27648 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices

data, analyses, or discussion should be

included in the final EIS.

Category 3—Inadequate

EPA does not believe that the draft

EIS adequately assesses potentially

significant environmental impacts of the

action, or the EPA reviewer has

identified new, reasonably available

alternatives that are outside of the

spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the

draft EIS, which should be analyzed in

order to reduce the potentially

significant environmental impacts. EPA

believes that the identified additional

information, data, analyses, or

discussions are of such a magnitude that

they should have full public review at

a draft stage. EPA does not believe that

the draft EIS is adequate for the

purposes of the NEPA and/or section

309 review, and thus should be formally

revised and made available for public

comment in a supplemental or revised

draft EIS. On the basis of the potential

significant impacts involved, this

proposal could be a candidate for

referral to the CEQ.

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–BLM–J65331–00 Rating E02,

Williams, Questar, Kern River Pipeline

Project, To Approve a Petroleum

Products Pipeline, and one or two

Natural Gas Pipelines and to Amend

Forest Plan, UT, NM and CO.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections with the

narrow range of alternatives, new

construction activity in the Uinta NF

roadless area, potential air impacts to

Arches National Park and the lack of

information disclosed on potentially

connected actions. EPA supports efforts

to reduce environmental impacts by

locating pipelines in existing ROW

corridors, avoid landslide areas and

headwaters for sources of drinking

water, slightly modify the ROW to

project roadless areas and use

directional drilling methods which may

reduce impacts to wetlands and aquatic

life.

ERP No. D–FAA–E51049–KY Rating

EC2, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky

International Airport, Construction and

Operation of a New 8,000-foot Runway

17/35 (Future 18R/36L); 2,000-foot

Extension of Runway 9/27, Funding and

Airport Layout Plan, (ALP) Boone

County, KY.

Summary: EPA expressed concern

about proposed noise mitigation, air

quality analysis, and wetland/stream

mitigation. use of adaptive management

regarding the monitoring of noise

contours is recommended to ensure

accurate footprints once prospective

operations are initiated and when

substantive changes affecting airport

noise occur.

ERP No. D–USA–D11031–MD Rating

EC2, Fort George G. Meade Future

Development and Operations of a New

Administrative and Support Buildings,

Anne Arundel and Howard Counties,

MD.

Summary: EPA expressed concern

regarding potential impacts due to

increased base traffic. EPA encouraged

Fort Meade to make a committed effort

to institute traffic mitigation alternatives

such as flextime, flexiplace and car

pooling programs.

ERP No. DS–FAA–J51009–UT Rating

EC2, Cal Black Memorial Airport

Project, New and Updated Information

for the Replacing of Halls Crossing

Airport, within the boundary of Glen

Canyon National Recreation, Halls

Crossing, San Juan Counties, UT.

Summary: EPA has environmental

concerns with the ongoing noise

impacts especially when combined with

enroute jet aircraft noise, and that

additional information is needed in the

final Supplemental EIS that establishes

a threshold of significance for these

cumulative noise impacts. In addition,

EPA suggests that the connected action

of the proposed BLM land transfer be

analyzed in a revised supplemental EIS

to provide analysis of BLM’s proposed

action for this same airport.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–J65321–MT Mill-KeyWey Project, Proposed Timber

Harvesting, Ecosystem Burning, Road

Construction and Reconstruction,

Implementation, Lolo National Forest,

Superior Ranger District, Mineral

County, MT.

Summary: While the FEIS was largely

responsive to EPA’s comments on the

DEIS, EPA continue to express concerns

about timber harvests on erosive soils,

wetland impacts, use of weed control

chemicals, and the level of monitoring

proposed to identify actual project

impacts.

ERP No. F–NOA–A91066–00 Tilefish

Fishery Management Plan (FMP),

(Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps), To

Prevent Overfishing and to Rebuild the

Resource of Tilefish, Located along the

Atlantic Ocean.

Summary: EPA had environmental

concerns about the proposed regulations

and the sufficiency of the information in

the document. EPA’s concern included

the adequacy of the mitigation measures

and the impacts of trawling on Tilefish

EFH.

ERP No. FS–AFS–L60104–WA

Huckleberry Land Exchange

Consolidate Ownership and Enhance

Future Conservation and Management,

Updated Information, Proposal to

Exchange Land and Mineral Estates,

Federal Land and Non-Federal Land,

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest,

Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce,

Kittitas, and Lewis Counties, WA.

Summary: No formal comment letter

was sent to the preparing agency.

Dated: May 15, 2001.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 01–12569 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6978–7]

Allocation of Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund Monies

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The 1996 Safe Drinking Water

Act (SDWA) Amendments established a

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

(DWSRF) program and authorized $9.6

billion to be appropriated for the

program through fiscal year 2003.

Congress directed that allotments for

fiscal year 1998 and subsequent years be

distributed among States based on the

results of the most recent Drinking

Water Infrastructure Needs Survey.

In this notice, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing a

revised allocation for DWSRF monies

among States in accordance with the

results from the most recent Drinking

Water Infrastructure Needs Survey (i.e.,

the 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure

Survey) which was released on February

28, 2001. This revised allocation affects

DWSRF program appropriations for

fiscal years 2002 through 2005.

Beginning in fiscal year 1998, EPA

established a formula which allocates

funds to the States based directly on

each State’s proportional share of the

total State need, provided that each

State receives a minimum share of one

percent of the funds available to the

States, as required by the SDWA. EPA

has made the determination that it will

continue to use this method for

allocating DWSRF funds. The findings

from the 1999 Needs Survey will change

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices 27649

the percentage of the DWSRF monies

received by some States relative to their

current allotments. This change reflects

an increase or decrease in these States’

share of the total State need.

DATES: This notice is effective May 18,

2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical inquiries, contact Veronica

Blette, Drinking Water Protection

Division, Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water (4606), 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,

DC 20460. The telephone number is

(202) 260–3980 and email address is

blette.veronica@epa.gov. Copies of this

document and information on the

Drinking Water Needs Survey and the

DWSRF program can be found on EPA’s

Office of Ground Water and Drinking

Water website at http://www.epa.gov/

safewater.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA) Amendments established a

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

(DWSRF) program and authorized to be

appropriated $9.6 billion for the

program through fiscal year 2003. Since

1996, Congress has appropriated $4.4

billion for the DWSRF program.

Congress directed that allotments for

fiscal year 1998 and subsequent years be

distributed among States based on the

results of the most recent Drinking

Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

(SDWA section 1452(a)(1)(D)(ii)), which

must be conducted every four years. The

first survey, which reflected 1995 data,

was released in February 1997.

The 1999 Drinking Water

Infrastructure Needs Survey was

conducted over the last two years with

the cooperation of the States. States

participated in the development of the

survey methods, documentation

requirements, and the Report to

Congress, which was released on

February 28, 2001 (EPA 816–R–01–004).

The survey examined the needs of

approximately 4,300 water systems and

used these data to extrapolate needs to

each State. The survey included all of

the nation’s 1,111 largest systems (those

serving over 40,000 people) and a

statistical sample of systems serving

fewer than 40,000 people. EPA

conducted site visits to approximately

600 small community water systems

and 100 not-for-profit noncommunity

water systems. The sample design

produces a statistically valid State-byState estimate of need.

The 1999 Needs Survey presents

State-by-State needs in several ways.

For each State, the Needs Survey

provides a bottom-line estimate of the

total need, which reflects the capital

costs for all drinking water

infrastructure projects allowed for

inclusion in the Survey. The Needs

Survey also presents capital needs for

each State by system size, by category of

need (i.e., treatment, distribution and

transmission, storage, source, and

‘‘other’’), by existing SDWA regulation,

and by current and future need. A

current need is a project needed now to

protect public health, while a future

need is a project that will be needed

over the next 20 years.

The 1999 Needs Survey found that the

total national need is $150.9 billion

(Table 1). This estimate represents the

needs of the approximately 55,000

community water systems (CWS) and

21,400 not-for-profit non-community

water systems (NCWS) that are eligible

to receive DWSRF assistance. These

systems are found in all 50 States, the

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, on

American Indian lands and in Alaska

Native Villages, and the Virgin Island

and Pacific Island territories.

TABLE 1.—1999 DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS SURVEY 20-

YEAR NEEDS

Type of need Need

(billions)

States ...................................... $139.0

Territories ................................ 0.4

American Indian and Alaska

Native Villages .................... 2.2

Costs for Proposed and Recent Regulations ................. 9.3

Total National Need ............ 150.9

The total national need also includes

$9.3 billion in capital needs associated

with recently promulgated and future

regulations, as identified in EPA

Economic Analyses accompanying the

rules. Although these needs are

included in the total national need, they

were not apportioned to the States based

upon the unanimous recommendation

of the State representatives who

participated in the survey design. The

States expressed concern that the

methods available for allocating the

costs of these regulations would not

represent the true costs of compliance

on a State level.

The total State need, which is the

figure that EPA will use to calculate the

allotment formula, includes only the

needs of the 50 States, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The 1999

Needs Survey estimates that the total

State need is $139.0 billion.

Allocation Method

On October 31, 1996, EPA solicited

public comment on six options for using

the results of the first Drinking Water

Infrastructure Needs Survey to allocate

DWSRF monies to the States (61 FR

56231). On March 18, 1997, EPA

announced its decision to allocate

DWSRF monies for fiscal years 1998

through 2001 appropriations based on

each State’s proportional share of the

total eligible needs for the States as

derived from the 1995 Needs Survey (62

FR 12900). EPA has made the

determination that it will continue to

use this method for allocating DWSRF

funds for fiscal years 2002 through 2005

appropriations utilizing the results of

the 1999 Needs Survey.

The funds available to the States will

be the level of funds appropriated by

Congress, less the national set-asides,

which includes an allocation for

American Indian and Alaska Native

Village water systems. Of the funds

available to States, the SDWA includes

specific allocations for the Pacific

Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the

District of Columbia.

Each State will receive an allotment of

DWSRF funds based on each State’s

proportional share of the total State

need ($139.0 billion), provided that

each State receives a minimum

allocation of one percent of the funds

available to States, as required by the

SDWA. The total need calculated for

each State is the survey’s bottom-line

and the simplest way of allocating

DWSRF grant funds among States.

The total State need includes all

documented projects collected by the

Needs Survey. In general, a project was

included in the Needs Survey if project

documentation demonstrated that

meeting the need would address the

public health objectives of the SDWA.

The total State need includes projects

needed now and over the next 20 years

in four general categories: treatment,

source, storage, and transmission and

distribution. The total State need

excludes capital projects that are

ineligible for DWSRF assistance, such as

projects solely for growth and dams, and

the capital costs associated with

recently promulgated and future

regulations.

The formula based on the total need

makes no distinction between the four

categories—that is, it assigns an equal

weight to all categories of need. Also,

projects to correct imminent public

health threats (e.g., replacing a

deteriorated filter plant) are given the

same weight as less critical needs (e.g.,

replacing a storage tank that is expected

27650 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices

to reach the end of its useful life in five

years).

Consideration of Alternative Allocation

Methods

The method that EPA uses to allocate

funds to States is based on each State’s

share of the total State need. Several

States have explicit restrictions against

providing funding to privately-owned

enterprises. Such restrictions may be the

result of statutory or constitutional

provisions at the State level or may be

due to policy decisions made by the

State program. The constitution or

statutes of 17 States prohibit the

provision of DWSRF monies to privately

owned systems.

EPA had been asked by some

stakeholders to consider changes to the

allotment method to account for

restrictions in some States that limit the

provision of DWSRF assistance to

publicly owned water systems. These

stakeholders expressed the opinion that

the allocation for these States should

only consider the total need associated

with publicly owned water systems that

are eligible to receive DWSRF monies.

They proposed that capital needs

associated with privately owned water

systems (determined thorough inventory

information) be deducted from these

States’s total need estimates, although,

as required by the SDWA, each State

(even those States restricting privatelyowned water systems from funding)

would receive at least one percent of the

funds available to States. Stakeholders

felt that basing the allotment formula on

whether States restrict DWSRF funding

would ensure that States receive an

allotment directly in proportion to their

total needs eligible for assistance from

the State.

EPA has reviewed the statutory

language authorizing the program and

determined that State DWSRF

allotments should be based on the needs

reported in the most recent needs

survey which must assess ‘‘capital

improvement needs of all eligible public

water systems’’. The total State need

collected through the survey represents

the needs associated with publicly and

privately-owned community water

systems and non-profit noncommunity

water systems, therefore these needs

must be included in determining the

allotment of funds.

It is important to note that in

reviewing the issue, EPA found that

some States with explicit restrictions are

working to make changes to legislation

or are working to identify alternative

methods of assisting privately-owned

systems. Some States are working to

develop funding mechanisms which

would enable them to provide DWSRF

assistance to these water systems. Other

States are using set-aside funds to

provide technical assistance or are

helping privately-owned systems obtain

assistance from other State or Federal

sources. EPA also found that some

States that had the authority to provide

assistance to privately-owned utilities

had not done so. It is likely that any

attempt to remedy inequities through

the allotment method would itself be

inequitable.

Although we are not making changes

to the allotment formula, the Agency

will continue to monitor States with

respect to their decisions to fund

privately-owned systems to ensure that

the program maximizes benefits to

public health. The Agency will also

continue to work to assist States in

working with privately-owned systems

by providing financial management

training on the mechanics of applicant

credit evaluation and facilitating the

dissemination of information between

States.

Allocation of Monies

Table 2 contains each State’s expected

DWSRF allotment based on an

appropriation of $823,185,000 and

national set-aside assumptions. The

appropriation amount is based on the

President’s budget request of

$823,185,000 for fiscal year 2002. The

national set-asides for fiscal year 2002

include funds for American Indian and

Alaska Native Village water systems at

the level of 1.5 percent of the total

appropriation. (SDWA Section 1452(i)).

This comes to $12,374,700 for Indian

Tribes and Alaska Native Villages.

Additional national set-asides for fiscal

year 2002 include $2,000,000 for

monitoring for unregulated

contaminants and $30,000,000 for

operator certification expense

reimbursement grants. If funds are

appropriated for the DWSRF at the level

of $823,185,000 million and if the

anticipated national set-asides do not

change, the total funds available to the

States, the District of Columbia and

Territories would equal $778,837,300.

Because the percentages are based on

the total funds available for allotment to

the States, they can be used for general

planning purposes for future years.

Once the appropriated amount and

national set-asides are known, a State’s

allotment can be estimated by

subtracting the national set-asides from

the total funds available for allotment

and then applying the appropriate

percentage shown below. EPA will

annually notify each State of their

allotment from a specific fiscal year’s

appropriation after the final budget has

been passed.

The findings from the 1999 Needs

Survey will change the percentage of the

DWSRF monies received by some States

when compared to their current

percentages. This change reflects an

increase or decrease in these States’

share of the total State need. The

variation in these States’ needs occurred

principally as a result of the data

submitted by individual water systems,

but also in part due to refinements in

the survey methods. With the collection

of data from nearly 4,300 water systems

and over 80,000 projects submitted, a

change in some States’ allotments

represents an inevitable consequence of

conducting a survey of this scale.

TABLE 2.—DISTRIBUTION OF DRINKING

WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND ALLOTMENTS

State Percent Amount allotted

Alabama .......... 1.00 $7,788,400

Alaska ............. 1.00 7,788,400

Arizona ............ 1.13 8,826,900

Arkansas ......... 1.08 8,431,800

California ......... 10.24 79,756,000

Colorado ......... 1.65 12,886,000

Connecticut ..... 1.00 7,788,400

Delaware ......... 1.00 7,788,400

Florida ............. 2.34 18,223,300

Georgia ........... 1.58 12,331,600

Hawaii ............. 1.00 7,788,400

Idaho ............... 1.00 7,788,400

Illinois .............. 3.73 29,064,700

Indiana ............ 1.17 9,144,900

Iowa ................ 1.84 14,299,600

Kansas ............ 1.15 8,931,800

Kentucky ......... 1.22 9,483,500

Louisiana ........ 1.00 7,788,400

Maine .............. 1.00 7,788,400

Maryland ......... 1.16 9,044,200

Massachusetts 3.58 27,843,600

Michigan ......... 4.10 31,920,400

Minnesota ....... 1.98 15,429,600

Mississippi ...... 1.00 7,788,400

Missouri .......... 1.45 11,318,800

Montana .......... 1.00 7,788,400

Nebraska ........ 1.00 7,788,400

Nevada ........... 1.00 7,788,400

New Hampshire ............ 1.00 7,788,400

New Jersey ..... 2.30 17,930,500

New Mexico .... 1.00 7,788,400

New York ........ 7.75 60,382,900

North Carolina 1.76 13,676,100

North Dakota .. 1.00 7,788,400

Ohio ................ 3.05 23,742,400

Oklahoma ....... 1.55 12,038,200

Oregon ............ 1.76 13,684,800

Pennsylvania .. 3.22 25,080,100

Puerto Rico ..... 1.33 10,388,900

Rhode Island .. 1.00 7,788,400

South Carolina 1.00 7,788,400

South Dakota .. 1.00 7,788,400

Tennessee ...... 1.01 7,877,800

Texas .............. 7.70 59,989,300

Utah ................ 1.00 7,788,400

Vermont .......... 1.00 7,788,400

Virginia ............ 1.38 10,762,600

Washington ..... 2.47 19,220,200

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices 27651

TABLE 2.—DISTRIBUTION OF DRINKING

WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND ALLOTMENTS—Continued

State Percent Amount allotted

West Virginia .. 1.00 7,788,400

Wisconsin ....... 1.98 15,423,400

Wyoming ......... 1.00 7,788,400

District of Columbia .......... 1.00 7,788,400

Territories ........ 0.33 2,570,200

Total ............ 100.00 778,837,200

Dated: May 4, 2001.

Diane C. Regas,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of

Water

[FR Doc. 01–12579 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPPTS–51969; FRL–6782–3]

Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and

Status Information

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Section 5 of the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires

any person who intends to manufacture

(defined by statute to include import) a

new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on

the TSCA Inventory) to notify EPA and

comply with the statutory provisions

pertaining to the manufacture of new

chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and

5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to

publish a notice of receipt of a

premanufacture notice (PMN) or an

application for a test marketing

exemption (TME), and to publish

periodic status reports on the chemicals

under review and the receipt of notices

of commencement to manufacture those

chemicals. This status report, which

covers the period from March 24, 2001

to April 11, 2001, consists of the PMNs

and TMEs, both pending or expired, and

the notices of commencement to

manufacture a new chemical that the

Agency has received under TSCA

section 5 during this time period. The

‘‘S’’ and ‘‘G’’ that precede the chemical

names denote whether the chemical

idenity is specific or generic.

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket control number OPPTS–51969

and the specific PMN number, must be

received on or before June 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted by mail, electronically, or in

person. Please follow the detailed

instructions for each method as

provided in Unit I. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative

that you identify docket control number

OPPTS–51969 and the specific PMN

number in the subject line on the first

page of your response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Cunningham, Director, Office of

Program Management and Evaluation,

Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics (7401), Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone

number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address:

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public

in general. As such, the Agency has not

attempted to describe the specific

entities that this action may apply to.

Although others may be affected, this

action applies directly to the submitter

of the premanufacture notices addressed

in the action. If you have any questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information, Including Copies of this

Document and Other Related

Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain

copies of this document and certain

other available documents from the EPA

Internet Home Page at http://

www.epa.gov/. On the Home Page select

‘‘Laws and Regulations,’’ ‘‘Regulations

and Proposed Rules,’’ and then look up

the entry for this document under the

‘‘Federal Register—Environmental

Documents.’’ You can also go directly to

the Federal Register listings at http://

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person. The Agency has

established an official record for this

action under docket control number

OPPTS–51969. The official record

consists of the documents specifically

referenced in this action, any public

comments received during an applicable

comment period, any test data

submitted by the manufacturer/importer

and other information related to this

action, including any information

claimed as confidential business

information (CBI). This official record

includes the documents that are

physically located in the docket, as well

as the documents that are referenced in

those documents. The public version of

the official record does not include any

information claimed as CBI. The public

version of the official record, which

includes printed, paper versions of any

electronic comments submitted during

an applicable comment period, is

available for inspection in the TSCA

Nonconfidential Information Center,

North East Mall Rm. B–607, Waterside

Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC.

The Center is open from noon to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The telephone number of the

Center is (202) 260–7099.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit

Comments?

You may submit comments through

the mail, in person, or electronically. To

ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is

imperative that you identify docket

control number OPPTS–51969 and the

specific PMN number in the subject line

on the first page of your response.

1. By mail. Submit your comments to:

Document Control Office (7407), Office

of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

(OPPT), Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier. Deliver

your comments to: OPPT Document

Control Office (DCO) in East Tower Rm.

G–099, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC. The DCO is open from

8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The

telephone number for the DCO is (202)

260–7093.

3. Electronically. You may submit

your comments electronically by e-mail

to: ‘‘oppt.ncic@epa.gov,’’ or mail your

computer disk to the address identified

in this unit. Do not submit any

information electronically that you

consider to be CBI. Electronic comments

must be submitted as an ASCII file

avoiding the use of special characters

and any form of encryption. Comments

and data will also be accepted on

standard disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or

ASCII file format. All comments in

electronic form must be identified by

docket control number OPPTS–51969

and the specific PMN number.

Electronic comments may also be filed

online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

D. How Should I Handle CBI that I Want

to Submit to the Agency?

Do not submit any information

electronically that you consider to be

CBI. You may claim information that

you submit to EPA in response to this

document as CBI by marking any part or

all of that information as CBI.

Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with