Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 75/Wednesday, April 18, 2001/Notices
19939
occur. Bifenazate is not expected to
contaminate ground water. Bifenazate
degrades rapidly in water and soil, and
is immobile in soil. There is no
established maximum contaminant level
for residues of bifenazate in drinking
water, and no health advisory levels for
bifenazate have been established. Using
Tier I screening models generic
expected environmental concentration
(GENEEC) (surface water) and screening
concentrationin ground water (SCI-
GRO) (ground water), estimated
environmental concentration (EEC) of
bifenazate EEC was <2.14 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water, and
<0.0001 ppb for ground water. As these
values are much lower than the drinking
water levels of concern, exposure to
potential residues in drinking water is
expected to be negligible.
2. Non-dietary exposure. Food uses
described in this petition are strictly
agricultural and will not add to any
existing residential non-dietary
exposure. Such exposure has already
been assessed in the process through
which Floramite®, Floramite® GS, and
Floramite® LS (50% WP formulations)
were registered for ornamental uses.
Residential exposures from ornamental
uses are expected to be very limited, if
any at all, since broad spectrum
insecticides (rather than selective
insecticides) are generally used for
residential settings. Quantitative risk
estimation calculated MOEs of 1,400
and 3,100 for homeowners and children,
respectively, using default values in
EPA draft SOPs for Residential
Exposure Assessment. Use of product-
specific foliar residue decline data
would be expected to lower calculated
MOEs. The MOEs, reflecting the limited
potential for exposure from residential
uses, were all greater than 1,000, and
well within acceptable limits.
D. Cumulative Effects
The mechanism of action of
bifenazate on the mammalian red blood
cell, which is target organ in the species
tested, remains to be elucidated. The
lack of information on bifenazate mode
of action precludes an assessment of
cumulative effects.
E. Safety Determination
1. U.S. population. Based on the
toxicology data base and available
information on anticipated residues, the
acute dietary exposure MOE was
>82,000 for females 13-50 years old.
This is well above EPA's standard of
acceptable MOE of 100. Chronic dietary
exposure to the U.S. population (total)
was 0.4% of the RfD. Exposure to
potential residues in drinking water is
expected to be negligible, as drinking
water levels of concern (DWLOC's) are
substantially higher than modeled acute
and long-term EEC's. The MOE's from
the limited potential for short-term
exposure from residential uses was
>1,000. Based on these assessments, it
can be concluded that there is
reasonable certainty of no harm to the
U.S. population or any population
subgroup from exposure to bifenazate.
2. Infants and children. The acute
dietary exposure MOE was >22,000 for
infants and children, and are well above
EPA's standard acceptable MOE of 100.
The chronic dietary exposure was 1.3%
of the RfD for infants, and 1% for
children. Exposure to potential residues
in drinking water is expected to be
negligible, as DWLOC's are substantially
higher than modeled acute and long-
term EEC's. The MOE's from the limited
potential for short-term exposure from
residential uses was <1,000. Based on
these assessments, it can be concluded
that there is reasonable certainty of no
harm to infants and children from
exposure to bifenazate.
F. International Tolerances
To date no Codex, Canadian or
Mexican tolerances exist for bifenazate.
[FR Doc. 01-9492 Filed 4-17-01; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S
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 lenny
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
-------
19940
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 75/Wednesday, April 18, 2001/Notices
Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, (404)
562-9480
V. Charles Pycha, U.S. EPA Region V,
Water Division, 77 West lackson
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 (SOWA), 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.l.
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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 75/Wednesday, April 18, 2001/Notices
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
-------
19942
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 75/Wednesday, April 18, 2001/Notices
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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 75/Wednesday, April 18, 2001/Notices
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
-------
Final Submittal Schedule for "Revised" Programs
(Diagram #1)
8/00
2/5/01
8/01
EPA review
6 months
9/30/01 9/30/02
States fix deficiencies &
EPA reviews and
approves
States submit
programs
Withholding
decision
Holdback funds (unawarded FY2001 and FY2002)
EPA permanently withholds
20% of FY 2001 DWSRF
funds if a State fails to submit
its program for review by Feb
5,2001
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 75/Wednesday, April 18, 2001/Notices
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
-------
Final Submittal Schedule for "Substantially Equivalent" Programs
(Diagram #2)
875700
2/5/01
8/01
9/30/01
9/30/02
EPA review
6 months
States fix deficiencies
6 months
EPA reviews/
approves
2 months
States submit
programs
Withholding decision
Review
Programs
Holdback funds (unawarded FY2001)
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 75/Wednesday, April 18, 2001/Notices
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.
-------
19948
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 75/Wednesday, April 18, 2001/Notices
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 = Vz 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.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 75/Wednesday, April 18, 2001/Notices
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.
/. 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.
;'. 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
-------
19950
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 75/Wednesday, April 18, 2001/Notices
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)(l), 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. Vz 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. a/2 of the operators would be
unsalaried and therefore would be
eligible for per diem = 2,000 x Vz =
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.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 75/Wednesday, April 18, 2001/Notices
19951
TABLE 1 .—STATE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT GRANT ALLOTMENTS
State or territory
No. of eligible
systems
(CWS +
NTNCWS)
Percent of
allotment
Allotment
based on
available
funds
(FY 1999-
FY2001)
Potential total
allotment
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
351
631
21
910
712
3,912
888
35
1,109
310
2,731
1,754
7
98
961
1,822
1,491
1,204
891
323
1,237
731
1,024
492
3,016
1,465
1,167
1,507
787
756
361
1,094
1,298
716
3,260
2,786
331
2,222
1,165
1,123
3,129
357
126
777
474
447
4,681
421
623
1,747
301
2,431
698
2,008
290
0.54
0.97
0.03
1.40
1.09
6.00
1.36
0.05
1.70
0.48
4.19
2.69
0.01
0.15
1.47
2.79
2.29
1.85
1.37
0.50
1.90
1.12
1.57
0.75
4.63
2.25
1.79
2.31
1.21
1.16
0.55
1.68
1.99
1.10
5.00
4.27
0.51
3.41
1.79
1.72
4.80
0.55
0.19
1.19
0.73
0.69
7.18
0.65
0.96
2.68
0.46
3.73
1.07
3.08
0.44
$403,347
725,105
24,132
1,045,714
818,185
4,495,419
1,020,433
40,220
1,274,392
356,232
3,138,290
2,015,584
8,044
112,615
1,104,320
2,093,726
1,713,362
1,383,560
1,023,880
371,171
1,421,481
840,018
1,176,715
565,375
3,465,794
1,683,484
1,341,042
1,731,748
904,370
868,747
414,838
1,257,155
1,491,578
822,781
3,746,183
3,201,492
380,364
2,553,380
1,338,743
1,290,480
3,595,646
410,242
144,791
892,879
544,690
513,664
5,379,105
483,786
715,912
2,007,540
345,890
2,793,549
802,097
2,307,465
333,249
$723,060
1,299,860
43,260
1,874,600
1,466,720
8,058,720
1,829,280
72,100
2,284,540
638,600
5,625,860
3,613,240
14,420
201,880
1,979,660
3,753,320
3,071,460
2,480,240
1,835,460
665,380
2,548,220
1,505,860
2,109,440
1,013,520
6,212,960
3,017,900
2,404,020
3,104,420
1,621,220
1,557,360
743,660
2,253,640
2,673,880
1,474,960
6,715,600
5,739,160
681,860
4,577,320
2,399,900
2,313,380
6,445,740
735,420
259,560
1,600,620
976,440
920,820
9,642,860
867,260
1,283,380
3,598,820
620,060
5,007,860
1,437,880
4,136,480
597,400
65,209
100.00
74,934,000
134,330,540
-------
19952
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 75/Wednesday, April 18, 2001/Notices
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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-6966-3]
Public Water System Supervision
Program Revision for the State of
Alabama
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Tentative Approval.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the State of Alabama is revising its
approved Public Water System
Supervision Program. Alabama has
adopted drinking water regulations
requiring consumer confidence reports
from all community water systems. EPA
has determined that these revisions are
no less stringent than the corresponding
federal regulations. Therefore, EPA
intends on approving this State program
revision.
All interested parties may request a
public hearing. A request for a public
hearing must be submitted by May 18,
2001, to the Regional Administrator at
the address shown below. Frivolous or
insubstantial requests for a hearing may
be denied by the Regional
Administrator. However, if a substantial
request for a public hearing is made by
May 18, 2001, a public hearing will be
held. If no timely and appropriate
request for a hearing is received and the
Regional Administrator does not elect to
hold a hearing on his own motion, this
determination shall become final and
effective on May 18, 2001. Any request
for a public hearing shall include the
following information: (1) The name,
address, and telephone number of the
individual organization, or other entity
requesting a hearing; (2) A brief
statement of the requesting person's
interest in the Regional Administrator's
determination and a brief statement of
the information that the requesting
person intends to submit at such
hearing; (3) The signature of the
individual making the request, or, if the
request is made on behalf of an
organization or other entity, the
signature of a responsible official of the
organization or other entity.
ADDRESSES: All documents relating to
this determination are available for
inspection between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at the following offices:
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management, Water
Division, Water Supply Branch, 1400
Coliseum Boulevard, Montgomery,
Alabama 36110-2059; or at the
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, Drinking Water Section, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
Plouff, P.E., EPA Region 4, Drinking
Water Section at the Atlanta address
given above or at telephone (404) 562-
9476.
Authority: Sees. 1413 and 1414 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and
40 CFR parts 141 and 142.
Dated: March 23, 2001.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
4.
[FR Doc. 01-9594 Filed 4-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[DA 01-897]
Public Safety National Coordination
Committee
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This document advises
interested persons of a meeting of the
Public Safety National Coordination
Committee ("NCC"), which will be held
in St. Louis, Missouri. The Federal
Advisory Committee Act, Public Law
92-463, as amended, requires public
notice of all meetings of the NCC. This
notice advises interested persons of the
thirteenth meeting of the Public Safety
National Coordination Committee.
DATES: May 11, 2001 at 9:30 a.m.-12:30
p.m.
ADDRESSES: Police Board Room, 6th
Floor, Police Headquarters, 1200 Clark
Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63103.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Designated Federal Officer, Michael J.
Wilhelm, (202) 418-0680, e-mail
mwilhelm@fcc.gov. Press Contact,
Meribeth McCarrick, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, 202-418-
0600, or e-mail mmccarri@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following
is the complete text of the Public Notice:
This Public Notice advises interested
persons of the thirteenth meeting of the
Public Safety National Coordination
Committee ("NCC"), which will be held
in St. Louis, Missouri. The Federal
Advisory Committee Act, Public Law
92-463, as amended, requires public
notice of all meetings of the NCC.
Date: May 11, 2001.
Meeting Time: General Membership
Meeting—9:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
Addresses: Police Board Room, 6th
Floor, Police Headquarters, 1200 Clark
Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63103.
The NCC Subcommittees will meet
from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. the previous
day. The NCC General Membership
Meeting will commence at 9:30 a.m. and
continue until 12:30 p.m. The agenda
for the NCC membership meeting is as
follows:
1. Introduction and Welcoming Remarks
2. Administrative Matters
3. Report from the Interoperability
Subcommittee, including user needs, if
any, for both packet switched and circuit
switched data on 700 MHz low speed data
channels.
4. Report from the Technology
Subcommittee, including status of
development of a standard for
interoperable high speed data
transmission.
5. Report from the Implementation
Subcommittee, including presentation of
final model documents for use by 700 MHz
regional planning committees.
6. Public Discussion
7. Other Business
8. Upcoming Meeting Dates and Locations
9. Closing Remarks
The FCC has established the Public
Safety National Coordination
Committee, pursuant to the provisions
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
to advise the Commission on a variety
of issues relating to the use of the 24
MHz of spectrum in the 764-776/794-
806 MHz frequency bands (collectively,
the 700 MHz band) that has been
allocated to public safety services. See
The Development of Operational,
Technical and Spectrum Requirements
For Meeting Federal, State and Local
Public Safety Agency Communications
Requirements Through the Year 2010
and Establishment of Rules and
Requirements For Priority Access
Service, WT Docket No. 96-86, First
Report and Order and Third Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98-191, 14
FCC Red 152 (1998), 63 FR 58645 (11-
2-98).
The NCC has an open membership.
Previous expressions of interest in
membership have been received in
response to several Public Notices
inviting interested persons to become
members and to participate in the NCC's
processes. All persons who have
previously identified themselves or
have been designated as a representative
of an organization are deemed members
and are invited to attend. All other
interested parties are hereby invited to
attend and to participate in the NCC
------- |