Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices 29129

under which any CBI will be secured

and protected against unauthorized

release or compromise. No information

will be provided to DynCorp I & ET and

its subcontractor, Geologics, until the

requirements in this document have

been fully satisfied. Records of

information provided to DynCorp I & ET

and its subcontractor, Geologics, will be

maintained by EPA Project Officers for

this contract. All information supplied

to DynCorp I & ET and its subcontractor,

Geologics, by EPA for use in connection

with this contract will be returned to

EPA when DynCorp I & ET and its

subcontractor, Geologics, have

completed their work.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Business

and industry, Government contracts,

Government property, Security

measures.

Dated: May 15, 2001.

Richard D. Schmitt,

Director, Information Resources and Services

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 01–13421 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6984–2]

Notice of Availability of Funds for

Source Water Protection

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) seeks proposals from

organizations interested in working with

communities across the nation that are

served by public water systems with

highly or moderately susceptible

drinking water sources to protect their

sources of drinking water from

contamination using a resource-based or

geographic/regional-based approach. All

communities involved in this effort

should have completed source water

assessments.

EPA is providing this financial

support to provide training and

technical assistance on innovative

approaches that will assist communities

across the country in establishing

sustainable efforts to address the

obstacles to preventing contamination of

their water resources and lowering the

susceptibility of source waters through

a resource-based or geographic regionalbased planning approach.

EPA is currently funding an

organization with a national network of

field technicians assisting communities

with watershed or resource-based

planning to protect their water supplies.

However, EPA is very interested in

funding training and technical

assistance across the country of

innovative types of approaches that can

be sustained by community efforts to

prevent contamination of drinking water

sources. EPA will award one grant that

would complement the field technician

approach.

DATES: All project proposals must be

received by EPA no later than June 28,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Send five paper copies of

the complete proposal to: Debra

Gutenson (4606), Office of Ground

Water and Drinking Water, U. S. EPA,

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,

Washington, DC 20460; and an

electronic copy of the completed

proposal to gutenson.debra@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Debra Gutenson, (202) 260–2733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

What Is a State or Tribal Source Water

Assessment?

As mandated by the Safe Drinking

Water Act Amendments of 1996, a

state’s source water assessment

identifies the area that supplies water to

each public drinking water system

within the state, inventories the

significant potential sources of

contamination, and analyzes how

susceptible the drinking water source is

to contamination (often referred to as a

‘‘susceptibility determination’’). An

assessment is complete when the results

are made widely available to the public.

The Amendments allocated funding to

states to complete source water

assessments for all 170,000 public water

systems. The results of these

assessments are to be provided to each

water supplier and made widely

accessible to the public by 2003 (a few

states are scheduled for completion in

2004). EPA is also helping Tribes

complete source water assessments of

public water supplies in Indian

Country.

The assessments are intended to give

communities the information that they

need to make informed decisions to

prevent contamination of their drinking

water sources.

What Is a Highly or Moderately

Susceptible Drinking Water Source?

There is a high degree of flexibility in

how a state determines the

susceptibility of its public water

systems. EPA is providing this funding

to focus on highly or moderately

susceptible drinking water sources.

Therefore, the organization receiving

this funding would need to work with

the state source water programs to

identify those public water systems or

areas of the state that the state

determines are highly or moderately

susceptible to contamination and would

most benefit from source water

contamination prevention planning and

actions on a resource-based or

geographic/regional-based scale.

What Is Source Water Contamination

Prevention?

Source water contamination

prevention is the establishment of

sustainable local programs that lower

the risk of contaminants of concern

entering waters serving as public

drinking water supplies. Building upon

State or Tribal source water

assessments, more communities will be

examining what actions are necessary to

prevent contamination of their sources

of drinking water from the identified

potential threats, and thereby lower the

susceptibility of their water supply to

contamination. Planning is a critical

first step so that a community or a group

of communities can use their limited

resources to most effectively target

sources of contamination that pose the

highest or most immediate threats.

Many communities need assistance

working through the planning process.

Implementing planned actions is the

next step and communities also need

assistance to develop sustainable efforts

to initiate and/or maintain lowered

susceptibility of their water supplies.

Ideally, communities with public

water systems that share the same

resource or common threats would work

together to identify their needs and

jointly set priorities. Some basic

planning elements include:

—An analysis of the state or tribal

source water assessment for the

systems involved in the planning.

—Identification of preventive action

priorities and recommended

management measures for addressing

them, including costs.

—Identification of an approach for

determining the effect of the proposed

priority actions on lowering the

threats to source waters.

—Identification of alternative water

supplies which would be needed in

the case of emergencies (contingency

planning).

Many communities also need

assistance in implementing their

priority preventive actions so a

community has the capacity to maintain

these actions once outside assistance is

complete. Preventive actions might

29130 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices

include land acquisition, land use

ordinance establishment, leaky

underground gas tank removal from

sensitive areas, implementing best

management practices on agricultural

lands, relocation of high-risk threats, or

other management measures.

Additionally, many communities

need assistance in locating funding

sources for implementing and

sustaining management measures once

such preventive measures are identified.

There are many federal, state and nongovernmental sources of funding that

may be available.

What Is ‘‘Resource-Based or

Geographic/Regional-Based’’ Source

Water Contamination Prevention?

A resource-based or geographic/

regional-based approach to source water

contamination prevention promotes

partnerships between public water

systems that share a common source

(river, lake, spring or aquifer), share

common political or geographical

borders (counties or planning districts),

or face common contaminant threats.

The approach encourages joint

contamination prevention of water

supplies through a single planning and

prioritization process. A single water

system might also benefit from a

resource-based or geographic/regionalbased approach if the community

cannot adequately prevent

contamination of its drinking water

source without collaborating with

communities in the same watershed or

recharge area that may have more

control over potential threats to the

water supply.

While similar, a resource-based or

geographic/regional-based approach is

distinguished from watershed planning

by focusing also on ground water areas

that may not coincide with a watershed

boundary. It is distinguished from

traditional wellhead protection

planning by broadening the scope from

the traditional water system-by-system

planning approach to planning on a

shared resource scale that is based on

natural geological and hydrological

boundaries. However, a resource-based

or geographic/regional-based approach

is not necessarily the same as large

aquifer-wide planning (such as the

Edwards aquifer) or a large watershed

(e. g. Mississippi basin). These large

scales often are beyond the scope of

what is realistic or necessary for

preventing contamination of sources of

drinking water.

Why Is EPA Limiting the Focus to Highly

or Moderately Susceptible Source

Waters, and Using a Resource-Based or

Geographic/Regional-Based Approach?

There are over 170,000 public water

systems in the United States. While

States have resources through the State

Revolving Fund Programs, EPA has

limited discretionary resources to help

local communities implement source

water contamination prevention for all

of these systems’ sources of drinking

water. EPA believes that communities

with public water supplies that are most

susceptible to contamination should be

the communities first targeted for

assistance to identify and implement

preventive management measures to

protect their drinking water sources.

EPA is also trying to encourage a

resource-based or geographic/regionalbased approaches to source water

contamination prevention as an

alternative to the traditional water

system-by-system wellhead protection

approach. This ‘‘multi-system’’ planning

and action process can be more cost

effective because one contamination

prevention plan serves several systems.

Also, it can result in a level of

protection that is sometimes more

effective in lowering threats, since

threats to water quality are not always

close to the intake or wellhead.

Why Is EPA Looking for Innovative

Approaches in Addition to the National

Field Presence It Is Establishing?

EPA recognizes that there is no one

right approach to achieving source

water contamination prevention, and

wants to encourage innovative

approaches to establish sustainable local

efforts that deal with the variety of

factors affecting a community’s success.

This funding will allow for training and

technical assistance of different

approaches that, after evaluation, may

be incorporated more broadly across the

country by the national field

technicians.

Funding Level and Statutory Authority

Funding is authorized under the Safe

Drinking Water Act 42 U.S.C. 300j–

1(c)(3)(C). Total funding available for

this proposal is $398,000. EPA intends

to disburse these funds to one

organization.

Proposal Contents

Interested applicants should submit a

work plan that:

—Outlines the training and technical

assistance on innovative approaches

in assisting communities to engage in

community-based source water

contamination prevention planning

and priority action implementation

that could lead to sustained efforts

once outside assistance is complete.

Elements of training and technical

assistance should include: process for

choosing local communities or areas,

method for evaluation of state and

local source water assessment

information, development of a

contamination prevention plan,

methods of assisting communities

with innovative preventive

approaches that can be sustained, and

a process of evaluation for the

approaches used.

—Includes a budget of no more than

$398,000 for implementing the

approach over a two-year period.

—Provides biographies of the project

leaders.

Eligibility Criteria

The recipient organization must be a

not-for-profit organization, educational

institution, or public agency that meets

the following criteria:

—Experience providing technical

assistance to communities

implementing community-based

environmental programs that could

prevent contamination of drinking

water sources, ground water or

surface water quality.

—Experience working with

communities to do resource-based or

geographic/regional-based/watershed

or multi-jurisdictional planning, and

facilitating partnerships between

disparate stakeholders.

—Access to an established network

capable of working with communities

nationwide.

—Experience working with state

agencies.

—Experience handling large grants of

$200,000 or more, timely periodic

reporting of progress and displaying

the results of those grants to a wide

public.

EPA Project Proposal Evaluation

Criteria

EPA will evaluate all applicants based

on the following criteria:

—Clearly describes the training and

technical assistance that the

organization will provide on

innovative sustainable approaches

taken in a variety of regions across the

country to assist communities served

by public water systems that have

state-identified highly or moderately

susceptible source waters. Includes a

process for: choosing local

communities or areas, evaluating state

and local source water assessment

information, developing a

contamination prevention plan at the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Notices 29131

geographic or regional level, assisting

communities with innovative

approaches or management actions

that can be sustained at the

community level, and evaluating the

approaches used. (50 points)

—Demonstrates knowledge of source

water contamination prevention and

ability to provide assistance to

communities to effectively prevent

contamination of their drinking water

supplies and address their highest

priority needs. (25 points)

—Describes approach to community

involvement in source water

contamination prevention planning.

(20 points)

—Leverages other resources as part of

the proposed approach. (5 points )

Application Procedure

Please submit five paper copies of a

proposal that includes a narrative work

plan and budget that does not exceed 10

single spaced pages, with one-inch

margins and 12-point font, stapled in

one corner with no binding. You may

also include up to 15 pages of

supplementary material, such as the

resumes and summaries of prior work.

Please also submit an electronic copy of

the completed proposal to Debra

Gutenson at

‘‘Gutenson.Debra@epa.gov.’’ After the

EPA review, the selected applicant will

be asked to submit an SF–424.

Schedule of Activities

This is the estimated schedule of

activities for review and award of

proposals:

—Day 30: Proposals due 30 days after

publication of Federal Register

notice.

—Day 44: All applicants notified of

government review status.

—Day 54: Selected applicant submits a

SF–424.

—Day 64: Selected application(s)

forwarded to EPA grants office.

—Day 94: Grants processing complete/

Congressional notifications.

Dated: May 15, 2001.

Cynthia C. Dougherty,

Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking

Water.

[FR Doc. 01–13407 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6985–7]

Notice of Meeting of the EPA’s

Children’s Health Protection Advisory

Committee (CHPAC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act,

Public Law 92–463, notice is hereby

given that the next meeting of the

Children’s Health Protection Advisory

Committee (CHPAC) will be held June

13–15, 2001 at the Hotel Washington,

Washington, DC. The CHPAC was

created to advise the Environmental

Protection Agency in the development

of regulations, guidance and policies to

address children’s environmental

health.

DATES: Wednesday, June 13, 2001,

Science Work Group meeting only;

plenary sessions Thursday, June 14 and

Friday, June 15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Hotel Washington, 515 15th

Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Agenda Items: The meetings of the

CHPAC are open to the public. The

Science and Research Work Group will

meet from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m The plenary

CHPAC will meet on Thursday, June 14

from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with a public

comment period at 5 p.m., and on

Friday, June 15 from 9 a.m. to 12:30

p.m.

The plenary session will open with

introductions and a review of the

agenda and objectives for the meeting.

Agenda items include highlights of the

Office of Children’s Health Protection

(OCHP) activities and a report from the

Science Work Group, a discussion on

retrospective and continuing priorities

of the CHPAC, a panel on EPA national

program initiatives in schools, a panel

on case examples of EPA regional

initiatives in schools, a discussion on

next steps concerning EPA initiatives in

schools, and an update on EPA’s state

initiatives on children’s environmental

health.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact Paula R. Goode, Office of

Children’s Health Protection, USEPA,

MC 1107A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564–

2702, goode.paula@epa.gov.

Dated: May 14, 2001.

Paula R. Goode,

Designated Federal Officer, Children’s Health

Protection Advisory Committee.

[FR Doc. 01–13415 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6985–6]

Notice of Availability for the State,

Local, and Tribal Technical Assistance

Document for Implementing the

Revised Subpart E (Section 112(l))

Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The EPA is making available

for the public a technical assistance

document to aid State, Local, and Tribal

air pollution control agencies (S/L/Ts)

in implementing the revised 40 CFR

part 63, subpart E provisions. Subpart E,

which was originally promulgated in

November 1993 and recently revised in

September 2000, codifies section 112(l)

of the Clean Air Act. Section 112(l)

mandates EPA to provide guidance to S/

L/Ts for delegating to them the authority

to implement and enforce hazardous air

pollutant (HAP) standards and

requirements of section 112. Congress

recognized that some S/L/Ts had

developed their own HAP standards and

requirements, and therefore, in addition,

mandated that EPA develop provisions

to allow S/L/Ts to substitute their rules,

requirements, and programs, when

demonstrated to be as stringent, in lieu

of corresponding Federal section 112

requirements.

Prior to the revisions in September

2000 when S/L/Ts began using Subpart

E to substitute their rules, requirements,

and programs for section 112 HAP

requirements and standards, they found

the provisions to be inflexible and too

burdensome. After meeting with S/L/Ts,

EPA agreed to revisit the rule to make

it more flexible. After many discussions

and public meetings with stakeholders

to understand their concerns and issues,

providing a draft for their review, and

conducting pilot projects with

stakeholders in California, EPA

proposed the revisions in January 1999.

After reviewing the public comments

received, EPA resolved to address all

stakeholder concerns and provide even

more flexibility and authorities to S/L/

Ts in the final rulemaking. Because

there was extensive revisions from the

existing as compared to the final rule,

EPA is publishing technical assistance