17846 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices 

visual resources and aesthetics; 

transportation and traffic; noise and 

vibration; hazardous materials and solid 

waste management; human health and 

safety; accidents and terrorism; 

socioeconomics, including impacts to 

community services; environmental 

justice; and cumulative impacts. 

Because the Proposed Project may affect 

listed species under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), DOE has also 

initiated consultation regarding the 

project with the U.S. Department of the 

Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service 

under Section 7 of the ESA. 

The Topaz Proposed Project site is 

expected to impact waters subject to the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE); therefore the 

Proposed Project will require a Clean 

Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit. 

As a result, USACE has participated as 

a cooperating agency in the preparation 

of this Draft EIS and will use this EIS 

(in part) to determine whether to issue 

a Section 404 permit. USACE will issue 

a separate decision document on the 

CWA Section 404 permit for the 

Proposed Project that will incorporate 

the environmental analyses from this 

EIS. 

The DOE will use and coordinate the 

NEPA public comment process to satisfy 

the public involvement requirements of 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) as 

provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). DOE 

has invited Federally-recognized 

American Indian Tribes that have 

historic interests in the area to also 

participate in government-togovernment consultation regarding the 

Proposed Project. In addition to these 

Federally-recognized tribes, the 

California Native American Heritage 

Commission provided DOE with a 

Native American contacts list in the 

project area. DOE contacted parties on 

the list to solicit concerns or comments 

on the Proposed Project. 

Availability of the Draft EIS 

Copies of the Draft EIS have been 

distributed to: Members of Congress; 

Native American Tribal governments, 

Federal, State, and local officials; and 

agencies, organizations and individuals 

who may be interested or affected. The 

Draft EIS is on the Department of 

Energy’s NEPA Web site at http:// 

www.nepa.energy.gov under ‘‘DOE 

NEPA Documents’’ and on the Loan 

Program Office’s Web site at http:// 

www.lgprogram.energy.gov/ 

NEPA_EIS.html. 

Copies of the Draft EIS are also 

available for review at the Simmler 

Public Library/California Valley 

Community Service District; 13080 Soda 

Lake Road; California Valley, CA 93453 

and the San Luis Obispo County 

Department of Planning and Building; 

976 Osos St. Room 300; San Luis 

Obispo, CA 93408. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 25, 

2011. 

Jonathan M. Silver, 

Executive Director, Loan Programs Office. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7583 Filed 3–30–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

Objective Merit Review of 

Discretionary Financial Assistance and 

Other Transaction Authority 

Applications 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Objective Merit 

Review Procedure. 

SUMMARY: This Notice establishes the 

procedure for program offices operating 

under the authority of the Assistant 

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy in conducting the 

objective merit review of discretionary 

financial assistance and Other 

Transaction Authority funding 

applications. The effective date for the 

Objective Merit Review Procedure 

contained in this notice is March 18, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, 1–877– 

337–3463. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Applicability of Notice 

III. Objective Merit Review Procedure 

IV. Merit Review Advisory Report 

V. Application of Program Policy Factors 

VI. Selection 

VII. Deviations 

I. Introduction—The Department of 

Energy (DOE), Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

(EERE) hereby gives notice of the 

procedure for the objective merit review 

of projects seeking discretionary 

financial assistance. The procedures 

described in this notice implement the 

objective merit review provisions of the 

DOE Financial Assistance Rules at 10 

CFR 600.13. Specifically, this notice 

covers the procedure for applications 

received competitively and noncompetitively. This notice also provides 

procedures for establishing peer and 

merit review panels, naming a Federal 

Merit Review Manager, conducting 

merit reviews, and preparing a Merit 

Review Advisory Report for the 

Selection Official. 

DOE provides financial assistance, in 

the form of grants cooperative 

agreements and technology investment 

agreements. The principal purpose of 

these transactions is the transfer of a 

thing of value, usually money but 

occasionally property or other items of 

value, to a recipient to accomplish a 

public purpose identified. DOE funds 

only those programs authorized by 

Federal statute. Financial assistance 

may be either discretionary or 

mandatory. Discretionary financial 

assistance means DOE provides funding 

to a recipient of DOE’s choosing; DOE 

has the discretion to select a recipient 

as well as the size of the award. 

Mandatory financial assistance means 

DOE must provide the assistance to the 

entities named and the amounts stated 

by statute. 

These procedures do not cover 

acquisition. Financial assistance differs 

from an acquisition, which refers to 

instruments used when the principal 

purpose of the transaction is the 

acquisition of supplies or services for 

the direct benefit of the Government. 

The procedures pursuant to this notice 

do not apply to acquisitions, which are 

covered by the Federal Acquisition 

Regulations (FAR). 

II. Applicability of Notice—These 

procedures apply to the evaluation of 

discretionary financial assistance 

applications received for programs 

within the DOE EERE. 

(a) Distinction Between Solicited 

Applications and Unsolicited 

Proposals—Solicited applications 

constitute direct responses by interested 

organizations or individuals to DOE 

Funding Opportunity Announcements 

(FOA) in the form of applications for 

discretionary financial assistance 

awards. Funding opportunities are 

announced using the process set forth in 

10 CFR 600.8. When a proposal is 

submitted solely on the proposer’s 

initiative, and the idea, method or 

approach would be ineligible for 

assistance under a recent, current, or 

planned solicitation, and if, as 

determined by DOE, a competitive 

solicitation would not be appropriate, 

the proposal is considered an 

unsolicited proposal. Unsolicited 

proposals are awarded on a noncompetitive basis using the criteria set 

forth in 10 CFR 600.6(c). The two types 

of proposals are treated differently for 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices 17847 

merit review and the processes are 

described below. 

(b) Renewals—A renewal award adds 

one or more budget periods to an 

existing award’s project period. 

Applications for renewal awards may be 

submitted competitively (against a FOA 

that provides for renewal applications) 

or non-competitively. 

(c) Non-competitive Actions—Noncompetitive actions are reviewed and 

approved in a manner similar to that of 

unsolicited proposals using the criteria 

set forth in 10 CFR 600.6(c) and as 

described in Section III(d), herein. 

III. Objective Merit Review 

Procedure—(a) Definition and 

Purpose—A merit review constitutes the 

process of evaluating applications for 

discretionary financial assistance while 

using established criteria. Reviews shall 

be thorough, consistent, and 

independent, and completed by 

individuals knowledgeable in the field 

or subject matter for which support is 

requested (see Appendix 1 for EERE 

merit reviewer qualification guidelines). 

The purpose of the merit review is to 

provide advice and recommendations 

on the scientific and technical merits of 

an application for consideration by the 

Selection Official. The Selection Official 

has authority to select applications for 

negotiation of a financial assistance 

award. 

(b) Review Standards—Solicited 

Applications—1. Initial Compliance 

Review—EERE will review each 

financial assistance application received 

for conformance with initial review 

criteria and administrative requirements 

published in the FOA, program rule or 

notice. 

i. Any application not meeting the 

initial review criteria will be 

determined to be non-compliant and 

precluded from further technical merit 

review. 

ii. Any applicant that is determined to 

be non-compliant will be notified in 

writing, along with the reasons the 

application will not be evaluated 

further. 

iii. Applications meeting the initial 

compliance review criteria will be 

reviewed for merit in accordance with 

the stated evaluation criteria in the 

FOA, program rule or notice. 

2. Merit Review of Solicited 

Applications—The Merit Review Panel 

(Panel) will conduct an objective merit 

review for each application that passes 

the initial compliance review, using the 

criteria published in the FOA, program 

rule, or notice. The criteria to be used 

in the merit review and the other 

mandatory information specified in 10 

CFR 600.8 must be included in the FOA, 

program rule or notice. Typically, the 

merit review criteria will be weighted 

individually to reflect their relative 

importance in the overall merit of the 

application. The Panel will review 

solicited applications based on 

information in the FOA. The merit 

review will typically include the 

following attributes: 

i. Applications that pass the initial 

compliance review will be reviewed by 

the Federal Merit Review Panel. Peer 

review panels will provide individual 

evaluations, which may include a score 

to the Federal Merit Review Manager. 

DOE Federal Merit Review Panel will 

provide a consensus rating (numeric, 

adjectival, or comparable) for each 

criterion outlined in the FOA, program 

rule or notice based on the strengths and 

weaknesses of the applications. 

ii. An overall consensus rating will be 

determined for each application by the 

DOE Federal Merit Review Panel. 

iii. The DOE Federal Merit Review 

Panel will prepare a Merit Review 

Advisory Report for the Selection 

Official. The report will discuss the peer 

review, if any. The DOE Federal Merit 

Review Panel will establish a selection 

range to include applications that were 

deemed technically acceptable. The 

recommended selection range will be 

determined at the conclusion of the 

DOE Federal Merit Review Panel 

meeting. Rationale for the range must be 

included in the Merit Review Advisory 

Report. 

(c) Review Standards—Unsolicited 

Proposals—1. Unsolicited proposals 

will receive an initial review to 

determine if the proposal will be 

eligible under 10 CFR 600.6(c). For an 

unsolicited proposal to be eligible for an 

award, a proposal must meet one of the 

following criteria: 

i. The activity to be funded is 

necessary to the satisfactory completion 

of, or is a continuation or renewal of, an 

activity presently being funded by DOE 

or another Federal agency, and for 

which competition for support would 

have a significant adverse effect on 

continuity or completion of the activity. 

ii. The activity is being or would be 

conducted by the applicant using its 

own resources or those donated or 

provided by third parties; however, DOE 

support of that activity would enhance 

the public benefits to be derived and 

DOE knows of no other entity which is 

conducting or is planning to conduct 

such an activity. 

iii. The applicant is a unit of 

government and the activity to be 

supported is related to performance of a 

governmental function within the 

subject jurisdiction, thereby precluding 

DOE provision of support to another 

entity. 

iv. The applicant has exclusive 

domestic capability to perform the 

activity successfully, based upon unique 

equipment, proprietary data, technical 

expertise, or other such unique 

qualifications. 

v. The award implements an 

agreement between the United States 

Government and a foreign government 

to fund a foreign applicant. 

vi. Time constraints associated with a 

public health, safety, welfare or national 

security requirement preclude 

competition. 

vii. The proposed project was 

submitted as an unsolicited proposal 

and represents a unique or innovative 

idea, method, or approach which would 

not be eligible for financial assistance 

under a recent, current, or planned 

solicitation, and if, as determined by 

DOE, a competitive solicitation would 

not be appropriate. 

viii. The responsible program 

Assistant Secretary, Deputy 

Administrator, or other official of 

equivalent authority determines that a 

noncompetitive award is in the public 

interest. This authority may not be 

delegated. 

2. Unsolicited proposals that pass the 

initial review shall be reviewed against 

the criteria outlined in EERE’s Guide for 

the Submission of Unsolicited Proposals 

by a Merit Review Panel. These criteria 

include: 

i. Unique and innovative methods, 

approaches or concepts demonstrated 

by the proposal; 

ii. Overall scientific/technical or 

socioeconomic merit of the proposed 

activity; 

iii. Potential contribution of the effort 

to the DOE’s specific mission; 

iv. The proposer’s capabilities, related 

experience, facilities, techniques, or 

unique combinations of these which are 

integral factors for achieving the 

proposal objectives; 

v. The qualifications, capabilities, and 

experience of the proposed principal 

investigator, team leader, or key 

personnel who are critical in achieving 

the proposal objectives; 

vi. The realism of the proposed costs; 

and 

vii. The availability of funding to 

support the proposed project, and the 

relative merit of the project compared 

with others that could be supported 

with the same funds. 

(See http://www.netl.doe.gov/ 

business/usp/USPGuide.pdf). 

3. When the substance of an 

unsolicited proposal is available to the 

Government without restriction from 

another source, or closely resembles that 

of a pending competitive solicitation, or 

does not demonstrate an innovative and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
17848 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices 

unique method, approach or concept, 

the unsolicited proposal shall not be 

accepted. See Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR), part 15.607(a). 

4. Additional guidance for reviewing 

noncompetitive proposals, including 

renewal applications, and the template 

for the review plan are provided in 

Appendix C of the DOE Merit Review 

Guide for Financial Assistance 

(available at http:// 

www.management.energy.gov/ 

documents/meritrev.pdf). Appendix C 

of the DOE Merit Review Guide for 

Financial Assistance, rather than 

Sections IV–VI of this Notice, applies to 

the review of unsolicited proposals. 

(d) The Merit Review Panel—1. The 

Merit Review Panel can be established 

in many ways. It should always include 

at least one DOE Federal employee. 

Non-DOE Federal experts may be part of 

the Merit Review Panel as Peer 

Reviewers, but are not required. The 

most typical arrangements are a peer 

review panel and a DOE Federal 

employee; a peer review panel and a 

DOE Federal panel; or only a DOE 

Federal panel. Peer review panels and 

DOE Federal panels should include at 

least three technically qualified 

individuals. Merit review that involves 

a Federal review panel is preferred over 

merit review that involves only one 

Federal reviewer. The names of the 

Merit Review Panel will not be released 

to the public. 

2. Merit Review Panel Member 

Selection. The DOE Senior Procurement 

Executive (SPE) has the ultimate 

responsibility for designating a 

Selection Official. DOE officials, in 

accordance with the applicable 

designation, may be appointed as the 

Selection Official. The SPE may 

delegate authority to designate a 

Selection Official to other DOE officials. 

Examples of officials to whom the 

authority may be delegated include the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, the 

Executive Director of Field Operations, 

Head of Contracting Activity, the 

Program Managers, or other similar 

positions within DOE. The Selection 

Official may not be a member of the 

Merit Review Panel. Members of the 

Merit Review Panel must be qualified 

personnel. Non-DOE Peer Reviewers 

may include qualified personnel from 

Federal agencies, other Government 

entities, academia, industry, and DOE 

contractors, including national 

laboratory employees. The Contracting 

Officer may serve on the Merit Review 

Panel in an ex officio capacity. 

3. Conflicts of Interest. The Federal 

Merit Review Manager, in consultation 

with Legal Counsel or the Contracting 

Officer, shall review instances of 

potential conflicts involving members of 

the Merit Review Panel. Merit Review 

Panel members must act in a manner 

consistent with 5 CFR part 2635 et seq. 

Merit Review Panel members with a 

conflict of interest shall immediately 

notify the Federal Merit Review 

Manager of the conflict of interest and 

comply with any mitigation measures 

required by the Federal Merit Review 

Manager, including excusing themselves 

from all deliberations involving the 

application for which they have a 

conflict of interest. 

i. In determining potential conflicts, 

the Federal Merit Review Manager shall 

give close scrutiny to reviewers who 

perform any of the following: 

a. Have any decision-making role 

regarding the application or provide 

technical assistance to the applicant in 

regards to the application; 

b. Audit the recipient for the project; 

or 

c. If included in the review, will give 

the appearance of a conflict of interest. 

ii. Situations that could be perceived 

as conflicts of interest may include: 

a. The application being reviewed was 

submitted by a reviewer’s recent 

student, recent teacher, former 

employer, close personal friend or 

relative of the reviewer, spouse, or the 

reviewer’s minor children. 

b. The application being reviewed 

was submitted by a person with whom 

the reviewer has had longstanding 

differences. 

c. The application being reviewed is 

similar to projects being conducted by 

the reviewer or by the reviewer’s 

organization. 

iii. When situations arise that present 

a perceived or actual conflict of interest, 

the Federal Merit Review Manager, with 

consultation from Legal Counsel, may 

permit reviewers to participate if a 

Conflict of Interest (COI) waiver is 

granted and an acceptable mitigation 

plan is implemented. The mitigation 

implemented shall be reflected in the 

Merit Review Advisory Report. 

However, in no event will a waiver be 

granted to permit a reviewer to evaluate 

an application/proposal for his/her/host 

or affiliated organization or if 

participation is prohibited by language 

in the FOA. 

iv. Each member of the Merit Review 

Panel, including ex-officio members, 

shall sign a Confidentiality and Conflict 

of Interest Certification and 

Acknowledgement, which requires 

adherence to the following guidelines: 

a. Reviewers shall not discuss the 

evaluation process with any 

unauthorized personnel. 

b. Reviewers shall not divulge their 

identities to any applicant. 

c. Reviewers shall not contact 

applicants. 

d. Reviewers shall not discuss the 

Panel proceedings outside of the Merit 

Review Panel meeting, even after the 

selection and award. 

e. Reviewers shall not accept any 

invitations, gratuities (i.e., meals, gifts, 

favors, etc.), or job offers from any 

applicant. If a reviewer is offered any 

invitations, gratuities, or job offers by or 

on behalf of any applicant, the reviewer 

shall immediately report it to the 

Contracting Officer. 

f. Reviewers shall only evaluate 

information provided by the applicants 

in the applications and only evaluate 

against the published criteria. No 

additional criteria are to be considered 

by the Panel. 

g. Typically, reviewers shall initially 

rate all applications independently and 

without consultation between 

reviewers. 

h. Reviewers will inform the Federal 

Merit Review Manager of any personal 

or organizational conflicts of interest 

arising out of applications they are 

asked to review. 

i. Reviewers may contact the Federal 

Merit Review Manager to obtain 

clarifications regarding applications. 

For more details see the DOE’s Merit 

Review Guide for Financial Assistance 

at http://www.management.energy.gov/ 

documents/meritrev.pdf. 

4. Authorized Uses of Information. 

The Merit Review Panel must act in a 

manner consistent with 10 CFR 600.15 

when dealing with applications 

containing trade secrets, privileged, 

confidential commercial, and/or 

financial information. 

5. Federal Merit Review Manager— 

The Selection Official must appoint a 

person from the EERE headquarters 

program as Federal Merit Review 

Manager of the Merit Review Panel. The 

Federal Merit Review Manager is 

responsible for: 

i. Selecting the Merit Review Panel 

members and obtaining approval from 

the EERE Program Manager; 

ii. Ensuring a comprehensive and 

robust Evaluation and Selection Plan; 

iii. Overseeing the merit review 

process and all panel meetings, ensuring 

that merit review procedures are 

followed consistently, as well as 

applicable statutes and regulations 

including, but not limited to, the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 

U.S.C. App. 2; 

iv. Ensuring that Merit Review Panel 

members understand the evaluation 

criteria and merit review procedures/ 

process; 

v. In the event of multiple Merit 

Review Panels due to large number of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices 17849 

applications, ensuring consistency 

among the panels; 

vi. Ensure each application is 

evaluated by the Merit Review Panel in 

accordance with the Evaluation and 

Selection Plan; 

vii. Ensuring that reviewers provide 

sound, well documented evaluations; 

viii. Addressing any unexpected or 

unique circumstances presented and 

maintaining the integrity of the Merit 

Review process; 

ix. Reviewing and approving the 

written summary of the evaluation and 

recommendations for the Selection 

Official via the Merit Review Advisory 

Report; 

x. Performing the merit review duties 

of a regular Merit Review Panel 

member, if necessary or appropriate; 

xi. Ensuring that the Contracting 

Officer and Legal Counsel take 

appropriate action to mitigate conflicts 

of interest of Merit Review Panel 

members as discussed in section 

III(d)(3) herein; 

xii. Recommending application of the 

program policy factors, when 

appropriate; ensuring that the Merit 

Review Advisory Report is prepared in 

conformity with guidance set out in Part 

IV, herein; and 

xiii. Making a presentation, if 

requested, to the Selection Official and 

other advisors to the Selection Official 

in the form of a pre-selection briefing. 

6. Co-Federal Merit Review Manager— 

The Selection Official may appoint a 

person from the program’s field staff as 

Co-Federal Merit Review Manager. The 

Co-Federal Merit Review Manager is 

responsible for: 

i. Preparing the Evaluation and 

Selection Plan for Federal Merit Review 

Manager and Selection Official 

approval; 

ii. Managing merit review logistics, 

including panel meetings, etc.; 

iii. Obtaining signed certificates of 

confidentiality from all Merit Review 

Panel members to be kept on file at the 

issuing agency; 

iv. Preparing the written summary of 

the evaluation and recommendations for 

the Selection Official via the Merit 

Review Advisory Report; 

v. Ensuring that the Merit Review 

Advisory Report is prepared in 

conformity with guidance set out in Part 

V, herein; 

vi. Performing the merit review duties 

of a regular Merit Review Panel 

member, if necessary or appropriate; 

vii. Working with the Federal Merit 

Review Manager to ensure that the 

technical merit review procedures are 

followed consistently when carrying out 

the technical merit review. In the event 

of multiple merit review panels due to 

large number of applications, the 

Federal Merit Review Manager shall 

ensure consistency among the panels; 

viii. Working with the Contracting 

Officer and Legal Counsel to take 

appropriate action to mitigate conflicts 

of interest of Merit Review Panel 

members as discussed in section 

III(d)(3) herein; 

ix. Assisting the Federal Merit Review 

Manager with the merit review process; 

x. Assuring control and security of 

applications; 

xi. Preparing the Merit Review 

Advisory Report for the Selection 

Official; 

xii. Assisting in making a 

presentation, if requested, to the 

Selection Official and other advisors to 

the Selection Official in the form of a 

pre-selection briefing; 

xiii. Notifying unsuccessful 

applicants; and 

xiv. Maintaining all merit review 

documentation. 

7. Non-DOE Peer Reviewers typically 

will provide additional expertise to the 

DOE Federal Merit Review Panel. Peer 

reviewers provide specialized expertise 

and technical input to the DOE Federal 

Merit Review Panel by reviewing 

applications and providing written and 

sometimes verbal comments and ratings 

(numeric, adjectival or comparable) 

based on their reviews of applications. 

Peer Reviewers must be fully briefed by 

the Federal Merit Review Manager 

regarding the review criteria and the 

peer reviewers must be aware that any 

criteria not specified in the solicitation 

must not be used to evaluate the 

applications. Peer Reviewers must sign 

a Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest 

Certification and Acknowledgement, as 

provided in 10 CFR 600.13(d). All Peer 

Reviewers forward their comments and 

scores as required to the Merit Review 

Panel. At the DOE Federal Merit Review 

Panel’s discretion, all or a subset of the 

Peer Reviewers may be invited to 

present their scores and identified 

strengths and weaknesses so the DOE 

Federal Merit Review Panel may discuss 

the Peer Reviewers’ comments and 

better understand the Peer Reviewers’ 

scores and comments. However, unless 

specifically allowed by statute, the Peer 

Reviewers may not provide consensus 

scores or comments to the DOE Federal 

Merit Review Panel. The DOE Federal 

Merit Review Panel will dismiss all 

non-Federal reviewers prior to making 

any decisions regarding 

recommendations to the Selection 

Official for award selection or 

establishment of the selection range. 

i. The Merit Review Panel should 

only task the minimum number of Peer 

Reviewers necessary to effectively 

review the submitted applications; and 

ii. Selection of Peer Reviewers shall 

be done in accordance with the 

selection of members of the Merit 

Review Panel, part III(d)(2) herein. 

IV. Merit Review Advisory Report— 

The purpose of the Merit Review 

Advisory Report is to present the 

findings of the Merit Review Panel and 

recommend applications that merit 

funding to the Selection Official. The 

Federal Merit Review Manager shall 

provide the complete report for review 

and obtain concurrence from the 

Contracting Officer and Legal Counsel 

prior to submitting the report to the 

Selection Official. The report will 

typically include four sections—one to 

establish the purpose of the report, a 

second to document the compliance 

review performed, a third to record the 

merit review process used and any 

deviations from protocol, and a fourth 

that contains a draft Selection Statement 

for execution by the Selection Official. 

In addition, relevant attachments will be 

included as referenced below. 

(a) Section 1 shall include the 

following: 

1. A brief statement as to the purpose 

of the Merit Review Advisory Report; 

and 

2. A brief summary of the number of 

applications received and the number 

deemed technically acceptable by the 

DOE Federal Merit Review Panel for 

selection for negotiation of award. 

(b) Section 2 shall include the 

following: 

1. A list of applications rejected in the 

Initial Compliance Review, if any; and 

2. A list of the reasons why the 

application was rejected and not 

comprehensively reviewed. 

(c) Section 3 shall include the 

following: 

1. The number of members on the 

DOE Federal Merit Review Panel and 

the number of peer reviewers, their 

names and a brief discussion of their 

qualifications, a statement that all 

applications were independently 

reviewed in accordance with the 

requirements contained herein, and a 

statement that all Panel members, 

including ex-officio members, signed a 

Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest 

Certification and Acknowledgement; 

2. A discussion of the peer review 

process for all applications; 

3. Details of the Merit Review Panel 

meeting and the process followed, 

including a discussion of any 

deviations, such as issues with conflicts 

of interest; 

4. A discussion of the development of 

consensus scores for each application, 

the ranking process, the number of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
17850 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices 

applications deemed technically 

acceptable, and any observations or 

findings that impacted the decision 

regarding the acceptable selection range; 

and 

5. Details of the Panel’s process to set 

the selection range, and a reference to 

the final list of applications deemed 

technically acceptable in the Record of 

Consensus Scores for All Applications. 

(d) Section 4 shall include the 

following: 

1. A request for action from the 

Selection Official regarding application 

of the program policy factors and 

selection of applications for negotiation 

of award; and 

2. Instructions regarding these actions 

and subsequent communication of his/ 

her decision to the Contracting Officer. 

(e) Attachments to the Merit Review 

Advisory Report shall include the 

following: 

1. Record of Consensus Strengths and 

Weaknesses for each application; 

2. Record of Consensus Scores for All 

Applications; 

3. Program Policy Factor Information 

Sheet; and 

4. Draft Selection Statement for 

execution by the Selection Official. 

(f) For non-competitive applications 

including renewal applications, the 

report to the Selection official will 

consist of individual review forms and 

a summary statement consistent with 

that found in Appendix C of the DOE 

Merit Review Guide for Financial 

Assistance (available at http:// 

www.management.energy.gov/ 

documents/meritrev.pdf). Additionally, 

a Selection Statement will be prepared 

to document the Selection Official’s 

selection of the project. 

V. Application of program policy 

factors—Each application deemed 

technically acceptable by the Merit 

Review Panel may receive a program 

policy review by the Selection Official 

or personnel designated by the Selection 

Official. The Selection Official may, at 

his/her discretion, consider the program 

policy factors when making selections. 

VI. Selection—The Selection Official 

will complete the Selection Statement. 

The Selection Official will document all 

selections with a written narrative, 

noting which program policy factors, if 

any, were applied in making the 

selections. The Selection Official shall 

notify the Contracting Officer in the 

selection statement of the applications 

designated as ‘‘alternate.’’ In addition, 

the Selection Official may identify 

negotiation strategies, if any, in the 

second page of the Selection Statement 

entitled ‘‘Negotiation Strategy.’’ 

VII. Deviations—If an EERE program 

office intends to deviate from these 

procedures for merit review of an 

application or a class of applications but 

will still follow the rules of 10 CFR 

600.13, that office must obtain written 

permission from the Assistant Secretary 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. Permission to use procedures 

which deviate from 10 CFR 600 must be 

requested in writing addressed to the 

responsible DOE Contracting Officer in 

accordance with 10 CFR 600.4. The 

Head of Contracting Activity has the 

authority to approve such procedures 

for a single case deviation, while the 

Director, Procurement and Assistance 

Management (Senior Procurement 

Executive) has the authority to approve 

a class deviation. A deviation may be 

authorized only upon written 

determination that the deviation is 

necessary for any of the reasons set forth 

in 10 CFR 600.4(b). 

Henry Kelly, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of 

Energy. 

Appendix 1—Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy Reviewer 

Qualification Guidelines—May 28, 

2010 

For typical EERE Funding Opportunity 

Announcements (FOAs), examples of 

reviewer qualifications are identified below. 

Stronger qualifications may be needed for 

certain FOAs. For example, the Energy 

Innovation Hubs are modeled after Bell Labs, 

which recruited the nation’s best and 

brightest and sought a level of scientific 

quality not possible in all R&D endeavors. 

The Department plans to invest more than 

$120 million over five years in the Hubs, 

with a possible extension to ten years. 

Therefore, reviewer selection criteria should 

be consistent with the high quality of science 

expected and the significant level of 

investment. Reviewer qualifications for 

typical EERE FOAs: 

• At least 5 years of experience in a 

relevant field. People with less experience 

should have some other strong credentials, 

e.g., a PhD with a strong publication or 

patent record specific to the technology being 

evaluated, a young investigator award, or a 

strong pedigree (e.g., a PhD from a high 

caliber institution or under a recognized 

leader in the field). If a newly minted PhD 

with a strong pedigree is being considered as 

a reviewer, he/she should have some 

additional accomplishments such as a 

seminal paper in the field, or an invited talk 

to a major conference. 

• Publications and Patents. This could 

include having a significant number of peerreviewed publications and/or patents in the 

technology being evaluated. For those who 

have a lengthy and diverse publication 

history, the timeframe of publications and/or 

patents should reflect that the reviewer’s 

knowledge of the technology is relevant and 

not outdated. 

• Other evidence that the person is a 

recognized expert in the field. This could 

include having managed a public policy 

program that has had a national impact, a 

record of bringing innovations to the market, 

or holding key patents. 

• An advanced degree (Ph.D., Sc.D., 

D.Eng., M.S., or M.B.A.) in a relevant field. 

Those with a Bachelors degree should have 

more experience and/or a record of 

accomplishments indicating their expertise 

in the field. 

• Relevant awards. This would include 

being a recipient of a National Medal of 

Science, American Chemical Society 

National Award, Young Investigator Award, 

R&D 100 Award, or other awards specific to 

a technology (e.g., Fuel Cell Seminar Award). 

• Key Society Membership. Member of the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or 

Engineering (NAE) member, American 

Physics Society Fellow, National Laboratory 

Fellow. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7581 Filed 3–30–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings #1 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER01–989–008. 

Applicants: Green Mountain Power 

Corporation. 

Description: Supplemental of Green 

Mountain Power Corporation to 

triennial market power update report. 

Filed Date: 03/15/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110315–5176. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Tuesday, April 5, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: ER11–2365–000; 

ER11–2365–001. 

Applicants: Paradise Solar Urban 

Renewal, L.L.C. 

Description: Paradise Solar Urban 

Renewal, L.L.C. Revision to Market 

Power Analysis. 

Filed Date: 03/23/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110323–5129. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Wednesday, April 13, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: ER11–2774–000. 

Applicants: Virginia Electric and 

Power Company, Dominion Energy 

Marketing, Inc., Dominion Nuclear 

Connecticut, Inc., Dominion Energy 

Kewaunee, Inc., Dominion Energy 

Brayton Point, LLC, Dominion Energy 

Manchester Street, Inc. Dominion 

Energy New England, Inc., Dominion 

Energy Salem Harbor, LLC, Dominion 

Retail, Inc., Elwood Energy, LLC, 

Fairless Energy, LLC, Kincaid 

Generation, L.L.C. NedPower Mt. Storm, 

LLC, State Line Energy, L.L.C., Fowler 

Ridge Wind Farm LLC. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES