**[Total Cost Analysis]{.underline}**

**Revised 40 CFR Part 6**

The Agency is amending its procedures for implementing the requirements
of the CEQ Regulations for NEPA. Those subject to the final NEPA rule
include EPA employees who must comply with NEPA and certain grant or
permit applicants who must submit environmental information
documentation to EPA for their proposed projects. The final NEPA
regulations would consolidate and standardize the environmental review
process applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA. Three different
levels of documentation exist: CE, EA/FONSI, and EIS/ROD. This
documentation is project-specific and is a one-time submission.

We estimate the following for each type of documentation using the final
rule, using \$75/hour for contractor costs:

  ------------------------ --------------------- -------------------- --------------------- -------------------- --------------------- --------------------
  **RESPONDENT**           CE                                         EA/FONSI                                   EIS/ROD               

  [Grant                   [Hours]{.underline}   [Cost]{.underline}   [Hours]{.underline}   [Cost]{.underline}   [Hours]{.underline}   [Cost]{.underline}
  Applicant]{.underline}                                                                                                               

  Contractor Hrs/Cost      40                    \$3,000              200                   \$15,000             2,400                 \$300,000

  Direct Hrs/Labor Cost    5                     275                  60                    3,300                440                   24,200

  O&M                                            17                                         40                                         280

  TOTAL                    45                    \$3,292              260                   \$18,340             2,840                 \$324,480

                                                                                                                                       (1 per 3-yrs)

  [Permit                  [Hours]{.underline}   [Cost]{.underline}   [Hours]{.underline}   [Cost]{.underline}   [Hours]{.underline}   [Cost]{.underline}
  Applicant]{.underline}                                                                                                               

  Contractor Hrs/Cost      None                  None                 400                   \$50,000             2,400                 \$300,000

  Direct Hrs/Labor Cost    None                  None                 60                    3,900                440                   28,600

  O&M                      None                  None                                       40                                         280

  TOTAL                    None                  None                 460                   \$53,940             2,840                 \$328,880
  ------------------------ --------------------- -------------------- --------------------- -------------------- --------------------- --------------------

\*The EIS/ROD cost for grant applicants can be annualized at \$108,160.

EPA anticipates that approximately 300 grants will be awarded annually.
Under the final rule, we estimate that about 60% of these projects will
be documented with a CE, and 40% with an EA/FONSI. EPA also estimates
that one project will have an EIS/ROD completed during a three-year
period. EPA estimates that permit applicants will have about 11 projects
documented with an EA/FONSI, and 1 project documented with an EIS/ROD.
We do not expect that any permit applicants will use a CE to document
their project.

Using this information, we calculate the following figures for each type
of documentation for each applicant:

Grant applicant: 180 CEs x \$3,292 = \$592,560

120 EAs x \$18,340 = \$2,200,800

1 EIS x \$108,160 = \$108,160

Permit applicant: 11 EAs x \$53,940 = \$593,340

[1 EIS x \$328,880 = \$328,880]{.underline}

TOTAL AMOUNT = \$3,823,740

Under the previously approved collection burden, the individual cost for
each type of documentation is the same. However, in that burden, we
estimated that 50% of the grants for projects were documented with a CE,
and 50% were documented with an EA/FONSI. There was still 1 EIS/ROD per
three-year period, and project estimates for permit applicants were
approximately the same (11 projects documented with an EA/FONSI; 1
project documented with an EIS/ROD). This leads to the following total
burden under the previously approved collection burden:

Grant applicant: 150 CEs x \$3,292 = \$493,800

150 EAs x \$18,340 = \$2,751,000

1 EIS x \$108,160 = \$108,160

Permit applicant: 11 EAs x \$53,940 = \$593,340

[1 EIS x \$328,880 = \$328,880]{.underline}

TOTAL AMOUNT = \$4,275,180

Accordingly, the final rule would decrease the total annual amount spent
on documentation from \$4,275,180 to \$3,823,740, which is a yearly
savings of \$451,440.

Number range CHAPTER**RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis of Impacts on Small
Entities**

**for the Final Rule at 40 CFR Part 6:**

**"Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
and**

**Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions\"**

**Table of Contents**

**[Page]{.underline}**

1\. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2\. Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2(a) Title of This Screening Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2(b) Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2(c) Need/Authority for EPA's Implementing Procedures and Final
Rule..... 3

2(d) Actions Typically Subject to EPA's Part 6 Regulations . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 3

2(e) Entities Typically Subject to EPA's Part 6 Regulations . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 5

2(f) Environmental Information Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3\. Definitions of Small Entities Used in This RFA/SBREFA Screening
Analysis . . . 10

3(a) Small Business Definition for This Screening Analysis . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 10

3(b) Small Government Definition for This Screening Analysis . . . . . .
. . . . . . 11

3(c) Small Organizations Definition for This Screening Analysis . . . .
. . . . . . 12

4\. RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis of Impacts on Small Entities . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 13

4(a) Screening Analysis Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4(b) Estimating the One-Time Cost for Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 15

5\. Screening Analysis of Economic Impacts on Small Businesses . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 21

5(a) Small Businesses Considered in This Screening Analysis . . . . . .
. . . . . . 21

5(b) Calculation of Estimated One-Time Cost Impact on Small Businesses .
. 27

5(c) Summary of Small Businesses Experiencing an Economic Impact

Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

6\. Screening Analysis of Economic Impacts on Small Governments . . . .
. . . . . . . . 30

6(a) Small Governments Considered in This Screening Analysis . . . . . .
. . . . 30

6(b) Calculation of Estimated One-Time Cost Impact on Small Governments
30

6(c) Summary of Small Governments Experiencing an Economic Impact

Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

7\. Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

8\. Statement of Impact on Small Entities Experiencing an Economic
Impact

Condition and Finding of No Significant Impact on a Substantial Number

of Small Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Part B. Statistical Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

[Tables]{.underline}

Table 1. Summary of Information Submitted by Applicants for CEs,
EAs/FONSIs,

and EISs/RODs

Table 2. Anticipated Business Types, NAICS Codes and Small Business
Designations

Table 3. Annual Total STAG Grants Awarded, Fiscal Years1992 Through 2004

Table 4. Summary of Estimated Contractor Costs for Permit and Grant
Applicants

and Estimated Number of Projects

Table 5. One-Year and Out-Year Total Annual Estimated Contractor Costs
and

Hours for Permit Applicants and Grantees

Table 6. One-Time Estimated Cost for a Permit Applicant or Grantee

Table 7. Summary of Estimated One-Time Total Costs for a Year

Table 8. Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition
for

Code 211111 (Gas and Oil Exploration)

Table 9. Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition
for

Code 212221, 212222, 212231 and 212234 (Hardrock Mining)

Table 10. Business Size by Dollar Amount of Revenues/Sales and NAICS
Size

Definition for Code 112120 (Dairy Milk and Cheese Production)

Table 11. Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition
for

Code 311712 (Seafood Production)

Table 12. Business Size by Dollar Amount of Revenues/Sales and NAICS

Size Definition for Codes 112310, 112320, 112330, 112340, 112112,

112210 (CAFOs)

Table 13. Summary of Business Types With Anticipated Small Businesses

Table 14. One-Time Estimated Costs for Special District Grant Applicants

[Attachments]{.underline}

Attachment 1. Exemptions from NEPA for Certain EPA Actions and EPA's

Voluntary NEPA Policy

Attachment 2. Estimates of Contractor Costs and Hours for Grantees and
Permit Applicants

Attachment 3. STAG Projects for 2002 Through 2004 - Summary of Active
Projects

and SBA Size Designation

Attachment 4. STAG Projects for 2002 Through 2004 - "Income Test"
Estimate of

Cost Impact on Small Governments

[Acronyms]{.underline}

aka Also known as

BP British Petroleum

CAFOs Concentrated animal feeding operations

CE Categorical exclusion

CEQ Regulations Council on Environmental Quality Regulations at 40 CFR
parts 1500 through 1508

CCR Central Contractor Registration

CSO Combined sewer overflow

D&B Dun and Bradstreet

EA Environmental assessment

EID Environmental information document

EIS Environmental impact statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GP General permit

HQ Headquarters

FONSI Finding of no significant impact

MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

MS4 Municipal separate storm sewer system

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

O&M Operation and maintenance

Part 6 40 CFR Part 6

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RFA/SBREFA Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996

ROD Record of Decision

SAAPP Special Appropriations Act Projects and Program

SBA Small Business Administration

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996

STAG State and Tribal Assistance Grants

U.S.C. United States Code

**Screening Analysis of Impacts on Small Entities**

**for the Final Rule at 40 CFR Part 6:**

**"Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
and**

**Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions\"**

**1. Introduction**

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (RFA/SBREFA, 5. U.S.C. 601
*et seq*.), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small governments, and small
organizations.

The RFA/SBREFA requirements to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
or a certification of no significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities applies to proposed rules subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute, and final rules promulgated under
the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act. It is EPA's policy to make an assessment of the rule's
impact on any small entities, to engage the potentially regulated
entities in a dialog regarding the rule, and minimize the impact to the
extent feasible. However, in view of the requirements of SBREFA, a
regulatory flexibility analysis as specified by the RFA is not required
simply because the rule has some impact on some number of small
entities. Instead, such analyses are required only in cases where the
Agency cannot certify that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

**2. Background Information**

**2(a) Title of This Screening Analysis.** "Procedures for Implementing
the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental
Effects Abroad of EPA Actions"

**2(b) Abstract.** The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency)
is amending its procedures for implementing the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The final rule also
includes minor, technical amendments to the Agency's procedures for
implementing Executive Order 12114, "Environmental Effects Abroad of
Major Federal Actions."

[EPA's Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act]{.underline}. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, establishes the federal government's national
policy for protection of the environment. The Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations (CEQ Regulations) at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508
establish procedures implementing the national policy. The CEQ
Regulations (40 CFR 1505.1) require federal agencies to adopt and, as
needed, revise their own implementing procedures to supplement the CEQ
Regulations and to ensure their decision-making processes are consistent
with NEPA.

The Agency is amending its procedures for implementing the requirements
of the CEQ Regulations for NEPA. The final rule amends EPA's NEPA
implementing procedures by: (1) consolidating and standardizing the
procedural provisions and requirements of the Agency's environmental
review process under NEPA; (2) clarifying the general procedures
associated with categorical exclusions, consolidating the categories of
actions subject to categorical exclusion, amending existing and adding
new categorical exclusions, and consolidating and amending existing and
adding new extraordinary circumstances; (3) consolidating and amending
the listing of actions that generally require an environmental impact
statement; (4) clarifying the procedural requirements for consideration
of applicable environmental review laws and executive orders; and (5)
incorporating other proposed revisions consistent with CEQ's
Regulations.

Those subject to the final NEPA rule include EPA employees who must
comply with NEPA and certain grant or permit applicants who must submit
environmental information documentation to EPA for their proposed
projects. The final NEPA regulations consolidate and standardize the
environmental review process applicable to all EPA actions subject to
NEPA, including those actions now specifically addressed in the
regulations and other actions subject to NEPA but not specifically
addressed in the regulations (e.g., certain grants awarded for special
projects authorized by Congress through the Agency's annual
Appropriations Act).[^1]

Compliance with the NEPA regulations is the responsibility of EPA\'s
Responsible Officials. For applicant-proposed actions, certain
procedures apply to applicants (that is grantees and permit applicants)
who must submit environmental information to EPA as part of the
environmental review process. The EPA Responsible Official is
responsible for the environmental review process, including any
categorical exclusion determination or the scope, accuracy, and contents
of a final environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact
statement (EIS) and any supporting documents. The applicant contributes
by submitting environmental information to EPA as part of the
environmental review process.

For actions subject to NEPA, the Responsible Official may determine that
the proposed action does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment and may, therefore, be
categorically excluded from further NEPA review. If the proposed action
is not categorically excluded, the Responsible Official may prepare an
EA in order to determine whether to prepare an EIS or a finding of no
significant impact (FONSI). If necessary, the Responsible Official must
prepare an EIS if the proposed action will have a significant effect on
the human environment. For applicant-proposed actions, the applicant may
submit information to the Responsible Official regarding the
applicability of a categorical exclusion and request a determination by
the Responsible Official. Unless the applicant-proposed action is
categorically excluded, the Responsible Official may gather the
information and prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the
applicant, or have the applicant prepare an environmental information
document (EID) or a draft EA and supporting documents or implement a
third-party contract agreement with the applicant.

[EPA's Procedures for Implementing Executive Order 12114]{.underline}.
Part 6 also includes EPA's procedures, "Assessing the Environmental
Effects Abroad of EPA Actions," that implement Executive Order 12114,
"Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions\" (see 46 FR
3364). EPA's Executive Order 12114 procedures further the purpose of
NEPA and provide that EPA may be guided by its NEPA procedures to the
extent they are applicable.[^2] Therefore, when EPA conducts an
environmental assessment pursuant to its Executive Order 12114
procedures, the Agency generally follows its NEPA procedures. As with
EPA's current Executive Order 12114 implementing procedures, compliance
with the procedures would be the responsibility of EPA's Responsible
Officials and, for applicant-proposed actions, applicants may be
required to provide environmental information to EPA as part of the
environmental review process. For this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis,
the entity burden, including small entities, for applicant-proposed
actions subject to either NEPA or Executive Order 12114 is addressed
through the NEPA process.

**2(c) Need/Authority for EPA's Implementing Procedures and Final
Rule.** The CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1505.1) require federal agencies to
adopt and, as needed, revise their own implementing procedures to
supplement the CEQ Regulations. The purpose of the final rule is to meet
the procedural requirements of the CEQ Regulations for NEPA. The final
regulations also include minor, technical amendments to EPA's
environmental review procedures implementing Executive Order 12114. EPA
is collecting information from certain applicants as part of the process
of complying with either NEPA or Executive Order 12114.

**2(d) Actions Typically Subject to EPA's Part 6 Regulations.** EPA's
NEPA regulations apply to the actions of EPA that are subject to NEPA in
order to ensure that environmental information is available to the
Agency's decision-makers and the public before decisions are made and
before actions are taken. This includes actions such as wastewater
treatment construction grants under Title II of the Clean Water Act,
EPA's issuance of new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits, certain research and development projects, EPA
actions involving renovations at or new construction of EPA facilities,
and certain grants awarded for special projects authorized by Congress
through the Agency's annual Appropriations Act. EPA actions subject to
NEPA that are based on applicant proposals may include any of these
except EPA actions for construction of special purpose facilities or
facility renovations of EPA facilities.

The Part 6 regulations also include EPA's procedures implementing
Executive Order 12114. These procedures ensure that environmental
information is available to the Agency's decision-makers and other
appropriate Federal agencies and officials for actions subject to
Executive Order 12114. EPA actions typically subject to Executive Order
12114 include major EPA actions which affect the environment of a
foreign nation or the global commons and may include: major research or
demonstration projects, ocean dumping activities carried out under
section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33
U.S.C. 1401 *et seq*.), major permitting or licensing of facilities by
EPA,[^3] Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Program under section
201 of the Clean Water Act when activities addressed in the facility
plan would have environmental effects abroad, and other activities as
determined by EPA.

Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program facilities or new
source NPDES permits to be issued by EPA for facilities in the U.S.
bordering Mexico or Canada are subject to EPA's NEPA implementing
procedures. If these facilities could have significant environmental
effects abroad, generally they would also be subject to EPA's procedures
implementing Executive Order 12114. In addition, EPA has determined that
certain grants awarded for special projects identified in the STAG
account authorized by Congress through the Agency's annual
Appropriations Act are subject to NEPA. STAG special projects in the
U.S. bordering Mexico or Canada and that could have significant
environmental effects abroad generally would also be subject to EPA's
procedures implementing Executive Order 12114.

Further, certain actions subject to EPA's Executive Order 12114
implementing procedures are not subject to EPA's NEPA implementing
procedures (see Attachment 1). EPA's Executive Order 12114 implementing
procedures (with only minor, technical amendments) provide that: (a) for
ocean dumping activities, the information submitted under 40 CFR part
221 is sufficient to satisfy the environmental assessment requirements;
and (b) for permits issued under section 3005 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, section 402 of the Clean Water Act, and
section 165 of the Clean Air Act, the information submitted by
applicants for such permits or approvals under the applicable
consolidated permit regulations (40 CFR parts 122 and 124) and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations (40 CFR part 52)
satisfy the environmental document requirements of Executive Order
12114.

In summary, the applicant costs for any applicant-proposed actions,
including permitting or licensing, under these authorities are already
addressed under these programs and are not further addressed in this
RFA/SBREFA screening analysis. However, the applicant costs for any EPA
action subject to NEPA and/or Executive Order 12114 that are based on an
applicant proposal, including Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants
Program facilities, STAG actions subject to NEPA and new source NPDES
permits issued by EPA, are addressed in this RFA/SBREFA screening
analysis. EPA's Executive Order 12114 implementing procedures further
the purpose of NEPA and provide that EPA may be guided by the CEQ
Regulations to the extent they are applicable. Therefore, when EPA
conducts an environmental assessment pursuant to its Executive Order
12114 implementing regulations, the Agency generally follows the CEQ
Regulations and the procedures in EPA's NEPA implementing regulations.
For these reasons, for applicant-proposed actions subject to either NEPA
or Executive Order 12114 (and that are not addressed in other EPA
programs), the remainder of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis will
evaluate the entity costs, including small entities, only with regard to
EPA's NEPA implementing procedures.

**2(e) Entities Typically Subject to EPA's Part 6 Regulations.** Those
subject to the final rule include EPA employees who must comply with
NEPA or Executive Order 12114, and certain grant or permit applicants
who must submit environmental information documentation to EPA for their
projects. "Applicants" (e.g., grant or permit applicants) are the
entities that may provide such environmental information to EPA,
including small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions. For
purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA considers entities
to be two types of applicants:

-   Grant applicants applying to EPA for funding of special projects
    authorized by Congress through the Agency's annual Appropriations
    Act. These applicants are generally governmental jurisdictions.[^4]

-   Permit applicants applying to EPA for issuance of new source NPDES
    permits under §402 of the CWA. EPA issues new source NPDES permits
    only in states and U.S. territories that have not assumed authority
    for this program (i.e., New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico,
    New Mexico, Oklahoma (for concentrated animal feeding operations
    only), Alaska, and Idaho), the District of Columbia, off-shore
    waters (e.g., the inter-continental shelf for Texas, all
    outer-continental shelf areas, all deep-water port areas), and on
    federally-recognized Indian tribal lands. These permit applicants
    are not limited to a specific business sector. EPA has permitted,
    and anticipates continued permit activity, with projects typically
    involving: oil and gas extraction from off-shore waters, hardrock
    mining (recently gold, silver, lead and zinc, and copper), dairy
    cattle and milk production, seafood processing, and concentrated
    animal feeding operations (CAFOs), including poultry, cattle, hogs
    and pigs.

[NAICS Code]{.underline}[^5]

Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction 211111

Hardrock mining

Gold ore mining 212221

Silver ore mining 212222

Lead ore and zinc ore mining 212231

Copper ore and nickel ore mining 212234

Dairy cattle and milk production 112120

Seafood fresh and frozen processing 311712

Poultry and egg production

Chicken egg production 112310

Broilers and other meat type chicken production 112320

Turkey production 112330

Poultry hatcheries 112340

Cattle feedlots 112112

Hog and pig farming 112210

**2(f) Environmental Information Required.** For EPA actions subject to
NEPA, the Responsible Official may determine that the proposed action
does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment and may, therefore, be categorically excluded from
further NEPA review. If the proposed action is not categorically
excluded, the Responsible Official may prepare an EA in order to
determine whether to prepare an EIS or a FONSI. The Responsible Official
prepares an EIS if the proposed action will have a significant effect on
the human environment. For EPA actions subject to NEPA that are based on
applicant proposals, the Responsible Official may gather the information
and prepare the NEPA documents without environmental information
submitted by the applicant, or have the applicant prepare an EID, or a
draft EA and supporting documents, or implement a third-party agreement
with the applicant.[^6]^,^ [^7]

The level of NEPA documentation and the project-specific information the
Responsible Official needs for decision-making is determined by the
potential for environmental impact of the action, or the facility to be
permitted or the project to be funded by the action rather than the
dollar amount of the project or whether the applicant is a grantee or
permit applicant.[^8] Table 1 summarizes the information to be submitted
by an applicant for a categorical exclusion (CE) determination, an EA
and FONSI, and an EIS and Record of Decision (ROD).

Table 1. Summary of Information Submitted by Applicants for CEs,
EAs/FONSIs, and EISs/RODs

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| [Categorical Exclusion (CE)]{.underline} means a category of actions  |
| which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect   |
| on the human environment and have been found by EPA to have no such   |
| effect. To find that a proposed action is categorically excluded, the |
| Responsible Official needs to determine that the proposed action fits |
| within a categorical exclusion that is listed in the regulations, and |
| the proposed action does not involve any extraordinary circumstances  |
| as listed in the regulations. "Extraordinary circumstances" are those |
| circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a          |
| significant environmental effect. Based on review of information in   |
| the applicant's application and other available information, the      |
| Responsible Official notifies the applicant if the action is          |
| categorically excluded, or if EPA needs additional information to     |
| support the application of a categorical exclusion.                   |
|                                                                       |
| [Information Submitted by Applicant]{.underline}: The applicant may   |
| provide statements or documents to the Responsible Official to verify |
| that the proposed action would not involve any of the listed          |
| extraordinary circumstances.                                          |
|                                                                       |
| For example, the applicant might submit information to support a      |
| categorical exclusion determination for an action that meets the      |
| criteria for "Actions in unsewered communities relating to the use of |
| proposed wastewater on-site technologies where such technologies      |
| replace existing systems." If the project area is known to be near a  |
| property with nationally significant historic value, the applicant    |
| would likely enclose a letter from the State Historic Preservation    |
| Officer that confirms the proposed project will not have a            |
| significant environmental effect on the historic property. The        |
| applicant letter may also verify there are no wetlands in the project |
| area.                                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| [Environmental Assessments (EAs)]{.underline} need to include         |
| sufficient information and analysis for the Responsible Official to   |
| determine whether to prepare an EIS or to issue a FONSI.              |
|                                                                       |
| [Information Submitted by Applicant]{.underline}: The applicant       |
| submits an EID of sufficient scope to enable the Responsible Official |
| to prepare an EA, and then determine whether to issue a FONSI or      |
| prepare an EIS. At the discretion of the Responsible Official, the    |
| applicant may prepare a draft EA and supporting documents in lieu of  |
| an EID.                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| An EID for an EA, or a draft EA and supporting documents, generally   |
| will: (1) include brief discussions of the need for the proposed      |
| action; the alternatives, including the no action alternative;        |
| description of the affected environment; and the environmental        |
| impacts of the proposed action and alternatives; (2) include a        |
| listing or summarize any coordination or consultation undertaken with |
| any federal agency, state or local government, or                     |
| federally-recognized Indian tribe, including compliance with          |
| applicable laws and executive orders; (3) identify and describe any   |
| mitigation measures that must be considered, including any mitigation |
| measures that must be adopted to ensure the action will not have      |
| significant impacts; and (4) incorporate documents by reference.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| [Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)]{.underline} are generally    |
| prepared for major actions that may significantly affect the quality  |
| of the human environment, or when an EA indicates that significant    |
| impacts may occur that cannot be reduced or eliminated by changes to  |
| or mitigation of the proposed action. A Record of Decision (ROD)      |
| documents the decision of the Responsible Official.                   |
|                                                                       |
| [Information Submitted by Applicant]{.underline}: The applicant       |
| submits an EID of sufficient scope to enable the Responsible Official |
| to prepare an EIS and ROD. In lieu of submitting documentation, the   |
| Responsible Official and the applicant may enter into a third-party   |
| contract agreement. The information needed for an EIS parallels the   |
| information needed for an EA with a focus on assessment of            |
| significant environmental issues and alternatives.                    |
|                                                                       |
| An EID for an EIS generally will: (1) provide EPA with information    |
| the Agency will use to prepare an EIS; (2) analyze all reasonable     |
| alternatives and the no action alternative; (3) describe the          |
| potentially affected environment including, as appropriate, the size  |
| and location of new and existing facilities, land requirements,       |
| operation and maintenance requirements, auxiliary structures such as  |
| pipelines or transmission lines, and construction schedules; (4)      |
| summarize any coordination or consultation undertaken with any        |
| federal agency, state or local government, or federally-recognized    |
| Indian tribe, including compliance with applicable laws and executive |
| orders; (5) the draft EIS must summarize any public meetings during   |
| the scoping process, and the final EIS must summarize the public      |
| participation process held after publication of the draft EIS; (6)    |
| the draft EIS must consider substantive comments received during the  |
| scoping process, and the final EIS must summarize all comments on the |
| draft EIS and respond to any substantive comments and explain any     |
| changes to a revised draft EIS or the final EIS and the reasons for   |
| the changes; and (7) include the names and qualifications of the      |
| persons primarily responsible for preparing the EIS including         |
| significant background papers.                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Under the rule, applicants submit project-specific information only for
applicant-proposed actions that are subject to EPA's NEPA implementing
procedures. The information compiled is a one-time submission in
narrative text format from applicants for grant assistance for specific
projects subject to NEPA, or for new source NPDES permits to be issued
by EPA. There are no ongoing reporting, recordkeeping or
file-maintenance requirements for applicants.[^9]

Whether the NEPA documents are based on environmental information
developed by the Responsible Official or submitted by the applicant, the
NEPA review and resulting documents generally rely on the use of
existing data and information, including data and information from other
federal agencies, state or local governments, or federally-recognized
Indian tribes with jurisdiction by law or special expertise.

Whether the NEPA documents are prepared directly by the Responsible
Official or based on environmental information submitted by the
applicant, the quality of the information provided by an applicant must
be sufficient to enable the Responsible Official to make a decision.
This is accomplished under EPA's NEPA implementing procedures through:
(1) early coordination and cooperation with federal agencies, state and
local governments, and federally-recognized Indian tribes with
jurisdiction by law or special expertise (see final rule § 6.202); and
(2) the public participation process associated with actions other than
those categorically excluded^1^[^10] (see final rule § 6.203).^1^[^11]
When the environmental information is provided by the applicant, the
Responsible Official is responsible for the statements, analyses, and
conclusions of the EA or EIS and any supporting documents.

**3. Definitions of Small Entities Used in This RFA/SBREFA Screening
Analysis**

The RFA/SBREFA defines small entities as including:

• small businesses

• small governments, and

• small organizations.

The RFA/SBREFA further defines each type of small entity as detailed
below. These are the definitions used by EPA in this RFA/SBREFA
screening analysis.

**3(a) Small Business Definition for This Screening Analysis.** The
RFA/SBREFA references the definition of "small business" found in the
Small Business Act, which authorizes the Small Business Administration
(SBA) to define "small business" by regulation. The SBA's "small
business" definitions are codified at 13 CFR 121.201 by category of
business using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes.^1^[^12] The SBA definition of a "small business" applies to a
firm's parent company and all affiliates as a single entity.

The NAICS codes for business types that have previously applied to EPA
for new source NPDES permits and the small business designation for each
business type are listed in Table 2. For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA
screening analysis, EPA assumes these are the same business types likely
to apply to EPA in the out-years for new source NPDES permits and, under
the final rule, EPA will conduct environmental reviews for these actions
directly or with applicant assistance through submission of
environmental information or draft EAs or EISs and supporting documents
(see Section 2(f) and Attachment 2).

Table 2. Anticipated Business Types, NAICS Codes and Small Business
Designations^1^[^13]

+--------------------------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| ***Anticipated Business        | ***NAICS    | ***Small Business     |
| Types^a^***                    | Codes***    | Designations***       |
+--------------------------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| Crude petroleum and natural    | 211111      | 500 Employees         |
| gas extraction                 |             |                       |
+--------------------------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| Hardrock mining                | 212221      | 500 Employees         |
|                                |             |                       |
| Gold ore mining                | 212222      | 500 Employees         |
|                                |             |                       |
| Silver ore mining              | 212231      | 500 Employees         |
|                                |             |                       |
| Lead ore and zinc ore mining   | 212234      | 500 Employees         |
|                                |             |                       |
| Copper ore and nickel ore      |             |                       |
| mining                         |             |                       |
+--------------------------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| Dairy cattle and milk          | 112120      | \$750,000             |
| production                     |             |                       |
+--------------------------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| Seafood fresh and frozen       | 311712      | 500 Employees         |
| processing                     |             |                       |
+--------------------------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| Poultry and egg production     | 112310      | \$11,500,000          |
|                                |             |                       |
| Chicken egg production         | 112320      | \$750,000             |
|                                |             |                       |
| Broilers and other meat type   | 112330      | \$750,000             |
| chicken production             |             |                       |
|                                | 112340      | \$750,000             |
| Turkey production              |             |                       |
|                                |             |                       |
| Poultry hatcheries             |             |                       |
+--------------------------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| Cattle feedlots                | 112112      | \$2,000,000           |
+--------------------------------+-------------+-----------------------+
| Hog and pig farming            | 112210      | \$750,000             |
+--------------------------------+-------------+-----------------------+

^a^Because there is no set universe of permit applicants, this is a
representative rather than an exhaustive list.

**3(b) Small Government Definition for This Screening Analysis.** The
RFA/SBREFA defines "small governmental jurisdiction" as the government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000. For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA
screening analysis and as stated in Section 2(e), grant applicants
applying to EPA for funding of special projects authorized by Congress
through the Agency's annual Appropriations Act are one of the two types
of entities that would submit environmental information to EPA under the
regulations. As further stated, these entities are generally
governmental jurisdictions and are, therefore, the governmental
jurisdiction entities for this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis. Based on
information on the number of STAG projects awarded for the period 1992
through 2004 as presented in Table 3 (also see footnote 4), EPA assumes
governmental entities are likely to continue to be the applicants for
these projects in the out-years and, under the proposed rule, EPA will
conduct environmental reviews for these actions without applicant
assistance or with applicant assistance through submission of
environmental information or draft EAs or EISs and supporting documents.

Table 3. Annual Total STAG Grants Awarded, Fiscal Years 1992 Through
2004^1^[^14]

+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| ***Year Number of    | ***Year Number of     | ***Year Number of    |
| Awards***            | Awards***             | Awards***            |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+
| 1992 17              | 1996 28               | 2000 232             |
|                      |                       |                      |
| 1993 24              | 1997 40               | 2001 256             |
|                      |                       |                      |
| 1994 9               | 1998 104              | 2002 298             |
|                      |                       |                      |
| 1995 52              | 1999 144              | 2003 308             |
|                      |                       |                      |
|                      |                       | 2004 206             |
+----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+

For the three-year period, 2002 through 2004, EPA has had approximately
600 active STAG grants in its 10 Regional offices (see Attachments 3 and
4).^1^[^15] The governmental jurisdictions (e.g., entities) include:
boroughs, cities, counties, parishes, special districts, towns,
townships, and villages as identified through the U.S. Census
Bureau.^1^[^16]

**3(c) Small Organizations Definition for This Screening Analysis.** The
RFA/SBREFA defines "small organizations" as any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field. Each year, EPA awards approximately \$4 billion in grants.
Of that amount, approximately 89% is awarded to states,
federally-recognized Indian tribes, and local governments for STAG
projects and implementation of environmental programs.^1^[^17] About 6%
are awarded to non-profit organizations and special interest groups and
about 4% to educational institutions for a broad range of purposes
including, for example, community outreach and education, workshops and
conferences, training, and cooperative agreements to non-profit senior
organizations to support EPA's Senior Environmental Employee program.
These grants are generally awarded under specific statutory authorities
that are exempt from NEPA (see Attachment 1). For purposes of this
RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, a small organization is not likely to
receive a grant from EPA for an action subject to NEPA under EPA's
regulations; therefore, small organizations are not included in this
screening analysis.

**4. RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis of Impacts on Small Entities**

**4(a) Screening Analysis Considerations.** The purpose of this
RFA/SBREFA screening analysis is to determine if the final rule may have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
EPA's regulations are applicable to EPA actions subject to NEPA,
including those proposed by applicants. Because the projects are
proposed by the applicants, including small businesses and small
governments, EPA does not know what projects will be proposed, when they
will be proposed, or what level of NEPA review will be required for each
individual project. In this regard, EPA's NEPA review process is
reactive to an applicant's request. These factors are built into this
screening assessment, including assumptions about the entities likely to
be subject to the regulations, the types of projects they are likely to
propose, and the degree of possible economic impact based on the NEPA
review process and the three levels of environmental documentation
possible under this process.

As discussed in Section 3, this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis assesses
the economic impact on small businesses and small governments. The
screening analyses for these small entities include, but are not limited
to, the following considerations:

> ! EPA's NEPA implementing regulations apply to the actions of EPA that
> are subject to NEPA. Compliance with the regulations is the
> responsibility of EPA's Responsible Officials. For EPA actions subject
> to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals, permit applicants or
> grantees must submit environmental information to EPA as part of the
> environmental review process unless the Responsible Official decides
> to prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the
> applicant.^1^[^18]
>
> ! As summarized in Table 1, the Responsible Official may determine
> that the action is categorically excluded, or prepare an EA in order
> to determine whether to prepare an EIS or issue a FONSI, or prepare an
> EIS and ROD. The level of NEPA documentation and the project-specific
> information the Responsible Official needs for decision-making is
> determined by the potential for environmental impact of the action, or
> the facility to be permitted or the project to be funded by the action
> rather than the dollar amount of the project or whether the applicant
> is a permit applicant or a grantee (see footnote 8).
>
> ! As stated in Section 2(f), whether the NEPA documents are based on
> environmental information developed by the Responsible Official or
> submitted by the applicant, the NEPA review and resulting documents
> generally rely on the use of existing data and information, including
> data and information from other federal agencies, state or local
> governments, or federally-recognized Indian tribes with jurisdiction
> by law or special expertise. Also, the quality of the information
> provided by an applicant must be sufficient to enable the Responsible
> Official to make a decision, and is accomplished through: (1) early
> coordination and cooperation with other federal agencies, state and
> local governments, and federally-recognized Indian tribes with
> jurisdiction by law or special expertise; and (2) the public
> participation process associated with actions other than those
> categorically excluded.
>
> ! When environmental information is provided by the applicant, the
> Responsible Official is responsible for the statements, analyses, and
> conclusions of the EA or EIS and any supporting documents.
>
> ! The environmental information submitted by permit applicants and
> grantees for their actions that are subject to NEPA is
> project-specific, one-time only, and does not involve repeated
> submission of compliance-related or other information by the regulated
> entities.

-   [Permit applicants]{.underline} are those applying to EPA for
    issuance of new source NPDES permits under §402 of the CWA. EPA
    issues NPDES permits only in states and U.S. territories that have
    assumed authority for this program, the District of Columbia,
    off-shore waters, and on federally-recognized Indian tribal lands
    (where the tribe has not assumed this authority). Permit applicants
    are not limited to a specific business sector(s), and EPA
    anticipates continued permit activity with projects typically
    involving: oil and gas extraction from off-shore waters, hardrock
    mining, dairy cattle and milk production, seafood processing, and
    CAFOs.

-   [Grant applicants]{.underline} are those applying to EPA for special
    projects identified in the STAG account authorized by Congress
    through the Agency's annual Appropriations Act. These applicants are
    generally governmental jurisdictions.

> ! The content of the environmental information submitted by an
> applicant for a draft EA and supporting documents and an EID for a
> draft EA and supporting documents is similar. There may be a financial
> difference for grantees in that EPA financial assistance generally may
> be used to prepare an EID but not to prepare a draft EA and supporting
> documents.^1^[^19] New source NPDES permit applicants are not eligible
> for EPA financial assistance. The applicant may also enter into a
> third-party agreement whereby the applicant engages and pays for the
> services of a contractor to prepare the EA and supporting documents on
> behalf of EPA. EPA's experience with applicants has generally been
> that they contract directly for preparation of an EID or a draft EA
> and supporting documents.^2^[^20] Therefore, for purposes of
> estimating the maximum costs to entities, the calculations will be
> based on preparation of a draft EA by a contractor whose services will
> be paid for by the applicant. See Attachment 2.
>
> ! The content of the environmental information submitted by an
> applicant for a draft EIS and supporting documents and an EID for a
> draft EIS and supporting documents is similar. For grantees,
> third-party contractor costs may be eligible for cost reimbursement
> (see footnote 19). New source NPDES permit applicants are not eligible
> for EPA financial assistance. Although an applicant may contract for
> preparation of an EID for a draft EIS, because EISs are generally more
> complex than EAs in terms of the issues to be addressed and the
> associated analyses, it has generally been EPA's experience that
> applicants will enter into a third-party agreement with EPA for
> preparation of the EIS and supporting documents. Therefore, for
> purposes of estimating the maximum costs to entities, EPA assumes the
> applicant will enter into a third-party agreement for the
> environmental review process and preparation of the documents for the
> project.^2^[^21] See Attachment 2.

**4(b) Estimating the One-Time Cost for Entities.** For purposes of this
RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA has estimated the one-time cost to
entities for preparing and submitting environmental documentation to the
Responsible Official for use in the environmental review of the
applicant's proposed project. The screening analysis also estimates the
likelihood of a project being documented with one of the three levels of
documentation, a CE or an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD. These estimates are
based on information from EPA's Regional Office NEPA practitioners and
their experience working with grantees and permit applicants, and is
summarized in Attachment 2.

For an applicant-proposed action, the applicant would generally submit
information to the EPA Responsible Official as part of the environmental
review process as delineated in Section 2(f), Table 1. As discussed in
Section 4(a), EPA assumes the applicant will use a contractor to compile
and prepare the environmental information to be submitted to the
Responsible Official. For the applicant, this includes the time and
costs needed to:

1\. Procure contractor services.

> 2\. Review instructions (such as the regulations and any
> program-specific guidelines the
>
> Responsible Official may also provide) and/or meet with the
> Responsible Official.

3\. Research data sources.

4\. Complete and review the collection of environmental information.

5\. Transmit the information to the Responsible Official.

6\. Meet with the Responsible Official on the need for any revisions to
the environmental

information, and prepare and submit any necessary revisions to the
information.

In summary, EPA assumes an applicant would expend time and incur
contractor costs to submit: (1) information to support application of a
categorical exclusion with environmental information prepared directly
by the applicant's contractor, or (2) a draft EA and supporting
documents prepared directly by the applicant's contractor, or (3) a
draft and final EIS and supporting documents prepared by the applicant's
contractor under a third-party agreement with EPA.

Entities include [permit applicants]{.underline} applying to EPA for
issuance of new source NPDES permits under §402 CWA. EPA issues these
permits only in states and U.S. territories that have not assumed
authority for this program. Because most states have now assumed the
NPDES program, few new source NPDES permits are issued by EPA. Regions
4, 6 and 10 currently handle the majority of these projects. As
presented in Section 2(e), most projects involve oil and gas extraction
in off-shore waters areas, hardrock mining, concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs), dairy farming, and seafood processing. None of these
projects have been documented with a CE, and EPA does not anticipate any
projects will be documented initially with a CE. Further, EPA
anticipates that annually, about 11 projects will be documented with
EAs/FONSIs. In addition, EPA anticipates one project will have an
EIS/ROD completed annually. EPA's estimates of a permit applicant's
contractor costs and permit applicant hours, the estimated number of
projects, and other assumptions, are presented in Attachment 2 and are
summarized in Table 4 for submission of environmental information for
EA/FONSI and EIS/ROD documentation.

Table 4. Summary of Estimated Contractor Costs for Permit and Grant
Applicants and Estimated Number of Projects

+-------+----------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
|       | ***CE          | ***EA/FONSI         | ***EIS/ROD Documents  |
|       | Documents      | Documents           | Project***            |
|       | Project***     | Project***          |                       |
|       |                |                     | ***Current Out-Year   |
|       | ***Current     | ***Current Out-Year | Period***             |
|       | Out-Yr         | Period***           |                       |
|       | Period***      |                     |                       |
+-------+----------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| P     | None None      | \$20-75,000         | \$0-300,000-1M        |
| ermit |                | \$50,000\*          | \$300,000\*           |
| Appl  |                |                     |                       |
| icant |                | not estimated 60    | not estimated 440     |
|       |                | hours               | hours                 |
|       |                |                     |                       |
|       |                | 66 per 6-years 11   | 1 per year 1 per year |
|       |                | per year            |                       |
|       |                |                     | \*Contractor:         |
|       |                | \* Contractor:      | \$125/hour            |
|       |                | \$125/hour          |                       |
|       |                |                     | \$125/hr x 2400 hrs = |
|       |                | \$125/hr x 400 hrs  | \$300,000             |
|       |                | = \$50,000          |                       |
+-------+----------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Grant | \$1-4,000      | \$5-25,000          | \$200-300,000         |
| Appl  | \$3,000\*      | \$15,000\*          | \$300,000\*           |
| icant |                |                     |                       |
|       | 1-5 hours 5    | not estimated 60    | not estimated 440 hrs |
|       | hrs            | hrs                 |                       |
|       |                |                     | 1 per 3 yrs 1 per 3  |
|       | 265 300 total | 265 300 total      | yrs                   |
|       |                |                     |                       |
|       | 50% 60% = 180  | 50% 40% = 120       | \*Contractor:         |
|       |                |                     | \$125/hour            |
|       | \*Contractor:  | \*Contractor:       |                       |
|       | \$75/hour      | \$75/hour           | \$125/hr x 2400 hrs = |
|       |                |                     | \$300,000             |
|       | \$75/hr x 40   | \$75/hr x 200 hrs = |                       |
|       | hrs = \$3,000  | \$15,000            |                       |
+-------+----------------+---------------------+-----------------------+

Entities also include [grant applicants]{.underline} applying to EPA for
funding of special projects identified in the STAG account authorized by
Congress through the Agency's annual Appropriations Act. These
applicants are generally governmental jurisdictions. The number of such
grants authorized by Congress, and subsequently awarded by EPA, has
generally been increasing annually with about 25 awarded in 1993, about
100 awarded in 1998, and about 300 awarded each year in 2002 and 2003 as
presented in Table 3; for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004, about 800
have been awarded by EPA. Recognizing that the number of STAG grant
awards has been increasing annually, for purposes of this RFA/SBREFA
screening analysis, EPA anticipates that approximately 300 STAG grants
will be awarded annually. Under the previous rule, EPA estimated that
about 50% of the STAG projects were documented with a CE, and about 50%
with an EA/FONSI. Under this final rule, EPA anticipates that the STAG
projects documented with CEs may increase 5% to 10%. Thus, based on
EPA's experience, under the final rule, EPA anticipates there will be
approximately 300 grantee projects annually with about 60% of these
projects documented with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/FONSI. In
addition, EPA estimates that one project (less than one percent of the
total annual grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD completed during a
3-year period. EPA's estimates of a grantee's contractor costs and
applicant hours, the estimated number of projects, and other
assumptions, are presented in Attachment 2 and are summarized in Table
4.

EPA does not anticipate any applicant capital or start up costs.^2^[^22]
Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are the recurring dollar amount of
cost associated with O&M or purchasing services. EPA assumes the O&M
costs associated with the paperwork requirements for entities would be
costs for photocopying and mailing the compiled environmental
information for a CE, EA or EIS. For a CE, EPA assumes up to 20 pages
may be copied at 10¢ per page, or \$2.00. For maximum cost estimate
purposes, EPA assumes the documentation is express mailed at a cost of
\$15.00, for a total cost of \$17.00 per CE. For an EA, EPA assumes 100
pages will be submitted at a cost of \$10.00 for copying and \$30.00 for
express mail for a total cost of \$40.00 per EA. For an EIS, EPA assumes
800 pages will be submitted (4 x 200 pages per EIS - preliminary draft
EIS, draft EIS, preliminary final EIS, final EIS) at a cost of \$80.00
for copying and \$200.00 for express mail (4 x \$50 per draft) for a
total cost of \$280.00 per EIS. See Attachment 2.

Based on the above assumptions and estimates for permit applicants and
grantees, Table 5 lists the estimated out-year annual contractor costs
and hours, and hours, direct labor and O&M costs for permit applicants
and grantees. The direct labor rate, including benefits, for civilian
worker (professional) applicants is assumed to be \$43; loaded at 50%
for other non-benefits overhead and including profit, this rate is about
\$65. Permit applicants are assumed to be civilian worker applicants.
The direct labor rate, including benefits, for state and local
government applicants is assumed to be \$44; loaded at 25% for other
non-benefits overhead, this rate is \$55. The direct labor rate for
federally-recognized Indian tribe applicants is assumed to be the same
as for state and local government applicants. Grantee applicants are
assumed to be state and local governments and federally-recognized
Indian tribes. (Labor rates, including benefits, from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - September
2005," http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.toc.htm.)

Table 5. One-Year and Out-Year Total Annual Estimated Costs and Hours
for Permit Applicants and Grantees

+--------+---------------+-----------------+-----------------+--------+
| **     | ***CE         | ***EA/FONSI     | ***EIS/ROD      | ***    |
| *Entit | Projects***   | Projects***     | Projects***     | Annual |
| ies*** |               |                 |                 | Tot    |
|        |               |                 |                 | als*** |
+--------+---------------+-----------------+-----------------+--------+
| **[    | None          | 11              | 1 project/year  | 12     |
| Permit |               | projects/year   |                 | pr     |
| ees]{. | None          |                 | 1 proj x 2,400  | ojects |
| underl |               | 11 proj x 400   | hrs/proj =      |        |
| ine}** | None          | hrs/proj =      |                 | 6,800  |
|        |               |                 | 2,400 hours     | hours  |
| Number | None          | 4,400 hours     |                 |        |
| of     |               |                 | 1 proj x        | \$8    |
| Pr     | None          | 11 proj x       | \$300,000/proj  | 50,000 |
| ojects |               | \$50,000/proj = | = \$300,000     |        |
|        | None          | \$550,000       |                 | 1,100  |
| Cont   |               |                 | 1 proj x 440    | hours  |
| ractor | **(None)**    | 11 proj x 60    | hrs/proj =      |        |
| Hours  |               | hrs/proj =      |                 | \$     |
|        |               |                 | 440 hours       | 71,500 |
| Cont   |               | 660 hours       |                 |        |
| ractor |               |                 | 440 hours x     | \$ 720 |
| Costs  |               | 660 hours x     | \$65/hour =     |        |
|        |               | \$65/hour =     |                 |        |
| Pe     |               |                 | \$28,600        |        |
| rmitee |               | \$42,900        |                 |        |
| Hours  |               |                 | 1 proj x        |        |
|        |               | 11 proj x       | \$280/proj =    |        |
| Pe     |               | \$40/proj =     | \$280           |        |
| rmitee |               | \$440           |                 |        |
| Labor  |               |                 | 2,400 + 440 =   |        |
| Costs  |               | 400 + 60 =      | **2,840 hrs**   |        |
|        |               | **460 hours**   |                 |        |
| O&M    |               |                 | \$300,000 +     |        |
| Costs  |               | \$50,000 +      | (\$65 x 440) +  |        |
|        |               | (\$65 x 60) +   | \$280 =         |        |
| **     |               | \$40 =          | **\$328,880**   |        |
| Totals |               | **\$53,940**    |                 |        |
| on     |               |                 |                 |        |
| On     |               |                 |                 |        |
| e-Time |               |                 |                 |        |
| Proj.  |               |                 |                 |        |
| B      |               |                 |                 |        |
| asis** |               |                 |                 |        |
+--------+---------------+-----------------+-----------------+--------+
| **     | 60% x 300     | 40% x 300 proj  | (None annually, | 300    |
| [Grant | proj =        | =               | one per 3-yrs;  | pr     |
| ees]{. | 180projects   |                 | 3-yr costs      | ojects |
| underl |               | 120 projects    | spread to       |        |
| ine}** | 180 proj x 40 |                 | estimate annual | (+     |
|        | hrs/proj =    | 120 proj x 200  | costs)          | one    |
| Number | 7,200 hours   | hrs/proj        |                 | /3yrs) |
| of     |               |                 | (1proj x        |        |
| Pr     | 180 proj x    | = 24,000 hours  | 2               | 32,000 |
| ojects | \$3,000/proj  |                 | ,400hrs/proj)/3 | hrs    |
|        | = \$540,000   | 120 proj x      |                 |        |
| Cont   |               | \$15,000/proj = | = 800 hours     | \$2,4  |
| ractor | 180 proj x 5  | \$1,800,000     | annually        | 40,000 |
| Hours  | hrs/proj      |                 |                 |        |
|        |               | 120 proj x 60   | (1proj x        | 8,247  |
| Cont   | = 900 hours   | hr/proj         | \$              | hours  |
| ractor |               |                 | 300,000/proj)/3 |        |
| Costs  | 900 hours x   | = 7,200 hours   | = \$100,000     | \$     |
|        | \$55/hr       |                 | annually        | 4      |
| G      |               | 7,200 hours x   |                 | 53,585 |
| rantee | = \$49,500    | \$55/hr         | (1proj x        |        |
| Hours  |               |                 | 440hrs/proj)/3  | \$     |
|        | 180 proj x    | = \$396,000     |                 | 7,957  |
| G      | \$17/proj =   |                 | = 147 hours     |        |
| rantee | \$3,060       | 120 proj x      | annually        |        |
| Labor  |               | \$40/proj =     |                 |        |
| Costs  | 40 + 5 = **45 |                 | 147 hours x     |        |
|        | hrs/proj**    | \$4,800         | \$55/hr         |        |
| O&M    |               |                 |                 |        |
| Costs  | \$3,000 +     | 200 + 60 =      | = \$8,085       |        |
|        | (\$55 x 5) +  | **260           | annually        |        |
| **     | \$17 =        | hrs/proj**      |                 |        |
| Totals | **\$3,        |                 | (1proj x        |        |
| on     | 292/project** | \$15,000 +      | \$280/proj)/3 = |        |
| On     |               | (\$55 x 60) +   | \$97            |        |
| e-Time |               | \$40 =          |                 |        |
| Proj.  |               | **\$1           | 2               |        |
| B      |               | 8,340/project** | 400+440=**2,840 |        |
| asis** |               |                 | hr/proj**       |        |
|        |               |                 |                 |        |
|        |               |                 | \$300,000 +     |        |
|        |               |                 | (\$55 x 440) +  |        |
|        |               |                 | \$280 =         |        |
|        |               |                 | **\$324,480**   |        |
+--------+---------------+-----------------+-----------------+--------+

The estimated one-time cost, including contractor costs and hours,
direct labor costs and hours, and O&M costs, for a permit applicant or
grantee submitting environmental information to EPA's Responsible
Official for a CE determination or an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD is
summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. One-Time Estimated Cost for a Permit Applicant or Grantee

+--------+------------------+-------------------+----------------------+
| **     | ***CE            | ***EA/FONSI       | ***EIS/ROD           |
| *Entit | Projects***      | Projects***       | Projects***          |
| ies*** |                  |                   |                      |
+--------+------------------+-------------------+----------------------+
| Per    | None             | \$53,940/project  | \$328,880/project    |
| mitees |                  |                   |                      |
|        | \$3,292/project  | 460 hours/project | 2,840 hours/project  |
| Gr     |                  |                   |                      |
| antees | 45 hours/project | 11 projects/year  | 1 project/year       |
|        |                  |                   |                      |
|        | 60% of 300       | \$18,340/project  | \$324,480/project    |
|        | projects         |                   |                      |
|        |                  | 260 hours/project | 2,840 hours/project  |
|        |                  |                   |                      |
|        |                  | 40% of 300        | 1 project/3-year     |
|        |                  | projects          | period               |
+--------+------------------+-------------------+----------------------+

The information submitted by entities is one-time only for
applicant-proposed actions. Based on EPA's experience, under this final
rule, EPA anticipates there will be approximately 300 grantee projects
annually with about 60% of these projects documented with a CE, and
about 40% with an EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates that one project
(less than one percent of the total annual grantee projects) will have
an EIS/ROD completed during a three-year period. For permit applicants,
EPA anticipates there will be approximately 12 projects annually with
about 11 of the projects documented with an EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA
anticipates one project will have an EIS/ROD completed annually. None
will be documented initially with a CE. Table 7 summarizes the estimated
one-time total cost that may be incurred during any given year (e.g.,
annually) by an estimated 312 applicants, including contractor costs and
hours, direct labor costs and hours, and O&M costs.

Table 7. Summary of Estimated One-Time Total Costs for a Year

+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|              | ***Entities and One-Time Total Costs for a Year***    |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Contractor   | [Permit Applicant Costs]{.underline} [Grant Applicant |
| Cost         | Costs]{.underline}                                    |
|              |                                                       |
| Direct Labor | \$ 850,000 \$2,340,000                                |
| Cost         |                                                       |
|              | 71,500 445,500                                        |
| O&M          |                                                       |
|              | 720 7,860                                             |
| Number of    |                                                       |
| Projects     | 12 300                                                |
|              |                                                       |
| Sub-Totals   | \$ 922,220 \$2,793,360                                |
|              |                                                       |
| Annualized   | \$108,160                                             |
| EIS Cost\*   |                                                       |
|              | > 312 Projects \$3,823,740                            |
| Totals       |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+

\*Approximately 1 EIS/ROD will be completed every 3 years; the
annualized cost for this has been included.

**5. Screening Analysis of Economic Impacts on Small Businesses.**

**5(a) Small Businesses Considered in This Screening Analysis.** To
assess the potential impacts of the rule on small businesses, EPA
assessed the potential impacts the final rule may have on small
businesses that may apply for a new source NPDES permit to be issued by
EPA. EPA anticipates the business types described in Section 2(e) are
the same business types likely to apply to EPA in the out-years for new
source NPDES permits, and that EPA will conduct NEPA reviews for these
actions without applicant assistance or with applicant assistance
through submission of environmental information or draft EAs and
supporting documents or an EIS prepared by a contractor under a
third-party agreement with EPA. Regions 4, 6 and 10 currently handle the
majority of these projects and EPA anticipates this will continue to be
the case in the out-years. Projects are anticipated to continue to
involve crude oil and natural gas extraction in off-shore waters areas,
hardrock mining, dairy farming, seafood processing, and CAFOs.

EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for [crude oil and
natural gas extraction]{.underline} in off-shore waters for energy
development purposes. Based on past experience, businesses are likely to
include: Chevron Corporation, Shell Exploration and Production (a
subsidiary of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies), Exxon Mobil
Corporation, and BP (British Petroleum). Because of the nature of the
business operations, any other businesses are expected to be generally
of the same size.

The "small business" definition for NAICS code 211111, crude petroleum
and natural gas extraction, is 500 employees. An Internet search of
these companies, summarized in Table 8, shows that none of these
businesses are small businesses. For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA
screening analysis, EPA assumes there will not be any small businesses
in this category applying to EPA for a new source NPDES permit in the
out-years.

Table 8. Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition
for Code 211111

+---------------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
| ***Business***      | ***Number of Employees and   | ***NAICS Size   |
|                     | Internet Reference***        | Definition***   |
+---------------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
| Chevron Corporation | 56,000 employees (2004)      | 500 employees   |
|                     |                              |                 |
| (second-largest US  | http://www.hoo               |                 |
| integrated oil      | vers.com/chevron-corporation |                 |
| company (behind     |                              |                 |
| Exxon Mobil): From  |                              |                 |
| hoovers.com         |                              |                 |
| website)            |                              |                 |
+---------------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
| Shell Exploration   | 28,500 employees (2005)      | 500 employees   |
| and Production      |                              |                 |
|                     | http://www.shell.com         |                 |
| (excludes the other | "Welcome to Shell            |                 |
| four core           | Exploration and Production"  |                 |
| businesses of the   |                              |                 |
| Royal Dutch/Shell   |                              |                 |
| Group of Companies) |                              |                 |
+---------------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
| Exxon Mobil         | 85,900 employees (2004)      | 500 employees   |
| Corporation         |                              |                 |
|                     | http:/                       |                 |
| (ten core companies | /www.hoovers.com/exxon-mobil |                 |
| worldwide; largest  |                              |                 |
| energy resource     | 120,000 employees world-wide |                 |
| base of any         | (1998 news figures in        |                 |
| non-government      | http://ne                    |                 |
| company: From       | ws.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/) |                 |
| exxonmobil website) |                              |                 |
|                     | http://ww                    |                 |
| (second-largest     | w2.exxonmobil.com/corporate/ |                 |
| integrated oil      |                              |                 |
| company ahead of    |                              |                 |
| Royal Dutch/Shell   |                              |                 |
| but behind BP: From |                              |                 |
| hoovers.com         |                              |                 |
| website)            |                              |                 |
+---------------------+------------------------------+-----------------+
| BP (British         | 102,900 employees (December  | 500 employees   |
| Petroleum)          | 2004)                        |                 |
|                     |                              |                 |
|                     | http://www.bp.com "BP Facts  |                 |
|                     | and Figures"                 |                 |
+---------------------+------------------------------+-----------------+

EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for [hardrock
mining]{.underline} in Alaska and Idaho. Based on past experience,
businesses are likely to include: Coeur Alaska (a subsidiary of Coeur
d'Alene Mines Corporation), Teck Resources (now merged with Cominco Ltd.
to form Teck Cominco Limited), and Kennecott Minerals Corporation (a
subsidiary of Rio Tinto Group). Because of the nature of the business
operations, any other businesses are expected to be generally of the
same size.

The "small business" definition is 500 employees for NAICS codes 212221,
gold ore mining; 212222, silver ore mining; 212231, lead ore and zinc
ore mining; and 212234, copper ore and nickel ore mining. An Internet
search of these companies, summarized in Table 9, shows that none of
these businesses are small businesses. For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA
screening analysis, EPA assumes there will not be any small businesses
in this category applying to EPA for a new source NPDES permit in the
out-years.

Table 9. Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition
for Codes 212221, 212222, 212231 and 212234

+-----------------------+-----------------------------+----------------+
| ***Business***        | ***Number of Employees and  | ***NAICS Size  |
|                       | Internet Reference***       | Definition***  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------+----------------+
| Coeur Alaska, a       | 837 employees (2004; Coeur  | 500 employees  |
| subsidiary of Coeur   | d'Alene Mines Corporation   |                |
| d'Alene Mines         | and its subsidiaries)       |                |
| Corporation           |                             |                |
|                       | Coeur d'Alene Mines         |                |
| (world's largest      | Corporation 2004 Annual     |                |
| primary silver        | Report at:                  |                |
| producer and a        | http://www.coeur.com        |                |
| significant low-cost  | "Investor Relations"        |                |
| gold producer)        |                             |                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------+----------------+
| Teck Resources,       | 6,710 employees (2004)      | 500 employees  |
| merged with Cominco   |                             |                |
| Ltd. to form Teck     | http://ww                   |                |
| Cominco Limited       | w.hoovers.com/teck-cominco/ |                |
|                       |                             |                |
| (zinc and lead        |                             |                |
| mining)               |                             |                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------+----------------+
| Kennecott Minerals    | 652 employees (in           | 500 employees  |
| Corporation, a        | partnership with Placer     |                |
| subsidiary of Rio     | Dome U.S.)                  |                |
| Tinto Group           |                             |                |
|                       | http://www.kennecott        |                |
| (copper mining)       | minerals.com/KMC-Glance.htm |                |
|                       |                             |                |
|                       | 33,000 employees (2004) Rio |                |
|                       | Tinto Group                 |                |
|                       |                             |                |
|                       | http:                       |                |
|                       | //www.hoovers.com/rio-tinto |                |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------+----------------+

EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for dairy cattle farming
CAFOs and [milk and cheese production operations]{.underline} in New
Mexico, Oklahoma (for CAFO-related operations only), Alaska and Idaho.
Based on past experience and because of the nature of the business
operations, EPA anticipates any future businesses seeking new source
NPDES permits are likely to be generally of the same size as those
permitted in the past. These businesses have included: dairy farms in
New Mexico operated by Jones Dairy, Rio Vista Dairy (aka Real Vista
Dairy), Wright Farms, Opportunity Dairy, and H.A.W. Farms; and West Farm
Foods and Sorrento Lactalis in the Northwest.

The "small business" definition for NAICS code 112120, dairy cattle and
milk production, is \$750,000 in revenues/sales. A Dun & Bradstreet
(D&B) and an Internet search of these companies, summarized in Table 10,
shows that Jones Dairy, H.A.W. Farms, West Farm Foods and Sorrento
Lactalis (a subsidiary of France's Groupe Lactalis) are not small
businesses; D&B verified that Rio Vista Dairy (aka Real Vista Dairy),
Wright Farms, Inc., and Opportunity Dairy LLC are small businesses. In
the out-years, EPA anticipates it is possible that other businesses such
as any of those evaluated could apply to EPA for a new source NPDES
permit. For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA assumes
there may be at least one small business in this category applying to
EPA for a new source NPDES permit.

Table 10. Business Size by Dollar Amount of Revenues/Sales and NAICS
Size Definition for Code 112120

+---------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| ***Business***      | ***Revenues/Sales and   | ***NAICS Size       |
|                     | Reference***            | Definition***       |
+---------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| Jones Dairy         | \$58.0 million Sales    | \$750,000 Rev/Sales |
|                     |                         |                     |
|                     | http://www.hoove        |                     |
|                     | rs.com/jones-dairy-farm |                     |
+---------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| Rio Vista Dairy     | \$700,000 Sales         | \$750,000 Rev/Sales |
|                     |                         |                     |
| (aka Real Vista     | Dun & Bradstreet:       |                     |
| Dairy)              | 87-720-0204             |                     |
|                     |                         |                     |
|                     | http://www.hoovers.com  |                     |
+---------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| Wright Farms, Inc.  | \$60,000 Sales          | \$750,000 Rev/Sales |
|                     |                         |                     |
|                     | Dun & Bradstreet:       |                     |
|                     | 18-833-3330             |                     |
|                     |                         |                     |
|                     | http://www.hoovers.com  |                     |
+---------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| Opportunity Dairy   | \$130,000 Sales         | \$750,000 Rev/Sales |
| LLC                 |                         |                     |
|                     | Dun & Bradstreet:       |                     |
|                     | 18-393-9482             |                     |
|                     |                         |                     |
|                     | http://www.hoovers.com  |                     |
+---------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| H.A.W. Farms        | \$1,400,000 Sales       | \$750,000 Rev/Sales |
|                     |                         |                     |
|                     | Dun & Bradstreet:       |                     |
|                     | 03-342-7720             |                     |
|                     |                         |                     |
|                     | http://www.hoovers.com  |                     |
+---------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| West Farm Foods     | \$1.1 billion Sales     | \$750,000 Rev/Sales |
|                     |                         |                     |
|                     | http://www.darig        |                     |
|                     | old.com/at_a_glance.asp |                     |
+---------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| Sorrento Lactalis,  | \$800.00 million        | \$750,000 Rev/Sales |
| Inc.                | Revenue (2004)          |                     |
|                     |                         |                     |
| (Acquired by        | http://biz/yahoo        |                     |
| France's Groupe     | .com.ic/112/112876.html |                     |
| Lactalis in 1992)   |                         |                     |
|                     | \$1,437,517,800 Sales   |                     |
|                     | (Groupe Lactalis)       |                     |
|                     |                         |                     |
|                     | Dun & Bradstreet:       |                     |
|                     | 39-180-3186             |                     |
|                     |                         |                     |
|                     | http://www.hoovers.com  |                     |
+---------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+

EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for [seafood processing
operations]{.underline} in Alaska and Idaho. Based on past experience
and because of the nature of the business operations, EPA anticipates
any future businesses seeking new source NPDES permits are likely to be
generally of the same size as those permitted in the past. These
businesses have included: Alaska Glacier Seafood Company (a subsidiary
of Alaska Glacier Seafoods, Inc.) and Kwikpak Fisheries, LLC.

The "small business" definition for NAICS code 311712, seafood fresh and
frozen processing, is 500 employees. A Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) and an
Internet search of these companies, summarized in Table 11, indicates
that both Alaska Glacier Seafoods Company and Kwikpak Fisheries, LLC,
are small businesses; Alaska Glacier Seafoods Company is a subsidiary of
Alaska Glacier Seafoods, Inc. In the out-years, EPA anticipates it is
possible that other businesses such as these could apply to EPA for a
new source NPDES permit. For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening
analysis, EPA assumes there may be at least one small business in this
category applying to EPA for a new source NPDES permit.

Table 11. Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition
for Code 311712

+----------+------------------------------------------------+---------+
| ***Bus   | ***Number of Employees and Internet            | *       |
| iness*** | Reference***                                   | **NAICS |
|          |                                                | Size    |
|          |                                                | Defini  |
|          |                                                | tion*** |
+----------+------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Alaska   | 10 employees Branch and HQ                     | 500     |
| Glacier  |                                                | em      |
| Seafoods | Dun & Bradstreet: 07-330-0720 (Branch) and     | ployees |
| Company, | 01-102-2345 (HQ)                               |         |
| a        |                                                |         |
| su       | http://www.hoovers.com                         |         |
| bsidiary |                                                |         |
| of       |                                                |         |
| Alaska   |                                                |         |
| Glacier  |                                                |         |
| S        |                                                |         |
| eafoods, |                                                |         |
| Inco     |                                                |         |
| rporated |                                                |         |
+----------+------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Kwikpak  | About 120 employees (2004)                     | 500     |
| Fi       |                                                | em      |
| sheries, | From: "Kwikpak Employment" chart, Yukon Delta  | ployees |
| LLC      | Fisheries Development Association, Fourth      |         |
|          | Quarter 2004 Report, October 1, 2004 -         |         |
|          | December 31, 2004;                             |         |
|          | http://www.dced.state.                         |         |
|          | ak.us/bsc/CDQ/pub/CDQ_YDFDA_Qtr4_Report_04.pdf |         |
|          |                                                |         |
|          | Company Website located - employee information |         |
|          | not located on Website                         |         |
|          |                                                |         |
|          | http://kwikpakfisheries.com , nor on           |         |
|          | http://www.coopamerica.org/ppubs/greenpages/   |         |
|          | Search keyword: kwikpak fisheries              |         |
+----------+------------------------------------------------+---------+

EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for [concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs)]{.underline}. CAFOs, including cattle, hogs,
pigs and chickens, are covered under a general permit in Alaska and
Idaho; individual NEPA reviews are not required. Based on past
experience and because of the nature of the business operations, EPA
anticipates any future businesses seeking new source NPDES permits are
likely to be generally of the same size as those permitted in the past.
These businesses have included: Tyson Foods, Inc., for chicken and hog
CAFOs in Oklahoma and operations related to dairy farms in New Mexico
and Oklahoma (see above discussion of dairy cattle farming CAFOs and
milk and cheese production operations).

The "small business" definition for NAICS code 112310, chicken egg
production is \$11,500,000 in revenues/sales, and for codes 112320,
112330, and 112340, broilers, turkey production and poultry hatcheries,
the definition is \$750,000 in revenues/sales. For code 112112, cattle
feedlots, the definition is \$2,000,000 in revenue/sales, and for code
112210, hog and pig farming, the definition is \$750,000 in
revenues/sales. A Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) and an Internet search of these
companies, summarized in Table 12, shows that Tyson Foods, Inc., Jones
Dairy, West Farm Foods and Sorrento Lactalis (a subsidiary of France's
Groupe Lactalis) are not small businesses; D&B verified that H.A.W.
Farms, Rio Vista Dairy (aka Real Vista Dairy), Wright Farms, Inc., and
Opportunity Dairy LLC are small businesses when considered as CAFOs as
the primary business operation rather than dairy farming and milk
production as their primary operation. In the out-years, EPA anticipates
it is possible that other businesses such as any of those evaluated
could apply to EPA for a new source NPDES permit. For purposes of this
RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA assumes there may be at least one
small business in this category applying to EPA for a new source NPDES
permit.

Table 12. Business Size by Dollar Amount of Revenues/Sales and NAICS
Size Definition for

Codes 112310, 112320, 112330, 112340, 112112, 112210

+---------------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| *             | ***Revenues/Sales and Reference***  | ***NAICS Size |
| **Business*** |                                     | Definition*** |
+---------------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| Tyson Foods,  | \$26.4 billion Sales (2004)         | \$11,500,000  |
| Incorporated  |                                     | Rev/Sales     |
|               | http://ir.tysonfoodsinc.com/        |               |
| (Worlds       | phoenix.zhtml?c=65476&p=irol-irhome | (egg          |
| largest       | (September 12, 2005)                | production)   |
| processor and |                                     |               |
| marketer of   |                                     | \$2,000,000   |
| chicken, beef |                                     | Rev/Sales     |
| and pork;     |                                     |               |
| Tyson is the  |                                     | (cattle       |
| s             |                                     | feedlots)     |
| econd-largest |                                     |               |
| food company  |                                     | \$750,000     |
| in Fortune    |                                     | Rev/Sales     |
| 500)          |                                     |               |
|               |                                     | (all other    |
|               |                                     | codes)        |
+---------------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| Jones Dairy   | \$58.0 million Sales                | \$2,000,000   |
|               |                                     | Rev/Sales     |
|               | http                                |               |
|               | ://www.hoovers.com/jones-dairy-farm | (cattle       |
|               |                                     | feedlots)     |
+---------------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| Rio Vista     | \$700,000 Sales                     | \$2,000,000   |
| Dairy         |                                     | Rev/Sales     |
|               | Dun & Bradstreet: 87-720-0204       |               |
| (aka Real     |                                     | (cattle       |
| Vista Dairy)  | http://www.hoovers.com              | feedlots)     |
+---------------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| Wright Farms, | \$60,000 Sales                      | \$2,000,000   |
| Inc.          |                                     | Rev/Sales     |
|               | http://www.hoovers.com              |               |
|               |                                     | (cattle       |
|               |                                     | feedlots)     |
+---------------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| Opportunity   | \$130,000 Sales                     | \$2,000,000   |
| Dairy LLC     |                                     | Rev/Sales     |
|               | http://www.hoovers.com              |               |
|               |                                     | (cattle       |
|               |                                     | feedlots)     |
+---------------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| H.A.W. Farms  | \$1,400,000 Sales                   | \$2,000,000   |
|               |                                     | Rev/Sales     |
|               | Dun & Bradstreet: 03-342-7720       |               |
|               |                                     | (cattle       |
|               |                                     | feedlots)     |
+---------------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| West Farm     | \$1.1 billion Sales                 | \$2,000,000   |
| Foods         |                                     | Rev/Sales     |
|               | http                                |               |
|               | ://www.darigold.com/at_a_glance.asp | (cattle       |
|               |                                     | feedlots)     |
+---------------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| Sorrento      | \$800.00 million Revenue (2004)     | \$2,00,000    |
| Lactalis,     |                                     | Rev/Sales     |
| Inc.          | http                                |               |
|               | ://biz/yahoo.com.ic/112/112876.html | (cattle       |
| (Acquired by  |                                     | feedlots)     |
| France's      | \$1,437,517,800 Sales (Groupe       |               |
| Groupe        | Lactalis)                           |               |
| Lactalis in   |                                     |               |
| 1992)         | http://www.hoovers.com              |               |
+---------------+-------------------------------------+---------------+

In summary, this screening analysis considered five types of business
operations that have previously applied to EPA for new source NPDES
permits; these five business types encompass 13 NAICS codes with
hardrock mining including four NAICS codes and CAFOs including six NAICS
codes. The Agency anticipates these will continue to be the types of
businesses applying to EPA for NPDES permits in the out-years. Although
these are one-time actions^2^[^23] for NEPA review purposes, EPA
believes that in the out-years the types of businesses will be the same
as the business types analyzed in this screening analysis. Table 13
summarizes the RFA/SBREFA screening analysis for small businesses.

Table 13. Summary of Business Types With Anticipated Small Businesses

+-----------------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| ***Business Type(s)   | ***NAICS Size | ***Small Businesses          |
| and NAICS Code(s)***  | Definition*** | Anticipated in               |
|                       |               | Out-Years^a^***              |
+-----------------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| [Crude oil and        | 500 employees | 4 of 4 businesses - not      |
| natural gas           |               | small businesses             |
| ex                    |               |                              |
| traction]{.underline} |               | EPA assumes there will not   |
|                       |               | be any small businesses in   |
| 211111 - Crude        |               | this category in the         |
| petroleum and natural |               | out-years                    |
| gas extraction        |               |                              |
+-----------------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| [Hardrock mining      | 500 Employees | 3 of 3 businesses - not      |
| (recently             |               | small businesses             |
| gold                  |               |                              |
| /silver)]{.underline} |               | EPA assumes there will not   |
|                       |               | be any small businesses in   |
| 212221 - Gold ore     |               | this category in the         |
| mining                |               | out-years                    |
|                       |               |                              |
| 212222 - Silver ore   |               |                              |
| mining                |               |                              |
+-----------------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| [Milk and cheese      | \$750,000     | 4 of 7 businesses - not      |
| production            | Revenue/Sales | small businesses             |
| op                    |               |                              |
| erations]{.underline} |               | 3 of 7 businesses - small    |
|                       |               | business                     |
| 112120 - Dairy cattle |               |                              |
| and milk production   |               | EPA assumes there will be at |
|                       |               | least one small business in  |
|                       |               | this category in the         |
|                       |               | out-years                    |
+-----------------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| [Seafood processing   | 500 Employees | 2 of 2 businesses - small    |
| op                    |               | businesses                   |
| erations]{.underline} |               |                              |
|                       |               | EPA assumes there will be at |
| 311712 - Seafood      |               | least one small business in  |
| fresh and frozen      |               | this category in the         |
| processing            |               | out-years                    |
+-----------------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| [Concentrated animal  | \$11,500,000  | 4 of 8 businesses - not      |
| feeding operations    | Rev/Sales     | small businesses             |
| (CAFOs)]{.underline}  |               |                              |
|                       | \$750,000     | 4 of 8 businesses - small    |
| 112310 - Chicken egg  | Revenue/Sales | business                     |
| production            |               |                              |
|                       | \$750,000     | EPA assumes there will be at |
| 112320 - Broilers and | Revenue/Sales | least one small business in  |
| other meat type       |               | this category in the         |
|                       | \$750,000     | out-years                    |
| chicken production    | Revenue/Sales |                              |
|                       |               |                              |
| 112330 - Turkey       | \$2,000,000   |                              |
| production            | Rev/Sales     |                              |
|                       |               |                              |
| 112340 - Poultry      | \$750,000     |                              |
| hatcheries            | Revenue/Sales |                              |
|                       |               |                              |
| 112112 - Cattle       |               |                              |
| feedlots              |               |                              |
|                       |               |                              |
| 112210 - Hog and pig  |               |                              |
| farming               |               |                              |
|                       |               |                              |
| (Also see 112120 -    |               |                              |
| Dairy cattle and milk |               |                              |
| production)           |               |                              |
+-----------------------+---------------+------------------------------+

^a^For purposes of this screening analysis, EPA assessed a total of 24
businesses representing five types of businesses that may require an
environmental review of an new source NPDES permit to be issued by EPA.
Of these 24 businesses, nine are small businesses. Assuming
approximately 12 permit assessments annually, EPA estimates
approximately four of this 12 will be small businesses.

**5(b) Calculation of Estimated One-Time Cost Impact on Small
Businesses.** Permit applicants apply to EPA for initial new source
NPDES permits when necessary based on their business operation needs.
There is no set universe of initial permit applicants. Further, the
level of NEPA documentation and the project-specific information the
Responsible Official needs for decision-making is determined by the
potential for environmental impact of the action, or the facility to be
permitted or the project to be funded by the action rather than the
dollar amount of the project or whether the applicant is a permit
applicant or a grantee. Thus, EPA cannot assume the level of NEPA
documentation that would be required for a specific project. However,
based on past years' experience, EPA assumes that there will be
approximately 12 new source NPDES permit applications annually with
about 11 of these projects documented with EAs/FONSIs. In addition, EPA
anticipates one project will have an EIS/ROD completed annually. None
will be documented initially with a CE.

Based on consideration of permit applicants in previous years, EPA
assumes that for approximately 12 annual projects, about eight will be
for large business permit applicants and about four will be for small
business permit applicants. Based on analysis of grant applicants in
previous years (see Section 6), EPA assumes that of approximately 300
annual grants, about 90 will be for large governments, about 170 for
small governments, and about 40 for special districts. Thus, for a total
of approximately 312 annual projects, the total estimated annual number
of small entities is about 174.

It has been EPA's experience (see Attachment 2) that EISs/RODs are
generally required for new source NPDES permit actions associated with
crude oil and natural gas extraction in off-shore waters and with
hardrock mining in Alaska and Idaho. As summarized in Table 13, none of
the permit applicants considered in this screening analysis, or
anticipated in the out-years, are small businesses. Therefore, the
estimated cost of \$328,880 for an EIS (see Table 6) (or even an
estimated one-time cost of over a million dollars for new EISs for a
mining project or an oil and gas extraction project with multiple
complex issues that EPA understands permit applicants may have
experienced) would not be a significant economic impact on a small
business.

It has been EPA's experience (see Attachment 2) that EAs/FONSIs are
generally required for new source NPDES permit actions associated with
milk and cheese production, seafood processing, and CAFOs.^2^[^24] As
summarized in Table 13, small business permit applicants were
identified, and EPA assumes there will be at least one small business in
these business types in the out-years. Small businesses incurring a
one-time cost of \$53,940 (see Table 6) for submission of environmental
documentation to EPA for its use in preparing an EA/FONSI experience an
economic impact condition of greater than 3% if this cost is taken only
in the first business year incurred, and an economic impact condition
between 1% and 3% when this cost is spread over a three or five year
business period. The estimated one-time only economic impact on a small
business with annual revenues/sales of \$750,000 would be:^2^[^25]

(\$53,940/\$750,000) x 100 = 7.2% of the revenues/sales for the one year
in which the permit action is undertaken at the applicant's request

Spreading this one-time \$53,940 cost over a 3- or 5-year business
period:

(\$53,940/(\$750,000 x 3 years) x 100 = 2.4% of the 3-year
revenues/sales

(\$53,940/(\$750,000 x 5 years) x 100 = 1.4% of the 5-year
revenues/sales

It has been EPA's experience that EAs/FONSIs document these types of
business operations and EPA anticipates this will continue in the
out-years. However, for purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis,
should an EIS be required for the NPDES permit for the business
operation, the estimated one-time only economic impact on a small
business with annual revenues/sales of \$750,000 would be greater than
3% whether this expense is taken in the initial year or spread over a
three or five year business period:

(\$328,880/\$750,000) x 100 = 44% of the revenues/sales for the one year
in which the permit action is undertaken at the applicant's request

Spreading this one-time \$328,880 cost over a 3- or 5-year business
period:

(\$328,880/(\$750,000 x 3 years) x 100 = 15% of the 3-year
revenues/sales

(\$328,880/(\$750,000 x 5 years) x 100 = 8.8% of the 5-year
revenues/sales

**5(c) Summary of Small Businesses Experiencing an Economic Impact
Condition.**

In summary, this screening analysis considered the five types of
business operations that have previously applied to EPA for new source
NPDES permits; these five business types encompass 13 NAICS codes with
hardrock mining including four NAICS codes and CAFOs including six NAICS
codes. The Agency anticipates these will continue to be the types of
businesses applying to EPA for NPDES permits in the out-years, and that
the majority of this permit activity will occur in EPA Regions 4, 6 and
10. Two of these business types, crude oil and natural gas extraction,
and hardrock mining, do not involve small business permit applicants.
The small businesses that could be impacted are those involved with milk
and cheese production, seafood processing, and CAFOs. For the 10
distinct businesses included in this screening analysis involved with
these business types, five are large businesses and five are small
businesses. The economic impact of the compliance costs (e.g.,
submission of environmental documentation for EPA's use in preparing a
CE determination or an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD) to small business
entities (e.g., permit applicants) was evaluated. Based on analysis of
permit applicants in previous years, EPA assumes that for approximately
12 annual projects, about eight will be for large business permit
applicants and about four will be for small business permit
applicants.^2^[^26]

[CE Determination]{.underline}: To date, EPA has never determined that a
new source NPDES permit initially meets the criteria for categorical
exclusion. EPA believes the NEPA documentation for new source NPDES
permits initially issued by EPA will continue to be EAs/FONSIs or
EISs/RODs.

[EA/FONSI Documentation]{.underline}: Based on analysis of previous
businesses that have applied to EPA for new source NPDES permits,
assuming approximately 12 permit applications annually with about 11 of
these documented with an EA/FONSI, and assuming that similar types and
numbers of businesses may apply in the out-years, EPA believes that
approximately four small businesses could experience a one-time economic
impact condition of 3% or greater for the one-time costs associated with
submitting environmental information to EPA for an EA/FONSI.

[EIS/ROD Documentation]{.underline}: Based on analysis of previous
businesses that have applied to EPA for new source NPDES permits,
assuming approximately 12 permit applications annually with about one of
these documented with an EIS/ROD, and assuming that similar types and
numbers of businesses may apply in the out-years, EPA anticipates that
EIS-level documentation would likely not be required for any small
businesses. However, for purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis,
should an EIS be required for the NPDES permit for at least one but no
more than four small businesses, these small businesses could experience
a one-time economic impact condition of 3% or greater for the one-time
costs associated with submitting environmental information to EPA for an
EIS/ROD.

**6. Screening Analysis of Economic Impacts on Small Governments**

**6(a) Small Governments Considered in This Screening Analysis.** To
assess the potential impacts of the final rule on small governments, EPA
assessed the potential impacts the final rule may have on small
governments that may apply to EPA for STAG grants for actions subject to
NEPA (see Sections 2(e) and 4(a), and footnote 4). EPA assumes that the
government types listed as grant applicants in EPA's Special
Appropriations Act Projects and Program (SAAPP) database system
(maintained by EPA's Office of Water) will remain the same in the
out-years. These grants have been, and are anticipated to continue to
be, issued to government entities in all 10 EPA Regions. As discussed in
Section 3(b), a "small governmental jurisdiction" is the government of a
city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000.

Grant applicants apply to EPA generally for STAG grants the government
jurisdictions have identified to Congress through the Congressional
appropriations process and that are subsequently listed in EPA's
Appropriations Act. There is no set universe of grant applicants.
Further, the level of NEPA documentation and the project-specific
information the Responsible Official needs for decision-making is
determined by the potential for environmental impact of the action, or
the facility to be permitted or the project to be funded by the action
rather than the dollar amount of the project or whether the applicant is
a permit applicant or a grantee. Thus, EPA cannot assume the level of
NEPA documentation that would be required for a specific project.
However, based on past years' experience, under the final rule, EPA
anticipates there will be approximately 300 grantee projects annually
with about 60% of these projects documented with a CE, and about 40%
with an EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates that one project (less than
one percent of the total annual grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD
completed during a three-year period.

Based on analysis of grant applicants in previous years (see Attachment
4), EPA anticipates that of approximately 300 annual grantees, about 90
will be large governments, about 170 small governments, and about 40
special districts. Based on analysis of permit applicants in previous
years (see Section 5), EPA anticipates that for approximately 12 annual
projects, about eight will be for large business permit applicants and
about four will be for small business permit applicants. For a total of
approximately 312 annual projects, the total estimated annual number of
small entities is about 174.

**6(b) Calculation of Estimated One-Time Cost Impact on Small
Governments.** For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA
used the information in the SAAPP system for the three-year period, 2002
through 2004. Within this time-frame, EPA first identified the active
grants, eliminating those that are inactive or closed out. In order to
identify individual grant actions, EPA then combined years for which
funding was appropriated for the same type of project (e.g., wastewater,
drinking water, CSO (combined sewer overflow), MS4 (municipal separate
storm sewer system), other, or not classified^2^[^27]). Individual
projects were thus identified on this basis. This methodology also
identifies government entities receiving grants for multiple projects
and for which individual NEPA reviews would be required. The U.S. Census
Bureau website (http://www.census.gov) was the source of the population
information, including total population, household population,^2^[^28]
average household size, and median household income. Population
statistics are not available for special districts. The Census Bureau's
annual "general revenue" information for special districts was used in
this screening analysis. Approximately 600 projects were identified as
managed by EPA's Regions for this three-year period with about 178 large
government grantees, about 339 small government grantees, and about 82
special districts. These were then annualized to approximately 300
projects with about 90 large government grantees, about 170 small
government grantees, and about 40 special districts.

Attachment 3 lists the grantee name, the government type, the population
and SBA size designation, the grant amount, and project type by year.
EPA notes, however, that the NEPA environmental review is not dependent
on the dollar amount of the project but rather the potential for
environmental impacts. Attachment 4 lists the grantees on the basis of
combined years for which funding was appropriated for the same project
type (as described above). EPA recommends either a "Revenue Test"
(annualized compliance costs as a percentage of annual government
revenues) or an "Income Test" (annualized compliance costs to household
(per capita) as a percentage of median household (per capita) income)
for evaluating the economic impact of a rule on small governments.
Revenues were not available on an individual government entity basis;
therefore, for this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA used the "Income
Test." As noted above, household population and average household size
are available for all government entities on the Census Bureau website,
except for special districts. These numbers were used to calculate
number of households (e.g., household population/average household size
= number of households). The estimated one time cost was then calculated
for the government entities based on their submission to EPA of
environmental documentation for EPA's use in preparing a CE
determination or an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD. The specific type of NEPA
documentation for each listed project is not known (e.g., the NEPA
process may not yet have been initiated for some of the projects, or an
EA that is underway may lead to either a FONSI or the need for an EIS),
nor is it necessary for this screening analysis. What does need to be
determined is the potential for small government entities to experience
an economic impact condition. By calculating the estimated cost for each
of the three types of NEPA documentation (e.g., the compliance cost) per
household as a percentage of median household income, EPA determined the
likelihood of a small government entity experiencing an economic impact
condition.

[(Cost for CE or EA or EIS-related documentation)]{.underline} x 100 =
Documentation cost as a % of

(No. Households) x (Median Household Income) per capita median income

Whether or not a small government entity experiences an economic impact
condition related to the one-time submission of environmental
documentation for any of the three levels of NEPA review is dependent on
the relative relationship between the number of households and the
median household income (e.g., there is not a defined limit on either;
if one is high, the other may be low with no impact, but a low number of
households and low median household income is more likely to result in
an economic impact condition). Attachment 4 lists the results of these
calculations for the three-year period 2002 through 2004, and
annualization of these results, for governmental entities.

Household statistics are not available for special districts. However,
general revenue information is available on an annual basis for certain
years. To determine whether special districts may be experiencing an
economic impact condition, EPA used the general revenues information
available on the Census Bureau website for the year 2002. During the
2002 through 2004 time-frame, 30 special district projects were
initially active in 2002 (30 in 2002, 33 in 2003 and 19 in 2004; 82
total projects). For the year 2002, EPA calculated the one-time
compliance costs for special districts as follows assuming that in the
year 2002, a special district's general revenues were \$63,859,780. In
the out-years, EPA assumes a special district's general revenues will
increase to about \$65,000,000. Based on these assumptions, Table 14
summarizes the estimated one-time compliance costs for special districts
for the three levels of NEPA documentation for 2002 and for an out-year.
(Assuming maximum costs, EPA used the same document costs for both sets
of calculations. In 2002, about 50% of projects were documented with
CEs, and 50% with EAs/FONSIs. One EIS/ROD was completed in a 3-year
period. In the out-years, EPA anticipates 60% of the projects will be
documented with CEs, and 40% with EAs/FONSIs. EPA anticipates one
EIS/ROD will be completed in a three-year period.) For both the 2002 and
the out-year projection, special districts experience an economic impact
condition less than 1% for submitting information to EPA for its use in
preparing any of the three levels of NEPA documentation.

Table 14. One-Time Estimated Costs for Special District Grant Applicants

+----+---------------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| ** | ***CE               | ***EA/FONSI         | ***EIS/EA         |
| *Y | Determination***    | Determination***    | Determination***  |
| ea |                     |                     |                   |
| r* |                     |                     |                   |
| ** |                     |                     |                   |
+----+---------------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| 20 | [\                  | [\$                 | [\$324            |
| 02 | $3,292]{.underline} | 18,340]{.underline} | ,480]{.underline} |
|    | x 100 = 0.0052%     | x 100 = 0.029%      | x 100 = 0.51%     |
|    |                     |                     |                   |
|    | \$63,859,780        | \$63,859,780        | \$63,859,780      |
+----+---------------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| Ou | [\                  | [\$                 | [\$324            |
| t- | $3,292]{.underline} | 18,340]{.underline} | ,480]{.underline} |
| Ye | x 100 = 0.0051%     | x 100 = 0.028%      | x 100 = 0.50%     |
| ar |                     |                     |                   |
|    | \$65,000,000        | \$65,000,000        | \$65,000,000      |
+----+---------------------+---------------------+-------------------+

Based on EPA's experience, in any given year, EPA anticipates there may
be approximately 300 projects undergoing environmental review for
government entities of which about 90 are large governments, about 170
are small governments, and about 40 are special districts. Review of
Attachment 4 and Table 14 shows that for governmental entities:

-   None of the governmental entities, including small governments,
    experienced an economic impact condition equal to or greater than 1%
    for one-time submission of environmental documentation related to a
    CE determination.

-   EPA estimates that possibly two small governments may experience an
    economic impact condition equal to or greater than 1%, but less than
    3%, if required to submit one-time environmental documentation for
    EPA's use in preparing an EA/FONSI. However, this needs to be
    considered in the context that in the out-years: for an anticipated
    300 annual projects, 60% of these projects are anticipated to be
    documented with a CE and 40% documented with an EA/FONSI. Further,
    these two grantees represent approximately 1.1% of all small
    entities (about 4 small businesses and about 170 small governments,
    or approximately 174) subject to the final rule.

-   EPA estimates that possibly about 57 small governments may
    experience an economic impact condition equal to or greater than 1%
    but less than 3%, and about 22 small governments may experience an
    economic impact condition equal to or greater than 3% if required to
    submit one-time environmental documentation for EPA's use in
    preparing an EIS/ROD. However, only one EIS/ROD per three-year
    period is anticipated (less than one percent of the total annual
    grantee projects), so the impact potential needs to be considered in
    the total context of approximately 300 annual projects spread over
    large governments, small governments, and special districts and the
    likelihood of any small government having such a project during a
    three-year time period. Further, the 57 grantees represent about 33%
    and the 22 grantees represent about 13% of all small entities (about
    4 small businesses and about 170 small governments, or
    approximately 174) subject to the final rule.

**6(c) Summary of Small Governments Experiencing an Economic Impact
Condition.** In summary, this screening analysis considered the active
STAG grants and the government entity grantees within the time-frame
2002 through 2004. During this three-year period, there have been
approximately 600 active STAG grants in EPA's 10 Regional Offices. Of
these, 178 are large government grantees, 339 are small government
grantees, and 82 are special district grantees. On an annual basis in
the out-years, EPA anticipates there will be approximately 300 STAG
grants, with about 90 for large government grantees, about 170 for small
government grantees, and about 40 for special districts. As described in
Section 6(b), an "Income Test" was used to calculate the economic impact
for large and small governments, and a "Revenue Test" for the year 2002
and for an out-year projection for special districts. An economic impact
condition was considered to exist at 1% or greater, or 3% or greater,
using these tests. The economic impact of the compliance costs (e.g.,
submission of environmental documentation to EPA as part of the
environmental review process for a CE determination or an EA/FONSI or an
EIS/ROD) to small government entities (e.g., STAG grant applicants) was
evaluated.

[CE Determination]{.underline}: Under the final rule, EPA anticipates
that 60% of approximately 300 projects annually will be documented with
a CE determination. Based on analysis of previous government entities
that have applied to EPA for STAG grants, the economic impact for all
government entities was less than 1% for submission of environmental
information in support of a CE determination.

[EA/FONSI Determination]{.underline}: Under the final rule, EPA
anticipates that 40% of approximately 300 projects annually will be
documented with an EA/FONSI. Based on analysis of previous government
entities that have applied to EPA for STAG grants and assuming
approximately 300 projects annually with similar types and numbers of
governments applying in the out-years, EPA estimates two small
governments could experience an economic impact condition of greater
than 1%, but less than 3%, for the one-time costs associated with
submitting environmental information to EPA for an EA/FONSI.

[EIS/ROD Determination]{.underline}: Under the final rule, EPA
anticipates that an EIS/ROD may be prepared for one project (less than
one percent of the total annual grantee projects) during a three-year
period. Based on analysis of previous government entities that have
applied to EPA for STAG grants and assuming approximately 300 projects
annually with similar types and numbers of governments applying in the
out-years, EPA estimates that for environmental documentation submitted
one time to EPA for its use in preparing an EIS/ROD, 57 small
governments could experience an economic impact condition greater than
1% but less than 3%, and 22 small governments could experience an
economic impact condition greater than 3%. However, only one EIS/ROD per
three-year period is anticipated, so rather than this potential impact
being on about 79 small governments, the impact potential needs to be
considered in the total context of approximately 300 projects annually
spread over large governments, small governments, and special districts.

**7. Small Entity Flexibility.**

The purpose of the RFA/SBREFA is "to fit regulatory and informational
requirements to the scale of the business, organizations and
governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation" where appropriate
and applicable. The RFA/SBREFA does not require an agency to necessarily
minimize a rule's impact on small entities if there are legal, policy,
factual or other reasons for not doing so. The RFA/SBREFA requires only
that agencies determine, to the extent feasible, the rule's economic
impact on small entities, explore regulatory options for reducing any
significant economic impact on a substantial number of such entities,
and explain their ultimate choice of regulatory approach.

As part of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis that demonstrates the
final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, EPA also considered the NEPA documentation
procedures applicable to small entities in terms of the RFA's directive
that a rule:

> *"reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on
> persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including
> with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory
> Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(6)), the use of such techniques as:*
>
> *(1) establishing differing compliance and reporting requirements or
> timetables that take into account the resources available to those who
> are to respond;*

Environmental information must be submitted by an applicant only for EPA
actions subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals unless EPA
will prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the applicant.
The information to be submitted is required only when an applicant
applies for a new source NPDES permit to be issued by EPA or for a grant
for an action subject to NEPA, a one-time application process. The
Responsible Official, however, may ask the applicant to provide
additional information if the Responsible Official needs it to prepare
the EA or EIS. There are no schedules in the regulations for this
information submission process.

*(2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance
and reporting requirements; or*

EPA believes that because the final rule requires one-time NEPA
assessment of environmental impacts of the applicant's proposed action,
the effects on any small entities will be limited to the cost of
preparing the documentation to support this assessment. Further, the
documentation requirements are no greater than necessary to ensure that
the Responsible Official can prepare the level of NEPA documentation
necessary for decision-making commiserate with the potential for
environmental impacts associated with the project. Based on EPA's
experience, EPA anticipates that most entities' projects will require
either a CE determination or EA/FONSI documentation. Also based on EPA's
experience, EPA anticipates that an EIS/ROD may be required for one new
source NPDES permit action each year for an action proposed by a
business entity, and that one EIS/ROD may be required once every three
years for a STAG project for a governmental entity.

*(3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any
part thereof."*

The environmental information submitted by an applicant under the final
rule is one-time only for applicant-proposed actions; e.g., actions
proposed by grantees seeking funding assistance from EPA or for an NPDES
permit application initiated by the permit applicant. In either case,
EPA assumes the action will directly benefit the applicant (such as a
grantee seeking STAG funding for renovation of a community drinking
water system, or a permit applicant seeking an NPDES permit from EPA to
further the applicant's business interests). Nonetheless, if the
applicant cannot afford to provide the required environmental
information to EPA, then EPA would undertake the environmental review
without input from the applicant.^2^[^29] Further, grantees may be
grant-eligible for certain costs associated with providing environmental
information to EPA.^3^[^30] Permit applicants are not eligible for EPA
financial assistance.

Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. EPA has attempted to
reduce the cost to all entities, including small entities, through the
following provisions of the final rule:

-   **Section 6.300:** An EID is not required when the action is
    categorically excluded, or the applicant will prepare a draft EA and
    supporting documents. The Responsible Official may prepare the NEPA
    documents without environmental information submitted by the
    applicant.

-   **Section 6.302:**

    -   The Responsible Official may prepare generic guidance for
        categories of actions involving a large number of applicants;
        and must ensure early involvement of applicants, consult with
        the applicant and provide guidance describing the scope and
        level of environmental information required, and provide
        guidance on a project-by-project basis to any applicant seeking
        assistance.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   The Responsible Official must consider the extent to which the
        applicant is capable of providing the required information, may
        not require the applicant to gather data or perform analyses
        that unnecessarily duplicate either existing data or the results
        of existing analyses available to EPA, and must limit the
        request for environmental information to that necessary for the
        environmental review.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Section 6.303:** An applicant may enter into a third-party
    agreement with EPA. For grantees, third-party contractor costs may
    be eligible for cost reimbursement. (New source NPDES permit
    applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance.)

In summary, EPA's regulations are applicable to EPA actions subject to
NEPA, including certain entity-proposed projects. Because the projects
are proposed by the entities, including small businesses and small
governments, EPA does not know what projects will be proposed, when they
will be proposed, or what level of NEPA review will be required for each
individual project. In this regard, EPA's NEPA review process is
reactive to an applicant's request. These factors are built into this
screening assessment, including assumptions about the entities likely to
be subject to the regulations, the types of projects they are likely to
propose, and the degree of possible economic impact based on the NEPA
review process and the three levels of environmental documentation
possible under this process using available historical information as
future indicators.

**8. Statement of Impact on Small Entities Experiencing an Economic
Impact Condition and Finding of No Significant Economic Impact on a
Substantial Number of Small Entities**

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is amending its
procedures for implementing the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The final rule also includes
minor, technical amendments to the Agency's procedures for implementing
Executive Order 12114, "Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal
Actions."

Certain applicants must submit environmental information to EPA as part
of the process of complying with either NEPA or Executive Order 12114.
EPA's Executive Order 12114 procedures further the purpose of NEPA and
provide that EPA may be guided by these procedures to the extent they
are applicable. Therefore, when EPA conducts an environmental assessment
pursuant to its Executive Order 12114 procedures, the Agency generally
follows its NEPA procedures.

Those subject to the final NEPA rule include EPA employees who must
comply with NEPA and certain grant and permit applicants who must submit
environmental information to EPA for their proposed projects. The EPA
Responsible Official is responsible for the environmental review
process, including any categorical exclusion determination or the scope,
accuracy, and contents of a final environmental assessment (EA) or
environmental impact statement (EIS) and any supporting documents. The
applicant contributes by submitting environmental information to EPA as
part of the environmental review process. There is no set universe of
grant or permit applicants. The information submitted by grant or permit
applicants is one-time only on a per-project basis for EPA actions
subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals. Grantees
(primarily grants for special projects identified in EPA's State and
Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account) or permit applicants (for new
source NPDES permits issued by EPA) are required to provide
environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review
process unless the EPA Responsible Official decides to prepare the NEPA
documents without assistance from the applicant. If the applicant cannot
afford to provide the required environmental information to EPA, then
EPA would undertake the environmental review without input from the
applicant. Further, certain grantees may be grant-eligible for certain
costs associated with providing environmental information to EPA; permit
applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance.

The NEPA review for a project may result in a categorical exclusion
(CE), or an EA documented with a finding of no significant impact
(EA/FONSI), or an EIS documented with a record of decision (EIS/ROD).
(EPA assumes a project may be documented with a CE only for
grantee-proposed projects. EPA does not anticipate that an initial new
source NPDES permit application would be documented with a CE.) For any
specific project, only one of these levels of documentation is generally
prepared. Applicants may submit an environmental information document
(EID) to EPA as part of the environmental review process. Alternately,
an applicant may submit a draft EA or a draft EIS and supporting
documents. Applicants may prepare and submit the information directly,
or may enter a third-party contract agreement with EPA for preparation
of an EA or EIS and supporting documentation. For purposes of
determining the maximum costs to applicants, EPA assumed that grant and
permit applicants would expend time and incur contractor costs to
submit: (1) information to support application of a CE with
environmental information prepared directly by the applicant's
contractor; or (2) a draft EA and supporting documents prepared directly
by the applicant's contractor; or (3) a draft and final EIS and
supporting documents prepared by the applicant's contractor under a
third-party agreement with EPA.

Businesses, including small businesses, are applicants applying to EPA
for a new source NPDES permit under §402 of the CWA. EPA issues new
source NPDES permits only in states and U.S. territories that have not
assumed authority for this program, the District of Columbia, off-shore
waters, and on federally-recognized Indian tribal lands (where the tribe
has not assumed this authority). Permit applicants are not limited to a
specific business sector. EPA has permitted, and anticipates continued
permit activity, with projects typically involving: oil and gas
extraction from off-shore waters, hardrock mining (recently gold,
silver, lead and zinc, and copper), dairy cattle and milk production,
seafood processing, and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)
including poultry, cattle, hogs and pigs.

EPA used the Small Business Administration's (SBA) "small business"
definitions codified at 13 CFR 121.201 by category of business using the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes; a "small
business" applies to a firm's parent company and all affiliates as a
single entity. EPA used the NAICS codes for business types that have
previously applied to EPA for new source NPDES permits and the SBA small
business designation for each business type because EPA anticipates
these are the same business types likely to apply to EPA in the
out-years for new source NPDES permits.

Governments, including small governments, are grant applicants applying
to EPA for funding of STAG grants and include state and local
governments, federally-recognized Indian tribes and special districts.
Approximately 75% of EPA's grants are under the STAG appropriations
account. Certain line items in the STAG appropriations account are not
subject to NEPA. Grantee actions subject to NEPA are predominately under
the STAG appropriations account, including consideration of the
Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program and other actions
subject to NEPA, including those under the Agency's Environmental
Programs and Management (EPM) account. EPA used the RFA/SBREFA
definition of a "small governmental jurisdiction," the government of a
city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; EPA also included federally-recognized
Indian tribes that applied for STAG grants in the analysis.

The RFA/SBREFA defines "small organizations" as any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field. Each year, EPA awards approximately \$4 billion in grants.
Of that amount, approximately 89% is awarded to states,
federally-recognized Indian tribes, and local governments for STAG
projects and implementation of environmental programs; most of these
grants are awarded to governmental jurisdictions for special projects
identified in the STAG account. About 6% are awarded to non-profit
organizations and special interest groups and about 4% to educational
institutions for a broad range of purposes including, for example,
community outreach and education, workshops and conferences, training,
and cooperative agreements to non-profit senior organizations to support
EPA's Senior Environmental Employee program. These grants are generally
awarded under specific statutory authorities that are exempt from NEPA
(see Attachment 1). A small organization is not likely to receive a
grant from EPA for an action subject to NEPA under EPA's regulations;
therefore, small organizations were not included in EPA's small entity
impact analysis.

Based on EPA's experience, under the final rule, EPA anticipates that
annually there will be approximately 300 grantee projects with about 60%
of these projects documented with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/FONSI.
In addition, EPA estimates that one project (less than one percent of
the total annual grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD completed during
a three-year period. For permit applicants, EPA anticipates there will
be approximately 12 projects annually with about 11 of the projects
documented with an EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA anticipates one project
will have an EIS/ROD completed annually. None will be documented
initially with a CE. EPA estimated the one-time costs for applicants to
prepare the environmental documentation by including contractor hours
and costs, direct labor hours and costs, and O&M for documentation
submitted to EPA to support a CE determination, or an EA/FONSI, or an
EIS/ROD. For a grantee, EPA estimates an applicant's one-time costs for
submitting environmental information will be: \$3,292 for CE
documentation, or \$18,340 for EA/FONSI documentation, or \$324,480 for
EIS/ROD documentation. For a permit applicant, EPA estimates an
applicant's one-time costs for submitting environmental information will
be: \$53,940 for EA/FONSI documentation, or \$328,880 for EIS/ROD
documentation. These figures may vary depending on the complexity of
issues associated with the project and the availability of relevant
information, particularly for EISs. (For example, EPA's experience with
a limited number of EISs has included one-time costs ranging from
nominal for information submitted by letter to supplement an existing
oil and gas extraction EIS to over a million dollars for new EISs for a
mining project and an oil and gas extraction project with multiple
complex issues.) EPA believes these calculations are representative of
most projects.

Under the final rule, the total annual cost for applicants to submit
environmental information to EPA is estimated at \$3,823,740 for
contractor hours and costs, direct labor hours and costs, and O&M costs.
This cost reflects the annual submission of documentation for an
anticipated 312 applicant-proposed projects that may be documented with
a CE, or an EA/FONSI, or an EIS/ROD. Based on EPA's experience, under
the final rule, EPA anticipates that annually there will be
approximately 300 grantee projects with about 60% of these projects
documented with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA
anticipates that one project (less than one percent of the total annual
grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD completed during a three-year
period. For permit applicants, EPA anticipates there will be
approximately 12 projects annually with about 11 documented with an
EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA anticipates one project will have an EIS/ROD
completed annually. None will be documented initially with a CE.

EPA's analysis of the five types of business operations that have
previously applied to EPA for new source NPDES permits was considered
representative of out-year projects and business entities. EPA found
there have been no small businesses involved with oil and gas extraction
or hardrock mining, nor are any anticipated in the out-years because of
the nature of these businesses. These projects are generally documented
with an EIS/ROD. The small businesses that could be impacted are those
involved with dairy cattle and cheese production, seafood processing,
and CAFOs. Based on EPA's experience, new source NPDES permit projects
for these types of businesses are generally documented with EAs/FONSIs.
For environmental documentation submitted by a permit applicant to EPA
for its use in preparing an EA/FONSI, EPA estimates that one or more
small businesses could experience a one-year, one-time economic impact
condition of 3% or greater. For environmental documentation submitted by
a permit applicant to EPA for its use in preparing an EIS/ROD, EPA
estimates that one or more small businesses could experience a one-year,
one-time economic impact condition of 3% or greater.

EPA's analysis considered the active STAG grants and grantees within the
time-frame 2002 through 2004 as representative of out-year projects and
governmental entities. During this three-year period, about 57% of the
grantees were small government jurisdictions (other jurisdictions: about
30% large governments, and about 14% special districts). An "Income
Test" was used to determine if any small governments (excluding special
districts) may experience an economic impact condition, and a "Revenue
Test" for the year 2002 and for an out-year projection was used for
special districts. An economic impact condition was considered to exist
at 1% or greater using these tests. The economic impact for all
government entities was less than 1% for submission of environmental
documentation in support of a CE determination. For environmental
documentation submitted to EPA for its use in preparing an EA/FONSI, EPA
estimates that possibly two small governments may experience an economic
impact condition equal to or greater than 1%, but less than 3%, if
required to submit one-time environmental documentation for EPA's use in
preparing an EA/FONSI. However, this needs to be considered in the
context that in the out-years: for an anticipated 300 annual projects,
60% of these projects are anticipated to be documented with a CE and 40%
documented with an EA/FONSI. Further, these two grantees represents
approximately 1.1% of all small entities (e.g., about 4 small businesses
and about 170 small governments, or approximately 174) subject to the
final rule.

Based on EPA's experience, under the final rule, EPA anticipates that an
EIS/ROD may be prepared for one project (less than one percent of the
total annual grantee projects) during a three-year period. EPA estimates
that for environmental documentation submitted one time to EPA for its
use in preparing an EIS/ROD, 57 small governments could experience an
economic impact condition greater than 1% but less than 3%, and 22 small
governments could experience an economic impact condition greater than
3%. However, only one EIS/ROD per three-year period is anticipated, so
rather than this potential impact being on about 79 small governments,
the impact potential needs to be considered in the total context of
approximately 300 projects annually spread over large governments, small
governments, and special districts.

EPA believes the final rule reduces to the extent practicable the burden
on entities, including small entities, through certain provisions in the
proposed rule and other considerations. Environmental information must
be submitted by an applicant only for applicant-proposed actions subject
to NEPA unless EPA will prepare the NEPA documents directly without
assistance from the applicant. The information to be submitted is
required only when an applicant applies for a new source NPDES permit to
be issued by EPA or for a grant for an action subject to NEPA, a
one-time application process. The Responsible Official, however, may ask
the applicant to provide additional information if the Responsible
Official needs it to prepare the EA or EIS. There are no schedules in
the regulations for this information submission process. EPA anticipates
that because the final rule requires one-time NEPA assessment of
environmental impacts of the applicant's proposed action, the effects on
any small entities will be limited to the cost of preparing the
documentation to support this assessment. Further, the documentation
requirements are no greater than necessary to ensure that the
Responsible Official can prepare the level of NEPA documentation
necessary for decision-making commiserate with the potential for
environmental impacts associated with the project. Based on EPA's past
experience, EPA anticipates that most entities' projects will require
either CE or EA/FONSI level documentation. EPA anticipates that an
EIS/ROD may be required for one new source NPDES permit action each year
for a business entity, and that one EIS/ROD may be required once every
three years for a STAG grant project for a governmental entity. The
environmental information submitted by an applicant under the final rule
is one-time only for applicant-proposed actions; e.g., actions proposed
by grantees seeking funding assistance from EPA or for an NPDES permit
application initiated by the permit applicant. In either case, EPA
assumes the action will directly benefit the applicant (such as a
grantee seeking STAG funding for renovation of a community drinking
water system, or a permit applicant seeking an NPDES permit from EPA to
further the applicant's business interests). Nonetheless, if the
applicant cannot afford to provide the required environmental
information to EPA, then EPA would undertake the environmental review
without input from the applicant. (Applicants would normally be
requested to demonstrate financial hardship, including inability to
provide the requested environmental information.) Further, grantees may
be grant-eligible for certain costs associated with providing
environmental information to EPA. Permit applicants are not eligible for
EPA financial assistance.

Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. EPA has also attempted
to reduce the cost on all entities, including small entities, through
the following provisions of the rule: Section 6.300 provides that an EID
is not required when the action is categorically excluded, or the
applicant will prepare a draft EA and supporting documents. The
Responsible Official may prepare the NEPA documents directly without
assistance from the applicant. Section 6.302 provides that the
Responsible Official may prepare generic guidance for categories of
actions involving a large number of applicants; and must ensure early
involvement of applicants, consult with the applicant and provide
guidance describing the scope and level of environmental information
required, and provide guidance on a project-by-project basis to any
applicant seeking assistance. This Section also provides that the
Responsible Official must consider the extent to which the applicant is
capable of providing the required information, may not require the
applicant to gather data or perform analyses that unnecessarily
duplicate either existing data or the results of existing analyses
available to EPA, and must limit the request for environmental
information to that necessary for the environmental review. Section
6.303 provides that an applicant may enter into a third-party agreement
with EPA. For grantees, third-party contractor costs may be
grant-eligible. Permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial
assistance.

EPA certifies that the final rule will **not** have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on
EPA's experience, EPA anticipates that annually there will be
approximately 170 small governments applying to EPA for STAG grants for
projects subject to NEPA, and four small businesses applying to EPA for
new source NPDES permits for a total of approximately 174 small entities
out of approximately 312 total entities. Of the 174 small entities
possibly affected by this rule, we have determined that the economic
impact of submitting one-time environmental documentation to support a
CE determination would be less than 1% of annual revenues for all small
entities; and that six small entities (3.4%) could experience an
economic impact of 1-3%, and up to four small entities (2%) could
experience an economic impact of greater than 3% for the one-time costs
associated with submitting EA-related environmental documentation.
Additionally, we have also determined that approximately 57 of the 174
small entities (33%) could experience an economic impact of 1-3%, and up
to 26 of the 174 small entities (15%) could experience an economic
impact of greater than 3% for the one-time costs associated with
submitting EIS-related environmental documentation. In all, these
approximately 83 small entities represent about 48% of the estimated 174
total number of small entities that could experience an one-time
economic impact of 1-3% or greater of annual revenues. Of these 83 small
entities, 79 are likely to be governmental grant applicants and could be
grant-eligible for EPA financial assistance with only one EIS
anticipated per three years with this likelihood spread over 300 total
grant applicants, including small and large governments, including
federally-recognized Indian tribes, and special districts.

**PART B OF THE SCREENING ANALYSIS**

**STATISTICAL SURVEY**

This RFA/SBREFA screening analysis does not use or is otherwise based on
a statistical survey.

**ATTACHMENT 1 TO THE SCREENING ANALYSIS**

**Exemption from NEPA for Certain EPA Actions and**

**EPA\'s Voluntary NEPA Policy and Procedures**

*Exemptions from NEPA for Certain EPA Actions*

Certain EPA actions are exempt from the procedural requirements of NEPA,
including the CEQ Regulations. Congress has provided specific statutory
exemptions for certain EPA actions taken under the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and all EPA actions taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically,
under CWA Section 511(c)(1), EPA is exempt from preparing EISs for all
actions taken under the CWA except for issuance of NPDES permits under
CWA Section 402 for "new sources" as defined in Section 306, and for
Federal financial assistance provided for assisting construction of
publicly owned treatment works under CWA Section 201 (33 U.S.C.
1371(c)). Under the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of
1974 (15 U.S.C. 793(c)(1)), all actions taken under the CAA are deemed
not to be major federal actions significantly affecting the environment.

Further, the courts have exempted certain EPA actions from the
procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional equivalence
doctrine. Under the functional equivalence doctrine, courts have found
EPA to be exempt from the procedural requirements of NEPA for certain
actions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). The courts
reasoned that EPA actions under these statutes are functionally
equivalent to the analysis required under NEPA because they are
undertaken with full consideration of environmental impacts and
opportunities for public involvement. [See, e.g.]{.underline}, *EDF v.
EPA*, 489 F.2d 1247 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (FIFRA); *State of Alabama v. EPA*,
911 F. 2d 499 (11^th^ Cir. 1990) (RCRA); *Warren County v. North
Carolina*, 528 F. Supp. 276 (E.D. N.C. 1981) (TSCA); *Western Nebraska
Resources Council v. US EPA*, 943 F.2d 867 (8^th^ Cir. 1991) (SDWA);
*Maryland v. Train*, 415 F. Supp. 116 (D. Md. 1976) (MPRSA).

Agency actions exempt from the requirements of NEPA remain exempt under
this final rule. If a question arises regarding the applicability of the
NEPA requirements to certain actions, the Responsible Official should
consult with the NEPA Official and the Office of General Counsel.

*EPA\'s Voluntary NEPA Policy and Procedures*

In 1974, EPA Administrator Russell Train determined that the Agency
could voluntarily prepare EISs for certain regulatory activities that
were exempt from NEPA. In 1998, Administrator Carol Browner amended this
policy to permit the preparation of non-EIS NEPA documents for certain
EPA regulatory actions. The Agency's current \"Notice of Policy and
Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) Documents\" (see 63 FR 58045) sets out the policy and
procedures EPA uses when preparing environmental review documents under
the Voluntary NEPA Policy. This final rule does not make any changes to
the voluntary NEPA policy and procedures. However, the final rule can
serve as a framework for the preparation of voluntary NEPA documents.

**ATTACHMENT 2 TO THE SCREENING ANALYSIS**

**Estimates of Contractor Costs and Hours for Grantees and Permit
Applicants**

[Background Information]{.underline}

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is amending its
procedures for implementing the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The final rule also includes
minor, technical amendments to the Agency's procedures for implementing
Executive Order 12114, "Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal
Actions."^3^[^31]

Those subject to EPA's final NEPA rule include EPA employees who must
comply with NEPA^3^[^32] and certain grant and permit applicants who
must submit environmental information to EPA for their proposed
projects. The EPA Responsible Official is responsible for the
environmental review process, including any categorical exclusion (CE)
determination or the scope, accuracy, and contents of a final
environmental assessment (EA) and supporting documents, or environmental
impact statement (EIS) and supporting documents. Unless the EPA
Responsible Official decides to prepare the NEPA documents without
assistance from the applicant, the applicant contributes by submitting
environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review
process. If the applicant cannot afford to provide the required
environmental information to EPA, then EPA would undertake the
environmental review without input from the applicant.

As discussed in Section 2(e) of this screening analysis, entities
include grant applicants applying to EPA for funding of special projects
identified in the Agency's STAG account, and permit applicants applying
to EPA for issuance of new source NPDES permits. Applicants incur
contractor hours and costs and direct labor hours and costs related to
the environmental information they prepare and submit to EPA. Applicants
may prepare the documents directly or task a contractor with their
preparation, or the applicant may enter into a third-party contract
agreement with EPA for preparation of an environmental information
document (EID), or EA or EIS and supporting documents. Grantees may be
grant-eligible for costs associated with providing environmental
information to EPA, including third-party contract costs; permit
applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance.

EPA's NEPA practitioners in its Regional Offices are primarily
responsible for reviewing applicant-submitted environmental information
and for preparing the NEPA documents for STAG grants and EPA-issued new
source NPDES permits. Because the projects are proposed by the entities,
including small businesses and small governments, EPA does not know what
projects will be proposed, when they will be proposed, or what level of
NEPA review will be required for each individual project. In this
regard, EPA's NEPA review process is reactive to an applicant's request.
The applicants (both grantees and permit applicants) vary and are not a
set universe of entities with ongoing or periodic information
submissions. Therefore, the cost estimates for applicant projects are
based on best professional estimates provided by EPA's Regional Office
NEPA practitioners and are based on the types of projects historically
encountered and assumptions about project types in the out-years.

**[Summary Highlights from EPA Information Sources and EPA
Assumptions]{.underline}:**

***For STAG Grants and Grantees:***

-   EPA's NEPA compliance actions are nearly always associated with EPA
    actions subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals,
    primarily for STAG grants (including consideration of the Wastewater
    Treatment Construction Grants Program and other actions subject to
    NEPA, including grants issued under the Agency's Environmental
    Programs and Management (EPM) account). For the 3-year period 2002
    through 2004, about 800 STAG grants were awarded with about 270
    awarded annually (see Appendix Table 1-2).^3^[^33] Recognizing that
    the number of STAG awards has been increasing annually (see Appendix
    Table 1-1), for purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA
    estimates that approximately 900 STAG grants will be awarded during
    any 3-year period in the out-years, with approximately 300 awarded
    annually.

-   STAG awards by Regions 3, 4, 5 and 9 represent 56% of the total
    awards for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 (e.g., 453 of 810
    projects); with Region 1 included, this represents 65% of the total
    awards (e.g., 529 of 810 projects). These five Regions also
    represent about 60% of the total dollars awarded for the 3-year
    period 2002 through 2004 (e.g., \$371.2M of \$604.9M awarded, or
    61%). (See Tables 1-2 and 1-3.) However, the NEPA documentation
    prepared for an EPA action subject to NEPA is based on the potential
    for environmental impacts of the action, or the facility to be
    permitted or the project to be funded by the action and not with the
    dollar amount awarded for the project.

-   For STAG projects, the Regions estimate that previously, about 50%
    are documented with CEs, and about 50% with EAs/FONSIs. Most Regions
    anticipate that under the final rule, the projects documented with
    CEs may increase by 5% to 10%. EPA estimates that grantee spending
    ranges from about \$1,000 to \$4,000 in contractor costs, and uses
    about 1-5 hours grantee time to prepare and submit CE-related
    information. For purposes of this screening analysis, EPA assumes
    that the grantee will submit information to support a CE
    determination with the information compiled directly by the
    applicant's contractor. EPA estimates the grantee contractor cost at
    \$3,000 (\$75/hour x 40 hours per CE-related information), with
    about 5 hours grantee time and submission of about 20 pages of
    information, including copied information, per CE. EPA anticipates
    under the final rule about 60% of the projects will be documented
    with a CE.

-   For STAG projects, the Regions estimate that currently, about 50%
    are documented with EAs/FONSIs. Most Regions anticipate that under
    the final rule, the projects documented with EAs/FONSIs may decrease
    by 5% to 10% (consistent with above increase estimates for CEs). EPA
    estimates that grantee spending ranges from about \$5,000 to
    \$25,000 in contractor costs, and that the pages submitted,
    including copied information, ranges from about 5 to 250 pages. For
    purposes of this screening analysis, EPA assumes a grantee will
    submit a draft EA and supporting documents prepared directly by the
    applicant's contractor. EPA estimates the grantee contractor cost at
    \$15,000 (\$75/hour x 200 hours per draft EA and supporting
    documents), with 60 hours grantee time (e.g., half of EPA's
    estimated hours for direct preparation) and 100 pages submitted per
    draft EA and supporting documents. EPA anticipates under the final
    rule about 40% of the projects will be documented with an EA/FONSI.

-   Few of the STAG projects are documented with an EIS/ROD. EPA's EIS
    filing system indicates there were six EISs completed for STAG
    projects during the 10-year period 1994 through 2003, or less than
    one EIS competed every three years. Of about 1,471 projects
    completed during this 10-year period, the six EISs completed
    represent about 0.4% of the projects. Estimated grantee costs for
    these projects range from about \$200,000 to \$300,000 for a
    contractor-prepared EIS or for a contractor under a third-party
    agreement. For purposes of this screening analysis, EPA anticipates
    one EIS will be completed on a 3-year basis under a third-party
    contract agreement at a grantee contractor cost of \$300,000
    (\$125/hour x 2400 hours), with 440 hours grantee time (e.g., the
    same as EPA's estimated hours for direct preparation) and 800 pages
    submitted (4 drafts x 200 pages/draft - preliminary draft EIS, draft
    EIS, preliminary final EIS, and final EIS).

***For New Source NPDES Permits and Permit Applicants:***

-   EPA issues new source NPDES permits only in states and U.S.
    territories that have not assumed authority for this program (i.e.,
    New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Oklahoma (for
    concentrated animal feeding operations only), Alaska, and Idaho),
    the District of Columbia, off-shore waters (e.g., the
    inter-continental shelf for Texas, all outer-continental shelf
    areas, all deep-water port areas), and on federally-recognized
    Indian tribal lands (where the tribe has not assumed this
    authority). Because most states have now assumed the NPDES program,
    there are few NPDES permits being issued by EPA. Regions 4, 6 and 10
    currently handle the majority of these projects (see Appendix Table
    1-5). Generally, EPA Regional Offices would issue NPDES permits for
    facilities on federally-recognized Indian tribal lands (unless the
    tribe has assumed this authority).

-   [Region 4]{.underline}: Nearly all oil and gas extraction NPDES
    permit activity in the Gulf of Mexico is covered by a general
    permit; individual NEPA reviews are not required. Only activities
    not covered under the general permit would need to be assessed under
    NEPA and permitted. In the last five years, Chevron Corporation
    received a permit. For this EIS, Chevron provided certain
    information by letter, and EPA supplemented an EIS prepared by the
    Minerals Management Service at a direct contractor cost to EPA of
    \$40,000 to \$45,000. For another project in the Gulf involving
    re-gasification, the U.S. Coast Guard is the responsible agency and
    EPA is a Cooperating Agency with plans to either adopt the USCG EIS
    or incorporate this EIS by reference into an EPA EIS for EPA's
    assessment of the NPDES permit action. Chevron may need to provide
    certain information by letter, and EPA may have some direct
    contractor costs.

-   [Region 6]{.underline}: NPDES permits for oil and gas extraction
    activities in the Gulf of Mexico have involved Shell Exploration and
    Production and Exxon Mobil Corporation. EISs for these projects were
    conducted under third-party agreements. EAs generally are prepared
    for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in Oklahoma, and
    for dairy farms in New Mexico. Permit applicants have included:
    Tyson Foods, Inc., for chicken and hog CAFOs, and dairy farms in New
    Mexico operated by Jones Dairy, Rio Vista Dairy, Wright Farms,
    Opportunity Dairy, and H.A.W. Farms.

-   [Region 10]{.underline}: EISs for oil and gas extraction NPDES
    permits in off-shore waters have involved Exxon Mobile Corporation
    and BP (British Petroleum). EISs for mining projects, including
    gold, silver, zinc and lead, and copper, have involved Coeur Alaska,
    Teck Resources, and Kennecott Minerals Company. EAs for milk
    production and cheese processing have involved West Farm Foods and
    Sorrento Lactalis. Seafood processing is covered under a general
    permit; however, individual NEPA reviews are required and are
    generally EAs prepared in-house from applicants' EIDs. Seafood
    processing EAs have been completed for companies such as Alaska
    Glacier Seafood Company and KwikPak Fisheries. CAFOs (including
    cattle, hogs, pigs and chickens) are covered under a general permit;
    individual NEPA reviews are not required.

-   The NEPA reviews for NPDES permit projects are generally documented
    with EAs/FONSIs or EISs/RODs.

-   None of the NPDES permit projects were documented with a CE and, for
    purposes of this screening analysis, EPA does not anticipate that
    future projects will be documented initially with a CE.

-   Considering that most states have now assumed the NPDES program, for
    NPDES permit projects, Region 4 estimates one EA per three years, or
    two per six years; Region 6 estimates five EAs per two years, or 15
    per six years; and Region 10 estimates eight per year, or 48 per six
    years. This totals to 65 EAs per six years. EPA also assumes that
    one other project may be documented with an EA in one of the other
    Regions for a total of 66 EAs per six years, or about 11 EAs
    annually. EPA estimates that permit applicant contractor costs range
    from about \$20,000 to \$75,000. For purposes of this screening
    analysis, EPA anticipates preparation of 11 EAs/FONSIs and
    supporting documents annually. The permit applicant's contractor
    costs are estimated at \$50,000, with 60 hours permit applicant time
    (e.g., half of EPA's estimated hours for direct preparation) and
    submission of 100 pages, including copied information.

-   EPA's EIS filing system indicates there were 14 EISs completed for
    new source NPDES permit projects during the 13-year period 1990
    through 2003, or about one competed every year. EPA notes that most
    of these were for projects in states that have now assumed the NPDES
    program and were for a range of project types including: phosphate
    mining, power generation facilities, surface lignite and coal
    mining, and plastics manufacturing. Estimated applicant costs for
    these projects range from nominal (Region 4, Chevron - two
    projects), to third-party contractor costs ranging from an estimated
    \$1M for a limited number of projects with multiple complex issues
    (Region 10, BP and Teck Resources) to \$150,000 to \$500,000 for
    projects such as oil and gas extraction (Regions 6 and 10). As noted
    above, EPA has used its contractors to prepare EISs by adopting or
    supplementing another EIS at costs ranging from \$25,000 to
    \$225,000. For purposes of this screening analysis and based on
    anticipated energy-related activities, EPA anticipates one EIS will
    be completed annually under a third-party agreement at a permit
    applicant contractor estimated cost of \$300,000 (\$125/hour x 2400
    hours), with 440 hours permit applicant time (e.g., the same as
    EPA's estimated hours for direct preparation) and 800 pages
    submitted (4 drafts x 200 pages/draft - preliminary draft EIS, draft
    EIS, preliminary final EIS, and final EIS). For direct preparation
    of an EIS/ROD based on EPA's experience with adoption or
    supplementation of another EIS, EPA's contractor costs are estimated
    to be \$50,000 and 440 hours of EPA time per EIS/ROD.

***General Summary Information for Applicant-Proposed Actions:***

-   The content of the environmental information submitted by an
    applicant for a draft EA and supporting documents and an EID for a
    draft EA is similar, and the content of the environmental
    information submitted for a draft EIS and supporting documents and
    an EID for a draft EIS is similar. For grantees, there may be a
    financial difference in that a grantee generally may use EPA
    financial assistance to prepare an EID but not to prepare a draft EA
    and supporting documents although, for grantees, certain third-party
    contract costs may be grant-eligible. Grantee contractor costs may
    be grant-eligible under appropriate grant conditions, including
    certain procurement criteria and contractor requirements. Permit
    applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance.

-   It has been EPA's experience that applicants generally use in-house
    engineering contractors or otherwise contract directly for
    preparation of environmental information to support a CE
    determination (grantees only), and for EIDs or draft EAs and
    supporting documents, usually without seeking cost reimbursement
    (grantees only). Because EISs are generally more complex than EAs in
    terms of the issues to be addressed and the associated analyses, it
    has generally been EPA's experience that applicants will enter into
    a third-party agreement with EPA for preparation of an EIS and
    supporting documents.

-   EPA assumes the applicant's burden includes the time and costs
    needed for the following activities.

    1.  Procure contractor services.

    2.  Review instructions (such as the regulations and any
        program-specific guidelines the Responsible Official may also
        provide) and/or meet with the Responsible Official.

    3.  Research data sources.

    4.  Complete and review the collection of environmental information.

    5.  Transmit the information to the Responsible Official.

    6.  Meet with the Responsible Official on the need for any revisions
        to the environmental information, and prepare and submit any
        necessary revisions to the information.

***EPA-Related Contractor Costs and Hours for Applicant-Proposed
Actions:***

-   EPA may review the environmental information submitted by an
    applicant and prepare the NEPA documents directly or task its
    contractors with providing technical assistance with the review and
    preparation of the NEPA documents. EPA may also prepare the NEPA
    documents without requesting environmental information from the
    applicant. The number of applicant-proposed actions for which EPA
    prepares the NEPA documents without assistance from the applicant is
    quite limited.

-   EPA estimates it prepared about five CEs per year for STAG projects
    using information in the grant application and acquired through
    direct coordination with other agencies (such as State Historic
    Preservation Officer and/or State wildlife agency).^3^[^34] EPA
    estimates this process takes about 40 hours per CE determination.

-   Although EPA rarely prepares EAs/FONSIs for STAG or NPDES permit
    projects without assistance from the applicant, EPA estimates
    spending \$35,000 to \$50,000 in contractor costs, with 80 to 120
    hours of EPA time for direct preparation of EAs/FONSIs.

-   EPA has, and assumes it will continue to prepare EISs for NPDES
    permit projects in conjunction with other federal agencies. In these
    cases, EPA is usually a Cooperating Agency and either adopts the
    lead agency's EIS or supplements and re-issues it. EPA may also
    supplement one of its own EISs for a project. EPA generally uses a
    contractor in these cases with contractor costs ranging from
    \$25,000 to \$225,000; EPA's contractor costs for adoption or
    supplementation of another EIS are estimated to generally be
    \$50,000 with 440 hours of EPA time per EIS/ROD.

-   For purposes of this screening analysis, for preparation of NEPA
    documents for applicant-proposed projects without assistance from
    the applicant, EPA estimates 40 hours per CE determination for five
    CEs for STAG projects per year with no contractor costs; 120 hours
    for an EA/FONSI with contractor costs of \$50,000 for one EA/FONSI
    on a 3-year basis; and 440 hours for an EIS/ROD with contractor
    costs of \$50,000 for one (adopted or supplemented) EIS/ROD on a
    3-year basis.

[Attachment 2 - List of Tables]{.underline}

Table 1-1. Annual Total STAG Awards from Fiscal Year Appropriations,
1992 Through 2003

Table 1-2. Summary of STAG Awards by Region for the 3-Year Period 2002
Through 2004

Table 1-3. Rank Order of Regions Based on Average Number of STAG Awards
Per Year and Percent of Total Awards by Regions by Number of Projects
and Amounts Awarded (Millions of Dollars)

> Table 1-4. Estimated Hours for Applicants and EPA for Preparation of
> NEPA Documentation

Table 1-5. EPA's Regional NEPA Practitioner's Estimated Contractor Costs
for Applicant-Proposed Projects

Table 1-1. Annual Total STAG Awards from Fiscal Year Appropriations,
1992 Through 2003

  ------------------------------ ----------------------------------------
  ***Year***                     ***Awards***

  1992                           17

  1993                           24

  1994                           9

  1995                           52

  1996                           28

  1997                           40

  1998                           104

  1999                           144

  2000                           232

  2001                           256

  2002                           298

  2003                           308
  ------------------------------ ----------------------------------------

Table 1-2. Summary of STAG Awards by Region for the 3-Year Period 2002
Through 2004

  --------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------- -----------
  ***Region***    ***1***   ***2***   ***3***   ***4***   ***5***   ***6***   ***7***   ***8***   ***9***   ***10***   ***HQ***   ***Annual
                                                                                                                                  Total***

  FY 2002         27        24        34        61        45        25        16        18        35        12         1          298

  FY 2003         24        25        41        59        42        26        17        24        38        11         1          308

  FY 2004         25        19        23        24        20        17        18        21        31        8          0          206

  Total           76        68        98        144       107       68        51        63        104       31         2          812

  Projects/year   25        23        33        48        36        23        17        21        35        10         \< 1       271

  \% of Total     9         8         12        18        13        8         6         8         13        4          1          
  --------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------- -----------

Table 1-3. Rank Order of Regions Based on Average Number of STAG Awards
per Year and Percent of Total Awards by Regions by Number of Projects
and Amounts Awarded (Millions of Dollars)

  -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------------- ----------------- ----------- ------------
  ***Region***   ***Total     ***Total \$  ***Awards/year***   ***\$             ***% of     ***% of
                 Awards***    Awarded***                       Awarded/year***   Total       Total \$
                                                                                 Awards***   Awarded***

  4              144          \$121.2      48                  \$40.4            18%         20%

  5              107          69.5         36                  23.2              13          11

  9              104          56.4         35                  18.8              13          9

  3              98           76.6         33                  25.5              12          13

  1              76           47.5         25                  15.8              9           8

  2 and 6        68 each      76.3 and     23 each             25.4 and 16.6     8 each      13 and 8
                              49.7                                                           

  8              63           47.4         21                  15.8              8           8

  7              51           43.3         17                  14.4              6           7

  10             31           17.0         10                  5.7               4           3

  Total          810          \$604.9      271                 \$204.6                       
  -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------------- ----------------- ----------- ------------

Table 1-4. Estimated Hours for Applicants and EPA for Preparation of
NEPA Documentation

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
|                 | ***CE Documents | ***EA/FONSI     | ***EIS/ROD      |
|                 | Project***      | Documents       | Documents       |
|                 |                 | Project***      | Project***      |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Applicants      | 1-5 hours,      | 120 hrs for     | Same as EPA =   |
|                 | assume 5 hours  | EPA/2 = 60      | 440 hours       |
|                 |                 | hours           |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| EPA             | Applicant       | Applicant       | Applicant       |
|                 | submits info:   | submits info:   | submits info:   |
|                 | 30 hours        | 120 hours       | 440 hours       |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
|                 | Direct          | Direct          | Direct          |
|                 | preparation: 40 | preparation:    | preparation:    |
|                 | hours           | 170 hours       | 480 hours       |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

Table 1-5. EPA's Regional NEPA Practitioner's Estimated Contractor Costs
for Applicant-Proposed Projects

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ***[Region 1]{.underline} [STAG   | ***[Region 1]{.underline} [NPDES  |
| Projects]{.underline}***          | Projects]{.underline}***          |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[General]{.underline}**:        | **[General]{.underline}**:        |
| Multiple listing in SAAPP System  |                                   |
| of same community means these are | **[Categorical                    |
| either separate projects with     | Exclusions]{.underline}**         |
| NEPA assessment needed for each   |                                   |
| or incremental funding for a      | [Applicant]{.underline}: None for |
| project already assessed. CEs     | NPDES projects                    |
| likely to increase 5-10% under    |                                   |
| proposed rule - 75-80% CEs,       | **[Environmental                  |
| 20-25% EAs/FONSIs                 | Assessments]{.underline}**        |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[Categorical                    | [Applicant]{.underline}: Only one |
| Exclusions]{.underline}**         | project in last 10 years, prior   |
|                                   | to January 2001 when State of     |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: Letter   | Maine authorized (power plant).   |
| provides information, confirms no | Applicant contractor costs        |
| extraordinary circumstances.      | unknown.                          |
| Prepared by applicant's           |                                   |
| contractor: \$2-3,000. Majority   | **[Environmental Impact           |
| of projects are CEs.              | Statements]{.underline}**         |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[Environmental                  | [Applicant]{.underline}: None     |
| Assessments]{.underline}**        | prepared for NPDES projects       |
|                                   |                                   |
| [Applicant:]{.underline} EID      | EPA Contact: Roger Jansen         |
| environmental information that is |                                   |
| similar draft EA, prepared by     |                                   |
| applicant's contractor;           |                                   |
| \$10-15,000 typical, 5-25 pages   |                                   |
| including copied material         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[Environmental Impact           |                                   |
| Statements]{.underline}**         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: None     |                                   |
| prepared for STAG projects        |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| EPA Contact: David Chin           |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ***[Region 2]{.underline} [STAG   | ***[Region 2]{.underline} [NPDES  |
| Projects]{.underline}***          | Projects]{.underline}***          |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[General]{.underline}**:        | **[General]{.underline}**:        |
| Multiple listing in SAAPP System  |                                   |
| of same community means these are | **[Categorical                    |
| either separate projects with     | Exclusions]{.underline}**         |
| NEPA assessment needed for each   |                                   |
| or incremental funding for a      | [Applicant]{.underline}: None for |
| project already assessed. CEs     | NPDES projects                    |
| likely to remain same under       |                                   |
| proposed rule - 95% CEs, 5%       | **[Environmental                  |
| EAs/FONSIs                        | Assessments]{.underline}**        |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[Categorical                    | [Applicant]{.underline}: Only one |
| Exclusions]{.underline}**         | project (aquiculture), not        |
|                                   | completed. EID prepared by        |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: Letter   | applicant contractor; estimate    |
| requests CE, confirms no          | \$20-35,000.                      |
| extraordinary circumstances.      |                                   |
| Prepared by applicant's           | **[Environmental Impact           |
| contractor: \$2-3,000. Most       | Statements]{.underline}**         |
| projects are documented with a    |                                   |
| CE.                               | [Applicant]{.underline}: None     |
|                                   | prepared for NPDES projects       |
| **[Environmental                  |                                   |
| Assessments]{.underline}**        | EPA Contact: Bill Lawler          |
|                                   |                                   |
| [Applicant:]{.underline} EID      |                                   |
| prepared by applicant's           |                                   |
| contractor; \$20-25,000, 200-250  |                                   |
| pages including copied material.  |                                   |
| Very few EAs.                     |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[Environmental Impact           |                                   |
| Statements]{.underline}**         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: None     |                                   |
| prepared for STAG projects        |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| EPA Contact: Bill Lawler          |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ***[Region 3]{.underline} [STAG   | ***[Region 3]{.underline} [NPDES  |
| Projects]{.underline}***          | Projects]{.underline}***          |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[General]{.underline}**:        | **[General]{.underline}**: NEPA   |
| Multiple listing in SAAPP System  | assessments would be only for new |
| of same community means these are | source NPDES permits issued in    |
| either separate projects with     | the District of Columbia; none in |
| NEPA assessment needed for each   | last 10 years                     |
| or incremental funding for a      |                                   |
| project already assessed. CEs     | **[Categorical                    |
| likely to increase 10% under      | Exclusions]{.underline}**         |
| proposed rule to 60% CEs, 40%     |                                   |
| EAs/FONSIs                        | [Applicant]{.underline}: None for |
|                                   | NPDES projects                    |
| **[Categorical                    |                                   |
| Exclusions]{.underline}**         | **[Environmental                  |
|                                   | Assessments]{.underline}**        |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: Letter   |                                   |
| provides CE information, confirms | [Applicant]{.underline}: None     |
| no extraordinary circumstances.   | prepared for NPDES projects       |
| Prepared by applicant's           |                                   |
| contractor: \$2-3,000.            | **[Environmental Impact           |
|                                   | Statements]{.underline}**         |
| **[Environmental                  |                                   |
| Assessments]{.underline}**        | [Applicant]{.underline}: None     |
|                                   | prepared for NPDES projects       |
| [Applicant:]{.underline} EID      |                                   |
| prepared by applicant's           | EPA Contact: Tom Slenkamp         |
| contractor; \$15,000 typical,     |                                   |
| 50-100 pages including copied     |                                   |
| material                          |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[Environmental Impact           |                                   |
| Statements]{.underline}**         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: None     |                                   |
| prepared for STAG projects        |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| EPA Contact: Charles Fogg         |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ***[Region 4]{.underline} [STAG   | ***[Region 4]{.underline} [NPDES  |
| Projects]{.underline}***          | Projects]{.underline}***          |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[General]{.underline}**:        | **[General]{.underline}**: All    |
| Multiple listing in SAAPP System  | states have assumed NPDES         |
| of same community means these are | program; Region would conduct     |
| either separate projects with     | NEPA assessment and issue new     |
| NEPA assessment needed for each   | source NPDES permit for           |
| or incremental funding for a      | facilities in off-shore waters    |
| project already assessed. CEs     | and for facilities on             |
| likely to increase under proposed | federally-recognized Indian       |
| rule; currently 30% CEs, 70%      | tribal lands. Oil and gas         |
| EAs/FONSIs                        | extraction in Gulf of Mexico now  |
|                                   | covered by general permit (GP);   |
| **[Categorical                    | NEPA assessment on individual     |
| Exclusions]{.underline}**         | projects not needed. Activities   |
|                                   | not covered under GP require NEPA |
| [Applicant]{.underline}:          | assessment and permit. One O&G    |
| Applicant provides basic          | project before GP in last 5 years |
| information by phone; if needed,  | for Chevron, another underway for |
| letter from resource agency       | Chevron re-gasification facility. |
| confirms no extraordinary         |                                   |
| circumstances. No applicant       | **[Categorical                    |
| contractor cost.                  | Exclusions]{.underline}**         |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[Environmental                  | [Applicant]{.underline}: None for |
| Assessments]{.underline}**        | NPDES projects                    |
|                                   |                                   |
| [Applicant:]{.underline} EID      | **[Environmental                  |
| prepared by applicant's           | Assessments]{.underline}**        |
| contractor, info similar to draft |                                   |
| EA; \$15,000 typical, 200-250     | [Applicant]{.underline}: About    |
| pages including copied material   | one EA per three years. Estimate  |
|                                   | \$35-50,000.                      |
| **[Environmental Impact           |                                   |
| Statements]{.underline}**         | **[Environmental Impact           |
|                                   | Statements]{.underline}**         |
| Applicant: 3^rd^ Party            |                                   |
| Agreements; \$200-300,000         | [Applicant]{.underline}: 3^rd^    |
|                                   | Party Agreements; \$300-400,000.  |
| EPA Contact: John Hamilton        | EPA has also supplemented EIS by  |
|                                   | Minerals Management Service and   |
|                                   | likely will adopt a Coast Guard   |
|                                   | EIS at EPA expense, nominal cost  |
|                                   | to applicant                      |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | EPA Contact: John Hamilton        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ***[Region 5]{.underline} [STAG   | ***[Region 5]{.underline} [NPDES  |
| Projects]{.underline}***          | Projects]{.underline}***          |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[General]{.underline}**:        | **[General]{.underline}**: All    |
| Multiple listing in SAAPP System  | states have assumed NPDES         |
| of same community means these are | program; Region would conduct     |
| either separate projects with     | NEPA assessment and issue new     |
| NEPA assessment needed for each   | source NPDES permit only for      |
| or incremental funding for a      | facilities on                     |
| project already assessed. CEs     | federally-recognized Indian       |
| likely to increase 5-10% under    | tribal lands                      |
| proposed rule to 55-60% CEs,      |                                   |
| 40-45% EAs/FONSIs                 | **[Categorical                    |
|                                   | Exclusions]{.underline}**         |
| **[Categorical                    |                                   |
| Exclusions]{.underline}**         | [Applicant]{.underline}: None for |
|                                   | NPDES projects                    |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: Letter   |                                   |
| provides CE information, confirms | **[Environmental                  |
| no extraordinary circumstances.   | Assessments]{.underline}**        |
| Prepared by applicant's           |                                   |
| contractor: \$2-3,000.            | [Applicant]{.underline}: None for |
|                                   | NPDES projects                    |
| **[Environmental                  |                                   |
| Assessments]{.underline}**        | **[Environmental Impact           |
|                                   | Statements]{.underline}**         |
| [Applicant:]{.underline} Draft EA |                                   |
| and supporting documents by       | [Applicant]{.underline}: None     |
| applicant's contractor: \$15,000  | prepared for NPDES projects       |
| typical, 50 pages or less         |                                   |
| including copied material         | EPA Contact: Kenneth Westlake     |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[Environmental Impact           |                                   |
| Statements]{.underline}**         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: None     |                                   |
| prepared for STAG projects        |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| EPA Contact: Kenneth Westlake     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ***[Region 6]{.underline} [STAG   | ***[Region 6]{.underline} [NPDES  |
| Projects]{.underline}***          | Projects]{.underline}***          |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[General]{.underline}**:        | **[General]{.underline}**: States |
| Multiple listing in SAAPP System  | have assumed NPDES program except |
| of same community means these are | NM and confined animal feeding    |
| either separate projects with     | operations (CAFOs) only in OK;    |
| NEPA assessment needed for each   | Region would also conduct NEPA    |
| or incremental funding for a      | assessment and issue new source   |
| project already assessed. CEs     | NPDES permit for facilities on    |
| likely to increase 5% under       | federally-recognized Indian       |
| proposed rule to 65% CEs, 35%     | tribal lands                      |
| EAs/FONSIs                        |                                   |
|                                   | **[Categorical                    |
| **[Categorical                    | Exclusions]{.underline}**         |
| Exclusions]{.underline}**         |                                   |
|                                   | [Applicant]{.underline}: None for |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: Letter   | NPDES projects                    |
| requests CE and confirms no       |                                   |
| extraordinary circumstances.      | **[Environmental                  |
| Prepared by applicant's           | Assessments]{.underline}**        |
| contractor: \$1-2,000.            |                                   |
|                                   | [Applicant]{.underline}: About 5  |
| **[Environmental                  | EAs per 2 years; draft EA or EID  |
| Assessments]{.underline}**        | (essentially the same information |
|                                   | as needed for draft EA), prepared |
| [Applicant:]{.underline} Draft EA | by applicant's contractor;        |
| or EID with environmental         | estimate \$15-25,000. EAs         |
| information similar to draft EA,  | generally for CAFOs in OK and     |
| prepared by applicant's           | dairy operations                  |
| contractor: \$7-15,000 typical,   |                                   |
| 50 pages including copied         | **[Environmental Impact           |
| material                          | Statements]{.underline}**         |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[Environmental Impact           | [Applicant]{.underline}: 3^rd^    |
| Statements]{.underline}**         | Party Agreements; \$250-300,000.  |
|                                   | EISs generally for offshore oil & |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: None     | gas extraction in off-shore       |
| prepared for STAG projects        | waters (and before state          |
|                                   | delegations for coal mines,       |
| EPA Contact: Hector Pena          | petrochemical manufacturing).     |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | EPA Contact: Hector Pena          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ***[Region 7]{.underline} [STAG   | ***[Region 7]{.underline} [NPDES  |
| Projects]{.underline}***          | Projects]{.underline}***          |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[General]{.underline}**:        | **[General]{.underline}**: All    |
| Multiple listing in SAAPP System  | states have assumed NPDES         |
| of same community means these are | program; Region would conduct     |
| either separate projects with     | NEPA assessment and issue new     |
| NEPA assessment needed for each   | source NPDES permit only for      |
| or incremental funding for a      | facilities on                     |
| project already assessed. CEs     | federally-recognized Indian       |
| likely to remain same under       | tribal lands; project likely to   |
| proposed rule unless small        | be CAFOs on Indian lands.         |
| community limitation changes; 33% |                                   |
| CEs, 67% EAs/FONSIs               | **[Categorical                    |
|                                   | Exclusions]{.underline}**         |
| **[Categorical                    |                                   |
| Exclusions]{.underline}**         | [Applicant]{.underline}: None for |
|                                   | NPDES projects                    |
| [Applicant]{.underline}:          |                                   |
| Information beyond that in grant  | **[Environmental                  |
| application generally not         | Assessments]{.underline}**        |
| required.                         |                                   |
|                                   | [Applicant]{.underline}: None     |
| **[Environmental                  | prepared for NPDES projects       |
| Assessments]{.underline}**        |                                   |
|                                   | **[Environmental Impact           |
| [Applicant:]{.underline} EID      | Statements]{.underline}**         |
| prepared by applicant's           |                                   |
| contractor: \$5,000, about 50     | [Applicant]{.underline}: None     |
| pages including copied material   | prepared for NPDES projects       |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[Environmental Impact           | EPA Contact: Joe Cothern          |
| Statements]{.underline}**         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: None     |                                   |
| prepared for STAG project s. One  |                                   |
| time, EPA directly prepared a     |                                   |
| supplement to 1979 EPA EIS for    |                                   |
| wastewater treatment plant        |                                   |
| upgrade at EPA expense, no cost   |                                   |
| to applicant.                     |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| EPA Contact: Joe Cothern          |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ***[Region 8]{.underline} [STAG   | ***[Region 8]{.underline} [NPDES  |
| Projects]{.underline}***          | Projects]{.underline}***          |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[General]{.underline}**:        | **[General]{.underline}**: All    |
| Multiple listing in SAAPP System  | states have assumed NPDES         |
| of same community means these are | program; Region would conduct     |
| either separate projects with     | NEPA assessment for new source    |
| NEPA assessment needed for each   | NPDES permit only for facilities  |
| or incremental funding for a      | on federally-recognized Indian    |
| project already assessed. CEs     | tribal lands                      |
| likely to increase 20-30% under   |                                   |
| proposed rule to 40-50% CEs,      | **[Categorical                    |
| 50-60% EAs/FONSIs                 | Exclusions]{.underline}**         |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[Categorical                    | [Applicant]{.underline}: None for |
| Exclusions]{.underline}**         | NPDES projects                    |
|                                   |                                   |
| [Applicant]{.underline}:          | **[Environmental                  |
| Applicant or contractor provides  | Assessments]{.underline}**        |
| basic information by phone;       |                                   |
| letter verifies and confirms no   | [Applicant]{.underline}: None for |
| extraordinary circumstances.      | NPDES projects                    |
| Prepared by applicant's           |                                   |
| contractor: \$2-3,000.            | **[Environmental Impact           |
|                                   | Statements]{.underline}**         |
| **[Environmental                  |                                   |
| Assessments]{.underline}**        | [Applicant]{.underline}: EPA is   |
|                                   | cooperating agency with BIA for   |
| [Applicant:]{.underline} Draft EA | petroleum refinery on tribal      |
| prepared by applicant's           | lands at EPA expense.             |
| contractor; \$10-15,000, 50-100   |                                   |
| pages including copied material   | EPA Contact: Dana Allen           |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[Environmental Impact           |                                   |
| Statements]{.underline}**         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: None     |                                   |
| prepared for STAG projects        |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| EPA Contact: Dana Allen           |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ***[Region 9]{.underline} [STAG   | ***[Region 9]{.underline} [NPDES  |
| Projects]{.underline}***          | Projects]{.underline}***          |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[General]{.underline}**:        | **[General]{.underline}**: All    |
| Multiple listing in SAAPP System  | states have assumed NPDES         |
| of same community means these are | program; Region would conduct     |
| either separate projects with     | NEPA assessment for new source    |
| NEPA assessment needed for each   | NPDES permit only for facilities  |
| or incremental funding for a      | on federally-recognized Indian    |
| project already assessed. CEs     | tribal lands and in the Pacific   |
| likely to remain same under       | Island Territories where the      |
| proposed rule unless small        | NPDES program has not been        |
| community limitation changed ,    | assumed (e.g., Guam, Commonwealth |
| and Regional issues with SHPO and | of the Northern Mariana Islands,  |
| ESA coordination; 10% CEs, 87%    | American Samoa). Oil and gas      |
| EAs/FONSIs, 3% EISs/RODs          | platforms in federal waters       |
|                                   | likely would involve EPA          |
| **[Categorical                    | cooperating with another federal  |
| Exclusions]{.underline}**         | agency for the NEPA assessment    |
|                                   | process.                          |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: Grant    |                                   |
| application describes project;    | **[Categorical                    |
| letter to confirm no              | Exclusions]{.underline}**         |
| extraordinary circumstances.      |                                   |
| Prepared by applicant's           | [Applicant]{.underline}: None for |
| contractor: \$3-4,000.            | NPDES projects                    |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[Environmental                  | **[Environmental                  |
| Assessments]{.underline}**        | Assessments]{.underline}**        |
|                                   |                                   |
| [Applicant:]{.underline} Draft EA | [Applicant]{.underline}: None for |
| or EID with environmental         | NPDES projects.                   |
| information similar to an EA,     |                                   |
| prepared by applicant's           | **[Environmental Impact           |
| contractor: \$20,000, 25-75 pages | Statements]{.underline}**         |
| including copied material         |                                   |
|                                   | [Applicant]{.underline}: NPDES    |
| **[Environmental Impact           | permit for a copper mine in       |
| Statements]{.underline}**         | Arizona before the State assumed  |
|                                   | the NPDES program in 2002; EPA    |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: EID      | was cooperating agency with the   |
| prepared by applicant's           | Forest Service with               |
| contractor, \$200-300,000         | limited/unknown cost to applicant |
|                                   |                                   |
| EPA Contact: Joe Jung             | EPA Contact: Doug Eberhardt       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ***[Region 10]{.underline} [STAG  | ***[Region 10]{.underline} [NPDES |
| Projects]{.underline}***          | Projects]{.underline}***          |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[General]{.underline}**:        | **[General]{.underline}**: States |
| Multiple listing in SAAPP System  | have assumed NPDES program except |
| of same community means these are | AK and ID; Region would conduct   |
| either separate projects with     | NEPA assessment and issue new     |
| NEPA assessment needed for each   | source NPDES permit for off-shore |
| or incremental funding for a      | waters projects and facilities on |
| project already assessed. CEs     | federally-recognized Indian       |
| likely to increase 5% under       | tribal lands. General Permit (GP) |
| proposed rule to 45% CEs, 55%     | for CAFOs, individual NEPA        |
| EAs/FONSIs                        | assessment not needed. EAs and    |
|                                   | EISs for projects have included:  |
| **[Categorical                    | seafood processing, milk/cheese   |
| Exclusions]{.underline}**         | production and processing, CAFOs, |
|                                   | hard rock mining (recently gold,  |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: Letter   | silver, zinc and lead, and        |
| provides CE information, confirms | copper), and oil & gas            |
| no extraordinary circumstances.   | extraction.                       |
| Prepared by applicant's           |                                   |
| contractor: \$2-3,000.            | **[Categorical                    |
|                                   | Exclusions]{.underline}**         |
| **[Environmental                  |                                   |
| Assessments]{.underline}**        | [Applicant]{.underline}: None for |
|                                   | NPDES projects                    |
| [Applicant:]{.underline} Draft EA |                                   |
| and supporting documents prepared | **[Environmental                  |
| by applicant's contractor;        | Assessments]{.underline}**        |
| \$10-15,000                       |                                   |
|                                   | [Applicant]{.underline}: About    |
| **[Environmental Impact           | three per year; 3^rd^ Party       |
| Statements]{.underline}**         | Contract Agreement: \$50-150,000. |
|                                   | GP for seafood processing; EIDs   |
| [Applicant]{.underline}: None     | converted to EAs by EPA, about 5  |
| prepared for STAG projects        | per year                          |
|                                   |                                   |
| EPA Contact: Hanh Shaw            | **[Environmental Impact           |
|                                   | Statements]{.underline}**         |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | [Applicant]{.underline}: 3^rd^    |
|                                   | Party Contract Agreement:         |
|                                   | \$150-500,000; major projects for |
|                                   | gold mining and oil/gas           |
|                                   | extraction have cost about \$1M   |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | EPA Contact: Hanh Shaw            |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

**ATTACHMENT 3: STAG Projects for 2002 Through 2004 - Summary of Active
Projects and SBA Size Designation**

From: EPA's Office of Water SAAPP computer system, "Total Grants for All
States in All Regions for Years 2002-2004." This chart excludes projects
in SAAPP that are "Closed Out" or "Unawarded" and assumed to be
inactive. A governmental entity may receive STAG funds in more than one
fiscal year. In these cases, the funds are either incremental funds for
the same project with the NEPA assessment completed for the project
during the initial funding process, or new projects that require
separate NEPA assessments (see Attachment 2). In this project listing,
the same projects with incremental funding in the same or subsequent
years are not combined in order to retain the grant amount listing for
informational purposes and to list the project type designated for
funding with each appropriation (e.g., New Britain is listed and counted
as a small entity twice even though funding in 2004 is incremental
funding for the Drinking Water project initially funded in 2003).

Project type "Other" means a project type other than the listed types.
"CSO" means Combined Sewer Overflow and "MS4\" means Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System.

+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***R  | *          | **     | ***[Population SBA | **      | ***[P  |
| EGION | **[Grantee | *[Gove | Size               | *[Grant | roject |
| 1***  | Name]{.und | rnment | Designati          | A       | Ty     |
|       | erline}*** | Ty     | on]{.underline}*** | mount]{ | pe]{.u |
| *     |            | pe]{.u |                    | .underl | nderli |
| **[Co | Waterbury  | nderli | 107,271 50,000    | ine}*** | ne}*** |
| nnect |            | ne}*** |                    |         |        |
| icut] | Town of    |        | 13,352  50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| {.und | East       | City   |                    | 252,227 | ewater |
| erlin | Hampton    |        | 71,538 50,000     |         |        |
| e}*** |            | Town   |                    | 867,800 | Dr     |
|       | New        |        | 71,538 50,000     |         | inking |
| >     | Britain    | City   |                    | 867,300 | Water  |
|  2002 |            |        | 8,707  50,000     |         |        |
| >     | New        | City   |                    | 482,100 | Dr     |
| >     | Britain    |        | 39,728  50,000    |         | inking |
|  2004 |            | Town   |                    | 192,900 | Water  |
| >     | Town of    |        | 39,728  50,000    |         |        |
| >     | Prospect   | Town   |                    | 433,700 | Dr     |
|  2003 |            |        | 28,063  50,000    |         | inking |
| >     | S          | Town   |                    | 530,400 | Water  |
| >     | outhington |        | 5 entities        |         |        |
|  2004 |            | Town   | 50,000             | 50,400  | Dr     |
| >     | S          |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | outhington |        | 3 entities 50,000 | \$      | Water  |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 3,      |        |
| >     | Vernon     |        | 0 entities Special | 676,827 | Dr     |
| >     |            |        | Dist.              | total   | inking |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | 2,      |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 075,200 | Dr     |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | small   | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 601,627 | Wast   |
|       |            |        |                    | large   | ewater |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0 SpDst |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| *     | Pioneer    | S      | 0 entities        | \$      | Wast   |
| **[CT | Valley     | pecial | 50,000             | 470,500 | ewater |
| and   |            | Di     |                    |         |        |
| MA]   | MA:        | strict | 0 entities 50,000 | 624,480 | Not    |
| {.und | Pioneer    |        |                    |         | Clas   |
| erlin | Valley     | S      | 2 entities Special | \$      | sified |
| e}*** |            | pecial | Dist.              | 1,      |        |
|       |            | Di     |                    | 094,980 |        |
| >     |            | strict |                    | total   |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | > 0     |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | > small |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | >       |        |
|       |            |        |                    | > 0     |        |
|       |            |        |                    | > large |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 094,980 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDst   |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[M | Augusta    | City   | 18,560  50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| aine] |            |        |                    | 433,700 | ewater |
| {.und | Corinna    | Town   | 2,145  50,000     |         |        |
| erlin |            |        |                    | 867,300 | Wast   |
| e}*** | Gardiner,  | City   | 6,198  50,000     |         | ewater |
|       | City of    |        |                    | 482,100 |        |
| >     |            | To     | 676  50,000       |         | Wast   |
|  2003 | Indian     | wnship |                    | 7,500   | ewater |
| >     | Township   | -Reser | 676  50,000       |         |        |
| >     |            | vation |                    | 241,100 | Dr     |
|  2003 | Indian     |        | 2,353  50,000     |         | inking |
| >     | Township   | To     |                    | 241,100 | Water  |
| >     |            | wnship | 16,822  50,000    |         |        |
|  2004 | Machias,   | -Reser |                    | 433,700 | Dr     |
| >     | City of    | vation | 7 entities        |         | inking |
| >     |            |        | 50,000             | \$      | Water  |
|  2004 | Saco       | Town   |                    | 2,      |        |
| >     |            |        | 0 entities 50,000 | 706,500 | Wast   |
| >     |            | City   |                    | total   | ewater |
|  2004 |            |        | 0 entities Special |         |        |
| >     |            |        | Dist.              | 2,      | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    | 706,500 | ewater |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 0 large |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | > 0     |        |
|       |            |        |                    | > SpDst |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***   | Boston     | City   | 589,141 50,000    | \$      | Dr     |
| [Mass |            |        |                    | 192,900 | inking |
| achus | New        | City   | 93,768 50,000     |         | Water  |
| etts] | Bedford    |        |                    | 616,064 |        |
| {.und |            | City   | 93,768 50,000     |         | CSO    |
| erlin | New        |        |                    | 63,811  |        |
| e}*** | Bedford    | City   | 91,938 50,000     |         | Wast   |
|       |            |        |                    | 433,650 | ewater |
| >     | Fall River | City   | 93,768 50,000     |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 433,650 | CSO    |
| >     | New        | City   | 94,304 50,000     |         |        |
| >     | Bedford    |        |                    | 173,500 | CSO    |
|  2002 |            | City   | 94,304 50,000     |         |        |
| >     | Brockton,  |        |                    | 433,900 | Wast   |
| >     | City of    | Town   | 3,267  50,000     |         | ewater |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 14,838  |        |
| >     | Brockton,  | City   | 89,050 50,000     |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 14,838  | ewater |
|  2003 |            | City   | 72,043 50,000     |         |        |
| >     | Essex      |        |                    | 80,683  | Wast   |
| >     |            | City   | 105,167 50,000    |         | ewater |
|  2003 | Lynn       |        |                    | 339,500 |        |
| >     |            | City   | 105,167 50,000    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Lawrence,  |        |                    | 241,100 | ewater |
|  2003 | City of    | City   | 91,938 50,000     |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 530,350 | Wast   |
| >     | Lowell,    | City   | 93,768 50,000     |         | ewater |
|  2004 | City of    |        |                    | 68,106  |        |
| >     |            | S      | 1 entities        |         | CSO    |
| >     | Lowell,    | pecial | 50,000             | 385,680 |        |
|  2004 | City of    | Di     |                    |         | CSO    |
| >     |            | strict | 13 entities        | \$      |        |
| >     | Fall       |        | 50,000            | 4,      | CSO    |
|  2004 | River,     |        |                    | 022,570 |        |
| >     | City of    |        | 1 entities Special | total   | CSO    |
| >     |            |        | Dist.              |         |        |
|  2003 | New        |        |                    | 14,838  | Wast   |
| >     | Bedford    |        |                    | small   | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | Pioneer    |        |                    | 3,      |        |
| >     | Valley     |        |                    | 622,052 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 385,680 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | SpDst   |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| **    | Berlin,    | City   | 10,331  50,000    | \$      | Dr     |
| *[New | City of    |        |                    | 45,000  | inking |
| Hamps |            | City   | 10,331  50,000    |         | Water  |
| hire] | Berlin,    |        |                    | 1,      |        |
| {.und | City of    | City   | 10,331  50,000    | 455,000 | Dr     |
| erlin |            |        |                    |         | inking |
| e}*** | Berlin,    | City   | 10,331  50,000    | 894,100 | Water  |
|       | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | Town   | 2,321  50,000     | 497,000 | Dr     |
|  2002 | Berlin,    |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | City of    | Town   | 14,058  50,000    | 220,000 | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | Colebrook, | Town   | 5,476  50,000     | 346,900 | Dr     |
| >     | Town of    |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     |            | City   | 107,006 50,000    | 347,900 | Water  |
|  2003 | Exeter,    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Town of    | City   | 107,006 50,000    | 3,      | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    | 500,000 | inking |
|  2004 | Jaffrey,   | City   | 107,006 50,000    |         | Water  |
| >     | Town of    |        |                    | 447,050 |        |
| >     |            | City   | 86,605 50,000     |         | Dr     |
|  2004 | M          |        |                    | 482,100 | inking |
| >     | anchester, | City   | 86,605 50,000     |         | Water  |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 27,000  |        |
|  2003 |            | City   | 20,784  50,000    |         | Wast   |
| >     | M          |        |                    | 873,000 | ewater |
| >     | anchester, | Town   | 2,648  50,000     |         |        |
|  2004 | City of    |        |                    | 536,500 | CSO    |
| >     |            | Town   | 28,112  50,000    |         |        |
| >     | M          |        |                    | 298,200 | CSO    |
|  2002 | anchester, | Town   | 28,112  50,000    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 15,000  | CSO    |
| >     |            | City   | 11,477  50,000    |         |        |
|  2003 | Nashua,    |        |                    | 485,000 | CSO    |
| >     | City of    |        | 12 entities       |         |        |
| >     |            |        | 50,000             | 447,100 | CSO    |
|  2004 | Nashua,    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        | 5 entities 50,000 | \$10,   | CSO    |
| >     |            |        |                    | 916,850 |        |
|  2002 | P          |        | 0 entities Special | total   | Wast   |
| >     | ortsmouth, |        | Dist.              |         | ewater |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 5,      |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 587,700 | Dr     |
| >     | Rol        |        |                    | small   | inking |
| >     | lingsford, |        |                    |         | Water  |
|  2003 | Town of    |        |                    | 5,      |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 329,150 | Dr     |
| >     | Salem      |        |                    | large   | inking |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Salem      |        |                    | 0       |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | SpDist  | Wast   |
|  2002 | So         |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | mersworth, |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[  | Coventry,  | Town   | 33,668  50,000    | \$      | Dr     |
| Rhode | Town of    |        |                    | 309,455 | inking |
| Is    |            | City   | 48,688  50,000    |         | Water  |
| land] | East       |        |                    | 50,000  |        |
| {.und | Providence | Town   | 20,898  50,000    |         | Wast   |
| erlin |            |        |                    | 168,700 | ewater |
| e}*** | Lincoln    | S      | 11,360  50,000    |         |        |
|       |            | pecial |                    | 2,      | Dr     |
| >     | Na         | Di     | 11,360  50,000    | 168,300 | inking |
|  2003 | rragansett | strict |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Bay        |        | 43,224  50,000    | 1,      |        |
| >     |            | S      |                    | 398,200 | CSO    |
|  2004 | Na         | pecial | 6 entities        |         |        |
| >     | rragansett | Di     | 50,000             | 97,500  | CSO    |
| >     | Bay        | strict |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        | 0 entities 50,000 | 3,      | CSO    |
| >     | Na         | S      |                    | 152,500 |        |
| >     | rragansett | pecial | 4 entities Special |         | CSO    |
|  2003 | Bay        | Di     | Dist.              | 15,000  |        |
| >     |            | strict |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Na         |        |                    | 485,000 | ewater |
|  2004 | rragansett | S      |                    |         |        |
| >     | Bay        | pecial |                    | 433,700 | Wast   |
| >     |            | Di     |                    |         | ewater |
|  2002 | Warren,    | strict |                    | \$      |        |
| >     | Town of    |        |                    | 8,      | Dr     |
| >     |            | Town   |                    | 278,355 | inking |
|  2002 | Warren,    |        |                    | total   | Water  |
| >     | Town of    | Town   |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|  2002 | W          | City   |                    | 461,855 |        |
| >     | oonsocket, |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 0 large |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 6,      |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 816,500 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| **    | Champlain  | S      | 7,571  50,000     | \$      | MS4    |
| *[Ver | Water      | pecial |                    | 1,      |        |
| mont] |            | Di     | 3,560  50,000     | 474,500 | MS4    |
| {.und | Champlain  | strict |                    |         |        |
| erlin | Water      |        | 4,090  50,000     | 1,      | Wast   |
| e}*** |            | S      |                    | 446,400 | ewater |
|       | St.        | pecial | 1,681  50,000     |         |        |
| >     | Johnsbury, | Di     |                    | 970,000 | Wast   |
|  2003 | Town of    | strict | 1,681  50,000     |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    | 2,      |        |
| >     | Pownal,    | Town   | 5 entities        | 425,000 | Wast   |
|  2004 | Town of    |        | 50,000             |         | ewater |
| >     |            | Town   |                    | 1,      |        |
| >     | Richmond,  |        | 0 entities 50,000 | 127,500 | Wast   |
|  2002 | Town of    | Town   |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        | 2 entities Special | 601,000 |        |
| >     | Warren     | Town   | Dist.              |         | Wast   |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 700,000 | ewater |
| >     | Warren     | Town   |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | \$      |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 8,      |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 744,400 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | total   |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 5,      |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 823,500 |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | small   |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0 large |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 2,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 920,900 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***R  | Camden     | County | 508,932 50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| EGION | County     |        |                    | 1,      | ewater |
| 2***  |            | City   | 79,904 50,000     | 301,000 |        |
|       | Camden,    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| **    | City of    | B      | 7,174  50,000     | 964,300 | ewater |
| *[New |            | orough |                    |         |        |
| Je    | Fanwood    |        | 19,717  50,000    | 388,000 | MS4    |
| rsey] |            | To     |                    |         |        |
| {.und | Jefferson  | wnship | 11,907  50,000    | 867,300 | Wast   |
| erlin | Township   |        |                    |         | ewater |
| e}*** |            | S      | 24,686  50,000    | 385,700 |        |
|       | New Jersey | pecial |                    |         | We     |
| >     | M          | Di     | 24,686  50,000    | 377,300 | tlands |
|  2003 | eadowlands | strict |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        | 5 entities        | 216,800 | Wast   |
| >     | New        | B      | 50,000             |         | ewater |
|  2004 | Providence | orough |                    | 2,      |        |
| >     |            |        | 2 entities 50,000 | 425,000 | CSO    |
| >     | North      | S      |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | Hudson SA  | pecial | 5 entities Special | 2,      | Wast   |
| >     |            | Di     | Dist.              | 168,300 | ewater |
| >     | Passaic    | strict |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | Valley     |        |                    | 482,100 | Wast   |
| >     |            | S      |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | Passaic    | pecial |                    | 970,000 |        |
|  2004 | Valley     | Di     |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            | strict |                    | 433,700 | ewater |
| >     | Passaic    |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | Valley     | S      |                    | \$10,   | Wast   |
| >     |            | pecial |                    | 979,500 | ewater |
| >     | Vernon     | Di     |                    | total   |        |
|  2003 | Township   | strict |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    | 3,      | ewater |
| >     | Vernon     | S      |                    | 036,300 |        |
|  2002 | Township   | pecial |                    | small   |        |
| >     |            | Di     |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | strict |                    | 2,      |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 265,300 |        |
| >     |            | To     |                    | large   |        |
| >     |            | wnship |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 5,      |        |
| >     |            | To     |                    | 677,900 |        |
| >     |            | wnship |                    | SpDist  |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| **    | Akron,     | V      | 3,085  50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| *[New | Village of | illage |                    | 485,000 | ewater |
| York] |            |        | 292,648 50,000    |         |        |
| {.und | Buffalo,   | City   |                    | 867,300 | Dr     |
| erlin | City of    |        | 81,963 50,000     |         | inking |
| e}*** |            | County |                    | 1,      | Water  |
|       | Cayuga     |        | 81,963 50,000     | 455,000 |        |
| >     | County     | County |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 |            |        | 26,123  50,000    | 1,      | ewater |
| >     | Cayuga     | Town   |                    | 446,400 |        |
| >     | County     |        | 6,426  50,000     |         | Wast   |
|  2003 |            | Town   |                    | 1,      | ewater |
| >     | Clarence,  |        | 25,589  50,000    | 746,000 |        |
| >     | Town of    | Town   |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 |            |        | 3,869  50,000     | 241,100 | ewater |
| >     | Corning,   | Town   |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        | 55,073 50,000     | 654,800 | Dr     |
|  2004 |            | County |                    |         | inking |
| >     | East       |        | 94,141 50,000     | 216,800 | Water  |
| >     | Fishkill,  | Town   |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | Town of    |        | 10,116  50,000    | 313,400 | Dr     |
| >     |            | V      |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Floyd,     | illage | 56,259 50,000     | 385,700 | Water  |
|  2004 | Town of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | Town   | 24,154  50,000    | 385,700 | Dr     |
| >     | Fulton     |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2002 | County     | Town   | 11,855  50,000    | 433,700 | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Greece,    | City   | 6,485  50,000     | 873,000 | Wast   |
|  2003 | Town of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            | V      | 735,343 50,000    | 433,700 |        |
| >     | Hamburg,   | illage |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2004 | Village of |        | 222,611 50,000    | 291,000 | ewater |
| >     |            | County |                    |         |        |
| >     | Hamburg,   |        |                    | 867,300 | Wast   |
|  2004 | Town of    | S      |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            | pecial |                    | 2,      |        |
| >     | T&V of     | Di     |                    | 910,000 | Wast   |
|  2004 | Harriso    | strict |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | n/Harrison |        |                    | 5,      |        |
| >     |            | S      |                    | 204,000 | Wast   |
|  2003 | Fulton,    | pecial |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | City of    | Di     |                    | 4,      |        |
| >     |            | strict |                    | 821,400 | No     |
|  2002 | Larchmont, |        |                    |         | npoint |
| >     | Village of | S      |                    | 650,500 |        |
| >     |            | pecial |                    |         | MS4    |
|  2003 | Monroe     | Di     |                    |         |        |
| >     | County     | strict |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2002 | NYSDEC     | Town   |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | NYSDEC     |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | NYSDEC     |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | North      |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Hempstead, |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Town       |        |                    |         | Water  |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | MS4    |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| **    | Jordan,    | V      | 1,314  50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| *[New | Village of | illage |                    | 192,900 | ewater |
| Y     |            |        | 17,954  50,000    |         |        |
| ork - | Onodaga    | S      |                    | 7,      | CSO    |
| c     | Lake       | pecial | 17,954  50,000    | 760,000 |        |
| ont.] |            | Di     |                    |         | No     |
| {.und | Onodaga    | strict | 6,400  50,000     | 1,      | npoint |
| erlin | Lake       |        |                    | 740,000 |        |
| e}*** |            | S      | 286,753 50,000    |         | CSO    |
|       | Onodaga    | pecial |                    | 7,      |        |
| >     | Lake       | Di     | 286,753 50,000    | 591,900 | No     |
|  2004 |            | strict |                    |         | npoint |
| >     | Onadaga    |        | 286,753 50,000    | 2,      |        |
| >     | Lake       | S      |                    | 801,000 | CSO    |
|  2002 |            | pecial | 14,955  50,000    |         |        |
| >     | Oswego,    | Di     |                    | 867,300 | Wast   |
| >     | City of    | strict | 18,474  50,000    |         | ewater |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 241,100 |        |
| >     | Oswego,    | S      | 200,635 50,000    |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    | pecial |                    | 109,000 | ewater |
|  2003 |            | Di     | 3,244  50,000     |         |        |
| >     | Pelham,    | strict |                    | 873,000 | Wast   |
| >     | Village of |        | 147,306 50,000    |         | ewater |
|  2003 |            | City   |                    | 675,000 |        |
| >     | Rockland   |        | 6,164  50,000     |         | Wast   |
| >     | County     | City   |                    | 385,700 | ewater |
|  2003 |            |        | 93,765 50,000     |         |        |
| >     | Rockland   | V      |                    | 433,700 | Wast   |
| >     | County     | illage | 93,765 50,000     |         | ewater |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 470,500 |        |
| >     | Rockland   | County | 965  50,000       |         | Wast   |
| >     | County     |        |                    | 867,300 | ewater |
|  2004 |            | County | 965  50,000       |         |        |
| >     | Rye, City  |        |                    | 192,900 | Wast   |
| >     | of         | County | 19 entities       |         | ewater |
|  2002 |            |        | 50,000             | 433,700 |        |
| >     | Halfmoon   | City   |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            |        | 15 entities        | 1,      | inking |
|  2004 | Saratoga   | Town   | 50,000            | 734,700 | Water  |
| >     | County     |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | County | 8 entities Special | 867,300 | Dr     |
|  2004 | Sennett,   |        | Dist.              |         | inking |
| >     | Town of    | Town   |                    | 578,600 | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | South      | S      |                    | 221,800 | MS4    |
| >     | Shore      | pecial |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | Di     |                    | 470,500 | Wast   |
|  2002 | Syracuse,  | strict |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 216,800 |        |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2003 | Walden,    |        |                    | \$54,   | ewater |
| >     | Village of | V      |                    | 451,500 |        |
| >     |            | illage |                    | total   | Dr     |
|  2004 | Wayne      |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | County     | County |                    | 9,      | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | 434,100 |        |
|  2003 | Wayne      | County |                    | small   | Wast   |
| >     | County     |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            | V      |                    | 11,     |        |
|  2003 | Whitney    | illage |                    | 755,400 | Wast   |
| >     | Point      |        |                    | large   | ewater |
| >     |            | V      |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | Whitney    | illage |                    | 33,     | Wast   |
| >     | Point      |        |                    | 262,000 | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[P | None       |        |                    |         |        |
| uerto | active     |        |                    |         |        |
| Rico] |            |        |                    |         |        |
| {.und |            |        |                    |         |        |
| erlin |            |        |                    |         |        |
| e}*** |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[V | None       |        |                    |         |        |
| irgin | active     |        |                    |         |        |
| Isl   |            |        |                    |         |        |
| ands] |            |        |                    |         |        |
| {.und |            |        |                    |         |        |
| erlin |            |        |                    |         |        |
| e}*** |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***R  | W          | City   | 72,664 50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| EGION | ilmington, |        |                    | 1,      | ewater |
| 3***  | City of    |        | 0 entities        | 060,700 |        |
|       |            |        | 50,000             |         |        |
| ***   |            |        |                    | \$      |        |
| [Dela |            |        | 1 entities 50,000 | 1,      |        |
| ware] |            |        |                    | 060,700 |        |
| {.und |            |        | 0 entities Special | total   |        |
| erlin |            |        | Dist.              |         |        |
| e}*** |            |        |                    | > 0     |        |
|       |            |        |                    | > small |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 060,700 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | > 0     |        |
|       |            |        |                    | >       |        |
|       |            |        |                    |  SpDist |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| **    | D.C. WASA  | City   | 553,523 50,000    | \$      | CSO    |
| *[Dis |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
| trict | Metro      | City   | 553,523 50,000    | 746,000 | Dr     |
| of    | Washington |        |                    |         | inking |
| Colu  |            |        | 0 entities        | 385,700 | Water  |
| mbia] |            |        | 50,000             |         |        |
| {.und |            |        |                    | \$      |        |
| erlin |            |        | 2 entities 50,000 | 2,      |        |
| e}*** |            |        |                    | 131,700 |        |
|       |            |        | 0 entities Special | total   |        |
| >     |            |        | Dist.              |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | > 0     |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | > small |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | >       |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | > 0     |        |
|       |            |        |                    | > large |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 2,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 131,700 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | Sp Dist |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***   | Baltimore, | City   | 651,154 50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| [Mary | City of    |        |                    | 3,      | ewater |
| land] |            | Town   | 11,893  50,000    | 469,300 |        |
| {.und | Elkton,    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| erlin | Town of    | Town   | 11,893  50,000    | 433,700 | ewater |
| e}*** |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       | Elkton,    | County | 218,590 50,000    | 192,900 | Wast   |
| 2003  | Town of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
|       |            | Town   | 1,874  50,000     | 470,450 |        |
| 2003  | Harford    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|       | County     | Town   | 6,551  50,000     | 482,100 | ewater |
| 2004  |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       | Hurlock,   | Town   | 6,551  50,000     | 264,000 | Wast   |
| 2002  | Town of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
|       |            | City   | 47,388  50,000    | 205,260 |        |
| 2004  | LaPlata    |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|       |            | City   | 23,743  50,000    | 1,      | inking |
| 2003  | LaPlata    |        |                    | 084,200 | Water  |
|       |            | S      | 3,422  50,000     |         |        |
| 2003  | Rockville, | pecial |                    | 4,      | Wast   |
|       | City of    | Di     | 8 entities        | 656,000 | ewater |
| 2003  |            | strict | 50,000             |         |        |
|       | Salisbury, |        |                    | 433,700 | Wast   |
| 2002  | City of    | S      | 2 entities 50,000 |         | ewater |
|       |            | pecial |                    | 385,700 |        |
| 2003  | Washington | Di     | 2 entities Special |         | Wast   |
|       | Suburban   | strict | Dist.              | 1,      | ewater |
| 2004  |            |        |                    | 734,700 |        |
|       | Washington | Town   |                    |         | Dr     |
| 2003  | Suburban   |        |                    | \$13,   | inking |
|       |            |        |                    | 812,010 | Water  |
|       | Indian     |        |                    | total   |        |
|       | Head       |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|       |            |        |                    | 9,      | ewater |
|       |            |        |                    | 052,860 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | small   | Wast   |
|       |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|       |            |        |                    | 3,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 939,750 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 819,400 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| **    | Big        | B      | 2,186  50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| *[Pen | Beaver,    | orough |                    | 470,500 | ewater |
| nsylv | Borough of |        | 4,871  50,000     |         |        |
| ania] |            | B      |                    | 242,500 | Dr     |
| {.und | Charleroi, | orough | 36,875  50,000    |         | inking |
| erlin | Borough of |        |                    | 192,900 | Water  |
| e}*** |            | To     | 6,834  50,000     |         |        |
|       | Cheltenham | wnship |                    | 303,600 | Wast   |
| >     | Township   |        | 2,650  50,000     |         | ewater |
|  2002 |            | S      |                    | 873,000 |        |
| >     | Chestnut   | pecial | 2,650  50,000     |         | Wast   |
| >     | Ridge      | Di     |                    | 970,000 | ewater |
|  2002 |            | strict |                    |         |        |
| >     | Corry,     |        |                    | 578,600 | CSO    |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Co         | B      |                    |         | inking |
| >     | udersport, | orough |                    |         | Water  |
|  2003 | Borough of |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | B      |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Co         | orough |                    |         | inking |
|  2002 | udersport, |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Borough of |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***   | Derry      | B      | 2,991  50,000     | \$      | Dr     |
| [Penn | Borough    | orough |                    | 433,700 | inking |
| sylva |            |        | 16,157  50,000    |         | Water  |
| nia - | Derry      | S      |                    | 1,      |        |
| cont] | Township   | pecial | 290  50,000       | 301,000 | Wast   |
| {.und |            | Di     |                    |         | ewater |
| erlin | Eastern    | strict | 120,044 50,000    | 867,300 |        |
| e}*** | Snyder     |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|       | County     | S      | 120,044 50,000    | 433,700 | ewater |
| >     |            | pecial |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | Franklin,  | Di     | 1,103  50,000     | 192,900 | CSO    |
| >     | City of    | strict |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        | 4,500  50,000     | 369,900 | Wast   |
|  2003 | Granville  | S      |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | Township   | pecial | 23,883  50,000    | 385,700 |        |
| >     |            | Di     |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2003 | Hermitage, | strict | 6,146  50,000     | 144,600 | ewater |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | S      | 15,338  50,000    | 433,700 | Wast   |
|  2003 | Kulpm      | pecial |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | ont-Marion | Di     | 3,328  50,000     | 433,900 |        |
| >     | Heights    | strict |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2004 |            |        | 15 entities       | 120,500 | inking |
| >     | Laporte    | City   | 50,000             |         | Water  |
| >     | Borough    |        |                    | 145,500 |        |
|  2003 |            | S      | 2 entities 50,000 |         | Wast   |
| >     | Lycoming   | pecial |                    | 433,700 | ewater |
| >     | County     | Di     | 12 entities        |         |        |
|  2004 |            | strict | Special Dist.      | 470,500 | Dr     |
| >     | Lycoming   |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | County     | B      |                    | 98,500  | Water  |
|  2004 |            | orough |                    |         |        |
| >     | Paint      |        |                    | 96,400  | Wast   |
| >     | Borough    | County |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 241,100 |        |
| >     | Pocono     | County |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Jackson    |        |                    | 2,      | inking |
|  2004 | Point      | B      |                    | 813,000 | Water  |
| >     |            | orough |                    |         |        |
| >     | Pulaski    |        |                    | 2,      | Wast   |
|  2004 | Township   | S      |                    | 168,300 | ewater |
| >     |            | pecial |                    |         |        |
| >     | Robinson   | Di     |                    | 873,000 | Dr     |
|  2002 | Township   | strict |                    |         | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    | 867,300 | Water  |
| >     | Sh         | S      |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | arpsville, | pecial |                    | 81,127  | Wast   |
| >     | Borough of | Di     |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            | strict |                    | \$17,   |        |
|  2002 | Spri       |        |                    | 036,427 | Wast   |
| >     | ngettsbury | S      |                    | total   | ewater |
| >     | Township   | pecial |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            | Di     |                    | 6,      | Wast   |
| >     | Summit     | strict |                    | 412,527 | ewater |
| >     | Township   |        |                    | small   |        |
|  2004 |            | B      |                    |         | CSO    |
| >     | Three      | orough |                    | 867,600 |        |
| >     | Rivers Wet |        |                    | large   | CSO    |
|  2004 | Weather    | To     |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | wnship |                    | 9,      | CSO    |
| >     | Three      |        |                    | 756,300 |        |
|  2002 | Rivers Wet | S      |                    | SpDist  | Wast   |
| >     | Weather    | pecial |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            | Di     |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | T          | strict |                    |         | CSO    |
| >     | itusville, |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    | S      |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            | pecial |                    |         |        |
| >     | Upper      | Di     |                    |         |        |
| >     | Allen      | strict |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | Township   |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | S      |                    |         |        |
| >     | Wellsboro, | pecial |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | Borough of | Di     |                    |         |        |
|       |            | strict |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            | City   |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            | To     |                    |         |        |
|       |            | wnship |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            | B      |                    |         |        |
|       |            | orough |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***   | A          | City   | 128,283 50,000    | \$      | CSO    |
| [Virg | lexandria, |        |                    | 873,000 |        |
| inia] | City of    | City   | 128,283 50,000    |         | CSO    |
| {.und |            |        |                    | 650,500 |        |
| erlin | A          | County | 22,121  50,000    |         | Wast   |
| e}*** | lexandria, |        |                    | 679,000 | ewater |
|       | City of    | County | 15,623  50,000    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 260,200 | Wast   |
|  2002 | Caroline   | Town   | 1,338  50,000     |         | ewater |
| >     | County     |        |                    | 144,600 |        |
| >     |            | County | 259,903 50,000    |         | Dr     |
|  2003 | Buckingham |        |                    | 455,300 | inking |
| >     | County     | County | 259,903 50,000    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | 385,700 |        |
|  2002 | Chatham,   | County | 9,017  50,000     |         | Wast   |
| >     | Town of    |        |                    | 173,500 | ewater |
| >     |            | S      | 2,288  50,000     |         |        |
|  2003 | Ch         | pecial |                    | 867,300 | Wast   |
| >     | esterfield | Di     | 969,749 50,000    |         | ewater |
| >     | County     | strict |                    | 1,      |        |
|  2004 |            |        | 969,749 50,000    | 157,100 | Dr     |
| >     | Ch         | S      |                    |         | inking |
| >     | esterfield | pecial | 20,047  50,000    | 867,300 | Water  |
|  2003 | County     | Di     |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | strict | 20,047  50,000    | 824,000 | Wast   |
| >     | Cumberland |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2004 | County     | Town   | 47,286  50,000    | 723,200 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Dale       | County | 47,286  50,000    | 194,000 | ewater |
|  2003 | Service    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Corp.      | County | 47,286  50,000    | 346,900 | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2003 | Dale       | County | 57,930 50,000     | 194,000 | Water  |
| >     | Service    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Corp.      | County | 65,269 50,000     | 260,200 | Dr     |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Dublin,    | County | 65,269 50,000     | 757,000 | Water  |
| >     | Town of    |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            | County | 65,269 50,000     | 424,300 | Dr     |
| >     | Fairfax    |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | County     | County | 234,403 50,000    | 1,      | Water  |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 309,500 |        |
| >     | Fairfax    | County | 234,403 50,000    |         | Wast   |
| >     | County     |        |                    | 867,300 | ewater |
|  2004 |            | City   | 234,403 50,000    |         |        |
| >     | Fluvanna   |        |                    | 289,300 | Wast   |
| >     | County     | City   | 234,403 50,000    |         | ewater |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 213,400 |        |
| >     | Fluvanna   | City   | 4,123  50,000     |         | Dr     |
| >     | County     |        |                    | 271,600 | inking |
|  2003 |            | City   |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Franklin   |        |                    | 173,500 |        |
| >     | County     | City   |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 173,500 | inking |
| >     | Franklin   | City   |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | County     |        |                    | 303,600 |        |
|  2003 |            | City   |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Franklin   |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | County     | Town   |                    |         | Water  |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Henry      |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | County     |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Lynchburg, |        |                    |         | CSO    |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | CSO    |
| >     | Lynchburg, |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | CSO    |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Lynchburg, |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Norfolk,   |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Norfolk,   |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Norfolk,   |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Norfolk,   |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Orange,    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Town of    |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[  | P          | City   | 100,565 50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| Virgi | ortsmouth, |        |                    | 385,700 | ewater |
| nia - | City of    | City   | 100,565 50,000    |         |        |
| cont] |            |        |                    | 241,100 | Wast   |
| {.und | P          | County | 280,813 50,000    |         | ewater |
| erlin | ortsmouth, |        |                    | 1,      |        |
| e}*** | City of    | County | 33,081  50,000    | 746,000 | Wast   |
|       |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | Prince     | Town   | 8,491  50,000     | 654,800 |        |
|  2004 | William    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | County     | Town   | 817  50,000       | 1,      | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    | 784,800 |        |
|  2004 | Smyth      |        | 14 entities       |         | CSO    |
| >     | County     |        | 50,000             | 1,      |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 690,700 | Wast   |
|  2002 | South      |        | 17 entities        |         | ewater |
| >     | Boston,    |        | 50,000            | \$20,   |        |
| >     | Town of    |        |                    | 338,900 |        |
|  2002 |            |        | 2 entities Special | total   |        |
| >     | Keysville, |        | Dist.              |         |        |
| >     | Town of    |        |                    | 8,      |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 307,600 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 10,     |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 006,900 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 2,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 024,400 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***   | Barbour    | County | 15,557  50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| [West | County     |        |                    | 307,500 | ewater |
| Virg  |            | S      | 5,489  50,000     |         |        |
| inia] | Beach      | pecial |                    | 550,800 | Dr     |
| {.und | Bottom,    | Di     | 5,489  50,000     |         | inking |
| erlin | Village of | strict |                    | 1,      | Water  |
| e}*** |            |        | 32,667  50,000    | 869,100 |        |
|       | Grafton,   | City   |                    |         | CSO    |
| >     | City of    |        | 35.519  50,000    | 1,      |        |
|  2002 |            | City   |                    | 778,000 | CSO    |
| >     | Grafton,   |        | 9,998  50,000     |         |        |
| >     | City of    | County |                    | 4,      | Wast   |
|  2003 |            |        | 5,984  50,000     | 850,000 | ewater |
| >     | Hancock    | S      |                    |         |        |
| >     | County     | pecial | 47,427  50,000    | 654,800 | Wast   |
|  2003 |            | Di     |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | Eastern    | strict | 51,589 50,000     | 843,700 |        |
| >     | Inwood     |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2003 | Watershed  | County | 2,891  50,000     | 229,800 | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Marshall   | S      | 31,419  50,000    | 2,      | Dr     |
|  2002 | County     | pecial |                    | 168,300 | inking |
| >     |            | Di     | 10 entities       |         | Water  |
| >     | Midland    | strict | 50,000             | 339,500 |        |
|  2002 | PSD        |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            | City   | 1 entities 50,000 | 970,000 | inking |
| >     | Mo         |        |                    |         | Water  |
|  2004 | undsville, | City   | 4 entities Special | 260,200 |        |
| >     | City of    |        | Dist.              |         | CSO    |
| >     |            | County |                    | 438,900 |        |
|  2003 | New        |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Ma         | County |                    | 485,700 | ewater |
| >     | rtinsville |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            | S      |                    | 2,      | Dr     |
| >     | Ohio       | pecial |                    | 425,000 | inking |
| >     | County PSD | Di     |                    |         | Water  |
|  2002 |            | strict |                    | \$18,   |        |
| >     | Putnam     |        |                    | 171,300 | Dr     |
| >     | County     | City   |                    | total   | inking |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Si         | City   |                    | 16,     |        |
| >     | sterville, |        |                    | 036,800 | Wast   |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    | small   | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Wellsburg, |        |                    | 260,200 | Wast   |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    | large   | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Wheeling,  |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    | 874,300 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***R  | Blount     | County | 51,024 50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| EGION | County     |        |                    | 436,500 | ewater |
| 4***  |            | S      | 5,498  50,000     |         |        |
|       | Brent      | pecial |                    | 241,100 | Wast   |
| **    | Water &    | Di     | 3,659  50,000     |         | ewater |
| *[Ala | Sewer      | strict |                    | 727,500 |        |
| bama] |            |        | 14,254  50,000    |         | Other  |
| {.und | Brewton,   | City   |                    | 970,000 |        |
| erlin | City of    |        | 77,483 50,000     |         | Dr     |
| e}*** |            | City   |                    | 470,500 | inking |
|       | C          |        | 7,590  50,000     |         | Water  |
| >     | itronelle, | County |                    | 303,600 |        |
|  2002 | Town of    |        | 491  50,000       |         | Wast   |
| >     |            | S      |                    | 684,750 | ewater |
| >     | Clay       | pecial | 36,264  50,000    |         |        |
|  2004 | County     | Di     |                    | 130,100 | Dr     |
| >     |            | strict | 31,223  50,000    |         | inking |
| >     | Coosa      |        |                    | 607,100 | Water  |
|  2002 | Valley     | S      | 31,223  50,000    |         |        |
| >     |            | pecial |                    | 154,500 | Dr     |
| >     | Coosa      | Di     | 31,223  50,000    |         | inking |
|  2002 | Valley     | strict |                    | 96,400  | Water  |
| >     |            |        | 665  50,000       |         |        |
| >     | Cullman    | County |                    | 964,300 | Dr     |
|  2002 | County     |        | 158,216 50,000    |         | inking |
| >     |            | City   |                    | 242,500 | Water  |
| >     | Foley,     |        | 158,216 50,000    |         |        |
|  2003 | City of    | Town   |                    | 260,200 | Other  |
| >     |            |        | 53,926 50,000     |         |        |
| >     | Eva        | S      |                    | 458,000 | Wast   |
|  2004 |            | pecial | 5,419  50,000     |         | ewater |
| >     | Fayette    | Di     |                    | 582,000 |        |
| >     | Water      | strict | 5,419  50,000     |         | Dr     |
|  2003 | Works      |        |                    | 970,000 | inking |
| >     |            | City   | 5,419  50,000     |         | Water  |
| >     | Florence,  |        |                    | 482,100 |        |
|  2003 | City of    | County | 65,676 50,000     |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    | 970,000 | ewater |
| >     | Franklin   | County | 65,676 50,000     |         |        |
|  2003 | County     |        |                    | 650,500 | Dr     |
| >     |            | County |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Franklin   |        |                    | 385,700 | Water  |
|  2004 | County     | Town   |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 970,000 | Dr     |
| >     | Franklin   | S      |                    |         | inking |
|  2004 | County     | pecial |                    | 485,000 | Water  |
| >     |            | Di     |                    |         |        |
| >     | Grant      | strict |                    | 563,800 | Dr     |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Hartselle  | S      |                    | 485,000 | Water  |
| >     | Utilities  | pecial |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            | Di     |                    | 173,500 | Wast   |
| >     | Hartselle  | strict |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | Utilities  |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            | City   |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | H          |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | untsville, | City   |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | City of    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            | County |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | H          |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | untsville, | City   |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         | Water  |
|  2004 | Jackson    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | County     | City   |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2002 | Jackson,   | County |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            | County |                    |         | inking |
|  2003 | Jackson,   |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2004 | Jackson,   |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2002 | Limestone  |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Limestone  |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | inking |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***   | Li         | Town   | 978  50,000       | \$      | Wast   |
| [Alab | ttleville, |        |                    | 238,500 | ewater |
| ama - | Town of    | City   | 2,635  50,000     |         |        |
| cont] |            |        |                    | 111,600 | Dr     |
| {.und | Luverne,   | County | 31,214  50,000    |         | inking |
| erlin | City of    |        |                    | 12,272  | Water  |
| e}*** |            | S      | 399,843 50,000    |         |        |
|       | Marion     | pecial |                    | 563,800 | Dr     |
| >     | County     | Di     | 399,843 50,000    |         | inking |
|  2003 |            | strict |                    | 485,000 | Water  |
| >     | Mobile     |        | 6,862  50,000     |         |        |
| >     | Area       | County |                    | 253,210 | Wast   |
|  2002 |            |        | 11,924  50,000    |         | ewater |
| >     | Mobile     | County |                    | 216,800 |        |
| >     | County     |        | 916  50,000       |         | Dr     |
|  2003 |            | City   |                    | 260,200 | inking |
| >     | Mobile     |        | 4,499  50,000     |         | Water  |
| >     | County     | City   |                    | 281,900 |        |
|  2003 |            |        | 143,293 50,000    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Mo         | Town   |                    | 1,      | inking |
| >     | nroeville, |        | 3,659  50,000     | 843,000 | Water  |
|  2002 | City of    | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        | 2,665  50,000     | 873,000 | Dr     |
| >     | Muscle     | County |                    |         | inking |
|  2003 | Shoals     |        | 77,906 50,000     | 1,      | Water  |
| >     |            | City   |                    | 040,800 |        |
| >     | Notasulga, |        | 3,659 50,000      |         | Wast   |
|  2003 | Town of    | City   |                    | 291,000 | ewater |
| >     |            |        | 2,257  50,000     |         |        |
| >     | Rainsville | City   |                    | 485,000 | Wast   |
|  2003 |            |        | 24 entities       |         | ewater |
| >     | Shelby     | S      | 50,000             | 970,000 |        |
| >     | County     | pecial |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2003 |            | Di     | 11 entities        | 819,600 | ewater |
| >     | C          | strict | 50,000            |         |        |
| >     | itronelle, |        |                    | 192,900 | Wast   |
|  2002 | Town of    | S      | 13 entities        |         | ewater |
| >     |            | pecial | Special Dist.      | 96,400  |        |
| >     | Sumiton    | Di     |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2002 |            | strict |                    | 168,700 | inking |
| >     | Tuscaloosa |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            | City   |                    | 485,000 |        |
|  2003 | Tuscambia, |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | City of    | S      |                    | 173,500 | inking |
| >     |            | pecial |                    |         | Water  |
|  2002 | Upper Bear | Di     |                    | 96,400  |        |
| >     |            | strict |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | C          |        |                    | \$23,   | ewater |
|  2002 | itronelle, | S      |                    | 423,232 |        |
| >     | Town of    | pecial |                    | total   | Dr     |
| >     |            | Di     |                    |         | inking |
|  2002 | Water &    | strict |                    | 12,     | Water  |
| >     | Sewer      |        |                    | 040,772 |        |
| >     |            | S      |                    | small   | Dr     |
|  2004 | West       | pecial |                    |         | inking |
| >     | M          | Di     |                    | 5,      | Water  |
| >     | organ-East | strict |                    | 327,510 |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | large   | Dr     |
| >     | West       | S      |                    |         | inking |
| >     | M          | pecial |                    | 6,      | Water  |
|  2004 | organ-East | Di     |                    | 054,950 |        |
| >     |            | strict |                    | SpDist  | Wast   |
| >     | West       |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2004 | M          | Town   |                    |         |        |
| >     | organ-East |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2002 | Camden,    |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|       |            |        |                    |         | inking |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|       |            |        |                    |         | inking |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| **    | Boca       | City   | 74,764 50,000     | \$      | Dr     |
| *[Flo | Raton,     |        |                    | 873,000 | inking |
| rida] | City of    | City   | 74,764 50,000     |         | Water  |
| {.und |            |        |                    | 433,700 |        |
| erlin | Boca       | City   | 108,787 50,000    |         | Dr     |
| e}*** | Raton,     |        |                    | 693,800 | inking |
|       | City of    | City   | 108,787 50,000    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | 433,700 |        |
|  2002 | C          | City   | 185,951 50,000    |         | Dr     |
| >     | learwater, |        |                    | 1,      | inking |
| >     | City of    | County | 998,948 50,000    | 940,000 | Water  |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | C          | City   | 31,909  50,000    | 470,500 | Wast   |
| >     | learwater, |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2002 | City of    | City   | 10,767  50,000    | 771,400 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Orlando,   | County | 2,253,362 50,000  | 216,800 | ewater |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | City   | 40,786  50,000    | 3,      | Dr     |
| >     | Hi         |        |                    | 880,000 | inking |
|  2002 | llsborough | City   | 40,786  50,000    |         | Water  |
| >     | County     |        |                    | 485,000 |        |
| >     |            | City   | 14,951  50,000    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 | Homestead, |        |                    | 485,000 | ewater |
| >     | City of    | City   | 14,951  50,000    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 776,000 | Other  |
|  2004 | Lighthouse | County | 325,957 50,000    |         |        |
| >     | Point,     |        |                    | 130,100 | Wast   |
| >     | City of    | County | 325,957 50,000    |         | ewater |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 873,000 |        |
| >     | Miami-Dade | City   | 10,741  50,000    |         | Wast   |
| >     | County     |        |                    | 433,700 | ewater |
|  2002 |            | City   | 10,741  50,000    |         |        |
| >     | North      |        |                    | 485,000 | Dr     |
| >     | Miami,     | S      | 123,135 50,000    |         | inking |
|  2002 | City of    | pecial |                    | 130,100 | Water  |
| >     |            | Di     | 21,003  50,000    |         |        |
| >     | North      | strict |                    | 9,      | Wast   |
|  2002 | Miami,     |        | 19,256  50,000    | 360,500 | ewater |
| >     | City of    | S      |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | pecial | 82,103 50,000     | 7,      | Wast   |
|  2002 | Opa-locka, | Di     |                    | 589,100 | ewater |
| >     | City of    | strict | 82,103 50,000     |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 9,      | Wast   |
|  2003 | Opa-locka, | S      | 10 entities       | 642,800 | ewater |
| >     | city of    | pecial | 50,000             |         |        |
| >     |            | Di     |                    | 470,500 | Wast   |
|  2002 | Sarasota   | strict | 12 entities        |         | ewater |
| >     | County     |        | 50,000            | 28,944  |        |
| >     |            | County |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2003 | Sarasota   |        | 4 entities Special | 780,600 | inking |
| >     | County     | City   | Dist.              |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | 867,300 |        |
|  2002 | South      | County |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Miami,     |        |                    | 654,800 | inking |
| >     | City of    | S      |                    |         | Water  |
|  2003 |            | pecial |                    | 433,700 |        |
| >     | South      | Di     |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Miami,     | strict |                    | \$43,   | inking |
|  2002 | City of    |        |                    | 339,044 | Water  |
| >     |            | City   |                    | total   |        |
| >     | Tampa Bay  |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2003 |            | City   |                    | 4,      | inking |
| >     | Tampa Bay  |        |                    | 288,944 | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   |        |
|  2004 | Tampa Bay  |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    | 11,     | inking |
| >     | St. Johns  |        |                    | 590,400 | Water  |
|  2002 | County     |        |                    | large   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Tarpon     |        |                    | 27,     | ewater |
|  2003 | Springs,   |        |                    | 459,700 |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | SpDist  | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 | Taylor     |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | County     |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 | Volusian   |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Water      |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2002 | West Palm  |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Beach,     |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|       | West Palm  |        |                    |         |        |
|       | Beach,     |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|       | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| **    | Forsyth,   | City   | 3,776  50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| *[Geo | City of    |        |                    | 1,      | ewater |
| rgia] |            | County | 588,448 50,000    | 205,300 |        |
| {.und | Gwinnett   |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| erlin | County     | County | 588,448 50,000    | 650,500 | ewater |
| e}*** |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       | Gwinnett   | City   | 2,307  50,000     | 578,600 | Wast   |
| >     | County     |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2004 |            | City   | 25,578  50,000    | 106,100 |        |
| >     | Helena,    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    | City   | 79,334 50,000     | 75,000  | ewater |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Ga         | City   | 79,334 50,000     | 650,500 | Wast   |
| >     | inesville, |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2004 | City of    |        | 3 entities        | 1,      |        |
| >     |            |        | 50,000             | 940,000 | Other  |
| >     | Roswell,   |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 | City of    |        | 4 entities 50,000 | \$      | No     |
| >     |            |        |                    | 5,      | npoint |
| >     | Roswell,   |        | 0 entities Special | 206,000 |        |
|  2003 | City of    |        | Dist.              | total   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 386,400 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 3,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 819,600 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0       |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***   | C          | City   | 3,846  50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| [Kent | arrollton, |        |                    | 216,800 | ewater |
| ucky] | City of    | City   | 6,258  50,000     |         |        |
| {.und |            |        |                    | 1,      | Wast   |
| erlin | Cynthiana, | County | 91,545 50,000     | 604,600 | ewater |
| e}*** | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            | City   | 2,874  50,000     | 970,000 | Other  |
| >     | Daviess    |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | County     | City   | 9,014  50,000     | 582,000 | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | Ho         | City   | 5,692  50,000     | 291,000 |        |
|  2003 | dgenville, |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | City of    | City   | 11,352  50,000    | 1,      | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    | 358,000 | Water  |
|  2002 | Law        | County | 11,766  50,000    |         |        |
| >     | renceburg, |        |                    | 3,      | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        | 7 entities        | 492,000 | ewater |
|  2002 |            |        | 50,000             |         |        |
| >     | London,    |        |                    | 216,800 | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        | 1 entities 50,000 |         | ewater |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | \$      |        |
| >     | Somerset,  |        | 0 entities Special | 8,      | Dr     |
| >     | City of    |        | Dist.              | 731,200 | inking |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | total   | Water  |
| >     | Spencer    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | County     |        |                    | 7,      |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 761,200 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 970,000 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0       |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| *     | Corinth,   | City   | 14,054  50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| **[Mi | City of    |        |                    | 477,000 | ewater |
| ssiss |            | Town   | 1,810  50,000     |         |        |
| ippi] | F          |        |                    | 146,634 | Wast   |
| {.und | armington, | City   | 4,750  50,000     |         | ewater |
| erlin | Town of    |        |                    | 1,      |        |
| e}*** |            | City   | 71,127 50,000     | 318,332 | Wast   |
|       | Flowood,   |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | City of    | City   | 71,127 50,000     | 260,200 |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Gulfport,  | City   | 184,256 50,000    | 192,900 | inking |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | Water  |
|  2004 |            | County | 9,740  50,000     | 470,500 |        |
| >     | Gulfport,  |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    | County | 9,740  50,000     | 3,      | ewater |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 880,000 |        |
| >     | Jackson,   | Town   | 408  50,000       |         | Dr     |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 867,300 | inking |
|  2003 |            | City   | 7,006  50,000     |         | Water  |
| >     | Jefferson  |        |                    | 62,400  |        |
| >     | County     | City   | 13,337  50,000    |         | Dr     |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 588,000 | inking |
| >     | Jefferson  | City   | 39,968  50,000    |         | Water  |
| >     | County     |        |                    | 260,200 |        |
|  2002 |            | City   | 17,225  50,000    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Lake, Town |        |                    | 867,300 | ewater |
| >     | of         | City   | 10,535  50,000    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 2,      | Wast   |
| >     | L          | City   | 34,211  50,000    | 910,000 | ewater |
| >     | ouisville, |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | City of    | City   | 34,211  50,000    | 567,500 | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | McComb,    |        | 13 entities       | 873,000 | Water  |
|  2003 | City of    |        | 50,000             |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 433,700 | Wast   |
| >     | Meridian,  |        | 3 entities 50,000 |         | ewater |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    | \$15,   |        |
| >     |            |        | 0 entities Special | 174,966 | Wast   |
| >     | Ocean      |        | Dist.              | total   | ewater |
|  2003 | Springs,   |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 14,     | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    | 251,366 | ewater |
|  2003 | Picayune,  |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    | 923,600 | inking |
|  2002 | Tupelo,    |        |                    | large   | Water  |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 0       | Wast   |
|  2002 | Tupelo,    |        |                    | SpDist  | ewater |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[  | Cary, Town | Town   | 94,536 50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| North | of         |        |                    | 346,900 | ewater |
| Caro  |            | County | 24,298  50,000    |         |        |
| lina] | Cherokee   |        |                    | 1,      | Dr     |
| {.und | County     | Town   | 4,612  50,000     | 261,000 | inking |
| erlin |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| e}*** | Granite    | City   | 16,095  50,000    | 173,500 |        |
|       | Falls,     |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Town of    | City   | 16,095  50,000    | 1,      | inking |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 440,500 | Water  |
| >     | Henderson, | Town   | 909  50,000       |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 433,700 | Dr     |
|  2002 |            | Town   | 18,823  50,000    |         | inking |
| >     | Henderson, |        |                    | 433,700 | Water  |
| >     | City of    | Town   | 18,823  50,000    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 346,900 | Dr     |
| >     | Highlands, | S      | 2,226  50,000     |         | inking |
| >     | Town of    | pecial |                    | 470,500 | Water  |
|  2002 |            | Di     | 46,564  50,000    |         |        |
| >     | Mo         | strict |                    | 867,300 | Wast   |
| >     | oresville, |        | 46,564  50,000    |         | ewater |
|  2003 | Town of    | Town   |                    | 970,000 |        |
| >     |            |        | 123,677 50,000    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Mo         | County |                    | 650,500 | inking |
|  2003 | oresville, |        | 10 entities       |         | Water  |
| >     | Town of    | County | 50,000             | 144,600 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2003 | Neuse      | County | 2 entities 50,000 | 654,700 | inking |
| >     | Regional   |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Water      |        | 1 entities Special | \$      |        |
|  2002 |            |        | Dist.              | 8,      | Wast   |
| >     | Pittsboro, |        |                    | 193,800 | ewater |
| >     | Town of    |        |                    | total   |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Richmond   |        |                    | 6,      | ewater |
| >     | County     |        |                    | 324,900 |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | small   | Dr     |
| >     | Richmond   |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | County     |        |                    | 1,      | Water  |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 001,600 |        |
| >     | Union      |        |                    | large   | Dr     |
| >     | County     |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 867,300 | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | inking |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[  | Berkeley   | County | 142,651 50,000    | \$      | Dr     |
| South | County     |        |                    | 470,500 | inking |
| Caro  |            | County | 142,651 50,000    |         | Water  |
| lina] | Berkeley   |        |                    | 433,700 |        |
| {.und | County     | City   | 96,650 50,000     |         | Dr     |
| erlin |            |        |                    | 1,      | inking |
| e}*** | C          | City   | 96,650 50,000     | 350,000 | Water  |
|       | harleston, |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    | S      | 30,248  50,000    | 867,300 | Wast   |
|  2002 |            | pecial |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | C          | Di     | 379,616 50,000    | 433,700 |        |
| >     | harleston, | strict |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2003 | City of    |        | 1,625  50,000     | 873,000 | ewater |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     | Charlotte  |        | 69,567 50,000     | 1,      | Wast   |
|  2004 |            | County |                    | 940,000 | ewater |
| >     | Florence,  |        | 69,567 50,000     |         |        |
| >     | City of    | Town   |                    | 164,800 | Dr     |
|  2003 |            |        | 47,609  50,000    |         | inking |
| >     | Greenville | County |                    | 970,000 | Water  |
| >     | County     |        | 22,759  50,000    |         |        |
|  2003 |            | County |                    | 873,000 | Wast   |
| >     | Jackson,   |        | 22,759  50,000    |         | ewater |
| >     | Town of    | Town   |                    | 970,000 |        |
|  2002 |            |        | 5 entities        |         | Dr     |
| >     | Laurens    | City   | 50,000             | 385,700 | inking |
| >     | County     |        |                    |         | Water  |
|  2002 |            | City   | 7 entities 50,000 | 433,700 |        |
| >     | Laurens    |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | County     | S      | 2 entities Special | 1,      | inking |
|  2003 |            | pecial | Dist.              | 940,000 | Water  |
| >     | Mount      | Di     |                    |         |        |
| >     | Pleasant   | strict |                    | \$12,   | Dr     |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 105,400 | inking |
| >     | Myrtle     |        |                    | total   | Water  |
| >     | Beach,     |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | City of    |        |                    | 2,      | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    | 827,200 | ewater |
| >     | Myrtle     |        |                    | small   |        |
|  2002 | Beach,     |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 6,      | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    | 904,500 |        |
|  2004 | West       |        |                    | large   | Wast   |
| >     | Georgetown |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    | 2,      |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 373,700 | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    | SpDist  | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[  | Athens     | S      | 11,086  50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| Tenne | Utilities  | pecial |                    | 1,      | ewater |
| ssee] |            | Di     | 4,173  50,000     | 301,000 |        |
| {.und | Meigs      | strict |                    |         | Dr     |
| erlin | County     |        | 2 entities        | 241,100 | inking |
| e}*** |            | County | 50,000             |         | Water  |
|       | North      |        |                    | 519,000 |        |
| >     | Bledsoe    | S      | 0 entities 50,000 |         | Dr     |
|  2003 |            | pecial |                    | 390,300 | inking |
| >     | River Road | Di     | 4 entities Special |         | Water  |
| >     | Utility    | strict | Dist.              | 194,000 |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Dunlap,    | S      |                    | 873,000 | ewater |
| >     | City of    | pecial |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            | Di     |                    | \$      | Dr     |
| >     | Watauga    | strict |                    | 3,      | inking |
| >     | River      |        |                    | 518,400 | Water  |
|  2003 | Authority  | City   |                    | total   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            | S      |                    | 435,100 | inking |
|  2002 |            | pecial |                    | small   | Water  |
| >     |            | Di     |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | strict |                    | 0 large |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 3,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 083,300 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***R  | Breese,    | City   | 4,048  50,000     | \$      | Dr     |
| EGION | City of    |        |                    | 346,900 | inking |
| 5***  |            | City   | 4,048  50,000     |         | water  |
|       | Breese,    |        |                    | 289,300 |        |
| ***   | City of    | S      | 776  50,000       |         | Not    |
| [Illi |            | pecial |                    | 485,000 | Clas   |
| nois] | C          | Di     | 904,161 50,000    |         | sified |
| {.und | lark-Edgar | strict |                    | 173,500 |        |
| erlin |            |        | 2,434  50,000     |         | Dr     |
| e}*** | Dallas     | S      |                    | 313,400 | inking |
|       | Rural      | pecial | 3,460  50,000     |         | Water  |
| >     |            | Di     |                    | 431,000 |        |
|  2003 | Downs,     | strict | 3,460  50,000     |         | Not    |
| >     | Village of |        |                    | 482,100 | Clas   |
| >     |            | V      | 3,628  50,000     |         | sified |
|  2004 | DuPage     | illage |                    | 433,700 |        |
| >     | County     |        | 1,414  50,000     |         | Wast   |
| >     |            | County |                    | 482,100 | ewater |
|  2002 | Forsyth,   |        | 3,029  50,000     |         |        |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    | 433,700 | Dr     |
| >     |            |        | 5,391  50,000     |         | inking |
|  2003 | Galena,    | City   |                    | 433,700 | Water  |
| >     | City of    |        | 5,391  50,000     |         |        |
| >     |            | City   |                    | 173,500 | Not    |
|  2004 | Galena,    |        | 5,391  50,000     |         | Clas   |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    | 433,700 | sified |
| >     |            |        | 12,193  50,000    |         |        |
|  2003 | G          | V      |                    | 470,500 | Wast   |
| >     | eorgetown, | illage | 13,295  50,000    |         | ewater |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 433,700 |        |
|  2004 |            | City   | 644,356 50,000    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Granville, |        |                    | 337,500 | ewater |
| >     | Village of | S      | 4,745  50,000     |         |        |
|  2003 |            | pecial |                    | 242,500 | Dr     |
| >     | Hamilton,  | Di     | 18,558  50,000    |         | inking |
| >     | City of    | strict |                    | 216,800 | Water  |
|  2004 |            |        | 2,700  50,000     |         |        |
| >     | Holland    | V      |                    | 433,700 | Dr     |
| >     | Regional   | illage | 43,768  50,000    |         | inking |
|  2003 | Water      |        |                    | 970,000 | Water  |
| >     |            | V      | 43,768  50,000    |         |        |
| >     | Johnsburg, | illage |                    | 485,000 | Not    |
|  2003 | Village of |        | 9,841  50,000     |         | Clas   |
| >     |            | V      |                    | 873,000 | sified |
| >     | Johnsburg, | illage | 5,471  50,000     |         |        |
|  2003 | Village of |        |                    | 470,500 | Dr     |
| >     |            | V      |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Johnsburg, | illage |                    | 433,700 | Water  |
|  2003 | Village of |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | V      |                    | 485,000 | Wast   |
| >     | Justice,   | illage |                    |         | ewater |
|  2002 | Village of |        |                    | 607,100 |        |
| >     |            | County |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | La Grange  |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 | Park,      | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     | Village of |        |                    |         | Not    |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         | Clas   |
|  2004 | Lake       |        |                    |         | sified |
| >     | County     | V      |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | illage |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2002 | Lawr       |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | enceville, | City   |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            | City   |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Macomb,    |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    |         | Water  |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Metamora,  | V      |                    |         | Other  |
| >     | Village of | illage |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Moline,    |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Moline,    |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | Water  |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Monmoth    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2002 | M          |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | ontgomery, |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Village of |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|       |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|       |            |        |                    |         | inking |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[  | Orland     | V      | 51,077 50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| Illin | Park,      | illage |                    | 470,500 | ewater |
| ois - | Village of |        | 9,077  50,000     |         |        |
| cont] |            | City   |                    | 485,000 | Dr     |
| {.und | Paris,     |        | 111,454 50,000    |         | inking |
| erlin | City of    | City   |                    | 337,500 | Water  |
| e}*** |            |        | 1,728  50,000     |         |        |
|       | Sp         | City   |                    | 482,100 | Wast   |
| >     | ringfield, |        | 23 entities       |         | ewater |
|  2002 | City of    |        | 50,000             | \$13,   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 145,700 | Not    |
| >     | Virginia,  |        | 4 entities 50,000 | total   | Clas   |
|  2002 | City of    |        |                    |         | sified |
| >     |            |        | 3 entities Special | 10,     |        |
| >     |            |        | Dist.              | 380,800 |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 672,700 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 092,200 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| **    | Carmel,    | City   | 37,733  50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| *[Ind | City of    |        |                    | 291,000 | ewater |
| iana] |            | City   | 37,733  50,000    |         |        |
| {.und | Carmel,    |        |                    | 650,500 | Dr     |
| erlin | City of    | City   | 205,727 50,000    |         | inking |
| e}*** |            |        |                    | 873,000 | Water  |
|       | Fort       | City   | 25,363  50,000    |         |        |
| >     | Wayne,     |        |                    | 650,500 | MS4    |
|  2002 | City of    | Town   | 30,560  50,000    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 470,500 | Wast   |
| >     | Hobart,    | City   | 7,845  50,000     |         | ewater |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    | 22,550  |        |
| >     |            | County | 105,848 50,000    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Me         |        |                    | 433,700 | ewater |
|  2002 | rrillville | Town   | 9,293  50,000     |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 611,100 | Wast   |
| >     | Tell City  |        | 6 entities        |         | ewater |
|  2003 |            |        | 50,000             | \$      |        |
| >     | Vigo       |        |                    | 4,      | Wast   |
| >     | County     |        | 2 entities 50,000 | 002,850 | ewater |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | total   |        |
| >     | Westfield, |        | 0 entities Special |         | Wast   |
| >     | Town of    |        | Dist.              | 2,      | ewater |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 696,150 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 306,700 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0       |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***   | Almont,    | V      | 2,803  50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| [Mich | Village of | illage |                    | 654,800 | ewater |
| igan] |            |        | 3,462  50,000     |         |        |
| {.und | Bad Axe,   | City   |                    | 873,000 | Dr     |
| erlin | City of    |        | 3,462  50,000     |         | inking |
| e}*** |            | City   |                    | 260,200 | Water  |
|       | Bad Axe,   |        | 951,270 50,000    |         |        |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    | 346,900 | Dr     |
|  2002 |            |        | 951,270 50,000    |         | inking |
| >     | Detroit,   | City   |                    | 470,500 | Water  |
| >     | City of    |        | 10,423  50,000    |         |        |
|  2002 |            | City   |                    | 1,      | Not    |
| >     | Detroit,   |        | 436,141 50,000    | 455,000 | Clas   |
| >     | City of    | County |                    |         | sified |
|  2003 |            |        | 436,141 50,000    | 970,000 |        |
| >     | F          | County |                    |         | Not    |
| >     | armington, |        | 197,800 50,000    | 433,700 | Clas   |
|  2003 | City of    | City   |                    |         | sified |
| >     |            |        | 197,800 50,000    | 873,000 |        |
| >     | Genesee    | City   |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 | County     |        | 197,800 50,000    | 650,500 | ewater |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     | Genesee    |        | 77,654 50,000     | 723,200 | Wast   |
|  2002 | County     | County |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        | 36,079  50,000    | 241,100 |        |
| >     | Grand      | County |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 | Rapids,    |        | 4,576  50,000     | 964,300 | ewater |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        | 1,194,156 50,000  | 2,      | CSO    |
|  2003 | Grand      | County |                    | 910,000 |        |
| >     | Rapids,    |        | 1,194,156 50,000  |         | Not    |
| >     | City of    | County |                    | 2,      | Clas   |
|  2002 |            |        | 32,338  50,000    | 109,800 | sified |
| >     | Grand      | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     | Rapids,    |        | 2,061,162 50,000  | 867,300 | Not    |
|  2003 | City of    | County |                    |         | Clas   |
| >     |            |        | 2,061,162 50,000  | 867,300 | sified |
| >     | Grand      | County |                    |         |        |
|  2004 | Traverse   |        | 61,799 50,000     | 1,      | Not    |
| >     | County     | S      |                    | 746,000 | Clas   |
| >     |            | pecial | 2,061,162 50,000  |         | sified |
|  2004 | Huron      | Di     |                    | 867,300 |        |
| >     |            | strict | 7 entities        |         | Dr     |
| >     | Negaunee,  |        | 50,000             | 192,900 | inking |
|  2004 | City of    | City   |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        | 14 entities        | 731,299 |        |
| >     | Oakland    | County | 50,000            |         | Wast   |
|  2002 | County     |        |                    | 964,300 | ewater |
| >     |            |        | 1 entities Special |         |        |
| >     | Oakland    |        | Dist.              | \$20,   | CSO    |
|  2002 | County     |        |                    | 172,399 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | total   | CSO    |
| >     | Port       |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | Huron,     |        |                    | 7,      | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 984,600 | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   |        |
|  2003 | Wayne      |        |                    |         | Other  |
| >     | County     |        |                    | 11,     |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 994,899 | Other  |
|  2002 | Wayne      |        |                    | large   |        |
| >     | County     |        |                    |         | Not    |
| >     |            |        |                    | 192,900 | Clas   |
|  2003 | Saginaw    |        |                    | SpDist  | sified |
| >     | Chippewa   |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Tribe      |        |                    |         | Not    |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         | Clas   |
| >     | Saginaw,   |        |                    |         | sified |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | Other  |
| >     | Wayne      |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | County     |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[  | Mille Lacs | County | 22,330  50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| Minne |            |        |                    | 970,000 | ewater |
| sota] | Mille Lacs | County | 22,330  50,000    |         |        |
| {.und |            | /Tribe |                    | 1,      | Wast   |
| erlin |            |        | 2 entities        | 012,500 | ewater |
| e}*** |            |        | 50,000             |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | \$      |        |
| >     |            |        | 0 entities 50,000 | 1,      |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 982,500 |        |
| >     |            |        | 0 entities Special | total   |        |
| >     |            |        | Dist.              |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 982,500 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | small   |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0 large |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0       |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[  | Akron,     | City   | 217,074 50,000    | \$      | CSO    |
| Ohio] | City of    |        |                    | 470,500 |        |
| {.und |            | City   | 217,074 50,000    |         | CSO    |
| erlin | Akron,     |        |                    | 970,000 |        |
| e}*** | City of    | City   | 217,074 50,000    |         | CSO    |
|       |            |        |                    | 867,300 |        |
| >     | Akron,     | V      | 707  50,000       |         | Dr     |
|  2002 | City of    | illage |                    | 173,500 | inking |
| >     |            |        | 2,574  50,000     |         | Water  |
| >     | Amanda,    | V      |                    | 485,000 |        |
|  2002 | Village of | illage | 331,285 50,000    |         | Not    |
| >     |            |        |                    | 433,700 | Clas   |
| >     | Byesville  | City   | 144,742 50,000    |         | sified |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
| >     | C          | County | 6,944  50,000     | 676,474 | Dr     |
| >     | incinnati, |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2003 | City of    | City   | 42,084  50,000    | 465,600 | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Clark      | County | 42,084  50,000    | 679,000 | Wast   |
|  2002 | County     |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            | County | 11,341  50,000    | 482,100 |        |
| >     | Delphos,   |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2003 | City of    | City   | 147,886 50,000    | 103,000 | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Fulton     | County |                    | 346,900 |        |
|  2002 | County     |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | Fulton     |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | County     |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | Galion,    |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | City of    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | Greene     |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 | County     |        |                    |         | Not    |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Clas   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | sified |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[O | Haskins,   | V      | 638  50,000       | \$      | Not    |
| hio - | Village of | illage |                    | 289,300 | Clas   |
| cont] |            |        | 35,335  50,000    |         | sified |
| {.und | Lancaster, | City   |                    | 720,700 |        |
| erlin | City of    |        | 533  50,000       |         | Wast   |
| e}*** |            | V      |                    | 376,000 | ewater |
|       | La         | illage | 998  50,000       |         |        |
| >     | urelville, |        |                    | 727,500 | Wast   |
|  2004 | Village of | V      | 7,226  50,000     |         | ewater |
| >     |            | illage |                    | 698,400 |        |
| >     | Luckey,    |        | 31,325  50,000    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 | Village of | City   |                    | 192,500 | ewater |
| >     |            |        | 3,326  50,000     |         |        |
| >     | Martins    | City   |                    | 289,300 | Dr     |
|  2002 | Ferry,     |        | 299  50,000       |         | inking |
| >     | City of    | V      |                    | 650,500 | Water  |
| >     |            | illage | 299  50,000       |         |        |
|  2002 | Massillon, |        |                    | 173,500 | Wast   |
| >     | City of    | V      | 9,318  50,000     |         | ewater |
| >     |            | illage |                    | 325,200 |        |
|  2002 | Mi         |        | 16,369  50,000    |         | Not    |
| >     | llersburg, | V      |                    | 867,300 | Clas   |
| >     | Village of | illage | 40,985  50,000    |         | sified |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 727,500 |        |
| >     | M          | City   | 52,727 50,000     |         | Wast   |
| >     | orristown, |        |                    | 86,700  | ewater |
|  2004 | Village of | City   | 1,966  50,000     |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 650,500 | Wast   |
| >     | M          | County | 6,391  50,000     |         | ewater |
|  2003 | orristown, |        |                    | 485,000 |        |
| >     | Village of | County | 6,391  50,000     |         | Not    |
| >     |            |        |                    | 607,100 | Clas   |
|  2003 | Napoleon,  | V      | 1,549  50,000     |         | sified |
| >     | City of    | illage |                    | 1,      |        |
| >     |            |        | 510  50,000       | 928,600 | Dr     |
|  2003 | North      | City   |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Canton,    |        | 313,619 50,000    | 482,100 | Water  |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        | 313,619 50,000    | 433,700 | Wast   |
| >     | Ottawa     | S      |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | County     | pecial | 313,619 50,000    | 1,      |        |
|  2002 |            | Di     |                    | 261,000 | Wast   |
| >     | Pickaway   | strict | 225,116 50,000    |         | ewater |
| >     | County     |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|  2003 |            | V      | 11,613  50,000    | 561,200 | Dr     |
| >     | Pomeroy,   | illage |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Village of |        | 24 entities       | 964,300 | Water  |
|  2003 |            | V      | 50,000             |         |        |
| >     | Port       | illage |                    | 296,450 | Wast   |
| >     | Clinton,   |        | 11 entities        |         | ewater |
|  2002 | City of    | City   | 50,000            | 82,635  |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | CSO    |
| >     | Port       | City   | 1 entities Special | \$22,   |        |
|  2003 | Clinton,   |        | Dist.              | 030,059 | Not    |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    | total   | Clas   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | sified |
|  2004 | Shawnee    | County |                    | 11,     |        |
| >     | Hills      |        |                    | 166,935 | Dr     |
| >     | s          | City   |                    | small   | inking |
|  2004 | ubdivision |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | 8,      |        |
| >     | Somerset,  |        |                    | 934,524 | Dr     |
|  2003 | Village of |        |                    | large   | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Spring     |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|  2002 | Valley,    |        |                    | 928,600 | Wast   |
| >     | Village of |        |                    | SpDist  | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | Toledo,    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 | Toledo,    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | Toledo,    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | Trumbell   |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|       | County     |        |                    |         | inking |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
|       | Urbana,    |        |                    |         |        |
|       | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[  | Brokaw,    | V      | 107  50,000       | \$      | Not    |
| Wisco | City of    | illage |                    | 970,000 | Clas   |
| nsin] |            |        | 198  50,000       |         | sified |
| {.und | Curtiss,   | V      |                    | 325,200 |        |
| erlin | Village of | illage | 81,855 50,000     |         | Wast   |
| e}*** |            |        |                    | 970,000 | ewater |
|       | Racine,    | City   | 81,855 50,000     |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 867,300 | Dr     |
|  2002 |            | City   | 18,435  50,000    |         | inking |
| >     | Racine,    |        |                    | 1,      | Water  |
| >     | City of    | City   | 3 entities        | 040,800 |        |
|  2003 |            |        | 50,000             |         | Dr     |
| >     | Wisconsin  |        |                    | \$      | inking |
| >     | Rapids,    |        | 2 entities 50,000 | 4,      | Water  |
|  2002 | City of    |        |                    | 173,300 |        |
| >     |            |        | 0 entities Special | total   | Not    |
| >     |            |        | Dist.              |         | Clas   |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 2,      | sified |
| >     |            |        |                    | 336,000 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 837,300 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0       |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***R  | Fort       | S      | 0 entities        | \$      | Not    |
| EGION | Chaffee    | pecial | 50,000             | 289,300 | Clas   |
| 6***  |            | Di     |                    |         | sified |
|       |            | strict | 0 entities 50,000 | \$      |        |
| ***   |            |        |                    | 289,300 |        |
| [Arka |            |        | 1 entities Special | total   |        |
| nsas] |            |        | Dist.              |         |        |
| {.und |            |        |                    | 0 small |        |
| erlin |            |        |                    |         |        |
| e}*** |            |        |                    | 0 large |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 289,300 |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[  | Bayou      | S      | 8,757  50,000     | \$      | Dr     |
| Louis | Lafourche  | pecial |                    | 194,000 | inking |
| iana] |            | Di     | 8,757  50,000     |         | Water  |
| {.und | Denham     | strict |                    | 470,500 |        |
| erlin | Springs,   |        | 227,818 50,000    |         | Wast   |
| e}*** | City of    | City   |                    | 192,900 | ewater |
|       |            |        | 227,818 50,000    |         |        |
| >     | Denham     | City   |                    | 485,000 | Not    |
|  2002 | springs,   |        | 17,639  50,000    |         | Clas   |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    | 758,900 | sified |
| >     |            |        | 455,466 50,000    |         |        |
|  2002 | Baton      | City   |                    | 433,700 | Wast   |
| >     | Rouge,     |        | 71,757 50,000     |         | ewater |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    | 758,900 |        |
|  2004 |            |        | 53,107 50,000     |         | Wast   |
| >     | Baton      | Parish |                    | 758,900 | ewater |
| >     | Rouge,     |        | 32,623  50,000    |         |        |
|  2002 | City of    | City   |                    | 723,200 | Wast   |
| >     |            |        | 32,623  50,000    |         | ewater |
| >     | Hammond,   | City   |                    | 291,000 |        |
|  2003 | City of    |        | 484,674 50,000    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            | City   |                    | 173,500 | ewater |
| >     | Jefferson  |        | 484,674 50,000    |         |        |
|  2003 | Parish     | City   |                    | 385,700 | Wast   |
| >     |            |        | 484,674 50,000    |         | ewater |
| >     | Lake       | City   |                    | 1,      |        |
|  2003 | Charles,   |        | 200,145 50,000    | 940,000 | Not    |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    |         | Clas   |
| >     |            |        | 200,145 50,000    | 867,300 | sified |
|  2003 | Monroe,    | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        | 25,695  50,000    | 433,650 | Not    |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         | Clas   |
|  2004 | New Iberia |        | 67,229 50,000     | 771,400 | sified |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     | New Iberia |        | 48,072  50,000    | 216,800 | Wast   |
|  2002 |            | City   |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | New        |        | 48,072  50,000    | 771,400 |        |
| >     | Orleans,   | S      |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2003 | City of    | pecial | 21,216  50,000    | 216,800 | ewater |
| >     |            | Di     |                    |         |        |
| >     | New        | strict | 43,044  50,000    | 873,000 | Wast   |
|  2004 | Orleans,   |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | City of    | Parish | 43,044  50,000    | 216,800 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 | New        | Parish | 48,583  50,000    | 86,700  | ewater |
| >     | Orleans,   |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    | Parish | 6,989  50,000     | 194,000 | Wast   |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | S          | Parish | 14,431  50,000    | 867,300 |        |
| >     | hreveport, |        |                    |         | Not    |
|  2003 | City of    | Parish | 14 entities       | 173,500 | Clas   |
| >     |            |        | 50,000             |         | sified |
| >     | S          | Parish |                    | 675,000 |        |
|  2004 | hreveport, |        | 11 entities        |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    | Parish | 50,000            | 97,000  | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | Slidell,   | City   | 2 entities Special | \$14,   | Not    |
| >     | City of    |        | Dist.              | 026,850 | Clas   |
| >     |            | City   |                    | total   | sified |
|  2004 | South      |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Central    |        |                    | 4,      | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    | 961,700 | ewater |
|  2003 | St.        |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     | Bernard    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Parish     |        |                    | 8,      | ewater |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 099,750 |        |
| >     | St.        |        |                    | large   | Wast   |
| >     | Charles    |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 | Parish     |        |                    | 965,400 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | SpDist  | Wast   |
| >     | St.        |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 | Charles    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Parish     |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2002 | St. James  |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Parish     |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 | St. John   |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | the        |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Baptist    |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 | Parish     |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Not    |
| >     | St. John   |        |                    |         | Clas   |
|  2004 | the        |        |                    |         | sified |
| >     | Baptist    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Parish     |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|       | St. Martin |        |                    |         |        |
|       | Parish     |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       | St.        |        |                    |         |        |
|       | Ma         |        |                    |         |        |
|       | rtinville, |        |                    |         |        |
|       | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       | Thibodaux, |        |                    |         |        |
|       | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| **    | Carnuel    | S      | 35,582  50,000    | \$      | Dr     |
| *[New | Mutual     | pecial |                    | 97,000  | inking |
| Me    |            | Di     | 556,678 50,000    |         | Water  |
| xico] | Alamogordo | strict |                    | 867,300 |        |
| {.und |            |        | 556,678 50,000    |         | Dr     |
| erlin | Bernalillo | City   |                    | 1,      | inking |
| e}*** | County     |        | 556,678 50,000    | 928,600 | Water  |
|       |            | County |                    |         |        |
| >     | Bernalillo |        | 6,901  50,000     | 3,      | Not    |
|  2002 | County     | County |                    | 686,000 | Clas   |
| >     |            |        | 6,901  50,000     |         | sified |
| >     | Bernalillo | County |                    | 1,      |        |
|  2003 | County     |        | 556,678 50,000    | 734,700 | Wast   |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | Belen,     |        | 9,688  50,000     | 873,000 |        |
|  2004 | City of    | City   |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        | 9,688  50,000     | 433,700 | ewater |
| >     | Belen,     | County |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | City of    |        | 20,209  50,000    | 578,600 | Wast   |
| >     |            | S      |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | Bernalillo | pecial | 20,209  50,000    | 1,      |        |
|  2003 | County     | Di     |                    | 164,000 | Wast   |
| >     |            | strict | 7,698  50,000     |         | ewater |
| >     | Dona Ana   |        |                    | 867,300 |        |
|  2002 | Mutual     | City   | 129,292 50,000    |         | Not    |
| >     |            |        |                    | 964,300 | Clas   |
| >     | Espanola,  | City   | 8 entities        |         | sified |
|  2003 | City of    |        | 50,000             | 727,500 |        |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Espanola,  |        | 5 entities 50,000 | 433,700 | inking |
|  2004 | City of    | City   |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        | 3 entities Special | 173,500 |        |
| >     | Gallup,    | S      | Dist.              |         | Dr     |
|  2002 | City of    | pecial |                    | 1,      | inking |
| >     |            | Di     |                    | 309,500 | Water  |
| >     | Gallup,    | strict |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    | 291,000 | Dr     |
| >     |            | V      |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Greater    | illage |                    | \$16,   | Water  |
|  2004 | Chimayo    |        |                    | 129,700 |        |
| >     | Mutual     | County |                    | total   | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2002 | Ruidoso,   |        |                    | 5,      |        |
| >     | Village of |        |                    | 609,000 | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   | ewater |
|  2003 | Santa Fe   |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | County     |        |                    | 9,      | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    | 086,200 | inking |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | large   | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 1,      | Wast   |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 434,500 | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***   | Lawton,    | City   | 92,757 50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| [Okla | City of    |        |                    | 1,      | ewater |
| homa] |            | City   | 95,694 50,000     | 940,000 |        |
| {.und | Norman,    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| erlin | City of    | City   | 95,694 50,000     | 873,000 | ewater |
| e}*** |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       | Norman,    | City   | 95,694 50,000     | 1,      | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 301,000 | ewater |
|  2002 |            | City   | 6,899  50,000     |         |        |
| >     | Norman,    |        |                    | 192,900 | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        | 1 entities        |         | ewater |
|  2002 |            |        | 50,000             | 192,900 |        |
| >     | Seminole,  |        |                    |         | Not    |
| >     | City of    |        | 4 entities 50,000 | \$      | Clas   |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 4,      | sified |
| >     |            |        | 0 entities Special | 499,800 |        |
| >     |            |        | Dist.              | total   |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 192,900 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 4,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 306,900 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0       |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[T | Austin,    | City   | 656,562 50,000    | \$      | Not    |
| exas] | City of    |        |                    | 2,      | Clas   |
| {.und |            | City   | 113,866 50,000    | 073,200 | sified |
| erlin | Beaumont,  |        |                    |         |        |
| e}*** | City of    | City   | 3,542  50,000     | 470,500 | Wast   |
|       |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | Clifton    | City   | 1,491  50,000     | 327,400 |        |
|  2004 | City of    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            | City   | 139,722 50,000    | 327,400 | ewater |
| >     | Meridian,  |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | City of    | City   | 139,722 50,000    | 2,      | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    | 000,000 | ewater |
| >     | B          | City   | 1,188,580 50,000  |         |        |
|  2002 | rownsville |        |                    | 1,      | Other  |
| >     |            | City   | 22,413  50,000    | 987,000 |        |
| >     | B          |        |                    |         | Other  |
|  2002 | rownsville | City   | 1,802  50,000     | 867,300 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Dallas,    | County | 3,400,578 50,000  | 867,300 | ewater |
|  2002 | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | City   | 1,491  50,000     | 192,900 | Wast   |
| >     | Eagle      |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 | Pass, City | S      | 1,144,646 50,000  | 192,900 |        |
| >     | of         | pecial |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            | Di     | 1,144,646 50,000  | 433,700 | ewater |
|  2003 | Go         | strict |                    |         |        |
| >     | ldthwaite, |        | 113,726 50,000    | 260,200 | Wast   |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 |            |        | 5 entities        | 1,      |        |
| >     | Harris     | City   | 50,000             | 734,700 | Dr     |
| >     | County     |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2004 |            | S      | 9 entities 50,000 | 1,      | Water  |
| >     | Meridian,  | pecial |                    | 253,600 |        |
| >     | City of    | Di     | 2 entities Special |         | Not    |
|  2004 |            | strict | Dist.              | 242,500 | Clas   |
| >     | Port       |        |                    |         | sified |
| >     | Authur,    | City   |                    | 385,700 |        |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    | \$13,   | inking |
| >     | San        |        |                    | 616,300 | Water  |
|  2003 | Antonio    |        |                    | total   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Not    |
| >     | San        |        |                    | 2,      | Clas   |
|  2003 | Antonio    |        |                    | 148,700 | sified |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     | Tamina     |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2004 | Water      |        |                    | 10,     | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    | 964,900 |        |
| >     | Waco, City |        |                    | large   | Not    |
|  2002 | of         |        |                    |         | Clas   |
| >     |            |        |                    | 502,700 | sified |
| >     |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***R  | Carroll,   | City   | 10,106  50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| EGION | City of    |        |                    | 192,900 | ewater |
| 7***  |            | City   | 198,682 50,000    |         |        |
|       | Des        |        |                    | 1,      | Wast   |
| ***[  | Moines,    | City   | 198,682 50,000    | 925,500 | ewater |
| Iowa] | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| {.und |            | City   | 198,682 50,000    | 867,300 | Wast   |
| erlin | Des        |        |                    |         | ewater |
| e}*** | Moines,    | City   | 29,172  50,000    | 289,300 |        |
|       | City of    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            | City   | 29,172  50,000    | 2,      | ewater |
|  2004 | Des        |        |                    | 328,000 |        |
| >     | Moines,    | City   | 29,172  50,000    |         | Dr     |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 2,      | inking |
|  2002 |            | City   | 2,273  50,000     | 168,300 | Water  |
| >     | Mason      |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | City, City | City   | 85,013 50,000     | 578,600 | Dr     |
|  2003 | of         |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     |            | City   | 3,332  50,000     | 192,900 | Water  |
| >     | Mason      |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 | City, City |        | 6 entities        | 1,      | Dr     |
| >     | of         |        | 50,000             | 639,300 | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
|  2002 | Mason      |        | 4 entities 50,000 | 433,700 |        |
| >     | City, City |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | of         |        | 0 entities Special | \$10,   | ewater |
|  2003 |            |        | Dist.              | 615,800 |        |
| >     | Postville, |        |                    | total   | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 5,      |        |
| >     | Sioux      |        |                    | 894,400 | Wast   |
| >     | City, City |        |                    | small   | ewater |
|  2004 | of         |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 4,      |        |
| >     | West       |        |                    | 721,400 |        |
|  2004 | Liberty,   |        |                    | large   |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 0       |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| *     | Russell,   | City   | 4,696  50,000     | \$      | Dr     |
| **[Ka | City of    |        |                    | 970,000 | inking |
| nsas] |            | City   | 40,787  50,000    |         | Water  |
| {.und | H          |        |                    | 1,      |        |
| erlin | utchinson, | City   | 2,563  50,000     | 928,600 | Other  |
| e}*** | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            | City   | 17,190  50,000    | 433,700 | Dr     |
| >     | Herington, |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2002 | City of    | City   | 11,921  50,000    | 433,900 | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Newton,    | City   | 11,921  50,000    | 470,500 | Wast   |
|  2004 | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            | City   | 344,284 50,000    | 260,200 |        |
| >     | Ottawa,    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2003 | City of    |        | 6 entities        | 485,000 | ewater |
| >     |            |        | 50,000             |         |        |
| >     | Ottawa,    |        |                    | \$      | Wast   |
|  2004 | City of    |        | 1 entities 50,000 | 4,      | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    | 981,900 |        |
| >     | Wichita,   |        | 0 entities Special | total   | Wast   |
|  2002 | City of    |        | Dist.              |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    | 4,      |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 496,900 |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 485,000 |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0       |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***   | Bates      | County | 16,653  50,000    | \$      | Dr     |
| [Miss | County     |        |                    | 388,000 | inking |
| ouri] |            | City   | 9,143  50,000     |         | Water  |
| {.und | Bolivar,   |        |                    | 390,300 |        |
| erlin | City of    | County | 8,969  50,000     |         | Dr     |
| e}*** |            |        |                    | 303,600 | inking |
|       | Caldwell   | County | 37,051  50,000    |         | Water  |
| >     | county     |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|  2002 |            | City   | 35,349  50,000    | 455,000 | Dr     |
| >     | Camden     |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | County     | S      | 289  50,000       | 1,      | Water  |
|  2003 |            | pecial |                    | 455,000 |        |
| >     | Cape       | Di     | 198,099 50,000    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Girardeau, | strict |                    | 433,700 | ewater |
|  2003 | City of    |        | 198,099 50,000    |         |        |
| >     |            | S      |                    | 289,300 | MS4    |
| >     | Clarence   | pecial | 45,504  50,000    |         |        |
|  2002 | Cannon     | Di     |                    | 372,000 | Dr     |
| >     |            | strict | 45,504  50,000    |         | inking |
| >     | Duckett    |        |                    | 1,      | Water  |
|  2002 | Creek      | City   | 441,545 50,000    | 734,700 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Dudley,    | County | 12,155  50,000    | 242,500 | ewater |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | County | 12,155  50,000    | 1,      | Dr     |
| >     | Jefferson  |        |                    | 734,700 | inking |
|  2004 | County     | City   | 2,588  50,000     |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
| >     | Jefferson  | City   | 5,482  50,000     | 446,400 | Wast   |
|  2003 | County     |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            | City   | 2,604  50,000     | 1,      |        |
| >     | Joplin,    |        |                    | 940,000 | Wast   |
|  2003 | City of    | S      | 73,990 50,000     |         | ewater |
| >     |            | pecial |                    | 433,700 |        |
| >     | Joplin,    | Di     | 73,990 50,000     |         | MS4    |
|  2002 | City of    | strict |                    | 1,      |        |
| >     |            |        | 1,429  50,000     | 455,000 | Wast   |
| >     | Kansas     | City   |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 | City, City |        | 16,340  50,000    | 723,200 |        |
| >     | of         | City   |                    |         | MS4    |
| >     |            |        | 5,281  50,000     | 723,200 |        |
|  2004 | Duckett    | City   |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Creek      |        | 441,545 50,000    | 675,000 | ewater |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | Lebanon,   |        | 1,532  50,000     | 482,150 | Wast   |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        | 17 entities       | 242,500 |        |
|  2003 | Lebanon,   | S      | 50,000             |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    | pecial |                    | 963,700 | ewater |
| >     |            | Di     | 6 entities 50,000 |         |        |
|  2002 | Monroe     | strict |                    | 964,300 | Dr     |
| >     | City, City |        | 4 entities Special |         | inking |
| >     | of         | City   | Dist.              | 144,600 | Water  |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Pacific,   | City   |                    | 216,800 | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2004 |            | City   |                    | 303,600 |        |
| >     | Peculiar,  |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    | 1,      | inking |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 940,000 | Water  |
| >     | University | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     | of         |        |                    | 385,700 | Wast   |
|  2004 | Missouri   | City   |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    | \$21,   |        |
| >     | St.        | City   |                    | 838,650 | Wast   |
|  2002 | Joseph,    |        |                    | total   | ewater |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 12,     | Wast   |
|  2003 | St.        |        |                    | 654,250 | ewater |
| >     | Joseph,    |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 7,      | inking |
| >     | S          |        |                    | 785,200 | Water  |
| >     | teelville, |        |                    | large   |        |
|  2004 | city of    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    | 1,      | ewater |
| >     | Wa         |        |                    | 399,200 |        |
|  2003 | rrensburg, |        |                    | SpDist  | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | Warrenton, |        |                    |         | MS4    |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2002 | Kansas     |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | City, City |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | of         |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       | Wright     |        |                    |         |        |
|       | City, City |        |                    |         |        |
|       | of         |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***   | Lincoln,   | City   | 225,581 50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| [Nebr | City of    |        |                    | 970,000 | ewater |
| aska] |            | City   | 225,581 50,000    |         |        |
| {.und | Lincoln,   |        |                    | 346,900 | CSO    |
| erlin | City of    | City   | 225,581 50,000    |         |        |
| e}*** |            |        |                    | 361,600 | CSO    |
|       | Lincoln,   | City   | 11,925 50,000     |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 385,700 | Wast   |
|  2002 |            |        | 1 entities        |         | ewater |
| >     | South      |        | 50,000             | \$      |        |
| >     | Sioux      |        |                    | 2,      |        |
|  2003 | City, City |        | 3 entities 50,000 | 064,200 |        |
| >     | of         |        |                    | total   |        |
| >     |            |        | 0 entities Special |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        | Dist.              | 385,700 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 678,500 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0       |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***R  | Englewood  | S      | 12,344  50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| EGION | /Littleton | pecial |                    | 964,300 | ewater |
| 8***  |            | Di     | 978  50,000       |         |        |
|       | Montrose,  | strict |                    | 970,000 | Wast   |
| ***   | City of    |        | 978  50,000       |         | ewater |
| [Colo |            | City   |                    | 181,400 |        |
| rado] | Mountain   |        | 734  50,000       |         | Other  |
| {.und | Village    | Town   |                    | 265,323 |        |
| erlin |            |        | 4 entities        |         | Dr     |
| e}*** | Mountain   | Town   | 50,000             | 1,      | inking |
|       | Village    |        |                    | 440,500 | Water  |
| >     |            | Town   | 0 entities 50,000 |         |        |
|  2004 | Nucla      |        |                    | \$      | Dr     |
| >     |            |        | 1 entities Special | 3,      | inking |
| >     |            |        | Dist.              | 821,523 | Water  |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | total   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 2,      |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 857,223 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 0 large |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 964,300 |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| **    | Belgrade,  | City   | 5,728  50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| *[Mon | City of    |        |                    | 1,      | ewater |
| tana] |            | City   | 2,753  50,000     | 301,000 |        |
| {.und | Conrad,    |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| erlin | City of    | S      | 3,705  50,000     | 1,      | inking |
| e}*** |            | pecial |                    | 301,000 | Water  |
|       | Florence   | Di     | 25,780  50,000    |         |        |
| >     | County     | strict |                    | 1,      | Wast   |
|  2003 |            |        | 55,716 50,000     | 940,000 | ewater |
| >     | Hamilton,  | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        | 1,396  50,000     | 385,700 | Dr     |
|  2003 |            | City   |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Helena,    |        | 57,053 50,000     | 289,300 | Water  |
| >     | City of    | County |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        | 2,177  50,000     | 1,      | Dr     |
| >     | Lewis and  | Town   |                    | 455,000 | inking |
| >     | Clark      |        | 114  50,000       |         | Water  |
|  2004 | County     | City   |                    | 337,500 |        |
| >     |            |        | 7 entities        |         | Wast   |
| >     | Manhattan, | S      | 50,000             | 1,      | ewater |
|  2004 | City of    | pecial |                    | 301,000 |        |
| >     |            | Di     | 2 entities 50,000 |         | Wast   |
| >     | Missoula,  | strict |                    | 964,300 | ewater |
|  2002 | City of    |        | 3 entities Special |         |        |
| >     |            | City   | Dist.              | 337,500 | Wast   |
| >     | MO River   |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2004 | Watershed  | S      |                    | 867,300 |        |
| >     |            | pecial |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Red Lodge, | Di     |                    | 289,300 | inking |
|  2003 | City of    | strict |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | \$10,   |        |
| >     | U          | City   |                    | 768,900 | Dr     |
|  2004 | pper/Lower |        |                    | total   | inking |
| >     | River      |        |                    |         | water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | 4,      |        |
|  2004 | Wisdom,    |        |                    | 241,300 | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | small   | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 2,      | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    | 756,000 | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 3,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 771,600 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[  | Devils     | City   | 7,222  50,000     | \$      | Dr     |
| North | Lake, City |        |                    | 530,400 | inking |
| Da    | of         | S      | 4,516  50,000     |         | Water  |
| kota] |            | pecial |                    | 289,300 |        |
| {.und | Dickey     | Di     | 4,516  50,000     |         | Dr     |
| erlin | Rural      | strict |                    | 867,300 | inking |
| e}*** |            |        | 49,321  50,000    |         | Water  |
|       | Grafton,   | City   |                    | 867,800 |        |
| >     | City of    |        | 1,535  50,000     |         | Dr     |
|  2004 |            | City   |                    | 970,000 | inking |
| >     | Grafton,   |        | 1,535  50,000     |         | Water  |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    | 1,      |        |
|  2004 |            |        | 273  50,000       | 734,700 | Dr     |
| >     | Grand      | City   |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Forks,     |        | 12,512  50,000    | 482,100 | Water  |
|  2003 | City of    | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        | 8 entities        | 530,400 | Dr     |
| >     | Park       | City   | 50,000             |         | inking |
|  2004 | River,     |        |                    | 1,      | Water  |
| >     | City of    | City   | 0 entities 50,000 | 940,000 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2002 | Park       |        | 1 entities Special | \$      | inking |
| >     | River,     |        | Dist.              | 8,      | Water  |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 212,000 |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | total   | Dr     |
| >     | Riverdale, |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 7,      | Water  |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 922,700 |        |
| >     | Williston  |        |                    | small   | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 0 large | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 289,300 | Dr     |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | SpDist  | inking |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[  | Aberdeen   | City   | 24,658  50,000    | \$      | Dr     |
| South |            |        |                    | 2,      | inking |
| Da    | Box Elder  | City   | 2,841  50,000     | 000,000 | Water  |
| kota] |            |        |                    |         |        |
| {.und | Ce         | City   | 910  50,000       | 447,100 | Wast   |
| erlin | nterville, |        |                    |         | ewater |
| e}*** | City of    | City   | 644  50,000       | 670,600 |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Corsica,   | S      | 1,380  50,000     | 994,100 | inking |
|  2002 | City of    | pecial |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            | Di     | 1,164  50,000     | 295,200 |        |
| >     | Dakota     | strict |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2003 | Dunes      |        | 1,714  50,000     | 357,600 | inking |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Deadwood,  |        | 1,356  50,000     | 99,400  |        |
|  2003 | City of    | City   |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            |        | 1,844  50,000     | 447,100 | inking |
| >     | DeSmet,    | City   |                    |         | Water  |
|  2004 | City of    |        | 780  50,000       | 447,100 |        |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Elk Point, |        | 11,893  50,000    | 994,100 | inking |
|  2003 | City of    | City   |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        | 2,037  50,000     | 1,      |        |
| >     | Groton,    | City   |                    | 200,000 | Wast   |
|  2003 | City of    |        | 2,288  50,000     |         | ewater |
| >     |            | City   |                    | 447,100 |        |
| >     | Hartford,  |        | 13 entities       |         | Dr     |
|  2004 | City of    | City   | 50,000             | 994,100 | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Hill City  | City   | 0 entities 50,000 | 900,000 |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Huron,     |        | 1 entities Special | \$10,   | inking |
| >     | City of    |        | Dist.              | 293,500 | Water  |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | total   |        |
| >     | Lennox,    |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 9,      | inking |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 998,300 | Water  |
| >     | North      |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     | Sioux City |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 0 large | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 295,200 | Dr     |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | SpDist  | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|       |            |        |                    |         | inking |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[  | Blanding   | City   | 3,162  50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| Utah] |            |        |                    | 650,000 | ewater |
| {.und | Daggett    | County | 921  50,000       |         |        |
| erlin | County     |        |                    | 578,600 | Dr     |
| e}*** |            | S      | 42,670  50,000    |         | inking |
|       | Jordan     | pecial |                    | 679,000 | Water  |
| >     | Valley     | Di     | 1,958  50,000     |         |        |
|  2003 |            | strict |                    | 698,400 | Dr     |
| >     | Logan City |        | 77,226 50,000     |         | inking |
| >     |            | City   |                    | 2,      | Water  |
|  2004 | Monticello |        | 84,324 50,000     | 168,300 |        |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         | We     |
| >     | Ogden,     |        | 7,371  50,000     | 970,000 | tlands |
|  2002 | City of    | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        | 7,371  50,000     | 482,100 | Dr     |
| >     | Orem       | City   |                    |         | inking |
|  2002 |            |        | 25,011  50,000    | 433,700 | Water  |
| >     | Park City  | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        | 88,418 50,000     | 867,800 | MS4    |
|  2003 | Park City  | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        | 88,418 50,000     | 482,100 | Dr     |
| >     | Riverton,  | City   |                    |         | inking |
|  2002 | City of    |        | 88,418 50,000     | 242,500 | Water  |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     | Sandy City |        | 88,418 50,000     | 970,000 | Dr     |
|  2004 |            | City   |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Sandy City |        | 22,038  50,000    | 216,800 | Water  |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | Sandy City |        | 49,663  50,000    | 650,900 | Dr     |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Sandy City |        | 22,502  50,000    | 216,800 | Water  |
|  2004 |            | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     | South Salt |        | 22,502  50,000    | 216,800 | Dr     |
| >     | Lake, City | City   |                    |         | inking |
|  2004 | of         |        | 1,537  50,000     | 388,000 | Water  |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     | St.        |        | 12 entities       | 433,000 | MS4    |
|  2002 | George,    | City   | 50,000             |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 1,      | Dr     |
| >     |            | City   | 6 entities 50,000 | 693,800 | inking |
|  2002 | Tooele     |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | City       |        | 1 entities Special | \$13,   |        |
| >     |            |        | Dist.              | 038,600 | Dr     |
|  2003 | Tooele     |        |                    | total   | inking |
| >     | City       |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | 8,      |        |
|  2004 | Wendover   |        |                    | 827,300 | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 3,      |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 532,300 | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    | large   | inking |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | 679,000 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | SpDist  | Wast   |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Not    |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | Clas   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | sified |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | Not    |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Clas   |
|       |            |        |                    |         | sified |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|       |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***R  | Arizona    | S      | 35,883  50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| EGION | Water      | pecial |                    | 1,      | ewater |
| 9***  |            | Di     | 3,810  50,000     | 000,000 |        |
|       | Avondale,  | strict |                    |         | Not    |
| **    | City of    |        | 9,232  50,000     | 578,600 | Clas   |
| *[Ari |            | City   |                    |         | sified |
| zona] | Litchfield |        | 9,232  50,000     | 433,700 |        |
| {.und | Park       | City   |                    |         | Dr     |
| erlin |            |        | 202,705 50,000    | 1,      | inking |
| e}*** | Safford,   | City   |                    | 301,000 | Water  |
|       | City of    |        | 202,705 50,000    |         |        |
| >     |            | City   |                    | 580,500 | Wast   |
|  2002 | Safford,   |        | 4 entities        |         | ewater |
| >     | City of    | City   | 50,000             | 433,700 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2004 | S          | City   | 2 entities 50,000 | 964,300 | ewater |
| >     | cottsdale, |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    | S      | 2 entities Special | 289,300 | Dr     |
|  2003 |            | pecial | Dist.              |         | inking |
| >     | S          | Di     |                    | \$      | Water  |
| >     | cottsdale, | strict |                    | 5,      |        |
|  2003 | City of    | /Tribe |                    | 581,100 | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    | total   | inking |
| >     | White      |        |                    |         | Water  |
|  2004 | Mountain   |        |                    | 2,      |        |
| >     | Apache     |        |                    | 893,800 | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   | inking |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 398,000 |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | large   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 289,300 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[C | Apple      | Town   | 54,239 50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| alifo | Valley,    |        |                    | 485,000 | ewater |
| rnia] | Town of    | Town   | 54,239 50,000     |         |        |
| {.und |            |        |                    | 86,700  | Wast   |
| erlin | Apple      | City   | 53,054 50,000     |         | ewater |
| e}*** | Valley,    |        |                    | 1,      |        |
|       | Town of    | City   | 53,054 50,000     | 746,000 | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | inking |
|  2002 | Arcadia,   | City   | 53,054 50,000     | 1,      | Water  |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 301,000 |        |
| >     |            | City   | 36,664  50,000    |         | Dr     |
|  2003 | Arcadia,   |        |                    | 1,      | inking |
| >     | City of    | City   | 35,410  50,000    | 591,100 | Water  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | Arcadia,   | City   | 35,410  50,000    | 192,900 | Dr     |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     |            | City   | 3,597  50,000     | 654,800 | Water  |
|  2003 | Bell, City |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | of         | City   | 47,662  50,000    | 216,800 | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2004 | Brea, City | City   | 47,662  50,000    | 433,700 |        |
| >     | of         |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            | City   | 24,208  50,000    | 388,000 | ewater |
|  2004 | Brea, City |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | of         | City   | 24,208  50,000    | 192,900 | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2002 | Brisbane,  | City   | 26,128  50,000    | 216,800 |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            | City   | 51,884 50,000     | 192,900 | ewater |
|  2003 | Colton,    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 433,700 | MS4    |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | Colton,    |        |                    | 385,700 | Not    |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | Clas   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | sified |
|  2002 | Cudahy,    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2004 | Cudahy,    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 | Eureka,    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | Not    |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Clas   |
|  2004 | Folsom,    |        |                    |         | sified |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| *     | Fort       | City   | 7,026  50,000     | \$      | Not    |
| **[Ca | Bragg,     |        |                    | 241,100 | Clas   |
| lifor | City of    | City   | 165,196 50,000    |         | sified |
| nia - |            |        |                    | 350,000 |        |
| cont] | Garden     | City   | 57,746 50,000     |         | Other  |
| {.und | Grove,     |        |                    | 241,100 |        |
| erlin | City of    | City   | 62,582 50,000     |         | Other  |
| e}*** |            |        |                    | 242,500 |        |
|       | Gardena,   | City   | 189,594 50,000    |         | Other  |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 873,000 |        |
|  2004 |            | City   | 189,594 50,000    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Hesperia,  |        |                    | 867,300 | ewater |
| >     | City of    | City   | 23,727  50,000    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 607,100 | MS4    |
| >     | Huntington | City   | 23,727  50,000    |         |        |
| >     | Beach,     |        |                    | 873,000 | Wast   |
|  2004 | City of    | City   | 10,445  50,000    |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    | 523,800 |        |
| >     | Huntington | City   | 56,999 50,000     |         | Wast   |
|  2002 | Beach,     |        |                    | 385,700 | ewater |
| >     | City of    | City   | 107,323 50,000    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 433,700 | Dr     |
|  2002 | Laguna     | City   | 25,869  50,000    |         | inking |
| >     | Beach,     |        |                    | 485,000 | Water  |
| >     | City of    | City   | 14,351  50,000    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 192,900 | Dr     |
| >     | Laguna     | County | 247,289 50,000    |         | inking |
| >     | Beach,     |        |                    | 216,800 | Water  |
|  2003 | City of    | County | 17,130  50,000    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 242,500 | MS4    |
| >     | Lathrop,   | City   | 28,083  50,000    |         |        |
|  2002 | City of    |        |                    | 216,800 | No     |
| >     |            | S      | 188,856 50,000    |         | npoint |
| >     | Lodi, City | pecial |                    | 482,100 |        |
|  2002 | of         | Di     | 70,032 50,000     |         | Not    |
| >     |            | strict |                    | 873,000 | Clas   |
| >     | Downey,    |        | 103,298 50,000    |         | sified |
|  2004 | City of    | S      |                    | 650,500 |        |
| >     |            | pecial | 103,298 50,000    |         | Not    |
| >     | Los Banos, | Di     |                    | 242,500 | Clas   |
|  2003 | City of    | strict | 161,029 50,000    |         | sified |
| >     |            |        |                    | 867,300 |        |
| >     | Los Osos   | S      | 161,029 50,000    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 |            | pecial |                    | 216,800 | ewater |
| >     | Marin      | Di     | 170,358 50,000    |         |        |
| >     | County     | strict |                    | 192,900 | Wast   |
|  2004 |            |        | 63,428 50,000     |         | ewater |
| >     | Mariposa   | City   |                    | 238,500 |        |
| >     | County     |        |                    |         | Not    |
|  2003 |            | City   |                    | 238,500 | Clas   |
| >     | Maywood,   |        |                    |         | sified |
| >     | City of    | City   |                    | 771,400 |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | Dr     |
| >     | Mission    | City   |                    | 1,      | inking |
| >     | Springs    |        |                    | 647,900 | Water  |
|  2003 |            | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     | Mission    |        |                    | 485,000 | Not    |
| >     | Springs    | City   |                    |         | Clas   |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 242,500 | sified |
| >     | Mission    | S      |                    |         |        |
| >     | Springs    | pecial |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 |            | Di     |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | Modesto,   | strict |                    |         |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2003 |            | S      |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Newport    | pecial |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Beach,     | Di     |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | City of    | strict |                    |         | Other  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Norwalk,   | City   |                    |         | Other  |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         | Other  |
| >     | Norwalk,   |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    |         | Other  |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Oceanside, |        |                    |         | Dr     |
|  2004 | City of    |        |                    |         | inking |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Water  |
| >     | Oceanside, |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    |         | Not    |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Clas   |
| >     | Olivenhain |        |                    |         | sified |
|  2003 | Municipal  |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Other  |
| >     | Olivenhain |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 | Municipal  |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     | Oxnard     |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Pico       |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Rivera,    |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| *     | Placer     | County | 248,399 50,000    | \$      | Wast   |
| **[Ca | County     |        |                    | 824,500 | ewater |
| lifor |            | County | 248,399 50,000    |         |        |
| nia - | Placer     |        |                    | 1,      | Wast   |
| cont] | County     | City   | 80,865 50,000     | 734,700 | ewater |
| {.und |            |        |                    |         |        |
| erlin | Redding,   | City   | 80,865 50,000     | 470,500 | Wast   |
| e}*** | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
|       |            | City   | 80,865 50,000     | 433,700 |        |
| >     | Redding,   |        |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 | City of    | City   | 10,146  50,000    | 385,700 | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Redding,   | City   | 79,921 50,000     | 433,700 | Not    |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    |         | Clas   |
| >     |            | City   | 407,018 50,000    | 337,500 | sified |
| >     | Ripon,     |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | City of    | City   | 407,018 50,000    | 1,      | Dr     |
| >     |            |        |                    | 139,800 | inking |
| >     | Roseville, | City   | 185,401 50,000    |         | Water  |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    | 867,300 |        |
| >     |            | City   | 1,223,400 50,000  |         | Dr     |
| >     | S          |        |                    | 482,100 | inking |
|  2004 | acramento, | City   | 337,977 50,000    |         | Water  |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 723,200 |        |
| >     |            | City   | 96,375 50,000     |         | CSO    |
|  2003 | S          |        |                    | 482,100 |        |
| >     | acramento, | S      | 15,497  50,000    |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    | pecial |                    | 654,800 | ewater |
|  2004 |            | Di     | 116,760 50,000    |         |        |
| >     | San        | strict |                    | 145,500 | Dr     |
| >     | B          |        | 753,197 50,000    |         | inking |
|  2002 | ernardino, | City   |                    | 482,100 | Water  |
| >     | City of    |        | 753,197 50,000    |         |        |
| >     |            | City   |                    | 337,500 | Dr     |
|  2003 | San Diego  |        | 753,197 50,000    |         | inking |
| >     |            | County |                    | 385,700 | Water  |
| >     | Santa Ana, |        | 753,197 50,000    |         |        |
|  2004 | City of    | County |                    | 520,400 | Dr     |
| >     |            |        | 753,197 50,000    |         | inking |
| >     | South      | County |                    | 192,900 | Water  |
|  2004 | Gate, City |        | 83,680 50,000     |         |        |
| >     | of         | County |                    | 242,500 | Wast   |
| >     |            |        | 83,680 50,000     |         | ewater |
|  2004 | Tuolumme   | County |                    | 216,800 |        |
| >     | Utilities  |        | 5,073  50,000     |         | Not    |
| >     |            | S      |                    | 482,100 | Clas   |
|  2002 | Ukiah,     | pecial | 20 entities       |         | sified |
| >     | City of    | Di     | 50,000             | 433,700 |        |
| >     |            | strict |                    |         | Wast   |
|  2002 | Vallejo,   |        | 42 entities        | 385,700 | ewater |
| >     | City of    | City   | 50,000            |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 303,600 | Wast   |
|  2004 | Ventura    | City   | 8 entities Special |         | ewater |
| >     | County     |        | Dist.              | 485,000 |        |
| >     |            | City   |                    |         | Not    |
|  2004 | Ventura    |        |                    | \$36,   | Clas   |
| >     | County     | S      |                    | 242,300 | sified |
| >     |            | pecial |                    | total   |        |
|  2004 | Ventura    | Di     |                    |         | No     |
| >     | County     | strict |                    | 7,      | npoint |
| >     |            |        |                    | 524,100 |        |
|  2003 | Ventura    |        |                    | small   | Wast   |
| >     | County     |        |                    |         | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    | 22,     |        |
|  2004 | Ventura    |        |                    | 525,900 | Wast   |
| >     | County     |        |                    | large   | ewater |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | West       |        |                    | 6,      | Wast   |
| >     | Valley     |        |                    | 192,300 | ewater |
| >     | Water      |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         | Not    |
| >     | Whittier,  |        |                    |         | clas   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | sified |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Whittier,  |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Willits,   |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     | Yucaipi    |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| >     | Valley     |        |                    |         | ewater |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Not    |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Clas   |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | sified |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[  | Guam       | S      | 0 entities        | \$      | Dr     |
| Guam] | Waterworks | pecial | 50,000             | 485,000 | inking |
| {.und |            | Di     |                    |         | Water  |
| erlin |            | strict | 0 entities 50,000 | \$      |        |
| e}*** |            |        |                    | 485,000 |        |
|       |            |        | 1 entities Special | total   |        |
| >     |            |        | Dist.              |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 0 small |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0 large |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 485,000 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| *     | Hawaii,    | County | 148,677 50,000    | \$      | Dr     |
| **[Ha | County of  |        |                    | 970,000 | inking |
| waii] |            | County | 148,677 50,000    |         | Water  |
| {.und | Hawaii,    |        |                    | 76,000  |        |
| erlin | County of  | County | 876,156 50,000    |         | Wast   |
| e}*** |            |        |                    | 433,700 | ewater |
|       | Honolulu   |        | 0 entities        |         |        |
| >     | Board of   |        | 50,000             | \$      | Wast   |
|  2002 | Water      |        |                    | 1,      | ewater |
| >     |            |        | 3 entities 50,000 | 479,700 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | total   |        |
|  2003 |            |        | 0 entities Special |         |        |
| >     |            |        | Dist.              | 0 small |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 0 large |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0       |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| *     | Carson     | S      | \$ 1,375,765       | \$      | Dr     |
| **[Ne | Water      | pecial | 50,000            | 954,100 | inking |
| vada] |            | Di     |                    |         | Water  |
| {.und | Clark      | strict | 3,311  50,000     | 578,600 |        |
| erlin | County     |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| e}*** |            | County | 175,381 50,000    | 96,400  | ewater |
|       | Hawthorne, |        |                    |         |        |
| 2003  | Town of    | Town   | 175,381 50,000    | 282,800 | Not    |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Clas   |
| 2004  | Henderson, | City   | 175,381 50,000    | 8,188   | sified |
|       | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| 2004  |            | City   | 478,434 50,000    | 168,700 | Wast   |
|       | Henderson, |        |                    |         | ewater |
| 2002  | City of    | City   | 339,486 50,000    | 260,200 |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Wast   |
| 2002  | Henderson, | City   | 339,486 50,000    | 418,700 | ewater |
|       | City of    |        |                    |         |        |
| 2004  |            | County | 339,486 50,000    | 348,900 | Wast   |
|       | Las Vegas, |        |                    |         | ewater |
| 2003  | City of    | County | 1 entities        | 964,300 |        |
|       |            |        | 50,000             |         | Wast   |
| 2003  | Washoe     | County |                    | \$      | ewater |
|       | County     |        | 8 entities 50,000 | 4,      |        |
| 2003  |            |        |                    | 080,888 | Other  |
|       | Washoe     |        | 1 entities Special | total   |        |
| 2004  | County     |        | Dist.              |         | Other  |
|       |            |        |                    | 96,400  |        |
|       | Washoe     |        |                    | small   | Dr     |
|       | County     |        |                    |         | inking |
|       |            |        |                    | 3,      | Water  |
|       |            |        |                    | 030,388 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 954,100 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***R  | North Pole | City   | 1,570  50,000     | \$      | Not    |
| EGION |            |        |                    | 964,300 | Clas   |
| 10*** | Petersburg | City   | 3,224  50,000     |         | sified |
|       |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
| *     | Wasilla    | City   | 5,469  50,000     | 746,000 | Not    |
| **[Al |            |        |                    |         | Clas   |
| aska] |            |        | 3 entities        | 1,      | sified |
| {.und |            |        | 50,000             | 455,000 |        |
| erlin |            |        |                    |         | Not    |
| e}*** |            |        | 0 entities 50,000 | \$      | Clas   |
|       |            |        |                    | 4,      | sified |
| >     |            |        | 0 entities Special | 165,300 |        |
|  2004 |            |        | Dist.              | total   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 4,      |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 165,300 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 0 large |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0       |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[I | Bancroft,  | City   | 382  50,000       | \$      | Not    |
| daho] | City of    |        |                    | 727,500 | Clas   |
| {.und |            | City   | 382  50,000       |         | sified |
| erlin | Bancroft,  |        |                    | 650,500 |        |
| e}*** | City of    | City   | 9,316  50,000     |         | Not    |
|       |            |        |                    | 727,500 | Clas   |
| >     | Burley,    | City   | 9,316  50,000     |         | sified |
|  2002 | City of    |        |                    | 867,300 |        |
| >     |            | City   | 9,316  50,000     |         | Wast   |
| >     | Burley,    |        |                    | 482,100 | ewater |
|  2003 | City of    | S      | 1,620  50,000     |         |        |
| >     |            | pecial |                    | 242,500 | Not    |
| >     | Burley,    | Di     | 1,620  50,000     |         | Clas   |
|  2002 | City of    | strict |                    | 867,300 | sified |
| >     |            |        | 805  50,000       |         |        |
| >     | Cape Horn  | S      |                    | 216,800 | Not    |
|  2003 | Area       | pecial | 2,978  50,000     |         | Clas   |
| >     |            | Di     |                    | 242,500 | sified |
| >     | Bayview W. | strict | 9 entities        |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        | 50,000             | 482,100 | Dr     |
| >     | Coolin     | City   |                    |         | inking |
| >     | Sewer      |        | 0 entities 50,000 | 385,700 | Water  |
|  2002 |            | City   |                    |         |        |
| >     | Filer,     |        | 2 entities Special | \$      | Not    |
| >     | City of    | City   | Dist.              | 5,      | Clas   |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 891,800 | sified |
| >     | Filer,     | City   |                    | total   |        |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | Not    |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 4,      | Clas   |
| >     | McCammon,  |        |                    | 782,000 | sified |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | small   |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    |         | Not    |
| >     | Middleton, |        |                    | 0 large | Clas   |
| >     | City of    |        |                    |         | sified |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 1,      |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 109,800 | Not    |
| >     |            |        |                    | SpDist  | Clas   |
|  2004 |            |        |                    |         | sified |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Not    |
|       |            |        |                    |         | Clas   |
|       |            |        |                    |         | sified |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| *     | Albany,    | City   | 40,852  50,000    | \$      | Not    |
| **[Or | City of    |        |                    | 433,700 | Clas   |
| egon] |            | County | 338,391 50,000    |         | sified |
| {.und | Clackamas  |        |                    | 470,000 |        |
| erlin | County     | Town   | 1,073  50,000     |         | Not    |
| e}*** |            |        |                    | 520,400 | Clas   |
|       | Gold Hill  | County | 115,367 50,000    |         | sified |
| >     |            |        |                    | 433,700 |        |
|  2003 | Deschutes  | County | 1,547  50,000     |         | Not    |
| >     |            |        |                    | 970,000 | Clas   |
| >     | Wheeler    | City   | 63,154 50,000     |         | sified |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | 373,400 |        |
| >     | Medford,   | City   | 1,605  50,000     |         | Not    |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 260,200 | Clas   |
|  2003 |            | City   | 529,121 50,000    |         | sified |
| >     | North      |        |                    | 1,      |        |
| >     | Plains,    | County | 24,262  50,000    | 212,500 | Not    |
|  2003 | City of    |        |                    |         | Clas   |
| >     |            | County | 24,262  50,000    | 260,200 | sified |
| >     | Portland,  |        |                    |         |        |
|  2002 | City of    |        | 6 entities        | 192,900 | Wast   |
| >     |            |        | 50,000             |         | ewater |
| >     | Tillamook  |        |                    | \$      |        |
|  2002 | County     |        | 4 entities 50,000 | 5,      | Not    |
| >     |            |        |                    | 127,000 | Clas   |
| >     | Tillamook  |        | 0 entities Special | total   | sified |
|  2003 | County     |        | Dist.              |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 2,      | Wast   |
| >     |            |        |                    | 637,400 | ewater |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Not    |
| >     |            |        |                    | 2,      | Clas   |
|  2003 |            |        |                    | 489,600 | sified |
| >     |            |        |                    | large   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         | Not    |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 0       | Clas   |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  | sified |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| ***[W | Blaine,    | City   | 3,770  50,000     | \$      | Wast   |
| ashin | City of    |        |                    | 216,800 | ewater |
| gton] |            | City   | 4,616  50,000     |         |        |
| {.und | Duvall,    |        |                    | 385,700 | Wast   |
| erlin | City of    | City   | 91,488 50,000     |         | ewater |
| e}*** |            |        |                    | 242,500 |        |
|       | Everett,   | City   | 897  50,000       |         | CSO    |
| >     | City of    |        |                    | 192,900 |        |
|  2003 |            |        | 3 entities        |         | Dr     |
| >     | Grand      |        | 50,000             | \$      | inking |
| >     | Coulee,    |        |                    | 1,      | Water  |
|  2004 | City of    |        | 1 entities 50,000 | 037,900 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | total   |        |
| >     |            |        | 0 entities Special |         |        |
|  2002 |            |        | Dist.              | 795,400 |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | small   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
|  2004 |            |        |                    | 242,500 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | large   |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0       |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+
| **    | Table Rock | S      | 0 entities        | \$      | Wast   |
| *[Hea | Lake       | pecial | 50,000             | 1,      | ewater |
| dquar |            | Di     |                    | 940,000 |        |
| ters] | Upper Rio  | strict | 0 entities 50,000 |         | Wast   |
| {.und | Grande     |        |                    | 867,300 | ewater |
| erlin | Valley     | S      | 2 entities Special |         |        |
| e}*** |            | pecial | Dist.              | \$      |        |
|       |            | Di     |                    | 2,      |        |
| >     |            | strict |                    | 807,300 |        |
|  2002 |            |        |                    | total   |        |
| >     |            |        |                    |         |        |
| >     |            |        |                    | 0 small |        |
|  2003 |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 0 large |        |
|       |            |        |                    |         |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 2,      |        |
|       |            |        |                    | 807,300 |        |
|       |            |        |                    | SpDist  |        |
+-------+------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------+

**ATTACHMENT 4: STAG Projects for 2002 Through 2004 - "Income Test"
Estimate of Cost Impact on Small Governments**

**"Income Test" - Annualized cost for NEPA process to household (per
capita) as a percentage of median household (per capita) income**

Grants in same/subsequent years to same entity for same project type
combined for the entity in this chart

Household Population - U.S. Bureau of Census website EPA NEPA process
estimated costs: CE =\$ 3,292; 60% of projects

Average Household Size - U.S. Bureau of Census website EA/FONSI =\$
18,340; 40% of projects

Number of Households = Household Population/Average Household Size
EIS/ROD =\$324,480; 1 project/3 years

Median Household Income - U.S. Bureau of Census website (Annualized:
\$108,160)

> Cost as % of median household income = ((NEPA process est. cost/No.
> Households) / Median Household Income) x 100 = %

 symbol means "less than"

>  symbol means "greater than" Estimated cost as a % of median
> household income is listed in **bold** if greater than 1%
>
> = symbol means "equal to" Estimated cost as a % of median household
> income is listed in **bold** if equal to 1%

Household statistics are not available for Special Districts

+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | ***      | *  | *** | *   | **  | ***[Es  | *      | *      |
| **RE | [Grantee | ** | [Av | **[ | *[M | timated | **[Est | **[Est |
| GION | Name     | [H | era | Num | edi | % for   | imated | imated |
| 1*** | ]{.under | ou | ge] | ber | an] | CE]{    | % for  | % for  |
|      | line}*** | se | {.u | of] | {.u | .underl | EA/FON | EIS/R  |
| ***  |          | ho | nde | {.u | nde | ine}*** | SI]{.u | OD]{.u |
| [Con | W        | ld | rli | nde | rli |         | nderli | nderli |
| nect | aterbury | Po | ne} | rli | ne} | 0       | ne}*** | ne}*** |
| icut |          | pu | *** | ne} | *** | .00022% |        |        |
| ]{.u | Town of  | la |     | *** |     | 1%     | 0      | 0.022% |
| nder | East     | ti | *   |     | **  |         | .0013% | 1%    |
| line | Hampton  | on | **[ | *** | *[H | 0.0012% | 1%    |        |
| }*** |          | ]{ | Hou | [Ho | ous | 1%     |        | 0.12%  |
|      | New      | .u | seh | use | eho |         | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | Britain  | nd | old | hol | ld] | 0       | .0067% |        |
| 2002 |          | er | Si  | ds] | {.u | .00034% | 1%    | 0.033% |
| >    | Town of  | li | ze] | {.u | nde | 1%     |        | 1%    |
| >    | Prospect | ne | {.u | nde | rli |         | 0      |        |
| 2004 |          | }* | nde | rli | ne} | 0.0016% | .0019% | 0.16%  |
|      | Sou      | ** | rli | ne} | *** | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2    | thington |    | ne} | *** |     |         |        |        |
| 003, |          | 1  | *** |     | **  | 0       | 0      | 0.035% |
| 2004 | Vernon   | 05 |     | 42, | *[I | .00036% | .0090% | 1%    |
|      |          | ,0 | 2   | 706 | nco | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 57 | .46 |     | me] |         |        | 0.055% |
| 2004 |          |    |     | 4,  | {.u | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
|      |          | 10 | 2   | 128 | nde | .00056% | .0020% |        |
| 2    |          | ,8 | .63 |     | rli | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 003, |          | 56 |     | 28, | ne} |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    | 2   | 528 | *** |         | 0      |        |
|      |          | 68 | .40 |     |     |         | .0031% |        |
| >    |          | ,4 |     | 3,  | 34, |         | 1%    |        |
| 2003 |          | 67 | 2   | 025 | 285 |         |        |        |
|      |          |    | .83 |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 8  |     | 15, | 66, |         |        |        |
|      |          | ,5 | 2   | 109 | 326 |         |        |        |
|      |          | 61 | .59 |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     | 12, | 34, |         |        |        |
|      |          | 39 | 2   | 265 | 185 |         |        |        |
|      |          | ,1 | .26 |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 32 |     |     | 67, |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     | 560 |         |        |        |
|      |          | 27 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | ,7 |     |     | 60, |         |        |        |
|      |          | 20 |     |     | 538 |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     | 47, |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     | 816 |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| **   | Pioneer  | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| *[CT | Valley   |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| and  |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| MA   |          |    |     |     |     | tistics | istics | istics |
| ]{.u |          |    |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| nder |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
| line |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
| }*** |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 002, |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Augusta  | 17 | 2   | 8,  | 29, | 0.0013% | 0      | 0.13%  |
| **[M |          | ,9 | .10 | 557 | 921 | 1%     | .0072% | 1%    |
| aine | Corinna  | 70 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| ]{.u |          |    | 2   | 841 | 32, | 0.012%  |        | *      |
| nder | G        | 2  | .55 |     | 115 | 1%     | 0.068% | *1.20% |
| line | ardiner, | ,1 |     | 2,  |     |         | 1%    | 1%**  |
| }*** | City of  | 45 | 2   | 506 | 35, | 0.0037% |        |        |
|      |          |    | .41 |     | 103 | 1%     | 0.021% | 0.37%  |
| >    | Indian   | 6  |     | 232 |     |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 | Township | ,0 | 2   |     | 23, | 0.061%  |        |        |
| >    |          | 40 | .91 | 937 | 125 | 1%     | 0.34%  | *      |
| >    | Machias, |    |     |     |     |         | 1%    | *6.05% |
| 2003 | City of  | 6  | 2   | 6,  | 24, | 0.014%  |        | 3%**  |
| >    |          | 76 | .10 | 795 | 318 | 1%     | 0.080% |        |
| >    | Saco     |    |     |     |     |         | 1%    | *      |
| 2004 |          | 1  | 2   |     | 45, | 0.0011% |        | *1.42% |
|      |          | ,9 | .44 |     | 105 | 1%     | 0      | 1%**  |
| 2    |          | 68 |     |     |     |         | .0060% |        |
| 004, |          |    |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 0.10%  |
| 2004 |          | 16 |     |     |     |         |        | 1%    |
| 2004 |          | ,5 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 81 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Boston   | 5  | 2   | 2   | 39, | 0.      | 0.     | 0      |
| **[M |          | 54 | .31 | 39, | 629 | 000035% | 00019% | .0034% |
| assa | New      | ,0 |     | 854 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| chus | Bedford  | 64 | 2   |     | 27, |         |        |        |
| etts |          |    | .40 | 38, | 569 | 0       | 0      | 0.031% |
| ]{.u | New      | 91 |     | 242 |     | .00031% | .0017% | 1%    |
| nder | Bedford  | ,7 | 2   |     | 27, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| line |          | 82 | .40 | 38, | 569 |         |        | 0.031% |
| }*** | Fall     |    |     | 242 |     | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
|      | River    | 91 | 2   |     | 29, | .00031% | .0017% |        |
| >    |          | ,7 | .32 | 38, | 014 | 1%     | 1%    | 0.029% |
| 2004 | B        | 82 |     | 813 |     |         |        | 1%    |
|      | rockton, |    | 2   |     | 39, | 0       | 0      |        |
| 2    | City of  | 90 | .74 | 33, | 507 | .00029% | .0016% | 0.024% |
| 002, |          | ,0 |     | 733 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| 03,  | Essex    | 47 | 2   |     | 59, |         |        |        |
| 04   |          |    | .49 | 1,  | 554 | 0       | 0      | 0.42%  |
|      | Lynn     | 92 |     | 312 |     | .00025% | .0014% | 1%    |
| >    |          | ,4 | 2   |     | 37, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2002 | L        | 28 | .62 | 33, | 364 |         |        | 0.026% |
| >    | awrence, |    |     | 475 |     | 0.0042% | 0.023% | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | 3  | 2   |     | 27, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2003 |          | ,2 | .90 | 24, | 983 |         |        | 0.047% |
|      | Lowell,  | 67 |     | 482 |     | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| 2    | City of  |    | 2   |     | 39, | .00026% | .0015% |        |
| 003, |          | 87 | .67 | 37, | 192 | 1%     | 1%    | 0.022% |
| 2004 | Fall     | ,7 |     | 950 |     |         |        | 1%    |
|      | River,   | 06 | 2   |     | 29, | 0       | 0      |        |
| >    | City of  |    | .32 | 38, | 014 | .00048% | .0027% | 0.029% |
| 2004 |          | 70 |     | 813 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | Pioneer  | ,9 | NA  |     | NA  |         |        |        |
| >    | Valley   | 99 |     | NA  |     | 0       | 0      | Hou    |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     | .00022% | .0012% | sehold |
| >    |          | 1  |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | stat   |
| >    |          | 01 |     |     |     |         |        | istics |
| 2003 |          | ,3 |     |     |     | 0       | 0      | NA     |
|      |          | 26 |     |     |     | .00029% | .0016% |        |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 002, |          | 90 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          | ,0 |     |     |     | Ho      | Hou    |        |
|      |          | 47 |     |     |     | usehold | sehold |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | stat   |        |
| 2004 |          | NA |     |     |     | tistics | istics |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | not     | NA     |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***  | Berlin,  | 10 | 2   | 4,  | 29, | 0.0024% | 0.014% | 0.24%  |
| [New | City of  | ,1 | .22 | 564 | 647 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| H    |          | 33 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| amps | Co       |    | 2   | 1,  | 32, | 0.0098% | 0.055% | 0.97%  |
| hire | lebrook, | 2  | .20 | 037 | 244 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| ]{.u | Town of  | ,2 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| nder |          | 82 | 2   | 5,  | 49, | 0.0011% | 0      | 0.11%  |
| line | Exeter,  |    | .32 | 900 | 618 | 1%     | .0063% | 1%    |
| }*** | Town of  | 13 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
|      |          | ,6 | 2   | 2,  | 45, | 0.0034% |        | 0.34%  |
| 2    | Jaffrey, | 87 | .50 | 121 | 033 | 1%     | 0.019% | 1%    |
| 002, | Town of  |    |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| 02,0 |          | 5  | 2   | 44, | 40, | 0       |        | 0.018% |
| 3,04 | Man      | ,3 | .36 | 201 | 774 | .00018% | 0      | 1%    |
|      | chester, | 03 |     |     |     | 1%     | .0010% |        |
| >    | City of  |    | 2   | 34, | 51, |         | 1%    | 0.018% |
| 2004 |          | 1  | .46 | 635 | 969 | 0       |        | 1%    |
| >    | Nashua,  | 04 |     |     |     | .00018% | 0      |        |
| >    | City of  | ,3 | 2   | 9,  | 45, | 1%     | .0010% | 0.072% |
| 2003 |          | 14 | .04 | 891 | 195 |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | Por      |    |     |     |     | 0       |        |        |
| >    | tsmouth, | 85 | 2   | 1,  | 48, | .00074% | 0      | 0.64%  |
| 2004 | City of  | ,2 | .56 | 034 | 588 | 1%     | .0041% | 1%    |
|      |          | 02 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| 2    | Roll     |    | 2   | 10, | 58, | 0.0066% |        | 0.054% |
| 002, | insford, | 20 | .69 | 398 | 090 | 1%     | 0.036% | 1%    |
| 03,  | Town of  | ,1 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| 04   |          | 77 | 2   | 4,  | 42, | 0       |        | 0.16%  |
|      | Salem    |    | .44 | 690 | 739 | .00054% | 0      | 1%    |
| 2    |          | 2  |     |     |     | 1%     | .0030% |        |
| 002, | Some     | ,6 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| 2002 | rsworth, | 48 |     |     |     | 0.0016% |        |        |
|      | City of  |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      |        |
| >    |          | 27 |     |     |     |         | .0091% |        |
| 2003 |          | ,9 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 71 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          | 11 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | ,4 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2    |          | 44 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 002, |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | C        | 33 | 2   | 12, | 51, | 0       | 0      | 0.050% |
| **[R | oventry, | ,1 | .63 | 595 | 987 | .00050% | .0028% | 1%    |
| hode | Town of  | 26 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| Is   |          |    | 2   | 20, | 39, |         |        | 0.040% |
| land | East     | 47 | .33 | 572 | 108 | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| ]{.u | Pr       | ,9 |     |     |     | .00041% | .0023% |        |
| nder | ovidence | 33 | 2   | 8,  | 47, | 1%     | 1%    | 0.082% |
| line |          |    | .51 | 249 | 815 |         |        | 1%    |
| }*** | Lincoln  | 20 |     |     |     | 0       | 0      |        |
|      |          | ,7 | NA  | NA  | NA  | .00083% | .0046% | Hou    |
| >    | Narr     | 04 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | sehold |
| 2003 | agansett |    | 2   | 4,  | 41, |         |        | stat   |
| >    | Bay      | NA | .36 | 700 | 285 | Ho      | Hou    | istics |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | NA     |
| 2004 | Warren,  | 11 | 2   | 17, | 30, | sta     | stat   |        |
| >    | Town of  | ,0 | .37 | 784 | 819 | tistics | istics | 0.17%  |
| >    |          | 92 |     |     |     | not     | NA     | 1%    |
| 2004 | Woo      |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
|      | nsocket, | 42 |     |     |     | ailable | 0      | 0.059% |
| 2    | City of  | ,1 |     |     |     |         | .0094% | 1%    |
| 002, |          | 49 |     |     |     | 0.0017% | 1%    |        |
| 02,0 |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 3,04 |          |    |     |     |     |         | 0      |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0       | .0033% |        |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     | .00060% | 1%    |        |
| 002, |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***  | C        | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| [Ver | hamplain |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| mont | Water    | 7  | 2   | 3,  | 29, | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| ]{.u |          | ,1 | .25 | 196 | 269 | tistics | istics | istics |
| nder | St.      | 92 |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| line | Jo       |    | 2   | 1,  | 39, | av      |        |        |
| }*** | hnsbury, | 3  | .59 | 374 | 149 | ailable | 0.020% | 0.35%  |
|      | Town of  | ,5 |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2    |          | 60 | 2   | 1,  | 57, | 0.0035% |        |        |
| 003, | Pownal,  |    | .71 | 504 | 750 | 1%     | 0.034% | 0.60%  |
| 2004 | Town of  | 4  |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 1%    |
|      |          | ,0 | 2   | 740 | 47, | 0.0061% |        |        |
| >    | R        | 75 | .27 |     | 438 | 1%     | 0.021% | 0.37%  |
| 2002 | ichmond, |    |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | Town of  | 1  |     |     |     | 0.0038% |        |        |
| >    |          | ,6 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.052% | 0.92%  |
| 2002 | Warren   | 81 |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 0.0094% |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 003, |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Camden   | 4  | 2   | 1   | 48, | 0.      | 0.     | 0      |
| **RE | County   | 98 | .68 | 86, | 097 | 000037% | 00020% | .0036% |
| GION |          | ,5 |     | 017 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2*** | Camden,  | 26 | 3   |     | 23, |         |        |        |
|      | City of  |    | .12 | 24, | 421 | 0       | 0      | 0.057% |
| ***  |          | 75 |     | 208 |     | .00058% | .0032% | 1%    |
| [New | Fanwood  | ,5 | 2   |     | 85, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| Je   |          | 29 | .76 | 2,  | 233 |         |        | 0.15%  |
| rsey | J        |    |     | 570 |     | 0.0015% | 0      | 1%    |
| ]{.u | efferson | 7  | 2   |     | 68, | 1%     | .0084% |        |
| nder | Township | ,0 | .76 | 7,  | 837 |         | 1%    | 0.066% |
| line |          | 92 |     | 124 |     | 0       |        | 1%    |
| }*** | NJ       |    | NA  |     | NA  | .00067% | 0      |        |
|      | Mea      | 19 |     | NA  |     | 1%     | .0037% | Hou    |
| >    | dowlands | ,6 | 2   |     | 90, |         | 1%    | sehold |
| 2003 |          | 61 | .67 | 4,  | 964 | Ho      |        | stat   |
| >    | New      |    |     | 403 |     | usehold | Hou    | istics |
| >    | Pr       | NA | NA  |     | NA  | sta     | sehold | NA     |
| 2004 | ovidence |    |     | NA  |     | tistics | stat   |        |
| >    |          | 11 | NA  |     | NA  | not     | istics | 0.081% |
| >    | North    | ,7 |     | NA  |     | av      | NA     | 1%    |
| 2002 | Hudson   | 55 | 2   |     | 67, | ailable |        |        |
| >    | SA       |    | .95 | 8,  | 566 |         | 0      | Hou    |
| >    |          | NA |     | 366 |     | 0       | .0046% | sehold |
| 2003 | Passaic  |    |     |     |     | .00082% | 1%    | stat   |
| >    | Valley   | NA |     |     |     | 1%     |        | istics |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         | Hou    | NA     |
| 2004 | Vernon   | 24 |     |     |     | Ho      | sehold |        |
| >    | Township | ,6 |     |     |     | usehold | stat   | Hou    |
| >    |          | 80 |     |     |     | sta     | istics | sehold |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     | tistics | NA     | stat   |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | not     |        | istics |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | av      | Hou    | NA     |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     | ailable | sehold |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         | stat   | 0.057% |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      | istics | 1%    |
| 002, |          |    |     |     |     | usehold | NA     |        |
| 03,  |          |    |     |     |     | sta     |        |        |
| 04   |          |    |     |     |     | tistics | 0      |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | not     | .0032% |        |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     | av      | 1%    |        |
| 002, |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0       |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | .00058% |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***  | Akron,   | 3  | 2   | 1,  | 35, | 0.0071% | 0.040% | 0.70%  |
| [New | Village  | ,0 | .34 | 314 | 313 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| York | of       | 74 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ]{.u |          |    | 2   | 1   | 24, | 0       | 0.     | 0.011% |
| nder | Buffalo, | 2  | .29 | 22, | 536 | .00011% | 00061% | 1%    |
| line | City of  | 81 |     | 935 |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| }*** |          | ,5 | 2   |     | 37, |         |        | 0.028% |
|      | Cayuga   | 22 | .53 | 30, | 487 | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | County   |    |     | 499 |     | .00029% | .0016% |        |
| 2002 |          | 77 | 2   |     | 68, | 1%     | 1%    | 0.052% |
| >    | C        | ,1 | .80 | 9,  | 003 |         |        | 1%    |
| >    | larence, | 62 |     | 148 |     | 0       | 0      |        |
| 2003 | Town of  |    | 2   |     | 32, | .00053% | .0029% | 0.020% |
|      |          | 25 | .14 | 5,  | 780 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2    | Corning, | ,6 |     | 000 |     |         |        |        |
| 002, | City of  | 14 | 3   |     | 78, | 0.0020% | 0.011% | 0.050% |
| 2004 |          |    | .10 | 8,  | 394 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
|      | East     | 10 |     | 240 |     |         |        |        |
| >    | F        | ,7 | 2   |     | 40, | 0       | 0      | 0.58%  |
| 2002 | ishkill, | 01 | .78 | 1,  | 192 | .00051% | .0028% | 1%    |
| >    | Town of  |    |     | 392 |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 25 | 2   |     | 33, |         |        | 0.044% |
| 2004 | Floyd,   | ,5 | .43 | 21, | 663 | 0.0059% | 0.033% | 1%    |
| >    | Town of  | 44 |     | 871 |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    |          |    | 2   |     | 48, |         |        | 0.018% |
| 2002 | Fulton   | 3  | .52 | 36, | 355 | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | County   | ,8 |     | 963 |     | .00045% | .0025% |        |
| >    |          | 69 | 2   |     | 51, | 1%     | 1%    | 0.16%  |
| 2003 | Greece,  |    | .50 | 4,  | 239 |         |        | 1%    |
| >    | Town of  | 53 |     | 006 |     | 0       | 0      |        |
| >    |          | ,1 | 2   |     | 47, | .00018% | .0010% | 0.031% |
| 2004 | Hamburg, | 46 | .51 | 22, | 888 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | Village  |    |     | 028 |     |         |        |        |
| >    | of       | 93 | 2   |     | 80, | 0.0016% | 0      | 0.048% |
| 2004 |          | ,1 | .72 | 8,  | 738 | 1%     | .0089% | 1%    |
| >    | Hamburg, | 48 |     | 407 |     |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | Town of  |    | 2   |     | 29, | 0       |        | 0.23%  |
| 2004 |          | 10 | .38 | 4,  | 054 | .00031% | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | T&V      | ,0 |     | 922 |     | 1%     | .0017% |        |
| >    | H        | 14 | 2   |     | 1   |         | 1%    | 0.11%  |
| 2003 | arrison/ |    | .66 | 2,  | 23, | 0       |        | 1%    |
| >    | Harrison | 55 |     | 420 | 238 | .00048% | 0      |        |
| >    |          | ,2 | 2   |     |     | 1%     | .0027% | 0      |
| 2002 | Fulton,  | 90 | .47 | 2   | 44, |         | 1%    | .0025% |
| >    | City of  |    |     | 86, | 891 | 0.0023% |        | 1%    |
| >    |          | 22 | NA  | 977 |     | 1%     | 0.013% |        |
| 2003 | La       | ,8 |     |     | NA  |         | 1%    | Hou    |
| >    | rchmont, | 68 | 2   | NA  |     | 0.0011% |        | sehold |
| >    | Village  |    | .84 |     | 81, | 1%     | 0      | stat   |
| 2002 | of       | 11 |     | 76, | 039 |         | .0061% | istics |
| >    |          | ,7 | 2   | 846 |     | 0.      | 1%    | NA     |
| >    | Monroe   | 14 | .63 |     | 34, | 000026% |        |        |
| 2003 | County   |    |     | 500 | 728 | 1%     | 0.     | 0      |
|      |          | 6  | NA  |     |     |         | 00014% | .0052% |
| 2    | NYSDEC   | ,4 |     | NA  | NA  | Ho      | 1%    | 1%    |
| 002, |          | 38 | NA  |     |     | usehold |        |        |
| 03,  | North    |    |     | NA  | NA  | sta     | Hou    | **1.9% |
| 04   | He       | 7  | 2   |     |     | tistics | sehold | 1%**  |
|      | mpstead, | 08 | .33 | 7,  | 28, | not     | stat   |        |
| >    | Town     | ,8 |     | 337 | 248 | av      | istics | Hou    |
| 2003 |          | 34 | 2   |     |     | ailable | NA     | sehold |
| >    | Jordan,  |    | .33 | 7,  | 28, |         |        | stat   |
| >    | Village  | NA |     | 337 | 248 | 0.      | 0.     | istics |
| 2004 | of       |    | 2   |     |     | 000053% | 00029% | NA     |
|      |          | 2  | .79 | 2,  | 82, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2    | Onodaga  | 18 |     | 291 | 430 |         |        | Hou    |
| 002, | Lake     | ,2 |     |     |     | 0.019%  | 0.10%  | sehold |
| 2003 |          | 44 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | stat   |
|      | Onodaga  |    |     |     |     |         |        | istics |
| 2    | Lake     | 1  |     |     |     | Ho      | Hou    | NA     |
| 002, |          | ,3 |     |     |     | usehold | sehold |        |
| 2003 | Oswego,  | 14 |     |     |     | sta     | stat   | 0.16%  |
|      | City of  |    |     |     |     | tistics | istics | 1%    |
| >    |          | NA |     |     |     | not     | NA     |        |
| 2003 | Oswego,  |    |     |     |     | av      |        | 0.16%  |
| >    | City of  | NA |     |     |     | ailable | Hou    | 1%    |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         | sehold |        |
| 2004 | Pelham,  | 17 |     |     |     | Ho      | stat   | 0.17%  |
| >    | Village  | ,0 |     |     |     | usehold | istics | 1%    |
| >    | of       | 95 |     |     |     | sta     | NA     |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     | tistics |        |        |
|      |          | 17 |     |     |     | not     | 0      |        |
|      |          | ,0 |     |     |     | av      | .0088% |        |
|      |          | 95 |     |     |     | ailable | 1%    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 6  |     |     |     | 0.0016% | 0      |        |
|      |          | ,3 |     |     |     | 1%     | .0088% |        |
|      |          | 92 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.0016% |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         | .0097% |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.0017% | 1%    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***  | Rockland | 2  | 3   | 92, | 67, | 0.      | 0.     | 0      |
| [New | County   | 79 | .01 | 726 | 971 | 000052% | 00029% | .0051% |
| Yo   |          | ,1 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| rk - | Rye,     | 04 | 2   | 5,  | 1   |         |        |        |
| c    | City of  |    | .78 | 378 | 10, | 0       | 0      | 0.054% |
| ont. |          | 14 |     |     | 894 | .00055% | .0031% | 1%    |
| ]{.u | Halfmoon | ,9 | 2   | 7,  |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| nder |          | 50 | .35 | 780 | 46, |         |        | 0.090% |
| line | Saratoga |    |     |     | 234 | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| }*** | County   | 18 | 2   | 78, |     | .00092% | .0051% |        |
|      |          | ,2 | .51 | 218 | 49, | 1%     | 1%    | 0      |
| 2    | Sennett, | 84 |     |     | 460 |         |        | .0083% |
| 002, | Town of  |    | 2   | 1,  |     | 0.      | 0.     | 1%    |
| 04,  |          | 1  | .75 | 083 | 50, | 000085% | 00047% |        |
| 04   | South    | 96 |     |     | 282 | 1%     | 1%    | 0.60%  |
|      | Shore    | ,3 | NA  | NA  |     |         |        | 1%    |
| >    |          | 26 |     |     | NA  | 0.0060% | 0.034% |        |
| 2003 | S        |    | 2   | 59, |     | 1%     | 1%    | Hou    |
| >    | yracuse, | 2  | .29 | 527 | 25, |         |        | sehold |
| >    | City of  | ,9 |     |     | 000 | Ho      | Hou    | stat   |
| 2002 |          | 79 | 2   | 2,  |     | usehold | sehold | istics |
| >    | Walden,  |    | .79 | 199 | 43, | sta     | stat   | NA     |
| >    | Village  | NA |     |     | 507 | tistics | istics |        |
| 2003 | of       |    | 2   | 34, |     | not     | NA     | 0.022% |
| >    |          | 1  | .64 | 862 | 44, | av      |        | 1%    |
| >    | Wayne    | 36 |     |     | 157 | ailable | 0.012% |        |
| 2004 | County   | ,3 | 2   | 34, |     |         | 1%    | 0.34%  |
| >    |          | 17 | .64 | 862 | 44, | 0       |        | 1%    |
| >    | Wayne    |    |     |     | 157 | .00022% | 0.019% |        |
| 2003 | County   | 6  | 2   | 397 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 0.021% |
| >    |          | ,1 | .43 |     | 34, |         |        | 1%    |
| >    | Whitney  | 35 |     |     | 934 | 0.0034% | 0      |        |
| 2003 | Point    |    |     |     |     | 1%     | .0012% | 0.021% |
| >    |          | 92 |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    |          | ,0 |     |     |     | 0       |        |        |
| 2003 |          | 36 |     |     |     | .00021% | 0      | **2.3% |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | .0012% | 1%**  |
| >    |          | 92 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| 2004 |          | ,0 |     |     |     | 0       |        |        |
| >    |          | 36 |     |     |     | .00021% | 0.13%  |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2004 |          | 9  |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 65 |     |     |     | 0.023%  |        |        |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 002, |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| **   | None     |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| *[Pu | active   |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| erto |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| Rico |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ]{.u |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| nder |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| line |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| }*** |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| **   | None     |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| *[Vi | active   |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| rgin |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| Isl  |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ands |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ]{.u |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| nder |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| line |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| }*** |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Wil      | 68 | 2   | 28, | 35, | 0       | 0      | 0.032% |
| **RE | mington, | ,4 | .39 | 634 | 116 | .00032% | .0018% | 1%    |
| GION | City of  | 36 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 3*** |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ***[ |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| Dela |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ware |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ]{.u |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| nder |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| line |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| }*** |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | D.C.     | 5  | 2   | 2   | 40, | 0.      | 0.     | 0      |
| Dist | WASA     | 36 | .16 | 48, | 127 | 000033% | 00018% | .0032% |
| of   |          | ,4 |     | 378 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| Colu | Metro    | 97 | 2   |     | 40, |         |        |        |
| mbia | Wa       |    | .16 | 2   | 127 | 0.      | 0.     | 0      |
| ]{.u | shington | 5  |     | 48, |     | 000033% | 00018% | .0032% |
| nder |          | 36 |     | 378 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| line |          | ,4 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| }*** |          | 97 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Ba       | 6  | 2   | 2   | 30, | 0.      | 0.     | 0      |
| Mary | ltimore, | 25 | .42 | 58, | 078 | 000042% | 00024% | .0042% |
| land | City of  | ,4 |     | 430 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| ]{.u |          | 01 | 2   |     | 38, |         |        |        |
| nder | Elkton,  |    | .55 | 4,  | 171 | 0.0019% | 0.011% | 0.19%  |
| line | Town of  | 11 |     | 454 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| }*** |          | ,3 | 2   |     | 57, |         |        |        |
|      | Harford  | 58 | .72 | 79, | 234 | 0.      | 0.     | 0      |
| >    | County   |    |     | 790 |     | 000072% | 00040% | .0071% |
| 2003 |          | 2  | 2   |     | 32, | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
|      | Hurlock, | 17 | .62 | 711 | 935 |         |        |        |
| 2    | Town of  | ,0 |     |     |     | 0.014%  | 0.078% | **1.4% |
| 003, |          | 28 | 2   | 2,  | 56, | 1%     | 1%    | 1%**  |
| 2004 | LaPlata  |    | .63 | 220 | 490 |         |        |        |
|      |          | 1  |     |     |     | 0.0026% | 0.015% | 0.25%  |
| >    | LaPlata  | ,8 | 2   | 2,  | 56, | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2002 |          | 63 | .63 | 220 | 490 |         |        |        |
| >    | Ro       |    |     |     |     | 0.0026% | 0.015% | 0.25%  |
| >    | ckville, | 5  | 2   | 17, | 68, | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2004 | City of  | ,8 | .65 | 263 | 074 |         |        |        |
| >    |          | 38 |     |     |     | 0       | 0      | 0.028% |
| >    | Sa       |    | 2   | 9,  | 29, | .00028% | .0016% | 1%    |
| 2003 | lisbury, | 5  | .36 | 048 | 191 | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    | City of  | ,8 |     |     |     |         |        | 0.12%  |
| >    |          | 38 | NA  | NA  | NA  | 0.0012% | 0      | 1%    |
| 2003 | Wa       |    |     |     |     | 1%     | .0069% |        |
| >    | shington | 45 | NA  | NA  | NA  |         | 1%    | Hou    |
| >    | Suburban | ,7 |     |     |     | Ho      |        | sehold |
| 2003 |          | 46 | 2   | 1,  | 42, | usehold | Hou    | stat   |
| >    | Wa       |    | .80 | 222 | 702 | sta     | sehold | istics |
| >    | shington | 21 |     |     |     | tistics | stat   | NA     |
| 2002 | Suburban | ,3 |     |     |     | not     | istics |        |
| >    |          | 53 |     |     |     | av      | NA     | Hou    |
| >    | Indian   |    |     |     |     | ailable |        | sehold |
| 2003 | Head     | NA |     |     |     |         | Hou    | stat   |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      | sehold | istics |
| >    |          | NA |     |     |     | usehold | stat   | NA     |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | istics |        |
| >    |          | 3  |     |     |     | tistics | NA     | 0.62%  |
| >    |          | ,4 |     |     |     | not     |        | 1%    |
| 2003 |          | 21 |     |     |     | av      | 0.035% |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable | 1%    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.0063% |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Big      | 2  | 2   | 868 | 37, | 0.010%  | 0.057% | **1.0% |
| Penn | Beaver,  | ,1 | .47 |     | 297 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%**  |
| sylv | Borough  | 43 |     | 2,  |     |         |        |        |
| ania | of       |    | 2   | 255 | 23, | 0.0062% | 0.034% | 0.61%  |
| ]{.u |          | 4  | .11 |     | 593 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| nder | Ch       | ,7 |     | 14, |     |         |        |        |
| line | arleroi, | 59 | 2   | 364 | 61, | 0       | 0      | 0.037% |
| }*** | Borough  |    | .47 |     | 713 | .00037% | .0021% | 1%    |
|      | of       | 35 |     | NA  |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | ,4 | NA  |     | NA  |         |        | Hou    |
| 2002 | Ch       | 78 |     | 2,  |     | Ho      | Hou    | sehold |
| >    | eltenham |    | 2   | 663 | 30, | usehold | sehold | stat   |
| >    | Township | NA | .49 |     | 967 | sta     | stat   | istics |
| 2002 |          |    |     | 1,  |     | tistics | istics | NA     |
| >    | Chestnut | 6  | 2   | 102 | 35, | not     | NA     |        |
| >    | Ridge    | ,6 | .35 |     | 813 | av      |        | 0.39%  |
| 2004 |          | 32 |     | 1,  |     | ailable | 0.022% | 1%    |
| >    | Corry,   |    | 2   | 234 | 29, |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | City of  | 2  | .41 |     | 785 | 0.0040% |        | 0.82%  |
| 2003 |          | ,5 |     | NA  |     | 1%     | 0.046% | 1%    |
| >    | Coud     | 89 | NA  |     | NA  |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | ersport, |    |     | NA  |     | 0.0083% |        | 0.88%  |
| 2002 | Borough  | 2  | NA  |     | NA  | 1%     | 0.050% | 1%    |
|      |          | ,9 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| 2    | Derry    | 75 |     |     |     | 0.0090% |        | Hou    |
| 002, | Borough  |    |     |     |     | 1%     | Hou    | sehold |
| 2004 |          | NA |     |     |     |         | sehold | stat   |
|      | Derry    |    |     |     |     | Ho      | stat   | istics |
| >    | Township | NA |     |     |     | usehold | istics | NA     |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | NA     |        |
| >    | Eastern  |    |     |     |     | tistics |        | Hou    |
| >    | Snyder   |    |     |     |     | not     | Hou    | sehold |
| 2003 | County   |    |     |     |     | av      | sehold | stat   |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | ailable | stat   | istics |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         | istics | NA     |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      | NA     |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | usehold |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | sta     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | tistics |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | not     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | F        | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| Penn | ranklin, |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| sylv | City of  | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| ania |          |    |     |     |     | tistics | istics | istics |
| ]{.u | G        | 15 | 2   | 6,  | 39, | not     | NA     | NA     |
| nder | ranville | ,8 | .32 | 811 | 454 | av      |        |        |
| line | Township | 02 |     |     |     | ailable | Hou    | Hou    |
| }*** |          |    | NA  | NA  | NA  |         | sehold | sehold |
|      | He       | NA |     |     |     | Ho      | stat   | stat   |
| >    | rmitage, |    | 2   | 95  | 43, | usehold | istics | istics |
| 2003 | City of  | 2  | .18 |     | 750 | sta     | NA     | NA     |
| >    |          | 07 |     | 46, |     | tistics |        |        |
| >    | Kulpmon  |    | 2   | 939 | 34, | not     | 0      | 0.12%  |
| 2004 | t-Marion | 1  | .44 |     | 016 | av      | .0068% | 1%    |
| >    | Hts      | 14 |     | 46, |     | ailable | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | ,5 | 2   | 939 | 34, |         |        | Hou    |
| 2003 | Laporte  | 31 | .44 |     | 016 | 0.0012% | Hou    | sehold |
| >    | Borough  |    |     | 398 |     | 1%     | sehold | stat   |
| >    |          | 1  | 2   |     | 28, |         | stat   | istics |
| 2004 | Lycoming | 14 | .31 | NA  | 571 | Ho      | istics | NA     |
| >    | County   | ,5 |     |     |     | usehold | NA     |        |
| >    |          | 31 | NA  | NA  | NA  | sta     |        | **7.8% |
| 2004 | Lycoming |    |     |     |     | tistics | 0.44%  | 3%**  |
| >    | County   | 9  | NA  | NA  | NA  | not     | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 19 |     |     |     | av      |        | 0.020% |
| 2003 | Paint    |    | NA  | 1,  | NA  | ailable | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | Borough  | NA |     | 913 |     |         | .0011% |        |
| >    |          |    | 2   |     | 32, | 0.079%  | 1%    | 0.020% |
| 2004 | Pocono   | NA | .35 | 9,  | 580 | 1%     |        | 1%    |
| >    | Jackson  |    |     | 216 |     |         | 0      |        |
| >    | Point    | NA | 2   |     | 49, | 0       | .0011% | **2.8% |
| 2004 |          |    | .36 | NA  | 176 | .00021% | 1%    | 1%**  |
| >    | Pulaski  | 4  |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| >    | Township | ,4 | NA  | NA  | NA  |         | 0.16%  | Hou    |
| 2002 |          | 96 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | sehold |
| >    | Robinson |    | NA  | 2,  | NA  | .00021% |        | stat   |
| >    | Township | 21 |     | 518 |     | 1%     | Hou    | istics |
| 2003 |          | ,7 | 2   |     | 25, |         | sehold | NA     |
| >    | Shar     | 49 | .29 | 5,  | 945 | 0.029%  | stat   |        |
| >    | psville, |    |     | 067 |     | 1%     | istics | Hou    |
| 2002 | Borough  | NA | 2   |     | 54, |         | NA     | sehold |
| >    | of       |    | .46 | 1,  | 706 | Ho      |        | stat   |
| >    |          | NA |     | 470 |     | usehold | Hou    | istics |
| 2003 | Spring   |    | 2   |     | 30, | sta     | sehold | NA     |
| >    | ettsbury | 5  | .17 |     | 169 | tistics | stat   |        |
| >    | Twnship  | ,7 |     |     |     | not     | istics | Hou    |
| 2004 |          | 66 |     |     |     | av      | NA     | sehold |
| >    | Summit   |    |     |     |     | ailable |        | stat   |
| >    | Township | 12 |     |     |     |         | Hou    | istics |
| 2004 |          | ,4 |     |     |     | Ho      | sehold | NA     |
|      | 3 Rivers | 64 |     |     |     | usehold | stat   |        |
| 2    | Wet      |    |     |     |     | sta     | istics | 0.52%  |
| 002, | Weather  | 3  |     |     |     | tistics | NA     | 1%    |
| 2003 |          | ,1 |     |     |     | not     |        |        |
|      | Tit      | 89 |     |     |     | av      | 0.029% | 0.072% |
| >    | usville, |    |     |     |     | ailable | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 | City of  |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      | 0      | Hou    |
| >    | Upper    |    |     |     |     | usehold | .0040% | sehold |
| 2003 | Allen    |    |     |     |     | sta     | 1%    | stat   |
| >    | Township |    |     |     |     | tistics |        | istics |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | not     | Hou    | NA     |
| 2003 | We       |    |     |     |     | av      | sehold |        |
|      | llsboro, |    |     |     |     | ailable | stat   | Hou    |
|      | Borough  |    |     |     |     |         | istics | sehold |
|      | of       |    |     |     |     | 0.0053% | NA     | stat   |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        | istics |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         | Hou    | NA     |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0       | sehold |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | .00073% | stat   | 0.50%  |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | istics | 1%    |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         | NA     |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      |        | 0.12%  |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | usehold | 0.028% | 1%    |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | 1%    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | tistics |        | 0.73%  |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | not     | 0      | 1%    |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | av      | .0066% |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable | 1%    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      | 0.041% |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | usehold | 1%    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | sta     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | tistics |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | not     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.0050% |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.0012% |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.0074% |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Ale      | 1  | 2   | 61, | 56, | 0.      | 0.     | 0      |
| Virg | xandria, | 26 | .04 | 952 | 054 | 000095% | 00053% | .0093% |
| inia | City of  | ,3 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| ]{.u |          | 82 | 2   | 8,  | 39, |         |        |        |
| nder | Caroline |    | .69 | 008 | 845 | 0.0010% | 0      | 0.10%  |
| line | County   | 21 |     |     |     | 1%     | .0057% | 1%    |
| }*** |          | ,5 | 2   | 5,  | 29, |         | 1%    |        |
|      | Bu       | 43 | .52 | 327 | 882 | 0.0021% |        | 0.20%  |
| 2    | ckingham |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.012% | 1%    |
| 002, | County   | 13 | 2   | 555 | 38, |         | 1%    |        |
| 2003 |          | ,4 | .22 |     | 938 | 0.015%  |        | **1.5% |
|      | Chatham, | 24 |     | 93, |     | 1%     | 0.085% | 1%**  |
| >    | Town of  |    | 2   | 650 | 58, |         | 1%    |        |
| 2002 |          | 1  | .73 |     | 537 | 0.      |        | 0      |
| >    | Ches     | ,2 |     | 3,  |     | 000060% | 0.     | .0059% |
| >    | terfield | 32 | 2   | 522 | 31, | 1%     | 00033% | 1%    |
| 2003 | County   |    | .55 |     | 816 |         | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 2  |     | NA  |     | 0.0029% |        | 0.29%  |
| >    | Cu       | 55 | NA  |     | NA  | 1%     | 0.016% | 1%    |
| 2004 | mberland | ,6 |     | 910 |     |         | 1%    |        |
|      | County   | 64 | 2   |     | 27, | Ho      |        | Hou    |
| 2    |          |    | .13 | 3   | 831 | usehold | Hou    | sehold |
| 003, | Dale     | 8  |     | 50, |     | sta     | sehold | stat   |
| 2004 | Service  | ,9 | 2   | 165 | 81, | tistics | stat   | istics |
|      | Corp.    | 81 | .74 |     | 050 | not     | istics | NA     |
| >    |          |    |     | 3   |     | av      | NA     |        |
| 2003 | Dublin,  | NA | 2   | 50, | 81, | ailable |        | **1.3% |
|      | Town of  |    | .74 | 165 | 050 |         | 0.072% | 1%**  |
| 2    |          | 1  |     |     |     | 0.013%  | 1%    |        |
| 003, | Fairfax  | ,9 | 2   | 7,  | 46, | 1%     |        | 0      |
| 2004 | County   | 39 | .59 | 381 | 372 |         | 0.0    | .0011% |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.      | 00065% | 1%    |
| >    | Fairfax  | 9  | 2   | 18, | 38, | 000012% | 1%    |        |
| 2003 | County   | 59 | .44 | 951 | 056 | 1%     |        | 0      |
| >    |          | ,4 |     |     |     |         | 0.0    | .0011% |
| >    | Fluvanna | 52 | 2   | 23, | 31, | 0.      | 00065% | 1%    |
| 2003 | County   |    | .40 | 955 | 816 | 000012% | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 9  |     |     |     | 1%     |        | 0.095% |
| >    | Franklin | 59 | 2   | 25, | 32, |         | 0      | 1%    |
| 2004 | County   | ,4 | .30 | 530 | 234 | 0       | .0054% |        |
|      |          | 52 |     |     |     | .00096% | 1%    | 0.045% |
| 2    | Henry    |    | 2   | 86, | 31, | 1%     |        | 1%    |
| 002, | County   | 19 | .45 | 169 | 815 |         | 0      |        |
| 2003 |          | ,1 |     |     |     | 0       | .0025% | 0.042% |
|      | Ly       | 16 | 2   | 1,  | 28, | .00046% | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2    | nchburg, |    | .28 | 610 | 576 | 1%     |        |        |
| 002, | City of  | 46 |     |     |     |         | 0      | 0.039% |
| 03,  |          | ,2 | 2   | 38, | 33, | 0       | .0024% | 1%    |
| 04   | Norfolk, | 40 | .51 | 148 | 742 | .00043% | 1%    |        |
|      | City of  |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        | 0.012% |
| >    |          | 57 | 2   | 94, | 65, |         | 0      | 1%    |
| 2004 | Orange,  | ,4 | .94 | 702 | 960 | 0       | .0022% |        |
|      | Town of  | 93 |     |     |     | .00040% | 1%    | 0.70%  |
| 2    |          |    | 2   | 13, | 30, | 1%     |        | 1%    |
| 002, | Por      | 58 | .37 | 500 | 083 |         | 0.     |        |
| 03,  | tsmouth, | ,7 |     |     |     | 0       | 00067% | 0.025% |
| 04   | City of  | 18 | 2   | 3,  | 25, | .00012% | 1%    | 1%    |
|      |          |    | .26 | 501 | 964 | 1%     |        |        |
| 2    | Prince   | 2  |     |     |     |         | 0.040% | 0      |
| 002, | William  | 11 | 2   | 359 | 25, | 0.0072% | 1%    | .0052% |
| 02,0 | County   | ,1 | .03 |     | 750 | 1%     |        | 1%    |
| 3,03 |          | 14 |     |     |     |         | 0      |        |
|      | Smyth    |    |     |     |     | 0       | .0014% | 0.080% |
| >    | County   | 3  |     |     |     | .00026% | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 |          | ,6 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      | South    | 70 |     |     |     |         | 0.     | 0.36%  |
| 2    | Boston,  |    |     |     |     | 0.      | 00029% | 1%    |
| 004, | Town of  | 95 |     |     |     | 000053% | 1%    |        |
| 2004 |          | ,7 |     |     |     | 1%     |        | **3.5% |
|      | Ke       | 51 |     |     |     |         | 0      | 3%**  |
| >    | ysville, |    |     |     |     | 0       | .0046% |        |
| 2002 | Town of  | 2  |     |     |     | .00081% | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 78 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| >    |          | ,4 |     |     |     |         | 0.020% |        |
| 2002 |          | 24 |     |     |     | 0.0036% | 1%    |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| >    |          | 31 |     |     |     |         | 0.20%  |        |
| 2002 |          | ,9 |     |     |     | 0.036%  | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 96 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 |          | 7  |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | ,9 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 12 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 7  |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 29 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Barbour  | 15 | 2   | 6,  | 24, | 0.0022% | 0.012% | 0.21%  |
| West | County   | ,1 | .47 | 124 | 729 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| Virg |          | 27 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| inia | Beach    |    | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| ]{.u | Bottom,  | NA |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| nder | Village  |    | 2   | 2,  | 21, | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| line |          | 5  | .33 | 280 | 981 | tistics | istics | istics |
| }*** | Grafton, | ,3 |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
|      | City of  | 13 | 2   | 13, | 33, | av      |        |        |
| >    |          |    | .36 | 693 | 759 | ailable | 0.036% | 0.65%  |
| 2002 | Hancock  | 32 |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | County   | ,3 | NA  | NA  | NA  | 0.0066% |        |        |
| >    |          | 16 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      | 0.070% |
| 2003 | Estrn    |    | 2   | 14, | 30, |         | .0040% | 1%    |
|      | Inwood   | NA | .44 | 206 | 989 | 0       | 1%    |        |
| 2    | W        |    |     |     |     | .00071% |        | Hou    |
| 003, | atershed | 34 | NA  | NA  | NA  | 1%     | Hou    | sehold |
| 2003 |          | ,6 |     |     |     |         | sehold | stat   |
|      | Marshall | 62 | 2   | 4,  | 23, | Ho      | stat   | istics |
| >    | County   |    | .28 | 123 | 107 | usehold | istics | NA     |
| 2002 |          | NA |     |     |     | sta     | NA     |        |
| >    | Midland  |    | 2   | 2,  | 33, | tistics |        | 0.074% |
| >    | PSD      | 9  | .34 | 485 | 750 | not     | 0      | 1%    |
| 2002 |          | ,4 |     |     |     | av      | .0042% |        |
| >    | Moun     | 00 | 2   | 19, | 30, | ailable | 1%    | Hou    |
| >    | dsville, |    | .27 | 716 | 836 |         |        | sehold |
| 2004 | City of  | 5  |     |     |     | 0       | Hou    | stat   |
| >    |          | ,8 | 2   | 20, | 41, | .00075% | sehold | istics |
| >    | New      | 16 | .56 | 034 | 892 | 1%     | stat   | NA     |
| 2003 | Mart     |    |     |     |     |         | istics |        |
| >    | insville | 44 | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | NA     | 0.34%  |
| >    |          | ,7 |     |     |     | usehold |        | 1%    |
| 2003 | Ohio     | 57 | 2   | 1,  | 27, | sta     | 0.019% |        |
| >    | County   |    | .12 | 359 | 298 | tistics | 1%    | 0.39%  |
| >    | PSD      | 51 |     |     |     | not     |        | 1%    |
| 2002 |          | ,2 | 2   | 13, | 27, | av      | 0.022% |        |
| >    | Putnam   | 88 | .17 | 731 | 388 | ailable | 1%    | 0.053% |
| >    | County   |    |     |     |     |         |        | 1%    |
| 2002 |          | NA |     |     |     | 0.0034% | 0      |        |
| >    | Sist     |    |     |     |     | 1%     | .0030% | 0.039% |
| >    | erville, | 2  |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 | City of  | ,8 |     |     |     | 0.0039% |        |        |
| >    |          | 82 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      | Hou    |
| >    | We       |    |     |     |     |         | .0022% | sehold |
| 2003 | llsburg, | 29 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | stat   |
| >    | City of  | ,7 |     |     |     | .00054% |        | istics |
| >    |          | 97 |     |     |     | 1%     | Hou    | NA     |
| 2003 | W        |    |     |     |     |         | sehold |        |
| >    | heeling, |    |     |     |     | 0       | stat   | 0.87%  |
| >    | City of  |    |     |     |     | .00039% | istics | 1%    |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | NA     |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        | 0.086% |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      | 0.049% | 1%    |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | usehold | 1%    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | sta     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | tistics | 0      |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | not     | .0049% |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | av      | 1%    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.0089% |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0       |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | .00088% |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Blount   | 50 | 2   | 19, | 35, | 0       | 0      | 0.048% |
| **RE | County   | ,4 | .62 | 242 | 241 | .00048% | .0027% | 1%    |
| GION |          | 14 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 4*** | Brent    |    | NA  | NA  | NA  |         |        | Hou    |
|      | Water &  | NA |     |     |     | Ho      | Hou    | sehold |
| ***  | Sewer    |    | 2   | 2,  | 34, | usehold | sehold | stat   |
| [Ala |          | 5  | .35 | 220 | 234 | sta     | stat   | istics |
| bama | Brewton, | ,2 |     |     |     | tistics | istics | NA     |
| ]{.u | City of  | 18 | 2   | 1,  | 31, | not     | NA     |        |
| nder |          |    | .73 | 317 | 739 | av      |        | 0.43%  |
| line | Cit      | 3  |     |     |     | ailable | 0.024% | 1%    |
| }*** | ronelle, | ,5 | 2   | 5,  | 27, |         | 1%    |        |
|      | Town of  | 96 | .43 | 756 | 885 | 0.0043% |        | 0.78%  |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.044% | 1%    |
| 2002 | Clay     | 13 | NA  | NA  | NA  |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | County   | ,9 |     |     |     | 0.0079% |        | 0.20%  |
| >    |          | 88 | 2   | 30, | 32, | 1%     | 0.011% | 1%    |
| 2004 | Coosa    |    | .49 | 717 | 256 |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | Valley   | NA |     |     |     | 0.0020% |        | Hou    |
| >    |          |    | 2   | 3,  | 31, | 1%     | Hou    | sehold |
| 2002 | Cullman  | 76 | .35 | 130 | 596 |         | sehold | stat   |
|      | County   | ,4 |     |     |     | Ho      | stat   | istics |
| 2    |          | 85 | 2   | 194 | 38, | usehold | istics | NA     |
| 002, | Foley,   |    | .53 |     | 958 | sta     | NA     |        |
| 03,  | City of  | 7  |     |     |     | tistics |        | 0.033% |
| 04   |          | ,3 |     |     |     | not     | 0      | 1%    |
|      | Eva      | 55 |     |     |     | av      | .0018% |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | ailable | 1%    | 0.33%  |
| 2002 |          | 4  |     |     |     |         |        | 1%    |
|      |          | 91 |     |     |     | 0       | 0.018% |        |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     | .00033% | 1%    | **4.3% |
| 003, |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        | 3%**  |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         | 0.24%  |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.0033% | 1%    |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 0.044%  |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Fayette  | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| **[A | Water    |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| laba | Works    | 34 | 2   | 15, | 28, | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| ma - |          | ,7 | .20 | 812 | 330 | tistics | istics | istics |
| cont | F        | 87 |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| ]{.u | lorence, |    | 2   | 12, | 27, | av      |        |        |
| nder | City of  | 30 | .51 | 279 | 177 | ailable | 0      | 0.072% |
| line |          | ,8 |     |     |     |         | .0041% | 1%    |
| }*** | Franklin | 21 | 2   | 279 | 37, | 0       | 1%    |        |
|      | County   |    | .38 |     | 188 | .00073% |        | 0.097% |
| >    |          | 6  |     | NA  |     | 1%     | 0      | 1%    |
| 2004 | Grant    | 65 | NA  |     | NA  |         | .0055% |        |
| >    |          |    |     | 66, |     | 0       | 1%    | **3.1% |
| >    | H        | NA | 2   | 655 | 41, | .00099% |        | 3%**  |
| 2004 | artselle |    | .29 |     | 074 | 1%     | 0.18%  |        |
|      | U        | 1  |     | 66, |     |         | 1%    | Hou    |
| 2    | tilities | 52 | 2   | 655 | 41, | 0.032%  |        | sehold |
| 002, |          | ,6 | .29 |     | 074 | 1%     | Hou    | stat   |
| 03,  | Hun      | 41 |     | 21, |     |         | sehold | istics |
| 04   | tsville, |    | 2   | 598 | 32, | Ho      | stat   | NA     |
|      | City of  | 1  | .47 |     | 020 | usehold | istics |        |
| >    |          | 52 |     | 2,  |     | sta     | NA     | 0.012% |
| 2002 | Hun      | ,6 | 2   | 094 | 34, | tistics |        | 1%    |
|      | tsville, | 41 | .54 |     | 806 | not     | 0.     |        |
| 2    | City of  |    |     | 2,  |     | av      | 00067% | 0.012% |
| 002, |          | 53 | 2   | 094 | 34, | ailable | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2004 | Jackson  | ,3 | .54 |     | 806 |         |        |        |
|      | County   | 47 |     | 24, |     | 0       | 0.     | 0.047% |
| >    |          |    | 2   | 719 | 37, | .00012% | 00067% | 1%    |
| 2002 | Jackson, | 5  | .55 |     | 405 | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    | City of  | ,3 |     | 394 |     |         |        | 0.44%  |
| >    |          | 19 | 2   |     | 32, | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| 2003 | Jackson, |    | .48 | 1,  | 583 | .00012% | .0026% |        |
| >    | City of  | 5  |     | 105 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 0.44%  |
| >    |          | ,3 | 2   |     | 22, |         |        | 1%    |
| 2004 | L        | 19 | .24 | 12, | 457 | 0       | 0.025% |        |
| >    | imestone |    |     | 681 |     | .00048% | 1%    | 0.035% |
| >    |          | 63 | 2   |     | 27, | 1%     |        | 1%    |
| 2002 | Litt     | ,0 | .39 | NA  | 475 |         | 0.025% |        |
|      | leville, | 33 |     |     |     | 0.0045% | 1%    | **2.5% |
| 2    | Town of  |    | NA  | 1   | NA  | 1%     |        | 1%**  |
| 002, |          | 9  |     | 50, |     |         | 0      |        |
| 2003 | Luverne, | 78 | 2   | 105 | 33, | 0.0045% | .0020% | **1.3% |
|      | City of  |    | .61 |     | 710 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%**  |
| 2    |          | 2  |     | 2,  |     |         |        |        |
| 002, | Marion   | ,4 | 2   | 691 | 28, | 0       | 0.14%  | 0.093% |
| 2003 | County   | 75 | .46 |     | 229 | .00036% | 1%    | 1%    |
|      |          |    |     | 4,  |     | 1%     |        |        |
| >    | Mobile   | 30 | 2   | 715 | 40, |         | 0.074% | Hou    |
| 2003 | Area     | ,3 | .48 |     | 216 | 0.026%  | 1%    | sehold |
| >    |          | 07 |     | 393 |     | 1%     |        | stat   |
| >    | Mobile   |    | 2   |     | 31, |         | 0      | istics |
| 2002 | County   | NA | .33 | 1,  | 307 | 0.013%  | .0053% | NA     |
| >    |          |    |     | 882 |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    | Monr     | 3  | 2   |     | 29, |         |        | 0      |
| 2003 | oeville, | 91 | .39 | 54, | 505 | 0       | Hou    | .0064% |
| >    | City of  | ,7 |     | 679 |     | .00094% | sehold | 1%    |
| >    |          | 75 | 2   |     | 55, | 1%     | stat   |        |
| 2003 | Muscle   |    | .59 | 1,  | 440 |         | istics | 0.43%  |
|      | Shoals   | 6  |     | 097 |     | Ho      | NA     | 1%    |
| 2    |          | ,6 | 2   |     | 26, | usehold |        |        |
| 002, | No       | 21 | .39 | 31, | 364 | sta     | 0.     | 0.17%  |
| 2003 | tasulga, |    |     | 443 |     | tistics | 00036% | 1%    |
|      | Town of  | 11 | 2   |     | 27, | not     | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | ,6 | .22 | NA  | 731 | av      |        | **2.6% |
| 2003 | Ra       | 94 |     |     |     | ailable | 0.024% | 1%**  |
| >    | insville |    | NA  | NA  | NA  |         | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 9  |     |     |     | 0.      |        | 0.58%  |
| 2003 | Shelby   | 16 | NA  | NA  | NA  | 000065% | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | County   |    |     |     |     | 1%     | .0097% |        |
| >    |          | 4  | NA  | NA  | NA  |         | 1%    | 0.011% |
| 2003 | Sumiton  | ,4 |     |     |     | 0.0043% |        | 1%    |
| >    |          | 99 | NA  | 867 | NA  | 1%     | 0.15%  |        |
| >    | Tu       |    |     |     |     |         | 1%    | **1.1% |
| 2002 | scaloosa | 1  | 2   |     | 25, | 0.0017% |        | 1%**  |
| >    |          | 41 | .45 |     | 750 | 1%     | 0.033% |        |
| >    | Tu       | ,6 |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 0.037% |
| 2002 | scambia, | 18 |     |     |     | 0.027%  |        | 1%    |
| >    | City of  |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.     |        |
| >    |          | 2  |     |     |     |         | 00060% | Hou    |
| 2002 | Upper    | ,6 |     |     |     | 0.0059% | 1%    | sehold |
| >    | Bear     | 22 |     |     |     | 1%     |        | stat   |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         | 0.063% | istics |
| 2002 | Water &  | 69 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | NA     |
| >    | Sewer    | ,8 |     |     |     | .00011% |        |        |
| >    |          | 04 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      | Hou    |
| 2002 | West     |    |     |     |     |         | .0021% | sehold |
| >    | Mor      | NA |     |     |     | 0.011%  | 1%    | stat   |
| >    | gan-East |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        | istics |
| 2004 |          | NA |     |     |     |         | Hou    | NA     |
| >    | Camden,  |    |     |     |     | 0       | sehold |        |
| >    | City of  | NA |     |     |     | .00038% | stat   | Hou    |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | istics | sehold |
|      |          | NA |     |     |     |         | NA     | stat   |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      |        | istics |
| 002, |          | 2  |     |     |     | usehold | Hou    | NA     |
| 03,  |          | ,1 |     |     |     | sta     | sehold |        |
| 04   |          | 24 |     |     |     | tistics | stat   | Hou    |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | not     | istics | sehold |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | av      | NA     | stat   |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        | istics |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         | Hou    | NS     |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      | sehold |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | usehold | stat   | **1.4% |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | istics | 1%**  |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | tistics | NA     |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | not     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | av      | Hou    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable | sehold |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         | stat   |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      | istics |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | usehold | NA     |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | sta     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | tistics | 0.082% |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | not     | 1%    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | usehold |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | sta     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | tistics |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | not     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.015%  |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***  | Boca     | 71 | 2   | 31, | 60, | 0       | 0.     | 0.017% |
| [Flo | Raton,   | ,9 | .26 | 840 | 248 | .00017% | 00096% | 1%    |
| rida | City of  | 58 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| ]{.u |          |    | 2   | 48, | 36, |         |        | 0.018% |
| nder | Cle      | 1  | .17 | 352 | 494 | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| line | arwater, | 04 |     |     |     | .00019% | .0010% |        |
| }*** | City of  | ,9 | 2   | 48, | 36, | 1%     | 1%    | 0.018% |
|      |          | 24 | .17 | 352 | 494 |         |        | 1%    |
| 2    | Cle      |    |     |     |     | 0       | 0      |        |
| 002, | arwater, | 1  | 2   | 80, | 35, | .00019% | .0010% | 0.011% |
| 2003 | City of  | 04 | .25 | 849 | 732 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
|      |          | ,9 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    | Orlando, | 24 | 2   | 3   | 40, | 0       | 0.     | 0      |
| 2002 | City of  |    | .51 | 91, | 663 | .00011% | 00063% | .0020% |
| >    |          | 1  |     | 044 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | Hill     | 81 | 3   |     | 26, |         |        |        |
| 2003 | sborough | ,9 | .10 | 10, | 775 | 0.      | 0.     | 0.12%  |
| >    | County   | 10 |     | 108 |     | 000021% | 00012% | 1%    |
| >    |          |    | 2   |     | 53, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2002 | Ho       | 9  | .08 | 5,  | 038 |         |        | 0.12%  |
| >    | mestead, | 81 |     | 176 |     | 0.0012% | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | ,5 | 2   |     | 35, | 1%     | .0068% |        |
| 2002 |          | 21 | .84 | 7   | 966 |         | 1%    | 0      |
| >    | Li       |    |     | 77, |     | 0.0012% |        | .0012% |
| >    | ghthouse | 31 | 2   | 250 | 29, | 1%     | 0      | 1%    |
| 2004 | Point,   | ,3 | .85 |     | 778 |         | .0067% |        |
| >    | City     | 34 |     | 20, |     | 0.      | 1%    | 0.053% |
| >    |          |    | 2   | 570 | 29, | 000012% |        | 1%    |
| 2003 | Mi       | 10 | .85 |     | 778 | 1%     | 0.0    |        |
| >    | ami-Dade | ,7 |     | 20, |     |         | 00066% | 0.053% |
| >    | County   | 67 | 2.  | 570 | 19, | 0       | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2002 |          |    | 972 |     | 631 | .00054% |        |        |
| >    | North    | 2  | .13 | 4,  |     | 1%     | 0      | 0.34%  |
| >    | Miami,   | ,2 |     | 890 | 41, |         | .0030% | 1%    |
| 2002 | City of  | 07 | 2   |     | 957 | 0       | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | ,3 | .13 | 1   |     | .00054% |        | 0      |
| >    | North    | 91 |     | 49, | 42, | 1%     | 0      | .0052% |
| 2002 | Miami,   |    | 2   | 992 | 488 |         | .0030% | 1%    |
|      | City of  | 58 | .47 |     |     | 0.0034% | 1%    |        |
| 2    |          | ,6 |     | 4,  | NA  | 1%     |        | 0.18%  |
| 002, | Op       | 25 | NA  | 304 |     |         | 0.019% | 1%    |
| 2003 | a-locka, |    |     |     | 50, | 0.      | 1%    |        |
|      | City of  | 58 | 2   | NA  | 099 | 000052% |        | Hou    |
| 2    |          | ,6 | .44 |     |     | 1%     | 0.     | sehold |
| 002, | Sarasota | 25 |     | 49, | 38, |         | 00029% | stat   |
| 2003 | County   |    | 2   | 566 | 251 | 0.0018% | 1%    | istics |
|      |          | 14 | .27 |     |     | 1%     |        | NA     |
| 2    | South    | ,5 |     | 9,  | 30, |         | 0.010% |        |
| 002, | Miami,   | 23 | 2   | 070 | 032 | Ho      | 1%    | 0.013% |
| 2003 | City of  |    | .51 |     |     | usehold |        | 1%    |
|      |          | 3  |     | 7,  | NA  | sta     | Hou    |        |
| 2    | Tampa    | 19 | NA  | 187 |     | tistics | sehold | 0.094% |
| 002, | Bay      | ,4 |     |     | 36, | not     | stat   | 1%    |
| 03,  |          | 84 | 2   | NA  | 774 | av      | istics |        |
| 04   | St.      |    | .26 |     |     | ailable | NA     | 0.15%  |
|      | Johns    | 10 |     | 34, |     |         |        | 1%    |
| >    | County   | ,6 |     | 720 |     | 0       | 0.     |        |
| 2002 |          | 30 |     |     |     | .00013% | 00074% | Hou    |
| >    | Tarpon   |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | sehold |
| >    | Springs, | NA |     |     |     |         |        | stat   |
| 2003 | City of  |    |     |     |     | 0       | 0      | istics |
| >    |          | 1  |     |     |     | .00095% | .0053% | NA     |
| >    | Taylor   | 20 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2003 | County   | ,9 |     |     |     |         |        | 0.025% |
| >    |          | 42 |     |     |     | 0.0015% | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | Volusian |    |     |     |     | 1%     | .0085% |        |
| 2003 | Water    | 20 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
|      |          | ,5 |     |     |     | Ho      |        |        |
| 2    | West     | 89 |     |     |     | usehold | Hou    |        |
| 002, | Palm     |    |     |     |     | sta     | sehold |        |
| 2003 | Beach,   | 18 |     |     |     | tistics | stat   |        |
|      | City     | ,0 |     |     |     | not     | istics |        |
|      |          | 39 |     |     |     | av      | NA     |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
|      |          | NA |     |     |     |         | 0      |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0       | .0014% |        |
|      |          | 78 |     |     |     | .00026% | 1%    |        |
|      |          | ,4 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          | 68 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***  | Forsyth, | 3  | 2   | 1,  | 30, | 0.0074% | 0.041% | 0.73%  |
| [Geo | City of  | ,7 | .57 | 458 | 523 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| rgia |          | 48 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ]{.u | Gwinnett |    | 2   | 2   | 60, | 0.      | 0.     | 0      |
| nder | County   | 5  | .88 | 02, | 537 | 000027% | 00015% | .0016% |
| line |          | 82 |     | 105 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| }*** | Helena,  | ,0 | 2   |     | 22, |         |        |        |
|      | City of  | 63 | .38 | 520 | 212 | 0.028%  | 0.16%  | **2.8% |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%**  |
| 2004 | Gain     | 1  | 2   | 8,  | 36, |         |        |        |
|      | esville, | ,2 | .79 | 537 | 605 | 0.0010% | 0      | 0.10%  |
| 2    | City of  | 38 |     |     |     | 1%     | .0057% | 1%    |
| 003, |          |    | 2   | 30, | 71, |         | 1%    |        |
| 2004 | Roswell, | 23 | .61 | 156 | 726 | 0       |        | 0.015% |
|      | City of  | ,8 |     |     |     | .00015% | 0.     | 1%    |
| >    |          | 18 | 2   | 30, | 71, | 1%     | 00085% |        |
| 2004 | Roswell, |    | .61 | 156 | 726 |         | 1%    | 0.015% |
| >    | City of  | 78 |     |     |     | 0       |        | 1%    |
| >    |          | ,7 |     |     |     | .00015% | 0.     |        |
| 2003 |          | 06 |     |     |     | 1%     | 00085% |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 78 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          | ,7 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          | 06 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Car      | 3  | 2   | 1,  | 29, | 0.0069% | 0.038% | 0.68%  |
| Kent | rollton, | ,6 | .29 | 600 | 818 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| ucky | City of  | 63 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ]{.u |          |    | 2   | 2,  | 28, | 0.0043% | 0.024% | 0.42%  |
| nder | Cy       | 6  | .24 | 689 | 519 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| line | nthiana, | ,0 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| }*** | City of  | 23 | 2   | 36, | 36, | 0       | 0      | 0.024% |
|      |          |    | .47 | 012 | 813 | .00025% | .0014% | 1%    |
| >    | Daviess  | 88 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2003 | County   | ,9 | 2   | 1,  | 25, |         |        | **1.0% |
| >    |          | 50 | .17 | 235 | 132 | 0.011%  | 0.059% | 1%**  |
| >    | Hodg     |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2003 | enville, | 2  | 2   | 3,  | 41, |         |        | 0.22%  |
| >    | City of  | ,6 | .51 | 549 | 329 | 0.0022% | 0.012% | 1%    |
| >    |          | 80 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2002 | Lawre    |    | 2   | 2,  | 27, |         |        | 0.50%  |
| >    | nceburg, | 8  | .16 | 397 | 283 | 0.0050% | 0.028% | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | ,9 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2002 |          | 09 | 2   | 4,  | 22, |         |        | 0.30%  |
| >    | London,  |    | .13 | 833 | 362 | 0.0030% | 0.017% | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | 5  |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2002 |          | ,1 | 2   | 4,  | 47, |         |        | 0.16%  |
| >    | S        | 77 | .74 | 251 | 042 | 0.0016% | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | omerset, |    |     |     |     | 1%     | .0092% |        |
| 2002 | City of  | 10 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | ,2 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    | Spencer  | 95 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 | County   |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          | 11 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          | ,6 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          | 47 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***  | Corinth, | 13 | 2   | 6,  | 23, | 0.0022% | 0.012% | 0.22%  |
| [Mis | City of  | ,6 | .19 | 219 | 436 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| siss |          | 19 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ippi | Far      |    | 2   | 686 | 37, | 0.013%  | 0.072% | **1.3% |
| ]{.u | mington, | 1  | .64 |     | 074 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%**  |
| nder | Town of  | ,8 |     | 2,  |     |         |        |        |
| line |          | 10 | 2   | 130 | 40, | 0.0038% | 0.021% | 0.38%  |
| }*** | Flowood, |    | .23 |     | 333 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
|      | City of  | 4  |     | 26, |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          | ,7 | 2   | 973 | 32, | 0       | 0      | 0.037% |
| 2003 | G        | 50 | .51 |     | 779 | .00037% | .0021% | 1%    |
| >    | ulfport, |    |     | 26, |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    | City of  | 67 | 2   | 973 | 32, |         |        | 0.037% |
| 2004 |          | ,7 | .51 |     | 779 | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | G        | 03 |     | 67, |     | .00037% | .0021% |        |
| >    | ulfport, |    | 2   | 837 | 30, | 1%     | 1%    | 0.016% |
| 2003 | City of  | 67 | .61 |     | 414 |         |        | 1%    |
| >    |          | ,7 |     | 3,  |     | 0       | 0.     |        |
| >    | Jackson, | 03 | 2   | 310 | 18, | .00016% | 00089% | 0.53%  |
| 2003 | City of  |    | .75 |     | 447 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    |          | 1  |     | 147 |     |         |        |        |
| >    | J        | 77 | 2   |     | 28, | 0.0054% | 0.030% | **7.8% |
| 2004 | efferson | ,0 | .78 | 2,  | 333 | 1%     | 1%    | 3%**  |
| >    | County   | 55 |     | 642 |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    | 2   |     | 27, | 0.079%  | 0.44%  | 0.44%  |
| 2002 | Lake,    | 9  | .55 | 5,  | 485 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
|      | Town of  | ,1 |     | 256 |     |         |        |        |
| 2    |          | 04 | 2   |     | 22, | 0.0045% | 0.025% | 0.27%  |
| 002, | Lou      |    | .47 | 15, | 644 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 | isville, | 4  |     | 947 |     |         |        |        |
|      | City of  | 08 | 2   |     | 25, | 0.0028% | 0.015% | 0.081% |
| >    |          |    | .39 | 6,  | 085 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 | McComb,  | 6  |     | 653 |     |         |        |        |
| >    | City of  | ,7 | 2   |     | 45, | 0       | 0      | 0.11%  |
| >    |          | 36 | .56 | 4,  | 885 | .00082% | .0046% | 1%    |
| 2003 | M        |    |     | 102 |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    | eridian, | 12 | 2   |     | 26, |         |        | 0.29%  |
| >    | City of  | ,9 | .54 | 13, | 958 | 0.0011% | 0      | 1%    |
| 2003 |          | 82 |     | 400 |     | 1%     | .0060% |        |
| >    | Ocean    |    | 2   |     | 38, |         | 1%    | 0.063% |
| >    | Springs, | 38 | .47 |     | 401 | 0.0030% |        | 1%    |
| 2003 | City of  | ,1 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.016% |        |
| >    |          | 13 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | P        |    |     |     |     | 0       |        |        |
| 2002 | icayune, | 17 |     |     |     | .00064% | 0      |        |
| >    | City of  | ,0 |     |     |     | 1%     | .0036% |        |
| >    |          | 32 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| 2002 | Tupelo,  |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      | City of  | 10 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2    |          | ,4 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 002, |          | 18 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 33 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | ,0 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 97 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Cary,    | 93 | 2   | 34, | 75, | 0       | 0.     | 0.012% |
| **[N | Town of  | ,9 | .69 | 932 | 122 | .00012% | 00070% | 1%    |
| orth |          | 67 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| Caro | Cherokee |    | 2   | 10, | 27, |         |        | 0.11%  |
| lina | County   | 24 | .32 | 351 | 992 | 0.0011% | 0      | 1%    |
| ]{.u |          | ,0 |     |     |     | 1%     | .0063% |        |
| nder | Granite  | 14 | 2   | 17, | 38, |         | 1%    | 0.048% |
| line | Falls,   |    | .53 | 565 | 596 | 0       |        | 1%    |
| }*** | Town of  | 4  |     |     |     | .00048% | 0      |        |
|      |          | ,4 | 2   | 6,  | 23, | 1%     | .0027% | 0.22%  |
| >    | He       | 44 | .47 | 328 | 745 |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 | nderson, |    |     |     |     | 0.0022% |        |        |
| >    | City of  | 15 | 2   | 446 | 33, | 1%     | 0.012% | **2.2% |
| >    |          | ,6 | .04 |     | 750 |         | 1%    | 1%**  |
| 2002 | Hi       | 31 |     | 7,  |     | 0.022%  |        |        |
| >    | ghlands, |    | 2   | 148 | 42, | 1%     | 0.12%  | 0.10%  |
| >    | Town of  | 9  | .58 |     | 943 |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 |          | 09 |     | NA  |     | 0.0011% |        |        |
|      | Moor     |    | NA  |     | NA  | 1%     | 0      | Hou    |
| 2    | esville, | 18 |     | 853 |     |         | .0060% | sehold |
| 002, | Town of  | ,4 | 2   |     | 35, | Ho      | 1%    | stat   |
| 2003 |          | 43 | .34 | 17, | 800 | usehold |        | istics |
|      | Neuse    |    |     | 873 |     | sta     | Hou    | NA     |
| >    | Regional | NA | 2   |     | 28, | tistics | sehold |        |
| 2003 | Water    |    | .51 | 43, | 830 | not     | stat   | **1.1% |
|      |          | 1  |     | 420 |     | av      | istics | 1%**  |
| 2    | Pi       | ,9 | 2   |     | 50, | ailable | NA     |        |
| 002, | ttsboro, | 97 | .81 |     | 638 |         |        | 0.063% |
| 2003 | Town of  |    |     |     |     | 0.011%  | 0.060% | 1%    |
|      |          | 44 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    | Richmond | ,8 |     |     |     |         |        | 0.015% |
| 2003 | County   | 62 |     |     |     | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | .00064% | .0036% |        |
| >    | Union    | 1  |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2002 | County   | 22 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | ,0 |     |     |     | 0       | 0.     |        |
| 2    |          | 11 |     |     |     | .00015% | 00083% |        |
| 003, |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Berkeley | 1  | 2   | 49, | 39, | 0       | 0.     | 0.016% |
| **[S | County   | 37 | .75 | 894 | 908 | .00016% | 00092% | 1%    |
| outh |          | ,2 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| Caro | Cha      | 09 | 2   | 40, | 35, |         |        | 0.022% |
| lina | rleston, |    | .23 | 870 | 295 | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| ]{.u | City of  | 91 |     |     |     | .00023% | .0013% |        |
| nder |          | ,1 | NA  | NA  | NA  | 1%     | 1%    | Hou    |
| line | C        | 40 |     |     |     |         |        | sehold |
| }*** | harlotte |    | 2   | 11, | 35, | Ho      | Hou    | stat   |
|      |          | NA | .44 | 923 | 388 | usehold | sehold | istics |
| 2    | F        |    |     |     |     | sta     | stat   | NA     |
| 002, | lorence, | 29 | 2   | 1   | 41, | tistics | istics |        |
| 2003 | City of  | ,0 | .47 | 49, | 149 | not     | NA     | 0.077% |
|      |          | 93 |     | 308 |     | av      |        | 1%    |
| 2    | Gr       |    | 2   |     | 35, | ailable | 0      |        |
| 003, | eenville | 3  | .40 | 677 | 924 |         | .0043% | 0      |
| 2004 | County   | 68 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | .0053% |
|      |          | ,7 | 2   | 26, | 33, | .00078% |        | 1%    |
| >    | Jackson, | 91 | .55 | 250 | 933 | 1%     | 0.     |        |
| 2003 | Town of  |    |     |     |     |         | 00030% | **1.3% |
| >    |          | 1  | 2   | 19, | 61, | 0.      | 1%    | 1%**  |
| >    | Laurens  | ,6 | .47 | 006 | 054 | 000054% |        |        |
| 2002 | County   | 25 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.075% | 0.036% |
| >    |          |    | 2   | 10, | 35, |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | Mount    | 66 | .17 | 415 | 498 | 0.014%  |        |        |
| 2002 | Pleasant | ,9 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      | 0.028% |
| >    |          | 39 | NA  | NA  | NA  |         | .0020% | 1%    |
| >    | Myrtle   |    |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    |        |
| 2003 | Beach,   | 46 |     |     |     | .00037% |        | 0.088% |
|      | City of  | ,9 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      | 1%    |
| 2    |          | 44 |     |     |     |         | .0016% |        |
| 002, | West     |    |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | Hou    |
| 2002 | Ge       | 22 |     |     |     | .00028% |        | sehold |
|      | orgetown | ,6 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      | stat   |
| >    |          | 00 |     |     |     |         | .0050% | istics |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | NA     |
|      |          | NA |     |     |     | .00089% |        |        |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | Hou    |        |
| 003, |          |    |     |     |     |         | sehold |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      | stat   |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | usehold | istics |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | NA     |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     | tistics |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | not     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Athens   | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| **[T | U        |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| enne | tilities | 10 | 2   | 4,  | 29, | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| ssee |          | ,9 | .55 | 303 | 354 | tistics | istics | istics |
| ]{.u | Meigs    | 72 |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| nder | County   |    | NA  | NA  | NA  | av      |        |        |
| line |          | NA |     |     |     | ailable | 0.014% | 0.26%  |
| }*** | North    |    | NA  | NA  | NA  |         | 1%    | 1%    |
|      | Bledsoe  | NA |     |     |     | 0.0026% |        |        |
| >    |          |    | 2   | 1,  | 30, | 1%     | Hou    | Hou    |
| 2003 | River    | 4  | .47 | 639 | 647 |         | sehold | sehold |
| >    | Road     | ,0 |     |     |     | Ho      | stat   | stat   |
| >    | Utility  | 48 | NA  | NA  | NA  | usehold | istics | istics |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | NA     | NA     |
| >    | Dunlap,  | NA |     |     |     | tistics |        |        |
| >    | City of  |    |     |     |     | not     | Hou    | Hou    |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     | av      | sehold | sehold |
| >    | Watauga  |    |     |     |     | ailable | stat   | stat   |
| >    | River    |    |     |     |     |         | istics | istics |
| 2003 | Auth.    |    |     |     |     | Ho      | NA     | NA     |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | usehold |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | 0.036% | 0.64%  |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     | tistics | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | not     |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | av      | Hou    | Hou    |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     | ailable | sehold | sehold |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         | stat   | stat   |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.0066% | istics | istics |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | NA     | NA     |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | usehold |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | sta     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | tistics |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | not     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Breese,  | 3  | 2   | 1,  | 47, | 0.0046% | 0.025% | 0.45%  |
| **RE | City of  | ,9 | .61 | 513 | 639 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| GION |          | 50 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 5*** | Breese,  |    | 2   | 1,  | 47, | 0.0046% | 0.025% | 0.45%  |
|      | City of  | 3  | .61 | 513 | 639 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| ***[ |          | ,9 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| Illi | Cla      | 50 | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| nois | rk-Edgar |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| ]{.u |          | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| nder | Dallas   |    |     |     |     | tistics | istics | istics |
| line | Rural    | NA | 2   | 284 | 53, | not     | NA     | NA     |
| }*** |          |    | .73 |     | 750 | av      |        |        |
|      | Downs,   | 7  |     | 3   |     | ailable | Hou    | Hou    |
| >    | Village  | 76 | 2   | 25, | 67, |         | sehold | sehold |
| 2003 | of       |    | .73 | 659 | 887 | Ho      | stat   | stat   |
| >    |          | 8  |     |     |     | usehold | istics | istics |
| >    | DuPage   | 89 | 2   | 902 | 69, | sta     | NA     | NA     |
| 2004 | County   | ,0 | .68 |     | 000 | tistics |        |        |
| >    |          | 48 |     | 1,  |     | not     | 0.12%  | **2.1% |
| >    | Forsyth, |    | 2   | 568 | 36, | av      | 1%    | 1%**  |
| 2002 | City of  | 2  | .15 |     | 103 | ailable |        |        |
| >    |          | ,4 |     | 1,  |     |         | 0.0    | 0      |
| >    | Galena,  | 18 | 2   | 469 | 33, | 0.022%  | 00083% | .0015% |
| 2003 | City of  |    | .47 |     | 852 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    |          | 3  |     | 592 |     |         |        |        |
| >    | Geo      | ,3 | 2   |     | 41, | 0.      | 0.029% | 0.52%  |
| 2004 | rgetown, | 71 | .39 | 1,  | 548 | 000015% | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | City of  |    |     | 222 |     | 1%     |        |        |
| >    |          | 3  | 2   |     | 40, |         | 0.032% | 0.57%  |
| 2003 | Gr       | ,6 | .39 | NA  | 179 | 0.0053% | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | anville, | 28 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| >    | Village  |    | NA  | 1,  | NA  |         | 0.037% | 0.65%  |
| 2004 | of       | 1  |     | 757 |     | 0.0058% | 1%    | 1%    |
|      |          | ,4 | 3   |     | 69, | 1%     |        |        |
| 2    | H        | 14 | .06 | 1,  | 864 |         | 0.074% | **1.3% |
| 003, | amilton, |    |     | 757 |     | 0.0066% | 1%    | 1%**  |
| 2004 | City of  | 2  | 3   |     | 69, | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          | ,9 | .06 | 4,  | 864 |         | 0.037% | 0.66%  |
| >    | Holland  | 21 |     | 396 |     | 0.013%  | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 | Regional |    | 2   |     | 50, | 1%     |        |        |
| >    | Water    | NA | .77 | 5,  | 254 |         | Hou    | Hou    |
| >    |          |    |     | 443 |     | 0.0067% | sehold | sehold |
| 2003 | Jo       | 5  | 2   |     | 58, | 1%     | stat   | stat   |
| >    | hnsburg, | ,3 | .38 | 2   | 918 |         | istics | istics |
| >    | Village  | 77 |     | 16, |     | Ho      | NA     | NA     |
| 2003 | of       |    | 2   | 461 | 66, | usehold |        |        |
| >    |          | 5  | .88 |     | 973 | sta     | 0.015% | 0.26%  |
| >    | Jo       | ,3 |     | 2,  |     | tistics | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 | hnsburg, | 77 | 2   | 024 | 24, | not     |        |        |
|      | Village  |    | .16 |     | 951 | av      | 0.015% | 0.26%  |
| 2    | of       | 12 |     | 6,  |     | ailable | 1%    | 1%    |
| 002, |          | ,1 | 2   | 590 | 25, |         |        |        |
| 2003 | Justice, | 76 | .10 |     | 994 | 0.0027% | 0      | 0.15%  |
|      | Village  |    |     | 1,  |     | 1%     | .0083% | 1%    |
| >    | of       | 12 | 2   | 048 | 46, |         | 1%    |        |
| 2004 |          | ,9 | .44 |     | 691 | 0.0027% |        | 0.10%  |
| >    | La       | 54 |     | 18, |     | 1%     | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | Grange   |    | 2   | 476 | 39, |         | .0057% |        |
| 2002 | Park,    | 6  | .35 |     | 363 | 0.0015% | 1%    | 0      |
| >    | Village  | 23 |     | 3,  |     | 1%     |        | .0022% |
| >    |          | ,3 | 2   | 684 | 33, |         | 0.     | 1%    |
| 2003 | Lake     | 78 | .37 |     | 641 | 0.0010% | 00013% |        |
| >    | County   |    |     | 2,  |     | 1%     | 1%    | 0.64%  |
| >    |          | 4  | 2   | 165 | 51, |         |        | 1%    |
| 2003 | Lawren   | ,3 | .52 |     | 028 | 0.      | 0.036% |        |
| >    | ceville, | 71 |     | 18, |     | 000023% | 1%    | 0.19%  |
| >    | City of  |    | 2   | 686 | 67, | 1%     |        | 1%    |
| 2002 |          | 13 | .71 |     | 574 |         | 0.011% |        |
| >    | Macomb,  | ,8 |     | 3,  |     | 0.0065% | 1%    | 0.66%  |
| >    | City of  | 39 | 2   | 866 | 30, | 1%     |        | 1%    |
| 2002 |          |    | .29 |     | 902 |         | 0.037% |        |
| >    | M        | 2  |     | 48, |     | 0.0019% | 1%    | 0.045% |
| >    | etamora, | ,5 | 2   | 615 | 39, | 1%     |        | 1%    |
| 2002 | Village  | 58 | .24 |     | 388 |         | 0      |        |
|      | of       |    |     | 723 |     | 0.0067% | .0025% | 0.26%  |
| 2    |          | 43 | 2   |     | 35, | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| 002, | Moline,  | ,4 | .31 |     | 741 |         |        |        |
| 2003 | City of  | 18 |     |     |     | 0       | 0.015% | 0.29%  |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | .00045% | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | Monmouth | 8  |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 2002 |          | ,7 |     |     |     |         | 0.017% | 0.026% |
| >    | Mon      | 31 |     |     |     | 0.0026% | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | tgomery, |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 2003 | Village  | 5  |     |     |     |         | 0      | 0.27%  |
| >    | of       | ,4 |     |     |     | 0.0030% | .0014% | 1%    |
| >    |          | 55 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2002 | Orland   |    |     |     |     |         |        | 0.017% |
| >    | Park,    | 50 |     |     |     | 0       | 0.015% | 1%    |
| >    | Village  | ,6 |     |     |     | .00026% | 1%    |        |
| 2002 | of       | 40 |     |     |     | 1%     |        | **1.2% |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         | 0.     | 1%**  |
| >    | Paris,   | 8  |     |     |     | 0.0028% | 00096% |        |
| 2004 | City of  | ,8 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 54 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    | Spri     |    |     |     |     | 0       | 0.071% |        |
| 2004 | ngfield, | 1  |     |     |     | .00017% | 1%    |        |
|      | City of  | 08 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          | ,8 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      | V        | 98 |     |     |     | 0.013%  |        |        |
|      | irginia, |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      | City of  | 1  |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | ,6 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 70 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***  | Carmel,  | 37 | 2   | 13, | 81, | 0       | 0      | 0.029% |
| [Ind | City of  | ,2 | .74 | 581 | 583 | .00030% | .0016% | 1%    |
| iana |          | 12 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| ]{.u | Carmel,  |    | 2   | 13, | 81, |         |        | 0.029% |
| nder | City of  | 37 | .74 | 581 | 583 | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| line |          | ,2 |     |     |     | .00030% | .0016% |        |
| }*** | Fort     | 12 | 2   | 83, | 36, | 1%     | 1%    | 0.011% |
|      | Wayne,   |    | .41 | 274 | 518 |         |        | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | 2  |     |     |     | 0       | 0.     |        |
| 2002 |          | 00 | 2   | 9,  | 47, | .00011% | 00060% | 0.069% |
| >    | Hobart,  | ,6 | .55 | 849 | 759 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | 91 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    | 2   | 11, | 49, | 0       | 0      | 0.056% |
| >    | Merr     | 25 | .57 | 675 | 545 | .00070% | .0039% | 1%    |
| >    | illville | ,1 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2002 |          | 15 | 2   | 3,  | 31, |         |        | 0.31%  |
| >    | Tell     |    | .25 | 411 | 045 | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | City     | 30 |     |     |     | .00057% | .0032% |        |
| 2003 |          | ,0 | 2   | 41, | 33, | 1%     | 1%    | 0.024% |
| >    | Vigo     | 05 | .38 | 036 | 184 |         |        | 1%    |
| >    | County   |    |     |     |     | 0.0031% | 0.017% |        |
| 2002 |          | 7  | 2   | 3,  | 52, | 1%     | 1%    | 0.18%  |
| >    | We       | ,6 | .72 | 386 | 963 |         |        | 1%    |
| >    | stfield, | 74 |     |     |     | 0       | 0      |        |
| 2003 | Town of  |    |     |     |     | .00024% | .0013% |        |
| >    |          | 97 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | ,6 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          | 66 |     |     |     | 0.0018% | 0.010% |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 9  |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 |          | ,2 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 10 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Almont,  | 2  | 2   | 1,  | 53, | 0.0060% | 0.033% | 0.59%  |
| Mich | Village  | ,7 | .73 | 022 | 984 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| igan | of       | 91 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ]{.u |          |    | 2   | 1,  | 32, | 0.0072% | 0.040% | 0.71%  |
| nder | Bad Axe, | 3  | .31 | 418 | 125 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| line | City of  | ,2 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| }*** |          | 76 | 2   | 3   | 29, | 0.      | 0.     | 0      |
|      | Detroit, |    | .77 | 36, | 526 | 000033% | 00018% | .0033% |
| >    | City of  | 9  |     | 306 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2002 |          | 31 | 2   |     | 56, |         |        |        |
|      | Far      | ,5 | .13 | 4,  | 442 | 0.0012% | 0      | 0.12%  |
| 2    | mington, | 69 |     | 830 |     | 1%     | .0067% | 1%    |
| 002, | City of  |    | 2   |     | 41, |         | 1%    |        |
| 2003 |          | 10 | .54 | 1   | 951 | 0.      |        | 0      |
|      | Genesee  | ,2 |     | 69, |     | 000046% | 0.     | .0046% |
| 2    | County   | 87 | 2   | 604 | 37, | 1%     | 00026% | 1%    |
| 002, |          |    | .57 |     | 224 |         | 1%    |        |
| 2003 | Grand    | 4  |     | 73, |     | 0       |        | 0.012% |
|      | Rapids,  | 30 | 2   | 193 | 37, | .00012% | 0.     | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | ,7 | .57 |     | 224 | 1%     | 00067% |        |
| 2002 |          | 94 |     | 73, |     |         | 1%    | 0.012% |
|      | Grand    |    | 2   | 193 | 43, | 0       |        | 1%    |
| 2    | Rapids,  | 1  | .49 |     | 169 | .00012% | 0.     |        |
| 002, | City of  | 88 |     | 30, |     | 1%     | 00067% | 0.025% |
| 2003 |          | ,1 | 2   | 454 | 35, |         | 1%    | 1%    |
|      | Grand    | 06 | .42 |     | 315 | 0       |        |        |
| >    | Traverse |    |     | 14, |     | .00025% | 0      | 0.063% |
| 2002 | County   | 1  | 2   | 627 | 33, | 1%     | .0014% | 1%    |
|      |          | 88 | .30 |     | 117 |         | 1%    |        |
| 2    | Huron    | ,1 |     | 1,  |     | 0       |        | 0.50%  |
| 003, |          | 06 | 2   | 947 | 61, | .00064% | 0      | 1%    |
| 2004 | N        |    | .51 |     | 907 | 1%     | .0036% |        |
|      | egaunee, | 75 |     | 4   |     |         | 1%    | 0      |
| >    | City of  | ,8 | 2   | 70, | 31, | 0.0051% |        | .0011% |
| 2004 |          | 31 | .43 | 282 | 327 | 1%     | 0.028% | 1%    |
| >    | Oakland  |    |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | County   | 35 | 2   | 12, | 40, | 0.      |        | 0.080% |
| 2004 |          | ,3 | .64 | 962 | 776 | 000011% | 0.0    | 1%    |
| >    | Port     | 97 |     |     |     | 1%     | 00063% |        |
| >    | Huron,   |    | NA  | 7   | NA  |         | 1%    | 0      |
| 2002 | City of  | 4  |     | 68, |     | 0       |        | .0010% |
|      |          | ,4 | 2   | 388 | 26, | .00081% | 0      | 1%    |
| 2    | Wayne    | 78 | .60 |     | 485 | 1%     | .0045% |        |
| 002, | County   |    |     | NA  |     |         | 1%    | Hou    |
| 2003 |          | 1  |     |     |     | 0.      |        | sehold |
|      | Saginaw  | ,1 |     | 23, |     | 000010% | 0.0    | stat   |
| >    | Chippewa | 80 |     | 216 |     | 1%     | 00058% | istics |
| 2003 | Trb      | ,4 |     |     |     |         | 1%    | NA     |
|      |          | 08 |     |     |     | Ho      |        |        |
| 2    | Saginaw, |    |     |     |     | usehold | Hou    | 0.053% |
| 002, | City of  | 31 |     |     |     | sta     | sehold | 1%    |
| 03,  |          | ,4 |     |     |     | tistics | stat   |        |
| 04   |          | 99 |     |     |     | not     | istics |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | av      | NA     |        |
| >    |          | 2  |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
| 2004 |          | ,0 |     |     |     |         | 0      |        |
| >    |          | 28 |     |     |     | 0       | .0030% |        |
| >    |          | ,5 |     |     |     | .00054% | 1%    |        |
| 2003 |          | 44 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | NA |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 60 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | ,3 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 61 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Mille    | 21 | 2   | 8,  | 36, | 0.0010% | 0      | 0.10%  |
| **[M | Lacs     | ,8 | .53 | 622 | 977 | 1%     | .0058% | 1%    |
| inne |          | 15 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| sota |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ]{.u |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| nder |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| line |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| }*** |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 002, |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Akron,   | 2  | 2   | 90, | 31, | 0       | 0.     | 0.011% |
| Ohio | City of  | 12 | .35 | 283 | 835 | .00011% | 00064% | 1%    |
| ]{.u |          | ,1 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| nder | Amanda,  | 66 | 2   | 256 | 40, |         |        | **3.2% |
| line | Village  |    | .76 |     | 114 | 0.032%  | 0.18%  | 3%**  |
| }*** | of       | 7  |     | 1,  |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
|      |          | 07 | 2   | 063 | 28, |         |        | **1.1% |
| 2    | B        |    | .42 |     | 136 | 0.011%  | 0.061% | 1%**  |
| 002, | yesville | 2  |     | 1   |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 02,  |          | ,5 | 2   | 47, | 29, |         |        | 0      |
| 03   | Cin      | 74 | .15 | 669 | 493 | 0.      | 0.     | .0074% |
|      | cinnati, |    |     |     |     | 000076% | 00042% | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | 3  | 2   | 5   | 40, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2003 |          | 17 | .49 | 65, | 340 |         |        | 0      |
| >    | Clark    | ,8 |     | 556 |     | 0.      | 0.0    | .0014% |
| >    | County   | 49 | 2   |     | 35, | 000014% | 00080% | 1%    |
| 2002 |          |    | .52 | 2,  | 817 | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    | Delphos, | 1  |     | 716 |     |         |        | 0.33%  |
| >    | City of  | 40 | 2   |     | 44, | 0.0034% | 0.019% | 1%    |
| 2003 |          | ,8 | .69 | 15, | 074 | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    | Fulton   | 25 |     | 485 |     |         |        | 0.048% |
| >    | County   |    | 2   |     | 31, | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| 2002 |          | 6  | .34 | 4,  | 513 | .00048% | .0027% |        |
| >    | Galion,  | ,8 |     | 786 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 0.22%  |
| >    | City of  | 44 | 2   |     | 48, |         |        | 1%    |
| 2002 |          |    | .53 | 55, | 656 | 0.0022% | 0.012% |        |
|      | Greene   | 41 |     | 377 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 0.012% |
| 2    | County   | ,6 | 2   |     | 45, |         |        | 1%    |
| 002, |          | 54 | .65 | 241 | 625 | 0       | 0.     |        |
| 2004 | Haskins, |    |     |     |     | .00012% | 00068% | **3.0% |
|      | Village  | 11 | 2   | 14, | 33, | 1%     | 1%    | 1%**  |
| >    | of       | ,2 | .35 | 845 | 321 |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          | 00 |     |     |     | 0.030%  | 0.17%  | 0.066% |
| >    | La       |    | 2   | 256 | 24, | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | ncaster, | 1  | .08 |     | 250 |         |        |        |
| 2003 | City of  | 40 |     | 356 |     | 0       | 0      | **5.2% |
| >    |          | ,1 | 2   |     | 47, | .00066% | .0037% | 3%**  |
| >    | Laur     | 05 | .80 | 3,  | 917 | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2004 | elville, |    |     | 196 |     |         |        | **1.9% |
| >    | Village  | 6  | 2   |     | 23, | 0.053%  | 0.29%  | 1%**  |
| >    | of       | 38 | .24 | 12, | 960 | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     | 697 |     |         |        | 0.42%  |
| >    | Luckey,  | 34 | 2   |     | 32, | 0.019%  | 0.11%  | 1%    |
| >    | Village  | ,8 | .40 | 1,  | 734 | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2002 | of       | 85 |     | 214 |     |         |        | 0.078% |
| >    |          |    | 2   |     | 33, | 0.0043% | 0.024% | 1%    |
| >    | Martins  | 5  | .43 | 122 | 809 | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2002 | Ferry,   | 33 |     |     |     |         |        | 0.79%  |
| >    | City of  |    | 2   | 3,  | 34, | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| >    |          | 9  | .45 | 810 | 375 | .00079% | .0044% |        |
| 2002 | Ma       | 98 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | **7.7% |
| >    | ssillon, |    | 2   | 7,  | 37, |         |        | 3%**  |
| >    | City of  | 7  | .39 | 123 | 467 | 0.0080% | 0.045% |        |
| 2003 |          | ,1 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | 0.23%  |
| >    | Mill     | 58 | 2   | 16, | 42, |         |        | 1%    |
| >    | ersburg, |    | .18 | 505 | 013 | 0.078%  | 0.44%  |        |
| 2004 | Village  | 30 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | 0.11%  |
|      | of       | ,4 | 2   | 17, | 44, |         |        | 1%    |
| 2    |          | 72 | .45 | 588 | 224 | 0.0023% | 0.013% |        |
| 003, | Mor      |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | 0.044% |
| 2003 | ristown, | 2  | 2   | 835 | 42, |         |        | 1%    |
|      | Village  | ,9 | .63 |     | 832 | 0.0011% | 0      |        |
| >    | of       | 49 |     | 2,  |     | 1%     | .0061% | 0.043% |
| 2003 |          |    | 2   | 782 | 19, |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | N        | 2  | .32 |     | 971 | 0       |        |        |
| >    | apoleon, | 99 |     | 2,  |     | .00045% | 0      | **1.9% |
| 2003 | City of  |    | 2   | 782 | 35, | 1%     | .0025% | 1%**  |
| >    |          | 9  | .27 |     | 564 |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | North    | ,1 |     | NA  |     | 0       |        | 0.33%  |
| 2002 | Canton,  | 06 | 2   |     | 35, | .00044% | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | City of  |    | .27 | 613 | 564 | 1%     | .0024% |        |
| >    |          | 15 |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 0.33%  |
| 2003 | Ottawa   | ,5 | NA  | 195 | NA  | 0.020%  |        | 1%    |
| >    | County   | 28 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.11%  |        |
| >    |          |    | 2   | 1   | 29, |         | 1%    | Hou    |
| 2003 | Pickaway | 40 | .37 | 28, | 844 | 0.0033% |        | sehold |
| >    | County   | ,3 |     | 876 |     | 1%     | 0.018% | stat   |
| >    |          | 48 | 2   |     | 42, |         | 1%    | istics |
| 2002 | Pomeroy, |    | .62 | 89, | 500 | 0.0033% |        | NA     |
| >    | Village  | 46 |     | 124 |     | 1%     | 0.018% |        |
| >    | of       | ,2 | 2   |     | 32, |         | 1%    | **1.8% |
| 2003 |          | 30 | .38 | 4,  | 546 | Ho      |        | 1%**  |
| >    | Port     |    |     | 866 |     | usehold | Hou    |        |
| >    | Clinton, | 1  | 2   |     | 38, | sta     | sehold | **3.9% |
| 2004 | City of  | ,9 | .48 |     | 298 | tistics | stat   | 3%**  |
| >    |          | 37 |     |     |     | not     | istics |        |
| >    | Port     |    | 2   |     | 33, | av      | NA     | 0      |
| 2004 | Clinton, | 6  | .29 |     | 702 | ailable |        | .0077% |
| >    | City of  | ,3 |     |     |     |         | 0.10%  | 1%    |
| >    |          | 15 |     |     |     | 0.018%  | 1%    |        |
| 2003 | Shawnee  |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        | 0      |
|      | Hills    | 6  |     |     |     |         | 0.22%  | .0075% |
| 2    | subdiv   | ,3 |     |     |     | 0.040%  | 1%    | 1%    |
| 002, |          | 15 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 03,  | S        |    |     |     |     |         | 0.     | 0.20%  |
| 04   | omerset, | NA |     |     |     | 0.      | 00044% | 1%    |
|      | Village  |    |     |     |     | 000078% | 1%    |        |
| >    | of       | 1  |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 2002 |          | ,4 |     |     |     |         | 0.     |        |
| >    | Spring   | 52 |     |     |     | 0.      | 00054% |        |
| >    | Valley,  |    |     |     |     | 000096% | 1%    |        |
| 2002 | Village  | 5  |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          | 10 |     |     |     |         | 0.011% |        |
|      | Toledo,  |    |     |     |     | 0.0020% | 1%    |        |
|      | City of  | 3  |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          | 06 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      | Trumbull | ,7 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      | County   | 24 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      | Urbana,  | 2  |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      | City of  | 21 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | ,0 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 28 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 11 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | ,1 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 43 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Brokaw,  | 1  | 2   | 47  | 27, | 0.26%   | **1.4% | **25%  |
| **[W | City of  | 07 | .28 |     | 083 | 1%     | 1%**  | 3%**  |
| isco |          |    |     | 68  |     |         |        |        |
| nsin | Curtiss, | 1  | 2   |     | 29, | 0.16%   | 0.92%  | **16%  |
| ]{.u | Village  | 98 | .91 | 31, | 250 | 1%     | 1%    | 3%**  |
| nder | of       |    |     | 489 |     |         |        |        |
| line |          | 79 | 2   |     | 37, | 0       | 0      | 0.028% |
| }*** | Racine,  | ,9 | .54 | 7,  | 164 | .00028% | .0016% | 1%    |
|      | City of  | 83 |     | 975 |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    |          |    | 2   |     | 34, |         |        | 0.12%  |
| 2002 | W        | 18 | .26 |     | 956 | 0.0012% | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | isconsin | ,0 |     |     |     | 1%     | .0066% |        |
| >    | Rapids,  | 24 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| 2003 | City     |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 002, |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Fort     | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| **RE | Chaffee  |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| GION |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| 6*** |          |    |     |     |     | tistics | istics | istics |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| ***[ |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
| Arka |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
| nsas |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ]{.u |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| nder |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| line |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| }*** |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Bayou    | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| **[L | L        |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| ouis | afourche | 8  | 2   | 3,  | 41, | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| iana |          | ,7 | .65 | 304 | 296 | tistics | istics | istics |
| ]{.u | Denham   | 57 |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| nder | Springs, |    | 2   | 3,  | 41, | av      |        |        |
| line | City     | 8  | .65 | 304 | 296 | ailable | 0.013% | 0.24%  |
| }*** |          | ,7 |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 1%    |
|      | Denham   | 57 | 2   | 88, | 30, | 0.0024% |        |        |
| >    | Springs, |    | .42 | 994 | 368 | 1%     | 0.013% | 0.24%  |
| 2002 | City     | 2  |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    |          | 15 | 2   | 6,  | 24, | 0.0024% |        |        |
| >    | Baton    | ,3 | .51 | 245 | 067 | 1%     | 0.     | 0.012% |
| 2002 | Rouge,   | 65 |     |     |     |         | 00068% | 1%    |
| >    | City of  |    | 2   | 17, | 38, | 0       | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 15 | .56 | 621 | 435 | .00012% |        | 0.22%  |
| 2004 | Hammond, | ,6 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.012% | 1%    |
|      | City of  | 74 | 2   | 27, | 30, |         | 1%    |        |
| 2    |          |    | .44 | 945 | 774 | 0.0022% |        | 0.048% |
| 002, | J        | 4  |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      | 1%    |
| 2003 | efferson | 51 | 2   | 19, | 25, |         | .0027% |        |
|      | Parish   | ,1 | .54 | 449 | 864 | 0       | 1%    | 0.038% |
| >    |          | 09 |     |     |     | .00049% |        | 1%    |
| 2003 | Lake     |    | 2   | 11, | 26, | 1%     | 0      |        |
| >    | Charles, | 68 | .70 | 737 | 079 |         | .0021% | 0.064% |
| >    | City of  | ,1 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 |          | 87 | 2   | 11, | 26, | .00038% |        |        |
| >    | Monroe,  |    | .70 | 737 | 079 | 1%     | 0      | 0.11%  |
| >    | City of  | 49 |     |     |     |         | .0035% | 1%    |
| 2003 |          | ,4 | 2   | 1   | 27, | 0       | 1%    |        |
| >    | New      | 01 | .48 | 88, | 133 | .00065% |        | 0.11%  |
| >    | Iberia   |    |     | 320 |     | 1%     | 0      | 1%    |
| 2004 |          | 31 | 2   |     | 30, |         | .0060% |        |
| >    | New      | ,6 | .48 | 78, | 526 | 0.0011% | 1%    | 0      |
| >    | Iberia   | 91 |     | 530 |     | 1%     |        | .0064% |
| 2002 |          |    | 2   |     | 30, |         | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | New      | 31 | .48 | 78, | 526 | 0.0011% | .0060% |        |
| >    | Orleans, | ,6 |     | 530 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 0.014% |
| 2003 | City of  | 91 | 2   |     | 42, |         |        | 1%    |
|      |          |    | .67 | 9,  | 856 | 0.      | 0.     |        |
| 2    | Shr      | 4  |     | 494 |     | 000064% | 00036% | 0.014% |
| 002, | eveport, | 67 | NA  |     | NA  | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| 03,  | City of  | ,0 |     | NA  |     |         |        |        |
| 04   |          | 33 | 2   |     | 35, | 0       | 0.     | 0.080% |
|      | Shr      |    | .64 | 25, | 939 | .00014% | 00076% | 1%    |
| >    | eveport, | 1  |     | 167 |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2003 | City of  | 94 | 2   |     | 45, |         |        | Hou    |
| >    |          | ,7 | .90 | 16, | 139 | 0       | 0.     | sehold |
| >    | Slidell, | 54 |     | 428 |     | .00014% | 00076% | stat   |
| 2004 | City of  |    | 3   |     | 35, | 1%     | 1%    | istics |
| >    |          | 1  | .00 | 6,  | 277 |         |        | NA     |
| >    | South    | 94 |     | 984 |     | 0       | 0      |        |
| 2003 | Central  | ,7 | 2   |     | 39, | .00081% | .0045% | 0.036% |
| >    |          | 54 | .98 | 14, | 456 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | St.      |    |     | 296 |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 | Bernard  | 25 | 2   |     | 30, | Ho      | Hou    | 0.044% |
| >    | Parish   | ,3 | .78 | 17, | 701 | usehold | sehold | 1%    |
| >    |          | 48 |     | 191 |     | sta     | stat   |        |
| 2003 | St.      |    | 2   |     | 19, | tistics | istics | 0.13%  |
|      | Charles  | NA | .67 | 2,  | 600 | not     | NA     | 1%    |
| 2    | Parish   |    |     | 491 |     | av      |        |        |
| 002, |          | 66 | 2   |     | 26, | ailable | 0      | 0.058% |
| 2003 | St.      | ,4 | .42 | 5,  | 697 |         | .0020% | 1%    |
|      | James    | 41 |     | 495 |     | 0       | 1%    |        |
| >    | Parish   |    |     |     |     | .00036% |        | 0.061% |
| 2003 |          | 47 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      | 1%    |
|      | St. John | ,6 |     |     |     |         | .0025% |        |
| 2    | the      | 42 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | 0.66%  |
| 002, | Baptist  |    |     |     |     | .00044% |        | 1%    |
| 2003 | Par      | 20 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      |        |
|      |          | ,9 |     |     |     |         | .0074% | 0.22%  |
| >    | St.      | 51 |     |     |     | 0.0013% | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 | Martin   |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| >    | Parish   | 42 |     |     |     |         | 0      |        |
| >    |          | ,6 |     |     |     | 0       | .0032% |        |
| 2004 | St.      | 01 |     |     |     | .00058% | 1%    |        |
| >    | Mart     |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| >    | inville, | 47 |     |     |     |         | 0      |        |
| 2002 | City of  | ,7 |     |     |     | 0.      | .0035% |        |
|      |          | 91 |     |     |     | 000672% | 1%    |        |
|      | Th       |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      | ibodaux, | 6  |     |     |     |         | 0.038% |        |
|      | City of  | ,6 |     |     |     | 0.0067% | 1%    |        |
|      |          | 52 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         | 0.012% |        |
|      |          | 13 |     |     |     | 0.0022% | 1%    |        |
|      |          | ,2 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          | 97 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***  | Carnuel  | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| [New | Mutual   |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| Me   |          | 35 | 2   | 13, | 30, | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| xico | Al       | ,1 | .57 | 679 | 928 | tistics | istics | istics |
| ]{.u | amogordo | 56 |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| nder |          |    | 2   | 2   | 38, | av      |        |        |
| line | Be       | 5  | .47 | 21, | 788 | ailable | 0      | 0.077% |
| }*** | rnalillo | 46 |     | 073 |     |         | .0043% | 1%    |
|      | County   | ,0 | 2   |     | 38, | 0       | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 51 | .47 | 2   | 788 | .00078% |        | 0      |
| 2002 | Be       |    |     | 21, |     | 1%     | 0.     | .0038% |
| >    | rnalillo | 5  | 2   | 073 | 26, |         | 00021% | 1%    |
| >    | County   | 46 | .61 |     | 754 | 0.      | 1%    |        |
| 2003 |          | ,0 |     | 2,  |     | 000038% |        | 0      |
|      | Belen,   | 51 | NA  | 592 | NA  | 1%     | 0.     | .0038% |
| 2    | City of  |    |     |     |     |         | 00021% | 1%    |
| 004, |          | 6  | 2   | NA  | 27, | 0.      | 1%    |        |
| 2004 | Dona Ana | ,7 | .56 |     | 144 | 000038% |        | 0.47%  |
|      | Mutual   | 66 |     | 3,  |     | 1%     | 0.026% | 1%    |
| 2    |          |    | 2   | 758 | 34, |         | 1%    |        |
| 002, | E        | NA | .85 |     | 868 | 0.0047% |        | Hou    |
| 2003 | spanola, |    |     | 6,  |     | 1%     | Hou    | sehold |
|      | City of  | 9  | NA  | 819 | NA  |         | sehold | stat   |
| 2    |          | ,6 |     |     |     | Ho      | stat   | istics |
| 002, | Gallup,  | 20 | 2   | NA  | 37, | usehold | istics | NA     |
| 2003 | City of  |    | .22 |     | 107 | sta     | NA     |        |
|      |          | 19 |     | 3,  |     | tistics |        | 0.32%  |
| >    | Greater  | ,4 | 2   | 431 | 42, | not     | 0.018% | 1%    |
| 2002 | Chimayo  | 34 | .42 |     | 207 | av      | 1%    |        |
|      | Mut'l    |    |     | 52, |     | ailable |        | 0.14%  |
| 2    |          | NA |     | 445 |     |         | 0      | 1%    |
| 003, | Ruidoso, |    |     |     |     | 0.0032% | .0077% |        |
| 2004 | Village  | 7  |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | Hou    |
|      | of       | ,6 |     |     |     |         |        | sehold |
| 2    |          | 16 |     |     |     | 0.0014% | Hou    | stat   |
| 002, | Santa Fe |    |     |     |     | 1%     | sehold | istics |
| 2003 | County   | 1  |     |     |     |         | stat   | NA     |
|      |          | 26 |     |     |     | Ho      | istics |        |
| >    |          | ,9 |     |     |     | usehold | NA     | 0.25%  |
| 2003 |          | 16 |     |     |     | sta     |        | 1%    |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | tistics | 0.014% |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | not     | 1%    | 0.015% |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        | 1%    |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | ailable | 0.     |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         | 00083% |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     | 0.0026% | 1%    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0       |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | .00015% |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Lawton,  | 82 | 2   | 31, | 32, | 0       | 0      | 0.031% |
| Okla | City of  | ,9 | .61 | 790 | 521 | .00032% | .0018% | 1%    |
| homa |          | 73 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| ]{.u | Norman,  |    | 2   | 38, | 36, |         |        | 0.023% |
| nder | City of  | 89 | .31 | 798 | 713 | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| line |          | ,6 |     |     |     | .00023% | .0013% |        |
| }*** | S        | 23 | 2   | 2,  | 25, | 1%     | 1%    | 0.47%  |
|      | eminole, |    | .45 | 755 | 120 |         |        | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | 6  |     |     |     | 0.0048% | 0.026% |        |
| 2002 |          | ,7 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
|      |          | 49 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 002, |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 03,  |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 04   |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Austin,  | 6  | 2   | 2   | 42, | 0.      | 0.     | 0      |
| **[T | City of  | 36 | .40 | 65, | 689 | 000029% | 00016% | .0028% |
| exas |          | ,4 |     | 180 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| ]{.u | B        | 32 | 2   |     | 32, |         |        |        |
| nder | eaumont, |    | .50 | 44, | 559 | 0       | 0      | 0.022% |
| line | City of  | 1  |     | 319 |     | .00023% | .0013% | 1%    |
| }*** |          | 10 | 2   |     | 29, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
|      | Clifton  | ,7 | .46 | 1,  | 867 |         |        | 0.84%  |
| >    | City of  | 97 |     | 297 |     | 0.0085% | 0.047% | 1%    |
| 2004 |          |    | 2   |     | 32, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    | M        | 3  | .66 | 514 | 750 |         |        | **1.9% |
| >    | eridian, | ,1 |     |     |     | 0.020%  | 0.11%  | 1%**  |
| 2002 | City of  | 91 | 3   | 38, | 24, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    |          |    | .62 | 130 | 468 |         |        | 0.035% |
| >    | Bro      | 1  |     |     |     | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| 2002 | wnsville | ,3 | 2   | 4   | 37, | .00035% | .0020% |        |
| >    |          | 68 | .58 | 52, | 628 | 1%     | 1%    | 0      |
| >    | Dallas,  |    |     | 487 |     |         |        | .0019% |
| 2002 | City of  | 1  | 3   |     | 23, | 0.      | 0.     | 1%    |
|      |          | 38 | .22 | 6,  | 623 | 000019% | 00011% |        |
| 2    | Eagle    | ,0 |     | 928 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 0.20%  |
| 002, | Pass,    | 31 | 2   |     | 26, |         |        | 1%    |
| 2003 | City of  |    | .23 | 741 | 731 | 0.0020% | 0.011% |        |
|      |          | 1  |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | **1.6% |
| >    | Gold     | ,1 | 2   | 1,2 | 42, |         |        | 1%**  |
| 2003 | thwaite, | 67 | .79 | 03, | 598 | 0.017%  | 0.092% |        |
| >    | City of  | ,4 |     | 743 |     | 1%     | 1%    | 0.     |
| >    |          | 16 | 2   |     | 32, |         |        | 00063% |
| 2003 | Harris   |    | .66 | 514 | 750 | 0.0     | 0.0    | 1%    |
| >    | County   | 22 |     |     |     | 000064% | 00036% |        |
| >    |          | ,3 | NA  | NA  | NA  | 1%     | 1%    | **1.9% |
| 2004 | M        | 09 |     |     |     |         |        | 1%**  |
| >    | eridian, |    | 2   | 4   | 36, | 0.020%  | 0.11%  |        |
| >    | City of  | 1  | .77 | 04, | 214 | 1%     | 1%    | Hou    |
| 2004 |          | ,6 |     | 861 |     |         |        | sehold |
| >    | Port     | 53 | 2   |     | 36, | Ho      | Hou    | stat   |
| >    | Authur,  |    | .77 | 4   | 214 | usehold | sehold | istics |
| 2003 | City of  | 3  |     | 04, |     | sta     | stat   | NA     |
| >    |          | ,3 | NA  | 861 | NA  | tistics | istics |        |
| >    | San      | 58 |     |     |     | not     | NA     | 0      |
| 2003 | Antonio  | ,4 | 2   | NA  | 26, | av      |        | .0022% |
| >    |          | 44 | .49 |     | 264 | ailable | 0.     | 1%    |
| >    | San      |    |     | 42, |     |         | 00012% |        |
| 2003 | Antonio  | 1  |     | 282 |     | 0.      | 1%    | 0      |
| >    |          | ,3 |     |     |     | 000022% |        | .0022% |
| >    | Tamina   | 68 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.     | 1%    |
| 2004 | Water    |    |     |     |     |         | 00012% |        |
| >    |          | NA |     |     |     | 0.      | 1%    | Hou    |
| >    | Waco,    |    |     |     |     | 000022% |        | sehold |
| 2002 | City of  | 1  |     |     |     | 1%     | Hou    | stat   |
| >    |          | ,1 |     |     |     |         | sehold | istics |
| >    |          | 21 |     |     |     | Ho      | stat   | NA     |
| 2004 |          | ,4 |     |     |     | usehold | istics |        |
|      |          | 66 |     |     |     | sta     | NA     | 0.029% |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | tistics |        | 1%    |
|      |          | 1  |     |     |     | not     | 0      |        |
|      |          | ,1 |     |     |     | av      | .0014% |        |
|      |          | 21 |     |     |     | ailable | 1%    |        |
|      |          | ,4 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 66 |     |     |     | 0       |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | .00030% |        |        |
|      |          | NA |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 1  |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 05 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | ,2 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 83 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Carroll, | 9  | 2   | 4,  | 39, | 0.0020% | 0.011% | 0.20%  |
| **RE | City of  | ,8 | .36 | 167 | 853 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| GION |          | 35 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 7*** | Des      |    | 2   | 80, | 38, | 0       | 0.     | 0.010% |
|      | Moines,  | 1  | .39 | 395 | 408 | .00011% | 00059% | 1%    |
| ***[ | City of  | 92 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| Iowa |          | ,1 | 2   | 12, | 33, |         |        | 0.078% |
| ]{.u | Mason    | 45 | .27 | 356 | 852 | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| nder | City,    |    |     |     |     | .00079% | .0044% |        |
| line | City of  | 28 | 2   | 791 | 32, | 1%     | 1%    | **1.2% |
| }*** |          | ,0 | .78 |     | 667 |         |        | 1%**  |
|      | Po       | 47 |     | 32, |     | 0.013%  | 0.071% |        |
| >    | stville, |    | 2   | 038 | 37, | 1%     | 1%    | 0.027% |
| 2004 | City of  | 2  | .57 |     | 429 |         |        | 1%    |
|      |          | ,1 |     | 1,  |     | 0       | 0      |        |
| 2    | Sioux    | 98 | 2   | 151 | 37, | .00027% | .0015% | 0.74%  |
| 002, | City,    |    | .84 |     | 925 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| 03,  | City of  | 82 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 04   |          | ,3 |     |     |     | 0.0075% | 0.042% |        |
|      | West     | 39 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2    | Liberty, |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 002, | City of  | 3  |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 03,  |          | ,2 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 04   |          | 69 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| **   | Russell, | 4  | 2   | 2,  | 26, | 0.0061% | 0.034% | 0.60%  |
| *[Ka | City of  | ,5 | .20 | 056 | 217 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| nsas |          | 24 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ]{.u | Hut      |    | 2   | 16, | 32, | 0       | 0      | 0.061% |
| nder | chinson, | 37 | .31 | 369 | 645 | .00062% | .0034% | 1%    |
| line | City of  | ,8 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| }*** |          | 13 | 2   | 1,  | 28, |         |        | **1.0% |
|      | He       |    | .21 | 125 | 333 | 0.010%  | 0.058% | 1%**  |
| >    | rington, | 2  |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2002 | City of  | ,4 | 2   | 6,  | 38, |         |        | 0.12%  |
| >    |          | 86 | .43 | 845 | 236 | 0.0012% | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | Newton,  |    |     |     |     | 1%     | .0070% |        |
| 2004 | City of  | 16 | 2   | 4,  | 34, |         | 1%    | 0.20%  |
| >    |          | ,6 | .43 | 697 | 071 | 0.0020% |        | 1%    |
| >    | Ottawa,  | 34 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.011% |        |
| 2003 | City of  |    | 2   | 13, | 39, |         | 1%    | 0.058% |
| >    |          | 11 | .44 | 910 | 939 | 0       |        | 1%    |
| >    | Wichita, | ,4 |     |     |     | .00059% | 0      |        |
| 2004 | City of  | 13 |     |     |     | 1%     | .0033% |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| 2    |          | 3  |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 002, |          | 39 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          | ,4 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 07 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Bates    | 16 | 2   | 6,  | 30, | 0.0016% | 0      | 0.16%  |
| Miss | County   | ,3 | .51 | 524 | 731 | 1%     | .0091% | 1%    |
| ouri |          | 74 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| ]{.u | Bolivar, |    | 2   | 3,  | 24, | 0.0040% |        | 0.40%  |
| nder | City of  | 7  | .34 | 312 | 609 | 1%     | 0.022% | 1%    |
| line |          | ,7 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| }*** | Caldwell | 51 | 2   | 3,  | 31, | 0.0030% |        | 0.29%  |
|      | county   |    | .51 | 526 | 240 | 1%     | 0.017% | 1%    |
| >    |          | 8  |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| 2002 | Camden   | ,8 | 2   | 15, | 35, | 0       |        | 0.057% |
| >    | County   | 50 | .31 | 770 | 840 | .00058% | 0      | 1%    |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | .0032% |        |
| 2003 | Cape     | 36 | 2   | 14, | 32, |         | 1%    | 0.069% |
| >    | Gi       | ,4 | .24 | 410 | 452 | 0       |        | 1%    |
| >    | rardeau, | 29 |     |     |     | .00070% | 0      |        |
| 2003 | City of  |    | NA  | NA  | NA  | 1%     | .0039% | Hou    |
| >    |          | 32 |     |     |     |         | 1%    | sehold |
| >    | Clarence | ,2 | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      |        | stat   |
| 2002 | Cannon   | 79 |     |     |     | usehold | Hou    | istics |
| >    |          |    | 2   | 117 | 23, | sta     | sehold | NA     |
| >    | Duckett  | NA | .47 |     | 542 | tistics | stat   |        |
| 2002 | Creek    |    |     | 71, |     | not     | istics | Hou    |
| >    |          | NA | 2   | 558 | 46, | av      | NA     | sehold |
| >    | Dudley,  |    | .74 |     | 338 | ailable |        | stat   |
| 2003 | City of  | 2  |     | 71, |     |         | Hou    | istics |
|      |          | 89 | 2   | 558 | 46, | Ho      | sehold | NA     |
| 2    | J        |    | .74 |     | 338 | usehold | stat   |        |
| 003, | efferson | 1  |     | 19, |     | sta     | istics | **12%  |
| 2004 | County   | 96 | 2   | 122 | 30, | tistics | NA     | 3%**  |
|      |          | ,0 | .28 |     | 555 | not     |        |        |
| >    | J        | 69 |     | 19, |     | av      | 0.66%  | 0.098% |
| 2003 | efferson |    | 2   | 122 | 30, | ailable | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | County   | 1  | .28 |     | 555 |         |        |        |
| >    |          | 96 |     | 1   |     | 0.12%   | 0.     | 0.098% |
| 2003 | Joplin,  | ,0 | 2   | 84, | 37, | 1%     | 00055% | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | 69 | .35 | 021 | 198 |         | 1%    |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 0.      |        | 0.056% |
| 2002 | Joplin,  | 43 | 2   | 5,  | 27, | 000099% | 0.     | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | ,5 | .30 | 123 | 668 | 1%     | 00055% |        |
| >    |          | 98 |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 0.056% |
| 2003 | Kansas   |    | 2   | 1,  | 30, | 0.      |        | 1%    |
| >    | City,    | 43 | .35 | 061 | 377 | 000099% | 0      |        |
| >    | City of  | ,5 |     |     |     | 1%     | .0031% | 0      |
| 2004 |          | 98 | 2   | 2,  | 39, |         | 1%    | .0047% |
| >    | Lebanon, |    | .48 | 166 | 554 | 0       |        | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | 4  |     |     |     | .00056% | 0      |        |
| 2002 |          | 32 | 2   | 954 | 44, | 1%     | .0031% | 0.23%  |
|      | Monroe   | ,4 | .73 |     | 769 |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2    | City,    | 49 |     | NA  |     | 0       |        |        |
| 002, | City of  |    | NA  |     | NA  | .00056% | 0.     | **1.0% |
| 2004 |          | 11 |     | 29, |     | 1%     | 00027% | 1%**  |
|      | Pacific, | ,7 | 2   | 026 | 32, |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | City of  | 84 | .39 |     | 663 | 0.      |        | 0.38%  |
| 2004 |          |    |     | 615 |     | 000048% | 0.013% | 1%    |
| >    | P        | 2  | 2   |     | 19, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    | eculiar, | ,4 | .18 | 5,  | 596 |         |        | 0.76%  |
| 2004 | City of  | 93 |     | 942 |     | 0.0023% | 0.057% | 1%    |
| >    |          |    | 2   |     | 29, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    | Un       | 5  | .29 | 1,  | 332 |         |        | Hou    |
| 2004 | iversity | ,3 |     | 983 |     | 0.010%  | 0.021% | sehold |
| >    | of       | 73 | 2   |     | 34, | 1%     | 1%    | stat   |
| >    | Missouri |    | .59 | 1   | 022 |         |        | istics |
| 2002 |          | 2  |     | 84, |     | 0.0038% | 0.043% | NA     |
|      | St.      | ,6 | 2   | 021 | 37, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2    | Joseph,  | 04 | .35 |     | 198 |         |        | 0.034% |
| 003, | City of  |    |     | 608 |     | 0.0077% | Hou    | 1%    |
| 2004 |          | NA | 2   |     | 30, | 1%     | sehold |        |
|      | Ste      |    | .52 |     | 179 |         | stat   | **2.7% |
| >    | elville, | 69 |     |     |     | Ho      | istics | 1%**  |
| 2004 | City of  | ,3 |     |     |     | usehold | NA     |        |
| >    |          | 72 |     |     |     | sta     |        | 0.19%  |
| >    | Warr     |    |     |     |     | tistics | 0      | 1%    |
| 2003 | ensburg, | 1  |     |     |     | not     | .0019% |        |
| >    | City of  | ,3 |     |     |     | av      | 1%    | 0.48%  |
| >    |          | 40 |     |     |     | ailable |        | 1%    |
| 2003 | Wa       |    |     |     |     |         | 0.15%  |        |
| >    | rrenton, | 13 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | 0      |
| >    | City of  | ,6 |     |     |     | .00035% |        | .0047% |
| 2002 |          | 07 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.010% | 1%    |
| >    | Kansas   |    |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | City,    | 5  |     |     |     | 0.027%  |        | **1.8% |
| 2004 | City of  | ,1 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.027% | 1%**  |
|      |          | 35 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
|      | Wright   |    |     |     |     | 0.0019% |        |        |
|      | City,    | 4  |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.     |        |
|      | City of  | 32 |     |     |     |         | 00027% |        |
|      |          | ,4 |     |     |     | 0.0049% | 1%    |        |
|      |          | 49 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         | 0.10%  |        |
|      |          | 1  |     |     |     | 0.      | 1%    |        |
|      |          | ,5 |     |     |     | 000048% |        |        |
|      |          | 32 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.018%  |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Lincoln, | 2  | 2   | 90, | 40, | 0.      | 0.     | 0      |
| Nebr | City of  | 13 | .36 | 652 | 605 | 000089% | 00050% | .0088% |
| aska |          | ,9 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| ]{.u | Lincoln, | 38 | 2   | 90, | 40, |         |        |        |
| nder | City of  |    | .36 | 652 | 605 | 0.      | 0.     | 0      |
| line |          | 2  |     |     |     | 000089% | 00050% | .0088% |
| }*** | South    | 13 | 2   | 4,  | 36, | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
|      | Sioux    | ,9 | .72 | 307 | 493 |         |        |        |
| >    | City,    | 38 |     |     |     | 0.0021% | 0.012% | 0.21%  |
| 2002 | City     |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
|      |          | 11 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2    |          | ,7 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 003, |          | 16 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Eng      | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| **RE | lewood/L |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| GION | ittleton | 11 | 2   | 5,  | 33, | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| 8*** |          | ,9 | .29 | 235 | 750 | tistics | istics | istics |
|      | M        | 88 |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| ***[ | ontrose, |    | 1   | 520 | 30, | av      |        |        |
| Colo | City of  | 9  | .88 |     | 663 | ailable | 0.010% | 0.18%  |
| rado |          | 78 |     | 520 |     |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| ]{.u | Mountain |    | 1   |     | 30, | 0.0019% |        |        |
| nder | Village  | 9  | .88 | 311 | 663 | 1%     | 0.12%  | **2.0% |
| line |          | 78 |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 1%**  |
| }*** | Mountain |    | 2   |     | 28, | 0.021%  |        |        |
|      | Village  | 7  | .36 |     | 466 | 1%     | 0.12%  | **2.0% |
| >    |          | 34 |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 1%**  |
| 2004 | Nucla    |    |     |     |     | 0.021%  |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.21%  | **3.7% |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 3%**  |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     | 0.037%  |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***  | B        | 5  | 2   | 2,  | 37, | 0.0041% | 0.023% | 0.41%  |
| [Mon | elgrade, | ,7 | .68 | 130 | 392 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| tana | City of  | 09 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ]{.u |          |    | 2   | 1,  | 29, | 0.0097% | 0.054% | 0.95%  |
| nder | Conrad,  | 2  | .33 | 155 | 432 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| line | City of  | ,6 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| }*** |          | 91 | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
|      | Florence |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| >    | County   | NA | 1   | 1,  | 22, | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| 2003 |          |    | .95 | 775 | 013 | tistics | istics | istics |
| >    | H        | 3  |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| >    | amilton, | ,4 | 2   | 11, | 34, | av      |        |        |
| 2003 | City of  | 61 | .14 | 534 | 416 | ailable | 0.047% | 0.83%  |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | Helena,  | 24 | 2   | 22, | 37, | 0.0084% |        |        |
| 2002 | City of  | ,6 | .38 | 886 | 360 | 1%     | 0      | 0.082% |
| >    |          | 84 |     |     |     |         | .0046% | 1%    |
| >    | Lewis    |    | 2   | 554 | 38, | 0       | 1%    |        |
| 2004 | and      | 54 | .52 |     | 242 | .00083% |        | 0.038% |
| >    | Clark    | ,4 |     | 24, |     | 1%     | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | County   | 70 | 2   | 111 | 30, |         | .0021% |        |
| 2004 |          |    | .23 |     | 366 | 0       | 1%    | **1.5% |
| >    | Ma       | 1  |     | NA  |     | .00038% |        | 1%**  |
| >    | nhattan, | ,3 | NA  |     | NA  | 1%     | 0.086% |        |
| 2002 | City of  | 96 |     | 1,  |     |         | 1%    | 0.044% |
| >    |          |    | 2   | 020 | 31, | 0.016%  |        | 1%    |
| >    | M        | 53 | .04 |     | 750 | 1%     | 0      |        |
| 2004 | issoula, | ,7 |     | NA  |     |         | .0025% | Hou    |
| >    | City of  | 67 | NA  |     | NA  | 0       | 1%    | sehold |
| >    |          |    |     | 61  |     | .00045% |        | stat   |
| 2003 | MO River | NA | 1   |     | 24, | 1%     | Hou    | istics |
| >    | W        |    | .85 |     | 583 |         | sehold | NA     |
| >    | atershed | 2  |     |     |     | Ho      | stat   |        |
| 2004 |          | ,0 |     |     |     | usehold | istics | **1.0% |
| >    | Red      | 82 |     |     |     | sta     | NA     | 1%**  |
| >    | Lodge,   |    |     |     |     | tistics |        |        |
| 2004 | City of  | NA |     |     |     | not     | 0.057% | Hou    |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | av      | 1%    | sehold |
| >    | Upp      | 1  |     |     |     | ailable |        | stat   |
| 2003 | er/Lower | 13 |     |     |     |         | Hou    | istics |
| >    | River    |    |     |     |     | 0.010%  | sehold | NA     |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | stat   |        |
| 2004 | Wisdom,  |    |     |     |     |         | istics | **22%  |
|      | City of  |    |     |     |     | Ho      | NA     | 3%**  |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | usehold |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | **1.2% |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | tistics | 1%**  |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | not     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.22%   |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Devils   | 6  | 2   | 3,  | 31, | 0.0034% | 0.019% | 0.33%  |
| **[N | Lake,    | ,8 | .18 | 128 | 250 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| orth | City of  | 19 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| Da   |          |    | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| kota | Dickey   | NA |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| ]{.u | Rural    |    | 2   | 1,  | 33, | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| nder |          | 4  | .35 | 802 | 231 | tistics | istics | istics |
| line | Grafton, | ,2 |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| }*** | City of  | 34 | 2   | 19, | 34, | av      |        |        |
|      |          |    | .31 | 699 | 194 | ailable | 0.031% | 0.54%  |
| >    | Grand    | 45 |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2004 | Forks,   | ,5 | 2   | 659 | 30, | 0.0055% |        |        |
| >    | City of  | 04 | .18 |     | 347 | 1%     | 0      | 0.048% |
| >    |          |    |     | 108 |     |         | .0027% | 1%    |
| 2004 | Park     | 1  | 2   |     | 48, | 0       | 1%    |        |
|      | River,   | ,4 | .53 | 5,  | 333 | .00049% |        | **1.6% |
| 2    | City of  | 36 |     | 250 |     | 1%     | 0.092% | 1%**  |
| 003, |          |    | 2   |     | 29, |         | 1%    |        |
| 2004 | Ri       | 2  | .30 |     | 962 | 0.016%  |        | **6.2% |
|      | verdale, | 73 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.35%  | 3%**  |
| >    | City of  |    |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| 2002 |          | 12 |     |     |     | 0.063%  |        | 0.21%  |
|      | W        | ,0 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.012% | 1%    |
| 2    | illiston | 76 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| 003, |          |    |     |     |     | 0.0021% |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Aberdeen | 23 | 2   | 10, | 33, | 0       | 0      | 0.092% |
| **[S |          | ,3 | .21 | 556 | 276 | .00094% | .0052% | 1%    |
| outh | Box      | 30 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| Da   | Elder    |    | 2   | 993 | 32, |         |        | **1.0% |
| kota |          | 2  | .86 |     | 344 | 0.010%  | 0.057% | 1%**  |
| ]{.u | Cent     | ,8 |     | 387 |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| nder | erville, | 40 | 2   |     | 29, |         |        | **2.8% |
| line | City of  |    | .23 | 258 | 615 | 0.029%  | 0.16%  | 1%**  |
| }*** |          | 8  |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
|      | Corsica, | 64 | 2   | NA  | 27, |         |        | **4.6% |
| >    | City of  |    | .24 |     | 589 | 0.046%  | 0.26%  | 3%**  |
| 2002 |          | 5  |     | 671 |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    | Dakota   | 79 | NA  |     | NA  |         |        | Hou    |
| >    | Dunes    |    |     | 525 |     | Ho      | Hou    | sehold |
| 2003 |          | NA | 2   |     | 28, | usehold | sehold | stat   |
| >    | D        |    | .01 | 682 | 641 | sta     | stat   | istics |
| >    | eadwood, | 1  |     |     |     | tistics | istics | NA     |
| 2003 | City of  | ,3 | 2   | 524 | 27, | not     | NA     |        |
| >    |          | 48 | .09 |     | 760 | av      |        | **1.7% |
| >    | De Smet, |    |     | 662 |     | ailable | 0.095% | 1%**  |
| 2004 | City of  | 1  | 2   |     | 41, |         | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | ,0 | .43 | 298 | 157 | 0.017%  |        | **2.2% |
| >    | Elk      | 97 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.12%  | 1%**  |
| 2003 | Point,   |    | 2   | 5,  | 38, |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | City of  | 1  | .45 | 252 | 125 | 0.022%  |        | **1.2% |
| >    |          | ,6 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.065% | 1%**  |
| 2003 | Groton,  | 58 | 2   | 812 | 48, |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | City of  |    | .77 |     | 333 | 0.012%  |        | **1.6% |
| >    |          | 1  |     | 915 |     | 1%     | 0.092% | 1%**  |
| 2004 | H        | ,2 | 2   |     | 32, |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | artford, | 85 | .62 |     | 500 | 0.016%  |        | **1.0% |
| >    | City of  |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.057% | 1%**  |
| 2003 |          | 1  | 2   |     | 29, |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | Hill     | ,8 | .18 |     | 097 | 0.010%  |        | **3.4% |
| >    | City     | 33 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.19%  | 3%**  |
| 2003 |          |    | 2   |     | 35, |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | Huron,   | 7  | .42 |     | 217 | 0.034%  |        | 0.21%  |
| >    | City of  | 80 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.012% | 1%    |
| 2004 |          |    | 2   |     | 39, |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | Lennox,  | 11 | .50 |     | 333 | 0.0022% |        | **1.1% |
| >    | City of  | ,4 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.064% | 1%**  |
| 2002 |          | 50 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | North    |    |     |     |     | 0.012%  |        | 0.90%  |
| >    | Sioux    | 1  |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.051% | 1%    |
| 2003 | City     | ,9 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 66 |     |     |     | 0.0091% |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 2004 |          | 2  |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          | ,2 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          | 88 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Blanding | 3  | 3   | 887 | 32, | 0.011%  | 0.063% | **1.1% |
| Utah |          | ,0 | .46 |     | 991 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%**  |
| ]{.u | Daggett  | 68 |     | 340 |     |         |        |        |
| nder | County   |    | 2   |     | 30, | 0.031%  | 0.17%  | **3.1% |
| line |          | 8  | .48 | NA  | 833 | 1%     | 1%    | 3%**  |
| }*** | Jordan   | 43 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      | Valley   |    | NA  | 13, | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| >    |          | NA |     | 881 |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| 2003 | Logan    |    | 2   |     | 30, | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| >    | City     | 40 | .92 | 607 | 778 | tistics | istics | istics |
| >    |          | ,5 |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| 2004 | Mo       | 32 | 3   | 27, | 35, | av      |        |        |
| >    | nticello |    | .09 | 425 | 929 | ailable | 0      | 0.076% |
| >    |          | 1  |     |     |     |         | .0043% | 1%    |
| 2002 | Ogden,   | ,8 | 2   | 30, | 34, | 0       | 1%    |        |
| >    | City of  | 75 | .73 | 613 | 047 | .00077% |        | **1.5% |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.084% | 1%**  |
| 2002 | Orem     | 74 | 3   | 2,  | 47, |         | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | ,8 | .57 | 705 | 529 | 0.015%  |        | 0.035% |
| >    | Park     | 70 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      | 1%    |
| 2003 | City     |    | 2   | 6,  | 65, |         | .0020% |        |
| >    |          | 83 | .72 | 350 | 800 | 0       | 1%    | 0.022% |
| >    | R        | ,5 |     |     |     | .00035% |        | 1%    |
| 2002 | iverton, | 73 | 3   | 25, | 63, | 1%     | 0      |        |
| >    | City of  |    | .93 | 700 | 980 |         | .0013% | 0.18%  |
| >    |          | 7  |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2004 | Sandy    | ,3 | 3   | 25, | 66, | .00023% |        |        |
|      | City     | 58 | .42 | 700 | 458 | 1%     | 0.010% | 0.080% |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| 003, | Sandy    | 24 | 3   | 8,  | 66, | 0.0018% |        |        |
| 2004 | City     | ,9 | .42 | 023 | 458 | 1%     | 0      | 0.019% |
|      |          | 56 |     |     |     |         | .0045% | 1%    |
| >    | South    |    | 2   | 17, | 29, | 0       | 1%    |        |
| 2004 | Salt     | 87 | .47 | 368 | 801 | .00081% |        | 0.019% |
| >    | Lake,    | ,8 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | 94 | 2   | 7,  | 36, |         | .0011% |        |
| 2002 |          |    | .81 | 452 | 505 | 0       | 1%    | 0.14%  |
|      | St.      | 87 |     |     |     | .00019% |        | 1%    |
| 2    | George,  | ,8 | 2   | 432 | 43, | 1%     | 0      |        |
| 002, | City of  | 94 | .98 |     | 862 |         | .0011% | 0.051% |
| 03,  |          |    |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | 1%    |
| 04   | Tooele   | 19 | 3   |     | 31, | .00019% |        |        |
|      | City     | ,8 | .56 |     | 196 | 1%     | 0      | 0.099% |
| >    |          | 17 |     |     |     |         | .0077% | 1%    |
| 2003 | Wendover |    |     |     |     | 0.0014% | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 48 |     |     |     | 1%     |        | **2.4% |
| >    |          | ,8 |     |     |     |         | 0      | 1%**  |
| 2003 |          | 04 |     |     |     | 0       | .0029% |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | .00052% | 1%    |        |
| 2    |          | 22 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 002, |          | ,2 |     |     |     |         | 0      |        |
| 2003 |          | 07 |     |     |     | 0.0010% | .0056% |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 1  |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          | ,5 |     |     |     | 0.024%  | 0.14%  |        |
|      |          | 37 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | Arizona  | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| **RE | Water    |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| GION |          | 35 | 3   | 10, | 49, | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| 9*** | A        | ,7 | .36 | 636 | 153 | tistics | istics | istics |
|      | vondale, | 37 |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| ***  | City of  |    | 2   | 1,  | 71, | av      |        |        |
| [Ari |          | 3  | .51 | 506 | 875 | ailable | 0      | 0.062% |
| zona | Li       | ,7 |     |     |     |         | .0035% | 1%    |
| ]{.u | tchfield | 80 | 2   | 3,  | 29, | 0       | 1%    |        |
| nder | Park     |    | .70 | 333 | 899 | .00063% |        | 0.30%  |
| line |          | 9  |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.017% | 1%    |
| }*** | Safford, | ,0 | 2   | 90, | 57, |         | 1%    |        |
|      | City of  | 00 | .22 | 553 | 484 | 0.0030% |        | 0.32%  |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.018% | 1%    |
| 2002 | Sco      | 2  | NA  | NA  | NA  |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | ttsdale, | 01 |     |     |     | 0.0033% |        | 0      |
| >    | City of  | ,0 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.     | .0062% |
| 2004 |          | 28 |     |     |     |         | 00035% | 1%    |
| >    | White    |    |     |     |     | 0.      | 1%    |        |
| >    | Mountain | NA |     |     |     | 000063% |        | Hou    |
| 2003 | Apache   |    |     |     |     | 1%     | Hou    | sehold |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         | sehold | stat   |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      | stat   | istics |
| 003, |          |    |     |     |     | usehold | istics | NA     |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | NA     |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | tistics |        |        |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     | not     |        |        |
| 003, |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| **   | Apple    | 53 | 2   | 18, | 40, | 0       | 0      | 0.043% |
| *[Ca | Valley,  | ,8 | .90 | 578 | 421 | .00044% | .0024% | 1%    |
| lifo | Town of  | 76 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| rnia |          |    | 2   | 19, | 56, |         |        | 0.030% |
| ]{.u | Arcadia, | 52 | .74 | 151 | 100 | 0       | 0      | 1%    |
| nder | City of  | ,4 |     |     |     | .00031% | .0017% |        |
| line |          | 73 | 4   | 8,  | 29, | 1%     | 1%    | 0.12%  |
| }*** | Bell,    |    | .05 | 920 | 946 |         |        | 1%    |
|      | City of  | 36 |     |     |     | 0.0012% | 0      |        |
| 2    |          | ,1 | 2   | 13, | 59, | 1%     | .0069% | 0.042% |
| 002, | Brea,    | 26 | .70 | 067 | 759 |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 | City of  |    |     |     |     | 0       |        |        |
|      |          | 35 | 2   | 1,  | 63, | .00042% | 0      | 0.32%  |
| 2    | B        | ,2 | .20 | 617 | 684 | 1%     | .0023% | 1%    |
| 002, | risbane, | 82 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| 03,  | City of  |    | 3   | 14, | 35, | 0.0032% |        | 0.062% |
| 04   |          | 3  | .26 | 540 | 777 | 1%     | 0.018% | 1%    |
|      | Colton,  | ,5 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| >    | City of  | 57 | 3   | 14, | 35, | 0       |        | 0.062% |
| 2004 |          |    | .26 | 540 | 777 | .00063% | 0      | 1%    |
|      | Colton,  | 47 |     |     |     | 1%     | .0035% |        |
| 2    | City of  | ,3 | 4   | 5,  | 29, |         | 1%    | 0.21%  |
| 002, |          | 98 | .47 | 413 | 040 | 0       |        | 1%    |
| 2003 | Cudahy,  |    |     |     |     | .00063% | 0      |        |
|      | City of  | 47 | 2   | 10, | 25, | 1%     | .0035% | 0.11%  |
| >    |          | ,3 | .26 | 962 | 849 |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 | Eureka,  | 98 |     |     |     | 0.0021% |        |        |
| >    | City of  |    | 2   | 17, | 73, | 1%     | 0.012% | 0.026% |
| >    |          | 24 | .61 | 218 | 175 |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2002 | Folsom,  | ,1 |     |     |     | 0.0012% |        |        |
| >    | City of  | 96 | 2   | 2,  | 28, | 1%     | 0      | 0.40%  |
| >    |          |    | .35 | 846 | 539 |         | .0065% | 1%    |
| 2004 | Fort     | 24 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    |        |
|      | Bragg,   | ,7 | 3   | 45, | 47, | .00026% |        | 0.015% |
| 2    | City of  | 73 | .56 | 776 | 754 | 1%     | 0      | 1%    |
| 003, |          |    |     |     |     |         | .0014% |        |
| 2004 | Garden   | 44 | 2   | 20, | 38, | 0.0040% | 1%    | 0.041% |
|      | Grove,   | ,9 | .80 | 336 | 988 | 1%     |        | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | 40 |     |     |     |         | 0.022% |        |
| 2003 |          |    | 3   | 19, | 40, | 0       | 1%    | 0.040% |
| >    | Gardena, | 6  | .12 | 952 | 201 | .00015% |        | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | ,6 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.     |        |
| 2004 |          | 88 | 2   | 73, | 64, |         | 00084% | 0      |
| >    | H        |    | .56 | 751 | 824 | 0       | 1%    | .0068% |
| >    | esperia, | 1  |     |     |     | .00042% |        | 1%    |
| 2004 | City of  | 62 | 2   | 73, | 64, | 1%     | 0      |        |
| >    |          | ,9 | .56 | 751 | 824 |         | .0023% | 0      |
| >    | Hu       | 62 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | .0068% |
| 2002 | ntington |    | 2   | 11, | 75, | .00041% |        | 1%    |
| >    | Beach,   | 56 | .05 | 515 | 808 | 1%     | 0      |        |
| >    | City     | ,9 |     |     |     |         | .0023% | 0.037% |
| 2004 |          | 42 | 3   | 29, | 55, | 0.      | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | Hu       |    | .59 | 067 | 037 | 000069% |        |        |
| >    | ntington | 62 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.     | 0.020% |
| 2002 | Beach,   | ,2 | 2   | 20, | 39, |         | 00038% | 1%    |
| >    | City     | 51 | .71 | 655 | 570 | 0.      | 1%    |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 000069% |        | 0.040% |
| 2002 | Laguna   | 1  | 3   | 33, | 45, | 1%     | 0.     | 1%    |
| >    | Beach,   | 88 | .11 | 941 | 667 |         | 00038% |        |
| >    | City of  | ,8 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | 0.021% |
| 2003 |          | 02 |     |     |     | .00038% |        | 1%    |
|      | Lathrop, |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      |        |
| 2    | City of  | 1  |     |     |     |         | .0021% |        |
| 002, |          | 88 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    |        |
| 2003 | Lodi,    | ,8 |     |     |     | .00020% |        |        |
|      | City of  | 02 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         | .0011% |        |
| 2002 | Downey,  | 23 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    |        |
| >    | City of  | ,6 |     |     |     | .00040% |        |        |
| >    |          | 05 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         | .0022% |        |
| >    |          | 10 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | ,4 |     |     |     | .00021% |        |        |
| 2003 |          | 35 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         | .0012% |        |
|      |          | 55 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
|      |          | ,9 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 75 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 1  |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 05 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | ,5 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 58 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Los      | 25 | 3   | 7,  | 43, | 0       | 0      | 0.096% |
| Cali | Banos,   | ,6 | .33 | 716 | 690 | .00098% | .0054% | 1%    |
| forn | City of  | 94 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| ia - |          |    | 2   | 5,  | 46, |         |        | 0.12%  |
| cont | Los Osos | 14 | .42 | 600 | 558 | 0.0013% | 0      | 1%    |
| ]{.u |          | ,2 |     |     |     | 1%     | .0070% |        |
| nder | Marin    | 77 | 2   | 1   | 71, |         | 1%    | 0      |
| line | County   |    | .34 | 00, | 306 | 0.      |        | .0045% |
| }*** |          | 2  |     | 770 |     | 000046% | 0.     | 1%    |
|      | Mariposa | 35 | 2   |     | 34, | 1%     | 00026% |        |
| >    | County   | ,8 | .37 | 6,  | 626 |         | 1%    | 0.14%  |
| 2002 |          | 03 |     | 626 |     | 0.0014% |        | 1%    |
| >    | Maywood, |    | 4   |     | 30, | 1%     | 0      |        |
| >    | City of  | 15 | .33 | 6,  | 480 |         | .0080% | 0.16%  |
| 2004 |          | ,7 |     | 464 |     | 0.0017% | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | Mission  | 04 | NA  |     | NA  | 1%     |        |        |
| >    | Springs  |    |     | NA  |     |         | 0      | Hou    |
| 2003 |          | 27 | NA  |     | NA  | Ho      | .0093% | sehold |
| >    | Mission  | ,9 |     | NA  |     | usehold | 1%    | stat   |
| >    | Springs  | 89 | 2   |     | 40, | sta     |        | istics |
| 2002 |          |    | .86 | 64, | 394 | tistics | Hou    | NA     |
| >    | Modesto, | NA |     | 912 |     | not     | sehold |        |
| >    | City of  |    | 2   |     | 83, | av      | stat   | Hou    |
| 2003 |          | NA | .09 | 33, | 455 | ailable | istics | sehold |
| >    | Newport  |    |     | 058 |     |         | NA     | stat   |
| >    | Beach,   | 1  | 3   |     | 46, | Ho      |        | istics |
| 2002 | City of  | 85 | .79 | 26, | 047 | usehold | Hou    | NA     |
|      |          | ,6 |     | 899 |     | sta     | sehold |        |
| 2    | Norwalk, | 48 | 2   |     | 46, | tistics | stat   | 0.012% |
| 003, | City of  |    | .83 | 56, | 301 | not     | istics | 1%    |
| 2004 |          | 69 |     | 448 |     | av      | NA     |        |
|      | Oc       | ,0 | NA  |     | NA  | ailable |        | 0.012% |
| >    | eanside, | 92 |     | NA  |     |         | 0.     | 1%    |
| 2002 | City of  |    | 3   |     | 48, | 0       | 00070% |        |
| >    |          | 1  | .85 | 43, | 603 | .00012% | 1%    | 0.026% |
| >    | Ol       | 01 |     | 574 |     | 1%     |        | 1%    |
| 2003 | ivenhain | ,9 | 3   |     | 41, |         | 0.     |        |
|      | M        | 49 | .83 | 16, | 564 | 0       | 00066% | 0.012% |
| 2    | unicipal |    |     | 469 |     | .00012% | 1%    | 1%    |
| 003, |          | 1  | 2   |     | 57, | 1%     |        |        |
| 2004 | Oxnard   | 59 | .63 | 93, | 535 |         | 0      | Hou    |
|      |          | ,7 |     | 350 |     | 0       | .0015% | sehold |
| 2    | Pico     | 49 | 2   |     | 34, | .00026% | 1%    | stat   |
| 003, | Rivera,  |    | .44 | 32, | 194 | 1%     |        | istics |
| 2003 | City of  | NA |     | 167 |     |         | 0.     | NA     |
|      |          |    | 2   |     | 34, | 0       | 00070% |        |
| 2    | Placer   | 1  | .44 | 32, | 194 | .00012% | 1%    | 0.015% |
| 003, | County   | 67 |     | 167 |     | 1%     |        | 1%    |
| 2004 |          | ,7 | 2   |     | 56, |         | Hou    |        |
|      | Redding, | 61 | .98 | 3,  | 979 | Ho      | sehold | 0.047% |
| >    | City of  |    |     | 367 |     | usehold | stat   | 1%    |
| 2002 |          | 63 | 2   |     | 57, | sta     | istics |        |
| >    | Redding, | ,0 | .57 | 30, | 367 | tistics | NA     | 0      |
| >    | City of  | 78 |     | 736 |     | not     |        | .0060% |
| 2002 |          |    | 2   |     | 37, | av      | 0.     | 1%    |
|      | Ripon,   | 2  | .57 | 1   | 049 | ailable | 00086% |        |
| 2    | City of  | 45 |     | 54, |     |         | 1%    | 0.030% |
| 002, |          | ,5 | 2   | 870 | 37, | 0       |        | 1%    |
| 2003 | Ro       | 11 | .57 |     | 049 | .00016% | 0      |        |
|      | seville, |    |     | 1   |     | 1%     | .0027% | 0.030% |
| 2    | City of  | 78 | 3   | 54, | 31, |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| 002, |          | ,4 | .19 | 870 | 140 | 0       |        |        |
| 2003 | Sac      | 88 |     |     |     | .00048% | 0.     | 0.17%  |
|      | ramento, |    | 2   | 56, | 45, | 1%     | 00034% | 1%    |
| >    | City of  | 78 | .61 | 286 | 733 |         | 1%    |        |
| 2004 |          | ,4 |     |     |     | 0.      |        | 0.018% |
| >    | Sac      | 88 | 4   | 4   | 43, | 000061% | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | ramento, |    | .55 | 51, | 412 | 1%     | .0017% |        |
| 2003 | City of  | 10 |     | 181 |     |         | 1%    | 0      |
| >    |          | ,0 | 4   |     | 35, | 0       |        | .0056% |
| >    | San      | 35 | .15 | 73, | 695 | .00030% | 0      | 1%    |
| 2004 | Ber      |    |     | 045 |     | 1%     | .0017% |        |
| >    | nardino, | 78 | NA  |     | NA  |         | 1%    | 0      |
| >    | City of  | ,9 |     | 23, |     | 0       |        | .0056% |
| 2002 |          | 93 |     | 189 |     | .00030% | 0      | 1%    |
| >    | San      |    |     |     |     | 1%     | .0096% |        |
| >    | Diego    | 3  |     | NA  |     |         | 1%    | 0.018% |
| 2003 |          | 98 |     |     |     | 0.0017% |        | 1%    |
| >    | Santa    | ,0 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      |        |
| >    | Ana,     | 16 |     |     |     |         | .0010% | 0      |
| 2004 | City of  |    |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | .0016% |
| >    |          | 3  |     |     |     | .00019% |        | 1%    |
| >    | South    | 98 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.     |        |
| 2004 | Gate,    | ,0 |     |     |     |         | 00032% | 0.010% |
| >    | City of  | 16 |     |     |     | 0.      | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 000057% |        |        |
| 2004 | Tuolumme | 1  |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.     | 0.039% |
|      | U        | 79 |     |     |     |         | 00032% | 1%    |
| 2002 | tilities | ,5 |     |     |     | 0.      | 1%    |        |
|      |          | 52 |     |     |     | 000057% |        | Hou    |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      | sehold |
| 2002 |          | 1  |     |     |     |         | .0010% | stat   |
|      |          | ,1 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    | istics |
|      |          | 77 |     |     |     | .00019% |        | NA     |
|      |          | ,5 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.0    |        |
|      |          | 82 |     |     |     |         | 00089% |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.      | 1%    |        |
|      |          | 3  |     |     |     | 000016% |        |        |
|      |          | 32 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.     |        |
|      |          | ,3 |     |     |     |         | 00058% |        |
|      |          | 53 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | .00010% |        |        |
|      |          | 96 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0      |        |
|      |          | ,2 |     |     |     |         | .0022% |        |
|      |          | 34 |     |     |     | 0       | 1%    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | .00040% |        |        |
|      |          | NA |     |     |     | 1%     | Hou    |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         | sehold |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      | stat   |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | usehold | istics |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | NA     |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | tistics |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | not     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Ukiah,   | 14 | 2   | 5,  | 32, | 0.0017% | 0      | 0.16%  |
| Cali | City of  | ,7 | .47 | 977 | 707 | 1%     | .0094% | 1%    |
| forn |          | 63 |     |     |     |         | 1%    |        |
| ia - | Vallejo, |    | 2   | 39, | 50, | 0       |        | 0.016% |
| cont | City of  | 1  | .90 | 660 | 030 | .00016% | 0.     | 1%    |
| ]{.u |          | 15 |     |     |     | 1%     | 00092% |        |
| nder | Ventura  | ,0 | 3   | 2   | 59, |         | 1%    | 0      |
| line | County   | 15 | .04 | 43, | 666 | 0.      |        | .0022% |
| }*** |          |    |     | 416 |     | 000023% | 0.     | 1%    |
|      | Ventura  | 7  | 3   |     | 59, | 1%     | 00013% |        |
| >    | County   | 39 | .04 | 2   | 666 |         | 1%    | 0      |
| 2004 |          | ,9 |     | 43, |     | 0.      |        | .0022% |
| >    | Ventura  | 85 | 3   | 416 | 59, | 000023% | 0.     | 1%    |
| >    | County   |    | .04 |     | 666 | 1%     | 00013% |        |
| 2004 |          | 7  |     | 2   |     |         | 1%    | 0      |
| >    | West     | 39 | NA  | 43, | NA  | 0.      |        | .0022% |
| >    | Valley   | ,9 |     | 416 |     | 000023% | 0.     | 1%    |
| 2004 | Water    | 85 | 2   |     | 49, | 1%     | 00013% |        |
| >    |          |    | .88 | NA  | 256 |         | 1%    | Hou    |
| >    | W        | 7  |     |     |     | Ho      |        | sehold |
| 2003 | hittier, | 39 | 2   | 28, | 26, | usehold | Hou    | stat   |
|      | City of  | ,9 | .56 | 240 | 283 | sta     | sehold | istics |
| 2    |          | 85 |     |     |     | tistics | stat   | NA     |
| 002, | Willits, |    | NA  | 1,  | NA  | not     | istics |        |
| 03,  | City of  | NA |     | 932 |     | av      | NA     | 0.023% |
| 04   |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        | 1%    |
|      | Yucaipi  | 8  |     | NA  |     |         | 0      |        |
| >    | Valley   | 1, |     |     |     | 0       | .0013% | 0.64%  |
| 2004 |          | 33 |     |     |     | .00024% | 1%    | 1%    |
|      |          | 22 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 2    |          |    |     |     |     |         | 0.036% | Hou    |
| 003, |          | 4  |     |     |     | 0.0065% | 1%    | sehold |
| 2004 |          | ,9 |     |     |     | 1%     |        | stat   |
|      |          | 47 |     |     |     |         | Hou    | istics |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      | sehold | NA     |
| 2003 |          | NA |     |     |     | usehold | stat   |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | istics |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | tistics | NA     |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     | not     |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Guam     | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| Guam | Wa       |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| ]{.u | terworks |    |     |     |     | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| nder |          |    |     |     |     | tistics | istics | istics |
| line |          |    |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| }*** |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| **   | Hawaii,  | 1  | 2   | 53, | 39, | 0       | 0.     | 0.015% |
| *[Ha | County   | 45 | .75 | 045 | 805 | .00016% | 00086% | 1%    |
| waii | of       | ,8 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| ]{.u |          | 73 | 2   | 53, | 39, |         |        | 0.015% |
| nder | Hawaii,  |    | .75 | 045 | 805 | 0       | 0.     | 1%    |
| line | County   | 1  |     |     |     | .00016% | 00086% |        |
| }*** | of       | 45 | 2   | 28, | 51, | 1%     | 1%    | 0.022% |
|      |          | ,8 | .95 | 651 | 914 |         |        | 1%    |
| >    | Honolulu | 73 |     |     |     | 0       | 0      |        |
| 2002 | Bd of    |    |     |     |     | .00022% | .0012% |        |
| >    | Water    | 8  |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 45 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          | ,2 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          | 11 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| **   | Carson   | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| *[Ne | Water    |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| vada |          | 1  | 2   | 5   | 44, | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| ]{.u | Clark    | ,3 | .65 | 11, | 616 | tistics | istics | istics |
| nder | County   | 56 |     | 830 |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| line |          | ,3 | 2   |     | 34, | av      |        |        |
| }*** | Ha       | 50 | .25 | 1,  | 413 | ailable | 0.0    | 0      |
|      | wthorne, |    |     | 462 |     |         | 00080% | .0014% |
| >    | Town of  | 3  | 2   |     | 55, | 0.      | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2003 |          | ,2 | .63 | 66, | 949 | 000014% |        |        |
| >    | He       | 90 |     | 295 |     | 1%     | 0.036% | 0.64%  |
| >    | nderson, |    | 2   |     | 44, |         | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2004 | City of  | 1  | .66 | 1   | 069 | 0.0065% |        |        |
| >    |          | 74 |     | 76, |     | 1%     | 0.     | 0      |
| >    | Las      | ,3 | 2   | 785 | 45, |         | 00049% | .0087% |
| 2004 | Vegas,   | 55 | .53 |     | 815 | 0.      | 1%    | 1%    |
|      | City of  |    |     | 1   |     | 000089% |        |        |
| 2    |          | 4  | 2   | 32, | 45, | 1%     | 0.     | 0      |
| 002, | Washoe   | 70 | .53 | 046 | 815 |         | 00024% | .0042% |
| 02,  | County   | ,2 |     |     |     | 0.      | 1%    | 1%    |
| 04   |          | 49 |     | 1   |     | 000042% |        |        |
|      | Washoe   |    |     | 32, |     | 1%     | 0.     | 0      |
| >    | County   | 3  |     | 046 |     |         | 00030% | .0054% |
| 2003 |          | 34 |     |     |     | 0.      | 1%    | 1%    |
|      |          | ,0 |     |     |     | 000054% |        |        |
| 2    |          | 76 |     |     |     | 1%     | 0.     | 0      |
| 003, |          |    |     |     |     |         | 00030% | .0054% |
| 2003 |          | 3  |     |     |     | 0.      | 1%    | 1%    |
|      |          | 34 |     |     |     | 000054% |        |        |
| >    |          | ,0 |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 2004 |          | 76 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | North    | 1  | 2   | 605 | 44, | 0.012%  | 0.068% | **1.2% |
| **RE | Pole     | ,5 | .58 |     | 583 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%**  |
| GION |          | 61 |     | 1,  |     |         |        |        |
| 1    | Pe       |    | 2   | 241 | 49, | 0.0054% | 0.030% | 0.53%  |
| 0*** | tersburg | 3  | .56 |     | 028 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
|      |          | ,1 |     | 1,  |     |         |        |        |
| **   | Wasilla  | 78 | 2   | 980 | 48, | 0.0034% | 0.019% | 0.34%  |
| *[Al |          |    | .76 |     | 226 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| aska |          | 5  |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| ]{.u |          | ,4 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| nder |          | 64 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| line |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| }*** |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| *    | B        | 3  | 2   | 144 | 26, | 0.086%  | 0.48%  | **8.5% |
| **[I | ancroft, | 82 | .65 |     | 458 | 1%     | 1%    | 3%**  |
| daho | City of  |    |     | 3,  |     |         |        |        |
| ]{.u |          | 9  | 2   | 288 | 27, | 0.0036% | 0.020% | 0.35%  |
| nder | Burley,  | ,0 | .75 |     | 981 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| line | City of  | 43 |     | 3,  |     |         |        |        |
| }*** |          |    | 2   | 288 | 27, | 0.0036% | 0.020% | 0.35%  |
|      | Burley,  | 9  | .75 |     | 981 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| 2    | City of  | ,0 |     | NA  |     |         |        |        |
| 002, |          | 43 | NA  |     | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| 2003 | Cape     |    |     | NA  |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
|      | Horn     | NA | NA  |     | NA  | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| >    | /Bayview |    |     | 628 |     | tistics | istics | istics |
| 2002 | W.       | NA | 2   |     | 31, | not     | NA     | NA     |
|      |          |    | .58 | 271 | 336 | av      |        |        |
| 2    | Coolin   | 1  |     |     |     | ailable | Hou    | Hou    |
| 003, | Sewer    | ,6 | 2   | 1,  | 32, |         | sehold | sehold |
| 2004 |          | 20 | .97 | 016 | 500 | Ho      | stat   | stat   |
|      | Filer,   |    |     |     |     | usehold | istics | istics |
| >    | City of  | 8  | 2   |     | 32, | sta     | NA     | NA     |
| 2002 |          | 05 | .93 |     | 665 | tistics |        |        |
| >    | M        |    |     |     |     | not     | 0.093% | **1.6% |
| >    | cCammon, | 2  |     |     |     | av      | 1%    | 1%**  |
| 2003 | City of  | ,9 |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
|      |          | 78 |     |     |     |         | 0.21%  | **3.7% |
| 2    | Mi       |    |     |     |     | 0.017%  | 1%    | 3%**  |
| 002, | ddleton, |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 2003 | City of  |    |     |     |     |         | 0.055% | 0.98%  |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | 0.037%  | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 0.0099% |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 1%     |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| **   | Albany,  | 40 | 2   | 16, | 39, | 0       | 0      | 0.051% |
| *[Or | City of  | ,1 | .49 | 130 | 409 | .00052% | .0029% | 1%    |
| egon |          | 65 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| ]{.u | C        |    | 2   | 1   | 52, |         |        | 0      |
| nder | lackamas | 3  | .62 | 28, | 080 | 0.      | 0.     | .0049% |
| line | County   | 35 |     | 058 |     | 000049% | 00027% | 1%    |
| }*** |          | ,5 | 2   |     | 32, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
|      | Gold     | 13 | .56 | 419 | 500 |         |        | **2.4% |
| >    | Hill     |    |     |     |     | 0.024%  | 0.13%  | 1%**  |
| 2003 |          | 1  | 2   | 45, | 41, | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    | D        | ,0 | .50 | 658 | 847 |         |        | 0.017% |
| >    | eschutes | 73 |     |     |     | 0       | 0.     | 1%    |
| 2002 |          |    | 2   | 653 | 28, | .00017% | 00096% |        |
| >    | Wheeler  | 1  | .32 |     | 750 | 1%     | 1%    | **1.7% |
| >    |          | 14 |     | 25, |     |         |        | 1%**  |
| 2003 | Medford, | ,1 | 2   | 048 | 36, | 0.018%  | 0.098% |        |
| >    | City of  | 46 | .47 |     | 481 | 1%     | 1%    | 0.036% |
| >    |          |    |     | 594 |     |         |        | 1%    |
| 2003 | North    | 1  | 2   |     | 49, | 0       | 0      |        |
| >    | Plains,  | ,5 | .70 | 2   | 563 | .00036% | .0020% | **1.1% |
| >    | City of  | 16 |     | 23, |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%**  |
| 2002 |          |    | 2   | 534 | 40, |         |        |        |
| >    | P        | 61 | .30 |     | 146 | 0.011%  | 0.062% | 0      |
| >    | ortland, | ,8 |     | 10, |     | 1%     | 1%    | .0036% |
| 2002 | City of  | 69 | 2   | 213 | 34, |         |        | 1%    |
| >    |          |    | .33 |     | 269 | 0.      | 0.     |        |
| >    | T        | 1  |     |     |     | 000037% | 00020% | 0.093% |
| 2003 | illamook | ,6 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| >    | County   | 05 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | 0       | 0      |        |
| 2002 |          | 5  |     |     |     | .00094% | .0052% |        |
|      |          | 14 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| 2    |          | ,1 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 003, |          | 29 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 23 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | ,7 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
|      |          | 96 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| **   | Blaine,  | 3  | 2   | 1,  | 36, | 0.0060% | 0.033% | 0.59%  |
| *[Wa | City of  | ,7 | .48 | 498 | 900 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| shin |          | 15 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| gton | Duvall,  |    | 2   | 1,  | 71, | 0.0029% | 0.016% | 0.28%  |
| ]{.u | City of  | 4  | .88 | 594 | 300 | 1%     | 1%    | 1%    |
| nder |          | ,5 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| line | Everett, | 91 | 2   | 36, | 40, | 0       | 0      | 0.022% |
| }*** | City of  |    | .40 | 369 | 100 | .00022% | .0012% | 1%    |
|      |          | 87 |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    | Grand    | ,2 | 2   | 410 | 21, |         |        | **3.6% |
| 2003 | Coulee,  | 85 | .13 |     | 818 | 0.036%  | 0.20%  | 3%**  |
| >    | City of  |    |     |     |     | 1%     | 1%    |        |
| >    |          | 8  |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          | 73 |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
| 2004 |          |    |     |     |     |         |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+
| ***[ | Table    | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | Ho      | Hou    | Hou    |
| Head | Rock     |    |     |     |     | usehold | sehold | sehold |
| quar | Lake     | NA | NA  | NA  | NA  | sta     | stat   | stat   |
| ters |          |    |     |     |     | tistics | istics | istics |
| ]{.u | U. Rio   |    |     |     |     | not     | NA     | NA     |
| nder | Grande   |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
| line | Valley   |    |     |     |     | ailable | Hou    | Hou    |
| }*** |          |    |     |     |     |         | sehold | sehold |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | Ho      | stat   | stat   |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | usehold | istics | istics |
| 2002 |          |    |     |     |     | sta     | NA     | NA     |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | tistics |        |        |
| >    |          |    |     |     |     | not     |        |        |
| 2003 |          |    |     |     |     | av      |        |        |
|      |          |    |     |     |     | ailable |        |        |
+------+----------+----+-----+-----+-----+---------+--------+--------+

No. Grants by Regions No. Grants by HQ Total Grants % of Total Grants %
of Grants by Regions Only

Large Governments 178 0 178 178/601 x 100 = 29.6% ≈ 30% 178/599 x 100 =
29.7% ≈ 30%

Small Governments 339 0 339 339/601 x 100 = 56.4% ≈ 56% 339/599 x 100 =
56.6% ≈ 57%

Special Districts 82 2 84 82/601 x 100 = 13.6% ≈ 14% 82/599 x 100 =
13.7% ≈ 14%

2 2/601 x 100 = 0.3% ≈ 0%

Totals 599 2 601 99.9% ≈ 100% 100% ≈ 101%

"Income Test" ≥ 1% and 3% for Small Government Entities for Submission
of Environmental Documentation Related to:

CE Determination EA/FONSI EIS/ROD

Cost is: ≥1% ≥3% Cost is: ≥1% ≥3% Cost is: ≥1% ≥3%

Number of Small Governments 0 0 2 0 57 22

Summary Information Annualized for Regions Only

\~ [600 grants per 3-year period]{.underline} = \~300 grants/year Large
Governments: \~ 300 grants/year x 30% = \~ 90 grants annually to large
governments

3 years Small Governments: \~ 300 grants/year x 57% = \~ 170 grants
annually to small governments

Special Districts: \~ 300 grants/year x 14% = \~ 40 grants annually to
special districts

(Small Businesses) ( \~ 4 small business permit applicants annually)

[^1]: 1 ^1^Certain EPA actions are exempt from the procedural
    requirements of NEPA and the CEQ Regulations. See Attachment 1.

[^2]: 2 ^2^The courts have determined, and CEQ has issued guidelines,
    that NEPA does not apply to Federal agency actions significantly
    affecting the environment of the global commons or the environment
    of a foreign nation not participating with the United States and not
    otherwise involved in the action. The Executive Order is "\...
    solely for the purpose of establishing internal procedures for
    Federal agencies to consider the significant effects of their
    actions on the environment outside the \[U.S.\], its territories and
    possessions \..." \[Executive 0rder 12114, Section 3-1\]

[^3]: 3 ^3^This may include such actions as EPA-issued permits for
    hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities under
    section 3005 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42
    U.S.C. 6925), NPDES permits under section 402 of the Clean Water Act
    (33 U.S.C. 1342), and prevention of significant deterioration
    approvals under Part C of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7470 *et
    seq.*).

[^4]: 4 ^4^Approximately 75% of EPA's grants are under the STAG
    appropriations account. Certain line items in the STAG
    appropriations account are not subject to NEPA (see Attachment 1).
    Grantee actions subject to NEPA are predominately under the STAG
    appropriations account (including consideration of the Wastewater
    Treatment Construction Grants Program and other actions subject to
    NEPA, including those under the Agency's Environmental Programs and
    Management (EPM) account).

[^5]: 5 ^5^North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes,
    NAICS 2002, http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html, and
    http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html.

[^6]: 6 ^6^If an EA or EIS is to be prepared for an action subject to
    NEPA, the Responsible Official and the applicant may enter into an
    agreement whereby the applicant engages and pays for the services of
    a third-party contractor to prepare an EA or EIS and any supporting
    documents. The Responsible Official has sole authority for approval
    and modification of the statements, analyses, and conclusions of the
    EA or EIS and any supporting documents. Because EISs are generally
    more complex than EAs in terms of the issues to be addressed and the
    associated analyses, it has generally been EPA's experience that
    grantees and permit applicants will enter into third-party
    agreements with EPA for preparation of the EIS and supporting
    documents. (See Attachment 2.)

[^7]: 7 ^7^For grantees, there may be a financial difference in that a
    grantee generally may use EPA financial assistance to prepare an EID
    but not to prepare a draft EA and supporting documents; for
    grantees, third-party contractor costs for preparing an EID may also
    be grant-eligible. It has been EPA's experience that grantees
    contract directly for preparation of environmental information or
    use in-house engineering contractors to prepare CE and draft EA
    documentation, usually without seeking cost reimbursement (see
    Attachment 2). Permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial
    assistance.

[^8]: 8 ^8^For example, a grantee action for renovation of an existing
    wastewater treatment or drinking water supply system may be
    categorically excluded. An EA may be required for a grantee action
    to construct a new sewage treatment system in a small governmental
    jurisdiction; or to assess a new source NPDES permit for a discharge
    from a concentrated animal feeding operation for chickens, cattle,
    hogs or pigs. An EIS may be required for a grantee action to
    construct a new sewage treatment plant with potential for
    significant impacts to wetlands, or cultural or archaeological
    features; or to assess a new source NPDES permit for discharges from
    an oil and gas extraction facility, or mining operation, or a
    concentrated animal feeding operation with potential for significant
    impacts to wetlands, or cultural or archaeological features, or
    threatened or endangered species.

[^9]: 9 ^9^The applicant would not be required to develop, acquire,
    install, or utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
    collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
    maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
    adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
    instructions and requirements; or train personnel to be able to
    respond to a collection of information.

[^10]: 0 ^10^Categorical exclusions are subject to notice and comment
    rulemaking and, thus, public scrutiny.

[^11]: 1 ^11^EPA's Peer Review Guidelines recognize the public review
    process for NEPA documents. Also, EPA's Quality System may apply to
    certain information gathering activities undertaken directly by EPA.

[^12]: 2 ^12^http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html

[^13]: 3 ^13^http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html

[^14]: 4 ^14^EPA's Office of Water computer system report, "Special
    Appropriations Act Projects and Program, Count of Grants Awarded by
    Fiscal Year."

[^15]: 5 ^15^EPA Headquarters also has two active grants representing
    0.3% of the total 601 grants. Because the majority of the grant
    actions occur in the Regions, the 599 regional grants are the base
    for this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis.

[^16]: 6 ^16^http://www.census.gov/. Borough and parish jurisdictions
    are "county" designations in certain states.

[^17]: 7 ^17^As stated in Section 2(e) and footnote 4, most grants
    issued by EPA are awarded to governmental jurisdictions for special
    projects identified in the STAG account authorized by Congress
    through the Agency's annual Appropriations Act. See Section 3(b) for
    the definition of small government used in this screening analysis.

[^18]: 8 ^18^See further discussion in Section 7 regarding applicant
    financial hardship, including inability to provide the requested
    environmental information.

[^19]: 9 ^19^Under appropriate grant conditions, grantees generally may
    use EPA financial assistance to prepare an EID but not to prepare a
    draft EA and supporting documents. Third-party contract costs for an
    EID may also be grant-eligible. For grantee contractor costs to be
    reimbursable, grantees must meet certain contractor requirements,
    including procurement criteria.

[^20]: 0 ^20^It has been EPA's experience that applicants often use
    in-house engineering contractors for preparing CE- and EA-related
    environmental documents usually without seeking cost reimbursement.

[^21]: 1 ^21^EPA believes the calculations for this RFA/SBREFA screening
    analysis are representative of most projects. EPA's experience with
    a limited number of EISs has included one-time costs ranging from
    nominal for information submitted by letter to supplement an
    existing oil and gas extraction EIS to over a million dollars for
    new EISs for a mining project and an oil and gas extraction project
    with multiple complex issues. (See Attachment 2.)

[^22]: 2 ^22^One-time capital/start-up costs usually include any
    produced physical good needed to provide the necessary information.
    Start-up capital must be purchased for the specific purpose of
    satisfying EPA\'s reporting or recordkeeping requirements. Capital
    goods include computers, machinery, or equipment. Start-up capital
    costs are usually incurred at the beginning of an information
    collection period and are usually incurred only once.

[^23]: 3 ^23^EPA's NEPA review for permit renewals is generally based on
    information submitted by the applicant in the permit renewal
    application and other information generally available to EPA. If the
    permit parameters have changed, this would be considered a new,
    one-time action for purposes of the NEPA review process.

[^24]: 4 ^24^In the case of dairy operations, it is assumed one permit
    would be issued for the entire operation; e.g., any discharges from
    the milk production as well as discharges from the CAFO area.
    However, for purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, the
    dairy operators are used in the evaluation of the economic impacts
    for dairy operations and again for CAFOs for purposes of
    demonstrating the full range of business operations, including small
    businesses, that may be involved in the NPDES permit process.

[^25]: 5 ^25^Annual revenues/sales information is not available for the
    two small business seafood processors. For purposes of this
    RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, it is assumed their annual
    revenue/sales would be no more than \$750,000.

[^26]: 6 ^26^Based on analysis of grant applicants in previous years
    (see Section 6), EPA anticipates that of approximately 300 annual
    grantees, about 90 will be large governments, about 170 small
    governments, and about 40 special districts. For a total of
    approximately 312 annual projects, the total estimated annual number
    of small entities is about 174.

[^27]: 7 ^27^"Not classified" generally means the project type the
    monies were appropriated for has not yet been identified. The
    project may be a new type or may be incremental funding for a
    previously funded project. For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening
    analysis, EPA assumed these monies were appropriated for a new
    project type in order to include more projects and thus more
    governmental entities, including the possibility of small
    governments, in this screening analysis.

[^28]: 8 ^28^Attachment 3 lists total population and Attachment 4 lists
    household population. These figures are not the same because the
    total population includes all who live in the census area while
    household population excludes "quarters populations" (e.g., those in
    institutions (incarcerated, mental institutions, nursing homes) and
    non-institutional populations (college dorms, military barracks,
    group homes, missions and shelters)).

[^29]: 9 ^29^Applicants would normally be requested to demonstrate
    financial hardship, including inability to provide the requested
    environmental information. If so demonstrated, then EPA would
    undertake the environmental review necessary for the grant or permit
    action.

[^30]: 0 ^30^Under appropriate grant conditions, grantees generally may
    use EPA financial assistance to prepare an EID but not to prepare a
    draft EA and supporting documents. Third-party contractor costs for
    an EID may also be grant-eligible. For grantee contractor costs to
    be reimbursable, grantees must meet certain contractor requirements,
    including procurement criteria.

[^31]: 1 ^31^As discussed in Section 2(d) of this screening analysis,
    EPA is collecting information from certain applicants as part of the
    process of complying with either NEPA or Executive Order 12114.
    EPA's Executive Order 12114 procedures further the purpose of NEPA
    and provide that EPA may be guided by these procedures to the extent
    they are applicable. Therefore, when EPA conducts an environmental
    assessment pursuant to its Executive Order 12114 procedures, the
    Agency generally follows its NEPA procedures. For purposes of this
    analysis, applicant-proposed actions subject to either NEPA or
    Executive Order 12114 (and that are not addressed in other EPA
    programs), are addressed through the NEPA assessment process.

[^32]: 2 ^32^Certain EPA actions are exempt from NEPA as discussed in
    Attachment 1.

[^33]: 3 ^33^EPA's Office of Water SAAPP computer system report,
    "Special Appropriations Act Projects and Program, Count of Grants
    Awarded, by Fiscal Year."

[^34]: 4 ^34^Because this number is less than 1% of the total estimated
    annual number of STAG projects (e.g., 5 out of 300), these 5
    projects are not subtracted from the 300 total in the applicant cost
    calculations.