Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 2, 1997 / Notices 46265

progress and success of specific

reinvention projects and its overall

reinvention efforts. This meeting is

being held to provide the EPA with

perspectives from representatives of

state and local government,

environmental organizations, academia,

industry, and NGOs.

DATES: The two-day public meeting will

be held Monday, September 29, 1997

from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Tuesday,

September 30, 1997 from 8:30 a.m. to 12

Noon. The meeting will be held at the

Ramada Plaza Hotel Old Town,

Alexandria, Virginia.

ADDRESSES: Materials, or written

comments, may be transmitted to the

Committee through Gwendolyn Whitt,

Designated Federal Officer, NACEPT/

RCC, U.S. EPA, Office of Cooperative

Environmental Management (1601–F),

401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gwendolyn Whitt, Designated Federal

Officer for the NACEPT Reinvention

Criteria Committee at 202–260–9484.

Dated: August 20, 1997.

Gwendolyn C.L. Whitt,

Designated Federal Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–23225 Filed 8–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5886–4]

Announcement of Stakeholders

Meeting on the new Regulatory Impact

Analysis Framework for implementing

the Safe Drinking Water Act

Amendments of 1996

AGENCY:Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of stakeholders meeting.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) will be holding a one and

a half day public meeting on September

23 and 24, 1997. The purpose of this

meeting is to have a dialogue with

stakeholders and the public at large on

EPA’s development of a new regulatory

impact analysis framework for proposed

drinking water regulations. The Safe

Drinking Water Act Amendments of

1996 require that, whenever EPA

proposes a national primary drinking

water regulation, EPA must publish a

cost-benefit analysis. EPA would like to

have a dialogue with stakeholders and

the public at large on the various

components of this analysis, including

treatment design, unit treatment costs

and national costs, model systems

development, baseline estimates, data

quality objectives, and benefits analysis.

EPA is seeking input from national,

State, Tribal, municipal, and individual

stakeholders and other interested

parties. This meeting is a continuation

of stakeholder meetings that started in

1995 to obtain input on the Agency’s

Drinking Water Program. These

meetings were initiated as part of the

Drinking Water Program Redirection

efforts to help refocus EPA’s drinking

water priorities and to support strong,

flexible partnerships among EPA, States,

Tribes, local governments, and the

public. At the upcoming meeting, EPA

is seeking input from state and Tribal

drinking water programs, the regulated

community (public water systems),

public health organizations, academia,

environmental and public interest

groups, engineering firms, and other

stakeholders on a number of issues

related to developing the new regulatory

impact analysis framework. EPA

encourages the full participation of

stakeholders throughout this process.

DATES: The stakeholder meeting on the

new regulatory impact analysis

framework for drinking water

regulations will be held on Tuesday,

September 23, 1997 from 9:00 a.m. to

5:00 p.m. EDT and Wednesday,

September 24, 1997 from 9:00 a.m. to

1:00 p.m. EDT.

ADDRESSES: To register for the meeting,

please contact the Safe Drinking Water

Hotline at 1–800–426–4791 between

9:00 am and 5:30 pm EDT. Those

registered for the meeting by Friday,

September 12, 1997 will receive an

agenda, logistics sheet, and background

materials prior to the meeting. Members

of the public who cannot attend the

meeting in person may participate via

conference call and should register with

the Safe Drinking Water Hotline.

Conference lines will be allocated on

the basis of first-reserved, first served.

Members of the public who cannot

participate via conference call or in

person may submit comments in writing

by October 24, 1997, in order for

comments to be included in the meeting

summary, to Ben Smith, at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St, SW (4607), Washington, DC,

20460 or smith.ben@epamail.epa.gov.

The meeting will be held in Suite 275,

1255 23rd Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information on meeting

logistics, please contact the Safe

Drinking Water Hotline at 1–800–426–

4791. For information on the activities

related to developing the new regulatory

impact analysis framework and other

EPA activities under the Safe Drinking

Water Act, contact the Safe Drinking

Water Hotline at 1–800–426–4791.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA) Amendments of 1996, EPA

must provide a thorough cost-benefit

analysis, as well as comprehensive,

informative, and understandable

information to the public. The 1996

SDWA amendments require that new

regulations be developed so as to ensure

that they represent a meaningful

opportunity for health risk reduction.

Also required is a detailed analysis of

the relationship to: health impacts,

including those to sensitive subgroups;

impacts of other contaminants;

treatment objectives; incremental

impacts above a baseline that considers

current regulations, uncertainty, and

affordability. EPA must also consider

the impact on the technical, financial,

and managerial capacity of water

systems. In so doing, EPA must also use

the best available, peer reviewed science

and methods. The amendments provide

EPA with flexibility to identify and

incorporate new benefits, including

willingness to pay. In addition, EPA has

expanded information-gathering

authority, and must consider point-ofuse and point-of-entry devices. After

first defining a maximum contaminant

level (MCL), or treatment technique

standard based on affordable

technology, EPA must determine

whether the costs of that standard

would be justified by the benefits. If not,

EPA may adjust an MCL to a level that

maximizes health risk reduction

benefits at a cost that is justified by the

benefits. The authority to adjust the

MCL has limits that also require

evaluation. In addition to the Safe

Drinking Water Act, the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act and the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act impose additional

analytical and consultative

requirements in connection with new

rules.

The upcoming meeting deals

specifically with EPA’s efforts to

prepare the framework for the new

regulatory impact analysis, which

includes a series of proposed regulatory

support documents, and plans for

public involvement in rule

development. These documents fall into

three categories: periodically updated

reference works, regulation specific data

documents, and regulation specific

analytical documents. The reference

works consist of manuals for baseline

definition, model systems, benefits

methodologies, data quality objectives,
46266 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 2, 1997 / Notices

and treatment system design. The

regulation specific data documents

cover cost and technology, occurrence

and monitoring, and health effects from

exposure. The regulation specific

analytical documents consist of an

analytical support document, a cost/

benefit document, and an regulatory/

economic impact analysis. Outlines for

these documents and discussions of

how they may be used to fulfill statutory

objectives will be presented.

B. Request for Stakeholder Involvement

EPA has announced this public

meeting to hear the views of

stakeholders on EPA’s plans for

activities to develop a new framework

for regulatory impact analysis. The

public is invited to provide comments

on the issues listed above and other

issues related to the new framework for

regulatory impact analysis during the

September 23 and 24, 1997 meeting, or

in writing by October 24, 1997.

Dated: August 26, 1997.

Elizabeth Fellows,

Acting Director, Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water, Environmental Protection

Agency.

[FR Doc. 97–23230 Filed 8–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATION

COMMISSION

Performance Review Board

As required by the Civil Service

Reform Act of 1978 (Public Law 95–

454), Chairman Reed E. Hundt

appointed the following executives to

the Performance Review Board: Ruth

Milkman, John Nakahata, Mary Beth

Richards, Gerald Vaughan, Douglas

Webbink.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–23192 Filed 8–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Compendium of Flood Map Changes

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This Notice provides listings

of changes made to FEMA flood maps

effective during the first six months of

1997.

DATES: The listings include changes to

FEMA flood maps that became effective

January 1, 1997 through June 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Buckley, Director, Hazard

Identification & Risk Assessment

Division, Mitigation Directorate, Federal

Emergency Management Agency,

Washington, DC 20472, (202)646–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with Paragraph 1360(i) of

the National Flood Insurance Reform

Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

4101(l), this notice is provided to inform

interested parties of changes made to

National Flood Insurance Program flood

maps. The listings show communities

affected by map changes, the flood map

panel(s) affected, the effective date of

the map change and, if applicable, the

case number assigned to the map change

action. Future notices of map changes

will be published approximately every

six months.

Dated: August 20, 1997.

Michael J. Armstrong,

Associate Director for Mitigation.

The following report is comprised of

TWO lists. The first list includes all

Letters of Map Change that have been

issued during the specified six–month

period. The second listing includes map

panels which have been physically

revised during the specified six–month

period.

LOMC DETERMINATION TYPE LOOK-UP

TABLE

Type Description

01 ........ LOMR based on Fill (218–65).

02 ........ LOMA (218–70).

05 ........ LOMR—with base flood elevation

change (102).

06 ........ LOMR—without base flood elevation change (102A).

08 ........ DENIAL.

12 ........ Floodway Revision.

17 ........ LOMR—inadvertent inclusion in

floodway (218–65).

18 ........ LOMR—inadvertent inclusion in V

zone (218–65).

Region State Community Map panel Determination

date Case No. Type

01 ........ CT BRANFORD, TOWN OF ...................................................... 0900730008C 6/24/97 RI97069 02

01 ........ CT BRISTOL, CITY OF .............................................................. 0900230004B 2/10/97 02

01 ........ CT DARIEN, TOWN OF ............................................................. 0900050006D 5/5/97 97–01–011P 05

01 ........ CT EAST HAVEN, TOWN OF ................................................... 0900760008D 4/29/97 97–01–118A 01

01 ........ CT GLASTONBURY, TOWN OF ............................................... 0901240015B 1/13/97 02

01 ........ CT GREENWICH, TOWN OF .................................................... 0900080010B 1/22/97 02

01 ........ CT GROTON, TOWN OF .......................................................... 0900970011C 1/20/97 96–01–051P 05

01 ........ CT GUILFORD, TOWN OF ........................................................ 0900770010B 6/26/97 RI97091 02

01 ........ CT KILLINGWORTH, TOWN OF ............................................... 0901740020B 5/7/97 97–01–022A 02

01 ........ CT MADISON, TOWN OF ......................................................... 0900790013C 4/1/97 97–01–012A 02

01 ........ CT MANCHESTER, TOWN OF ................................................. 0900310004D 4/14/97 02

01 ........ CT MILFORD, CITY OF ............................................................. 0900820006G 3/24/97 97–01–017P 06

01 ........ CT NEW HAVEN, CITY OF ....................................................... 0900840002C 2/18/97 95–01–069P 05

01 ........ CT NEW HAVEN, CITY OF ....................................................... 0900840002C 6/30/97 96–01–001P 05

01 ........ CT ORANGE, TOWN OF ........................................................... 0900870005C 2/18/97 02

01 ........ CT ORANGE, TOWN OF ........................................................... 0900870005C 3/27/97 96–01–005P 05

01 ........ CT PLAINVILLE, TOWN OF ...................................................... 0900340005C 2/27/97 97–01–044A 01

01 ........ CT SEYMOUR, TOWN OF ........................................................ 0900880005C 3/26/97 97–01–060A 02

01 ........ CT STAMFORD, CITY OF ......................................................... 0900150003C 5/30/97 02

01 ........ CT STAMFORD, CITY OF ......................................................... 0900150005C 4/17/97 97–01–102A 02

01 ........ CT STRATFORD, TOWN OF .................................................... 0900160003D 2/19/97 02

01 ........ CT STRATFORD, TOWN OF .................................................... 0900160004D 5/29/97 02

01 ........ CT TRUMBULL, TOWN OF ....................................................... 0900170010B 2/7/97 97–01–050A 02

01 ........ CT VERNON, TOWN OF ........................................................... 0901310005B 6/19/97 02

01 ........ CT WESTPORT, TOWN OF ...................................................... 0900190004B 4/7/97 96–01–128A 02

01 ........ CT WESTPORT, TOWN OF ...................................................... 0900190004B 5/28/97 02

01 ........ CT WOODBURY, TOWN OF ..................................................... 0901330001A 2/19/97 02