Environmental Protection Agency March 18, 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

EPA expressed lack of objections to the preferred alternative. ERP No. D-NPS-G02014-TX Rating EC2, Big Thicket National Preserve Oil and Gas Management Plan, Implementation, Hardin, Jefferson, Orange, Liberty, Tyler, Jasper and Polk Counties, TX. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and requests additional information on the delineation of these wetlands be incorporated in the Final EIS.

The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the SAB Metals Risk Assessment Framework Review Panel.

A brief synopsis of no more than two pages identifying: 1. The institution requesting funding and its key partners (where the applicant is a consortium of institutions); 2. The goals, objectives, outputs, and outcomes of the program by the end of years one, two, and three; 3. How the proposed program builds on existing national efforts and programs; 4. The estimated number of education professionals to be reached as well as the expected demographics of the audiences reached; and 5. How the funds will be used. (b) Mission Statement: A statement of the short (first year) and long-term (three to five year) goals, objectives, and expected outcomes of the program. Include a discussion about the needs of the environmental education and education communities and how these needs will be met. (c) Management and Implementation Plan: A detailed plan of how the project will be managed and implemented in the first year of the program (plus a summary of the project in the second and third years). The plan must: (1) Identify the proposed training and long-term support; (2) discuss how these activities build on existing national efforts and programs; (3) identify all key outputs and outcomes of the project consistent with section II.F.; (4) describe the major responsibilities, qualifications, expertise, and abilities of the Program Director, Program Manager, and key staff as well as key partners where the applicant is a consortium to effectively manage and implement the program; and (5) include a matrix or table identifying all key goals, objectives, outputs, and outcomes, as well as a schedule for conducting and completing these outputs and outcomes during the first year. EPA will consider information provided by the applicant and may consider information from other sources, including Agency files, in evaluating programmatic capability. (d) Evaluation Plan: A detailed plan on how the effectiveness of the program will be evaluated. It is important that the applicant demonstrate how the outputs and outcomes of their program will meet the goals of the program as well as the needs of the environmental education and education communities. The evaluation must be conducted by an institution that has appropriate credentials and expertise in evaluating education programs and is independent of the applicant and key partners where the applicant is a consortium. (e) Appendices: Attachments to the work plan containing information on the budget, qualifications and experience of key personnel, and letters of commitment from key partners. Budget: A statement describing how funds will be used in the first year, including budget milestones for each major proposed output and a timetable showing the month/year of completion. Estimates must include the allocation of funding for all major outputs. Include indirect costs as well as a statement on the relative effectiveness of the program in terms of the ratio of indirect to direct costs. Key Personnel and Letters of Commitment: Include brief resumes of no more than three pages each for the Program Director, Program Manager, key staff, and key partners where the applicant is a consortium with major responsibilities for managing and implementing the program. Resumes should describe educational, administrative, management, and professional qualifications and experience. Also, include a one page ``letter of commitment'' from each key partner with major responsibilities in the program where the applicant is a consortium of institutions. ``Letters of endorsement'' from individuals or institutions will not be considered in the evaluation process. C. How Should the Application be Submitted? The applicant must submit one original and two copies of the application (a signed SF 424, SF 424A, and a work plan). To help ensure the applications are readable and can be reproduced, please adhere to the following guidelines. Applications should not be bound. They should be on white paper with page numbers. Work plans must be limited to 20 pages (not including the appendices). Evaluators will not read work plans beyond the 20th page. A ``page'' refers to one side of a single- spaced typed page. The page should be letter sized (8 x 11 inches) with normal type size (10 or 12 cpi). To conserve paper, please provide double-sided copies of the work plan and appendices, where possible. D. What is the Deadline for Submitting an Application and Where Should it be Sent? Applications must be sent to EPA through the U.S. Postal Service or through a commercial overnight delivery service. The applications must be postmarked or received by the delivery service no later than April 30, 2005. Any application postmarked or received by the delivery service after this date will not be considered for funding. All applications must be sent to: Kathleen MacKinnon, U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Education, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW. (MC: 1704A, RM 1426), Washington, DC 20460 (zip code for U.S. Postal Service deliveries), 20004 (zip code for commercial overnight deliveries). E. Can I Claim my Proposal as Confidential Business Information? In accordance with 40 CFR 2.203, applicants may claim all or a portion of their application/proposal as confidential business information. EPA will evaluate confidentiality claims in accordance with 40 CFR part 2. Applicants must clearly mark applications/proposals or portions of applications/proposals they claim as confidential. If no claim of confidentiality is made, EPA is not required to make the inquiry to the applicant otherwise required by 40 CFR 2.204(c)(2) prior to disclosure. F. Is Intergovernmental Review Required? This program may be eligible for coverage under Executive Order 12372 ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.'' An applicant should consult the office or official designated as the single point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review. You may obtain additional information on intergovernmental review at https://www.whitehouse.gov/ omb/grants/spoc.html.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has submitted updated regulations for receiving delegation of EPA authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for all sources. These regulations apply to certain NESHAPs promulgated by EPA, as adopted by the TCEQ. The delegation of authority under this notice does not apply to sources located in Indian Country. EPA is taking direct final action to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to TCEQ.

EPA is approving Ohio's March 1, 2005, submittal of a revision to the Clinton County 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. Ohio held a public hearing on the submittal on February 8, 2005. This maintenance plan revision establishes a new transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) for the year 2006. EPA is approving the allocation of a portion of the safety margin for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) to the area's 2006 MVEB for transportation conformity purposes. This allocation will still maintain the total emissions for the area at or below the attainment level required by the transportation conformity regulations. The transportation conformity budget for volatile organic compounds will remain the same as previously approved in the maintenance plan. In this action, EPA is also correcting the codification for a previous approval action for Cincinnati, Ohio.

EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the fiberboard saturation process at W.R. Meadows, Inc., Goodyear, AZ. We are proposing to approve a local permit condition that regulates these source-specific emissions under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).