Notice of Request for Proposals for Projects To Be Funded From the Water Quality Cooperative Agreement Allocation (CFDA 66.463-Water Quality Cooperative Agreements), 16267-16271 [05-6300]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 30, 2005 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OPP–2004–0281; FRL–7705–6]
Pesticides and National Strategies for
Health Care Providers; Notice of Funds
Availability; Correction
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice; correction.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the
Federal Register of February 9, 2005,
announcing that EPA’s Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) is soliciting
proposals to provide financial assistance
to continue an effort to improve the
training of health care providers in
recognition, diagnosis, treatment, and
prevention of pesticide poisonings
among those who work with pesticides.
This document is being issued to correct
a date error.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Allie Fields, Field and External Affairs
Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number (703) 305–7666; fax number:
(703) 308–2962; e-mail address:
fields.allie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
The Agency included in the Federal
Register notice of February 9, 2005, a
list of those who may be potentially
affected by this action. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How Can I get Copies of this
Document and Other Related
Information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an
official public docket for this under
docket identification (ID) number OPP–
2004–0281. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically
referenced in this action, any public
comments received, and other
information related to this action.
Although a part of the official docket,
the public docket does not include
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. The official public
docket is the collection of materials that
is available for public viewing at the
Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119,
Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. This docket facility is
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:07 Mar 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The docket telephone number
is (703) 305–5805.
2. Electronic access. You may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listing
athttps://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public
docket is available through EPA’s
electronic public docket and comment
system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA
dockets athttps://www.epa.gov/edocket/
to submit or view public comments, to
access the index listing of the contents
of the official pulic docket, an to access
those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in
the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in
the appropriate docket ID number.
II. What Does this Correction Do?
In the Federal Register of February 9,
2005 (70 FR 6864) (FRL–7681–1), EPA
published a notice soliciting proposals
to continue an effort to improve the
training of health care providers in
recognition, diagnosis, treatment, and
prevention of pesticide poisonings
among those who work with pesticides.
The document listed an incorrect date.
The document is corrected as follows:
1. On page 6864, second column,
under ‘‘DATES’’, second line, change
‘‘March 28, 2005’’ to read ‘‘April 30,
2005’’.
2. On page 6867, second column,
under paragraph‘‘3. Submission dates
and times’’, sixth line, change‘‘March
28, 2005’’ to read ‘‘April 30, 2005’’.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Grants,
Pesticides, Training.
Dated: March 11, 2005.
Marty Monell,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 05–6182 Filed 3–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–7892–5]
Notice of Request for Proposals for
Projects To Be Funded From the Water
Quality Cooperative Agreement
Allocation (CFDA 66.463—Water
Quality Cooperative Agreements)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA Region 6 is soliciting
proposals from eligible applicants
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16267
interested in applying for Federal
assistance for Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements (WQCA) under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) Section 104(b)(3).
Funding is for projects conducted
within the states of Arkansas, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.
Region 6 EPA intends to award an
estimated $700,000 to eligible
applicants through assistance
agreements ranging in size, on average,
from $40,000 up to $200,000 (Federal)
for innovative projects/demonstrations/
studies relating to the prevention,
reduction, and elimination of water
pollution. From the proposals received,
EPA estimates up to 4 to 7 projects may
be selected to submit full applications.
The Agency reserves the right to reject
all proposals and make no awards.
DATES: EPA will consider all proposals
received on or before 5 p.m. Central
Standard Time May 16, 2005. Proposals
received after the due date will not be
considered for funding.
ADDRESSES: Proposals should be mailed
to: Terry Mendiola (6WQ–AT), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, Water Quality Protection
Division,1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202–2733. Overnight delivery
may be sent to the same address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terry Mendiola by telephone at 214–
665–7144 or by e-mail at
mendiola.teresita@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Required Overview Content:
Federal Agency Name—
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, Water Quality Protection
Division, State Tribal Programs Section.
Funding Opportunity Title—Water
Quality Cooperative Agreements.
Announcement Type—Initial
announcement.
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) Number—CFDA
66.463—Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements.
DATES: May 16, 2005—Proposals due to
EPA.
June 28, 2005—Initial approvals
identified and sponsors of projects
selected for funding will be requested to
submit a formal application package.
I. Funding Opportunity Description
EPA Region 6’s Water Quality
Protection Division is requesting
proposals from eligible applicants for
unique and innovative projects that
address watershed-based permitting,
water quality trading, water quality
modeling training, water quality
standards development and refinement,
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
16268
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 30, 2005 / Notices
the Illinois River watershed in Arkansas
and Oklahoma, and nutrient criteria.
Funding is authorized under the
provisions of the CWA Section
104(b)(3), 33 U.S.C. 1254(b)(3). The
regulations governing the award and
administration of WQCAs are in 40 CFR
part 30 (for institutions of higher
learning, hospitals, and other nonprofit
organizations) and 40 CFR part 31 (for
States, local governments, and interstate
agencies).
An organization whose proposal is
selected for possible Federal assistance
must complete an EPA Application for
Assistance, including the Federal SF–
424 form (Application for Federal
Assistance, see 40 CFR 30.12 and 31.10).
High Priority Areas for Funding
Consideration
WQCAs awarded under section
104(b)(3) may only be used to conduct
and promote the coordination and
acceleration of activities such as
research, investigations, experiments,
training, education, demonstrations,
surveys, and studies relating to the
causes, effects, extent, prevention,
reduction, and elimination of water
pollution. These activities, while not
defined in the statute, advance the state
of knowledge, gather information, or
transfer information. For instance,
‘‘demonstrations’’ are generally projects
that demonstrate new or experimental
technologies, methods, or approaches
and the results of the project will be
disseminated so that others can benefit
from the knowledge gained. A project
that is accomplished though the
performance of routine, traditional, or
established practices, or a project that is
simply intended to carry out a task
rather than transfer information or
advance the state of knowledge,
however worthwhile the project may be,
is not a demonstration. Research
projects may include the application of
the practices when they contribute to
learning about an environmental
concept or problem.
The EPA Water Quality Management
Division in Region 6 has identified six
priority areas for funding consideration.
These priorities reflect EPA’s Strategic
Goal 2. Clean and Safe Water,
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water
Quality on a Watershed basis. EPA will
award WQCAs for research,
investigations, experiments, training,
demonstrations, surveys and studies
related to the causes, effects, extent,
prevention, reduction, and elimination
of water pollution in the subject areas
shown below in bold. Funding will be
awarded only for the areas as described
below.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:07 Mar 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
Watershed-Based Permitting
Watershed-based National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting is a process that emphasizes
addressing all stressors within a
hydrologically-defined drainage basin.
The proposal must include the
development of a watershed-based
NPDES permitting strategy for a
watershed within Region 6. The strategy
should consider cumulative impacts to
water quality over the entire watershed
and develop an efficient permitting
methodology. The watershed-based
permitting strategy should be flexible to
account for unique watershed
characteristics and can be utilized for
other watersheds in the Region. The
strategy should comply with the
December, 2003, Watershed-Based
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permitting
Implementation Guidance and validated
through the appropriated NPDES
permitting authority to ensure the
strategy is credible. This effort should
help develop and issue NPDES permits
that better protect entire watersheds.
Water Quality Trading
Water quality trading is an approach
that offers greater efficiency in
achieving water quality goals on a
watershed basis. The proposal must
identify opportunities and develop a
credible and successful framework for
water quality trading programs for
nutrients at reduced costs in a Region 6
watershed. The framework should
identify the watershed in Region 6, the
suitability of pollutants for trading, the
criteria and financial attractiveness
based on current and future market
analysis. The trading framework must
be in accordance with EPA’s January 13,
2003, Water Quality Trading Policy and
integrate the permitting needs for
potential development of an NPDES
permit. The development of a water
quality trading approach should
improve and preserve water quality.
Cross-Program Training on Water
Quality Modeling
The Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL), NPDES, Assessment and
Monitoring, Watershed Protection, Nonpoint Source (NPS), and Grant Support
Programs are trying to better integrate
efforts to develop TMDLs using water
quality models and implementation of
TMDLs through the NPDES and NPS
programs. However, little cross-program
coordination, related to water quality
model activities, is available to
regulators and TMDL and NPDES
developers, which results in resource
duplication, missed opportunities for
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
innovative approaches to resolution,
and mis-communication of intent. A
cross-program training for TMDL and
wasteload allocation (WLA) models for
the Region 6 States is needed to help
alleviate this issue. The training
program should include the water
quality models, TMDL process, TMDL
sampling and modeling quality
assurance project plans used by EPA
and the Region 6 States for developing
TMDLs for the 303(d) listed waterbodies
and wasteload allocations for point
sources. Successful completion of this
training program would provide Region
6 States avenues to better coordinate
resources and investigate innovative
resolutions to water quality issues,
especially at the watershed level, in
support of State and National goals to
reduce impaired waters in those states.
Water Quality Standards Development
and Refinement
Research and/or studies leading to the
development and refinement of
waterbody classification systems,
narrative or numeric criteria, and
antidegradation policies.
Illinois River Watershed in Arkansas
and Oklahoma
Research and/or studies leading to an
improved characterization of water
quality conditions in the Illinois River
relative to the goals of the CWA.
Preference will be given to proposals
submitted by multiple entities within
the watershed that offer the potential to
resolve differences in water quality
standards and assessment methods.
Nutrient Criteria
Development of effects based nutrient
criteria and assessment methods, based
on the relationship(s) between evidence
of impairment of biological integrity,
and/or other response indicators, and
instream nutrient concentrations
observed at reference waterbodies.
II. Award Information
Region 6 EPA intends to award an
estimated $700,000 to eligible
applicants through assistance
agreements ranging in size, on average,
from $40,000 up to $200,000 (Federal).
From the proposals received, EPA
estimates up to 4 to 7 projects may be
selected to submit full applications. The
average size of an award is anticipated
to be approximately $100,000. Awards
will be made in the late summer of
2005. Typically, the project and budget
period for these awards is one to two
years, with an average of about two
years. Organizations who have an
existing agreement under this program
are eligible to compete for new awards,
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 30, 2005 / Notices
including supplementation to existing
projects.
It is expected that all the awards
under this program will be cooperative
agreements. States and interstate
agencies meeting the requirements in 40
CFR 35.504 may include the funds for
WQCA in a Performance Partnership
Grant (PPG) in accordance with the
regulations governing PPGs in 40 CFR
part 35, subparts A and B. For states and
interstate agencies that choose to do so,
the regulations provide that the
workplan commitments that would have
been included in the WQCA must be
included in the PPG workplan.
A description of the Agency’s
substantial involvement in cooperative
agreements will be included in the final
agreement.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
Eligible applicants for assistance
agreements under section 104(b)(3) of
the CWA are State water pollution
control agencies, interstate agencies,
other public or nonprofit agencies,
institutions, organizations, and other
entities as defined by the CWA. The
Tribal Water Quality Programs Request
for Proposals will be issued under a
separate notice. Proposals received for
projects outside of Region 6 will not be
considered.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
A minimum match of five percent
will be required for all approved
projects and should be included in the
total funding requested for each
proposal submitted.
3. Threshold Eligibility Criteria
Proposals to purchase land, perform
construction, fail to conform to the
submission requirements of this notice,
or appear to be from a for-profit
organization will not be reviewed and
considered.
Additionally, the priority specific
criteria listed below will also be
considered threshold eligibility criteria.
To be eligible to compete for funding,
ALL PRIORITY SPECIFIC CRITERIA
MUST BE ADDRESSED/MET for the
priority area in which it was submitted.
The following threshold eligibility
criteria will be used to evaluate the
subject priority area:
Watershed-Based Permitting,
specifically, the development of a
watershed-based NPDES permitting
strategy for a watershed within Region
6. The following specific criteria will be
used to determine eligibility for this
priority area:
• The project should identify the
watershed within EPA Region 6 State(s).
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:07 Mar 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
• Strategy should establish goals such
as flow, concentrations and pollutant
loads for the watershed.
• Identify water quality parameters
and compile existing data of the
identified parameters of concern.
• Identify strong community
partnership with State entities,
industries, and municipalities to adopt
watershed-basin permitting approach.
• Develop a template for watershedbased permitting strategy that can be
transferable to other watersheds within
the state and potentially to other Region
6 States.
Water Quality Trading, specifically,
identification of opportunities and
development of a credible and
successful framework for water quality
trading programs for nutrients at
reduced costs in a Region 6 watershed.
The following specific criteria will be
used to determine eligibility for this
priority area:
• The framework should describe the
legal mechanisms to facilitate trading.
• The specific nutrients should be
identified which are suitable for trading
on a watershed basis.
• Framework should clearly define
the units of trade necessary for trading
to occur.
• Framework must create and
establish the duration of credits
generated to comply with a monthly,
seasonal or annual limitation.
• Develop procedures to account for
the generation and use of credits in
NPDES permits and discharge
monitoring reports in order to track the
generation and use of credits between
sources and assess compliance.
• Include provisions to ensure the
framework incorporates an enforcement
mechanism.
• Framework must define a public
participation process and public access
process.
• The framework must describe the
program evaluation process.
Cross-Program Training on Water
Quality Modeling, specifically,
development of a cross-program training
for TMDL and WLA models for Region
6 States. The following specific criteria
will be used to determine eligibility for
this priority area:
• The project should investigate and
select the water quality models used by
EPA and Region 6 States.
• Demonstrate that the water quality
models, training materials, tools and
approaches are effective in developing
TMDLs and WLAs by providing at least
one training session for each EPA
Region 6 State.
• Apply the current EPA and Region
6 States’ water quality models and
related regulations, polices and
guidance.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16269
• The training program should
integrate the water quality modeling
needs for the TMDL and the NPDES
programs in EPA Region 6.
Water Quality Standards
Development and Refinement,
specifically, research and/or studies
leading to the development and
refinement of waterbody classification
systems, narrative or numeric criteria,
and antidegradation policies. The
following specific criteria will be used
to determine eligibility for this priority
area:
• Demonstrate approaches or provide
tools that may be applied in other areas.
• Apply the latest scientific
approaches or innovative techniques to
establish and validate the relationship(s)
between pollutant concentrations and
response indicators.
• Result in recommendations that can
be applied to a class of waters, rather
than individual waters.
• Results in the development of water
quality standards and assessment
methods that will be adopted by the
appropriate state water quality agency.
Illinois River Watershed in Arkansas
and Oklahoma, specifically, research
and/or studies leading to an improved
characterization of water quality
conditions in the Illinois River relative
to the goals of the CWA. Preference will
be given to proposals submitted by
multiple entities within the watershed
that offer the potential to resolve
differences in water quality standards
and assessment methods. The following
specific criteria will be used to
determine eligibility for this priority
area:
• Evaluation of relationships between
designated use attainment and water
quality conditions.
• Results in specific
recommendations for changes in water
quality management practices or
processes, land use practices, best
management practice implementation,
or other corrective actions needed to
meet the goals of the CWA.
Nutrient Criteria, specifically, the
development of effects based nutrient
criteria and assessment methods, based
on the relationship(s) between evidence
of impairment of biological integrity,
and/or other response indicators, and
instream nutrient concentrations
observed at reference waterbodies. The
following specific criteria will be used
to determine eligibility for this priority
area:
• Apply the latest scientific
approaches or innovative techniques to
establish and validate the relationship(s)
between elevated nutrient
concentrations and indicator response.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
16270
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 30, 2005 / Notices
• Result in recommendations for
numeric water quality criteria standards
or criteria that can be applied to a class
of waters (rather than individual
waters).
• Demonstrate approaches or provide
tools that may be applied in other areas.
• Include mechanisms for technology
transfer.
4. Timing of Eligibility
The applicant must be eligible for
award consideration at the time of
proposal submission.
IV. Application and Submission
Information
1. Address To Submit Proposals
Applicants may submit proposals
only in hard copy. Proposals should be
mailed to: Terry Mendiola (6WQ–AT),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, Water Quality Protection
Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202–2733. Overnight Delivery
may be sent to the same address. Please
mail three copies of the proposal(s).
Full application packages should not
be submitted at this time; Region 6 is
only requesting proposals. Proposal
format and content is included below.
Upon notification of final selections,
applicants will be instructed how
financial assistance application
packages can be obtained.
2. Proposal Format and Contents
Proposals should be no more than
four pages with a minimum font size of
10 pitch in Wordperfect/Word or
equivalent. Pages in excess of four will
not be considered. Failure to follow the
format or to include all requested
information will result in the proposal
not being considered for funding. It is
recommended that confidential
information not be included in this
proposal. The following format should
be used for all proposals:
Name of Project:
Priority Area Addressed: Only one
priority area should be listed. If more
than one addressed, select most
pertinent. (i.e., Watershed Based
Permitting, Water Quality Trading,
Nutrient Criteria, etc.)
Point of Contact: (Individual and
Agency/Organization Name, Address,
Phone Number, Fax Number, E-mail
Address)
Is This a Continuation of a Previously
Funded Project (if so, please provide the
status of the current grant or cooperative
agreement):
Proposed Federal Amount:
Proposed Non-Federal Match
(minimum of 5%):
The match is based on the total
project cost not the Federal amount. To
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:07 Mar 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
determine a proposed minimum match
of 5%, use the following example:
Federal amount = $25,000
Total Project Cost = T
The Federal amount is 95% of T,
therefore:
$25,000 = T x 0.95
$25,000/0.95 = T
$26,316 = T (round the decimal)
If the total project cost is $26,316, then:
$26,316 × 0.05 = $1,316 non-Federal
match
Proposed Total Award Amount:
Description of General Budget
Proposed To Support Project:
Project Description: (Should not
exceed three pages of single-spaced text)
Expected Accomplishments or
Product, With Dates, and Interim
Milestones: This section should also
include a discussion of a
communication plan for distributing the
project results to interested parties.
Environmental Results and Outcomes:
Describe Applicant’s Capability To
Perform Work:
Describe How the Project Meets the
Evaluation Criteria Specified in Section
V. Application Review Information:
3. Submission Dates and Times
EPA will consider all proposals
received on or before 5 p.m. Central
Standard Time May 16, 2005. Proposals
received after the due date will not be
considered for funding.
4. Intergovernmental Review
Executive Order 12372,
Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs may be applicable to awards,
resulting from this announcement.
Applicants selected for funding may be
required to provide a copy of their
proposal to their State Point of Contact
(SPOC) or the States where the project
will be conducted for review, pursuant
to Executive Order 12372,
Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs. This review is not required
with the proposal.
5. Funding Restrictions
The following information should be
considered in developing proposal(s):
• Construction projects, except for the
construction required to carry out a
demonstration project, and acquisition
of land are not eligible for funding
under this program.
• New or on-going programs to
implement routine environmental
controls will not be considered for
funding under this program.
• Funding is for projects conducted
within the states of Arkansas, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.
• It is encouraged that indirect cost be
limited to 15 percent.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• Although proposals may meet more
than one of the priority areas listed in
Section I. Funding Opportunity
Description, select most pertinent and
identify that priority area in the
proposal format.
6. Proprietary Information Identification
EPA recommends that no confidential
information be included in proposals.
However, in accordance with 40 CFR
2.203, applicants may claim all or a
portion of their application/proposal as
confidential business information. EPA
will evaluate confidentiality claims in
accordance with 40 CFR part 2.
Applicants must clearly mark
applications/proposals or portions of
applications/proposals they claim as
confidential. If no claim of
confidentiality is made, EPA is not
required to make the inquiry to the
applicant otherwise required by 40 CFR
2.204(c)(2) prior to disclosure.
V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
EPA Region 6 will award WQCA on
a competitive basis and evaluate
proposals based on the criteria detailed
below (maximum points for each
element are shown). In addition to the
selection criteria detailed below, other
factors as geographic diversity,
programmatic priorities, project
diversity and program diversity may be
considered in selecting proposals for
award. The following criteria will be
used to evaluate each eligible proposal:
• The adequacy of proposal to meet
priority specific criteria (Section III. 3.).
(25)
• The extent to which the proposed
project uses innovative techniques that
effectively leads to the protection of
water quality as identified by the
priorities in this notice (Section I.).
These priorities reflect EPA’s Strategic
Goal 2. Clean and Safe Water,
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water
Quality on a Watershed Basis. (20)
• The extent to which the results of
the proposed project, or tools
developed, can be transferred to others
and the quality of the communication
strategy to actually achieve transfer. (10)
• The realistic expectation that
meaningful environmental benefit will
result from the proposed work, and the
quality of the evaluation component to
assess or measure the environmental
outcome(s). This may include projects
that improve program integrity or
efficiency as well as those with direct
environmental benefits. (20)
• The capability of the applicant to
effectively perform and complete the
tasks and deliver the products of the
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 30, 2005 / Notices
project or activity, as well as the
capability to effectively manage the
cooperative agreement. (10)
• Cost effectiveness and
reasonableness of the proposal. (10)
• Applicant’s past performance, if
applicable. (5)
2. Review and Selection Process
Each eligible proposal will be
evaluated and ranked by a panel
comprised of several EPA Region 6
employees. Members of the review
panel will base their evaluation on the
selection criteria disclosed in this notice
(Section V.1). Final selection of
proposals will be made by the Director
of the Water Quality Protection
Division, EPA Region 6.
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
Selected organizations will be notified
in writing and requested to submit full
applications. Applications, including
workplans, are subject to EPA review
and approval. It is expected that
unsuccessful applicants will be notified
in writing. EPA reserves the right to
withdraw the funding offer if a complete
application (including an approved
QMP) is not received within four
months of selection notice.
2. Administrative and National Policy
Requirements
Applicants whose proposals
contemplate contracting for services or
products must comply with applicable
regulations relating to competitive
procurement and preparation of cost or
price analyses in accordance with 40
CFR 30.40 through 30.48 (for
institutions of higher learning,
hospitals, and other nonprofit
organizations) and 40 CFR 31.36 (for
States, local governments, and interstate
agencies). Identifying a contractor in a
proposal does not exempt the applicant
from these requirements and gives the
appearance that the proposal is from a
for-profit organization. As stated in
Section III. Eligibility Information,
proposals that appear to be from a forprofit organization will not be reviewed
or considered. Applicants requested to
submit a full application will be
required to confirm compliance with
competitive procurement procedures.
Additionally, applicants requested to
submit a full application will be
required to comply with the Quality
Assurance requirements (40 CFR 30.54
and 31.45) if projects involve
environmentally related measurements
or data generation. Prior to award, a
Quality Management Plan must be
submitted and approved by EPA.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:07 Mar 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
Applicants must provide a Dun and
Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal
Numbering System (DUNS) number
with the full application. Organizations
may obtain the number by calling, toll
free, 1–866–705–5711.
Applicants requested to submit a full
application may incur pre-award costs
90 calendar days prior to award
provided such costs are included in the
application, the costs meet the
definition of pre-award costs and are
approved by EPA. Pre-award costs are
those costs incurred prior to the
effective date of the award directly
pursuant to the negotiation and in
anticipation of the award where such
costs are necessary to comply with the
proposed delivery schedule or period of
performance and are in conformance
with the appropriate statute and cost
principles. The approval of pre-award
costs should be reflected in the budget
period on the assistance agreement and
if applicable, under a term and
condition of the assistance agreement.
Recipients incur pre-award costs at their
own risk (i.e., EPA is under no
obligation to reimburse such costs if for
any reason the recipient does not
receive an award or if the award is less
than anticipated and inadequate to
cover such costs).
Assistance agreement competitionrelated disputed will be resolved in
accordance with the dispute resolution
procedures published in 70 FR 3629,
3630 (January 26, 2005) which can be
found at: https://a257.g.akamaitech.net/
7/257/2422/01jan20051800/
edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05–
1371.htm. Copies may also be requested
by contacting the Agency Contact
below.
3. Reporting
Post award reporting requirements
include, at a minimum, submission of
semi-annual project status reports with
submission of a final report prior to the
end of the budget/project period.
Recipients will be required to report
direct and indirect environmental
benefits that result from the work
accomplished through the cooperative
agreement award. Means of submission
and report format will be negotiated in
the workplan.
VII. Agency Contacts
Point of Contact: Terry Mendiola by
telephone at 214–665–7144 or by e-mail
at mendiola.teresita@epa.gov.
VIII. Other Information
This Federal Register Notice will be
posted on the Region 6 Water Quality
Protection Division, Assistance
Programs Branch Web site https://
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16271
www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/at/
sttribal.htm. This Web site may also
contain additional information about
this request. Deadline extensions, if any,
will be posted on this web site and not
in the Federal Register. A list of
selected projects will also be posted to
this Web site.
Dated: March 23, 2005.
Miguel I. Flores,
Director, Water Quality Protection Division,
Region 6.
[FR Doc. 05–6300 Filed 3–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OPPT–2005–0005; FRL–7702–1]
National Advisory Committee for Acute
Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances; Notice of
Public Meeting
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: A meeting of the National
Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels for Hazardous
Substances (NAC/AEGL Committee)
will be held on April 12–14, 2005, in
Research Triangle Park, NC. At this
meeting, the NAC/AEGL Committee will
address, as time permits, the various
aspects of the acute toxicity and the
development of Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels (AEGLs) for the
following chemicals: Acetone, acrylic
acid, allyl alchohol, aluminum
phosphide, ammonia, bis-chloromethyl
ether, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform,
chloromethyl methyl ether, diketene,
epichlorohydrin, hexafluoroacetone,
iron pentacarbonyl, methanol, methyl
chlorosilane, methyl dichlorosilane,
methyl t-butyl ether, nitrogen mustard
bis(2-chloroethyl) ethylamine, nitrogen
mustard bis(2-chloroethyl)methyl
amine, nitrogen mustard tris(2chloroethyl)amine, sulfur dioxide.
DATES: A meeting of the NAC/AEGL
Committee will be held from 9:00 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m. on April 12, 2005; 8:30 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m. on April 13, 2005 and from
8:00 a.m. to 12 noon on April 14, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the U.S. EPA Office of Research and
Development, 109 T.W. Alexander
Drive, Building C, Auditorium, North
Carolina, Research Triangle Park, 27709.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Risk
Assessment Division (7403M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16267-16271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-6300]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7892-5]
Notice of Request for Proposals for Projects To Be Funded From
the Water Quality Cooperative Agreement Allocation (CFDA 66.463--Water
Quality Cooperative Agreements)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA Region 6 is soliciting proposals from eligible applicants
interested in applying for Federal assistance for Water Quality
Cooperative Agreements (WQCA) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section
104(b)(3). Funding is for projects conducted within the states of
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. Region 6 EPA
intends to award an estimated $700,000 to eligible applicants through
assistance agreements ranging in size, on average, from $40,000 up to
$200,000 (Federal) for innovative projects/demonstrations/studies
relating to the prevention, reduction, and elimination of water
pollution. From the proposals received, EPA estimates up to 4 to 7
projects may be selected to submit full applications. The Agency
reserves the right to reject all proposals and make no awards.
DATES: EPA will consider all proposals received on or before 5 p.m.
Central Standard Time May 16, 2005. Proposals received after the due
date will not be considered for funding.
ADDRESSES: Proposals should be mailed to: Terry Mendiola (6WQ-AT), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection
Division,1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Overnight delivery
may be sent to the same address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Mendiola by telephone at 214-
665-7144 or by e-mail at mendiola.teresita@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Required Overview Content:
Federal Agency Name--Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6,
Water Quality Protection Division, State Tribal Programs Section.
Funding Opportunity Title--Water Quality Cooperative Agreements.
Announcement Type--Initial announcement.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number--CFDA 66.463--
Water Quality Cooperative Agreements.
DATES: May 16, 2005--Proposals due to EPA.
June 28, 2005--Initial approvals identified and sponsors of
projects selected for funding will be requested to submit a formal
application package.
I. Funding Opportunity Description
EPA Region 6's Water Quality Protection Division is requesting
proposals from eligible applicants for unique and innovative projects
that address watershed-based permitting, water quality trading, water
quality modeling training, water quality standards development and
refinement,
[[Page 16268]]
the Illinois River watershed in Arkansas and Oklahoma, and nutrient
criteria.
Funding is authorized under the provisions of the CWA Section
104(b)(3), 33 U.S.C. 1254(b)(3). The regulations governing the award
and administration of WQCAs are in 40 CFR part 30 (for institutions of
higher learning, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations) and 40
CFR part 31 (for States, local governments, and interstate agencies).
An organization whose proposal is selected for possible Federal
assistance must complete an EPA Application for Assistance, including
the Federal SF-424 form (Application for Federal Assistance, see 40 CFR
30.12 and 31.10).
High Priority Areas for Funding Consideration
WQCAs awarded under section 104(b)(3) may only be used to conduct
and promote the coordination and acceleration of activities such as
research, investigations, experiments, training, education,
demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects,
extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution.
These activities, while not defined in the statute, advance the state
of knowledge, gather information, or transfer information. For
instance, ``demonstrations'' are generally projects that demonstrate
new or experimental technologies, methods, or approaches and the
results of the project will be disseminated so that others can benefit
from the knowledge gained. A project that is accomplished though the
performance of routine, traditional, or established practices, or a
project that is simply intended to carry out a task rather than
transfer information or advance the state of knowledge, however
worthwhile the project may be, is not a demonstration. Research
projects may include the application of the practices when they
contribute to learning about an environmental concept or problem.
The EPA Water Quality Management Division in Region 6 has
identified six priority areas for funding consideration. These
priorities reflect EPA's Strategic Goal 2. Clean and Safe Water,
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed basis. EPA will
award WQCAs for research, investigations, experiments, training,
demonstrations, surveys and studies related to the causes, effects,
extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution in
the subject areas shown below in bold. Funding will be awarded only for
the areas as described below.
Watershed-Based Permitting
Watershed-based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting is a process that emphasizes addressing all
stressors within a hydrologically-defined drainage basin. The proposal
must include the development of a watershed-based NPDES permitting
strategy for a watershed within Region 6. The strategy should consider
cumulative impacts to water quality over the entire watershed and
develop an efficient permitting methodology. The watershed-based
permitting strategy should be flexible to account for unique watershed
characteristics and can be utilized for other watersheds in the Region.
The strategy should comply with the December, 2003, Watershed-Based
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permitting
Implementation Guidance and validated through the appropriated NPDES
permitting authority to ensure the strategy is credible. This effort
should help develop and issue NPDES permits that better protect entire
watersheds.
Water Quality Trading
Water quality trading is an approach that offers greater efficiency
in achieving water quality goals on a watershed basis. The proposal
must identify opportunities and develop a credible and successful
framework for water quality trading programs for nutrients at reduced
costs in a Region 6 watershed. The framework should identify the
watershed in Region 6, the suitability of pollutants for trading, the
criteria and financial attractiveness based on current and future
market analysis. The trading framework must be in accordance with EPA's
January 13, 2003, Water Quality Trading Policy and integrate the
permitting needs for potential development of an NPDES permit. The
development of a water quality trading approach should improve and
preserve water quality.
Cross-Program Training on Water Quality Modeling
The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), NPDES, Assessment and
Monitoring, Watershed Protection, Non-point Source (NPS), and Grant
Support Programs are trying to better integrate efforts to develop
TMDLs using water quality models and implementation of TMDLs through
the NPDES and NPS programs. However, little cross-program coordination,
related to water quality model activities, is available to regulators
and TMDL and NPDES developers, which results in resource duplication,
missed opportunities for innovative approaches to resolution, and mis-
communication of intent. A cross-program training for TMDL and
wasteload allocation (WLA) models for the Region 6 States is needed to
help alleviate this issue. The training program should include the
water quality models, TMDL process, TMDL sampling and modeling quality
assurance project plans used by EPA and the Region 6 States for
developing TMDLs for the 303(d) listed waterbodies and wasteload
allocations for point sources. Successful completion of this training
program would provide Region 6 States avenues to better coordinate
resources and investigate innovative resolutions to water quality
issues, especially at the watershed level, in support of State and
National goals to reduce impaired waters in those states.
Water Quality Standards Development and Refinement
Research and/or studies leading to the development and refinement
of waterbody classification systems, narrative or numeric criteria, and
antidegradation policies.
Illinois River Watershed in Arkansas and Oklahoma
Research and/or studies leading to an improved characterization of
water quality conditions in the Illinois River relative to the goals of
the CWA. Preference will be given to proposals submitted by multiple
entities within the watershed that offer the potential to resolve
differences in water quality standards and assessment methods.
Nutrient Criteria
Development of effects based nutrient criteria and assessment
methods, based on the relationship(s) between evidence of impairment of
biological integrity, and/or other response indicators, and instream
nutrient concentrations observed at reference waterbodies.
II. Award Information
Region 6 EPA intends to award an estimated $700,000 to eligible
applicants through assistance agreements ranging in size, on average,
from $40,000 up to $200,000 (Federal). From the proposals received, EPA
estimates up to 4 to 7 projects may be selected to submit full
applications. The average size of an award is anticipated to be
approximately $100,000. Awards will be made in the late summer of 2005.
Typically, the project and budget period for these awards is one to two
years, with an average of about two years. Organizations who have an
existing agreement under this program are eligible to compete for new
awards,
[[Page 16269]]
including supplementation to existing projects.
It is expected that all the awards under this program will be
cooperative agreements. States and interstate agencies meeting the
requirements in 40 CFR 35.504 may include the funds for WQCA in a
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) in accordance with the regulations
governing PPGs in 40 CFR part 35, subparts A and B. For states and
interstate agencies that choose to do so, the regulations provide that
the workplan commitments that would have been included in the WQCA must
be included in the PPG workplan.
A description of the Agency's substantial involvement in
cooperative agreements will be included in the final agreement.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
Eligible applicants for assistance agreements under section
104(b)(3) of the CWA are State water pollution control agencies,
interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit agencies, institutions,
organizations, and other entities as defined by the CWA. The Tribal
Water Quality Programs Request for Proposals will be issued under a
separate notice. Proposals received for projects outside of Region 6
will not be considered.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
A minimum match of five percent will be required for all approved
projects and should be included in the total funding requested for each
proposal submitted.
3. Threshold Eligibility Criteria
Proposals to purchase land, perform construction, fail to conform
to the submission requirements of this notice, or appear to be from a
for-profit organization will not be reviewed and considered.
Additionally, the priority specific criteria listed below will also
be considered threshold eligibility criteria. To be eligible to compete
for funding, ALL PRIORITY SPECIFIC CRITERIA MUST BE ADDRESSED/MET for
the priority area in which it was submitted.
The following threshold eligibility criteria will be used to
evaluate the subject priority area:
Watershed-Based Permitting, specifically, the development of a
watershed-based NPDES permitting strategy for a watershed within Region
6. The following specific criteria will be used to determine
eligibility for this priority area:
The project should identify the watershed within EPA
Region 6 State(s).
Strategy should establish goals such as flow,
concentrations and pollutant loads for the watershed.
Identify water quality parameters and compile existing
data of the identified parameters of concern.
Identify strong community partnership with State entities,
industries, and municipalities to adopt watershed-basin permitting
approach.
Develop a template for watershed-based permitting strategy
that can be transferable to other watersheds within the state and
potentially to other Region 6 States.
Water Quality Trading, specifically, identification of
opportunities and development of a credible and successful framework
for water quality trading programs for nutrients at reduced costs in a
Region 6 watershed. The following specific criteria will be used to
determine eligibility for this priority area:
The framework should describe the legal mechanisms to
facilitate trading.
The specific nutrients should be identified which are
suitable for trading on a watershed basis.
Framework should clearly define the units of trade
necessary for trading to occur.
Framework must create and establish the duration of
credits generated to comply with a monthly, seasonal or annual
limitation.
Develop procedures to account for the generation and use
of credits in NPDES permits and discharge monitoring reports in order
to track the generation and use of credits between sources and assess
compliance.
Include provisions to ensure the framework incorporates an
enforcement mechanism.
Framework must define a public participation process and
public access process.
The framework must describe the program evaluation
process.
Cross-Program Training on Water Quality Modeling, specifically,
development of a cross-program training for TMDL and WLA models for
Region 6 States. The following specific criteria will be used to
determine eligibility for this priority area:
The project should investigate and select the water
quality models used by EPA and Region 6 States.
Demonstrate that the water quality models, training
materials, tools and approaches are effective in developing TMDLs and
WLAs by providing at least one training session for each EPA Region 6
State.
Apply the current EPA and Region 6 States' water quality
models and related regulations, polices and guidance.
The training program should integrate the water quality
modeling needs for the TMDL and the NPDES programs in EPA Region 6.
Water Quality Standards Development and Refinement, specifically,
research and/or studies leading to the development and refinement of
waterbody classification systems, narrative or numeric criteria, and
antidegradation policies. The following specific criteria will be used
to determine eligibility for this priority area:
Demonstrate approaches or provide tools that may be
applied in other areas.
Apply the latest scientific approaches or innovative
techniques to establish and validate the relationship(s) between
pollutant concentrations and response indicators.
Result in recommendations that can be applied to a class
of waters, rather than individual waters.
Results in the development of water quality standards and
assessment methods that will be adopted by the appropriate state water
quality agency.
Illinois River Watershed in Arkansas and Oklahoma, specifically,
research and/or studies leading to an improved characterization of
water quality conditions in the Illinois River relative to the goals of
the CWA. Preference will be given to proposals submitted by multiple
entities within the watershed that offer the potential to resolve
differences in water quality standards and assessment methods. The
following specific criteria will be used to determine eligibility for
this priority area:
Evaluation of relationships between designated use
attainment and water quality conditions.
Results in specific recommendations for changes in water
quality management practices or processes, land use practices, best
management practice implementation, or other corrective actions needed
to meet the goals of the CWA.
Nutrient Criteria, specifically, the development of effects based
nutrient criteria and assessment methods, based on the relationship(s)
between evidence of impairment of biological integrity, and/or other
response indicators, and instream nutrient concentrations observed at
reference waterbodies. The following specific criteria will be used to
determine eligibility for this priority area:
Apply the latest scientific approaches or innovative
techniques to establish and validate the relationship(s) between
elevated nutrient concentrations and indicator response.
[[Page 16270]]
Result in recommendations for numeric water quality
criteria standards or criteria that can be applied to a class of waters
(rather than individual waters).
Demonstrate approaches or provide tools that may be
applied in other areas.
Include mechanisms for technology transfer.
4. Timing of Eligibility
The applicant must be eligible for award consideration at the time
of proposal submission.
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address To Submit Proposals
Applicants may submit proposals only in hard copy. Proposals should
be mailed to: Terry Mendiola (6WQ-AT), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection Division, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Overnight Delivery may be sent to the same
address. Please mail three copies of the proposal(s).
Full application packages should not be submitted at this time;
Region 6 is only requesting proposals. Proposal format and content is
included below. Upon notification of final selections, applicants will
be instructed how financial assistance application packages can be
obtained.
2. Proposal Format and Contents
Proposals should be no more than four pages with a minimum font
size of 10 pitch in Wordperfect/Word or equivalent. Pages in excess of
four will not be considered. Failure to follow the format or to include
all requested information will result in the proposal not being
considered for funding. It is recommended that confidential information
not be included in this proposal. The following format should be used
for all proposals:
Name of Project:
Priority Area Addressed: Only one priority area should be listed.
If more than one addressed, select most pertinent. (i.e., Watershed
Based Permitting, Water Quality Trading, Nutrient Criteria, etc.)
Point of Contact: (Individual and Agency/Organization Name,
Address, Phone Number, Fax Number, E-mail Address)
Is This a Continuation of a Previously Funded Project (if so,
please provide the status of the current grant or cooperative
agreement):
Proposed Federal Amount:
Proposed Non-Federal Match (minimum of 5%):
The match is based on the total project cost not the Federal
amount. To determine a proposed minimum match of 5%, use the following
example:
Federal amount = $25,000
Total Project Cost = T
The Federal amount is 95% of T, therefore:
$25,000 = T x 0.95
$25,000/0.95 = T
$26,316 = T (round the decimal)
If the total project cost is $26,316, then:
$26,316 x 0.05 = $1,316 non-Federal match
Proposed Total Award Amount:
Description of General Budget Proposed To Support Project:
Project Description: (Should not exceed three pages of single-
spaced text)
Expected Accomplishments or Product, With Dates, and Interim
Milestones: This section should also include a discussion of a
communication plan for distributing the project results to interested
parties.
Environmental Results and Outcomes:
Describe Applicant's Capability To Perform Work:
Describe How the Project Meets the Evaluation Criteria Specified in
Section V. Application Review Information:
3. Submission Dates and Times
EPA will consider all proposals received on or before 5 p.m.
Central Standard Time May 16, 2005. Proposals received after the due
date will not be considered for funding.
4. Intergovernmental Review
Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs
may be applicable to awards, resulting from this announcement.
Applicants selected for funding may be required to provide a copy of
their proposal to their State Point of Contact (SPOC) or the States
where the project will be conducted for review, pursuant to Executive
Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. This review
is not required with the proposal.
5. Funding Restrictions
The following information should be considered in developing
proposal(s):
Construction projects, except for the construction
required to carry out a demonstration project, and acquisition of land
are not eligible for funding under this program.
New or on-going programs to implement routine
environmental controls will not be considered for funding under this
program.
Funding is for projects conducted within the states of
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.
It is encouraged that indirect cost be limited to 15
percent.
Although proposals may meet more than one of the priority
areas listed in Section I. Funding Opportunity Description, select most
pertinent and identify that priority area in the proposal format.
6. Proprietary Information Identification
EPA recommends that no confidential information be included in
proposals. However, in accordance with 40 CFR 2.203, applicants may
claim all or a portion of their application/proposal as confidential
business information. EPA will evaluate confidentiality claims in
accordance with 40 CFR part 2. Applicants must clearly mark
applications/proposals or portions of applications/proposals they claim
as confidential. If no claim of confidentiality is made, EPA is not
required to make the inquiry to the applicant otherwise required by 40
CFR 2.204(c)(2) prior to disclosure.
V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
EPA Region 6 will award WQCA on a competitive basis and evaluate
proposals based on the criteria detailed below (maximum points for each
element are shown). In addition to the selection criteria detailed
below, other factors as geographic diversity, programmatic priorities,
project diversity and program diversity may be considered in selecting
proposals for award. The following criteria will be used to evaluate
each eligible proposal:
The adequacy of proposal to meet priority specific
criteria (Section III. 3.). (25)
The extent to which the proposed project uses innovative
techniques that effectively leads to the protection of water quality as
identified by the priorities in this notice (Section I.). These
priorities reflect EPA's Strategic Goal 2. Clean and Safe Water,
Subobjective 2.2.1 Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis. (20)
The extent to which the results of the proposed project,
or tools developed, can be transferred to others and the quality of the
communication strategy to actually achieve transfer. (10)
The realistic expectation that meaningful environmental
benefit will result from the proposed work, and the quality of the
evaluation component to assess or measure the environmental outcome(s).
This may include projects that improve program integrity or efficiency
as well as those with direct environmental benefits. (20)
The capability of the applicant to effectively perform and
complete the tasks and deliver the products of the
[[Page 16271]]
project or activity, as well as the capability to effectively manage
the cooperative agreement. (10)
Cost effectiveness and reasonableness of the proposal.
(10)
Applicant's past performance, if applicable. (5)
2. Review and Selection Process
Each eligible proposal will be evaluated and ranked by a panel
comprised of several EPA Region 6 employees. Members of the review
panel will base their evaluation on the selection criteria disclosed in
this notice (Section V.1). Final selection of proposals will be made by
the Director of the Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6.
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
Selected organizations will be notified in writing and requested to
submit full applications. Applications, including workplans, are
subject to EPA review and approval. It is expected that unsuccessful
applicants will be notified in writing. EPA reserves the right to
withdraw the funding offer if a complete application (including an
approved QMP) is not received within four months of selection notice.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
Applicants whose proposals contemplate contracting for services or
products must comply with applicable regulations relating to
competitive procurement and preparation of cost or price analyses in
accordance with 40 CFR 30.40 through 30.48 (for institutions of higher
learning, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations) and 40 CFR
31.36 (for States, local governments, and interstate agencies).
Identifying a contractor in a proposal does not exempt the applicant
from these requirements and gives the appearance that the proposal is
from a for-profit organization. As stated in Section III. Eligibility
Information, proposals that appear to be from a for-profit organization
will not be reviewed or considered. Applicants requested to submit a
full application will be required to confirm compliance with
competitive procurement procedures.
Additionally, applicants requested to submit a full application
will be required to comply with the Quality Assurance requirements (40
CFR 30.54 and 31.45) if projects involve environmentally related
measurements or data generation. Prior to award, a Quality Management
Plan must be submitted and approved by EPA.
Applicants must provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal
Numbering System (DUNS) number with the full application. Organizations
may obtain the number by calling, toll free, 1-866-705-5711.
Applicants requested to submit a full application may incur pre-
award costs 90 calendar days prior to award provided such costs are
included in the application, the costs meet the definition of pre-award
costs and are approved by EPA. Pre-award costs are those costs incurred
prior to the effective date of the award directly pursuant to the
negotiation and in anticipation of the award where such costs are
necessary to comply with the proposed delivery schedule or period of
performance and are in conformance with the appropriate statute and
cost principles. The approval of pre-award costs should be reflected in
the budget period on the assistance agreement and if applicable, under
a term and condition of the assistance agreement. Recipients incur pre-
award costs at their own risk (i.e., EPA is under no obligation to
reimburse such costs if for any reason the recipient does not receive
an award or if the award is less than anticipated and inadequate to
cover such costs).
Assistance agreement competition-related disputed will be resolved
in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures published in 70 FR
3629, 3630 (January 26, 2005) which can be found at: https://
a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/
2005/05-1371.htm. Copies may also be requested by contacting the Agency
Contact below.
3. Reporting
Post award reporting requirements include, at a minimum, submission
of semi-annual project status reports with submission of a final report
prior to the end of the budget/project period. Recipients will be
required to report direct and indirect environmental benefits that
result from the work accomplished through the cooperative agreement
award. Means of submission and report format will be negotiated in the
workplan.
VII. Agency Contacts
Point of Contact: Terry Mendiola by telephone at 214-665-7144 or by
e-mail at mendiola.teresita@epa.gov.
VIII. Other Information
This Federal Register Notice will be posted on the Region 6 Water
Quality Protection Division, Assistance Programs Branch Web site http:/
/www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/at/sttribal.htm. This Web site may also
contain additional information about this request. Deadline extensions,
if any, will be posted on this web site and not in the Federal
Register. A list of selected projects will also be posted to this Web
site.
Dated: March 23, 2005.
Miguel I. Flores,
Director, Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 05-6300 Filed 3-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P