Proposed Additions to the Final Guidelines for the Certification
and Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient
Noncommunity Public Water Systems; Proposed Allocation Methodology for
Funding to States for the Operator Certification Expense Reimbursement
Grants Program
[Federal Register: July 20, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 140)]
[Notices]
[Page 45057-45063]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20jy00-67]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6838-9]
Proposed Additions to the Final Guidelines for the Certification
and Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient
Noncommunity Public Water Systems; Proposed Allocation Methodology for
Funding to States for the Operator Certification Expense Reimbursement
Grants Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice; solicitation of comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
seeking comment on proposed additions to the Final Guidelines for the
Certification and Recertification of the Operators of Community and
Nontransient Noncommunity Public Water Systems, which were published in
the Federal Register on February 5, 1999 (64 FR 5916). Specifically,
EPA is seeking comment on the approach and schedule for review of State
operator certification programs for the purpose of making Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) withholding determinations, and the
intent of the term ``validated exam''. EPA is also seeking comment on
the proposed allocation methodology and program for funding that will
be used to award grants to States for the Operator Certification
Expense Reimbursement Grants Program.
DATES: Submit written comments on or before September 5, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments on this Federal Register notice to the
Operator Certification Comment Clerk, Water Docket MC-4101 (Docket #W-
98-07), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20460. Please submit an
original and three copies of your comments and enclosures (including
references). Those who comment and want EPA to acknowledge receipt of
their comments must enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. Comments may be hand-delivered to
EPA's Water Docket, Room EB57, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Comments may also be submitted electronically to ow-docket@epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use
of special characters and forms of encryption. Electronic comments must
be identified by Docket #W-98-07. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks as a WordPerfect 8 file. Electronic comments on this
notice may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
The record for these proposals has been established under Docket
#W-98-07, and includes supporting documentation as well as printed
paper versions of electronic comments. The record is available for
review at EPA's Water Docket, Room EB57, 401 M Street SW, Washington DC
20460. For access to the Docket materials, call (202) 260-3027 between
9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for an appointment and reference
Docket #W-98-07.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical inquiries, contact Jenny
Jacobs, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4606), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20460. The telephone
number is (202) 260-2939 and the e-mail address is
jacobs.jenny@epa.gov. For copies of this document, contact the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline, toll free at (800) 426-4791. Copies can also be
obtained from EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/opcert/
opcert.htm. Copies of EPA's Final Guidelines for the Certification and
Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient
Noncommunity Public Water Systems may be obtained by contacting the
Safe Drinking Water Hotline or EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/
ogwdw/opcert/opguide.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Proposed Additions to the Final Guidelines for the Certification
and Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient
Noncommunity Public Water Systems
A. Background
B. General Review and Withholding Process Information
C. Review Process and DWSRF Withholding Determinations for
Substantially Equivalent State Operator Certification Programs
D. Review Process and DWSRF Withholding Determinations for
Revised State Operator Certification Programs
E. Validated Exam Issue
II. Proposed Allocation Methodology for the Operator Certification
Expense Reimbursement Grants Program
A. Background
B. Administration of the Grants Program
C. Program Funding
D. Allocation Methodology
I. Proposed Additions to the Final Guidelines for the Certification
and Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient
Noncommunity Public Water Systems
A. Background
The operator certification guidelines were developed to meet the
requirements of section 1419(a) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
as amended in 1996. Section 1419(a) directs the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop guidelines specifying
minimum standards for certification and recertification of operators of
community and nontransient noncommunity public water systems and to
publish final guidelines by February 6, 1999. The final guidelines were
published in the Federal Register on February 5, 1999 (64 FR 5916)--see
Docket #W-98-07, Operator Cert., II-A.1. Pursuant to section 1419(b) of
the SDWA, beginning two years after the date on which EPA publishes
guidelines for the certification (and recertification) of operators of
community and nontransient noncommunity public water systems (or
February 5, 2001), EPA shall withhold 20 percent of the funds a State
is otherwise entitled to receive under SDWA section 1452 unless a State
has adopted and is implementing a program that meets the requirements
of EPA's operator certification guidelines. Section 1452 establishes a
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program to assist public
water systems to finance the costs of infrastructure needed to achieve
or maintain compliance with SDWA requirements and to further the public
health objectives of the Act. Section 1452 authorizes EPA to award
capitalization grants to States, which in turn provide low cost loans
to eligible systems and other types of assistance. Under section 1452,
States can also set aside a portion of their capitalization grant to
use for State program management purposes relating to implementation of
the public water system supervision, source water protection, operator
certification and capacity development programs. States must meet the
requirements contained in EPA's operator certification guidelines to
avoid DWSRF capitalization grant withholding. There are no other
sanctions for States with operator certification programs that do not
meet the requirements of the
[[Page 45058]]
guidelines. All funds withheld by EPA shall be reallotted based on the
formula originally used to allot those funds. These withheld funds will
be realloted to States who are implementing a program that meets EPA's
guidelines. A State that has not met the requirements of the guidelines
is not eligible to receive reallotment of withheld funds.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), EPA
must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
collect information from the States required under the Operator
Certification Guidelines as well as the Operator Certification Expense
Reimbursement Grants Program. EPA is expecting to obtain approval of an
Information Collection Request (ICR) for this information later this
year. Advance notice of the ICR will be published in the Federal
Register for public comment before it is submitted to OMB. EPA may not
conduct, or sponsor, and a person is not required to submit to a
collection of information unless the Agency has OMB approval for
collection of the information.
B. General Review and Withholding Process Information
This proposal covers the deadlines for States to submit their
operator certification programs to EPA, time frames for EPA to review
States programs, time frames for States to address any identified
deficiencies, and time frames for EPA to make withholding decisions.
DWSRF withholding decisions will be made on an annual basis once a
State has received EPA approval that its program meets EPA's
guidelines. Annual decisions will be based upon a State's ongoing
implementation of its operator certification program.
In developing an approach for reviewing State operator
certification programs and making withholding decisions, EPA sought to:
(a) Establish a consistent date for all States to meet the requirements
of the guidelines; (b) provide States with sufficient time to make
changes in their programs in response to EPA review before EPA
permanently withholds funds; and (c) allow future operator
certification program decisions to be made at the beginning of the
fiscal year so that States can plan for their use of DWSRF program
funds.
States have two options for submitting their programs to EPA for
review. Section 1419(c) recognizes that some States may have existing
operator certification programs that meet the public health objectives
of the guidelines and allows those States to submit their existing
programs as ``substantially equivalent'' to the guidelines instead of
requiring those States to make revisions to their programs.
Alternatively, States that must make changes to their existing programs
may submit revised programs to meet the requirements of EPA's
guidelines.
Section C explains EPA's proposed schedule for States that intend
to submit their existing operator certification programs as
``substantially equivalent'' programs. Section D explains EPA's
proposed schedule for States planning to revise their operator
certification programs.
EPA is specifically seeking comment on the process for reviewing
and making withholding determinations for operator certification
program submittals. The two approaches will be finalized and published
in the Federal Register after receiving public comment. These
approaches will then be included as part of the final operator
certification guidelines in section III (Program Submittal Process),
subsection A (Submittal Schedule and Withholding Process), which is
currently reserved.
C. Review Process and DWSRF Withholding Determinations for
Substantially Equivalent State Operator Certification Programs
As required by section 1419(c) of the SDWA, any State which submits
its existing program to EPA as ``substantially equivalent'' to the EPA
guidelines must do so by August 5, 2000. If EPA does not act on a
program submitted as ``substantially equivalent'' within nine months of
submittal, the program is deemed to meet the requirements of the
guidelines. However, EPA will strive to complete its reviews of State
programs within six months. States are encouraged to submit their final
operator certification programs to EPA for review before the August 5,
2000 deadline (Diagram 1 at the end of this section has been included
as a visual aid for understanding the following schedule).
The proposed approach for review of a State's initial operator
certification program is:
A State must submit its program to EPA for review by
August 5, 2000. Any State program that is submitted after August 5,
2000 will be considered a revised program and will follow the schedule
in section D.
Within six months of a State submittal, and no later than
February 5, 2001, EPA will complete its review of a State program. At
that time, EPA will either make a determination that the program is
substantially equivalent or will issue a Notice of Disapproval and will
provide a list of deficiencies to the State.
A State has six months after receipt of a Notice of
Disapproval to correct deficiencies and submit the changes to EPA. EPA
will approve or disapprove the State's program by September 30, 2001.
The proposed approach for withholding decisions based on a State's
initial operator certification program submittal is:
If a State program is submitted but EPA has not yet
determined that it meets the guidelines on February 5, 2001, 20% of
unawarded FY 2001 funds will be held back (but not permanently
withheld).
If a State program is approved by September 30, 2001, held
back FY 2001 funds will be released to the State.
On October 1, 2001, a State with a disapproved program
will permanently lose any held back funds from FY 2001, plus 20% of FY
2002 funds.
The proposed approach for withholding decisions based on a State's
annual operator certification program submittal is:
Any State whose program is approved on or before September
30, 2000 is required to undergo its first annual review of its operator
certification program on or before September 30, 2001.
If EPA finds that the State's annual submittal does not
meet the guidelines, the State will permanently lose 20% of FY 2002
funds on October 1, 2001.
On or before September 30, 2002, and annually thereafter,
EPA will review a State's operator certification program and make any
necessary determinations to withhold funds from the upcoming fiscal
year's allotment.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 45059]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20JY00.011
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 45060]]
D. Review Process and DWSRF Withholding Determinations for Revised
State Operator Certification Programs
If a State makes revisions to its existing program in order to meet
the requirements of the guidelines, the State will submit its program
as a revised program. States are required to submit their revised
programs by February 5, 2001, however all States are encouraged to
submit their operator certification programs to EPA for review before
this deadline (Diagram 2 at the end of this section has been included
as a visual aid for understanding the following schedule).
The proposed approach for review of a State's initial operator
certification program and for making withholding decisions is:
A State must submit its initial operator certification
program to EPA for review by February 5, 2001. If a State does not
submit its program to EPA by February 5, 2001, the State will
immediately lose 20% of unawarded FY 2001 funds. The guidelines require
States to submit an Attorney General's certification, a full
description and explanation of how the State's operator certification
program complies with the requirements of the guidelines and a copy of
the State's operator certification regulations. There may be situations
where a State's legislative schedule would not allow a State to have
final regulations certified by the Attorney General by February 5,
2001. In these situations, States must submit regulations that have
been adopted by the implementing agency or agencies but are awaiting
legislative approval, a schedule for final adoption by the State
legislature and a full description of how the State's program complies
with the requirements of the guidelines. The State must submit its
Attorney General's certification immediately once its regulations have
been approved by the legislature, but no later than September 30, 2002.
Between February 5, 2001, and September 30, 2002, EPA will
hold back 20% of unawarded FY 2001 and FY 2002 funds from any State
that submits its program to EPA by the February 5, 2001 deadline but
that has not yet received EPA approval of its program.
Within six months of a State's submittal date, EPA will
complete its review of State programs that were submitted by the
February 5, 2001 deadline. At that time, EPA will determine that either
the State's program meets EPA's guidelines or will provide a list of
deficiencies to the State.
States have until September 30, 2002 to correct
deficiencies and to receive EPA approval of its operator certification
program in order to receive any FY 2001 and FY 2002 funds that were
held back from the State.
On September 30, 2002 a State that does not have an EPA
approved program will lose any held back FY 2001 and FY 2002 funds.
On October 1, 2002, a State that does not have an EPA
approved program will lose 20% of its FY 2003 funds.
The proposed approach for withholding decisions based on a State's
annual operator certification program submittal is:
Any State that has received EPA approval of its initial
operator certification program before September 30, 2000 is required to
undergo its first annual review of its operator certification program
on or before September 30, 2001. If EPA finds that the State's annual
submittal does not meet the guidelines, the State will permanently lose
20% of its FY 2002 funds on October 1, 2001.
Any State that receives EPA approval of its initial
operator certification program between October 1, 2000 and September
30, 2001 is required to undergo its first annual review of its operator
certification program between October 1, 2001 and September 30, 2002.
If EPA finds that the State's annual submittal does not meet the
guidelines, the State will permanently lose 20% of its FY 2003 funds on
October 1, 2002.
On or before September 30, 2003, and annually thereafter,
EPA will review a State's operator certification program and make any
necessary determinations to withhold funds from the upcoming fiscal
year's allotment.
[[Page 45061]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20JY00.012
[[Page 45062]]
E. Validated Exam Issue
The Final Guidelines for the Certification and Recertification of
the Operators of Community and Nontransient Noncommunity Public Water
Systems contains nine baseline standards that States are required to
adopt and implement in their operator certification programs. States
are required to classify all of their community and nontransient
noncommunity water systems (including all treatment facilities and/or
distribution systems). States are also required to develop specific
operator certification and renewal requirements for each level of
classification. The baseline standard for Operator Qualifications
specifies that State programs must require that for an operator to
become certified, the operator must ``take and pass an exam that
demonstrates that the operator has the necessary skills, knowledge,
ability and judgement as appropriate for the classification''.
Furthermore, this baseline standard specifies that ``all exam questions
must be validated''. At the end of the guidelines, EPA includes a
definition of ``validated exam''. EPA defines a validated exam to be
``an exam that is independently reviewed by subject matter experts to
ensure that the exam is based on a job analysis and related to the
classification of the system or facility''. EPA is requiring States to
validate exams for operators because it will ensure that exams cover
the fundamental skills, knowledge, ability and judgement required to
safely operate water systems as well as determine the competency of
operators.
The requirement that ``all exam questions must be validated'' is
not entirely consistent with the reference to ``validated exam''. EPA
believes that an exam that is made up of validated questions may not
include the full spectrum of information that an operator needs to know
in order to properly operate a water system. EPA is therefore
requesting comment on an amendment to the guidelines that would clarify
EPA's intent that all exams, not just exam questions, be validated.
II. Proposed Allocation Methodology for the Operator Certification
Expense Reimbursement Grants Program
A. Background
Section 1419(d) of the SDWA requires EPA to reimburse the costs of
training, including an appropriate per diem for unsalaried operators,
and certification for persons operating community and nontransient
noncommunity public water systems serving 3,300 persons or fewer that
are required to undergo training pursuant to EPA's operator
certification guidelines. The reimbursement is to be provided through
grants to States. Each State is to receive an amount sufficient to
cover the reasonable costs for training all such operators in the
State. The amount each State will receive to cover the reasonable costs
for training will be determined by the Administrator of EPA. Section
1419(d) also authorizes an appropriation of $30 million in funding for
this reimbursement each year from FY 1997 through FY 2003 and
stipulates that, if this appropriation is not sufficient, EPA shall
reserve these funds from the national DWSRF program appropriation. It
is EPA's intention to set aside funds for expense reimbursement from
the national DWSRF program appropriation.
The grants are first to be used to provide reimbursement for
training and certification costs of persons operating community and
nontransient noncommunity water systems serving 3,300 persons or fewer.
If a State has reimbursed all such costs, the State may, after notice
to the Administrator, use any remaining funds from the grant for any of
the other purposes authorized for capitalization grants under section
1452 of the SDWA.
B. Administration of the Grants Program
States may apply for and receive the expense reimbursement grant
funds in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 31 (Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to
States and Local Governments) once their operator certification program
has received approval by EPA. A State has two years from the date of
initial program approval to apply for and receive its expense
reimbursement grant. Funds not obligated within this two year period
will be reallotted to States for use in the DWSRF program based on the
formula used to allot the DWSRF funds. If sufficient funds are not
available to fully fund the expense reimbursement grant, the two year
period shall begin on the date the funds become available. EPA will
notify States of the availability of funds.
In order to receive funding, a State must submit an application for
an expense reimbursement grant. EPA will require States to submit a
work plan and annual progress report on how these funds are to be used
in meeting the requirements of section 1419(d). After a State has
reimbursed all such costs pursuant to section 1419(d)(1), the State
may, after notice to the Administrator of EPA, use any remaining funds
from the grant for any of the other purposes authorized for
capitalization grants under section 1452 of the SDWA. The notification
for using the remaining expense reimbursement grant funds for any of
the other purposes authorized for capitalization grants under section
1452 must include supporting documentation that the State has met the
requirement for training and certifying its operators. The State will
also be required to explain in a work plan how the remaining funds will
be used. States will be given broad discretion on how to implement the
expense reimbursement grants program to best meet the needs of the
systems in the State and to minimize the administrative expenses in
carrying out this program.
EPA's intention to set aside funds for the expense reimbursement
grants program from the national DWSRF program appropriation has
triggered questions concerning whether EPA should require a 20% State
match pursuant to section 1452(e). Even though the funds have been
appropriated under section 1452, EPA believes that since the expense
reimbursement grants program is authorized under section 1419(d), there
should be no 20% match requirement for this grant because there are no
match requirements for funds awarded pursuant to that section. EPA,
however, believes that any remaining funds from this grant program that
States may use for any of the other purposes authorized for
capitalization grants under section 1452 should require a 20% match,
and is specifically seeking comment on this issue.
C. Program Funding
EPA estimates that between $97 million to $131 million will be
needed for the expense reimbursement grants program between FY 1999,
when the final operator certification guidelines were published, and FY
2003, the last year for which these grants are authorized. This
estimate represents the range of the total amount of funding that EPA
believes is necessary to initially train and certify operators of
community and nontransient noncommunity water systems serving 3,300
persons or fewer to meet the requirements of the guidelines. EPA has
developed this estimate based on the assumptions listed below:
Funding Assumptions
1. Total number of community and nontransient noncommunity water
systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons = 65,255 (from Safe Drinking
Water Information System (SDWIS) database).
[[Page 45063]]
2. Number of operators per system (see options listed below).
3. \1/2\ of the operators would be unsalaried and therefore would
be eligible for per diem.
4. Per diem = $100/day (Per diem is a daily allowance that would
cover the costs of lodging and meals; for unsalaried operators only).
5. Four days of per diem assumed for class attendance (two days per
training class).
6. The cost of all training classes estimated at $300/class.
7. Two training classes per operator for initial certification or
certification renewal.
8. $75 fee for initial certification/certification renewal.
9. For mileage purposes, assume two round trips (one round trip for
each training class).
10. Number of miles per round trip = 200.
11. Mileage reimbursement estimated at $.31/mile (for all
operators).
The range of the total amount of funding necessary for
reimbursement is primarily driven by the number of operators per system
who would require reimbursement. EPA is proposing three options for
this assumption:
2 operators per system
1.5 operators per system
2 operators per community water system (CWS) and 1
operator per nontransient noncommunity water system (NTNCWS)
EPA will determine the allotment for each State by substituting the
number of community and nontransient noncommunity water systems serving
3,300 persons or fewer for a particular State under Assumption #1.
For example, if a State has 1,000 eligible water systems, the
allocation would be calculated as follows using the option of 2
operators per system:
Funding Assumptions
1.Total number of community and nontransient noncommunity water
systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons = 1,000.
2. Number of operators per system = 2 x 1,000 = 2,000.
3. \1/2\ of the operators would be unsalaried and therefore would
be eligible for per diem = 2,000 x \1/2\ = 1,000.
4. Per diem = $100/day (Per diem is a daily allowance that would
cover the costs of lodging and meals; for unsalaried operators only) =
1,000 x $100 = $100,000.
5. Four days of per diem assumed for class attendance (two days per
training class) = 4 x $100,000 = $400,000.
6. The cost of all training classes estimated at $300/class.
7. Two training classes per operator for initial certification or
certification renewal = 2 x $300 x 2,000 = $1,200,000.
8. $75 fee for initial certification/certification renewal =
$75 x 2,000 = $150,000
9. For mileage purposes, assume two round trips (one round trip for
each training class).
10. Number of miles per round trip = 200 x 2 = 400.
11. Mileage reimbursement estimated at $.31/mile (for all
operators) = 400 x $.31 x 2,000 operators = $248,000.
By adding the dollar amounts listed under assumptions 5, 7, 8 and
11, the proposed amount of money for the grant would be $1,998,000.
EPA is seeking comment on the method for estimating costs, and
specifically, on the following issues:
1. Which one of the three options for the number of operators per
system is the most reasonable for purposes of calculating the total
amount of funding?
2. Are the additional assumptions (1, 3-11) proposed for
calculating the total amount of funding reasonable assumptions?
3. Are there other assumptions that should be used?
D. Allocation Methodology
EPA evaluated several options for allocating the funds among
States. Four options that were evaluated for allocating the funds to
States were: (1) An allocation methodology based on the 1999 Drinking
Water Infrastructure Needs Survey; (2) an allocation methodology based
on the Public Water System Supervision grants formula; (3) an
allocation methodology based on the number of community and
nontransient noncommunity water systems serving 3,300 or fewer in each
State; and (4) an allocation methodology based solely on systems which
must have a certified operator for the first time as a result of the
newly published guidelines.
EPA recommends allocating the funds based on the number of
community and nontransient noncommunity water systems serving 3,300 or
fewer in each State (option three). EPA believes that this allocation
methodology is the most easily understood and it appears to be the most
equitable option of those which were evaluated. The number of systems
serving 3,300 persons or fewer is readily available from EPA's national
SDWIS database.
EPA's recommended approach of allocating the funds based on the
number of community and nontransient noncommunity water systems serving
3,300 or fewer in each State is supported by the National Drinking
Water Advisory Council, which is a group of stakeholders consisting of
members of the general public, State and local agencies, water systems
and private groups concerned with safe drinking water.
EPA believes that an allocation methodology based on the number of
systems which must have a certified operator for the first time would
penalize those States which already require small systems to have
certified operators or would penalize those States that moved ahead to
improve their operator certification programs before the guidelines
were published. Currently, EPA cannot accurately predict the number of
new operators that must be certified and/or identify systems with
operators whose certification must be upgraded to meet the guidelines.
EPA will finalize the allocation methodology and publish it in the
Federal Register after receiving public comment.
Dated: June 27, 2000.
J. Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 00-18434 Filed 7-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}