[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15064-15068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-8059]



[[Page 15063]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



Public Review Draft Guidelines for the Certification and 
Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient 
Noncommunity Public Water Systems; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 1998 / 
Notices  

[[Page 15064]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5988-3]


Public Review Draft Guidelines for the Certification and 
Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient 
Noncommunity Public Water Systems

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Solicitation of comments on public review draft.

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

SUMMARY: In this Public Notice, the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) is seeking comments on the public review draft ``Guidelines for 
the Certification and Recertification of the Operators of Community and 
Nontransient Noncommunity Public Water Systems.'' The public review 
draft guidelines are published in the Supplementary Information section 
of this notice.

DATES: Submit written comments on or before June 25, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on these draft guidelines to the 
Operator Certification Comment Clerk: Water Docket MC-4101 (docket #W-
98-07), Environmental Protection Agency: 401 M Street, S.W., Washington 
DC 20460. Please submit an original and three copies of your comments 
and enclosures (including references).
    Those who comment and want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their 
comments must enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles 
(faxes) will be accepted. Comments may also be submitted electronically 
to [email protected].
    Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the 
use of special characters and forms of encryption. Electronic comments 
must be identified by Docket #W-98-07. Comments and data will also be 
accepted on disks as a WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.1 file. Electronic comments 
on this notice may be filed online at many Federal Depository 
Libraries.
    The record for these guidelines has been established under Docket 
#W-98-07, and includes supporting documentation as well as printed 
paper versions of electronic comments. The record is available for 
review at EPA's Water Docket: 401 M Street, S.W., Washington DC 20460. 
For access to the Docket materials, call 202-260-3027 between 9:00 a.m. 
and 3:30 p.m. for an appointment and reference Docket #W-98-07.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll 
free (800) 426-4791, for general information about and copies of this 
document. For technical inquiries, contact Richard Naylor, 
Implementation and Assistance Division, Office of Ground Water and 
Drinking Water (4606), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC, 
20460. The telephone number is (202) 260-5135 and the e-mail address is 
naylor.richard @epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
    A. Statutory Requirements
    B. Process for Developing Guidelines
II. Key Certification Issues
    A. Baseline Standards
    B. Grandparenting of Operators
    C. Operator Testing
    D. Operator Training
    E. Renewal period
    F. Size Categories for Systems
    G. Exemptions
    H. Indian Tribes
    I. Expense Reimbursement
III. Operator Certification Guidelines
    A. Public Health Objectives
    B. Antibacksliding
    C. Baseline Standards
    1. Authorization
    2. Classification of Systems, Facilities, and Operators
    3. Operator Qualifications
    4. Enforcement
    5. Certification Renewal
    6. Resources Needed to Implement the Program
    7. Recertification
    8. Stakeholder Involvement
    9. Program Review
IV. Program Submittal Process
    A. Requirements
    1. Submittal Schedule
    2. Submittal Contents
    B. Approval Process
    C. Disapproval Process
    D. Withholding of Funds
    E. Reallotment of Funds
V. Definitions
VI. Acronyms

I. Introduction

 Statutory Requirements

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-
182) direct the Administrator of the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), in cooperation with the States, to publish 
guidelines in the Federal Register specifying minimum standards for 
certification and recertification of operators of community and 
nontransient noncommunity public water systems. The final guidelines 
are required to be published by February 1999. States then have two 
years to adopt and implement an operator certification program that 
meets the requirements of these guidelines. After that date, if a State 
has not adopted and implemented an approved program, the Administrator 
must withhold 20 percent of the funds a State is otherwise entitled to 
receive in its Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) 
capitalization grants under section 1452 of SDWA.
    All of the requirements contained in these guidelines are 
requirements to avoid DWSRF capitalization grant withholding. There are 
no other sanctions for States with operator certification programs that 
do not meet the requirements of these guidelines.

B. Process for Developing Guidelines

    The draft guidelines consist of nine baseline standards. In the 
development of the nine baseline standards, EPA utilized the combined 
knowledge and expertise of two working groups that it appointed on 
operator certification. One work group, the State-EPA Work Group, was 
appointed to fulfill EPA's responsibility under section 1419(a) to 
publish guidelines on operator certification ``in cooperation with 
States.'' This work group was composed of seven State and ten EPA 
representatives. The other work group, the Operator Certification 
Working Group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC), 
also referred to as the Partnership, was formed to provide EPA with 
views in addition to those of States. This group was composed of 23 
members representing public water systems, environmental and public 
interest advocacy groups, State drinking water program representatives, 
EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Public Health Service, Indian 
Health Service, and other interest groups.
    Procedurally, the two groups worked closely together. The 
Partnership identified potential categories for which minimum standards 
would be developed. The State-EPA Work Group then developed draft issue 
papers for these categories. The Partnership and the State-EPA Work 
Group exchanged reviews of the proposed language on what both groups 
referred to as ``baseline standards,'' and worked toward achieving 
consensus on these standards. The baseline standards were then 
forwarded by the Partnership to the NDWAC. In October 1997, the NDWAC 
formally transmitted its recommended baseline standards to the EPA. The 
baseline standards contained in these guidelines are based on the 
formal recommendations of the NDWAC.

II. Key Certification Issues

    During the development of the baseline standards upon which these 
guidelines are based, the work groups debated a number of certification 
issues. Included here, as background for the reader, is a discussion of 
the key issues along with a brief explanation of how

[[Page 15065]]

the groups chose to address each issue. EPA would like to draw the 
public's attention to these issues to encourage review and comment.

A. Baseline Standards

    Should training, coverage and reciprocity be separate baseline 
standards? The Partnership, in identifying the baseline standards for 
operator certification, initially debated whether to make training, 
coverage and reciprocity separate baseline standards. After 
considerable discussion, the group decided that training and coverage 
should be appropriately included as elements within other baseline 
standards. It was decided that reciprocity should not be a requirement, 
but States should be encouraged to develop reciprocity procedures 
between certifying authorities.

B. Grandparenting of Operators

    Should the guidelines provide for the grandparenting of operators? 
The terminology ``grandparenting of operators,'' as used in the context 
of these draft guidelines, means exempting existing operators from the 
initial certification requirements such as having to have a high school 
education or equivalent and passing an exam. The consensus of the work 
groups was that grandparenting may be necessary to allow the many 
competent operators who have been successfully operating treatment 
facilities and/or distribution systems but who may not meet the initial 
requirements of certification to become certified. It does not make 
sense to put people out of work. Also, some members felt that a 
grandparenting provision was important because of their concern that it 
may not be legal in some States to impose requirements that could cause 
someone to lose their present job if they did not meet the initial 
certification requirements. Furthermore, it was felt that 
grandparenting may be necessary to provide a transition period for some 
States to accomplish the certification of operators (identify, notify, 
test, etc.) for which certification had not previously been required. 
The intent of the work groups was to make grandparenting a short-lived 
option available only to facilitate the transition to the new 
guidelines. The decision to allow grandparenting would be left to the 
State's discretion. Some States may not offer grandparenting; however, 
if a State chooses to allow grandparenting the guidelines impose 
certain restrictions.

C. Operator Testing

    Should written exams be mandatory? Some members argued that a 
written exam was essential to ensure that an operator could read 
directions, warning labels, regulations, etc. Others felt that certain 
individuals did not perform well on written exams, especially those 
with a disability such as dyslexia and therefore, should have available 
an alternative to a written exam. Some members felt that a performance 
exam was superior. The consensus was to allow the States to decide what 
type of exam would be the most appropriate--written, oral, performance-
based, or a combination, as long as the exam demonstrates that the 
applicant has the necessary skills, knowledge, ability and judgement 
that is appropriate for the classification.

D. Operator Training

    Should the guidelines specify training requirements? Under the 
guidelines, training is required in order for an operator to renew his/
her certification. Some members felt that the guidelines should be more 
specific about the continuing education requirements that are necessary 
for certification renewal. The consensus was to allow the States to 
decide what type and amount of training is appropriate.

E. Renewal Period

    Should the guidelines specify a maximum time for renewal or should 
States decide what is appropriate? The consensus was that the 
guidelines should require States to have a fixed cycle of renewal; 
however, it was not a clear consensus as to whether the guidelines 
should specify a period of time or leave it up to the States. The 
majority of members voted for a fixed cycle of renewal not to exceed 
three years. Most States already have a renewal cycle of three years or 
less.

F. Size Categories for Systems

    The work groups discussed establishing size categories for systems 
and tailoring certification requirements to the size of the system. All 
States currently have a method for categorizing systems within the 
State. Establishing nationally uniform size categories would be very 
disruptive with little benefit. The consensus was that defining the 
size of systems should be left up to the States.

G. Exemptions

    Should small or certain types of systems be exempt from the 
requirement to have a certified operator? Some members of the work 
groups felt that there should be exemptions from the requirement to 
have a certified operator for some systems such as small ground water 
systems with no treatment. However, small water systems historically 
violate drinking water requirements significantly more often than those 
serving larger communities. Competent operating personnel are vitally 
important to the long term, safe operation of small water systems. The 
Partnership felt it was Congress' intent that small systems should be 
covered by the operator certification guidelines. Hence, the 
reimbursement provision for the training and certification costs for 
operators of systems serving 3,300 or less. Accordingly, the guidelines 
do not provide any categorical exemptions to the certification 
requirements. Instead, the guidelines do provide the States with the 
flexibility to decide what is the appropriate level of training and 
type of examination for certification. For example, in the case of a 
small ground water system with no treatment and only on-site plumbing, 
it may be only necessary for the operator to be trained and tested on 
proper sampling procedures to become certified.

H. Indian Tribes

    The Partnership, through the NDWAC, made the following 
recommendation to EPA concerning operator certification for Indian 
Tribes:

    The Council recognizes that the SDWA, with regard to operator 
certification, is silent as to whether these guidelines apply to 
Indian Tribes. The Council believes that all users of public water 
supplies are entitled to safe water and that a program for operator 
certification is one means of helping to ensure this basic need. As 
a result, the Council recommends that EPA, seek clarification and 
resolve this omission, and consult to the greatest extent 
practicable, and to the extent permitted by law, with the Tribal 
governments prior to taking action on operator certification issues 
that impact Tribes or Tribal systems. We recommend using the 
operator certification baseline standards to initiate discussions 
with Tribes.

    EPA is currently pursuing this recommendation.

I. Expense Reimbursement

    The SDWA authorizes the Administrator to 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 these guidelines. The reimbursement will be provided through grants 
to States. EPA is in the process of developing an estimate of the 
reimbursable expenses of training and certification of small system 
operators and will work with stakeholders to develop an appropriate 
grant allocation methodology.

[[Page 15066]]

III. Operator Certification Guidelines

A. Public Health Objectives

    The public health objectives of the guidelines are to ensure that:
     Customers of any public water system be provided with an 
adequate supply of safe, potable drinking water.
     Consumers are confident that their water is safe to drink.
     Public water system operators are trained and certified 
and that they have knowledge and understanding of the public health 
reasons for drinking water standards.
    Ongoing training is necessary to the public health objectives of 
this program.

B. Antibacksliding

    Because these guidelines represent only minimum standards, it is 
expected that States whose current operator certification program 
requirements go beyond or exceed these minimum standards not lower 
their operator certification program requirements. EPA will not approve 
the operator certification program of any State that reduces its 
standards below the level that existed 12 months prior to the effective 
date of these guidelines unless the reduction can be justified by the 
State and is approved by EPA.

C. Baseline Standards

    Each State operator certification program must include as a minimum 
the essential elements of the nine baseline standards described below. 
Essential elements to avoid DWSRF withholding are introduced by words 
such as ``the States must.'' For each essential element, the State must 
describe how its operator certification program complies with the 
requirement. Additionally, several of the baseline standards include 
highly recommended elements that are intended to complement, improve, 
and expand the parameters of essential elements of an operator 
certification program. These highly recommended elements are introduced 
by words such as ``the States should.''
1. Authorization
    As evidenced by an Attorney General's certification, the State must 
have the legal authority to implement the program requiring the 
certification of operators of all community and nontransient 
noncommunity water systems and to require that the systems comply with 
the appropriate requirements of the program.
2. Classification of Systems, Facilities, and Operators
    To avoid DWSRF withholding, a State's program must meet the 
following requirements:
     It must classify and rank all community and nontransient 
noncommunity water systems based on indicators of potential health risk 
such as but not limited to: a) complexity, size and source water for 
treatment facilities, and b) complexity and size for distribution 
systems.
     It must require owners of all community and nontransient 
noncommunity water systems to place the direct supervision of their 
water system, including each treatment facility and/or distribution 
system, under the responsible charge of an operator(s) holding a valid 
certification equal to or greater than the classification of the 
treatment facility and/or distribution system.
     It must require, at a minimum, that the operator(s) in 
responsible charge or equivalent must hold a valid certification equal 
to or greater than the classification of their water system, including 
each treatment facility and distribution system, as determined by the 
State.
     It must require that all operating personnel making 
process control/system integrity decisions about water quality or 
quantity that affect public health be certified.
     It must require that a designated certified operator must 
be available for each operating shift.
3. Operator Qualifications
    To avoid DWSRF withholding, States must require operator applicants 
to:
     Take and pass an exam that demonstrates that the applicant 
has the necessary skills, knowledge, ability and judgement as 
appropriate for the classification. All exam questions must be State 
validated to ensure no illegal bias, and they must be based on a job 
analysis and related to the classification of the system or facility.
     Have a high school diploma or a general equivalency 
diploma (GED).
    Have the defined minimum amount of on-the-job experience for each 
appropriate level of certification. The amount of experience required 
increases with each classification level. Experience that is used to 
meet the experience requirement for any class of certification may not 
be substituted for education. Education that is used to meet the 
education requirement for any class of certification may not be 
substituted for experience.
    States may allow experience and/or relevant training to be 
substituted for a high school diploma or GED. Post high school 
education may be substituted for experience. Credit may be given for 
experience in a related field (e.g., wastewater). Experience and 
education may not be used more than once as a substitution.
Grandparenting
    EPA recognizes that there are many competent small system operators 
that may not meet the initial requirements to become certified. EPA 
believes that some States may need a transition period to allow these 
operators to become certified and that this can be accomplished through 
``grandparenting'' the requirements in some circumstances. It is 
recommended that grandparenting determinations be based on factors such 
as system compliance history, operator experience and knowledge, system 
complexity, and lack of treatment.
    If States choose to include a grandparenting provision in their 
programs, it must include the following requirements:
     During this initial transition period, grandparenting is 
permitted only to existing Operator(s) in Responsible Charge of 
existing systems which, because of State law changes to meet these 
guidelines, must for the first time have a certified operator.
     There are two options offered for consideration and 
comment concerning the time period within which a system must apply to 
the State for grandparenting. Because a clear consensus was not 
achieved during the deliberations of the work groups both options are 
presented here.
    (1) The system must apply for grandparenting within two years of 
the effective date of the State's regulation; or
    (2) The system must apply for grandparenting within one year of the 
effective date of the State's regulation.
     Grandparenting shall be site specific and non-
transferable.
     After an operator is grandparented, he or she must, within 
some time period specified by the State, meet all requirements to 
obtain certification including the payment of any necessary fees, 
acquiring necessary training to meet the renewal requirements, and 
demonstrating the skills, knowledge, ability and judgement for that 
classification.
     If the classification of the plant or distribution system 
changes to a higher level, then the grandparented certification will no 
longer be valid.

[[Page 15067]]

4. Enforcement
    To avoid DWSRF withholding, the State agency with primary 
enforcement responsibility for the Public Water System Supervision 
(PWSS) Program must have regulations requiring community water systems 
and nontransient noncommunity water systems to comply with State 
operator certification requirements. In nonprimacy States, the Governor 
shall determine which State Agency shall have this responsibility. 
States must have appropriate enforcement capabilities such as, but not 
limited to: administrative orders, bilateral compliance agreements, 
criminal or civil administrative penalties, and stipulated penalties.
    States must have the ability to revoke operator certifications.
    States must also have the ability to suspend operator 
certifications or take other appropriate action for operator misconduct 
such as, but not limited to: fraud, falsification of application, 
falsification of operating records, gross negligence in operation, 
incompetence, or failure to use reasonable care or judgement in the 
performance of duties.
5. Certification Renewal
    To avoid DWSRF withholding, the State must establish training 
requirements for renewal based on the level of certification held by 
the operator.
    States must require operators to acquire necessary amounts and 
types of approved training. States may determine other requirements as 
deemed necessary.
    States must have a fixed cycle of renewal not to exceed three 
years.
    The State must consider a certificate to have lapsed and the 
individual must recertify, if the individual fails to renew or qualify 
for renewal and is beyond a grace period (not to exceed two years).
6. Resources Needed To Implement the Program
    To avoid DWSRF withholding, the States must provide sufficient 
resources to adequately fund and sustain the operator certification 
program (including components such as, but not limited to: staff, data 
management, testing, enforcement, administration, and training 
approval). EPA recommends that States establish a dedicated fund that 
is self-sufficient.
7. Recertification
    To avoid DWSRF withholding, the States must have a process for 
recertification of individuals whose certification has lapsed. This 
process must include: review of the individual's experience and 
training, and reexamination. The State must consider the certificate to 
have lapsed and the individual must recertify, if the individual fails 
to renew or qualify for renewal and is beyond a grace period (not to 
exceed 2 years). The State may develop more stringent requirements for 
recertification for individuals whose certificates have been revoked or 
suspended.
8. Stakeholder Involvement
    Stakeholder involvement is important to the public health 
objectives of the program. It helps to ensure the relevancy and 
validity of the program, and the confidence of all interested parties.
    To avoid DWSRF withholding, States must include ongoing stakeholder 
involvement in the revision and operations of State operator 
certification programs. A stakeholder board or advisory committee is 
strongly recommended.
9. Program Review
    To avoid DWSRF withholding, States must perform reviews of their 
operator certification programs. EPA recommends that States perform 
periodic internal reviews and occasional external/peer reviews. 
Examples of reviews include, but are not limited to: regulations, exams 
and exam scores for bias, exam items for relevancy and validity, 
compliance, enforcement, budget and staffing, training relevancy, 
training needs through examination performance, and data management 
system.

IV. Program Submittal Process

A. Requirements

1. Submittal Schedule
    Not later than two years after the guidelines are published, to 
avoid DWSRF withholding, States must have adopted and implemented a 
program for the certification of operators of community and 
nontransient noncommunity public water systems that meets the 
requirements of or is substantially equivalent to these guidelines. 
States are encouraged to submit their operator certification programs 
to the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator for review as early as 
possible. Any State that expects to receive its FY 2000 or FY 2001 
capitalization grant after February 6, 2001, should submit its operator 
certification program to EPA by August 2000. Also, any State that 
intends to enforce its existing operator certification program in lieu 
of these guidelines must submit its program to EPA by August 2000. EPA 
must determine whether an existing State operator certification program 
is substantially equivalent to these guidelines.
    Future annual submittals of state operator certification programs 
to EPA must be submitted either before or with the annual 
capitalization grant application.
2. Submittal Contents
    The submittal of operator certification programs to EPA by States 
must include the following:
    (1) The State Attorney General's certification that the State has 
the legal authority to implement the program requiring the 
certification of operators of all community and nontransient 
noncommunity water systems and to require that the systems comply with 
the appropriate requirements of the program;
    (2) A full description and explanation of how the State's operator 
certification program complies with or is substantially equivalent to 
the requirements of these guidelines;
    (3) A copy of the State operator certification regulations; and
    (4) All annual program submittals subsequent to the initial 
submittal must include documentation and evaluation of ongoing program 
implementation.

B. Approval Process

    EPA must approve or disapprove a State program within nine months 
after submittal. If there is no EPA action within the nine month 
period, a State program will be deemed approved and/or substantially 
equivalent to the guidelines.

C. Disapproval Process

    If the Regional Administrator determines that a program (or portion 
thereof) is to be disapproved, EPA will send a written statement of the 
reasons for such disapproval to the State.
    Within six months of EPA's written statement to the State, the 
State must submit a modified program to EPA to avoid DWSRF withholding. 
The State's modifications to the program must be based upon the 
recommendations of EPA. If EPA disapproves the program (or portion 
thereof), EPA will advise the State of any deficiencies in an 
expeditious manner to ensure that the State has an opportunity to 
develop an approvable program.
    EPA must then make a decision on whether to approve or disapprove a 
State's re-submittal.

D. Withholding of Funds

    The Administrator shall withhold 20% of a State's funds that it is 
entitled

[[Page 15068]]

to receive under the DWSRF program (section 1452) unless the State has 
adopted and is implementing a program for the certification of 
operators of community and nontransient noncommunity public water 
systems that meets the requirements of these guidelines. This 
withholding provision will begin two years after the effective date of 
these guidelines.

E. Reallotment of Funds

    All funds withheld by the Administrator because the State does not 
develop and implement an operator certification program that meets the 
requirements of these guidelines shall be reallotted using the 
allotment formula that was used to distribute funds for that year, 
except that the Administrator may reserve and allocate 10 percent of 
the amount for financial assistance to Indian Tribes. None of these 
funds reallotted by the Administrator shall be allotted to a State 
unless the State has met the requirements of these guidelines.

V. Definitions

    Administrator--means the Administrator of the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    Available--Based on system size, complexity, and source water 
quality, a certified operator must be on site or able to be contacted 
as needed to initiate the appropriate action in a timely manner.
    Community Water System (CWS)--a public water system providing water 
to at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or 
regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents.
    Distribution Complexity--Such as, but not limited to, pressure 
zones, booster stations, storage tanks, fire protection, chlorination, 
non-residential consumers, cross connection potential, and demand 
variations.
    Distribution Size--Such as, but not limited to, population served, 
number of service connections, size of pipes, total distance of pipe, 
and quantity.
    Distribution System--Any combination of pipes, tanks, pumps, etc. 
which delivers water from the source(s) and/or treatment facility(ies) 
to the consumer.
    Grandparenting--The exemption for the existing operator(s) in 
responsible charge, as of the effective date of the State's regulation, 
from meeting the initial education and/or examination requirements for 
the class of certification the system has been assigned.
    Nontransient Noncommunity (NTNC) Water Systems--is a public water 
system that is not a community water system and that regularly serves 
at least 25 of the same persons over six months per year. Common types 
of NTNC water systems are those serving schools, day care centers, 
factories, restaurants, nursing homes, and hospitals.
    Operating Shift--That period of time during which operator 
decisions that affect public health are necessary for proper operation 
of the system.
    Primacy--Primary enforcement responsibility for administration and 
enforcement of the primary drinking water regulations and related 
requirements applicable to public water systems within a State.
    Responsible Charge--The Operator(s) in Responsible Charge or his/
her equivalent is defined as the person(s) designated by the owner to 
be the certified operator(s) who makes decisions regarding the daily 
operational activities of a public water system, water treatment 
facility and/or distribution system, that will directly impact the 
quality and/or quantity of drinking water.
    Source Water--Such as but not limited to: type (surface water, 
groundwater, groundwater under the influence of surface water, 
purchase), quality (variability), protection (e.g., wellhead 
protection)
    Treatment Size--Such as but not limited to, population served, 
number of service connections, and plant flow.
    Treatment Facility--Any place(s) where a community water system or 
nontransient non-community water system alters the physical or chemical 
characteristics of the drinking water. Chlorination may be considered 
as a function of a distribution system.
    Treatment Complexity--Such as, but not limited to, difficulty in 
controlling water quality, potential effect to the consumer and safety 
of the operator.

VI. Acronyms

CWS--Community Water System
DWSRF--Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
GED--General Equivalency Diploma
NDWAC--National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NTNCWS or NTNC--Nontransient Noncommunity Water System
PWSS Program--Public Water System Supervision Program
SDWA--Safe Drinking Water Act

    Dated: March 23, 1998.
Cynthia C. Dougherty,
Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Environmental 
Protection Agency.
[FR Doc. 98-8059 Filed 3-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P