60940 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

New Rail Facilities, Finance Docket

No. 33407 Dakota, Minnesota and

Eastern Railroad, SD, WY and MN,

Due: January 05, 2001, Contact:

Victoria Rutson (202) 565–1545.

Revision of FR notice published on

10/06/2000: CEQ Comment Date

corrected from 11/20/2000 to 01/05/

2001.

Dated: October 10, 2000.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 00–26386 Filed 10–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6611–7]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared pursuant to the Environmental

Review Process (ERP), under Section

309 of the Clean Air Act and Section

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental

Policy Act as amended. Requests for

copies of EPA comments can be directed

to the Office of Federal Activities at

(202) 260–5076. An explanation of the

ratings assigned to draft environmental

impact statements (EISs) was published

in FR dated April 14, 2000 (65 FR

20157).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–USN–D11030–VA Rating

EC2, Marine Corps Heritage Center

(MCHC) Complex, Construction and

Operation at Marine Corps Base (MCB)

Quantico, VA.

Summary: EPA expressed concern

due to the loss of valuable forested

habitat. EPA recommended reducing the

area of deforestation by consolidating

MCHC functions into multi-story

buildings and creating underground

and/or raised parking structures as well

as reducing to a minimum the size of

the area needed for demonstration

operations.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–FHW–B40090–ME

Augusta River Crossing Study, To

Reduce Traffic Deficiencies within the

Transportation System Serving the City

of Augusta, Funding, Kennebec River,

Kennebec County, ME.

Summary: A number of the concerns

regarding analysis of alternatives and

potential impacts EPA raised in its

review of the draft EIS remain

unaddressed in the final EIS.

ERP No. F–FHW–D40306–WV King

Coal Highway Project Construction,

from the vicinity of Williamson to the

vicinity of Bluefield, COE Section 404

Permit, Mingo, McDowell Mercer, and

Wyoming Counties, WV.

Summary: EPA maintains its concerns

regarding the level of information

provided in assessing the impacts to

streams, wetlands, and community

resources for the proposed 96 mile

transportation corridor.

ERP No. F–FHW–J40145–UT Legacy

Parkway Project, Construction from I–

215 at 2100 North in Salt Lake City to

I–15 and US 89 near Farmington,

Funding and COE Section 404 Permit,

Salt Lake and Davis Counties, UT.

Summary: EPA continues to have

objections to the proposed action. EPA

has determined that the least damaging

alternative has not been selected, and

the proposed Legacy Nature Preserve

does not fully offset the wetland

impacts. EPA is also concerned with the

alternative selection process used in the

FEIS, the permanence of the proposed

Legacy Preserve, the accuracy and

reproducibility of the traffic demand

model, and the impacts of connected

and reasonably foreseeable future

actions.

Adoption—Woodrow Wilson Bridge

Replacement, I–95/I–495 From West of

Telegraph Road to East of MD Routes

210, City of Alexandria and Fairfax

County, VA; Prince George’s County,

MD and DC.

Summary: EPA’s key concerns pertain

to time of year restrictions to protect

fishery resources, upland disposal of

dredged material, and completion of a

comprehensive compensatory

mitigation package.

ERP No. FS–COE–E36167–FL Central

and Southern Florida Project for Flood

Control and Other Purposes, Everglades

National Park Modified Water

Deliveries, New Information concerning

Flood Mitigation to the 8.5 Square Mile

Area (SMA), Implementation, South

Miami, Dade County, FL.

Summary: EPA agreed that

Alternative 6D (modified) reasonably

maximized ecosystem restoration

benefits when compared to the costs

and social impacts.

Dated: October 10, 2000.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 00–26387 Filed 10–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6884–7]

Transfer and Cross-Collateralization of

Clean Water State Revolving Funds

and Drinking Water State Revolving

Funds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Policy statement.

SUMMARY: Enactment of the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Amendments of 1996 and the

Departments of Veterans Affairs and

Housing and Urban Development, and

Independent Agencies Appropriations

Act of Fiscal Year 1999, (Appropriations

Act) provide flexibility to States for both

their drinking water and wastewater

needs. The SDWA Amendments

established the Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and also

contain a provision authorizing States to

transfer funds between the DWSRF and

the Clean Water State Revolving Fund

(CWSRF). Congress also created

additional flexibility by authorizing a

form of cross-collateralization in the

Appropriations Act. With proper

planning, priority setting, and public

disclosure, these two provisions can

assist the States in maximizing their

infrastructure funding programs by

increasing the availability of funds

where they are most needed, enhancing

bond ratings, and lowering borrowing

costs without increasing risks.

Since there are similarities between

the two SRF programs, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

intends to administer the two programs

in a similar manner in regard to

transfers and cross-collateralization.

Requirements regarding transfer and

cross-collateralization of funds are

contained in EPA’s Interim Final Rule,

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds

(see 65 FR 48286). This policy

establishes EPA policy regarding the use

of these two provisions in funding

DWSRF and CWSRF projects. It

identifies the process a State must

undergo to gain EPA approval for

incorporating transfers and/or crosscollateralization into its SRF program.

DATES: This policy statement is effective

October 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical inquiries, contact Sheila Platt,

State Revolving Fund Branch,

Municipal Support Division, Office of

Wastewater Management (MC–

0064204), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 60941

Washington, DC 20460. The telephone

number is (202) 260–7376 and the email address is platt.sheila@epa.gov.

Copies of this document can be obtained

from EPA’s Office of Wastewater

Management website at www.epa.gov/

owm/finan.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 302 of the SDWA

Amendments authorizes a State to

transfer up to 33 percent of the amount

of a fiscal year’s DWSRF program

capitalization grant to the CWSRF

program or an equivalent amount from

the CWSRF program to the DWSRF

program. The Fiscal Year 1999

Appropriations Act (Public Law 105–

276) authorizes cross-collateralization

between the DWSRF and CWSRF

programs.

EPA released a draft policy entitled

‘‘Transfer/Cross-collateralization Policy

for the DWSRF and CWSRF’’ in June

1998 which specified the provisions

that States must meet in order to gain

EPA approval for incorporating transfers

and cross-collateralization provisions

into their programs. The draft policy has

been used for the past two years for

review and approval of State transfer

and cross-collateralization proposals.

The policy was developed with

substantial review and comment from

EPA Regional staff, national stakeholder

organizations, and a State/EPA SRF

Work Group comprised of State DWSRF

managers, State CWSRF managers, and

managers of State financial agencies.

The only major comment received

pertained to extending the September

30, 2001 sunset date for transfers. EPA

will recommend to Congress that the

sunset date for transfers be dropped.

This policy statement includes the

transfer and cross-collateralization

requirements for both the DWSRF and

the CWSRF programs.

Dated: October 5, 2000.

J. Charles Fox,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.

Transfer and Cross-Collateralization of

Clean Water State Revolving Funds and

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds

Table of Contents

I. Transfers

A. Statutory Authority

1. Authorized Time Period

2. Transfer Ceiling

B. Transfer Flexibility

1. Transfer Funds

2. Timely and Expeditious Use

3. Expiration of Authority to Reserve or

Transfer

4. Transferring on Net Basis

C. State Match, Set-asides, Administrative

Ceiling and 604(b) Calculation

1. State Match

2. DWSRF Set-asides

3. CWSRF Administrative Ceiling and

604(b) Calculation

D. Project Funding for Small Systems

E. Intended Use Plan and Operating

Agreement

1. Intended Use Plan

2. Operating Agreement

F. Transferring Federal Funds and State

Match Funds

1. Payment Schedule/Grant Amendments

2. Cash Draw Proportionality

3. Binding Commitments

4. Cross-cutting Federal Authorities

G. Transferring Other Funds

H. Reporting, Monitoring and Review

II. Cross-Collateralization

A. Authorization

B. Purpose

C. Legislative Authority

D. Operating Agreement and Intended Use

Plan

E. Revenues from the Bonds

F. State Match

G. Operation of SRF Programs

I. Transfers

A. Statutory Authority

Section 302 of the Safe Drinking

Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of

1996 offers States the flexibility to

transfer funds from one SRF program to

the other. The transfer provision reads

as follows:

Sec. 302. Transfer of Funds.

(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of law, at any time after the date

1 year after a State establishes a State loan

fund pursuant to section 1452 of the Safe

Drinking Water Act but prior to fiscal year

2002, a Governor of the State may—(1)

reserve up to 33 percent of a capitalization

grant made pursuant to such section 1452

and add the funds reserved to any funds

provided to the State pursuant to section 601

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

(33 U.S.C. 1381); and (2) reserve in any year

a dollar amount up to the dollar amount that

may be reserved under paragraph (1) for that

year from capitalization grants made

pursuant to section 601 of such Act (33

U.S.C. 1381) and add the reserved funds to

any funds provided to the State pursuant to

section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 4 years after

the date of enactment of this Act, the

Administrator shall submit a report to

Congress regarding the implementation of

this section, together with the

Administrator’s recommendations, if any, for

modifications or improvement.

(c) STATE MATCH.—Funds reserved

pursuant to this section shall not be

considered to be a State match of a

capitalization grant required pursuant to

section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act

or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

Section 302 states that the governor of

a State can reserve up to 33% of its

DWSRF capitalization grant for transfer

to its CWSRF or an equivalent amount

from its CWSRF to its DWSRF.

Therefore, a State has the flexibility to

prioritize its funding where it has the

greatest need.

Both the CWSRF and the DWSRF

programs require that an Attorney

General’s opinion certifying that the

SRF program is consistent with State

law be submitted with each

capitalization grant application. If a

State receives a capitalization grant and

later decides to transfer funds, the

capitalization grant agreement must be

amended and an Attorney General’s

opinion must be submitted certifying

that State law permits the State to

transfer funds. Transfers must be made

by the Governor or by a State official

acting pursuant to authorization from

the Governor.

1. Authorized Time Period

Funds may be reserved and

transferred only during a limited time

period:

a. CWSRF or DWSRF funds may be

transferred after one year has elapsed

since a State establishes its DWSRF

Fund (i.e., the date of the first DWSRF

capitalization grant awarded to the State

for projects), and may include an

amount equal to the allowance

associated with its fiscal year 1997

capitalization grant. For example, if a

DWSRF Fund is established on October

31, 1997 with the award of a

capitalization grant for project funds,

the first day funds can be transferred is

November 1, 1998.

b. Funds may only be transferred

‘‘prior to fiscal year 2002’’ (October 1,

2001).

2. Transfer Ceiling

The amount of the total DWSRF

capitalization grant, including any

portion awarded for set-aside activities,

determines the amount of funds that can

be reserved and transferred.

a. The Governor of a State may reserve

an amount equal to 33% of the DWSRF

capitalization grant and transfer the

funds to the CWSRF.

b. The Governor may reserve funds

from the CWSRF in an amount equal to

no more than 33% of the DWSRF

capitalization grant and transfer those

funds to the DWSRF.

B. Transfer Flexibility

1. Transfer Funds

Based on section 302 of the SDWA,

the DWSRF capitalization grant the

State is basing the transfer amount on

must have been awarded prior to the

transfer of any funds. Section 302 does

not limit the transfer of funds to Federal

capitalization grant dollars. States may

60942 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

transfer Federal capitalization grant

dollars, State match, investment

earnings, or principal and interest

repayments. When CWSRF Federal

funds are transferred, the CWSRF

capitalization grant must also have been

awarded prior to the transfer of funds.

As part of the transfer process, States

must identify in both the CWSRF and

DWSRF Intended Use Plans (IUPs) that

funds will be transferred, the type of

funds to be transferred (Federal

capitalization grant dollars, State match,

investment earnings, etc.), and the effect

that transfers will have on the program’s

ability to fund projects. States may elect

to reserve the authority to transfer funds

in one year, but not actually transfer

those funds until a later time, but no

later than fiscal year 2001 (see Table

#1).

2. Timely and Expeditious Use

Reserving the authority to transfer

funds at a future date is not reserving

the actual cash, but is a ‘‘credit’’ for

future transfer. Funds must still be used

for project or set-aside activities during

the time period prior to when the actual

transfer occurs. States may then transfer

other moneys present in the respective

SRF at the time of the transfer.

3. Expiration of Authority to Reserve or

Transfer

Funds may not be reserved or

transferred after September 30, 2001.

4. Transferring on Net Basis

Moneys may be transferred between

the SRF programs on a net basis

provided that the 33% ceiling is

maintained. Once money has been

transferred, even if the donor SRF

reaches the 33% limit, it may still be

transferred back to the donor SRF from

the receiving SRF by a subsequent

transfer. Table #2 shows the effect of

multiple capitalization grants of $100

each and transfers between the SRF

programs.

Another example is a situation where

State law does not allow State funds to

be used to fund private water systems in

the State’s DWSRF program. In this

case, the State may designate that it will

transfer State match funds from the

DWSRF to the CWSRF and Federal

funds, equal to the State match amount,

from the CWSRF to the DWSRF. Since

the dollar amounts of these transfers are

equal, there is no effect on the amount

available to transfer. Table #3 illustrates

this example.

C. State Match, Set-asides,

Administrative Ceiling and 604(b)

Calculation

Transfers do not impact the State

match calculation in the capitalization

grants, the set-asides calculations in the

DWSRF, or the 4% administration and

604(b) calculations in the CWSRF.

1. State Match

In both SRF programs, the State match

requirement is 20% of the capitalization

grant. Transfers do not affect the

calculation of those required amounts in

either program. Section 302 of the

SDWA stipulates that funds transferred

under this provision cannot be

considered the required State match for

the capitalization grant in either SRF

program. The transfer provision cannot

be used to acquire State match.

Transferred funds cannot be used for the

purposes of securing or repaying State

match bonds.

2. DWSRF Set-asides

Since set-aside ceilings in the DWSRF

are calculated based on the allotment or

the capitalization grant, the ceilings are

not recalculated as a result of

transferring funds.

3. CWSRF Administrative Ceiling and

604(b) Calculation

The 4% administrative ceiling is not

calculated using transferred amounts.

The calculation of the 4% is based upon

the initial capitalization grant. The

604(b) funds are calculated on the

allotment.

The following example illustrates the

fact that a transfer will have no impact

on State match, the DWSRF set-asides,

the CWSRF administrative ceiling, and

the CWSRF 604(b) calculation. The

CWSRF capitalization grant is

$10,000,000 and the State match is

$2,000,000. The DWSRF capitalization

grant is $10,000,000 and the State match

is $2,000,000. The State has determined

it will use 31% of the capitalization

grant for set-aside activities. The State

also decided to transfer $3,000,000 from

the CWSRF to the DWSRF for additional

SDWA project activities. After the

transfer, the State match for each SRF

program ($2,000,000) remains

unchanged because the CWSRF and

DWSRF State match is based upon the

initial capitalization grants. The DWSRF

set-aside calculation does not change

($3,100,000) because the set-asides are

based upon the initial capitalization

grant amount and/or the allotment. The

CWSRF 4% administrative ceiling

remains at $400,000 and 604(b) is still

calculated at $100,000.

D. Project Funding for Small Systems

Transfers into or out of the DWSRF

Fund could impact loan assistance for

small systems that serve fewer than

10,000 persons. The SDWA requires that

a State use a minimum of 15 percent of

all dollars credited to the Fund to

provide loan assistance to small public

water systems to the extent such funds

can be obligated for eligible projects of

public water systems. Accordingly, 15

percent of all dollars transferred into the

DWSRF Fund must also be used in

accordance with the small systems

provision of the SDWA.

E. Intended Use Plan and Operating

Agreement

1. Intended Use Plan

States must develop an annual IUP for

each SRF program for public review and

comment that includes a description of

the funds to be reserved and/or

transferred and how those funds will be

used. The IUPs must disclose how and

why the decisions to transfer funds were

made. EPA encourages States to include

a discussion of wastewater and drinking

water needs to show the public that the

highest priorities are being funded. The

IUP must provide sufficient information

regarding transfers for the public to

understand:

a. The total amount of authority being

reserved for future transfer including

the authority from previous years;

b. The total amount and type of funds

being transferred during the term of the

IUP;

c. The impact on the current year’s

Fund and set-asides; and

d. The long-term impact on the Fund.

Both CWSRF and DWSRF IUPs must

be amended if a mid-year transfer is to

occur that has not had prior disclosure

to the public. For example, the State

received its DWSRF capitalization grant

in June 1998 and subsequently decides

to transfer funds to its CWSRF. Because

the current year IUPs did not contain

information concerning transfers, the

IUPs must be amended (and

capitalization grants if transferring

federal dollars) and distributed for

public review and comment in

accordance with the State procedures

established for amending IUPs.

2. Operating Agreement

When a State initially decides to

include the ability to transfer in its

program, the Operating Agreement must

be amended to include the method the

State will use to transfer funds.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 60943

F. Transferring Federal Funds and State

Match Funds

Because transfers can complicate the

analysis of whether a State is complying

with the proper payment schedule,

binding commitments, and cross-cutting

Federal authorities, the State must

identify whether the transferred amount

consists of dollars on which these

requirements will apply or other dollars.

The State must maintain sufficient

procedures to ensure proper accounting

for transferred dollars.

1. Payment Schedule/Grant

Amendments

If a State decides to transfer Federal

funds subsequent to establishing a

payment schedule, a revised payment

schedule will be necessary. Changes to

the payment schedule will be effected

through an amendment to the grant

agreement.

2. Cash Draw Proportionality

Transfers of Federal capitalization

dollars or State match dollars will

impact cash draw proportionality.

Please refer to the ‘‘Guide to Using

EPA’s Automated Clearing House for the

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

Program’’ (EPA–832–B98–003)

published in September 1998 for details

concerning recalculating

proportionality.

3. Binding Commitments

When Federal funds or State match

funds are transferred from one SRF

program’s Fund into the other SRF

program’s Fund, the State must enter

into binding commitments in the

receiving SRF program for the

transferred amount within one year after

receipt of payment or, if payment has

already been taken, within one year of

the transfer date, in addition to the

binding commitments required for its

capitalization grant and State match. If

funds are transferred from the CWSRF

to the set-aside account in the DWSRF,

the binding commitment requirement

on the amount transferred will not

apply. The donor SRF program will not

be required to enter into binding

commitments on the transferred funds.

4. Cross-cutting Federal Authorities

Cross-cutting Federal authorities

apply to transferred Federal funds in the

same manner as they apply to the

capitalization grant funds in the

receiving SRF program.

G. Transferring Other Funds

Since transfers do not relieve the State

from complying with those

requirements that apply to the amount

of the capitalization grant, the State

should consider transferring principal

and interest repayments and investment

earnings rather than transferring Federal

and State match funds. Grant

amendments, binding commitment

requirements and cross-cutters, except

for civil rights, do not apply to

transferred funds consisting of

repayments of principal and interest,

and investment earnings. Also, cash

draw proportionality will not be

impacted by transfers of repayment

funds and investment earnings. Please

refer to the ‘‘Guide to Using EPA’s

Automated Clearing House for the

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

Program.’’

H. Reporting, Monitoring and Review

A State must report transfers in the

DWSRF Biennial Report and in the

CWSRF Annual Report. The reports

must identify the amount of funds

transferred from one SRF program to the

other and how those funds were used.

Since the State must be able to track all

transfers, a schedule of actual transfers

must be included in the reports which

can be reconciled with the schedule of

expected transfers in the IUP. A State

must also explain reasons that funds

were not transferred in accordance with

the plan described in the IUP, including

the impact on the SRF programs.

The State must also report transfers in

the financial statements of the SRF

programs with corresponding footnotes

explaining the type of funds transferred

(Federal dollars, State match, principal

and interest repayments, or investment

earnings).

II. Cross-Collateralization

A. Authorization

The Departments of Veteran Affairs

and Housing and Urban Development,

and Independent Agencies

Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 1999

(Public Law 105–276) authorizes crosscollateralization between the DWSRF

and the CWSRF programs. The language

included in the law in regard to crosscollateralization is as follows:

* * * Provided, That, consistent with

section 1452(g) of the Safe Drinking Water

Act (42 U.S.C. 300j–12(g)), section 302 of the

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of

1996 (Public Law 104–182) and the

accompanying joint explanatory statement of

the committee on conference (H. Rept. No.

104–741 to accompany S. 1316, the Safe

Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996),

and notwithstanding any other provision of

law, beginning in fiscal year 1999 and

thereafter, States may combine the assets of

State Revolving Funds (SRFs) established

under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking

Water Act, as amended, and title VI of the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as

amended, as security for bond issues to

enhance the lending capacity of one or both

SRFs, but not to acquire the State match for

either program, provided that revenues from

the bonds are allocated to the purposes of the

Safe Drinking Water Act and the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act in the same

portion as the funds are used as security for

the bonds * * *

B. Purpose

The drinking water and wastewater

community has advocated crosscollateralization to increase the

financing flexibility of the CWSRF and

the DWSRF. For States which issue

bonds, the added security provided by

the strength of the CWSRF will enhance

the funding capacity in the DWSRF by

achieving better bond ratings. Funds

from one SRF program can be used to

secure the other SRF program against a

default.

C. Legislative Authority

The CWSRF and the DWSRF

programs require that an Attorney

General’s opinion certifying that the

SRF program is consistent with State

law be submitted with each

capitalization grant application. If a

State receives a capitalization grant and

later decides to cross-collateralize, the

capitalization grant agreement must be

amended and an Attorney General’s

opinion must be submitted certifying

that State law permits the State to crosscollateralize.

D. Operating Agreement and Intended

Use Plan

When a State initially decides to

include cross-collateralization in its

program, the Operating Agreement must

be amended to detail how crosscollateralization will be implemented.

The State must annually include in the

IUP for each SRF program a description

of how cross-collateralization will be

used, and provide the IUPs to the public

for review and comment prior to

submitting them to the Region as part of

the capitalization grant applications.

The IUPs must, at a minimum, describe:

a. the type of moneys which will be

used as security;

b. how moneys will be used in the

event of a default;

c. whether or not moneys used for a

default in the other program will be

repaid; and, if it will not be repaid, what

will be the cumulative impact on the

Funds.

E. Revenues From the Bonds

The proceeds generated by the

issuance of bonds must be allocated to

the purposes of the DWSRF and the

CWSRF in the same proportion as the

assets from the two Funds that are used

as security for the bonds. States must

60944 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices

demonstrate that at the time of bond

issuance, the proportionality

requirements have been or will be met.

If a default should occur, and Fund

assets from one SRF program are used

for debt service in the other SRF

program, the security would no longer

need to be proportional.

Proportionality may be achieved at

different levels of security. A State may

achieve proportionality at the debt

service reserve level. If the debt service

reserve is the primary security and

consists of 35% DWSRF funds and 65%

CWSRF funds, the bond proceeds must

be allocated 35% to DWSRF purposes

and 65% to CWSRF purposes.

A State may also achieve

proportionality by requiring that loan

repayments on loans made from the

CWSRF are pledged, as the primary

security, only to the CWSRF bonds (or

portion of a joint bond issue) and loan

repayments on loans made from the

DWSRF are pledged, as the primary

security, only to the DWSRF bonds (or

portion of a joint bond issue). If

principal forgiveness is used as a

subsidy for disadvantaged communities

funded with bond proceeds in the

DWSRF program, this option may not be

used since the security would be

disproportionate to the security

provided by the CWSRF program.

The above are only two examples

which can be used to maintain the

proportionality of the security for

bonds. There may be other options the

State will want to explore and submit

for EPA approval.

F. State Match

States may not combine the assets of

the SRF programs as security for bond

issues to acquire State match for either

program. States may not use the assets

of one SRF program to secure match

bonds of the other SRF program.

G. Operation of SRF Programs

States may use, in combination, the

assets of the SRF programs as security

for bond issues. However, the CWSRF

and DWSRF must each continue to be

operated separately. States must

maintain records so that, for each SRF

program, separate financial statements

can be compiled and separate financial

audits can be conducted. The debt

service reserve and interest earned

thereon for the DWSRF program and the

CWSRF program must each be

accounted for separately. Repayments

on loans in the CWSRF program must be

paid to the CWSRF and repayments on

loans made in the DWSRF program

must be paid to the DWSRF.

Cross-collateralization does not effect

the calculation of set-asides, the 4%

administrative ceiling and binding

commitments. Payments and cash draw

proportionality may be affected if there

are defaults. The CWSRF Annual Report

and the DWSRF Biennial Report must

describe the use of assets of the SRF

programs as security for bond issues and

any use of moneys from one SRF

program by the other as a result of crosscollateralization.

TABLE 1.—RESERVING THE RIGHT (BANKING) TO TRANSFER IN FUTURE YEARS

Year

DWSRF

capitalization grant

Amount reserved for

transfer

Banked

transfer

ceiling

Amount

transferred

1997 ................................................................................................................................. $100 $33 $33 $00

1998 ................................................................................................................................. 100 33 66 00

1999 ................................................................................................................................. 100 33 99 00

2000 ................................................................................................................................. 100 33 132 00

2001 ................................................................................................................................. 100 33 165 165

2002 ................................................................................................................................. 100 1 00 1 00 1 00

Total .......................................................................................................................... 600 165 .................... 165

1 No funds may be reserved or transferred after fiscal year 2001.

TABLE 2.—TRANSFERRING ON A NET BASIS

[In this example, the DWSRF capitalization grant in each year is $100. Therefore, the transfer ceiling is $33 for the first year, increasing to $66 in the second year and $99 in the third year, etc.]

Year Transaction description

Banked

transfer

ceiling

Transferred

from

CWSRF–

DWSRF

Transferred

from

DWSRF–

CWSRF

CW funds

available for

transfer 1

DW funds

available for

transfer 1

1997 ................................... CG Award ................................................ $33 .................... .................... 2 $33 2 $332

1998 ................................... CG Award ................................................ 66 .................... .................... 66 66

1998 ................................... Transfer ................................................... 66 20 .................... 46 86

1999 ................................... CG Award ................................................ 99 .................... .................... 79 119

1999 ................................... Transfer ................................................... 99 .................... 86 165 33

1999 ................................... Transfer ................................................... 99 90 .................... 75 123

2000 ................................... CG Award ................................................ 132 .................... .................... 108 156

2000 ................................... Transfer ................................................... 132 .................... 50 158 106

2001 ................................... CG Award ................................................ 165 .................... .................... 191 139

2001 ................................... Transfer ................................................... 165 191 .................... 0 330

2002 ................................... CG Award ................................................ 0 .................... .................... 0 0

1The maximum either SRF can transfer as the result of banking and previous transfers.

2Transfers cannot occur until one year after the DWSRF has been established.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 199 / Friday, October 13, 2000 / Notices 60945

TABLE 3

Year Transaction description

Banked

transfer

ceiling

Transferred

from

CWSRF–

DWSRF

(Federal)

Transferred

from

DWSRF–

CWSRF

(State)

CW Funds

available for

transfer 1

DW Funds

available for

transfer 1

1997 ................................... CG Award ................................................ $33 .................... .................... $33 $33

1998 ................................... CG Award ................................................ 66 .................... .................... 66 66

1998 ................................... Transfer ................................................... 66 $40 $40 66 66

1The maximum either SRF can transfer as the result of banking and previous transfers.

[FR Doc. 00–26353 Filed 10–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[Report No. 2444]

Petitions for Reconsideration and

Clarification of Action in Rulemaking

Proceedings

October 10, 2000.

Petitions for Reconsideration and

Clarification have been filed in the

Commission’s rulemaking proceedings

listed in this Public Notice and

published pursuant to 47 CFR Section

1.429(e). The full text of this document

is available for viewing and copying in

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC or may be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

ITS, Inc. (202) 857–3800. Oppositions to

these petitions must be filed by October

30, 2000. See section 1.4(b)(1) of the

Commission’s rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)).

Replies to an opposition must be filed

within 10 days after the time for filing

oppositions have expired.

Subject: Amendment of Section

73.202(b) of the Commission’s Rules FM

Broadcast Station Johannesburg and

Edwards, California (MM Docket No.

99–239).

Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Subject: Amendment of Part 1 of the

Commission’s Rules—Competitive

Bidding Procedures (WT Docket No. 97–

82).

Number of Petitions Filed: 5.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–26399 Filed 10–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Pursuant to the provisions of the

‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5

U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that

the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation’s Board of Directors will

meet in open session at 10:00 a.m. on

Tuesday, October 17, 2000, to consider

the following matters:

Summary Agenda

No substantive discussion of the

following items is anticipated. These

matters will be resolved with a single

vote unless a member of the Board of

Directors requests that an item be

moved to the discussion agenda.

Report of actions taken pursuant to

authority delegated by the Board of

Directors

Memorandum and resolution re: Final

Rule—Part 308—Rules of Practice and

Procedure

Discussion Agenda

Memorandum and resolution re:

Proposed Rule—Part 325—Capital

Maintenance—Risk-Based Capital

Treatment for Claims on Securities

Firms

Memorandum and resolution re: Joint

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking—Part 325—Capital

Maintenance—Simplified Capital

Framework Applicable to NonComplex Institutions

The meeting will be held in the Board

Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC

Building located at 550—17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC.

The FDIC will provide attendees with

auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language

interpretation) required for this meeting.

Those attendees needing such assistance

should call (202) 416–2089 (Voice);

(202) 416–2007 (TTY), to make

necessary arrangements.

Requests for further information

concerning the meeting may be directed

to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive

Secretary of the Corporation, at (202)

898–6757.

Dated: October 10, 2000.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–26447 Filed 10–11–00; 10:11

am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–M

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD

[No. 2000–N–6]

Federal Home Loan Bank Members

Selected for Community Support

Review

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance

Board.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance

Board (Finance Board) is announcing

the Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank)

members it has selected for the 2000–01

third quarter review cycle under the

Finance Board’s community support

requirement regulation. This notice also

prescribes the deadline by which Bank

members selected for review must

submit Community Support Statements

to the Finance Board.

DATES: Bank members selected for the

2000–01 third quarter review cycle

under the Finance Board’s community

support requirement regulation must

submit completed Community Support

Statements to the Finance Board on or

before November 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Bank members selected for

the 2000–01 third quarter review cycle

under the Finance Board’s community

support requirement regulation must

submit completed Community Support

Statements to the Finance Board either

by regular mail at the Office of Policy,

Research and Analysis, Program

Assistance Division, Federal Housing

Finance Board, 1777 F Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20006, or by electronic

mail at FITZGERALDE@FHFB.GOV.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Emma J. Fitzgerald, Program Analyst,

Office of Policy, Research and Analysis,

Program Assistance Division, by

telephone at 202/408–2874, by

electronic mail at