Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Notices 17187

III. Existing Stocks Provisions

The Agency has authorized registrants

to sell or distribute product under the

previously approved labeling for a

period of 18 months after approval of

the revision, unless other restrictions

have been imposed, as in special review

actions.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Pesticides

and pests, Product registrations.

Dated: March 27, 1997.

Linda A. Travers,

Director, Program Management Support

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–8668 Filed 4-8-–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5808–3]

Federal Information Processing

Standards Waiver

ACTION: Notice of FIPS waiver.

SUMMARY: The Chief Information Officer

for the Environmental Protection

Agency has granted a waiver to the

Agency to use the RSA cryptographical

features provided in Lotus Notes in lieu

of the Secure Hashing Standard (FIPS

PUB 180–1), Digital Signature Standard

(FIPS PUB 186), and Data Encryption

Standard (FIPS PUB 46–2). This waiver

is pursuant to section 111(d)(3) of the

Federal Property and Services Act of

1949, as amended.

DATES: The waiver takes effect on March

21, 1997 and is valid until January 1,

1999. If the vendor incorporates Federal

standards into the core product prior to

January 1, 1999, EPA will end the

waiver early at that time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Wohlleben, Office of Information

Resources Management, 401 M Street

SW (3401), Washington, DC 20460, 202–

260–4465.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal

Information Processing Standards

publications (FIPS PUBS) for the Secure

Hashing Standard (FIPS PUB 180–1),

Digital Signature Standard (FIPS PUB

186), and the Data Encryption Standard

(FIPS PUB 46–2) establish standards for

generating digital signatures (which can

be used to verify authenticity) and for

the encryption of sensitive information

transmitted and stored electronically.

These FIPS publications also allow

Federal agencies to waive them under

certain circumstances:

A waiver may be granted if compliance

with a standard would adversely affect the

accomplishment of the mission of an

operator of a Federal computer system; or

compliance with a standard would cause a

major financial impact on the operator which

is not offset by Government-wide savings.

The Chief Information Officer for the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

has granted a waiver of FIPS PUBS 180–

1, 186, and 46–2 to enable EPA to use

the built-in cryptographical features of

the groupware product Lotus Notes. The

installed version of Lotus Notes,

currently used by EPA, does not employ

FIP standard cryptography. Rather it

uses cryptography that enjoys

widespread use in the private sector,

domestically and internationally. This

cryptography is Message Digest 2 (MD–

2), the Rivest, Shamir, and Adelman

(RSA) signature algorithm, and RC–4

symmetric encryption algorithm.

EPA determined that the

cryptographic protection embedded in

Lotus Notes provides an appropriate

level of security to protect the

unclassified information used,

communicated, and stored by EPA.

Upon reviewing RSA’s cryptographic

capabilities, Agency personnel have

concluded that if properly

implemented, Lotus Notes provides a

full range of security functionality that

fully satisfies Agency requirements.

The additional costs required to

purchase and maintain FIPS-compliant

products that provide equivalent

security functionality as that provided

by non-standard, but commercially

acceptable cryptography found in Lotus

Notes is a significant factor underlying

the granting of this waiver. The

acquisition costs for either software- or

hardware-based products that

implement existing Federal

cryptographic standards are

unnecessary. By using the cryptography

embedded in Lotus Notes, EPA is able

to avoid unnecessary costs, while

utilizing security functionality widely

accepted by the public and private

sectors.

In accordance with FIPS

requirements, notice of this waiver has

been sent to the National Institute of

Standards and Technology, the

Committee on Government Reform and

Oversight of the House of

Representatives, and the Committee on

Governmental Affairs of the Senate.

Dated: March 21, 1997.

Alvin M. Pesachowitz,

Acting Assistant Administrator and Chief

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–9092 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5807–7]

Sole Source Aquifer Designation for

the Columbia and Yorktown-Eastover

Multiaquifer System

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In response to a petition from

the Bi-County Ad Hoc Citizens

Committee on Oversight, notice is

hereby given that the Regional

Administrator of Region III of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

has determined that the Columbia and

Yorktown-Eastover Multiaquifer System

satisfies all determination criteria for

designation as a sole source aquifer,

pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe

Drinking Water Act. The following

findings were made in accordance with

the designation criteria: the Columbia

and Yorktown-Eastover Multiaquifer

System supplies more than 50% of the

water needs for the communities within

the service area boundaries; there are no

viable alternative sources of sufficient

supply; the boundaries of the designated

area and the project review area have

been reviewed and approved by the

EPA; and, if contamination were to

occur, it would pose a significant public

hazard and a serious financial burden to

the communities within the aquifer

service area. As a result of this action,

the EPA may review, suggest

modifications to, or withhold funding

for, any federally financially assisted

projects proposed for construction

within the Columbia and YorktownEastover Multiaquifer System that may

pose an adverse risk of ground water

contamination.

DATES: This determination shall become

effective May 9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The data upon which these

findings are based are available to the

public and may be inspected during

normal business hours at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency—

Region III, Water Protection Division,

841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,

PA 19107.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara M. Smith, Drinking Water

Branch, (215) 566–5786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking

Water Act, 42 U.S.C., section 300h–3(e),

states:

If the Administrator determines, on his

own initiative or petition, that an area has an
17188 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Notices

aquifer which is the sole or principal

drinking water source for the area and which,

if contaminated, would create a significant

hazard to public health, he shall publish

notice of that determination in the Federal

Register. After the publication of any such

notice, no commitment for federal financial

assistance (through a grant, contract, loan

guarantee, or otherwise) may be entered into

for any project which the Administrator

determines may contaminate such aquifer

through a recharge zone so as to create a

significant hazard to public health, but a

commitment for federal financial assistance

may, if authorized under another provision of

law, be entered into to plan or design the

project to assure that it will not so

contaminate the aquifer.

The Sole Source Aquifer designation

process consists of four phases, as

outlined in the ‘‘Sole Source Aquifer

Designation Petitioner Guidance’’: Phase

I—Petition Preparation, Phase II—Initial

Petition Review/Determination of

Completeness, Phase III—Detailed

Review/Technical Verification, and

Phase IV—Designation Determination.

In August 1992, EPA Region III

received a petition from the Bi-County

Ad Hoc Citizens Committee on

Oversight, requesting the designation of

the Columbia and Yorktown-Eastover

Multiaquifer System as a sole source

aquifer under Section 1424(e) of the

SDWA. EPA returned the petition

following an initial review with a

‘‘Notice of Deficiencies’’ to be corrected

prior to further consideration by EPA.

On July 28, 1993 a revised petition was

submitted to EPA which was

determined to be complete. EPA

determined that the Bi-County Ad Hoc

Citizens Committee on Oversight’s

petition fully satisfied the first three

phases of the designation process and

announced a public hearing on the

petition on December 15, 1993. EPA

conducted a public hearing in Onley,

Virginia on January 25, 1994. The public

comment period on the petition closed

on February 22, 1994.

II. Basis for Determination

Among the factors considered by the

Regional Administrator as part of the

detailed review and technical

verification process for designating an

area under Section 1424(e) were:

1. The Columbia and YorktownEastover aquifers are high-yielding

aquifers which the service area

population relies on for more than 50%

of its drinking water needs.

2. There exists no viable economical

alternative drinking water source or

combination of sources to supply the

designated service area.

3. The EPA has found that the BiCounty Ad Hoc Citizens Committee on

Oversight has appropriately delineated

the boundaries of the aquifer project

review area.

4. While the quality of the Columbia

and Yorktown-Eastover aquifer’s ground

water is considered to be good, it is

highly vulnerable to contamination due

to its geological characteristics and

possible land-use activities. The

designated area is a multiaquifer system

with a surficial aquifer (Columbia

aquifer) consisting of shallow sand and

gravel deposits and a deeper confined

aquifer (Yorktown-Eastover aquifer)

which is recharged by water from the

surficial aquifer. The shallow nature of

the surficial aquifer allows

contaminants to be rapidly introduced

into the ground water with minimal

assimilation. It is this high vulnerability

to contamination, especially on the

central ‘‘spine’’ of the peninsula,

coupled with the aquifer’s value as the

principal source of drinking water for

the residents served, that could pose a

significant public health hazard.

5. Definable Aquifer Boundaries: EPA

guidance allows designations to be

made for entire aquifers, hydrologically

connected aquifers (aquifer systems), or

part of an aquifer if that portion is

hydrologically separated from the rest of

the aquifer. The Yorktown-Eastover

Multiaquifer System boundary is based

on hydrological principles and EPA’s

interpretation of available data.

III. Description of the Columbia and

Yorktown-Eastover Multiaquifer

System Designated Area and Project

Area

The Columbia and Yorktown-Eastover

Multiaquifer System is part of the

Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic

province. The designated and project

area of the Columbia and YorktownEastover Multiaquifer System underlies

the political boundaries of Accomack

and Northampton Counties (known as

the Eastern Shore of Virginia), located

on the southern tip of the Delmarva

Peninsula. The designated/project area

(Accomack and Northampton Counties)

is approximately 695 square miles in

surface area. The topography of the two

counties is generally low-lying and near

sea level with elevations ranging from

sea level to 50 feet above mean sea level.

The Atlantic Coastal Plain

physiographic province in Virginia

consists of an eastward-thickening

wedge of unconsolidated sediments.

The sediments were deposited on a

crystalline bedrock platform which has

subsided since early Cretaceous time.

The sediments consist of gravels, sands,

clays and varying amounts of shell

material. The sediments were deposited

from early Cretaceous time to the

Holocene period from the ancient

Appalachian mountain chain to the

west and can be classified as

continental, coastal or marine deposits.

Due to the presence of salt water at

depth only the Columbia and YorktownEastover aquifers constitute the

freshwater system on the Eastern Shore.

The Yorktown-Eastover aquifer is

further subdivided into an upper,

middle and lower aquifers, bounded by

confining units. The aquifer materials of

the Yorktown-Eastover aquifer generally

consist of shelly sands while the

confining units are silts and clays. The

Columbia aquifer on the Eastern Shore

of Virginia is an unconfined aquifer

above the upper Yorktown confining

unit and consists of sandy

unconsolidated deposits.

The climate for the region is

temperate with an average rainfall of 43

inches. The total recharge to the

Columbia aquifer is estimated to be 257

Mgal/day. Although most of this

recharge is eventually discharged to

either the Atlantic Ocean or the

Chesapeake Bay, an estimated 11 Mgal/

day leaks through the first confining

unit into the upper portion of the

Yorktown-Eastover aquifer. Most of the

recharge to the confined YorktownEastover aquifer takes place in a narrow

zone along the center of the peninsula

called the spine. Generally, patterns of

vertical flow are downward in the spine

area and upward in the coastal areas.

Natural ground water flow patterns have

been subsequently altered by ground

water development. Under pumping

conditions ground water flow directions

are similar to prepumping directions,

however downward leakage from the

Columbia aquifer increases and the area

of recharge becomes larger.

Nearly all drinking water on the

Eastern Shore of Virginia is derived

from groundwater as there are no

surface water bodies capable of

supplying a large quantity of water.

Most residents obtain their drinking

water from private wells since the

percentage of housing units in

Accomack county having water

supplied by a public water system is

listed at 31% (out of 15,840 units) in the

most recent U.S. Census data; for

Northampton county the figure is 12%

(out of 6,183 units). Municipal wells are

usually completed in the YorktownEastover aquifer system, typically with

multi-screened wells. Total ground

water use was estimated to be 5 million

gallons per day (Mgal/d) by the U.S.

Geological Survey and using records

contained within the EPA Federal Data

Reporting System. A population of

approximately 52,000 is served by

public water supply systems (which rely

on ground water). Withdrawals by
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Notices 17189

private wells from the Columbia were

estimated to be at least 1.7 Mgal/day.

Other large ground water withdrawals

include those for industry and

irrigation.

The quality of ground water in

Accomack and Northampton counties is

generally good, but both the highly

permeable nature of the aquifer material

and the shallow depths to the water

table reduce the capacity for

contaminant attenuation, making the

aquifer vulnerable to contamination

from point and nonpoint sources. The

Columbia aquifer is especially

vulnerable to potential sources of

contamination. Ground water data

collected for the surficial aquifer on

Delmarva peninsula indicates ground

water quality has been affected by

human activities. These impacts include

statistically significant increases in

dissolved minerals, elevated nitrate

levels and pesticide residue detections.

Use of alternative supplies of water

outside the aquifer is economically and

technically infeasible due to the

difficulties and costs of transporting

water from either mainland Virginia or

northerly portions of the Delmarva

peninsula. In addition, excess

alternative ground water supplies in

nearby portions of mainland Virginia

are unlikely to be available, as shown by

current difficulties in obtaining

additional water for Virginia Beach, VA.

Local government has acted to protect

the water quality of ground water in

Accomack and Northampton counties

through formation of the Eastern Shore

of Virginia Ground Water Steering

Committee in 1990. State government

has also acted to protect ground water

on the Eastern Shore through

designation of the Eastern Shore

groundwater management area in 1976,

among other actions. The petitioner

believes that a Sole Source Aquifer

Designation would augment ground

water protection efforts by providing a

forum for public education and by

increasing awareness about the

importance and vulnerability of the

aquifer which underlies the two

counties.

The designated project review area

will consist of both Accomack and

Northampton Counties, VA but does not

include Tangier Island, VA (located in

the Chesapeake Bay, off shore from the

peninsula), and Chincoteague Island,

VA (located in the Atlantic Ocean, just

off shore from the peninsula). There are

no streamflow source zones for this

designation. Maps of the designated area

are available from EPA Region III at the

above address.

IV. Information Utilized in

Determination

The information utilized in this

determination includes: the petition

submitted to the EPA Region III by the

Bi-County Ad Hoc Citizens Committee

on Oversight, letters received during the

public comment period, and public

comments received during the public

hearing. In addition, much of the

information has been derived from

published literature on the

hydrogeology and water resources of the

region. This information is available to

the public and may be inspected at the

address listed above. A Support

Document for this designation contains

more detailed information on ground

water usage, potential sources of

drinking water and vulnerability of the

aquifer to contamination and will be

placed in the libraries of Accomack and

Northampton counties. The Support

Document is also available from EPA

Region III.

V. Project Review

The EPA Region III Ground Water

Protection Section is working with the

federal agencies most likely to provide

financial assistance to projects in the

project review area. Interagency

procedures and Memoranda of

Understanding will be developed

through which the EPA will be notified

of proposed commitments by federal

agencies to projects which could

potentially impact the Columbia and

Yorktown-Eastover Multiaquifer

System. The EPA will evaluate such

projects, and where necessary, conduct

an in-depth review, including soliciting

State and local government and public

comments when appropriate. Should

the Regional Administrator determine

that a project may contaminate the

aquifer through its recharge zone so as

to create a significant hazard to public

health, no commitment for federal

financial assistance may be entered into

for that project. However, a commitment

for federal financial assistance may, if

authorized under another provision of

law, be entered into to plan or design

the project to ensure that it will not

contaminate the aquifer. Included in the

review of any federal financially

assisted projects will be the

coordination with state and local

agencies and the project’s developers.

Their comments will be given full

consideration and the EPA’s review will

attempt to complement and support

state and local ground water protection

measures. Although the project review

process cannot be delegated, the EPA

will rely to the maximum extent

possible on any existing or future state

and/or local control measures to protect

the quality of ground water in the

Columbia and Yorktown-Eastover

Multiaquifer System Project Review

Area.

VI. Discussion of Public Comments

EPA issued a public notice (December

15, 1993) to request comments and

announced the proposed designation

and a comment period. A public hearing

was held (January 25,1994) at Nandua

High School in Onley, Virginia. The

public comment period closed on

February 22, 1994.

EPA received 29 written comments

during the public comment period. Of

these, 25 were in support of the

designation and 4 were opposed. Fifteen

people spoke at the public hearing held

at Nandua High School in Onley,

Virginia on January 25, 1994. Of the

speakers, 11 supported the designation,

two opposed it and two neither

supported nor opposed the designation.

The public’s written and oral comments

are fully addressed in EPA’s

Responsiveness Document and Support

Document. Both of these documents

will be placed on file at the main library

and are also available upon request at

the above address.

VII. Economic and Regulatory Impact

Pursuant to the provisions of the

regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5

U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that the

attached rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. For purposes of this

Certification, the ‘‘small entity’’ shall

have the same meaning as given in

Section 601 of the RFA. This action is

only applicable to projects with the

potential to impact the Columbia and

Yorktown-Eastover Multiaquifer System

sole source aquifer as designated.

The only affected entities will be

those businesses, organizations or

governmental jurisdictions that request

Federal financial assistance for projects

which have the potential for

contaminating the aquifer so as to create

a significant hazard to public health.

EPA does not expect to be reviewing

small isolated commitments of financial

assistance on an individual basis, unless

a cumulative impact on the aquifer is

anticipated; accordingly, the number of

affected small entities will be minimal.

For those small entities which are

subject to review, the impact to today’s

action will not be significant. Most

projects subject to this review will be

preceded by a ground water impact

assessment required pursuant to other

Federal laws, such as the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as

amended 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.
17190 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Notices

Integration of those related review

procedures with sole source aquifer

review will allow EPA and other

Federal agencies to avoid delay or

duplication of effort in approving

financial assistance, thus minimizing

any adverse effect on those small

entities which are affected. Finally,

today’s action does not prevent grants of

Federal financial assistance which may

be available to any affected small entity

in order to pay for the redesign of the

project to assure protection of the

aquifer.

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA

must judge whether a regulation is

‘‘major’’ and therefore subject to the

requirement of a Regulatory Impact

Analysis. This regulation is not major

because it will not have an annual affect

of $100 million of more on the

economy, will not cause any major

increase in costs or prices and will not

have significant adverse effects on

competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or the ability

of United States enterprises to compete

in domestic or export markets. Today’s

action only affects the Columbia and

Yorktown-Eastover Multiaquifer System

in the area of Northampton and

Accomack County. It provides an

additional review of ground water

protection measures, incorporating state

and local measures whenever possible,

for only those projects which request

Federal financial assistance.

VIII. Summary

This determination affects only the

Columbia and Yorktown-Eastover

Multiaquifer System located in

Accomack and Northampton Counties,

Virginia. As a result of this

determination, all federal financiallyassisted projects proposed in the

designated area will be subject to EPA

review to ensure that they do not create

a significant hazard to public health.

Dated: March 26, 1997.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency—Region III.

[FR Doc. 97–8978 Filed 4–8–97; 3:03 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA–1155–DR]

California; Amendment to Notice of a

Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice

of a major disaster for the State of

California (FEMA–1155–DR), dated

January 4, 1997, and related

determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1997

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Response and Recovery

Directorate, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Washington, DC

20472, (202) 646–3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is

hereby given that the incident period for

this disaster is closed effective April 1,

1997.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.516, Disaster Assistance)

Dennis H. Kwiatkowski,

Deputy Associate Director, Response and

Recovery Directorate.

[FR Doc. 97–9077 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA–1166–DR]

Federated States of Micronesia;

Amendment to Notice of a Major

Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice

of a major disaster for the Federated

States of Micronesia, (FEMA–1166–DR),

dated March 11, 1997, and related

determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Response and Recovery

Directorate, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Washington, DC

20472, (202) 646–3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice

of a major disaster for the Federated

States of Micronesia, is hereby amended

to include the following areas among

those areas determined to have been

adversely affected by the catastrophe

declared a major disaster by the

President in his declaration of March

11, 1997:

Ngulu Atoll in Yap State for Public

Assistance.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.516, Disaster Assistance)

Lacy E. Suiter,

Executive Associate Director, Response and

Recovery Directorate.

[FR Doc. 97–9073 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA–1165–DR]

Indiana; Amendment to Notice of a

Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice

of a major disaster for the State of

Indiana, (FEMA–1165–DR), dated

March 6, 1997, and related

determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Response and Recovery

Directorate, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Washington, DC

20472, (202) 646–3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice

of a major disaster for the State of

Indiana, is hereby amended to include

Categories C through G under the Public

Assistance program in those areas

determined to have been adversely

affected by the catastrophe declared a

major disaster by the President in his

declaration of March 6, 1997:

The counties of Clark, Crawford, Dearborn,

Floyd, Harrison, Jefferson, Perry, Posey,

Spencer, and Switzerland for Categories C

through G under the Public Assistance

program (already designated for Individual

Assistance, Hazard Mitigation and Categories

A and B under the Public Assistance

program).

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.516, Disaster Assistance)

Lacy E. Suiter,

Executive Associate Director, Response and

Recovery Directorate.

[FR Doc. 97–9070 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA–1165–DR]

Indiana; Amendment to Notice of a

Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice

of a major disaster for the State of

Indiana (FEMA–1165–DR), dated March

6, 1997, and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Response and Recovery

Directorate, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Washington, DC

20472, (202) 646–3260.