[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5916-5921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2692]



[[Page 5915]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 1999 / 
Notices  

[[Page 5916]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6230-8]


Final guidelines for the Certification and Recertification of the 
Operators of Community and Nontransient Noncommunity Public Water 
Systems

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final guidelines.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
finalizing the ``Guidelines for the Certification and Recertification 
of the Operators of Community and Nontransient Noncommunity Public 
Water Systems.'' The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 
require that these final guidelines be published in the Federal 
Register by February 6, 1999. These guidelines provide States with the 
minimum standards for the development, implementation and enforcement 
of operator certification programs for community and nontransient 
noncommunity public water systems. Beginning two years after 
publication, EPA must withhold 20% of a State's Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund capitalization grant funds unless the State has adopted 
and is implementing an operator certification program that meets the 
requirements of these guidelines or submits its existing program that 
is substantially equivalent to these guidelines. The final guidelines 
are published in Appendix A of this document.

DATES: Effective Date: February 5, 1999. Compliance Date: Beginning 
February 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Public comments and the comment response document on the 
draft guidelines are available for review at Water Docket (docket #W-
98-07), Environmental Protection Agency, Room EB57, 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. Eastern Time for an appointment 
and reference Docket #W-98-07.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll 
free (800) 426-4791, can be contacted for general information about and 
copies of this document. For technical inquiries, contact Jenny Jacobs, 
Implementation and Assistance Division, Office of Ground Water and 
Drinking Water (4606), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC, 
20460. The telephone number is (202) 260-2939 and the e-mail address is 
[email protected]. For Regional contacts, see Supplementary 
Information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regional Contacts

I. Katie Leo, US EPA Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CMU), 
Boston, MA 02114, (617) 918-1623
II. Gerard McKenna, US EPA Region II, Drinking Water Section, Water 
Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-3838
III. Barbara Smith, US EPA Region III, Drinking Water Branch (3WP22), 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2020, (215) 814-5786
IV. Janine Morris, US EPA Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 
Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, (404) 562-9480
V. Charles Pycha, US EPA Region V, Water Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507, (312) 886-0259
VI. Tye Biasco, US EPA Region VI, Drinking Water Section (6WQ-SD), 1445 
Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-2140
VII. Robert Dunlevy, US EPA Region VII, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides 
Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7798
VIII. Anthony Q. DeLoach, US 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, US EPA Region IX, Drinking Water Office (WTR-6), 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-2052
X. Bill Chamberlain, US EPA Region X, Office of Water, Drinking Water 
Unit (OW-136), 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-8515

Background

1. 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 6, 1999. States then have two 
years after publication to adopt and be implementing an operator 
certification program that meets the requirements of these guidelines. 
After that date, unless a State has adopted and is implementing 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 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.

2. Guideline Development Process

    These guidelines are the result of a thorough stakeholder 
consultation process under which EPA utilized the combined knowledge 
and expertise of two work 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 Work 
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 
EPA incorporated the recommendations of the NDWAC into the ``Draft 
Guidelines for the Certification and Recertification of the Operators 
of Community and Nontransient Noncommunity Public Water Systems.'' The 
draft guidelines were published for public comment in the Federal 
Register on March 27, 1998.

[[Page 5917]]

The comment period extended for 90 days during which over 90 parties 
submitted public comments. During the 90-day public comment period, EPA 
held public stakeholder meetings in San Francisco, CA, Dallas, TX, and 
Washington, DC, to brief interested parties on the draft guidelines and 
to accept public comments. The complete response to comments document 
is available for review at Water Docket (docket #W-98-07), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Room EB57, 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. Eastern Time for an appointment 
and reference Docket #W-98-07.
    In August 1998, both workgroups met to consider the public comments 
and to make recommendations for finalizing the guidelines based on the 
public comments. The resulting recommendations were forwarded to the 
NDWAC for consideration. In November 1998, the NDWAC formally 
transmitted its recommendations to EPA. The EPA made changes based on 
the public comments and on the recommendations of its work groups and 
the NDWAC. These guidelines set the minimum baseline standards for an 
operator certification program to meet the provisions of the 1996 
Amendments to the SDWA. These guidelines were developed to enable 
states to have flexibility in the implementation and enforcement of 
program details necessary to administer a successful operator 
certification program while ensuring the protection of public health.

Response to Comments on Key Certification Issues

1. Public Health Objectives

    EPA received a large number of comments in support of the public 
health objectives as stated in the draft guidelines.
    EPA intends to use the public health objectives in its review and 
evaluation of State operator certification programs and in its 
determination as to whether the State programs meet the requirements of 
the guidelines.

2. Operator Testing/Exams

    EPA received a number of comments on the type of operator 
certification exam (e.g., written, oral, performance-based) that should 
be required by the guidelines. Some commenters felt that written exams 
should be required to ensure that an operator could read and write. 
Some commenters felt that other types of exams (e.g., oral, 
performance-based) may be more appropriate, and therefore, the type of 
exam should be left up to the State.
    EPA believes that the type of test that best measures the 
knowledge, skills, ability, and judgement of an operator for a 
particular classification level should be left up to the State that is 
responsible for the design and administration of the test.
    EPA received several comments on the requirement that exams be 
State-validated. Some commenters asked for clarification.
    In the final guidelines, EPA eliminated the word ``State'' from the 
above phrase. For clarification, EPA included a definition of 
``validated exam'' in the final guidelines.

3. Operator Training

    Some comments were received supporting the inclusion of specific 
training requirements in the guidelines while some commenters supported 
the draft guidelines which allow States to decide what type and amount 
of training are appropriate for each level of classification.
    EPA believes that the type of operator training necessary for each 
classification level in each State is best determined by the State. The 
final guidelines do not include specific training requirements; 
however, EPA will evaluate State training programs as part of its 
initial and annual review and approval of State operator certification 
programs.

4. Classification of Operators

    A number of comments were received requesting clarification as to 
which water system personnel must be certified under the guidelines.
    The final guidelines require that ``all operating personnel making 
process control/system integrity decisions about water quality or 
quantity that affect public health be certified.'' EPA believes that 
this guideline requirement provides a framework within which States can 
decide which system personnel must be certified.

5. Grandparenting of Operators

    Grandparenting of operators was one of the most heavily commented 
upon issues. The majority of commenters supported grandparenting in 
some fashion while several commenters opposed the inclusion of 
grandparenting in the guidelines. Also, some commenters requested 
clarification as to whether grandparented operators at renewal had to 
meet the initial certification requirements or the renewal 
requirements.
    EPA believes that grandparenting may be necessary to allow the many 
competent operators who have been successfully operating water systems 
but who can not meet the initial certification requirements to continue 
to work. Accordingly, grandparenting has been included as an option for 
States. For States that choose to allow grandparenting, the guidelines 
specify the following restrictions:
     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.
     The system owner must apply for grandparenting for the 
operator(s) in responsible charge within two years of the effective 
date of the State's regulation.
     The certification for the grandparented operator must be 
site specific and non-transferable to other operators.
     After an operator is grandparented, he or she must, within 
some time period specified by the State, meet all requirements to 
obtain certification renewal, 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.
     If a grandparented operator chooses to work for a 
different water system, he or she must meet the initial certification 
requirements for that system.
    Also, EPA added language that requires States to pay special 
attention to identify specific certification renewal requirements for 
grandparented operators to ensure they have the knowledge, skills, 
ability and judgement to operate the system for which they were 
grandparented.
    A couple of commenters asked that the guidelines be changed to make 
it the operator's responsibility to apply for grandparenting and not 
the system's responsibility.
    In States which choose to allow a grandparenting provision, 
application for grandparenting is the responsibility of the system 
owner because grandparenting is site-specific and non-transferable. 
Only existing systems which must for the first time have a certified 
operator because of State law changes to meet these guidelines can 
apply for grandparenting for existing operators in responsible charge.

6. Renewal Period

    EPA received a large number of comments supporting the 
establishment

[[Page 5918]]

of a specific renewal period in the guidelines. Comments were mixed, 
however, as to the maximum length of time that should be required for 
renewal.
    EPA, in reviewing existing State programs, found that most States 
already require a certification renewal cycle of three years or less. 
EPA believes that three years is the maximum amount of time that the 
guidelines should permit an operator to go before having to take more 
training as part of the renewal requirements in order to remain current 
in the field.

7. Categories of Systems

    EPA received numerous comments on categorizing/classifying systems. 
Many of the commenters made recommendations as to the specific criteria 
that they felt should be used to classify systems. Several commenters 
suggested that EPA develop a national classification system for water 
systems while a similar number of commenters suggested EPA allow States 
to develop their own classification system.
    Because all of the States currently have a method for categorizing 
the water systems within the State, EPA believes that establishing a 
nationally uniform classification system would be very disruptive with 
little benefit. The guidelines give the States the responsibility to 
define the categories of systems. The language in the final guidelines 
was revised to clarify that the criteria in the guidelines are examples 
for States to use in classifying systems [i.e., (a) complexity, size, 
source water for treatment systems, and, (b) complexity, size, for 
distribution systems].

8. Antibacksliding

    EPA received mixed comments on the antibacksliding provision. 
Several commenters supported antibacksliding while several commenters 
opposed the provision. For example, one commenter questioned EPA's 
authority to prevent a State from lessening its existing standards to 
meet the minimum EPA standards. This commenter felt that EPA has no 
authority to require a State to do anything else except meet the 
minimum standard. Also, a couple of commenters felt that the 
antibacksliding provision enables States to keep their programs intact 
without undue pressure to lessen standards based on the minimum 
standards set forth in the guidelines which may not be as stringent.
    EPA believes that Congress did not intend for States to weaken 
their existing operator certification programs if those programs go 
beyond the minimum federal standards. An antibacksliding provision is, 
therefore, essential to help these States maintain the kind of operator 
certification programs that they believe best ensure public health 
protection. EPA does recognize that there may be situations where it is 
desirable to lessen a specific standard while making overall 
improvements to a program and has included a provision to allow States 
to do this if they can justify the change and get approval from EPA. 
Finally, EPA believes this provision is authorized by Section 1419(a) 
of the SDWA which states that EPA must take existing programs into 
account in developing these guidelines.

9. Exemptions and Certified Operator Availability

    EPA received a number of comments both for and against exemptions 
from the requirement of a certified operator for small water systems. 
On a related issue, EPA received many comments on the requirement that 
a designated certified operator be available for each operating shift. 
A number of commenters expressed the concern that this requirement 
would be cost prohibitive for small systems and that small systems 
should be exempt from the requirement to have a certified operator. 
Some commenters requested clarification as to the meaning of 
``available''.
    EPA believes that one of the most important benefits of these 
guidelines will be better training for operators of small systems and 
consequently, better public health protection for the consumers served 
by these systems. Historically, compliance problems are much more 
widespread in smaller systems and it is these systems that may benefit 
most by training. Congress also recognized this when it established the 
operator certification provisions. As discussed in the legislative 
history of these provisions (S. Rep. 104-169, 104th Cong., 1st Sess at 
61), Congress was aware that most States already had operator 
certification programs and that many exempted small systems. Congress 
was particularly concerned that the lack of operator training and 
certification for small systems could create compliance problems. In 
addition, monitoring and sampling done by a trained operator are more 
likely to produce accurate results and be correctly interpreted. These 
concerns were central to the enactment of the operator certification 
provisions. At the same time, Congress also established a provision for 
reimbursing small system operators for training and certification 
costs. Considering this, the guidelines do not allow exemptions. EPA 
does recognize, however, that some small systems provide little or no 
treatment and that some nontransient noncommunity systems (e.g., 
schools) may not have distribution systems and that operators of these 
systems do not need the same type and amount of training that operators 
of larger systems may need. The guidelines, therefore, provide States 
with discretion to tailor training requirements consistent with the 
level of complexity of systems.
    The guidelines do not require these systems to have a certified 
operator on-site full time. States can implement a program that would 
allow for a circuit rider to be the certified operator for a number of 
small systems. This flexibility is provided for in the definition of 
``available'' that is included in the guidelines. EPA believes that 
this language will reduce the financial burden on small systems, and 
allow for the sharing of certified operators in areas with a scarcity 
of qualified personnel. States have been provided with flexibility in 
defining ``available'' since its meaning may differ due to the 
geographic and demographic differences among States.
    Some commenters felt that clarification is needed concerning 
whether or not people who program or maintain telemetry/SCADA systems 
are required to be certified.
    EPA believes that people who program or maintain telemetry/SCADA 
systems are not operators of water systems and are not required to be 
certified. However, if anyone who programs or maintains these types of 
systems is also making process control/system integrity decisions, that 
person would be required to be certified.

10. Flexible vs. Prescriptive Guidelines

    Many of the comments that EPA received supported flexibility for 
States in implementing the guidelines while many of the comments asked 
that the guideline requirements be prescribed in greater detail.
    EPA believes that these guidelines reflect its efforts to balance 
the intent for State flexibility with the need for national program 
accountability.

Submittal Schedule and Withholding Process

    EPA is developing a revised submittal schedule and withholding 
process for State programs and will solicit public comments on the 
revised approach in the Federal Register within the next few months.

Source Water Protection

    A fully trained operator, as the on-site professional, should 
understand the benefits of multiple barriers to prevent

[[Page 5919]]

contamination of the sources of public drinking water supplies and 
should be able to provide important insights into the risks to public 
water supplies from different, potential sources of contamination. EPA 
encourages States to include an understanding of drinking water source 
protection in the training for operators.

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 the information from the States required under these 
guidelines. EPA plans to prepare and obtain approval of an Information 
Collection Request (ICR) for this information. Advance notice of the 
ICR will be published in the Federal Register for public comment before 
it is submitted to OMB. EPA may not conduct, or sponsor, and a person 
is not required to submit to a collection of information unless the 
Agency has OMB approval for collection of the information.

    Dated: January 29, 1999.
J. Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.

Appendix A: Final Guidelines for the Certification and 
Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient 
Noncommunity Public Water Systems

I. Introduction
II. 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
III. Program Submittal Process
    A. Submittal Schedule and Withholding Process
    1. New Programs.
    2. Equivalent Programs
    B. Submittal Contents
    1. Initial Submittal
    2. Subsequent Years
IV. Definitions
V. Acronyms

I. Introduction

    These guidelines were developed to meet Section 1419(a) of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-182). This 
section directs the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
to develop guidelines specifying minimum standards for certification 
and recertification of operators of community and nontransient 
noncommunity public water systems and to publish final guidelines by 
February 6, 1999. States have two years after publication to adopt and 
be implementing an operator certification program that meets the 
requirements of these guidelines. After that date, unless a State has 
adopted and is implementing 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.

II. 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, or 
certification from delegated counsel, 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
    A State's program must meet the following requirements:
     It must classify all community and nontransient 
noncommunity water systems based on indicators of potential health 
risk, which for example may include: (a) complexity, size, source water 
for treatment facilities, and (b) complexity, size for distribution 
systems. It must develop specific operator certification and renewal 
requirements for each level of classification.
     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 be 
available for each operating shift.
3. Operator Qualifications
    States must require the following for an operator to become 
certified:
     Take and pass an exam that demonstrates that the operator 
has the necessary skills, knowledge, ability and judgement as 
appropriate for the classification. All exam questions must be 
validated.

[[Page 5920]]

     Have a high school diploma or a general equivalency 
diploma (GED). States may allow experience and/or relevant training to 
be substituted for a high school diploma or GED. Education, training, 
or experience that is used to meet this requirement for any class of 
certification may not be used to meet the experience requirement.
     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. Post high school 
education may be substituted for experience. Credit may be given for 
experience in a related field (e.g., wastewater). Experience that is 
used to meet the experience requirement for any class of certification 
may not be used to meet the education requirement.
Grandparenting
    EPA recognizes that there are many competent small system operators 
that may not meet the initial requirements to become certified. EPA 
believes that States may need a transition period to allow these 
operators to continue to operate the system through ``grandparenting''. 
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, they must include the following requirements:
     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.
     The system owner must apply for grandparenting for the 
operator(s) in responsible charge within two years of the effective 
date of the State's regulation.
     The certification for the grandparented operator must be 
site specific and non-transferable to other operators.
     After an operator is grandparented, he or she must, within 
some time period specified by the State, meet all requirements to 
obtain certification renewal, 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.
     If a grandparented operator chooses to work for a 
different water system, he or she must meet the initial certification 
requirements for that system.
4. Enforcement
    The State agency with primary enforcement responsibility for the 
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program must have regulations 
that meet the requirements of these guidelines and require community 
water systems and nontransient noncommunity water systems to comply 
with State operator certification requirements. In nonprimacy States, 
the Governor must determine which State Agency will have this 
responsibility. States must have appropriate enforcement capabilities, 
for example: administrative orders, bilateral compliance agreements, 
criminal or civil administrative penalties, and/or 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 enforcement action for 
operator misconduct. Examples of operator misconduct may include: 
fraud, falsification of application, falsification of operating 
records, gross negligence in operation, incompetence, and/or failure to 
use reasonable care or judgement in the performance of duties.
5. Certification Renewal
    A State's program must meet the following requirements:
     The State must establish training requirements for renewal 
based on the level of certification held by the operator.
     States must require all operators including grandparented 
operators to acquire necessary amounts and types of State 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 require an individual to recertify if the 
individual fails to renew or qualify for renewal within two years of 
the date that the certificate expired.
     States must pay special attention to identify specific 
renewal requirements for grandparented operators to ensure that they 
possess the knowledge, skills, ability and judgement to properly 
operate the system. This must be done by one or more of the following 
approaches or by an alternative approach approved by EPA.
     States may specify renewal requirements for grandparented 
operators on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors 
such as a system's compliance history and operator experience and 
knowledge. For systems that have a history of being out of compliance, 
any certification renewal decision should consider whether non-
compliance is the result of actions or inactions by the system's owner 
or the system's operator.
     States may require specific training requirements for 
certification renewal at the first renewal cycle for grandparented 
operators. This training should include all of the information covered 
by the initial certification exam for the system classification level 
for which the operator was grandparented even though an initial 
certification exam may not be required for certification renewal.
     States may require operators with grandparented 
certificates to meet all of the initial certification requirements for 
the classification level for which the operator was grandparented, and 
thereby obtain certification within a reasonable time period specified 
by the State.
6. Resources Needed To Implement the Program
    States must provide sufficient resources to adequately fund and 
sustain the operator certification program (components include, but are 
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
    The States must have a process for recertification of individuals 
whose certification has expired for a period exceeding two years. This 
process must include: review of the individual's experience and 
training, and reexamination. An individual is not certified with an 
expired certificate. The State may develop more stringent requirements 
for recertification for individuals whose certificates have expired, 
been revoked, or been 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.
    States must include ongoing stakeholder involvement in the revision 
and operations of State operator certification programs. Public comment 
on rule revisions is not adequate stakeholder involvement. A 
stakeholder

[[Page 5921]]

board or advisory committee is strongly recommended.
    Examples of stakeholders may include: operators, environmental/
public health groups, the general public, consumer groups, technical 
assistance providers, utility managers, trainers, etc.
9. Program Review
    States must perform reviews of their operator certification 
programs. EPA recommends that States perform periodic internal reviews 
and occasional external/peer reviews. Examples of items to review 
include: regulations, exam items for relevancy and validity, 
compliance, enforcement, budget and staffing, training relevancy, 
training needs through examination performance, and data management 
system.

III. Program Submittal Process

A. Submittal Schedule and Withholding Process

1. New Programs
    [Reserved]
2. Equivalent Programs
    [Reserved]

B. Submittal Contents

    The submittal of operator certification programs to EPA by States 
must include the following:
1. Initial Submittal
    The submittal of operator certification programs to EPA by States 
must include the following:
     The State Attorney General's certification, or 
certification from delegated counsel, 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;
     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; and
     A copy of the State operator certification regulations.
2. Subsequent Years
     All annual program submittals subsequent to the initial 
submittal must include documentation and evaluation of ongoing program 
implementation; and
     A new State Attorney General's certification, or 
certification from delegated counsel, if changes were made to the 
regulations or statutes and a copy of the revised regulations or 
statutes.

IV. 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 System--Any combination of pipes, tanks, pumps, etc. 
which delivers water from the source(s) and/or treatment facility(ies) 
to the consumer.
    Distribution System Complexity--Examples include: pressure zones, 
booster stations, storage tanks, fire protection, chlorination, non-
residential consumers, cross connection potential, and/or demand 
variations.
    Distribution System Size--Examples include: population served, 
number of service connections, size of pipes, total distance of pipe, 
and quantity of water distributed.
    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, 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 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 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--Examples include: type (surface water, groundwater, 
groundwater under the influence of surface water, purchased water), 
quality (variability), and/or protection (e.g., wellhead protection).
    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 Facility Complexity--Examples include: difficulty in 
controlling water quality, potential effect to the consumer and/or 
safety of the operator.
    Treatment Facility Size (capacity)--Examples include: population 
served, number of service connections, and/or plant flow.
    Validated Exam--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.

V. 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

[FR Doc. 99-2692 Filed 2-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P