In accordance with the Act (7 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. ), this Notice announces the dates when the Request for Referendum will be conducted and the place where soybean producers may request a referendum on the Order. The Act provides that the Secretary, 5 years after the conduct of the initial referendum and every 5 years thereafter, shall give soybean producers the opportunity to request an additional referendum on the Order. The initial referendum was held in February 1994. The last opportunity for producers to request a referendum on the Order was October 1999. Only 17,970 eligible soybean producers completed valid requests—far short of the 60,082 required to trigger a referendum.

Individual producers and other producer entities will be provided the opportunity to request a referendum, at the county FSA office where FSA maintains and processes the producer's administrative farm records. For the producer not participating in FSA programs, the opportunity to request a referendum will be provided at the county FSA office serving the county where the producer owns or rents land. Participation in the Request for Referendum is not mandatory.

On March 23, 2004,USDA published in the Federal Register a final rule (69 FR 13458) that sets forth procedures that will be used in conducting the Request for Referendum. The final rule includes definitions, provisions for supervising the process for requesting a referendum, eligibility, procedures for requesting and completing the required form, required documentation showing that assessment was paid, where the Request for Referendum will be conducted, counting and reporting results, and disposition of the forms and records. Since the Request for Referendum will be conducted at the county FSA offices, FSA employees will assist AMS by determining eligibility, counting requests, and reporting results.

Pursuant to the Act, USDA is conducting the required Request for Referendum from May 3, 2004, through May 28, 2004.

To be eligible to participate in the Request for Referendum producers or the producer entity they are authorized to represent must certify and provide supporting documentation that shows they paid an assessment sometime between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003.

Form LS-51-1 may be requested in person, by mail, or by facsimile from May 3, 2004, through May 28, 2004. Form LS-51-1 may also be obtained via the Internet at http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mpb/re-soy.htm during the same 4-week period. Individual producers and other producer entities would request a referendum at the county FSA office where FSA maintains and processes the producer's, corporation's, or other entity's administrative farm records. For the producer, corporation, or other entity not participating in FSA programs, the opportunity to request a referendum would be provided at the county FSA office serving the county where the producer, corporation, or other entity owns or rents land.

Producers can determine the location of county FSA offices by contacting (1) the nearest FSA office, (2) the State FSA office, or (3) through an online search of FSA's Web site at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/default.asp . From the options available on this Web site select “Your local office,” click on your State, and click on the map to select a county.

Form LS-51-1 and supporting documentation may be returned in person, by mail, or facsimile to the appropriate county FSA office. Form LS-51-1, and accompanying documentation may be returned in person or by facsimile, must be received in the appropriate county office prior to the close of business of May 28, 2004. Form LS-51-1 and accompanying documentation returned by mail must be postmarked no later than midnight of May 28, 2004.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the information collection requirements made in connection with the Request for Referendum have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB control number 0581-0093.

The Mineral Materials Act of 1947, as amended, and the Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955, as amended, authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to dispose of petrified wood and common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinders, clay, and other similar materials on lands administered by the Forest Service. Individuals, organizations, companies, or corporations may apply for a permit to mine these mineral materials using the form, FS-2800-9-Contract for the Sale of Mineral Materials. The agency is requesting an authorization extension for form FS-2800-9-Contract for the Sale of Mineral Materials.

The following describes the information collection to be extended:

Title: FS-2800-9—Contract for the Sale of Mineral Materials.

OMB Number: 0596-0081.

Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, 2004.

Type of Request: Extension.

Abstract: The collected information enables the Forest Service to document planned operations, to prescribe the terms and conditions the agency deems necessary to protect surface resources, and to effect a binding contract agreement.

Forest Service employees will evaluate the collected information to ensure that entities, applying to mine petrified wood and common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinders, clay, and other similar materials on lands administered by the Forest Service, are financially accountable and conduct their activities in accordance with the mineral regulations at Part 228, subpart C, of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Individuals, organizations, companies, or corporations, interested in mining mineral materials on National Forest System lands, may contact their local Forest Service office to inquire about opportunities and to learn about areas on which such activities are permitted. Interested parties also may request the form, FS-2800-9, at this time.

Individuals, organizations, companies, or corporations are asked to provide information that includes the purchaser's name and address, the location and dimensions of the area to be mined, the kind of material that will be mined, the quantity of material that will be mined, the sales price of the mined material, the payment schedule, the amount of the bond, and the period of the contract.

Data collected in this information collection are not available from other sources.

Estimate of Burden: 2.5 hours.

Type of Respondents: Mineral materials operators.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,000.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 15,000 hours.

Comment is invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments, including name and address when provided, will become a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.

On July 3, 2003, Tyco requested that the Department conduct a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on PSPT from Italy pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii)(2003). Tyco claims to be the successor-in-interest to Manuli Tapes, S.p.A., 1 and, as such, claims that it is entitled to receive the same antidumping treatment as Manuli. On August 7, 2003, at the request of the Department, Tyco submitted additional information and documentation pertaining to its changed circumstances request. From November 12 through November 15, 2003, the Department conducted a verification of the information pertaining to this changed circumstances review at Tyco's offices in Novara and Tyco's plant in Formia, both located in Italy.

On February 2, 2004, the Department published the preliminary results of review and invited interested parties to comment. See Notice of Preliminary Results. We received no comments.

Imports covered by the review are shipments of PSPT measuring over 1 3/8 inches in width and not exceeding 4 millimeters in thickness, currently classifiable under items 3919.90.20 and 3919.90.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.

In antidumping duty changed circumstances reviews involving a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992) ( Canadian Brass ). While no single factor or combination of factors will necessarily be dispositive, the Department generally will consider the new company to be the successor to the predecessor company if the resulting operations are essentially the same as those of the predecessor company. See, e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994), and Canadian Brass, 57 FR 20460. Thus, if the record evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the predecessor company, the Department may assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979, 9980 (March 1, 1999).

We have examined the information provided by Tyco and determined that Tyco is the successor-in-interest to Manuli. Tyco's acquisition of Manuli has precipitated minimal changes to the original Manuli corporate structure. Tyco's management, production facilities, supplier relationships, sales facilities and customer base are essentially unchanged from those of Manuli's. Therefore, the record evidence demonstrates that the new entity essentially operates in the same manner as the predecessor company. Consequently, we determined that Tyco should receive the same antidumping duty treatment as Manuli, i.e. , zero percent antidumping duty cash deposit rate.

The cash deposit determination from this changed circumstances review will apply to all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review. See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). This deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review in which Tyco participates.

This notice serves as a final reminder to parties to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5). Failure to timely notify the Department in writing of the return/destruction of APO material is a sanctionable violation.

This notice is in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and section 351.221(c)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations.

On December 22, 2003, the Department published its Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons From the Republic of Korea (68 FR 71078). The preliminary determination was negative. The notice stated the Department would issue its final determination no later than 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination (December 16, 2003).

Section 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i) allows for a postponement of the final determination until not later than 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination at the request of the petitioner, when the preliminary determination was negative.

On February 12, 2004 the Department postponed the final determination to March 22, 2004 at the request of the petitioner. See Notice of Postponement of Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons from the Republic of Korea, 69 FR 6941 (February 12, 2004).

On March 16, 2004, the Department received a request from the petitioner, International Imaging Materials, Inc. (IIMAK), that the Department postpone the final determination until March 29, 2004. IIMAK made this request under section 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i) which, as noted above, allows the petitioner to request a postponement of the final determination if the preliminary determination was negative. There are no compelling reasons for the Department to deny petitioner's request. Therefore, pursuant to section 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i), the Department is postponing the deadline for issuing the final determination until March 29, 2004.

This notice of postponement is in accordance with section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2).

Electronic Access: Applicants should read the full text of the full funding opportunity announcement which can be accessed at the OGP Web site: http://www.ogp.noaa.gov or the central NOAA site: www.ofa.noaa.gov/~amd/SOLINDEX.HTML. This announcement will also be available through Grants.gov at http://www.Grants.gov. The standard NOAA application kit is available on the OGP Web site at: http://www.opg.noaa.gov/grants/appkit.htm.

Evaluation and Selection Procedures: NOAA published its first omnibus notice announcing the availability of grant funds for both projects and fellowships/scholarship/internships for Fiscal Year 2004 in the Federal Register on June 30, 2003 (68 FR 38678). The evaluation criteria and selection procedures contained in the June 30, 2003 omnibus notice are applicable to this solicitation. For a copy of the June 30, 2003 omnibus notice please go to: http://www/ofa.noaa.gov/~amd/SOLINDEX.HTML.

Funding Availability: Please be advised that actual funding levels will depend upon the final FY 2005 budget appropriations. In FY 2003, $8.2M in first year funding was available for 63 new awards; similar funds and number of awards are anticipated in FY 2004 and FY 2005. We anticipate that the annual cost of most funded projects will fall between $50,000 and $200,000 per year. Current plans assume that 100% of the total resources provided through this announcement will support extramural efforts, particularly those involving the broad academic community. Past or current grantees funded under this announcement are eligible to apply for a new award which builds on previous activities or areas of research not covered in the previous award. Current grantees should not request supplementary funding for ongoing research through this announcement. This program will not cover tuition remission for graduate students above $2,500/year or computing and networking services above $1,000/year per grant.

CFDA: No. 11.431, Climate and Atmospheric Research.

Eligibility: Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other nonprofits, commercial organizations, international organizations, state, local and Indian tribal governments. Federal agencies or institutions are not eligible to receive Federal assistance under this notice.

Cost Sharing Requirements: Cost Sharing is not required.

Letters of Intent: The purpose of the LOI process is to provide information to potential applicants on the relevance of their proposed project to the Climate and Global Change Program and the likelihood of it being funded in advance of preparing a full proposal. While it is in the best interest of the applicants and their institutions to submit an LOI explaining the work they propose to carry out and how much it will cost, it is not a requirement; applicants who do not submit an LOI are allowed to submit a full proposal. A panel of program managers will review each LOI to determine its responsiveness to the program goals as advertised in this notice and will provide an e-mail or letter response.

Limitation of Liability: Funding for the programs listed in this notice are contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2005 appropriations. In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds.

NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals which are seeking NOAA federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at the following NOAA NEPA Web site: http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/, including our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216-6-TOC.pdf , and the Council on Environmental Quality implementation regulations, http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm. Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their description of their program activities, applicants are required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist ( e.g. , the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef systems). In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying and implementing feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for the denial of an application.

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements: The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of October 1, 2001 (67 FR 49917), as amended by the Federal Register notice published on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66109), are applicable to this solicitation.

This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424 and 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of federal programs.”

Prior notice and an opportunity for public comments are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for this notice concerning grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. section 553(a). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

The PCPT will meet on April 8, 2004 to discuss the following agenda items:

The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. Public comment periods will be provided throughout the agenda. The Plan Team will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Plan Team for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Plan Team action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The current limit for Category 363 is being increased for swing.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 69 FR 4926, published on February 2, 2004). Also see 68 FR 63070, published on November 7, 2003.

We invite you to submit comments regarding this proposed priority and other application requirements.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority and other application requirements. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this proposed priority and other application requirements in 400 Maryland Ave, SW., room 3E320, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this proposed priority and other application requirements. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

We propose this priority and other application requirements under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Programs to focus on the important need of LEAs to strengthen and improve school crisis plans in coordination with community-based partners.

We will announce the final priority and other application requirements in a notice in the Federal Register . We will determine the final priority and other application requirements after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or funding additional priorities or other application requirements, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority we give competitive preference to an application by either (1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to which the application meets the competitive priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

The events of September 11, 2001, made schools and communities aware that in addition to planning for traditional crises and emergencies, schools must now plan to respond to possible terrorist attacks on campus or in the community. The proposed priority supports LEA projects to improve and strengthen emergency response and crisis management plans, at the district and school building level, addressing the four phases of crisis planning: Prevention/Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. Plans must include training for school personnel, students, and parents in emergency response procedures and must include coordination with local law enforcement, public safety, health, and mental health agencies.

In order to develop high-quality emergency response and crisis management plans under this priority, LEAs need to involve community partners in all aspects of planning. We propose establishing the following application requirements:

To be considered for a grant award, we propose that an applicant include in its application an agreement that details the participation of the LEA and the following five community-based partners from the local area: law enforcement, public safety, health, mental health, and the head of the applicant's local government (for example the mayor, city manager, or county executive). The agreement must detail the roles and responsibilities that each of the required partners will have in improving and strengthening the plan. The agreement must also reflect each partner's commitment to sustainability and continuous improvement of the plan. Finally, the agreement must include an authorized signature representing the LEA and each community-based partner.

If one or more of the five partners listed is not present in the applicant's community, or cannot feasibly participate, the agreement must explain the absence of each missing partner. To be considered eligible for funding, however, an application must include signed agreements from at least the LEA and two of the required five partners, and explanations for the absence of any of the remaining required partners.

Applications that fail to include the required agreement, including roles and responsibilities, commitment to sustainability and continuous improvement (with signatures and explanations for missing signatures as specified above), will not be read.

Furthermore, all emergency response and crisis management plans must be coordinated with the Homeland Security Plan of the State in which the LEA is located. All States submitted such a plan to the Department of Homeland Security on January 30, 2004. To ensure that emergency services are coordinated within the State, the LEA must follow the requirements of the State Homeland Security Plan for informing and working with State personnel on emergency services and initiatives.

Although this program requires partnerships with other parties, administrative direction and fiscal control for the project must remain with the local educational agency.

The plan must also take into consideration the communication, transportation, and medical needs of individuals with disabilities within this community.

We also propose that grantees who received funding under this priority in FY 2003 are not eligible applicants for FY 2004.

This notice of proposed priority and other application requirements has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.

The potential costs associated with the notice of proposed priority and other application requirements are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.

In assessing the potential costs and benefits both quantitative and qualitative—of this notice of proposed priority and other application requirements, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed priority and other application requirements justify the costs.

We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

Summary of potential costs and benefits:

The potential cost associated with this proposed priority and other application requirements is minimal while the benefits are significant. Grantees may anticipate costs with completing the application process in terms of staff and partner time, copying, and mailing or delivery. The use of E-Application technology reduces mailing and copying costs significantly.

The benefit of this proposed priority and other application requirements is that grantees that develop a comprehensive emergency response and crisis management plan that includes training and that is implemented in coordination with community partners may mitigate the financial and human impact of a crisis in their district.

This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program. Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 97-99, and 299.

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister .

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area, at (202) 512-1530.

We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed priorities. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed priorities in room 3412, Switzer Building, 330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed priorities. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

We will announce the final priorities in a notice in the Federal Register . We will determine the final priorities after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or funding additional priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by either (1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the competitive priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

These proposed priorities are in concert with NIDRR's 1999-2003 Long-Range Plan (Plan). The Plan is comprehensive and integrates many issues relating to disability and rehabilitation research topics. While applicants will find many sections throughout the Plan that support potential research to be conducted under these proposed priorities, a specific reference is included for each priority presented in this notice. The Plan can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/index.html.

Through the implementation of the NFI and the Plan, NIDRR seeks to—(1) improve the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation research; (2) foster an exchange of expertise, information, and training to facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the unique needs of traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine best strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation outcomes for underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5) identify mechanisms of integrating research and practice; and (6) disseminate findings.

RRTCs conduct coordinated and integrated advanced programs of research targeted toward the production of new knowledge to improve rehabilitation methodology and service delivery systems, alleviate or stabilize disability conditions, or promote maximum social and economic independence for persons with disabilities. Additional information on the RRTC program can be found at: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#RRTC.

RRTCs must:

• Carry out coordinated advanced programs of rehabilitation research;

• Provide training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-service training, to help rehabilitation personnel more effectively provide rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities;

• Provide technical assistance to individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties;

• Disseminate informational materials to individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties; and

• Serve as centers for national excellence in rehabilitation research for individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties.

The Department is particularly interested in ensuring that the expenditure of public funds is justified by the execution of intended activities and the advancement of knowledge and, thus, has built this accountability into the selection criteria. Not later than three years after the establishment of any RRTC, NIDRR will conduct one or more reviews of the activities and achievements of the RRTC. In accordance with the provisions of 34 CFR 75.253(a), continued funding depends at all times on satisfactory performance and accomplishment of approved grant objectives.

The Assistant Secretary proposes to fund three RRTCs that will focus on improved outcomes measures, health status, and rehabilitation of persons with traumatic brain injury to facilitate the ability of individuals with disabilities to live in the community. Under each of these priorities, the RRTC must:

(1) Contribute substantially to the scientific knowledge-base relevant to its respective subject area;

(2) Research, develop, and evaluate interventions or tools to assist with outcomes for its focus area;

(3) Develop, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive plan for training critical stakeholders ( e.g. , consumers/family members, practitioners, service providers, researchers, and policymakers);

(4) Provide technical assistance, as appropriate, to critical stakeholders, ( e.g. , consumers/family members, practitioners, and service providers) to facilitate utilization of research findings in its respective area of research; and

(5) Develop a systematic plan for focused dissemination of informational materials based on knowledge gained from the RRTC's research activities, and disseminate the materials to persons with disabilities, their representatives, service providers, and other interested parties.

In addition to these activities, we propose that under each of the priorities, the RRTC must:

• Conduct a state-of-the-science conference on its respective area of research in the third year of the grant cycle and publish a comprehensive report on the final outcomes of the conference in the fourth year of the grant cycle. This conference must include materials from experts internal and external to the RRTC;

• Coordinate on research projects of mutual interest with relevant NIDRR-funded projects as identified through consultation with the NIDRR project officer;

• Involve individuals with disabilities, including those from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, in planning and implementing its research, training, and dissemination activities, and in evaluating the RRTC;

• Demonstrate in its application how it will address, in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds; and

• Articulate goals, objectives, and expected outcomes for the proposed research activities. It is critical that proposals describe expected public benefits, especially benefits for individuals with disabilities, and propose projects that are designed to demonstrate outcomes that are consistent with the proposed goals. Applicants must include information describing how they will measure outcomes, including the indicators that will represent the end-result, the mechanisms that will be used to evaluate outcomes associated with specific problems or issues, and how the proposed activities will support new intervention approaches and strategies, including a discussion of measures of effectiveness.

Each RRTC must focus research on one of the following priorities:

In a research environment increasingly driven by the demand for evidence-based practice, it is becoming even more necessary to develop and use measures to evaluate the effectiveness and efficacy of interventions and their value to individuals with disabilities. Despite significant investment in development of measures, there is general agreement that much remains to be done. This changing environment necessitates the development, evaluation, and application of the next generation of rehabilitation outcomes measures. These measures must be valid, reliable, efficiently collected, relevant to the lives of people with disabilities, and easily utilized to drive decisions made by key rehabilitation stakeholders. Changing rehabilitation payment structures and clinical pathways are necessitating the development of outcome measures that can be applied across the spectrum of acute and post-acute care settings. Through their report entitled “Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century,” the Institute of Medicine (IOM) emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in the health care delivery system (Institute of Medicine, 2001. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

Collecting rehabilitation outcomes is labor intensive in any setting. Applications of item-response theory and computerized dynamic assessment technologies, which have been successfully applied in the fields of education and psychology, have great potential to increase efficiency and precision of rehabilitation outcomes data collection and measurement (Ware, J. 2003. Conceptualization and Measurement of Health-Related Quality of Life: Comments on an Evolving Field. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(4 Suppl 2): S43-S51). Further application of these state-of-the-art computer-based measurement and analysis methods in medical rehabilitation will complement the Institute of Medicine's recommendations for the development of a national health care information-technology infrastructure (Institute of Medicine (2003a). Patient Safety: Achieving a New Standard for Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press).

Evolving disability classification frameworks such as the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) (World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health; ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization) emphasize the importance of participation in a wide variety of life situations. In order to apply such frameworks to medical rehabilitation services and research, it is necessary to develop measurement tools that can assess participation and link this outcome to interventions in the rehabilitation setting.

Priority: This center must conduct research to advance the field of medical rehabilitation by increasing the utility, efficiency, and relevance of its outcomes measurement tools and processes. The research funded under this priority must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:

• Improved measurement tools that can be used to track the outcomes of individuals across a wide variety of rehabilitation settings.

• Improved measurement tools that incorporate consumer perspectives to assess long-term community integration outcomes within a comprehensive model for evaluating rehabilitation effectiveness, such as the ICF.

• Increased efficiency of rehabilitation outcomes data collection, through the application of strategies such as item response theory and computer adaptive testing techniques.

• Identification of effective methods for translating outcomes data into information that can be utilized to inform decisions made by key rehabilitation stakeholders, including consumers, payers, provider organizations, and clinicians.

The reference for this topic can be found in the Plan, chapter 4, Health and Function: Research on Rehabilitation Outcomes, pp. 49-50.

Healthy People 2010 reports on the health status disparity between people with disabilities and people without disabilities (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010 Washington, DC: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2001). On average, health status decreases as the severity of one's disability increases. For older people with disabilities, this relationship is even stronger. (U.S. Census Bureau. Americans with Disabilities: Household Economic Status Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).

Despite this established empirical correlation, health and disability are separate and distinct concepts that must be measured on separate scales. Research has demonstrated that concepts of health status are commonly merged with concepts of disability. New measures of health status are needed that are relevant to the experiences of persons with long-term disability to facilitate assessment of health promotion and wellness activities among this population.

NIDRR-funded research on aging, disability and secondary conditions has identified factors associated with health and wellness outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Access to primary (routine) health care is one factor that may affect health status of individuals with disabilities. Pain management, exercise, and nutrition counseling are critical interventions to counteract the results of increasingly sedentary lifestyles of persons with long-term disability (Campbell, ML, Sheets, D, Strong, PS. Secondary Health Conditions Among Middle-Aged Individuals with Chronic Physical Disabilities: Implications for unmet needs for services. Assistive Technology; 11: 105-122, 1999; Motszko M, Preventing osteoporosis. Lifelong nutrition and exercise habits are the most powerful weapons. Advanced Nurse Practitioner; Jul: 10 (7): 41-3, 76, 2002). Rehabilitation researchers have also identified complementary and alternative therapies that may promote or contribute to improved health and wellness for persons with disabilities (Shiffett, SC. Acupuncture and Stroke Rehabilitation. Stroke; 32(8); 1934-6-9, 2001).

Priority: This center must conduct research that will help to overcome the health disparities of individuals with disabilities compared to individuals without disabilities. The research funded under this priority must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:

• Identification of strategies to overcome barriers that impede access to routine healthcare for individuals with disabilities.

• Identification of interventions in areas such as exercise, nutrition, pain management, or complementary and alternative therapies, that promote health and wellness and minimize the occurrence of secondary conditions for persons with disabilities.

• Improved health status measurement tool(s) to assess health and well-being of individuals with disability regardless of functional ability.

The reference for this topic can be found in the Plan, chapter 4, Health and Function: Health Care at the Individual Level; Health Care at the Systems Level, pp. 42-43.

An estimated 5.3 million Americans currently live with disabilities resulting from traumatic brain injury (TBI). As stated in the 1998 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Conference Proceedings, “TBI may result in lifelong impairment of an individual's physical, cognitive, and psychosocial functioning.” Among children up to age 14, TBI results annually in an estimated 3,000 deaths, 29,000 hospitalizations, and 400,000 emergency department visits. A working group convened by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC in October, 2000 called for more research on patterns of recovery, secondary conditions, effectiveness of treatment, and issues of measurement for this population. At the September 2003, NIDRR-funded State of the Science Conference on TBI Interventions, levels of evidence for many interventions in TBI rehabilitation were characterized as inconclusive.

Priority: This center must conduct research to improve long-term outcomes for persons with TBI. The research funded under this priority must be designed to contribute to one of the following outcomes:

• Identification of interventions that demonstrate efficacy, or effectiveness, or both, in promoting improved rehabilitation outcomes for adults with TBI; or

• Identification of interventions that demonstrate either efficacy, or effectiveness, or both, in promoting improved rehabilitation outcomes for children (under age 16) with TBI.

In addition, for either adults or children, the research funded under this priority must be designed to develop and evaluate improved techniques for assessing outcomes associated with TBI.

The reference for this topic can be found in the Plan, chapter 4, Health and Function: Research on Trauma Rehabilitation, p. 47.

This notice of proposed priorities has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.

The potential costs associated with the notice of proposed priorities are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.

In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this notice of proposed priorities, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed priorities justify the costs.

Summary of potential costs and benefits: The potential costs associated with these proposed priorities are minimal while the benefits are significant. Grantees may anticipate costs associated with completing the application process in terms of staff time, copying, and mailing or delivery. The use of e-Application technology reduces mailing and copying costs significantly.

The benefits of the RRTC Program have been well established over the years. Similar projects have generated new knowledge and technologies.

The benefit of these proposed priorities will be the establishment of new RRTCs, which can be expected to generate new knowledge through research, dissemination, utilization, training, and technical assistance projects that will improve the lives of persons with disabilities and thus improve their ability to live in the community. Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister .

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed priorities. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed priorities in room 3412, Switzer Building, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed priorities. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

We will announce the final priorities in a notice in the Federal Register . We will determine the final priorities after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or funding additional priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by either (1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the competitive priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

These proposed priorities are in concert with NIDRR's Long-Range Plan (Plan). The Plan is comprehensive and integrates many issues relating to disability and rehabilitation research topics. While applicants will find many sections throughout the Plan that support potential research to be conducted under these proposed priorities, a specific reference is included for each priority presented in this notice. The Plan can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/index.html.

Through the implementation of the NFI and the Plan, NIDRR seeks to- (1) Improve the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation research; (2) foster an exchange of expertise, information, and training to facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding of the unique needs of traditionally underserved populations; (3) determine best strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation outcomes for underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5) identify mechanisms of integrating research and practice; and (6) disseminate findings.

RRTCs conduct coordinated and integrated advanced programs of research targeted toward the production of new knowledge to improve rehabilitation methodology and service delivery systems, alleviate or stabilize disability conditions, or promote maximum social and economic independence for persons with disabilities. Additional information on the RRTC program can be found at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#RRTC.

RRTCs must:

• Carry out coordinated advanced programs of rehabilitation research;

• Provide training, including graduate, pre-service, and in-service training, to help rehabilitation personnel more effectively provide rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities;

• Provide technical assistance to individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties;

• Disseminate informational materials to individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties; and

• Serve as centers for national excellence in rehabilitation research for individuals with disabilities, their representatives, providers, and other interested parties.

The Department is particularly interested in ensuring that the expenditure of public funds is justified by the execution of intended activities and the advancement of knowledge and, thus, has built this accountability into the selection criteria. Not later than three years after the establishment of any RRTC, NIDRR will conduct one or more reviews of the activities and achievements of the RRTC. In accordance with the provisions of 34 CFR 75.253(a), continued funding depends at all times on satisfactory performance and accomplishment of approved grant objectives.

Community integration (CI) and independent living (IL) are central to NIDRR's mission, which is to develop knowledge that will “improve substantially the options for disabled individuals to perform regular activities in the community, and the capacity of society to provide full opportunities for its disabled citizens.” NIDRR's Plan, which articulates this mission, emphasizes that community integration is not just about being located physically in the community; it is about full participation, independence, empowerment, choice, and control.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its 1999 L.C. v. Olmstead decision, held that title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits unjustified isolation or segregation of qualified individuals with disabilities, including individuals with mental disabilities, through institutionalization. The President issued Executive Order 13217, “Community-based Alternatives for Individuals with Disabilities,” which requires Federal agencies to implement the Olmstead decision.

In April, 2002, President Bush announced the creation of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. He charged the Commission with studying the mental health care system in the United States and making recommendations that would enable adults with serious mental illness and children with serious emotional disturbance to live, work, learn, and participate fully in their communities. The ensuing Commission Report, “Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America” (July, 2003), along with reports from the Surgeon General and numerous other public and private entities, offer consensus on a number of findings addressed in the priorities below. These include the importance of enhancing: (1) Recovery as an organizing framework; (2) recovery-oriented, community-based interventions that are consumer and family-driven; (3) integration of care and collaboration across service sectors serving persons with psychiatric disability ( e.g. , health, mental health, substance abuse, corrections/juvenile justice, education, social services); (4) financial flexibility, workforce development, and accountability across service sectors; (5) access to care by reducing stigma; and culturally competent care and service to rural and other underserved populations; and (6) culturally competent care and service to rural and other underserved populations.

NIDRR, in keeping with its long-standing commitment to CI for people with disabilities, and consistent with findings from the President's Commission and findings from the field, announces its intention to fund three RRTCs related to child, adolescent, and adult mental health. Each of these priorities addresses at least some of the findings previously discussed.

New to this set of priorities is a focus on outcomes rather than activities. The overall outcome for each of these priorities mirrors the President's charge: To work towards enabling adults with serious mental illness and children with serious emotional disturbance to live, work, learn, and participate fully in their communities and to provide supports for their families and caregivers.

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services proposes to fund three RRTCs that will focus on rehabilitation related to improving the community integration outcomes of persons with disabilities who have psychiatric or other mental health conditions. Under each of these priorities, the RRTC must:

(1) Contribute substantially to the scientific knowledge-base relevant to its respective subject area,

(2) Research, develop, and evaluate interventions and tools to improve outcomes in its focus area,

(3) Develop, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive plan for training critical stakeholders ( e.g. , consumers, family members, practitioners, service providers, researchers, and policymakers),

(4) Provide technical assistance, as appropriate, to critical stakeholders, ( e.g. , consumers, family members, practitioners, and service providers) to facilitate utilization of research findings in its respective area of research, and

(5) Develop a systematic plan for widespread dissemination of informational materials based on knowledge gained from the RRTC's research activities, and disseminate the materials to persons with disabilities, their representatives, service providers, and other interested parties.

In addition to the activities proposed by the applicant to carry out these purposes, each RRTC must—

• Conduct a state-of-the-science conference on its respective area of research in the third year of the grant cycle and publish a comprehensive report on the final outcomes of the conference in the fourth year of the grant cycle. This conference must include materials from experts internal and external to the RRTC;

• Coordinate on research projects of mutual interest with relevant NIDRR-funded projects as identified through consultation with the NIDRR project officer;

• Involve individuals with disabilities, including those from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, in planning and implementing its research, training, and dissemination activities, and in evaluating the RRTC;

• Demonstrate in its application how it will address, in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds; and

• Articulate goals, objectives, and expected outcomes for the proposed research activities. It is critical that proposals describe expected public benefits, especially benefits for individuals with disabilities, and propose projects that are designed to demonstrate outcomes that are consistent with the proposed goals. Applicants must include information describing how they will measure outcomes, including the indicators that will represent the end-result, the mechanisms that will be used to evaluate outcomes associated with specific problems or issues, and how the proposed activities will support new intervention approaches and strategies, including a discussion of measures of effectiveness.

Each RRTC must focus research on one of the following priorities:

The purpose of the priority is to establish an RRTC on Recovery and Recovery-Oriented Psychiatric Rehabilitation for Persons with Long Term Mental Illness, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The RRTC must be outcomes-focused, with the aim of enabling adults with serious mental illness to live, work, learn, and participate fully in their communities. Emphasis must be placed on the development and translation into practice of scientific knowledge that is culturally competent and consumer and family centered. To achieve these goals, the RRTC will conduct research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities on individual and environmental factors relevant to recovery and recovery-oriented psychiatric rehabilitation. Relevant topic areas may include, but are not limited to—

• The concept and dimensions of recovery as it relates to people with long-term mental illness;

• Factors that inhibit recovery ( e.g. , stigma and discrimination, fragmentation of the service delivery system, workforce shortages); or

• Factors that enhance recovery, including model interventions and supports ( e.g. , culturally competent treatment, supported employment, supported education, and alternative and innovative practices such as exercise, peer supports, and personal assistance services).

The reference for this topic can be found in the Plan, chapter 6, Independent Living and Community Integration.

The purpose of the priority is to establish an RRTC on development and implementation strategies for effective and integrated systems of care for children and adolescents with serious emotional disorders and their families and caregivers, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The RRTC must be outcome-focused, with the aim of developing and implementing effective and integrated systems of care that provide children and families access to the services and supports they need in order to live, learn, work, and thrive in their communities. To achieve this, the RRTC must conduct research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities on relevant areas such as, but not limited to—

• Strategies for maximizing collaboration in planning, accountability, financing, and service delivery within and across service sectors ( e.g. , mental health, juvenile justice, child welfare, education, substance abuse, primary health).

• Strategies for enhancing the child and adolescent mental health workforce so that it is more diverse and has the training, organizational support, and infrastructure necessary to implement family and community-based individualized service plans.

• Strategies for developing culturally competent policies, practices, and procedures, and incorporating them into the service delivery system.

• Performance measurement and quality improvement procedures designed to help systems of care make adjustments and improvements as needed to achieve their goals.

• Strategies for developing and implementing financial policies that are flexible and encourage home and community-based care provided in accordance with individualized service plans.

• Strategies for maximizing translation of evidence-based research into systems of care that permit families' self-determination; maximize partnerships between schools, families, and communities; and provide access to effective family and community-based interventions.

The reference for this topic can be found in the Plan, chapter 6, Independent Living and Community Integration.

The purpose of the priority is to establish an RRTC on promoting effective family-centered and community-based practices and supports for children and adolescents with serious emotional disorders and their families and other caregivers, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Mental Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The work of the RRTC must be outcome-focused with the aim of increasing the extent to which families and youth have awareness of and access to supports and services that effectively promote their participation in family, school, work, and community life and roles. To achieve this, the RRTC will conduct research, training, technical assistance, and dissemination activities on relevant topic areas such as, but not limited to—

• Strategies for reducing stigma as a barrier to service delivery for children, families, and other caregivers.

• Strategies for integrating the concept of recovery (as discussed in the field of psychiatric rehabilitation) in service delivery for children and youth.

• Strategies for developing, delivering, and evaluating culturally competent youth and family-driven individualized service plans that are applicable across a variety of settings and service sectors.

• Strategies for maximizing the translation of evidence-based research into effective community-based practices.

• Strategies to support successful transitions across settings.

The reference for this topic can be found in the Plan, chapter 6, Independent Living and Community Integration.

This notice of proposed priorities has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.

The potential costs associated with the notice of proposed priorities are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.

In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this notice of proposed priorities, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed priorities justify the costs.

The potential costs associated with these proposed priorities are minimal while the benefits are significant. Grantees may anticipate incurring costs associated with completing the application, including staff time, copying, and mailing or delivery. The use of e-Application technology reduces copying and mailing costs significantly.

The benefits of the RRTC Program have been well established over the years. Similar projects have generated findings that advance the field and improve options for individuals with disabilities.

The benefit of these proposed priorities and project requirements will be the establishment of new RRTCs that generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information to improve options and participation in the community for individuals with disabilities. Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: www.ed.gov/news/fedregister .

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.

The objective of this funding opportunity announcement is to provide financial support to improve the efficiency of internal combustion engines for light- and heavy-duty engines through technological advances in combustion and waste heat recovery. This funding opportunity announcement will address the following two topical areas: 1) Direct Energy Conversion from Waste Heat Recovery; and 2) Heating/Cooling Devices Based on Waste Heat Recovery. DOE anticipates awarding 3 to 6 cost sharing cooperative agreements across the two topical areas. Approximately $12 million to $17 million of federal funding is anticipated for awards under this program over multiple fiscal years. Awards under both topical areas will require 25% cost share.

Once released, the funding opportunity announcement will be available for downloading from the IIPS Internet page. At this Internet site you will also be able to register with IIPS, enabling you to submit an application. If you need technical assistance in registering or for any other IIPS function, call the IIPS Help Desk at (800) 683-0751 or E-mail the Help Desk personnel at IIPS_HelpDesk@e-center.doe.gov. The funding opportunity announcement will only be made available in IIPS, no hard (paper) copies of the funding opportunity announcement and related documents will be made available. Telephone requests, written requests, E-mail requests, or facsimile requests for a copy of the funding opportunity announcement will not be accepted and/or honored. Applications must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the instructions and forms contained in the announcement. The actual funding opportunity announcement document will allow for requests for explanation and/or interpretation.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you register pesticide products for food or feed uses, or submit petitions for pesticide tolerances. Additionally, this action may be of interest to agricultural producers, food manufacturers, or other pesticide manufacturers. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., Establishments growing crops mainly for food and fiber.

• Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., Establishments primarily engaged in keeping, grazing, breeding, or feeding animals.

• Food processing (NAICS 311), e.g., Establishments engaged in transforming livestock and agricultural products into products for intermediate or final consumption.

• Pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325320), e.g., Pesticide registrants who sell and distribute pesticide products to the general public in the United States.

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed above could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in the Information Collection Request document. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2004-0092. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ .

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in “OPP-2004-0092.”

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit II.A. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

This notice announces our finding that the following emissions budgets contained in the 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan and the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan , submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on January 9, 2004, are adequate for transportation conformity purposes: 1-hour ozone budgets for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) for the years 2005, 2008, and 2010, as part of the 1-hour ozone attainment plan for the South Coast Air Basin; PM10 budgets for VOC, NO X , and PM10 for the years 2003 and 2006, as part of the PM10 attainment plan for the South Coast; CO budget for CO for the year 2002, as part of the CO attainment plan for the South Coast; NO2 budget for NO X for the year 2003, as part of the NO2 maintenance plan for the South Coast Air Basin; and PM10 budgets for PM10 for the years 2003 and 2006, as part of the PM10 attainment plan for the Coachella Valley. EPA Region IX made these findings in letters to CARB on March 11, 2004. We are also announcing these findings on our conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/reg9sips.htm.

The methodology for estimating paved road dust emissions in the South Coast and Coachella Valley PM10 plans and budgets is consistent with EPA's AP-42 emissions factors, with one exception: California did not use correction factor C in the current version of AP-42, which subtracts out MOBILE6.2 1980's fleet exhaust emissions, brake wear, and tire wear. California-specific roadway silt loading inputs to the emission factor equation were derived from measurements by Midwest Research Institute. The unpaved road dust emissions factor was based on measurements performed by the University of California, Davis, and the Desert Research Institute. We are specifically approving the State's reentrained dust methodologies for paved and unpaved roads for use in future conformity analyses.

Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. Our conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans (SIPs) and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they conform. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.

The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emissions budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). One of these criteria is that the plan provide for attainment or maintenance (as appropriate) of the relevant ambient air quality standard. We have preliminarily determined that the South Coast SIP submittal provides for progress and attainment of the 1-hour ozone, PM10, and CO NAAQS, and maintenance of the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, and that the budgets associated with the plans are consistent with the plan and, therefore, can be found adequate. Similarly, we have preliminarily determined that the Coachella Valley SIP submittal provides for progress and attainment of the PM10 NAAQS, and that the budgets associated with the plan are consistent with the plan and, therefore, can be found adequate.

We have described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999 memo titled “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision”). We followed this guidance in making our adequacy determination on the budgets in the South Coast and Coachella Valley SIP submittals.

The staff paper, “An Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices,” represents an effort by EPA to examine how risk assessment is conducted at EPA. The staff paper presents the perspectives of EPA risk assessors on how they understand risk assessment to be conducted at EPA. It also presents staff recommendations for EPA and interested parties to consider how EPA can strengthen and, where appropriate, improve its risk assessment practices. This staff paper does not represent official EPA policy.

The EPA Science Advisor and other senior EPA officials requested this report to further the discussion and examination of some broad questions about risk assessment. EPA assembled a group of risk assessment professionals from across EPA to examine EPA's principles and practices, and to prepare this paper. As part of its examination, the group examined the public comments submitted to OMB in response to OMB's request for public comment on risk assessment procedures in the Federal government (68 FR 5492-5527, February 3, 2003). The comments to OMB were used to help identify practices that the staff paper could address.

The EPA staff review is supplementary to other activities, such as revisions to EPA's risk assessment guidelines. Instead of addressing the specific issues covered by other activities, the staff was charged with taking a broader look across EPA's risk assessment principles and practices, and with considering several issues as they relate to EPA risk assessment in general. Further, the staff developed a set of recommendations from this review. The recommendations will help EPA update its agenda for further discussion on risk assessment practices.

EPA is releasing this staff paper as a vehicle for opening up a broader dialogue among EPA staff, EPA managers, and external parties about the practice of risk assessment at EPA. Several activities may take place as a part of this dialogue, including possible workshops with EPA's Science Advisory Board or other external groups on promising areas for further development of EPA risk assessment practices. Also, meetings may be held with states, non-governmental organizations, tribal groups, professional societies, and other interested parties to seek their input and suggestions. Releasing this staff paper is an important step in an ongoing process to help advance risk assessment principles and practices at EPA. As the dialog proceeds, newer and better approaches for risk assessment may emerge.

To promote this dialogue, EPA is making this staff paper available and requests comments on the principles and practices discussed in the paper. The objective is not to revise the staff paper, but to use it to focus an active dialogue on risk assessment issues. There will be no formal response to the comments EPA receives. Rather, the comments will be used to help EPA focus on particular risk assessment issues to pursue within EPA and with the interested public. EPA is interested in suggestions for other avenues for dialogue as well.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments; however, late comments may be considered since the staff paper represents the first step of a multi-step process.

1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EDOCKET. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EDOCKET at http://www.epa.gov/edocket , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in Docket ID No. ORD-2004-0004. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to ORD.Docket@epa.gov , Attention Docket ID No. ORD-2004-0004. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit II.A.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By Mail. Send your comments to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. ORD-2004-0004.

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room B-102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington DC, Attention Docket ID No. ORD-2004-0004; (note: this is not a mailing address). Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in unit II.B.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. ORD-2004-0004. The official public docket consists of any public comments received and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the Headquarters EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752; facsimile: (202) 566-1753; or e-mail: ORD.Docket@epa.gov .

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EDOCKET. You may use EDOCKET at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EDOCKET. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EDOCKET, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Publicly available docket materials that are not available electronically may be viewed at the docket facility identified above.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

As discussed below, EPA has decided to grant EDS an exemption from the RCRA land disposal restrictions for deep injection of hazardous wastes through two wells in Romulus, Michigan because it has determined that EDS's petition for the exemption meets the requirements for an exemption set forth in 40 CFR part 148, subpart C, and accordingly that the injection will be protective of human health and the environment. This notice discusses the requirements for obtaining such an exemption, and explains how the EDS petition meets those requirements and demonstrates that the proposed injection will be protective of human health and the environment. This decision also discusses the Agency's consideration of public comments and events and changes that have occurred since the Agency published its notice of intent to grant the petition in December of 2002, and sets forth the conditions on the exemption.

RCRA provides for the prohibition of land disposal of certain hazardous wastes by a number of methods, among them underground injection by deep wells. RCRA also provides for exceptions from these prohibitions when methods of land disposal are determined to be protective of human health and the environment for as long as the waste remains hazardous. ( See RCRA sections 3004(d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(2), and (g)(5), 42 U.S.C. 6924, (d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(2), and (g)(5)). Under RCRA section 3004(g)(5), a method of land disposal may not be determined to be protective of human health and the environment (except with respect to a hazardous waste which has complied with the pretreatment regulations promulgated under subsection (m)) unless, upon application by an interested person, it has been demonstrated to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the wastes remain hazardous.

The EPA previously determined that underground injection of hazardous waste could meet the RCRA “protectiveness” standard provided that the EPA could review and approve injection facilities on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the EPA promulgated UIC regulations in 1988 establishing criteria and procedures for no migration petitions to demonstrate compliance with this standard, 40 CFR 148.20-148.24. As discussed below, the regulations allow a petitioner to make this demonstration by showing, among other things, that conditions at the site and the nature of the waste are such that reliable predictions can be made that injected fluids will not migrate within 10,000 years vertically upward out of the injection zone or laterally within the injection zone to a point of discharge or interface with a USDW. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the regulations in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA , 907 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

EDS submitted a petition on January 21, 2000, as amended on October 3, 6, 27, and 31, 2000; January 12, April 24, and October 16, 2001; and January 31, August 22, September 25, and October 23, 2002, requesting an exemption from the LDR for injection of all land ban-restricted hazardous wastes into Well No. 1-12 and Well No. 2-12, located on Citrin Drive in Romulus, Michigan. EDS's petition is based, among other things, on a showing under 40 CFR 148.20(a)(i) that the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site and the physiochemical nature of the waste stream(s) are such that reliable predictions can be made that fluid movement conditions are such that the injected fluids will not migrate within 10,000 years (A) vertically upward out of the injection zone; or (B) laterally within the injection zone to a point of discharge or interface with a USDW.

The EPA issued a notice of intent to grant this petition on November 19, 2002, publishing this notice in the Federal Register (67 FR 77981, December 20, 2002) (Notice of Intent). The EPA accepted public comments on this Notice of Intent from December 6, 2002, until October 6, 2003, holding two public hearings (on January 8, 2003 and on April 21, 2003).

After reviewing the petition and additional submissions of information, and considering public comments, the EPA has determined that EDS has met the requirements of 40 CFR part 148, subpart C. The EPA finds EDS has demonstrated that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous, by showing that the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site and the physiochemical nature of the waste stream(s) are such that reliable predictions can be made that fluid movement conditions are such that the injected fluids will not migrate within 10,000 years (A) vertically upward out of the injection zone; or (B) laterally within the injection zone to a point of discharge or interface with a USDW and meets other applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 148, subpart C. Accordingly, the EPA has determined that EDS's proposed injection is protective of human health and the environment.

A petition submitted under 40 CFR 148.20(a)(1)(i) must show that the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site and the physiochemical nature of the waste stream(s) are such that reliable predictions can be made that fluid movement conditions are such that the injected fluids will not migrate within 10,000 years (A) vertically upward out of the injection zone; or (B) laterally within the injection zone to a point of discharge or interface with a USDW.

A determination under 40 CFR 148.20(a)(1)(i) is based on the interpretation of data and the use of conservative assumptions to characterize the injection zone and to predict waste movement. The plume modeling detailed in the petition document is not intended to predict the actual plume behavior for 10,000 years, but to “bound” the area of potential plume migration as discussed in the preamble to the 40 CFR part 148 regulations ( see 53 FR 28117, at 28126-28127, July 26, 1988). As discussed in the preamble, the EPA believes that the 10,000 year demonstration strikes an appropriate balance between the need to demonstrate “no migration with a reasonable degree of certainty” and the limits of the technological means available to make such a demonstration. The EPA believes that a site which could demonstrate no migration throughout a 10,000 year time period would provide containment for a substantially longer time frame, and allow for geochemical transformations or attenuation which would render the waste non-hazardous or immobile. As set forth in the preamble to the part 148 regulations and noted in the Notice of Intent:

Considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department's construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984). ( Chevron ) If the Agency's choice represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency's care by the statute, it should not be disturbed unless it appears from the statute or its legislative history that the accommodation is not one that Congress would have sanctioned. ( See Chevron , at 845, citing United States v. Shimer , 367 U.S. 374, 382, 383 (1961)).

The EPA interprets the “reasonable degree of certainty” standard to require that the petitioner provide:

As discussed below, EPA staff with appropriate technical expertise reviewed the EDS petition and determined that the requirements of the no migration standard were satisfied. Information to be submitted in support of a no migration petition is detailed in 40 CFR 148.20-148.22. Additional information required for a Class I hazardous waste injection well permit is detailed in 40 CFR 146.66 and 146.70. A geological review of a no migration petition includes evaluation of local and area geology, seismic, and hydrogeologic conditions. Data evaluated in the geologic review process included, among other things, open hole and cased hole logs of the injection wells and other area wells, such as temperature, neutron, electrical, and radioactive tracer logs; confining and injection zone core data; geological cross sections based on area wells; well location, structure, and net formation thickness maps; geological reports from consultants; regional hydrogeological reports; USDW base maps; injection zone water samples; drilling and completion reports, scout tickets, plugging and abandonment reports, and state completion reports for area wells; well injection data; seismicity reports; and USDW ground water sample data.

During drilling and construction, EDS collected numerous samples, conducted in situ tests, and completed analyses. These activities were conducted by experienced service companies and consultants who used standard methods. EDS repeated many procedures and conducted different tests that returned complementary results. Results were compared to demonstrate that any new testing performed by the petitioner was accurate and reproducible. EDS petitioned to inject all restricted waste identified under 40 CFR part 261, subparts C and D. While no specific waste sources have been identified yet, the EPA reviewed the waste analysis plan, which complies with 40 CFR 146.68(a).

In the context of the no migration demonstration, validation is a demonstration by the petitioner that the mathematical simulator for the model is an appropriate surrogate for the actual geological reservoir into which waste will be injected. This means that the simulators must be capable of accurately calculating the effects of injection. Verification is a demonstration that the mathematical equations which the simulator uses to emulate the geological factors which govern the movement of wastes and distribution of pressure increase in the injection zone give accurate results when the parameter values upon which the calculation is based are representative of the characteristics of the injection zone.

EDS used mathematical simulators which are based on standard analysis of radial, laminar flow of a single fluid phase which has a constant viscosity and constant, small compressibility from a well which is perpendicular to the geological formations and is open through the entire thickness of a bounded, near flat-lying reservoir of uniform thickness and permeability to calculate pressurization due to injection. The solutions have been thoroughly tested and long accepted as accurate means of estimating the pressurization which will occur in geologic reservoirs similar to that which exists at the EDS site. The equations used to estimate the distances of vertical and horizontal movement of the waste plume and its attenuation are similarly accepted. To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 148.21(a)(3), EDS provided information which allowed the EPA to validate and verify the simulators. The EPA consulted with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)to confirm the validation and verification of the simulators. EDS demonstrated that reliable predictions can be made by using a mathematical simulator to generate a pressure history which closely matched pressure changes measured in one of the wells while water was injected into the second well. Through EPA Regional staff, LBNL requested that EDS benchmark its solution against a popular numerical simulator which uses a different approach for calculating plume spread. The distance of migration calculated using this simulator was somewhat greater than the distance calculated using EDS's analytic method. To ensure that the results are conservative, the distances which were calculated using the analytic method were increased by an appropriate amount.

As required by 40 CFR 148.21(a)(4), EDS has demonstrated that adequate quality assurance and quality control plans were followed in preparing the petition. The EPA approved a quality assurance project plan for the construction and testing of the wells and preparation of the demonstration on November 1, 2001. Some changes were made subsequently to accommodate changes in plans. These were reviewed and given informal approval as necessary. EDS followed an appropriate protocol for locating records of penetrations in the area of review (AOR), for collecting and analyzing geologic and hydrogeologic data, for characterizing waste, and for conducting all tasks associated with the modeling demonstration.

The demonstration is based on direct measurements of the geological properties of the injection zone made during the construction and subsequent testing of the wells at the EDS facility on Citrin Drive or on values measured at similar locations where conditions can be expected to be near equivalents. The measurements are used to create a conceptual model of the geological framework into which waste would be injected. Many properties were determined by direct measurements. In-place geophysical measurements and tests of core material recovered from the injection and confining zones during well construction provided independent information about the thickness, porosity and permeability of the rocks making up these zones. The permeabilities for the receptive intervals of the Eau Claire and Mt. Simon formations, as wholes were calculated by analyzing the pressure changes occurring during injection tests. The formation fluid properties were determined through analysis of samples of the fluid removed from the well. However, the model encompasses regions which are larger than can be reached by sampling techniques employed along and between the well bores. As required by 40 CFR 148.21(a)(5), the demonstration allows for uncertainty by using values which are more conservative than those which the petitioner believes are most appropriate. Many instances of the use of conservative values are described below.

As required by 40 CFR 148.21(a)(6), the demonstration includes a sensitivity analysis. This analysis showed the effects of variations in the values characterizing the various parameters and confirmed that where there is uncertainty, conservative values were used.

Geological characteristics common to southeastern Michigan include: sedimentary formations overlying Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks found at a depth of about 4,500 feet below the surface; simple structure in the sedimentary formations, including no known transmissive faults or fractures, with a low rate of dip toward the center of the Michigan Basin to the northwest; and deep reservoir zones in a formation containing sandstones, shales, and carbonate rocks overlain by mostly dense carbonate rock which also includes several sequences of more and less permeable zones. The formations into which the waste will be injected do not contain salt dome formations, salt formations or underground mines or caves. Southeastern Michigan lies in a stable continental area where there is little risk of new faulting, and any seismic events experienced in Michigan have been minor. The well siting meets the requirements of 40 CFR 146.62.

The injection zone must have reservoir strata with sufficient permeability, porosity, thickness, and areal extent to allow the injected fluid to be distributed through a large volume of rock so that there is no long term increase in pressure in the injection zone. Above the reservoir zone, the injection zone must have strata which have low vertical permeability and are continuous across the area within which the reservoir strata will be affected by injection. These are called arresting strata and make up the arrestment interval. They prevent upward movement of wastes from the injection zone to USDWs or the surface.

The injection zone for the EDS facility is between 3,369 and 4,550 feet below the surface. It consists of 1,099 feet of reservoir and overlying arresting strata, and includes upper Precambrian rocks at the base and the Mt. Simon, Eau Claire, Franconia-Dresbach, Trempealeau, Glenwood, and lower Black River Formations. EDS has subdivided the injection zone into an injection interval and an arrestment interval. The Mt. Simon, Eau Claire, and Franconia-Dresbach Formations at depths from 3,937 to 4,468 feet below the surface will actually contain the injected wastes. They make up the injection interval. The Trempealeau, Glenwood, and Black River Formations between 3,369 and 3,937 feet below the surface are the strata within the injection zone which will confine fluid movement above the injection interval. They make up the arrestment interval. These formations are tabular and each extends far beyond the vicinity of the EDS facility. The Mt. Simon and Eau Claire Formations reach the surface in Wisconsin and thin to the east so that the porous zones at the EDS site may pinch out and may not be hydraulically connected to porous zones in the Mt. Simon Formation beyond Lake Erie. Approaching Chicago, where the Mt. Simon is much shallower, the salinity of the water in the Mt. Simon decreases, and west and north of Chicago the Mt. Simon is a USDW. These changes occur hundreds of miles from the EDS facility. As a result, the effects of injection by EDS will be negligible.

Waste will be injected directly into the injection interval from the open-hole portion of the waste disposal wells. The Mt. Simon and Eau Claire Formations are composed of sandstones interbedded with siltstone, limestone, dolomite, and shale. These formations contain a number of zones which appear capable of accepting injected waste. The porosity of strata which seems to accept injected liquids tends to be greater than 12%. The open-hole geophysical logs identified a total of 255 feet of section with porosity greater than 12%. The portion of this injection zone which will receive injected wastes, the active injection zone, is found almost entirely in the Mt. Simon Sandstone.

The arresting interval is the portion of the injection zone above the injection interval, and contains dense carbonates and shale units with low permeability and porous carbonates and sandstones which are pressure bleed-off units. EDS calculated an average permeability for the arresting interval by calculating the harmonic average of vertical permeability measurements from the core samples having less than 12% porosity. That analysis concluded that the effective vertical permeability of the arresting interval is less than 0.005 millidarcies (md).

Fracture logging of the three wells drilled by EDS indicated several sub-vertical fractures in the arresting interval. These fractures have limited height and appear to be filled by mineral deposits. Based on the information, the logging company's analysts concluded that these fractures did not compromise the integrity of the arresting interval. Because there are no known transmissive fractures or faults in the arresting interval, it is suitable for long term waste retention.

In addition to the arresting strata within the injection zone, the injection zone must be overlain by a second series of strata which are sufficient to prevent upward fluid movement. These strata are known as the confining zone. Like the arresting interval, the confining zone must be (1) laterally continuous; (2) free of transecting, transmissive faults or fractures over an area sufficient to prevent fluid movement; and (3) of sufficient thickness, lithologic, and stress characteristics to prevent vertical propagation of fractures. The immediate confining zone above the injection zone at EDS is made up of the upper Black River Limestone, the Trenton Formation, and the Utica and Cincinnatian Shales which are found between 2,364 and 3,369 feet. This confining zone is 1,000 feet in thickness, and the top is at an elevation almost 2,000 feet below the lowermost USDW. No fractures were detected in the well bores and no transmissive faults or fractures are otherwise known to exist in the confining zone within the AOR. The confining zone will resist vertical migration of fluids because of its low natural permeability.

The confining zone must be separated from the lowermost USDW by at least one sequence of permeable and less permeable strata that will provide added layers of protection by either providing additional confinement (low permeability units) or allowing pressure bleed-off (high permeability units). Overlying the confining zone, the Clinton Formation is made up of shales and dolomite having low porosity and permeability. The White Niagaran between 2,133 and 2,227 feet is a dolomite which the well site geologist described as “a new disposal formation” in a letter mailed to the EPA on December 27, 2001. The Salina Formation contains thick beds of dense, plastic anhydrite and salt separated by dolomite, some of which is porous and permeable, and shale between 1,300 and 2,100 feet. The anhydrite and salt offer very effective barriers to fracturing and flow because they deform plastically under the weight of the overlying formations to reseal any void space. In addition, the Sylvania Sandstone between the depths of 400 and 550 feet is a thick, porous, and permeable formation which has been used extensively as an injection zone in the area. It is capable of accepting large amounts of fluid without developing hydrostatic pressures which would be high enough to either fracture it or cause formation water to flow through an open conduit into the USDWs. The layers are continuous for hundreds of square miles. They provide the added layers of protection required by the regulations.

The petitioner must adequately characterize the injection and confining zone fluids and rock types to determine the waste stream's compatibility with these zones. EDS's petition sought permission to inject listed or hazardous wastes identified under 40 CFR part 261, subparts C and D. Because each waste code contained in 40 CFR part 261 identifies a specific waste with specific chemical and physical properties, the EPA already has extensive data on the chemical and physical properties of listed and characteristic wastes for which EDS requested exemption from the LDR.

The injection zone is composed mainly of quartz sandstone, with lesser amounts of shale, siltstone, and dolomite. These rock types are known to be resistant to most chemical attack. These Mt. Simon rock types are found in all wells which inject into the Mt. Simon. Periodic measurements in other wells injecting corrosive wastes into the Mt. Simon do not show changes in the size and shape of the well bores. Because these rocks generally are very resistant to chemical degradation, EDS anticipates little, if any, compatibility problems. To alleviate any problems that may arise from reactions between the native formation fluids and the injected wastes, EDS may inject brine or fresh water to serve as a buffer between the formation water and the injectate before it begins to inject wastes and between batches of waste containing constituents which may react with each other. The water buffers will prevent the formation of solids due to reactions in the near well-bore region, and will dilute the mixtures when they do come into contact as a result of mixing due to dispersion so that the possibility of reactions will be reduced. The confining zone is composed of silty shale and shaley dolomite. The injected fluid should have little effect on the dolomitic layers because dolomite does not react with dilute acids at the temperatures which will exist in the injection zone. The shale layers are very stable and will be essentially unaffected by contact with the injectate.

The model includes an assumption that chemical reactions between the formation and the injectate will not have a significant effect on the receptiveness of the injection zone to injection.

The permeability for the receptive intervals of the Eau Claire and Mt. Simon formations, as a whole, has been calculated by analyzing the pressure changes occurring during injection tests using fresh water. A two-layer model was required to closely match the pressures actually recorded. The properties of the two layers are actually a summation of the effects of numerous layers, some with higher permeability and some with lower. The simulation matched the pressure record by allowing one half of the injected liquid to flow into each of the two zones. The zone with higher permeability can be described as 33 feet in thickness with an average permeability of 400 md. The zone with lower permeability can be described as 190 feet thick with an average permeability of 63.43 md. The average porosity of the 33-foot zone is 11% so the porosity-thickness product is 363 porosity-feet.

Two simulation time periods were considered in the demonstration: A 20-year operational period and a 10,000-year post-operational period. The EDS demonstration also assumes that the injection rate will be continuous at 166 gallons per minute (gpm) for the first 19 years and 11 months of the operational period, and would then increase to 270 gpm for the final month. These rates are, respectively, the maximum allowable long-term average rate and the maximum allowable instantaneous injection rate. These high rates maximize both the lateral extent of the waste plume and pressurization in the injection zone during the operational phase.

The demonstration of no migration of hazardous wastes out of the injection zone is based on physical containment of the wastes by multiple barriers. Detailed knowledge of the chemical makeup of the injectate was not required because only the final physical characteristics of the waste plume such as density and viscosity are factors in modeling. The demonstration assumes that the injectate will be a single chemical which does not react to form solids, is not attracted to the mineral grains of the injection zone, and has the highest coefficient of diffusion of any molecule. The only factors tending to reduce concentration are dispersive and diffusive mixing. The waste is assumed to be toxic at a concentration of one part in one trillion. Fewer than 10 chemicals which might be injected are toxic at that level. Concentrations of these few chemicals will be limited to ensure that their concentrations are reduced to health-based limits at the same point as the concentration of the theoretical constituent. The location of this concentration is considered to be at the plume edge. The EDS lateral waste plume demonstrations included assumptions that the plume was made up of the least dense and, alternatively, of the most dense liquids which can be injected. These alternative scenarios bound the lateral movement of the waste due to buoyancy. By gathering conservative assumptions and applying them as discussed, EDS demonstrated that the concentrations of the most mobile constituents will not migrate out of the injection zone in concentrations which would be hazardous if the migrating constituents are the most toxic which might be injected.

The starting point for calculating upward vertical movement from the injection zone is at 3,937 feet, the top of the injection interval. This is shallower than the termination of the corrosion-resistant steel well casing through which the waste is injected into the injection interval. To simplify computation of vertical migration and make the assumptions more conservative, the increase in pore pressure of 1,178 pounds per square inch (psi), which was predicted to occur only at the end of the operational period as a result of increasing the injection rate to 270 gpm during the final month of injection, was assumed to exist for twice the length of the entire operational period. Analytical solutions used to predict vertical distance of waste migration showed that the edge of the waste plume will advance through 10.1 feet of the arresting strata. Therefore, at the end of the operational period, the waste front will be located at a depth of 3,927 feet below the surface.

At the start of the post-operational period, pressure in the injection zone will decrease and cease to cause movement. Molecular diffusion, which is random motion of individual molecules through the watery fluid which permeates even dense, essentially non-porous rock, becomes the primary mechanism causing upward vertical migration. EDS used an integrating method, taking into account lithologic differences for each foot of movement, to calculate vertical diffusion distance above the level reached by injectate during the operational period. The diffusion rate of cesium was used to maximize the predicted distance which waste constituents might migrate upward as a result of diffusion. The no migration demonstration assumed a source which remained at 100% concentration at the farthest extent of pressure-driven migration for 10,000 years. The distance which waste in hazardous concentration migrates is the distance at which concentration has been reduced to one one-trillionth (1:1,000,000,000,000) of the starting concentration. For constituents which are still toxic at concentrations of one in a trillion, the EPA will impose limits on starting concentrations in the injectate to ensure that no constituent will migrate beyond the resulting distance in hazardous concentrations. The EPA plans to modify the EDS UIC permits to incorporate these limits. These are very conservative assumptions. The true concentrations will be small fractions of 100% and diffusion rates for most hazardous molecules are very low. Diffusion results in movement over significant distances only because the time over which it operates is very long. For example, the distance of travel during the operational period includes both pressure-driven and diffusive transport; however, this value is within a foot of that calculated for pressure-driven transport alone. By using conservative assumptions such as this, the demonstration defines limits beyond which waste constituents, in hazardous concentrations, will not migrate.

The maximum vertical movement of the waste front during the post-operational period is 227 feet from the assumed starting point at 3,925 feet upward to 3,698 feet, 329 feet below the top of the injection zone. Therefore, the waste will be contained within the vertical limits of the permitted injection zone throughout the post-operational period. However, the top of the injection zone itself is inclined so that its depth decreases by about 1,050 feet at the farthest extent of the updip plume. Continuing in the same direction, the inclination reverses and the injection zone formations do not come to the surface.

The extent of migration within each zone depends on the product of porosity and thickness. As discussed above, the calculation of lateral migration assumed that one half of the waste is injected into a single 33-foot zone which has a porosity of 11%. This flow split was determined by matching simulation results with actual test results. The product of the thickness and the average permeability of a zone relative to other available zones determines the fraction of flow which the zone will accept. For spreading to extend farther in any zone, including portions of the 33-foot zone, other than in the 33-foot zone as a whole, the porosity would have to be less than the average porosity of the 33-foot zone, or the permeability would have to be higher. Sandstones with porosity less than 10% rarely have sufficient permeability to allow significant flow while permeability in ancient, well-lithified, sandstones is rarely as great as 400 md. Therefore, it is unlikely that such a zone exists within the injection interval, and assuming injection at one half of the maximum rate into this portion of the injection zone leads to conservative results.

Lateral migration of the waste plume during the operational period is driven almost exclusively by injection pressure. The rates of movement due to buoyancy and diffusion are negligible in comparison. If we assume 100% displacement of formation waters from a cylinder of rock 33 feet thick with an effective porosity of 11%, so that the liquid within the cylinder would be 100% waste and the liquid outside the cylinder would be 100% formation water, the plume edge would be 3,199 feet from a single well at the end of the 20-year simulation period.

This distance is increased as a result of a failure to displace 100% of native formation waters from the cylinder surrounding the wells. The effect of this failure and of diversion of waste from straight-line movement as a result of diversion around sand grains is called dispersion. The effects of dispersion can be calculated. EDS's demonstration used a reasonably conservative estimate of 300 feet for longitudinal dispersivity and 25% of that value, 75 feet, for transverse dispersivity.

In addition to considering the effects of injection by EDS, the demonstration also calculates the effects of injection at the proposed location of the permitted Sunoco Partners Marketing and Terminals, LLC (SPMT) injection well by displacing the plume 2,870 feet to the southwest. This assumption causes increases in the final distances of migration for most directions, with resulting decreases being small. This is generally a conservative assumption because the SPMT well may not be constructed. At the end of the projected 20-year operational period, the total distance from the center of the plume to the southwest edge of the plume, determined at the 10- 12 concentration ratio (initial concentration/final concentration), is 19,677 feet. Therefore, the plume could extend more than 3 1/2 miles southwest from the EDS wells at the end of the projected 20-year operational period. This distance is within the AOR. In all other directions, the distance would be less.

The simulation of plume-flow distance and direction during the post-operational period considered buoyancy and the natural flow within the Mt. Simon and Eau Claire Formations in addition to the movement which occurs during the operation of the wells. Buoyancy flow occurs because the strata into which waste will be injected dip slightly northwest into the Michigan Basin and the specific gravity of the injected waste will be different from that of the native water now filling the pores in the injection zone. Buoyancy resulting from either lighter waste being injected into a more dense native brine or a more dense waste being injected into a less dense natural formation water results in a substantial movement of the waste front. Because of the conservative assumptions concerning the specific gravity of the injected waste, the amount of movement due to the effects of buoyancy exceeds the movement which will actually occur. Movement of a waste plume caused by buoyancy differences, regional groundwater flow, or injection from a nearby well is calculated based on the effect on a volume of fluid near the center of the plume. This volume is called the centroid, and it is originally found near the wells. While this volume may move about nearly intact, the edges of the plume travel greater distances and the plume becomes diluted.

The direction of buoyancy flow is 42 degrees west of north (northwest) for a heavier waste and 166 degrees east of north (south southeast) for a lighter waste. The dip to the south southeast is 1.14 degrees, and the dip to the northwest is about 0.68 degrees. To be conservative, the greater angle of dip was used to calculate the distances in both directions. EDS assumed that 100% of the waste to be injected will be a brine with a specific gravity of 1.22 (the heaviest fluid which might be injected) when calculating the distance of flow down into the Basin. When calculating the distance of movement up-dip it assumed 100% of the waste will be methanol (the lightest fluid which might be injected) with a specific gravity of 0.88. Because the difference between the specific gravities of the native brine (1.153) and methanol is greater than the difference between that of a heavy waste, 1.22, and the native brine, the distance of movement due to buoyancy will be greater up-dip (to the south southeast). If we assume that the entire plume has the density of methanol, buoyancy might cause the centroid of the plume to move up dip a distance of 14,792 feet to the south southeast. If we assume that the plume is as dense as a heavy brine, buoyancy might cause the centroid of the plume to move 6,550 feet to the northwest.

Regional pressure gradients are very small. Calculations based on pressure measurements made at well #2-12 and at several other wells indicated that the rate of flow due to regional pressure gradients could be as high as 0.4 ft/year, possibly in a northeasterly direction. In 10,000 years, the effect of regional flow could result in an additional 4,000 feet of drift of the plume centroid plus associated dispersion. Because EPA wishes to use conservative assumptions, the 4,000 feet of possible movement due to regional flow was added to the total distance of the movement regardless of which direction it was calculated. The net up-dip movement of the plume centroid is calculated by adding the effects of each force individually as vectors. Vectors are directed line segments. A distance and direction of movement caused by each force is calculated. The result of each calculation is a vector. Then the vectors can be added, tail to head. The location of the final head represents the location of the centroid at the end of the process. Because the forces are acting simultaneously, rather than consecutively, the centroid does not follow the path of the vectors, but the end result is the same. In this case, vectors representing each distance and its direction were added, resulting in a total 20,672 feet of movement to the south southeast.

From that point, an analytical method was used to account for dispersive spread and to project plume movement to the health-based limits. For this calculation, the distance the center of the plume is displaced by regional flow (4,000 feet), the distance it is displaced by buoyancy (14,792 feet), and the distance it might be displaced by the proposed SPMT injection (2,870 feet), each acting alone, are added, for a total distance of 21,662 feet, and the dispersion is based on this distance. Dispersion will move the health-based limit 27,539 feet beyond the end of the undispersed plume edge. At this distance, all hazardous constituents will be below the health-based levels or detection limits. To calculate the total distance of movement in the up-dip direction, one should add the original radius of the plume (3,199 feet), the vector-summed distances which the centroid is displaced by regional flow, buoyancy, and injection through the SPMT well (20,672 feet), the distance added by dispersion (27,539 feet), and an additional 1,580 feet which SWIFT modeling indicates should be added to the results obtained using the analytical method. Based on these calculations, the maximum predicted lateral migration of waste at the EDS site is 52,990 feet (≉ 10 miles) in the up-dip, or south southeast, direction. The petition describes a similar process, resulting in a total distance of 36,158 feet, for movement in the down-dip direction.

The no migration demonstration addressed vertical and lateral waste movement as required in 40 CFR 148.20(a)(1)(i). The maximum vertical movement of the waste at the end of 10,000 years was conservatively estimated at 239 feet above the top of the injection interval located at 3,937 feet. At the site of the injection wells, the waste will remain 3,298 feet below the lowermost USDW, which is located at depths of less than 400 feet. The maximum predicted lateral waste plume movement within the injection interval was approximately 10 miles in the up-dip or south-southeasterly direction. The maximum predicted lateral waste plume movement in the down-dip or northwesterly direction was 6.85 miles from the injection wells. The nearest point of discharge to a USDW is over two hundred miles away. EDS's demonstration has shown that the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site and the physiochemical nature of the waste stream(s) are such that reliable predictions can be made that fluid movement conditions are such that the injected fluids will not migrate within 10,000 years (A) vertically upward out of the injection zone; or (B) laterally within the injection zone to a point of discharge or interface with a USDW.

The EDS wells were constructed using four strings of steel casing for each well. As the wells were drilled, increasingly smaller diameter casings were placed in the well and cemented to the surface. The first cemented casings are 20 inches (in well #1-12) and 16 inches (in well #2-12) in diameter and were set at 119 feet and 177 feet, respectively, to stabilize the well bores through the unconsolidated glacial drift. The second strings of casing are 13 3/8 inches in diameter and were set at 396 and 598 feet, respectively, to prevent loss of drilling fluid into cavernous zones in the shallow bedrock. The third strings of casing were designed to add another layer of protection through the USDWs, and to establish a separation of the annulus behind the long string casing from the USDWs. These casings are 9 5/8 inches in diameter and were set at 824 and 1,444 feet, respectively. The final casing was set from the surface to within the top of the formations which will be used as the waste reservoir. These casings are 7 inches in diameter and were set at 4,080 and 3,983 feet, respectively. The space around each of the casings was sealed with cement from the base of the casing to the surface. Cementing eliminates potential avenues for either the injected fluid or fluid from other, shallower zones to flow outside the casings and into USDWs.

EDS will inject the waste through a tubing set on a packer just above the end of the casing and isolated from the casing by a fluid-filled annulus, which will be continuously monitored for pressure change. The monitoring system is designed to trigger alarms and shut off injection before the injection pressure exceeds the maximum permitted levels, or if the difference between the injection and annulus pressures falls below the minimum permitted level.

Thus, the integrity of the construction will be monitored constantly by measuring the pressure within the annulus between the casings and tubing, and tracking the amounts of liquid added to or removed from the annulus system. Even a small leak should be detected. More rigorous annual testing ensures that even very small leaks are discovered. The pressure in the annulus will be maintained at a higher level than the pressures in either the formations outside the casing or within the injection tubing. Therefore, even if a leak in the tubing occurs, the waste will not leak into the annulus. Instead, annulus fluid will leak into the injection tubing through which waste would be injected and be carried downward into the waste disposal reservoir. If there is a casing leak, annulus fluid, not waste, will leak into the formations surrounding the well.

As described above, the construction provides for a replaceable tubing and a system to detect when replacement of the tubing is necessary. The tubing prevents the waste from contacting all except the lowermost few tens of feet of casing, which are made of a corrosion resistant alloy. The three casing strings and layers of cement through the fresh water-bearing formations provide extra protection from contamination.

The UIC program regulates injection pressure, injection rate, waste properties, and the concentration of hazardous constituents to ensure, among other things, that the actual conditions under which injection occurs are less likely to cause increased migration of hazardous constituents than those proposed and simulated. The injection pressure is important because injection pressure drives fluid movement through both the reservoir rock and the overlying confining rock. Because the confining rock is usually less than one one-thousandth as permeable as reservoir rock, the distance of vertical movement through the confining rock is less than one one-thousandth as great as the horizontal movement through the reservoir rock. If excessive, the injection pressure can fracture the reservoir rock and, at higher pressures, the confining rock. EDS conducted tests during well construction to measure the resistance of the rock of the injection and confining zones to fracturing. These tests showed that injecting at pressures below 903 psi measured at the surface will not create fractures in the injection zone. The EPA plans to modify EDS's UIC permits to limit the injection pressure at the surface to 903 psi. The current permits limit injection pressure to 521 psi.

The mechanical integrity of the wells has been demonstrated several times, most recently on November 13, 2003. Well No. 1-12 recorded a pressure drop from 1,081.06 to 1,077.48 psi, a total of 3.6 psi, in one hour and Well No. 2-12 recorded a pressure change from 1,045.39 to 1,025.43 psi, a total of 19.95 psi in one hour. The failure criterion for the test is a pressure change greater than 3% in one hour. For these wells, a 3% change in an original pressures of 1,050 psi would be 31.5 psi. Therefore, EDS has demonstrated that there are no leaks in the casing, tubing, or packer in either well. The reason for pressure drop in this case is that the pressure in the annulus had been maintained at about 250 psi. Increasing the pressure to the test level causes the fiberglass tubing to slowly contract. As the tubing contracts, the annulus space is enlarged and pressure decreases. The radioactive tracer surveys required under 40 CFR 148.20(a)(2)(4) were conducted on June 20, 2003. EPA found no evidence to indicate upward movement of the radioactive tracer.

As discussed below, the AOR around the EDS wells has a radius of more than six miles centered at the point midway between the two wells at the Citrin Drive site. The regulations at 40 CFR 148.20(b) require a showing that the strata which will confine fluid movement above the injection interval are free of known transmissive faults or fractures. There are no known transmissive faults in the Glenwood, Trempealeau, and Franconia Formations, the strata within the injection zone that will confine fluid movement within the AOR. During construction of the wells, a geophysical tool which produces images of the walls of the well bore was used to search for fractures. The few fractures which were detected appear to be sealed with mineral deposits. Moreover, the interference test conducted on June 12-15, 2002, indicates that there are no transmissive fractures cutting the injection interval within a distance of 800 feet of either well. That test, which evaluates an area outlined by two contiguous squares of equal size centered on the wells, supported the conclusion, based on log review, that there are no transmissive fractures cutting the well bores.

An analysis of seismic risk occurring at the EDS facility is presented in section III.D of the no migration petition. The potential for seismic activity which might affect the injection wells was also considered by the EPA prior to approving EDS's UIC permits in accordance with 40 CFR 146.62(b)(1). Michigan is an area of low seismic risk. The EPA reviewed information from the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) in Boulder, Colorado regarding earthquakes in the area of the injection wells. The NEIC reported that the nearest earthquake was 41 kilometers, about 25 miles, away and occurred in 1980. Two other earthquakes have occurred within 100 km, about 61 miles, of the wells. Moreover, the steel casings of deep injection and production wells are more flexible and resilient than the rock through which they pass. As a result, they are not damaged as a result of earthquakes unless actually sheared as a result of movement along a fault which they penetrate. Because Midwestern earthquakes are widely scattered, with none reported in the immediate vicinity of the EDS location, there is almost no possibility of damage as a result of seismic activity.

As discussed above, no faults cutting the well bores were identified. Thus, there is a reasonable degree of certainty that the wells' casings will not be sheared. The EPA additionally notes that the well will be continuously monitored throughout the operational life under the UIC permit. Among other things, annual mechanical integrity tests are required to demonstrate the mechanical integrity of the casing, tubing and packer. Other mechanical integrity tests are used at five-year intervals to demonstrate there is no significant fluid movement into a USDW through vertical channels adjacent to the injection well bore.

Where critically oriented faults exist near injection wells, pore pressure increases may induce seismic activity. Injection-induced earthquakes cease as soon as the pore pressure declines below a critical level. Because the Mt. Simon in this area is porous and permeable, the pressure drop would occur within a few days. Therefore, if the EDS wells were to induce any earthquakes, such earthquakes could be stopped simply by stopping injection.

In regard to ground water contamination, EDS has met the no migration standard of 40 CFR 148.20(a)(1)(i). The no migration demonstration shows that there will be little upward migration of hazardous materials if there are no conduits for flow. There are many layers of rock in the salt-bearing formation between the injection zone and the USDWs which deform under pressure to fill all voids. Any conduit which is not artificially protected from closure in such a zone will be closed by this deformation. This minimizes the potential for any conduit to penetrate the Salina Group, located between 766 feet and 2,002 feet below ground surface.

Under 40 CFR 146.63, the AOR of Class I hazardous waste wells is minimally a two-mile radius around the well bore or a larger area specified by the EPA based on the calculated zone of endangering influence of the well. The zone of endangering influence is the area within which the pressure induced in the injection interval as a result of injection can raise a column of formation fluid or injected fluid sufficiently to cause contamination of a USDW. 40 CFR 148.20(a)(2) requires a petition to demonstrate that the injection well's AOR complies with the substantive requirements of 40 CFR 146.63. The petitioner used refined parameter values and more conservative assumptions agreed upon with EPA reviewers to determine a new and larger AOR radius under 40 CFR 146.63. The petitioner considered the measured pressure in the injection zone, a pressure in the lowermost USDW consistent with the level of Lake Erie, and the density of the brine found in the injection zone to find that an additional pressure of 89.6 psi in the injection zone is sufficient to cause flow.

Analytical models were also used to simulate the maximum pressure buildup in the injection interval. When calculated using reasonably conservative values for geological parameters representative of actual conditions, the zone of endangering influence for the EDS injection wells has a radius of 23,275 feet, or 4.4 miles from the center of the line between the two wells. However, because this did not represent a worst-case scenario, EDS used more conservative values and calculated an enlarged zone of endangering influence which, at the end of the twenty-year operational period, reaches 32,280 feet, or 6.1 miles, from the center of the line connecting the two wells. EDS showed that there are no USDWs in the injection zone within this distance. The EPA determined that this 6.1 mile area was sufficiently conservative because most of the values used to calculate this distance are less favorable than those which actually exist. Nor are there any natural or man-made features which might allow increased vertical movement out of the injection zone. Considering injection at a single point is appropriate because the distance between the wells is small in relation to the radius of the AOR and the sparsity of wells which reach the confining zone in the region. Although the density of the brine is greater than the density of many potential wastes which might be injected, it is appropriate to use the brine density because injected waste will not reach the limits of the AOR during the operational period.

Under 40 CFR 148.20(a)(2)(ii), a petitioner must locate, identify, and ascertain the condition of all wells within the injection well's AOR that penetrate the injection zone or the confining zone. EDS conducted a well search over the larger zone of endangering influence consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 148.20(a)(2)(ii) and 146.64, and identified two wells penetrating the confining zone and/or injection zone. As discussed below, both of these wells have been properly plugged, completed and/or abandoned, so no corrective action is required under 40 CFR 148.20(a)(iii) and 146.64.

The McClure Oil Co. Fritsch et al. #1 is located about 4.5 miles south of the EDS site. That well was drilled to a depth of 2,885 feet in 1955 and then plugged with heavy mud with a bridge which is firmly fixed in place 1,750 feet from the surface to provide a seal within the well bore. The plugging was approved on July 21, 1955, by the Michigan Department of Conservation. This well has been properly abandoned, and there is no potential for fluids to move through the well to the USDWs. Moreover, the maximum depth of this well is almost 800 feet above the reach of the predicted upward migration of waste from the EDS well.

The second well, well #1-20, was drilled by EDS in 1993 at a site which was to be used for the facility under review. This well, which was properly completed pursuant to an EPA UIC permit, penetrates the entire injection zone. The lower portion of the well has been plugged using a cast iron bridge plug above the injection zone with 50 feet of cement on top of the bridge plug. This meets Region 5's standards for plugging wells within the AOR, and will prevent the well's casing from serving as a conduit for the movement of fluids from the injection zone. Moreover, on January 12, 1999, EDS entered into a Stipulation and Consent Agreement with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). This agreement authorizes EDS #1-20 to remain inactive and not be considered abandoned, so long as all applicable requirements are met, until 30 days after EDS's receipt of all MDEQ approvals for the Citrin Drive facility. The agreement requires EDS to permanently plug and abandon the well within that 30-day period. When the well is abandoned, the EPA UIC permit for well #1-20 requires that the well must be properly plugged and abandoned under a plan approved by the EPA. Well #1-20 is properly completed, is not abandoned, and will be permanently plugged and abandoned pursuant to the UIC requirements.

It is possible that SPMT will drill at least one injection well for the injection of non-hazardous salt brine about 2,800 feet northeast of the nearer EDS well. Both the EPA and the MDEQ have issued permits for the construction of this proposed well. Any injection wells which SPMT drills will be constructed to standards approved by Region 5 for the protection of USDWs and the construction will be overseen by Region 5's contract inspectors.

The EPA also considered EDS's operation of two wells at Citrin Drive. Because the EDS wells are closed in at the surface when not operating and no liquid can enter from the bottom of the well bore, wastes will not be pushed into an idle well. As required by 40 CFR 146.68, the EDS UIC permits require continuous monitoring of the injection rate and injection pressure. In addition, the operator must maintain a positive pressure differential within the tubing-casing annulus in respect to the injection tubing pressure and this annulus pressure must be continuously monitored. The UIC permits also require automatic alarms designed to sound before pressures, flow rates, or other parameters exceed permitted values. The continuous monitoring of the injection wells occurs whether or not the well is operating. EDS is currently in compliance with its permits and all applicable requirements of the UIC program.

Because no wells penetrating the confining zone or injection zone are improperly plugged, completed, or abandoned, a corrective action plan is not required under 40 CFR 146.64 and 148.20(a)(2)(iii).

The only changes in circumstance that have occurred since the EPA issued its Notice of Intent that might affect the determination are the issuance by the State of Michigan of an extraction well permit to SPMT on May 29, 2003, allowing SPMT to extract brine from several formations, including the Mt. Simon Formation, within 1/2 mile of the EDS wells subject to certain conditions; and the subsequent State litigation and direction on that permit. The EPA has reviewed and considered that permit and comments on that permit, and has decided that issuance of such a permit should not bar granting of the exemption. Based on the evidence in the record, the EPA finds that neither the permit nor the drilling of such a well will affect EDS's demonstration. It is the operation of an extraction well drilled into the injection zone within the plume of hazardous waste that would be problematic. Based on the current record, EPA can make a reliable prediction that the proposed extraction well, if ever drilled, would not be drilled and operated in formations that form the injection zone of the EDS injection wells. The State permit, as qualified by the State circuit court, requires an investigation and evaluation of the brine recovery capacity of the Lockport Dolomite and further approval before an extraction well can be drilled to the depth of the confining or injection zone. An extraction well drilled and operated in the shallower Lockport Dolomite would not impact EDS's demonstration. The EPA, however, has decided to retain the condition proposed in its Notice of Intent that would terminate the exemption if an extraction well is both drilled and operated within the injection zone in the area of review. Under current conditions, EDS's demonstration meets the criteria at 40 CFR 148.20.

SPMT's description of its proposed use of the brine extracted from the Mt. Simon has been sketchy. By letter dated March 28, 2003, SPMT indicates that SPMT can support a multi-year 1 million barrel cavern expansion effort utilizing only a single injection well with a target rate below 200 gpm and that in subsequent years, SPMT can operate the expanded cavern system with brine injection and production rates below 200 gpm and that the rates can be achieved at injection pressures below the fracture point of the formation. The May 29, 2003 State permit requires SPMT to obtain approval of a plan to test the Lockport Formation for brine production between the approximate depths of 2,120 and 2,140 feet prior to commencing to drill the well. Under the permit, the plan must specify the methods, materials, and procedures used to test the Lockport Formation; identify criteria for determining whether to continue the test at various key points; and establish the criteria for determining if the Lockport Formation is suitable for commercial brine production. In the November 19, 2003 proceedings before the Circuit Court of Ingham County on the May 29, 2003 State permit, the court made it clear that SPMT has to complete its testing and obtain the court's approval before it can drill below the Lockport Formation. Moreover, the State's November 20, 2003 approval of SPMT's plan to test the Niagara Group (the Lockport Formation) for brine concludes that if the step-rate injectivity test shows the well capable of receiving brine at a rate of at least 175 gallons per minute, SPMT will complete the well in the Niagara Group interval and utilize it for both brine supply and injection, and will not drill to or utilize the Munising Group or Mt. Simon formation for these purposes. The plan submitted to the State on behalf of SPMT for evaluating the Niagran indicates that brine production is possible from the White Niagran, and references the Michigan Mineral Resource supply well production of 135 gpm from 3 porosity stringers which have a maximum of 28% porosity. On May 16, 2003, EDS sent EPA the results of an analysis of the native Mt. Simon Formation water which indicates that the Mt. Simon has a salt saturation level of approximately 60% and the White Niagaran would be a better choice for balancing in salt caverns utilized for liquid petroleum gas (LPG) storage.

Furthermore, injection by EDS would make SPMT's brine extraction proposal impractical. The May 29, 2003 State permit also provides that if SPMT's extraction well is completed in one or more Cambrian geologic horizons below 3,900 feet and EDS begins hazardous waste disposal at its Citrin Drive facility, SPMT must immediately begin a program of testing the produced brine for specific chemical components present in the EDS wastes or a marker compound approved by MDEQ for injection with the EDS wastes, conduct testing every 15 days, and manage all produced brine as a hazardous waste until results of the required testing demonstrate to MDEQ's satisfaction that it is not hazardous waste. EPA has a reasonable degree of certainty that SPMT will not extract if EDS injects hazardous waste. It is SPMT's extraction that will draw up injected wastes; SPMT noted in its October 6, 2003 comments that injected hazardous waste would render the brine unsuitable for production; and extraction after EDS injects will require SPMT to comply with expensive requirements under its State permit. If SPMT has to treat their extracted brine as hazardous they will have to pay increased costs for handling the brine pursuant to hazardous waste requirements. In addition, if the brine actually is hazardous, SPMT would not be able to place it back on the land without an exemption from or treatment to LDR levels, much less use it for cavern expansion. Since EDS will be injecting listed hazardous waste, the presence of any of the waste in the extracted brine would render the brine subject to regulation as a hazardous waste under the contained in principle (unless SPMT were to obtain a contained out determination). As such, it would have to be treated to LDR levels and, even after such treatment, would remain a listed hazardous waste. This raises the question of whether SPMT would be able to use the material for the intended commercial purposes—essentially a question of whether any use would be viewed as legitimate or sham recycling. Hence, in addition to the increased costs to SPMT, the extraction of brine from the Mount Simon formation following injection of hazardous waste by EDS would engender significant regulatory complexities, which might bar SPMT's intended use of the brine. Indeed, in proceedings before the Circuit Court of Ingham County on June 16, 2003, the State indicated that SPMT would be prohibited from pumping out because they would, in fact, be creating a situation where there was hazardous waste, that they would be a hazardous waste generator at that point in time, so they would probably be the entity that would be required to shut down. While SPMT noted that the permit does not explicitly say that they have to shut down, it admitted that it does not want to become a party that is in the business of generating hazardous waste, and that the permit says that would be the effect. (Transcript of 6/16/03 proceedings at pp. 17-18) Moreover, if SPMT ever does extract, the Agency might consider taking appropriate action to address such extraction.

The State permit, as qualified by the State circuit court, requires an investigation and evaluation of the brine recovery capacity of the Lockport Dolomite and further approval before an extraction well can be drilled to the depth of the confining or injection zone. The State's approval of SPMT's plan to evaluate the brine capacity of the Lockport formation specifies that if the step-rate injectivity test shows the well capable of receiving brine at a rate of at least 175 gallons per minute, SPMT cannot drill into the Mt. Simon, and the plan suggests that the Lockport has the capacity for brine production. Under the terms of the State permit and as admitted by SPMT, injection by EDS will make extraction from the injection zone impracticable for SPMT. An extraction well drilled and operated in the shallower Lockport Dolomite would not impact EDS's demonstration. The EPA, however, has decided to retain and clarify the condition proposed in its Notice of Intent to terminate the exemption if an extraction well is drilled within the AOR into the injection zone, penetrated by well #2-12 at a depth of 3,369 feet, and is used for extraction from any strata within the injection zone. Under current conditions, EDS's demonstration meets the criteria at 40 CFR 148.20.

The EPA received several hundred comments on this petition. The EPA offered an extended public comment period between December 6, 2002, and May 16, 2003, holding two public hearings; and took additional public comment until October 6, 2003, on the May 29, 2003 extraction well permit issued by MDEQ to SPMT. The EPA also considered some comments that previously had been submitted during the public comment period for the SPMT injection wells in relation to the EDS wells. The EPA has also taken into consideration more recent State court limitations and other developments on the May 29, 2003 State extraction well permit.

Comments submitted raised concerns about hazardous waste management in Romulus; the potential for harm from waste injection; the land ban process; local ordinances; modeling and simulation; the EPA's review of the no migration demonstration; the geological basis for the modeling; geological concerns; the method of simulation; the results of simulation; the well search within the AOR; the quality assurance project plan; the results of the EPA's review; the extent of the effects of injection by EDS; seismic events; other injection well operations; well construction; waste disposal operations; alternative waste management options; the State of Michigan's role; EDS and its funding; the EPA's decision making process; politics; community concerns; Canadian waste; civil rights; Michigan waste management capacity; the effects of EDS's operations on business and property; public opinion; environmental justice; and the State permit to SPMT for an extraction well. A number of comments pertained to issues outside the scope of the determination on the exemption, and the EPA stressed that this is a determination on an exemption from the RCRA LDR for deep well injection under 40 CFR part 148, subpart C. The granting of an exemption from the LDR for EDS's injection does not preclude other permits, licenses, approvals or requirements that might govern activities at the site or in the area. It is limited to granting an exemption from the LDR for restricted waste for this method of land disposal. Moreover, the regulations require specific showings and do not consider such factors as community acceptance, politics, violations history, if any, and above-ground transportation. Some of the comments related to issues such as the State construction permit and civil rights which belong in a different forum. The EPA has prepared a response to comments, which can be viewed at the following URL: www.epa.gov/region5/water/uic/pubpdf/eds_rtc.pdf. In its response, the EPA discusses underground injection, the geology of the site, its search for transmissive faults, the construction of the wells consistent with 40 CFR part 146 requirements, its review of wells in the area, its inquiry into other underground injection well sites and releases near those locations, its decision-making process and the factors it considered, the modeling, the use of buffers, the EPA's authorities under the Statutes, the land disposal prohibition with its exemptions, the quality assurance project plan, and the permit issued by MDEQ to SPMT for an extraction well in the area.

After considering comments, the State extraction well permit and its litigation, and current conditions, the EPA has determined that its reasons for granting the exemption as set forth in the Notice of Intent remain valid. Accordingly, the exemption is issued with specific conditions listed in this notice. As discussed above, EPA has prepared a response to comments, which can be viewed on its website.

The injection zone for the EDS disposal operation consists of 1,099 feet of reservoir and overlying arresting strata including the upper Precambrian rocks at the base and the Mt. Simon, Eau Claire, Franconia-Dresbach, Trempealeau, Glenwood, and lower Black River Formations from 3,369 to 4,468 feet below the surface where penetrated by EDS's well No. 2-12. As required by 40 CFR 148.20(b), EDS has delineated an arrestment zone within the injection zone consisting of the Trempealeau, Glenwood, and Black River Formations between 3,369 and 3,937 feet below the surface which will confine fluid movement above the injection interval. EDS has presented evidence that these strata are free of known transmissive faults or fractures, and the EPA's investigations found no evidence of known transmissive faults or fractures affecting these strata. EDS has shown that there is a confining zone overlying the injection zone. As required by 40 CFR 148.20(a)(2)(i), EDS calculated an AOR extending 32,280 feet from the center of a line connecting the two wells based on measurements of hydrogeological properties at the site and meeting the substantive requirements of 40 CFR 146.63. As required by 40 CFR 148.20(a)(2)(ii), EDS has located, identified, and ascertained the conditions of all wells within the injection wells' AOR that penetrate the injection zone or the confining zone by use of a protocol acceptable to the Director and meeting the substantive requirements of 40 CFR 146.64. As required by 40 CFR 148.20(a)(2)(iii), EDS has submitted the results of pressure and radioactive tracer tests performed within one year prior to submission of the petition demonstrating the mechanical integrity of the well's long string casing, injection tube, annular seal, and bottom hole cement.

After reviewing the petition and other information in the record, and considering public comments, the EPA determined that EDS has shown that the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site and the physiochemical nature of the waste streams are such that reliable predictions can be made that fluid movement conditions are such that the injected fluids will not migrate within 10,000 years: (A) vertically upward out of the injection zone; or (B) laterally within the injection zone to a point of discharge or interface with a USDW pursuant to 40 CFR 148.20(a)(1)(i); and has met the other applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 148, subpart C.

In response to public comments noting that the State and UIC permits do not allow injection of wastes with the codes D001 and D003, the EPA is removing wastes carrying the hazardous waste codes D001 and D003 from the list of wastes approved for possible injection by EDS. This makes the limitations under the petition decision identical to those of the permits. Accordingly, this exemption allows injection of wastes bearing the following RCRA waste codes: