Environmental Protection Agency September 30, 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Provide a one page overview of your entire project in the following format; pages in excess of one will not be reviewed. (a) Organization: Briefly describe: (1) Your organization, and (2) list your key partners for this grant, if applicable. Partnerships are encouraged and considered to be a major factor in the success of projects. Full details about your organization and staff will be an appendix. (b) Summary Statement: Provide an overview of your project that explains the concept and your goals and objectives. This should be a basic explanation in layman's terms to provide a reviewer with an understanding of the purpose and expected outcomes of your educational project. If a person unfamiliar with your project reads this paragraph and cannot grasp your basic concept, then you have not achieved what is requested here. (c) Educational Priority: Identify which priority listed in Section I you will address, such as education reform or teaching skills. Proposals may address more than one educational priority for the same project; however, EPA cautions against losing focus on projects. Evaluation panels often select projects with a clearly defined purpose, rather than projects that attempt to address multiple priorities at the expense of a quality outcome. (d) Delivery Method: Explain how you will reach your audience, such as workshops, conferences, field trips, interactive programs, etc. (e) Audience: Describe the demographics of your target audience including the number and types you expect to reach, such as teachers and/or students and specific grade levels, health care providers, the general public, etc. (f) Costs: List the types of activities on which you will spend the EPA portion of the grant funds. (2) Project Description: Describe precisely what your project will achievewhy, who, when, how, and with what. Explain each aspect of your proposal clearly and address each topic below. If you choose to reorder the following paragraphs, include the headings below or you risk the possibility of information being overlooked when the project is scored. Please address all of the following to ensure that grant reviewers can fully comprehend and score your project correctly. (a) Why: (i) Explain the purpose of your project and how it will address an educational priority listed in Section I, such as teaching skills. (ii) Identify your environmental issue, such as energy conservation, clean air or water, ecosystem protection, or cross- cutting topics. Explain the importance to your community, state, or Region. If the project has the potential for wide application, and/or can serve as a model for use in other locations with a similar audience, explain how. (iii) Stewardship: Explain how your project will increase environmental stewardship as defined in Section I. (b) Who: Explain who will manage and conduct the project; also identify the target audience, the number to be trained, and demonstrate an understanding of the needs of that audience. Important: Explain your recruitment plan to attract your target audience, and clarify any incentives used such as stipends and continuing education credits. (c) How: Explain your strategy, objectives (outputs and outcomes), activities, and delivery methods to establish that you have realistic goals and objectives and will use effective methods to achieve them. Clarify for the reviewers how you will complete all basic steps from beginning to end. Do not omit steps that lead up to or follow the actual delivery methods; e.g., if you plan to make a presentation about your project at a local or national conference, specify where. (d) With What: Demonstrate that the project uses or produces quality educational products or methods that teach critical-thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making skills. Please note the following restrictions on the development of educational materials.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is issuing a notice of intent to partially delete the Jacobs Smelter Superfund Site, located in Tooele County, Utah, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this notice of intent. Specifically, EPA intends to delete Operable Unit 3 from the site, comprised only of soils within the Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) right-of-way. The NPL constitutes appendix B to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 as amended. The EPA and the state of Utah, through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed for the properties subject to the partial deletion. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final notice of partial deletion of the Jacobs Smelter Superfund Site without prior notice of intent to partially delete because we view this as a non-controversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this partial deletion in the preamble to the direct final partial deletion. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this notice of intent to partially delete or the direct final notice of partial deletion, we will not take further action on this notice of intent to partially delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final notice of partial deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final partial deletion notice based on this notice of intent to partially delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this notice of intent to partially delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For additional information, see the direct final notice of partial deletion that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register.

Montana has applied to EPA for Final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements for Final authorization and is authorizing the State's changes through this immediate Final action. EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the changes without a prior proposed rule because we believe this action is not controversial. Unless we get written comments opposing this authorization during the comment period, the decision to authorize Montana's changes to their hazardous waste program will take effect as provided below. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will publish a document in the Federal Register withdrawing this rule before it takes effect. A separate document in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register will serve as the proposal to authorize the State's changes.

EPA is withdrawing the proposed rule published on September 12, 2005 which proposed approval of a redesignation request and maintenance plan submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, and Stafford County (the Fredericksburg area). The Fredericksburg area is currently designated nonattainment for the eight-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). It is EPA's intent to publish a proposed rule in the near future which will re-propose approval of the redesignation of the Fredericksburg area and the associated maintenance plan, and provide an expanded discussion as to why the redesignation request for this area is approvable under the Clean Air Act.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2, announces the deletion of the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site (Site), located in the Town of Batavia, Genesee County, New York, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and will consider public comment on this action. The NPL is Appendix B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. This Direct Final Notice of Deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of New York, through the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). EPA and NYSDEC have determined that potentially responsible parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required. Moreover, EPA and NYSDEC have determined that the Site poses no significant threat to public health or the environment.

EPA has environmental concerns with the proposed project due to the impacts of noise and vibration on residents living in close proximately to the proposed light rail line and associated train stations. EPA anticipates that more information regarding the mitigation of these impacts will be provided in the FEIS. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20050321, ERP No. D-USA-D11038-PA, Pennsylvania Army National Guard's 56th Brigade Transformation into a Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) , Proposal to Comply with this Directive, near Annville, PA. Summary: EPA expressed concern related to wetland, air quality PM10, noise and forest habitat impacts. EPA requested addition information and mitigation of these issues. Rating EC2.

The Exposure Modeling Work Group (EMWG) will hold a 1-day meeting on October 26, 2005. This notice announces the location and time for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.