Award of United States-Mexico Border Program and Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program Grants Authorized by the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, 55058-55064 [E7-18960]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
55058
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
with customer-filed change-of-address
orders received and maintained by the
USPS. For the purposes of this standard,
‘‘address’’ means a specific address
associated with a specific occupant
name. Addresses subject to the Move
Update standard must meet these
requirements:
a. Each address and associated
occupant name used on the mailpieces
in a mailing must be updated within 95
days before the mailing date, with one
of the USPS-approved methods in 3.9.2.
b. Each individual address in the
mailing is subject to the Move Update
standard.
c. The Move Update standard is met
when an address used on a mailpiece,
in a mailing for any class of mail, is
updated with an approved method in
3.9.2, and the same address is used in
a Standard Mail mailing within 95 days
after the address has been updated.
d. Except for mail bearing an
alternative address format, addresses
used on pieces claiming Standard Mail
rates, regardless of any required
surcharge, must meet the Move Update
standard.
3.9.2 USPS-Approved Methods
The following methods are authorized
for meeting the Move Update standard:
a. Address Change Service (ACS).
b. National Change of Address
Linkage System (NCOALink).
c. Ancillary service endorsements
under 507.1.5.3, Standard Mail, except
‘‘Forwarding Service Requested.’’
3.9.3 Mailer Certification
The mailer’s signature on the postage
statement certifies that the Move Update
standard has been met for each address
in the corresponding mailing presented
to the USPS.
*
*
*
*
*
400
Discount Parcels
*
*
430
First-Class Mail
*
*
*
433
Rates and Eligibility
*
*
*
*
*
3.0 Basic Standards for First-Class
Mail Parcels
*
*
3.5
Move Update Standard
3.5.1
*
*
*
Basic Standards
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise item a in 3.5.1.as follows:]
a. Each address and associated
occupant name used on the mailpieces
in a mailing must be updated within 95
days before the mailing date, with one
of the USPS-approved methods in 3.6.2.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Sep 27, 2007
Jkt 211001
[Revise item c in 3.5.1 as follows:]
c. The Move Update standard is met
when an address used on a mailpiece,
in a mailing at any class of mail, is
updated with an approved method in
3.6.2, and the same address is used in
a First-Class Mail mailing within 95
days after the address has been updated.
*
*
*
*
*
440
Rates and Eligibility
*
*
Neva Watson,
Attorney, Legislative.
[FR Doc. E7–19151 Filed 9–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
Standard Mail
443
standard has been met for each address
in the corresponding mailing presented
to the USPS.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
*
3.0 Basic Standards for Standard Mail
Parcels
*
*
*
*
*
[Add new item 3.9 as follows:]
3.9
Move Update Standard
3.9.1 Basic Standards
The Move Update standard is a means
of reducing the number of mailpieces in
a mailing that require forwarding,
return, or discard by the periodic
matching of a mailer’s address records
with customer-filed change-of-address
orders received and maintained by the
USPS. For the purposes of this standard,
‘‘address’’ means a specific address
associated with a specific occupant
name. Addresses subject to the Move
Update standard must meet these
requirements:
a. Each address and associated
occupant name used on the mailpieces
in a mailing must be updated within 95
days before the mailing date, with one
of the USPS-approved methods in 3.9.2.
b. Each individual address in the
mailing is subject to the Move Update
standard.
c. The Move Update standard is met
when an address used on a mailpiece,
in a mailing for any class of mail, is
updated with an approved method in
3.9.2, and the same address is used in
a Standard Mail mailing within 95 days
after the address has been updated.
d. Except for mail bearing an
alternative address format, addresses
used on pieces claiming Standard Mail
rates, regardless of any required
surcharge, must meet the Move Update
standard.
3.9.2 USPS-Approved Methods
The following methods are authorized
for meeting the Move Update standard:
a. Address Change Service (ACS).
b. National Change of Address
Linkage System (NCOALink).
c. Ancillary service endorsements
under 507.1.5.3, Standard Mail, except
‘‘Forwarding Service Requested.’’
3.9.3 Mailer Certification
The mailer’s signature on the postage
statement certifies that the Move Update
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40 CFR Parts 30 and 31
[FRL–8472–1]
Award of United States-Mexico Border
Program and Alaska Rural and Native
Villages Program Grants Authorized by
the Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2007
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Grant Guidelines.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice provides
guidelines on the Award of United
States-Mexico Border Program and
Alaska Rural and Native Villages
Program Grants Authorized by the
Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2007. This notice provides
information and guidelines on how the
EPA will award and administer the
United States-Mexico Border Program
and the Alaska Rural and Native
Villages Program in accordance with the
Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2007 (Pub. L. 110–5). The
Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2007, provides budget
authority for funding the United StatesMexico Border Program and the Alaska
Rural and Native Villages Program. Each
grant recipient will receive a copy of
this notice from EPA.
ADDRESSES: The subject notice and
associated documents may be viewed
and downloaded from EPA’s homepage,
https://www.epa.gov/owm/mab/
owm0330.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Benjamin J. Hamm, Chief, Municipal
Assistance Branch, Municipal Support
Division, Office of Wastewater
Management (4204M), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 564–0648; email address: hamm.ben@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
Affected Entities: This action applies
to State Agencies, nonprofit institutions,
international organizations, and Alaska
E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM
28SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
rural and native villages which are
eligible to receive grants from funds
included in EPA’s State and Tribal
Assistance Grants account pursuant to
the Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2007, and the Department of
the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
(Pub. L. 109–54).
provided in the applicable appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2006, for projects or
activities (including the costs of direct loans
and loan guarantees) that are not otherwise
provided for and for which appropriations,
funds, or other authority were made available
in the following appropriations Acts: * * *
(4) The Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006.
II. Background
The Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. 109–
54, also referred to as the Agency’s fiscal
year (FY) 2006 Appropriations Act,
included $50,000,000 for the United
States-Mexico Border Program and
$35,000,000 for the Alaska Rural and
Native Villages Program in the State and
Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
account. Pursuant to the Revised
Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2007, these funding levels are
maintained for FY 2007.
The specific requirements governing
the award of the program grants are
contained in the following documents:
the Revised Continuing Appropriations
The Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007, Pub.
L. 110–5, making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2007,
and for other purposes, states, in
relevant part:
The following sums are hereby
appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out
of applicable corporate or other revenues,
receipts, and funds, for the several
departments, agencies, corporations, and
other organizational units of Government for
fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes,
namely: * * * (a) Such amounts as may be
necessary, at the level specified in subsection
(c) and under the authority and conditions
Program
Appropriation
Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program .....................................
United States-Mexico Border Program ............................................
The United States-Mexico Border
Program funds and the Alaska Rural and
Native Villages Program funds will be
awarded and administered by the
Regional Offices. On September 28,
2000, the Assistant Administrator for
Water and the Regional Administrators
were delegated the authority to award
grants and cooperative agreements for
funds included in the STAG account.
Accordingly, the Regions and
Headquarters have the necessary
authority to award grants and
cooperative agreements for the United
States-Mexico Border Program and the
Alaska Rural and Native Villages
Program.
III. Program Specific Guidelines
The Agency’s FY 2006 Appropriations
Act contains the authorizing language
for and requirements applicable to the
United States-Mexico Border Program
and the Alaska Rural and Native
Villages Program.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
A. United States-Mexico Border
Program
The Agency’s FY 2006 Appropriations
Act provides $49,264,380, after
rescission, for ‘‘architectural,
engineering, planning, design,
construction and related activities in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Sep 27, 2007
Jkt 211001
connection with the construction of
high priority water and wastewater
facilities in the area of the United
States-Mexico Border, after consultation
with the appropriate border
commission.’’ Pursuant to the Revised
Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2007, this funding level is maintained
for FY 2007. The scope of work for
grants awarded for the United StatesMexico Border Program must conform
to the language contained in the
Appropriations Act and the grant file
should include documentation that
describes the results of the discussions
and consultations with the appropriate
border commission. In implementing
this program, EPA generally provides
grant funding to the Border
Environmental Cooperation
Commission (BECC) for the Project
Development Assistance Program
(PDAP) and to the North American
Development Bank (NADBank) for the
Border Environment Infrastructure Fund
(BEIF). Subgrants from BECC and
NADBank should also contain
documentation of the discussions with
the appropriate border commission.
EPA cost participation on projects
funded from the United States-Mexico
Border appropriation item will be
decided on a project-by-project basis.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Resolution, 2007, and the FY 2006
Appropriations Act. The requirements
contained in these documents have been
incorporated into this notice.
The Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007, also
states, in relevant part:
(c) The level referred to in subsection (a)
shall be the amounts appropriated in the
appropriations Acts referred to in such
subsection, including transfers and obligation
limitations, except that—* * * (2) such level
shall be calculated without regard to any
rescission or cancellation of funds or contract
authority, other than—(A) the 1 percent
government-wide rescission made by section
3801 of division B of Pub. L. 109–148; [and]
(B) the 0.476 percent across-the-board
rescission made by section 439 of Pub. L.
109–54, relating to the Department of the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
* * *.
The original amount appropriated for
each program, as well as the actual
amount available for grant award after
the reduction due to the 1 percent
rescission and the .476 percent
rescission are as follows:
1% rescission
$35,000,000
50,000,000
55059
.476%
rescission
$350,000
500,000
$164,934
235,620
Grant amount
$34,485,066
49,264,380
The EPA cost share will depend on a
number of factors which have been
separately defined within the context of
the United States-Mexico Border
Program.
On May 2, 1997, the Agency issued a
memorandum 1 concerning ‘‘Program
Requirements for Mexican Border Area
Projects Funded under the Authority of
this Agency’s FY 1995, 1996 and 1997
Appropriations Acts.’’ That
memorandum applies to the United
States-Mexico Border Area projects
funded under the authority of the
Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2007, and the Agency’s FY
2006 Appropriations Act.
B. Alaska Rural and Native Villages
Program
The Agency’s FY 2006 Appropriations
Act provides $34,485,066, after
rescission, for:
Grants to the State of Alaska to address
drinking water and waste infrastructure
needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages:
Provided, That, of these funds: (1) The State
of Alaska shall provide a match of 25
percent; (2) no more than 5 percent of the
funds may be used for administrative and
overhead expenses; and (3) not later than
1 This document is available on the internet at
www.epa.gov/owm/mab/owm0327.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM
28SER1
55060
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
October 1, 200[7] 2 the State of Alaska shall
make awards consistent with the State-wide
priority list established in 2004 for all water,
sewer, waste disposal, and similar projects
carried out by the State of Alaska that are
funded under section 221 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1301)
or the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et. seq.)
which shall allocate not less than 25 percent
of the funds provided for projects in regional
hub communities.
Pursuant to the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007, this
funding level is maintained for FY 2007.
The cost share for the State of Alaska
pursuant to Item (1) of the
Appropriations Act is $11,495,022.
Additionally, the Alaska Rural and
Native Villages Program funds may be
used to pay for activities specified in the
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996, (Pub.
L. 104–182, Section 303), specifically:
‘‘training, technical assistance, and
educational programs relating to the
operation and management of sanitation
services in rural and Native villages.’’
These include the Remote Maintenance
Worker (RMW) and the Rural Utility
Business Advisory (RUBA) programs.
Pursuant to the 2006 Alaska Rural and
Native Villages Program Memorandum
of Understanding, the State of Alaska
has agreed to utilize the State’s
Environmental Review Process (SERP)
for all projects funded by the program.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
IV. Federal Funds as a Source of
Matching Funds
Federal funds from other programs
may be used as all or part of the match
for the United States-Mexico Border
Program only if the statute authorizing
those other programs specifically allows
the funds to be used as a match for other
Federal grants. Additionally, the other
Federal programs must allow their
appropriated funds to be used for the
planning, design and/or construction of
water, wastewater or groundwater
infrastructure projects. Listed below are
the major United States Federal
programs whose grant funds can be used
to provide all or part of the match for
the United States-Mexico Border
Program:
• Department of Agriculture, Rural
Development program; and
• Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Community Development
Block Grant program.
For Mexican projects, Federal, state or
local grants may be used to match
United States-Mexico Border Program
grant funds.
2 In order to maintain consistency with past
appropriations acts language, the Agency assumes
Congress intended to state ‘‘October 1, 2007’’.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Sep 27, 2007
Jkt 211001
As previously stated, Federal funds
may be used as all or part of the match
for other Federal grant programs only if
the authorizing legislation includes
such authority. The United StatesMexico Border Program funds and the
Alaska Rural and Native Villages
Program funds cannot be used as a
source of matching funds for other
Federal programs.
V. Pre-Award Costs
The Grants and Interagency
Agreement Management Division
(GIAMD) issued a policy memorandum
(GPI 00–02) on March 30, 2000, that
applies to all grants, including United
States-Mexico Border Program grants
and Alaska Rural and Native Villages
Program grants awarded on or after
April 1, 2000. Additionally, a
clarification to the policy memorandum
(GPI 00–02(a)) was issued by GIAMD on
May 3, 2000. The two memorandums
revised the Agency’s interpretation of a
provision contained in the general grant
regulations at 40 CFR 31.23(a)
concerning the approval of pre-award
costs.
In essence, the GIAMD memorandums
state that:
• Recipients may incur pre-award
costs [up to] 90 calendar days prior to
award provided they include such costs
in their application, the costs meet the
definition of pre-award costs and are
approved by the EPA Project Officer and
EPA Award Official.
• The award official can approve preaward costs incurred more than 90
calendar days prior to grant award, in
appropriate circumstances, if the preaward costs are in conformance with the
requirements set forth in OMB Circular
A–87 and with applicable Agency
regulations, policies and guidelines.
The GIAMD memorandums state that
the award official can approve preaward costs incurred prior to grant
award in appropriate situations if the
approval of the pre-award costs is
consistent with the intent of the
requirements for pre-award costs set
forth in OMB Circular A–87 and are in
conformance with Agency regulations,
policies and guidelines. The following
two situations meet these requirements:
• Any allowable costs incurred after
the start of the fiscal year for which the
funds were appropriated but before
grant award (for FY 2007 projects, this
date is October 1, 2006).
• Allowable facilities planning and
design costs associated with the
construction portions of the project
included in the grant that were incurred
before the start of the fiscal year for
which the funds were appropriated (for
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FY 2007 projects, this date is October 1,
2006).
Accordingly, effective April 1, 2000, the
Regions have the authority to approve
pre-award costs for the two situations
described above. Any approval, of
course, is contingent on the Regional
Office determination that the pre-award
costs in question are in conformance
with the applicable Federal laws,
regulations and executive orders that
govern EPA grant awards and are
allowable, reasonable and allocable to
the project.
The Regions may not approve any
pre-award costs for United StatesMexico Border Program grants or Alaska
Rural and Native Villages Program
grants, other than those that involve the
two situations discussed above, without
written approval from Headquarters.
The request, with sufficient supporting
documentation, should be submitted to
the Director, Office of Wastewater
Management, (Mail Code 4201M),
USEPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office
of Wastewater Management will
consult, in appropriate circumstances,
with the GIAMD and the Office of
General Counsel. If appropriate, a
deviation from 40 CFR 31.23(a) will be
processed and issued.
VI. Laws, Regulations and
Requirements
The Federal Laws and Executive
Orders that apply to all EPA grants,
including the United States-Mexico
Border Program and the Alaska Rural
and Native Villages Program which are
authorized by the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007, and
the Agency’s FY 2006 Appropriations
Act, are as follows:
A. Environmental Authorities
• Archeological and Historic
Preservation Act, Pub. L. 93–291, as
amended.
• Clean Air Act, Pub. L. 95–95, as
amended.
• Clean Water Act, Titles III, IV and
V, Pub. L. 92–500, as amended.
• Coastal Barrier Resources Act, Pub.
L. 97–348.
• Coastal Zone Management Act, Pub.
L. 92–583, as amended.
• Endangered Species Act, Pub. L.
93–205, as amended.
• Environmental Justice, Executive
Order 12898.
• Flood Plain Management, Executive
Order 11988 as amended by Executive
Order 12148.
• Protection of Wetlands, Executive
Order 11990 as amended by Executive
Order 12608.
• Farmland Protection Policy Act,
Pub. L. 97–98.
E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM
28SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
Pub. L. 85–624, as amended.
• Magnunson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act,
Pub. L. 94–265.
• National Environmental Policy Act,
Pub. L. 91–190.
• National Historic Preservation Act,
Pub. L. 89–655, as amended.
• Safe Drinking Water Act, Pub L. 93–
523, as amended.
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Pub. L.
90–54, as amended.
B. Economic and Miscellaneous
Authorities
• Debarment and Suspension,
Executive Order 12549.
• Demonstration Cities and
Metropolitan Development Act, Pub. L.
89–754, as amended, and Executive
Order 12372.
• Drug-Free Workplace Act, Pub. L.
100–690.
• Government Neutrality Toward
Contractor’s Labor Relations, Executive
Order 13202 as amended by Executive
Order 13208.
• New Restrictions on Lobbying,
Section 319 of Pub. L. 101–121.
• Prohibitions relating to violations of
the Clean Water Act or Clean Air Act
with respect to Federal contracts, grants,
or loans under Section 306 of the Clean
Air Act and Section 508 of the Clean
Water Act, and Executive Order 11738.
• Uniform Relocation and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act, Pub.
L. 91–646, as Amended.
C. Civil Rights, Nondiscrimination,
Equal Employment Opportunity
Authorities
• Age Discrimination Act, Pub. L. 94–
135.
• Equal Employment Opportunity,
Executive Order 11246.
• Section 13 of the Clean Water Act,
Pub. L. 92–500.
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, Pub. L. 93–112 supplemented by
Executive Orders 11914 and 11250.
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Pub.
L. 88–352.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
D. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Authorities
• EPA’s FY 1993 Appropriations Act,
Pub. L. 102–389.
• Section 129 of the Small Business
Administration Reauthorization and
Amendment Act, Pub. L. 100–590.
• Small, Minority and Women
Owned Business Enterprises, Executive
Orders 11625, 12138 and 12432.
Some of the authorities only apply to
grants that include construction, e.g.,
EO 13202. A more detailed description
of the Federal laws, Executive Orders,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Sep 27, 2007
Jkt 211001
OMB Circulars and their implementing
regulations is contained in Module No.
2 of the EPA Assistance Project Officers
Training Course which is available
through the Regional Grants
Management Offices.
The regulations at 40 CFR Part 31
apply to grants and cooperative
agreements awarded to State and local
(including tribal) governments. The
regulations at 40 CFR Part 30 apply to
grants with nonprofit organizations and
with non-governmental for-profit
entities. In appropriate circumstances,
such as grants for demonstration
projects, the research and demonstration
grant regulations at 40 CFR Part 40 can
be used to supplement either 40 CFR
Part 30 or Part 31.
The Agency issued a memorandum 3
in January 1995, concerning the
applicability of 40 CFR Part 29
(Intergovernmental Review) to the
special projects authorized by the
Agency’s FY 1995 Appropriations Act.
That memorandum also applies to the
United States-Mexico Border Program
and the Alaska Rural and Native
Villages Program which are authorized
by the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007, and
the Agency’s FY 2006 Appropriations
Act.
The Davis-Bacon Act does not apply
to grants awarded under the authority of
the Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2007, and the Agency’s FY
2006 Appropriations Act because
neither the Resolution nor the Act
includes language that makes it apply.
However, if FY 2007 funds are used to
supplement funding of a construction
contract that includes Clean Water Act
title II requirements (e.g., contracts
awarded under the construction grants
or coastal cities programs), the entire
contract is subject to Davis-Bacon Act
requirements, including the portion
funded with FY 2007 funds.
VII. Specific Environmental
Requirements
The National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and other relevant
applicable statutes and Executive
Orders, such as the Endangered Species
Act (ESA), apply to the United StatesMexico Border Program. The applicable
NEPA regulations are the Council of
Environmental Quality’s implementing
regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508
and EPA’s NEPA regulations at 40 CFR
Part 6, Subparts A–D.
The Agency issued a memorandum 4
on January 20, 1995, concerning NEPA
3 This document is available on the internet at
www.epa.gov/owm/mab/own0326.pdf.
4 This document is available on the internet at
www.epa.gov/owm/mab/owm0330.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55061
compliance for the Special
Appropriations Act Projects authorized
by the Agency’s FY 1995
Appropriations Act. That memorandum
also applies to the United States-Mexico
Border Program which is authorized by
the Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2007, and the Agency’s FY
2006 Appropriations Act.5
The development of information
needed to determine compliance with
NEPA and other cross-cutting Federal
requirements is an allowable cost that
can, and should, be included in the
scope of work of the grant if not
performed prior to grant award. These
activities can be funded on an
incremental basis, by awarding a grant
that only includes these activities, or as
part of the entire project (i.e., planning,
design and construction) with the
stipulation, in the form of a grant
condition, stating that EPA will not
approve or fund any work beyond the
conceptual design point 6 until the
applicable requirements of such
authorities have been met. The Agency
issued a memorandum 7 on July 29,
2003, that contains a model grant
condition that should be used in this
situation.8
It should be noted that NEPA and
other cross-cutting Federal requirements
that apply to the major Federal action
(i.e., the approval and/or funding of
work beyond the conceptual design
point) cannot be delegated. Although
EPA can fund the grantee or state/tribal
development of an Environmental
Information Document (EID) or other
analysis to provide supporting
information, EPA has the legal
obligation to issue the NEPA
documents, to sign NEPA
determinations, and to fulfill other
cross-cutting Federal requirements
before approving or paying for design
and/or construction.
When both EPA and another Federal
agency are funding the same project, the
agencies may negotiate an agreement for
one to be the lead agency for performing
grant oversight and management
activities, including those related to
NEPA and other cross-cutting Federal
requirements. The lead agency can be
the one which is providing the most
funds for the project, or the agency that
5 EPA is in the process of revising the NEPA
implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 6).
Accordingly, the final rule, once promulgated, will
supersede and replace the memoranda on NEPA
compliance.
6 Completion of conceptual design is essentially
the same as completion of facility planning as
defined in EPA’s Construction Grants program.
7 This document is available on the internet at
www.epa.gov/owm/mab/owm0330.pdf.
8 See Footnote 5, supra.
E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM
28SER1
55062
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
provided the initial funds for the
project. If an environmental impact
statement (EIS) is required, EPA should
be a co-lead or cooperating agency so
that it can adopt the EIS without
recirculating it. If the project requires an
environmental assessment (EA), EPA
may adopt the other agency’s EA and
use it as a basis for its finding of no
significant impact (FONSI), provided
EPA has independently reviewed the
EA and agrees with the analysis and
circulates the FONSI and attached EA
for the requisite 30-day comment
period. Note that EPA may not use a
categorical exclusion of another Federal
agency unless EPA’s regulations at 40
CFR Part 6 also provide for the
categorical exclusion.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
VIII. Operating Guidelines
The authority for awarding grants for
the United States-Mexico Border
Program is the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007, and
the Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109–
54). The authority for awarding grants
for the Alaska Rural and Native Villages
Program is section 303 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of
1996 (Pub. L. 104–182), the Revised
Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2007, and Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109–
54).
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) number for the
United States-Mexico Border Program
and the Alaska Rural and Native
Villages Program is 66.202
‘‘Congressionally Mandated Projects.’’
The Integrated Grants Management
System (IGMS) code for the United
States-Mexico Border Program and the
Alaska Rural and Native Villages
Program is XP, titled ‘‘Water
Infrastructure Grants as authorized by
EPA Appropriations.’’ The Object Class
Code (budget and accounting
information) for the United StatesMexico Border Program and the Alaska
Rural and Native Villages Program is
41.83. Applicants should use Standard
Form 424 to apply for the grants.
A. Location of Project
To be able to report on environmental
and public health benefits, the Agency
has decided to collect, and store in an
appropriate database, the geographic
location for grant funded infrastructure
projects. Accordingly, all United StatesMexico Border Program grants and
Alaska Rural and Native Villages
Program grants authorized by the
Revised Continuing Appropriations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Sep 27, 2007
Jkt 211001
Resolution, 2007, and the FY 2006
Appropriations Act should include a
term and condition stating that
locational information must be
submitted. For most projects, the
specific information needed is the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) number(s)
or the Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS) number(s). EPA’s
information technology (IT) systems
will use the NPDES and the SDWIS
numbers to determine the specific
geographic parameters of the project.
For those situations where NPDES and
SDWIS identifiers are not appropriate,
the longitude and latitude of the project
should be provided.
B. Intermunicipal Projects and Service
Agreements
Although a United States-Mexico
Border Program grant may be awarded
to one entity, the successful operations
of the grant funded project may depend
on the support and cooperation of other
entities, municipalities, or utility
districts. This is especially evident
when one entity is providing
wastewater treatment services or
supplying drinking water to another
entity. Accordingly, for projects
involving interactions between two or
more entities, the applicant should
provide assurances that the grant
funded project will function as intended
for its expected life. Adequate assurance
may be met through the creation of
special service districts, regionalization
of systems, or intermunicipal service
agreements.
Special service districts and
regionalization of systems are
considered to be obligations in
perpetuity to serve the customers of the
newly created authority and
automatically meet the expected
lifetime requirements. The
intermunicipal service agreement or
contract is a legal document for
cooperative ventures between separate
entities, both of which wish to continue
functioning with a large degree of
independent control in their respective
service areas. Such agreements will
need to extend for a minimum number
of years for an EPA funded project to be
considered viable. For the purposes of
the United States-Mexico Border
Program, EPA will accept the following
contract lifetimes as meeting the
minimum standard 9:
9 The anticipated useful life of the facility
components is based on the low end of the assumed
service life for items in EPA’s Construction Grants
Program and past experience with the award and
administration of special Appropriations Act
projects.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ITEM
LIFE
(years)
Land ................................................
Wastewater/Water
Conveyance
Structures: collection systems
pipes, interceptors, force mains,
tunnels, distribution lines, etc. ....
Other Structures: plant buildings,
concrete tankage, basins, lift station and pump station structures,
inlet structures, etc. .....................
Wastewater and Drinking Water
Process Equipment .....................
Auxiliary Equipment ........................
(1)
40
30
15
10
1 Permanent.
A shorter time frame may be accepted
if suitably justified and approved by
EPA.
C. Non-Construction Costs
The scope of work of a grant may
include planning, design and
administrative activities, and the cost of
land. Land need not be an ‘‘integral part
of the treatment process’’ as in the Clean
Water Act title II construction grant
program. However, all elements
included within the scope of work of
the grant must conform to the
requirements of 40 CFR Parts 30 or 31.
This means, if planning, design and
administrative activities are included in
the grant, the procurement of those
services and the contracts must comply
with the applicable sections of Parts 30
or 31. If land is included, there will be
a Federal interest in the land regardless
of when it was purchased and the
purchase must be (must have been) in
accordance with the applicable sections
of Parts 30 or 31 and the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition regulations for Federal and
Federally assisted programs at 49 CFR
Part 24.
As of August, 2006, the United StatesMexico Border Program established a
policy that land would not be an
allowable BEIF cost, even if it is an
eligible item under the Appropriations
Act. This policy was issued by the
Deputy Director, Office of Wastewater
Management, on August 3, 2006.
D. Refinancing
Funds appropriated for the United
States-Mexico Border Program or the
Alaska Rural and Native Villages
Program may not be awarded solely to
repay loans received from a State
Revolving Fund or other indebtedness
unless the facts of the case are such that
this is the only way to award the funds
that were appropriated for the project.
Any request to use United StatesMexico Border Program or Alaska Rural
and Native Villages Program funds to
repay a loan, in whole or in part, must
E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM
28SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
be approved, in writing, by EPA
Headquarters. The request, with
sufficient supporting documentation,
should be submitted to the Director,
Office of Wastewater Management,
(Mail Code 4201M), USEPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
IX. Environmental Results Under EPA
Assistance Agreements
A. Introduction
EPA Order 5700.7,10 ‘‘Environmental
Results Under Assistance Agreements,’’
applies to all non-competitive funding
packages/funding recommendations
submitted to the Grants Management
Offices after January 1, 2005. The Order
requires EPA Program Offices to: (1)
Link proposed assistance agreements to
the Agency’s Strategic Plan/Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
architecture; (2) ensure that outputs and
outcomes are appropriately addressed in
assistance agreement work plans 11 and
funding recommendations; and (3)
ensure that progress in achieving
agreed-upon outputs and outcomes is
adequately addressed in recipient
progress reports and advanced
monitoring activities.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
B. The Strategic Plan/GPRA
Architecture
EPA’s 2006–2011 Strategic Plan 12 sets
out five long-term goals. Each of these
five goals is supported by a series of
objectives and sub-objectives that
identify, as precisely as possible, what
environmental outcomes or results the
EPA seeks to achieve within a defined
time frame using resources expected to
be available. The objectives and subobjectives established in EPA’s Strategic
Plan are part of the ‘‘GPRA architecture’’
that is used to measure the EPA’s
progress in meeting its strategic goals.
Program offices must include in the
funding package for a proposed
assistance agreement a description of
how the project fits within the EPA’s
Strategic Plan/GPRA architecture. In
developing the aforementioned
descriptions, a project officer must list
all applicable EPA strategic goals and
objectives and, where available, sub10 The Order is available on the internet at https://
www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/award/5700.7.pdf.
11 Throughout this section, the term ‘‘work plan’’
is used for convenience. For construction projects,
outputs/outcomes are normally included in a
Facility Plan, Preliminary Engineering Report, or an
Environmental Information Document. In many
cases these documents may not exist at the time of
grant application. In those situations the
development of the documents will be included in
the scope of work of the assistance agreement.
12 The Strategic Plan is available on the internet
at https://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/
entire_report.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Sep 27, 2007
Jkt 211001
objectives. The project officer must
ensure that the Program Results Code(s)
(PRCs) listed on the commitment notice
is consistent with the selected strategic
goals, objectives and sub-objectives. The
Strategic Plan/Program Results Code
Crosswalk, which summarizes the
strategic goals, objectives, subobjectives, and the PRCs for every EPA
assistance agreement program, is
attached to Appendix A of EPA Order
5700.7. Additionally, program offices
must include in the funding package for
a proposed assistance agreement an
assurance that the program office has
reviewed, or will review, the assistance
agreement work plan 13 and that the
work plan includes, or will include,
well-defined outputs and, to the
maximum extent practicable, welldefined outcomes.
C. EPA Review of Recipient Performance
Reports
EPA Order 5700.7 also establishes
requirements for program office review
of construction and non-construction
interim and final recipient performance
reports for progress in achieving outputs
and outcomes contained in assistance
agreement work plans. Under 40 CFR
Parts 30 and 31, EPA may require
recipients to submit performance/
progress reports as frequently as
quarterly but no less frequently than
annually. These regulations also require
recipients to provide the EPA with an
acceptable final performance report at
the end of a project. While performance
reports are one way for the EPA to
obtain information on a recipient’s
progress toward achievement of agreedupon outputs and outcomes, program
offices may also conduct mid-year and
end-of-year reviews to evaluate
recipient performance.
The review of recipient performance
reports is largely the responsibility of
the EPA project officer. The project
officer must review interim 14 and
final 15 performance reports to
determine whether they adequately
address the achievement of agreed-upon
outputs/outcomes, including providing
a satisfactory explanation for
insufficient progress or a failure to meet
planned accomplishments (when
compared with the most recently
approved project schedule and
13 See
Footnote 11, supra.
construction projects, on-site technical
inspections and certified percentage of construction
data meet the interim reporting requirements, see
40 CFR 31.40(c).
15 For construction projects, the final inspection
report or other final performance report should
include a comparison of the actual outcomes/
outputs with those incorporated into the assistance
agreement.
14 For
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
55063
completion dates for project
milestones). This review must be
documented in the official project file.
If a report does not adequately address
the achievement of outputs/outcomes,
the project officer should seek further
explanation from the recipient and
require appropriate corrective action.
D. Advanced Monitoring
EPA Order 5700.7 directs program
offices, when conducting on-site
reviews or desk reviews under EPA
Order 5700.6, Policy on Compliance,
Review and Monitoring, to include an
assessment of the recipient’s progress in
achieving the outputs and outcomes set
forth in the assistance agreement work
plan.16 If the assessment reveals
significant problems in meeting agreedupon outputs/outcomes, the project
officer must require the recipient to
develop and implement an appropriate
corrective action plan and
implementation schedule. The results of
the assessment must be documented in
the Grantee Compliance Database in a
format determined by the Director of the
GIAMD.
X. Grants Management
Grants awarded under the authority of
an Appropriations Act are subject to
assistance agreement regulations, OMB
cost principles and Agency policies.
The grants must be awarded and
managed as any other assistance
agreement.
The GIAMD has developed Grants
Policy Issuances (GPIs) and directives to
assist project officers and program
offices in fulfilling and understanding
their responsibilities. Three GPIs that
are directly related to the award and
management of United States-Mexico
Border Program grants or Alaska Rural
and Native Villages Program grants are
GPI–07–01 ‘‘Management of Earmark
Grants,’’ GPI–03–01—Attachment VI
‘‘Policy and Procedures for Funding
Assistance Agreements,’’ and GPI–00–
05 ‘‘Cost Review Guidance.’’ 17
OGD issued guidance ‘‘Assessing
Grants Management Performance under
the 2007 Performance Appraisal and
Recognition System (PARS)’’ on January
17, 2007, to be used for 2007 PARS
performance agreements/appraisals of
project officers who are managing at
least one active grant during the rating
period and their supervisors/managers.
This guidance requires that project
officers and their supervisors/managers
16 See
Footnote 11, supra.
GPIs are available at https://
intranet.epa.gov/ogd/policy/7.0-GPI-GPI–07–
01.htm, https://intranet.epa.gov/ogd/policy/7.0-GPIGPI–03–01–0.htm and https://www.epa.gov/ogd/
grants/award/CostReview.htm.
17 These
E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM
28SER1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
55064
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
adequately address grants management
responsibilities through the Agency’s
PARS process. A directive outlining
roles and responsibilities for all EPA
staff with grants management
responsibilities is found at https://
intranet.epa.gov/rmpolicy/ads/
updates.htm.
EPA Order 5700.6A1, issued January
8, 2004,18 streamlines post-award
management of assistance agreements
and helps ensure effective oversight of
recipient performance and management.
The Order encompasses both the
administrative and programmatic
aspects of the Agency’s financial
assistance programs. It requires each
EPA program office providing assistance
to develop and carry out a post-award
monitoring plan, and conduct basic
monitoring for every award. From the
programmatic standpoint, this
monitoring should ensure satisfaction of
five core areas: (1) Compliance with all
programmatic terms and conditions, (2)
correlation of the recipient’s work plan/
application and actual progress under
the award, (3) availability of funds to
complete the project, (4) proper
management of and accounting for
equipment purchased under the award,
and (5) compliance with all statutory
and regulatory requirements of the
program. If during monitoring it is
determined that there is reason to
believe that the grantee has committed
or commits fraud, waste and/or abuse,
then the project officer must contact the
Office of the Inspector General.
Advanced monitoring activities must be
documented in the official grant file and
the grantee compliance database.
In addition to the general
requirements contained in EPA Order
5700.6A1, the following types of
activities, which are directly related to
construction projects, should be
considered in the development of a
post-award monitoring plan:
—Review periodic payment requests.
—Compare actual completion
percentages and milestones with the
approved project schedule
—Compare actual costs incurred with
the approved project budget.
—Conduct interim inspections.
—Review change orders and claims.
—Review and approve final payment
requests as required by the Program.
—Determine that the project is capable
of meeting the objectives for which it
was planned, designed and built and
is operational.
18 The Order is available on the internet at
https://www.epa.gov/ogd/manual6/Library/
5700_6A1.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 Sep 27, 2007
Jkt 211001
XI. Project Officer Responsibilities
The project officers must review the
grant application to determine that:
—the scope of work of the grant is
clearly defined;
—the scope of work is in conformance
with the project description;
—project schedule and milestones are
addressed;
—there is a clearly stated environmental
or public health objective;
—the applicant has the programmatic
capability to successfully manage the
project;
—it is expected that the project will
achieve its objective(s); and
—the costs are reasonable, necessary
and allowable.
Grant applications should be carefully
reviewed and processed in a timely
manner. Additionally, the Regions may
impose reasonable requirements
through grant conditions in those
situations considered necessary.
XII. Actions
If you have not already done so, you
and your staff should initiate
discussions with the appropriate grant
applicants to develop a detailed scope
of work and to explain the grant
application and review process.
Additionally, the grant applicant should
be provided with this Notice prior to
grant award to ensure that the applicant
is on notice of the applicable
requirements before the grant is
awarded.
XIII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides
that before certain actions may take
affect, the agency promulgating the
action must submit a report, which
includes a copy of the action, to each
House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. Since this final grant action
contains legally binding requirements, it
is subject to the Congressional Review
Act, and EPA will submit a report
containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of notice in
the Federal Register. This action is not
a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Dated: September 17, 2007.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. E7–18960 Filed 9–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 97
[EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0651; FRL–8473–5]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Louisiana;
Clean Air Interstate Rule Nitrogen
Oxides Trading Programs
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to
the Louisiana State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
Louisiana on August 20, 2007, as the
Louisiana Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Trading
Programs abbreviated SIP. The
abbreviated SIP revision includes the
Louisiana methodology for allocation of
annual and ozone season NOX
allowances. EPA has determined that
the Louisiana CAIR NOX Trading
Programs abbreviated SIP revision
satisfies the applicable requirements of
a CAIR abbreviated SIP revision. EPA is
also approving revisions to the
Louisiana SIP that establish
administrative reporting requirements
for all Louisiana CAIR programs; these
revisions were submitted on September
22, 2006, as part of the Louisiana CAIR
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Trading Program
SIP. EPA has also determined that the
Louisiana CAIR NOX Annual and Ozone
Season Abbreviated SIP satisfies
Louisiana’s Clean Air Act (CAA) Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations to submit a
SIP revision that contains adequate
provisions to prohibit air emissions
from adversely affecting another State’s
air quality through interstate transport.
The intended effect of this action is to
reduce NOX emissions from the State of
Louisiana that are contributing to
nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS or standard) in
downwind states. This action is being
taken under section 110 of the CAA.
DATES: This rule is effective on
September 28, 2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0651. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
E:\FR\FM\28SER1.SGM
28SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 188 (Friday, September 28, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55058-55064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18960]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 30 and 31
[FRL-8472-1]
Award of United States-Mexico Border Program and Alaska Rural and
Native Villages Program Grants Authorized by the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Grant Guidelines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice provides guidelines on the Award of United States-
Mexico Border Program and Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program
Grants Authorized by the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2007. This notice provides information and guidelines on how the EPA
will award and administer the United States-Mexico Border Program and
the Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program in accordance with the
Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Pub. L. 110-5). The
Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides budget
authority for funding the United States-Mexico Border Program and the
Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program. Each grant recipient will
receive a copy of this notice from EPA.
ADDRESSES: The subject notice and associated documents may be viewed
and downloaded from EPA's homepage, https://www.epa.gov/owm/mab/
owm0330.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin J. Hamm, Chief, Municipal
Assistance Branch, Municipal Support Division, Office of Wastewater
Management (4204M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-0648; e-
mail address: hamm.ben@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
Affected Entities: This action applies to State Agencies, nonprofit
institutions, international organizations, and Alaska
[[Page 55059]]
rural and native villages which are eligible to receive grants from
funds included in EPA's State and Tribal Assistance Grants account
pursuant to the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, and
the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-54).
II. Background
The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, Pub. L.
110-5, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2007, and for other purposes, states, in relevant part:
The following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable
corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the several
departments, agencies, corporations, and other organizational units
of Government for fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes, namely:
* * * (a) Such amounts as may be necessary, at the level specified
in subsection (c) and under the authority and conditions provided in
the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006, for projects
or activities (including the costs of direct loans and loan
guarantees) that are not otherwise provided for and for which
appropriations, funds, or other authority were made available in the
following appropriations Acts: * * * (4) The Department of the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2006.
The Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. 109-54, also referred to as the
Agency's fiscal year (FY) 2006 Appropriations Act, included $50,000,000
for the United States-Mexico Border Program and $35,000,000 for the
Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program in the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants (STAG) account. Pursuant to the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007, these funding levels are maintained
for FY 2007.
The specific requirements governing the award of the program grants
are contained in the following documents: the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007, and the FY 2006 Appropriations Act.
The requirements contained in these documents have been incorporated
into this notice.
The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, also
states, in relevant part:
(c) The level referred to in subsection (a) shall be the amounts
appropriated in the appropriations Acts referred to in such
subsection, including transfers and obligation limitations, except
that--* * * (2) such level shall be calculated without regard to any
rescission or cancellation of funds or contract authority, other
than--(A) the 1 percent government-wide rescission made by section
3801 of division B of Pub. L. 109-148; [and] (B) the 0.476 percent
across-the-board rescission made by section 439 of Pub. L. 109-54,
relating to the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies * * * .
The original amount appropriated for each program, as well as the
actual amount available for grant award after the reduction due to the
1 percent rescission and the .476 percent rescission are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.476%
Program Appropriation 1% rescission rescission Grant amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program $35,000,000 $350,000 $164,934 $34,485,066
United States-Mexico Border Program..... 50,000,000 500,000 235,620 49,264,380
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States-Mexico Border Program funds and the Alaska Rural
and Native Villages Program funds will be awarded and administered by
the Regional Offices. On September 28, 2000, the Assistant
Administrator for Water and the Regional Administrators were delegated
the authority to award grants and cooperative agreements for funds
included in the STAG account. Accordingly, the Regions and Headquarters
have the necessary authority to award grants and cooperative agreements
for the United States-Mexico Border Program and the Alaska Rural and
Native Villages Program.
III. Program Specific Guidelines
The Agency's FY 2006 Appropriations Act contains the authorizing
language for and requirements applicable to the United States-Mexico
Border Program and the Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program.
A. United States-Mexico Border Program
The Agency's FY 2006 Appropriations Act provides $49,264,380, after
rescission, for ``architectural, engineering, planning, design,
construction and related activities in connection with the construction
of high priority water and wastewater facilities in the area of the
United States-Mexico Border, after consultation with the appropriate
border commission.'' Pursuant to the Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2007, this funding level is maintained for FY 2007. The
scope of work for grants awarded for the United States-Mexico Border
Program must conform to the language contained in the Appropriations
Act and the grant file should include documentation that describes the
results of the discussions and consultations with the appropriate
border commission. In implementing this program, EPA generally provides
grant funding to the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC)
for the Project Development Assistance Program (PDAP) and to the North
American Development Bank (NADBank) for the Border Environment
Infrastructure Fund (BEIF). Subgrants from BECC and NADBank should also
contain documentation of the discussions with the appropriate border
commission.
EPA cost participation on projects funded from the United States-
Mexico Border appropriation item will be decided on a project-by-
project basis. The EPA cost share will depend on a number of factors
which have been separately defined within the context of the United
States-Mexico Border Program.
On May 2, 1997, the Agency issued a memorandum \1\ concerning
``Program Requirements for Mexican Border Area Projects Funded under
the Authority of this Agency's FY 1995, 1996 and 1997 Appropriations
Acts.'' That memorandum applies to the United States-Mexico Border Area
projects funded under the authority of the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007, and the Agency's FY 2006
Appropriations Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This document is available on the internet at www.epa.gov/
owm/mab/owm0327.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program
The Agency's FY 2006 Appropriations Act provides $34,485,066, after
rescission, for:
Grants to the State of Alaska to address drinking water and
waste infrastructure needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages:
Provided, That, of these funds: (1) The State of Alaska shall
provide a match of 25 percent; (2) no more than 5 percent of the
funds may be used for administrative and overhead expenses; and (3)
not later than
[[Page 55060]]
October 1, 200[7] \2\ the State of Alaska shall make awards
consistent with the State-wide priority list established in 2004 for
all water, sewer, waste disposal, and similar projects carried out
by the State of Alaska that are funded under section 221 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1301) or the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et. seq.)
which shall allocate not less than 25 percent of the funds provided
for projects in regional hub communities.
\2\ In order to maintain consistency with past appropriations
acts language, the Agency assumes Congress intended to state
``October 1, 2007''.
Pursuant to the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007,
this funding level is maintained for FY 2007. The cost share for the
State of Alaska pursuant to Item (1) of the Appropriations Act is
$11,495,022.
Additionally, the Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program funds
may be used to pay for activities specified in the Safe Drinking Water
Act of 1996, (Pub. L. 104-182, Section 303), specifically: ``training,
technical assistance, and educational programs relating to the
operation and management of sanitation services in rural and Native
villages.'' These include the Remote Maintenance Worker (RMW) and the
Rural Utility Business Advisory (RUBA) programs.
Pursuant to the 2006 Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program
Memorandum of Understanding, the State of Alaska has agreed to utilize
the State's Environmental Review Process (SERP) for all projects funded
by the program.
IV. Federal Funds as a Source of Matching Funds
Federal funds from other programs may be used as all or part of the
match for the United States-Mexico Border Program only if the statute
authorizing those other programs specifically allows the funds to be
used as a match for other Federal grants. Additionally, the other
Federal programs must allow their appropriated funds to be used for the
planning, design and/or construction of water, wastewater or
groundwater infrastructure projects. Listed below are the major United
States Federal programs whose grant funds can be used to provide all or
part of the match for the United States-Mexico Border Program:
Department of Agriculture, Rural Development program; and
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community
Development Block Grant program.
For Mexican projects, Federal, state or local grants may be used to
match United States-Mexico Border Program grant funds.
As previously stated, Federal funds may be used as all or part of
the match for other Federal grant programs only if the authorizing
legislation includes such authority. The United States-Mexico Border
Program funds and the Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program funds
cannot be used as a source of matching funds for other Federal
programs.
V. Pre-Award Costs
The Grants and Interagency Agreement Management Division (GIAMD)
issued a policy memorandum (GPI 00-02) on March 30, 2000, that applies
to all grants, including United States-Mexico Border Program grants and
Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program grants awarded on or after
April 1, 2000. Additionally, a clarification to the policy memorandum
(GPI 00-02(a)) was issued by GIAMD on May 3, 2000. The two memorandums
revised the Agency's interpretation of a provision contained in the
general grant regulations at 40 CFR 31.23(a) concerning the approval of
pre-award costs.
In essence, the GIAMD memorandums state that:
Recipients may incur pre-award costs [up to] 90 calendar
days prior to award provided they include such costs in their
application, the costs meet the definition of pre-award costs and are
approved by the EPA Project Officer and EPA Award Official.
The award official can approve pre-award costs incurred
more than 90 calendar days prior to grant award, in appropriate
circumstances, if the pre-award costs are in conformance with the
requirements set forth in OMB Circular A-87 and with applicable Agency
regulations, policies and guidelines.
The GIAMD memorandums state that the award official can approve
pre-award costs incurred prior to grant award in appropriate situations
if the approval of the pre-award costs is consistent with the intent of
the requirements for pre-award costs set forth in OMB Circular A-87 and
are in conformance with Agency regulations, policies and guidelines.
The following two situations meet these requirements:
Any allowable costs incurred after the start of the fiscal
year for which the funds were appropriated but before grant award (for
FY 2007 projects, this date is October 1, 2006).
Allowable facilities planning and design costs associated
with the construction portions of the project included in the grant
that were incurred before the start of the fiscal year for which the
funds were appropriated (for FY 2007 projects, this date is October 1,
2006).
Accordingly, effective April 1, 2000, the Regions have the authority to
approve pre-award costs for the two situations described above. Any
approval, of course, is contingent on the Regional Office determination
that the pre-award costs in question are in conformance with the
applicable Federal laws, regulations and executive orders that govern
EPA grant awards and are allowable, reasonable and allocable to the
project.
The Regions may not approve any pre-award costs for United States-
Mexico Border Program grants or Alaska Rural and Native Villages
Program grants, other than those that involve the two situations
discussed above, without written approval from Headquarters. The
request, with sufficient supporting documentation, should be submitted
to the Director, Office of Wastewater Management, (Mail Code 4201M),
USEPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office
of Wastewater Management will consult, in appropriate circumstances,
with the GIAMD and the Office of General Counsel. If appropriate, a
deviation from 40 CFR 31.23(a) will be processed and issued.
VI. Laws, Regulations and Requirements
The Federal Laws and Executive Orders that apply to all EPA grants,
including the United States-Mexico Border Program and the Alaska Rural
and Native Villages Program which are authorized by the Revised
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, and the Agency's FY 2006
Appropriations Act, are as follows:
A. Environmental Authorities
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, Pub. L. 93-
291, as amended.
Clean Air Act, Pub. L. 95-95, as amended.
Clean Water Act, Titles III, IV and V, Pub. L. 92-500, as
amended.
Coastal Barrier Resources Act, Pub. L. 97-348.
Coastal Zone Management Act, Pub. L. 92-583, as amended.
Endangered Species Act, Pub. L. 93-205, as amended.
Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898.
Flood Plain Management, Executive Order 11988 as amended
by Executive Order 12148.
Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990 as amended
by Executive Order 12608.
Farmland Protection Policy Act, Pub. L. 97-98.
[[Page 55061]]
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Pub. L. 85-624, as
amended.
Magnunson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
Pub. L. 94-265.
National Environmental Policy Act, Pub. L. 91-190.
National Historic Preservation Act, Pub. L. 89-655, as
amended.
Safe Drinking Water Act, Pub L. 93-523, as amended.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Pub. L. 90-54, as amended.
B. Economic and Miscellaneous Authorities
Debarment and Suspension, Executive Order 12549.
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act,
Pub. L. 89-754, as amended, and Executive Order 12372.
Drug-Free Workplace Act, Pub. L. 100-690.
Government Neutrality Toward Contractor's Labor Relations,
Executive Order 13202 as amended by Executive Order 13208.
New Restrictions on Lobbying, Section 319 of Pub. L. 101-
121.
Prohibitions relating to violations of the Clean Water Act
or Clean Air Act with respect to Federal contracts, grants, or loans
under Section 306 of the Clean Air Act and Section 508 of the Clean
Water Act, and Executive Order 11738.
Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act, Pub. L. 91-646, as Amended.
C. Civil Rights, Nondiscrimination, Equal Employment Opportunity
Authorities
Age Discrimination Act, Pub. L. 94-135.
Equal Employment Opportunity, Executive Order 11246.
Section 13 of the Clean Water Act, Pub. L. 92-500.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Pub. L. 93-112
supplemented by Executive Orders 11914 and 11250.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Pub. L. 88-352.
D. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Authorities
EPA's FY 1993 Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 102-389.
Section 129 of the Small Business Administration
Reauthorization and Amendment Act, Pub. L. 100-590.
Small, Minority and Women Owned Business Enterprises,
Executive Orders 11625, 12138 and 12432.
Some of the authorities only apply to grants that include
construction, e.g., EO 13202. A more detailed description of the
Federal laws, Executive Orders, OMB Circulars and their implementing
regulations is contained in Module No. 2 of the EPA Assistance Project
Officers Training Course which is available through the Regional Grants
Management Offices.
The regulations at 40 CFR Part 31 apply to grants and cooperative
agreements awarded to State and local (including tribal) governments.
The regulations at 40 CFR Part 30 apply to grants with nonprofit
organizations and with non-governmental for-profit entities. In
appropriate circumstances, such as grants for demonstration projects,
the research and demonstration grant regulations at 40 CFR Part 40 can
be used to supplement either 40 CFR Part 30 or Part 31.
The Agency issued a memorandum \3\ in January 1995, concerning the
applicability of 40 CFR Part 29 (Intergovernmental Review) to the
special projects authorized by the Agency's FY 1995 Appropriations Act.
That memorandum also applies to the United States-Mexico Border Program
and the Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program which are authorized
by the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, and the
Agency's FY 2006 Appropriations Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This document is available on the internet at www.epa.gov/
owm/mab/own0326.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Davis-Bacon Act does not apply to grants awarded under the
authority of the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007,
and the Agency's FY 2006 Appropriations Act because neither the
Resolution nor the Act includes language that makes it apply. However,
if FY 2007 funds are used to supplement funding of a construction
contract that includes Clean Water Act title II requirements (e.g.,
contracts awarded under the construction grants or coastal cities
programs), the entire contract is subject to Davis-Bacon Act
requirements, including the portion funded with FY 2007 funds.
VII. Specific Environmental Requirements
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant
applicable statutes and Executive Orders, such as the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), apply to the United States-Mexico Border Program.
The applicable NEPA regulations are the Council of Environmental
Quality's implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and EPA's
NEPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 6, Subparts A-D.
The Agency issued a memorandum \4\ on January 20, 1995, concerning
NEPA compliance for the Special Appropriations Act Projects authorized
by the Agency's FY 1995 Appropriations Act. That memorandum also
applies to the United States-Mexico Border Program which is authorized
by the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, and the
Agency's FY 2006 Appropriations Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This document is available on the internet at www.epa.gov/
owm/mab/owm0330.pdf.
\5\ EPA is in the process of revising the NEPA implementing
regulations (40 CFR Part 6). Accordingly, the final rule, once
promulgated, will supersede and replace the memoranda on NEPA
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The development of information needed to determine compliance with
NEPA and other cross-cutting Federal requirements is an allowable cost
that can, and should, be included in the scope of work of the grant if
not performed prior to grant award. These activities can be funded on
an incremental basis, by awarding a grant that only includes these
activities, or as part of the entire project (i.e., planning, design
and construction) with the stipulation, in the form of a grant
condition, stating that EPA will not approve or fund any work beyond
the conceptual design point \6\ until the applicable requirements of
such authorities have been met. The Agency issued a memorandum \7\ on
July 29, 2003, that contains a model grant condition that should be
used in this situation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Completion of conceptual design is essentially the same as
completion of facility planning as defined in EPA's Construction
Grants program.
\7\ This document is available on the internet at www.epa.gov/
owm/mab/owm0330.pdf.
\8\ See Footnote 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that NEPA and other cross-cutting Federal
requirements that apply to the major Federal action (i.e., the approval
and/or funding of work beyond the conceptual design point) cannot be
delegated. Although EPA can fund the grantee or state/tribal
development of an Environmental Information Document (EID) or other
analysis to provide supporting information, EPA has the legal
obligation to issue the NEPA documents, to sign NEPA determinations,
and to fulfill other cross-cutting Federal requirements before
approving or paying for design and/or construction.
When both EPA and another Federal agency are funding the same
project, the agencies may negotiate an agreement for one to be the lead
agency for performing grant oversight and management activities,
including those related to NEPA and other cross-cutting Federal
requirements. The lead agency can be the one which is providing the
most funds for the project, or the agency that
[[Page 55062]]
provided the initial funds for the project. If an environmental impact
statement (EIS) is required, EPA should be a co-lead or cooperating
agency so that it can adopt the EIS without recirculating it. If the
project requires an environmental assessment (EA), EPA may adopt the
other agency's EA and use it as a basis for its finding of no
significant impact (FONSI), provided EPA has independently reviewed the
EA and agrees with the analysis and circulates the FONSI and attached
EA for the requisite 30-day comment period. Note that EPA may not use a
categorical exclusion of another Federal agency unless EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR Part 6 also provide for the categorical
exclusion.
VIII. Operating Guidelines
The authority for awarding grants for the United States-Mexico
Border Program is the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2007, and the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-54). The authority for
awarding grants for the Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program is
section 303 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L.
104-182), the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, and
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-54).
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for the
United States-Mexico Border Program and the Alaska Rural and Native
Villages Program is 66.202 ``Congressionally Mandated Projects.'' The
Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS) code for the United States-
Mexico Border Program and the Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program
is XP, titled ``Water Infrastructure Grants as authorized by EPA
Appropriations.'' The Object Class Code (budget and accounting
information) for the United States-Mexico Border Program and the Alaska
Rural and Native Villages Program is 41.83. Applicants should use
Standard Form 424 to apply for the grants.
A. Location of Project
To be able to report on environmental and public health benefits,
the Agency has decided to collect, and store in an appropriate
database, the geographic location for grant funded infrastructure
projects. Accordingly, all United States-Mexico Border Program grants
and Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program grants authorized by the
Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, and the FY 2006
Appropriations Act should include a term and condition stating that
locational information must be submitted. For most projects, the
specific information needed is the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) number(s) or the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) number(s). EPA's information technology (IT)
systems will use the NPDES and the SDWIS numbers to determine the
specific geographic parameters of the project. For those situations
where NPDES and SDWIS identifiers are not appropriate, the longitude
and latitude of the project should be provided.
B. Intermunicipal Projects and Service Agreements
Although a United States-Mexico Border Program grant may be awarded
to one entity, the successful operations of the grant funded project
may depend on the support and cooperation of other entities,
municipalities, or utility districts. This is especially evident when
one entity is providing wastewater treatment services or supplying
drinking water to another entity. Accordingly, for projects involving
interactions between two or more entities, the applicant should provide
assurances that the grant funded project will function as intended for
its expected life. Adequate assurance may be met through the creation
of special service districts, regionalization of systems, or
intermunicipal service agreements.
Special service districts and regionalization of systems are
considered to be obligations in perpetuity to serve the customers of
the newly created authority and automatically meet the expected
lifetime requirements. The intermunicipal service agreement or contract
is a legal document for cooperative ventures between separate entities,
both of which wish to continue functioning with a large degree of
independent control in their respective service areas. Such agreements
will need to extend for a minimum number of years for an EPA funded
project to be considered viable. For the purposes of the United States-
Mexico Border Program, EPA will accept the following contract lifetimes
as meeting the minimum standard \9\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The anticipated useful life of the facility components is
based on the low end of the assumed service life for items in EPA's
Construction Grants Program and past experience with the award and
administration of special Appropriations Act projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIFE
ITEM (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land.......................................................... \(1)\
Wastewater/Water Conveyance Structures: collection systems 40
pipes, interceptors, force mains, tunnels, distribution
lines, etc...................................................
Other Structures: plant buildings, concrete tankage, basins, 30
lift station and pump station structures, inlet structures,
etc..........................................................
Wastewater and Drinking Water Process Equipment............... 15
Auxiliary Equipment........................................... 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Permanent.
A shorter time frame may be accepted if suitably justified and approved
by EPA.
C. Non-Construction Costs
The scope of work of a grant may include planning, design and
administrative activities, and the cost of land. Land need not be an
``integral part of the treatment process'' as in the Clean Water Act
title II construction grant program. However, all elements included
within the scope of work of the grant must conform to the requirements
of 40 CFR Parts 30 or 31. This means, if planning, design and
administrative activities are included in the grant, the procurement of
those services and the contracts must comply with the applicable
sections of Parts 30 or 31. If land is included, there will be a
Federal interest in the land regardless of when it was purchased and
the purchase must be (must have been) in accordance with the applicable
sections of Parts 30 or 31 and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition regulations for Federal and Federally
assisted programs at 49 CFR Part 24.
As of August, 2006, the United States-Mexico Border Program
established a policy that land would not be an allowable BEIF cost,
even if it is an eligible item under the Appropriations Act. This
policy was issued by the Deputy Director, Office of Wastewater
Management, on August 3, 2006.
D. Refinancing
Funds appropriated for the United States-Mexico Border Program or
the Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program may not be awarded solely
to repay loans received from a State Revolving Fund or other
indebtedness unless the facts of the case are such that this is the
only way to award the funds that were appropriated for the project. Any
request to use United States-Mexico Border Program or Alaska Rural and
Native Villages Program funds to repay a loan, in whole or in part,
must
[[Page 55063]]
be approved, in writing, by EPA Headquarters. The request, with
sufficient supporting documentation, should be submitted to the
Director, Office of Wastewater Management, (Mail Code 4201M), USEPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
IX. Environmental Results Under EPA Assistance Agreements
A. Introduction
EPA Order 5700.7,\10\ ``Environmental Results Under Assistance
Agreements,'' applies to all non-competitive funding packages/funding
recommendations submitted to the Grants Management Offices after
January 1, 2005. The Order requires EPA Program Offices to: (1) Link
proposed assistance agreements to the Agency's Strategic Plan/
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) architecture; (2) ensure
that outputs and outcomes are appropriately addressed in assistance
agreement work plans \11\ and funding recommendations; and (3) ensure
that progress in achieving agreed-upon outputs and outcomes is
adequately addressed in recipient progress reports and advanced
monitoring activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Order is available on the internet at https://
www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/award/5700.7.pdf.
\11\ Throughout this section, the term ``work plan'' is used for
convenience. For construction projects, outputs/outcomes are
normally included in a Facility Plan, Preliminary Engineering
Report, or an Environmental Information Document. In many cases
these documents may not exist at the time of grant application. In
those situations the development of the documents will be included
in the scope of work of the assistance agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Strategic Plan/GPRA Architecture
EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan \12\ sets out five long-term goals.
Each of these five goals is supported by a series of objectives and
sub-objectives that identify, as precisely as possible, what
environmental outcomes or results the EPA seeks to achieve within a
defined time frame using resources expected to be available. The
objectives and sub-objectives established in EPA's Strategic Plan are
part of the ``GPRA architecture'' that is used to measure the EPA's
progress in meeting its strategic goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Strategic Plan is available on the internet at https://
www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program offices must include in the funding package for a proposed
assistance agreement a description of how the project fits within the
EPA's Strategic Plan/GPRA architecture. In developing the
aforementioned descriptions, a project officer must list all applicable
EPA strategic goals and objectives and, where available, sub-
objectives. The project officer must ensure that the Program Results
Code(s) (PRCs) listed on the commitment notice is consistent with the
selected strategic goals, objectives and sub-objectives. The Strategic
Plan/Program Results Code Crosswalk, which summarizes the strategic
goals, objectives, sub-objectives, and the PRCs for every EPA
assistance agreement program, is attached to Appendix A of EPA Order
5700.7. Additionally, program offices must include in the funding
package for a proposed assistance agreement an assurance that the
program office has reviewed, or will review, the assistance agreement
work plan \13\ and that the work plan includes, or will include, well-
defined outputs and, to the maximum extent practicable, well-defined
outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Footnote 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. EPA Review of Recipient Performance Reports
EPA Order 5700.7 also establishes requirements for program office
review of construction and non-construction interim and final recipient
performance reports for progress in achieving outputs and outcomes
contained in assistance agreement work plans. Under 40 CFR Parts 30 and
31, EPA may require recipients to submit performance/progress reports
as frequently as quarterly but no less frequently than annually. These
regulations also require recipients to provide the EPA with an
acceptable final performance report at the end of a project. While
performance reports are one way for the EPA to obtain information on a
recipient's progress toward achievement of agreed-upon outputs and
outcomes, program offices may also conduct mid-year and end-of-year
reviews to evaluate recipient performance.
The review of recipient performance reports is largely the
responsibility of the EPA project officer. The project officer must
review interim \14\ and final \15\ performance reports to determine
whether they adequately address the achievement of agreed-upon outputs/
outcomes, including providing a satisfactory explanation for
insufficient progress or a failure to meet planned accomplishments
(when compared with the most recently approved project schedule and
completion dates for project milestones). This review must be
documented in the official project file. If a report does not
adequately address the achievement of outputs/outcomes, the project
officer should seek further explanation from the recipient and require
appropriate corrective action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For construction projects, on-site technical inspections
and certified percentage of construction data meet the interim
reporting requirements, see 40 CFR 31.40(c).
\15\ For construction projects, the final inspection report or
other final performance report should include a comparison of the
actual outcomes/outputs with those incorporated into the assistance
agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Advanced Monitoring
EPA Order 5700.7 directs program offices, when conducting on-site
reviews or desk reviews under EPA Order 5700.6, Policy on Compliance,
Review and Monitoring, to include an assessment of the recipient's
progress in achieving the outputs and outcomes set forth in the
assistance agreement work plan.\16\ If the assessment reveals
significant problems in meeting agreed-upon outputs/outcomes, the
project officer must require the recipient to develop and implement an
appropriate corrective action plan and implementation schedule. The
results of the assessment must be documented in the Grantee Compliance
Database in a format determined by the Director of the GIAMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Footnote 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
X. Grants Management
Grants awarded under the authority of an Appropriations Act are
subject to assistance agreement regulations, OMB cost principles and
Agency policies. The grants must be awarded and managed as any other
assistance agreement.
The GIAMD has developed Grants Policy Issuances (GPIs) and
directives to assist project officers and program offices in fulfilling
and understanding their responsibilities. Three GPIs that are directly
related to the award and management of United States-Mexico Border
Program grants or Alaska Rural and Native Villages Program grants are
GPI-07-01 ``Management of Earmark Grants,'' GPI-03-01--Attachment VI
``Policy and Procedures for Funding Assistance Agreements,'' and GPI-
00-05 ``Cost Review Guidance.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ These GPIs are available at https://intranet.epa.gov/ogd/
policy/7.0-GPI-GPI-07-01.htm, https://intranet.epa.gov/ogd/policy/
7.0-GPI-GPI-03-01-0.htm and https://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/award/
CostReview.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OGD issued guidance ``Assessing Grants Management Performance under
the 2007 Performance Appraisal and Recognition System (PARS)'' on
January 17, 2007, to be used for 2007 PARS performance agreements/
appraisals of project officers who are managing at least one active
grant during the rating period and their supervisors/managers. This
guidance requires that project officers and their supervisors/managers
[[Page 55064]]
adequately address grants management responsibilities through the
Agency's PARS process. A directive outlining roles and responsibilities
for all EPA staff with grants management responsibilities is found at
https://intranet.epa.gov/rmpolicy/ads/updates.htm.
EPA Order 5700.6A1, issued January 8, 2004,\18\ streamlines post-
award management of assistance agreements and helps ensure effective
oversight of recipient performance and management. The Order
encompasses both the administrative and programmatic aspects of the
Agency's financial assistance programs. It requires each EPA program
office providing assistance to develop and carry out a post-award
monitoring plan, and conduct basic monitoring for every award. From the
programmatic standpoint, this monitoring should ensure satisfaction of
five core areas: (1) Compliance with all programmatic terms and
conditions, (2) correlation of the recipient's work plan/application
and actual progress under the award, (3) availability of funds to
complete the project, (4) proper management of and accounting for
equipment purchased under the award, and (5) compliance with all
statutory and regulatory requirements of the program. If during
monitoring it is determined that there is reason to believe that the
grantee has committed or commits fraud, waste and/or abuse, then the
project officer must contact the Office of the Inspector General.
Advanced monitoring activities must be documented in the official grant
file and the grantee compliance database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Order is available on the internet at https://
www.epa.gov/ogd/manual6/Library/5700_6A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the general requirements contained in EPA Order
5700.6A1, the following types of activities, which are directly related
to construction projects, should be considered in the development of a
post-award monitoring plan:
--Review periodic payment requests.
--Compare actual completion percentages and milestones with the
approved project schedule
--Compare actual costs incurred with the approved project budget.
--Conduct interim inspections.
--Review change orders and claims.
--Review and approve final payment requests as required by the Program.
--Determine that the project is capable of meeting the objectives for
which it was planned, designed and built and is operational.
XI. Project Officer Responsibilities
The project officers must review the grant application to determine
that:
--the scope of work of the grant is clearly defined;
--the scope of work is in conformance with the project description;
--project schedule and milestones are addressed;
--there is a clearly stated environmental or public health objective;
--the applicant has the programmatic capability to successfully manage
the project;
--it is expected that the project will achieve its objective(s); and
--the costs are reasonable, necessary and allowable.
Grant applications should be carefully reviewed and processed in a
timely manner. Additionally, the Regions may impose reasonable
requirements through grant conditions in those situations considered
necessary.
XII. Actions
If you have not already done so, you and your staff should initiate
discussions with the appropriate grant applicants to develop a detailed
scope of work and to explain the grant application and review process.
Additionally, the grant applicant should be provided with this Notice
prior to grant award to ensure that the applicant is on notice of the
applicable requirements before the grant is awarded.
XIII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before certain actions may take affect, the agency
promulgating the action must submit a report, which includes a copy of
the action, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Since this final grant action contains
legally binding requirements, it is subject to the Congressional Review
Act, and EPA will submit a report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of notice in the Federal Register. This action is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Dated: September 17, 2007.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. E7-18960 Filed 9-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
