Final Additions to the Final Guidelines for the Certification and
Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient
Noncommunity Public Water Systems; Final Allocation Methodology for
Funding to States for the Operator Certification Expense Reimbursement
Grants Program
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 18, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 75)]
[Notices]
[Page 19939-19952]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18ap01-59]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6967-3]
Final Additions to the Final Guidelines for the Certification and
Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient
Noncommunity Public Water Systems; Final Allocation Methodology for
Funding to States for the Operator Certification Expense Reimbursement
Grants Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
finalizing 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
finalizing its approach and schedule for review of state operator
certification programs for the purpose of making Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) withholding determinations, and clarifying the
meaning of the term ``validated exam'' in the Guidelines. In addition,
EPA is also finalizing the allocation methodology and the process that
will be used to award grants to states for the operator certification
expense reimbursement grants program. This notice also provides the
amount of funding that each state is eligible to receive from the
grants program.
DATES: This final notice is effective April 8, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Public comments on the 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 are available for
review at Water Docket (docket #W-98-07), Environmental Protection
Agency, Room EB57, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. For access
to the Docket materials, call (202) 260-3027 between 9 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 notice and EPA's Final Guidelines for the Certification
and Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient
Noncommunity Public Water Systems, 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/safewater/opcert/opcert.htm. EPA
plans to republish the guidelines with the revisions made today and
post them on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/opcert/
opcert.htm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regional Contacts
I. Linda Tsang, U.S. EPA Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100
(CMU), Boston, MA 02114, (617) 918-1395
II. Gerard McKenna, U.S. EPA Region II, Drinking Water Section, Water
Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-3838
III. Barbara Smith, U.S. EPA Region III, Drinking Water Branch (3WP22),
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2020, (215) 814-5786
IV. Janine Morris, U.S. EPA Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 61
Forsyth
[[Page 19940]]
Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, (404) 562-9480
V. Charles Pycha, U.S. EPA Region V, Water Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507, (312) 886-0259
VI. Marvin Waters, U.S. EPA Region VI, Drinking Water Section (6WQ-SD),
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-7540
VII. Robert Dunlevy, U.S. EPA Region VII, Water, Wetlands and
Pesticides Division, 501 9th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-
7798
VIII. Anthony Q. DeLoach, U.S. EPA Region VIII, Municipal Systems Unit,
Drinking Water/Wastewater (8P-W-MS), 999 18th Street, Suite 500,
Denver, CO 80202-2466, (303) 312-6070
IX. Kevin Ryan, U.S. EPA Region IX, Drinking Water Office (WTR-6), 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-2052
X. Bill Chamberlain, U.S. EPA Region X, Office of Water, Drinking Water
Unit (OW-136), 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-8515
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Additions to the Final Guidelines for the Certification and
Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient
Noncommunity Public Water Systems
A. Program Submittal Schedules
1. Background
2. Response to Comments on Major Issues
3. Final Review Process and DWSRF Withholding Determinations for
Revised State Operator Certification Programs
4. Final Review Process and DWSRF Withholding Determinations for
Substantially Equivalent State Operator Certification Programs
B. Exam Validation
1. Background
2. Response to Comments on Major Issues
III. Operator Certification Expense Reimbursement Grants Program
A. Background
B. Response to Comments on Major Issues
1. General Expense Reimbursement Grants Program
2. Match Requirement on Remaining Expense Reimbursement Grant
Funds
3. Expense Reimbursement Grants Program Allocation Methodology
4. Other Issues
C. Final Approach for Administration of the Grants Program
D. Final Program Funding and Allocation Methodology
I. General Information
The operator certification final 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 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 those 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.
EPA planned to include with the final guidelines a section
addressing information on submittal schedules and the withholding
process. However, when EPA published the final guidelines, this section
was not included to allow more time for the Agency to consider issues
raised during the public comment period on the draft guidelines. EPA
decided to seek additional public comment and accordingly, on July 20,
2000, published a notice in the Federal Register (65 FR 45057)
soliciting comments on Proposed Additions to the Final Guidelines for
Certification and Recertification of the Operators of Community and
Nontransient Noncommunity Public Water Systems. The Federal Register
notice also requested comments on a Proposed Allocation Methodology for
Funding to States for the Operator Certification Expense Reimbursement
Grants Program. The public record for both of these proposals was
established under Docket #W-98-07.
During the public comment period, EPA received approximately 150
comments from 20 commenters. Comments were received from one federal
agency, 15 states, two associations representing states, one
association representing water systems, and one United States
Congressman. Approximately 50 comments were received on the proposed
additions to the final guidelines and approximately 100 comments were
received on the proposed methodology for allocating expense
reimbursement grants. Parts II and III discuss EPA's response to
comments on major issues relating to the July 20, 2000 proposal.
Paperwork Reduction Act
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 by April
2001. Advance notice of the ICR (EPA ICR #1955.01) is required to be
published in the Federal Register for public comment before it is
submitted to OMB. This notice was published in the Federal Register on
February 28, 2001 (66 FR 12776). 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. The ICR
approval will be posted on EPA's website at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/opcert/opcert.htm.
II. Additions to the Final Guidelines for the Certification and
Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient
Noncommunity Public Water Systems
A. Program Submittal Schedules
1. Background
Under 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 the state has adopted and is
implementing a program * * * that meets the requirements of the
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 grants to use for activities
relating to implementation of the public water system supervision
(PWSS), source water protection, operator certification, and capacity
development programs. States must meet the requirements contained in
the operator certification final guidelines to avoid withholding of
DWSRF capitalization grant funds. There are no other sanctions for
states with operator certification programs that fail to meet the
requirements of the final guidelines. All DWSRF funds withheld by EPA
will be reallotted to states who are implementing a program that meets
the guidelines using the formula originally used to allot those funds.
A state that has not met the requirements of the guidelines is not
eligible to
[[Page 19941]]
receive funds made available by a reallotment of withheld funds.
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 approval or withholding decisions to be made at
the beginning of the federal 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) of the SDWA 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 the guidelines.
The final review process described in this notice covers the
deadlines for states to submit their operator certification programs to
EPA, time frames for EPA to review state 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.
Section A.2 of this notice explains EPA's response to comments on
major issues. Section A.3 of this notice explains EPA's final schedule
for states that submitted revised operator certification programs.
Section A.4 of this notice explains EPA's final schedule for states
that submitted their existing operator certification programs as
``substantially equivalent'' programs. Sections A.3 and A.4 will be
included as part of the operator certification final guidelines in
Section III (Program Submittal Process), Subsection A (Submittal
Schedule and Withholding Process), under Subsections 1 and 2,
respectively.
2. Response to Comments on Major Issues
a. Additional Flexibility Regarding the Term ``Adopt''. Eight
commenters stated that EPA should give states additional flexibility
with regard to the February 5, 2001 deadline for submitting programs
that meet the operator certification final guidelines. Two commenters
believed that EPA should not begin withholding DWSRF funds from any
state until two years after these additions to the final guidelines are
finalized because the guidelines have been amended. One commenter
stated that delays caused by legislative adoption schedules should not
be the only reason for allowing states additional time for completing
the rulemaking process. The commenter believed all states should be
given an opportunity to complete their rulemaking process in a way that
will provide for reasonable, enforceable rules that protect public
health and meet EPA requirements and that those states should have
until September 30, 2002 to have rules effective. Another commenter
stated that EPA's requirement that states submit adopted regulations
without first having legislative approval is not realistic since states
do not adopt regulations until they have legislative approval.
EPA believes that it is not appropriate to extend the deadlines for
states to submit operator certification programs or for EPA to begin
withholding of DWSRF funds since the additions to the final guidelines
do not change any of the requirements concerning the content of state
operator certification programs. EPA is now providing the full
flexibility allowed under the law for states to correct any program
deficiencies before EPA makes a decision to permanently withhold DWSRF
funds. The content of state operator certification programs as
specified in the nine baseline standards published in the final
guidelines has not been amended by adding the schedules for EPA's
review of state programs and for making DWSRF withholding decisions or
by publishing the allocation methodology for the expense reimbursement
grants program. EPA will maintain the deadlines for states to submit
operator certification programs and for EPA to begin withholding of
DWSRF funds.
The SDWA allowed two years from February 5, 1999 (when the final
guidelines were published) for states to revise their programs to meet
the guidelines. However, EPA realized that, in some states, two years
might not be an adequate amount of time to complete the regulatory
process since states are required to go through long stakeholder
processes and rule adoption processes. As a result, these states would
not be able to submit a complete operator certification package (with
signed Attorney General statement certifying that rules are adopted) by
the February 5, 2001 deadline. EPA worked with states that believed
they would not be able to submit a complete package by the deadline. If
a state's legislative schedule would not allow it to have final
regulations certified by the Attorney General by February 5, 2001, the
state had to submit regulations that had been adopted by the
implementing agency or agencies but were awaiting legislative approval,
a schedule for final adoption by the state legislature, and a full
description of how the state's program complied with the requirements
of the guidelines. The state must submit its Attorney General's
certification immediately upon approval of regulations by the
legislature, but no later than September 30, 2002. EPA worked with
states on a case-by-case basis through these issues. EPA believes that
it has provided the maximum time it can for submissions of programs
under the statute because the statute requires EPA to begin withholding
DWSRF funds on February 5, 2001, unless a state ``has adopted and is
implementing'' a program that meets the guidelines. Generally, if a
state has not adopted regulations, it cannot be ``implementing'' them.
Fifty of fifty-one programs were submitted by the February 5, 2001
deadline. The state that did not submit its program had already
received its DWSRF grant for fiscal year 2001 funds and thus was not
subject to withholding.
b. ``Hold Back'' of DWSRF funds. Four commenters believed that
states should not be penalized by a ``hold back'' of DWSRF funds while
EPA reviews state operator certification programs. Several commenters
expressed concern that EPA will be slow in reviewing state operator
certification programs. One commenter thought that EPA does not have
the statutory authority to hold back DWSRF funds. Two commenters were
unclear when held back DWSRF funds would be returned to states. Two
commenters stated that EPA cannot hold back or withhold DWSRF funds
from a substantially equivalent program unless it has been
``disapproved''.
Section 1419(b) of the SDWA requires that EPA 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
beginning two years after the date on which EPA
[[Page 19942]]
publishes guidelines for the certification of operators of community
and nontransient noncommunity public water systems (or February 5,
2001). EPA developed the concept of holding back DWSRF funds to provide
additional time for states to meet the guidelines while still meeting
the statutory requirement to begin withholding on February 5, 2001.
The ``hold back'' concept was initially used during the review and
approval of state capacity development programs which have DWSRF
withholding provisions. In the operator certification program, the
concept serves several purposes: it allows states to have two full
years from the date that the final guidelines were published to adopt
programs that meet the guidelines and to submit their program to EPA,
and it gives adequate time for EPA to review state programs and for
states to address any identified deficiencies before EPA makes a
decision to permanently withhold DWSRF funds.
State programs were due to EPA for review no later than February 5,
2001. EPA is committed to completing its review of a state's program
within six months of the submittal date (no later than August 5, 2001)
and either approving the program or giving the state a list of
deficiencies. If the state receives a list of deficiencies, it will
have until September 30, 2002 to receive program approval before EPA
permanently withholds DWSRF funds. If a state has DWSRF funds held
back, those funds will be released to the state once it has received
approval of its operator certification program.
EPA agrees with the commenters who believe that DWSRF funds cannot
be held back or withheld from a state that had submitted a
``substantially equivalent'' program until the program has been
disapproved. Pursuant to section 1419(c) of the SDWA, ``substantially
equivalent'' programs were required to be submitted to EPA for review
no later than August 5, 2000. Three states submitted their operator
certification programs for review to EPA as ``substantially
equivalent''. EPA has reviewed and approved all of those programs.
c. Annual State Operator Certification Program Submittals. Two
commenters stated that EPA does not have statutory authority to
withhold DWSRF funds on an annual basis. Four commenters stated that
EPA should allow states to comment on the content of packages submitted
for the purposes of making annual determinations on implementation of
programs. Three commenters believed that states should have more time
to correct deficiencies found in annual submittals before a withholding
occurs. One commenter supported the time frames as proposed.
EPA believes it has statutory authority to make withholding
decisions on an annual basis. Section 1419(b) of the SDWA gives EPA a
starting date of two years after publishing the final guidelines to
begin withholding DWSRF funds unless the state has ``adopted and is
implementing'' an operator certification program that meets the
guidelines. Based on this statutory language, EPA has concluded that
the withholding decision is an ongoing requirement to be applied each
time a state is entitled to receive funds under section 1452. Annual
submittals will allow EPA to determine if a state ``is implementing''
an operator certification program that complies with the guidelines.
EPA agrees that states should be allowed to comment on the contents
of packages for state operator certification program annual submittals.
EPA will work with states to specifically define the contents of annual
submittals.
EPA encourages states to provide their annual package by June 30 of
each year to allow for sufficient time for review and revisions. EPA
believes that states will have sufficient time to correct program
deficiencies identified during the review of annual submittals since
the submittals will primarily consist of a report on the state's
ongoing progress in implementing its operator certification program.
EPA intends to work with states on an ongoing basis to address
implementation problems when they occur rather than wait for the annual
review.
d. Attorney General's Certification. One commenter expressed
concern that the guidelines require a state to submit an Attorney
General's certification as to its legal authority to implement and
enforce the requirements of an operator certification program.
Specifically, the commenter stated that, in some states, this type of
certification is not part of the administrative rule promulgation
process. According to the commenter, while legal review may be
performed, it may not be done by the Attorney General.
EPA did not specifically request comment on this issue in the July
20, 2000 proposal. However, EPA did solicit comment on this issue in
the March 27, 1998 Public Review Draft Guidelines for the Certification
and Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient
Noncommunity Public Water Systems. In the final guidelines, EPA
requires that states submit an Attorney General's certification, (or
certification from delegated counsel), that confirms that states: (1)
Have the legal authority to implement the program requiring the
certification of operators of all community and nontransient
noncommunity water systems and (2) can require that the systems comply
with the appropriate requirements of an operator certification program.
EPA will accept this certification from a delegated counsel, for
example the counsel for the agency that administers the operator
certification program, as long as the state submits proper
documentation of the delegation. EPA does not feel that this is an
unreasonable burden on states since it is generally required as part of
the primacy revision package that is submitted when states are revising
their regulations to meet EPA's drinking water standards. Such a
certification is the best way of providing EPA with assurance that the
submitted program is legally sound and can thus be implemented by the
state.
3. Final Review Process and DWSRF Withholding Determinations for
Revised State Operator Certification Programs
The final approach for review of a state's initial operator
certification program and for making withholding decisions is: (Diagram
1 has been added as a visual aid)
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.
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.
A state has until September 30, 2002 to correct
deficiencies and 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. Held back
[[Page 19943]]
funds will be released to the state once the state receives EPA
approval of its operator certification program.
On September 30, 2002, a state that does not have an EPA
approved program will lose any FY 2001 and FY 2002 funds that have been
held back.
On October 1, 2002, a state that does not have an EPA
approved program will lose 20% of its FY 2003 funds.
Withholding decisions will also be made annually based on a review
of the state's annual operator certification program. Annual reviews
can be based on a state's fiscal year or any schedule agreed to by the
state and EPA. Schedules should be developed that allow adequate time
for review and revisions, if necessary, between submittal and
withholding decisions. States are encouraged to submit a package
showing how they are meeting the requirements of the guidelines by June
30 to allow for adequate time for review and revisions. The final
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, after reviewing the state's annual
submittal, EPA finds that the state's operator certification program
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, in reviewing the state's annual submittal, EPA finds that the
state's operator certification program 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.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 19944]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18AP01.000
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 19945]]
4. Final Review Process and DWSRF Withholding Determinations for
Substantially Equivalent State Operator Certification Programs
The final approach for review of a state's initial operator
certification program is: (Diagram 2 has been added as a visual aid)
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
for revised programs.
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 final approach for withholding decisions based on a state's
initial operator certification program submittal is:
After February 5, 2001, if a state program is submitted
and EPA has issued a Notice of Disapproval, 20% of unawarded FY 2001
funds will be held back (but not permanently withheld).
If a state corrects deficiencies and its program is
approved by September 30, 2001, held back FY 2001 funds will be
released to the state as soon as the state receives program approval
from EPA.
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.
Withholding decisions will also be made annually based on a review
of the state's annual operator certification program. Annual reviews
can be based on a state's fiscal year or any schedule agreed to by the
state and EPA. Schedules should be developed that allow adequate time
for review and revisions, if necessary, between submittal and
withholding decisions. States are encouraged to submit a package
showing how they are meeting the requirements of the guidelines by June
30 to allow for adequate time for review and revisions. The final
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, in reviewing the state's annual submittal, EPA finds
that the state's operator certification program 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 19946]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18AP01.001
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 19947]]
B. Exam Validation
1. Background
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. Baseline
Standard No. 3, 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''. However, it does not
require that the entire exam be validated. This situation is not
entirely consistent with the definition of validated exam at the end of
the final guidelines. In the guidelines, 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''. In the July 20, 2000
proposal, EPA solicited and received comments on the resolution to this
apparent inconsistency.
2. Response to Comments on Major Issues
Two commenters supported validating the complete exam. Four
commenters were unsure of how EPA is amending the validated exam
language. One commenter thought that states should conduct exam
validation workshops. Five commenters thought that requiring the
complete exam to be validated would reduce the number of different
exams that a state would be able to administer because of the high cost
of validating complete exams, which could result in a reduction of the
effectiveness of a state's program. Several commenters felt that states
should be able to replace individual questions on exams from a database
of validated questions as necessary without re-validating the entire
exam. Two commenters thought that the process should be left up to
states.
EPA believes that examinations given by states must contain
validated questions and that each state must have a process for
ensuring that all of the subject areas necessary to test an operator's
knowledge, skills, ability and judgement for a particular
classification level are appropriately covered in each certification
exam. This process should include a review of the exam by subject
matter experts, as determined by the state, to ensure that the exam is
based on a job analysis and related to the classification of the system
or facility. EPA encourages states to develop a database of validated
exam questions which will allow states the flexibility to offer a
variety of exams for each class of operator. Because EPA has decided
not to mandate a ``validated exam'' as opposed to an exam of validated
questions, the language in Baseline Standard No. 3 will not be changed.
EPA is deleting the definition of ``Validated Exam'' from the
guidelines.
EPA has awarded a grant to the Association of Boards of
Certification to develop a guidebook on exam validation to assist
states with the validation process. The guidebook is scheduled to be
completed in August 2001. As noted earlier in this notice, EPA plans to
republish the guidelines with the revisions made today and post them on
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/opcert/opcert.htm.
III. 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 the operator certification
final 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 funds in an amount sufficient to satisfy these expenses from
the national DWSRF program appropriation. Because there has been no
appropriation from Congress for the expense reimbursement grants
program, it is EPA's intention to reserve 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. Response to Comments on Major Issues
1. General Expense Reimbursement Grants Program
Five commenters believed that the funds for the expense
reimbursement grants program should not be taken from the national
DWSRF appropriation and that EPA should request the funding from
Congress. One commenter suggested that EPA identify the amount of funds
that will be reserved for this program and two commenters stated that
EPA did not factor in inflationary costs between FY 1999 and FY 2003.
Section 1419(d) of the SDWA authorizes an appropriation of $30
million in funding for the expense reimbursement grants program 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. Because there has been no
appropriation from Congress for this program, EPA must take the funding
from the annual DWSRF program appropriation. EPA appreciates the
concerns of the commenters that believe EPA should have separately
requested funds for this purpose. However, EPA must consider all
aspects of the program as it weighs priorities in preparing funding
requests. EPA has estimated that the amount of funding necessary for
expense reimbursement is approximately $134 million. To date, EPA has
reserved $74,934,000 ($15 million from the FY 1999, $30 million from
the FY 2000 and $29,934,000 from the FY 2001 DWSRF appropriations,
respectively). EPA intends to reserve the remaining amount needed to
fully fund the program (approximately $59 million) from the FY 2002 and
FY 2003 DWSRF appropriations. Although EPA did not include a factor for
inflation, the Agency believes that the assumptions that were used to
calculate the amount of funding necessary to fund the expense
reimbursement grants program will cover increases in costs due to
inflation.
One commenter asked that EPA clarify that all operators (public,
private, federal) are eligible. One commenter requested that EPA define
what documentation operators would have to provide to receive
reimbursement from the states.
[[Page 19948]]
Section 1419(d) of the SDWA specifies that ``the Administrator
shall provide reimbursement for the costs of training, including an
appropriate per diem for unsalaried operators, and certification for
persons operating systems serving 3,300 persons or fewer that are
required to undergo training'' pursuant to the final guidelines. Any
operator of a system that meets this criteria is eligible for
reimbursement. EPA believes that the requirements that operators must
meet to prove the need for reimbursement should be left up to each
state.
Three commenters asked EPA to clarify if costs incurred since FY
1997 are reimbursable and if EPA will allow ``retroactive
reimbursement''. Under certain circumstances, EPA will allow
``retroactive reimbursement'' (referred to as ``pre-award costs'') if a
state provides justification for doing so in its grant application.
Generally, EPA does not allow pre-award costs that were incurred more
than 90 calendar days prior to the award. EPA may allow for
reimbursement of costs incurred more than 90 calendar days prior to the
award on a case-by-case basis if the ``pre-award costs'' are in
conformance with the requirements set forth in OMB Circular A-87 and
with applicable Agency regulations, policies, and guidelines. However,
because the final guidelines were not published until FY 1999, EPA will
not allow ``pre-award costs'' that were incurred prior to February
1999. EPA will determine whether pre-award costs are allowable as part
of its review of the application for assistance.
One commenter asked EPA to define ``reasonable costs''. Three
commenters suggested that EPA define the term ``unsalaried''.
A state will be required to submit an application for federal
assistance which will include a workplan describing how the state
intends to use the funds. EPA will review eligible costs as part of its
review of the workplan. However, EPA believes that, generally, any
costs that are associated with activities conducted to train and
certify operators are considered ``reasonable'' costs (such as those
described in Part III, section B. of this notice). Where clarification
of this term is necessary in the context of a state program, EPA
expects the state to provide a relevant definition. EPA defines the
term ``unsalaried operator'' to mean a person who is not paid in any
manner by the system owner to perform the duties and responsibilities
of a certified operator. EPA does not consider an operator who is paid
by the system owner on an hourly basis to be ``unsalaried''.
Nine commenters suggested that EPA consider allowing states to use
expense reimbursement grant program funds to administer the program
because they do not believe that states should have to use the 10%
State Program Management set-aside from the DWSRF program for this
purpose.
EPA agrees with these commenters and will allow states to use a
reasonable amount of the expense reimbursement grant funding for
administrative purposes. Because the exact percentage for
administration will vary by state, each state will be required to
submit this information to EPA in its application for federal
assistance.
One commenter suggested that the funding mechanism should be
extended beyond FY 2003.
Under section 1419(d) of the SDWA, the Administrator of EPA is only
authorized to provide grants for reimbursement through FY 2003.
Congressional action is required in order to extend funding beyond that
date.
2. Match Requirement on Remaining Expense Reimbursement Grant Funds
EPA's intention to reserve 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). Two commenters indicated that there
should be no match requirement on initial grants. Two commenters
supported a requirement for a 20% match on remaining funds only if the
funds are used for infrastructure projects. Two commenters opposed a
match requirement on remaining funds.
Although the funds are appropriated under section 1452, the expense
reimbursement grants program is authorized under section 1419(d).
Therefore, there is no 20% match requirement for initial grants because
there are no matching requirements for funds awarded pursuant to
section 1419(d). However, states that use any remaining portion of the
expense reimbursement grant funds for purposes authorized under SDWA
section 1452, must provide the 20% match, since a match is required for
capitalization grant funds received under section 1452.
3. Expense Reimbursement Grants Program Allocation Methodology
The information in parentheses after each assumption is a summary
of information from the July 20, 2000 proposal.
a. Assumption 1 (Eligible Systems = community water systems +
nontransient noncommunity water systems serving 3,300 persons or
fewer): The majority of commenters (nine) on this assumption supported
basing the methodology on the number of community water systems and
nontransient noncommunity water systems serving 3,300 persons or fewer.
EPA agrees with these commenters.
Three commenters asked when EPA would recalculate the total number
of eligible systems which are used in Assumption #1 of the grant
allocation methodology. Some commenters felt that EPA underestimated
the total number of systems that are eligible for reimbursement, and
felt that EPA should use the number of systems that were reported in
the most recent EPA PWSS Annual Compliance Report. EPA believes it
should use the most current data available. The most recent PWSS
Compliance Report has inventory information from 1998.
The July 20, 2000 proposal for the allocation methodology for
expense reimbursement grants used Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS) inventory data from February 1999. This notice uses more
current SDWIS inventory information from the database that was frozen
in the third quarter of FY 2000 (July 2000).
b. Assumption 2 (number of operators: 2 per system or 1.5 per
system or 2 per community water system/1 per nontransient noncommunity
water system): Nine commenters supported the option of two operators
per system; one commenter supported the option of two operators per
community water system and one operator per nontransient noncommunity
water system; one commenter supported the option of 1.5 operators per
system; one commenter supported three operators per system for a small
percentage of systems.
EPA will base the allocation methodology on the assumption that two
operators per system will need to be trained and certified. This option
was supported by most commenters and takes into account the turnover of
operators at small systems.
c. Assumption 3 (number of unsalaried operators = \1/2\ of eligible
operators): EPA received no comment on this assumption and therefore
will make no changes to it.
d. Assumption 4 (Amount of Per Diem = $100): One commenter
supported $100/day; one commenter thought that states should be able to
set their own rates; one commenter suggested that the per diem rate is
too low.
[[Page 19949]]
The assumption of $100 per diem rate is used only as an average for
the purposes of calculating allotments. The final allocation
methodology will continue to use this rate. EPA agrees that states
should be allowed to set their own per diem rate. Therefore, states are
not required to use the $100 per diem rate in their programs.
e. Assumption 5 (Days of Per Diem = 4): Some commenters felt that
EPA should increase the number of days of per diem allowed. EPA
believes that four days of per diem is an appropriate amount of per
diem. The amount of per diem that is estimated is directly tied to the
number of training classes that an operator will be required to attend.
These training classes can be required to be taken either as part of
the initial certification requirements (usually training courses to
prepare for the exam) or as part of certification renewal. This grant
program is targeted at small system operators and small system
operators are not required to attend as many classes as large system
operators. Additionally, because many states do not require that
operators take training to become initially certified, most operators
usually do not take training until they are ready to renew
certification.
Since EPA is finalizing the allocation methodology to assume that
small system operators will be required to attend two training classes
and since EPA believes that most training courses will last not more
than one day, EPA believes that two days of per diem for each training
class is adequate. Therefore, EPA believes that a total of four days of
per diem is sufficient for this assumption.
f. Assumption 6 (Cost of Training Classes = $300/class): Two
commenters thought that the estimated cost of training classes is too
low. EPA believes that the estimated cost of $300 per class is
reasonable and therefore will maintain the figure. When EPA began
developing these assumptions, the Agency proposed this cost per class
to the Operator Certification State-EPA Work Group, which was
instrumental in assisting EPA in the development of the operator
certification final guidelines. The group contained state
representatives who are involved with operator training and those
representatives supported EPA's proposed cost of $300/class. EPA also
has taken into consideration that there are organizations (such as the
National Rural Water Association) that offer free training to small
system operators.
g. Assumption 7 (number of Training Classes = 2 per operator): Four
commenters indicated that they thought that more than two classes
should be used (two indicated 3 classes, one indicated 4 classes)
because they believe that small system operators will be required to
attend more classes in order to comply with state training and
certification requirements. EPA believes that the assumption of two
classes per operator to complete a training cycle is reasonable based
on reviews of state programs. In most states, small system operators
are not required to attend as many classes as large system operators;
also many states do not require that operators take training to become
initially certified. Training for most operators usually does not occur
until the operator is already certified and is ready to renew
certification.
h. Assumption 8 (Certification/Renewal fee = $75): One commenter
supported a $200 fee. Based on reviews of state operator certification
programs, EPA believes that $100 is a more reasonable estimate for this
assumption because it should cover the exam fee and the application
fees for initial certification or certification renewal.
i. Assumption 9 (Round trips for Mileage = 2): One commenter
supported 3 round trips. EPA believes the number of round trips should
coincide with the number of training classes, and therefore will leave
the number of round trips at two.
j. Assumption 10 (Number of Miles per Round Trip = 200): Two
commenters supported 400 miles per round trip; two commenters thought
that the mileage estimate is too low; and one commenter suggested that
western states should get more mileage consideration due to the greater
geographic area of the states. EPA believes that an estimate of 200
miles per round trip is reasonable for distance traveled by operators
to attend training classes.
k. Assumption 11 (Cost per Mile = 31.5 cents): Four commenters
suggested that the mileage reimbursement rate should reflect 32.5 cents
per mile. EPA agrees with commenters and has changed the mileage
reimbursement rate to reflect the current General Services
Administration mileage reimbursement rate of 32.5 cents per mile.
4. Other Issues
One commenter suggested that reimbursement should cover lost wages;
one commenter suggested that it should be clarified that the proposed
methodology assumptions are EPA's and that state assumptions may
differ.
EPA disagrees with the commenter who suggested that reimbursement
should cover lost wages. Section 1419(d) of the SDWA requires that
``the Administrator shall provide reimbursement for the costs of
training, including an appropriate per diem for unsalaried operators,
and certification for persons operating systems serving 3,300 persons
or fewer that are required to undergo training'' pursuant to the
operator certification final guidelines. EPA does not believe that lost
wages are part of the cost of training and certification because
decisions to withhold wages from salaried operators attending training
classes are those of water system owners. The assumptions that EPA is
using to estimate the amount of funding needed for its expense
reimbursement grants program are EPA's assumptions only. They affect
the allotment of funds to states, but do not directly govern the use of
the funds. States will be given broad discretion on how to implement
the expense reimbursement grants program to best meet the needs for
operator training and certification in each state and to minimize
administrative expenses in carrying out this program. The dollar
amounts assigned to assumptions such as per diem rates, mileage
reimbursement rates, and certification fees will likely vary from state
to state. States will be required to explain to EPA in their
applications for federal assistance how they will manage their
programs.
C. Final Approach for Administration of the Grants Program
A state may apply for and receive its 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 its operator certification program
has received approval from EPA. A state has two years from the date of
initial program approval to apply for and receive its initial 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. As mentioned previously, EPA has
estimated that the amount of funding necessary for the expense
reimbursement grants program is approximately $134 million and has
reserved $74,934,000. EPA considered allowing a state, once its
operator certification program is approved, to apply for and receive
its full allotment for this grant. However, EPA believes that it would
be unfair to award states their full allotment since a state's full
allotment is based on funds that have not yet been reserved. If the
entire $134 million fails to be appropriated, this
[[Page 19950]]
could mean that some states would not receive a grant because all funds
would be gone. EPA believes that the most equitable way to award these
funds is to award a state its percentage of funds based on what has
currently been reserved. By awarding these partial amounts, EPA will be
able to guarantee that every state gets its share of expense
reimbursement grant funds, regardless of when it received program
approval from EPA. EPA will notify states of the availability of future
funds.
In order to receive funding, a state must submit an application for
an expense reimbursement grant. A state must submit a workplan on how
funds are to be used in meeting the requirements of section 1419(d) and
an annual progress report showing how funds were expended. States are
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.
States may use a reasonable amount of the expense reimbursement grant
funding for administrative purposes.
EPA will determine whether pre-award costs are allowable, in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 31, as part of its
review of the application for assistance. Any cost that is associated
with training and certifying operators is considered a ``reasonable''
cost. EPA will review eligible costs as part of its review of the
workplan. EPA defines the term ``unsalaried operator'' to mean a person
who is not paid in any manner by the system owner to perform the duties
and responsibilities of a certified operator. EPA does not consider an
operator who is paid by the system owner on an hourly basis to be
``unsalaried''.
After a state has reimbursed all 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 requirements for training and certifying its
operators. The state is also required to explain in a workplan how the
remaining funds will be used. A state is required to provide a 20%
match if any remaining funds from the expense reimbursement grant
program are used for other purposes authorized for capitalization
grants under section 1452.
D. Final Program Funding and Allocation Methodology
EPA has determined that $134,330,540 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 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 = 65,209 (from SDWIS database)
2. 2 operators per system
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. $100 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 $.325/mile (for all operators)
EPA determined 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. EPA
believes that this allocation methodology is both equitable and easily
understood. The number of systems serving 3,300 persons or fewer is
readily available from EPA's national SDWIS database. For example, if a
state has 1,000 eligible water systems, the allocation would be
calculated as follows:
Funding Assumptions
1. Total number of community and nontransient noncommunity water
systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons = 1,000 systems
2. Number of operators per system = 2 x 1,000 = 2,000 operators
3. \1/2\ of the operators would be unsalaried and therefore would be
eligible for per diem = 2,000 x \1/2\ = 1,000 operators
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 per diem
5. Four days of per diem assumed for class attendance (two days per
training class) = 4 x $100,000 = $400,000 (total amount of per diem)
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 (cost of training
classes)
8. $100 fee for initial certification/certification renewal = $100 x
2,000 = $200,000 (certification fee)
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 total miles
11. Mileage reimbursement estimated at $.325/mile (for all operators) =
400 x $.325 x 2,000 operators = $260,000 total for mileage
By adding the dollar amounts calculated under assumptions 5, 7, 8
and 11, the total amount of the grant is found to be $2,060,000. Table
1 contains the state by state expense reimbursement grant allocations
based on the above funding assumptions and allocation methodology.
[[Page 19951]]
Table 1.--State Expense Reimbursement Grant Allotments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allotment
No. of based on
eligible Percent of available Potential
State or territory systems (CWS allotment funds (FY total
+ NTNCWS) 1999- FY allotment
2001)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................. 351 0.54 $403,347 $723,060
Alaska.................................................. 631 0.97 725,105 1,299,860
American Samoa.......................................... 21 0.03 24,132 43,260
Arizona................................................. 910 1.40 1,045,714 1,874,600
Arkansas................................................ 712 1.09 818,185 1,466,720
California.............................................. 3,912 6.00 4,495,419 8,058,720
Colorado................................................ 888 1.36 1,020,433 1,829,280
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands............ 35 0.05 40,220 72,100
Connecticut............................................. 1,109 1.70 1,274,392 2,284,540
Delaware................................................ 310 0.48 356,232 638,600
Florida................................................. 2,731 4.19 3,138,290 5,625,860
Georgia................................................. 1,754 2.69 2,015,584 3,613,240
Guam.................................................... 7 0.01 8,044 14,420
Hawaii.................................................. 98 0.15 112,615 201,880
Idaho................................................... 961 1.47 1,104,320 1,979,660
Illinois................................................ 1,822 2.79 2,093,726 3,753,320
Indiana................................................. 1,491 2.29 1,713,362 3,071,460
Iowa.................................................... 1,204 1.85 1,383,560 2,480,240
Kansas.................................................. 891 1.37 1,023,880 1,835,460
Kentucky................................................ 323 0.50 371,171 665,380
Louisiana............................................... 1,237 1.90 1,421,481 2,548,220
Maine................................................... 731 1.12 840,018 1,505,860
Maryland................................................ 1,024 1.57 1,176,715 2,109,440
Massachusetts........................................... 492 0.75 565,375 1,013,520
Michigan................................................ 3,016 4.63 3,465,794 6,212,960
Minnesota............................................... 1,465 2.25 1,683,484 3,017,900
Mississippi............................................. 1,167 1.79 1,341,042 2,404,020
Missouri................................................ 1,507 2.31 1,731,748 3,104,420
Montana................................................. 787 1.21 904,370 1,621,220
Nebraska................................................ 756 1.16 868,747 1,557,360
Nevada.................................................. 361 0.55 414,838 743,660
New Hampshire........................................... 1,094 1.68 1,257,155 2,253,640
New Jersey.............................................. 1,298 1.99 1,491,578 2,673,880
New Mexico.............................................. 716 1.10 822,781 1,474,960
New York................................................ 3,260 5.00 3,746,183 6,715,600
North Carolina.......................................... 2,786 4.27 3,201,492 5,739,160
North Dakota............................................ 331 0.51 380,364 681,860
Ohio.................................................... 2,222 3.41 2,553,380 4,577,320
Oklahoma................................................ 1,165 1.79 1,338,743 2,399,900
Oregon.................................................. 1,123 1.72 1,290,480 2,313,380
Pennsylvania............................................ 3,129 4.80 3,595,646 6,445,740
Puerto Rico............................................. 357 0.55 410,242 735,420
Rhode Island............................................ 126 0.19 144,791 259,560
South Carolina.......................................... 777 1.19 892,879 1,600,620
South Dakota............................................ 474 0.73 544,690 976,440
Tennessee............................................... 447 0.69 513,664 920,820
Texas................................................... 4,681 7.18 5,379,105 9,642,860
Utah.................................................... 421 0.65 483,786 867,260
Vermont................................................. 623 0.96 715,912 1,283,380
Virginia................................................ 1,747 2.68 2,007,540 3,598,820
Virgin Islands.......................................... 301 0.46 345,890 620,060
Washington.............................................. 2,431 3.73 2,793,549 5,007,860
West Virginia........................................... 698 1.07 802,097 1,437,880
Wisconsin............................................... 2,008 3.08 2,307,465 4,136,480
Wyoming................................................. 290 0.44 333,249 597,400
-------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 65,209 100.00 74,934,000 134,330,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19952]]
Dated: April 6, 2001.
Diane C. Regas,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 01-9482 Filed 4-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}