10388 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices

EIS No. 950048, DRAFT EIS, AFS, OR,

Santiam Pass Forest Health Project,

Implementation, Willamette National

Forest, McKenzie Ranger District,

Linn County, OR, Due: April 10, 1995,

Contact: John P. Allen (503) 822–

3381.

EIS No. 950049, DRAFT EIS, COE, NC,

Buckhorn Reservoir Expansion,

Construction of a Dam to Impound

Water on the Contentnea Creek, COE

Section 404 Permit, City of Wilson,

Wilson County, NC, Due: April 10,

1995, Contact: William Adams (910)

251–4748.

EIS No. 950050, DRAFT EIS, SCS, NB,

Wahoo Creek Watershed Plan, Flood

Prevention and Watershed Protection,

Funding and COE Section 404 Permit,

Saunders County, NB, Due: April 11,

1995, Contact: Ronald E. Moreland

(402) 437–5300.

EIS No. 950051, DRAFT EIS, COE, LA,

Amite River and Tributaries Flood

Control Project, Implementation, East

Baton Rouge Parish Watershed,

Florida Parishes, LA, Due: April 14,

1995, Contact: Bill Wilson (504) 862–

2527.

EIS No. 950052, DRAFT EIS, SCS, MO,

IA, East Fork of the Grand River

Watershed Plan, Implementation,

Watershed Protection and Flood

Prevention, Funding, Ringgold and

Union Counties, IA and Harrison and

Worth Counties, MO, Due: April 10,

1995, Contact: Russell C. Mills (314)

876–0901.

EIS No. 950053, FINAL SUPPLEMENT,

NPS, MO, Page Avenue Extension,

Bennington Place to US 40, Creve

Coeur Lake Memorial Park

Conservation of Land for Construction

of a 10–Lane Elevated Extension of

Page Avenue, Approval, St. Louis and

Charles Counties, MO, Due: March 27,

1995, Contact: William W. Schenk

(402) 221–3431.

EIS No. 950054, LEGISLATIVE DRAFT,

AFS, ID, North Fork of the Clearwater

River Drainage Kelly Creek and

Cayuse Creek, Wild and Scenic River

Study, Suitability or Nonsuitability

for Designation or Nondesignation in

the National Wild Scenic River

System, Clearwater National Forest,

Clearwater and Idaho Counties, ID,

Due: May 25, 1995, Contact: Brian

Hensley (208) 476–3775.

EIS No. 950055, FINAL EIS, UAF, OH,

Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base

(ANGB), Disposal and Reuse of

Portons, Implementation, Franklin

and Pickaway Counties, OH, Due:

March 27, 1995, Contact: Ltc. Terry D.

Armstrong (210) 536–3907.

EIS No. 950056, DRAFT EIS, USN, CT,

GA, VA, Seawolf Class Submarine

Homeporting Program on the East

Coast of the United States, Site

Selection, COE Section 404 Permit

and Implementation, CT, VA and GA,

Due: April 10, 1995, Contact: Robert

Ostermueller (610) 595–0759.

Dated: February 21, 1995.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 95–4613 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

[FRL–5160–9]

Fiscal Year 1995 Solicitation for

Socioeconomic Projects Related to

Pollution Prevention

Introduction

This Announcement describes a

solicitation of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to support

projects directed toward furthering the

objectives of the President’s

Environmental Technology Initiative

(ETI). The ETI is an integral part of the

Administration’s broad new technology

policy, which is outlined in

‘‘Technology for America’s Economic

Growth: A New Direction to Build

Economic Strength’’. This governmentwide policy recognizes that industry is

the primary creator of new technology

and the main engine of sustained

economic growth. The policy assigns

the federal government a catalytic role

in promoting the development of new

technologies for use across a range of

sectors including auto manufacturing,

computers and electronics, iron and

steel, metal finishing and plating,

petroleum refining, and printing—as

well as converting defense technologies

to civilian applications. The ETI

addresses all of the above sectors that

are concerned with environmental

protection.

EPA seeks proposals to conduct

socioeconomic initiatives related to

pollution prevention—i.e., projects

focused on policy reforms,

opportunities for building innovation

capacity, and diffusion of innovative

prevention technologies. EPA’s interests

in this instance are clearly distinct from

conventional socioeconomic research

and development. That is, they go

beyond study and analysis of issues to

apply existing knowledge in pioneering

attempts to effect social or institutional

change with respect to promoting

development and implementation of

innovative technology.

EPA is directing approximately $3.5

million this fiscal year (FY) in awards

under this initiative to nonprofit

organizations. Proposals averaging

$150,000 per year with a maximum

duration of 2 years are sought.

Nonprofit organizations are generally

defined as those organizations that

qualify for such status under Section

501(c) of the Internal Revenue Service

tax code. Examples of nonprofit

organizations include public and private

universities, as well as trade

associations, professional societies,

research consortia, and community

development corporations.

This Announcement can be accessed

on the Internet at the following Gopher

and World Wide Webb (WWW)

addresses:

Gopher: GOPHER.EPA.GOV

WWW: HTTP://WWW.EPA.GOV

Rationale

EPA has structured its ETI projectselection process for FY95 to conform to

the strategic ETI objectives contained in

the Agency’s Draft Technology

Innovation Strategy (EPA 543–K–93–

002), January 1994. This strategy has the

following objectives (please refer to the

draft Strategy document for more detail

on these objectives):

(1) Policy Framework: Adapt EPA’s

policy, regulatory, and compliance

framework to promote innovation;

(2) Innovation Capacity: Strengthen

the capacity of technology developers

and users to succeed in environmental

innovation;

(3) Diffusion: Accelerate the diffusion

of innovative technologies at home and

abroad; and

(4) Environmental and Pollution

Prevention Technologies: Strategically

invest funds in the development and

commercialization of promising new

technologies.

This solicitation is focused on

pollution prevention-related proposals

that support the first three objectives.

Proposals relevant to the fourth

objective are being sought jointly by the

National Science Foundation (NSF) and

EPA through a contemporaneous

solicitation. Information about the joint

solicitation can be obtained from either

NSF (pfirth@nsf.gov; voice 703/306–

1480) or EPA (202/260–7474).

The 1990 Pollution Prevention Act

declares pollution prevention to be

national policy and states that ‘‘* * *

pollution should be prevented or

reduced at the source whenever

feasible.’’ Pollution prevention is now

considered EPA’s preferred choice for

environmental protection, and the

Agency is seeking to integrate

prevention as an ethic throughout all of

its activities. Pollution prevention

includes equipment or technology

modifications, process or procedure

modifications, reformulation or redesign
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices 10389

of products, substitution of raw

materials, and improvements in

industrial housekeeping, operational

maintenance, employee training, or

inventory control.

On July 22, 1994, EPA Administrator

Browner announced the new

environmental policy Common Sense

Initiative, which is designed to shift

environmental protection from the

current ‘‘pollutant-by-pollutant, end-ofpipe, command-and-control’’ approach

to an ‘‘industry-by-industry, multimedia, prevention-oriented’’ approach.

Six pilot industries were identified for

CSI: auto manufacturing, computers and

electronics, iron and steel, metal

finishing and plating, petroleum

refining, and printing. Proposals with

relevance to these industries will

receive priority consideration.

Program Scope

This EPA grant solicitation is

intended to finance prevention-related

projects supporting policy analysis

(frameworks), institution building

(innovation capacity), and domestic and

international diffusion. Descriptions of

each of the program areas that are

addressed in this solicitation are as

follows.

Policy-framework topics of interest

include: (1) Strengthening incentives for

the development and use of innovative

prevention technologies; and (2)

identifying and reducing barriers to

innovation. Aspects to be addressed

include regulations and implementation

mechanisms (e.g., permitting and

compliance policies and programs).

This program area encompasses all

environmental media (water, air, etc.)

and emphasizes pilot projects not

analytical studies. Policy framework

proposals often address issues that have

a broader focus than pollution

prevention alone. Such proposals are

welcomed so long as they are also

applicable to pollution prevention

technologies or issues.

Policy framework focuses on

environmental regulatory programs in

the broadest sense, from regulation

through compliance and enforcement.

Projects selected in this areas will

address regulatory programs in order to:

• Identify and enhance incentives for

the development and use of prevention

technologies;

• Minimize barriers to the

development and use of such

technologies; and

• Incorporate provisions into new

and existing regulations and programs

that maximize flexibility and widen the

range of technologies accepted for use.

Special attention will be given to the

use of market-based instruments for

creating flexibility and incentives to

innovate.

Innovation capacity proposals should

be focused on how to assist, or catalyze,

prevention technology development and

commercialization efforts. Examples of

possible work in these areas are

programs or projects to:

• Establish programs to standardize

testing protocols and verify the cost and

performance of innovative prevention

technologies;

• Provide pollution prevention

technology testing centers;

• Catalyze the efforts of many

organizations to promote innovation by

convening partnerships;

• Develop and communicate timely

information about high priority

prevention technology gaps; and

• Work jointly with organizations in

the public and private sectors to identify

and address non-regulatory sources of

market inefficiency and failure in the

environmental technology sector.

Proposals on diffusion of information

should focus on new and improved

means of fostering information

networks, technical assistance, and

outreach activities. Both domestic and

international applications are

encouraged. For example, there is a

need to enhance the capacity of existing

or newly created public and private

sector diffusion activities to serve the

potential users of pollution prevention

technologies both domestically and

abroad. Proposals may include activities

relating to market demand, availability,

cost, performance, opportunities for

business development, and regulatory

requirements.

General Selection Criteria

The objective of this solicitation is to

harness the capability of the nonprofit

sector to help address the goals of the

ETI. EPA will not accept proposals that

are not directly related to one of the

areas of ETI focus previously

mentioned. Moreover, proposals must

address barriers to the development and

use of innovative pollution prevention

approaches to be eligible unless they are

addressing policy framework issues that

will also benefit pollution prevention

approaches as well as their target.

Each proposal will only be evaluated

against one strategy objective based the

information provided above. Proposals

with relevance to industries highlighted

by the Common Sense Initiative and the

Design for Environment Program will

receive priority consideration. Special

consideration will also be given to

projects that support small businesses

and/or small communities. This focus

on a select few industries is intended to

provided concentrated support for

cleaner technology development and

commercialization and sustainable

economic growth and increased

competitiveness.

Many barriers to development and

application of pollution prevention exist

because of the lack of flexibility in the

policy infrastructure. Thus, proposals

that seek to make the implementation of

environmental policy a process that is

more friendly to technology innovation

will also receive additional attention.

This is the one area in which projects

may go beyond the pollution prevention

domain.

The most significant problems and

creative solutions most likely will be

identified by nonprofit organizations

and industrial investigators, working

together on challenges posed by real

problems. Projects must show

appropriateness to current national

concerns for pollution reduction or

prevention; vague arguments that the

proposed project may eventually be of

value are not compelling.

This initiative particularly seeks

innovative and high risk/high payoff

ideas. It does not invite studies of ‘‘the

problem’’ but rather specific approaches

to possible solutions. Since the

preparation of competitive proposals is

very time consuming, it is also well to

present the following examples of what

this initiative is not:

• Not basic research;

• Not technology development for

pollution prevention, remediation, or

control;

• Not diffusion of pollution control

technology; and

• Not activities addressing processes

to remove pollutants from waste streams

or remediate waste problems.

Specific Selection Criteria

Proposals will be evaluated against

the following factors:

• Does the project reduce uncertainty,

improve flexibility, speed timing,

enhance cost-effectiveness, address

liability constraints, and/or diminish

restraints on technology innovation?

• Is there broad applicability of the

project’s expected results (i.e., across

levels of government, different states, or

environmental media)? Is the problem

clearly defined?

• Does the project complement

current environmental legislative

initiatives or significantly strengthen the

Nation’s ability to meet existing

statutory or regulatory goals?

• Will the project produce

measurable, visible results in an

expeditious time-frame? Action projects

will be emphasized over studies. Do

project participants have the authority

to implement programmatic changes?
10390 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices

• Does the project support multiorganizational partnerships across the

public and private sectors? Will the

project include leveraging funds among

the partnering organizations?

Applicant’s proposals will be given

more consideration to the extent that

matching funds or in-kind services from

participating partners are included.

• Does the proposal address global,

transboundary, or other international

environmental issues directly affecting

the United States or lower the cost of

innovative technologies for use in the

United States.

In addition, the following

considerations relate to particular

subtopics:

• Policy framework proposals will be

reviewed with respect to their capability

to advance the goals and activities of

ETI; breadth of applicability of the

expected results; and potential to reduce

barriers and create incentives; and

projected probability of success.

• Proposals embracing the theme of

innovation capacity should specifically

be designed to be self-sustaining after

ETI funds are expended.

• Domestic diffusion proposals must

be customer-based, and should

emphasize pollution prevention

technology approaches. Special

consideration will be given to projects

that support small businesses and/or

small communities.

• International diffusion proposals

should address global or international

environmental issues that directly affect

the United States. Proposals should also

result in improving U.S.

competitiveness and trade objectives in

the international arena.

The Application

Application forms and instructions

are available in the EPA Research Grants

Application Kit. Interested investigators

should review the materials in this kit

before preparing an application for

assistance. The kits can be obtained at

the following address: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Research and Development,

Office of Exploratory Research (8703),

401 M Street SW., Washington DC

20460.

Each application for assistance must

consist of Application for Federal

Assistance Forms (Standard Forms (SF):

424 and 424A), separate sheets that

provide the budget breakdowns for each

year of the project, the resumes of the

principal investigator and co-workers,

the abstract of the proposed project, and

a project narrative. All certifications

must be signed and included with the

application.

The closing date for application

submission is COB May 1, 1995.

To be considered, the original and

eight copies of the fully developed

research grant application, prepared in

accordance with the instructions in the

Application for Federal Assistance

Forms, must be received by the EPA

Office of Exploratory Research no later

than the above closing date. Informal,

incomplete, or unsigned proposals will

not be considered. Completed

applications should be sent via regular

or express mail to: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Research

and Development, Office of Exploratory

Research (8703), 401 M Street SW.,

Washington DC 20460

Applications sent via express mail

should have the following telephone

number listed on the express mail label:

(202) 260–7445.

Special Instructions

The following special instructions

apply to all applicants responding to

this request for application.

• Applications must unbound and

clipped or stapled. The SF–424 must be

the first page of the application. Budget

information should immediately follow

the SF–424. All certification forms

should be placed at the end of the

application.

• Applicants must be identified by

printing ‘‘ETI95’’ in block 10 of the SF–

424. This will facilitate proper

assignment and review of the

application.

• A one-page abstract must be

included with the application.

• The ‘‘project narrative’’ section of

the application must not exceed 25,

consecutively-numbered, 81⁄2 x 11 inch

pages of standard type (i.e.,12 point),

including tables, graphs, and figures.

For purposes of this limitation, the

‘‘project narrative’’ section of the

application consists of the following

five items:

1. Description of Project

2. Objectives

3. Results or Benefits Expected

4. Approach

5. General Project Information.

Any attachments, appendices, and

other references for the narrative section

may be included but must remain

within the 25-page limitation.

Appendices will not be considered an

integral part of the application.

Items not included under the 25-page

limitation are the SF–424 and other

forms, budgets, resumes, and the

abstract. Resumes must not exceed two

consecutively-numbered pages for each

investigator and should focus on

education, positions held, and most

recent or related publications.

Applications not meeting these

requirements will be returned to the

applicant without review.

Guidelines and Limitations

All recipients are required to provide

a minimum of 1% of the total project

cost, which may not be taken from

Federal sources. Subcontracts for

research to be conducted under the

grant should not exceed 40% of the total

direct cost of the grant for each year in

which the subcontract is awarded.

Eligibility

Nonprofit institutions located within

the U.S., including public and private

colleges and universities, are eligible

under all existing authorizations.

Federal agencies and federal employees

as well as state and local governments

are not eligible to participate it this

program. Potential applicants who are

uncertain of their eligibility should

contact EPA’s Grants Operations Branch

at (202) 260–9266.

Proprietary Information

By submitting an application in

response to this solicitation, the

applicant grants EPA permission to

share the application with technical

reviewers both within and outside of the

Agency.

Applications containing proprietary

or other types of confidential

information will be immediately

returned to the applicant without

review.

Funding Mechanisms

The funding mechanism for all

awards issued under this solicitation

will consist of a grant agreement

between EPA and the recipient. In

accordance with Public Law 95–225, a

grant is used to accomplish a public

purpose of support or stimulation

authorized by Federal statute rather

than acquisition for the direct benefit of

the Agency.

Minority Institution Assistance

Pre-application assistance is available

upon request for potential investigators

representing institutions identified by

the Secretary, Department of Education,

as Historically Black Colleges or

Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic

Association of Colleges and Universities

(HACUs), or Native American or Tribal

Colleges. For further information on

minority assistance, contact Charles

Mitchell by telephone at (202) 260–

7448, by faxing a written request to

(202) 260–0211, or by mailing it to the

address for EPA’s Office of Exploratory

Research shown below.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices 10391

Contacts

Additional general and technical

information on this solicitation and the

grants program may be obtained by

contacting: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Exploratory

Research (8703), 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, Phone: (202)

260–7474/Fax: (202) 260–0211.

Dated: February 16, 1995.

Joseph K. Alexander,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Research

& Development.

[FR Doc. 95–4597 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5161–7]

Notice of Public Meetings on Drinking

Water Issues

Notice is hereby given that the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

is holding public meetings related to the

Agency’s drinking water program over

the next several months. Descriptions of

the subject areas for the meetings are

provided below, along with initial

meeting dates, times and locations.

Names and phone numbers of EPA

contact persons are also provided.

Additional information about a

particular subject area, as well as dates

of additional meetings, may be obtained

by calling the EPA contact person listed

for that subject area.

The purpose of the meetings is to

provide EPA with ideas, suggestions

and options either for proceeding with

specific activities related to the drinking

water program or which can serve as the

basis for strategic decisions on program

directions and resource allocations. The

intent is to provide EPA with the full

array of viewpoints, ideas and concerns

which are held by its multiplicity of

stakeholders. Summaries of the ideas

and suggestions from the public

meetings will be provided to EPA senior

managers in the drinking water program

for further consideration.

Some of the meetings will focus on

how to carry out specific activities

which the agency perceives as ripe for

action and which can be undertaken

within EPA’s existing resource

constraints. Others will be used to seek

broad input on options for prioritizing

among other possible activities within a

subject area, including suggestions for

other ways to do business. In some

cases, these two approaches will be

combined in a single meeting.

For some of the eight subject areas,

only one or two public meetings may

prove necessary. For others, such

meetings may take place more

frequently over a period of several

months. Most of the meetings will be in

Washington, D.C. Because EPA will not

be able to fund travel for any

participants, all meetings will be

teleconferenced to enable participation

by persons in other locales.

Where the Agency has chosen to

proceed with a specific activity, such as

revising the State Programs Priorities

Guidance for the Public Water Systems

Supervisory Program, we will also

solicit participation in stakeholder

forums in order to enable us to receive

additional feedback. These forums will

include the array of stakeholder

interests. Members of the public may

attend and observe the forums. As with

the public meetings, the purpose of the

forums will be to provide EPA with

individual stakeholder views rather

than to seek an opinion from the group

as a whole.

Where EPA is seeking to prioritize

among possible activities, the Agency

will convene a senior EPA management

group to review the public meeting

summaries. That group will assemble

the information and develop a program

action plan consistent with available

resources. The plan will be submitted to

the National Drinking Water Advisory

Council for its comment. Final decisions

on priorities will be made by Assistant

Administrator Robert Perciasepe. EPA

will continue to seek further stakeholder

input on how to proceed after priority

activities have been determined.

Alternatively or in addition to

attending any particular meeting,

members of the public may submit

written comments to the EPA contact

person for up to fifteen days after the

meeting. General questions about the

meeting process should be directed to

Charlene Shaw with EPA’s Office of

Ground Water and Drinking Water at

(202) 260–2285.

Subject Areas and Initial Meeting

Schedules

Regulatory Reassessment

EPA will hold a public meeting on

regulatory reassessment on March 13,

1995, from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. at the St.

James Hotel, 950 24th Street NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20037. Meetings

under this subject area will provide EPA

with stakeholder input on priorities for

regulating drinking water contaminants.

There is a wide variability among the

regulations in terms of the relative risk

reductions they will produce. Also, EPA

does not believe it has the resources to

continue working on all regulations

currently required in a timely and high

quality fashion.

In addition to discussing regulation

priorities, meeting participants may also

suggest criteria for prioritizing

rulemaking efforts. EPA will consider

comments provided by participants in

developing a prioritized list of

regulatory activities. The priority list

will be used to identify which

regulations can be developed in the near

term and which are appropriate for a

much longer time frame for

development. With this information,

EPA hopes to renegotiate current courtordered schedules and more effectively

direct federal, State and local resources.

EPA Contact: Jan Auerbach, (202) 260–

5274.

Scientific Data Needs

EPA will hold a public meeting on

scientific data needs on March 30, 1995,

from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. at the EPA

Auditorium, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460. Up to date

information and quality models and

methodologies are essential to sound

regulatory and programmatic decisionmaking. They form the foundation for

the more visible Agency actions and

products. Since data collection and

analysis is resource and time intensive,

some trade-offs are inevitable. EPA will

seek input regarding identification of

the most critical needs. Meetings under

this subject area would also seek input

on other factors which may merit

consideration.

This subject area encompasses a wide

range of questions, including the

following. Within the context of

statutory goals and timetables, what

types of data should be assembled and

considered in chemical assessment?

What levels of monitoring data are

required at all stages of the contaminant

evaluation process, from selection to

actual regulatory decisions? What are

the other key data needs with respect to

regulatory impact assessment? What

should the balance be between investing

in more sophisticated cost estimate

models versus reducing uncertainty in

other areas such as health assessment?

Within the context of statutory

guidelines and available public and

private resources, do interested parties

believe surrogate indicators (such as

volumes of pesticides used) are

adequate for contaminant selection for

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)

development, or should public water

supply monitoring and federal reporting

of those data precede MCL

development? Beyond contaminant

selection, cost and benefit assessments

will be discussed.

This subject area also includes

discussion of data needs related to

source water protection, including

drinking water occurrence, locational

and well characteristic data which