20184 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Notices

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN

Form/request

Number reviewed by

State

Number reviewed by

Federal

Review time

(hours)

State burden hoursState cost

($)

Federal burden hoursFederal cost

($)

Standard Form A ....................................... 661 141 0.5 331 $10,530 70.5 $2,233

Short Form A ............................................. 3,040 443 0.5 1,520 48,427 221.5 7,017

Section 308 Requests (Municipalities)

Major Municipalities:

Routine ............................................... 503 107 1.0 503 16,026 107.0 3,390

Medium .............................................. 88 19 10.0 880 28,037 190.0 6,019

Complex ............................................. 45 9 20.0 900 28,674 180.0 5,702

Minor Municipalities:

Routine ............................................... 453 66 1.0 453 14,443 66.0 2,091

Interim Sewage Sludge Permit:

Municipalities ...................................... 2,971 652 3.0 8,913 283,968 1,956.0 61,966

Privately Owned Treatment Works .... 22 5 2.0 44 1,402 10.0 317

Form 1:

New Facilities ..................................... 4,547 620 0.5 2,274 72,434 310.0 9,821

Existing Facilities ............................... 8,979 1,224 0.5 4,490 143,035 612.0 19,388

Form 2b ..................................................... 792 198 0.5 396 12,617 99.0 3,136

Form 2c ..................................................... 5,836 796 2.0 11,672 371,870 1,592.0 50,435

Form 2d:

Major New Facilities ........................... .................... 40 0.5 0 .................... 20.0 634

Minor New Facilities ........................... .................... 322 0.5 0 .................... 161.0 5,100

Section 308 Requests (Non-municipal)

Majors:

Routine ............................................... 192 27 1.0 192 6,117 27.0 855

Medium .............................................. 22 5 10.0 220 7,009 50.0 1,584

Minors:

Routine.

Form 2e:

New Facilities ..................................... 121 17 0.5 61 1,928 8.5 269

Existing Facilities ............................... 3,143 428 0.5 1,572 50,068 214.0 6,780

Form 2f ...................................................... 53 13 2.2 117 3,715 28.6 906

Alaskan Lands MS4s ................................ 0 3 0.6 0 .................... 1.8 57

Large .................................................. 3 1 60.0 180 5,735 60.0 1,901

Medium .............................................. 5 2 40.0 200 6,372 80.0 2,534

Notice of Intent (NOI) NOI for Storm

Water (SW) General:

Permit—MSGP ................................... 0 5,288 0.5 0 0 2,644.0 83,762

NOI for SW discharges to MS4s ....... 7,050 2,163 0.3 2,115 67,384 649.0 ....................

NOI for general permits other than

SW .................................................. 3,458 759 0.3 865 27,543 189.8 6,011

Petition for Individual Permit ..................... 20 4 8.0 160 5,098 32.0 1,014

Permit Consolidation ................................. 81 19 0.5 41 1,290 9.5 301

Notice of Construction ............................... 0 3 0.6 0 .................... 1.8 57

Ocean Discharge ...................................... 24 6 88.0 2,112 67,288 528.0 16,727

Totals ................................................. .................... .................... .................... 38,092.10 1,206,758 6,825.95 216,246.10

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

Dated: April 16, 1998.

Michael B. Cook,

Director, Office of Wastewater Management.

[FR Doc. 98–10858 Filed 4–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6002–1]

Request for Proposals for Small Public

Water Systems Technology Assistance

Centers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency is soliciting proposals from

institutions of higher learning interested

in establishing a Small Public Water

Systems Technology Assistance Center

(SPWSTAC). Section 1420(f) of the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) as

amended authorizes the Agency to make

grants to institutions of higher learning

to establish and operate such centers.

The responsibilities of the centers will

include the conduct of training and

technical assistance relating to the

information, performance, and technical

needs of small public water systems or

public water systems that serve Indian

Tribes. The Environmental Protection

Agency’s fiscal year 1998 appropriation

provides $2 million for establishment of

five SPWSTAC’s. This document
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Notices 20185

explains what information an interested

institution of higher learning must

submit as part of its proposal to be

considered for funding. The document

also explains the criteria that the

Agency will use to evaluate proposals

and award funding.

DATES: Proposals must be received by

June 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send proposals to Peter E.

Shanaghan, Small Systems Coordinator,

Mail Code 4606, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W.,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter E. Shanaghan, 202–260–5813 or

shanaghan.peter@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 1996

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments

focus attention on enhancing the

technical, financial, and managerial

capacity of public water systems to

consistently comply with national

primary drinking water regulations.

Section 1420 of the Act as amended

requires states to develop and

implement a program to ensure that new

systems demonstrate adequate capacity

prior to start-up and to develop and

implement a strategy to assist existing

systems in acquiring and maintaining

capacity. The Act provides for a variety

of assistance for states and public water

systems, especially small systems, in

meeting capacity development

objectives.

Section 1420(f) of the SDWA as

amended authorizes EPA to make grants

to institutions of higher learning to

establish and operate small public water

system technology assistance centers.

The responsibilities of these centers

would include the conduct of training

and technical assistance relating to the

information, performance, and technical

needs of small public water systems or

public water systems that serve Indian

Tribes.

Section 1420(f)(4) directs EPA to

select recipients of grants on the basis

of the following criteria:

(A) The small public water system

technology assistance center shall be

located in a state that is representative

of the needs of the region in which the

state is located for addressing the

drinking water needs of small and rural

public water systems.

(B) The grant recipient shall be

located in a region that has experienced

problems, or may reasonably be foreseen

to experience problems, with small and

rural public water systems.

(C) The grant recipient shall have

access to expertise in small public water

system technology management.

(D) The grant recipient shall have the

capability to disseminate the results of

small public water system technology

and training programs.

(E) The projects that the grant

recipient proposes to carry out under

the grant are necessary and appropriate.

(F) The grant recipient has regional

support beyond the host institution.

Additionally, section 1420(f)(5)

requires that at least two of the grants

be made to consortia of states with low

population densities.

As part of its fiscal year 1998

appropriation, Congress provided EPA

with $2 million to fund five

SPWSTAC’s. The Agency recognizes

that, based on the merits of the

proposals received, equal funding of all

five centers may not be appropriate, but

we expect no single assistance offer to

exceed about $500,000.

Ongoing Related Initiatives

EPA is concerned about the potential

for wasteful duplication of effort

between these new SPWSTAC’s and the

extensive existing network of initiatives

designed to assist small public water

systems. To avoid such potentially

wasteful duplication of effort, EPA urges

applicants to carefully review the

following summary of ongoing related

initiatives. The Agency encourages

applicants to propose projects, which

would be complementary to and not

duplicative of these existing initiatives.

Environmental Technology Verification

(ETV) Program

The Small Drinking Water System

Package Plant Pilot project under the

ETV program is being managed by the

National Sanitation Foundation (NSF).

The objective of this pilot project is to

establish a self-supporting program for

the performance verification testing of

package drinking water treatment

equipment. This pilot project includes

development of detailed protocols for

the performance verification testing of

various types of package plant

technologies; procedures to qualify field

testing organizations to conduct testing

using the protocols; and actual

performance verification testing of

package plant technologies.

Rural Community Assistance Program,

Inc. (RCAP)

RCAP, a network of six regional

organizations with multi-state service

areas, provides technical assistance and

community-specific training to rural

areas with populations of 10,000 or

fewer to help them access safe, reliable,

and affordable drinking water supplies.

In this program, most of RCAP’s

activities are carried out in rural areas

with population of 2,000 or less, and in

minority communities, under-served

rural areas or rural areas with a high

percentage of low-income individuals.

They provide free services to meet the

water supply needs of community

leaders, system owners, system

operators, and local residents. RCAP

also works with rural residents

currently not served by a drinking water

system or those whose drinking water

system is inadequate or in need of

capital improvements to identify

options and find financing to solve

these problems.

National Rural Water Association

(NRWA)

NRWA, comprised of 45 state rural

water associations conducts a rural and

small drinking water system training

and on-site assistance program that

provides direct training and on-site

problem solving assistance to rural and

small water system personnel in the 48

contiguous states. Regulatory training,

water system operations training, water

system maintenance training,

conservation training, and public health

training is provided through seminars

and formal training courses. NRWA’s

on-site problem solving includes noncompliance problems, complex

operating and maintenance problems,

operator certification problems, and

source protection problems. Each state

rural water association performs at least

300 scheduled hours of assistance/

training per year under the program.

The National Drinking Water

Clearinghouse (NDWCH)

West Virginia University operates the

NDWCH. The clearinghouse offers a

wide array of information services for

small public water systems. They

operate a toll-free information and

assistance hotline, publish technical

assistance oriented newsletters, and

provide access to publications.

Existing University Centers

Congress has earmarked funding for

specific university small water system

centers, in addition to the $2 million

earmarked for the five SPWSTAC’s.

Montana State University (MSU) has

operated a small water system

assistance center since 1995. MSU has

focused on documenting technology

performance and developing innovative

Internet based distance learning tools.

Western Kentucky University and the

University of Missouri at Columbia are

establishing centers, which will

commence operation in mid to late

1998. Both of these institutions are

developing detailed work plans at this

time.

EPA will encourage the three existing

centers and the five centers for which
20186 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Notices

proposals are being solicited to

cooperate to the maximum extent

feasible. The Agency expects that each

center will use its unique regional

emphasis to address problems of

national importance, as manifested in

specific regional conditions.

Content of Proposals

Proposals should be succinct and

directly to the point. In general they

should not exceed 20 pages in length.

Applicants whose proposals are selected

for funding will be required to complete

the Application for Federal Assistance

(SF 424).

Proposals must address each of the

following questions:

(1) How is the state in which the

proposed center is located

representative of the drinking water

needs of small and rural communities or

Indian Tribes in the surrounding region?

(2) Within this region, what problems

have been experienced or are foreseen to

be experienced with small and rural

public water systems?

(3) To what experience in small

public water system technology

management does the applicant have

access?

(4) What capability does the applicant

have to disseminate the results of small

public water system technology and

training programs?

(5) For each proposed project:

(i) What is the objective of the work?

(ii) What specifically does the

applicant propose to do?

(iii) Why does the applicant believe

this project is necessary and how would

it contribute to enhancing the technical

capacity of small public water systems?

(iv) Does the applicant have

documented support for this project

beyond their own institution (from, for

example, state drinking water programs,

technical assistance providers, local

government, small systems, etc.)?

(v) What are the proposed

deliverables?

(vi) What is the proposed schedule

and major milestones?

(vii) Approximately how much of

your total requested grant amount

would you devote to this project? What

other resources (from any source), if any

do you propose to devote to this project?

(viii) How will this project

complement, and not duplicate, ongoing

related initiatives described earlier?

(6) What regional support (from, for

example, other institutions of higher

learning and/or neighboring state

drinking water programs) does the

applicant have for the proposed center?

(7) What is the total amount of

assistance sought by the applicant?

What is the total amount of funding, in

addition to the requested assistance that

the applicant plans to devote to the

proposed center?

(8) If the applicant wishes to be

considered as representing a consortia

of states with low population density,

then the applicant must provide a

detailed justification specifically

identifying the states which are

members of the consortia, the

population density of each state, and the

specific working agreement among

consortia members.

Criteria for Evaluation of Proposals

A panel of EPA staff and state

drinking water program administrators

will evaluate proposals for overall

technical merit based upon the selection

criteria contained in section 1420(f)(4).

To implement the requirements of

section 1420(f)(5), the Agency will

assign extra credit to otherwise good

quality proposals from applicants

representing consortia of states.

The following criteria will be used to

assess the answers to each of the

questions posed under the previous

section on Content of Proposals. Each of

these questions will be given equal

weight, and together they will account

for a total of 30% of the applicants raw

score.

(A1) Specificity of answer. Specific

answers, which directly respond to the

question, will be rated higher than

vague or general answers.

(B1) Detail of answer. Detailed but

concise answers will be rated higher

than vague or general answers.

(C1) Factual basis of answer. Answers

for which supporting objective data or

other facts are provided will be rated

higher than answers relying on

generalizations or unsubstantiated

statements.

In addition to being evaluated on the

quality of the responses to individual

questions, each proposal will be

evaluated in its entirety based upon the

criteria contained in section 1420(f)(4).

For purposes of this solicitation, the

criteria contained in section 1420(f)(4)

are being designated as (A2), (B2), (C2),

(D2), (E2), and (F2). Criteria (A2), (B2),

(C2), (D2), and (F2) will each be

weighted by a factor of 1, criterion (E2)

will be weighted by a factor of 2.

Collectively these criteria will account

for 70% of an applicants raw score. The

criteria are:

(A2) Representativeness of host state.

Proposals from states that are most

representative of the drinking water

needs of small and rural communities or

Indian Tribes in the surrounding region

will be rated higher than proposals from

less representative states.

(B2) Nature of problems experienced

by water systems. Proposals from

regions where the problems experienced

or foreseen to be experienced by small

and rural public water systems are more

serious or fundamental will be rated

higher than proposals from regions

where the problems are less serious.

(C2) Experience. Proposals from

institutions having access to greater

experience in small water system

technology management will be rated

higher than those from institutions

having access to less experience.

(D2) Dissemination capability.

Proposals documenting greater

capability to disseminate the results of

small public water system technology

and training programs will be rated

higher than proposals documenting less

capability.

(E2) Necessity and appropriateness of

proposed projects. Higher ratings will be

given to proposals whose projects

clearly address well-documented needs,

do not duplicate ongoing initiatives,

enjoy broad support beyond the host

institution, and most effectively

leverage federal resources.

(F2) Regional support. Proposals,

which have substantial clearly

documented support beyond the host

institution, will be rated more highly

than those proposals having less

documented support.

Finally, the Agency will consider one

additional factor.

(A3) The Agency will assign extracredit to otherwise good quality

applicants who represent consortia of

states with low population densities.

Extra credit will take the form of a 25%

increase in the applicants raw score,

with the threshold rating for ‘‘good

quality’’ to be recommended by the

review panel after the consideration of

the quantitative merits of all

applications.

Timing of Awards

Grant awards will be made on or

before September 30, 1998. EPA will

move as expeditiously as possible to

complete review of applications

following June 8, 1998.

Dated: April 17, 1998.

Elizabeth Fellows,

Acting Director, Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water.

[FR Doc. 98–10857 Filed 4–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P