18814 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Notices

benefiting the EPA-funded project.) The

recipient’s matching share may exceed 5

percent.

II. Evaluation Criteria

Preproposals submitted in response to

this notice will be evaluated on a

competitive basis by an EPA review

panel. The following factors, which are

weighted by percentage as to their

relative importance, will be considered

in evaluating the preproposals:

1. Program Experience (25 percent)

a. Experience in the development of

adult education courses, with emphasis

on training individuals with limited

education.

b. Experience in the delivery of health

and safety course materials to

individuals with limited or no English

language skills.

c. Demonstrated ability to target the

worker population.

2. Lead-Based Paint Abatement

Worker Course Experience (30 percent)

a. Experience in the delivery of

courses, including hands-on training, to

lead-based paint abatement workers.

b. Experience in providing

community-based training to lead-based

paint abatement workers.

c. Demonstrated experience in the

implementation and operation of health

and safety training for lead-based paint

abatement workers.

d. Qualifications of key personnel.

e. The number of students expected to

be trained during the project period.

3. Project Management (25 percent)

a. Applicant’s ability to provide

appropriate program staff to the project.

b. Applicant’s ability to provide

space, equipment, staff time, and other

resources required to carry out project

responsibilities.

c. Extent to which the applicant has

considered a management plan for the

project, including the designation of a

qualified program administrator.

4. Budget (20 percent)

Preproposals should include a

detailed budget that specifies the

amount of money to be used in all

aspects of the proposed worker training,

as well as the amount that is to be the

non-Federal share (at least 5 percent of

the total budget, excluding in-kind

contributions). All budgets must include

funding for a trip to EPA in Washington,

DC to attend an information-sharing

meeting for all award recipients. The

ability of the applicant to derive a

budget estimate that is appropriate to

the scope of the project will be

considered in the evaluation process.

The proposed budget should be clearly

justified and consistent with the

intended use of the funds set forth in

this notice.

III. Application Procedures

The following materials must be

provided by all applicants:

1. Documentation that proves the

nonprofit status of the applicant.

2. Copies of any lead-related course

material already being used by the

applicant to teach the course. In

addition, any applicants who have

received EPA funds for lead worker

training in any previous year’s program

must include in their preproposal a

description of how those funds were

used.

IV. Acceptable Expenditures

Funds awarded must be spent on

activities that directly result in

increased numbers of well-trained leadbased paint abatement workers. Since

EPA has funded the development of a

model course curriculum for workers,

the Agency does not wish to fund the

development of new courses through

this program.

The following lists provide examples

of activities that will and will not be

considered for funding. The list of

acceptable activities is for guidance

only; projects may be funded for

acceptable activities other than those on

the list.

Award recipients may use the monies

for the following:

a. Delivery of lead-based paint

abatement worker courses.

b. Delivery of train-the-trainer

courses.

c. Enhancement of hands-on training

programs.

d. Monitoring and evaluating courses.

e. Limited purchasing of supplies.

f. Speakers’ fees (expenses and travel).

g. Slide duplication.

h. Rental of facilities.

i. Limited purchase of audio/visual

equipment.

j. Workers’ tuition.

k. Limited printing and reproduction

of materials and manuals.

l. Transporting workers to training

sites.

m. Innovative training systems (i.e.,

community-based training).

Monies may not be used for the

following:

a. Development of new training

course curricula for workers.

b. Stipends to students for room,

board, and salaries.

V. Notification of Selection

Preproposals are due no later than

May 15, 1995. Preproposals shall be no

more than five pages in length. Each

applicant is requested to provide seven

copies of the preproposal to EPA. EPA

plans to award a total of $1.55 million

through cooperative agreements to

eligible nonprofit organizations. EPA

will not allot all of the available award

money to any one group or necessarily

fund all of the groups.

Dated: April 6, 1995.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 95–9164 Filed 4–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[FRL–5190–3]

Proposed De Minimis Settlement

Under Section 122(g) of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act; In the Matter of MacGillis & Gibbs/

Bell Lumber & Pole Site, New Brighton,

Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

SUMMARY: Notice of De Minimis

Settlement: in accordance with Section

122(i)(1) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act of 1980, as amended

(‘‘CERCLA’’), notice is hereby given of a

de minimis settlement concerning

relocation of a petroleum liquids

transmission pipeline at the MacGillis &

Gibbs/Bell Lumber & Pole Site in New

Brighton, Minnesota. U.S. EPA Region 5

has submitted the proposed agreement

to the U.S. Department of Justice, and

the Assistant Attorney General has

rendered her written approval. The

work to be performed under this

settlement agreement will commence

after the public comment process set

forth in Section 122(i)(1) of CERCLA has

been completed.

DATES: Comments must be provided on

or before May 15, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Darryl Owens (Mail Code

HSRM–6J), Remedial Project Manager,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois, 60604, and should refer to: In

the Matter of MacGillis & Gibbs/Bell

Lumber & Pole Site, Docket No. V–W–

95–C–261.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas M. Williams, (Mail Code CS–

29A), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

United States and the State of

Minnesota have entered into a de

minimis settlement agreement with the

Williams Pipe Line Company that
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Notices 18815

addresses the relocation of a petroleum

liquids pipeline at the MacGillis &

Gibbs/Bell Lumber & Pole Site (‘‘the

Site’’) in New Brighton, Minnesota.

Among the areas to be addressed in

response activities at the Site is a

disposal pond area, where wood treating

process wastes, including sludges and

wood scraps containing creosote,

pentachlorophenol and chromated

copper arsenate, have been placed. The

Williams Pipe Line Company operates a

petroleum pipeline pursuant to license

agreements with the various property

owners at and adjacent to the site. The

pipeline passes through the disposal

pond area, and excavation and

treatment of contaminated soils and

sediments cannot proceed with the

pipeline in place. Neither U.S. EPA nor

the State of Minnesota presently has any

evidence that Williams Pipe Line

Company’s operations resulted in the

presence of the hazardous substances to

be addressed in the disposal pond area.

To the contrary, all available

information indicates that the presence

of these hazardous substances is

attributable to adjacent wood treating

operations.

U.S. EPA may enter into this

settlement under the authority of

Section 122(g) of CERCLA. The

settlement agreement provides that

Williams Pipe Line will obtain the

necessary authority from other property

owners to relocate its pipeline to a

remote location, and proceed to re-route

its pipeline accordingly pursuant to an

approved work plan and schedule.

Actual line relocation is not expected to

take more than twenty days. U.S. EPA

and the State of Minnesota have agreed

to provide funding of up to $198,415 for

the project. Payment is to be made upon

completion of the work and review of

the relocation costs incurred.

A copy of the proposed

Administrative Order on Consent and

additional background information

relating to the settlement are available

for review and may be obtained in

person or by mail from Thomas M.

Williams (Mail Code CS–29A), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency will receive written comments

relating to this settlement for thirty days

from the date of publication of this

notice.

Authority: The Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

Sections 9601 et seq.

Joseph M. Boyle,

Acting Director, Waste Management Division.

[FR Doc. 95–9058 Filed 4–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Network Reliability Council Meeting

April 7, 1995.

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public

Law 92–463, as amended, this notice

advises interested persons of the

eleventh meeting of the Network

Reliability Council (‘‘Council’’), which

will be held at the Federal

Communications Commission in

Washington, D.C.

DATES: Friday, April 28, 1995 at 1:30

p.m.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Room 856, 1919 M Street,

N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Kimball at (202) 634–7150.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Council was established by the Federal

Communications Commission to bring

together leaders of the

telecommunications industry and

telecommunications experts from

academic, consumer and other

organizations to explore and

recommended measures that would

enhance network reliability.

The agenda for the eleventh meeting

is as follows: the Council will receive an

overview of Steering Committee

activities and an update on network

reliability performance. Progress reports

will be made by three NRC focus group

leaders and discussion will follow. The

Council will also discuss data collection

activities including funding problems.

Members of the general public may

attend the meeting. The Federal

Communications Commission will

attempt to accommodate as many

people as possible. However,

admittance will be limited to the seating

available. The public may submit

written comments to the Council’s

designated Federal Officer before the

meeting.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9041 Filed 4–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

[Gen. Docket No. 88–476; DA 95–590]

Private Wireless Division, New York

Metropolitan Area Public Safety Plan

Amendment

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Acting Chief, Private

Radio Division and the Acting Chief,

Spectrum Engineering Division released

this Order affirming the November 28,

1994, amendment to the Public Safety

Radio Plan for the New York

Metropolitan Area (Region 8). As a

result of affirming the amendment to the

Plan for Region 8, the interests of the

eligible entities within the region will

be furthered.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 30, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Rubin, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, Private

Wireless Division (202) 418–0680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order

Adopted: March 22, 1995

Released: March 30, 1995

By the Acting Chief, Private Wireless

Division, Wireless Telecommunications

Bureau and the Acting Chief, Spectrum

Engineering Division, Office of

Engineering and Technology:

1. On November 28, 1994, the Private

Radio Bureau and the Office of

Engineering and Technology, acting

under delegated authority, approved an

amendment to the New York

Metropolitan Area (Region 8) Public

Safety Plan (Plan). Order, Gen. Docket

No. 88–476, adopted November 28,

1994, DA 94–1329. In the Order, we

inadvertently failed to note that Mr.

Charles L. Larsen filed a timely

comment on August 2, 1994.

2. We have reviewed Mr. Larsen’s

comment. Mr. Larsen opposed the

amendment to the Region 8 Plan noting

the scarcity of frequencies in the New

York metropolitan area. We note that his

objection is not directed against the

proposed amendment, but rather the

public safety National Planning process.

We find that our approval of the

amendment was consistent with

Commission authority pursuant to

Report and Order, in Gen. Docket No.

87–112, 53 FR 1022, January 15, 1988.

3. Accordingly, we reaffirm our

decision of November 28, 1994, that the

Public Safety Radio Plan for the New

York Metropolitan Area (Region 8) IS

AMENDED, as set forth in the Region’s

letter of July 11, 1994.

4. For further information, contact

Mark Rubin at (202) 418–0680.