons.
Program Objectives
The FY 2012 PSGP plays an important role in the implementation of Presidential Policy
Directive 8 (PPD-8) by supporting the development and sustainment of core
capabilities. Core capabilities are essential for the execution of each of the five mission
areas outlined in the National Preparedness Goal (NPG). The development and
sustainment of these core capabilities are not exclusive to any single level of
government or organization, but rather require the combined effort of the whole
community. The FY 2012 PSGP supports all core capabilities in the Prevention,
Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery mission areas based on allowable
costs.
Grantees under FY 2012 PSGP are encouraged to build and sustain core capabilities
through activities such as:






Enhancing Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA)
Enhancing Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive (CBRNE) prevention, protection, response and
supporting recovery capabilities
Port Resilience and Recovery Capabilities
Training and Exercises
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Implementation

For additional information on program priorities and objective for FY 2012 PSGP, refer
to Appendix B – FY 2012 PSGP Priorities.

6

II.

Funding Information
Award Amounts, Important Dates, and Extensions
Available Funding for this FOA: $97,500,000
Projected Number of Awards: 250
Projected Award Start Date(s): 09/30/2012
Projected Award End Date(s): 09/30/2014
Period of Performance: 24 months
Grantees must accept their grant awards no later than 90 days from the award date.
The grantee shall notify the awarding agency of its intent to accept and proceed with
work under the award, or provide a written notice of intent to decline. Funds will remain
on hold until the grantee accepts the award through official correspondence (e.g.,
written, electronic signature, signed letter or fax to GPD) and all other conditions of
award have been satisfied, or the award is otherwise rescinded. Failure to accept the
grant award within the 90 day timeframe may result in a loss of funds.
For details on program funding amounts, please refer to Appendix A – FY 2012 PSGP
Allocations.
Period of Performance
Is an extension to the period of performance permitted?
Yes

No

The periods of performance outlined above support the effort to expedite the outlay of
grant funding and provide economic stimulus. Agencies should request waivers
sparingly, and they will be granted only due to compelling legal, policy, or operational
challenges. For example, agencies may request waivers from the deadlines outlined
above for discretionary grant funds where adjusting the timeline for spending will
constitute a verifiable legal breach of contract by the grantee with vendors or subrecipients, or where a specific statute or regulation mandates an environmental review
that cannot be completed within this timeframe or where other exceptional
circumstances warrant a discrete waiver.
Additional Funding Information
In FY 2012, the total amount of funds distributed under this grant program will be
$97,500,000. The FY 2012 PSGP funds will be allocated based on the funding priorities
outlined in Appendix B – FY 2012 PSGP Priorities.
III.

Eligibility Information
Eligibility Criteria
Pursuant to the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA), DHS established
a risk based grant program to support port and maritime security. Eligible applicants
under the FY 2012 PSGP are listed in Appendix A – FY 2012 PSGP Allocations.

7

Funding is directed towards the implementation of Area Maritime Security Plans
(AMSP) and Facility Security Plans (FSP) among port authorities, facility operators, and
State and local government agencies that are required to provide port security services.
In administering the grant program, national, economic, energy, and strategic defense
concerns based upon the most current risk assessments available shall be taken into
account.
By law, DHS must direct these funds to the Nation’s highest risk ports. To comply with
this requirement, the PSGP covers a total of 145 ports identified as critical. Based upon
USCG recommendations, these ports are aggregated into 90 discrete port funding
areas. As described below, “All Other Port Areas” covered by an AMSP are eligible to
apply for grant funds from a PSGP funding pool created for that purpose.
Within the PSGP, the following entities are specifically encouraged to apply:



Owners or operators of federally regulated terminals, facilities, U.S. inspected
passenger vessels or ferries as defined in the MTSA and 33 CFR Parts 101, 104,
105, and 106
Members of an Area Maritime Security Committee, per 33 CFR Part 103, who
are recognized as such by the Captain of the Port (COTP) and are required to
provide port security services. Specifically, eligible applicants include port
authorities, port police, local law enforcement agencies, port and local fire
departments, and facility fire brigades that have jurisdictional authority to respond
to incidents in the port

As a condition of eligibility, all PSGP applicants are required to be fully compliant with
relevant Maritime Security Regulations (33 CFR Parts 101-106). Any open or
outstanding Notice of Violation (NOV), as of the grant application submission deadline
date, which has been issued to an applicant, and the applicant has (1) failed to pay
within 45 days of receipt; (2) failed to decline the NOV within 45 days of receipt (in
which case a finding of default will be entered by the Coast Guard in accordance with
33 CFR § 1.07-11[f][2]); or (3) the applicant has appealed the NOV as provided for in 33
CFR § 1.07-70 and is in receipt of a final appeal decision from Commandant, U.S.
Coast Guard, as described in 33 CFR § 1.07-75, and has failed to come into
compliance with the final adjudication within the timelines noted therein, will not be
allowed to make application for a Port Security Grant. COTP will verify security
compliance eligibility during the field review process.
Appendix A – FY 2012 PSGP Allocations provides a description and list of eligible port
areas.
IV.

Funding Restrictions

Restrictions on Use of Award Funds
PSGP grant recipients and sub-recipients may only use PSGP grant funds for the
purpose set forth in the grant, and must be consistent with the statutory authority for the

8

award. Grant funds may not be used for matching funds for other Federal
grants/cooperative agreements, lobbying, or intervention in Federal regulatory or
adjudicatory proceedings. In addition, Federal funds may not be used to sue the
Federal government or any other government entity.
Pre-award costs are allowable only with the written consent of DHS and if they are
included in the award agreement.
Federal employees are prohibited from serving in any capacity (paid or unpaid) on any
proposal submitted under this program. Federal employees may not receive funds
under this award.
For additional details on restrictions on the use of funds, please refer to Appendix C –
Funding Guidelines.
V.

Application Review Information and Selection Process

Application Review Information
The four core PSGP application review criteria are as follows:






Criteria #1. Projects that support development and sustainment of the core
capabilities in the NPG and align to PSGP funding priorities identified in
Appendix B – FY 2012 PSGP Priorities. These include:
- Enhancing Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA)
- Enhancing Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive (CBRNE) prevention, protection, response
and supporting recovery capabilities
- Port Resilience and Recovery Capabilities
- Training and Exercises
- Equipment Associated with Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC) Implementation
Criteria #2. Projects that address priorities outlined in the applicable AMSP, as
mandated under the MTSA and/or the Port-Wide Risk Mitigation Plans (PRMP)
Criteria #3. Projects that address additional security priorities based on the
COTP’s expertise and experience of the COTP within the specific port area
Criteria #4. Projects that offer the highest potential for risk reduction for the least
cost

Initial Screening. FEMA will conduct an initial review of all FY 2012 PSGP applications
to ensure each application is complete. All complete applications will be grouped by
port area and provided to the applicable COTP for further review.
Field Review. Field-level reviews will be managed by the applicable COTP in
coordination with the Director of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime
Administration’s Gateway Office and appropriate personnel from the AMSC, to include
Federal, State, and local agencies, as identified by the COTP. To support coordination

9

of and regionalization of security grant application projects with State and Urban Area
homeland security strategies, as well as other State and local security plans, AMSC
members representing State and local agencies should coordinate the results with the
applicable State administrative agency or agencies and State homeland security
advisor(s).
Field reviews for all Groups occur immediately following the initial screening. Each
specific project is scored for compliance with criteria enumerated in the previous
section. The purpose of the COTP Review is to identify a prioritized list of eligible
maritime security risk mitigation projects for funding within the area of responsibility
(AOR), for all Groups within the AOR. The COTP will use the COTP Field Review Form
to review all projects. This form may seek the following information:




A total score for each proposal received with each port being ranked from highest
to lowest in terms of their contributions to regional risk reduction and cost
effectiveness
A specific notation if other entities within the port region have similar capabilities
A specific notation as to whether there is a need for redundant capability

After completing field reviews, COTPs will submit the field review project scores and
prioritized lists through the appropriate route to FEMA who will begin coordination of the
national review process.
Application Selection Process
Following the field review, a National Review Panel (NRP), comprised of subject matter
experts drawn from DHS and the Department of Transportation (DOT), will convene and
conduct a national level review. The purpose of the National Review is to identify a
final, prioritized list of eligible projects for funding. The NRP will conduct an initial
review of the prioritized project listings for each port area submitted by the USCG’s
COTP to ensure that the proposed projects will accomplish intended risk mitigation
goals. The NRP will validate and normalize the Field Review COTP Project Priority List
and provide a master list of prioritized projects by port area.1
A risk-based analysis will then be applied to the National Review Panel’s prioritized list
for each port area in all groups. This analysis considers the following factors to produce
a comprehensive national priority ranking of port security proposals:




Relationship of the project to one or more of the national port security priorities
Relationship of the project to the local port security priorities
COTP ranking (based on each COTP’s prioritized list of projects)

1

The NRP will have the ability to recommend partial funding for individual projects and eliminate others that are determined to be
duplicative or require a sustained Federal commitment to fully realize the intended risk mitigation. The NRP will also validate
proposed project costs. Decisions to reduce requested funding amounts or eliminate requested items deemed inappropriate under
the scope of the FY 2012 PSGP will take into consideration the ability of the revised project to address the intended national port
security priorities and achieve the intended risk mitigation goal. Historically, the PSGP has placed a high priority on providing full
project funding rather than partial funding.

10



Risk level of the port area in which the project would be located (based on a
comprehensive risk analysis performed by DHS)

The NRP will be asked to evaluate and validate the consolidated and ranked project list
and submit their recommendations to FEMA. The NRP may request additional
information or clarification from applicants. Applicants receiving requests from the NRP
will have 30 days from the date of the request to respond. FEMA will have the final
approval authority on all projects.
Funds will not be made available for obligation, expenditure, or drawdown until the
applicant’s budget and budget narrative have been approved by FEMA.
The applicant must provide a detailed budget for the funds requested. The detailed
budget must be submitted with the grant application as a file attachment within ND
Grants. The budget must be complete, reasonable, and cost-effective in relation to the
proposed project. The budget should provide the basis of computation of all projectrelated costs, any appropriate narrative, and a detailed justification of M&A costs.
VI.

Post-Selection and Pre-Award Guidelines

Notice of Award
All successful applicants for all DHS grant and cooperative agreements are required to
comply with DHS Standard Administrative Terms and Conditions available on page 6 of
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cfo-financial-management-policy-manual.pdf.
Upon approval of an application, the award will be made in the form of a grant. The
date the approval of award is entered in the system is the “award date.” Notification of
award approval is made through the ND Grants system through an automatic e-mail to
the grantee point of contact listed in the initial application. Once an award has been
approved and recorded in the system, a notice is sent to the authorized grant official.
Follow the directions in the notification to accept your award documents. The
authorized grant official should carefully read the award package for instructions on
administering the grant and to learn more about the terms and conditions associated
with responsibilities under Federal awards.
Administrative and Federal Financial Requirements
Grantees are obligated to submit various financial and programmatic reports as a
condition of their award acceptance. Please see below for a summary of financial
and/or programmatic reports as required. Future awards and fund drawdowns may be
withheld if these reports are delinquent.
1. Federal Financial Report (FFR) – required quarterly. Obligations and
expenditures must be reported on a quarterly basis through the FFR (SF-425). A
report must be submitted for every quarter of the period of performance, including
partial calendar quarters, as well as for periods where no grant activity occurs.
Future awards and fund draw downs may be withheld if these reports are delinquent.

11

The final FFR is due 90 days after the end date of the performance period. FFRs
must be filed electronically through Payment and Reporting System (PARS).
2. Grant Close-Out Process. Within 90 days after the end of the period of
performance, or after a Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) has been issued to close out
a grant, whichever comes first, grantees must submit a final FFR and final progress
report detailing all accomplishments throughout the period of performance. After
these reports have been reviewed and approved by FEMA, a close-out notice will be
completed to close out the grant. The notice will indicate the period of performance
as closed, list any remaining funds that will be deobligated, and address the
requirement of maintaining the grant records for three years from the date of the final
FFR. The grantee is responsible for returning any funds that have been drawn down
but remain as unliquidated on grantee financial records.
Programmatic Reporting Requirements
1. Performance Progress Report (SF-PPR). Awardees are responsible for providing
updated performance reports using the SF-PPR (Office of Management and Budget
[OMB] Control Number: 0970-0334) on a semi-annual basis. The SF-PPR is due
within 30 days after the end of the reporting period (July 30 for the reporting period
of January 1 through June 30; and January 30 for the reporting period of July 1
through December 31). The SF-PPR can be accessed online at
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fap/SF-PPR_Cover%20Sheet.pdf.
2. Exercise Evaluation and Improvement. Exercises implemented with grant funds
should evaluate performance of the capabilities required to respond to the exercise
scenario. Guidance related to exercise evaluation and the implementation of
improvements is defined in the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program
located at https://hseep.dhs.gov.
3. Monitoring. Grant recipients will be monitored periodically by FEMA staff, both
programmatically and financially, to ensure that the project goals, objectives,
performance requirements, timelines, milestone completion, budgets, and other
related program criteria are being met.
Monitoring may be accomplished through either a desk-based review or on-site
monitoring visits, or both. Monitoring will involve the review and analysis of the
financial, programmatic, performance, compliance and administrative processes,
policies, activities, and other attributes of each Federal assistance award and will
identify areas where technical assistance, corrective actions and other support may
be needed.

12

VII.

DHS FEMA Contact Information

Contact and Resource Information
This section describes several resources that may help applicants in completing a
FEMA grant application. These points of contact are also available for successful
applicants who may require assistance during execution of their award.
Financial and Administrative Information
1. Grant Programs Directorate (GPD). FEMA GPD’s Grant Operations Division
Business Office will provide fiscal support, including pre- and post-award
administration and technical assistance, to the grant programs included in this
solicitation. Callers will be directed to a point of contact who will be able to assist
with their financial or administrative question. Additional guidance and information
can be obtained by contacting the FEMA Call Center at (866) 927-5646 or via e-mail
to [email protected].
2. FEMA Regions. FEMA Regions may also provide fiscal support, including pre- and
post-award administration and technical assistance, to the grant programs included
in this solicitation. For a list of contacts, please go to
http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/regions.shtm.
3. GPD Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (GPD-EHP). The FEMA
GPD-EHP Team provides guidance and information to grantees and sub-grantees
related to submission of materials for EHP review. All EHP Review Packets should
be sent to [email protected].
Programmatic Information
1. Centralized Scheduling and Information Desk (CSID). CSID is a non-emergency
comprehensive management and information resource developed by DHS for grants
stakeholders. CSID provides general information on all FEMA grant programs and
maintains a comprehensive database containing key personnel contact information
at the Federal, State, and local levels. When necessary, grantees will be directed to
a Federal point of contact who can answer specific programmatic questions or
concerns. CSID can be reached by phone at (800) 368-6498 or by e-mail at
[email protected], Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. (EST).
Systems Information
1. Grants.gov. For technical assistance with Grants.gov, please call the Grants.gov
customer support hotline at (800) 518-4726.
2. Non Disaster (ND) Grants. For technical assistance with the ND Grants system,
please contact [email protected] or (800) 865-4076.

13

VIII.

Other Critical Information

National Incident Management System (NIMS) Implementation
In accordance with Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5, Management of
Domestic Incidents, the adoption of NIMS is a requirement to receive Federal
preparedness assistance, through grants, contracts, and other activities.
Prior to allocation of any Federal preparedness awards in FY 2012, grantee must
ensure compliance and/or alignment with FY 2011 NIMS implementation plan. The list
of objectives against which progress and achievement are assessed and reported can
be found at
http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/ImplementationGuidanceStakeholders.shtm#item2.
The primary grantee/administrator of FY 2012 PSGP award funds is responsible for
determining if sub-awardees have demonstrated sufficient progress in NIMS
implementation to disburse awards.
IX.

How to Apply

Application Instructions
1. Investment Justification (IJ). As part of the FY 2012 PSGP application process,
applicants must develop a formal IJ that addresses each initiative being proposed for
funding. A separate IJ should be submitted for each proposed project. Each
applicant may apply for up to three projects. IJs must demonstrate how proposed
projects address gaps and deficiencies in one or more core capabilities outlined in
the NPG. The IJ must demonstrate the ability to provide enhancements consistent
with the purpose of the program and guidance provided by FEMA. Applicants must
ensure that the IJ is consistent with all applicable requirements outlined in this
application kit.
The IJ must address or answer the following questions:








Is your organization a member of the AMSC?
Is your facility a MTSA regulated facility?
If you are a MTSA regulated facility, what is your facility’s operation?
If you are not a regulated facility under MTSA, do you have a facility security
plan, and if you have a plan what authority approved your security plan?
Have you applied for any other security related grants, and if you have what
grant program and when?
If you are a recognized Law Enforcement Agency, how many MTSA regulated
facilities or vessels are in your immediate area of responsibility?
How many members of your company or agency have taken an Incident
Command System (ICS) course: ICS 100, ICS 200, ICS 300, ICS 700 or ICS
800?

14





If you are a Fire Department, how many MTSA regulated facilities and MTSA
regulated vessels are in your immediate area of responsibility?
Is your organization listed in a risk mitigation plan, and if so, which ones?
Is there a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) in place for this investment, to share this investment with
other agencies?

All applicants will submit their PSGP grant application, the associated Investment
Justifications to include Detailed Budgets and associated MOUs/MOAs as a file
attachment within https://portal.fema.gov before or on the application deadline date
and time. The individual investments comprising a single application must take
place within the same port area. Private MTSA regulated companies that operate in
more than one eligible port area must submit separate applications for investments
within the port area in which the facility or vessel is located.
The port area is defined by project location. Agencies that have multiple facility
locations should apply for projects based on the facility where the project/asset will
be housed/maintained as opposed to using the agency headquarters location (for
example). For entities/agencies submitting applications for projects that span
multiple port areas, the project location is considered to be the predominant location
in which the project will be housed and maintained.
Applicants will find an Investment Justification Template in Appendix D – FY 2012
PSGP Investment Justification Template and Instructions. This worksheet may be
used as a guide to assist applicants in the preparation of the IJ.
Applicants must provide information in the following categories for each proposed
Investment:
I. Background
II. Strategic and program priorities
III. Impact
IV. Funding and Implementation Plan
Applicants must use the following file naming convention when submitting required
documents as part of the FY 2012 PSGP:
COTP Zone Abbreviation_Port Area_Name of Applicant_ IJ Number
(Example: Hous_Galveston_XYZ Oil_IJ#1)
2. Detailed Budget. All applicants must provide detailed budgets for the funds
requested at the time of application. The budget must be complete, reasonable, and
cost-effective in relation to the proposed project. The budget should provide the
basis of computation of all project-related costs (including M&A) and any appropriate
narrative.

15

The review panels must be able to thoroughly evaluate the projects being submitted
based on the information provided here. Applicants must ensure they provide an
appropriate level of detail within the Detailed Budget to clarify intent as to what is
being purchased.
Applicants will find a sample Budget Detail Worksheet in Appendix E – Sample
Budget Detail Worksheet. This worksheet may be used as a guide to assist
applicants in the preparation of the budget and budget narrative.
3. Memorandum of Understanding/Memorandum of Agreement (MOU/MOA)
Requirement. State and local agencies are eligible applicants. However, the
security services provided must be addressed in the regulated entities’ security
plans. A copy of an MOU/MOA with the identified regulated entities will be required
prior to funding, and must include an acknowledgement of the security services and
roles and responsibilities of all entities involved. This information may be provided
using one of the attachment fields within https://portal.fema.gov.
The MOU/MOA must address the following points:




The nature of the security that the applicant agrees to supply to the regulated
facility (waterside surveillance, increased screening, etc.)
The roles and responsibilities of the facility and the applicant during different
Maritime Security (MARSEC) levels
An acknowledgement by the facility that the applicant is part of their facility
security plan

If the applicant is mentioned as a provider of security services under the port’s
AMSP, in lieu of an MOA/MOU, written acknowledgement from the AMSC members,
or a letter from the Federal Maritime Security Coordinator validating this status, will
be acceptable. In addition, MOA/MOUs submitted in previous PSGP award rounds
will be acceptable, provided the activity covered also addresses the capability being
requested through the FY 2010 PSGP.
If applicable, the signed MOU/MOA for State or local law enforcement agencies
must be submitted with the grant application as a file attachment within
https://portal.fema.gov. A sample MOU/MOA can be found in Appendix F – Sample
MOU/MOA Template.
COTP Zone Abbreviation_Port Area_Name of Applicant_MOU
(Example: Hous_Galveston_Harris County_MOU)
4. Sensitive Security Information (SSI) Requirements. Information submitted in the
course of applying for funding or reporting under certain programs or provided in the
course of an entity’s grant management activities under those programs which is
under Federal control is subject to protection under SSI, and must be properly
identified and marked. SSI is a control designation used by DHS related to

16

protecting information related to transportation security. It is applied to information
about security programs, vulnerability and threat assessments, screening processes,
technical specifications of certain screening equipment and objects used to test
screening equipment, and equipment used for communicating security information
relating to air, land, or maritime transportation. The applicable information is spelled
out in greater detail in 49 CFR 1520.7.
For the purposes of the Port Security Grant Program, all Investment Justifications
shall be considered SSI and treated as such. This means labeling as SSI and
password protecting appropriate documents prior to submission. The passwords for
protected documents must be sent (separate of the documents) to the following email address [email protected].
The subject line of the email should identify:



Applicant name
Application number

The body of the e-mail should clearly identify:





Applicant name
IJ number and/or summary description
COTP area
POC information

NOTE: A single password should be provided for all SSI documents within the same
application.
Environmental and Historic Preservation Review
FEMA is legally required to consider the potential impacts of all PSGP projects on
environmental resources and historic properties. Grantees must comply with all
applicable environmental planning and historic preservation (EHP) laws, regulations,
and Executive Orders (EOs) in order to draw down their FY 2012 PSGP grant funds.
To avoid unnecessary delays in starting a project, grantees are encouraged to pay
close attention to the reporting requirements for an EHP review. For more information
on FEMA’s EHP requirements, SAAs should refer to Information Bulletins 329 and 345
(http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/bulletins/index.shtm).
FY 2012 PSGP Program grantees using funds for construction projects must comply
with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.). Grant recipients must ensure that
their contractors or subcontractors for construction projects pay workers employed
directly at the work-site no less than the prevailing wages and fringe benefits paid on
projects of a similar character. Additional information, including Department of Labor
wage determinations, is available from the following website:
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-dbra.htm.

17

When applying for construction funds, including for the construction of communications
towers, at the time of application, the grantee is highly encouraged to submit evidence
of approved zoning ordinances, architectural plans, any other locally required planning
permits and documents, and to have completed all required steps for a successful EHP
review in support of their proposal for funding (e.g., coordination consultation).
X.

Application and Submission Information

Address to Request Application Package
FEMA makes all funding opportunities available on the Internet at
http://www.grants.gov. If you experience difficulties accessing information or have any
questions please call the Grants.gov customer support hotline at (800) 518-4726.
Application forms and instructions are available at Grants.gov. To access these
materials, go to http://www.grants.gov, select “Apply for Grants”, enter the CFDA
number (97.056) or the FOA number (DHS-12-GPD-056-000-01). Select “Download
Application Package,” and then follow the prompts to download the application package.
To download the instructions, go to “Download Application Package” and select
“Instructions.”
Content and Form of Application
1. Application via Grants.gov. All applicants must file their applications using the
Administration’s common electronic “storefront” – http://www.grants.gov. Eligible
grantees must apply for funding through this portal, accessible on the Internet at
http://www.grants.gov.
The application must be started and submitted using Grants.gov after Central
Contractor Registration (CCR) is confirmed. The on-line application includes the
following required form:


Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance

Applying for FY 2012 PSGP funds requires a two-step process. Step One: initial
submission to determine eligibility and Step Two: full application. Applicants are
encouraged to initiate Step One as soon after the FOA is published but no later than
April 27, 2012. This involves submitting a complete Standard Form 424 to
http://www.grants.gov. The Standard Form 424 will be retrieved by ND Grants and
the system will automatically populate the relevant data fields in the application.
Successful completion of this step is necessary for FEMA to determine eligibility of
the applicant. Late submissions to Grants.gov to complete Step One could result in
applicants missing the application deadline in Step Two. Once FEMA has
determined an applicant to be eligible, applicants can proceed to Step Two which
involves submitting the full application package via the ND Grants system. The
submission deadline for the full application package is May 4, 2012.

18

The application must be completed and final submission made through the ND
Grants system located at https://portal.fema.gov. If you need assistance registering
for the ND Grants system, please contact [email protected] or (800) 865-4076.
Applicants are encouraged to begin their ND Grants registration at the time of
solicitation to ensure they have adequate time to start and complete their application
submission. Unless otherwise referenced, the ND Grants system includes the
following required forms and submissions:











Standard Form 424A, Budget Information (Non-construction)
Standard Form 424B, Standard Assurances (Non-construction)
Standard Form 424C, Budget Information (Construction)
Standard Form 424D, Standard Assurances (Construction)
Standard Form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (if the grantee has
engaged or intends to engage in lobbying activities)
Grants.gov (GG) Lobbying Form, Certification Regarding Lobbying
FEMA Form 20-16C, Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment,
Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace
Requirements (available at
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2628)
Investment Justification (FEMA Form 089-5) (see Appendix D – FY 2012
PSGP Investment Justification Template)
Detailed Budget Worksheet

The program title listed in the CFDA is “Port Security Grant Program.” The CFDA
number is 97.056.
2. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number. The
applicant must provide a DUNS number with their application. This number is a
required field within http://www.grants.gov and for CCR. Organizations should verify
that they have a DUNS number, or take the steps necessary to obtain one, as soon
as possible. Applicants can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the
dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at (866) 705-5711.
3. Valid CCR. The application process also involves an updated and current
registration by the applicant, which must be confirmed at http://www.ccr.gov.
Applicants will obtain FOA Overviews and Full Announcement information from the
Grants.gov website where the full FOA is posted.
In addition, the following Telephone Device for the Deaf (TDD) and/or Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) number available for this Announcement is: (800)
462-7585.
Applications will be processed through the Grants.gov portal or the ND Grants system.
Hard copies of the application will not be accepted.

19

Appendix A – FY 2012 PSGP Allocations
Port Area Group Designations
Table 2 lists the specific port areas by Group that are eligible for funding through the FY
2012 PSGP.
Group I, II, and III Port Areas
Seven port areas have been selected as Group I (highest risk), 48 port areas have been
selected as Group II, and 35 port areas have been selected as Group III. Each Group I,
Group II, and Group III port area will compete for funding identified in their
corresponding Group. These amounts are based upon the FY 2012 DHS risk analysis.
This will allow applicants to submit IJs for projects without being confined to a set dollar
amount, providing DHS the opportunity to conduct field and national reviews of each
project and make awards based on the two overarching priorities of the PSGP, riskbased funding and regional security cooperation, as well as evaluating the extent to
which each IJ buys-down risk for their port area.
All Other Port Areas
Ports not identified in Group I, II, or III will compete for the funding identified for the “All
Other Port Areas” Group, and will submit their application and associated
documentation directly to FEMA. “All Other Port Areas” are allowed to receive grant
funds from their geographically proximate higher Group if the project has regional
impact across the entire port area, but not from both funding groups for the same
project.
Ineligible Entities
The PSGP will not accept applications or IJs from an applicant or sub-applicant for the
purpose of providing a service or product to an otherwise eligible entity.
The Fiduciary Agent process will not be utilized in the FY 2012 PSGP. Eligible
applicants will apply directly to FEMA for funding under this program.
Port-Wide Risk Management Planning for Group I and Group II Port Areas
In order to receive FY 2012 PSGP funds, Group I and Group II port areas are required
to have in place an approved PRMP. They are also highly encouraged, but not
required, to develop a Business Continuity/Resumption of Trade Plans (BCRTP). For
purposes of regional strategic planning, Group I and II port areas must take into
consideration all other port areas covered by their AMSP in their plans IJs.
The PRMP and BCRTP will align with and support the port areas’ AMSP, considering
the entire port system strategically as a whole, and will identify and execute a series of
actions designed to effectively mitigate security risks associated with the system’s
maritime critical infrastructure and key resources.

20
Appendix A – FY 2012 PSGP Allocations

Building on the successes of previous years, during FY 2012, Group I and Group II
ports will seek PSGP funding that will ensure alignment with the programs and projects
identified within the Plan(s) aimed at the following priorities:







Expand the emphasis on port-wide partnerships, regional management of risk,
port resilience/recovery, and business continuity/resumption of trade
Expand the emphasis on regional maritime security risk management
Expand the knowledge and protocols for maritime business continuity/resumption
of trade under MDA
Prioritize port-wide security strategies and actions that address surface,
underwater, and land-based threats
Target best risk-mitigation strategies achieving sustainable port-wide security
and business continuity/resumption of trade planning
Provide the basis for aligning specific grant-funded security projects under this
and future year PSGP awards within the requirements of the AMSP
Table 2: FY 2012 PSGP Port Area Groupings
Group

State/Territory

California

I

Louisiana

New Jersey /
Pennsylvania /
Delaware

New York / New
Jersey

Port Area
Los Angeles-Long Beach
Long Beach
Los Angeles
San Francisco Bay
Carquinez Strait
Martinez
Oakland
Richmond
San Francisco
Stockton
New Orleans
Baton Rouge
Gramercy
New Orleans
Plaquemines, Port of
South Louisiana, Port of
St. Rose
Delaware Bay
Camden-Gloucester, NJ
Chester, PA
Marcus Hook, PA
New Castle, DE
Paulsboro, NJ
Philadelphia, PA
Trenton, NJ
Wilmington, DE
New York, NY and NJ

21
Appendix A – FY 2012 PSGP Allocations

FY 2012 Target
Allocation

$58,500,000

Group

State/Territory

Texas

I
(cont.)
Washington

Alabama
Alaska
California

Connecticut

Florida

II

Georgia
Guam
Hawaii

Indiana/
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Massachusetts /
Rhode Island
Maryland
Maine
Michigan

Port Area
Houston-Galveston
Galveston
Houston
Texas City
Puget Sound
Anacortes
Bellingham
Everett
Olympia
Port Angeles
Seattle
Tacoma
Mobile
Anchorage
El Segundo
San Diego
Port Hueneme
Long Island Sound
Bridgeport
New Haven
New London
Jacksonville
Port Everglades
Miami
Tampa Bay
Port Manatee
Tampa
Port Canaveral
West Palm Beach
Savannah
Apra Harbor
Honolulu
Barbers Point, Oahu
Honolulu, Oahu
Southern Tip Lake Michigan
Burns Waterway Harbor, IN
Chicago, IL
Gary, IN
Indiana Harbor, IN
Louisville
Lake Charles
Morgan City
Boston
Narragansett/Mt. Hope Bays
Fall River, MA
Newport, RI
Providence, RI
Baltimore
Portland
Detroit

22
Appendix A – FY 2012 PSGP Allocations

FY 2012 Target
Allocation

$58,500,000
(cont.)

$29,250,000

Group

State/Territory
Minnesota
Minnesota/
Wisconsin
Missouri
Missouri/
Illinois
Mississippi
New Hampshire
North Carolina
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
South Carolina
Tennessee

II
(cont.)

Texas

Virginia

Washington/
Oregon/
Idaho

West Virginia

Port Area

FY 2012 Target
Allocation

Minneapolis-St. Paul
Minneapolis
St. Paul
Duluth-Superior, MN and WI
Kansas City
St. Louis, MO and IL
Pascagoula
Vicksburg
Portsmouth
Wilmington
Morehead City
Buffalo
Cincinnati
Toledo
Pittsburgh
San Juan
Charleston
Memphis
Nashville
Sabine-Neches River
Beaumont
Orange
Port Arthur
Corpus Christi
Freeport
Hampton Roads
Newport News
Norfolk Harbor
Columbia-Snake River System
Kalama, WA
Longview, WA
Portland, OR
Vancouver, WA
Benton, WA
Clarkston, WA
Ilwaco, WA
Kennewick, WA
Pasco, WA
Walla Walla, WA
Whitman County, WA
Astoria, OR
Boardman, OR
The Dalles, OR
Hood River, OR
St. Helens, OR
Umatilla, OR
Lewiston, ID
Huntington - TriState

23
Appendix A – FY 2012 PSGP Allocations

$29,250,000
(cont.)

Group

State/Territory

II
(cont.)

Wisconsin

Port Area
Green Bay

Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
California

III

All Other
Port
Areas

Valdez
Guntersville
Helena
Sacramento
Fort Pierce
Florida
Panama City
Pensacola
Georgia
Brunswick
Illinois
Peoria
Indiana
Mount Vernon
Louisiana
Port Fourchon/The LOOP
Port Huron
Sault Ste Marie
Michigan
Marine City
Muskegon
Monroe
Minnesota
Two Harbors
Gulfport
Mississippi
Greenville
New York
Albany
Cleveland
Ohio
Lorain
Oklahoma
Tulsa, Port of Catoosa
Oregon
Coos Bay
Pennsylvania
Erie
Guayanilla
Humacao
Puerto Rico
Jobos
Ponce
Tennessee
Chattanooga
Port Lavaca-Point Comfort
Texas
Victoria
Brownsville
Virginia
Richmond
Wisconsin
Milwaukee
Eligible entities not located within one of the port areas
identified above, but operating under an AMSP, are
eligible to compete for funding within “All Other Port
Areas” Group

FY 2012 Target
Allocation
$29,250,000
(cont.)

Total:

$4,875,000

$4,875,000
$97,500,000

24
Appendix A – FY 2012 PSGP Allocations

Appendix B – FY 2012 PSGP Priorities
Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness
Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness (PPD-8), signed on March 30,
2011, describes the Nation’s approach to preparing for the threats and hazards that
pose the greatest risk to the security of the United States. National preparedness is the
shared responsibility of our whole community. Every member contributes, including
individuals, communities, the private and nonprofit sectors, faith-based organizations,
and Federal, State, and local governments. We describe our security and resilience
posture through the core capabilities that are necessary to address risks, and we will
use an integrated, layered, and all-of-Nation approach as our foundation. We define
success as a secure and resilient Nation with the capabilities required across the whole
community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the
threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk.
National preparedness is the shared responsibility of all levels of government, the
private and nonprofit sectors, and individual citizens. The objective of PPD-8 is to
facilitate an integrated, all-of-Nation, risk informed, capabilities-based approach to
preparedness.
Using the core capabilities, we achieve the NPG by:






Preventing, avoiding, or stopping a threatened or an actual act of terrorism.
Protecting our citizens, residents, visitors, and assets against the greatest threats
and hazards in a manner that allows our interests, aspirations, and way of life to
thrive.
Mitigating the loss of life and property by lessening the impact of future disasters.
Responding quickly to save lives, protect property and the environment, and
meet basic human needs in the aftermath of a catastrophic incident.
Recovering through a focus on the timely restoration, strengthening, and
revitalization of infrastructure, housing, and a sustainable economy, as well as
the health, social, cultural, historic, and environmental fabric of communities
affected by a catastrophic incident.

The core capabilities contained in the NPG are the distinct critical elements necessary
for our success. They are highly interdependent and will require us to use existing
preparedness networks and activities, improve training and exercise programs, promote
innovation, and ensure that the administrative, finance, and logistics systems are in
place to support these capabilities. The core capabilities represent an evolution from
the Target Capabilities List (TCL). The transition from TCL to core capabilities expands
the focus to include mitigation and allows greater focus on prevention and protection
activities.
To support building, sustaining, and delivering these core capabilities grantees will use
elements of the National Preparedness System (NPS). The NPS is to be an integrated
25
Appendix B – FY 2012 PSGP Priorities

set of guidance, programs, and processes that can be implemented and measured at all
levels of government, thereby enabling the Nation to achieve the Goal.
Building and Sustaining Core Capabilities
Capabilities are the means to accomplish a mission, function, or objective based on the
performance of related tasks, under specified conditions, to target levels of
performance. The most essential of these capabilities are the core capabilities
identified in the NPG. Complex and far-reaching threats and hazards require the whole
community to integrate preparedness efforts in order to build, sustain, and deliver the
core capabilities and achieve the desired outcomes identified in the NPG.
Working together subject matter experts, government officials, and elected leaders can
develop strategies to allocate resources effectively, as well as leverage available
assistance to reduce risk. These strategies consider both how to sustain current levels
of capability and address gaps in order to achieve the NPG. Achieving the NPG will
require participation and resource support from all levels of government. Not all
capabilities can be addressed in a given funding cycle, nor can funding be expected to
flow from any one source. Officials must prioritize the achievement of capabilities to
most effectively ensure security and resilience while understanding the effects of not
addressing identified gaps. Building and sustaining capabilities will include a
combination of organizational resources, equipment, training, and education. Grants
and technical assistance may also be available to support building and sustaining
capabilities. Consideration must also be given to finding, connecting to, and
strengthening community resources by leveraging the expertise and capacity of
individuals, communities, private and nonprofit sectors, faith-based organizations, and
all levels of government. Jurisdictions may also choose to use mutual aid agreements
to fill gaps or work with partners to develop regional capabilities. Ultimately, a
jurisdiction may need to rely on other levels of government to address a gap in
capability. The expectation should be communicated well before the time arises when
the capabilities are most urgently needed.
As these issues are considered in light of the eligible activities under PSGP, an effective
risk assessment must guide jurisdiction’s efforts. This risk picture will cover the range of
threats and hazards, from those a community faces daily to those infrequent events that
would stress the core capabilities of a jurisdiction. Coupled with the desired outcomes
established by a community, this combined perspective is crucial to enabling all levels
of government to effectively estimate the level of capabilities required to address its
risks.
Files and information on PPD-8 can be found at http://www.fema.gov/ppd8.
The President’s FY 2013 budget has proposed substantial changes to DHS grant
programs. FY 2012 grant programs will prepare grantees for the transition to new
requirements in FY 2013 in the following ways:

26
Appendix B – FY 2012 PSGP Priorities





Begin the process of transitioning from separate preparedness grant programs in
FY 2011 to a more streamlined model within the construct of the FY 2012
appropriations
Continue the transition to address the core capabilities outlined in the NPG
Implement a two year period of performance with very limited extensions

Grantees are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the grant proposals in the
President’s FY 2013 budget.
FY 2012 PSGP and Alignment to PPD-8
The FY 2012 PSGP plays an important role in the implementation of PPD-8 by
supporting the development and sustainment of core capabilities. Core capabilities are
essential for the execution of each of the five mission areas outlined in the NPG. The
development and sustainment of these core capabilities are not exclusive to any single
level of government or organization, but rather require the combined effort of the whole
community. The FY 2012 PSGP supports all core capabilities in the Prevention,
Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery mission areas based on allowable
costs.
Sustaining PSGP Capabilities
In this time of limited resources, PSGP grantees should ensure that grant funding is
utilized to sustain core capabilities within the NPG that were funded by past PSGP
funding cycles. New capabilities should not be built at the expense of maintaining
current, essential capabilities. However, if new capabilities are being built utilizing
PSGP funding, grantees must ensure that the capabilities have a clear linkage to one or
more core capabilities in the NPG.
Overarching Funding Priorities
The funding priorities for the FY 2012 PSGP reflect the Department’s overall investment
strategy, in which two priorities have been paramount: risk-informed funding and
regional security cooperation.
First, DHS will focus the bulk of its available port security grant dollars on the highestrisk port systems. This determination is based on ongoing intelligence analysis,
extensive security reviews, and consultations with port industry partners.
At the recommendation of the United States Coast Guard (USCG), some ports are
being considered as a single cluster due to geographic proximity, shared risk, and a
common waterway. As with other DHS grant programs, applications from these port
clusters must be locally coordinated and include integrated security proposals to use
PSGP grant dollars to mitigate port security risks.
Eligible port areas were identified using a comprehensive, empirically-grounded risk
analysis model. Risk methodology for PSGP programs is consistent across
transportation modes and is linked to the risk methodology used to determine eligibility
for the core DHS State and local grant programs.
27
Appendix B – FY 2012 PSGP Priorities

Within the PSGP, eligibility for all grant awards is first predicated on a systematic risk
analysis that reviews and rates eligible ports in a given area for comparative risk. All
port areas will be comparably rated. Risk will be evaluated using an analytical model
developed by DHS in conjunction with other Federal entities. Risk is defined as the
product of three principal variables:




Threat – the likelihood of an attack occurring
Vulnerability – the relative exposure to an attack
Consequence – the expected impact of an attack

Risk data for eligible port areas is gathered individually and then aggregated by region.
The DHS risk formula incorporates multiple normalized variables, meaning that for a
given variable, all eligible port areas are empirically ranked on a relative scale from
lowest to highest.
DHS’s risk assessment methodology for PSGP considers critical infrastructure system
assets and characteristics from four areas that might contribute to their risk: intelligence
community assessments of threat; economic consequences of attack; port assets; and
area vulnerabilities and consequences (to people and physical infrastructure
immediately surrounding the port). The relative weighting of variables reflects DHS’s
overall risk assessment, as well as the FY 2012 program priorities. Specific variables
include multiple data sets regarding international and domestic measure of cargo
throughput (container, break bulk, petro-chemical, etc); foreign vessel calls; the
adjacent critical assets that may be associated with the port area; the adjacent military
missions’ variables; the population density; and MSRAM data.
Second, DHS places a very high priority on ensuring that all PSGP applications reflect
robust regional coordination and an investment strategy that institutionalizes and
integrates a regional maritime security risk strategy. This priority is a core component in
the Department’s statewide grant programs and complements the goals of the Urban
Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grant program.
In FY 2012, the PSGP will continue to fund those eligible projects identified in the
PRMP that close or mitigate maritime security risk vulnerabilities gaps, and ensure a
rapid transition to the optional Business Continuity/Resumption of Trade Plans
(BCRTP). Adoption of a deliberate risk management planning process, consistent with
that employed in the UASI and State programs, is also a key focus of the Security and
Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port Act (Public Law 109-347) amendments to the
PSGP.
PSGP Priorities
In addition to these two overarching priorities, the Department has identified the
following five priorities as its selection criteria for all FY 2012 PSGP applicants. These
priorities also align to the five mission areas and the associated core capabilities of the
NPG.

28
Appendix B – FY 2012 PSGP Priorities

1. Enhancing Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA)
MDA is the critical enabler that allows leaders at all levels to make effective
decisions and act early against threats to the security of the Nation’s seaports. In
support of the National Strategy for Maritime Security and the Prevention and
Protection mission areas of the NPG, port areas should seek to enhance their MDA
through projects that address knowledge capabilities within the maritime domain.
This effort could include access control/standardized credentialing, command and
control, communications, and enhanced intelligence sharing and analysis. This
effort may also include construction or infrastructure improvement projects that are
identified in the PRMP and/or FSPs and/or Vessel Security Plans (VSPs).
Construction and enhancement of Interagency Operations Centers for port security
should be considered a priority for promoting MDA and unity of effort.
MDA requires a coordinated unity of effort within and among public and private
sector organizations and international partners. The need for security is a mutual
interest requiring the greatest cooperation between industry and government.
MDA depends upon unparalleled information sharing. MDA must have protocols to
protect private sector proprietary information. Bi-lateral or multi-lateral information
sharing agreements and international conventions and treaties will greatly assist
enabling MDA.
2. Enhancing Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive (CBRNE) prevention, protection, response
and supporting recovery capabilities
Port areas should continue to enhance their capabilities to prevent, detect, respond
to and recover from terrorist attacks employing IEDs, CBRNE devices and other
non-conventional weapons. Of particular concern in the port environment are
attacks that employ IEDs delivered via small craft (similar to the attack on the USS
Cole), by underwater swimmers (such as underwater mines), or on ferries (both
passenger and vehicle). Please refer to the DHS Small Vessel Security Strategy
April 2008 document, which can be found at
http://www.dhs.gov/files/publications/gc_1209408805402.shtm.
3. Port Resilience and Recovery Capabilities
The Nation’s ability to withstand threats and hazards requires an understanding of
risks and robust efforts to reduce vulnerabilities. Mitigating vulnerabilities reduces
both the direct consequences and the response and recovery requirements of
disasters. One of the core missions of DHS, as outlined in the Quadrennial
Homeland Security Review (QHSR) Report, is “ensuring resilience to disasters”. A
major goal in support of this mission is to “improve the Nation’s ability to adapt and
rapidly recover.” A main objective of this goal is to sustain critical capabilities and
restore essential services in a timely manner.

29
Appendix B – FY 2012 PSGP Priorities

Those responsible for the security and resilience of our Nation’s ports must take
appropriate action to reduce risk related vulnerabilities. Resilience spans the full
spectrum of activities by exploring options and identifying processes that reduce the
magnitude and duration of disruptions. PSGP funds are intended to assist “risk
owners” in addressing port security vulnerabilities. Port resilience and recovery
should be viewed as a critical component of this overarching effort.
During the FY 2007 Supplemental round of port security grants, port stakeholders,
through their Area Maritime Security Committees, were encouraged to develop
BCRTPs. Those ports that already have completed plans should pursue PSGP
funds to address their identified risks and vulnerabilities, including any worthwhile
projects that would help enable continuity of port operations and/or rapid recovery of
the port following a major incident. Ports that have not completed plans are highly
encouraged to complete them and may apply for PSGP funding to facilitate that
effort.
4. Training and Exercises
Port areas should assess their training and qualification requirements, coordinate
training and qualification of incident response personnel, and regularly test these
capabilities through emergency exercises and drills. Exercises must follow the Area
Maritime Security Training Exercise Program (AMSTEP) or the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) Intermodal Security Training Exercise Program (ISTEP) guidelines that test operational protocols that would be implemented in the
event of a terrorist attack. The efforts include live situational exercises involving
various threat and disaster scenarios, table-top exercises, and methods for
implementing lessons learned.
5. Equipment Associated with Transportation Worker Identification Credential
(TWIC) Implementation
TWIC is a congressionally-mandated security program through which DHS will
conduct appropriate background investigations and issue biometrically enabled and
secure identification cards for individuals requiring unescorted access to U.S. port
facilities. Regulations outlining the initial phase of this program (card issuance) were
issued by TSA in cooperation with the Coast Guard in volume 72 of the Federal
Register on page 3492, dated January 25, 2007. See FEMA GPD IB 343, dated
June 21, 2010 for further information on the TWIC program and guidance for
executing PSGP-funded TWIC projects. For FY 2012, infrastructure and installation
projects that support TWIC implementation (e.g. cabling, Information Technology
[IT], limited construction, etc.) will be given a higher priority than the purchase of
TWIC card readers.

30
Appendix B – FY 2012 PSGP Priorities

PSGP Program Management: Roles and Responsibilities at DHS
Effective management of the PSGP entails a collaborative effort and partnership within
DHS, the dynamics of which require continuing outreach, coordination, and interface.
For the FY 2012 PSGP, FEMA is responsible for designing and operating the
administrative mechanisms needed to implement and manage the grant program. The
USCG provides programmatic subject matter expertise for the maritime industry.
Together, these two agencies, with additional assistance and cooperation from TSA, the
Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD), and the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA), determine the primary security architecture of the PSGP.

31
Appendix B – FY 2012 PSGP Priorities

Appendix C – Funding Guidelines
Management and Administration
A maximum of five percent (5%) of the total award may be retained by the applicant.
Any funds retained are to be used solely for management and administrative purposes
associated with the PSGP award. FY 2012 PSGP M&A funds may be used for the
following M&A costs:





Hiring of full-time or part-time staff, contractors or consultants, and M&A
expenses related to compliance with grant reporting or data collection
requirements, including data calls
Development of operating plans for information collection and processing
necessary to respond to DHS data calls
Travel expenses

Allowable Costs
This section provides guidance on allowable costs for the FY 2012 PSGP. The
allowable costs should not be viewed as all-inclusive. Any project (submitted by
an eligible applicant) that meets the PSGP priorities is an allowable activity as
stated in 46 U.S.C. § 70-107(b), and can be shown to offer a direct maritime
security benefit will be considered for funding. However, those costs that are
specifically noted as unallowable or ineligible will not be funded.
Operational Costs
PSGP funding may be used to cover costs associated with new and ongoing port
security operations in support of PSGP national priorities and one or more core
capabilities in the NPG. All such operational activities should be focused on
maritime security and conducted in coordination with the local COTP.
This funding is intended as a stop-gap measure – to fund an immediate need for
personnel that will be directly engaged in port security activities. With certain
exceptions, such funding will be primarily limited to the costs of hiring of new
personnel to operate vessels acquired with FEMA preparedness grant funds and to
staff the maritime security related components of Interagency Operations Centers
(IOCs) and other interagency coordination centers having a port security nexus.
Funding for operational costs will only be available for the two year term of the
award. This will allow sufficient time for local government agencies (and, in some
cases, private entities) to plan and budget for sustaining personnel related costs
beyond the two-year period.

32
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines

Allowable operational costs include:







Hiring of new, full-time personnel to operate vessels acquired with FEMA
preparedness grant funds;
Hiring of additional full-time personnel to staff a new or expanded interagency
maritime security operation center (including Interagency Operations Centers
(IOCs), MDA fusion centers, port security operations centers, etc.);
Hiring of new personnel to support maritime security / counter-terrorism
efforts in the local Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) center;
Overtime costs for existing personnel to operate boats acquired with FEMA
preparedness grant funds in support of pre-planned, mission critical activities,
as identified by the local Coast Guard Captain of the Port;
Personnel or contracted costs for maintaining port security equipment
acquired with FEMA preparedness grant funds; and
Hiring of new or additional staff in credentialing centers that support TWIC
and access to a MTSA facility.

Grantees are reminded to be sensitive to supplanting issues. Operational costs will
only be funded in cases where a new or expanded capability is added to address
port (or facility) security needs. PSGP funding for permanent operational personnel
will not exceed 24 months.
There must be an assurance that the personnel costs associated with the required
operational capability can be sustained beyond the 24 month award period. A
sustainment plan must be submitted with the applicant’s investment justification to
address the 12-month period beyond the award.
Equipment for new personnel, such as uniforms and personnel protective
equipment, is an allowable expense except for weapons and equipment associated
with weapons maintenance/security (i.e., firearms, ammunition, gun lockers are
unallowable).
Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA)
Funds may be used for the following types of MDA projects in support of one or
more core capabilities in the NPG:






Deployment of access control methods and projects
Deployment of detection and security surveillance equipment
Development/enhancement of information sharing systems for risk mitigation
purposes, including equipment (and software) required to receive, transmit,
handle, and store classified information
Enhancements of command and control facilities
Enhancement of interoperable communications/asset tracking for sharing
terrorism threat information (including ensuring that mechanisms are
interoperable with Federal, State, and local agencies) and to facilitate incident
management
33
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines

Applicants are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the National Strategy for
Maritime Security, National Plan to Achieve Maritime Domain Awareness that can be
found at http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0753.shtm.
IED and CBRNE Prevention, Protection, Response, Recovery Capabilities
To develop or sustain one or more core capabilities in the NPG, eligible port
facilities, vessels, and police/fire rescue agencies may receive funding for the
following types of IED and CBRNE capabilities:
Port Facilities regulated under 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 105













CBRNE detection, response, and decontamination equipment
Explosives Detection Canine Teams
Intrusion detection systems for Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA)
regulated facilities, vessels captured within the AMSP, or port areas that are
in direct support of these MTSA regulated entities
Small boats that are specifically designed and equipped as CBRNE platforms
for eligible port police and local law enforcement port security patrol and
response
Video surveillance systems that specifically address and enhance maritime
security
TWIC standardized credentialing access control
Improved lighting
Hardened security gates and vehicle barriers
Floating protective barriers
Underwater intrusion detection systems
Communications equipment for risk mitigation (including interoperable
communications)
Reconfiguring of docks to prevent small boat access

Vessels regulated under 33 CFR Part 104







CBRNE agent detection, response, and decontamination equipment
Restricted area protection (cipher locks, hardened doors, closed-circuit
television (CCTV) for bridges and engineering spaces)
Interoperable communications equipment
Canines for explosives detection
Access control and TWIC standardized credentialing
Floating protective barriers

34
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines

Police/fire rescue agencies having jurisdiction within a port area







Small boats that are specifically designed and equipped as CBRNE platforms
CBRNE agent detection, response, and decontamination equipment
Interoperable communications equipment
Explosives Detection Canine Teams
Video surveillance systems that specifically address and enhance maritime
security
Underwater terrorism prevention and response equipment

Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)
The TWIC is designed to be an open architecture, standards-based system. Port
projects that involve new installations or upgrades to access control and credentialing
systems, should exhibit compliance with TWIC standards and program specifications.
Recipients of grant funding for the implementation of TWIC systems may be requested
by the Federal government to apply these systems in a field test of TWIC readers in
accordance with the SAFE Port Act. Systems implemented with grant funding may be
used by recipients to comply with the TWIC rulemaking requirements. However, the
fees associated with the application for and issuance of the TWIC cards themselves
are ineligible for award consideration.
Allowable costs under this section include those projects that will ensure the safe
and secure transit of foreign seafarers and shore staff/support [who are not eligible
for TWIC] to and from the vessel while at MTSA regulated facilities. For additional
information, see FEMA IB #346, titled “Port Security Grant Program Allowable Costs
for Seafarers and Shore Staff/Support.”
PSGP TWIC funding recipients may be required to provide data and lessons learned
from the application of card readers and associated systems. Systems implemented
with grant funding may be used by recipients to comply with all TWIC rulemaking
requirements once established. See FEMA IB #343 for additional guidance on
funding for TWIC projects.
Training
Funding for personnel training will generally be limited to those courses that have
been listed in the FEMA approved course catalog by the FEMA National Training
and Education Division (NTED) or the Maritime Administration (MARAD). Approved
courses are listed in the following catalogs maintained by NTED: NTED Course
Catalog; Federal Sponsored Course Catalog; and the State-Sponsored Course
Catalog. The catalogs may be viewed at the http://www.firstrespondertraining.gov
website. MARAD maintains a list of approved courses that satisfy the specialized
maritime security training requirements of Section 109 of the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002. These courses include Company Security
Officer (CSO); Facility Security Officer (FSO); Maritime Security for Vessel
Personnel with Specific Security Duties (VPSSD); Maritime Security for Facility
Personnel with Specific Security Duties (FPSSD); Maritime Security Awareness
35
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines

(MSA), and; Maritime Security for Military, First Responder, and Law Enforcement
Personnel (MSLEP). Additional information on the MARAD approved courses can
be found at:
http://www.marad.dot.gov/education_landing_page/mtsa_course_certification/mtsa.h
tm.
Funding for other training courses may be permitted on a case-by-case basis
depending on the specific training needs of the eligible PSGP applicant. In such
case, the applicant will be required to explain in the Investment Justification (IJ) why
none of the approved courses as mentioned above satisfy the identified training
need and must submit detailed course information for review and consideration by
the local field review team and the National Review Panel. The IJ must also provide
assurance that the requested course:






Falls within the FEMA mission scope to prepare State, local, tribal, and
territorial personnel to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from
acts of terrorism and catastrophic events
Builds additional capabilities that support a specific training need identified by
the Port-Wide Risk Mitigation Plan (if applicable), Area Maritime Security
Plan, Area Maritime Security Committee, or Coast Guard Captain of the Port
Addresses specific tasks and/or competencies articulated in FEMA’s
Emergency Responder Guidelines and the Homeland Security Guidelines for
Prevention and Deterrence
Address specific capabilities and related tasks articulated in the core
capabilities identified in the NPG
Supports PSGP priorities

There is no limit to the number of deliveries of training courses not approved by
FEMA or MARAD or listed within the State or Federal Sponsored course catalog if:



The course meets the five criteria listed above
The course is offered only within a jurisdiction or an agency within a
jurisdiction (i.e., the course is not intended for delivery outside of the
jurisdiction)

Exercises
Funding used for exercises will only be permitted for those exercises that are in
direct support of a facility or port area’s MTSA required exercises (see 33 CFR
105.220 for a facility and 33 CFR 103.515 for the AMSP). These exercises must be
coordinated with the Captain of the Port (COTP) and AMSC and adhere to the
guidelines outlined in DHS Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program
(HSEEP). More information on HSEEP may be found at https://hseep.dhs.gov.

36
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines

PSGP funds may be used for the following training and/or exercise activities:













Hiring of Full or Part-Time Staff or Contractors/Consultants to support
training and/or maritime security exercise-related activities. Payment of
salaries and fringe benefits must be in accordance with the policies of the
State or unit(s) of local government and have the approval of the State or
awarding agency, whichever is applicable. Such costs must be included
within the funding allowed for program management personnel expenses,
which must not exceed 15 percent (15%) of the total allocation. In no case is
dual compensation allowable (see above).
Overtime and Backfill. The entire amount of overtime costs, including
payments related to backfilling personnel, which are the direct result of
attendance at FEMA and/or approved training courses and programs and/or
maritime security exercise-related activities are allowable. Reimbursement of
these costs should follow the policies of the State or local unit(s) of
government or the awarding agency, whichever is applicable. In no case is
dual compensation allowable. That is, an employee of a unit of government
may not receive compensation from their unit or agency of government AND
from an award for a single period of time (e.g., 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.), even
though such work may benefit both activities.
Travel. Travel costs (e.g., airfare, mileage, per diem, hotel) are allowable as
expenses by employees who are on travel status for official business related
to approved training and exercises.
Training workshops and conferences. Grant funds may be used to plan
and conduct training workshops or conferences to include costs related to
planning, meeting space and other meeting costs, facilitation costs, materials
and supplies, travel, and training plan development.
Funds used to develop, deliver, and evaluate training, including costs
related to administering the training, planning, scheduling, facilities, materials
and supplies, reproduction of materials, and equipment. Training should
provide the opportunity to demonstrate and validate skills learned, as well as
to identify any gaps in these skills. Any training or training gaps, including
those for children and individuals with disabilities or access and functional
needs, should be identified in the AAR/IP and addressed in the training cycle.
Funds used to design, develop, conduct, and evaluate a maritime
security exercise. Includes costs related to planning, meeting space and
other meeting costs, facilitation costs, materials and supplies, travel, and
documentation. Grantees are encouraged to use free public
space/locations/facilities, whenever available, prior to the rental of
space/locations/facilities. Exercises should provide the opportunity to
demonstrate and validate skills learned, as well as to identify any gaps in
these skills. Any exercise or exercise gaps, including those for children and
individuals with disabilities or access and functional needs, should be
identified in the AAR/IP and addressed in the exercise cycle.
Certification/Recertification of Instructors is an allowable cost. States are
encouraged to follow the FEMA Instructor Quality Assurance Program to
37
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines





ensure a minimum level of competency and corresponding levels of
evaluation of student learning. This is particularly important for those courses
that involve training of trainers. This information is contained in an IB 193,
issued October 20, 2005.
Supplies. Supplies are items that are expended or consumed during the
course of the planning and conduct of the training project(s) (e.g., copying
paper, gloves, tape, and non-sterile masks). These costs will contribute to
the five percent (5%) M&A cap.
Other items. These costs may include the rental of space/locations for
exercise planning and conducting approved training courses, rental of
equipment, etc. For PSGP funded courses, the cost of fuel may be allowed in
cases where the participating entity must provide its own equipment (such as
boats, response vehicles, etc.). For maritime security exercises, the cost of
fuel, exercise signs, badges, etc. may be allowed. Costs associated with
inclusive practices and the provision of reasonable accommodations and
modifications to provide full access for children and adults with disabilities.

Approved security exercise programs include:






Area Maritime Security Training and Exercise Program (AMSTEP): AMSTEP
is the USCG developed mechanism by which AMSCs and Federal Maritime
Security Coordinators will continuously improve security preparedness in the
port community. It is an integral part and a strategic implementation of the
DHS HSEEP for the maritime sector. Rooted in long-standing USCG
exercise policy and procedures, AMSTEP aligns to support the National
Preparedness Guidelines and the National Strategy for Maritime Security.
Through a structured approach, AMSTEP focuses all exercise efforts, both
public and private, on improving the AMSPs and individual vessel and facility
security plans of the nation’s seaports.
Intermodal Security Training Exercise Program: I-STEP was established by
TSA to enhance the preparedness of our nation’s surface-transportation
sector network with meaningful evaluations of prevention, preparedness, and
ability to respond to terrorist-related incidents. I-STEP improves the
intermodal transportation industry’s ability to prepare for and respond to a
transportation security incident (TSI) by increasing awareness, improving
processes, creating partnerships, and delivering transportation-sector network
security training exercises. I-STEP provides security-exercise tools and
services to modal operators through TSA general managers. The tools
include software for exercise design, evaluation and tracking for a mix of
tabletop, advanced tabletop and functional exercises. More information on ISTEP is available at http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/istep/index.shtm.
National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (NPREP): The USCG
NPREP focuses on exercise and evaluation of government area contingency
plans and industry spill response plans (oil and hazardous substance).
NPREP is a coordinated effort of the four Federal agencies with responsibility
for oversight of private-sector oil and hazardous substance pollution response
38
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines

preparedness: USCG, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
Department of Transportation’s Research and Special Programs
Administration, and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. These agencies worked
with Federal, State, and local governments, the oil and marine transportation
industry, cleanup contractors, and the general public to develop the program.
NPREP meets the OPA mandate for exercises and represents minimum
guidelines for ensuring overall preparedness within the response community.
The guidelines, which are reviewed periodically through a public workshop
process, outline an exercise program that satisfies the exercise requirements
of the four Federal regulatory agencies. More information on NPREP is
available at
http://www.boemre.gov/offshore/OilSpillProgram/Assets/PDFs/PREPGuidelin
es.pdf.
Unauthorized exercise-related costs include:



Reimbursement for the maintenance and/or wear and tear costs of general
use vehicles (e.g., construction vehicles) and emergency response apparatus
(e.g., fire trucks, ambulances, repair or cleaning of PPE, etc).
Equipment that is purchased for permanent installation and/or use, beyond
the scope of exercise conduct (e.g., electronic messaging signs).

Planning
FY 2012 PSGP funds may be used for the following types of planning activities in
support of one or more of the core capabilities in the NPG:









Development or Updating of Port-Wide Risk Mitigation Plans to include the
conduct of port security vulnerability assessments as necessary to support
plan update/development
Public education and outreach (such as the America’s Waterways Watch or
Transit Watch). Such activities should be coordinated with local Citizen
Corps Council(s), and local Coast Guard Reserves and/or Auxiliary
Public Alert and warning systems and security education efforts in conjunction
with America’s Waterways Watch Program or similar public
education/outreach programs addressing port security
Development and implementation of homeland security support programs and
adoption of ongoing DHS national initiatives (including building or enhancing
preventive radiological and nuclear detection programs) within the maritime
transportation system realm
Development and enhancement of security plans and protocols within the
AMSP, PRMP, and/or the BCRTP in support of maritime security planning
and risk mitigation
Hiring of part-time staff and contractors or consultants to assist with planning
activities (not for the purpose of hiring public safety personnel)
Overtime costs associated with eligible planning activities
39
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines





Materials required to conduct the aforementioned planning activities
Travel and per diem related to the professional planning activities noted in
this section
Other project planning activities with prior approval from DHS

Equipment Acquisition
FY 2012 PSGP funds may be used for the following types of equipment provided it will
be used in direct support of maritime security risk mitigation and it supports developing
or sustaining one or more core capabilities in the NPG:

















Personal protection equipment
Explosive device response and remediation equipment
CBRNE detection equipped patrol watercraft/small boat used to directly
support maritime security for a facility or within a port area on a routine basis
Information sharing technology; components or equipment designed to share
maritime security risk information and maritime all hazards risk information
with other agencies
Cyber security enhancement equipment
Interoperable communications equipment
Decontamination equipment
Systems and equipment required for continuity of critical port operations
Terrorism incident prevention and response equipment
Physical security enhancement equipment
Equipment such as portable fencing, CCTVs, passenger vans, mini-buses,
etc. to support secure passage of vessel crewmembers through an MTSA
regulated facility
CBRNE detection equipped patrol and fire fighting response vehicles/vessels,
provided they will be used primarily for port/facility security and/or response
operations. Marine firefighting vessels must be designed and equipped to
meet NFPA 1925: Standard on Marine Firefighting Vessels
Firefighting foam and PKP powder may be purchased by public fire
departments which have jurisdictions in a port area and would respond to an
incident at an MTSA regulated facility. MTSA facilities may also receive
funding for this purpose. Funding will be limited to a one-time purchase
based on a worst-case incident at the facility or facilities
Equipment such as telecommunications, computers, and systems to support
State and local agency participation in Interagency Operations Centers (IOC)
for port security to include virtual IOC capabilities

Specific Guidance on Sonar Devices
The four types of allowable sonar devices are: imaging sonar, scanning sonar, side
scan sonar, and 3-dimensional sonar. These types of sonar devices are intended to
support the detection of underwater improvised explosive devices and enhance
MDA. The eligible types of sonar, and short descriptions of their capabilities, are
provided below:
40
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines








Imaging sonar: A high-frequency sonar that produces “video-like” imagery
using a narrow field of view. The sonar system can be pole-mounted over the
side of a craft or hand carried by a diver.
Scanning sonar: Consists of smaller sonar systems that can be mounted on
tripods and lowered to the bottom of the waterway. Scanning sonar produces
a panoramic view of the surrounding area and can cover up to 360 degrees.
Side scan sonar: Placed inside of a shell and towed behind a vessel. Side
scan sonar produces strip-like images from both sides of the device.
3-dimensional sonar: Produces 3-dimensional imagery of objects using an
array receiver

Other Allowable Costs:
Maintenance and Sustainment
The use of FEMA preparedness grant funds for maintenance contracts, warranties,
repair or replacement costs, upgrades, and user fees are allowable under all active
and future grant awards, unless otherwise noted.
FY 2012 grant funds are intended to support the NPG and fund projects that build
and sustain the core capabilities necessary to prevent, protect against, mitigate the
effects of, respond to, and recover from those threats that pose the greatest risk to
the security of the Nation. In order to provide grantees the ability to meet this
objective, the policy set forth in GPD’s IB 336 (Maintenance and Sustainment)
expands the allowability for the support of equipment that has previously been
purchased with both Federal grant and non-Federal grant funding. The eligible costs
for maintenance and sustainment however needs to be an otherwise allowable
expenditure under the applicable grant programs, and be tied to one of the core
capabilities in the five mission areas contained within the NPG.
Grantees must comply with all the requirements in 44 CFR Part 13 and 2 CFR Part
215.
Specific Guidance on Construction and Renovation Projects
The following types of construction and renovation projects are allowable under the
FY 2012 PSGP provided they address a specific vulnerability or need identified in a
security plan (i.e., FSP, PRMP, BCRTP, and/or AMSP) or otherwise support the
maintenance/sustainment of capabilities and equipment acquired through PSGP
funding:






MDA Fusion Centers; or a specific component of a fusion center that supports
MDA
IOCs for port security
Port Security Emergency Communications Centers
Buildings to house generators that support risk mitigation
Vessel maintenance and security facilities (e.g., repair shops, dock house,
ramps, and docks for existing port security assets)
41
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines




Hardened security fences/barriers at access points
Any other building or physical facility that enhances access control to the
port/facility area

To be considered eligible for funding, fusion centers, operations centers, and
communications centers must offer a port-wide benefit and, to the extent possible,
support information sharing and coordination of operations among regional
interagency and other port security partners.
Eligible costs for construction may not exceed the greater of $1,000,000 per project
or such greater amount as may be approved by the Secretary, which may not
exceed ten percent (10%) of the total amount of the award, as stated in 46 U.S.C. §
70107(b)(2) (Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Pub.
L. 107-295, Nov. 25, 2002)
Grant recipients are not permitted to use FY 2012 PSGP funds for construction
projects that are eligible for funding under other Federal grant programs. PSGP
funds may only be used for construction activities directly related to port security
enhancements.
FEMA is legally required to consider the potential impacts of all PSGP projects on
environmental resources and historic properties. Grantees must comply with all
applicable environmental planning and historic preservation (EHP) laws, regulations,
and Executive Orders (EOs) in order to draw down their FY 2012 PSGP grant funds.
To avoid unnecessary delays in starting a project, grantees are encouraged to pay
close attention to the reporting requirements for an EHP review. For more
information on FEMA’s EHP requirements, SAAs should refer to Information
Bulletins 329 and 345 (http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/bulletins/index.shtm).
While all projects receiving Federal funding require an EHP review, any applicant
that is proposing a construction project under the FY 2012 PSGP should pay special
attention to the EHP requirements. Failure of a grant recipient to meet these
requirements may jeopardize Federal funding.
When applying for construction funds, including communications towers, at the time
of application, grantees are highly encouraged to submit evidence of approved
zoning ordinances, architectural plans, any other locally required planning permits
and documents, and to have completed as many steps as possible for a successful
EHP review in support of their proposal for funding (e.g., completing the FCC’s
Section 106 review process for tower construction projects; coordination with their
State Historic Preservation Office to identify potential historic preservation issues
and to discuss the potential for project effects). Projects for which the grantee
believes an Environmental Assessment (EA) may be needed, as defined in 44 CFR
10.8 and 10.9, must also be identified to the FEMA Program Analyst within six (6)
months of the award and completed EHP review packets must be submitted no later
than 12 months before the end of the Period of Performance. EHP review packets
should be sent to [email protected].
42
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines

Furthermore, FY 2012 PSGP recipients using funds for construction projects must
comply with the Davis-Bacon Act. Grant recipients must ensure that their
contractors or subcontractors for construction projects pay workers employed
directly at the work-site no less than the prevailing wages and fringe benefits paid on
projects of a similar character. Additional information, including Department of Labor
wage determinations, is available from the following website
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-dbra.htm.
Specific Guidance on Explosives Detection Canine Teams (EDCT)
USCG has identified canine (K-9) explosive detection as the most effective solution
for the detection of vehicle borne IEDs. When combined with the existing capability
of a port or ferry security/police force, the added value provided through the addition
of a canine team is significant. EDCTs are a proven, reliable resource to detect
explosives and are a key component in a balanced counter-sabotage program.
EDCTs also provide the added psychological deterrent achieved solely through their
presence.
Eligibility for funding of EDCTs is restricted to:




U.S. Ferry Systems regulated under 33 CFR Parts 101, 103, 104, and the
passenger terminals these specific ferries service under 33 CFR Part 105
MTSA regulated facilities
Port authorities, port police and local law enforcement agencies that provide
direct layered security for these U. S. Ferry Systems and MTSA regulated
facilities and are defined in the AMSP, FSP, or VSP

Applicants may apply for up to $300,000 ($150,000/year for two years) to support
this endeavor. At the end of the grant period (24 months), grantees will be
responsible for maintaining the heightened level of capability provided by the EDCT.
EDCT Eligible Costs. Funds for these EDCTs may not be used to fund drug
detection and apprehension technique training. Only explosives detection training
for EDCTs will be funded. The PSGP EDCT funds may only be used for new
capabilities/programs and cannot be used to pay for existing capabilities/programs
(e.g., K-9 teams) already supported by the port area or system. Non-supplanting
restrictions apply.
Eligible costs include:





Contracted K-9 and Handler providing services in accordance with PSGP
guidance
Salary and fringe benefits of new full or part-time K-9 handler positions
Training and certifications (travel costs associated with training for full or part
time agency handlers, and canines are allowable)
Equipment costs

43
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines




Purchase and train a K-9 (training specific to the detection of common
explosives odors is allowable)
K-9 maintenance costs (K-9 costs include but are not limited to: veterinary,
housing, and feeding costs)

Ineligible EDCT costs. Ineligible costs include but are not limited to:




Hiring costs
Meals and incidentals associated with travel for initial certification
Vehicles used solely to transport canines

EDCT Certification. Each EDCT, composed of one dog and one handler, must be
certified by an appropriate, qualified organization. Such K-9 should receive an initial
basic training course and weekly maintenance training sessions thereafter to
maintain the certification. The basic training averages ten weeks for the canine
team (handler and canine together) with weekly training and daily exercising.
Comparable training and certification standards, such as those promulgated by the
TSA Explosive detection canine program, the National Police Canine Association
(NPCA), the U.S. Police Canine Association, (USPCA) or the International Explosive
Detection Dog Association (IEDDA) may be used to meet this requirement.
Certifications and training records will be kept on file with the grantee and made
available to DHS upon request.
EDCT Submission Requirements. Successful applicants will be required to submit
an amendment to their approved VSP or FSP per 33 CFR Parts 104 and/or 105
detailing the inclusion of a canine explosive detection program into their security
measures.
The grantee will ensure that a written plan or standard operating procedure (SOP),
exists that describes EDCT deployment policy to include visible and unpredictable
deterrent efforts and on-call EDCTs rapid response times as dictated by the
agency’s FSP or VSP. The plan must be made available to FEMA and USCG upon
request.
The grantee will comply with requirements for the proper storage, handling and
transportation of all explosive training aids in accordance with the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’s Publication 5400.7 (ATF P 5400.7) (09/00),
Federal Explosive Law and Regulation.
Additional EDCT Resources Available for K-9 Costs. The PSGP, while providing
the ability to defray some start up costs, does not cover any recurring costs
associated with EDCT programs. However, the Transit Security Grant Program
(TSGP) and HSGP are two additional DHS grant programs that can provide funding
for certain operational costs associated with heightened states of alert within the port
area and nationally. DHS strongly encourages applicants to investigate their

44
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines

eligibility, and potential exclusions, for these resources when developing their canine
programs.
Unallowable Costs
The following projects and costs are considered ineligible for award consideration:





















Any project that does not provide a compelling maritime security benefit or
have a direct nexus toward maritime security risk mitigation. For example,
projects that are primarily for economic or safety benefit (as opposed to
having a direct security benefit) are ineligible for PSGP funding. In addition,
projects that provide a broad homeland security benefit (for example, a
communication system for an entire city, county, State, etc.) as opposed to
providing primary benefit to the port are ineligible for PSGP funding since
these project should be eligible for funding through other preparedness grant
programs
The development of risk/vulnerability assessment models and methodologies
except as required to update PRMPs
Cost of conducting vulnerability assessments to evaluate and make
recommendations with respect to security except as required to update
PRMPs
Projects in which Federal agencies are the primary beneficiary or that
enhance Federal property, including voluntary sub-components of a Federal
agency
Projects that study technology development for security of national or
international cargo supply chains (e.g., e-seals, smart containers, container
tracking or container intrusion detection devices)
Proof-of-concept projects
Projects that duplicate capabilities being provided by the Federal government
(e.g., vessel traffic systems)
Proposals in which there are real or apparent conflicts of interest
Business operating expenses (certain security-related operational and
maintenance costs are allowable – see “Maintenance and Sustainment” and
“Operating Costs” for further guidance)
TWIC card fees
Signage, projects for placarding and billboards, or hard fixed structure
signage
Reimbursement of pre-award security expenses
Outfitting facilities, vessels, or other structures with equipment or items
providing a hospitality benefit rather than a direct security benefit. Examples
of such equipment or items include, but are not limited to: office furniture, CD
players, DVD players, AM/FM radios, TVs, stereos, entertainment satellite
systems, Entertainment cable systems and other such entertainment media,
unless sufficient justification is provided
Weapons and associated equipment (i.e., holsters, optical sights, and
scopes), including, but not limited to: non-lethal or less than lethal weaponry

45
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines










including firearms, ammunition, and weapons affixed to facilities, vessels, or
other structures
Expenditures for items such as general-use software (word processing,
spreadsheet, graphics, etc), general-use computers, and related equipment
(other than for allowable M&A activities, or otherwise associated)
preparedness or response functions), general-use vehicles and licensing fees
Other items not in accordance with the AEL or previously listed as allowable
costs
- Land acquisitions and right of way purchases
- Funding for standard operations vehicles utilized for routine duties, such
as patrol cars and fire trucks
- Fuel costs (except as permitted for training and exercises)
Exercise(s) that do not support maritime security preparedness efforts
Patrol Vehicles and Fire Fighting Apparatus, other than those CBRNE
detection equipped vehicles for port area and/or facility patrol or response
purposes
Providing protection training to public police agencies or private security
services to support protecting VIPs or dignitaries

46
Appendix C – Funding Guidelines

Appendix D – FY 2012 PSGP Investment Justification
Template
Investment Heading
Port Area
State
Applicant Organization
Investment Name
Investment Amount

$

I. Background
Note: This section only needs to be completed once per application, regardless of
the number of Investments proposed. The information in this section provides
background and context for the Investment(s) requested, but does not represent
the evaluation criteria used by DHS for rating individual Investment proposals.
I. Provide an overview of the port area, MTSA regulated facility, or MTSA regulated vessel
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed 1 page
Page Limit
Response Instructions  Area of Operations:
- Identify COTP Zone
- Identify eligible port area
- Identify exact location of project site (i.e., physical address of facility
being enhanced)
- Identify who the infrastructure (project site) is owned or operated by,
if not by your own organization
 Point(s) of contact for organization (include contact information):
- Identify the organization’s Authorizing Official for entering into grant
agreement, including contact information
- Identify the organization’s primary point of contact for management
of the project(s)
 Ownership or Operation:
- Identify whether the applicant is a private entity or a State or local
agency
 Role in providing layered protection of regulated entities (applicable to
State or local agencies only):
- Describe your organization’s specific roles, responsibilities and
activities in delivering layered protection
 Important features:
- Describe any operational issues you deem important to the
consideration of your application (e.g., interrelationship of your
operations with other eligible high-risk ports, etc.)
 Ferry systems required data:
 Infrastructure
 Ridership data
 Number of passenger miles
 Number of vehicles per vessel, if any
 Types of service and other important features
 System map
 Geographical borders of the system and the cities and counties served

47
Appendix D – FY 2012 PSGP Investment Justification Template

 Other sources of funding being leveraged for security enhancements
Response

II. Strategic and Program Priorities
II.A. Provide a brief abstract of the Investment list just ONE investment.
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed 1/2 page
Page Limit
Response Instructions Provide a succinct statement summarizing this Investment
Response
II.B. Describe how the Investment will address one or more of the PSGP priorities, NPG core
capabilities, and Area Maritime Security Plan or COTP Priorities (how it corresponds with
PRMP for Group I and II)
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed 1/2 page
Page Limit
Response Instructions  Describe how, and the extent to which, the investment addresses:
- Enhancement of Maritime Domain Awareness
- Enhancement of IED and CBRNE prevention, protection, response
and recovery capabilities
- Port resilience and recovery capabilities
- Training and exercises
- Efforts supporting the implementation of TWIC
 Describe how the investment builds or sustains one or more NPG core
capabilities
 Area Maritime Security Plan and/or Captain of the Port Priorities
Response

III. Impact
III.A. Describe how the project offers the highest risk reduction potential at the least cost.
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed 1/2 page
Page Limit
Response Instructions  Discuss how the project will reduce risk in a cost effective manner
- Discuss how this investment will reduce risk (e.g., reduce
vulnerabilities or mitigate the consequences of an event) by
addressing the needs and priorities identified in earlier analysis and
review
Response
III.B. Describe current capabilities similar to this Investment
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed 1/2 page
Page Limit
Response Instructions  Describe how many agencies within the port have existing equipment that
are the same or have similar capacity as the proposed project
 Include the number of existing capabilities within the port that are identical
or equivalent to the proposed project
Response

48
Appendix D – FY 2012 PSGP Investment Justification Template

IV. Funding & Implementation Plan




Complete the IV.A. to identify the amount of funding you are requesting for this
investment only
Funds should be requested by allowable cost categories as identified below
Applicants must make funding requests that are reasonable and justified by
direct linkages to activities outlined in this particular Investment

The following template illustrates how the applicants should indicate the amount of FY
2012 PSGP funding required for the investment and how these funds will be allocated
across the cost elements.
IV.A. Investment Funding Plan

FY 2012 PSGP
Request Total

Match

Grand Total

Maritime Domain Awareness
IED and CBRNE Prevention,
Protection, Response and Recovery
Capabilities
Training
Exercises
TWIC Implementation
Operational Costs
M&A
Total
IV.B. Provide a high-level timeline, milestones and dates, for the implementation of this
Investment such as stakeholder engagement, planning, major acquisitions or purchases,
training, exercises, and process/policy updates. Up to 10 milestones may be provided.
Narrative
Response Type
Not to exceed 1 page
Page Limit
Response Instructions  Only include major milestones that are critical to the success of the
Investment
 Milestones are for this discrete Investment – those that are covered by the
requested FY 2012 PSGP funds and will be completed over the 24-month
grant period starting from the award date, giving consideration for review
and approval process up to 12 months (estimate 24 month project period)
 Milestones should be kept to high-level, major tasks that will need to occur
(i.e., Design and development, begin procurement process, site
preparations, installation, project completion, etc.)
 List any relevant information that will be critical to the successful
completion of the milestone (such as those examples listed in the question
text above)
Note: Investments will be evaluated on the expected impact on security
relative to the amount of the investment (i.e., cost effectiveness). An
itemized Budget Detail Worksheet and Budget Narrative must also be
completed for this investment. See following section for a sample format
Response

49
Appendix D – FY 2012 PSGP Investment Justification Template

Appendix E – Sample Budget Detail Worksheet
A. Sample Budget Detail Worksheet
Purpose. The Budget Detail Worksheet may be used as a guide to assist applicants in
the preparation of the budget and budget narrative. You may submit the budget and
budget narrative using this form or in the format of your choice (plain sheets, your own
form, or a variation of this form). However, all required information (including the budget
narrative) must be provided. Any category of expense not applicable to your budget
may be deleted.
A. Personnel. List each position by title and name of employee, if available. Show the
annual salary rate and the percentage of time to be devoted to the project.
Compensation paid for employees engaged in grant activities must be consistent with
that paid for similar work within the applicant organization.
Name/Position

Computation
Total Personnel

Cost
$
$

B. Fringe Benefits. Fringe benefits should be based on actual known costs or an
established formula. Fringe benefits are for the personnel listed in budget category (A)
and only for the percentage of time devoted to the project.
Name/Position

Computation
Total Fringe Benefits

Cost
$
$

C. Travel. Itemize travel expenses of project personnel by purpose (e.g., staff to
training, field interviews, advisory group meeting, etc.). Show the basis of computation
(e.g., six people to three-day training at $X airfare, $X lodging, $X subsistence). In
training projects, travel and meals for trainees should be listed separately. Show the
number of trainees and unit costs involved. Identify the location of travel, if known.
Indicate source of Travel Policies applied, Applicant or Federal Travel Regulations.
Purpose of Travel

Location

Item

Computation
Total Travel

Cost
$
$

D. Equipment. List non-expendable items that are to be purchased. Non-expendable
equipment is tangible property having a useful life of more than one year. (Note:
Organization’s own capitalization policy and threshold amount for classification of
equipment may be used). Expendable items should be included either in the “Supplies”
category or in the “Other” category. Applicants should analyze the cost benefits of
purchasing versus leasing equipment, especially high cost items and those subject to
rapid technical advances. Rented or leased equipment costs should be listed in the
50
Appendix E – Sample Budget Detail Worksheet

“Contractual” category. Explain how the equipment is necessary for the success of the
project. Attach a narrative describing the procurement method to be used.
Budget Narrative: Provide a narrative budget justification for each of the budget
items identified.
Item

Computation
Total Equipment

Cost
$
$

E. Supplies. List items by type (office supplies, postage, training materials, copying
paper, and other expendable items such as books, hand held tape recorders) and show
the basis for computation. (Note: Organization’s own capitalization policy and threshold
amount for classification of supplies may be used). Generally, supplies include any
materials that are expendable or consumed during the course of the project.
Supply Items

Computation
Total Supplies

Cost
$
$

F. Consultants/Contracts. Indicate whether applicant’s formal, written Procurement
Policy or the Federal Acquisition Regulations are followed.
Consultant Fees: For each consultant enter the name, if known, service to be
provided, hourly or daily fee (8-hour day), and estimated time on the project.
Budget Narrative: Provide a narrative budget justification for each of the budget
items identified.
Name of Consultant

Service Provided

Computation
Subtotal – Consultant Fees

Cost
$
$

Consultant Expenses: List all expenses to be paid from the grant to the individual
consultant in addition to their fees (i.e., travel, meals, lodging, etc.)
Budget Narrative: Provide a narrative budget justification for each of the budget
items identified.
Item

Location

Computation
Subtotal – Consultant Expenses

Cost
$
$

Contracts: Provide a description of the product or services to be procured by contract
and an estimate of the cost. Applicants are encouraged to promote free and open
competition in awarding contracts. Any sole source contracts must follow the
requirements set forth in 44 CFR Section 13.36.

51
Appendix E – Sample Budget Detail Worksheet

Budget Narrative: Provide a narrative budget justification for each of the budget
items identified.
Item
Subtotal – Contracts
Total Consultants/Contracts

Cost
$
$
$

G. Other Costs. List items (e.g., reproduction, janitorial or security services, and
investigative or confidential funds) by major type and the basis of the computation. For
example, provide the square footage and the cost per square foot for rent, and provide
a monthly rental cost and how many months to rent.
Budget Narrative: Provide a narrative budget justification for each of the budget
items identified.
Important Note: If applicable to the project, construction costs should be included in
this section of the Budget Detail Worksheet.
Description

Computation
Total Other

Cost
$
$

H. Indirect Costs. Indirect costs are allowed only if the applicant has a federally
approved indirect cost rate. A copy of the rate approval, (a fully executed, negotiated
agreement), must be attached. If the applicant does not have an approved rate, one
can be requested by contacting the applicant’s cognizant Federal agency, which will
review all documentation and approve a rate for the applicant organization, or if the
applicant’s accounting system permits, costs may be allocated in the direct costs
categories.
Description

Computation
Total Indirect Costs

52
Appendix E – Sample Budget Detail Worksheet

Cost
$
$

Budget Summary - When you have completed the budget worksheet, transfer the
totals for each category to the spaces below. Compute the total direct costs and the
total project costs. Indicate the amount of Federal funds requested and the amount of
non-Federal funds that will support the project.
Budget Category
A. Personnel
B. Fringe Benefits
C. Travel
D. Equipment
E. Supplies
F. Consultants/Contracts
G. Other
H. Indirect Costs

Federal Amount
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Requested
Federal Amount
$

Non-Federal Amount
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Non-Federal Amount

$
Combined Total Project Costs

$

53
Appendix E – Sample Budget Detail Worksheet

Appendix F – Sample MOU/MOA Template
Memorandum of Understanding / Agreement
Between [provider of layered security] and [recipient of layered security]
Regarding [provider of layered security’s] use of port security grant program funds
1. PARTIES. The parties to this Agreement are the [Provider of Layered Security] and the [Recipient of
security service].
2. AUTHORITY. This Agreement is authorized under the provisions of [applicable Area Maritime Security
Committee authorities and/or other authorities].
3. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth terms by which [Provider of security service]
shall expend Port Security Grant Program project funding in providing security service to [Recipient of
security service]. Under requested FY 2012 PSGP grant, the [Provider of security service] must provide
layered security to [Recipient of security service] consistent with the approach described in an approved
grant application.
4. RESPONSIBILITIES: The security roles and responsibilities of each party are understood as follows:
(1).

[Recipient of security service]

Roles and responsibilities in providing its own security at each MARSEC level
(2)

[Provider of security service]

- An acknowledgement by the facility that the applicant is part of their facility security plan.
- The nature of the security that the applicant agrees to supply to the regulated facility (waterside
surveillance, increased screening, etc).
- Roles and responsibilities in providing security to [Recipient of security service] at each MARSEC level.
5. POINTS OF CONTACT. [Identify the POCs for all applicable organizations under the Agreement;
including addresses and phone numbers (fax number, e-mail, or internet addresses can also be
included).]
6. OTHER PROVISIONS. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to conflict with current laws or
regulations of [applicable State] or [applicable local Government]. If a term of this agreement is
inconsistent with such authority, then that term shall be invalid, but the remaining terms and conditions of
this agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
7. EFFECTIVE DATE. The terms of this agreement will become effective on (EFFECTIVE DATE).
8. MODIFICATION. This agreement may be modified upon the mutual written consent of the parties.
9. TERMINATION. The terms of this agreement, as modified with the consent of both parties, will remain
in effect until the grant end dates for an approved grant. Either party upon [NUMBER] days written notice
to the other party may terminate this agreement.
APPROVED BY:
_________________________
Organization and Title
(Date)

___________________________
Signature

(Date)

54
Appendix F – Sample MOU/MOA Template