[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19939-19952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-9482]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 [email protected]. 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