CSATAM FY15 RFP EPA-OAR-OAQPS-15-01.pdf

AGENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

TITLE: Community-Scale Air Toxics Ambient Monitoring

ACTION: Request for Proposals (RFP)

RFP NUMBER: EPA-OAR-OAQPS-15-01

CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CFDA) NO: 66.034

DATES: The closing date and time for receipt of proposal submissions, regardless of mode of submission, is January 5, 2015, 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time (ET). All hard copies of proposal packages must be received by Laurie Trinca by January 5, 2015, 4:00 p.m. ET in order to be considered for funding. Electronic submissions must be submitted electronically to EPA through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) by January 5, 2015, 4:00 p.m. ET in order to be considered for funding. Proposals received after the closing date and time will not be considered for funding.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of funds and solicits proposals for projects designed to assist state, local and tribal communities in identifying and profiling air toxics sources, assessing emerging measurement methods, characterizing the degree and extent of local air toxics problems, and tracking progress of air toxics reduction activities.

FUNDING / AWARDS: The total estimated available funding for this competitive opportunity is approximately $4,000,000. EPA anticipates awarding up to approximately 15 - 20 assistance agreements from this announcement, subject to availability of funds, the quality of proposals received, and other applicable considerations.

CONTENTS BY SECTION

I. Funding Opportunity Description II. Award Information III. Eligibility Information IV. Proposal and Submission Information V. Proposal Review Information VI. Award Administration Information VII. Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information (Appendices) mailto:submitted� http://www.grants.gov/�

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Background

The National Air Toxics Ambient Monitoring Program was developed in conjunction with both the National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/monstratdoc.html) and the Agency’s Urban Air Toxics Strategy (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/urban/urbanpg.html). As the air toxics and general ambient air monitoring strategies are further developed, a common set of needs is being addressed on behalf of the ambient air monitoring community. The National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy has provided a basic framework under which the air toxics program is well integrated. The linkage to the national strategy is illustrated by two dominant principles that emerged from the national strategy. First, monitoring programs must have an appropriate balance between national prescriptive measurements (e.g. trends) and more flexibility to address local issues that are not well handled through a national design given the diversity of toxics issues across the nation. The balance between the National Air Toxics Trends Station (NATTS) network and the community monitoring assessments reflects adherence to this principle. Second, the national strategy is directing a movement toward multiple measurements across numerous pollutant groups, recognizing the fact that most air pollution issues are well integrated from a scientific perspective, and enormous economies of scale are realized from integrating program management efforts across pollutant groups.

While the NATTS program is intended to gather and assess priority Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) data on a national scale, a primary objective of this solicitation is to identify and more accurately define the extent of local scale HAP impacts. To meet this objective, consideration of the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in planning and executing the prospective projects is appropriate.

NATA (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natamain/) is a valuable tool for identifying those air toxics which are of greatest potential concern, in terms of contribution to population risk. The assessment includes compiling a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor sources, estimating population exposures across the contiguous United States, and characterizing potential public health risk due to inhalation of air toxics including both cancer and non-cancer effects. On national and regional scales, NATA found ambient levels for several pollutants at or above inhalation health levels of concern to significant portions of the population. NATA results also indicate significant local risk levels at many communities nationwide. EPA is particularly interested in receiving air toxics monitoring related proposals from areas in those communities with the highest air toxics risk. Note, however, that for mobile sources NATA is best suited for use as an initial screen and, as feasible, could be supplemented by specific local indicators such as traffic intensity (e.g., motor vehicles per day, aircraft landings and takeoffs per year, etc.), proximity of receptors (e.g., residential areas, schools, etc.) to sources (e.g., major roads, airports, rail yards, etc.), and other similar relevant factors. Much of this type of information may be available through your state Department of Transportation. Effective January 2014, a number of near-road monitoring stations have been established to collect air pollution data in support of the NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard. These stations could potentially be leveraged with a project to collect air toxics data under this RFP.

B. Scope of Work http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/monstratdoc.html� http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/urban/urbanpg.html� http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natamain/�

EPA is soliciting proposals for projects designed to assist state, local and tribal communities in identifying and profiling air toxics sources, characterizing the degree and extent of local-scale air toxics problems, tracking progress of air toxics reduction activities, and assessing emerging measurement methods. Tribal monitoring agencies are strongly encouraged to apply under this solicitation. These objectives are consistent with the EPA Administrator’s stated priorities, found at http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epas-themes-meeting-challenge-ahead .

To be considered for funding under this RFP, each project proposal must address only one of the following four categories: community-scale monitoring, monitoring in the near-road environment, methods evaluation, or analysis of existing data. An applicant may submit separate proposals in more than one category, but each proposal must relate to only one of the categories. Proposals that address more than one category will be rejected.

1. Community-Scale Monitoring. This category is intended to assist state, local and tribal agencies in assessing the degree and extent to which air toxics problems impact their respective communities. Successful proposals will demonstrate a clear and compelling need or justification, examples of which may include, but are not limited to:

a. Delineating local scale HAP concentration gradients that are driven by factors such as proximity to, and influence by, sources and other factors unique to particular communities. While gradient delineation isn’t a purpose unto itself, it may be an integral part of a larger purpose such as conducting an exposure assessment, source characterization, or assessing the degree to which environmental justice may be a relevant issue in the affected community.

b. Characterizing near-source concentrations from specific sources, such as transportation facilities, refineries, oil and gas facilities, or other industry sectors; in particular, obtain information regarding substantially elevated ambient concentrations of toxics relevant to the source being investigated, including data on the pollutant profiles or source signatures. Such measurements assist regulators in their efforts to assess the impact of emission reduction measures (e.g., accountability) and to characterize risk and its causes for the most highly impacted populations.

c. Supporting health effects assessments. Air toxics ambient monitoring data can in some situations provide a valuable database for health scientists to investigate the relationship of ambient toxic concentrations and health impacts. In some instances opportunities may arise for health studies to be conducted in conjunction with such ambient monitoring efforts, though direct linkage to an ongoing health study is not a precondition for project selection.

d. Developing a baseline reference frame of air quality concentrations that support estimates of community exposure and provide the basis for the longer term measuring of progress of a planned emissions strategy program (e.g., http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epas-themes-meeting-challenge-ahead� characterization of base concentration levels which will inform the Residual Risk assessment process [http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html] and provide a basis for measuring improvement for promulgated Residual Risk standards) or evaluation of potentially increased exposure to air toxics from a new facility, expanded facility capacity or other increase or change in local-scale toxics emissions.

e. Evaluating and improving air quality models that in turn are used for exposure assessments. Air quality models are an important tool for exposure assessments.

However, they require supporting observations to instill confidence in model results, or to direct needed improvement in underlying model formulations or related emission inventories.

2. Monitoring in the Near-road Environment. This category is intended to assist state, local and tribal agencies in assessing the degree and extent to which air toxics problems impact their respective communities in the near-road environment. As a result of the NO2 NAAQS, a number of near-road monitoring stations began operations in January 2014.

These stations could potentially be leveraged by a community-scale project under this RFP.

Successful proposals will demonstrate a clear and compelling need or justification, similar to Category 1, but projects are required to be conducted in the near road environment. Some examples may include, but are not limited to:

a. Delineating local scale HAP concentration gradients that are driven by factors such as proximity to roadways and influence by sources and other factors unique to particular communities. While gradient delineation isn’t a purpose unto itself, it may be an integral part of a larger purpose such as conducting an exposure assessment, source characterization, or assessing the degree to which environmental justice impacts may be a relevant issue in the affected community.

b. Characterizing near-road concentrations from mobile sources. Such measurements assist regulators in their efforts to assess the pollutant levels, their behavior and interaction in the Near-road environment, impact of emission reduction measures (e.g., accountability), and to characterize risk and its causes for highly impacted populations.

c. Supporting health effects assessments. Air toxics ambient monitoring data can in some situations provide a valuable database for health scientists to investigate the relationship of ambient toxic concentrations and health impacts. In some instances opportunities may arise for health studies to be conducted in conjunction with such ambient monitoring efforts, though direct linkage to an ongoing health study is not a precondition for project selection.

d. Developing a baseline reference frame of air quality concentrations that support estimates of near-road exposure and provide the basis for the longer term measuring of progress of a planned emissions strategy program or evaluation of potentially increased exposure to air toxics from the near-road environment or other increase or http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html� change in local-scale toxics emissions.

e. Evaluating and improving air quality models that in turn are used for exposure assessments. Air quality models are an important tool for exposure assessments.

However, they require supporting observations to instill confidence in model results, or to direct needed improvement in underlying model formulations or related emission inventories.

3. Methods Evaluation. This category is intended to assist state, local and tribal agencies in evaluating emerging alternative sampling and analysis and/or monitoring methodologies that are of potential applicability to their particular situation as well as regionally and/or nationally. Successful proposals will demonstrate a clear and compelling need or justification, examples of which may include, but are not limited to:

a. Assess new methods for sampling and analysis of select priority HAPs (i.e., those that emerged as national or regional drivers as a result of the 2005 National Air Toxics Assessment). HAPs for which methods work is most critical and are those which 1) account for a significant contribution to the National risk, and 2) often have either a) an existing method detection limit higher than the concentrations established for one in a million cancer risk or non-cancer hazard quotient of 0.1, b) uncertainties exceeding commonly accepted data quality limits, or c) onerous and/or unduly expensive sampling or analysis methodologies. Examples of pollutants which may meet some of these criteria include formaldehyde, acrolein, other polar compounds such as 1,3-butadiene, and naphthalene.

b. Evaluate available advanced HAP monitoring technologies that can potentially operate on a routine basis. The target result of such projects is to ascertain the cost-effectiveness and accuracy (i.e., practical value) of existing innovative monitors, samplers, or analytical methods. This also can include next generation air monitoring equipment such as low cost sensors and real time continuous monitoring equipment.

4. Analysis of Existing Data and Implementation/Development of Tools. This category is aimed at state, local and tribal agencies which have already collected a significant amount of air toxics monitoring data and need support to analyze and interpret their results via existing tools or developing new tools. The objectives of a data analysis project should be consistent with those listed under Community-Scale Monitoring: supporting health assessments, evaluating air quality models, or characterizing community exposures. For this category, applicants should also address the following topics described below so that the relevance and potential utility of the data analyses with existing tools or the development of new data analysis tools can be assessed. Data analysis tools developed under this program shall be made available for other agencies to use for their data analysis needs.

a. Description of the original and current project objectives - trends study, risk screening or assessment, source characterization, etc.; identify any differences and associated rationale.

b. Details regarding the HAP data to include but not limited to:

1) Target analytes (what HAPs were measured) and why (sources of concern, etc.).

2) Associated sampling and analysis methodologies employed; note any issues observed with either or both the sampling and/or analysis equipment.

3) Sample frequency and duration; for the latter, both per sample (e.g., 2 minute grab samples versus 24 hour integrated samples), as well monitoring record dates and length (e.g., one month, six months, a year, 3 years, etc.).

4) Number of samples collected, data quality issues (e.g., flagged or voided), etc.

5) Associated detection limits and data reporting practices (e.g., whether or not zeros or some fraction of the Method Detection Limit (MDL) were substituted for values below the MDL).

c. Indication of whether a Quality Assurance Project Plan was developed and approved for the collection of these data.

d. Explanation as to why the data were not analyzed prior to now.

e. Discussion on how results will be used now to address original monitoring study goals.

It is intended that the grant recipients increase their knowledge of air toxics data analysis thus “empowering” them to become more proficient with tools and procedures needed to conduct viable statistical and trends analysis which meet the needs of their agency. It’s likewise intended that, where possible, the analysis may be useful to other State, local, or Tribal agencies, and may become an integral part of the EPA’s national data analysis trend effort. Note: because data analysis has historically been a requirement for all CSATAM grant recipients, prior awardees may not use this grant mechanism to perform the data analysis that should have been completed under a previous award.

Data analysis projects may quantify multi-year trends in HAP concentrations and relate these changes to trends in local emissions and contributions to potential transport of these pollutants. Monitoring data can be used as a measure of air program progress and accountability. Alternately, data analyses may help identify problem emissions sources that remain to be addressed. HAP sources can be identified using source apportionment techniques including meteorological analysis and receptor modeling.

Air toxics data analysis guidance, to include suggestions and examples of various methodologies, is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/toxdat.html#workbook.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/toxdat.html#workbook�

Additionally, areas with significant air toxics impacts that are also Environmental Justice communities are of particular interest and should be incorporated into an applicant’s proposed project. Further information on EPA’s Environmental Justice Program is available at http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oej/info/index.html. In particular, EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice has developed a “Toolkit for Assessing Allegations of Environmental Injustice” (http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/ej-toolkit.pdf) which serves to 1) provide a conceptual and substantive framework for understanding the Agency’s environmental justice program, and 2) present a systematic approach with reference tools that can be used and adapted to assess and respond to potential allegations of environmental injustice. Also available for use in identifying potential environmental justice areas is a mapping tool called “EJ View” (formerly known as the Environmental Justice Geographic Assessment Tool) which allows users to create maps and generate detailed reports based on the geographic areas and data sets they choose.

EJ View (http://epamap14.epa.gov/ejmap/entry.html) includes data from multiple factors that may affect public and environmental health within a community or region, including demographic, health, environmental, and facility-level data.

Ideally, the aggregate of awarded projects should provide some typical examples that can be relied upon by communities in other areas as a basis for initial hazardous air pollutant situation assessments. An example might be characterization of particular pollutants or a source category (e.g., coke oven, petroleum refinery, etc.) that allows for either direct translation of results to other locations or provides directions for similar studies in areas experiencing common problems. In order to ensure a balanced program activity distribution, the Agency reserves the right to award only one assistance agreement for a particular activity if several proposals for the same activity are submitted.

C. EPA Strategic Plan Linkage and Anticipated Outcomes, Outputs and Performance

Measures

Pursuant to Section 6a of EPA Order 5700.7, “Environmental Results under EPA Assistance Agreements,” EPA must link proposed assistance agreements to the Agency’s Strategic Plan. EPA also requires that grant applicants and recipients adequately describe environmental outputs and outcomes to be achieved under assistance agreements (see EPA Order 5700.7, Environmental Results under Assistance Agreements, http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/award/5700_7_a_1.pdf

1. Linkage to EPA Strategic Plan

All proposals must support progress towards EPA’s 2014-2018 Strategic Plan Goal 1 “Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality”; Objective 1.1: “Address Climate Change”, which states “minimize the threats posed by climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and taking actions that help to protect human health and help communities and ecosystems become more sustainable and resilient to the effects of climate change.” Proposals must also support progress towards Objective 1.2: “Improve Air Quality”, which states “achieve and maintain health- and welfare-based air pollution standards and reduce risk from toxic air pollutants and indoor air contaminants.”

Specifically, the proposed activities will support studies which advance the understanding of http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oej/info/index.html� http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/ej-toolkit.pdf� http://epamap14.epa.gov/ejmap/entry.html� http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/award/5700_7_a_1.pdf� air toxics science, impacts, and mitigation approaches. Such studies will provide insights for developing strategies to reduce air toxics emissions and hazardous air pollutants that will have substantial environmental and human health benefits. These benefits may include reductions in ambient concentrations of air toxic pollutants thus reducing the potential for associated adverse health impacts.

Please read EPA’s FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan for more information.

2. Outputs The term “output” means an environmental activity, effort, and/or associated work product related to an environmental goal and objective that will be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date. Outputs may be quantitative or qualitative but must be measurable during an assistance agreement funding period.

Expected outputs from the project(s) to be funded under this announcement may include the following:

o Publicly available HAP data in a central repository (EPA’s Air Quality System Database) o Source profiles associated with transportation, refineries, and other industry sectors o Community-specific assessments of air toxics problems o Improved understanding of select new ambient HAP sampling and analysis methods

Progress reports and a final report will also be a required output, as specified in Section VI(C) of this announcement, “Reporting Requirements.”

3. Outcomes The term “outcome” means the result, effect or consequence that will occur from carrying out an environmental program or activity that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or objective. Outcomes may be qualitative and environmental, behavioral, health-related, or programmatic in nature, but must also be quantitative. They may not necessarily be achievable within an assistance agreement funding period.

Projects to be funded under this announcement are expected to produce multiple environmental outcomes, examples of which are as follows:

o Short-term

- Problem identification

- Increase community awareness (to include responsible parties / industry)

- Improve measurement techniques

- Evaluate and/or improve air quality models o Mid-term

- State or local policy action(s)

- Responsible parties / industry mitigation action(s)

- Wide-scale deployment of new measurement technique

- Community action to mitigate HAPs http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan� o Long-term

- Reduce HAP emissions

- Reduce ambient HAP concentrations

- Reduce human exposure to HAPs

- Reduce adverse health effects from HAPs

Each project proposal must carefully consider and list explicit, project-specific anticipated outcomes, in particular short- and mid-term outcomes. Further, explicit links between the short-, mid-, and long-term outcome(s) should be considered, developed and clearly articulated.

NOTE: each assistance agreement arising from this competition will be required to submit an interim final report and a final report, the latter to be submitted 6-9 months after the former. The interim final report will be provided by the grant recipient at the conclusion of the project output phase and will include documentation regarding the degree to which the project output goals and objectives were met as well as a description of / prognosis for achieving the short- and mid-term project outcomes.

The final report will include the material from the interim final and include documentation regarding the degree to which the short- and mid-term project outcomes were achieved as well as a description of / prognosis for achieving the mid- and long-term outcomes.

4. Performance Measures The applicant should also develop performance measures they expect to achieve through the proposed activities and describe them in their proposal. These performance measures will help gather insights and will be the mechanism to track progress concerning successful process, output and outcome strategies and will provide the basis for developing lessons to inform future recipients. It is expected that the description of performance measures will directly relate to the project outcomes and outputs.

The following are questions to consider when developing output and outcome measures of quantitative and qualitative results:

What are the measurable short term and longer term results the project will achieve?

How does the plan measure progress in achieving the expected results (including outputs and outcomes) and how will the approach use resources effectively and efficiently?

D. Supplementary Information.

The statutory authority for this action is the Clean Air Act, §103(b)(3), which authorizes the award of grants for research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, and studies related to the causes, effects, (including health and welfare effects), extent, prevention, and control of air pollution. Ambient air monitoring, specifically local-scale efforts to better characterize the distribution and sources of hazardous air pollutants, as well as improved ambient air monitoring methods to achieve characterization and human exposure assessment goals, is consistent with this authority.

II. AWARD INFORMATION

A. What is the amount of funding available?

The total estimated funding expected to be available for awards under this competitive opportunity is approximately $4,000,000.

B. Partial Funding.

In appropriate circumstances, EPA reserves the right to partially fund proposals by funding discrete portions or phases of proposed projects. If EPA decides to partially fund a proposal, it will do so in a manner that does not prejudice any applicants or affect the basis upon which the proposal was evaluated and selected for award, and therefore maintains the integrity of the competition and selection process.

C. How many agreements will EPA award in this competition?

EPA anticipates award of up to approximately 15-20 assistance agreements under this announcement ranging in value from not less than $50,000 to not more than $750,000 (subject to the availability of funds, quality of evaluated proposals, and other applicable considerations). In addition, EPA reserves the right to make additional awards under this announcement, consistent with Agency policy, if additional funding becomes available after the original selections. Any additional selections for awards will be made no later than six months from the date of the original selections.

D. What is the project period for awards resulting from this solicitation?

The estimated project period for awards resulting from this solicitation will begin in the spring of 2015. Proposed project periods may be up to 3 years.

E. Funding Type

The funding for selected projects will be in the form of a grant or cooperative agreement, determined on a case-by-case basis by the recipient and the appropriate Regional Office.

Cooperative agreements permit substantial involvement between the EPA Project Officer and the selected applicants in the performance of the work supported. Although EPA will negotiate precise terms and conditions relating to substantial involvement as part of the award process, the anticipated substantial Federal involvement for this project will be:

o Close monitoring of the successful applicant’s performance to verify the results proposed by the applicant;

o Collaboration during performance of the scope of work;

o In accordance with 40 CFR 31.36(g), review of proposed procurement;

o Approving qualifications of key personnel (EPA will not select employees or contractors employed by the award recipient);

o Reviewing and commenting on reports prepared under the cooperative agreement

(the final decision on the content of reports rests with the recipient).

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

A. Eligible Entities

Consistent with the Applicant Eligibility Section of CFDA 66.034, “Surveys, Studies, Research, Investigations, Demonstrations, and Special Purpose Activities Relating to the Clean Air Act” and the EPA’s Assistance Agreement Competition Policy (EPA Order 5700.5A1), competition under this announcement is being limited to a subset of eligible applicants. Specifically, as projects resulting from this competition will be awarded exclusively with State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) funds, the only entities eligible to submit applications under this announcement are air pollution control agencies, as defined by Section 302(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), that are also eligible to receive grants under section 105 of the Clean Air Act, and/or federally recognized tribes.

B. Cost Sharing or Matching

No matching funds are required under this competition. Although cost-sharing/matching is not required as a condition of eligibility under this competition, under Section V of this announcement EPA will evaluate proposals based on a leveraging criterion.

Leveraging is generally when an applicant proposes to provide its own additional funds/resources or those from third party sources to support or complement the project they are awarded. Any leveraged funds/resources, and their source, must be identified in the proposal (See Section IV of the announcement). Leveraged funds and resources may take various forms as noted below.

Voluntary cost share is a form of leveraging. Voluntary cost sharing is when an applicant voluntarily proposes to legally commit to provide contributions to support the project when a cost share is not required. Applicants who propose to use a voluntary cost share must include the contributions for the voluntary cost share in the project budget on the SF-424. If an applicant proposes a voluntary cost share, the following apply:

o A voluntary cost share is subject to the match provisions in the grant regulations (40 CFR

30.23 or 40 CFR 31.24, as applicable).

o A voluntary cost share may only be met with eligible and allowable costs.

o The recipient may not use other sources of federal funds to meet a voluntary cost share unless the statute authorizing the other federal funding provides that the federal funds may be used to meet a cost share requirement on a federal grant.

o The recipient is legally obligated to meet any proposed voluntary cost share that is included in the approved project budget. If the proposed voluntary cost share does not materialize during grant performance, then EPA may reconsider the legitimacy of the award and take other appropriate action as authorized by 40 CFR Parts 30 or 31 as applicable.

Other leveraged funding/resources that are not identified as a voluntary cost share is another form of leveraging that may be met by funding from another federal grant, from an applicant's own resources, or resources from other third party sources. This form of leveraging should not be included in the budget and the costs need not be eligible and allowable project costs under the EPA assistance agreement. While this form of leveraging should not be included in the budget, the grant work-plan should include a statement indicating that the applicant is expected to produce the proposed leveraging consistent with the terms of the announcement and the applicant's proposal. If applicants propose to provide this form of leveraging, EPA expects them to make the effort to secure the leveraged resources described in their proposals. If the proposed leveraging does not materialize during grant performance, then EPA may reconsider the legitimacy of the award and take other appropriate action as authorized by 40 CFR Parts 30 or 31 as applicable.

C. Threshold Eligibility Criteria

These are requirements that if not met by the time of proposal submission will result in elimination of the proposal from consideration for funding. Only proposals from eligible entities (see above) that meet all of these criteria will be evaluated against the ranking factors in Section V of this announcement. Applicants deemed ineligible for funding consideration as a result of the threshold eligibility review will be notified within 15 calendar days of the ineligibility determination.

1. Proposal Content and Submission

a. Proposals must substantially comply with the proposal submission instructions and content requirements set forth in Section IV and Appendix A of this RFP or else they will not be reviewed.

b. Where a page limit is expressed in Section IV of this RFP with respect to the Project Narrative, pages in excess of the page limitation will not be reviewed.

c. Proposals must be received by EPA or grants.gov through one of the specified methods in Section IV of this RFP on or before the submission deadline published in Section IV of this RFP. Proposals received after the deadline will be considered late and returned to the sender without further consideration unless the applicant can clearly demonstrate that it was late due to EPA mishandling or because of technical problems associated with www.grants.gov. For hard copy submissions, where Section IV of this RFP requires proposal receipt by a specific person/office by the deadline, receipt by an agency mailroom is not sufficient. Applicants should confirm receipt of their proposal with the EPA contact identified in Section IV of this RFP as soon as possible after the deadline;

failure to do so may result in your proposal not being reviewed.

d. Hard copy proposals will only be accepted via an express delivery service.

Proposals will NOT be accepted via electronic mail (e-mail), fax, standard 1st class mail delivery by U.S. Postal Service, or hand delivery.

2. All proposals must support EPA’s Strategic Plan Goal 1, Addressing Climate Change and

Improving Air Quality’ (see Section I.C.1).

3. The minimum and maximum award values for assistance agreements arising from this competition will be $50,000 and $750,000, respectively. Proposals requesting funding below the minimum or above the maximum will not be considered for funding.

4. Applicants must address only one of the four categories listed in Section I.B.

5. Only eligible entities as described in section III. Part A are eligible to apply for funding under this RFP.

6. If a proposal is submitted which includes ineligible tasks or activities, that portion of the proposal will be ineligible for funding, and depending on the extent to which it affects the proposal, may render the entire proposal ineligible for funding.

IV. PROPOSAL AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

A. How to Obtain a Proposal Package

Applicants can download individual grant application forms from EPA’s Office of Grants and Debarment website at: http://www.epa.gov/ogd/forms/forms.htm .

To obtain a hard copy of materials, please send an email or written request to the Agency contact listed in Section VII of this announcement.

B. Proposal Submission

Applicants have the following options to submit their proposals: 1) Hard copy by express delivery service to the specified EPA contact below, or 2) electronically through www.grants.gov as explained in Appendix A. Proposals will not be accepted via fax, email, or standard 1st class mail delivery by the U.S. Postal Service. All proposals must be prepared, and include the information, as described below in Section IV.C “Content of Proposal,” regardless of mode of transmission.

1. Hard Copy Submission

Please provide one original of the proposal package (including signed and completed SF 424 and SF 424A forms) --no binders or spiral binding--to:

Hard Copy via Express Delivery (FedEx, UPS, DHL, USPS etc.)

Laurie Trinca US EPA (Mail Code: C304-06) 4930 Page Road Durham NC 27703

Hard Copy Proposal Submission Deadline http://www.epa.gov/ogd/forms/forms.htm�

All hard copies of proposal packages must be received by Laurie Trinca not later than 4:00 p.m. ET on January 5, 2015.

2. Grants.gov Submission (see Appendix A)

Proposal Submission Deadline: Your organization’s authorized official representative (AOR) must submit your complete proposal electronically to EPA through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) not later than 4:00 p.m. ET on January 5, 2015.

C. Content of Proposal Submission

The proposal package must include all of the following materials:

• Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance Complete the form (available at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/forms/forms.htm). There are no attachments. Please be sure to include organization fax number and email address in Block 5 of the Standard Form SF 424.

Please note that the organizational Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number must be included on the SF-424. Organizations may obtain a DUNS number at no cost by calling the toll-free DUNS number request line at 1-866-705- 5711.

• Standard Form (SF) 424A , Budget Information

Complete the form (available at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/forms/forms.htm). There are no attachments. The total amount of federal funding requested for the project period should be shown on line 5(e) and on line 6(k) of SF-424A, the amount of indirect costs should be entered on line 6(j). The indirect cost rate (i.e., a percentage), the base (e.g., personnel costs and fringe benefits), and the amount should also be indicated on line 22.

• Narrative Proposal

The Narrative Proposal (sections 1-3 below) may not exceed a maximum of 10 single-spaced typewritten pages, including the Summary Page. Supporting materials, such as resumes and letters of support, can be submitted as attachments and are not included in the 10 page limit.

1. Summary Information Page (recommended not exceeding one page)

a. Project Title

b. Applicant Information. Include applicant (organization) name, address, contact person, phone number, fax and e-mail address.

c. Funding Requested. Specify the amount you are requesting from EPA.

d. Total Project Cost. Specify total cost of the project. Identify funding from other sources, including cost share or in-kind resources.

e. Project period. Provide beginning and ending dates. (Projects are anticipated http://www.grants.gov/� to begin date and end no later than date.)

f. DUNS number-See Section VI.C.

2. Narrative Proposal Work-Plan

The narrative proposal work-plan must explicitly describe how the proposed project meets the guidelines established in Sections I-III of this announcement (including the threshold eligibility criteria in Section III.C), and must address each of the evaluation criteria set forth in Section V. Applicants are strongly encouraged to structure their narrative proposal in the same manner, both content and sequence, as the evaluation criteria presented in Section V.

a. Basis and Rationale

Describe the particular situation the proposed project is intended to address, providing as much detail / supporting information as is reasonable and necessary to clearly portray the specific problem or issue. Discuss the situational relevance to the applicable category as described in Section I, Part B, and make a connection between the issue and your organization.

Provide a clear and compelling rationale / justification for the proposed project (e.g., 2005 NATA results for the affected location, discussion of local HAP sources, previous local-area ambient air monitoring data and/or studies, risk assessments, etc.). Make a case for your project in terms of local impacts, and discuss how your particular local situation / scenario and project could have relevance to locales / areas beyond your own.

b. Technical Approach

Describe the project objectives and explain how those objectives will address the specific scenario you described in your basis and rationale discussion.

Describe and explain the proposed project plan / design (to include performance measures), and how that project plan will enable achieving the stated project objectives.

c. Data Analysis

Describe your data analysis plan, including information on 1) how the project design will support the data analysis objective(s), and 2) how the data analysis will be used. Potential data analyses include source apportionment / source signature identification risk characterization / exposure assessment, evaluation of new or emerging monitoring method utility and practical value, model evaluation and improvement, risk mitigation efforts, and tool implementation or development, etc.

d. Environmental Justice Impacts

Demonstrate how the proposed project will address the needs and concerns, in particular how it will help to reduce exposure and adverse impacts of toxic air pollutants for the EJ community under consideration, of (1) local communities, including any communities or populations that have faced or are facing environmental justice concerns (as defined in Section I) and/or (2) other interested parties, groups, or populations that are, or have been, affected by the environmental and/or other issues that the project is intended to address. Demonstrate how you will engage and work with community-based organizations (as defined in Section I of this announcement) and other appropriate parties to enhance project effectiveness and/or efficiency including your plans for making subawards, as necessary and appropriate, to community-based organizations and others to enhance project effectiveness and/or efficiency. Applicants, not EPA, select their subawardees and the Applicant must demonstrate in its proposal that the community-based organization(s) or other groups are willing to accept the subaward and have the capacity to effectively administer and perform the agreement. Selected applicants who propose to make subawards, including those to community-based groups, must follow proper procedures in making subawards and will be expected to make the subawards consistent with their application. The award will include a term and condition requiring the applicant to make the subawards consistent with their application.

e. Community Collaboration / Outreach

Describe and provide evidence of any collaborative interaction and involvement with the local affected community during the project proposal development. Provide your plan for continued collaboration / community involvement throughout the project and beyond. Note that communications and outreach funding must be reflected in the detailed itemized budget.

f. Environmental Results: Outcomes, Outputs, Performance Measures

Identify the expected quantitative and qualitative outcomes and outputs of the project (see Section I.C), including what performance measurements or other means will be used to track and measure your progress towards achieving the expected outcomes and outputs, and how the results of the project will be evaluated.

g. Programmatic Capability and Past Performance

Submit a list of federally funded assistance agreements (assistance agreements include Federal grants and cooperative agreements but not Federal contracts) similar in size, scope and relevance to the proposed project that your organization performed within the last three years (no more than five agreements, and preferably EPA agreements) and describe (i) whether, and how, you were able to successfully complete and manage those agreements and (ii) your history of meeting the reporting requirements under those agreements including whether you adequately and timely reported on your progress towards achieving the expected outputs and outcomes of those agreements (and if not, explain why not) and whether you submitted acceptable final technical reports under the agreements. In evaluating applicants under these factors in Section V, EPA will consider the information provided by the applicant and may also consider relevant information from other sources, including information from EPA files and from current/prior grantors (e.g., to verify and/or supplement the information provided by the applicant). If you do not have any relevant or available past performance or reporting information, please indicate this in the proposal and you will receive a neutral score for these factors (a neutral score is half of the total points available in a subset of possible points). If you do not provide any response for these items, you may receive a score of 0 for these factors.

h. Detailed Budget Narrative (See Appendix B, Budget Sample)

Clearly explain how EPA funds will be used. This section provides an opportunity for a narrative description of the budget found in the SF-424A.

Applicants must itemize costs related to personnel, fringe benefits, contractual costs, travel, equipment, supplies, other direct costs, indirect costs, and total costs.

Management Fees:

When formulating budgets for proposals, applicants must not include management fees or similar charges in excess of the direct costs and indirect costs at the rate approved by the applicants cognizant audit agency, or at the rate provided for by the terms of the agreement negotiated with EPA. The term "management fees or similar charges" refers to expenses added to the direct costs in order to accumulate and reserve funds for ongoing business expenses, unforeseen liabilities, or for other similar costs that are not allowable under EPA assistance agreements. Management fees or similar charges may not be used to improve or expand the project funded under this agreement, except to the extent authorized as a direct cost of carrying out the scope of work.

i. Leveraging (See also Section III.B)

Demonstrate how you will leverage additional funds/resources beyond the grant funds awarded to support the proposed project activities and how these funds/resources will be used to contribute to the performance and success of the proposed project. This includes but is not limited to funds and other resources leveraged from businesses, labor organizations, non-profit organizations, education and training providers, and/or Federal, state, tribal, and local governments, as appropriate. Describe the amount and type of leveraged resources to be provided, how you will obtain the leveraged resources, the likelihood the leveraging will materialize during grant performance, the strength of the leveraging commitment, and the role the leveraged resources will play to support the proposed project activities.

Selected applicants are expected to abide by their proposed leveraging commitments during grant performance and the failure to do so may affect the legitimacy of the award.

4. Attachments. These are optional and are not included in the 10 page limit. Nor are these attachments considered during evaluation of an applicant’s proposal.

a. Biographical Sketch. Provide resumes or curriculum vitae for all principal investigators and any other key personnel.

b. Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement.

c. Quality Assurance Narrative Statement.

d. Support Letters-These should indicate how the supporting organization will assist in the project.

D. Submission Dates and Times

The closing date and time for receipt of proposal submissions, regardless of mode of submission, is January 5, 2015 by 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). All hard copies of proposal packages must be received by Laurie Trinca by 4:00 p.m. ET on January 5, 2015; electronic submissions must be submitted to www.grants.gov by 4:00 p.m. ET on January 5, 2015. Proposals received or submitted electronically after the closing date and time will not be considered for funding.

E. Additional Provisions For Applicants Incorporated Into The Solicitation

Additional provisions that apply to this solicitation and/or awards made under this solicitation, including but not limited to those related to confidential business information, contracts and subawards under grants, and proposal assistance and communications, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/competition/solicitation_provisions.htm . These, and the other provisions that can be found at the website link, are important, and applicants must review them when preparing proposals for this solicitation. If you are unable to access these provisions electronically at the website above, please communicate with the EPA contact listed in this solicitation to obtain the provisions.

V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

Only eligible entities whose proposals meet the threshold criteria in Section III of this announcement will be reviewed according to the evaluation criterion set forth below. Applicants must explicitly address these criteria as part of their proposal package submittal. Each proposal will be rated under a points system, with a total of 100 points possible.

http://www.epa.gov/ogd/competition/solicitation_provisions.htm�

A. Evaluation Criteria

Criteria Points

1. Basis and Rationale

: Under this criterion, the Agency will evaluate the quality and extent to which the applicant

(7 pts) describes the particular situation the proposed project is intended to address, and the degree to which it relates to the relevant scenario(s) identified in Section I, Part B, and

(7 pts) provides a clear and compelling rationale / justification for the proposed project (e.g., 2005 NATA results for the affected location, discussion of local HAP sources, previous local ambient air monitoring data and/or studies, risk assessments, etc.).

2. Technical Approach

: Under this criterion, the Agency will evaluate the quality and extent to which the applicant describes

(7 pts) the project objectives and explains how those objectives will address the specific scenario, and this factor is hard to distinguish w/ the above one (1a)

(7 pts) the proposed project plan / design, and how that project plan will enable…