sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Monday, 

October 19, 2009 

Part II 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 141 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations: Drinking Water Regulations 

for Aircraft Public Water Systems; Final 

Rule 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53590 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 141 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2005–0025; FRL–8967–9] 

RIN 2040–AE84 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations: Drinking Water 

Regulations for Aircraft Public Water 

Systems 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 


Agency (EPA). 


ACTION: Final rule. 


SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency is establishing Federal drinking 

water requirements (known as national 

primary drinking water regulations or 

NPDWRs) for aircraft public water 

systems (hereafter, aircraft water 

systems) under the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (SDWA). Federal drinking water 

standards were primarily designed to 

regulate water quality in stationary 

public water systems, and the 

application of these requirements to 

mobile water systems with the 

capability of flying throughout the 

world has created implementation 

challenges. This final rule’s 

requirements are intended to tailor 

existing health-based drinking water 

standards to the unique characteristics 

of aircraft water systems for the 

enhanced protection of public health 

against illnesses attributable to 

microbiological contamination. EPA 

believes that this approach will better 

protect public health while building 

upon existing aircraft operations and 

maintenance programs, better 

coordinate Federal programs that 

regulate aircraft water systems, and 

minimize disruptions of aircraft flight 

schedules. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

18, 2009. For judicial review purposes, 

this final rule is promulgated as of 

October 19, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2005–0025. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Water Docket is (202) 

566–2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Naylor or Cindy Y. Mack, 

Drinking Water Protection Division, 

Office of Ground Water and Drinking 

Water (MC–4606M), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone numbers: Richard Naylor 

(202) 564–3847 or Cindy Y. Mack (202) 

564–6280; e-mail addresses: 

naylor.richard@epa.gov or mack.cindyy@epa.gov. For general information, 

contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, 

telephone number: (800) 426–4791. The 

Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern 

time. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

Entities potentially regulated by the 

Aircraft Drinking Water Rule (ADWR) 

include air carriers that operate aircraft 

water systems using finished surface 

water, finished ground water under the 

direct influence of surface water 

(GWUDI), or finished ground water. 

Regulated categories and entities 

include: 

Category NAICS code Examples of regulated 

entities 

Scheduled passenger air transportation ................................................................................................. 

Nonscheduled chartered passenger air transportation ........................................................................... 

481111 

481211 

Air carriers. 

Air carriers. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware could potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in this table could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

air carrier is regulated by this action, 

you should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in § 141.800 of this 

final rule. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding section entitled 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. Abbreviations Used in This Notice 

ADWR: Aircraft Drinking Water Rule 

ANSI: American National Standards Institute 

AOCs: Administrative Orders on Consent 

ATA: Air Transport Association 

BMP: best management practice 

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations 

CRMP: Comprehensive Representative 

Monitoring Plan 

CWS: community water system 

DBP: disinfection byproducts 

E. coli: Escherichia coli 

EO: Executive Order 

EPA: United States Environmental Protection 

Agency 

FAA: United States Federal Aviation 

Administration 

FDA: United States Food and Drug 

Administration 

FR: Federal Register 

GWS: ground water system 

GWUDI: ground water under the direct 

influence of surface water 

HACCP: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control 

Point 

HHS: Department of Health and Human 

Services 

HPC: heterotrophic plate count 

ICC: interstate carrier conveyance 

ICR: Information Collection Request 

IESWTR: Interim Enhanced Surface Water 

Treatment Rule 

LIMS: laboratory information management 

system 

mL: milliliters 

MCL: maximum contaminant level 

MCLG: maximum contaminant level goal 

MDRL: maximum disinfectant residual level 

mg/L: milligrams per liter 

NAICS: North American Industrial 

Classification System 

NCWS: non-community water system 

NDWAC: National Drinking Water Advisory 

Committee 

NPDWR: national primary drinking water 

regulation 

NTNCWS: non-transient non-community 

water system 

NTTAA: National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

PWS: public water system 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget 

QAPP: Quality Assurance Project Plan 

RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SAB: Science Advisory Board 

SBA: Small Business Administration 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53591 

SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act 

SDWIS: Safe Drinking Water Information 

System 

SWTR: Surface Water Treatment Rule 

TC: total coliform 

TCR: Total Coliform Rule 

TCRDSAC: Total Coliform Rule/Distribution 

System Advisory Committee 

TNCWS: transient non-community water 

system 

TT: treatment technique 

UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

US: United States 

UV: Ultra Violet 

WHO: World Health Organization 

WSG: Water Supply Guidance 

WSP: Water Safety Plan 

C. Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

B. Abbreviations Used in This Document 

II. Background 

A. Legal Authority 

B. Purpose of the Rule 

C. Scope and Applicability of Rule 

D. Regulatory and Enforcement History 

III. Final Rule Development 

A. Stakeholder Involvement 

B. Aircraft Drinking Water Quality 

IV. Elements of the Final Aircraft Drinking 

Water Rule 

A. Definitions (§ 141.801) 

B. Sampling Requirements (§§ 141.802 and 

141.803) 

C. Responses to Sample Results (§ 141.803) 

D. Restricted Access to the Water System 

E. Response to Proposed Rule Requests for 

Comment 

F. Aircraft Water System Operation and 

Maintenance Plan (§ 141.804) 

G. Notification Requirements to Passengers 

and Crew (§ 141.805) 

H. Reporting Requirements (§ 141.806) 

I. Recordkeeping Requirements (§ 141.807) 

J. Audit and Self-Inspection Requirements 

(§ 141.808) 

K. Violations (§ 141.810) 

L. Compliance Date 

V. Cost Analysis 

A. National Cost Estimates 

B. Estimated Impacts of Final ADWR to Air 

Carrier Passengers 

C. Comparison of Costs From Proposed 

Rule to Final Rule 

D. Non-quantified Costs and Uncertainties 

VI. Benefits Analysis 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 


Planning and Review 


B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 


Advancement Act 


J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations or Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Consultations with the Science 

Advisory Board, National Drinking 

Water Advisory Council, and the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services 

L. Plain Language 

M. Congressional Review Act 

N. Analysis of the Likely Effect of 

Compliance With the ADWR on the 

Technical, Financial, and Managerial 

Capacity of Public Water Systems 

VIII. References 

II. Background 

A. Legal Authority 

EPA is finalizing this regulation under 

the authority of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (SDWA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

300f et seq., primarily sections 1401, 

1411, 1412 and 1450. Under SDWA, 

EPA establishes minimum requirements 

for tap water provided to the public, 

known as the national primary drinking 

water regulations or NPDWRs; these 

standards are applicable to ‘‘public 

water systems.’’ SDWA section 1401 

and EPA’s regulations define a ‘‘public 

water system’’ (PWS) as a system for 

providing water for human 

consumption to the public through 

pipes or other constructed conveyances 

and that regularly serves an average of 

at least twenty-five individuals daily, at 

least 60 days per year. 40 CFR 141.2. 

All public water systems are subject 

to the NPDWRs unless they are 

excluded from regulatory requirements 

under SDWA section 1411. Section 1411 

excludes from regulation any public 

water system that receives all of its 

water from another regulated public 

water system, does not sell or treat the 

water, and is not a ‘‘carrier which 

conveys passengers in interstate 

commerce.’’ The classes of interstate 

carrier conveyances (ICCs) include 

aircraft, trains, buses, and water vessels. 

As a result, all ICCs that regularly serve 

water to an average of at least twentyfive individuals daily, at least 60 days 

per year are public water systems and 

are currently subject to existing 

NPDWRs regardless of whether they 

treat or sell the water. 

EPA’s NPDWRs establish different 

requirements based on the classification 

of the public water system (water 

system), including whether the system 

is a ‘‘community,’’ ‘‘non-transient noncommunity,’’ or ‘‘transient noncommunity’’ system, and whether the 

system uses surface water or 

groundwater. Aircraft water systems are 

considered transient non-community 

water systems (TNCWS) because they 

are not community water systems and 

they do not regularly serve an average 

of at least twenty-five of the same 

persons over six months per year (see 40 

CFR 141.2). Also, aircraft are regulated 

as surface water systems because they 

are likely to board finished drinking 

water from other public water systems 

that use surface water in whole or in 

part. EPA considers water for human 

consumption to include water for 

drinking and food preparation as well as 

water for brushing teeth and hand 

washing (see 63 FR 41941; August 5, 

1998). Therefore, if an aircraft has a sink 

in the lavatory, then the water provided 

to that sink must be suitable for human 

consumption. 

B. Purpose of the Rule 

The primary purpose of the ADWR is 

to ensure that safe and reliable drinking 

water is provided to aircraft passengers 

and crew. This entails providing air 

carriers with a feasible and effective 

way to comply with SDWA and the 

NPDWRs. Due to the unique 

characteristics of aircraft water systems 

and demonstrated implementation 

challenges, EPA developed a new 

NPDWR specifically tailored to aircraft 

water systems, the Aircraft Drinking 

Water Rule (ADWR). 

The ADWR has been developed to 

protect against disease-causing 

microbiological contaminants or 

pathogens through the required 

development and implementation of 

aircraft water system operation and 

maintenance plans that include best 

management practices, air carrier 

training requirements, and periodic 

sampling of the onboard drinking water. 

C. Scope and Applicability of Rule 

This final rule only addresses aircraft 

regulated under SDWA. SDWA does not 

regulate aircraft water systems operating 

outside the U.S.; however, EPA is 

supporting an international effort led by 

the World Health Organization (WHO) 

to develop international guidelines for 

aircraft drinking water. The final rule 

applies to the onboard water system 

only. EPA defers to the United States 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

with respect to regulating watering 

points such as water cabinets, carts, 

trucks, and hoses from which aircraft 

board water. 

EPA assumes that only finished water 

is boarded for human consumption on 

aircraft. Finished water means water 

that is introduced into the distribution 

system of a public water system and is 

intended for distribution and 

consumption without further treatment, 

except as necessary to maintain water 

quality in the distribution system (e.g., 

supplemental disinfection, addition of 

corrosion control chemicals) (40 CFR 

141.2). The assumption that only 

finished water is boarded on aircraft is 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53592 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

based on an FDA requirement that only 

potable water may be provided for 

drinking and culinary purposes on 

interstate carrier conveyances (ICCs) (21 

CFR 1240.80). However, aircraft water 

systems that are boarding water that is 

not finished water will continue to be 

subject to existing NPDWRs. 

FDA requirements cover all ICC 

watering points (21 CFR 1240.83 (a)), (1) 

to ensure the water supply meets EPA’s 

NPDWRs and (2) to ensure the methods 

(i.e., water transfer process) of and 

facilities (e.g., water cabinets, carts, 

trucks, containers, and hoses) for 

delivery of such water to the 

conveyance and the sanitary conditions 

surrounding such delivery prevent the 

introduction, transmission, or spread of 

communicable diseases. FDA 

requirements for watering points do not 

entail the individual certification of 

every potential source, method, facility, 

or system; however, ICC selected 

watering points must be in accordance 

with FDA requirements (21 CFR part 

1240, subpart E). 

Aircraft that do not provide water for 

human consumption or those with 

water systems that do not regularly 

serve an average of at least twenty-five 

individuals daily at least 60 days out of 

the year do not meet the definition of a 

public water system; these aircraft are 

not regulated under the NPDWRs or 

regulated under this final ADWR. EPA 

also does not regulate under SDWA 

water systems that only serve water 

outside the U.S. On the April 9, 2008, 

proposed ADWR, EPA received public 

comment as to the applicability of the 

ADWR to aircraft water systems based 

on ownership (e.g., foreign carrier, U.S. 

military). The final rule clarifies that the 

applicability of the ADWR is not based 

on ownership, but on the determination 

as to whether the aircraft water system 

is operating within the U.S., meets the 

definition of a public water system 

(PWS) under SDWA section 1401, and 

is not excluded from regulation under 

SDWA section 1411. An aircraft is not 

considered a public water system if it 

does not regularly serve an average of at 

least twenty-five individuals daily at 

least 60 days out of the year. The ADWR 

applies to aircraft (regardless of 

ownership) that fly routes between two 

or more locations within the U.S., while 

the aircraft is within U.S. jurisdiction. 

For instance, an aircraft flying an 

international route that serves only one 

U.S. location would not generally be 

considered a PWS. Another example is 

an aircraft that is used solely for 

military purposes, is not conveying 

passengers in interstate commerce, and 

meets all of the other exclusion criteria 

under SDWA section 1411; in this case, 

the aircraft would also be excluded from 

regulation under the NPDWRs and the 

ADWR. 

An estimated 63 air carriers and 7,327 

aircraft water systems are regulated by 

this rule. 

D. Regulatory and Enforcement History 

SDWA, including the amendments of 

1986 and 1996, requires EPA to 

promulgate NPDWRs to prevent tap 

water contamination that may adversely 

affect human health. As previously 

noted, aircraft are subject to certain 

NPDWRs specific to TNCWS. EPA 

published Water Supply Guidance 29 

(WSG 29) in October 1986 to assist ICC 

operators, including air carriers, in 

complying with these standards 

(USEPA, 1986). Since then, EPA has 

determined that a new rule, the ADWR, 

specifically adapted to aircraft water 

systems would provide a clearer and 

more implementable regulatory 

framework for aircraft water systems. 

EPA suspended WSG 29 in 2003 and is 

no longer approving operation and 

maintenance programs in lieu of 

monitoring. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (73 FR 19323, April 9, 

2008), in 2004, EPA found all aircraft 

water systems to be out of compliance 

with the NPDWRs. According to the air 

carriers, it is not feasible for them to 

comply with all of the monitoring that 

is required under the existing 

regulations. Subsequently, EPA tested 

327 aircraft, of which 15 percent tested 

positive for total coliform. In response 

to these findings, EPA embarked on a 

process to tailor the existing regulations 

for aircraft water systems. In the 

interim, EPA placed 45 air carriers 

under Administrative Orders on 

Consent (AOCs) that will remain in 

effect until 24 months following 

publication of the final rule. 

The ADWR adapts to aircraft water 

systems the applicable requirements 

from the Total Coliform Rule (TCR), the 

suite of surface water treatment 

regulations, and the Public Notification 

Rule. 

The Total Coliform Rule (TCR) 

(USEPA, 1989) applies to all public 

water systems. Because monitoring 

water systems for every possible 

pathogenic organism is not feasible, 

coliform organisms are used as 

indicators of possible source water and 

distribution system contamination. 

Coliforms are easily detected in water 

and are used to indicate a water 

system’s source and distribution system 

vulnerability to pathogens. In the TCR, 

EPA sets a Maximum Contaminant 

Level Goal (MCLG) of zero for total 

coliforms. EPA also sets a monthly 

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for 

total coliforms and requires testing of 

total coliform-positive cultures for the 

presence of fecal coliforms or E. coli. 

Fecal coliforms or E. coli indicate more 

immediate health risks from sewage or 

fecal contamination and are used as an 

indicator of acute contamination. In 

addition, the TCR requires sanitary 

surveys (i.e., onsite review of the water 

source, facilities, equipment, operation 

and maintenance of a PWS for the 

purpose of evaluating the adequacy of 

such source, facilities, equipment, 

operation and maintenance for 

producing and distributing safe drinking 

water). The TCR requires sanitary 

surveys by the State primacy agency 

every five years for systems that collect 

fewer than five total coliform samples 

per month (those serving 4,100 people 

or fewer). A TNCWS using surface water 

serving less than 1,000 individuals daily 

would typically be required to take one 

total coliform sample per month for 

routine sampling requirements. 

Under the Public Notification Rule, 

public water systems must give notice to 

persons served by the water system for 

violations of NPDWRs and for other 

situations posing a risk to public health 

from drinking water. The term ‘‘NPDWR 

Violations’’ is used in the public 

notification regulations to include 

violations of the MCL, Maximum 

Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL), 

treatment technique (TT), monitoring, 

and testing procedure requirements. 

Public notice requirements are divided 

into three tiers, which take into account 

the seriousness of the violation or 

situation and of any potential adverse 

health effects that may be involved. Due 

to the transient nature of the public 

served by TNCWSs, public notice is 

typically provided through posting of 

the notice at locations where the public 

may access drinking water from the 

water system. 

In addition to the EPA requirements, 

air carriers have many different ongoing programs and practices for 

assessing and correcting deficiencies 

and risks associated with the drinking 

water supply and related safety, 

security, and sanitation issues. For 

example, such programs and practices 

include FAA Airworthiness Standards: 

Transport Category Airplanes 

(airworthiness maintenance and 

inspection program) (14 CFR part 43, 14 

CFR part 91, and 14 CFR part 121); 

vulnerability assessments/security 

programs; FDA regulations for Interstate 

Conveyance Sanitation (USFDA, 2005); 

FDA sanitary surveys of watering points 

and servicing areas; and FDA 

requirements of aircraft sanitation 

systems including potable (finished) 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53593 

water, sewage, and galleys. These 

programs may contribute valuable 

information related to the condition of 

the aircraft water system and water 

quality. Throughout the rule’s 

development, EPA has worked closely 

with FDA and FAA to ensure that the 

ADWR is integrated with these 

programs to avoid unnecessary 

duplication. 

III. Final Rule Development 

A. Stakeholder Involvement 

As discussed in the proposed ADWR, 

EPA announced in 2004 that it had 

initiated a rulemaking process to 

develop regulations for aircraft water 

systems. (73 FR 19324, April 9, 2008). 

The Agency committed to working 

collaboratively with other Federal 

agencies (e.g., FDA and FAA) overseeing 

the air carrier industry, industry 

representatives, and interested 

stakeholders to identify appropriate 

requirements to ensure safe drinking 

water onboard aircraft. This 

collaborative rule development process 

has allowed EPA an opportunity to 

obtain information from, and hear the 

concerns and questions of, stakeholders 

who would be affected by this rule in an 

organized and formal process prior to 

development of this final ADWR. 

EPA held three public meetings: 

These were held in June 2005, January 

2006, and March 2007. All three events 

were well-attended by stakeholders 

representing a diverse group of interests 

including air carriers, airports, flight 

attendants, pilots, passengers, public 

health officials, environmental groups, 

States, public water systems, water 

treatment and equipment vendors, 

laboratories, foreign government 

agencies, and other Federal agencies. 

This pre-proposal input greatly assisted 

EPA in the rule’s development. 

EPA proposed the ADWR on April 9, 

2008 (73 FR 19320), and requested 

public comment. The ADWR adapts to 

aircraft water systems the applicable 

requirements from the Total Coliform 

Rule, the suite of surface water 

treatment regulations, and the Public 

Notification Rule. EPA received 

comments on the proposal and has 

made revisions to this final rule that 

increases regulatory flexibility and 

adaptability to the airline industry’s 

operations, while ensuring public health 

protection. Section IV of this notice 

describes how EPA incorporated public 

comments into revisions to the final 

rule. A Response to Comments 

Document is available in the docket for 

today’s action. 

B. Aircraft Drinking Water Quality 

1. Data Collection Efforts 

To better understand aircraft drinking 

water quality, EPA analyzed sampling 

results submitted by air carriers under 

Administrative Orders on Consent 

(AOCs) from 2005–2008. As detailed in 

the proposed ADWR, EPA also drew 

upon the results of the following three 

studies: (1) A voluntary monitoring 

study completed by the Air Transport 

Association (ATA) in Fall 2003; (2) an 

EPA study of aircraft NPDWR 

compliance completed in 2004; and (3) 

the Canadian Inspection Program 

monitoring results completed in 2006 

(73 FR 19324). 

The AOCs established interim aircraft 

water testing and disinfection protocols. 

As part of the AOCs’ requirements, air 

carriers were required to submit two 

documents for EPA approval, which set 

the stage for monitoring and 

disinfection protocols/procedures: A 

Comprehensive Representative 

Monitoring Plan (CRMP) and a Quality 

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The 

CRMP describes the air carrier’s 

sampling and disinfection processes and 

protocols for collecting samples within 

a 12-month period. The QAPP describes 

the air carrier’s Quality Assurance/ 

Quality Control processes to ensure 

good quality data. As reflected in Table 

III–1, air carriers followed slightly 

different monitoring and disinfection 

protocols based on their fleet size. 

TABLE III–1—MONITORING AND DISINFECTION PROTOCOLS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE AOCS 

Air carriers 

with greater 

than 20 

aircraft 

Air carriers 

with less than 

or equal to 20 

aircraft 

MONITORING: 1 

For each sample event, collect at least one sample from a galley and one from a lavatory for total coliform and disinfectant residual (total residual chlorine) ................................................................................. 

Sample 25% of fleet quarterly .......................................................................................................................... 

Sample all fleet quarterly .................................................................................................................................. 

DISINFECTING AND FLUSHING: 2 

Disinfect and flush each aircraft’s water system no less than quarterly ......................................................... 

Disinfect and flush watering points (e.g., water trucks, carts, cabinets, hoses) no less than monthly ........... 

✓ 

✓ 

........................ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

........................ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

1 The air carrier was required to use State- or EPA-certified laboratories and EPA-approved analytical methods for analyzing drinking water 

samples. 2 If the air carrier had a pre-AOCs monitoring and disinfecting program requiring a higher frequency, the air carrier was required to continue in 

accordance with their program, unless modification was requested and approved by EPA. 

2. Microbiological Occurrence for the 

Estimated Baseline 

As of December 31, 2008, EPA has 

processed drinking water sampling data 

from 25 of the 45 air carriers under the 

AOCs. From these 25 air carriers, EPA 

processed a total of 20,156 total coliform 

samples (13,872 routine and 6,284 

repeat) and 17,267 chlorine residual 

samples. These 25 air carriers represent 

78 percent of the total estimated AOCs’ 

fleet size (5,558 aircraft) and 79 percent 

of the total expected annual number of 

routine samples. However, data for air 

carriers with an EPA-approved QAPP 

and CRMP are only available from 2 air 

carriers in 2005, 5 air carriers in 2006, 

8 air carriers in 2007, and 12 air carriers 

in 2008. 

The following data summaries are 

from air carriers with an EPA-approved 

QAPP and CRMP. As noted above, not 

all 25 air carriers provided data 

collected under an EPA-approved QAPP 

and CRMP for all four years. Therefore, 

insufficient data are currently available 

to support statistical evaluation of the 

data sets. However, the data were used 

to provide an observational indication 

of trends. It should be noted that total 

coliform repeat samples by nature have 

a higher probability of being positive 

since repeat samples are taken after a 

routine sample is total coliformpositive. Consequently, the occurrence 

baseline for total coliform and E. coli/ 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53594 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

fecal coliform occurrence was based on samples) of the total coliform-positive samples (0.8 percent, or 47 of 5,695 

routine samples only. Table III–2 samples were E. coli/fecal coliform- galley samples), the galley samples had 

presents data for routine total coliform positive. Of the 463 total coliform- a higher E. coli/fecal coliform 

samples collected under EPA-approved positive routine samples, 413 were occurrence of 12.8 percent (6 of 47 total QAPPs and CRMPs. collected in the lavatory, 47 were coliform-positive samples), compared to Of the total 20,156 total coliform collected in the galley, and one was a 2.9 percent (12 of 413 total coliform- samples received, 93 percent or 18,724 composite sample of galley and lavatory positive samples) in the lavatories. More samples (12,794 routine and 5,930 sources; the location of the remaining details on the routine coliform data set repeat samples) were from air carriers two positive results are unknown. by calendar quarter and by sample with an EPA-approved QAPP and Although the lavatory samples had a collection location on the aircraft are CRMP. Of the 12,794 routine samples, higher total coliform-positive presented in the following table (Table 3.6 percent (463 samples) were positive occurrence rate (5.9 percent, or 413 of III–2). for total coliform and 3.9 percent (18 7,027 lavatory samples) than the galley 

TABLE III–2—AOCS OCCURRENCE BASELINE DATA—ROUTINE TOTAL COLIFORM SAMPLES OF AIR CARRIERS WITH EPAAPPROVED QAPPS AND CRMPS (YEARS 2005–2008) 

Percent TC+ 

Of the TC+ 

samples, 

percent EC+ 

or FC+ 

Total # of TC+ 

samples 

Total # of TC+ 

samples that 

are EC+ or 

FC+ 

Total # of TC 

samples 

Total Coliform Data by Calendar Quarter 

Calendar Qtr 1 ..................................................................... 

Calendar Qtr 2 ..................................................................... 

Calendar Qtr 3 ..................................................................... 

Calendar Qtr 4 ..................................................................... 

3.2 

3.5 

4.1 

4.1 

4.0 

3.5 

0.0 

8.1 

100 

198 

79 

86 

4 

7 

0 

7 

3,145 

5,641 

1,930 

2,078 

Total .............................................................................. 3.6 3.9 463 18 12,794 

Total Coliform Data by Sample Location 

Galley ................................................................................... 

Lavatory ............................................................................... 

Composite* ........................................................................... 

Unknown Sample Site ......................................................... 

0.8 

5.9 

14.3 

3.1 

12.8 

2.9 

0 

0 

47 

413 

1 

2 

6 

12 

0 

0 

5,695 

7,027 

7 

65 

Total .............................................................................. 3.6 3.9 463 18 12,794 

* Composite sample of Galley and Lavatory sources. 


Note: ‘‘TC+’’ means total coliform-positive; ‘‘EC+ or FC+’’ means E. coli-positive or fecal coliform-positive. 


Note: For air carriers with EPA-Approved QAPPs and CRMPs (Years 2005–2008), out of a total number of 12,794 routine samples, a total of 


18 samples (0.14%) were EC+ or FC+. 

3. Residual Chlorine Estimated Baseline 

Table III–3 presents data for 

disinfectant residual samples collected 

under EPA-approved QAPPs and 

CRMPs during routine and repeat total 

coliform sampling events. Of the 18,724 

routine and repeat total coliform sample 

events reported, 16,109 disinfectant 

residual sample results were also 

reported. Results were reported as either 

‘‘detect’’ with the residual value 

recorded, or ‘‘non-detect.’’ Disinfectant 

residual data were not provided for 

2,615 coliform sample events. 

Disinfectant residual data are presented 

for the total of routine and repeat 

sample collection events because repeat 

samples have no higher or lower 

probability of having a detectable 

residual than routine samples. 

For air carriers with approved QAPPs 

and CRMPs, approximately 18.2 percent 

(2,927 samples) of the 16,109 

disinfectant residual results processed 

from 2005 to 2008 had a non-detectable 

disinfectant residual. Non-detectable 

levels were similar in galleys (17.3 

percent) and lavatories (18.9 percent), 

while 22.4 percent (73 out of 326 

samples) of the composite samples were 

non-detects. A sample location was not 

identified for 13 samples with a 

detectable residual. While not 

statistically significant, the occurrence 

of non-detectable disinfectant residuals 

appeared to increase in months with 

warmer weather. Quarter 3 (i.e., July to 

September) had the highest percentage 

of samples with a non-detectable 

disinfectant residual (30.2%), although 

as shown in Table III–2, Quarter 3 

routine total coliform sample results 

showed no appreciable increase in the 

percentage of coliform-positive samples. 

TABLE III–3—AOCS OCCURRENCE BASELINE DATA—DISINFECTANT RESIDUAL ROUTINE AND REPEAT SAMPLES OF AIR
 

CARRIERS WITH EPA-APPROVED QAPPS AND CRMPS (YEARS 2005–2008) 


Percent 

disinfectant 

residual 

non-detect 

Total # of 

disinfectant 

residual 

non-detect 

Total # of 

disinfectant 

residual 

detect 

Total # of 

disinfectant 

residual 

samples 

Disinfectant Residual Data by Calendar Quarter 

Unknown Calendar Qtr .................................................................................... 

Calendar Qtr 1 ................................................................................................. 

0 

22.8 

0 

864 

0 

2,933 

0 

3,797 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53595 

TABLE III–3—AOCS OCCURRENCE BASELINE DATA—DISINFECTANT RESIDUAL ROUTINE AND REPEAT SAMPLES OF AIR
 

CARRIERS WITH EPA-APPROVED QAPPS AND CRMPS (YEARS 2005–2008)—Continued 


Percent 

disinfectant 

residual 

non-detect 

Total # of 

disinfectant 

residual 

non-detect 

Total # of 

disinfectant 

residual 

detect 

Total # of 

disinfectant 

residual 

samples 

Calendar Qtr 2 ................................................................................................. 

Calendar Qtr 3 ................................................................................................. 

Calendar Qtr 4 ................................................................................................. 

9.3 

30.2 

21.6 

632 

813 

618 

6,128 

1,879 

2,242 

6,760 

2,692 

2,860 

Total .......................................................................................................... 18.2 2,927 13,182 16,109 

Disinfectant Residual Data by Sample Location 

Galley ............................................................................................................... 

Lavatory ........................................................................................................... 

Composite * ...................................................................................................... 

Unknown Sample Site ..................................................................................... 

17.3 

18.9 

22.4 

0.0 

1,336

1,518 

73 

0 

6,386 

6,530 

253 

13 

7,722 

8,048 

326 

13 

Total .......................................................................................................... 18.2 2,927 13,182 16,109 

* Composite sample of Galley and Lavatory sources 

It appears that a non-detectable 

disinfectant residual is not associated 

with an increase in total coliformpositive samples. Of the 801 total 

routine and repeat samples that were 

total coliform-positive, 24 did not 

include any data on a disinfectant 

residual. Of the remaining 777 total 

coliform-positive routine and repeat 

samples, 584 samples (75 percent) had 

a detectable disinfectant residual and 

193 samples (25 percent) did not have 

a detectable disinfectant residual. 

Twenty-one (3.6 percent) of the 584 

total coliform-positive routine and 

repeat samples with a detectable 

residual (the lowest measuring 0.05 mg/ 

L) also tested positive for E. coli/fecal 

coliforms. Only one (0.5 percent) of the 

193 total coliform-positive samples did 

not have a detectable residual and tested 

positive for E. coli/fecal coliforms. 

Seventy-three samples had nondetectable disinfectant residual and 

were reported to have carbon filters 

installed on the water lines to the 

sample tap; two of those samples were 

total coliform-positive. For comparison, 

364 samples with detectable 

disinfectant residual were reported to 

use carbon filters; three of those samples 

were total coliform-positive. Aside from 

charcoal/carbon, and particle removal 

filters in some galleys and lavatories, 

the majority of aircraft do not provide 

additional treatment for boarded water. 

For more details on aircraft drinking 

water sample results under the AOCs, 

see Chapter 3 and Appendix B of the 

Economic and Supporting Analyses for 

the Final ADWR. 

IV. Elements of the Final Aircraft 

Drinking Water Rule 

The following sections describe the 

elements of the final rule as developed 

by EPA. EPA specifically designed the 

rule to allow air carriers to be consistent 

with the manufacturer recommendations for disinfecting and flushing 

aircraft water systems, instead of 

prescribing the frequency, chemical 

type and concentration to be used. By 

allowing air carriers to be consistent 

with the manufacturer 

recommendations for disinfection and 

flushing, the rule requirements will 

automatically evolve with technological 

improvements in aircraft water tank 

lining and piping materials, and as new 

more effective disinfectants are 

developed. 

EPA requested comment on all 

aspects of the rule in its proposal of 

April 9, 2008 (73 FR 19320); however, 

EPA did not request and did not 

consider comments on any aspect of the 

TCR, surface water treatment 

regulations, Public Notification Rule, or 

any other NPDWR other than as applied 

to aircraft water systems in the proposed 

rule. In addition to rule requirements, 

EPA identified specific requests for 

comment on subject matters pertaining 

to the proposed rule. The public 

comment period for the April 9, 2008, 

proposed ADWR closed on July 8, 2008. 

The following sections of this preamble 

explain the final rule and present, when 

applicable, a summary of the major 

public comments received. In addition, 

EPA has responded to all of the public 

comments in its Response to Comment 

document, which can be found in the 

docket for this rule (see ADDRESSES of 

this notice to obtain information on 

accessing the docket). 

A. Definitions (§ 141.801) 

All definitions included in the 

proposed rule (73 FR 19343), remain the 

same in today’s final rule except for the 

definitions for Aircraft Water System 

Operations and Maintenance Plan and 

Watering Point. 

In the proposed rule, the definition 

for Aircraft Water System Operations 

and Maintenance Plan reads, ‘‘Aircraft 

Water System Operations and 

Maintenance Plan means the schedules 

and procedures for operating, 

monitoring, and maintaining an aircraft 

water system that is included in an 

aircraft operations and maintenance 

program approved or accepted by the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA).’’ Since the publication of the 

proposed rule, the Agency has learned 

that FAA does not ‘‘approve’’ the air 

carrier operations and maintenance 

programs, and that describing these 

programs as ‘‘FAA-accepted’’ programs 

is more accurate. Thus, in the final rule, 

EPA removes the word ‘‘approved’’ from 

the definition. 

In the proposed rule, the definition 

for Watering Point reads, ‘‘Watering 

Point means a facility where finished 

water is transferred from a water supply 

to the aircraft. These facilities may 

include water trucks, carts, cabinets, 

and hoses.’’ However, the Agency 

received comments concerning selection 

of watering points in § 141.804. The 

commenters (details under Section IV. F 

of this notice) believed that EPA 

intended to alter Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) regulations 

applicable to watering points. EPA did 

not intend to alter these regulations, and 

clarifies in today’s final rule that it is 

the Agency’s intent to keep the rule 

consistent with existing FDA 

regulations. Thus, the Agency is 

revising the definition for Watering 

Point to read, ‘‘Watering Point means 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53596 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

the water supply, methods, and 

facilities used for delivery of finished 

water to the aircraft. These facilities 

may include water trucks, carts, 

cabinets and hoses.’’ 

B. Sampling Requirements (§§ 141.802 

and 141.803) 

This section begins with a summary 

of the major sampling requirements of 

the final ADWR, then addresses public 

comments received on the proposed 

ADWR related to changes EPA has made 

to the final rule requirements. Finally, 

EPA provides responses to the ‘‘Request 

for Comment’’ issues posed in the 

proposal designed to aid the Agency in 

developing requirements under the final 

ADWR. 

In keeping with the TCR, today’s rule 

reiterates that air carriers need only 

determine the presence or absence of 

total coliforms in water samples 

collected from aircraft water systems; a 

determination of total coliform density 

is not required. In addition, this final 

rule specifies that only analytical 

methodologies approved by EPA are to 

be used for sample analysis. For routine 

total coliform monitoring, each aircraft 

water system water sample must be 100 

mL. For most systems, one sample must 

be collected from a lavatory and one 

sample from a galley. Each sample must 

be analyzed for total coliforms. If total 

coliforms are detected, the sample must 

further be analyzed for E. coli. Under 

this rule, E. coli is the indicator that 

fecal contamination may have occurred. 

If only one water tap is located in the 

aircraft water system due to aircraft 

model type and construction, then a 

single tap may be used to collect two 

separate 100 mL samples to be analyzed 

for total coliforms. If an aircraft water 

system has a removable/portable tank, 

that is drained at least every day of 

passenger service and there is one tap 

on the aircraft, the air carrier may 

collect one 100 mL sample from the 

available tap (i.e., galley or lavatory). 

1. Coliform Sampling Plan (§ 141.802) 

EPA proposed to allow six months for 

air carriers to develop a coliform 

sampling plan for each aircraft 

following publication of the rule. 

However, the Agency received several 

comments requesting that the 

compliance date be extended in order to 

allow more time for air carriers to 

restructure maintenance programs 

between the AOCs and the final rule. 

The comments and the Agency’s 

response are explained in more detail in 

section IV. L of this notice. EPA agrees 

that more time may be needed for air 

carriers to develop a coliform sampling 

plan. Therefore, today’s final rule 

extends the compliance date for 

development of the coliform sampling 

plan to 18 months after publication of 

the final rule. 

Under the proposed and final rules, 

an air carrier must develop a coliform 

sampling plan for each aircraft water 

system it owns and operates. The 

coliform sampling plan must be 

included in the Aircraft Water System 

Operations and Maintenance Plan 

required in § 141.804. The air carrier 

need not develop a separate coliform 

sampling plan for each aircraft, but the 

air carrier must ensure that each aircraft 

it owns and operates is covered by a 

plan. For example, if the air carrier 

operates several of the same type of 

aircraft water system with the same 

coliform sampling frequency, 

procedures, sampling tap locations, etc., 

the air carrier may choose to develop 

one coliform sampling plan that applies 

to all aircraft of this type in the air 

carrier’s fleet. 

While most of the sampling plan 

requirements are the same in the 

proposed and final rules, the Agency 

received comments that the proposed 

rule was unclear as to whether and how 

air carriers could amend their 

operations and maintenance plans or 

their coliform sampling plans. EPA 

agrees that the final rule should more 

clearly state the requirements for 

making changes to these plans. Thus, in 

the final rule, EPA addresses this 

concern by clarifying that any 

subsequent changes to the coliform 

sampling plan must also be included in 

the Aircraft Water System Operations 

and Maintenance Plan. Changes to the 

coliform sampling plan could include 

changes to any of the requirements 

listed in this section, including changes 

to the frequency of routine coliform 

sample collection. In addition, both the 

reporting requirements and the 

requirements for the operations and 

maintenance plan have been revised to 

respond to these comments. 

2. Coliform Sampling Requirements 

(§ 141.803) 

In the proposed rule, all air carriers 

would be required to collect the same 

volume and number of samples 

regardless of aircraft size: 

• For routine samples—collect two 

100 mL samples: one from a lavatory 

and one from a galley. If only one tap 

is available—collect two ‘‘separate’’ 100 

mL samples. 

• For repeat samples—collect four 

100 mL samples: one from the positive 

tap, one other lavatory, one other galley, 

and one other tap. If less than four taps 

are available—collect four 100 mL 

samples from the available taps. 

In the proposed rule, routine 

sampling frequencies were based on the 

routine disinfection and flushing 

frequency as detailed in the following 

table (Table IV–1): 

TABLE IV–1—PROPOSED RULE REQUIREMENTS FOR ROUTINE DISINFECTION AND FLUSHING AND SAMPLING 

Disinfection & flushing Coliform sampling frefrequency per aircraft quency per aircraft 

PWS PWS 

Once per Quarter (4 Annually. 

times per year). 

Once to 3 times per Quarterly. 

year. 

Less than once per Monthly. 


year.
 

If not specified by the manufacturer, disinfection and flushing must be no less frequent 

than once per quarter. 

Public comments on the proposed 

rule raised several concerns related to 

(1) the lavatory as a sampling location 

site, and (2) the routine frequencies for 

disinfection and flushing, and coliform 

monitoring. EPA received several public 

comments regarding the elimination of 

lavatory samples. Several commenters 

stated that lavatory sampling should be 

eliminated because it is not 

representative of the water actually 

consumed for drinking purposes on 

aircraft and, requiring the sampling of 

lavatories mischaracterizes risks unless 

(1) there are no other sampling locations 

available on the aircraft; and/or (2) the 

airline takes affirmative steps to offer 

water in the lavatories for drinking 

purposes, such as providing drinking 

cups. EPA disagrees with these 

comments. In today’s rule, air carriers 

must collect a total coliform sample 

from one galley and one lavatory, when 

available. Collection of samples from 

the lavatory is necessary since this 

water may be used for human 

consumption (e.g., brushing teeth, hand 

washing). Additionally, lavatory 

samples are as representative of the 

aircraft drinking water quality as galley 

samples when proper collection 

techniques/procedures are used to 

minimize the frequency of positive 

results due to surface contamination or 

improper collection procedures. EPA 

plans to discuss these issues further in 

its separate ADWR technical guidance. 

EPA received the following two major 

comments regarding routine 

disinfection and flushing, and coliform 

monitoring frequencies: (1) Reduce the 

sample collection for small volume 

aircraft water systems (e.g., regional jets 

with 5-gallon removable tanks), and (2) 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53597 

extend the minimum disinfection 

intervals to accommodate for less 

frequent disinfection based on sampling 

results. 

With respect to sampling number and 

volume, commenters expressed concern 

that the proposed ADWR was unduly 

complicated (e.g., number of total 

coliform samples collected was too 

much) for small tanks (e.g., regional jets 

with 5 gallons) that are removable/ 

portable and are drained daily; and that 

the rule does not account for varying 

sizes of aircraft. EPA agrees with the 

comments regarding aircraft with small 

drinking water tanks and today’s rule 

incorporates the following changes: 

• For aircraft water systems that have 

a removable/portable drinking water 

tank that is drained every day of 

passenger service, and the aircraft has 

only one tap, air carriers may collect 

one 100 mL routine sample from the 

available tap; and 

• Collect three 100 mL repeat samples 

when performing the corrective action 

upon the receipt of a total coliformpositive sample. This reduction in 

repeat samples also applies to all tank 

types. 

EPA believes these reductions are 

appropriate because the complexity of 

aircraft water systems with removable/ 

portable tanks and one tap on the 

aircraft is low (e.g., few feet of tubing/ 

pipes; few potential points for cross 

contamination); and the reductions 

maintain consistency with the 

recommendations of the Federal 

Advisory Committee—The Total 

Coliform Rule/Distribution System 

Advisory Committee (TCRDSAC)—to 

reduce sampling volume and frequency 

for small non-community stationary 

systems (see docket for the TCRDSAC 

Agreement in Principle, signed 

September 18, 2008). EPA also believes 

that the economic and logistical burden 

on air carriers, particularly small 

regional jets, will be minimized by 

taking fewer samples. 

Public comment on the proposed 

ADWR disinfection and flushing, and 

monitoring frequencies centered around 

two main issues: (1) Extend the 

minimum disinfection intervals to 

accommodate an approach that focuses 

on risk and allows for less frequent 

disinfection based on sampling results, 

and (2) set ‘‘reasonable minimum’’ 

disinfection timelines consistent with 

the AOCs of some major air carriers to 

align a semi-annual disinfection 

schedule with an annual sampling 

schedule, thereby reducing the 

‘‘significant’’ economic cost to 

restructure in-place disinfection 

programs. EPA agrees that some changes 

are warranted and today’s rule includes 

revised requirements to the routine 

frequencies as presented in Table IV–2: 

TABLE IV–2—FINAL RULE REQUIREMENTS FOR ROUTINE DISINFECTION AND FLUSHING AND ROUTINE SAMPLING
 

FREQUENCIES
 

Minimum routine disinfection & flushing 

per aircraft 

At least 4 times per year = At least once within every three-month period (quarterly). 

At least 3 times per year = At least once within every four-month period. 

At least 2 times per year = At least once within every six-month period 

(semi-annually). 

At least 1 time per year or less = At least once within every twelvemonth period (annually) or less. 

Minimum frequency of routine samples 

per aircraft 

At least 1 time per year = At least once within every twelve-month period (annually). 

At least 2 times per year = At least once within every six-month period 

(semi-annually). 

At least 4 times per year = At least once within every three-month period (quarterly). 

At least 12 times per year = At least once every month (monthly). 

If not specified by the manufacturer, select any frequency that is no less stringent than these four disinfection and flushing frequencies which 

meet the aircraft’s unique operational needs. 

EPA considers disinfection and 

flushing to be a more protective and 

pro-active public health measure than 

monitoring. Therefore, EPA re-aligned 

the disinfection and flushing and 

monitoring frequencies in order to 

emphasize the importance of 

disinfection and flushing in comparison 

to monitoring. As a result, those air 

carriers that conduct more frequent 

disinfection and flushing do not have to 

monitor as frequently. Today’s final rule 

requires an air carrier that conducts 

disinfection and flushing three times 

per year to perform sampling twice a 

year instead of four times per year. And 

an air carrier that conducts disinfection 

and flushing once per year or less must 

sample monthly. With respect to the 

commenter’s concern about 

accommodating a semi-annual 

disinfection and flushing frequency 

with annual sampling (as allowed under 

some AOCs), the ADWR continues to 

accommodate the semi-annual 

disinfection and flushing schedule. 

However, EPA believes that linking this 

with annual sampling would be 

inconsistent with the importance of 

disinfection and flushing as the 

preferred, pro-active measure. As 

reflected in Table IV–2, today’s rule 

continues to require air carriers that 

conduct disinfection and flushing semiannually to conduct monitoring four 

times per year. 

While the frequencies in Table IV–2 

provide air carriers with enough 

flexibility to schedule both routine 

disinfection and flushing and routine 

monitoring in a way that avoids 

disruption to passenger service, EPA 

intends for air carriers to schedule 

routine disinfection and flushing and 

routine monitoring at regular intervals 

throughout the calendar year. Routine 

disinfection and flushing should be 

scheduled so that the amount of time 

between each disinfection and flushing 

event is approximately equal. EPA 

believes that this will maximize the 

effectiveness of the disinfection and 

flushing event. Similarly, routine 

monitoring should be scheduled so that 

the amount of time between each 

monitoring event is approximately 

equal. EPA does not intend for routine 

disinfection and flushing events to take 

place back-to-back such that 

disinfection and flushing occurs at the 

end of one disinfection and flushing 

period and again at the beginning of the 

following period. Nor should air carriers 

schedule routine monitoring events to 

take place back-to-back such that 

samples are taken at the end of one 

monitoring period and again at the 

beginning of the following period. 

In addition, the Agency received 

comment that the requirement to 

disinfect and flush quarterly, when no 

manufacturer recommendations were 

available, did not provide flexibility. In 

today’s rule, EPA removed this 

requirement (as reflected in Table IV–2) 

so that when there is no manufacturer 

recommendation, air carriers can select 

any of the routine frequencies that best 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53598 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

meet their unique operations and 

maintenance needs. 

EPA was unable to make a 

determination on a risk-based approach 

that supports a reduced frequency for 

disinfection and flushing based on 

sampling results, because no new data 

were provided beyond the AOCs’ data. 

The AOCs’ data protocols were not 

designed to establish risk-based 

frequencies. AOCs are interim measures 

used to aid air carriers to meet 

compliance with SDWA and provide an 

understanding of aircraft drinking water 

quality. At this time, EPA believes the 

final rule frequencies provide the 

minimum requirements necessary for 

public health protection, while also 

providing adequate flexibility to meet 

the evolving needs of the industry, such 

as transitioning from the AOCs’ 

requirements to the ADWR. 

3. Analytical Methods (§ 141.803(a)) 

In the proposed rule, EPA stated that 

air carriers must use EPA-approved 

analytical methodologies for the 

analysis of coliform bacteria. Public 

comment was received regarding the 

specific use of concurrent analytical 

methods that test for total coliforms and 

E. coli simultaneously. The commenter 

named several concurrent methods that 

they felt provide ‘‘great benefit’’ to the 

industry, because the methods are 

timely and accurate. Although some of 

these noted methods are EPA-approved, 

the final rule reiterates and clarifies that 

air carriers must use only the EPAapproved analytical methods for 

analyzing total coliforms and/or E. coli 

in drinking water samples as specified 

in § 141.21(f)(3) and § 141.21(f)(6) of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, or their 

equivalent as approved by EPA to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

ADWR sampling requirements. EPA has 

approved several methods for use that 

allow the simultaneous detection of 

both total coliforms and E. coli. These 

methods are also approved for use 

under this rule. 

In the proposed rule, EPA required air 

carriers to use a State- or EPA-certified 

laboratory for analysis of drinking water 

samples. For compliance with the 

ADWR, one commenter encouraged EPA 

to allow the use of foreign laboratories 

to conduct analysis on drinking water 

samples as permitted under the 

Administrative Orders on Consent 

(AOCs). In addition, the commenter 

noted that air carriers should be allowed 

to conduct disinfection of their aircraft 

water systems ‘‘at locations outside the 

U.S.’’ The final rule clarifies and 

reiterates that drinking water 

microbiological samples submitted for 

compliance with the ADWR must be 

analyzed by a certified laboratory to 

ensure the use of approved analytical 

methods and approved quality control 

procedures for checking analytical data 

for completeness and correctness. A 

certified laboratory is a laboratory that 

is certified by EPA or a State. ‘‘State’’ 

refers to a U.S. State or Tribe that has 

received primacy for public water 

systems (other than aircraft water 

systems) under section 1413 of the 

SDWA. By allowing the use of any 

laboratory that is certified by a State or 

EPA for analysis of drinking water 

samples, the ADWR provides air carriers 

with greater flexibility in designing their 

sampling programs while maintaining 

protection of public health. 

In one AOC, for a specific set of the 

fleet (i.e., 47 aircraft) an air carrier was 

permitted to use a foreign laboratory, 

which was neither EPA- nor Statecertified, to perform analysis of drinking 

water samples provided that the 

samples were analyzed using EPAapproved analytical methods. The 

commenter incorrectly assumed that 

this allowance would fulfill SDWA 

compliance. In today’s notice, the 

Agency makes clear that this allowance 

was not intended for compliance 

purposes under the SDWA. The ADWR 

does not prevent collection of samples 

outside the U.S. However, foreign 

laboratories must be an EPA- or a Statecertified laboratory in order to analyze 

the drinking water samples for 

compliance with the ADWR. EPA plans 

on addressing these issues in more 

detail in its ADWR technical guidance. 

EPA notes that the ADWR requirements 

do not prevent air carriers from 

performing disinfection and flushing 

outside the U.S. for compliance with the 

ADWR. 

C. Responses to Sampling Results 

(§ 141.803) 

As specified in the proposed rule, air 

carriers would need only determine the 

presence or absence of total coliforms in 

water samples collected from aircraft 

water systems; a determination of total 

coliform density would not be required. 

Under the proposal, upon receipt of a 

total coliform-positive result, air carriers 

would be required to further analyze the 

positive sample for the presence of fecal 

coliforms, except that the system could 

test for E. coli in lieu of fecal coliforms. 

EPA received public comment 

requesting the removal of fecal 

coliforms as indicators. EPA agrees with 

this comment and today’s rule 

eliminates the use of fecal coliforms as 

indicators of potential fecal 

contamination. As a consequence, the 

final rule specifies that upon receipt of 

a total coliform-positive result, air 

carriers must further analyze that 

sample for E. coli only. The fecal 

coliform group (also referred to as 

thermotolerant coliforms) has been 

found to sometimes contain 

environmental bacteria that are not of 

fecal origin. Thus, the presence of fecal 

coliform bacteria in a water sample is 

not necessarily indicative of the 

potential for fecal contaminants being 

present. Thus, analyzing for E. coli 

provides more meaningful data to 

protect public health. This change is 

consistent with the recommendations of 

the Federal Advisory Committee— 

TCRDSAC. 

In the proposed rule, air carriers 

would be required to perform the 

following corrective actions based on a 

positive coliform result: 

(1) If one routine sample was total 

coliform-positive and E. coli/fecal 

coliform-negative then the air carrier 

would be required to: 

• Within 72 hours of receipt of the 

positive result from the laboratory, 

disinfect and flush the water system, 

and collect follow-up samples; or 

• Within 24 hours of receipt of the 

positive result from the laboratory, 

collect four repeat samples. 

(2) If two or more routine samples or 

any repeat samples were total coliformpositive and E. coli/fecal coliformnegative, or if any sample was E. coli/ 

fecal coliform-positive then the air 

carrier was required to:

• Within 24 hours of receipt of the 

positive result from the laboratory, 

restrict public access. Restrict public 

access included the following activities 

for the aircraft in question: Physically 

disconnect or shut-off the water system 

where feasible; provide public 

notification to passengers and crew if 

the water system could not be shut-off, 

but if the system could be shut-off, then 

provide public notice to the crew only; 

and provide alternatives to the use of 

the water system such as antiseptic 

alcohol-based hand gels or wipes and 

bottled water (that reduce or eliminate 

the need to use the water system during 

the limited period before access is 

restored); and 

• Within 72 hours of receipt of the 

positive result from the laboratory, 

disinfect and flush the water system and 

collect follow-up samples if the system 

could not be physically disconnected or 

shut-off. If the water system could be 

shut-off to prevent access to passenger 

and crew, disinfect and flush when able. 

Public comment on the proposed 

ADWR noted several concerns related to 

the corrective actions upon receipt of a 

positive coliform result. Commenters 

stated that the proposed ADWR lacked 

flexibility to avoid passenger and 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53599 

airspace disruptions that may occur 

when an aircraft cannot be pulled outof-service to disinfect and flush in 72 

hours (e.g., if results are received during 

an international flight). Commenters 

recommended EPA increase the 

timeframe from 72 hours to 96 or 120 

hours to avoid inconveniencing 

travelers (due to delays, cost, or loss of 

service). Additionally, commenters 

stated that an aircraft should not be 

grounded ‘‘solely’’ for a problem 

associated with the aircraft water 

system. EPA agrees that some flexibility 

is warranted to avoid unnecessarily 

grounding the aircraft, and for the final 

rule, better aligned the corrective 

actions so that non-fecal microbiological 

occurrences have the same corrective 

actions regardless of the number of 

samples that test total coliform-positive 

and E. coli-negative. 

Generally, most members of the total 

coliform bacterial group do not pose a 

risk to human health. The presence of 

total coliforms only (i.e., no E. coli are 

detected) presents a non-fecal potential 

health risk and is an indication of poor 

water quality that could be caused by 

stagnant water, a failure of treatment 

equipment intended to improve the 

aesthetic quality of the water (such as 

carbon filters) or inadequate routine 

maintenance of the water system, among 

others. However, EPA considers that an 

E. coli-positive result is an acute 

potential fecal health risk, and it is a 

necessary public health measure to 

ground the plane in 72 hours when the 

water system cannot be physically 

disconnected or the flow of water 

prevented through the taps. Therefore, 

no changes were made to the corrective 

actions for E. coli-positive results. 

The final rule reflects corrective 

action changes to non-fecal coliform 

occurrence when an air carrier receives 

a total coliform-positive result that is 

also E. coli-negative. These changes are 

also consistent with recommendations 

of the Federal Advisory Committee— 

TCRDSAC for stationary systems under 

the Total Coliform Rule, whereby the 

occurrence of routine total coliformpositive results that are E. coli-negative 

should not be considered a maximum 

contaminant level (MCL) violation. 

Therefore, in a set of routine samples, if 

one or more are total coliform-positive 

and E. coli-negative, the air carrier can 

select any of the following corrective 

actions and follow through with that 

action until a set of total coliform 

samples is total coliform-negative: 

(1) Within 72 hours of receipt of the 

routine positive result from the 

laboratory, the air carrier must disinfect 

and flush, and collect follow-up 

samples prior to providing water for 

human consumption from the aircraft 

water system. From the time follow-up 

samples are taken and submitted for 

analysis to the time of receiving the 

results, air carriers may provide water 

for human consumption from the 

aircraft water system to passengers and 

crew. If any follow-up sample is total 

coliform-positive and E. coli-negative, 

the air carrier must perform all of the 

following: 

a. Conduct the Restrict Public Access 

requirements within 72 hours, and; 

b. Conduct a second disinfection and 

flushing, and; 

c. Collect follow-up samples prior to 

providing water for human 

consumption from the aircraft water 

system. From the time follow-up 

samples are taken, as a result of the 

second disinfection and flushing, to the 

time of receiving the results, air carriers 

must continue all Restrict Public Access 

provisions. If the second set of followup results are total coliform-positive 

and E. coli-negative, then the air carrier 

must continue to disinfect and flush the 

aircraft water system until a set of total 

coliform samples is total coliformnegative; or 

(2) Within 24 hours of receipt of the 

routine positive result from the 

laboratory, the air carrier must collect 

three repeat samples. From the time 

repeat samples are taken and submitted 

for analysis to the time of receiving the 

results, air carriers may provide water 

for human consumption from the 

aircraft water system to passengers and 

crew. If any repeat sample is total 

coliform-positive and E. coli-negative, 

the air carrier must perform one of the 

following: 

a. Conduct disinfection and flushing 

within 72 hours, and collect follow-up 

samples prior to providing water for 

human consumption from the aircraft 

water system. From the time follow-up 

samples are taken and submitted for 

analysis to the time of receiving the 

results, air carriers may provide water 

for human consumption from the 

aircraft water system to passengers and 

crew. If any follow-up sample is total 

coliform-positive and E. coli-negative, 

the air carrier must conduct the Restrict 

Public Access requirements within 72 

hours, and perform a second 

disinfection and flushing and collect 

follow-up samples. From the time 

follow-up samples are taken, as a result 

of the second disinfection and flushing, 

to the time of receiving the results, air 

carriers must continue all restrict public 

access provisions. If the second set of 

follow-up results are total coliformpositive and E. coli-negative, then the 

air carrier must continue to disinfect 

and flush the aircraft water system until 

a set of total coliform samples is total 

coliform-negative. Or, 

b. Conduct the Restrict Public Access 

requirements within 72 hours, and 

perform disinfection and flushing and 

collect follow-up samples prior to 

providing water for human 

consumption from the aircraft water 

system. From the time follow-up 

samples are taken and submitted for 

analysis to the time of receiving the 

results, air carriers may provide water 

for human consumption from the 

aircraft water system to passengers and 

crew. If any follow-up sample is total 

coliform-positive and E. coli-negative, 

the air carrier must conduct the Restrict 

Public Access requirements within 72 

hours, and perform a second 

disinfection and flushing and collect 

follow-up samples. From the time 

follow-up samples are taken, as a result 

of the second disinfection and flushing, 

to the time of receiving the results, air 

carriers must continue all Restrict 

Public Access provisions. If the second 

set of follow-up results are total 

coliform-positive and E. coli-negative, 

then the air carrier must continue to 

disinfect and flush the aircraft water 

system until a set of total coliform 

samples is total coliform-negative. Or, 

(3) Within 72 hours of receipt of the 

routine positive result from the 

laboratory, the air carrier must perform 

the Restrict Public Access requirements 

until operationally feasible to disinfect 

and flush, and collect follow-up 

samples. Once disinfection and flushing 

is performed, and a set of follow-up 

samples are taken and submitted for 

analysis, then the air carrier may cease 

the Restrict Public Access provisions 

and provide water for human 

consumption from the aircraft water 

system to passengers and crew. If the 

follow-up sample result from this first 

disinfection and flushing is total 

coliform-positive and E. coli-negative, 

the air carrier must perform all of the 

following: 

a. Conduct the Restrict Public Access 

requirements within 72 hours, and 

b. Conduct a second disinfection and 

flushing and collect follow-up samples. 

From the time follow-up samples are 

taken, as a result of the second 

disinfection and flushing, to the time of 

receiving the results, air carriers must 

continue all Restrict Public Access 

provisions. If the second set of followup results are total coliform-positive 

and E. coli-negative, then the air carrier 

must continue to disinfect and flush the 

aircraft water system until a set of total 

coliform samples is total coliformnegative. 

As compared to the proposed ADWR, 

the changes made to the aforementioned 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53600 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

corrective actions for routine total 

coliform-positive samples that are E. 

coli-negative, include a third action to 

restrict public access, and the timeframe 

for the initial response has been 

changed from 24 hours to 72 hours to 

better align with the other two options 

for non-fecal routine occurrences. In 

addition, under any of the three 

corrective action options for non-fecal 

occurrences, upon completion of the 

first disinfection and flushing event, 

and follow-up samples are taken and 

submitted for analysis, the air carrier 

may provide water for human 

consumption to passengers and crew 

from the aircraft water system until 

laboratory results are received. Water is 

permitted to be served for human 

consumption after the first disinfection 

and flushing and follow-up samples are 

taken, because when the air carrier 

performs disinfection and flushing 

routinely and consistently with the 

manufacturer recommendations (this 

includes maintaining the full contact 

time of the disinfectant with the 

distribution system and affording the 

complete recommended flushing time) 

the quality of the water system should 

be returned to a total coliform-negative 

result. However, after the second or 

subsequent disinfection and flushing 

events occur due to follow-up samples 

that are total coliform-positive and E. 

coli-negative, water is not permitted to 

be served for human consumption 

because the results confirm an on-going 

microbiological occurrence problem that 

warrants further action and 

investigation until a set of follow-up 

samples is total coliform-negative. In the 

case where the water system cannot be 

physically disconnected or shut-off, or 

the flow of water prevented through the 

taps, air carriers are required to provide 

public notification to passengers and 

crew, so that the public is informed of 

an on-going non-fecal occurrence with 

the water system. EPA believes these 

changes are appropriate and public 

health protection is maintained while 

providing air carriers with the flexibility 

needed to perform corrective actions 

that meet their operational challenges. 

In the proposed ADWR, corrective 

actions for failing to perform a 

requirement varied and were the 

following: 

• Failure to perform routine 

disinfection and flushing would result 

in air carriers providing public 

notification to crew and passengers 

within 24 hours after discovery of the 

failure, until disinfection and flushing 

occurred; 

• Failure to collect routine samples 

would result in air carriers providing 

public notification to crew and 

passengers within 24 hours after 

discovery of the failure, and within 72 

hours disinfect and flush, and collect 

follow-up samples;

• Failure to collect repeat or followup samples would result in air carriers 

restricting public access within 24 hours 

after discovery of the failure and 

included: If the aircraft water system 

cannot be shut-off, public notification 

was given to crew and passengers, but 

if the aircraft water system could be 

shut-off, public notification was given to 

crew only; and within 72 hours 

disinfect and flush, and collect followup samples; 

• Boarding water from a watering 

point that is not approved by FDA 

would result in air carriers providing 

public notification to crew and 

passengers within 24 hours after 

boarding the water, and within 72 hours 

disinfect and flush, and collect followup samples; 

• Boarding water that did not meet 

national primary drinking water 

regulations (NPDWRs), would result in 

air carriers performing all the corrective 

actions as applicable to an E. coli/fecal 

coliform-positive result; and 

• Boarding water under any condition 

where the water system was not in 

compliance with the procedures 

specified in the aircraft operation and 

maintenance plan would result in the 

air carrier providing public notification 

to passengers and crew within 24 hours 

of discovery of the failure, and within 

72 hours disinfect and flush, and collect 

follow-up samples. 

In general, commenters to the 

proposed ADWR stated that these 

corrective actions for performance 

failures were confusing and ‘‘not 

commensurate with the potential health 

risk,’’ they were administratively and 

economically burdensome, and that 

EPA should instead require the use of 

‘‘intermediate and/or diagnostic 

measures that allow carriers to 

determine whether an actual health risk 

was presented by the failure to meet the 

requirement.’’ Based on the issues 

raised by the commenters, EPA 

determined that some changes are 

needed. The final rule provides more 

clarity and flexibility to aid in reducing 

economic and administrative burden 

while ensuring public health protection 

by aligning the corrective actions based 

on (1) a fecal occurrence (i.e., E. colipositive event) and failing to perform 

the applicable required corrective 

actions (e.g., fails to collect and submit 

for analysis the follow-up samples or 

boards water that that does not meet the 

NPDWRs applicable to transient noncommunity water systems when there is 

an E. coli-positive event); and (2) a nonfecal occurrence (e.g., total coliformpositive and E. coli-negative event, or 

boards water that does not meet 

NPDWRs applicable to transient noncommunity water systems) and failing 

to perform the applicable required 

routine and/or corrective actions. 

Consequently, when the air carrier 

becomes aware that it has failed to 

perform required routine disinfection 

and flushing, or collect required routine 

samples, or collect the required repeat 

or follow-up samples for a total 

coliform-positive and E. coli-negative 

result; or boards water from a watering 

point not in accordance with FDA 

regulations; or boards water that does 

not meet NPDWRs applicable to 

transient non-community water 

systems; or that is otherwise determined 

to be unsafe due to non-compliance 

with the procedures specified in the 

operations and maintenance plan, the 

air carrier must perform the corrective 

actions associated with a total coliformpositive/E. coli-negative result for the 

Restrict Public Access provisions: 

• Within 72 hours of receipt of 

discovery of the failure or after being 

notified by EPA of the failure, the air 

carrier must perform the Restrict Public 

Access requirements until operationally 

feasible to disinfect and flush, and 

collect follow-up samples. Once 

disinfection and flushing is performed, 

and a set of follow-up samples are taken 

and submitted for analysis, then the air 

carrier may cease the Restrict Public 

Access provisions and provide water for 

human consumption from the aircraft 

water system to passengers and crew. If 

the follow-up sample result from this 

first disinfection and flushing is total 

coliform-positive and E. coli-negative, 

the air carrier must perform all of the 

following: 

Æ Conduct the Restrict Public Access 

requirements within 72 hours, and 

Æ Conduct a second disinfection and 

flushing and collect follow-up samples. 

From the time follow-up samples are 

taken, as a result of the second 

disinfection and flushing, to the time of 

receiving the results, air carriers must 

continue all Restrict Public Access 

provisions. If the second set of followup results are total coliform-positive 

and E. coli-negative, then the air carrier 

must continue to disinfect and flush the 

aircraft water system until a set of total 

coliform samples is total coliformnegative. 

Æ If any follow-up sample is E. colipositive, the air carrier must follow all 

the corrective actions for an E. colipositive result. These actions must 

continue until a set of follow-up 

samples is total coliform-negative. 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53601 

When the air carrier becomes aware that 

it has failed to collect the required 

follow-up samples due to an E. colipositive result, or boards water that does 

not meet NPDWR applicable to transient 

non-community water systems for an E. 

coli-positive result, then the air carrier 

must follow all of the E. coli-positive 

corrective actions within 24 hours of 

discovery of the failure or after being 

notified by EPA of the failure. These 

actions must continue until a set of 

follow-up samples is total coliformnegative. 

EPA determined that these corrective 

actions are appropriate because the 

ADWR relies on best management 

practices (e.g., disinfection and flushing, 

following operations and maintenance 

plan procedures, etc.) in lieu of the 

monthly total coliform sampling as 

performed by stationary systems under 

the Total Coliform Rule. These best 

management practices are part of the 

minimum requirements that ensure safe 

and reliable drinking water to aircraft 

passengers and crew. If an air carrier 

fails to perform these minimum 

requirements, then either a known 

problem has not been promptly 

addressed or the quality of the aircraft 

water used for human consumption is in 

question. 

In the proposed rule, air carriers were 

allowed to use water for hand washing 

purposes when the water was boarded 

from a watering point not approved by 

FDA or when required routine 

monitoring or disinfection and flushing 

was not conducted. Due to re-aligned 

corrective actions (as discussed earlier 

in this section) that provide air carriers 

with more flexibility to reduce the 

economic and administrative burden of 

grounding the plane to disinfect and 

flush within a set timeframe, the 

allowance of hand washing under these 

conditions no longer apply in the final 

ADWR. In addition, corresponding 

changes were also made to the 

applicable public notification sections 

of the rule (i.e., removed reference from 

the health effects language that allowed 

‘‘hand washing’’ under these 

conditions). 

D. Restricted Access to the Water 

System 

EPA proposed that in any situation 

where there is an affirmative indicator 

of actual or potential fecal 

contamination occurrence (e.g., a single 

E. coli-positive sample, water that has 

been boarded from a known 

contaminated source or not in 

accordance with FDA regulations, etc.), 

the carrier would be required to restrict 

access to the water system as 

expeditiously as possible, but in no case 

more than 24 hours after the event 

triggering the requirement (e.g., receipt 

of an E. coli-positive sample result). 

Ideally, under these conditions, access 

to all taps used to provide water for 

human consumption (e.g., galleys, 

lavatories, water fountains, built in 

coffee/tea makers, etc.) should be 

physically disconnected or shut-off to 

prevent exposure. In the proposed rule, 

restrict public access included: (1) 

Physically disconnect or shut-off the 

water system; (2) provide public 

notification to passengers and crew if 

the water system cannot be physically 

disconnected or shut-off, and if the 

water system can be shut-off, then 

public notification must be provided to 

crew only; and (3) provide alternatives 

to the restricted use of the aircraft water 

system, such as bottled water for 

drinking and coffee preparation and 

alcohol-based antiseptic gels and wipes 

in the galleys and lavatories, and other 

feasible measures that reduce or 

eliminate the need to use the aircraft 

water system. 

Public comments on the proposed 

ADWR raised concerns over physically 

disconnecting the water system and the 

use of alcohol-based antiseptic gels and 

wipes. With respect to physically 

disconnecting the water system, 

commenters stated the provision was in 

conflict with FDA’s requirement to 

provide food handlers with hand 

washing facilities, and the provision did 

not account for situations where the 

water system cannot be physically 

disconnected or shut-off but other 

means can be used to prevent the flow 

of water through taps. In response to 

these comments, the final rule clarifies 

the Agency’s intent to prevent passenger 

and crew exposure to the water. 

Therefore, EPA has adjusted the final 

rule language by adding another option 

to the Restrict Public Access 

requirements. In the final rule, as part 

of the Restrict Public Access 

requirements, air carriers can use other 

means to prevent the flow of water 

through the taps in addition to 

physically disconnecting or shutting-off 

the water system. EPA believes this 

change is a necessary step towards 

public health protection in the event of 

an actual or potential fecal 

contamination occurrence. If the event 

is due to a fecal occurrence, public 

access restrictions must remain in-place 

until the water system is disinfected and 

flushed and a complete set of follow-up 

samples is total coliform-negative. If the 

event is due to a non-fecal occurrence, 

public access restrictions must remain 

in-place until the water system is 

disinfected and flushed and a set of 

follow-up samples is collected and 

submitted for analysis. After this initial 

disinfection and flushing is performed, 

if any subsequent ones are needed, 

public access restrictions must remain 

in-place until a complete set of followup samples is total coliform-negative. 

FDA requirements permit air carriers to 

temporarily suspend the use of the 

aircraft drinking water system during 

emergencies. The ADWR provisions that 

restrict public access to the aircraft 

water system would be considered an 

emergency situation and, therefore, do 

not conflict with FDA regulations to 

provide food handlers with hand 

washing facilities. 

In addition, due to the corrective 

action changes made to better align 

corrective actions based on non-fecal 

and fecal occurrences, EPA adjusted the 

24-hour timeframe to initiate the 

Restrict Public Access requirements to 

72 hours for non-fecal events. Therefore, 

if an air carrier fails to perform a 

requirement in the case of a non-fecal 

occurrence (e.g., fails to perform a 

routine disinfection and flushing), the 

air carrier has 72 hours to initiate the 

Restrict Public Access requirements 

from discovery of the failure, or EPA’s 

notification of the failure, or receipt of 

the non-fecal positive result. However, 

in the event of any failure to perform a 

requirement in the case of a fecaloccurrence (e.g., fails to collect the 

follow-up samples, or boarding water 

that that does not meet NPDWRs for E. 

coli), EPA did not change the timeframe 

and the air carrier has 24 hours to 

initiate Restrict Public Access 

requirements from discovery of the 

failure, or EPA’s notification of the 

failure, or receipt of the fecal positive 

result. 

In determining whether it is 

‘‘feasible’’ to physically disconnect or 

shut off the water system, EPA 

recognizes that in some cases carriers 

may need to consider binding 

operational constraints. For example, if 

the water system cannot be shut off 

without also shutting off water to the 

toilets, a carrier may determine that 

shutting off the water is not feasible and 

use the alternative Restrict Public 

Access provisions instead. EPA intends 

to provide further guidance on this issue 

in its ADWR technical guidance. 

Regarding the requirement to provide 

alcohol-based antiseptic hand gels or 

wipes, commenters stated that it was too 

limiting and did not allow for the use 

of other alternative products as 

specified in FDA’s monograph 

governing ‘‘Topical Antimicrobial Drug 

Products for Over-the-Counter Human 

Use; Tentative Final Monograph (TFM) 

for Health-Care Antiseptic Drug 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53602 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Products.’’ In the final rule, EPA has 

changed the Restrict Public Access 

provision to include any antiseptic hand 

gels or wipes in accordance with FDA 

regulations under 21 CFR part 333— 

‘‘Topical Antimicrobial Drug Products 

for Over-the-Counter Human Use.’’ In 

this way, the provision evolves with 

technology and new products, and 

maintains consistency with FDA 

regulations regarding these products. 

E. Response to Proposed Rule Requests 

for Comment 

1. Microbiological Indicators 

In the proposed ADWR, EPA 

requested specific comment on whether 

bacterial presence measured by 

heterotrophic plate count (HPC) should 

be allowed, required, or not considered 

as an indicator of water quality in 

addition to total coliform monitoring. 

One commenter responded that HPC 

should be allowed as an indicator of 

water quality in addition to total 

coliform monitoring. However, several 

commenters responded that HPC is not 

a reliable indicator in aircraft water 

systems, that the sample holding time 

between collection and analysis of six 

hours if the sample is unrefrigerated is 

impractical, and that it provides no 

additional benefit justifying the 

regulatory burden of conducting HPC 

sampling. EPA agrees with commenters 

that the use of HPC in the ADWR is 

impractical due to the restrictions on 

sample holding times and the 

limitations of the information the HPC 

test results would provide. Therefore, 

today’s rule does not require HPC 

monitoring. Additionally, HPC testing is 

used as a surrogate for disinfectant 

residual testing for stationary systems 

and since disinfectant residual testing is 

not an ADWR requirement, HPC testing 

is unnecessary under the ADWR. 

2. Potential for Bacterial Growth 

EPA requested specific comment on 

whether the final rule should include 

provisions to address extended periods 

during which the aircraft water would 

remain stagnant, experience high water 

temperatures, or other situations that 

may contribute to concern regarding 

bacterial growth. Although most aircraft 

water tanks are either topped off or 

drained on an almost daily basis, 

occasional situations occur when the 

water may sit stagnant for an extended 

period of time or otherwise not be 

turned over, and thus could be at risk 

for biofilm development or other 

bacterial growth. EPA received several 

public comments both in favor of and 

opposed to regulatory requirements for 

dealing with extended stagnant periods, 

or other situations that may be of 

concern regarding bacterial growth. 

Commenters in favor of such provisions, 

in general, agreed with EPA’s analysis of 

the potential for bacterial growth. The 

comments ranged from stating that the 

provisions should be data-driven to 

‘‘The Agency should confirm the 

effectiveness of disinfection and 

flushing in eliminating contaminants 

and biofilm by evaluating all aspects of 

closed circulation, airline water 

systems.’’ Commenters opposed to the 

requirements raised two main concerns: 

(1) Aircraft do not have the current 

means to measure the temperature of the 

water in the storage tank and retrofitting the aircraft to do this would be 

an immense project, economically and 

logistically, for air carriers and 

manufacturers; and (2) Air carriers 

already implement procedures that 

guard against the risk of bacterial 

growth such as draining, disinfecting, 

and flushing the water tanks if the 

aircraft has been out-of-service for 

extended lengths of time. Based on 

these collective comments, the final rule 

does not include provisions to address 

extended stagnant periods, high water 

temperatures, or other situations that 

may augment concern for bacterial 

growth. Instead, EPA plans on 

addressing these issues in its ADWR 

technical guidance. 

3. Temperature of Water From Sample 

Taps 

EPA requested specific comment on 

whether sampling should only be 

limited to cold water taps when they are 

available. EPA also requested comment 

on whether or not, in the event that a 

sample is taken from a hot water tap, the 

temperature should also be measured to 

provide some indication of whether the 

temperature achieved is high enough to 

alter the microbiological results. EPA 

received several comments both in favor 

of and opposed to sampling only from 

cold water taps and measuring the 

temperature of water collected from hot 

water taps. The comments ranged from 

(1) the ADWR should include collecting 

samples from both cold water as well as 

hot water taps, and taking the 

temperature of water from hot water 

taps does not provide an accurate 

measurement of microbiological 

safeness, to (2) sampling should be from 

taps that are most representative of the 

water consumed by passengers which, 

in many cases, comes from galleys that 

are only equipped with hot water taps. 

Also, a commenter indicated that it 

would be impractical to set ‘‘minimum 

temperature’’ requirements that apply to 

‘‘all hot water taps not only because of 

the variety of aircraft in service, but also 

the effect that altitude has on [water] 

temperatures. On the ground, where 

sampling will occur, a tap would 

register a different temperature than it 

would at an aircraft’s cruising altitude, 

which is when that tap is most likely to 

be used to serve coffee/tea.’’ 

EPA agrees that sample locations 

should be those most representative of 

water used for human consumption by 

passengers and crew. However, since 

there is a potential for the temperature 

in the hot water taps to kill existing 

microorganisms, and this might mask 

whether there is a microbiological 

problem in the aircraft system, samples 

should be taken from cold water taps 

when they are available, except e.g., in 

the case when only a hot water tap is 

available in the galley. In this case, the 

galley sample should be taken from the 

hot water tap. In addition, EPA plans to 

further discuss tap sampling in its 

ADWR technical guidance. 

4. Statistical Sampling of an Air Carrier 

Fleet 

EPA requested specific comment on 

the use of statistical sampling 

methodologies, specifically on what 

type of monitoring scheme would allow 

a statistical sample to be representative 

of an entire air carrier fleet. EPA was 

especially interested in receiving input 

on whether such methodologies, if 

allowed, should only be used in 

conjunction with onboard or other 

supplemental treatment, such as adding 

a chemical disinfectant or ultraviolet 

light. EPA also requested input 

regarding the support for such an 

option, given the cost and logistical 

implications a positive coliform result 

would have on the statistical sample by 

triggering follow-up action in the entire 

fleet. The majority of the public 

comments were in favor of statistical 

sampling, but they did not provide any 

examples of a statistical method or data 

to support their position. In opposition 

to statistical sampling, a commenter 

expressed concern over the use of 

statistical sampling because of the 

variability of the quality of the water 

that could be boarded from various 

sources, and because, ‘‘when blended, 

all of the chemical and microbiological 

parameters would change and data 

generated would become inaccurate.’’ 

One commenter in favor of statistical 

sampling stated that EPA should allow 

the use of statistical sampling because 

there was substantive evidence that 

aircraft in a fleet, or a subset of a fleet, 

behaved similarly with respect to 

avoiding positive tests for total 

coliforms. However, new data beyond 

the AOCs’ data was not provided to 

support this statement, and the AOCs’ 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53603 

data are not sufficiently robust to 

support such an analysis. Another 

commenter suggested that statistical 

sampling could be used to minimize the 

sample collection volumes and 

frequency; however, no sampling 

scheme or data was provided. Yet 

another commenter suggested EPA 

incorporate into the rule the allowance 

of a procedure whereby an individual 

carrier could propose a statistical 

sampling method, present a proposed 

program for doing so along with 

technical analyses demonstrating its 

representativeness and efficacy, and 

request EPA to review and approve the 

plan. 

Today’s rule does not include 

provisions for statistical sampling 

because EPA did not receive data to 

change its opinion that sampling a 

fraction of aircraft water systems does 

not identify all of the aircraft that may 

be operating with a contaminated water 

system. Therefore, the potential still 

exists that the un-sampled aircraft may 

be operating with a contaminated water 

system, possibly for years, until it is 

randomly selected and tested. EPA 

considers that its approach is 

appropriate, because each aircraft water 

system is a unique system that may 

board water from a potentially large 

number and variety of sources and 

distribution systems, and the volume of 

water that is boarded may vary on a 

daily basis or more often. Under current 

practices, the sources of water for an 

individual aircraft are so varied, in 

addition to variability in the quality of 

operation and maintenance practices, it 

would be difficult for a statistical 

sample to provide an accurate 

representation of all water being served 

on an air carrier’s fleet. In addition, the 

majority of the committee members of 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) 

were not in favor of statistical sampling 

of aircraft drinking water because the 

available data is too sparse to interpret 

results for the whole fleet. As a result, 

the final rule does not allow for 

statistical sampling. 

5. Option for Repeat Sampling 

EPA requested specific comment on 

whether to disallow the option for 

repeat sampling in response to a routine 

total coliform-positive sample if the 

aircraft has boarded water since the 

routine sample was taken. EPA noted 

that the repeat samples may not be 

providing an accurate picture of the 

water quality since it is not 

characterizing the same water as the 

routine sample. EPA received comments 

that were both in favor of and opposed 

to disallowing the option for repeat 

sampling in response to a routine total 

coliform-positive sample. Commenters 

in favor of repeat sampling noted that it 

was a reliable method of investigating 

the extent of bacterial problems in the 

water system, and another commenter 

stated that it allows an air carrier to 

pinpoint a source of contamination and 

should be permitted. In opposition to 

repeat sampling, a commenter noted 

that it should not be allowed because 

the process takes several days, which 

extends the time period for passengers 

and crew to be exposed to a potential 

health risk. In today’s rule, EPA 

maintains the option to collect repeat 

samples as a corrective action to a total 

coliform-positive routine sample that is 

E. coli-negative. EPA believes repeat 

sampling is a valuable option because it 

can indicate whether the problem 

reflected by the routine sample result is 

no longer present, or whether the 

problem has persisted and requires 

further corrective action; therefore, EPA 

is allowing the option for repeat 

sampling in response to a routine total 

coliform-positive sample that is E. colinegative in this ADWR. 

6. Disinfectant Residual Monitoring 

EPA requested specific comment on 

whether it is appropriate to require 

monitoring of routine disinfectant 

residuals and if so, the frequency for 

monitoring and the corrective action 

required if sufficient disinfectant 

residuals are not detected. EPA received 

approximately the same number of 

comments in favor of and opposed to 

adding a requirement for routine 

monitoring of a disinfectant residual. In 

favor of monitoring for disinfectant 

residuals, a commenter stated that flight 

attendants should be trained in the use 

of chlorine residual testing equipment, 

and that the rule should maintain the 

AOCs’ disinfectant residual monitoring 

requirements, because having a 

detectable residual is effective against 

bacterial growth. Commenters who 

opposed routine monitoring of a 

disinfectant residual thought that (1) it 

was unnecessary and does not provide 

a meaningful representation of risks or 

system integrity; (2) since air carriers 

receive finished water from PWSs, the 

level of disinfectant residual in the 

water supply is outside of the control of 

the air carriers; meaning, there is no 

benefit to requiring the carriers to 

monitor for disinfectant residual since 

the air carriers cannot take action to 

increase it on a system-wide basis; and 

(3) since water turns over very quickly 

in aircraft water systems, monitoring of 

residual disinfectant provides no added 

benefit. 

The final rule does not require 

monitoring of a disinfectant residual for 

several reasons. First, the Surface Water 

Treatment Rule requires public water 

systems using surface water as a source 

to maintain a detectable disinfectant 

residual in the distribution system to 

ensure that disinfection is maintained 

throughout the water system. If a 

stationary system has a non-detectable 

disinfectant residual it may increase the 

amount of disinfectant added at the 

treatment facility, routinely flush water 

from dead-end or low water use areas of 

the distribution system, or add 

additional disinfection to a specific area 

of the system by installing boosterdisinfection equipment to increase the 

disinfectant residual. Adding 

disinfectant booster equipment is not 

practicable or feasible for aircraft water 

systems due to tank design challenges. 

In addition, any corrective action 

requiring manual addition of water with 

a disinfectant residual would result in 

major disruptions to flight schedules 

(e.g., to drain and refill or flush and 

disinfect the aircraft water tank). 

Second, since aircraft may board water 

more than once per day from a variety 

of sources, some of which may be 

groundwater that is not disinfected, EPA 

is uncertain whether monthly (or less 

frequent) disinfectant residual 

monitoring would provide useful 

information for aircraft water systems. 

At the same time, EPA believes that 

more frequent flushing and disinfection 

of the entire aircraft water system as a 

treatment technique combined with 

other barriers incorporated into the 

ADWR (e.g., operations and 

maintenance plans, etc.) will ensure that 

microbiologically safe tap water is 

provided on the aircraft even without 

the residual disinfectant requirements 

applicable to stationary public water 

systems. Finally, the rule specifies that 

aircraft water systems are to board only 

finished water (i.e., drinking water 

intended for distribution and 

consumption without further treatment). 

Therefore, it is the responsibility of the 

PWS from which the aircraft receives 

water to provide finished water that 

meets all the NPDWRs. Under the 

NPDWRs, if that PWS uses groundwater 

as its ambient source, then the finished 

water is not required to have a 

detectable disinfectant residual. Trying 

to determine if boarded water is 

required to have a disinfectant residual, 

and then trying to correct it if 

monitoring yields a non-detectable 

disinfectant residual result, would be an 

economic and operational burden for 

the air carrier. 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53604 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

7. Timeframe for Disinfection and 

Flushing 

EPA requested specific comment on 

the appropriateness of the 72-hour 

timeframe to disinfect and flush, upon 

receipt of two total-coliform-positive 

sample results or a single fecal coliformor E. coli-positive result, since 

disinfection and flushing requires taking 

the aircraft out-of-service to a 

designated maintenance facility. The 

majority of the public comments 

received favored the 72-hour timeframe 

with some concerns. For example, one 

commenter expressed that the 

timeframe is a ‘‘sensible’’ and necessary 

response, but such unscheduled 

activities will be costly and burdensome 

to the air carriers and create an 

unfavorable reaction from passengers to 

the restricted access to the water and 

flight delays. On the same note, another 

commenter stated that the 72-hour 

timeframe is appropriate under normal 

conditions; however, in situations 

where weather or other airspace system 

delays renders compliance with the 72-

hour timeframe impractical, the Agency 

should provide an extension to 96 

hours. Another commenter noted 

‘‘while in the abstract’’ the timeframe 

appears to be achievable, the Agency 

needs to provide ‘‘reasonable 

accommodation for scheduling’’ in cases 

where the air carrier may receive sample 

results while the aircraft is overseas and 

is unable to return to the U.S. and to the 

maintenance facility in 72 hours. EPA 

recognizes that its proposed timeframe 

of 72 hours has the potential to disrupt 

some passenger services, and may cause 

logistical challenges such as receiving 

results while on an international route. 

Therefore, the final rule includes an 

optional corrective action intended to 

provide air carriers with more 

disinfection and flushing flexibility 

when routine and/or repeat coliform 

samples are total-coliform-positive but 

E. coli-negative. The option in the final 

rule allows the air carrier to perform the 

Restrict Public Access requirements 

within 72 hours of learning of the total 

coliform-positive result(s) that is E. colinegative and conduct disinfection and 

flushing when it is operationally 

feasible. If the air carrier performs the 

Restrict Public Access Requirements, it 

does not have to disinfect and flush the 

aircraft in 72 hours, even if the aircraft 

water system cannot be physically 

disconnected or shut off, or the flow of 

water prevented through the taps. This 

option allows an air carrier to avoid 

service disruptions. The air carrier must 

collect follow-up samples prior to 

providing water for human 

consumption from the aircraft water 

system. 

The presence of total coliforms only 

(when no E. coli is detected) presents a 

non-fecal potential health risk and is an 

indication of poor water quality. Since 

the water is of poor quality, the 

passengers and crew have a right-toknow. Hence, public notification is an 

emphasized component of this option. 

However, EPA considers an E. colipositive result to be an acute potential 

fecal health risk, and it is a necessary 

public health measure to ground the 

plane in 72 hours when the water 

system cannot be physically 

disconnected or shut-off, or the flow of 

water prevented through the taps. 

Therefore, no changes were made in the 

final rule to the corrective actions for E. 

coli-positive results. 

8. Supplemental Treatment 

EPA requested specific comment on 

whether to require supplemental 

disinfection of water boarded onto 

aircraft, and whether to require 

monitoring for disinfectant residuals 

either in addition to or in lieu of 

supplemental disinfection. In addition, 

EPA requested comment on the 

feasibility of using other types of 

supplemental disinfection, such as UV 

treatment onboard aircraft, including 

providing incentives such as reduced 

routine monitoring or routine 

disinfection and flushing if an air carrier 

provides supplemental treatment. EPA 

received public comments both for and 

against the required use of supplemental 

treatment. Concern was expressed that 

supplemental treatment would increase 

costs for installation, extra weight, 

maintenance, and revision of aircraft 

operation and maintenance programs to 

accommodate a system that was not a 

part of the aircraft manufacturer’s final 

product. Comments in support of 

supplemental treatment indicated that it 

may be viewed as the ultimate barrier 

against the risk of illness due to 

contaminated drinking water, and that 

there could be economic savings 

associated with reduced monitoring, 

reduced routine disinfection and 

flushing of aircraft water systems, and 

reduced remedial activity due to fewer 

positive test results. In addition, the 

commenter expressed that supplemental 

treatment could possibly reduce or 

eliminate the need for bottled water. 

In the final ADWR, supplemental 

treatment is not required to be used 

with finished water that has been 

boarded on the aircraft. EPA believes it 

has prescribed the minimum 

requirements necessary to provide safe 

drinking water to passengers and crew 

onboard aircraft, including the 

requirement to board finished water. 

However, supplemental treatment can 

provide an additional barrier of 

protection in the event of a failure in 

any of the basic protection barriers 

required under this rule (e.g., boarding 

finished water in accordance with FDA 

requirements; transferring the water 

from the watering point to the aircraft in 

a manner that ensures it will not 

become contaminated during the 

transfer; appropriate training of 

personnel; implementation of a water 

system operation and maintenance plan; 

etc.). 

EPA believes the basic requirements 

of the ADWR, when performed 

consistently and diligently by the air 

carriers and their agents, provide 

assurance that drinking water onboard 

aircraft is safe for passengers and crew. 

Based on the information that EPA has 

at the time of this rulemaking, there is 

not sufficient information or data to 

support a requirement of supplemental 

treatment for aircraft water systems or 

for reducing any of the minimum 

requirements based on the installation 

of supplemental treatment. However, 

EPA plans to revisit this issue as part of 

the Six-Year review of this rule under 

SDWA section 1412(b)(9) and as more 

data become available. EPA also plans 

to address supplemental treatment 

issues in its ADWR technical guidance. 

9. Recording the Boarding of Water 

EPA requested specific comment on 

whether the potential benefit of 

recording information of where, how 

much, and when water is boarded 

outweighs the information collection 

burden. The boarding of water is usually 

done on an as-needed and as-requested 

basis, and EPA is not aware of any 

current requirements for capturing this 

type of information. EPA received 

public comments both for and against 

recording the information (e.g., where, 

how much, and when water is boarded). 

One commenter stated that this 

information may be helpful in 

determining the cause of contamination 

events. Another commenter noted that 

requiring carriers to record this 

information would increase delays and 

costs. EPA has not received sufficient 

information or data that show a benefit 

to recording information on the 

boarding of water that would justify the 

additional recordkeeping burden on the 

air carrier. A single aircraft may board 

water several times a day from multiple 

airports. During the boarding of water, 

water from more than one source is 

usually commingled in the aircraft 

water system since the tanks may not be 

completely drained between fillings. 

Maintaining a log of this information 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53605 

may not necessarily help in identifying 

the source of contamination of an 

aircraft water system because there 

could be multiple causes for 

contamination of such systems. 

Requiring a log would generate multiple 

daily records for each aircraft without a 

known health benefit. Consequently, the 

final rule does not require recording 

information of where, how much, and 

when water is boarded. 

10. Follow-Up Sampling To Confirm the 

Effectiveness of Routine Disinfection 

and Flushing 

EPA requested specific comment on 

whether follow-up sampling should be 

required to confirm the effectiveness of 

routine disinfection and flushing, and if 

so, the frequency/number of samples by 

which this monitoring should occur. 

EPA received comment in favor of and 

against requiring follow-up sampling 

after routine disinfection and flushing. 

A comment in favor of a requirement 

specifically noted, ‘‘follow-up sampling 

should be required to confirm the 

effectiveness of routine disinfection and 

flushing, at least until a body of 

evidence can be established that clearly 

indicates that routine disinfection and 

flushing is reliably effective in removing 

biofilm from the aircraft water system.’’ 

Another commenter believed, ‘‘Once the 

aircraft has been disinfected and 

flushed, it may be necessary to test the 

water (again) to be sure that the 

disinfection has been successful and 

any problem of bacterial contamination 

has been solved. Sampling immediately 

after the disinfection and flushing may 

not show any hidden contamination 

problems. Hence, it is very important to 

wait a minimum time requirement (7–10 

days) after disinfecting in order to recommence the regular water testing 

regime.’’ A commenter against such 

follow-up sampling as a regulatory 

requirement noted the following 

concerns: (1) It would be ‘‘inconsistent 

with and undermine the [routine] 

disinfection and monitoring frequency 

schedules’’; (2) ‘‘Inasmuch as routine 

disinfection does not involve evidence 

of a system problem, but is simply a 

preventative measure, there is no riskbased benefit to post-disinfection 

routine sampling’’; (3) it would ‘‘impose 

significant logistical and cost burdens 

on the airlines and unduly delay the 

return of aircraft to service while 

sampling results were processed’’; and 

(4) ‘‘Imposing additional sampling costs 

would be arbitrary and unreasonable in 

situations that do not suggest any 

compromise of system integrity, but 

rather are routine measures.’’ 

As discussed in the proposed rule, 

EPA established that, to ensure the 

results of routine samples are not 

inadvertently skewed by sampling too 

close to a disinfection event, routine 

coliform samples must not be collected 

within 72 hours after completing 

routine disinfection and flushing 

procedures. Collecting a coliform 

sample within 72 hours of routine 

disinfection and flushing is not 

representative of the general conditions 

of the aircraft water system. This 

required 72-hour time interval has not 

been changed in the final rule. However, 

EPA does agree that such follow-up 

samples do aid in determining the 

success of disinfection and flushing, 

and encourages additional or special 

coliform sampling. Today’s rule does 

not require follow-up sampling to 

confirm the effectiveness of routine 

disinfection and flushing. EPA has not 

received sufficient information or data 

that show that such monitoring is 

necessary, and believes spacing routine 

samples evenly across monitoring 

periods is more representative of aircraft 

drinking water quality and normal 

aircraft water system operations. 

F. Aircraft Water System Operations 

and Maintenance Plan (§ 141.804) 

Both the proposed rule and today’s 

final rule require each air carrier to 

develop and implement an aircraft 

water system operations and 

maintenance plan for each aircraft water 

system operated by the air carrier. The 

air carrier need not develop a separate 

plan for each aircraft, but the air carrier 

must ensure that each aircraft it owns 

and operates is covered by a plan. For 

example, if the air carrier operates 

several of the same type of aircraft with 

the same type of water system, the air 

carrier may choose to develop one 

operations and maintenance plan that 

applies to aircraft of this type in its fleet. 

In the proposed rule, air carriers 

would be required to include the aircraft 

water system operations and 

maintenance plans in a Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA)-approved or 

-accepted air carrier operations and 

maintenance program. The Agency 

received several public comments 

against including this requirement in 

the final rule. Commenters expressed 

concern that this cast FAA in an 

inappropriate regulatory role, and that 

inclusion of the aircraft water system 

operations and maintenance plans in a 

FAA-approved or -accepted air carrier 

operations and maintenance program 

could cause significant reworking of 

existing maintenance program 

documents and may cause a duplication 

of effort in terms of regulatory oversight. 

EPA disagrees with these comments 

and continues to believe that including 

the aircraft water system operations and 

maintenance plans in a FAA-accepted 

air carrier operations and maintenance 

program is a critical element of the final 

rule. FAA views proper operation and 

maintenance of the water system as an 

operational safety issue and agrees with 

EPA that it is appropriate to have the 

water system operations and 

maintenance plans included in the 

FAA-accepted operations and 

maintenance program. FAA requires all 

maintenance and operational 

procedures to be formally documented 

for each aircraft, and a failure by an air 

carrier to perform the prescribed 

program requirements may result in 

forfeiture of air carrier operating 

certificates and/or fines. In addition, 

properly integrating aircraft water 

system operations and maintenance 

procedures with other FAA-accepted 

operations and maintenance procedures 

is the most reliable way to ensure 

effective implementation of the plan 

and maximize effective oversight by 

EPA and FAA. This will help to 

minimize duplication of effort by the 

two agencies. 

Though this requirement remains in 

the final rule, the Agency made one 

minor change to the language in this 

paragraph. Since the publication of the 

proposed rule, the Agency has learned 

that FAA does not ‘‘approve’’ the air 

carrier operations and maintenance 

programs, and that describing these 

programs as ‘‘FAA-accepted’’ programs 

is more accurate. Thus, the final rule 

requires that air carriers include the 

aircraft water system operations and 

maintenance plan in an FAA-accepted 

operations and maintenance program. 

In the proposed rule, EPA proposed to 

allow air carriers only six months to 

develop an aircraft water system 

operations and maintenance plan for 

each existing aircraft. However, the 

Agency received several comments 

requesting that the compliance date be 

extended in order to allow for more time 

for air carriers to restructure 

maintenance programs between the 

AOCs and the final rule. The comments 

and the Agency’s response are 

explained in more detail in section IV.L 

of this notice. EPA agrees that more time 

may be needed for air carriers to 

develop aircraft water system operations 

and maintenance plans for existing 

aircraft. Therefore, today’s final rule 

extends the compliance date for 

development of the aircraft water 

system operations and maintenance 

plan for existing aircraft from six 

months to 18 months after publication 

of the final rule. 

The Agency also received comments 

that the proposed rule was unclear as to 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53606 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

whether and how air carriers could 

amend their operations and 

maintenance plans or their coliform 

sampling plans. EPA agrees that the 

final rule should more clearly state the 

requirements for making changes to 

these plans. Thus, in the final rule, EPA 

addresses this concern by clarifying that 

any subsequent changes to the aircraft 

water system operations and 

maintenance plan must also be included 

in the FAA-accepted air carrier 

operations and maintenance program. 

For example, changes to the aircraft 

water system operations and 

maintenance plan could include, but are 

not limited to, changes to the 

procedures for disinfecting and 

flushing, including changes to the 

routine disinfection and flushing 

frequency, changes to training 

requirements, changes to self-inspection 

procedures, or changes to procedures for 

boarding water. The reporting 

requirements and the requirements for 

the coliform sampling plan have also 

been revised to respond to these 

comments. 

The following is a discussion of 

elements of the aircraft water system 

operations and maintenance plan for 

which EPA received comment and/or 

made changes to the final rule. 

The proposed rule would require that 

the operations and maintenance plan 

ensure all water boarded within the 

United States is from an FDA-approved 

watering point as required under 21 

CFR 1240.80. The Agency received 

several comments on this requirement. 

Some commenters believed that EPA 

intended this requirement to alter FDA 

regulations applicable to watering 

points. The commenters also pointed 

out a possible inconsistency with this 

requirement and existing FDA 

regulations for watering points. 

The Agency continues to 

acknowledge the joint oversight role of 

EPA and FDA in ensuring safe drinking 

water on aircraft. Therefore, this 

requirement does not seek to change any 

of FDA’s regulations regarding watering 

points. Rather, EPA continues to defer 

to FDA with respect to regulating 

watering points. FDA will continue to 

ensure that the water supply meets the 

standards prescribed in EPA’s NPDWRs, 

and ensure the methods of delivery, 

facilities for delivery, and the sanitary 

conditions surrounding the delivery of 

water to the aircraft in order to prevent 

the introduction, transmission, or 

spread of communicable diseases. 

Therefore, EPA revised the final rule to 

clearly communicate the Agency’s 

intent. The final rule requires that all 

watering points must be selected in 

accordance with FDA regulations (21 

CFR part 1240, subpart E). Today’s final 

rule also requires that the operations 

and maintenance plan include 

procedures for ensuring that the air 

carrier board water from a watering 

point in accordance with FDA 

regulations (21 CFR part 1240, subpart 

E). These changes remove any 

inconsistency between the final rule and 

existing FDA regulations. It also ensures 

that all FDA regulations regarding 

watering points, including those 

applicable to watering points permitted 

for temporary use, are referenced in the 

final rule. 

The proposed rule stated that in no 

event must air carriers knowingly serve 

water that violates the NPDWRs. It also 

provided that if it was necessary to 

board water that violated the NPDWRs, 

the air carrier must perform the 

corrective action requirements 

applicable to E. coli-positive coliform 

sample results. Today’s final rule 

clarifies that in no event must air 

carriers knowingly provide water for 

human consumption that violates the 

NPDWRs applicable to transient noncommunity water systems. The Agency 

understands that sometimes unsafe 

water must be boarded in order to 

operate other essential systems, but at 

no time are air carriers to provide such 

water to passengers and crew in the 

form of beverages (e.g., coffee, tea, etc.); 

nor may passengers and crew be 

allowed access to the water system (i.e., 

the water system must be shut-off or the 

flow of water prevented through the 

taps); nor may the water be used for 

food preparation or any other 

consumptive use. 

The proposed rule would require that 

the operations and maintenance plan 

describe emergency procedures to be 

used in the event that water is boarded 

to operate essential systems, such as 

toilets, but is not boarded from an FDAapproved or otherwise safe watering 

point. In the final rule, EPA continues 

to require that the operations and 

maintenance plan include a description 

of emergency procedures to be used in 

the event that unsafe water is boarded 

to operate essential systems. In today’s 

final rule, the operations and 

maintenance plan must include a 

description of emergency procedures 

used when the air carrier becomes 

aware that unsafe water is boarded. 

Unsafe water includes: 

• Water boarded from a watering 

point not in accordance with FDA 

regulations; 

• Water that does not meet NPDWRs 

applicable to transient non-community 

water systems; or 

• Water that is otherwise determined 

to be unsafe due to non-compliance 

with the procedures for boarding water 

specified in the operations and 

maintenance plan. 

G. Notification Requirements to 

Passengers and Crew (§ 141.805) 

1. Situations Requiring Public 

Notification 

In EPA’s proposed rule, public 

notification would be required in the 

following situations: (1) Where access to 

the aircraft water system is required to 

be restricted (e.g., fecal coliform/E. colipositive sample result); (2) where there 

was a failure to collect required 

samples; (3) when the quality of the 

water cannot be assured, for example, 

when water has been boarded from a 

watering point not approved by FDA, or 

in a manner that does not otherwise 

comply with the air carrier’s procedures 

for ensuring safe water outside the 

United States; or (4) in any other 

situation where the Administrator, air 

carrier, or crew determines that 

notification is necessary to protect 

public health. 

The Agency received several 

comments that prompted EPA to make 

changes to the situations described in 

the proposed rule. Some of the changes 

were a result of comments directly 

related to the public notification 

requirements of this section, while other 

changes were a result of comments 

applicable to other sections of the rule 

which subsequently affected these 

public notification requirements. 

First, in the final rule, the Agency 

restructured the corrective action 

requirements in § 141.803 in response to 

comments discussed previously. Under 

the final corrective action provisions, 

public notification not only applies to 

an E. coli-positive sample result, but 

also when an air carrier chooses to 

restrict public access in response to a 

sample result that is total coliformpositive and E. coli-negative, and failure 

to perform required ADWR provisions. 

Second, the Agency received 

comments stating that the situations 

requiring notification listed in the 

proposed rule in § 141.810 (i.e., 

Violations) conflict with the situations 

listed in proposed § 141.805 (i.e., 

Notification of passengers and crew). 

The comments suggested that to avoid 

confusion and inconsistency, EPA 

should delete the public notification 

requirements in § 141.810 or make 

conforming changes to the two sections. 

EPA agrees that the reference to public 

notification requirements in § 141.805 is 

confusing and inconsistent with 

§ 141.810. Therefore, EPA removed all 

references to public notification from 

§ 141.810 and made conforming changes 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53607 

to § 141.805 of the final rule. As a result, 

air carriers are now required to give 

public notification when there has been 

a failure to perform required routine 

disinfection and flushing; or failure to 

collect routine, repeat or follow-up 

samples; or a failure to perform a 

corrective action associated with a fecal 

occurrence event. 

Third, the Agency received several 

comments on the watering point 

selection requirement and the 

requirement to board water from FDAapproved watering points in § 141.804. 

These comments and EPA’s response 

are discussed elsewhere in today’s 

notice. As a result, the Agency clarified 

both of these requirements in § 141.804 

of the final rule, and made the following 

changes under which air carriers must 

provide public notification when the air 

carrier becomes aware that the quality of 

water cannot be assured: 

• Where water has been boarded from 

a watering point not in accordance with 

FDA regulations; 

• Where water that has been boarded 

does not meet NPDWRs applicable to 

transient non-community water 

systems; and 

• Where water is otherwise 

determined to be unsafe due to noncompliance with the procedures 

specified in § 141.804(b)(6). 

2. Method of Notification Delivery 

Both the proposed rule and today’s 

final rule require that air carriers 

provide notification in a form and 

manner reasonably calculated to reach 

all passengers and crew. Using a variety 

of delivery methods for these 

notifications will help ensure that all 

passengers, including those with visual 

or hearing impairments, or non-English 

speakers, will have access to relevant 

public health information. 

3. Cessation of Public Notification 

The proposed rule would require that 

all public notification continue until all 

follow-up samples are total coliformnegative. As a result of clarifications 

made to the corrective action 

requirements in § 141.803 of the final 

rule, EPA also clarifies that an air carrier 

must continue to provide public 

notification until the aircraft water 

system is returned to unrestricted public 

access. 

For instance, when the initial 

corrective action disinfection and 

flushing is conducted in response to a 

routine total coliform-positive sample 

result that is E. coli-negative, or there is 

a failure to perform required actions as 

a result of non-fecal events, public 

notification may cease when the aircraft 

water system is disinfected and flushed 

and follow-up samples have been 

collected. At this time, the water system 

may be returned to unrestricted public 

access; however, when corrective action 

disinfection and flushing is conducted 

more than once (i.e., disinfection and 

flushing is conducted in response to a 

follow-up sample that is total coliformpositive and E. coli-negative), public 

access restrictions, including public 

notification, must remain in-place until 

a later set of follow-up samples is total 

coliform-negative. 

If initial corrective action disinfection 

and flushing is conducted as a result of 

an E. coli-positive sample result, or a 

failure to perform required actions as a 

result of fecal events, public access 

restrictions, including public 

notification, must remain in-place until 

a complete set of follow-up samples is 

total coliform-negative (not just until 

they are collected and sent for analysis, 

as in the case where the corrective 

action is triggered by a total coliformpositive but E. coli-negative sample). 

In both cases, when public access is 

restricted due to an E. coli-positive 

sample or a total coliform-positive 

sample that is E. coli-negative, if the air 

carrier can shut off the water system or 

restrict the flow of water through the 

taps, then public notification need only 

be conducted for the crew and not to the 

passengers. 

4. Type of Notice Required When Public 

Access Is Restricted 

Commenters noted that the public 

notification requirements in the 

proposed rule were confusing, and it 

was difficult to determine which 

requirements were applicable in 

situations where public access was 

restricted. In the final rule, the Agency 

better aligns the public notification 

requirements based on three categories: 

sample results (i.e., a total coliformpositive and E. coli-negative result or an 

E. coli-positive result), non-fecal 

occurrence failures and events (e.g., 

failure to conduct repeat sampling), and 

fecal occurrence failures and events 

(e.g., failure to collect follow-up 

samples after the aircraft water system 

tests positive for E. coli, or the air carrier 

becomes aware that E. coli-positive 

water was boarded from a watering 

point not in accordance with FDA 

regulations, etc.). 

In today’s rule, EPA makes clear for 

all three public notification categories 

that if the aircraft water system can be 

physically disconnected, shut-off, or the 

flow of water is prevented through the 

taps, air carriers are required to provide 

public notification to the crew only. 

However, if the aircraft water system 

cannot be physically disconnected, 

shut-off, or the flow of water cannot be 

prevented through the taps, air carriers 

are required to provide public 

notification to passengers and crew. 

This is allowable for all three public 

notification categories. 

In addition, today’s rule requires that 

when an air carrier becomes aware that 

unsafe water was boarded, the public 

notice must include when and where 

the unsafe water was boarded. For the 

purpose of this requirement, unsafe 

water includes water that was boarded 

from a watering point not in accordance 

with FDA regulations (21 CFR part 1240 

subpart E), or water that does not meet 

NPDWRs applicable to TNCWSs, or 

water that is otherwise determined to be 

unsafe due to non-compliance with the 

procedures specified in § 141.804(b)(6). 

5. Standard Health Effects Language 

Due to the removal of fecal coliforms 

as a fecal indicator (as discussed in 

section IV.C Responses to Sample 

Results), all references to ‘‘fecal 

coliforms’’ have been removed from the 

health effects language. In addition, in 

order to better align the health effects 

language in § 141.805 to the restructured 

corrective action requirements in 

§ 141.803, the Agency clarified that 

there is specific health effects language 

applicable when public notification is 

triggered by an E. coli-positive sample 

result, a sample result that is total 

coliform-positive and E. coli-negative, or 

a non-fecal occurrence failure or event. 

In addition, new health effects language 

was added when public notification is 

triggered by a fecal occurrence failure or 

event. 

The specific health effects language 

was also revised to conform to revisions 

to § 141.804. In the final rule, the 

watering point statement reads, ‘‘Water 

was boarded from a watering point not 

in accordance with FDA regulations,’’ 

rather than, ‘‘Water was boarded from a 

watering point not approved by FDA.’’ 

H. Reporting Requirements (§ 141.806) 

EPA proposed that air carriers report 

the following to the Administrator 

within six months of publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register: 

• That a coliform sampling plan was 

developed for each existing aircraft; 

• The frequency for routine coliform 

sampling identified in the coliform 

sampling plan developed for each 

existing aircraft; and 

• That an operations and 

maintenance plan was developed for 

each existing aircraft. 

The Agency received several 

comments requesting that the 

compliance date be extended in order to 

allow for more time for air carriers to 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53608 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

restructure maintenance programs 

between the AOCs and the final rule. 

EPA agrees that more time may be 

needed for air carriers to comply with 

these reporting requirements. Therefore, 

today’s rule requires that air carries 

comply with these requirements 18 

months after publication of the final 

rule. The comments and the Agency’s 

response are explained in more detail in 

section IV.L of this notice. 

EPA proposed that air carriers report 

a complete inventory of aircraft that are 

public water systems within six months 

of publication of the final rule. 

However, the Agency received several 

comments requesting that this 

compliance date be extended. EPA 

agrees that more time may be needed for 

air carriers to report a complete 

inventory of aircraft that are public 

water systems. Therefore, today’s final 

rule extends the compliance date for 

development and reporting of the 

inventory to 18 months after publication 

of the final rule. The comments and the 

Agency’s response are explained in 

more detail in section IV.L of this 

notice. 

The Agency received comments 

requesting clarification on the aircraft 

inventory requirement to report changes 

in an aircraft’s status from active to 

inactive or vice versa. In the final rule, 

EPA clarifies that active or inactive 

status refers to the aircraft’s status as an 

aircraft water system. Thus, an aircraft 

that meets the definition of an aircraft 

water system is considered ‘‘active,’’ 

while one that does not meet this 

definition is considered ‘‘inactive.’’ For 

example, an aircraft may be considered 

‘‘inactive’’ in situations where an 

aircraft is out of passenger service for 

extended maintenance, or where an 

aircraft is in passenger service, but 

flying strictly international routes where 

SDWA does not apply. Therefore, in the 

final rule, the Agency clarifies that air 

carriers must report, no later than 10 

days following the calendar month in 

which the change occurred, the status, 

or the change in status, of any aircraft 

as an aircraft water system as defined in 

§ 141.801. 

In addition, EPA corrects the final 

rule by adding § 141.806(b)(2)(iv). This 

paragraph requires air carriers to report 

changes in the ability to physically shut 

off or disconnect the water system. This 

requirement was referred to in the 

preamble of the proposed rule, but 

omitted from the rule text. Restoring 

this requirement to the rule eliminates 

the inconsistency. 

The Agency received comments that 

the proposed rule was unclear as to 

whether and how air carriers could 

amend their operations and 

maintenance plans or their coliform 

sampling plans. In the final rule, EPA 

addresses this concern by amending the 

final rule in several places, including by 

adding paragraph § 141.806(b)(6). This 

paragraph requires that the new 

frequency be reported to the 

Administrator no later than 10 days 

following the calendar month in which 

the change occurred. It also requires that 

these changes be included in the aircraft 

water system operations and 

maintenance plan that is included in the 

air carrier operations and maintenance 

program accepted by FAA. 

In the proposed rule, the Agency 

noted for each aircraft water system the 

air carriers must include the routine 

disinfection and flushing frequency in 

the operations and maintenance plan, 

and air carriers must keep records of 

disinfection and flushing events. 

However, the Agency did not 

specifically note under § 141.806 that 

disinfection and flushing events must be 

reported to the Administrator. Since the 

Agency’s intent included reporting 

disinfection and flushing events to the 

Administrator, the following was added 

to § 141.806 Reporting Requirements for 

consistency and clarification:

• For each existing aircraft water 

system, the air carrier must report to the 

Administrator the frequency for routine 

disinfection and flushing by 18 months 

after the final rule is published.

• For each new aircraft water system, 

the air carrier must report the frequency 

for routine disinfection and flushing, 

within the first calendar quarter of 

initial operation of the aircraft.

• Routine disinfection and flushing 

events must be reported no later than 10 

calendar days following the disinfection 

and flushing period in which the 

disinfection and flushing occurred (e.g., 

quarterly, semi-annually). 

• Changes to the disinfection and 

flushing frequencies must be reported 

no later than 10 days following the 

calendar month in which the change 

occurred. 

In addition, the final rule further 

clarifies the Agency’s intent to require 

reporting of all events that require nonroutine sampling. 

I. Recordkeeping Requirements 

(§ 141.807) 

In both the proposed rule and today’s 

final rule, EPA requires that air carriers 

retain certain information for the aircraft 

water systems that they own or operate. 

The following is a discussion of 

recordkeeping requirements for which 

EPA received comment and/or made 

changes to the final rule. 

In the proposed rule, the Agency did 

not specify the types of records related 

to disinfection and flushing and selfinspections that must be kept in order 

to meet the recordkeeping requirements. 

One commenter suggested that air 

carriers be required to ‘‘keep records 

confirming performance of required 

disinfection’’ and ‘‘keep records 

confirming performance of selfinspections.’’ In general, the commenter 

stated that requiring air carriers to keep 

more detailed records does not conform 

with current FAA-supervised 

maintenance activities, and adds 

unnecessary burdens and confusion 

with respect to compliance with the 

requirements. 

EPA disagrees with amending these 

paragraphs in the manner suggested in 

the comments because the Agency 

considers these requirements to be the 

minimum necessary to ensure 

accountability and facilitate regulatory 

oversight to ensure compliance with the 

rule. In addition, EPA believes that 

detailed records of self-inspections are 

necessary to inform the Agency about 

the condition of the water system 

components at the time of the 

inspection and any deficiencies 

identified during the inspection. A 

record simply confirming performance 

of a self-inspection would not be 

sufficient. While EPA disagrees with 

amending this paragraph in the manner 

suggested in the comments, the Agency 

believes that adding more specificity to 

these recordkeeping requirements will 

help to avoid confusion with respect to 

compliance. Therefore, in today’s rule, 

the Agency clarified this section by 

adding that at a minimum, records of 

disinfection and flushing must include 

the following: Date and time of the 

disinfection and flushing, and the type 

of disinfection and flushing (i.e., routine 

or corrective action). The recordkeeping 

requirements for self-inspections were 

also amended to align with existing 

recordkeeping requirements for sanitary 

surveys conducted by owners and 

operators of stationary public water 

systems. In the final rule, at a minimum, 

records of self-inspection must include 

the following: Completion date of the 

self-inspection, and copies of any 

written reports, summaries or 

communications related to the selfinspection. 

In the proposed rule, air carriers were 

required to keep public notices to 

passengers and crew for at least three 

years after issuance. However, the 

Agency received comments requesting 

that EPA amend the proposed rule to 

require air carriers to merely ‘‘keep a 

record of notices to passengers and 

crew’’ because the requirement to keep 

physical notices would be operationally 

difficult for air carriers. EPA disagrees 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53609 

with amending this paragraph in the 

manner suggested in the comments 

because the Agency believes a copy of 

the physical notice is necessary to allow 

the Agency to determine compliance 

with the public notification 

requirements of this rule. In addition, 

EPA does not believe that this 

requirement is burdensome or 

operationally difficult because the 

copies need not be in paper format. Air 

carriers may keep electronic copies of 

these notices in lieu of paper copies. 

Thus, in the final rule, EPA clarifies that 

the air carrier must keep copies of the 

public notices given to passengers and 

crew. 

J. Audit and Self-Inspection 

Requirements (§ 141.808) 

In place of the sanitary survey that is 

required every five years for other 

transient non-community public water 

systems using surface water, the 

proposed and final rules require that a 

self-inspection be conducted by the air 

carrier for each aircraft water system no 

less frequently than once every five 

calendar years. An inspection of the 

entire aircraft water system need not be 

completed in one day; the air carrier 

need only ensure that all water system 

components are inspected once every 

five calendar years. 

K. Violations (§ 141.810) 

The Agency received several 

comments on the proposed rule stating 

that the notification requirements in 

§ 141.810 conflict with the notification 

requirements proposed in § 141.805, 

and that to avoid confusion and 

inconsistency, EPA should delete the 

public notification requirements in this 

section or make conforming changes to 

both sections. EPA agrees that the 

reference to public notification 

requirements in this section is confusing 

and inconsistent with § 141.805. 

Therefore, as noted previously, EPA 

removed all references to public 

notification from § 141.810 and made 

conforming changes to § 141.805. 

In addition, due to the removal of 

fecal coliforms as a fecal indicator (as 

discussed in section IV.C Responses to 

Sample Results), all references to fecal 

coliforms have been removed from the 

violations to conform with the revision. 

Other than the changes mentioned here, 

the specific violations remain the same 

in the final rule. 

L. Compliance Date 

In the proposed rule, air carriers 

would be required to comply with the 

rule within six months from the date of 

publication for several reporting and 

planning requirements, and 12 months 

from the date of publication for the rest 

of the rule requirements. While SDWA 

section 1412(b)(10) generally requires a 

three-year delay before new or amended 

rules are effective, that provision also 

authorizes EPA to set an earlier 

compliance date if the Agency 

determines that the earlier date is 

practicable. At the time of the proposal 

the Agency believed these dates were 

practicable because EPA will implement 

the rule, making it unnecessary to allow 

time for States to obtain enforcement 

authority prior to implementation of the 

rule. In addition, most air carriers are 

currently under AOCs which have 

similar requirements to this rule. Thus, 

EPA believed complying with the 

ADWR should not require significant 

changes in terms of operations and 

maintenance procedures. However, the 

Agency received several comments 

requesting that the compliance dates be 

extended to be more consistent with the 

three-year compliance date for new or 

revised NPDWRs under SDWA (section 

1412(b)(10)). Also, some commenters 

expressed concern that the six-month 

compliance date would be impracticable 

because air carriers need more time to 

restructure maintenance programs 

between the AOCs and the final ADWR. 

Commenters suggested compliance 

dates of 18 months from the date of 

publication for the reporting and 

planning requirements, and 24 months 

from the date of publication for the rest 

of the rule. 

The Agency agrees that the original 

timeline for compliance in the proposed 

rule may be too short for some air 

carriers to meet, and more time may be 

needed for air carriers to comply with 

the requirements of the final rule. 

Therefore, today’s rule requires air 

carriers to comply with the 

requirements of the rule within 18 

months from the date of publication for 

the reporting and planning requirements 

and 24 months from the date of 

publication for the rest of the rule 

requirements (see Table IV–3). The 18-

month compliance date applies to the 

following: 

• Develop a coliform sampling plan 

for existing aircraft and report to EPA 

that the plans were developed; 

• Report the coliform sampling 

frequency included in the coliform 

sampling plans; 

• Develop an Aircraft Water System 

Operations and Maintenance Plan for 

existing aircraft and report to EPA that 

the plans were developed; 

• Report a complete inventory of 

existing aircraft water systems. 

TABLE IV–3—COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING DATES 

Requirement 

Within the first 

18 months following 

publication of 

the final rule 

Within the first 

calendar 

quarter of initial operation 

Within 10 days 

following the 

calendar 

month in 

which the 

change 

occurred 

Beginning 24 

months after 

publication of 

the final rule 

Aircraft Water System Operations and Maintenance Plan: 

Existing 1 Aircraft—develop the plan and report that it has been developed ...................................................................................................... 

New 2 Aircraft—develop the plan and report that it has been developed 

Aircraft Coliform Sampling Plan: 

Existing 1 Aircraft—develop the plan and report that it has been developed ...................................................................................................... 

New 2 Aircraft—develop the plan and report that it has been developed 

Aircraft Frequency of Coliform Sampling and Routine Disinfection and 

Flushing: 

Existing 1Aircraft—report the routine frequency ....................................... 

New 2 Aircraft—report the routine frequency ............................................ 

Report any change 3 in routine frequency ................................................ 

Aircraft Inventory: 

Existing Aircraft—report the inventory ...................................................... 

X 

........................ 

X 

........................ 

X 

........................ 

........................ 

X 

........................ 

X 

........................ 

X 

........................ 

X 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

X 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53610 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV–3—COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING DATES—Continued 

Requirement 

Within the first 

18 months following 

publication of 

the final rule 

Within the first 

calendar 

quarter of initial operation 

Within 10 days 

following the 

calendar 

month in 

which the 

change 

occurred 

Beginning 24 

months after 

publication of 

the final rule 

Report any change 3 to aircraft inventory ................................................. 

Aircraft Routine Requirements: 

Conduct routine monitoring ...................................................................... 

Conduct routine disinfection and flushing ................................................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

X 

........................ 

........................ 

........................ 

X 

X 

1 Existing Aircraft: means any aircraft that is in operation when the final rule is published or is brought into operation within the first 18 months 

after the final rule is published. 2 New Aircraft: means any aircraft that is brought into operation after the 18th month following publication of the final rule. 3 Any changes made after the 18th month following publication of the final rule. 

V. Cost Analysis 	 systems. EPA also considered certain million at a 7 percent discount rate. 

aspects of the ADWR that are non- Table V–1 presents the itemized and In estimating the costs of this rule, quantified costs and that contribute to 	 total annualized implementation costs EPA considered impacts on aircraft uncertainties in the cost estimates. 	 to air carriers (airlines) and EPA for the water systems and air carriers, air A. ADWR at 3 and 7 percent discount rates. National Cost Estimates carrier passengers, as well as Agency Unit costs were multiplied by the costs for rule implementation. Agency EPA estimates that the total number of air carriers or aircraft costs are included in lieu of State costs 	 annualized implementation cost to the performing each requirement of the final because implementation of the ADWR is 	 air carriers of carrying out the activities rule, and results were summed for all the responsibility of EPA as a regulation 	 required in this ADWR is $7.04 million components. applicable only to aircraft water 	 at a 3 percent discount rate and $6.95 

TABLE V–1—TOTAL ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR THE FINAL ADWR 

[$Millions, 2008$] 

Air carriers Agency Total Air carriers Agency Total 

3% 7% 

Implementation ......................................... $0.002 $0.01 $0.01 $0.004 $0.01 $0.02 

Annual Administration .............................. ........................ 0.24 0.24 ........................ 0.23 0.23 

Sampling Plan .......................................... 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.003 

O&M Plan ................................................. 0.01 0.0001 0.01 0.02 0.0001 0.02 

Coliform Monitoring .................................. 4.89 0.04 4.93 4.82 0.04 4.86 

Routine Disinfection and Flushing ........... 2.08 ........................ 2.08 2.05 ........................ 2.05 

Corrective Action Disinfection and Flushing ......................................................... 0.05 ........................ 0.05 0.05 ........................ 0.05 

Compliance Audit ..................................... 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 

Total .................................................. 7.04 0.30 7.34 6.95 0.30 7.25 

As discussed more fully in the aircraft water system industry if the EPA estimates that the total 

preamble for the proposed rule (73 FR requirements of the ADWR were not annualized incremental savings of this 

19337), EPA notes that the cost of the promulgated. The reduction in cost (i.e., ADWR is $22.15 million at a 3 percent 

proposed ADWR was significantly less the incremental savings of the ADWR discount rate and $21.83 million at a 7 

than the current regulatory requirements compared to the regulatory baseline) is percent discount rate, as presented in 

of the NPDWRs. The current NPDWR the result of tailoring the current Table V–2. The incremental savings 

requirements, considered to be the regulations for transient non-community represent the difference in total 

baseline against which to compare the public water systems to the specific annualized implementation costs 

set of regulatory requirements of the operational characteristics of aircraft between the baseline (i.e., the existing 

ADWR, would continue to apply to the drinking water systems. NPDWRs) and the final rule provisions. 

TABLE V–2—TOTAL ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL COST: EXISTING NPDWRS AND THE ADWR 

[$Millions, 2008$] 

Alt 1 (Existing 

NPDWRs) 

Alt 4 (Final 

Rule) 

Incremental 

Cost (Alt 

4¥Alt 1) 

Alt 1 (Existing 

NPDWRs) 

Alt 4 (Final 

Rule) 

Incremental 

Cost (Alt 

4¥Alt 1) 

3% 7% 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53611 

TABLE V–2—TOTAL ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL COST: EXISTING NPDWRS AND THE ADWR—Continued 

[$Millions, 2008$] 

Implementation ......................................... 0.01 0.01 0 0.02 0.02 0 

Annual Administration .............................. 0.24 0.24 0 0.23 0.23 0 

Monitoring Plan ........................................ 0.002 0.002 0 0.004 0.003 (0.001) 

O&M Plan ................................................. ........................ 0.01 0.01 ........................ 0.02 0.02 

Coliform Monitoring .................................. 25.37 4.93 (20.44) 25.02 4.86 (20.16) 

Disinfectant Residual Monitoring ............. 3.17 ........................ (3.17) 3.13 ........................ (3.13) 

Routine Disinfection and Flushing ........... ........................ 2.08 2.08 ........................ 2.05 2.05 

Corrective Action Disinfection and Flushing ......................................................... ........................ 0.05 0.05 ........................ 0.05 0.05 

Sanitary Survey/Compliance Audit .......... 0.7 0.02 (0.68) 0.69 0.02 (0.67) 

Turbidity Monitoring ................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 

Total .................................................. 29.49 7.34 (22.15) 29.08 7.25 (21.83) 

The regulatory baseline does not 

reflect the Administrative Orders on 

Consent (AOCs), which are interim 

enforcement actions applying to 45 air 

carriers. As discussed earlier in this 

notice, in 2004, EPA found all aircraft 

that were public water systems to be out 

of compliance with the NPDWRs. EPA 

subsequently placed 45 air carriers 

under AOCs that will remain in effect 

until the tailored aircraft drinking water 

regulations are final. The air carrier 

AOCs combine sampling, best 

management practices, corrective 

action, public notification, and 

reporting and recordkeeping to ensure 

public health protection. With respect to 

sampling under the AOCs, air carriers 

with greater than 20 aircraft were 

required to sample 25 percent of their 

fleet quarterly, while air carriers with 20 

or fewer aircraft were required to 

sample the entire fleet quarterly. 

Because the majority of the air carriers 

are currently subject to the requirements 

of the AOCs, EPA notes that if the 

requirements similar to the AOCs (i.e., 

Alternative 2 in the EA) were used as an 

alternative baseline, the incremental 

cost of the final ADWR would be $0.18 

million at the 3 percent discount rate 

and $0.18 million at the 7 percent 

discount rate. 

As described in section V.C, the final 

rule provides additional cost savings to 

air carriers over the proposed rule. 

B. Estimated Impacts of the Final ADWR 

to Air Carrier Passengers 

EPA assumes that air carriers will 

pass on some or all of the costs of a new 

regulation to their passengers in the 

form of ticket price increases. For 

purposes of this analysis, EPA estimates 

that an average of 708.4 million 

passengers travel each year on aircraft 

that are affected by the ADWR. (See 

Column E, Exhibit 5.3 of the Economic 

and Supporting Analysis Document for 

the Final ADWR, (USEPA, 2009)). The 

cost passed on to passengers can be 

roughly estimated by dividing the air 

carriers’ annualized implementation 

costs incurred by the number of 

passengers traveling each year. Based on 

this approximation, EPA estimates that 

passengers could face a relatively 

negligible increase of about one cent per 

ticket. The Agency has chosen to use the 

same number of passengers and flights 

estimated for the proposed rule for the 

final rule analysis in order to facilitate 

cost comparisons between the proposed 

and final rule provisions. This should 

not significantly affect the cost per 

passenger analysis. 

C. Comparison of Costs From Proposed 

Rule to Final Rule 

As discussed in section III.A of this 

notice, a collaborative rule development 

process was used for the proposed 

ADWR. This process provided an 

opportunity for stakeholders to inform 

the Agency about existing operations 

and maintenance practices for aircraft 

water systems and to convey concerns 

regarding existing regulations applicable 

to aircraft water systems, public health 

issues, fleet operations issues that are 

unique to the air carrier industry, and 

potential rule alternatives. Public 

comment was received on the proposed 

rule, and modifications have been 

incorporated into the final ADWR. Some 

of the modifications to the proposed 

rule that are incorporated into the final 

rule affected the estimated cost of 

implementing the regulation; other 

changes had no net effect on cost as 

modeled or are non-quantified costs. 

This section provides a discussion of 

the cost of the elements of the final 

ADWR that changed in comparison to 

the proposed rule and summarizes the 

assumptions that have been 

incorporated into the cost estimates. 

The total annualized present value 

implementation costs at 3 percent and 7 

percent discount rates for the rule 

provisions are shown in Table V–3 for 

the proposed and final rules. The total 

estimated annual quantified costs for 

implementing the ADWR have changed 

from the proposal costs of $8.13 million 

and $8.24 million (year 2008 dollars, 

using 3 and 7 percent discount rates, 

respectively) to $7.34 million and $7.25 

million (year 2008 dollars, using 3 and 

7 percent discount rates, respectively). 

The costs reported for the ADWR are 

from Table V–1; the costs for the 

proposed rule include adjustments for 

the general cost assumptions and 

methodology applied to the ADWR (e.g., 

labor rates), with all costs adjusted to 

2008 dollars. 

TABLE V–3—COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL ADWR TOTAL ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE IMPLEMENTATION
 

COSTS
 

[$Millions, 2008$] 


3% 

Proposal 

3% 

Final 

7% 

Proposal 

7% 

Final 

Implementation ........................................................................................................ 

Annual Administration .............................................................................................. 

Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................ 

O&M Plan ................................................................................................................ 

0 .01 

0 .25 

0 .002 

0 .01 

0 .01 

0 .24 

0 .002 

0 .01 

0 .01 

0 .25 

0 .004 

0 .02 

0 .02 

0 .23 

0 .003 

0 .02 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53612 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V–3—COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL ADWR TOTAL ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE IMPLEMENTATION
 

COSTS—Continued 


[$Millions, 2008$] 


3% 

Proposal 

3% 

Final 

7% 

Proposal 

7% 

Final 

Coliform Monitoring .................................................................................................. 

Routine Disinfection and Flushing ........................................................................... 

Corrective Action Disinfection and Flushing ............................................................ 

Compliance Audit ..................................................................................................... 

5 .50 

2 .21 

0 .13 

0 .02 

4 .93 

2 .08 

0 .05 

0 .02 

5 .57 

2 .23 

0 .13 

0 .02 

4 .86 

2 .05 

0 .05 

0 .02 

Total .................................................................................................................. * 8.13 7 .34 * 8.24 7 .25 

* For the proposal, the total annualized present value cost at a 3% discount rate is less than at a 7% discount rate by a small amount. 

Changes in the implementation schedule (later implementation) for the final rule result in a larger calculated difference in present value costs, 

which results in total annualized present value costs slightly greater at a 3% discount rate than at a 7% rate. 

The change in quantified costs 

between the proposed and final ADWR 

primarily is due to the additional 

flexibility in the ADWR provided to air 

carriers in choosing one of four options 

for flushing and disinfection frequency. 

Additional cost savings are due to 

changes in EPA’s estimate of the cost to 

air carriers for implementation based on 

the percentage of aircraft that will select 

each option, the percentage of routine 

and repeat total coliform monitoring 

samples that are anticipated to be total 

coliform-positive, and the options 

available to air carriers for addressing 

total coliform-positive test results. 

These assumptions and regulatory 

impacts are discussed below and in 

more detail in the final ADWR 

Economic Analysis. 

The final rule includes an extension 

of the compliance dates to 18 months 

after rule publication for the coliform 

sampling plan, operations and 

maintenance plan, and the aircraft 

inventory; the proposed rule specified a 

6-month timeframe for these 

requirements. In addition, the final rule 

adjusts the timeframe for beginning to 

conduct sampling and other compliance 

requirements to 24 months after final 

rule publication from 12 months 

specified in the proposed rule. These 

delays in compliance dates have a slight 

effect on the timing of the costs 

represented by the 25-year compliance 

period captured by these estimates. 

There is a one-time cost for reading 

and understanding the rule, becoming 

familiar with its provisions, and training 

employees on the rule. The final ADWR 

provides a burden allowance for each 

air carrier to read and understand the 

rule of eight hours per carrier, increased 

from two hours per carrier in the 

proposed rule. This change was made in 

response to public comments received 

on the proposed rule which conveyed 

that air carriers would typically have 

more than one individual responsible 

for this aspect of rule implementation. 

Commenters expressed concern that the 

proposed rule burden estimate of a 

single individual spending two hours to 

read and understand the rule did not 

adequately capture the true air carrier 

needs. In response to those concerns, 

the Agency assumes, on average, each 

air carrier will have four staff persons 

who will need to read and understand 

the rule at two hours estimated burden 

for each person. The eight hours per air 

carrier for staff training is unchanged 

from the proposed rule. 

The coliform monitoring category 

includes cost estimates for routine 

sampling and repeat sampling; followup coliform monitoring is captured 

under corrective action disinfection and 

flushing cost estimates. Each aircraft 

routine coliform monitoring schedule is 

determined by the routine disinfection 

and flushing frequency that should be 

based on manufacturer’s 

recommendations. EPA is providing air 

carriers with additional flexibility in the 

final rule by allowing air carriers to 

select any of the disinfection and 

flushing options in the absence of a 

manufacturer’s recommendation. 

Although the specific routine 

monitoring frequency to be used by each 

aircraft is unknown, the Agency made 

assumptions on the frequencies they 

would follow and incorporated those 

assumptions into the cost model. 

Because selection of an option best 

suited to other operations and 

maintenance obligations of the aircraft 

is anticipated to help minimize flight 

disruption events but its effect is 

unknown, it is included in the 

uncertainties of the cost model. 

The assumptions of the percentage of 

aircraft that would select each of the 

monitoring frequency options have been 

adjusted to incorporate the fourth 

option that is included in the final rule. 

As discussed previously, the addition of 

the fourth option for routine 

disinfection and flushing frequency was 

in response to public comment, which 

would also result in fewer flight 

disruptions necessary for aircraft water 

system maintenance needs. For the final 

rule, the Agency assumed 10 percent of 

the aircraft would follow monthly 

monitoring with routine disinfection 

and flushing one time per year or less; 

30 percent would follow monitoring 

quarterly with routine disinfection and 

flushing twice per year; 30 percent 

would follow monitoring twice per year 

with routine disinfection and flushing 3 

times per year; and 30 percent would 

follow annual monitoring with routine 

disinfection and flushing on a quarterly 

basis. The proposed rule assumed 10 

percent of the aircraft would monitor 

monthly, 45 percent quarterly, and 45 

percent annually. 

Several other provisions in the final 

rule and their related assumptions affect 

the estimated cost for coliform 

monitoring. Those provisions include a 

reduction of the number of repeat 

samples to three in the final rule from 

four in the proposed rule, and allowing 

repeat sampling if more than one 

routine sample is total coliform-positive 

but E. coli-negative. The proposed rule 

limited the option for repeat sampling to 

situations when no more than one 

routine sample was total coliformpositive. 

The final ADWR utilized the coliform 

monitoring findings of the air carrier 

AOCs processed as of December 31, 

2008, for estimates of the percentage of 

routine and repeat samples that are 

anticipated to be total coliform-positive 

and E. coli-positive. A discussion of the 

AOCs data is found in section III.B of 

this notice. For the final rule, a routine 

sample total coliform-positive rate of 3.6 

percent and a repeat sample total 

coliform-positive rate of 5.7 percent are 

assumed based on the AOCs results. The 

proposed rule applied a routine sample 

rate of 3.1 percent based on data 

available at the time, and a repeat 

sample rate of 50 percent. 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53613 

Assumptions pertaining to the 

number of corrective action disinfection 

and flushing events that would be 

incurred were recalculated based on 

whether the aircraft was anticipated to 

already be scheduled for routine 

disinfection and flushing in the 

immediate future. In addition, if the 

water system is physically shut-off to 

prevent public access to the water 

system within 24 hours of notification 

of the need to restrict public access, the 

final rule removed the requirement that 

an aircraft with total coliform-positive 

or E. coli-positive water samples must 

be disinfected and flushed within a 

prescribed time period. 

The Agency assumed, based on 

comments received on the proposed 

rule, that air carriers would seek to 

minimize the number of times 

unscheduled disinfection and flushing 

events that would occur and would take 

advantage of the ability to perform 

corrective action as part of the routine 

disinfection and flushing activities. 

Carriers can do this by scheduling 

routine sampling just prior to routine 

disinfection and flushing. Then, if a 

total coliform- or E. coli-positive sample 

is found, carriers can address the 

situation immediately through 

disinfection and flushing that would 

have occurred anyway, thereby merely 

adding the step of follow-up sampling to 

confirm that the flushing and 

disinfection has resolved the problem. 

Further, EPA believes that if public 

access to the water system is physically 

prevented because the water system is 

shut-off, more time is warranted to 

allow scheduling of the corrective 

action disinfection and flushing 

procedure to minimize flight 

disruptions. 

Finally, the estimated reduction in the 

repeat sample total coliform-positive 

rate to 5.7 percent in the final rule from 

50 percent in the proposed rule affected 

the anticipated costs for this category 

because fewer events were expected to 

be triggered by repeat sample results. 

D. Non-Quantified Costs and 

Uncertainties 

1. Non-Quantified Costs 

Although EPA has estimated the 

majority of implementation costs of this 

ADWR, there are some costs that EPA 

was not able to quantify, such as: 

• Air carrier costs due to 

unanticipated flight interruptions from 

aircraft water system corrective action 

maintenance needs. This includes the 

direct costs related to transporting an 

aircraft to a maintenance facility for the 

performance of disinfection and 

flushing corrective action events and 

any indirect costs of schedule 

disruptions or delays if an aircraft must 

be unexpectedly taken out of service. 

• Passenger costs due to flight 

cancellations or delays related to 

unanticipated aircraft water system 

maintenance triggered solely by water 

quality issues. 

• Air carrier costs to provide bottled 

water due to lack of onboard tap water 

during a restrict public access event. 

• Air carrier customer service 

response to customer concerns 

following public notification that the 

water onboard an aircraft is not to be 

used for human consumption. 

EPA has attempted to minimize costs 

by building flexibility into the ADWR, 

including various alternatives from 

which air carriers select compliance 

scenarios that best meet their flight 

schedules and other routine aircraft 

operations and maintenance needs. The 

final rule also includes provisions that 

minimize situations in which an aircraft 

is taken out of service solely due to 

drinking water system water quality 

issues, though this is sometimes 

necessary to protect consumers from 

water of unacceptable quality when the 

system cannot be physically shut-off or 

the flow of water through the tap(s) 

cannot be prevented. 

Table V–4 presents the number of 

monitoring and disinfection and 

flushing events per year estimated for 

the proposed and final rules. EPA 

assumes routine coliform monitoring 

and routine disinfection and flushing of 

the water system would not disrupt 

service because the air carrier will 

incorporate these tasks into the aircraft 

operations and maintenance program. 

Only the unanticipated corrective action 

disinfection and flushing events shown 

in Column C of the table reflect the 

events that the Agency estimates could 

result in unscheduled disruptions to air 

carriers’ schedules for the proposed or 

final rules. 

TABLE V–4—ESTIMATED MONITORING AND DISINFECTION AND FLUSHING EVENTS FOR THE PROPOSED AND FINAL ADWR 

Routine 

coliform 

monitoring 

events/year 

A 

Routine 

disinfection 

and flushing 

events/year 

B 

Corrective 

action 

disinfection 

and flushing 

events/year 

C 

Total number 

of disinfection 

and flushing 

events/year 

D=B+C 

Proposed Rule ................................................................................................. 

Final Rule ......................................................................................................... 

26,593 

25,436 

20,516 

20,516 

1,175 

395 

21,691 

20,911 

(C) The number of potential unanticipated corrective action disinfection and flushing events is shown for the proposed and final rules. All other 

disinfection and flushing events, whether based on a routine schedule or in response to monitoring results, would occur during scheduled water 

system operations and maintenance. 

The significant decrease in the 

number of corrective action disinfection 

and flushing events in the final ADWR 

shown in Column C reflects the 

anticipated practice that air carriers will 

maximize the scheduling of routine 

coliform sampling with routine 

disinfection and flushing. This would 

likely result in a decrease in 

unscheduled flight disruptions because 

total coliform-positive samples may be 

immediately addressed through water 

system disinfection and flushing while 

the aircraft is already out of service. The 

final rule allows such disinfection and 

flushing to count toward both the 

corrective action and the routine 

procedures if follow-up total coliform 

samples required for corrective action 

are collected. Of the corrective action 

disinfection and flushing events noted 

in Column C, an unknown percentage 

will not disrupt service because the air 

carrier will either prevent public access 

to the water by shutting-off the system, 

thereby obtaining more flexibility with 

respect to scheduling and performing 

the corrective action disinfection and 

flushing, or will be able to perform the 

action within the maximum time frame 

specified by the rule without disrupting 

service. 

2. Uncertainties in Cost Estimates 

Many factors contribute to uncertainty 

in the national cost estimates including: 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53614 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

• Percent of aircraft that will be 

subject to each total coliform monitoring 

option. 

• Expected results from total coliform 

monitoring. 

• Estimated time for air carrier 

management to read, understand, and 

decide how to best comply with the 

ADWR; and to develop a training 

program, train staff, and oversee 

compliance.

• Percent of aircraft that will collect 

routine total coliform samples while 

aircraft are out of service for routine 

maintenance. 

• Labor burden necessary for selfinspections above what is necessary for 

FAA-related inspections. 

• Labor burden and costs associated 

with correcting significant deficiencies 

that are identified during selfinspections above what is necessary for 

FAA-related inspections. 

For simplicity, EPA assumed for this 

analysis that all air carriers subject to 

the final rule will spend equal 

management time on ADWR 

requirements, regardless of fleet size or 

aircraft type. Assuming equal burden for 

all air carriers to comply with these rule 

management and oversight requirements 

could result in an over- or underestimate of the costs presented. 

Regarding the expected results for 

coliform monitoring, EPA assumed that 

during routine coliform monitoring, 

each total coliform-positive sample 

would prompt an action by the air 

carrier. This assumption potentially 

over-estimates the number of aircraft 

that need to undergo disinfection and 

flushing as corrective action or repeat 

monitoring in cases where more than 

one routine sample is total coliformpositive in a given monitoring period. 

For example, an aircraft with positive 

samples from both routine sampling 

points is treated as two corrective 

actions or repeat sample collection 

events in the cost model when only one 

disinfection and flushing event would 

be necessary in such a case. Also, the 

number of sample results that prompt 

corrective action or repeat sampling 

may decrease over time as air carriers 

correct problems that lead to total 

coliform-positive samples. 

In developing costs for air carriers to 

comply with the self-inspection 

requirements, EPA assumed that with 

the exception of reporting and recordkeeping burden, no additional costs for 

self-inspections are incurred by air 

carriers. Labor burden for selfinspections, which involve a thorough 

review and inspection of an aircraft 

water system as well as addressing any 

deficiencies, is already captured under 

current FAA requirements and therefore 

is not included in the cost estimate for 

this rule. Additionally, EPA has 

assumed that deficiencies noted during 

self-inspections will be addressed 

during routine maintenance, and so has 

not accounted for costs associated with 

corrective actions stemming from 

deficiencies noted during selfinspections. This assumption 

potentially under-estimates air carrier 

burden for self-inspections. 

VI. Benefits Analysis 

For the proposed rule, EPA conducted 

and presented a qualitative analysis 

comparing the risks for each regulatory 

alternative considered during the 

regulatory process (73 FR 19338). EPA 

did not conduct a risk assessment, and 

the qualitative analyses were not 

intended to provide any insights into 

either the nature or the magnitude of 

possible public health risks that are 

associated with the consumption of 

drinking water on aircraft, or with the 

expected reductions in those public 

health risks anticipated from 

implementation of this rule. 

As of the time of publication of the 

final rule, only limited baseline data 

and partial data collected under the 

AOCs are available for analysis. 

Additionally, EPA has found no data on 

outbreaks of illness caused by drinking 

water on aircraft. Therefore, EPA has 

determined that it is not feasible to 

perform a quantitative relative risk 

analysis at this time. EPA will continue 

to assess aircraft water system 

monitoring data during the Agency’s 

Six-Year review of NPDWRs and 

evaluate whether additional quantitative 

analyses represent an opportunity for 

revisions to the ADWR. (Section 1412 

(b)(9) of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

requires that EPA, no less than every six 

years, review and if appropriate, revise 

existing drinking water standards.) 

This rule has been developed to 

protect against disease-causing 

microbiological contaminants or 

pathogens through the required 

development and implementation of 

aircraft water system operation and 

maintenance plans that include best 

management practices, air carrier 

training requirements, and periodic 

sampling of the onboard drinking water. 

Testing drinking water for each 

individual pathogen is not practical, nor 

feasible. Instead, water quality and 

public health professionals use total 

coliform bacteria as indicator organisms. 

Total coliforms are a group of closely 

related, generally harmless bacteria that 

live in soil and water, as well as in the 

digestive tracts of animals, and are 

therefore present in feces. The presence 

of total coliforms in drinking water 

suggests there has been a breach, failure, 

or other change in the integrity of the 

drinking water and that there may be 

fecal pathogens present in the water. 

Because some total coliform bacteria are 

naturally found in the environment, 

their presence in a drinking water 

distribution system may not indicate the 

presence of fecal contamination. In 

order to obtain more information on the 

likelihood of fecal contamination the 

total coliform-positive sample is 

analyzed for E. coli, a member of the 

total coliform group that is more likely 

to originate from warm-blooded animal 

fecal contamination. 

Although EPA does not have data on 

outbreaks, that does not mean there is 

no illness because there is a high rate of 

underreporting of illnesses caused by 

drinking water contamination. Illness 

resulting from consuming contaminated 

aircraft water would be no exception to 

underreporting because the population 

onboard disperses after a flight and even 

if passengers develop gastrointestinal 

symptoms within hours of deplaning, 

they are unlikely to associate the illness 

with the aircraft water or to contact the 

air carrier or any government agency to 

report the illness. The effects of 

waterborne disease are usually acute, 

resulting from a single or small number 

of exposures. Waterborne pathogens are 

particularly harmful to sensitive 

populations, such as the immunocompromised, and can sometimes prove 

fatal. 

Routine disinfection and flushing 

required by this rule is expected to 

inactivate pathogens and control biofilm 

which can harbor pathogens in the 

aircraft water storage tank and 

distribution system that can contribute 

to endemic disease. Likewise, 

disinfection and flushing associated 

with corrective action is also expected 

to inactivate pathogens that may have 

entered the distribution system, 

resulting in decreased chance of illness. 

By reducing the potential for illness 

contracted through exposure to aircraft 

drinking water, EPA expects that the 

implementation of the ADWR will 

reduce the occurrence of illness passed 

through secondary spread (the spread of 

a pathogen within a field after the initial 

or primary infection). Furthermore, EPA 

expects the additional barriers to 

pathogens required under the ADWR, 

including disinfection and flushing 

combined with monitoring, water 

system training requirements for air 

carrier personnel, and restricting public 

access to drinking water when 

necessary, will reduce the likelihood of 

outbreaks associated with aircraft 

drinking water. 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53615 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866, 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ Accordingly, EPA submitted 

this action to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 

12866 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 2279.02. 

EPA requires comprehensive and 

current information on total coliform 

monitoring and associated corrective 

action activities to implement its 

program oversight and enforcement 

responsibilities mandated by the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA will 

use the information collected as a result 

of this final rule to support the 

responsibilities directed by SDWA and 

the implementation of the ADWR in the 

areas of monitoring and disinfecting and 

flushing, best management practices, 

and public notification, while 

decreasing the risk to public health. The 

rule requirements described in section 

IV of this notice are intended to improve 

the implementation from that of the 

Total Coliform Rule (TCR) by tailoring 

the ADWR to fit the unique challenges 

in the maintenance and operation 

practices of air carriers, and do not alter 

the original maximum contaminant 

level goals or the fundamental approach 

to controlling total coliform in drinking 

water. 

Section 1401(1)(D) of SDWA requires 

that there must be ‘‘criteria and 

procedures to assure a supply of 

drinking water which dependably 

complies with such maximum 

contaminant levels; including accepted 

methods for quality control and testing 

procedures to insure compliance with 

such levels and to insure proper 

operation and maintenance of the 

system, * * * .’’ Furthermore, section 

1445(a)(1) of SDWA requires that every 

person who is a supplier of water ‘‘shall 

establish and maintain such records, 

make such reports, conduct such 

monitoring, and provide such 

information as the Administrator may 

reasonably require by regulation to 

assist the Administrator in establishing 

regulations * * * in determining 

whether such person has acted or is 

acting in compliance’’ with this title. 

Section 1412(b) of SDWA, as 

amended in 1996, requires the EPA to 

publish maximum contaminant level 

goals and promulgate NPDWRs for 

contaminants that may have an adverse 

effect on the health of persons, are 

known to or anticipated to occur in 

public water systems, and, in the 

opinion of the Administrator, present an 

opportunity for health risk reduction. 

The NPDWRs specify maximum 

contaminant levels or treatment 

techniques for drinking water 

contaminants (42 U.S.C. 300g–1). 

Section 1412(b)(9) requires that EPA, no 

less than every six years, review and if 

appropriate, revise existing drinking 

water standards. Currently, the Total 

Coliform Rule, which established the 

regulatory standards (i.e., maximum 

contaminant level goals and treatment 

techniques) by which this ADWR is 

based, is being revised in accordance 

with the finding of EPA’s first Six-Year 

Review (68 FR 42907, July 18, 2003). 

Publication of this final rule complies 

with these statutory requirements. 

Burden Estimate 

The universe of respondents for the 

Information Collection Request (ICR) for 

this final rule comprises 63 air carriers 

that operate approximately 7,327 

aircraft water systems, classified as 

Transient Non-Community Water 

Systems. The total burden associated 

with ADWR requirements over the 3 

years covered by the ICR is 62,291 

hours, an average of 20,764 hours per 

year. The total cost over the 3-year 

period is $7.54 million, an average of 

$2.5 million per year (simple average 

over 3 years). For air carriers, the total 

burden for the 3-year ICR period is 

52,750 hours. The burden per response 

is .3 hours. During this period air 

carriers will undertake 179,773 

responses. The respondent costs for the 

same period are $7.06 million. The labor 

cost is $1.90 million. The O&M cost (for 

sample analysis and shipping) is $5.16 

million. The capital cost is $4,179. The 

air carrier average annual respondent 

burden is 17,583 hours, and the average 

cost per year is $2.35 million. The cost 

per response is $39. Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the EPA 

will publish a technical amendment to 

40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to 

display the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

requirements contained in this final 

rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

The RFA provides default definitions 

for each type of small entity. Small 

entities are defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any ‘‘not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.’’ However, the 

RFA also authorizes an agency to use 

alternative definitions for each category 

of small entity, ‘‘which are appropriate 

to the activities of the agency’’ after 

proposing the alternative definition(s) in 

the Federal Register and taking 

comment. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)–(5). In 

addition, to establish an alternative 

small business definition, agencies must 

consult with SBA’s Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy. 

For purposes of assessing the 

economic impacts of this final rule on 

small entities, EPA proposed defining 

‘‘small entity’’ using the SBA standard 

as air carriers (NAICS codes 481111 and 

481211) having fewer than 1,500 

employees (13 CFR 121.201) rather than 

using the definition EPA has used for 

small stationary public water systems 

(‘‘a public water system that serves 

10,000 or fewer people’’). See 73 FR 

19320, April 9, 2008. 

The Agency has consulted with the 

SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy on 

using the SBA small business definition 

of fewer than 1,500 employees for 

purposes of assessing the economic 

impacts of this rule on small entities. As 

a result of this consultation, SBA agrees 

with the Agency’s approach to the small 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53616 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

entity definition for air carriers for the 

proposed rule. However, SBA did 

request that EPA verify that they have 

captured the entire universe of small 

entities that may be impacted by the 

rule. SBA recommended that EPA 

contact two additional aviation and air 

transportation associations to determine 

whether there may be additional entities 

that may experience a significant 

economic impact as a result of this 

proposed rule, which were not 

accounted for in the Agency’s earlier 

analysis. EPA contacted those 

associations and they confirmed the 

Agency’s earlier findings from other 

sources, including the FAA, that EPA 

had taken into account all available 

information on the universe of small 

entities during the Agency’s earlier 

analysis. 

The Agency did not receive any 

comments on the use of this alternative 

definition of small entity in EPA’s 

proposed rule of April 9, 2008 (73 FR 

19320). 

Today, EPA is establishing this 

alternative definition of ‘‘small entity’’ 

for purposes of its regulatory flexibility 

assessments under the RFA for this rule, 

any revisions to this rule, and any future 

drinking water regulations that address 

air carriers. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

EPA has determined that the following 

businesses would be affected by the 

proposed Aircraft Drinking Water Rule: 

scheduled passenger air transportation 

(NAICS 481111) and nonscheduled 

chartered passenger air transportation 

(481211). EPA has estimated that 30 of 

the 63 air carriers subject to this final 

rule are small businesses. These 30 air 

carriers represent 48 percent of the 

universe of air carriers subject to the 

final rule, and all will be subject to the 

various provisions. 

In evaluating whether this rule will 

have a significant impact on these small 

entities, EPA first determined the 

present value costs of the rule for these 

air carriers. EPA followed the same 

methodology as was used to develop the 

average annualized costs for the rule 

overall. EPA estimates a total annual 

implementation cost for all small air 

carriers of $524,380 at a 3 percent 

discount rate and $521,110 at a 7 

percent discount rate. EPA also 

determined the average annual rule cost 

per small air carrier of $17,543 

(annualized at 3 percent). 

EPA estimates the average annual 

incremental rule cost for small entities 

(the difference between the final rule 

and the existing NPDWRs (presented as 

Alternative 1)) is a reduction of 

$258,599 at a 3 percent discount rate for 

compliance with the ADWR. Because 

the majority of the air carriers are 

currently subject to the requirements of 

the AOCs, EPA notes that if the AOCs 

were considered to be an alternative 

baseline, the incremental average 

annual rule cost between the final rule 

and requirements similar to those of the 

AOCs, (presented as Alternative 2) is a 

reduction of $32,188 (i.e., cost savings). 

Recognizing the variation of company 

sizes within this group, EPA has 

estimated the average annual 

incremental cost for small air carriers 

with fewer than 500 employees and for 

small air carriers with 500 or more 

employees. For the 17 air carriers with 

fewer than 500 employees, the annual 

incremental cost between the ADWR 

and Alternative 1 for each air carrier is 

a reduction of $78,042 at a 3 percent 

discount rate, and the annual 

incremental average rule cost between 

the ADWR and Alternative 2 is a 

reduction of $7,781 at a 3 percent 

discount rate. For the 13 small air 

carriers with 500 or more employees, 

the incremental cost between the ADWR 

and Alternative 1 for each air carrier is 

a reduction of $230,712 at a 3 percent 

discount rate, and the incremental 

average rule cost between the ADWR 

and Alternative 2 is a reduction of 

$20,104 at a 3 percent discount rate. 

The final rule has been shown to offer 

a cost reduction over the existing 

regulations (i.e., baseline), and so the 

annualized incremental costs are 

negative. Therefore, EPA has not 

compared the average annual 

incremental costs to small entities 

against the average annual revenue of 

the small entities as is normally done 

for this analysis. 

Based on this analysis, EPA certifies 

that the final ADWR will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities; therefore, the 

Agency did not develop an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the 

rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector in any 

one year. States, local, and Tribal 

governments will not incur annual costs 

associated with this final rule since 

oversight of air carriers (i.e., interstate 

commerce carriers) is directly 

implemented by EPA and EPA will 

incur costs associated with this 

rulemaking. Thus, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of UMRA. 

For these reasons, this rule is also not 

subject to the requirement of section 203 

of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

Federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This final rule does not have 

Federalism implications. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. States are not 

directly affected by any requirements in 

this rule, since oversight of air carriers 

(i.e., interstate commerce carriers) is 

implemented by EPA. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicited comment on the 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials, and the comments can be 

found in the docket for this rule and is 

addressed in the Response to Comment 

document (816–R0–9008) . 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). The provisions of this final rule 

apply to all aircraft transient noncommunity water systems. At present, 

EPA has not identified any Tribal 

governments that may be owners/air 

carriers of such systems. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53617 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866. 

While this final rule is not subject to 

the Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, we nonetheless 

have reason to believe that the 

environmental health or safety risk 

addressed by this action can have an 

effect on children. This final rule does 

not change the core Total Coliform Rule 

requirements in place to assure the 

protection of children from the effects of 

contaminants in drinking water. Rather 

this final rule, which is tailored to meet 

the specific challenges in the 

maintenance and operations of aircraft 

water systems, will improve the 

implementation of the current 

provisions under the Total Coliform 

Rule for aircraft water systems, and 

thereby, is expected to ensure and 

enhance more effective protection of 

public health, including the health of 

children who are aircraft passengers. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 18355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Additionally, none of the final rule 

requirements involve installation of 

treatment or other components that use 

a measurable amount of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This final rule involves voluntary 

consensus standards in that it would 

require monitoring for total coliform 

and E. coli, and monitoring and sample 

analysis methodologies are often based 

on voluntary consensus standards. 

However, the final rule does not change 

any methodological requirements for 

monitoring or sample analysis as are 

indicated in the Total Coliform Rule; 

only, in some cases, the required 

frequency and number of samples. Also, 

EPA’s approved monitoring and 

sampling protocols generally include 

voluntary consensus standards 

developed by agencies such as the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) and other such bodies wherever 

EPA deems these methodologies 

appropriate for compliance monitoring. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 

Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs Federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. 

This final rule, which is tailored to 

meet the specific challenges in the 

maintenance and operations of aircraft 

water systems, will improve the 

implementation of the current 

provisions under the Total Coliform 

Rule for aircraft water systems, and 

thereby, is expected to ensure and 

enhance more effective protection of 

public health, including any minority or 

low-income population who are aircraft 

passengers. 

K. Consultations With the Science 

Advisory Board, National Drinking 

Water Advisory Council, and the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services 

In accordance with sections 1412(d) 

and 1412(e) of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (SDWA), the Agency consulted with 

the National Drinking Water Advisory 

Council (NDWAC or the Council); the 

Secretary of Health and Human 

Services; and the Science Advisory 

Board (SAB), Drinking Water 

Committee. 

EPA met with the SAB’s Committee 

on July 24, 2008, and received 

comments from the Committee on 

October 1, 2008. The Committee’s 

comments were valuable and taken into 

consideration in shaping the future 

direction of the final ADWR with 

regards to statistical sampling and hot 

water tap sampling. As previously 

mentioned, the majority of the 

Committee members of EPA’s Science 

Advisory Board were not in favor of 

statistical sampling of aircraft drinking 

water quality at this time because the 

available data is too sparse to interpret 

results for the whole fleet. The 

Committee members did indicate that 

future data collected during 

implementation of ADWR may provide 

information on how to stratify samples. 

In addition, some members of the 

Committee indicated a preference to 

sampling cold water taps only; EPA 

agrees with some Committee members 

that there may be a potential for the 

temperature in the hot water taps to kill 

existing microorganisms, and this might 

mask whether there is a microbiological 

problem in the aircraft system. Thus, 

samples should be taken from cold 

water taps when they are available, 

except in the case when only hot water 

taps are available in the galley. In this 

case, the galley sample should be taken 

from the hot water tap because that 

water is being served to passengers and 

crew, EPA plans to further discuss tap 

sampling in its ADWR technical 

guidance. 

The Agency consulted with NDWAC 

during the Council’s May 25–27, 2007, 

meeting, and consulted with the 

Council on May 28, 2009. In general, in 

the May 2007 meeting, NDWAC 

recommended that EPA consider and 

request public comment on best 

management practices (BMPs) and 

public notification requirements, which 

may be feasible alternatives for the air 

carrier industry while providing greater 

public health protection. EPA has 

incorporated these recommendations 

into the ADWR by providing flexible 

BMP alternatives and timely notification 

requirements which have been tailored 

specifically to meet the unique 

operational characteristics of aircraft 

public systems and the air carrier 

industry. During the May 2009 NDWAC 

meeting, EPA presented the key issues 

raised by commenters on the proposal 

and areas of decision faced by the 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53618 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Agency. No substantive comments were 

provided by NDWAC. 

On August 8, 2007, EPA consulted 

with the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) on the proposed 

rule. EPA also consulted with HHS on 

the final rule and received a favorable 

response to the Agency’s novel 

approach and development of the 

ADWR and no issues were raised as a 

result of the consultation. 

L. Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 encourages 

Federal agencies to write rules in plain 

language. Whenever possible, EPA 

wrote the action in active voice, with 

simplified language, and displayed 

information in tables to make it easier 

for the public to read and understand. 

M. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective November 18, 2009. 

N. Analysis of the Likely Effect of 

Compliance With the ADWR on the 

Technical, Financial, and Managerial 

Capacity of Public Water Systems 

Section 1420(d)(3) of SDWA, as 

amended, requires that, in promulgating 

a NPDWR, the Administrator shall 

include an analysis of the likely effect 

of compliance with the regulation on 

the technical, managerial, and financial 

(TMF) capacity of regulated entities. 

This analysis can be found in the 

Economic and Supporting Analyses 

document in EPA’s public docket. 

Analyses reflect only the impact of new 

or revised requirements, as established 

by the ADWR; the impacts of previously 

established requirements are not 

considered. 

VIII. References 

ATA (Air Transport Association of America, 

Inc.) 2003. Air Transport Association: 

Aircraft Drinking Water Sampling Program, 

Final Report: December 31, 2003. http:// 

www.airlines.org. 

Canada. 2007a. Health Canada. Healthy 

Living. Aircraft Inspection Program— 

Frequently Asked Questions. http:// 

www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/travel-voyage/ 

general/inspection/airplane-aeronefs 

_e.html. 

Canada. 2007b. Health Canada. Healthy 

Living. Advisory. Health Canada cautions 

air travelers with compromised immune 

systems regarding water quality on aircraft. 

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/ 

advisories-avis/2006/2006_53_e.html. 

Davison, A., Howard, G., Stevens, M., et al. 

2005. Water, Sanitation and Health 

Protection and the Human Environment, 

World Health Organization, Geneva. Water 

Safety Plans: Managing drinking-water 

quality from catchment to consumer. 

http://www.who.int/water_

sanitation_health/. 

Lehtola, M., Torvinen, E., Kusnetsov, J., et al. 

2007. Survival of Mycrobacterium avium, 

Legionella pneumophila, Escherichia coli, 

and Caliciviruses in Drinking WaterAssociated Biofilms Grown under HighShear Turbulent Flow. Applied and 

Environmental Microbiology, 73:2854– 

2859. 

USEPA. 1986. Water Supply Guidance 29: 

Plan for Implementation of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act on Interstate Carrier 

Conveyance. 

USEPA. 1989. National Interim Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations; Total Coliform 

Rule; Final Rule. Part III. Federal Register, 

54:124:27544. (June 29, 1989). 

USEPA. 2008. Economic and Supporting 

Analyses; Aircraft Drinking Water Rule. 

EPA 816–D–08–002. 

USEPA. 2008. DRAFT Information Collection 

Request for the National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Aircraft Drinking Water 

Rule. EPA 816–D–08–001. 

USFDA. 2005. Title 21—Food and Drugs, 

Chapter 1—Food and Drug Administration, 

Part 1250—Interstate Conveyance 

Sanitation. http://www.accessdata.fda. 

gov/. 

WHO. 1997. HACCP—Introducing the 

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 

System. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. 

WHO. 2004. Guidelines for Drinking-Water 

Quality. 3rd Edition, Volume 1— 

Recommendations, Chapter 4 Water 

Supply Plans. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Indian-lands, Intergovernmental 

relations, Radiation protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water supply. 

Dated: October 5, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is to be amended 

as follows: 

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 141 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g– 

2, 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, 

300j–9, and 300j–11. 

■ 2. Part 141 is amended by adding a 

new subpart X to read as follows: 

Subpart X—Aircraft Drinking Water Rule 

Sec. 

141.800 Applicability and compliance date. 

141.801 Definitions. 

141.802 Coliform sampling plan. 

141.803 Coliform sampling. 

141.804	 Aircraft water system operations 

and maintenance plan. 

141.805	 Notification to passengers and 

crew. 

141.806 Reporting requirements. 

141.807 Recordkeeping requirements. 

141.808 Audits and inspections. 

141.809 Supplemental treatment. 

141.810 Violations. 

Subpart X—Aircraft Drinking Water 

Rule 

§ 141.800 Applicability and compliance 

date. 

(a) Applicability. The requirements of 

this subpart constitute the National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulations for 

aircraft that are public water systems 

and that board only finished water for 

human consumption. Aircraft public 

water systems are considered transient 

non-community water systems 

(TNCWS). To the extent there is a 

conflict between the requirements in 

this subpart and the regulatory 

requirements established elsewhere in 

this part, this subpart governs. 

(b) Compliance Date. Aircraft public 

water systems must comply, unless 

otherwise noted, with the requirements 

of this subpart beginning October 19, 

2011. Until this compliance date, air 

carriers remain subject to existing 

national primary drinking water 

regulations. 

§ 141.801 Definitions. 

As used in this subpart, the term: 

Administrator means the 

Administrator of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency or 

his/her authorized representative. 

Air Carrier means a person who 

undertakes directly by lease, or other 

arrangement, to engage in air 

transportation. The air carrier is 

responsible for ensuring all of the 

aircraft it owns or operates that are 

public water systems comply with all 

provisions of this subpart. 

Aircraft means a device that is used 

or intended to be used for flight in the 

air. 

Aircraft Water System means an 

aircraft that qualifies as a public water 

system under the Safe Drinking Water 

Act and the national primary drinking 

water regulations. The components of 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53619 

an aircraft water system include the 

water service panel, the filler neck of 

the aircraft finished water storage tank, 

and all finished water storage tanks, 

piping, treatment equipment, and 

plumbing fixtures within the aircraft 

that supply water for human 

consumption to passengers or crew. 

Aircraft Water System Operations and 

Maintenance Plan means the schedules 

and procedures for operating, 

monitoring, and maintaining an aircraft 

water system that is included in an 

aircraft operation and maintenance 

program accepted by the Federal 

Aviation Administration. (14 CFR part 

43, 14 CFR part 91, 14 CFR part 121) 

Finished Water means water that is 

introduced into the distribution system 

of a public water system and is intended 

for distribution and consumption 

without further treatment, except as 

treatment necessary to maintain water 

quality in the distribution system (e.g., 

supplemental disinfection, addition of 

corrosion control chemicals). (40 CFR 

141.2) 

Human Consumption means drinking, 

bathing, showering, hand washing, teeth 

brushing, food preparation, 

dishwashing, and maintaining oral 

hygiene. 

Self Inspection means an onsite 

review of the aircraft water system, 

including the water service panel, the 

filler neck of the aircraft finished water 

storage tank; all finished water storage 

tanks, piping, treatment equipment, and 

plumbing fixtures; and a review of the 

aircraft operations, maintenance, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping for the 

purpose of evaluating the adequacy of 

such water system components and 

practices for providing safe drinking 

water to passengers and crew. 

Watering point means the water 

supply, methods, and facilities used for 

the delivery of finished water to the 

aircraft. These facilities may include 

water trucks, carts, cabinets, and hoses. 

§ 141.802 Coliform sampling plan. 

(a) Each air carrier under this subpart 

must develop a coliform sampling plan 

covering each aircraft water system 

owned or operated by the air carrier that 

identifies the following: 

(1) Coliform sample collection 

procedures that are consistent with the 

requirements of § 141.803(a) and (b). 

(2) Sample tap location(s) 

representative of the aircraft water 

system as specified in § 141.803(b)(2) 

and (b)(4). 

(3) Frequency and number of routine 

coliform samples to be collected as 

specified in § 141.803(b)(3). 

(4) Frequency of routine disinfection 

and flushing as specified in the 

operations and maintenance plan under 

§ 141.804. 

(5) Procedures for communicating 

sample results promptly so that any 

required actions, including repeat and 

follow-up sampling, corrective action, 

and notification of passengers and crew, 

will be conducted in a timely manner. 

(b) Each air carrier must develop a 

coliform sampling plan for each aircraft 

with a water system meeting the 

definition of a public water system by 

April 19, 2011. 

(c) The coliform sampling plan must 

be included in the Aircraft Water 

System Operations and Maintenance 

Plan required in § 141.804. Any 

subsequent changes to the coliform 

sampling plan must also be included in 

the Aircraft Water System Operations 

and Maintenance Plan required in 

§ 141.804. 

§ 141.803 Coliform sampling. 

(a) Analytical Methodology. Air 

carriers must follow the sampling and 

analysis requirements under this 

section. 

(1) The standard sample volume 

required for total coliform analysis, 

regardless of analytical method used, is 

100 mL. 

(2) Air carriers need determine only 

the presence or absence of total 

coliforms and/or E. coli; a determination 

of density of these organisms is not 

required. 

(3) Air carriers must conduct analyses 

for total coliform and E. coli in 

accordance with the analytical methods 

approved in § 141.21(f)(3) and 

141.21(f)(6). 

(4) The time from sample collection to 

initiation of analysis may not exceed 30 

hours. Systems are encouraged but not 

required to hold samples below 10°C 

during transit. 

(5) The invalidation of a total coliform 

sample result can be made only by the 

Administrator in accordance with 

§ 141.21(c)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) or by the 

certified laboratory in accordance with 

§ 141.21(c)(2). 

(6) Certified laboratories. For the 

purpose of determining compliance 

with this subpart, samples may be 

considered only if they have been 

analyzed by a laboratory certified by a 

State or EPA. For the purposes of this 

paragraph, ‘‘State’’ refers to a State or 

Tribe that has received primacy for 

public water systems (other than aircraft 

water systems) under section 1413 of 

SDWA. 

(b) Routine Monitoring. For each 

aircraft water system, the sampling 

frequency must be determined by the 

disinfection and flushing frequency 

recommended by the aircraft water 

system manufacturer, when available, 

and as identified in the operations and 

maintenance plan in § 141.804. 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, the air carrier must 

collect two 100 mL total coliform 

routine samples at the frequency 

specified in the sampling plan in 

§ 141.802 and in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section; 

(2) The air carrier may collect one 100 

mL total coliform routine sample at the 

frequency specified in the sampling 

plan in § 141.802 for aircraft with a 

removable or portable tank that is 

drained every day of passenger service, 

and the aircraft has only one tap. 

Aircraft meeting the requirements of 

this paragraph do not have to comply 

with paragraph (b)(4) of this section. 

(3) Air carriers must perform routine 

monitoring for total coliform at a 

frequency corresponding to the 

frequency of routine disinfection and 

flushing as specified in the Table b–1 

(Routine Disinfection and Flushing and 

Routine Sample Frequencies). Air 

carriers must follow the disinfection 

and flushing frequency recommended 

by the aircraft water system 

manufacturer, when available. Where 

the aircraft water system manufacturer 

does not specify a recommended routine 

disinfection and flushing frequency, the 

air carrier must choose a frequency from 

Table b–1 (Routine Disinfection and 

Flushing and Routine Sample 

Frequencies): 

TABLE B–1—ROUTINE DISINFECTION AND FLUSHING AND ROUTINE SAMPLE FREQUENCIES 

Minimum routine disinfection & flushing per Minimum frequency of routine samples per 

aircraft aircraft 

At least 4 times per year = At least once within every three-month pe- At least 1 time per year = At least once within every twelve-month period (quarterly). riod (annually). 

At least 3 times per year = At least once within every four-month pe- At least 2 times per year = At least once within every six-month period 

riod. (semi-annually). 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53620 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE B–1—ROUTINE DISINFECTION AND FLUSHING AND ROUTINE SAMPLE FREQUENCIES—Continued 

Minimum routine disinfection & flushing per 

aircraft 

At least 2 times per year = At least once within every six-month period 

(semi-annually). 

At least 1 time per year or less = At least once within every twelvemonth period (annually) or less. 

Minimum frequency of routine samples per 

aircraft 

At least 4 times per year = At least once within every three-month period (quarterly). 

At least 12 times per year = At least once every month (monthly). 

(4) One sample must be taken from a 

lavatory and one from a galley; each 

sample must be analyzed for total 

coliform. If only one water tap is located 

in the aircraft water system due to 

aircraft model type and construction, 

then a single tap may be used to collect 

two separate 100 mL samples. 

(5) If any routine, repeat, or follow-up 

coliform sample is total coliformpositive, the air carrier must analyze 

that total coliform-positive culture 

medium to determine if E. coli is 

present. 

(6) Routine total coliform samples 

must not be collected within 72 hours 

after completing routine disinfection 

and flushing procedures. 

(c) Routine Coliform Sample Results. 

(1) Negative Routine Coliform Sample 

Results. If all routine sample results are 

total coliform-negative, then the air 

carrier must maintain the routine 

monitoring frequency for total coliform 

as specified in the sampling plan in 

§ 141.802. 

(2) Positive Routine E. coli Sample 

Results. If any routine sample is E. colipositive, the air carrier must perform all 

of the following: 

(i) Restrict Public Access. Restrict 

public access to the aircraft water 

system in accordance with paragraph (d) 

of this section as expeditiously as 

possible, but in no case later than 24 

hours after the laboratory notifies the air 

carrier of the E. coli-positive result or 

discovery of the applicable failure as 

specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of 

this section. All public access 

restrictions, including applicable public 

notification requirements, must remain 

in-place until the aircraft water system 

has been disinfected and flushed and a 

complete set of follow-up samples is 

total coliform-negative; and 

(ii) Disinfect and Flush. Conduct 

disinfection and flushing in accordance 

with § 141.804(b)(2). If the aircraft water 

system cannot be physically 

disconnected or shut-off, or the flow of 

water otherwise prevented through the 

tap(s), then the air carrier must disinfect 

and flush the system no later than 72 

hours after the laboratory notifies the air 

carrier of the E. coli-positive result or 

discovery of the applicable failure as 

specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of 

this section; and 

(iii) Follow-up Sampling. Collect 

follow-up samples in accordance with 

paragraph (e) of this section. A complete 

set of follow-up sample results must be 

total coliform-negative before the air 

carrier provides water for human 

consumption from the aircraft water 

system and returns to the routine 

monitoring frequency as specified in the 

sampling plan required by § 141.802. 

(3) Positive Routine Total Coliform 

Sample Results. If any routine sample is 

total coliform-positive and E. colinegative, then the air carrier must 

perform at least one of the following 

three corrective actions and continue 

through with that action until a 

complete set of follow-up or repeat 

samples is total coliform-negative: 

(i) Disinfect and Flush. In accordance 

with § 141.804(b)(2), conduct 

disinfection and flushing of the system 

no later than 72 hours after the 

laboratory notifies the air carrier of the 

total coliform-positive and E. colinegative result. After disinfection and 

flushing is completed, the air carrier 

must collect follow-up samples in 

accordance with paragraph (e) of this 

section prior to providing water for 

human consumption from the aircraft 

water system. A complete set of followup sample results must be total 

coliform-negative before the air carrier 

returns to the routine monitoring 

frequency as specified in the sampling 

plan required by § 141.802; or 

(ii) Restrict Public Access. In 

accordance with paragraph (d) of this 

section, restrict public access to the 

aircraft water system as expeditiously as 

possible, but in no case later than 72 

hours after the laboratory notifies the air 

carrier of the total coliform-positive and 

E. coli-negative result or discovery of 

the applicable failure as specified in 

paragraphs (f), (g), and, (i) of this 

section. All public access restrictions, 

including applicable public notification 

requirements, must remain in-place 

until the aircraft water system has been 

disinfected and flushed, and a complete 

set of follow-up samples has been 

collected. The air carrier must conduct 

disinfection and flushing in accordance 

with § 141.804(b)(2). After disinfection 

and flushing is completed, the air 

carrier must collect follow-up samples 

in accordance with paragraph (e) of this 

section prior to providing water for 

human consumption from the aircraft 

water system. A complete set of followup sample results must be total 

coliform-negative before the air carrier 

returns to the routine monitoring 

frequency as specified in the sampling 

plan required by § 141.802; or 

(iii) Repeat Sampling. Collect three 

100 mL repeat samples no later than 24 

hours after the laboratory notifies the air 

carrier of the routine total coliformpositive and E. coli-negative result. 

Repeat samples must be collected and 

analyzed from three taps within the 

aircraft as follows: The tap which 

resulted in the total coliform-positive 

sample, one other lavatory tap, and one 

other galley tap. If fewer than three taps 

exist, then a total of three 100 mL 

samples must be collected and analyzed 

from the available taps within the 

aircraft water system. 

(A) If all repeat samples are total 

coliform-negative, then the air carrier 

must maintain the routine monitoring 

frequency for total coliform as specified 

in the sampling plan in § 141.802. 

(B) If any repeat sample is E. colipositive, the air carrier must perform all 

the corrective actions as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), and 

(c)(2)(iii) of this section. 

(C) If any repeat sample is total 

coliform-positive and E. coli-negative, 

then the air carrier must perform the 

corrective actions specified in 

paragraphs (c)(3)(i) or (c)(3)(ii) of this 

section, and continue through with that 

action until a complete set of follow-up 

samples is total coliform-negative. 

(d) Restriction of public access. 

Restriction of public access to the 

aircraft water system includes, but need 

not be limited to, the following: 

(1) Physically disconnecting or 

shutting off the aircraft water system, 

where feasible, or otherwise preventing 

the flow of water through the tap(s); 

(2) Providing public notification to 

passengers and crew in accordance with 

§ 141.805. 

(3) Providing alternatives to water 

from the aircraft water system, such as 

bottled water for drinking and coffee or 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53621 

tea preparation; antiseptic hand gels or 

wipes in accordance with 21 CFR part 

333—‘‘Topical Anti-microbial Drug 

Products for Over-the-Counter Human 

Use’’ in the galleys and lavatories; and 

other feasible measures that reduce or 

eliminate the need to use the aircraft 

water system during the limited period 

before public use of the aircraft water 

system is unrestricted. 

(e) Post Disinfection and Flushing 

Follow-up Sampling. Following 

corrective action disinfection and 

flushing, air carriers must comply with 

post disinfection and flushing follow-up 

sampling procedures that, at a 

minimum, consist of the following: 

(1) For each aircraft water system, the 

air carrier must collect a complete set of 

total coliform follow-up samples 

consisting of two 100 mL total coliform 

samples at the same routine sample 

locations as identified in paragraphs 

(b)(2) and (b)(4) of this section. 

(2) Follow-up samples must be 

collected prior to providing water to the 

public for human consumption from the 

aircraft water system. 

(3) If a complete set of follow-up 

samples is total coliform-negative, the 

air carrier must return to the routine 

monitoring frequency for total coliform 

as specified in the sampling plan 

required by § 141.802. 

(4) If any follow-up sample is E. colipositive, the air carrier must perform all 

the corrective actions as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), and 

(c)(2)(iii) of this section. 

(5) If any follow-up sample is total 

coliform-positive and E. coli-negative 

the air carrier must restrict public access 

to the aircraft water system in 

accordance with paragraph (d) of this 

section as expeditiously as possible, but 

in no case later than 72 hours after the 

laboratory notifies the air carrier of the 

total coliform-positive and E. colinegative result. All public access 

restrictions, including applicable public 

notification requirements, must remain 

in-place until the aircraft water system 

has been disinfected and flushed in 

accordance with § 141.804(b)(2) and a 

complete set of follow-up samples is 

total coliform-negative. The air carrier 

must collect follow-up samples in 

accordance with paragraph (e) of this 

section. A complete set of follow-up 

sample results must be total coliformnegative before the air carrier provides 

water for human consumption from the 

aircraft water system and returns to the 

routine monitoring frequency for 

coliform as specified in § 141.802. 

(f) Failure to Perform Required 

Routine Disinfection and Flushing or 

Failure to Collect Required Routine 

Samples. If the air carrier fails to 

perform routine disinfection and 

flushing or fails to collect and analyze 

the required number of routine coliform 

samples, the air carrier must perform all 

the corrective actions as specified in 

paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section. 

(g) Failure to Collect Repeat or 

Follow-up Samples. If the air carrier 

fails to collect and analyze the required 

follow-up samples as a result of an E. 

coli-positive result, then the air carrier 

must perform all the corrective actions 

as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i), 

(c)(2)(ii), and (c)(2)(iii) of this section. If 

the air carrier fails to collect and 

analyze the required repeat samples or 

follow-up samples as a result of a total 

coliform-positive and E. coli-negative 

result, then the air carrier must perform 

all the corrective actions as specified in 

paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section. 

(h) Failure to Board Water from a Safe 

Watering Point (E. coli-positive). For the 

aircraft water system, the air carrier 

must perform all the corrective actions 

specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i), 

(c)(2)(ii), and (c)(2)(iii) of this section 

when it becomes aware of an E. colipositive event resulting from: 

(1) Boarding water from a watering 

point not in accordance with FDA 

regulations (21 CFR part 1240 subpart 

E), or 

(2) Boarding water that does not meet 

NPDWRs applicable to transient noncommunity water systems (§§ 141.62 

and 141.63, as applied to TNCWS), 

(3) Boarding water that is otherwise 

determined to be unsafe due to noncompliance with the procedures 

specified in § 141.804(b)(6). 

(i) Failure to Board Water from a Safe 

Watering Point (non-E. coli-positive). 

For the aircraft water system, the air 

carrier must perform all the corrective 

actions specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) 

of this section when it becomes aware 

of a non-E. coli-positive event resulting 

from: 

(1) Boarding water from a watering 

point not in accordance with FDA 

regulations (21 CFR part 1240, subpart 

E), 

(2) Boarding water that does not meet 

NPDWRs applicable to transient noncommunity water systems (§§ 141.62 

and 141.63, as applied to TNCWS), or 

(3) Boarding water that is otherwise 

determined to be unsafe due to noncompliance with the procedures 

specified in § 141.804(b)(6). 

§ 141.804 Aircraft water system operations 

and maintenance plan. 

(a) Each air carrier must develop and 

implement an aircraft water system 

operations and maintenance plan for 

each aircraft water system that it owns 

or operates. This plan must be included 

in a Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA)-accepted air carrier operations 

and maintenance program (14 CFR part 

43, 14 CFR part 91, 14 CFR part 121). 

(b) Each aircraft water system 

operations and maintenance plan must 

include the following: 

(1) Watering Point Selection 

Requirement. All watering points must 

be selected in accordance with Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA) 

regulations (21 CFR part 1240, subpart 

E). 

(2) Procedures for Disinfection and 

Flushing. The plan must include the 

following requirements for procedures 

for disinfection and flushing of aircraft 

water system. 

(i) The air carrier must conduct 

disinfection and flushing of the aircraft 

water system in accordance with, or is 

consistent with, the water system 

manufacturer’s recommendations. The 

air carrier may conduct disinfection and 

flushing more frequently, but not less 

frequently, than the manufacturer 

recommends. 

(ii) The operations and maintenance 

plan must identify the disinfection 

frequency, type of disinfecting agent, 

disinfectant concentration to be used, 

and the disinfectant contact time, and 

flushing volume or flushing time. 

(iii) In cases where a recommended 

routine disinfection and flushing 

frequency is not specified by the aircraft 

water system manufacturer, the air 

carrier must choose a disinfection and 

flushing, and corresponding monitoring 

frequency specified in § 141.803(b)(3). 

(3) Follow-up Sampling. The plan 

must include the procedures for followup sampling in accordance with 

§ 141.803(e). 

(4) Training Requirements. Training 

for all personnel involved with the 

aircraft water system operation and 

maintenance provisions of this 

regulation must include, but is not 

limited to the following: 

(i) Boarding water procedures; 

(ii) Sample collection procedures; 

(iii) Disinfection and flushing 

procedures; 

(iv) Public health and safety reasons 

for the requirements of this subpart. 

(5) Procedures for Conducting Selfinspections of the Aircraft Water 

System. Procedures must include, but 

are not limited to, inspection of storage 

tank, distribution system, supplemental 

treatment, fixtures, valves, and backflow 

prevention devices. 

(6) Procedures for Boarding Water. 

The plan must include the following 

requirements and procedures for 

boarding water: 

(i) Within the United States, the air 

carrier must board water from watering 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53622 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

points in accordance with Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) regulations 

(21 CFR part 1240, subpart E). 

(ii) A description of how the water 

will be transferred from the watering 

point to the aircraft in a manner that 

ensures it will not become contaminated 

during the transfer. 

(iii) A description of how the carrier 

will ensure that water boarded outside 

the United States is safe for human 

consumption. 

(iv) A description of emergency 

procedures that meet the requirements 

in § 141.803(h) and (i) that must be used 

in the event that the air carrier becomes 

aware that water was boarded to operate 

essential systems, such as toilets, but 

was boarded from a watering point not 

in accordance with FDA regulations, 

does not meet NPDWRs applicable to 

transient non-community water systems 

(§§ 141.62 and 141.63, as applied to 

TNCWSs), or is otherwise unsafe. 

(7) Coliform Sampling Plan. The air 

carrier must include the coliform 

sampling plan prepared in accordance 

with § 141.802. 

(8) Aircraft Water System Disconnect/ 

Shut-off, or Prevent Flow of Water 

Through the Tap(s) Statement. An 

explanation of whether the aircraft 

water system can be physically 

disconnected/shut-off, or the flow of 

water otherwise prevented through the 

tap(s) to the crew and passengers. 

(c) For existing aircraft, the air carrier 

must develop the water system 

operations and maintenance plan 

required by this section by April 19, 

2011; 

(d) For new aircraft, the air carrier 

must develop the operations and 

maintenance plan required in this 

section within the first calendar quarter 

of initial operation of the aircraft. 

(e) Any changes to the aircraft water 

system operations and maintenance 

plan must be included in the FAAaccepted air carrier operations and 

maintenance program. 

§ 141.805 Notification to passengers and 

crew. 

(a) Air carriers must give public 

notice for each aircraft in all of the 

following situations: 

(1) Public access to the aircraft water 

system is restricted in response to a 

routine, repeat or follow-up total 

coliform-positive or E. coli-positive 

sample result in accordance with 

§ 141.803(d); 

(2) Failure to perform required routine 

disinfection and flushing or failure to 

collect required routine samples in 

accordance with § 141.803(f); 

(3) Failure to collect the required 

follow-up samples in response to a 

sample result that is E. coli-positive in 

accordance with § 141.803(g); 

(4) Failure to collect the required 

repeat samples or failure to collect the 

required follow-up samples in response 

to a sample result that is total coliformpositive and E. coli-negative in 

accordance with § 141.803(g); 

(5) In accordance with § 141.803(h), 

the air carrier becomes aware of an E. 

coli-positive event resulting from water 

that has been boarded from a watering 

point not in accordance with FDA 

regulations (21 CFR part 1240, subpart 

E), or that does not meet NPDWRs 

applicable to transient non-community 

water systems, or that is otherwise 

determined to be unsafe due to noncompliance with the procedures 

specified in § 141.804(b)(6); 

(6) In accordance with § 141.803(i), 

the air carrier becomes aware of a nonE. coli-positive event resulting from 

water that has been boarded from a 

watering point not in accordance with 

FDA regulations (21 CFR part 1240, 

subpart E), or that does not meet 

NPDWRs applicable to transient noncommunity water systems, or that is 

otherwise determined to be unsafe due 

to non-compliance with the procedures 

specified in § 141.804(b)(6). 

(7) The Administrator, the carrier, or 

the crew otherwise determines that 

notification is necessary to protect 

public health. 

(b) Public notification: 

(1) Must be displayed in a 

conspicuous way when printed or 

posted; 

(2) Must not contain overly technical 

language or very small print; 

(3) Must not be formatted in a way 

that defeats the purpose of the notice; 

(4) Must not contain language that 

nullifies the purpose of the notice; 

(5) Must contain information in the 

appropriate language(s) regarding the 

importance of the notice, reflecting a 

good faith effort to reach the nonEnglish speaking population served, 

including, where applicable, an easily 

recognized symbol for non-potable 

water. 

(c) Public notification for paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section must meet the 

requirements of paragraph (b) of this 

section in addition to the following: 

(1) Public notification must include a 

prominently displayed, clear statement 

in each lavatory indicating that the 

water is non-potable and should not be 

used for drinking, food or beverage 

preparation, hand washing, teeth 

brushing, or any other consumptive use; 

and 

(2) A prominent notice in the galley 

directed at the crew which includes: 

(i) A clear statement that the water is 

non-potable and should not be used for 

drinking, food or beverage preparation, 

hand washing, teeth brushing, or any 

other consumptive use; 

(ii) A description of the violation or 

situation triggering the notice, including 

the contaminant(s) of concern; 

(iii) When the violation or situation 

occurred; 

(iv) Any potential adverse health 

effects from the violation or situation, as 

appropriate, under paragraph (g) of this 

section; 

(v) The population at risk, including 

sensitive subpopulations particularly 

vulnerable if exposed to the 

contaminant in the drinking water; 

(vi) What the air carrier is doing to 

correct the violation or situation; and 

(vii) When the air carrier expects to 

return the system to unrestricted public 

access. 

(3) If passenger access to the water 

system is physically prevented through 

disconnecting or shutting off the water, 

or the flow of water prevented through 

the tap(s), or if water is supplied only 

to lavatory toilets, and not to any 

lavatory or galley taps, then only the 

notice specified in paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section is required. 

(4) Air carriers must initiate public 

notification when restriction of public 

access is initiated in accordance with 

§ 141.803(d) and must continue until 

the aircraft water system is returned to 

unrestricted public access. 

(d) Public notification for paragraphs 

(a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(6) of this section 

must meet the requirements of 

paragraph (b) of this section in addition 

to the following: 

(1) Public notification must include a 

prominently displayed, clear statement 

in each lavatory indicating that the 

water is non-potable and should not be 

used for drinking, food or beverage 

preparation, hand washing, teeth 

brushing, or any other consumptive use; 

and 

(2) A prominent notice in the galley 

directed at the crew which includes: 

(i) A clear statement that the water is 

non-potable and should not be used for 

drinking, food or beverage preparation, 

hand washing, teeth brushing, or any 

other consumptive use; 

(ii) A clear statement that it is not 

known whether the water is 

contaminated because there was a 

failure to perform required routine 

disinfection and flushing; or a failure to 

perform required monitoring; or water 

was boarded from a watering point not 

in accordance with FDA regulations, or 

that does not meet NPDWRs applicable 

to transient noncommunity water 

systems, or that is otherwise determined 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53623 

to be unsafe due to noncompliance with 

the procedures specified in 

§ 141.804(b)(6); 

(iii) When and where the unsafe water 

was boarded or when the specific 

monitoring or disinfection and flushing 

requirement was not met; 

(iv) Any potential adverse health 

effects from exposure to waterborne 

pathogens that might be in the water, as 

appropriate, under paragraph (g) of this 

section; 

(v) The population at risk, including 

sensitive subpopulations particularly 

vulnerable if exposed to the 

contaminant in the drinking water; and 

(vi) A statement indicating when the 

system will be disinfected and flushed 

and returned to unrestricted public 

access. 

(3) If passenger access to the water 

system is physically prevented through 

disconnecting or shutting off the water, 

or the flow of water prevented through 

the tap(s), or if water is supplied only 

to lavatory toilets, and not to any 

lavatory or galley taps, then only the 

notice specified in paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section is required. 

(4) Air carriers must initiate public 

notification when restriction of public 

access is initiated in accordance with 

§ 141.803(d) and must continue until 

the aircraft water system is returned to 

unrestricted public access. 

(e) Public notification for paragraphs 

(a)(3) and (a)(5) of this section must 

meet the requirements of paragraph (b) 

of this section in addition to the 

following: 

(1) Public notification must include a 

prominently displayed, clear statement 

in each lavatory indicating that the 

water is non-potable and should not be 

used for drinking, food or beverage 

preparation, hand washing, teeth 

brushing, or any other consumptive use; 

and 

(2) A prominent notice in the galley 

directed at the crew which includes: 

(i) A clear statement that the water is 

non-potable and should not be used for 

drinking, food or beverage preparation, 

hand washing, teeth brushing, or any 

other consumptive use; 

(ii) A clear statement that the water is 

contaminated and there was a failure to 

conduct required monitoring; or a clear 

statement that water is contaminated 

because water was boarded from a 

watering point not in accordance with 

FDA regulations, or that does not meet 

NPDWRs applicable to transient 

noncommunity water systems, or that is 

otherwise determined to be unsafe due 

to noncompliance with the procedures 

specified in § 141.804(b)(6); 

(iii) A description of the 

contaminant(s) of concern; 

(iv) When and where the unsafe water 

was boarded or when the specific 

monitoring requirement was not met; 

(v) Any potential adverse health 

effects from the situation, as 

appropriate, under paragraph (g) of this 

section; 

(vi) The population at risk, including 

sensitive subpopulations particularly 

vulnerable if exposed to the 

contaminant in the drinking water; 

(vii) A statement indicating what the 

air carrier is doing to correct the 

situation; and 

(viii) When the air carrier expects to 

return the system to unrestricted public 

access. 

(3) If passenger access to the water 

system is physically prevented through 

disconnecting or shutting off the water, 

or the flow of water prevented through 

the tap(s), or if water is supplied only 

to lavatory toilets, and not to any 

lavatory or galley taps, then only the 

notice specified in paragraph (e)(2) of 

this section is required. 

(4) Air carriers must initiate public 

notification when restriction of public 

access is initiated in accordance with 

§ 141.803(d) and must continue public 

notification until a complete set of 

required follow-up samples are total 

coliform-negative. 

(f) Public notification for paragraph 

(a)(7) of this section must meet the 

requirements of paragraph (b) of this 

section in addition to the following: 

(1) Notification must be in a form and 

manner reasonably calculated to reach 

all passengers and crew while on board 

the aircraft by using one or more of the 

following forms of delivery: 

(i) Broadcast over public 

announcement system on aircraft; 

(ii) Posting of the notice in 

conspicuous locations throughout the 

area served by the water system. These 

locations would normally be the galleys 

and in the lavatories of each aircraft 

requiring posting; 

(iii) Hand delivery of the notice to 

passengers and crew; 

(iv) Another delivery method 

approved in writing by the 

Administrator. 

(2) Air carriers must initiate public 

notification within 24 hours of being 

informed by EPA to perform notification 

and must continue notification for the 

duration determined by EPA. 

(g) In each public notice to the crew, 

air carriers must use the following 

standard health effects language that 

corresponds to the situations in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this 

section. 

(1) Health effects language to be used 

when public notice is initiated due to 

the detection of total coliforms only (not 

E. coli) in accordance with paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section: 

Coliform are bacteria that are naturally 

present in the environment and are used as 

an indicator that other, potentially harmful, 

bacteria may be present. Coliforms were 

found in [INSERT NUMBER OF SAMPLES 

DETECTED] samples collected and this is a 

warning of potential problems. If human 

pathogens are present, they can cause shortterm health effects, such as diarrhea, cramps, 

nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. They 

may pose a special health risk for infants, 

young children, some of the elderly, and 

people with severely compromised immune 

systems. 

(2) Health effects language to be used 

when public notice is initiated due to 

any E. coli-positive routine, repeat, or 

follow-up sample in accordance with 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section: 

E. coli are bacteria whose presence 

indicates that the water may be contaminated 

with human or animal wastes. Microbes in 

these wastes can cause short-term health 

effects, such as diarrhea, cramps, nausea, 

headaches, or other symptoms. They may 

pose a special health risk for infants, young 

children, some of the elderly, and people 

with severely compromised immune systems. 

(3) Health effects language to be used 

when public notice is initiated due to a 

failure to conduct routine monitoring or 

routine disinfection and flushing in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section; or when there is a failure to 

conduct repeat or follow-up sampling in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(4) of this 

section; or in accordance with 

paragraph (a)(6) of this section, when 

the air carrier becomes aware of a nonE. coli-positive event that is the result of 

water that was boarded from a watering 

point not in accordance with FDA 

regulations (21 CFR part 1240, subpart 

E), or that does not meet NPDWRs 

applicable to transient non-community 

water systems, or that is otherwise 

determined to be unsafe due to noncompliance with the procedures 

specified in § 141.804(b)(6): 

Because [REQUIRED MONITORING AND 

ANALYSIS WAS NOT CONDUCTED], 

[REQUIRED DISINFECTION AND 

FLUSHING WAS NOT CONDUCTED] 

[WATER WAS BOARDED FROM A 

WATERING POINT NOT IN ACCORDANCE 

WITH FDA REGULATIONS (21 CR 1240 

SUBPART E)], or [OTHER APPROPRIATE 

EXPLANATION], we cannot be sure of the 

quality of the drinking water at this time. 

However, drinking water contaminated with 

human pathogens can cause short-term 

health effects, such as diarrhea, cramps, 

nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. They 

may pose a special health risk for infants, 

young children, some of the elderly, and 

people with severely compromised immune 

systems. 

(4) Health effects language to be used 

when public notice is initiated due to a 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

53624 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

failure to conduct required follow-up 

monitoring in response to a sample 

result that is E. coli-positive in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section; or in accordance with 

paragraph (a)(5) of this section, when 

the air carrier becomes aware of an E. 

coli-positive event that is the result of 

water that was boarded from a watering 

point not in accordance with FDA 

regulations (21 CFR part 1240, subpart 

E), or that does not meet NPDWRs 

applicable to transient non-community 

water systems, or that is otherwise 

determined to be unsafe due to noncompliance with the procedures 

specified in § 141.804(b)(6): 

Because required follow-up monitoring 

and analysis was not conducted after the 

aircraft water system tested positive for E. 

coli, we cannot be sure of the quality of the 

drinking water at this time. E. coli are 

bacteria whose presence indicates that the 

water may be contaminated with human or 

animal wastes. Microbes in these wastes can 

cause short-term health effects, such as 

diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other 

symptoms. They may pose a special health 

risk for infants, young children, some of the 

elderly, and people with severely 

compromised immune systems. 

OR 

Water was boarded that is contaminated 

with E. coli because [WATER WAS 

BOARDED FROM A WATERING POINT 

NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDA 

REGULATIONS (21 CR 1240 SUBPART E)], 

or [OTHER APPROPRIATE EXPLANATION]. 

E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates 

that the water may be contaminated with 

human or animal wastes. Microbes in these 

wastes can cause short-term health effects, 

such as diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, 

or other symptoms. They may pose a special 

health risk for infants, young children, some 

of the elderly, and people with severely 

compromised immune systems. 

§ 141.806 Reporting requirements. 

(a) The air carrier must comply with 

the following requirements regarding 

reporting of the development of the 

coliform sampling plan, the operations 

and maintenance plan, and the 

disinfection and flushing and coliform 

sampling frequencies. 

(1) The air carrier must report to the 

Administrator that it has developed the 

coliform sampling plan required by 

§ 141.802, which covers each existing 

aircraft water system, as well as report 

the frequency for routine coliform 

sampling identified in the coliform 

sampling plan by April 19, 2011. The air 

carrier must report to the Administrator 

that it has developed its operations and 

maintenance plan required by § 141.804 

and report the frequency for routine 

disinfection and flushing by April 19, 

2011; 

(2) For each new aircraft meeting the 

definition of an aircraft water system, 

which becomes operational after 

publication of this subpart, the air 

carrier must report to the Administrator 

that it has developed the coliform 

sampling plan required by § 141.802, as 

well as report the frequency for routine 

coliform sampling identified in the 

coliform sampling plan, within the first 

calendar quarter of initial operation of 

the aircraft. The air carrier must report 

to the Administrator that it has 

developed the aircraft water system 

operations and maintenance plan 

required by § 141.804, and report the 

frequency for routine disinfection and 

flushing within the first calendar 

quarter of initial operation of the 

aircraft. 

(b) The air carrier must report the 

following information to the 

Administrator: 

(1) A complete inventory of aircraft 

that are public water systems by April 

19, 2011. Inventory information 

includes, at a minimum, the following: 

(i) The unique aircraft identifier 

number; 

(ii) The status (active or inactive) of 

any aircraft as an aircraft water system 

as defined in § 141.801; 

(iii) The type and location of any 

supplemental treatment equipment 

installed on the water system; and 

(iv) Whether the aircraft water system 

can be physically disconnected or shutoff, or the flow of water prevented 

through the tap(s). 

(2) Changes in aircraft inventory no 

later than 10 days following the 

calendar month in which the change 

occurred. Changes in inventory 

information include, at a minimum, the 

following: 

(i) Change in the unique identifier 

number for any new aircraft, or any 

aircraft removed from the carrier’s fleet; 

(ii) Change in status (active or 

inactive) of any aircraft as an aircraft 

water system as defined in § 141.801; 

and 

(iii) Change to the type and location 

of any supplemental treatment 

equipment added to or removed from 

the water system. 

(iv) Change to whether the aircraft 

water system can be physically 

disconnected or shut-off, or the flow of 

water prevented through the tap(s). 

(3) All sampling results no later than 

10 calendar days following the 

monitoring period in which the 

sampling occurred. The monitoring 

period is based on the monitoring 

frequency identified in the coliform 

sampling plan required under § 141.802. 

Routine disinfection and flushing events 

must be reported no later than 10 

calendar days following the disinfection 

and flushing period in which the 

disinfection and flushing occurred. The 

disinfection and flushing period is 

based on the frequency identified in the 

operations and maintenance plan 

required under § 141.804. 

(4) All events requiring notification to 

passengers or crew, or non-routine 

disinfection and flushing, or nonroutine sampling, within 10 days of the 

event (e.g., notification of positive 

sample result by laboratory), including 

information on whether required 

notification was provided to passengers 

or crew or both. 

(5) Failure to comply with the 

monitoring or disinfection and flushing 

requirements of this subpart within 10 

calendar days of discovery of the failure. 

(6) Changes in disinfection and 

flushing and coliform sampling 

frequencies no later than 10 days 

following the calendar month in which 

the change occurred. Changes to an 

aircraft’s routine coliform sampling 

frequency and routine disinfection and 

flushing frequency must be included in 

the aircraft water system operation and 

maintenance plan that is included in the 

air carrier operations and maintenance 

program accepted by FAA in accordance 

with § 141.804. 

(c) The air carrier must provide 

evidence of a self-inspection to the 

Administrator within 90 days of 

completion of the self-inspection 

required under § 141.808(b), including 

reporting whether all deficiencies were 

addressed in accordance with 

§ 141.808(c). The air carrier must also 

report to the Administrator within 90 

days that any deficiency identified 

during a compliance audit conducted in 

accordance with § 141.808(a) has been 

addressed. If any deficiency has not 

been addressed within 90 days of 

identification of the deficiency, the 

report must also include a description of 

the deficiency, an explanation as to why 

it has not yet been addressed, and a 

schedule for addressing it as 

expeditiously as possible. 

(d) All information required to be 

reported to the Administrator under this 

subpart must be in an electronic format 

established or approved by the 

Administrator. If an air carrier is unable 

to report electronically, the air carrier 

may use an alternative approach that the 

Administrator approves. 

§ 141.807 Recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) The air carrier must keep records 

of bacteriological analyses for at least 5 

years and must include the following 

information: 

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53625 

(1) The date, time, and place of 

sampling, and the name of the person 

who collected the sample; 

(2) Identification of the sample as a 

routine, repeat, follow-up, or other 

special purpose sample; 

(3) Date of the analysis; 

(4) Laboratory and person responsible 

for performing the analysis; 

(5) The analytical technique/method 

used; and 

(6) The results of the analysis. 

(b) The air carrier must keep records 

of any disinfection and flushing for at 

least 5 years and must include the 

following information: 

(1) The date and time of the 

disinfection and flushing; and 

(2) The type of disinfection and 

flushing (i.e., routine or corrective 

action). 

(c) The air carrier must keep records 

of a self-inspection for at least 10 years 

and must include the following 

information: 

(1) The completion date of the selfinspection; and 

(2) Copies of any written reports, 

summaries, or communications related 

to the self-inspection. 

(d) The air carrier must maintain 

sampling plans and make such plans 

available for review by the 

Administrator upon request, including 

during compliance audits. 

(e) The air carrier must maintain 

aircraft water system operations and 

maintenance plans in accordance with 

FAA requirements, and make such 

plans available for review by the 

Administrator upon request, including 

during compliance audits. 

(f) The air carrier must keep copies of 

public notices to passengers and crew 

issued as required by this subpart for at 

least 3 years after issuance. 

§ 141.808 Audits and inspections. 

(a) The Administrator may conduct 

routine compliance audits as deemed 

necessary in providing regulatory 

oversight to ensure proper 

implementation of the requirements in 

this subpart. Compliance audits may 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Bacteriological sampling of aircraft 

water system; 

(2) Reviews and audits of records as 

they pertain to water system operations 

and maintenance such as log entries, 

disinfection and flushing procedures, 

and sampling results; and 

(3) Observation of procedures 

involving the handling of finished 

water, watering point selection, 

boarding of water, operation, 

disinfection and flushing, and general 

maintenance and self-inspections of 

aircraft water system. 

(b) Air carriers or their representatives 

must perform a self-inspection of all 

water system components for each 

aircraft water system no less frequently 

than once every 5 years. 

(c) The air carrier must address any 

deficiency identified during compliance 

audits or routine self-inspections within 

90 days of identification of the 

deficiency, or where such deficiency is 

identified during extended or heavy 

maintenance, before the aircraft is put 

back into service. This includes any 

deficiency in the water system’s design, 

construction, operation, maintenance, or 

administration, as well as any failure or 

malfunction of any system component 

that has the potential to cause an 

unacceptable risk to health or that could 

affect the reliable delivery of safe 

drinking water. 

§ 141.809 Supplemental treatment. 

(a) Any supplemental drinking water 

treatment units installed onboard 

existing or new aircraft must be 

acceptable to FAA and FDA; and must 

be installed, operated, and maintained 

in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

plans and specifications and FAA 

requirements. 

(b) Water supplemental treatment and 

production equipment must produce 

water that meets the standards 

prescribed in this part. 

§ 141.810 Violations. 

An air carrier is in violation of this 

subpart when, for any aircraft water 

system it owns or operates, any of the 

following occur: 

(a) It fails to perform any of the 

requirements in accordance with 

§ 141.803 or § 141.804. 

(b) It has an E. coli-positive sample in 

any monitoring period (routine and 

repeat samples are used in this 

determination). 

(c) It fails to provide notification to 

passengers and crew in accordance with 

§ 141.805. 

(d) It fails to comply with the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of this subpart. 

(e) It fails to conduct a self-inspection 

or address a deficiency in accordance 

with § 141.808. 

(f) It fails to develop a coliform 

sampling plan in accordance with 

§ 141.802, or fails to have and follow an 

operations and maintenance plan, 

which is included in a FAA accepted 

program in accordance with § 141.804. 

[FR Doc. E9–24552 Filed 10–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P