25982 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 141, 142 and 143

[FRL–6580–2]

RIN 2040–AD06

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations: Public Notification Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Today, EPA is publishing

final regulations to revise the general

public notification regulations for

public water systems to implement the

public notification requirements of the

1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

amendments. The regulations set the

requirements that public water systems

must follow regarding the form, manner,

frequency, and content of a public

notice. Public notification of violations

is an integral part of the public health

protection and consumer right-to-know

provisions of the 1996 SDWA

amendments. Owners and operators of

public water systems are required to

notify persons served when they fail to

comply with the requirements of the

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations (NPDWR); have a variance

or exemption from the drinking water

regulations; or are facing other

situations posing a risk to public health.

EPA is also publishing today revisions

to the Consumer Confidence Report

(CCR) regulation to be consistent with

the final public notification regulation.

DATES: Today’s rule is effective June 5,

2000. However, the new regulations

under Part 141, Subpart Q do not apply

to public water systems in States with

primacy for the public water system

supervision program until May 6, 2002

or until the State-adopted rule becomes

effective, whichever comes first. The

new regulations under Part 141, Subpart

Q also do not apply to public water

systems in jurisdictions where EPA

directly implements the program until

October 31, 2000. Until the new

regulations under Part 141, Subpart Q

apply, public water systems must

continue to comply with the public

notification requirements under

§ 141.32. For purposes of judicial

review, this final rule is promulgated as

of 1 p.m. Eastern time on May 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the public

comments received, EPA responses, and

all other supporting documents are

available for review at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency; 401

M Street SW, Water Docket (MC–4101),

Docket #W–98–19, Room EB 57,

Washington, DC 20460. For an

appointment to review the docket, call

202–260–3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30

p.m. and refer to docket W–98–19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free

(800) 426–4791 for general information

about the rule and copies of this

document. For technical inquiries,

contact Carl B. Reeverts at (202) 260–

7273 or e-mail: reeverts.carl@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Acronyms Used in This Rule

CCR Consumer Confidence Report

CWS Community Water System

DBP Disinfection Byproduct

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

HPC Heterotrophic Plate Count

IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface

Water Treatment Rule

IOC Inorganic Chemical

LCR Lead and Copper Rule

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level

Goal

MRDL Maximum Residual

Disinfectant Level

MRDLG Maximum Residual

Disinfectant Level Goal

NCWS Non-Community Water System

NPDWR National Primary Drinking

Water Regulation

NTNCWS Non-Transient NonCommunity Water System

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

OGWDW Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water

OW Office of Water

PN Public Notification

PWS Public Water System

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SMCL Secondary Maximum

Contaminant Level

SOC Synthetic Organic Chemical

SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule

TCR Total Coliform Rule

TT Treatment Technique

TWS Transient Non-Community Water

System

VOC Volatile Organic Chemical

Table of Contents

I. Statutory Authority

II. Regulation Background

III. Significant Decisions Affecting the Final

Rule

IV. Discussion of Final Rule

A. Purpose and Applicability

B. Effective Dates and Rationale

C. Summary of Changes to Current Public

Notification Requirements

D. ‘‘Plain Language’’ Format of Final Rule

E. General Provisions of Final Rule

(§ 141.201)

1. Who Must Give Public Notice?

2. What Type of Public Notice is Required

for Each Situation?

3. Who Must Be Notified?

F. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the

Tier 1 Public Notice: Violations and

Situations With Significant Potential to

Have Serious Adverse Effects on Human

Health as a Result of Short-Term

Exposure (§ 141.202)

1. Tier 1 Violations and Situations

2. Timing of the Tier 1 Public Notice (and

Consultation Requirement)

3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the

Tier 1 Notice

G. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the

Tier 2 Public Notice: Other Violations

With Potential To Have Serious Adverse

Effects on Human Health (§ 141.203)

1. Tier 2 Violations and Situations

2. Timing of the Tier 2 Public Notice

3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the

Tier 2 Notice

H. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the

Tier 3 Public Notice: All Other

Violations and Situations Requiring

Public Notice (§ 141.204)

1. Tier 3 Violations and Situations

2. Timing of the Tier 3 Public Notice

3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the

Tier 3 Notice

4. Option to Use an Annual Notice,

Including the CCR, to Deliver Tier 3

Notices

I. Content of the Public Notice (§ 141.205)

1. Standard Elements of the Public Notice

2. Multilingual Requirements for Public

Notices

3. Standard Health Effects Language

4. Standard Language for Monitoring and

Testing Procedure Violations

5. Standard Language to Encourage

Customers Receiving the Public Notice

To Distribute the Notice to Other Persons

Served

J. Other Public Notification Requirements

1. Notice to New Billing Units or New

Customers (§ 141.206)

2. Special Notice to Announce the

Availability of the Results of

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

(§ 141.207)

3. Special Notice for Exceedance of the

Fluoride Secondary Maximum

Contaminant Level (SMCL) (§ 141.208)

4. Special Notice for Nitrate Exceedances

Above the MCL by Non-Community

Water Systems (NCWS), Where Granted

Permission by Primacy Agency Under

§ 141.11(d) (§ 141.209)

5. Conditions Under Which the Primacy

Agency May Give Notice on Behalf of

Public Water System (§ 141.210)

K. Reporting to the Primacy Agency and

Retention of Records

1. Public Water System Reporting to the

Primacy Agency (§ 141.31)

2. Retention of Records by Public Water

Systems (§ 141.33)

L. Other Changes to the Current Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) To Be

Consistent With the Final Public

Notification Regulations

M. Special State/Tribal Primacy

Requirements and Rationale (40 CFR Part

142, Subpart B)

V. Changes to the Consumer Confidence

Report (CCR) Regulation To Be

Consistent With the Final Public

Notification Regulation

VI. Cost of Rule

VII. Other Administrative Requirements

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25983

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Review

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

G. Executive Order 12898: Environmental

Justice

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

J. Congressional Review Act

Regulated Entities. Entities potentially

regulated by this action are public water

systems (PWS). The following table

provides examples of the regulated

entities under this rule. A public water

system, as defined by section 1401 of

SDWA, is ‘‘a system for the provision of

water for human consumption through

pipes or other constructed conveyances,

if such system has at least fifteen service

connections or regularly serves at least

twenty-five individuals.’’ EPA defines

‘‘regularly served’’ as receiving water

from the system sixty or more days per

year. EPA has an inventory totaling over

170,000 public water systems

nationwide.

TABLE OF REGULATED ENTITIES

Category Examples of regulated entities

State/Local/Tribal governments .......................... Publicly-owned PWSs, such as municipalities; county governments, water districts, water and

sewer authorities, state governments, and other publicly-owned entities that deliver drinking

water as an adjunct to their primary business (e.g., schools, State parks, roadside rest

stops).

Industry ............................................................... Privately-owned PWSs, such as private utilities, homeowner associations, and other privatelyowned entities that deliver drinking water as an adjunct to their primary business (e.g., trailer

parks, factories, retirement homes, day-care centers).

Federal government ............................................ Federally-owned PWSs, such as water systems on military bases.

The 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

facility is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 141.201 of the

rule. If you have questions regarding the

applicability of this section to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

I. Statutory Authority

Section 114 of the Safe Drinking

Water Act Amendments of 1996 (Public

Law 104–182), enacted August 6, 1996,

amended section 1414(c) of the Act (42

U.S.C. 300g–3(c)). Sections 1414(c)(1)

and (c)(2) were significantly revised and

require EPA to amend the existing

public notification regulations. The

amended rules are intended to give

consumers more accurate and timely

information on violations, taking into

account the seriousness of any potential

adverse health effects that may be

involved. There is no deadline for

promulgating the revised public

notification rule, but EPA is publishing

the final rule today to enable States to

coordinate public notification rule

adoption and implementation with the

ongoing adoption and implementation

of the Consumer Confidence Report

regulations.

The public notification (PN)

provisions were part of the original

SDWA in 1974 and were subsequently

modified in the 1986 SDWA

amendments. The public notification

regulations currently in place were

promulgated in 1987 and became

effective in 1989 (40 CFR 141.32). The

existing rule remains in place until the

new rule goes into effect.

SDWA Section 1414(c)(1) establishes

who must give public notice, under

what circumstances a notice must be

given, and who must receive the notice.

Section 1414(c)(1)(A) requires that all

public water systems (PWS) give notice

to persons served of any failure to

comply with any national primary

drinking water regulations (NPDWR),

including any required monitoring.

Section 1414(c)(1)(B) further requires a

PWS to provide a notice when it is

operating under a variance or

exemption, or when a PWS fails to

comply with the requirements of a

variance or exemption. Section

1414(c)(1)(C) authorizes EPA, at the

Administrator’s discretion, to require

PWSs to provide notice of the

concentration level of any unregulated

contaminant monitored under EPA

regulations. Except for the addition of

paragraph (C) of section 1414(c)(1),

these requirements are unchanged from

the previous SDWA.

Section 1414(c)(2) sets the specific

requirements for the form, manner, and

frequency of a notice. Section

1414(c)(2)(A) requires EPA to issue

regulations, after consultation with the

States, that prescribe the detailed public

notification requirements. The

regulations must provide for different

frequencies of notices based on the

persistence of the violations and the

seriousness of any potential adverse

health effects that may be involved.

Except for the explicit requirement in

the 1996 amendments that EPA consult

with the States prior to promulgating

the revised regulations, the general

directions to EPA for issuing regulations

are unchanged.

Section 1414(c)(2)(B) enables States,

at their option, to establish alternate

requirements with respect to the form

and content of the public notice, as long

as the alternative State program

provides the same type and amount of

information as required under the EPA

regulations. This section was added as

a result of the 1996 amendments.

Section 1414(c)(2)(C) directs EPA to

issue regulations which require PWSs to

distribute a notice within 24 hours to

persons served for violations with

potential to have serious adverse effects

on human health from short-term

exposure. The PWS is also required to

send the same notice to the primacy

agency and to consult with the primacy

agency within the same 24-hour period

on any additional public notice

requirements. This section is also a new

statutory requirement.

Section 1414(c)(2)(D) directs that

EPA’s regulations require PWS to

provide written notice to each person

served for each violation not covered

under Section 1414(c)(2)(C). The section

specifies that the notice may be: (1) In

the first bill, if any, after the violation;

(2) in an annual report issued no later

than one year after the violation; or (3)

25984 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

by mail or direct delivery as soon as

practicable, but no later than one year

after the violation. This section

significantly revises and simplifies the

previous statutory requirements on the

form, manner, and timing of the notice.

Section 1414(c)(2)(E) allows the

Administrator the option to require a

PWS to give notice to persons served of

the results of unregulated contaminant

monitoring required by EPA under

section 1445(a). EPA recently published

a revised unregulated contaminant

monitoring regulation (UCMR), which

requires some systems to monitor for

specified contaminants (64 FR 50556,

September 17, 1999). This Section is

new under the 1996 SDWA

amendments.

Today’s final rule fulfills the

rulemaking requirements outlined in

amended Sections 1414(c)(1) and

1414(c)(2) of the SDWA, as amended.

II. Regulation Background

The final rule published today was

proposed on May 13, 1999 (64 FR

25963). At the same time as the rule was

proposed, EPA made available for

review a draft Public Notification

Handbook, comprised of public notice

templates for different violation

situations and other aids to public water

systems to support implementation of

the revised regulation. The final rule is

based on input from a broad range of

stakeholders from the public and private

sectors. The Agency has also actively

involved the States as partners in the

rule development, as required under

Section 1414(c)(2)(A) of the 1996 SDWA

amendments.

To gain early input and information

from stakeholders on problems with the

current public notification program,

EPA held a series of stakeholder

meetings in Indianapolis, Indiana,

Washington, D.C., and Seattle,

Washington in late 1997, prior to

initiating the rulemaking. EPA also used

the findings and recommendations from

a June, 1992 GAO report (‘‘Drinking

Water Consumers Often Not Well

Informed of Potentially Serious

Violations’’ (GAO/RCED–92–135)).

In May and June of 1999, during the

public comment period after the rule

was proposed, EPA hosted public

meetings in Madison, Wisconsin;

Washington, DC; Allentown,

Pennsylvania; and Phoenix, Arizona.

The purpose of the meetings was to take

comment on the proposed public

notification rule and to discuss (in a

workshop-type setting) the draft Public

Notification Handbook. The meetings

were very well attended and the results

greatly benefitted both the final public

notification rule and the final Public

Notification Handbook. The final

Handbook is expected to be published

shortly. Reports from all the meetings

are available for review at EPA’s Water

Docket (W–98–19) or by downloading

the documents from EPA’s website

(www.epa.gov/safewater).

EPA consulted with the States

throughout the development of this rule,

as required under section 1414(c)(2)(A).

Prior to initiating the rulemaking, EPA

met with a group of States, as part of the

early involvement meetings set up by

the Association of State Drinking Water

Administrators (ASDWA), to develop

the scope of the process and identify

significant issues under the new statute.

During the development of the proposed

rule, several State drinking water

managers participated as members of

the EPA regulation workgroup. Their

involvement in the workgroup

continued through the development of

this final rule. EPA also provided

briefings to ASDWA on request several

times as the rule moved forward.

III. Significant Decisions Affecting the

Final Rule

The final rule published today makes

a number of significant changes to what

was proposed, based on decisions EPA

made in response to the comments

received. Section IV of the preamble

gives a detailed summary of the final

rule and an explanation of the

significant changes made in response to

comments. Decisions on five key issues

affecting the final rule are highlighted

below:

A. List of Violations and Situations

Requiring a Tier 1 (24-Hour) Public

Notice

EPA received many comments related

to the proposed public notice tier level

for violations of the Total Coliform Rule

(TCR) and the Surface Water Treatment

Rule (SWTR). Except for violations

where fecal contamination was found,

the notice tier level for all the TCR MCL

and SWTR TT violations was proposed

to be Tier 2 (30-day notice). Over half

of the commenters on this issue

recommended that the final rule change

the notice requirement for at least some

of the TCR and SWTR violations to Tier

1. In particular, many of these

commenters believed that violations

related to exceedances of the turbidity

limit were more often than not a strong

indicator of harmful drinking water

posing a significant risk from short-term

exposure. The rest of those commenting

on this issue specifically supported

leaving as Tier 2 the routine TCR

violations and all SWTR violations,

including those violations related to

exceedances of the turbidity limit.

These commenters believed that

turbidity violations were more often

than not a false indicator of potential

health risk.

After considering all the comments,

EPA decided to stay with the proposal

requiring a Tier 2 notice for all TCR and

SWTR violations (other than where fecal

contamination is found under the TCR

rule) because EPA believes that an

automatic Tier 1 notice requirement is

not justified. Routine TCR and SWTR

violations (without supporting

evidence) are not sufficiently strong or

predictable indicators of significant

potential of risk from short-term

exposure. At the same time, in response

to the range of comments related to the

appropriate tier level for turbidity

exceedances, EPA agrees that certain

exceedances of the turbidity limit

deserve special attention by the primacy

agency for public notification purposes.

Accordingly, the final rule continues

to classify all turbidity violations as Tier

2; adds a new requirement that PWSs

consult with the primacy agency within

24 hours when exceedances of the

maximum allowable turbidity limit

occur; enables the primacy agency after

the consultation to elevate specific

turbidity violations to Tier 1 when

warranted; and requires an automatic

Tier 1 notice when consultation does

not take place within the 24-hour

period. Since the significance of the risk

to health of an exceedance of the

turbidity limits is situational, EPA

believes the final rule ensures that

notices for turbidity violations

indicating an immediate health risk will

go out quickly when necessary (based

on the immediate consultation

requirement) and unnecessary notices

will be avoided where the violation

indicates no immediate risk to health.

These decisions are discussed in greater

detail in section IV.F.1 of the preamble.

B. Standard Health Effects Language

Required in Notices for MCL/TT

Violations

EPA requested comment on EPA’s

proposal to use the CCR standard health

effects language to meet the public

notification requirement. Although most

commenters supported keeping the CCR

and public notice health effects

language the same, a significant

minority of commenters believed that

the public notice language should be

separate from the CCR language because

of the different objectives of the public

notice. Several commenters also

believed that the proposed language for

specific violations needed revision, and

several offered alternative language that

they believed was more accurate and

useful.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25985

After considering all the comments,

EPA decided to reaffirm its intent to

keep the standard health effects

language identical for the public

notification and CCR rules. Today’s rule

publishes identical language in the two

rules for all the existing regulated

contaminants. EPA believes the benefits

of having identical core health effects

language outweighs the value of

tailoring the language to any unique

objectives of the public notice. EPA also

reviewed the comments offering

alternative language for specific

violations, with particular focus on

whether any of the proposed language

was erroneous or misleading. With three

exceptions, the final language in today’s

rule (including the amended CCR rule)

is the same language as was proposed.

The three exceptions are for fluoride,

fecal coliform/E.coli, and several of the

disinfectant/disinfection byproducts.

These decisions are discussed in greater

detail in section IV.I.3 of the preamble.

C. Tier 2 (30-Day) Notice Deadline and

Flexibility To Extend in Appropriate

Circumstances

EPA requested comment on the

proposed 30-day time period required

for the initial Tier 2 public notice, the

requirement for a repeat notice of

ongoing violations every three months,

and the discretion given to the primacy

agency in specific circumstances to

extend the initial notice to three months

or the repeat notice frequency to one

year (either on a case-by-case basis or by

rule). EPA received a wide range of

comments on the proposed 30-day time

period, ranging from leaving the current

14-day requirement intact (or even

requiring the notice sooner), to support

for the 30-day proposed period, to

moving the initial notice to 90 or 120

days after the violation. The comments

received related to the proposed

discretion allowing primacy agencies to

extend the deadline also ranged widely,

from disagreeing with allowing any

discretion at all, to extending the

deadline, to requesting that the

discretion allowed be more open-ended.

After considering the wide range of

comments, EPA retained the proposed

30-day deadline for the initial notice

and the 3-month repeat notice frequency

in the final rule. But EPA did make

changes in the final rule language in

response to commenters requesting

reconsideration or clarification of EPA’s

intent in the proposed rule. The final

rule redefines how and when a primacy

agency would be allowed to extend the

initial notice beyond 30 days and under

what circumstances the primacy agency

could allow less frequent repeat notices

for unresolved violations. The final rule

specifically disallows extensions

beyond 30 days for unresolved

violations or less frequent repeat notice

for ongoing TCR and SWTR violations.

The final rule also does not allow

primacy agencies to set ‘‘across-theboard’’ extensions in their policies and

rules that would automatically extend

the notice period or frequency of repeat

notice for all the other violations.

EPA continues to believe that

extensions to the fixed deadlines may be

appropriate in certain circumstances,

since Tier 2 violation situations are very

diverse. Tier 2 situations range from

violations that on some occasions may

pose potential adverse health effects

from short-term exposure (such as

SWTR TT violations), to unresolved

violations that pose chronic health

effects from long-term exposure (such as

benzene violations), and to resolved

violations no longer posing any

potential risk to health. One size does

not fit all. The final rule reaffirms this

intent to provide flexibility to the

primacy agency to deviate from the

deadline in EPA’s rule where warranted.

These decisions are discussed in greater

detail in Section IV.G.2 of the preamble.

D. Form and Manner of the Delivery of

Public Notices

EPA requested comment on the

revised requirements in the proposal for

deciding on the method of delivery of

the public notice. The proposed rule

would require a water system to: (1)

Select at least one minimum method

from a short list in the regulation, and

(2) provide additional notices by any

other method reasonably calculated to

reach other persons not reached by the

initial method selected. Some

commenters believed the minimum list

should be expanded to allow, for

instance, use of the newspaper as the

minimum method, as in the current

rule. Other commenters requested that

the final rule require that water systems

use more than one minimum method,

since one method is likely to be an

inadequate response in many cases.

After considering the comments, EPA

has decided to maintain the basic

requirement as proposed: To require

water systems to select at least one

delivery method from the regulatory list

and to take steps reasonably calculated

to reach the others served by the system.

EPA believes requiring water systems to

select at least one minimum method sets

a simple, enforceable baseline level of

performance for all public notices. This

initial step must be supplemented by

other actions when the minimum

method is not likely to reach all persons

served by the system. In the final rule,

EPA did not expand the list of

minimum delivery methods it proposed

but it does give the primacy agency

discretion to select a different minimum

method not listed in EPA’s rule where

warranted. The final rule also includes

other minor changes to the rule

language to respond to specific requests

for clarification of EPA’s intent. These

decisions for each of the three notice

tiers are discussed in greater detail in

sections IV.F.3, IV.G.3, and IV.H.3 of the

preamble.

E. Consolidating Public Notice

Regulations Into New Subpart (40 CFR

Part 141, Subpart Q).

As part of the development of the

final rule, EPA conducted a thorough

search of Part 141 of the current Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) to identify

all the places where a public

notification requirement is set or where

the current public notification

regulations are referenced. This led to a

consolidation of several ongoing public

notification requirements into the new

public notification regulations in

Subpart Q of 40 CFR Part 141. The

benefits of consolidating all the

requirements in one place (Subpart Q)

are significant. The final Subpart Q

provides in one place a complete and

easily referenced set of requirements.

This should greatly enhance the

understanding of the public notification

requirements and lead to greater

voluntary compliance. Many of these

ancillary public notification

requirements are not in the current

regulations under § 141.32 and many

were not part of the proposed rule

revision on May 13, 1999. EPA believes

that since they do not substantively alter

the existing requirements, they do not

require prior notice and opportunity for

comment. A summary list of the

changes to the CFR are included in

Table C in Section IV.L of the preamble.

IV. Discussion of Final Rule

This section explains the elements of

the final regulation, comments

requested and comments received on

the proposal, and EPA’s response to the

comments. EPA made a number of

significant changes to the proposal

based on comments received, clarified

some requirements, and edited and

reorganized some of the proposed

regulatory language to improve the

presentation. EPA requested comment

on all elements of the proposed

regulation. Comments were received

from 53 individuals and organizations,

representing 22 States, 20 utilities, and

11 environmental organizations and

public interest groups. Almost 200

people participated in at least one of the

four public meetings hosted by EPA to

25986 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

take comment on the proposed

regulation. The ‘‘Response to

Comments’’ document, all the written

comments, and the public meeting

reports are available for review at EPA’s

Water Docket (W–98–19). Copies are

also available by downloading the

documents from EPA’s website

(www.epa.gov/safewater/pws/pn/

pn.html).

A. Purpose and Applicability

Today’s rule revises the minimum

requirements that public water systems

must meet regarding the form, manner,

frequency, and content of the public

notification. Public water systems must

give notice to persons served for all

violations of National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations (NPDWR) and for

other situations posing a risk to public

health from the drinking water. The

term NPDWR Violations is used in the

public notification regulations to

include violations of the Maximum

Contaminant Level (MCL), Maximum

Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL),

treatment technique (TT), monitoring,

and testing procedure requirements.

Public notice is not required, for

example, for violation of the Consumer

Confidence Report regulation. See Table

1 and Appendix A of the final rule for

the NPDWR violations and other

situations requiring a public notice.

Violations and situations not listed in

Appendix A do not require a public

notice under Subpart Q.

The rule applies to existing and new

public water systems that violate a

NPDWR or have other situations that

pose a risk to health from the drinking

water. A ‘‘public water system,’’ as

defined in 40 CFR 141.2 , is ‘‘a system

for the provision to the public of water

for human consumption through pipes

or * * * other constructed

conveyances, if such system has at least

fifteen service connections or regularly

serves at least twenty-five individuals

daily at least 60 days out of the year.’’

Public water systems regulated under

Part 141 may be publicly-owned or

privately-owned.

A public water system (PWS) is either

a community water system (CWS) or

non-community water system (NCWS).

A CWS, as defined in § 141.2, means ‘‘a

public water system which serves at

least 15 service connections used by

year-round residents or regularly serves

at least 25 year-round residents.’’ A

NCWS means ‘‘a public water system

that is not a community water system.’’

Non-community water systems are

further broken out in the drinking water

regulations into transient noncommunity water systems (TWS) and

non-transient non-community water

systems (NTNCWS). A NTNCWS is

defined by EPA under § 141.2 as ‘‘a

public water system that is not a

community water system and that

regularly serves 25 of the same people

over six months of the year.’’ An

example is a school or business that has

its own water well. A TWS is defined

by EPA under § 141.2 as ‘‘a noncommunity water system that does not

regularly serve 25 of the same persons

over six months of the year.’’ An

example is a roadside rest stop with its

own water well.

For illustration purposes, Table A

provides a summary of the number of

public water systems, broken out by

type of system, the number of these

systems with violations during fiscal

year 1998, and the total number of

violations during the same period. The

numbers have been updated from those

presented in the preamble of the

proposed rule, which were based on FY

1996 information in the Safe Drinking

Water Information System (SDWIS) in

mid-1997.

Public water systems must meet the

requirements of all NPDWRs in effect.

Currently, there are NPDWRs in effect

covering 80 separate contaminants. EPA

has also published final regulations for

the Interim Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the Stage

1 Disinfection/Disinfectant Byproducts

Rule (D/DBP), which will increase the

number of regulated contaminants to 88

once they go into effect. There are also

other regulations in progress that will

increase the number of regulated

contaminants to over 90 contaminants

by 2002.

Table A shows that 36,467 (21

percent) of the 170,376 PWS had one or

more violations in FY 1998. Overall, the

36,467 PWS with violations committed

a total of 128,459 violations in FY 1998.

Over 86 percent (or 108,459) of these

violations were for failure to monitor

according to the regulations. Although

not all violations require a separate

public notice, each violation requires

the PWS to comply with the public

notification requirements.

TABLE A.—NUMBER OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS (PWS) AND VIOLATIONS IN FY 1998

Type of PWS Number of

PWS

Number of

PWS with

violations

Number of

violations

1. Community Water Systems (CWS) ......................................................................................... 54,367 13,024 64,914

2. Non-transient Non-community Water Systems (NTNCWS) .................................................... 20,255 4,672 27,785

3. Transient Non-community Water Systems (TWS) .................................................................. 95,754 18,771 35,760

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 170,376 36,467 128,459

Source: FY 1998 inventory and violation data from Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), January, 1999.

As shown in Table A, 54,367 (32

percent) of the public water systems are

CWSs. CWSs must comply with all

NPDWRs in effect. CWSs serve

residential populations and range from

large municipal systems that serve

millions of persons to small systems

that serve fewer than 100 persons. CWSs

can be further categorized as publiclyowned systems, privately-owned

systems, and systems that provide water

as an ancillary function of their

principal purpose. In FY 1998, 13,024

CWSs committed 64,914 violations.

Approximately 80 percent of

community water systems serve fewer

than 3,300 people.

Of the public water systems, 20,255

(12 percent) are NTNCWS. Virtually all

NTNCWSs provide water as an ancillary

function of their principal purpose (for

example, schools, day-care facilities,

factories). In general, NTNCWSs must

comply with the same national primary

drinking water regulations as

community water systems. During FY

1998, 4,672 NTNCWSs committed

27,785 violations. Approximately 99

percent of NTNCWSs serve fewer than

3,300 people.

The rest of the regulated public water

systems (95,754 systems or 56 percent)

are TWSs. Virtually all TWSs provide

water as an ancillary function of their

principal purpose (for example,

highway rest stops, gas stations, state

parks). TWSs must comply only with

specified national primary drinking

water regulations where short-term

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25987

exposure may pose a health threat—

total coliform, nitrate, nitrite, total

nitrate and nitrite, and violations of the

Surface Water Treatment Rule. TWSs

using surface water serving 10,000

persons or more must also comply with

the new Interim Enhanced Surface

Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and

certain provisions of the Stage 1

Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts

(D/DBP) rule when they go into effect

starting in 2002. TWSs using surface

water serving less than 10,000 persons

or using ground water sources must

comply with certain provisions of the

Stage 1 D/DBP rule by 2004. In FY 1998,

18,771 TWSs committed 35,760

violations. Over 99 percent of TWSs

serve fewer than 3,300 people.

B. Effective Dates and Rationale

Today’s Rule: The public notification

rule provisions under Part 141, Subpart

Q become effective June 5, 2000.

However, public water systems will

continue to comply with the public

notification requirements under

§ 141.32 until the date the new Subpart

Q regulations go into effect in each

State, Territory, Tribe, or the District of

Columbia. EPA has set different

compliance deadlines based on whether

EPA or the State (or Territory or Tribe)

has primary enforcement authority

(‘‘primacy’’) for the public water system

supervision program. As of today’s rule,

States (or Territories) have primacy in

all jurisdictions except Wyoming, the

District of Columbia, and on Indian

lands. EPA directly implements the

public water system supervision

programs in Wyoming, Washington,

D.C., and on all Indian lands. The term

‘‘primacy agency’’ is used in the final

public notification rule to refer to either

EPA or the State (or Territory or Tribe)

in cases where EPA, or the State,

Territory, or Tribe, exercises primary

enforcement responsibility for the

Subpart Q public notification. The term

‘‘State’’ is used throughout the rule to

apply to States, Territories, Tribes, and

the District of Columbia.

Public water systems in primacy

States must continue to comply with the

public notification requirements under

§ 141.32 until May 6, 2002 or until the

date the State’s revised regulation under

its approved primacy program becomes

effective, whichever comes first. The

two-year period matches the maximum

time period allowed for States under the

primacy regulations (40 CFR Part 142,

Subpart B) to adopt new and revised

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations (NPDWRs). EPA believes it

is appropriate to make the effective date

in primacy States consistent with the

basic two-year time primacy revision

period. Coordinating the phase-in of the

new public notification requirements

with the State adoption of the revised

regulations in each State will avoid the

potential confusion of having different

State and EPA requirements in effect in

the State at the same time. Although

States are free to wait the full two years

to adopt the new rule, EPA strongly

encourages States to consider early

adoption in order to combine the public

notification rule and the Consumer

Confidence Report rule into one

primacy revision package or to

otherwise take early advantage of the

efficiencies in today’s rule.

Public water systems in jurisdictions

where the drinking water program is

directly implemented by EPA must

continue to comply with the public

notification requirements under

§ 141.32 until October 31, 2000. EPA

believes that setting the compliance date

for the new rule at 180 days after

publication is appropriate and

achievable for public water systems in

the jurisdictions directly implemented

by EPA. Six months after publication of

the final rule is sufficient time for EPA

and the water systems to adjust their

operating procedures to comply with

the new requirements. Early

implementation will enable the water

systems to take advantage of the

efficiencies in the new regulation as

early as possible, leading to a more

effective public notification program.

In practical terms, the different

compliance dates allowed under this

rule mean that the new requirements

will go into effect at different times

nationwide, based on the speed of the

State adoption of the new requirements

and whether EPA or the State directly

implements the program. Regardless of

the State primacy situation, the latest

the rule will go into effect in any State

will be May 6, 2002, even in those

States that request and are granted an

extension to adopt the revised

regulation beyond the basic two-year

primacy revision time period.

The final public notification rule

applies to new and existing violations

and situations after the date public

water systems must comply with the

new rule. However, EPA is not requiring

that public water systems provide initial

public notices under the new rule where

the initial public notice has already

been given under the regulations in

place at the time. However, unless the

primacy agency makes a different

determination on a case-by-case basis,

the new rule will apply to repeat notices

for existing violations or for any public

notice requirements applying to ongoing

violations after the new rule is in effect.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA had asked for comment on the

proposed effective dates and solicited

suggestions on other options to put the

new regulations into effect earlier.

Several comments were received on the

proposed effective date, all in support of

the two-year period allowed for water

systems in primacy States.

EPA Response to Comments: The twoyear effective date in the final rule for

water systems in primacy States is

identical to what was proposed. The

final rule does, however, change the

proposed effective date for water

systems in drinking water programs

directly implemented by EPA from 90

days after publication to 180 days after

publication. The shift from 90 days to

180 days was a result of a strong

concern raised during discussions on

the proposed rule that 90 days gave EPA

insufficient time to effectively make the

transition from the existing program to

the new program in areas where it

directly implements the program. EPA

believes the change to 180 days in the

final rule better fits the time period

needed to shift to the new program

under the revised regulations.

C. Summary of Changes to Current

Public Notification Requirements

The final rule is a significant revision

from the public notification regulation

under § 141.32 of this part, which has

been in effect since 1989. The regulation

under § 141.32 is referred to throughout

the preamble as the ‘‘current rule.’’ The

reason EPA chose to refer to the rule

under § 141.32, which will be replaced

by today’s action, as the ‘‘current rule’’

is because it will continue to apply to

some water systems for up to two years

after publication of today’s rule. Table B

is a summary of the major differences

between the current rule and the final

revised rule.

25988 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B.—SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REVISED PN RULE AND CURRENT RULE

Statutory authority (SDWA, as amended in

1996) Current rule (§ 141.32) Revised PN rule (part 141, subpart Q)

1414(c)(1), Each owner or operator of a PWS

shall give notice of NPDWR violations, levels

of unregulated contaminants, and existence

of a variance or exemption to the persons

served by the system.

(§ 141.32(a) and (b)) Owner or operators of

PWSs must notify persons served by the

system for the following violations/ situations:.

Maximum contaminant levels (MCL)

Treatment technique

Testing procedure

Monitoring

Operation under a variance or exemption

Noncompliance with variance or exemption

schedule.

(§§ 141.201(a) and 141.202(a)) Includes violations from current rule and adds broader

definition of waterborne disease outbreak

and other waterborne emergencies, adds

new IESWTR and DBP standards, moves

fluoride SMCL and nitrate exceedances of

the MCL for NCWS when allowed by primacy agency under 141.11(d), failure to

take confirmation sample for nitrate, and

unregulated contaminant monitoring public

notices from other parts of the regulations.

Adds a new Appendix A to the rule listing

all violations and situations where public

notification is required.

(§ 141.201(c)) Requires water systems to notify owners or operators of consecutive systems. Also allows primacy agencies to permit systems to limit distribution of the notice

if the violation is in a portion of the distribution system that is physically or hydraulically isolated from other parts of the system.

1414(c)(2)(A), Manner, frequency, and form are

prescribed based on seriousness and frequency of violations.

(§§ 141.32(a)(1)(iii) and 141.32(a) and (b))

There is a three-tier system, although tiers

are not named.

Public notices are divided into three tiers: violations of MCLs that may pose an acute

risk to human health; MCLs, treatment technique, and variance or exemption schedule

violations; and other violations (including

monitoring) and operation under a variance

or exemption.

(§ 141.201(b)) Tiers are defined based on seriousness of the violation or situation and of

potential health effects, and all violations or

situations are assigned to a tier (Appendix

A).

Tier 1 notice for violations or situations with

significant potential to have serious adverse

effects on human health as a result of

short-term exposure;

Tier 2 notice for all other violations or situations with potential to have serious adverse

effects on human health; and

Tier 3 notice for all other violations and situations not included in Tier 1 and Tier 2.

1414(c)(2)(C)(iii), Notice must be provided to

Administrator or primacy agency.

(§ 141.31(d)) System must provide a copy of

the notice to the State within 10 days.

(§ 141.31(d)) Revised to require PWS to submit to the primacy agency within 10 days a

certification, with copies of the notices, for

both the initial notice cycle and all repeat

notice cycles.

(§§ 141.202(b)(2) and 141.203(b)(3)) New

sections added to require consultation with

primacy agency within 24 hours for violations or situations requiring a Tier 1 notice

and for violations of the turbidity MCL of 5

NTU or a treatment technique resulting

from a single exceedance of turbidity limits.

1414(c)(2)(C)(1), For violations with potential to

have serious adverse effects on human

health as a result of short-term exposure, notice must be distributed as soon as practicable but no later than 24 hours after the

occurrence of the violation.

(§ 141.32(a)(1)(iii)(A)–(D) Acute violations include.

(1) Any violations specified by State

(2) Nitrate/nitrite MCLs

(3) Fecal coliform/E. coli

(4) Waterborne disease outbreak in unfiltered

systems subject to Surface Water Treatment Rule.

(§ 141.202) Tier 1 notice—Violations and situations include those defined as acute in the

current rule, plus: an expanded definition of

waterborne disease outbreak to include all

water systems and to add other waterborne

emergencies; violations of the maximum

turbidity limit where determined by the primacy agency or where consultation between the system and the primacy agency

does not occur within 24 hours; chlorine dioxide MRDL violation under new DBP rule

where samples taken in the distribution system exceed the standard or where repeat

samples are not taken in the distribution

system when required; violation of the testing procedures to determine if fecal coliform

is present after any repeat sample tests

positive for coliform; violations of combined

nitrate and nitrite MCL; and failure to take a

confirmation sample for nitrate within 24

hours when initial sample exceeds MCL.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25989

TABLE B.—SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REVISED PN RULE AND CURRENT RULE—Continued

Statutory authority (SDWA, as amended in

1996) Current rule (§ 141.32) Revised PN rule (part 141, subpart Q)

Under § 141.209, Tier 1 notice is also required for exceedance of the nitrate MCL

by NCWS where permitted to exceed the

MCL by the primacy agency.

Provide copy of notice to radio and TV stations within 72 hours, or by posting or hand

delivery within 72 hours. Posting must continue as long as the violation persists.

Timing revised to require notice within 24

hours; must use at a minimum electronic

media, posting, hand delivery, or other

method approved by the primacy agency,

plus any additional methods necessary to

reach all persons served.

Additional notices: by newspaper within 14

days or posting or hand delivery if no newspaper is available; by mail within 45 days

(may be waived if state determines violation

has been corrected); and repeat notice

every three months thereafter.

Revised to not require additional notices for

same violation, deferring instead to the primacy agency to set additional requirements

(including additional notices) on a case-bycase basis.

1414(c)(2)(D)(1), Regulations shall specify notification procedures for violations other than

Tier 1; notice shall be in written form.

(§ 141.32)(a)) For MCL, treatment technique,

and variance or exemption schedule violations.

(§ 141.203) Tier 2 notice includes those described in § 141.32(a) of the current rule,

plus the new standards under the IESWTR

and DBP rules, and serious and persistent

monitoring and testing procedure violations,

as determined by the primacy agency.

By newspaper within 14 days or by posting or

hand delivery if no newspaper is available.

Revised under § 141.203(b) to require notice

within 30 days unless the primacy agency

allows an extension of up to three months

in appropriate circumstances. Extensions

will not be allowed for any unresolved violations, nor will automatic ‘‘across-the-board’’

extensions for the remaining violations be

allowed. Unless primacy agency directs otherwise, CWS must use mail or direct delivery, and other methods reasonably calculated to reach persons served. NCWS

must use posting (for as long as violation

persists or for at least seven days), direct

delivery, or mail, and other methods reasonably calculated to reach persons served.

Also requires systems to consult the primacy agency within 24 hours of learning of

an exceedance of maximum turbidity limits.

Additional notices: by mail within 45 days

(may be waived if State determines violation has been corrected), and repeat notice

every three months thereafter by mail or

hand delivery.

The initial notice does not require multiple

methods of delivery unless needed to reach

persons served. Repeat notice required

every three months where violation persists,

unless the primacy agency determines less

frequent repeat notice (no less frequent

than annually) is warranted in appropriate

circumstances. Primacy agencies may not

allow less frequent repeat notices for microbiological violations, nor will automatic

‘‘across-the-board’’ decreases in frequency

be allowed for the remaining violations.

Method of delivery for repeat notice will be

the same as that required for initial notices.

(§ 141.32(b), For monitoring and testing procedure violations, and operation under variance or exemption.(§ 141.204) The violations and situations requiring a Tier 3 notice are the same as

those described in § 141.32(b) of current

rule.

Tier 3 notice is also required to announce the

availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results as required under § 141.207;

and for exceedances of the SMCL for fluoride as required under § 141.208.

25990 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE B.—SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REVISED PN RULE AND CURRENT RULE—Continued

Statutory authority (SDWA, as amended in

1996) Current rule (§ 141.32) Revised PN rule (part 141, subpart Q)

By newspaper within three months of the violation or the granting of variance or exemption, or by hand delivery or posting if no

newspaper is available. State may allow

less frequent public notice (up to 1 year) for

minor monitoring violations.

Revised to require notice within one year. Unless primacy agency directs otherwise,

CWS must use mail or direct delivery, and

other methods reasonably calculated to

reach persons served. NCWS must use

posting (for as long as violation persists or

minimum of seven days), direct delivery, or

mail, and other methods reasonably calculated to reach persons served. Consumer

Confidence reports (CCRs) or other annual

reports may be used, as long as notice in

CCR meets PN requirements.

Repeat notice every three months thereafter

by mail or hand delivery.

Repeat notice annually; method of delivery

must be the same as in the initial notice.

Notice to new billing units or new customers

(not in statute).

(§ 141.32(c)) Community water system must

give a copy of the most recent public notice

for any outstanding violation of any MCL,

any treatment technique requirement, or

any V&E schedule.

(§ 141.206) Revised to require notice for any

outstanding violation or situation requiring

notice, including monitoring and testing procedure violations.

Revised to require non-community water systems to keep notice posted for as long as

violation persists, even if notice was initially

hand-delivered or otherwise distributed.

1414(c)(2)(C)(ii) and 1414(c)(2)(D)(ii), Content

of notices.

(§ 141.32(d)) Each notice must provide a clear

explanation of the violation, potential health

effects, population at risk, steps being taken

to correct violation, telephone number of

the owner, operator, or designee of the

public water system, necessity for seeking

alternative water supplies, if any, and any

preventive measures consumers should

take until the violation is corrected.

(§ 141.205) Adds ‘‘when violation or situation

was found’’ and ‘‘when system expects to

return to compliance or resolve the situation’’ to content elements. New requirement

to include ‘‘contaminant level.’’ Adds name

and business address to phone number of

operator. Adds new element requiring

standard language, where applicable, asking bill paying customers to provide copies

of notice to other persons served who may

not have received the notice directly from

the PWS.

Also, adds minimum content elements for notices of operation under variance or exemption, which parallel CCR requirements. No

longer requires health effects language for

operation under a variance or exemption.

(§ 141.32(e)) Systems must include standard

health effects language for MCL, treatment

technique, variance or exemption schedule

violations, and operation under a variance

or exemption.

(New Appendix B) Revises standard health

effects language, using language identical

to the CCR rule.

Adds standard language for monitoring and

testing procedure violations.

Providing notice in other languages (not in statute).(§ 141.32(d)) Systems must provide multilingual notices ‘‘where appropriate’’.(§ 141.205(c)(2)) Revised to require that notices contain information in the appropriate

language(s) regarding the importance of the

notice or contain a telephone number or address so people can obtain a translated

copy or request assistance in the appropriate language, if system serves a large

proportion of non-English speaking consumers. Systems must determine what constitutes a ‘‘large proportion’’ if primacy

agency does not make a determination.

Special notice for exceedance of Fluoride Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL)

(not in statute).

(§ 141.32(f)) Notice of SMCL exceedances

between 2 mg/l and 4 mg/l (the MCL level)

required within 12 mos.; shall contain language in § 143.5(b).

(§ 141.208) Moved to new Subpart Q (deletes

§ 143.5); mandatory language is simplified.

Special notice for exceedance of nitrate MCL

for NCWS (not in statute).

Public notice is required as part of

§ 141.11(d). § 141.11(d) allows NCWS to

have nitrate levels above MCL> (10 mg/l),

up to 20 mg/l, if State approves and if they

post and meet other conditions.

(§ 141.209) Incorporates public notice requirements in § 141.11(d) to new Subpart Q, requiring the PN to follow Tier 1 notice requirements and content requirements in

§ 141.205; changes § 141.11(d) to cross reference the Subpart Q PN requirement.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25991

TABLE B.—SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REVISED PN RULE AND CURRENT RULE—Continued

Statutory authority (SDWA, as amended in

1996) Current rule (§ 141.32) Revised PN rule (part 141, subpart Q)

Public notice by primacy agency (not

in statute).

(§ 141.32(g)) The State may give notice to the

public on behalf of the public water system

if the State complies with the requirements

of § 141.32. However, the owner or operator of the public water system remains legally responsible.

(§ 141.210 ) No change.

1414(c)(2)(E) Administrator may require notice

of levels of unregulated contaminants monitored under section 1445(a).

(§ 141.35(d)) Written notice of availability of

results within three months after system receives results (surface water systems only

need to notify after the first quarter of monitoring).

(§ 141.207) Revised to require notice of availability of results within 12 months, following

Tier 3 delivery requirements; deletes

§ 141.35(d).

1414(c)(2)(B) States may establish alternative

notification requirements.

(§ 142.10(a)) Authority to require public water

systems to give public notice that is no less

stringent than the EPA requirements in

§§ 141.32 and 142.16(a).

(§ 142.10(a)) No change.

(§ 142.16(a)) If the state chooses to decrease

notice frequency for minor monitoring violations it must submit to EPA the criteria used

to decide the decreased frequency and

which violations are minor, and it must submit the new notice requirements.

(§ 142.16(a)) Deletes current requirement. Allows primacy agencies to establish alternative public notification requirements with

respect to form and content of notice, consistent with 1414(c)(2)(B) of 1996 SDWA

amendments, as long as they provide same

type and amount of information.

New § 142.16(a)(2) added to require State to

include in primacy program enforceable requirements and procedures when State

augments its program to take advantage of

the flexibilities built into EPA’s rule. List of

special primacy requirements included in

§ 142.16(a)(2).

D. ‘‘Plain Language’’ Format of Final

Rule

Today’s Rule: As discussed in the

preamble to the proposed rule, EPA has

formatted Subpart Q of these regulations

in question-and-answer format and

made other changes in format and

language, consistent with the

requirements outlined in the June 1,

1998 memorandum sent by President

Clinton to all Federal agencies, to take

steps to improve both the clarity and

comprehension of regulatory language.

The intent of ‘‘plain language’’ is to

produce rules which are clear, concise,

straight-forward, understandable, and

enforceable without extensive

‘‘legalese.’’ The current public

notification rule, in particular, has been

criticized by the General Accounting

Office (GAO) and others as being too

complex and confusing to implement.

This criticism was viewed by GAO in its

1992 report as one of the reasons the

public notification process is

ineffective.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the new

format and solicited ideas on ways to

make the public notification regulation

more readable by the regulated

community. In general, commenters

supported the new format, finding it a

significant improvement from the

current rule.

EPA Response to Comments: The final

rule is consistent with the overall ‘‘plain

language’’ strategy incorporated into the

proposed rule. EPA has made minor

formatting and language changes in

response to specific comments that

improve the overall presentation.

E. General Provisions of Final Rule

(§ 141.201)

Today’s final rule replaces the

existing public notification regulation

with an entirely new subpart (40 CFR

Part 141, Subpart Q), which

incorporates the new provisions under

sections 1414(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the

SDWA, as amended in 1996. The final

rule streamlines the requirements to

more effectively meet the objectives of

the public notification process. Today’s

final rule revises the existing public

notification requirements:

• To tailor the public notification

requirements to address the potential

risk from the violations, with particular

focus on the notice for violations posing

the greatest potential risk to public

health;

• To simplify the requirements and

make them more self-implementing,

allowing water systems to understand

and implement their public notification

obligation without further

interpretation;

• To give greater latitude to States to

develop alternative programs to meet

their unique needs and to provide

greater flexibility to public water

systems to tailor distribution of the

notice to best reach persons served;

• To better integrate the public

notification requirements for less

serious violations with the annual

Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) for

community water systems and with

other annual reporting mechanisms for

non-community water systems; and

• To reduce the burden on water

systems of complying with the public

notification requirements.

1. Who Must Give Public Notice?

Today’s Rule: The final rule under

§ 141.201(a) requires owners and

operators of public water systems to

give notice to persons they serve for all

violations of national primary drinking

water regulations (NPDWRs), when they

are operating under a variance or

exemption (or violate conditions of the

variance or exemption), and for

waterborne emergencies and other

specified situations posing a potential

risk to public health. The violation

categories and other situations requiring

a public notice are identified in the final

rule in Table 1 to § 141.201 and

Appendix A of Subpart Q.

25992 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

The final rule makes several changes

to the current public notice regulatory

language to improve the clarity and

understanding of when a public notice

is required. Appendix A provides a

complete reference guide (including

regulatory citations) to all violations and

situations requiring a public notice. Not

all violations under the EPA drinking

water regulations require a public

notice. For instance, public notices are

not required for violations of the

reporting regulations under § 141.31 and

other Part 141 sections. Public notices

are also not required for violations of

the Consumer Confidence Report

regulations under Subpart O of Part 141.

Appendix A will be updated as new

NPDWRs are promulgated or when

other situations arise where a public

notice is required. A public notice is

only required for the violations or other

situations listed in Appendix A.

Several other changes were made to

Table 1 to § 141.201 in today’s rule

modifying the violations and situations

requiring a public notice:

• Special public notice provisions

already required in the current

regulations, but not included in the

current public notification regulations

under § 141.32, are added to the list of

violations and situations requiring a

public notice in Table 1 to § 141.201.

These special public notice provisions

include: The notice requirements for

exceedance of the fluoride secondary

maximum contaminant level (SMCL)

under the existing § 143.5; the

requirement to give notice of the

availability of unregulated contaminant

monitoring results originally found

under § 141.35; and the public notice

required of non-community water

systems under the current § 141.11(d)

for exceedances of the MCL of 10 mg/

l for nitrate (up to 20 mg/l) without

receiving a violation. These changes are

discussed in Section IV.J of the

preamble related to special public

notices.

• The existing requirement to give

notice for waterborne disease outbreaks

under the Surface Water Treatment Rule

is broadened and clarified to include a

requirement for a public notice for any

waterborne disease outbreak and other

waterborne emergencies. This change is

discussed in Section IV.F.1 of the

preamble related to Tier 1 public

notices.

• A new requirement is added that

explicitly incorporates additional public

notice requirements as determined by

the primacy agency for other violations

and situations not explicitly listed in

Appendix A of Subpart Q. This enables

the primacy agency to broaden the

applicability of the public notice

regulation to any situation it deems

important.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA asked for comment on the proposal

to add explicit regulatory language

enabling the primacy agency to require

public notification for other situations it

believes have the potential for serious

health risk. EPA also asked for comment

on its proposal to present in tabular

form all the situations requiring a public

notice and its plans to update Appendix

A as new rules are published. In

general, commenters strongly supported

the addition of Appendix A to the

revised regulation and the flexibility

explicitly allowed the primacy agency

to require public notices beyond those

listed in Appendix A.

EPA Response to Comments: The final

rule is consistent with what was

proposed. Other than several minor

formatting and wording changes to

improve the presentation, the only

significant change to what was proposed

was to revise the proposed Table 1 to

§ 141.201(a) to conform to the changes

made in other sections of the rule. Table

1 to § 141.201(a) now includes other

situations requiring a Tier 1 notice

under § 141.202(a) that were added in

response to comments. These changes to

the Tier 1 requirements are discussed in

Sections IV.F.1 and IV.J of the preamble.

2. What Type of Public Notice Is

Required for Each Situation?

Today’s Rule: The final rule under

§ 141.201(b) divides the public notice

requirements into three tiers:

• Tier 1 Public Notice, for violations

and situations with significant potential

to have serious adverse effects on

human health as a result of short-term

exposure;

• Tier 2 Public Notice, for other

violations and situations with potential

to have serious adverse effects on

human health; and

• Tier 3 Public Notice, for all other

violations and situations requiring a

public notice not included in Tier 1 and

Tier 2.

The form, manner, and frequency of

the public notice is determined by the

tier to which the violation or situation

is assigned. Appendix A assigns each

violation and situation to one of the

three tiers. The specific requirements for

the public notice in each tier are defined

under §§ 141.202, 141.203, and 141.204.

EPA is establishing the three-tier

approach to public notification to be

consistent with the intent of the new

public notification provisions in the

1996 SDWA amendments. Section

1414(c)(2)(A) directs the Administrator

to issue regulations that provide for

different frequencies of notice based on

the differences between intermittent and

persistent violations and the seriousness

of any potential adverse health effects.

Section 1414(c)(2)(C) sets very specific

requirements for violations with the

potential to have serious adverse effects

on human health from short-term

exposure. This includes a new

requirement that such notices be

distributed to persons served no later

than 24 hours after the occurrence of the

violation. Section 1414(c)(2)(D) requires

EPA to define in its regulations the

notification procedures for all violations

not included under subparagraph (C).

This section requires that such

procedures specify that the water

system provide written notice to each

person served in either: (1) The first bill

prepared, if any, after the violation; (2)

in an annual report issued no later than

one year after the violation; or (3) by

mail or direct delivery as soon as

practicable, but no later than one year

after the violation.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on whether a

two-or three-tiered structure would be

more appropriate for the final EPA

regulation and what the advantages and

disadvantages of the preferred tier

structure would be. All but three of the

twenty commenters supported the threetier structure.

EPA Response to Comments: EPA

made no changes in the final rule to

what was proposed under Section

141.201(b). In response to the three

commenters preferring a two-tier notice

structure, EPA believes that a three-tier

approach is more appropriate than a

two-tier approach because it provides

more effective tailoring of the public

notice requirements based on the

seriousness of any potential health

effects and is still relatively simple and

straightforward to implement.

Violations span a wide range of

potential health risks. A ‘‘middle-tier’’

public notice requirement between the

24-hour notice and the annual notice is

appropriate for those lower-tier

violations and situations that may have

the potential for serious adverse effects

on human health, but are not significant

or urgent enough to require an

emergency notice. EPA believes a threetier system of public notification

effectively separates the form, manner,

content, and frequency of public notice

based on the seriousness of any

potential adverse health effects. The

three-tier system also meets the clear

objectives and purposes of public

notification, is simple and

straightforward to implement, and

meets the requirements of the statute.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25993

3. Who Must Be Notified?

Today’s Rule: The final rule under

§ 141.201(c) requires that each public

water system provide public notice to

persons served by the water system.

EPA believes that consumers have a

right to know in a timely manner

whenever violations occur that may

affect them, to allow them to make their

own choices about using drinking water,

based on their own perceived risk. This

is consistent with the statutory

requirement under the SDWA, which

requires that public notice be provided

to ‘‘the persons served by the system.’’

(SDWA, Section 1414(c)(1)). In response

to comments on the proposal, EPA in

the final rule has clarified the

requirement in three ways.

First, EPA interprets the obligation of

the water system to reach persons

served to extend beyond bill-paying

customers and service connections to all

consumers of the system’s drinking

water. This is defined in the final rule

to require that water systems provide

the notice in a form and manner

‘‘reasonably calculated to reach persons

served.’’ EPA recognizes that reaching

the persons served beyond the billpaying customers and service

connections may pose a challenge to

some water systems. Some consumers

(such as apartment dwellers, other

renters, university students, prison

inmates, and condominium residents)

may not be the persons paying the water

bill or be otherwise linked to the service

connection address. The form and

manner of the public notice necessary to

reach all the persons served depends on

the local situation. To illustrate how

EPA interprets the breadth of this

obligation, EPA has added examples in

the rule language under §§ 141.202(c),

141.203(c), and 141.204(c) outlining

what additional efforts it expects of

public water systems to reach persons

other than the bill-payers or the service

connection addresses.

EPA has also added standard language

under § 141.205(d)(3) for water systems

to use in their public notices (where

applicable) to encourage those receiving

the notice to distribute it to other

persons who may drink the water.

Examples where the use of this standard

distribution language would apply

include notices that are sent to

apartment and condominium managers,

building managers or physical plant

superintendents, or others who receive

the notice who provide drinking water

to others.

Second, language under

§ 141.201(c)(a)(1) has been added to

define the public notice obligation of

public water systems that sell or

otherwise provide drinking water to

other public water systems. These

‘‘parent’’ systems are responsible for

providing public notice of the violation

or situation to the owner or operator of

the ‘‘consecutive’’ systems to whom

they sell water, but they are not required

under the rule to distribute the notice to

persons served by the consecutive

system. Although different public notice

arrangements are sometimes made

between the parent and consecutive

system, the consecutive system is the

water system responsible under this rule

for delivering the notice to the persons

it serves. Although the legal obligation

is clear under the rule, EPA

recommends that each consecutive

water system in its contract with the

parent system agree on the most

effective approach for distributing

public notices. EPA will give examples

of such agreements in the Public

Notification Handbook.

Third, language under § 141.201(c)(2)

has been added to enable the primacy

agency, at its option, to make exceptions

to the system-wide notice requirement if

specific regulatory criteria are met. The

new language will allow a water system

to limit distribution of the notice to

those persons served by a portion of the

distribution system impacted by the

violation, where the water system is

able to demonstrate that the affected

portion of the system is physically or

hydraulically isolated from all other

parts of the distribution system. This

replaces the more limited discretion

given to primacy agencies in the current

rule, which allows less than systemwide notice for violation of EPA’s

chemical standards only when the

elevated contaminant levels are

contained in a separable portion of the

distribution system with no

interconnections. Today’s rule broadens

the allowable exceptions to a systemwide notice by adding ‘‘hydraulically

isolated’’ to the exception criteria.

Although not open-ended, the amended

language recognizes situations other

than physical separation where there is

clear and certain evidence that persons

served by a portion of the distribution

system have no chance of being affected

by the violation.

To meet EPA’s criterion that a portion

of the distribution system must be

physically isolated to be eligible for an

exception to the system-wide notice

requirement, a system must show the

primacy agency that the affected portion

is separated from other parts of the

distribution system with no

interconnections. Because of the

physical separation, the elevated

contaminant levels contained in only

that portion of the system would have

no bearing on the contaminant levels in

other parts of the system. In such a

situation, EPA believes a primacy

agency may permit an exception to

system-wide notice. These exceptions to

system-wide notice are already allowed

in the current rule for violations of the

chemical standards under

§§ 141.23(i)(4), 141.24(f)(15)(iii), and

(h)(11)(iii). Today’s rule incorporates

this exception criteria into

§ 141.201(c)(2).

To meet EPA’s criterion that a portion

of the distribution system must be

hydraulically isolated to be eligible for

an exception to the system-wide notice

requirement, a system must show that

the water in the affected portion is

separated from the water in all other

parts of the distribution system because

the projected water flow patterns and

water pressure zones effectively isolate

the water to that portion of the system.

This hydraulic isolation can result from

the design of the distribution system

(e.g., pressure zones, backflow

prevention devices) or be created

through system operation (e.g., flow

control). An example associated with

the Total Coliform Rule is the presence

of E. coli downstream from a pipe break

that the system can demonstrate, to the

satisfaction of the primacy agency, led

to the entry of fecal contamination, and

that the water downstream from the

break does not flow into any other part

of the distribution system. Another

example, related to a chemical standard

(e.g., nitrate, fluoride), is a situation

where contaminant levels exceeding the

MCL are shown to be from a single

source and found only in the

distribution main leading from that

source. The water system in this

situation may be eligible for an

exception if it could demonstrate, using

other monitoring information and

distribution flow modeling, that

exceedances above the MCL could only

be found in the single distribution main

because of water flow patterns and

pressure zones (the ‘‘hydraulics’’) under

all operational scenarios. For both of

these examples, the decision on whether

to permit an exception to the systemwide notice requirement rests solely

with the primacy agency.

Primacy agencies seeking authority to

grant exceptions to the system-wide

notice requirement must meet the

special primacy conditions under

§ 142.16(a)(2) in their approved primacy

program. Decisions by the primacy

agency to permit exceptions must be in

writing and otherwise documented

based on use of the regulatory criteria in

today’s rule. EPA recognizes that there

are other situations where the water

system has evidence that not all the

25994 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

persons served by the system are

affected equally by the violation. In

these situations, EPA expects the water

system to tailor the language in the

public notice its sends system-wide, to

communicate who is at most risk from

the violation and who is at minimal

risk. All such notices, unless the water

system is granted an exception by the

primacy agency, are required to be

distributed system-wide according to

the requirements in this part.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA asked for comments on its

interpretation of who must be notified

under the SDWA and the proposed rule.

A substantial number of commenters

recommended that EPA allow

exceptions to the proposed (and current)

requirement that the notice go to

persons served by the entire system,

particularly where it is clear that only

a portion of the persons served are

affected by the violation. Other

commenters asked EPA to clarify how

far the water system must go to ensure

that its notice reaches all persons

served.

EPA Response to Comments: The final

rule reaffirms the statutory language that

water systems provide the public notice

to persons served by the entire system.

In response to comments, however, the

final rule now includes language

enabling the primacy agency, at its

option, to make exceptions to the

system-wide notice requirement where

the violation is shown to be due to

exceedances in a portion of the system

that is physically or hydraulically

isolated from the rest of the system. EPA

also added language in the final rule to

respond to requests that EPA clarify

public notice responsibilities for

persons selling water to other water

systems (i.e., ‘‘consecutive systems’’).

Several commenters requested that

EPA change the distribution

requirement from ‘‘persons served by

the system’’ to ‘‘persons affected,’’ to

allow less than system-wide notice

where the available evidence indicates

that the violation affects only a portion

of the persons served by the system.

EPA disagrees with changing the

baseline requirement to distribute

notices of all violations system-wide,

because EPA strongly believes that

consumers have a right-to-know in a

timely manner when violations occur

that may affect them. In situations

where evidence indicates that not all

persons served are affected equally by

the violation, EPA expects the water

system to tailor the language in the

public notice to communicate who is at

most risk and what actions they should

take, not to limit the notice distribution

based on relative risk. EPA does agree,

however, that exceptions to the systemwide notice distribution may be

warranted when the contaminant

exceedances are shown to be contained

exclusively in an isolated portion of the

distribution system. In such a situation,

only those persons served by that

portion of the system are affected.

Accordingly, EPA has added language

in the final rule allowing the primacy

agency to grant exceptions, at its option,

where the violation is shown to be due

to exceedances in a portion of the

system that is physically or

hydraulically isolated from the rest of

the system.

Several other commenters gave

examples of situations where they

believed a system-wide notice is

unwarranted. EPA believes the language

added in the final rule effectively

addresses these comments by allowing

exceptions to the system-wide

requirement, at the primacy agencies

discretion, when the system can

demonstrate that specific engineering

and hydraulic criteria are met. EPA’s

intent in adding the language is

explained earlier in this preamble

section. EPA’s detailed response to

specific comments on this provision is

contained in the ‘‘Response to

Comments’’ document contained in the

docket for this rule.

F. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the

Tier 1 Public Notice: Violations and

Situations With Significant Potential to

Have Serious Adverse Effects on Human

Health as a Result of Short-Term

Exposure (§ 141.202)

1. Tier 1 Violations and Situations

Today’s Rule: The final rule under

§ 141.202(a) requires a Tier 1 public

notice for specific violation categories

and other situations. The list of

violations requiring a Tier 1 public

notice in today’s rule includes all

violations in the current rule defined as

posing acute health effects. In addition,

a number of new violations and

situations have been added to those

already required under the current

regulation. Tier 1 notice requirements

under the final rule are required for:

• Violation of the MCL for total

coliform, when fecal coliform or E. coli

are present in the water distribution

system, or when the water system fails

to test for fecal coliforms or E. coli after

any repeat sample tests positive for

coliform. Failure to test for fecal

coliform or E. coli is not defined as an

acute violation requiring a 72-hour

notice in the current rule.

• Violation of the MCL for nitrate,

nitrite, or total nitrate and nitrite, or

when a water system fails to take a

confirmation sample within 24 hours of

the system’s receipt of the first sample

showing exceedance of the nitrate or

nitrite MCL. Violation of the total nitrate

and nitrite MCL and the failure to take

a required confirmation sample are not

defined as acute violations in the

current rule.

• Exceedance of the nitrate MCL by

non-community water systems

(NCWSs), where permitted to exceed the

MCL by the primacy agency under the

criteria established under § 141.11(d).

The authority given by primacy agencies

under § 141.11(d) to allow NCWS to

exceed the MCL level of 10 mg/l (up to

20 mg/l) is unchanged by today’s action.

The final public notification rule

incorporates the public notice

requirements for qualifying NCWSs into

a new special public notice under

§ 141.209. Qualifying NCWS must

follow the Tier 1 notice requirements.

This existing requirement is not

explicitly incorporated into the current

public notice rule.

• Violation of the MRDL for chlorine

dioxide, where one or more samples

taken in the distribution system the day

following an exceedance of the MRDL at

the entrance of the distribution system

exceed the MRDL. A Tier 1 notice is

also required when the water system

does not take required samples in the

distribution system. These are new Tier

1 notice requirements incorporated from

the Stage 1 D/DBP rule published on

December 16, 1998 (63 FR 69390).

• Violation of the turbidity MCL

under § 141.13(b) or a violation of the

SWTR and IESWTR treatment technique

requirements resulting from a single

exceedance of the maximum allowable

turbidity level, where the primacy

agency determines after consultation

initiated by the water system that a Tier

1 public notice is required. Violations

resulting from exceedance of these

turbidity limits will routinely require a

Tier 2 notice except where the primacy

agency determines, after consultation,

that a Tier 1 notice is required for the

specific situation. The consultation

requirement under § 141.203(b)(3) is

triggered whenever these specific

turbidity violations occur. Consultation

must take place as soon as practical but

no later than 24 hours after the violation

is known. If the water system is unable

to consult with the primacy agency

within the 24-hour period, the public

notice requirement is automatically

elevated to a Tier 1. Where the notice

requirement is elevated to a Tier 1, the

public water system must distribute the

notice as soon as practical but no later

than the subsequent 24-hour period

after the Tier 1 requirement is known

(i.e., no later than 48 hours after the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25995

public water system first learns of the

violation). This provision is not

included in the current rule.

• Occurrence of a waterborne disease

outbreak, as defined in Section 141.2,

and other waterborne emergencies. This

is an expanded Tier 1 notice

requirement from that required under

the current rule, which is limited to

outbreaks related to violations of the

Surface Water Treatment Rule for

unfiltered systems. Today’s final rule

adds an explicit reference to § 141.2 to

clarify the definition of waterborne

disease outbreaks requiring a Tier 1

public notice. The following definition

of a waterborne disease outbreak is in

§ 141.2:

Waterborne disease outbreak means the

significant occurrence of acute infectious

illness, epidemiologically associated with the

ingestion of water from a public water system

which is deficient in treatment, as

determined by the appropriate local or state

agency.

Today’s final rule also adds ‘‘other

waterborne emergencies’’ to the list of

situations requiring a public notice. The

definition of ‘‘waterborne emergency’’ is

illustrated in the final rule by example,

but EPA’s intent is to have the Tier 1

public notice requirement apply to any

waterborne emergency (whether a

violation or not) with significant

potential to pose adverse health effects

from short-term exposure. The examples

in the final rule to illustrate this

include, but are not limited to: Failure

or significant interruption in key water

treatment processes, a natural disaster

that disrupts the water supply or

distribution system, or a chemical spill

or unexpected loading of possible

pathogens into the source water that

significantly increases the potential for

drinking water contamination.

• Other violations or situations with

significant potential to have serious

adverse health effects from short-term

exposure, as determined by the primacy

agency. This enables the primacy

agency to elevate to Tier 1 other

violations and situations not specifically

identified as requiring a Tier 1 notice in

Appendix A, when necessary to protect

public health. The final rule allows the

primacy agency to elevate either

violations or situations; the current rule

applies only to ‘‘violations.’’

EPA has limited its list of violations

and situations routinely requiring a Tier

1 notice to those with a significant

potential for serious adverse health

effects from short-term exposure. There

are other serious violations which may

indicate a potential for adverse health

effects from short-term exposure in

specific circumstances. But EPA did not

designate these other violations as

automatically requiring a Tier 1 notice

because they represent exceedances of

indicator parameters which are not

strongly or consistently linked to the

occurrence of the possible acute health

effects. Most routine Total Coliform

Rule (TCR) MCL violations and Surface

Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) TT

violations would fall into this category.

These violations are included in the

Tier 2 list. EPA believes focusing the 24-

hour notice requirement in its rule on

the more limited set of violations will

increase the effectiveness of the Tier 1

notices and lead to greater health

protection. When a specific violation or

situation clearly warrants a Tier 1 notice

based on the strength of the evidence,

EPA expects the primacy agency to use

its discretion to elevate the notice

requirement to Tier 1. Use of this

discretion is authorized under the final

EPA rule to ensure that the public is

effectively informed of these violations

and situations not explicitly listed by

EPA as requiring a Tier 1 notice.

EPA decided to include violations

resulting from exceedance of the

maximum allowable turbidity limit in

its Tier 1 list of violations under Table

1 to § 141.202, but Tier 1 would only

apply when the primacy agency directs

such a notice after consultation with the

public water system. This was because

EPA believes that violations resulting

from an exceedance of the maximum

allowable turbidity limit may be an

indicator that there is significant

potential of adverse health effects from

short-term exposure. There is a strong

possibility of serious consequences to

public health if the public is not alerted

quickly when pathogens have passed

through to the drinking water. However,

EPA does not believe that all such

turbidity excursions should prompt a

Tier 1 notice, thus justifying a new

requirement that the system consult

with the primacy agency within 24

hours to determine whether the specific

situation warrants a Tier 1 notice.

Requiring immediate consultation with

the primacy agency will ensure that Tier

1 notices will be required when

supported by the evidence. Requiring

consultation rather than an automatic

Tier 1 notice also avoids unnecessary

and costly notices. When consultation

with the primacy agency does not occur

within 24 hours, the final rule

automatically requires that a Tier 1

notice be distributed.

EPA expects that some of the routine

violations related to turbidity

exceedances should require a Tier 2 (not

a Tier 1) notice because a turbidity

exceedance by itself, without other

supporting information, has not been

shown to date to be a predictable

indicator of a pathogen loading in the

finished water. A single exceedance of

the maximum allowable turbidity limit,

although a violation, may also prove to

be a false reading because of a testing

equipment malfunction. EPA is

continuing research on turbidity as an

indicator of pathogen loading as part of

the development of the Long Term

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

Rule. Given the relatively small number

of single exceedance turbidity violations

(estimated at less than 200 per year), the

additional primacy agency workload for

consultation should not be overly

burdensome. The final rule provides the

best balance between getting a notice

out quickly to protect public health and

avoiding unnecessary alarm and

confusion through issuance of

unnecessary notices.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on its proposed

list of violations and situations

requiring Tier 1 public notification. EPA

received a range of comments

recommending changes to the proposed

list.

First, many commenters specifically

focused on those proposed Tier 2

violations which may in some

circumstances pose a significant and

immediate risk from short-term

exposure, specifically violations of the

TCR and SWTR/IESWTR. In particular,

over half of these commenters

recommended that turbidity excursions

resulting in a violation be automatically

elevated to a Tier 1 notice because they

believed that turbidity violations were

more often than not a strong indicator

of harmful drinking water posing a

significant risk from short-term

exposure. The rest of those commenting

on this issue specifically supported

leaving all turbidity violations in Tier 2

(as was proposed) because they believed

that turbidity violations were more often

than not a false indicator of potential

health risk. Virtually all the commenters

agreed that turbidity was useful as an

indicator to trigger immediate follow-up

by the water system.

Second, commenters asked EPA to be

more precise in defining which

violations or situations required a Tier

1 notice. In particular, commenters

asked EPA to better define when EPA

intended a Tier 1 notice to be triggered

for a waterborne disease outbreak, to

clarify when failure to test for fecal

coliform required a Tier 1 notice, and to

better specify which chlorine dioxide

violations required a Tier 1 notice.

Third, several commenters requested

that EPA provide more explicit criteria

for when EPA intended for the primacy

agency to elevate other violations and

25996 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

situations not explicitly listed in the

EPA rule to a Tier 1 notice.

EPA Response to Comments: The final

rule reflects several substantive changes

to what EPA proposed, based on

comments received on the proposal. In

response to comments recommending

that the proposal be changed to require

that all TCR MCL violations and all

SWTR TT violations require a Tier 1

notice because of their potential risk

from short-term exposure, EPA decided

to stay with the Tier 2 requirement as

proposed. EPA believes that an

automatic Tier 1 notice requirement is

not justified because routine TCR and

SWTR violations (without supporting

evidence) are not sufficiently strong or

predictable indicators of significant

potential of risk from short-term

exposure. Routine TCR violations with

no evidence of fecal contamination

clearly do not provide sufficient

evidence indicating significant potential

of short-term health risk. Routine

violations of the treatment technique

requirements under the SWTR and

IESWTR do provide an indication of

problems with disinfection or filtration

treatment, but they are not in

themselves sufficient evidence

indicating significant potential of shortterm health risk.

In response to the range of comments

related to the appropriate tier level for

turbidity violations, EPA agrees that

certain exceedances of the turbidity

limit deserve special attention in the

final rule. Accordingly, EPA has added

language in the final rule addressing

this specific situation. For the reasons

outlined earlier in this section, the final

rule: Continues to classify all turbidity

violations as Tier 2; adds a new

requirement that PWSs consult with

their primacy agency within 24 hours

when exceedances of the maximum

allowable turbidity limit occur; enables

the primacy agency after the

consultation to elevate specific turbidity

violations to Tier 1 when warranted;

and requires an automatic Tier 1 notice

when consultation does not take place

within the 24-hour period. Since the

significance of the risk to health of an

exceedance of the turbidity limit is

situational, EPA believes the final rule

ensures that Tier 1 notices will go out

quickly when necessary (based on the

immediate consultation requirement)

while avoiding unnecessary notices

where the violation poses no risk to

health.

In response to comments asking that

EPA clarify the violations and situations

requiring a Tier 1 notice, EPA agrees

and has added language in Table 1 to

§ 141.202 of the final rule to more

precisely define when a Tier 1 notice is

required. In response to specific

comments, EPA also added several new

Tier 1 categories to Table 1 to ensure

that Table 1 accurately and completely

lists all the violations and situations

where a Tier 1 notice is required. In

addition, the final Table 1 list

incorporates two existing public notice

requirements not explicitly referenced

as Tier 1 requirements under the

proposal: The notice required under

§ 141.11(d) for those NCWS allowed by

the primacy agency to exceed the nitrate

standard; and the notice required under

§ 141.23(f)(2) when a system fails to take

a nitrate confirmation sample after the

initial sample showed an exceedance of

the MCL. These changes incorporated

existing requirements currently found in

other sections of the CFR. Finally,

changes were made in the final rule

language to broaden the definition of

waterborne disease outbreak by adding

other waterborne emergencies and

making minor changes in the language

related to failure to test for fecal

coliform and chlorine dioxide violations

to clarify when the Tier 1 notice is

required.

In response to comments asking for

more explicit criteria to guide primacy

agencies on when to elevate other

violations and situations to the Tier 1

list, EPA has decided not to specify

additional criteria in the final rule. EPA

believes that the primacy agency needs

wide latitude to access individual

situations based on the regulatory

definition of the Tier 1 notice under

§ 141.201(b). EPA also encourages

public water systems to use the Tier 1

notice protocols whenever a violation or

situation has significant potential to

pose adverse health effects from shortterm exposure. Since time is of the

essence to protect public health in such

situations, public water systems should

act quickly to notify persons served,

without waiting for direction from the

primacy agency. EPA will shortly be

issuing the final Public Notification

Handbook and the Public Notification

Primacy Guidance, which will offer

examples of other situations where it

believes a Tier 1 notice may be

necessary.

2. Timing of the Tier 1 Public Notice

(and Consultation Requirement)

Today’s Rule: The final rule under

§ 141.202(b) requires that a Tier 1 public

notice be provided by the public water

system as soon as possible but no later

than 24 hours after the system learns of

the violation. The public water system

is also required to initiate consultation

with the primacy agency within that

same 24-hour period and comply with

whatever subsequent public notification

requirements are established during that

consultation.

The timing and process established

for the Tier 1 public notice in the final

rule is significantly different from the

current rule.

• First, the public water system is

required to distribute the notice within

24 hours (as required under Section

1414(c)(2)(C)(i) of the SDWA), rather

than within 72 hours required in the

current rule. This is a statutory

obligation for such violations under the

1996 SDWA amendments. EPA

interprets the statute under Section

1414(c)(2)(C)(i) to require this initial

public notice within the first 24 hours

to apply regardless of when the

consultation with the primacy agency

takes place.

• Second, the final rule sets a new

requirement that the water system

consult with the primacy agency to

determine subsequent public

notification requirements. EPA

interprets the statute under Section

1414(c)(2)(C)(iii) and (C)(iv) to require

that the public water system consult

with the primacy agency within the first

24 hours after the violation becomes

known to the water system, to

determine subsequent public notice

requirements (e.g., repeat notice

frequencies, form and manner of

subsequent notice, etc.). In contrast, the

current rule sets the subsequent public

notice requirements in the rule itself,

rather than on a case-by-case basis as a

result of consultation with the primacy

agency.

The final rule identifies a number of

elements which may be covered during

the consultation, including the timing,

form, manner, frequency, and content of

subsequent notices, the duration of the

notice when posted, and other actions

reasonably calculated to ensure the

notice is provided to persons served.

Additional notices may be necessary to

reach other persons served who may not

have seen the initial notice and to

reaffirm the seriousness of the public

health risk from drinking the water. EPA

also believes, but does not require in the

final rule, that a supplemental notice to

announce that the violation has been

resolved and the risk from the drinking

water has been abated is an effective

way to bring closure to the emergency

situation. The decision on when to

require subsequent notices can best be

handled by the primacy agency on a

case-by-case basis in consultation with

the public water system.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the new

requirement for a 24-hour notice for Tier

1 public notices and the new

consultation process within the same

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25997

24-hour period proposed in lieu of more

prescriptive EPA requirements. EPA

also asked for comment on its

interpretation of the statute under

Section 1414(c)(2)(C), which allows EPA

to require public water systems to

consult with the primacy agency. EPA

received many comments on the new

24-hour notice requirement, ranging

from support of the new requirement to

a request that the final rule give water

systems (or the primacy agency)

flexibility to allow more than 24 hours

when necessary to produce an effective

notice. Some commenters supported

maintaining the 72-hour requirement in

the current rule, others thought that 24

hours was too long a period. Many other

comments were received requesting

clarification of when the 24-hour clock

would start.

EPA Response to Comments: In

response to comments received, EPA

made minor changes in rule language to

what was proposed, primarily to clarify

EPA’s intention. In response to

comments that the 24-hour deadline be

increased or decreased, EPA has

decided to maintain the proposed

period because of the clear statutory

language and intent under the 1996

SDWA amendments. As described in

the preamble to the proposed rule, in

setting the deadline for Tier 1

notification, EPA was limited by the

provisions of the Safe Drinking Water

Act (1414(c)(2)(C)(i)), which allow a

maximum of 24 hours for violations

with the potential to cause serious

health effects as a result of short-term

exposure.

In response to questions about when

EPA intended the 24-hour clock to

begin, EPA wants to reaffirm the

language in the proposal:’’ * * * as

soon as possible but no later than 24

hours after the system learns of the

violation.’’ EPA believes it is important

to hold the PWS responsible for learning

about a violation and the actions it is

required to take. Accounting in the rule

for every way in which a system could

learn of a violation would make the rule

overly complicated. EPA wishes to

restate that the trigger point for

notification is when the system learns

that the violation has occurred, not at

the point when a system expects that a

violation will occur (e.g., when the

presence of coliform is discovered and

the system is awaiting the results of a

confirmation sample). If systems use an

independent laboratory, this means that

the 24-hour clock starts when the

laboratory reports to the public water

system the analytical results that

indicate a violation has occurred. To get

the notice out as soon as practical but

no later than 24 hours, EPA encourages

systems to ‘‘gear up’’ in advance for

preparing a notice. EPA recommends

that public water systems review the

public notification requirements for

each violation type and develop a fillin-the-blank Tier 1 notice based on the

templates to be issued with the final

Public Notification Handbook.

In response to comments on the

proposed new consultation requirement

under § 141.202(b)(2) and (b)(3), EPA

has decided to retain the language as

proposed. Some commenters requested

that the consultation deadline be

changed from 24 hours to the end of the

next business day. Even though the

public water system is required to

distribute the notice to persons served

within 24 hours whether or not

consultation occurs, EPA believes that

any delay in getting the primacy agency

involved is unwarranted given the

seriousness of the Tier 1 situation. Other

commenters asked for clarification of

the term ‘‘initiate consultation,’’

particularly when the water system is

unable to contact the State within the

24-hour period. EPA intends the phrase

‘‘initiate consultation’’ to require, at a

minimum, that the system take active

steps to contact the primacy agency.

EPA and most States now have voice

mail or an emergency hotline, so public

water systems should always be able to

leave a message indicating that an

attempt at initiating consultation was

made. EPA recognizes that full and

complete consultation may not be

possible if the primacy agency is

unavailable. EPA plans to work with

States during the primacy revision

process to augment the States’ capability

to respond on a 24-hour basis to

potential Tier 1 notice situations.

Finally, several commenters believed

that the proposed requirement under

§ 141.202(b)(3) to comply with any

additional notice requirements resulting

from the consultation was too vague and

open-ended. In response, EPA intends

that the primacy agency have broadbased discretion to respond to the

specific situation. Authorizing the

primacy agency to respond

appropriately to the specific situation

will strengthen the public notice

response to situations posing significant

potential of short-term risk to health.

3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of

the Tier 1 Notice

Today’s Rule: The final rule, under

§ 141.202(c), allows the public water

system some flexibility in choosing the

specific method of delivery to distribute

the notice. This is significantly different

from the current rule, which requires

that an initial notice be provided in all

cases by electronic media and that

subsequent notices be delivered first by

newspaper and later on by mail. The

final rule does require water systems to

use, at a minimum, at least one of the

following delivery methods: appropriate

broadcast media, posting of the notice in

conspicuous locations, hand delivery, or

another minimum delivery method

specified in writing by the primacy

agency. It also establishes an

enforceable performance standard,

requiring the water system to use

delivery methods reasonably calculated

to reach all other persons not reached by

the minimum method within the 24-

hour period, including all residential,

transient, and non-transient users of the

water.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the revised

requirements defining the form and

manner of the Tier 1 notices. Many

commenters believed that the proposed

list of minimum methods was too

limiting, and that other methods should

be added to this minimum list to give

water systems greater choice. Other

commenters requested that the final rule

require water systems to use more than

one minimum method, since one

method in many cases would not reach

all persons served. Several commenters

felt that the use of a performance

standard (‘‘take steps reasonably

calculated to reach all persons served’’),

in lieu of additional listed methods to

reach others not covered by the

minimum method, gave water systems

too much flexibility.

EPA Response to Comments: EPA

made one substantive change and made

other edits to the language in

§ 141.202(c), in response to the

comments received on the proposal.

Based on comments received, the final

rule added a fourth item to the list of

minimum forms of notice delivery,

which authorizes the primacy agency to

approve in writing the use of a

substitute delivery method not already

listed in EPA’s rule. The proposed rule

did not give the primacy agency the

discretion to allow use of methods other

than those explicitly listed under

§ 141.202(c). EPA agrees with the

commenters that the proposed

minimum list of delivery methods

(broadcast media, posting, and hand

delivery) was too limiting and

potentially inappropriate to some Tier 1

situations.

Commenters recommended adding a

wide variety of delivery methods to the

minimum list, including newspaper,

postal patron mailing, e-mail, or priority

mail. EPA believes the best response to

these comments is to allow primacy

agencies to substitute methods other

than those listed to fit the specific

25998 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

situation, because no single list will fit

all situations.

Other commenters believed EPA

should require that more than one

minimum delivery method be used.

EPA disagrees. Using one of the listed

minimum methods, coupled with the

requirement that the system take steps

‘‘reasonably calculated to reach all

persons served’’ ensures that additional

methods are employed where necessary.

Although additional methods are not

always required, EPA expects that most

community water systems will need to

use more than one method of delivery

to effectively reach all persons served.

In contrast, one method may be

adequate for many very small

community water systems or noncommunity systems to reach the persons

they serve. In addition, the consultation

with the primacy agency required for

Tier 1 notices under § 141.202(b) is

intended to be a backup where systems

are unable or unwilling to comply fully

with the requirement.

G. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the

Tier 2 Public Notice: Other Violations

With Potential To Have Serious Adverse

Effects on Human Health (§ 141.203)

1. Tier 2 Violations and Situations

Today’s Rule; The final rule under

§ 141.203(a) requires a Tier 2 public

notice for the following violation

categories and other situations:

• All violations of the MCL, MRDL,

and treatment technique requirements,

except where a Tier 1 notice is required

under 141.202(a) or where the primacy

agency determines a Tier 1 notice is

required;

• Violations of the monitoring and

testing procedure requirements where

the primacy agency determines that a

Tier 2 public notice is required; and

• Failure to comply with the terms

and conditions of any existing variance

or exemption in place.

The above list is similar to the list in

the comparable section of the current

rule, with three exceptions:

• First, the final rule sets the new

public notice requirements for the Stage

1 Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts

(D/DBP) Rule and the Interim Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment Rule (63 FR

69389 and 69477, December 16, 1998).

(Today’s rule also amends the Consumer

Confidence Report (CCR) regulations to

define the CCR requirements for these

new rules. See Section V of the

preamble for discussion of the CCR rule

changes included in today’s

rulemaking.)

• Second, the final rule enables the

primacy agency, at its option, to elevate

the public notice requirement for

specific monitoring or testing procedure

violations from a Tier 3 to a Tier 2

notice, taking into account the potential

health impacts and the persistence of

the violation. Unless the primacy

agency determines otherwise,

monitoring and testing procedure

violations will be reported in a Tier 3

notice.

• Third, although the final rule

continues to designate turbidity MCL

and TT violations as Tier 2 (as in the

current rule and as proposed), the final

rule has added a new requirement under

§ 141.203(b)(3) that a public water

system consult with the primacy agency

within 24 hours after learning of the

violation to determine whether the

specific situation should be elevated to

a Tier 1 notice.

Table 1 to § 141.202 explicitly

authorizes the primacy agency, after

consultation, to elevate to Tier 1 those

violations related to exceedance of the

maximum allowable turbidity level.

When consultation does not take place

within the 24-hour period, a Tier 1

notice is automatically required. The

public water system must distribute the

Tier 1 notice by the end of the next 24-

hour period (or no later than 48 hours

after the system learns of the violation).

(See discussion in preamble under

Section IV.F.1 related to Tier 1 notices

and under Section IV.G.2 related to the

turbidity consultation requirements.)

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the list of

violations included under Tier 2.

Comments were also requested on an

alternative option that would require a

Tier 2 notice, rather than a Tier 3 notice,

for all monitoring and testing procedure

violations, unless the primacy agency

explicitly allowed a Tier 3 notice. Many

comments received on this section

related to which of the violations

proposed as requiring a Tier 2 notice

should be elevated to Tier 1. The

response to these comments is included

in Section IV.F.1 of the preamble,

related to Tier 1 requirements. Other

than the Tier 1 issue, most of the

comments supported the proposed list

of violations as requiring a Tier 2 notice.

A few of the commenters did, however,

recommend that certain violations

proposed as Tier 2 (e.g., Lead and

Copper Rule (LCR) treatment technique

violations) be moved to Tier 3. Other

commenters asked EPA to clarify and

possibly add criteria for the situations in

which EPA expects primacy agencies to

elevate monitoring violations from a

Tier 3 notice to a Tier 2 notice.

EPA’s Response to Comments: EPA

made no changes to the language in

§ 141.203(a) from what was proposed,

based on comments received on the

proposal. In response to comments

recommending that LCR violations be

moved to Tier 3, EPA has decided to

leave the rule as proposed. For public

health and right-to-know reasons, EPA

believes that treatment technique

violations deserve the same level of

notice as MCL violations. LCR TT

violations are an indicator of potential

increased levels of lead or copper in

drinking water. This is a significant

public health issue for a large segment

of the population and, for this reason,

EPA believes that a Tier 3 notice is not

appropriate. In response to comments

that EPA specify additional criteria on

when primacy agencies should elevate

Tier 3 notices to Tier 2, EPA has

decided not to add to the performance

criteria in the proposal (‘‘* * * taking

into account health effects and the

persistence of the violation * * *’’).

EPA intends that the primacy agency

exercise broad discretion on when to

elevate Tier 3 notices to Tier 2 as part

of its approved primacy program. EPA

plans to make recommendations on how

to decide when to elevate violations to

higher tiers in its guidance to primacy

agencies on implementing the public

notification rule.

2. Timing of the Tier 2 Public Notice

Today’s Rule: The final rule under

§ 141.203(b)(1) requires the public water

system to provide a Tier 2 public notice

to persons served as soon as practical,

but no later than 30 days after the

system learns of the violation. Posted

notices are required by the final rule to

remain in place for as long as the

violation or situation persists, but in no

case for less than seven days, even if the

violation or situation is resolved. The

final rule under § 141.203(b)(2) also

requires the public water system to

repeat the notice every three months for

as long as the violation persists. In

contrast, the current rule requires a

newspaper notice within 14 days, a

notice mailed to all bill-payers within

forty-five days, and a repeat notice

mailed every three months thereafter

until the violation is resolved.

The final rule gives the primacy

agency discretion, in appropriate

circumstances, to extend the time

period allowed for the Tier 2 notice

from 30 days to up to three months for

the initial notice and to allow repeat

notice less frequently than every three

months (but no less than once per year).

Permission must be granted in writing.

Although the discretion given to the

primacy agency is fairly broad, the final

rule specifically disallows extensions of

the 30-day deadline for the initial public

notice for any unresolved violation. It

also specifically disallows primacy

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25999

agencies from approving repeat notices

less frequently than every three months

for TCR, SWTR, and IESWTR TT

violations. The final rule also does not

allow primacy agencies to establish

regulations or policies that

automatically give ‘‘across-the-board’’

extensions or reductions in the repeat

notice frequency for all the other

violations.

EPA believes that giving the primacy

agency discretion in appropriate

circumstances to extend the initial

notice beyond 30 days or to allow repeat

notices less frequently than every three

months is clearly warranted. The

violation situations under Tier 2 are

very diverse, ranging from violations

that on some occasions may pose

potential adverse health effects from

short-term exposure (such as routine

SWTR TT violations), to unresolved

violations that pose chronic health

effects from long-term exposure (such as

benzene violations), and to resolved

violations no longer posing any

potential risk to health. One size does

not fit all! An extension beyond 30 days

may be appropriate for violations that

were quickly resolved. An extension to

three months may allow the water

system to include the initial notice in

the same mailing as the quarterly bill,

with no loss in effectiveness.

As referred to earlier in Section IV.G.1

of the preamble, the final rule also

establishes a new provision under

§ 141.203(b)(3) requiring public water

systems to consult with the primacy

agency within 24 hours of learning of a

violation related to exceedance of the

maximum allowable turbidity limit.

Violation of the maximum allowable

turbidity limit, when combined with

other site-specific information, is an

indication that pathogens may have

passed through to the finished water.

EPA is requiring consultation under the

public notification rule so the primacy

agency can determine whether to

elevate the notice requirement to a Tier

1. Where consultation does not take

place as required in the 24-hour period,

a Tier 1 public notice requirement is

automatically triggered and the public

water system must distribute the notice

within the next 24-hour period. The

new consultation requirement overlaps

with current SWTR regulations

requiring public water systems to

inform the primacy agency by the close

of the next business day whenever

turbidity levels exceed 5 NTU. Today’s

rule amends the current SWTR rule to

eliminate the overlapping requirement.

A discussion of this new provision,

including why EPA established this new

consultation requirement, is contained

in Section IV.F.1 of the preamble.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the

proposed 30-day time period required

for the initial Tier 2 public notice, the

requirement for a repeat notice of

ongoing violations every three months,

and the discretion given to the primacy

agency in specific circumstances to

extend the initial notice to three months

or the repeat notice frequency to one

year (either on a case-by-case basis or by

rule). A broad range of comments were

received on the proposed 30-day time

period for the initial Tier 2 notice,

ranging from leaving the current 14-day

requirement intact (or even requiring

the notice sooner), to support for the 30-

day proposed period, or to moving the

initial notice to 90 or 120 days after the

violation. A significant minority of

commenters objected to allowing the

primacy agency any discretion to extend

the Tier 2 deadlines, believing that such

discretion made a more complex rule

which could be used inappropriately to

give public water systems longer notice

periods than intended under the rule.

Other commenters supported giving the

primacy agency flexibility to extend the

Tier 2 deadlines, but asked for

clarification or offered alternatives to

the proposed extension process.

EPA Response to Comments: After

considering all the comments, EPA has

decided to retain the proposed 30-day

period for the initial notice and the 3-

month repeat notice frequency in the

final rule. But, in response to the large

number of commenters requesting

reconsideration or clarification of the

proposed deadline extension, the final

rule redefines how and when primacy

agencies would be allowed to extend the

initial notice beyond 30 days and under

what circumstances the primacy agency

would allow less frequent repeat notices

for unresolved violations. The proposed

rule would have allowed the primacy

agency the discretion to deviate from

the regulatory time period for ‘‘specific

circumstances’’ as defined under the

individual approved primacy programs.

In § 141.203(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the final

rule, EPA replaced the proposed criteria

allowing extensions in ‘‘specific

circumstances’’ with a list of the

specific violation situations where the

discretion to extend or allow less

frequent repeat notice is prohibited.

In response to comments

recommending that the Tier 2 deadline

be set at 14 days or less, EPA believes

the 30-day deadline will work most

effectively because of the need to

sharply differentiate the public health

circumstances for violations requiring a

Tier 2 notice from those requiring a Tier

1 notice. Routine violations in Tier 2 are

not usually considered to pose a serious

health risk from short-term exposure,

thus immediate notification is not

routinely needed to get people out of

harm’s way. The final rule recommends,

however, that the notice be distributed

as soon as practical, but sets the outer

boundary at no longer than 30 days after

the system learns of the violation. A

violation that routinely requires a Tier

2 notice but for whatever reason poses

elevated risk from short-term exposure

may be elevated to Tier 1 at the

discretion of the primacy agency.

EPA also disagrees with commenters

recommending that the Tier 2 deadline

be set at 90 or 120 days after the

violation is known. EPA believes that a

30-day baseline period is appropriate

and achievable for most Tier 2

violations and situations. A 30-day

period is long enough after the violation

for the system to gather the information

needed to develop an effective notice

and soon enough to meet the clear

preference of many stakeholders to be

informed as soon as practical after the

violation. EPA believes setting a 90- or

120-day baseline period for the wide

range of violations requiring a Tier 2

notice would threaten the public health

and right-to-know objectives

underpinning the public notification

requirement. EPA does believe that

there are situations where it is

appropriate to extend the time frame for

notification of some of these violations

beyond 30 days, but these situations are

the exception to the norm. The final rule

addresses the exceptions to the 30-day

deadline by enabling the primacy

agency, at its option, to extend the

deadline for the initial notice up to

three months in appropriate

circumstances.

In response to comments opposing

any extension of the initial public notice

period beyond 30 days, EPA believes

that the violations and situations

requiring a Tier 2 notice encompass a

wide range of violations. One size does

not fit all! Although EPA believes that

the 30-day deadline is applicable for

most Tier 2 situations, giving the

primacy agency the discretion to extend

the 30-day deadline gives the needed

flexibility to respond to local situations.

For example, an extension may be

especially appropriate for violations that

were quickly resolved and no longer

pose a risk to public health, or where an

extension may allow the water system to

include the notice in the same mailing

as a quarterly bill with no loss in

effectiveness. At the same time, EPA has

limited the primacy agency flexibility to

grant extensions by prohibiting

extensions for any unresolved violation.

The final rule also does not allow

primacy agencies to establish ‘‘acrossVerDate 27<APR>2000 18:43 May 03, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 04MYR2
26000 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

the-board’’ extensions for all violations

through their rules and regulations. EPA

will work with the States as they

develop their primacy revision packages

to reach agreement on how this

flexibility will be used in their approved

primacy program.

3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of

the Tier 2 Notice

Today’s Rule: The final rule under

§ 141.203(c) requires public water

systems issuing Tier 2 notices to use one

or more of the minimum methods

specifically listed in the rule and to take

other steps that are reasonably

calculated to reach persons served in

the required time period. The final rule

significantly changes the requirements

for delivery of the Tier 2 notice in the

current rule. For example, the current

rule (for community water systems) first

requires a newspaper notice, followed

by a notice either mailed or directly

delivered to customers.

In contrast, the final rule requires that

community water systems, at a

minimum, mail or otherwise directly

deliver the notice to each customer

receiving a bill and to other service

connections to which water is delivered.

The requirement to deliver the notice to

other service connections where water

is delivered adds an obligation not

explicit in the current rule. The final

rule requires that non-community water

systems, at a minimum, post the notice

in conspicuous places or mail or

directly deliver to each customer and

service connection (if known). Beyond

this regulatory minimum, all public

water systems must take steps

reasonably calculated to reach other

persons served by the system who

would not normally be reached by the

minimum regulatory method. Examples

where persons served may not be

reached by the minimum method

include: community water systems that

provide drinking water to persons who

do not pay a water bill (e.g., students,

renters, nursing home residents, prison

inmates) and therefore would not

routinely see a mailed notice; and noncommunity water systems with

situations where persons who use the

drinking water might not see the posted

notice (e.g., seasonal residents in a

resort). The final rule also gives the

primacy agency the option to prescribe

a different method of delivery for the

water system, based on policies and

procedures established as part of its

approved primacy program.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the revised

requirements for the method of delivery

of the Tier 2 public notice. Comments

were also requested on an alternative

option to the proposal on the method of

delivery that would give the public

water system discretion to select from a

list the methods it would use, with no

required minimum, to meet the overall

performance standard. Many comments

were received on the proposed list of

minimum methods systems could

choose from. Some commenters

believed the minimum list should be

expanded to allow, for instance, use of

the newspaper as the minimum method,

as in the current rule. Other commenters

requested that the final rule require that

water systems use more than one

minimum method. Still other

commenters recommended that the final

rule add a requirement to consult with

the primacy agency before selecting a

method.

EPA Response to Comments: The final

rule maintains the obligation that was

proposed, requiring water systems to

take steps beyond the specified

minimum that are reasonably calculated

to reach persons served by the system,

whether they were bill-paying

customers, other service connections

where water is delivered, or other

persons served. The final rule also

includes two new requirements that

were not in the proposal: delivery of

repeat notices must follow the same

requirements as the initial notice; and

permission given by the primacy agency

to deviate from the method of delivery

presented in the final rule must be in

writing.

In response to comments that the

proposed list of minimum delivery

methods be expanded, EPA believes no

additions to the proposed minimum list

are necessary, as the listed methods

provide a good baseline for most

systems in meeting the performance

standard to reach all persons served.

Beyond this regulatory minimum, water

systems are obligated to use any other

method reasonably calculated to reach

other persons served by the system if

they would not normally be reached by

solely relying on the minimum

regulatory method. Any other methods

used would serve to enhance this

minimum objective.

EPA disagrees that a newspaper

notice should be explicitly listed as one

of the minimum delivery methods, as it

is in the current rule. EPA believes that

a newspaper notice is beneficial as a

supplemental method to mail or hand

delivery, and it may be included in a

water system’s strategy to use media

coverage to reach others not reached by

mail or hand delivery. But newspaper

notices are not as effective as mail or

hand delivery in directly reaching

persons served. Newspaper notices are

typically placed in the legal notices

section of the newspaper where they are

not likely to be read. If newspapers are

used as an additional method of

delivery, EPA strongly recommends that

systems purchase advertising space near

the front of the newspaper, rather than

placing a legal notice. EPA prefers that

community water systems focus on

methods that will get the notice in

people’s hands at their place of

residence.

In response to comments requesting

that EPA not set a minimum delivery

method at all in the final rule, relying

instead solely on a narrative

performance standard, EPA believes that

a list of minimum methods establishes

a necessary baseline level of

performance that is clear and simple to

understand and implement. EPA agrees

with these commenters on the

importance of flexibility in the public

notification process. However, EPA feels

that the rule must specify basic

minimum requirements in order to

allow the rule to be self-implementing

and enforceable. Therefore, while the

rule provides flexibility it also requires

that at least one listed minimum method

be used to measure baseline

performance, to be supplemented if the

minimum method is not likely to reach

all persons served. Systems have

flexibility in determining what

supplemental methods should be used.

In addition, primacy agencies may

allow, as part of their approved primacy

program, other minimum methods not

listed as the minimum methods in

EPA’s rule.

H. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the

Tier 3 Public Notice: All Other

Violations and Situations Requiring

Public Notice (§ 141.204)

1. Tier 3 Violations and Situations

Today’s Rule: The final rule under

Table 1 to § 141.204(a) requires a Tier 3

public notice for: a monitoring or testing

procedure violation, except where a Tier

1 notice is already required for specific

violations or where the primacy agency

determines that the violation requires a

Tier 2 or Tier 1 notice; operation under

a variance granted under Section 1415

or exemption granted under Section

1416 of the SDWA; announcing the

availability of unregulated contaminant

monitoring results, as required under

§ 141.207; and exceedances of the

secondary maximum contaminant level

(SMCL) for fluoride, as required under

§ 141.208. The special public notice

required for announcing the availability

of the unregulated contaminant

monitoring results and the special

notice for exceedances of the fluoride

SMCL, while not included in the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26001

comparable section of the current rule,

are not new requirements and can be

found elsewhere in the current Code of

Federal Regulations. The final rule

simply consolidates all the Tier 3 notice

requirements in a single table for ease of

reference.

Today’s rule also makes two other

changes from the current rule. It

explicitly enables the primacy agency to

require a Tier 2 (rather then a Tier 3)

notice for specific monitoring or testing

procedure violations, taking into

account the potential health impacts

and persistence of the violation. It also

explicitly excludes from Tier 3 the

monitoring and testing procedure

violations where a Tier 1 notice is

already required under the rule. These

Tier 1-type monitoring and testing

procedure violations are listed in Table

1 to § 141.202 and discussed in Section

IV.F.1 of the preamble.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the list of

violations proposed to require a Tier 3

notice. Specifically, comments were

requested on an alternative option that

would require a Tier 2 (rather than Tier

3) notice for monitoring and testing

procedure violations, with the option

given to the primacy agency to

downgrade such violations to a Tier 3

notice for minor violations. Most of the

comments received supported the lead

proposal: requiring a Tier 3 notice for

monitoring and testing procedure

violations, but giving the primacy

agency the option to elevate serious

violations to a Tier 2. A significant

minority of commenters, however,

preferred the alternative option,

requiring Tier 2 notice for these types of

violations, unless the primacy agency

lowered the notice requirement for a

specific violation to Tier 3. A few

commenters requested that the final rule

require a Tier 2 notice for certain

monitoring and testing procedure

violations, rather than giving discretion

to the primacy agency to make these

decisions.

EPA Response to Comments: EPA

made several changes in the regulatory

language proposed under § 141.204(a),

but the changes did not alter in any

significant way the list of violations and

situations requiring a Tier 3 notice. The

final rule deleted the item from the

proposed Table 1 to § 141.204(a) which

authorized the primacy agency to add

other violations and situations to the

Tier 3 list, as it was redundant with the

same authority already granted under

Table 1 to § 141.201(a). The final rule

also added to the Tier 3 list the special

notice requirements already required

under §§ 141.207 and 141.208. Table 1

to § 141.204 of the final rule now offers

a complete list of Tier 3 required notices

for ease of reference. The other changes

made to the proposed language were

similar clarifications to improve the

overall presentation.

In response to the comments received

on the proposed alternative option to

require Tier 2 notices for monitoring

violations, EPA disagrees and has

decided to retain the lead proposal (i.e.,

requiring Tier 3 notice for monitoring

violations, with discretion given to the

primacy agency to elevate to Tier 2).

EPA believes that Tier 3 notice is

appropriate because most monitoring

and testing procedure violations pose no

ongoing risk to public health, and

annual notice fulfills the public’s rightto-know expectations about these

violations. While some monitoring and

testing procedure violations may have

the potential for serious adverse health

effects, most do not. EPA believes that

elevating the major or more serious

monitoring and testing procedure

violations from Tier 3 to Tier 2 must be

done on a case-by-case basis, based on

the primacy agency’s assessment of the

potential health impacts arising from

the lack of monitoring and the

persistence of the monitoring violation.

It would be impossible to identify in the

rule all instances where Tier 2 notice

would be more appropriate. As a result,

the rule gives primacy agencies the

authority to elevate any monitoring

violation to Tier 2, based on potential

health effects or persistence of the

violation.

EPA also disagrees with commenters

who recommend that the rule should

distinguish major monitoring and

testing procedure violations from other

monitoring and testing procedure

violations. EPA believes this would

make the rule unnecessarily complex.

Again, primacy agencies have discretion

under the rule to elevate monitoring and

testing procedure violations to Tier 2 if

they see a need to do so.

2. Timing of the Tier 3 Public Notice

Today’s Rule: The final rule under

§ 141.204(b)(1) requires that public

water systems provide a Tier 3 public

notice to persons served no later than

one year after the system learns of the

violation or other situations requiring a

Tier 3 public notice. The final rule also

requires the public water system to

repeat the notice annually for as long as

the violation or situation persists. In

contrast, the current rule requires an

initial notice to be mailed within three

months (with possible extension to one

year at the State’s option for minor

monitoring violations) and a repeat

notice every three months thereafter

until the violation is resolved. EPA

believes that requiring a notice no more

frequently than annually for Tier 3-type

situations is appropriate, given the great

number of violations requiring such a

notice (i.e., 108,599 of the 128,459

violations reported to EPA in FY 1998)

and the fact that most monitoring and

testing procedure violations do not pose

a health risk. The final rule allows water

systems, at their option, to distribute the

Tier 3 public notice as soon as they

believe it is appropriate for their

specific situation.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the

proposal to require Tier 3 notices no

later than 12 months after the violation

occurs. A substantial number of

commenters expressed concern over the

long time period (12 months) allowed to

complete the Tier 3 public notice

requirements for monitoring and testing

procedure violations. Some commenters

recommended that the 12-month period

be limited to minor monitoring

violations only (as in the current rule),

with the notice for the major monitoring

violations to be required much sooner.

A significant minority of commenters

believed that 12 months was too long

after the violation to be useful to

consumers and in some cases (transient

non-community water systems) would

be quite ineffective since consumers

present at the time of the violation will

be long gone.

EPA Response to Comments: EPA

carried forward to the final rule the

proposed 12-month requirement for Tier

3 notices, making language changes to

§ 141.204(b) to conform to the changes

made under the comparable section for

Tier 2 requirements. In response to

comments requesting that the final rule

add the phrase ‘‘as soon as possible’’ to

the one-year Tier 3 notice deadline, EPA

has decided to retain the language as

proposed, without adding the phrase.

EPA believes that requiring notice ‘‘as

soon as possible’’ is appropriate and

necessary for the more serious

violations in Tiers 1 and 2. But

violations and situations requiring a

Tier 3 notice by definition do not pose

any direct risk to public health. EPA has

chosen not to parallel this language for

Tier 3, so as not to hinder the

effectiveness of other more immediate

notices. Systems are of course free to

issue the notice in advance of the 12-

month deadline where they believe it is

appropriate.

In response to comments that a 12-

month period is too long after the

violation to be useful and this deadline

should be limited to minor monitoring

violations only, EPA disagrees with

such a limitation. The routine violations

and situations in Tier 3 are by definition

26002 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

non-serious violations, and EPA

believes that Tier 3 requirements should

apply to all the routine monitoring and

testing procedure violations. Tier 3

notification is more a right-to-know

issue than a public health concern. EPA

acknowledges that some monitoring and

testing procedure violations have the

potential to mask potentially serious

situations. Rather than attempt to

address every case where this may

happen, it is more efficient to provide

primacy agencies the authority to

elevate monitoring and testing

procedure violations to Tier 2 or even

Tier 1 if they believe the need exists.

A commenter’s point that requiring

notice as soon as possible would

motivate systems to return to

compliance more quickly is well taken.

However, EPA believes that the vast

majority of systems with monitoring or

testing procedure violations return to

compliance well in advance of the

requirement for the public notice.

Elevating the notice requirements for

these violations to encourage systems to

return to compliance is not relevant. For

systems with continuing monitoring

violations, using the public notification

process as an incentive to comply with

the monitoring requirements should be

part of the primacy agency’s overall

compliance strategy. Primacy agencies

are free under the final rule to elevate

the notice requirements from Tier 3 to

Tier 2 to meet this compliance objective.

3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of

the Tier 3 Notice

Today’s Rule: The notice distribution

requirements for Tier 3 notices are

patterned after the Tier 2 requirements

under § 141.203. The basic requirement

to take steps reasonably calculated to

reach both bill-paying customers and

the other persons served who do not

receive a bill applies for Tier 3 notices

as well. The method of delivery

requirements in the final rule for the

initial Tier 3 notices and any repeat

notices are the same as those prescribed

for the Tier 2 public notice.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the revised

requirements for the method of delivery

of the Tier 3 notices. Commenters

generally supported the proposed

method of delivery requirements.

Several commenters requested

clarification of EPA’s intent related to

reporting multiple monitoring violations

in a single notice, since in some cases

a water system missing a single sample

may generate separate monitoring

violations for all regulated contaminants

under the single analytical technique.

For example, one analytical method is

used to monitor for the 21 regulated

VOCs; missing the one sample,

therefore, generates 21 monitoring

violations.

EPA Response to Comments: EPA

made minor changes to proposed

§ 141.204(c), to conform to the changes

made in the comparable section of the

final rule for the form and manner of the

Tier 2 notice. See the discussion of

EPA’s response to comments in Section

IV.G.3 of the preamble. In response to

the request that EPA clarify how

multiple monitoring violations should

be presented in a single Tier 3 notice,

EPA strongly supports efforts by

systems to use a single Tier 3 notice to

communicate multiple violations

whenever appropriate. To make EPA’s

intent clearer, EPA changed the first of

the ten elements required in every

public notice to explicitly reference the

possibility of multiple violations in a

single notice. Section 141.205(a)(1) now

reads (with the changes in italics):

‘‘* * * description of the violation or

situation, including the contaminant(s)

of concern * * * ’’ EPA will also

provide examples and a notice template

in the Public Notification Handbook to

illustrate how multiple monitoring

violations can be presented in a single

notice.

4. Option To Use an Annual Notice,

Including the CCR, To Deliver Tier 3

Notices

Today’s Rule: The final rule under

§ 141.204(b)(2) gives the water systems

the option of providing an annual notice

listing all Tier 3 violations occurring

during the previous year, as long as the

water system makes certain that the

annual notice is distributed no later

than one year after the earliest of the

included violations. For systems with

multiple monitoring violations, the

advantages of using an annual notice

instead of individual notices for every

violation are compelling, both in terms

of reduced cost and in terms of effective

communication with the consumers.

Further, § 141.204(d) allows community

water systems, if appropriate, to use the

annual Consumer Confidence Report

(CCR) as the vehicle for giving initial

public notice for violations occurring

during the previous twelve months.

However, the use of the CCR as a

vehicle for the annual public notice has

strict limitations: the CCR can only be

used if the CCR meets the timing,

content, and distribution requirements

required under the public notification

rule. The specific conditions for use of

the CCR as the annual Tier 3 public

notice are listed in § 141.204(d) of the

final rule.

Since the vast majority of the

violations require a Tier 3 public notice,

the burden on public water systems

with multiple Tier 3 violations would

be dramatically reduced through use of

an annual notice and, where possible,

the CCR. EPA recommends that public

water systems consider how the CCR

and public notification requirements

can be better coordinated to take

advantage of these efficiencies.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the option

to allow public water systems to provide

an annual notice of violations in lieu of

individual Tier 3 notices and on the use

of the CCR to meet the Tier 3 public

notification requirements. In general,

virtually all commenters supported the

option given to public water systems

with multiple Tier 3 violations to use an

annual public notice. But many

commenters had reservations about the

proposed option for using the CCR as

the vehicle for the annual public notice.

Most commenters believed that using

the CCR was a good idea in concept, but

they identified significant problems in

practice if the final rule required that

the CCR must first meet the Tier 3

public notification rule requirements.

The CCR and public notification rules

have different timing, delivery, and

content requirements that are difficult to

reconcile. A significant minority of

commenters disagreed altogether with

giving systems the option to use the

CCR as the annual public notice because

they believed the purposes of the public

notice and the CCR are so different.

EPA Response to Comments: EPA

retained in the final rule the proposed

language allowing water systems, at

their option, to issue an annual Tier 3

notice of violations occurring during the

year (including using the CCR where

appropriate). The final rule made minor

changes to the proposed language in

§§ 141.204(a)(2) and 141.204(d) to better

define the limitations on their use and

to clarify EPA’s intent, but the final rule

makes no significant changes to what

EPA proposed. EPA agrees with the

commenters who supported the use of

the CCR but expressed reservations

about how such an option would

actually work. EPA acknowledges that

there are significant limitations to using

the CCR as the annual Tier 3 public

notice. However, where the timing of

violations allows it, EPA does

recommend coordinating the CCR and

the annual Tier 3 public notice.

Coordinating the two related activities

would reduce redundancy and would be

less costly. An annual Tier 3 public

notice as part of the CCR would sharpen

the overall message and be more likely

to get consumers’ attention. EPA will

provide in the final Public Notification

Handbook suggestions and examples on

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26003

how to coordinate the annual Tier 3

notices with the CCR.

In response to comments that EPA

should change the public notice

requirements to better fit into the format

and content of the CCR, EPA believes

such changes would undermine the

intent of the public notice. EPA is also

limited by the specific timing, delivery,

and content requirements of the public

notification provisions in the SDWA, as

amended. Because EPA encourages

water systems to use the CCR where

possible, EPA investigated ways to

extend the deadline for Tier 3 notices to

18 months. EPA concluded such a

change could not be made in the rule

because the 12-month period is clearly

required by statute. This limits the use

of the CCR as the initial public notice

to only those violations occurring

within 12 months of the CCR

publication. Practically, this means that

for CCRs published on July 1 (as

required under the CCR rule), the CCR

could only be used as the initial public

notice for violations that occurred after

July 1 of the previous year.

In response to the commenters who

objected to EPA allowing use of the CCR

at all for the initial public notice, EPA

continues to support initiatives by

public water systems to better

coordinate the CCR and the public

notices because the violation

information required for both is

complimentary, the objectives are

similar, and coordinating the two

similar requirements is more efficient

and effective.

I. Content of the Public Notice

(§ 141.205)

1. Standard Elements of the Public

Notice

Today’s Rule: The final rule specifies

a list of ten elements that must be

included in a public notice for water

systems with violations of National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations

(NPDWRs) and for most other situations

requiring a public notice. The rule also

specifies four elements that must be

included in notices for water systems

operating under a variance or

exemption. The final rule revises and

edits the existing list of standard

elements required in every public notice

and strengthens the criteria and

standards defining notice quality.

• Ten elements are required under

§ 141.205(a) for public notices of

violations of NPDWRs, including

monitoring and testing procedure

violations, or other situations requiring

a public notice. The ten required

elements include:

1. A description of the violation or

situation that occurred, including the

name of the contaminant(s) and level(s)

(where applicable);

2. When the violation or situation

occurred;

3. Any potential adverse health

effects;

4. The population at risk;

5. Whether alternative water supplies

should be used;

6. What actions consumers should

take;

7. What the system is doing to correct

the violation or situation;

8. When the water system expects to

return to compliance or otherwise

resolve the situation;

9. The name, business address, and

phone number of the water system

owner or operator; and

10. A statement appended to the

notice (where applicable) to encourage

notice recipients to distribute the notice

to other consumers who might not have

seen the notice.

This list of elements is significantly

changed from the content requirements

in the current rule, as discussed later in

this section.

• Four elements are required under

§ 141.205(b) for public notices for water

systems operating under a variance or

exemption:

1. An explanation for the reasons for

the variance or exemption;

2. The date the primacy agency

granted the variance or exemption;

3. A brief status report on compliance

with the variance or exemption

conditions; and

4. A notice of any opportunity for

public input into the review of the

variance or exemption.

The current rule does not set the

required content elements for public

notices for variances or exemptions.

• Four performance standards are

listed under § 141.205(c)(1) defining the

adequacy of the notice. The notice:

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; and

4. Must not contain language that

nullifies the purpose of the notice.

The performance standards in today’s

final rule modify slightly the

comparable elements in the current rule.

Note that the information required

under § 141.205(b) for variances or

exemptions is identical to that already

required to be included in the CCR.

Community water systems operating

under a variance or exemption are

encouraged to use their CCR to give the

Tier 3 public notification, as long as the

timing and delivery requirements

required under the final public

notification regulation are met. Public

water systems that are not required to

issue a CCR may, at their option,

combine the variance and exemption

notice with other violations occurring

over the last year into a single annual

public notice. Using the CCR or other

annual notice is inappropriate for public

water systems violating the conditions

of a variance or exemption. Such

violations require a 30-day Tier 2 notice.

Today’s rule broadens the

applicability of the content

requirements under § 141.205(a) to

include not only notices required for

violations of the NPDWRs but also for

other situations requiring a public

notice. The current rule does not specify

content requirements for ‘‘other

situations’’ requiring a public notice.

The list of ‘‘other situations’’ requiring

a public notice has been considerably

expanded in today’s rule. The situations

requiring a public notice other than an

NPDWR violation or a variance or

exemption are listed in part IV of the

final Appendix A to Subpart Q. Six

‘‘other situations’’ are listed:

• Tier 1 Notice Requirement Under

§ 141.202(a) for Waterborne Disease

Outbreak;

• Tier 1 Notice Requirement Under

§ 141.202(a) for Other Waterborne

Emergency;

• Tier 1 Notice Requirement Under

§ 141.202(a) for Other Situations as

Determined by Primacy Agency;

• Special Notice Under § 141.207 to

Announce the Availability of

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Data;

• Special Notice Requirement Under

§ 141.208 for Exceedance of the Fluoride

Secondary Maximum Contaminant

Level (SMCL); and

• Special Notice Requirement Under

§ 141.209 for Exceedance of Nitrate MCL

for Non-Community Water Systems,

When Allowed by Primacy Agency.

Except where the content

requirements are otherwise specified in

the rule language, EPA intends the

content requirements under § 141.205(a)

to apply. The only exceptions in the

rule are: (1) The special notice for the

fluoride SMCL exceedance under

§ 141.208, where the entire text of the

notice consists of standard language

specified in § 141.208(c); and (2) the

special notice announcing the

availability of unregulated contaminant

monitoring results under § 141.207,

where the standard elements related to

a violation do not apply. Applying the

same content requirements under

§ 141.205(a) for both violations and

other situations makes sense because

26004 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

the questions posed by persons served

by water systems for both are basically

the same. In both cases, the persons

served need to understand what is

prompting the notice, what health risk

the underlying violation or situation

poses, what steps should be taken to

minimize risk, and what the water

system is doing to resolve the violation

or situation.

Under § 141.205(a) of today’s rule,

EPA is making small but significant

changes from the list of notice elements

currently required under § 141.32. Other

than adding the ‘‘other situations’’ to the

definition of each element, the changes

from the current rule are as follows:

• Element (a)(1), the description of

the violation or situation, is modified to

include both the name of the

contaminant(s) and the contaminant

level(s) (where applicable);

• Element (a)(2), when the violation

or situation occurred, and element

(a)(8), when the system will return to

compliance or resolve the situation, are

added;

• Element (a)(9), the water system

contact information, is expanded to

require the name and business address

of the contact in addition to the phone

number;

• Element (a)(10), standard language

encouraging persons receiving the

notice to distribute it to other persons

served (where applicable), is added.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

Comments were requested on the list of

elements in the proposal and the four

performance standards identified for

how the notices must be presented.

Several commenters expressed concern

that the ten elements required in notices

for violations of NPDWRs do not fit into

every notice situation. They felt that by

requiring them in every notice, EPA’s

proposal may inadvertently hinder the

public water system’s ability to issue an

effective notice. Other commenters

raised specific concerns around the

individual elements.

EPA Response to Comments: EPA

made several changes to the proposed

language in the final rule, but the

changes did not substantively change

the notice content requirements under

§§ 141.205(a), (b), and (c)(1). In response

to comments that the proposed

requirement under § 141.205(a) may be

too restrictive because it requires all ten

elements to be included for every notice

regardless of the situation, EPA wants to

reaffirm its intent that the ten elements

are meant to apply to every notice

situation. Each of the ten elements must

be addressed in some manner for each

notice, regardless of the violation type

(including monitoring and testing

procedure violations) or situation, the

notice tier, and the method of delivery.

But EPA expects public water systems

to use this simple baseline requirement

to guide development of a complete and

effective notice, not to force systems to

add information that is inappropriate or

not useful in a given situation. To reflect

this intent, EPA has made key changes

to the rule language to clarify where

discretion in their use is allowed. In

response to comments, EPA also

amended the language to provide better

definition and clarity for some of the

elements. If used as EPA intends, the

content requirements under

§ 141.205(a), as amended in the final

rule, will not hinder the development of

effective notices. To enhance EPA’s

expectations regarding use of the ten

elements, EPA has developed public

notice templates and sample notices for

a variety of violations and situations.

These templates and sample notices will

be included in the Public Notification

Handbook to be issued shortly.

2. Multilingual Requirements for Public

Notices

Today’s Rule: The final rule under

§ 141.205(c)(2) is much more specific

than the current rule in defining the

multilingual requirements to be met by

public water systems. The current rule

under § 141.32 (c)(2) sets a general

performance standard, requiring simply

that the notice shall be multilingual

where appropriate. The final rule

requires public water systems serving a

large proportion of non-English

speaking consumers (as determined by

the primacy agency) to include in their

notices, in the appropriate languages,

information on the importance of the

notice or a telephone number or address

where persons served may contact the

water system to obtain a translated copy

of the notice or to request assistance in

the appropriate languages. The

multilingual requirement in the final

rule is in two parts:

• § 141.205(c)(2)(i), which sets the

same basic multilingual requirements as

in the CCR rule; and

• § 141.205(c)(2)(ii), which requires

the water system to determine when and

how it must meet the multilingual

requirement when the primacy agency

has not made the determination.

EPA encourages water systems to go

beyond the minimum multilingual

requirements in this rule, particularly

for Tier 1 notice situations, and provide

a fully translated copy of the notice on

request or offer telephone assistance in

the appropriate language. The Public

Notification Handbook will contain

sample language regarding the

importance of the notice in various

languages as well as complete Tier 1

public notice templates in Spanish.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

Comments were requested on the more

specific multilingual requirements for

public water systems required under the

proposed rule. Most of the commenters

requested that the final rule provide

more clarity on when the multilingual

requirements would apply and how the

rule language (‘‘PWS serving a large

proportion of non-English speaking

consumers’’) would be interpreted by

the primacy agency.

EPA Response to Comments: To

respond to comments requesting more

clarity on how and when the

multilingual requirements would apply,

EPA added a new paragraph in the final

rule (§ 141.205(c)(2)(ii)) amending the

proposed section to require water

systems to comply with the multilingual

requirements where appropriate, even

in those cases where the primacy agency

does not provide further direction. The

proposed rule language required water

systems serving a large proportion of

non-English speaking consumers, as

determined by the primacy agency, to

meet the multilingual requirements. The

final rule maintains the proposed

language under § 141.205(c)(2)(i), but it

now also includes a second paragraph

not in the CCR rule requiring that water

systems, in the absence of further

primacy agency direction, comply with

the multilingual requirements where

appropriate. EPA intends the second

paragraph (141.205(c)(2)(ii)) to provide a

baseline regulatory requirement

ensuring that public water systems, in

the absence of additional primacy

agency direction, would continue the

multilingual programs they are required

to have in place under the current rule.

In response to comments that the final

rule establish criteria to guide the

primacy agencies and water systems on

who must comply with the multilingual

requirements, EPA has decided not to

establish such criteria in the final rule.

EPA agrees, however, that additional

guidance would be useful. EPA will

provide examples in the Public

Notification Handbook of the range of

situations where it believes multilingual

notices are appropriate. EPA will work

with those States which are already

developing multilingual programs under

the CCR rule to guide implementation of

the similar requirements for the public

notification program.

EPA agrees with a number of

commenters that compliance with the

letter and spirit of the multilingual

requirements will be extremely difficult,

particularly for situations where many

different languages are spoken by large

numbers of consumers. EPA also

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26005

believes that compliance with the

multilingual requirements is very

important if notices are to effectively

reach all persons served, particularly for

Tier 1 situations. Although EPA is

unable to provide a translation service,

as some commenters recommended,

EPA will include in Appendix C of the

Public Notification Handbook a

translation in several languages of the

key phrases EPA believes are critical in

a public notice for communicating the

importance of the message. It will also

work actively with the States, utility

associations, and other assistance

providers to provide better support to

utilities where needed. EPA believes

that widespread compliance with the

multilingual requirements depends on

active and ongoing support from EPA,

the States, the Tribes, and utility

associations, and other assistance

providers.

3. Standard Health Effects Language

Today’s Rule: The final rule under

§ 141.205(d)(1) retains the requirement

that all public notices for MCL and

treatment technique violations use

mandatory health effects language to

explain the health risks posed by the

violation. The final rule replaces the

standard language in the current rule for

each NPDWR with a new Appendix B

to Subpart Q, which provides a table of

regulated contaminants with the

required language. The final health

effects language is shorter, simpler, and

consistent with the language EPA uses

in similar outreach forums and

documents. Under the rule published

today, the health effects language

required for both the final public

notification rule and the Consumer

Confidence Report rule are identical.

EPA believes it does not make sense

to require standard health effects

language different from the CCR

language unless there is a compelling

reason specific to the public notice

situation. Although EPA recognizes that

the CCR and public notice may be given

at different times and may be intended

to meet different objectives, EPA

believes that the benefit of using

identical core health effects language

outweighs the value of tailoring the

language to the unique objectives of the

public notice. EPA expects that public

water systems will supplement the

mandatory health effects language or

otherwise put the language in the

context of the overall notice to meet the

unique purposes of the specific public

notice. Examples of public notices

applicable to different situations are

included in the final Public Notification

Handbook, which will be issued shortly.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on EPA’s

proposal to use the CCR standard health

effects language to meet the public

notification requirement. In particular,

EPA solicited comment on specific

situations or violations where the CCR

language is believed to be inappropriate

or incomplete. Most commenters

supported keeping the CCR and public

notice health effects language the same.

A significant minority of commenters

believed that the public notice language

should be separate from the CCR

language because of the different

purpose of public notification. Several

commenters provided alternative

language for specific violations that they

believe better expressed the health

concerns that needed to be

communicated in the public notice for

the violation. Other commenters

requested that EPA vary the required

health effects language based on the

strength of evidence underlying the

standard, particularly for carcinogens,

or include in the language information

on the quality of the source waters.

EPA Response to Comments: With

three exceptions, the health effects

language in today’s final rule is

identical with the language that was

proposed:

• The first exception is the language

in the final rule for violations of the

fluoride MCL. Today’s rule revises the

public notification language proposed in

Appendix B to Subpart Q for fluoride.

Today’s action also amends the CCR

rule to include this revised fluoride

language. The revised fluoride language

for violations of the MCL now includes

more specific information on the

cosmetic effects of exceedances above 2

mg/l, which is the fluoride secondary

maximum contaminant level (SMCL).

EPA’s response to comments received

concerning the fluoride standard

language is included in Section IV.J.3 of

the preamble.

• The second exception is the

language EPA proposed in the public

notification rule for new and revised

standards under the Stage 1 D/DBP rule.

EPA is incorporating the language that

was proposed into the final rule with

only minor editorial changes to

maintain consistent language for

contaminants with the same health

effects. Today’s action also amends the

existing CCR rule to insert the exact

language that is contained in the final

public notification rule.

• The third exception is the language

in the final rule for fecal coliform/E. coli

MCL violations. The language in the

current CCR rule and the proposed rule

listed infants, young children, and

people with severely compromised

immune systems. EPA agrees with

several commenters that drinking water

with violations of the fecal coliform/

E.coli standard may pose a special

health risk to the elderly as well.

Accordingly, the EPA has amended the

proposed public notification rule and

revised the current CCR rule to add

‘‘some of the elderly’’ to the standard

health effects language for fecal

coliform/E.coli.

The final rule affirms the proposed

requirement to use standard health

effects language in Appendix B in

public notices for violations of the MCL,

TT, and MRDL standards. In addition,

EPA reaffirmed its intent to keep the

standard health effects language

identical for the public notification and

CCR rules. Today’s action publishes

identical language in the two rules for

all the existing regulated contaminants.

EPA will maintain this policy direction

when considering the public

notification and CCR rule requirements

for new and revised standards, unless

there is a compelling reason specific to

the new rules for the language to be

different.

In response to the comments received

offering alternative language to the

proposal for specific violations, EPA

undertook a systematic review of each

comment to determine, first, if the

proposed public notification language

(and the underlying CCR rule language)

was erroneous or misleading and,

second, if there was a reason unique to

the public notification objective for the

language to be different from the CCR.

EPA started with the presumption that

the CCR language and the public

notification language should be the

same unless there were compelling

reasons to be different. Based on this

review, EPA has concluded that there

were no errors in the standard language

in the existing CCR rule justifying a

change and no compelling reason for the

core health effects language in the final

public notification rule to be different

than what was already in place in the

CCR rule. Therefore, with the two

exceptions discussed earlier in this

section, the proposed language is

carried forward unchanged into the final

public notification and amended CCR

rules. EPA’s detailed response to the

commenters offering alternative

language is contained in the ‘‘Response

to Comments’’ document in EPA’s

docket for this rule.

In response to several commenters

who recommended that the language be

greatly simplified for low-literacy

audiences, EPA believes such a change

is unwarranted. EPA notes that the

health effects language developed for

the CCR rule, and used in the proposed

26006 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

public notification rule, was targeted to

low-literacy audiences. It is intended to

be simplified language, while still

communicating essential health

information.

EPA does agree with several of the

commenters who recommended that

EPA periodically review the public

notification and health effects language

required in both the CCR and the public

notification rules. EPA intends to

conduct such a review periodically as

new and revised regulations are

developed and as new health effects

materials are developed based on

ongoing research and new information.

4. Standard Language for Monitoring

and Testing Procedure Violations

Today’s Rule: The final rule under

§ 141.205(d)(2) adds a new section

requiring that all public notices contain

the following standard language for

monitoring and testing procedure

violations:

We are required to monitor your drinking

water for specific contaminants on a regular

basis. Results of regular monitoring are an

indicator of whether or not your drinking

water meets health standards. During

[compliance period], we [‘‘did not monitor or

test’’ or ‘‘did not complete all monitoring or

testing’’] for [contaminant(s)], and therefore

cannot be sure of the quality of your drinking

water during that time.

The mandatory language is required

in all public notices for monitoring and

testing procedure violations. EPA

recognizes that many monitoring

violations are minor, and are quickly

resolved and pose little potential risk to

health. For most monitoring and testing

procedure violations, water systems

resume monitoring quickly after a single

violation. The standard language will be

most effective where the water system

supplements the standard language with

a clear explanation of the status of the

violation, its relative seriousness related

to public health risk, and how it was

rectified.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA solicited comment on proposed

standard language, particularly the

phrase ‘‘* * * and we are unable to tell

whether your health was at risk during

that time.’’ EPA also requested comment

on an option to not require any specific

language in the public notice for all

monitoring violations. Although most

commenters supported the new

provision requiring standard language to

be included in public notices for

monitoring violations, several

commenters offered edits or alternative

language. Other commenters

recommended that the standard

language be applied selectively or

tailored to take account of the wide

range of monitoring violation situations.

A significant minority of the

commenters disagreed altogether with

the need to require any standard

language for monitoring violations in

EPA’s rule.

EPA Response to Comments: The final

rule retains the proposed new

requirement to use standard language in

the public notice for monitoring and

testing procedure violations. In response

to commenters supporting the standard

language but offering edits to better

meet EPA’s objective, the standard

language under § 141.205(d)(2) in the

final rule has been significantly revised

from the language as proposed.

EPA revised the proposed language to

speak of the potential health effects of

failure to monitor in more general terms,

in response to comments that more

specific health effects language does not

always apply to notices across the wide

range of monitoring and testing

procedure violations where the language

must be used. EPA’s intent is to clearly

and simply alert consumers that lack of

monitoring or failure to meet testing

requirements may in some cases

disguise a potential risk to health. It is

intended to prompt questions from

persons served about the significance of

a specific monitoring and testing

procedure violation. EPA expects water

systems to anticipate such questions

and to answer them for the specific

situation in the full public notice.

In response to comments that EPA

delete the requirement to use standard

language in favor of a narrative

performance standard, EPA considered

setting a performance standard rather

than requiring mandatory standard

language in the final rule. EPA opted to

retain standard language in the final

rule because the Agency believes that,

in the absence of a reported MCL,

MRDL, or treatment technique violation,

consumers may presume that the

drinking water provided by their water

system is safe. This may sometimes not

be an appropriate presumption. The

standard language clearly and simply

alerts consumers that lack of monitoring

in some cases may disguise a potential

risk to health. Although EPA believes

that the vast majority of monitoring

violations are quickly resolved and do

not disguise a potential risk to health,

EPA intends the standard language to

prompt questions about the significance

of the specific monitoring violation. In

routine circumstances, these questions

should be anticipated and answered in

the full public notice. EPA’s intent is

not to alarm consumers unnecessarily;

rather, the information should help

inform consumers about the significance

of the monitoring or testing procedure

violation.

5. Standard Language To Encourage

Customers Receiving the Public Notice

To Distribute the Notice to Other

Persons Served

Today’s Rule: The final rule under

§ 141.205(d)(3) adds a new section

requiring that public notices contain

standard language, where applicable,

encouraging the customers receiving the

public notice to distribute the notice to

other persons served by the public water

system (such as tenants, residents,

patients, etc.). The required standard

language is as follows:

Please share this information with all the

other people who drink this water, especially

those who may not have received this notice

directly (for example, people in apartments,

nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You

can do this by posting this notice in a public

place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

Mailed notices, in particular, are

routinely sent to only the bill-paying

customers, and therefore may not reach

some consumers at risk unless actions

are taken to notify them of the

violations. EPA believes that this

standard language is appropriate as a

safety net and is necessary to encourage

those receiving the public notice to take

steps to alert others of the violations and

potential risk from drinking water.

Compliance with this requirement is

one of, but not the only, reasonablycalculated steps a public water system

must take to reach other persons who

may not receive or see the notice. The

final rule gives the water system

discretion to add the distribution

language when it determines such a

notice is needed to reach persons served

beyond those who receive the initial

notice directly from the water system.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

Comments were solicited on the

proposed standard language and any

alternative language that would meet

EPA’s intent. Most commenters

supported the proposed requirement to

include standard distribution language

in public notices. A few commenters

believed such standard language was

not always appropriate and

recommended that the final rule give

the water system or primacy agency

flexibility in determining when it was

applicable. A number of comments

offered edits to the proposed text to

better communicate the intended

message.

EPA Response to Comments: The final

rule retains the proposed requirement

that water systems include in their

notices the standard language contained

in § 141.205(d)(3) to encourage persons

receiving the notice to distribute it to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26007

others who are served by the water

system. EPA agreed with commenters,

however, that the standard language

should be required only where it is

applicable and useful to reach those

persons served by the system who may

not hear about the violations through

traditional means. Therefore, the final

rule gives the water system discretion to

determine when the standard language

is applicable. The proposed rule

required the standard language to be

used for all notices. The final rule also

includes minor edits to the proposed

standard language in response to

suggestions from commenters. EPA

believes the revised language is simpler

than what was proposed and would

apply to more situations and encourage

wider distribution. EPA disagrees with

several commenters who claimed that

such a new requirement is not

warranted. On the contrary, EPA

believes the standard language will

serve as a safety net, encouraging those

receiving the public notice to alert

others who would otherwise not hear of

the potential risk from their drinking

water due to the violation.

J. Other Public Notification

Requirements

1. Notice to New Billing Units or New

Customers (§ 141.206).

Today’s Rule: The final rule modifies

the current regulatory provision

requiring that public notices go to new

billing units. The current rule requires

that community water systems send a

copy of the most recent public notice to

all new billing units for ongoing MCL

and TT violations or violations of the

conditions of existing variances or

exemptions. The final rule broadens the

requirement to include any ongoing

violation or situation that required an

initial public notice (including ongoing

monitoring and testing procedure

violations) and adds a new provision

requiring non-community water systems

to continuously post the notice to

inform new customers of any ongoing

violations. EPA is revising the current

rule to better ensure that new customers

served by all public water systems are

made aware of any continuing

violations of drinking water standards.

The initial notice, if posted in a location

where new consumers pass by, will

meet this new requirement. However,

water systems that deliver the initial

notice to some but not all the existing

customers (or that otherwise have the

notice out of sight of new consumers)

have an additional responsibility under

this new provision. EPA believes this

new provision makes notices more

readily available to new consumers not

receiving the notice under the current

regulation.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the change

to the current rule extending the

requirement to cover ongoing

monitoring and testing procedure

violations and to require that the notice

be provided to new customers by both

community and non-community water

systems. Commenters raised a number

of concerns with the proposed language.

Several commenters believed that

compliance with the new requirement

would be difficult to track. Other

commenters felt that the notice to new

billing units of ongoing monitoring

violations was unnecessary and that the

more effective vehicle to communicate

these violations, for community water

systems at least, would be the CCR.

EPA Response to Comments: EPA is

retaining the requirement for notice to

new billing units as proposed. The final

rule makes minor, clarifying changes

from the proposal, but the basic changes

to the current requirements in the

proposal have been retained in the final

rule. In response to comments that the

new requirement extending the current

requirement to include notice to new

billing units for ongoing monitoring

violations was inappropriate and

difficult to track, EPA has decided to

leave the proposed requirement

unchanged. EPA believes that

notification to new customers of all

ongoing violations meets a clear rightto-know objective. It is part of the

operator’s obligation to reach the

persons they serve, regardless of when

they move into the distribution area. In

response to State commenters

anticipating significant difficulty in

tracking compliance, EPA expects that

when a system submits the certification

of compliance to the primacy agency

under § 141.31(d) after each violation

event, it would also commit the PWS to

sending the notice to new billing units

until the violation is resolved. EPA does

not intend for systems to forward to

primacy agencies a copy of every public

notice sent to new customers. EPA will

include in the Public Notification

Handbook a discussion of how the

certification process will work.

2. Special Notice To Announce the

Availability of the Results of

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

(§ 141.207)

Today’s Rule: The final rule creates a

new § 141.207 to add the timing and

other public notification details to the

notice requirement under the recently

published Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Rule (UCMR). The UCMR

carried over an existing provision in

§ 141.35, which required that the water

systems give notice to the public of the

availability of unregulated contaminant

monitoring results. The UCMR retains

the same reporting requirement as in the

former § 141.35 but eliminates the 3-

month deadline for giving the public

notice, referencing instead the timing

and other requirements contained under

§ 141.207 of today’s rule. Today’s rule

sets a 12-month deadline for this special

notice, to allow public water systems, at

their option, to report the availability of

all the results in a single annual notice,

reducing the number of required notices

from four to one. EPA encourages

community water systems to include the

annual notice required under this

section in their CCR, as long as the CCR

meets the public notification timing and

delivery requirements. The unregulated

contaminant monitoring results (where

detected) must already be included in

the CCR, so meeting both requirements

in the CCR will be both more efficient

for the regulated community and less

confusing to the public.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the

proposed approach to meeting the

requirements under Sections

1414(c)(2)(E) and 1445(a)(2)(E) of the

1996 SDWA. EPA also requested

comment on its proposal to shift the

timing of the notice from three months

to twelve months. Most commenters

supported the timing change. Several

commenters recommended that EPA

delete the requirement for this special

notice requirement altogether from the

public notification rule, as it is already

adequately covered by the CCR (for

community water systems at least).

EPA Response to Comments: The final

rule retains the requirement, as

proposed, to provide notice of the

availability of unregulated contaminant

monitoring results within twelve

months of the monitoring. In response

to several commenters who

recommended that the notice

requirements be provided within three

months (as required in the former

§ 141.35), EPA has decided to retain the

proposed 12-month notice deadline.

EPA sees this distribution of

information as a right-to-know issue,

with a different public notification

message than the higher-tier notices

because it is not related to a violation of

an existing standard. The change in the

timing of the public notice is to allow

water systems, at their option, to report

the availability of all the results just

once during the year. Nothing precludes

a water system from distributing notice

of the availability of results of

monitoring for unregulated

contaminants sooner.

26008 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

In response to comments that the

special notice announcing the

availability of unregulated contaminant

monitoring results is overlapping and

redundant with a similar requirement in

the CCR rule, EPA is responding to a

statutory requirement under Section

1414(c)(1) and (c)(2)(E) of the 1996

SDWA amendments and is carrying over

an existing requirement. EPA does

agree, however, that community water

systems should be allowed and

encouraged to include the notice of the

availability of the results in the CCR, if

the timing and delivery requirements

are met. EPA believes close

coordination between the public

notification requirement and the CCR

reporting requirement for this

information will be both more efficient

for the regulated community and less

confusing to the public.

3. Special Notice for Exceedance of the

Fluoride Secondary Maximum

Contaminant Level (SMCL) (§ 141.208)

Today’s Rule: Today’s action moves

the current special fluoride notice

requirements under § 143.5 into the new

Subpart Q public notification provision

at § 141.208. The special public notice

is to alert persons served who may not

otherwise be notified that the fluoride

levels in the drinking water may pose a

cosmetic dental risk to children under

nine years old. The final rule retains the

current requirement that community

water systems provide a special notice

to persons served when they exceed the

SMCL of 2 mg/l for fluoride but do not

exceed the MCL violation level of 4 mg/

l. As in the current rule, a copy of the

notice must also be sent to all new

billing units and new customers at the

time service begins and to the State

public health officer. Community water

systems must use the mandatory notice

language in the rule. The final rule

requires that the notice be sent out as

soon as practical but no later than 12

months from the day the water system

learns of the exceedance. Repeat notices

must be sent out at least annually until

the exceedance is eliminated. At its

option, a primacy agency may require

an initial notice sooner than 12 months

or a repeat notice more frequently than

annually when warranted by the

specific situation.

The final rule under § 141.208 of

Subpart Q makes four changes to the

current public notice requirements for

exceedance of the fluoride SMCL:

• To require that the form and

manner of the special notice follow the

Tier 3 requirements in §§ 141.204(c) and

141.204(d) of the final rule, including

that the notice be sent to persons served

by the system (rather than just to the

billing units);

• To require that the notice be sent

out ‘‘as soon as practical but no later

than 12 months from the day the water

system learns of the exceedance’’ (rather

than ‘‘annually’’);

• To explicitly authorize the primacy

agency to require notice sooner and

repeat notices more frequently when

warranted by the specific situation; and

• To revise the mandatory language to

reflect recent studies of the incidence

and potential cosmetic effects of dental

fluorosis and to make other changes to

better communicate the intended

message.

Today’s rule also requires that the

proposed standard health effects

language for violations of the fluoride

MCL in Appendix B of Subpart Q be

revised to include the effects of dental

fluorosis on children under nine years

of age. This was added in response to

comments that the proposed standard

language required for a violation of the

MCL did not adequately address the

risks to children from fluoride levels

above the SMCL.

EPA believes it is important to retain

and strengthen the existing fluoride

SMCL special notice requirement.

Consumers have a right to know about

the cosmetic effects from dental

fluorosis that may occur in children

resulting from exposure to drinking

water exceeding the fluoride SMCL. The

current notice requirement for

exceedance of the fluoride SMCL in

§ 143.5 was put in place when the

fluoride national primary drinking

water regulation (NPDWR) was

published in April 2, 1986 (50 FR

11396). The 1986 fluoride NPDWR

replaced the more stringent MCL in

place as an interim standard since the

original SDWA in 1974. The interim

MCL of 2 mg/l became the SMCL when

the final primary standard was

published on April 2, 1986. Part of the

agreement for reducing the stringency of

the MCL from 2 mg/l to 4 mg/l was that

the public would continue to be notified

of the potential for developing dental

fluorosis from exposure to their

drinking water when the levels

exceeded 2 mg/l.

NTNCWS are not currently required

to monitor for fluoride under EPA’s

current regulations, and therefore the

EPA SMCL notice requirement does not

apply to them. However, EPA

recommends that NTNCWS, particularly

schools and day-care centers, provide

the special SMCL notice to persons they

serve when they learn they are

providing drinking water with fluoride

levels exceeding 2 mg/l.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on whether

EPA should retain the special public

notice for exceedance of the fluoride

SMCL and, if retained, whether

retaining the requirement allowing the

public notice to be given as soon as

practical but no later than 12 months

after the exceedance is known is

sufficient. EPA also requested comment

on whether the revised mandatory

language better communicates the

purpose of the notice and the cosmetic

risks from drinking the water. Several

commenters supported continuation of

the special notice requirement but

believed that EPA should require it to be

distributed as a Tier 2 (30-day) notice

rather than annually because of the risk

of dental fluorosis in children from

relatively short-term exposure. Other

commenters requested that EPA either

delete the requirement outright or

somehow merge it with the CCR

requirements.

EPA Response to Comments: The final

rule carries forward the principal

elements of the proposed notice

requirement for exceedances of the

SMCL basically unchanged. In response

to comments, however, EPA did make

significant changes to the proposed

mandatory notice language to improve

the effectiveness of the notice. Also, in

response to comments, EPA has

explicitly authorized the primacy

agency to require the initial notice

sooner than 12 months and any repeat

notices more frequently than annually.

EPA also restored in the final rule the

language in § 143.5 of the current rule

(inadvertently left out of the proposal)

requiring that the notice be distributed

not only to persons served, but also to

new billing units and new customers

and to the State health officer.

In addition, EPA agreed with

commenters that the proposed standard

language required for violations of the

fluoride MCL did not adequately cover

the cosmetic effects from the violation.

Accordingly, EPA has modified in

Appendix B of the final rule the

standard health effects language for

violations of the fluoride MCL, to

include more complete information on

the effects of dental fluorosis. The

existing fluoride language required in

the CCR rule was amended as well. This

change will ensure that parents of the

children most vulnerable to the

cosmetic effects of fluoride exceedances

(i.e., children nine years old and under)

receive information on both the

cosmetic and health effects from

fluoride MCL violations.

In response to commenters

recommending that the mandatory

notice for exceedance of the fluoride

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26009

SMCL be deleted or somehow combined

with the CCR requirements, EPA has

decided to retain the current

requirement basically unchanged. EPA

sees no need to question the decision to

require this special fluoride notice made

when EPA first published the primary

fluoride standard in 1986. EPA

continues to believe that consumers

have a right to know about the cosmetic

effects from dental fluorosis that may

occur in children from exposure to

drinking water exceeding the fluoride

SMCL. EPA encourages community

water systems to use the CCR to meet

this special notice requirement, where

possible, as long as the CCR is able to

meet the timing and delivery

requirements under the public

notification regulation.

In response to comments that the

notice be required sooner than 12

months after the exceedance because of

the likely effects from exposure as short

as three months, EPA has decided to

retain the timing of the notice as

proposed. EPA did, however, add

language in the final rule that explicitly

authorizes the primacy agency to

require a more frequent notice when

warranted by the specific situation. EPA

is aware of recent studies that indicate

possible risk of dental fluorosis from

short-term exposure to fluoride levels

above the SMCL, but it has not done a

sufficient review of the various studies

to consider changing the notice timing

from what was proposed. Review of the

fluoride standard falls within the

required six year review of the existing

national primary drinking water

standards under Section 1412(b)(9) of

the SDWA, which is not due to be

completed until August 2002. Since

some recent studies do indicate a

possible risk of dental fluorosis from

short-term exposure in certain

circumstances, EPA believes it is

prudent for a water system with

continuous levels of fluoride above the

SMCL to work with the primacy agency

to determine when and how often the

notice should be given, based on the

severity and persistence of the fluoride

exceedance in the specific situation.

4. Special Notice for Nitrate

Exceedances Above the MCL by NonCommunity Water Systems (NCWS),

Where Granted Permission by Primacy

Agency Under § 141.11(d) (§ 141.209)

Today’s Rule: The final rule

incorporates into Subpart Q the current

public notification requirement under

§ 141.11(d) for non-community water

systems (NCWS) that have been granted

permission by the primacy agency to

continue to exceed the nitrate MCL of

10 mg/l (although they must not exceed

20 mg/l). The current rule under

§ 141.11(d) sets criteria that primacy

agencies must follow in considering

whether to allow NCWS to exceed the

nitrate MCL without incurring a

violation. The criteria under § 141.11(d)

require that the water system: (1)

Demonstrate that the drinking water

will not be available to children under

6 months of age; (2) provide continuous

posting of the fact that nitrate levels are

above 10 mg/l and identify the potential

health effects of exposure; (3) notify

local and State health authorities

annually of nitrate levels that exceed 10

mg/l; and (4) ensure that no adverse

health effects shall result. The public

notice provision under § 141.11(d)(2) is

revised today to reference § 141.209 of

Subpart Q, which requires that NCWS

granted permission to exceed the MCL

follow the Tier 1 notice requirements

(including the deadline, delivery and

content) in much the same way as

required for violations of the nitrate

MCL. EPA believes incorporating the

public notice requirement under

§ 141.11(d) into the more specific Tier 1

standard public notification protocol

will allow NCWS to more systematically

meet their public notice obligations

when allowed to exceed the MCL.

With today’s final rule, EPA is

incorporating into Subpart Q all the

public notification requirements

currently in other parts of CFR Part 141,

including the requirement in

§ 141.11(d). See Section IV.L of this

preamble for a summary of these

changes. This action does not

substantively change the existing public

notification requirement and therefore

requires no prior notice and opportunity

to comment.

5. Conditions Under Which the Primacy

Agency May Give Notice on Behalf of

Public Water System (§ 141.210)

Today’s Rule: The final rule retains

the provision in the current rule

specifying under what conditions the

primacy agency may give notice on

behalf of a public water system. Under

this provision, the primacy agency may

give a public notice for the public water

system if all public notification

requirements are met. The responsibility

to comply, however, would always

remain with the public water system.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the

proposal to retain this provision.

Virtually all the comments received on

this provision supported the proposal.

EPA Response to Comments: The final

rule is unchanged from what was

proposed.

K. Reporting to the Primacy Agency and

Retention of Records

1. Public Water System Reporting to the

Primacy Agency (§ 141.31(d))

Today’s Rule: The final rule amends

the existing reporting requirement

under § 141.31(d) by requiring public

water systems to submit a certification

to the primacy agency that all public

notification requirements have been

met. Under the current § 141.31(d),

public water systems are required to

submit copies of all public notices to the

primacy agency within 10 days of

completing each public notice. EPA

believes that including a simple

certification of compliance from the

public water system with the copies of

the notices will: Encourage voluntary

compliance; save primacy agency

resources; and allow better targeting of

noncompliers. EPA also believes that

maintaining the existing 10-day

reporting deadline allows the primacy

agency to quickly understand how the

system met its public notification

obligation and to pursue whatever

follow-up is necessary to ensure the

public is effectively informed of the

violation. The opportunity for

immediate feedback to the water system

and quick resolution will strengthen the

public notification program.

Comments Received on Proposal: EPA

requested comment on the timing and

content of the revised reporting

requirement, particularly the new

certification requirement. A majority of

commenters either requested

clarification on what EPA intended

under the new certification requirement

or recommended that EPA delete the

new certification requirement from the

final rule altogether. Several

commenters also objected to the 10-day

reporting deadline, some wanting a 30-

or 60-day period and others

recommending that it be required

immediately after the notice is given.

EPA Response to Comments: The final

rule retains the proposed requirement

that public water systems send a

certification of compliance, with copies

of the public notices, to the primacy

agency within 10 days after the public

notification requirements are completed

for the initial notice and for each repeat

notice cycle. EPA made minor changes

to the proposed language to respond to

requests that EPA clarify what the scope

of the new certification requirement is

and when the certification must be

submitted. In response to comments

questioning the need for this new

requirement, EPA believes that a simple

certification sent with copies of the

notice will facilitate compliance

monitoring and follow-up by the

26010 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

primacy agency. It may also encourage

voluntary compliance. In response to

comments that EPA extend the

proposed ten-day deadline to 30 or 60

days, EPA believes it is important for

primacy agencies to receive the notices

(and assess their adequacy) as soon as

possible after the public water system

sends the notice to its customers. The

primacy agency’s quick follow-up to an

inadequate public notice response to

violations will ensure public health is

protected. In response to a commenter’s

suggestion of a certification ‘‘box,’’ EPA

agrees that a properly worded box that

indicates the system complied with all

of the PN requirements would meet the

certification requirement. A sample

certification statement for PWSs to use

will be included in the final Public

Notification Handbook.

2. Retention of Records by Public Water

Systems (§ 141.33)

Today’s Rule: The final rule requires

that public water systems retain public

notification records for three years.

Today’s action also amends the

Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)

regulation to change the public water

system record retention requirement

from five years to three years to be

consistent with the public notification

requirement. The current public

notification regulation has no provision

for retention of public notification

records. A record retention requirement

for public notices conforms with the

requirements already in place for other

EPA regulatory requirements (e.g.,

sampling results, variances and

exemptions). The record retention

period of no more than three years is

consistent with the limits set in the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.5,

which implement the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the

reporting and record keeping proposal,

including an alternative to the proposal

to set the retention period for records

under the public notification regulations

to five years. EPA also requested

comment on whether the record

retention periods required under the

related CCR regulation should be

adjusted to three years, if necessary, to

be consistent with the final public

notification retention requirement and

Paperwork Reduction Act regulations.

Commenters were split on whether a

five- or three-year record retention

period should be required, but virtually

all the comments supported requiring

the same period under the CCR rule and

public notification rule.

EPA Response to Comments: The final

rule setting a three-year record retention

period for public notice records is

unchanged from the proposal. In

response to comments on the need to

keep the required record retention

period consistent with the CCR rule,

EPA is also amending the CCR rule

today to match the three-year period

proposed for the public notification

rule. EPA decided to require a threeyear (rather than a five-year) record

retention period to be consistent with

the baseline requirement under OMB’s

paperwork reduction act guidelines. No

comments were received that gave

compelling reasons to deviate from this

baseline OMB requirement.

L. Other Changes to the Current Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) To Be

Consistent With the Final Public

Notification Regulations

Table C is a listing of the changes

made in today’s rule to various

provisions in 40 CFR Part 141 to change

the public notification references to the

new Subpart Q and to otherwise modify

the language to be consistent with the

final public notification regulations. The

amendments do not substantively alter

the existing requirements in these

provisions and therefore require no

prior notice and opportunity for

comment.

TABLE C.—SUMMARY OF OTHER CHANGES TO CFR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH FINAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION RULE (PART

141, SUBPART Q)

CFR Section Subject Subpart Q Reference

(where applicable) Change

§ 141.6(c), § 141.6(g) Effective dates.‘‘The regulations set forth in . . .

§ 141.32(b)(3) and § 141.32(d) shall take

effect immediately upon promulgation. . . The regulations contained in

§ 141.32(e)(16), (25–27), and (46) . . .

are effective January 1, 1993’’.

§ 141.201 .................. Delete all reference to § 141.32. Effective

dates for new Subpart Q are contained

in § 141.201 introductory paragraph.

§ 141.11(d) Nitrate levels in

non-community systems.

‘‘At the discretion of the State, nitrate levels

not to exceed 20 mg/l may be allowed in

a non-community water system if the

supplier of water demonstrates. . . that

(1) Such water will not be available to

children under 6 months of age; and (2)

There will be continuous posting of the

fact that nitrate levels exceed 10 mg/l

and the potential health effects of exposure; and local and State public health

authorities will be notified annually of nitrate levels. . . and (4) No adverse

health effects shall result.’’.

§ 141.209 .................. Change § 141.11(d)(2) to require that systems meet PN requirements under

§ 141.209.

Add new special notice (§ 141.209), require

Tier 1 notification and the ten elements

required for violations

§ 141.21(g)(1) Total coliform

MCL.

‘‘A public water system which has exceeded the MCL for total coliform in § 141.63

must report the violation to the State no

later than the end of the next business

day after it learns of the violation, and

notify the public in accordance with

§ 141.32’’.

§ 141.203 (Tier 2)

and § 141.204 (Tier

3).

Change reference to ‘‘§ 141.32’’ to ‘‘subpart

Q’’

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26011

TABLE C.—SUMMARY OF OTHER CHANGES TO CFR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH FINAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION RULE (PART

141, SUBPART Q)—Continued

CFR Section Subject Subpart Q Reference

(where applicable) Change

§ 141.21(g)(2) Coliform monitoring.‘‘A public water system which has failed to

comply with a coliform monitoring requirement, including the sanitary survey

requirement, must report the monitoring

violation to the State within ten days

after the system discovers the violation,

and notify the public in accordance with

§ 141.32’’.

§ 141.204 (Tier 3) or

§ 141.202 (Tier 1).

Change reference to ‘‘§ 141.32’’ to ‘‘subpart

Q’’

§ 141.22(b) 0Turbidity MCL .. ‘‘If the monthly average of the daily samples exceeds the maximum allowable

limit or if the average of 2 samples taken

on consecutive days exceeds 5 TU . . .

report to the state and notify the public

as directed in § 141.31 and § 141.32’’.

§ 141.203 (Tier 2) ..... Change reference to ‘‘§ 141.32’’ to ‘‘subpart

Q’’

§ 141.23(f)(2) Confirmation

sample for nitrate and nitrate.

‘‘Where nitrate or nitrite sampling results indicate an exceedance of the maximum

contaminant level, the system shall take

a confirmation sample within 24

hours. . . Systems unable to comply

with the 24-hour sampling requirement

must immediately notify consumers

served . . . in accordance with § 141.32

. . .’’.

§ 141.202 (Tier 1) ..... Change reference to ‘‘§ 141.32’’ to

‘‘§ 141.202 and meet other requirements

under Subpart Q of this part’’

Change ‘‘consumers’’ to ‘‘persons’’

Add this requirement to § 141.202 along

with that for nitrate MCLs (item 2 of

Table 1)

§ 141.23(I)(4),

§ 141.24(f)(15)(iii),

§ 141.24(h)(11)(iii) Public

notice to the area affected

for inorganics, VOCs, and

SOCs.

‘‘If a public water system has a distribution

system separable from other parts of the

distribution system with no interconnections, the State may allow the system to

give public notice to only the area served

by that portion of the system which is out

of compliance’’.

Subpart Q ................. Delete these sections since parallel requirement will be included in

§ 141.201(c)(2)

§ 141.23(n) Inorganics MCL ‘‘When the average of four analyses . . .

exceeds the maximum contaminant level,

the supplier of water shall notify the

State pursuant to § 141.31 and give notice to the public pursuant to § 141.32’’.

§ 141.203 (Tier 2) ..... Change ‘‘§ 141.32’’ to ‘‘Subpart Q’’

§ 141.23(o) Nitrate MCL ....... ‘‘. . .When a level exceeding the maximum

contaminant level for nitrate is found, a

second analysis shall be initiated within

24 hours, and if the mean of the two

analyses exceeds the maximum contaminant level, the supplier of water shall report his findings to the State pursuant to

§ 141.31 and shall notify the public pursuant to § 141.32’’.

§ 141.202 (Tier 1) ..... Change ‘‘§ 141.32’’ to ‘‘Subpart Q’’

§ 141.26(a)(4) Gross alpha

or total radium MCL.

‘‘If the average annual maximum contaminant level for gross alpha particle activity

or total radium . . . is exceeded, the

supplier . . . shall give notice to the

State pursuant to § 141.31 and notify the

public as required by § 141.32’’.

§ 141.203 (Tier 2) ..... Change ‘‘§ 141.32’’ to ‘‘Subpart Q’’

§ 141.26(b)(5) Man-made radiation MCL.‘‘If the average annual maximum contaminant level for man-made radioactivity

. . . is exceeded, the supplier . . . shall

give notice to the State pursuant to

§ 141.31 and notify the public as required

by § 141.32’’.

§ 141.203 (Tier 2) ..... Change ‘‘§ 141.32’’ to ‘‘Subpart Q’’

§ 141.30(d) TTHM MCL ........ ‘‘If the average of samples covering any 12

month period exceeds the Maximum

Contaminant Level, the supplier of water

shall report to the State pursuant to

§ 141.31 and notify the public pursuant to

§ 141.32’’.

§ 141.203 (Tier 2) ..... Change ‘‘§ 141.32’’ to ‘‘Subpart Q’’

§ 141.63(b) Total coliform

MCL (fecal positive repeat

sample).

‘‘For purposes of the public notification requirements in § 141.32, this is a violation

that may pose an acute risk to health.’’.

§ 141.202 (Tier 1) ..... Change ‘‘§ 141.32’’ to ‘‘Subpart Q’’

26012 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE C.—SUMMARY OF OTHER CHANGES TO CFR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH FINAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION RULE (PART

141, SUBPART Q)—Continued

CFR Section Subject Subpart Q Reference

(where applicable) Change

§ 141.75(a)(5)(ii) SWTR reporting requirements

(unfiltered systems).

‘‘If at any time turbidity exceeds 5 NTU, the

system must inform the State as soon as

possible, but no later than the end of the

next business day’’.

§ 141.203(b)(3) ......... Change § 141.75(a)(5)(ii) to require consultation with the primacy agency after

turbidity exceedance above 5 NTU, as

soon as practical but no later than 24

hours in accordance with the public notification requirements under

§ 141.203(b)(3)

§ 141.75(b)(3)(ii) SWTR reporting requirements (filtered systems).‘‘If at any time turbidity exceeds 5 NTU, the

system must inform the State as soon as

possible, but no later than the end of the

next business day’’.

§ 141.203(b)(3) ......... Change § 141.75(b)(3)(ii) to require consultation with the primacy agency after

turbidity exceedance above 5 NTU, as

soon as practical but no later than 24

hours in accordance with the public notification requirements under

§ 141.203(b)(3)

§ 141.133(b)(1) TTHMs and

HAA5 MCLs.

‘‘If the running annual arithmetic average of

quarterly averages covering any consecutive four-quarter period exceeds the

MCL, the system is in violation of the

MCL and must notify the public pursuant

to § 141.32 . . .’’.

§ 141.203 (Tier 2) ..... Change ‘‘§ 141.32’’ to ‘‘Subpart Q’’

§ 141.133(b)(2) Bromate

MCL.

‘‘If the average of samples covering any

consecutive four-quarter period exceeds

the MCL, the system is in violation of the

MCL and must notify the public pursuant

to § 141.32 . . .’’.

§ 141.203 (Tier 2) ..... Change ‘‘§ 141.32’’ to ‘‘Subpart Q’’

§ 141.133(b)(3) Chlorite MCL ‘‘If the arithmetic average of any three

sample set exceeds the MCL, the system is in violation of the MCL and must

notify the public pursuant to

§ 141.32. . .’’.

§ 141.203 (Tier 2) ..... Change ‘‘§ 141.32’’ to ‘‘Subpart Q’’

§ 141.133(c)(1) Chlorine and

chloramines MRDL.

‘‘If the average of quarterly averages covering any consecutive four-quarter period

exceeds the MRDL, the system is in violation of the MRDL and must notify the

public pursuant to § 141.32 . . .’’.

§ 141.203 (Tier 2) ..... Change ‘‘§ 141.32’’ to ‘‘Subpart Q’’

§ 141.133(c)(2)(I) Chlorine

dioxide MRDL.

‘‘If any daily sample taken at the entrance

to the distribution system exceeds the

MRDL, and on the following day one (or

more) of the three samples . . . exceed

the MRDL, the system must . . . notify

the public pursuant to the procedures for

acute health risks in § 141.32(a)(1)

(iii)(E). Failure to take samples in the distribution system the day following an exceedance of the chlorine dioxide

MRDL. . .will also be considered an

MRDL violation and the system must notify . . . in accordance with the provisions for acute violations under

§ 141.32(a)(1)(iii)(E)’’.

§ 141.202 (Tier 1) ..... Change ‘‘§ 141.32(a)(1)(iii)(E)’’ to ‘‘Subpart

Q’’

§ 141.133(c)(2)(ii) Chlorine

dioxide MRDL.

‘‘If any two consecutive daily samples

taken at the entrance to the distribution

system exceed the MRDL and all distribution system samples are below the

MRDL, the system . . . will notify the

public pursuant to the procedures for

non-acute health risks in § 141.32(e)(78).

Failure to take samples in the distribution

system the day following an exceedance

of the chlorine dioxide MRDL at the entrance to the distribution system . . . is

also an MRDL violation and the system

must notify . . . in accordance with the

provisions for non-acute violations under

§ 141.32(e)(78)’’.

§ 141.203 (Tier 2) ..... Change ‘‘§ 141.32(e)(78)’’ to ‘‘Subpart Q’’

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26013

TABLE C.—SUMMARY OF OTHER CHANGES TO CFR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH FINAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION RULE (PART

141, SUBPART Q)—Continued

CFR Section Subject Subpart Q Reference

(where applicable) Change

§ 141.175(c)(1) IESWTR reporting requirements (filtered systems using conventional or direct filtration

treatment).

‘‘If at any time the turbidity exceeds 1 NTU

in representative samples of filtered

water in a system using conventional filtration treatment or direct filtration, the

system must inform the State as soon as

possible, but no later than the end of the

next business day’’.

§ 141.203(b)(3) ......... Change § 141.175(c)(1) to require consultation with the primacy agency after turbidity exceedance above 1 NTU, as soon

as practical but no later than 24 hours in

accordance with the public notification

requirements under § 141.203(b)(3)

§ 141.175(c)(2) IESWTR reporting requirements (filtered systems using other

than conventional or direct

filtration treatment).

‘‘If at any time the turbidity in representative samples of filtered water exceed the

maximum level set by the State under

§ 142.173(b) for filtration technologies

other than conventional filtration treatment, direct filtration, slow sand filtration,

or diatomaceous earth filtration, the system must inform the State as soon as

possible, but no later than the end of the

next business day’’.

§ 141.203(b)(3) ......... Change § 141.175(c)(2) to require consultation with the primacy agency after turbidity exceedance above the maximum

level set by the State, as soon as practical but no later than 24 hours in accordance with the public notification requirements under § 141.203(b)(3)

M. Special State/Tribal Primacy

Requirements and Rationale (40 CFR

Part 142, Subpart B)

Today’s Rule: The final rule amends

§§ 142.10 and 142.16 of the primacy

regulations (40 CFR Part 142, Subpart B)

to define the requirements that States

(including eligible Indian Tribes) must

follow to incorporate the revised public

notification regulations into their

approved primacy program. The final

rule also amends § 142.14 to require that

the State retain, for three years, the

certifications and public notices

received from the public water systems

and any determinations establishing

alternative public notification

requirements. Finally, the final rule

amends § 142.15 to reaffirm the

requirement that the State report

violations of the public notification

regulations on a quarterly basis to EPA.

Under the primacy regulations, a State

is required to adopt, as a condition of

primacy, a State rule that is no less

stringent than the regulation being

proposed today. The requirements

States must meet to receive primary

enforcement responsibility (‘‘primacy’’)

are listed in § 142.10 and requirements

to revise an approved primacy program

are in § 142.12. Under § 142.10(b)(6)(v),

each State with primary enforcement

responsibility must adopt and

implement adequate procedures to

require public water systems to give

public notice that is no less stringent

than the EPA public notification

requirements. Special primacy

requirements unique to the public

notification regulation are in § 142.16(a).

The final rule amends

§ 142.10(b)(6)(v) to replace the existing

citation (§ 141.32) with the new public

notification citation (40 CFR Part 141,

Subpart Q). The final rule replaces the

existing language in § 142.16(a) with a

new section comprised of two elements.

First, § 142.16(a)(1) requires primacy

States to submit requests for approval of

a revised primacy program adopting the

new public notification requirements

under 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q. At

its option, a State may establish

alternative public notification

requirements with respect to the form

and content of the public notice

required under Subpart Q of Part 141.

The alternative requirements must

provide the same type and amount of

information required under Subpart Q

and must meet the primacy

requirements under § 142.10. States will

have two years after the final rule is

published in the Federal Register to

submit a complete and final primacy

program revision package to EPA,

unless the State requests and EPA

approves an extension of up to two

additional years.

Second, § 142.16(a)(2) lists the

sections of the final public notification

regulations (Subpart Q of Part 141)

where EPA explicitly authorizes

primacy States to augment or otherwise

change the EPA requirements to build a

more complete and effective State

public notification program. In some

cases, EPA is counting on the States to

augment the EPA regulation by

providing authority under their own

regulations for making determinations

unique to a specific situation that are

more appropriate than the regulatory

default under the EPA rule (e.g., adding

supplemental Tier 1 requirements after

consultation with the public water

system; elevating a monitoring violation

from a Tier 3 to a Tier 2). In other cases,

the authority given to the State to

deviate from the EPA rule is intended to

build in flexibility to give a ‘‘common

sense’’ solution to unique situations

where the EPA rule default requirement

just does not work. The regulation in

some cases enables the State to tailor the

EPA baseline requirements to increase

program flexibility and in other cases

recognizes and expects the State to

exercise its option under primacy to be

more stringent than the EPA rule.

Building in this flexibility allows the

program to be responsive to different

situations. One size does not fit all. Of

course, States are free to establish

requirements that are more stringent

and broader in scope than the EPA

program without including them in the

approved primacy program. The

advantage of including such more

stringent requirements in the approved

primacy program is that it enables EPA

and the State to jointly implement and

enforce the expanded program.

Where the State uses the flexibility

built into EPA’s rule as part of its

approved primacy program,

§ 142.16(a)(2) requires that a State

establish, as part of its revised primacy

program, enforceable requirements and

procedures. The EPA rule provisions

that explicitly authorize primacy States

to augment the EPA requirements are as

follows:

• Table 1 to 40 CFR 141.201(a) (Item

3v)—To require public water systems to

give a public notice for violations or

situations other than those listed in

Appendix A of Subpart Q of Part 141.

This supports existing State authority

under primacy to add notice

requirements not explicit in the EPA

rule, to tailor its program to respond to

its unique public notification policies

and situations.

26014 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

• 40 CFR 141.201(c)(2)—To permit

public water systems, under the specific

circumstances listed in § 141.201(c)(2),

to limit the distribution of the public

notice to persons served by the portion

of the distribution system that is out of

compliance. This authorizes the State to

use its discretion to respond to unique

situations where strict compliance with

EPA’s baseline requirements may lead

to an ineffective notice or unnecessary

costs.

• Table 1 of 40 CFR 141.202(a) (Items

5, 6, and 8)—To require public water

systems to give a Tier 1 public notice

(rather than a Tier 2 or Tier 3 notice) for

violations or situations listed in

Appendix A of Subpart Q of Part 141 of

this chapter. This supports existing

State authority under primacy to elevate

specific violations to Tier 1 where the

EPA default Tier requirement does not

meet the State’s public health

objectives. EPA expects States to use

this authority when needed to respond

to situations where there is significant

potential for adverse health effects from

short-term exposure. In particular, EPA

needs the State to exercise its authority

to elevate single exceedance turbidity

violations to a Tier 1 when consultation

under § 141.203(b)(3) indicates high

potential for short-term health risk.

• 40 CFR 141.202(b)(3)—To require

public water systems to comply with

additional Tier 1 public notification

requirements set by the State

subsequent to the initial 24-hour Tier 1

notice, as a result of their consultation

with the State required under

§ 141.202(b)(2). This supports existing

State authority under primacy to add

supplemental Tier 1 requirements as a

result of the Tier 1 consultation required

under § 141.202(b)(2). EPA expects

States to use this authority to ensure

effective, enforceable follow-up to the

initial Tier 1 notice. The EPA rule does

not require any specific follow-up

action by the water system after the

initial Tier 1 notice, deferring totally to

the primacy agency to define all

supplemental requirements.

• 40 CFR 141.202(c), 141.203(c) and

141.204(c)—To require a different form

and manner of delivery for Tier 1, 2 and

3 public notices. This supports existing

State authority under primacy to use its

discretion to tailor the public notice

delivery to the specific situation or

specific approach preferred by the State,

as long as it otherwise meets primacy

requirements.

• Table 1 to 40 CFR 141.203(a) (Item

2)—To require the public water systems

to provide a Tier 2 public notice (rather

than Tier 3) for monitoring or testing

procedure violations specified by the

State. This supports existing State

authority under primacy to elevate the

notice requirement for a monitoring

violation to Tier 2. The default tier level

for all monitoring violations is Tier 3

unless the primacy agency chooses to

elevate the requirement to a Tier 2

notice when warranted. EPA expects

States to build this additional authority

into their approved programs to ensure

that notices for monitoring violations

posing potential serious adverse health

effects are delivered within 30 days.

• 40 CFR 141.203(b)(1)—To grant

public water systems an extension of up

to three months for distributing the Tier

2 public notice, in appropriate

circumstances other than those

specifically prohibited by the rule. This

authorizes the State to use its discretion,

where appropriate, to extend the Tier 2

notice deadline to give water systems

some relief from EPA’s default deadline.

• 40 CFR 141.203(b)(2)—To grant a

different repeat notice frequency for the

Tier 2 public notice in appropriate

circumstances (other than those

specifically prohibited by the rule), but

no less frequently than once per year.

This authorizes the State to use its

discretion, where appropriate, to allow

less frequent repeat notice frequency for

violations to give water systems some

relief from EPA’s default repeat notice

requirement.

• 40 CFR 141.203(b)(3)—To respond

within 24 hours to a request for

consultation by the public water system

to determine whether a Tier 1 (rather

than a Tier 2) notice is required for a

turbidity MCL violation under

§ 141.13(b) or a SWTR/IESWTR TT

violation due to a single exceedance of

the maximum allowable turbidity limit.

This ensures that the State is prepared

to respond to the request for

consultation from the water system after

it learns of a violation of the turbidity

single exceedance limit. EPA expects

States to establish a process that would

lead to a determination within the 24-

hour window to avoid a ‘‘no action’’

default to a Tier 1 notice on every

turbidity single exceedance violation.

• 40 CFR 141.205(c)(2)—To

determine the specific multilingual

requirement for public water systems,

including defining ‘‘large proportion of

non-English-speaking consumers.’’ This

supports existing State authority under

primacy to augment the EPA rule to

clarify who must comply with the EPA

requirements and how the requirements

will be met. EPA expects States to

provide more specific direction to water

systems than is provided under the EPA

rule, particularly by developing criteria

for determining which systems serve a

large proportion of non-English

speaking consumers.

EPA believes that State adoption and

implementation of the revised public

notification rule should, where possible,

be coordinated with the State

implementation of the CCR rule. EPA

encourages and will support efforts by

the State to merge the adoption and

implementation of the two rules because

of the close interrelationship between

the two programs. Merging

implementation of the two programs

will make both programs more effective

and understandable to the water

systems and to the public.

Although the final date for adoption

of the revised public notification rule is

two years from the date of today’s rule,

States may adopt the revised public

notification requirements earlier. The

new requirements will then go into

effect when the State’s revised

regulations adopting the new

requirements go into effect. EPA

encourages States to take immediate

steps to determine how the more

streamlined and effective public notice

requirements can be integrated into both

the ongoing public notice programs and

the emerging CCR program. Early

adoption of the new rule will enable

water systems to take early advantage of

the efficiencies and flexibility built into

the revised program.

EPA expects to issue interim primacy

guidance shortly, which will outline the

new requirements and describe how

they can most effectively be adopted

and implemented by the States. The

guidance will include recommended

steps States can take, at their option, to

combine the new public notification

rule with the CCR rule to better

coordinate the related primacy and

implementation activities.

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the

proposed requirements States would

have to follow to develop the approved

primacy program revision and on other

changes to the State record keeping and

reporting requirements related to the

public notification rule. EPA also

requested comment on the proposed

interpretation of the primacy standard

to be applied for review of State

alternative programs. All comments

received on the primacy proposal were

in support of allowing States the full

two years to adopt the revised public

notification regulation. Several

commenters saw no need to set special

primacy requirements for provisions

allowing States to be more stringent

than EPA’s rule, since States already

have that authority. Several other

commenters asked EPA to establish

criteria in the regulation for when EPA

expects States to elevate violations to a

more stringent violation tier. A

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26015

significant minority of commenters

asked that EPA set more specific

requirements in the final rule on State

compliance reporting and tracking.

EPA Response to Comments: The final

rule retains the requirement, as

proposed, that States must revise their

approved primacy programs, including

addressing the new special primacy

requirements under Section

142.16(a)(2), to retain primacy. The

proposed list of special primacy

conditions was modified in the final

rule to conform to changes made in

other sections of the rule and to make

other edits to improve the presentation.

The basic primacy requirements,

however, were unchanged from the

proposal.

In response to commenters who

questioned the need for special primacy

conditions where the State chooses to be

more stringent, EPA has reaffirmed the

requirement that the primacy revision

package submitted to EPA for approval

must address all the program elements

where EPA explicitly allows the State to

set different requirements from the EPA

rule requirements. The advantage of

including all the program elements in

the approved primacy program where

the State is explicitly allowed to be

different is that it enables EPA and the

State to jointly implement and enforce

the expanded program. EPA

recommends that primacy States take

advantage of this opportunity to work

together to develop an effective State

public notification program. Under the

final rule, States are of course still free

to establish more stringent requirements

outside the approved primacy program.

In response to other commenters

requesting that the final rule include

criteria for when EPA expects States to

be more stringent, EPA has chosen not

to specify additional criteria on how the

States should use the discretion

authorized in the EPA rule. The final

rule provisions, in most cases, do

establish boundaries on the use of the

State discretion. Beyond that, EPA

believes the State program should work

with EPA to address those questions

during the primacy revision approval

process. EPA is acutely interested in

how the flexibility is used and how EPA

and the States can jointly implement

and enforce this tailored program. EPA

wants to work with States individually

to fashion a flexible program which

meets the State’s needs.

In response to comments concerning

EPA’s specific expectations regarding

State compliance reporting and tracking,

EPA believes that these questions are

most appropriately addressed in the

primacy guidance rather than the

regulations. The final rule does reaffirm

the requirement that primacy agencies

report public notification violations to

EPA on a quarterly basis. It also requires

public water systems to submit a

compliance certification, with copies of

the public notices, to the State within

ten days after every public notification

event. EPA will address compliance and

reporting strategies in its guidance to

primacy agencies on implementing the

PN rule.

V. Changes to Consumer Confidence

Report (CCR) Regulation To Be

Consistent With the Final Public

Notification Regulation

Today’s Rule: The Consumer

Confidence Report rule is updated today

in several aspects, to be better aligned

with the final public notification rule

being published today. First, the three

Appendices to Subpart O, which

contain various pieces of information

about the contaminants that EPA

regulates, are deleted and the

information is combined into a new,

comprehensive Appendix A to Subpart

O. This new single Appendix makes the

information more accessible. EPA will

republish the entire table in each final

rule that changes the information it

contains. As a result of this change, a

number of references to the three

appendices are revised to reflect the

new combined Appendix A. EPA will

consider at a later date whether and

how to further align the CCR and public

notification rules by combining the

Appendices in the two rules, since

much of the information is similar.

Second, the new Appendix A to

Subpart O is updated to contain

regulatory and health effects

information on each of the disinfectants

and disinfection byproducts regulated

in the Stage 1 D/DBP rule that EPA

published in December 1998. The health

effects language was proposed in the

public notification rule on May 13,

1999. The final language being

published today in Appendix A to

Subpart O is identical to that which is

established through today’s public

notification regulations under Subpart

Q. Although systems will not be

required to include information in their

CCRs on these contaminants until after

the effective date of the new regulations,

some systems may choose to do so

earlier.

Third, the standard health effects

language for fluoride in the current CCR

regulations is revised to be identical to

the health effects language required for

violation of the fluoride MCL in the

public notification rule published today.

The revised language incorporates

language on the cosmetic effects (i.e.,

dental fluorosis) that may occur at levels

above 2 mg/l (the SMCL). The MCL

standard is 4 mg/l. With this change, the

health effects language required for all

the regulated contaminants in the public

notification rule is now identical to the

language required in the CCR rule.

Fourth, the § 141.155(h) requirement

that systems retain copies of their CCRs

for at least five years is amended to

require retention for three years. EPA is

making this change to slightly reduce

the paper storage burden on water

suppliers and to make this requirement

consistent with other drinking water

record retention requirements.

Finally, definitions for Maximum

Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL) and

Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level

Goal (MRDLG), modeled on the current

definitions for MCL and MCLG, are

added to the regulatory terms that

systems must include in their CCRs

under 141.153(c) when reporting on

contaminants governed by them. EPA

considers these changes to be

straightforward and noncontroversial.

Since the new requirements to include

the definitions for MRDL and MRDLG

are consistent with the similar

requirements to include other

definitions, EPA believes no prior notice

and opportunity to comment are

required.

The final public notification rule is

closely related to the Consumer

Confidence Report (CCR) regulation

promulgated in August, 1998 [63 FR

44511 (August 19, 1998)], as amended

today. The final rule uses identical

language from the CCR rule where there

is an overlap, defers to the CCR process

where the public notification objectives

could be effectively accomplished

through the CCR, and otherwise uses

language consistent with the CCR when

appropriate.

• Health Effects Language

(§ 141.205(d)(1), Appendix B to Subpart

Q). Language on potential health effects

of violations is required both for the

CCR and public notification. The final

rule requires identical health effects

standard language for the public notice

and the CCR rule, as amended today

under Appendix A to Subpart O).

• Use of CCR for Some Public Notices

(§ 141.204(d)). The CCR requires an

annual summary of all violations that

have occurred in the previous year

(§ 141.153(f)). The final public

notification rule allows community

water systems, at their option, to use the

Consumer Confidence Report as the

mechanism to notify their customers of

any or all Tier 3 violations, as long as

those violations occurred within the last

12 months, the content requirements of

§ 141.205 are complied with, and the

delivery requirements under

26016 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§ 141.204(c) are met. The final rule also

allows public water systems that are not

required to distribute a CCR to use an

annual report of all their Tier 3

violations or variances or exemptions,

in lieu of individual public notices. In

all cases, the CCR or other annual report

would have to follow the requirements

of the public notice rule to be used for

this purpose.

• Notice of the Availability of the

Results of Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring (§ 141.207). The 1996 SDWA

amendments for both the CCR and

public notification contained provisions

related to giving notice of the results of

unregulated contaminant monitoring

required by EPA. EPA is deferring to the

requirement in the CCR rule (under

§ 141.153(d) and (e)) to meet the public

notification statutory provision. The

CCR rule requires that such information

be included in the annual CCR for

community water systems when

contaminants are detected. The final

public notification rule does, however,

contain a special public notice

requirement (under § 141.207) to

announce the availability of the results

of the unregulated contaminant

monitoring required under the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Rule (UCMR).

• Certification by PWS That Public

Notification Requirements Are Met

(§ 141.31(d)). The final rule adds a new

requirement that public water systems

provide a certification to the primacy

agency, along with a copy of their

public notices, that all requirements

have been met. This is patterned after

(although not identical) to the

certification requirement in the CCR

regulation (§ 141.155(c)).

• Use of Multilingual Notices

(§ 141.205(c)(2)). The CCR regulation

requires that in communities with a

large proportion of non-English

speaking residents, as determined by the

primacy agency, the report must contain

information in the appropriate

language(s) regarding the importance of

the notice or contain a telephone

number or address where persons

served may contact the water system to

obtain a translated copy of the notice or

to request assistance in the appropriate

language. The final public notification

rule uses the exact language in the CCR

rule to set the multilingual

requirements. The public notification

rule, however, includes a second

provision not in the CCR rule that

requires PWSs to comply with the

multilingual requirements where

appropriate, even when the primacy

agency opts not to make a

determination. (§ 141.153(h)(3)).

Comments Requested on Proposal:

EPA requested comment on the

approach in the proposed rule aligning

the public notification requirements

with the parallel requirements in the

CCR rule for the five areas and for any

other areas that would make compliance

with the two rules more effective and

efficient. Commenters overwhelmingly

supported EPA’s proposed intention to

closely coordinate the CCR and public

notification rule language. A number of

commenters, however, disagreed or

questioned how EPA proposed to do

this for certain program elements.

EPA Response to Comments: In the

final rule published today, EPA

continues to support a close regulatory

relationship between the CCR and the

public notification rules and strongly

encourages primacy agencies and water

systems to integrate the two

requirements in implementation where

it makes sense. EPA’s response to

commenters who questioned how EPA

planned to coordinate the CCR and

public notification rules is addressed in

the individual preamble sections related

to each program element.

VI. Cost of Rule

EPA has estimated the costs both for

public water systems, which must

comply with the requirements of the

revised public notification rule

published today, and the primacy

agencies, which must implement the

new requirements on behalf of EPA.

For public water systems, the

estimated costs of complying with the

new regulation are divided into three

component activities: notice preparation

costs, notice distribution costs, and

costs of repeat notices. Only public

water systems with a violation or other

situation requiring a public notice incur

costs under this rule.

• Notice preparation costs include

those costs that a public water system

must incur to comply with the

requirements regardless of how many

copies of the notice it must deliver.

These costs include the labor hour costs

associated with becoming familiar with

the requirements for the notice,

collecting data regarding monitoring

results and the violation, consulting

with the primacy agency (when

necessary), preparing the technical

content of the public notification in a

format suitable for distribution,

identifying the recipients of the notice,

and providing instructions about

production of the notice.

• Notice distribution costs are costs

that increase or decrease along with the

number of public notices to be

delivered. These costs include costs of

producing the reports (costs of paper

and photocopying or printing), postage

costs when the notice is mailed, costs of

posting notices in specified locations,

and other labor hour costs of producing

and delivering the notices.

• Repeat notice costs involve the

costs of updating the initial notice and

delivering a second copy of the notice,

if the violation is not corrected within

the specified time period.

For primacy agencies, the estimated

incremental costs of implementing the

new requirements are divided into four

components:

• Cost of revising primacy packages

to incorporate the new requirements;

• Costs of consulting with public

water systems to clarify notice

requirements on a case-by-case basis;

• Costs of receiving and reviewing the

public water system compliance

certification and copies of the notices;

and

• Costs of filing and maintaining the

public notification records.

Table D provides a summary of the

estimated average annual cost and labor

hours to public water systems and to the

State primacy agencies. The public

water system costs are broken out by

size of the system. The combined total

cost per year to both the PWS and the

primacy agencies is $13,543,277. The

combined total burden hours are

748,811.

TABLE D.—AVERAGE ANNUAL COST AND LABOR HOURS FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS AND PRIMACY AGENCIES

Summary table

Total cost per

year *

(1)

Total

labor

hours

(2)

Number of systems in

violation **

(3)

Labor hours per system

(2)/(3)

(4)

Cost per system (1)/(3)

(5)

PWS:

PWS serving 25–500 $5,218,727.77 515,656 31,187 ............................. 16.53 ............................... $167.34

PWS serving 501–

3,300.

1,482.639.78 116,007 3,740 ............................... 31.02 ............................... 396.43

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26017

TABLE D.—AVERAGE ANNUAL COST AND LABOR HOURS FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS AND PRIMACY AGENCIES—

Continued

Summary table

Total cost per

year *

(1)

Total

labor

hours

(2)

Number of systems in

violation **

(3)

Labor hours per system

(2)/(3)

(4)

Cost per system (1)/(3)

(5)

PWS serving 3,301–

10,000.

1,052,496.62 28,799 854 .................................. 33.72 ............................... 1,232.43

PWS serving 10,001–

100,000.

2,074,925.70 27,379 632 .................................. 43.32 ............................... 3,283.11

PWS serving over

100,000.

2,171,777.56 2,550 54 .................................... 47.23 ............................... 40,218.10

Totals for PWS ...... 12,000,567.43 690,390 36,467 PWS .................... 18.93 hours per PWS ..... 329.08 per PWS

State Primacy Agencies ... 1,542,709.87 58,420 56 Primacy agencies ....... 1,043.22 hours per primacy agency.27,548.39 per primacy

agency

Totals ..................... $13,543,277.30 748,811

* Costs include both labor hour costs and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs.

** Source: FY 1998 inventory and violation data from Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), January, 1999.

The Agency estimates that the average

annual cost to all public water systems

with one or more violations during the

year is $12,000,567, including the costs

for 690,390 labor hours and the costs for

copying, postage and other related O&M

costs. This is an average annual cost of

$329.08 for each of the 36,467 public

water systems required to comply with

the public notice requirements because

they had one or more violations during

the year. As shown in Table D, the

average annual per system costs and

labor hours vary significantly by size of

the water system:

• The dollar costs include both labor

hour costs and non-labor costs. The

non-labor costs incurred are principally

to cover the costs of copying and

mailing the notice. Because the cost of

distribution varies directly with the

number of persons served, the cost per

water system for the large and very large

water systems is many times higher than

the cost per water system for small and

very small systems (e.g., $167.34 per

system serving less than 500 people vs.

$40,218.10 per system serving over

100,000 people).

• The labor hours vary by both the

type and size of the water system. For

example, a non-community water

system may post the notice, a

significantly lower labor hour burden

than preparing a mailing or hand

delivering the notice. System size also

makes a significant difference in total

labor costs. The labor estimated to

prepare and distribute the notice for a

very small system is 16.5 hours. For

very large systems, the labor hour

estimate is 47.2 hours, almost three

times the rate estimated for the very

small systems.

The Agency estimates the annual

primacy agency costs and labor hours to

be $1,542,710 and 58,420 hours. The

average annual cost per primacy agency

is estimated at $27,548 per primacy

agency ($1,542,710 divided by 56) and

the annual labor hours per primacy

agency are estimated at 1,043 hours per

primacy agency (58,420 divided by 56).

This does not include the costs for EPA

direct implementation of the regulatory

program in Wyoming, the District of

Columbia, and on Indian lands.

The paperwork burden associated

with the current public notification

requirements, which are being revised

by today’s action, was included in the

baseline drinking water ICR (OMB

Control No. 2040–0090, EPA ICR#

270.39). The estimated burden under

ICR#270.39 was 955,191 hours, and the

costs were $21,969,393. This included

the estimated cost to public water

systems only. ICR#270.39 did not

include any incremental costs to the

primacy agencies.

To estimate the change in the burden

for public water systems under the

revised rule, EPA recalculated the

burden numbers under ICR#270.39 to

provide a common basis for comparison.

The ICR burden estimate under

ICR#270.39 could not be used as the

basis for comparison because it used

different external cost and workload

assumptions. First, the cost assumptions

in ICR#270.39 used lower postage and

labor rates than are currently in place.

Second, it assumed the violation levels

that were in place when ICR#270.39 was

developed, which are quite different

from the violation levels assumed for

the revised ICR. Third, some activities

were omitted from ICR#270.39, such as

repeat notices.

The combined changes in the average

annual burden and costs to primacy

agencies and PWSs, based on comparing

the estimate under the revised rule to

the adjusted estimate under the current

rule, are shown in the table below:

CHANGES IN AVERAGE ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST ESTIMATES (FOR PWS AND PRIMACY AGENCY)

[Rounded to nearest 10,000 for burden and nearest $100,000 for cost]

Current rule

(Recalculated) 1

Revised rule

ICR Decrease Percentchange

Burden ................. 955,000 hours ................................. 748,000 hours ................................. 206,000 hours ................................. 21.6

Cost ..................... $22,100,000 .................................... $13,500,000 .................................... $8,600,000 ...................................... 38.8

1To make the current rule estimate and revised rule estimate comparable, the current rule estimate was adjusted to be the sum of the costs

under the revised rule plus the estimated cost savings that will be realized under the revised rule.

Two programmatic changes associated

with the revised rule account for the

bulk of the reduction in burden and cost

estimates from the current rule under

§ 141.32:

• The revised rule changes both the

timing and method of delivery options

for Tier 3 violations—

26018 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

—The revised rule would require notice

within one year after the occurrence

of the violation rather than within

three months, as required by the

current rule. Systems with monitoring

and testing procedure violations

occurring several times throughout

the year are able, under the revised

rule, to consolidate their notices into

one annual notice. The current rule

limits the PWS’s ability to combine

multiple violations into a single

notice to those occurring within the

prior three months. For estimating the

burden reduction from this change,

EPA assumes that, under the current

rule, systems with violations send out

a statistical average of 1.5 notices per

year.

—The revised rule allows community

water systems to meet the public

notice requirements for Tier 3 through

the existing Consumer Confidence

Report (CCR). Tier 3 violations are

primarily monitoring or testing

procedure violations. Systems that

would otherwise incur a large labor

burden and postage burden for

distributing a mail notice and paying

for a newspaper notice will be able to

insert the text of the notice into the

CCR and incur no additional costs.

EPA estimates that half of all

community water systems serving less

than 10,000 and all community water

systems serving more than 10,000 will

use the CCR for Tier 3 notices.

—The average annual estimated burden

reduction associated with the changes

to the timing and method of delivery

for Tier 3 notices is approximately

186,000 hours (19.5 percent) and the

cost reduction is approximately

$6,300,000 (28.7 percent).

• The revised rule changes the

required methods of delivery for Tiers 1

and 2 notices. The current rule requires

both newspaper and mail delivery for

all tiers, although the primacy agency

could waive the mail requirement if it

determines the violation has been

resolved within a given time. Those

systems for whom no newspaper outlet

is available are allowed to hand deliver

or post instead of mailing and using the

newspaper. Under the current rule,

systems with Tier 1 violations must also

issue a notice via television or radio.

The revised rule requires only one

method of delivery for Tier 2—mail or

hand delivery (or posting for noncommunity systems). The burden

reduction for Tier 2 is small, because it

eliminates only newspaper notices,

which are estimated to take only 1 hour

of labor. For Tier 1, however, systems

will have the option of issuing the

notice via electronic media, hand

delivery, or posting. The burden

reduction resulting from the change in

the Tier 1 and Tier 2 method of delivery

requirements in the revised rule would

be approximately 20,000 hours (2.1

percent), and the cost reduction would

be $2,300,000 (10.2 percent).

The estimated total average annual

savings resulting from the above

revisions to the public notification

requirements are approximately 206,000

hours (21.6 percent) and $8,600,000

(38.8 percent).

In considering the burden and cost

reduction for the revised rule relative to

the current requirements under

§ 141.32, it is important to keep in mind

that this comparison is based on

assuming full compliance with both

rules. In fact, as documented in the 1992

GAO report on the public notification

program (GAO/RCED–92–135, June

1992), there has been widespread

noncompliance with the public

notification requirements. EPA expects

that by clarifying and streamlining the

requirements in the revised regulation,

the revised rule will result in a

significantly higher level of compliance

with the public notification

requirements. To the extent that this

occurs, there will also be an increase in

State and water system resources

devoted to public notification, despite

the savings estimated here because of

the streamlined revised rule. On the

other hand, for those systems that have

been complying with public notice

requirements all along, the revised rule

should result in genuine cost and

burden savings.

For more information about the costs

of the rule and how EPA developed the

estimates, see the Supporting Statement

for the EPA Information Collection

Request (ICR #1898.02) and the

Regulatory Flexibility Screening

Analysis in the EPA docket for this rule.

VII. Other Administrative

Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Review

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of the recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of the legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this final

rule action is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under the terms of

Executive Order 12866 and is therefore

not subject to OMB review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The 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. It 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. secs. 601(3)–(5)). In addition to

the above, to establish an alternative

small business definition, agencies must

consult with Small Business

Administration’s Chief Counsel for

Advocacy.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s rule on small entities, EPA

considered small entities to be public

water systems serving 10,000 or fewer

persons. In accordance with the RFA

requirements, EPA proposed using this

alternative definition in the Federal

Register notice for the proposed

Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)

regulation (63 FR 7620, February 13,

1998), requested public comment,

consulted with the Small Business

Administration on the alternative

definition for small businesses, and

finalized the alternative definition in

the final CCR regulation (63 FR 44511,

August 19, 1998). As stated in that Final

Rule, the alternative definition would be

applied to other drinking water

regulations as well.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26019

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s final rule on small

entities, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

We have determined that all small

entities will experience an impact of

much less than one percent of their

annual revenues or expenditures. The

analyses supporting this certification are

contained in the ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility

Screening Analysis’’ prepared for this

final rule. About 64,000 small water

systems are impacted by the revised

public notification rule: 24,000 small

governments, 31,000 small businesses,

and 9,000 small non-profit

organizations. We compared for each

small entity category the ratio of the

average annual per system compliance

costs to the estimated average annual

per system revenue and expenditures.

The ratio for small government entities

ranged from 0.19 percent for systems

serving less than 500 people to 0.02

percent for systems serving between

3,301 to 10,000 people. The ratio for

small business entities ranged from 0.01

percent for systems serving less than

500 people to 0.03 percent for systems

serving between 3,301 to 10,000 people.

The ratio for small non-profit

organization entities ranged from 0.06

percent for systems serving less than

500 people to 0.01 percent for systems

serving between 3,301 to 10,000 people.

Although this final rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities,

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the

impact of this rule on small entities by

providing flexibility to public water

systems on the method of delivery of the

public notice and by offering all public

water systems the opportunity to use an

annual report of violations in lieu of

individual Tier 3 notices. In addition,

all community water systems are

encouraged to use the CCR to meet the

requirements of the public notice rule

wherever appropriate. (Note that to use

the CCR, many small systems would

have to distribute their CCR more

widely to meet the public notification

distribution requirements.) In addition,

if the primacy agency permits, systems

may be allowed to provide notice to

only the portion of the distribution

system that is affected by the violation.

Finally, small community water systems

and all non-community water systems

may hand deliver or post the notice in

lieu of mailing, reducing substantially

their overall cost of compliance with

this rule.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has approved the information

collection requirements contained in

this rule under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB

control number 2040–0209.

This information is being collected in

order to fulfill the statutory

requirements of section 114 of the Safe

Drinking Water Act Amendments

(SDWA) of 1996 (Public Law 104–182)

enacted August 6, 1996. Public notice of

violations is an integral part of the

public health protection and consumer

right-to-know provisions of the 1996

SDWA amendments. The public

notification requirement is one of six

interrelated provisions now included in

the SDWA, related to providing

information to the public. Responses are

mandatory. None of the information

submitted under the revised rule is

confidential business information.

The burden to public water systems is

based on the cost of the rule discussed

under Section VI of the Preamble.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing way to comply with any

previous applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and to transmit or

otherwise disclose the information.

The total average annual burden to

both public water systems and primacy

agencies is 748,811 hours at an annual

cost of $13,543,277. The cost estimate

includes both the labor hour costs and

the operations and maintenance (O&M)

costs of implementing the rule.

The average annual burden to public

water systems to meet the requirements

of the revised public notification rule is

690,390 hours at an annual cost of

$12,000,567. The burden estimate is the

sum of the costs of three component

activities: notice preparation costs;

notice distribution costs; and costs of

repeat notices. The costs to the public

water systems include labor and nonlabor costs, such as the costs to copy

and mail the public notices where

required. Public water systems are

required to comply with the public

notification rule if they have one or

more violations of National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) or

have other situations requiring a public

notice. The number of public water

systems estimated to have violations on

an annual basis is 36,467. The annual

average burden per public water system

violating one or more drinking water

standards is $329.08 and 18.9 hours.

The average annual burden to

primacy agencies of implementing the

new public notification regulations is

58,420 hours at an annual cost of

$1,542,710. The burden estimate is the

sum of four component activities: cost

of revising primacy packages to

incorporate the new requirements; costs

of consulting with public water systems;

costs of receiving and reviewing the

compliance certification and notice

copies received from the public water

system; and the costs of filing and

maintaining the public water system

notification records. The costs to the

primacy agency include labor costs

only. Primacy agencies are required to

adopt and implement the new public

notification regulation as a condition of

maintaining primacy. Fifty-six States

and Territories currently have primacy

under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA

directly implements the regulatory

program in Wyoming, Washington, D.C.,

and the Indian Lands. The average

annual burden for each of the 56 States

and Territories with primacy to

implement the revised public

notification rule is $27,548 and 1,043

hours per primacy agency. For

additional detail, see Section VI of this

preamble.

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 are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15. EPA is amending the table in Part 9

of currently approved ICR control

numbers issued by OMB for various

regulations to list the information

requirements contained in this final

rule.

D. 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

26020 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

Under Section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

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. The rule

published today replaces an existing

rule and represents a significant

streamlining of requirements from those

currently in place. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule. Although section 6 of Executive

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule,

EPA consulted extensively with State

and local officials in developing this

rule. See Section II of this preamble for

more detail regarding our work with the

State and local government

representatives.

E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian Tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the Tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected Tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian Tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s final rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian Tribal

governments, nor does it impose

substantial direct compliance costs on

such communities. The impact on

Tribal governments is not unique in that

this rule applies equally to all public

water systems, including those owned

and operated by Federal, State, and

local governments. Public water systems

on Indian lands incur costs under the

public notification rule only if they

violate a national primary drinking

water regulation or have a variance or

exemption from EPA. The public

notification requirements will in most

cases be met either through hand

delivery of a single notice to all persons

served or by posting the notice in

conspicuous locations. Costs of meeting

these requirements will be minimal. In

fact, the public notification costs

resulting from this rule are less than

those required for full compliance with

the public notification regulations

currently in effect under § 141.32.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this final rule.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and Tribal governments and the private

sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal Mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and Tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Before promulgating an EPA rule for

which a written statement is needed,

section 205 of the UMRA generally

requires EPA to identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives and adopt the least costly,

most cost-effective or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including Tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that 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. The

estimated total annual average cost of

the final rule is $13,543,277. (See

Section VI of the Supplementary

Information.) Thus, today’s rule is not

subject to the requirements of sections

202 and 205 of the UMRA. This rule

will establish requirements that affect

small community water systems.

However, EPA has determined that this

rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments

because the regulation reduces the

burden associated with the public

notification regulations currently in

effect under § 141.32 and requires a

minimal expenditure of resources. Thus,

today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

G. Executive Order 12898:

Environmental Justice

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), the

Agency has considered environmental

justice related issues with regard to the

potential impacts of this action on the

environmental and health conditions in

low-income and minority communities.

The Agency believes that several of

today’s requirements will be

particularly beneficial to these

communities:

• Public water systems would be

required to distribute the notice to all

persons served, both through the use of

required delivery methods and through

the use of additional measures

reasonably calculated to reach other

persons served, if they would not

normally be reached by the required

method. In addition, the notice to billVerDate 27<APR>2000 18:43 May 03, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 04MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26021

paying customers must include standard

language encouraging those receiving

the public notice to make the notice

available to other consumers who are

not bill-paying customers (e.g., renters,

transients, students).

• Public notices would include

information on what the consumers

should do to minimize the health risk

from drinking water in violation of EPA

standards and when to seek further

medical advice. All notices would be

required to include the name, address,

and phone number of the water system

official who can provide further

information.

• Public water systems, where

appropriate, must include information

on the importance of the notice and

other information in languages other

than English. Primacy States may, at

their option, augment these multilingual

requirements. For example, a primacy

State could define when a system is

serving a population with a large

proportion of non-English speaking

consumers. Thus, the State could

specify which water systems must

comply with the augmented State

requirements.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:

(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

The final rule is not subject to the

Executive Order because it is not

economically significant as defined in

E.O. 12866 and because the Agency

does not have reason to believe the

environmental health or safety risks

addressed by this action present a

disproportionate risk to children. The

purpose of the public notification rule is

to provide a public notice to persons

served when a violation of EPA drinking

water standards occurs, to enable

consumers to avoid health and safety

risks from potential exposure to harmful

contaminants in the drinking water. The

regulation addresses the particular risks

that certain contaminants may pose by

considering such risks in assigning

contaminants to the appropriate tier and

by identifying such risks in the required

health effects language, with specific

reference to risks to children, where

appropriate. The public notice

requirements, however, apply to

potential health and safety risks to all

consumers and all vulnerable

populations, and are not targeted

specifically to address a

disproportionate risk to children.

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule,

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No.

104–113, Section 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. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards. This

action does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

J. 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 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will

be effective June 5, 2000.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 141

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Indians-lands, Intergovernmental

relations, Radiation protection,

Reporting and record-keeping

requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Chemicals, Indians-lands, Radiation

protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 143

Chemicals, Indians-lands, Water

supply.

Dated: April 7, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, 142, and

143 are amended as follows:

PART 9—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 9

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y;

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671;

21 U.S.C. 331j, 345a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318,

1321, 1326 1330, 1324, 1344, 1345 (d) and

(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,

1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,

242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1,

300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq.,

69016992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9501–9657,

11023, 11048.

2. In § 9.1 the table is amended by

removing the entries ‘‘§ 141.31–141.32’’,

‘‘§ 141.33–141.35’’, ‘‘§ 142.10–142.15’’,

and ‘‘142.16’’ and adding in numerical

order new entires under the indicated

heading to read as follows:

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

* * * * *

40 CFR citation OMB Control No.

*****

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulaitons

*****

141.31(a)–(c) ............. 2040–0090

141.31(d) ................... 2040–0209

141.31(e) ................... 2040–0090

141.32(a)–(g) ............. 2040–0090

141.33(a)–(d) ............. 2040–0090

141.33(e) ................... 2040–0209

*****

141.201–141.210 ...... 2040–0209

26022 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

40 CFR citation OMB Control No.

*****

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations Implementation

*****

142.10–142.13 .......... 2040–0090

142.14(a)–(e) ............. 2040–0090

142.14(f) .................... 2040–0209

142.14(g) ................... 2040–0090

142.15(a) ................... 2040–0090, 2040–

0209

142.15(b)–(d) ............. 2040–0090

142.16(a) ................... 2040–0209

142.16(b)–(e) ............. 2040–0090

* * * * *

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. Section 141.11 is amended by

revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 141.11 Maximum contaminant levels for

inorganic chemicals

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) The non-community water system

is meeting the public notification

requirements under § 141.209, including

continuous posting of the fact that

nitrate levels exceed 10 mg/l and the

potential health effects of exposure; and

* * * * *

3. Sections 141.21(g)(1) and (g)(2),

141.22(b), 141.23(n) and (o),

141.26(a)(4), (b)(5), 141.30(d), 141.63(b),

141.133(b)(1)(i), (b)(2), (b)(3) and

(c)(1)(i) are amended by revising

‘‘§ 141.32’’ to read ‘‘subpart Q’’ and in

§ 141.133(c)(2)(i) by revising

‘‘§ 141.32(a)(1)(iii)(E) (which appears

twice) to ‘‘subpart Q’’ and in

§ 141.33(c)(2)(ii) by revising

‘‘§ 141.133(e)(78)’’ to read ‘‘subpart Q.’’

§§ 141.21, 141.22, 141.23, 141.26, 141.30,

141.63, and 141.133, [Amended]

4. Section 141.23 is amended by

removing paragraph (i)(4) and revising

paragraph (f)(2), to read as follows:

§ 141.23 Inorganic chemical sampling and

analytical requirements.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(2) Where nitrate or nitrite sampling

results indicate an exceedance of the

maximum contaminant level, the system

shall take a confirmation sample within

24 hours of the system’s receipt of

notification of the analytical results of

the first sample. Systems unable to

comply with the 24-hour sampling

requirement must immediately notify

persons served by the public water

system in accordance with § 141.202

and meet other Tier 1 public

notification requirements under Subpart

Q of this part. Systems exercising this

option must take and analyze a

confirmation sample within two weeks

of notification of the analytical results of

the first sample.

* * * * *

§ 141.24 [ Amended]

5. Part 141 is amended by removing

§§ 141.24(f)(15)(iii) and

141.24(h)(11)(iii).

6. In Part 141, the heading for Subpart

D is revised to read as follows:

Subpart D—Reporting and Record

Keeping

7. Section 141.31 is amended by

revising paragraph (d), to read as

follows:

§ 141.31 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(d) The public water system, within

10 days of completing the public

notification requirements under Subpart

Q of this part for the initial public

notice and any repeat notices, must

submit to the primacy agency a

certification that it has fully complied

with the public notification regulations.

The public water system must include

with this certification a representative

copy of each type of notice distributed,

published, posted, and made available

to the persons served by the system and

to the media.

* * * * *

8. Section 141.32 is amended by

revising the introductory paragraph, to

read as follows:

§ 141.32 Public notification.

The requirements in this section

apply until the requirements of Subpart

Q of this part are applicable. Public

water systems where EPA directly

implements the public water system

supervision program must comply with

the requirements in Subpart Q of this

part on October 31, 2000. All other

public water systems must comply with

the requirements in Subpart Q of this

part on May 6, 2002 or on the date the

State-adopted rule becomes effective,

whichever comes first.

* * * * *

9. Section 141.33 is amended by

adding paragraph (e), to read as follows:

§ 141.33 Record maintenance.

* * * * *

(e) Copies of public notices issued

pursuant to Subpart Q of this part and

certifications made to the primacy

agency pursuant to § 141.31 must be

kept for three years after issuance.

10. Section 141.75 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(5)(ii) and

(b)(3)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 141.75 Reporting and record keeping

requirements.

(a) * * *

(5) * * *

(ii) If at any time the turbidity exceeds

5 NTU, the system must consult with

the primacy agency as soon as practical,

but no later than 24 hours after the

exceedance is known, in accordance

with the public notification

requirements under § 141.203(b)(3).

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) If at any time the turbidity exceeds

5 NTU, the system must consult with

the primacy agency as soon as practical,

but no later than 24 hours after the

exceedance is known, in accordance

with the public notification

requirements under § 141.203(b)(3).

* * * * *

11. Section 141.153 is amended by:

a. Revising (c)(3) introductory text.

b. Adding paragraphs (c)(3)(iii) and

(c)(3)(iv).

c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i),

(d)(4)(ix) and (d)(6).

d. Revising paragraphs (f)(3) and

(f)(4).

The additions and revisions are as

follows:

§ 141.153 Content of the reports.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) A report that contains data on

contaminants that EPA regulates using

any of the following terms must include

the applicable definitions:

* * * * *

(iii) Maximum residual disinfectant

level goal or MRDLG: The level of a

drinking water disinfectant below

which there is no known or expected

risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect

the benefits of the use of disinfectants

to control microbial contaminants.

(iv) Maximum residual disinfectant

level or MRDL: The highest level of a

disinfectant allowed in drinking water.

There is convincing evidence that

addition of a disinfectant is necessary

for control of microbial contaminants.

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Contaminants subject to a MCL,

action level, maximum residual

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26023

disinfectant level, or treatment

technique (regulated contaminants).

* * * * *

(4) * * *

(ix) The likely source(s) of detected

contaminants to the best of the

operator’s knowledge. Specific

information regarding contaminants

may be available in sanitary surveys and

source water assessments, and should

be used when available to the operator.

If the operator lacks specific information

on the likely source, the report must

include one or more of the typical

sources for that contaminant listed in

appendix A to this subpart that is most

applicable to the system.

* * * * *

(6) The table(s) must clearly identify

any data indicating violations of MCLs,

MRDLs, or treatment techniques, and

the report must contain a clear and

readily understandable explanation of

the violation including: the length of the

violation, the potential adverse health

effects, and actions taken by the system

to address the violation. To describe the

potential health effects, the system must

use the relevant language of appendix A

to this subpart.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(3) Lead and copper control

requirements prescribed by subpart I of

this part. For systems that fail to take

one or more actions prescribed by

§§ 141.80(d), 141.81, 141.82, 141.83 or

141.84, the report must include the

applicable language of appendix A to

this subpart for lead, copper, or both.

(4) Treatment techniques for

Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin

prescribed by subpart K of this part. For

systems that violate the requirements of

subpart K of this part, the report must

include the relevant language from

appendix A to this subpart.

* * * * *

12. Section 141.154 is amended by

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 141.154 Required additional health

information.

* * * * *

(e) Community water systems that

detect TTHM above 0.080 mg/l, but

below the MCL in § 141.12, as an annual

average, monitored and calculated

under the provisions of § 141.30, must

include health effects language for

TTHMs prescribed by appendix A.

13. Section 141.155 is amended by

revising paragraph (h) to read as

follows:

§ 141.155 Report delivery and record

keeping.

* * * * *

(h) Any system subject to this subpart

must retain copies of its Consumer

Confidence Report for no less than 3

years.

14. Appendix A to Subpart O is

revised to read as follows:

APPENDIX A TO

SUBPART O.—REGULATED

CONTAMINANTS

Contaminant (units) Traditional MCL in mg/L To convert for CCR, multiply by MCL in CCR units MCLG Major sources in drinking water 

Microbiological contaminants:

Total Coliform Bacteria ............. MCL: (systems

that collect ≥40samples/month) 5% ofmonthly samples are positive; (systemsthat collect <40samples/month) 1 positive monthlysample.

............................ MCL: (systems

that collect ≥40samples/month) 5% ofmonthly samples are positive; (systemsthat collect <40samples/month) 1 positive monthlysample.

0 ................... Naturally present in the environment. Co

Fecal coliform and E. coli ......... 0 ......................... ............................ 0 ......................... 0 ................... Human and animal fecal waste ...... FeTotal organic carbon (ppm) ...... TT ....................... ............................ TT ....................... N/A ............... Naturally present in the environment. ToTurbidity (NTU) ......................... TT ....................... ............................ TT ....................... N/A ............... Soil runoff ........................................ Tu

Radioactive contaminants:

Beta/photon emitters (mrem/yr) 4 mrem/yr ........... ............................ 4 ......................... N/A ............... Decay of natural and man-made

deposits.

Ce

Alpha emitters (pCi/l) ................ 15 pCi/l ............... ............................ 15 ....................... N/A ............... Erosion of natural deposits ............. CeCombined radium (pCi/l) .......... 5 pCi/l ................. — ........................ 5 ......................... N/A ............... Erosion of natural deposits ............. So

Inorganic contaminants:

Antimony (ppb) ......................... .006 .................... 1000 ................... 6 ......................... 6 ................... Discharge from petroleum refineries; fire retardants; ceramics;

electronics; solder.

So

Arsenic (ppb) ............................ .05 ...................... 1000 ................... 50 ....................... N/A ............... Erosion of natural deposits; Runoff

from orchards; Runoff from glassand electronics productionwastes.

So

Asbestos (MFL) ........................ 7 MFL ................. ............................ 7 ......................... 7 ................... Decay of asbestos cement water

mains; Erosion of natural deposits.

So

Barium (ppm) ............................ 2 ......................... ............................ 2 ......................... 2 ................... Discharge of drilling wastes; Discharge from metal refineries;

Erosion of natural deposits.

So

Beryllium (ppb) ......................... .004 .................... 1000 ................... 4 ......................... 4 ................... Discharge from metal refineries and

coal-burning factories; Dischargefrom electrical, aerospace, anddefense industries.

So

Cadmium (ppb) ......................... .005 .................... 1000 ................... 5 ......................... 5 ................... Corrosion of galvanized pipes; Erosion of natural deposits; Discharge from metal refineries;

Runoff from waste batteries andpaints.

So

APPENDIX A TO

SUBPART O.—REGULATED

CONTAMINANTS—Continued

Contaminant (units) Traditional MCL in mg/L To convert for CCR, multiply by MCL in CCR units MCLG Major sources in drinking water 

Chromium (ppb) ....................... .1 ........................ 1000 ................... 100 ..................... 100 ............... Discharge from steel and pulp

mills; Erosion of natural deposits.

So

Copper (ppm) ........................... AL=1.3 ................ ............................ AL=1.3 ................ 1.3 ................ Corrosion of household plumbing

systems; Erosion of natural deposits; Leaching from wood preservatives.

Co

Cyanide (ppb) ........................... .2 ........................ 1000 ................... 200 ..................... 200 ............... Discharge from steel/metal factories; Discharge from plastic and

fertilizer factories.

So

Fluoride (ppm) .......................... 4 ......................... ............................ 4 ......................... 4 ................... Erosion of natural deposits; Water

additive which promotes strongteeth; Discharge from fertilizerand aluminum factories.

So

Lead (ppb) ................................ AL=.015 .............. 1000 ................... AL=15 ................. 0 ................... Corrosion of household plumbing

systems; Erosion of natural deposits.

In

Mercury [inorganic] (ppb) ......... .002 .................... 1000 ................... 2 ......................... 2 ................... Erosion of natural deposits; Dis

charge from refineries and factories; Runoff from landfills; Runoff from cropland.

So

Nitrate (ppm) ............................ 10 ....................... ............................ 10 ....................... 10 ................. Runoff from fertilizer use; Leaching

from septic tanks, sew age; Erosion of natural deposits.

In

Nitrite (ppm) .............................. 1 ......................... ............................ 1 ......................... 1 ................... Runoff from fertilizer use; Leaching

from septic tanks, sew age; Erosion of natural deposits.

In

Selenium (ppb) ......................... .05 ...................... 1000 ................... 50 ....................... 50 ................. Discharge from petroleum and

metal refineries; Erosion of natural deposits; Discharge frommines.

Se

Thallium (ppb) .......................... .002 .................... 1000 ................... 2 ......................... 0.5 ................ Leaching from ore-processing sites;

Discharge from electronics,glass, and drug factories.

So

Synthetic organic contaminants including pesticides and herbicides:

2,4-D (ppb) ............................... .07 ...................... 1000 ................... 70 ....................... 70 ................. Runoff from herbicide used on row

crops.

So

2,4,5-TP [Silvex](ppb) ............... .05 ...................... 1000 ................... 50 ....................... 50 ................. Residue of banned herbicide .......... SoAcrylamide ................................ TT ....................... ............................ TT ....................... 0 ................... Added to water during sewage/

wastewater treatment.

So

APPENDIX A TO

SUBPART O.—REGULATED

CONTAMINANTS—Continued

Contaminant (units) Traditional MCL in mg/L To convert for CCR, multiply by MCL in CCR units MCLG Major sources in drinking water 

Alachlor (ppb) ........................... .002 .................... 1000 ................... 2 ......................... 0 ................... Runoff from herbicide used on row

crops.

So

Atrazine (ppb) ........................... .003 .................... 1000 ................... 3 ......................... 3 ................... Runoff from herbicide used on row

crops.

So

Benzo(a)pyrene [PAH]

(nanograms/l).

.0002 .................. 1,000,000 ........... 200 ..................... 0 ................... Leaching from linings of water storage tanks and distribution lines. So

Carbofuran (ppb) ...................... .04 ...................... 1000 ................... 40 ....................... 40 ................. Leaching of soil fumigant used on

rice and alfalfa.

So

Chlordane (ppb) ....................... .002 .................... 1000 ................... 2 ......................... 0 ................... Residue of banned termiticide ........ SoDalapon (ppb) ........................... .2 ........................ 1000 ................... 200 ..................... 200 ............... Runoff from herbicide used on

rights of way.

So

Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (ppb) .. .4 ........................ 1000 ................... 400 ..................... 400 ............... Discharge from chemical factories SoDi(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (ppb) .006 .................... 1000 ................... 6 ......................... 0 ................... Discharge from rubber and chemical factories. So

Dibromochloropropane (ppt) .... .0002 .................. 1,000,000 ........... 200 ..................... 0 ................... Runoff/leaching from soil fumigant

used on soybeans, cotton, pineapples, and orchards.

So

Dinoseb (ppb) ........................... .007 .................... 1000 ................... 7 ......................... 7 ................... Runoff from herbicide used on soybeans and vegetables. SoDiquat (ppb) .............................. .02 ...................... 1000 ................... 20 ....................... 20 ................. Runoff from herbicide use .............. SoDioxin [2,3,7,8-TCDD] (ppq) ..... .00000003 .......... 1,000,000, 000 ... 30 ....................... 0 ................... Emissions from waste incineration

and other combustion; Dischargefrom chemical factories.

So

Endothall (ppb) ......................... .1 ........................ 1000 ................... 100 ..................... 100 ............... Runoff from herbicide use .............. SoEndrin (ppb) .............................. .002 .................... 1000 ................... 2 ......................... 2 ................... Residue of banned insecticide ....... SoEpichlorohydrin ......................... TT ....................... ............................ TT ....................... 0 ................... Discharge from industrial chemical

factories; An impurity of somewater treatment chemicals.

So

Ethylene dibromide (ppt) .......... .00005 ................ 1,000,000 ........... 50 ....................... 0 ................... Discharge from petroleum refineries SoGlyphosate (ppb) ...................... .7 ........................ 1000 ................... 700 ..................... 700 ............... Runoff from herbicide use .............. SoHeptachlor (ppt) ........................ .0004 .................. 1,000,000 ........... 400 ..................... 0 ................... Residue of banned pesticide .......... So

APPENDIX A TO

SUBPART O.—REGULATED

CONTAMINANTS—Continued

Contaminant (units) Traditional MCL in mg/L To convert for CCR, multiply by MCL in CCR units MCLG Major sources in drinking water 

Heptachlor epoxide (ppt) .......... .0002 .................. 1,000,000 ........... 200 ..................... 0 ................... Breakdown of heptachlor ................ SoHexachlorobenzene (ppb) ........ .001 .................... 1000 ................... 1 ......................... 0 ................... Discharge from metal refineries and

agricultural chemical factories.

So

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

(ppb).

.05 ...................... 1000 ................... 50 ....................... 50 ................. Discharge from chemical factories So

Lindane (ppt) ............................ .0002 .................. 1,000,000 ........... 200 ..................... 200 ............... Runoff/leaching from insecticide

used on cattle, lumber, gardens.

So

Methoxychlor (ppb) ................... .04 ...................... 1000 ................... 40 ....................... 40 ................. Runoff/leaching from insecticide

used on fruits, vegetables, alfalfa, livestock.

So

Oxamyl [Vydate] (ppb) ............. .2 ........................ 1000 ................... 200 ..................... 200 ............... Runoff/leaching from insecticide

used on apples, potatoes and tomatoes.

So

PCBs [Polychlorinated

biphenyls] (ppt).

.0005 .................. 1,000,000 ........... 500 ..................... 0 ................... Runoff from landfills; Discharge of

waste chemicals.

So

Pentachlorophenol (ppb) .......... .001 .................... 1000 ................... 1 ......................... 0 ................... Discharge from wood preserving

factories.

So

Picloram (ppb) .......................... .5 ........................ 1000 ................... 500 ..................... 500 ............... Herbicide runoff .............................. SoSimazine (ppb) ......................... .004 .................... 1000 ................... 4 ......................... 4 ................... Herbicide runoff .............................. SoToxaphene (ppb) ...................... .003 .................... 1000 ................... 3 ......................... 0 ................... Runoff/leaching from insecticide

used on cotton and cattle.

So

Volatile organic contaminants:

Benzene (ppb) .......................... .005 .................... 1000 ................... 5 ......................... 0 ................... Discharge from factories; Leaching

from gas storage tanks and landfills.

So

Bromate (ppb) .......................... .010 .................... 1000 ................... 10 ....................... 0 ................... By-product of drinking water

chlorination.

So

Carbon tetrachloride (ppb) ....... .005 .................... 1000 ................... 5 ......................... 0 ................... Discharge from chemical plants

and other industrial activities.

So

Chloramines (ppm) ................... MRDL = 4 ........... ............................ MRDL = 4 ........... MRDLG = 4 .. Water additive used to control microbes. SoChlorine (ppm) .......................... MRDL = 4 ........... ............................ MRDL = 4 ........... MRDLG = 4 .. Water additive used to control microbes. So

APPENDIX A TO

SUBPART O.—REGULATED

CONTAMINANTS—Continued

Contaminant (units) Traditional MCL in mg/L To convert for CCR, multiply by MCL in CCR units MCLG Major sources in drinking water 

Chlorite (ppm) ........................... 1 ......................... ............................ 1 ......................... 0.8 ................ By-product of drinking water

chlorination.

So

Chloride dioxide (ppb) .............. MRDL = .8 .......... 1000 ................... MRDL = 800 ....... MRDLG =

800.

Water additive used to control microbes. So

Chlorobenzene (ppb) ................ .1 ........................ 1000 ................... 100 ..................... 100 ............... Discharge from chemical and agricultural chemical factories. Soo-Dichlorobenzene (ppb) .......... .6 ........................ 1000 ................... 600 ..................... 600 ............... Discharge from industrial chemical

factories.

So

p-Dichlorobenzene (ppb) .......... .075 .................... 1000 ................... 75 ....................... 75 ................. Discharge from industrial chemical

factories.

So

1,2-Dichloroethane (ppb) .......... .005 .................... 1000 ................... 5 ......................... 0 ................... Discharge from industrial chemical

factories.

So

1,1-Dichloroethylene (ppb) ....... .007 .................... 1000 ................... 7 ......................... 7 ................... Discharge from industrial chemical

factories.

So

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (ppb) .07 ...................... 1000 ................... 70 ....................... 70 ................. Discharge from industrial chemical

factories.

So

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene

(ppb).

.1 ........................ 1000 ................... 100 ..................... 100 ............... Discharge from industrial chemical

factories.

So

Dichloromethane (ppb) ............. .005 .................... 1000 ................... 5 ......................... 0 ................... Discharge from pharmaceutical and

chemical factories.

So

1,2-Dichloropropane (ppb) ....... .005 .................... 1000 ................... 5 ......................... 0 ................... Discharge from industrial chemical

factories.

So

Ethylbenzene (ppb) .................. .7 ........................ 1000 ................... 700 ..................... 700 ............... Discharge from petroleum refineries SoHaloacetic Acids (HAA) (ppb) .. .060 .................... 1000 ................... 60 ....................... N/A ............... By-product of drinking water disinfection. SoStyrene (ppb) ............................ .1 ........................ 1000 ................... 100 ..................... 100 ............... Discharge from rubber and plastic

factories; Leaching from landfills.

So

Tetrachloroethylene (ppb) ........ .005 .................... 1000 ................... 5 ......................... 0 ................... Discharge from factories and dry

cleaners.

So

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (ppb) ... .07 ...................... 1000 ................... 70 ....................... 70 ................. Discharge from textile-finishing factories. So1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ppb) ...... .2 ........................ 1000 ................... 200 ..................... 200 ............... Discharge from metal degreasing

sites and other factories.

So

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ppb) ...... .005 .................... 1000 ................... 5 ......................... 3 ................... Discharge from industrial chemical

factories.

So

APPENDIX A TO

SUBPART O.—REGULATED

CONTAMINANTS—Continued

Contaminant (units) Traditional MCL in mg/L To convert for CCR, multiply by MCL in CCR units MCLG Major sources in drinking water 

Trichloroethylene (ppb) ............ .005 .................... 1000 ................... 5 ......................... 0 ................... Discharge from metal degreasing

sites and other factories.

So

TTHMs [Total trihalomethanes]

(ppb).

0.10/.080 ............ 1000 ................... 100/80 ................ N/A ............... By-product of drinking water

chlorination.

So

Toluene (ppm) .......................... 1 ......................... ............................ 1 ......................... 1 ................... Discharge from petroleum factories SoVinyl Chloride (ppb) .................. .002 .................... 1000 ................... 2 ......................... 0 ................... Leaching from PVC piping; Discharge from plastics factories. SoXylenes (ppm) .......................... 10 ....................... ............................ 10 ....................... 10 ................. Discharge from petroleum factories;

Discharge from chemical factories.

So

Key:AL=Action LevelMCL=Maximum Contaminant LevelMCLG=Maximum Contaminant Level GoalMFL=million fibers per literMRDL=Maximum Residual Disinfectant LevelMRDLG=Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goalmrem/year=millirems per year (a measure of radiation absorbed by the body)N/A=Not ApplicableNTU=Nephelometric Turbidity Units (a measure of water clarity)pCi/l=picocuries per liter (a measure of radioactivity)ppm=parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l)ppb=parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (μg/l)ppt=parts per trillion, or nanograms per literppq=parts per quadrillion, or picograms per literTT=Treatment Technique

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26035

Appendices B and C to Subpart O

[Removed]

15. Appendices B and C to Subpart O

are removed.

16. Section 141.175 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) to

read as follows:

§ 141.175 Reporting and record keeping

requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) If at any time the turbidity exceeds

1 NTU in representative samples of

filtered water in a system using

conventional filtration treatment or

direct filtration, the system must consult

with the primacy agency as soon as

practical, but no later than 24 hours

after the exceedance is known, in

accordance with the public notification

requirements under § 141.203(b)(3).

(2) If at any time the turbidity in

representative samples of filtered water

exceed the maximum level set by the

State under § 142.173(b) for filtration

technologies other than conventional

filtration treatment, direct filtration,

slow sand filtration, or diatomaceous

earth filtration, the system must consult

with the primacy agency as soon as

practical, but no later than 24 hours

after the exceedance is known, in

accordance with the public notification

requirements under § 141.203(b)(3).

17. Part 141 is amended by adding

Subpart Q, to read as follows:

Subpart Q—Public Notification of

Drinking Water Violations

Sec.

141.201 General public notification

requirements.

141.202 Tier 1 Public Notice—Form,

manner, and frequency of notice.

141.203 Tier 2 Public Notice—Form,

manner, and frequency of notice.

141.204 Tier 3 Public Notice—Form,

manner, and frequency of notice.

141.205 Content of the public notice.

141.206 Notice to new billing units or new

customers.

141.207 Special notice of the availability of

unregulated contaminant monitoring

results.

141.208 Special notice for exceedance of

the SMCL for fluoride.

141.209 Special notice for nitrate

exceedances above MCL by noncommunity water systems (NCWS),

where granted permission by the

primacy agency under § 141.11(d).

141.210 Notice by primacy agency on

behalf of the public water system.

Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141—

NPDWR Violations and Situations

Requiring Public Notice

Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141—

Standard Health Effects Language for

Public Notification

Appendix C to Subpart Q of Part 141—List

of Acronyms Used in Public Notification

Regulation

Subpart Q—Public Notification of

Drinking Water Violations

§ 141.201 General public notification

requirements.

Public water systems in States with

primacy for the public water system

supervision (PWSS) program must

comply with the requirements in this

subpart no later than May 6, 2002 or on

the date the State-adopted rule becomes

effective, whichever comes first. Public

water systems in jurisdictions where

EPA directly implements the PWSS

program must comply with the

requirements in this subpart on October

31, 2000. Prior to these dates, public

water systems must continue to comply

with the public notice requirements in

§ 141.32 of this part. The term ‘‘primacy

agency’’ is used in this subpart to refer

to either EPA or the State or the Tribe

in cases where EPA, the State, or the

Tribe exercises primary enforcement

responsibility for this subpart.

(a) Who must give public notice? Each

owner or operator of a public water

system (community water systems, nontransient non-community water

systems, and transient non-community

water systems) must give notice for all

violations of national primary drinking

water regulations (NPDWR) and for

other situations, as listed in Table 1.

The term ‘‘NPDWR violations’’ is used

in this subpart to include violations of

the maximum contaminant level (MCL),

maximum residual disinfection level

(MRDL), treatment technique (TT),

monitoring requirements, and testing

procedures in this part 141. Appendix A

to this subpart identifies the tier

assignment for each specific violation or

situation requiring a public notice.

lllllllllllllllllllll

TABLE 1 TO § 141.201.—VIOLATION

CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A PUBLIC NOTICE

(1) NPDWR violations:

(i) Failure to comply with an applicable

maximum contaminant level (MCL) or

maximum residual disinfectant level

(MRDL).

(ii) Failure to comply with a prescribed

treatment technique (TT).

(iii) Failure to perform water quality monitoring, as required by the drinking

water regulations.

(iv) Failure to comply with testing procedures as prescribed by a drinking

water regulation.

(2) Variance and exemptions under sections

1415 and 1416 of SDWA:

(i) Operation under a variance or an exemption.

TABLE 1 TO § 141.201.—VIOLATION

CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A PUBLIC NOTICE—Continued

(ii) Failure to comply with the requirements of any schedule that has been

set under a variance or exemption.

(3) Special public notices:

(i) Occurrence of a waterborne disease

outbreak or other waterborne emergency.

(ii) Exceedance of the nitrate MCL by

non-community water systems

(NCWS), where granted permission by

the primacy agency under 141.11(d) of

this part.

(iii) Exceedance of the secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) for

fluoride.

(iv) Availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring data.

(v) Other violations and situations determined by the primacy agency to require a public notice under this subpart, not already listed in Appendix A.

(b) What type of public notice is

required for each violation or situation?

Public notice requirements are divided

into three tiers, to take into account the

seriousness of the violation or situation

and of any potential adverse health

effects that may be involved. The public

notice requirements for each violation

or situation listed in Table 1 of this

section are determined by the tier to

which it is assigned. Table 2 of this

section provides the definition of each

tier. Appendix A of this part identifies

the tier assignment for each specific

violation or situation.

lllllllllllllllllllll

TABLE 2 TO § 141.201.—DEFINITION

OF PUBLIC NOTICE TIERS

(1) Tier 1 public notice—required for NPDWR

violations and situations with significant potential to have serious adverse effects on

human health as a result of short-term exposure.

(2) Tier 2 public notice—required for all other

NPDWR violations and situations with potential to have serious adverse effects on

human health.

(3) Tier 3 public notice—required for all other

NPDWR violations and situations not included in Tier 1 and Tier 2.

(c) Who must be notified?

(1) Each public water system must

provide public notice to persons served

by the water system, in accordance with

this subpart. Public water systems that

sell or otherwise provide drinking water

to other public water systems (i.e., to

consecutive systems) are required to

give public notice to the owner or

operator of the consecutive system; the

consecutive system is responsible for

26036 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

providing public notice to the persons it

serves.

(2) If a public water system has a

violation in a portion of the distribution

system that is physically or

hydraulically isolated from other parts

of the distribution system, the primacy

agency may allow the system to limit

distribution of the public notice to only

persons served by that portion of the

system which is out of compliance.

Permission by the primacy agency for

limiting distribution of the notice must

be granted in writing.

(3) A copy of the notice must also be

sent to the primacy agency, in

accordance with the requirements under

§ 141.31(d).

§ 141.202 Tier 1 Public Notice—Form,

manner, and frequency of notice.

(a) Which violations or situations

require a Tier 1 public notice? Table 1

of this section lists the violation

categories and other situations requiring

a Tier 1 public notice. Appendix A to

this subpart identifies the tier

assignment for each specific violation or

situation.

lllllllllllllllllllll

TABLE 1 TO § 141.202.—VIOLATION

CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A TIER 1 PUBLIC

NOTICE

(1) Violation of the MCL for total coliforms

when fecal coliform or E. coli are present

in the water distribution system (as specified in § 141.63(b)), or when the water system fails to test for fecal coliforms or E.

coli when any repeat sample tests positive

for coliform (as specified in § 141.21(e));

(2) Violation of the MCL for nitrate, nitrite, or

total nitrate and nitrite, as defined in

§ 141.62, or when the water system fails to

take a confirmation sample within 24 hours

of the system’s receipt of the first sample

showing an exceedance of the nitrate or

nitrite MCL, as specified in § 141.23(f)(2);

(3) Exceedance of the nitrate MCL by noncommunity water systems, where permitted

to exceed the MCL by the primacy agency

under § 141.11(d), as required under

§ 141.209;

(4) Violation of the MRDL for chlorine dioxide, as defined in § 141.65(a), when one or

more samples taken in the distribution system the day following an exceedance of

the MRDL at the entrance of the distribution system exceed the MRDL, or when

the water system does not take the required samples in the distribution system,

as specified in § 141.133(c)(2)(i);

(5) Violation of the turbidity MCL under

§ 141.13(b), where the primacy agency determines after consultation that a Tier 1 notice is required or where consultation does

not take place within 24 hours after the

system learns of the violation;

TABLE 1 TO § 141.202.—VIOLATION

CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A TIER 1 PUBLIC

NOTICE—Continued

(6) Violation of the Surface Water Treatment

Rule (SWTR) or Interim Enhanced Surface

Water Treatment rule (IESWTR) treatment

technique requirement resulting from a single exceedance of the maximum allowable

turbidity limit (as identified in Appendix A),

where the primacy agency determines after

consultation that a Tier 1 notice is required

or where consultation does not take place

within 24 hours after the system learns of

the violation;

(7) Occurrence of a waterborne disease outbreak, as defined in § 141.2, or other waterborne emergency (such as a failure or

significant interruption in key water treatment processes, a natural disaster that disrupts the water supply or distribution system, or a chemical spill or unexpected

loading of possible pathogens into the

source water that significantly increases

the potential for drinking water contamination);

(8) Other violations or situations with significant potential to have serious adverse effects on human health as a result of shortterm exposure, as determined by the primacy agency either in its regulations or on

a case-by-case basis.

(b) When is the Tier 1 public notice

to be provided? What additional steps

are required? Public water systems

must:

(1) Provide a public notice as soon as

practical but no later than 24 hours after

the system learns of the violation;

(2) Initiate consultation with the

primacy agency as soon as practical, but

no later than 24 hours after the public

water system learns of the violation or

situation, to determine additional public

notice requirements; and

(3) Comply with any additional public

notification requirements (including any

repeat notices or direction on the

duration of the posted notices) that are

established as a result of the

consultation with the primacy agency.

Such requirements may include the

timing, form, manner, frequency, and

content of repeat notices (if any) and

other actions designed to reach all

persons served.

(c) What is the form and manner of

the public notice? Public water systems

must provide the notice within 24 hours

in a form and manner reasonably

calculated to reach all persons served.

The form and manner used by the

public water system are to fit the

specific situation, but must be designed

to reach residential, transient, and nontransient users of the water system. In

order to reach all persons served, water

systems are to use, at a minimum, one

or more of the following forms of

delivery:

(1) Appropriate broadcast media (such

as radio and television);

(2) Posting of the notice in

conspicuous locations throughout the

area served by the water system;

(3) Hand delivery of the notice to

persons served by the water system; or

(4) Another delivery method

approved in writing by the primacy

agency.

§ 141.203 Tier 2 Public Notice—Form,

manner, and frequency of notice.

(a) Which violations or situations

require a Tier 2 public notice? Table 1

of this section lists the violation

categories and other situations requiring

a Tier 2 public notice. Appendix A to

this subpart identifies the tier

assignment for each specific violation or

situation.

lllllllllllllllllllll

TABLE 1 TO § 141.203.—VIOLATION

CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A TIER 2 PUBLIC

NOTICE

(1) All violations of the MCL, MRDL, and

treatment technique requirements, except

where a Tier 1 notice is required under

§ 141.202(a) or where the primacy agency

determines that a Tier 1 notice is required;

(2) Violations of the monitoring and testing

procedure requirements, where the primacy agency determines that a Tier 2 rather than a Tier 3 public notice is required,

taking into account potential health impacts

and persistence of the violation; and

(3) Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of any variance or exemption in

place.

(b) When is the Tier 2 public notice

to be provided?

(1) Public water systems must provide

the public notice as soon as practical,

but no later than 30 days after the

system learns of the violation. If the

public notice is posted, the notice must

remain in place for as long as the

violation or situation persists, but in no

case for less than seven days, even if the

violation or situation is resolved. The

primacy agency may, in appropriate

circumstances, allow additional time for

the initial notice of up to three months

from the date the system learns of the

violation. It is not appropriate for the

primacy agency to grant an extension to

the 30-day deadline for any unresolved

violation or to allow across-the-board

extensions by rule or policy for other

violations or situations requiring a Tier

2 public notice. Extensions granted by

the primacy agency must be in writing.

(2) The public water system must

repeat the notice every three months as

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26037

long as the violation or situation

persists, unless the primacy agency

determines that appropriate

circumstances warrant a different repeat

notice frequency. In no circumstance

may the repeat notice be given less

frequently than once per year. It is not

appropriate for the primacy agency to

allow less frequent repeat notice for an

MCL violation under the Total Coliform

Rule or a treatment technique violation

under the Surface Water Treatment Rule

or Interim Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment Rule. It is also not

appropriate for the primacy agency to

allow through its rules or policies

across-the-board reductions in the

repeat notice frequency for other

ongoing violations requiring a Tier 2

repeat notice. Primacy agency

determinations allowing repeat notices

to be given less frequently than once

every three months must be in writing.

(3) For the turbidity violations

specified in this paragraph, public water

systems must consult with the primacy

agency as soon as practical but no later

than 24 hours after the public water

system learns of the violation, to

determine whether a Tier 1 public

notice under § 141.202(a) is required to

protect public health. When

consultation does not take place within

the 24-hour period, the water system

must distribute a Tier 1 notice of the

violation within the next 24 hours (i.e.,

no later than 48 hours after the system

learns of the violation), following the

requirements under § 141.202(b) and (c).

Consultation with the primacy agency is

required for:

(i) Violation of the turbidity MCL

under § 141.13(b); or

(ii) Violation of the SWTR or IESWTR

treatment technique requirement

resulting from a single exceedance of

the maximum allowable turbidity limit.

(c) What is the form and manner of

the Tier 2 public notice? Public water

systems must provide the initial public

notice and any repeat notices in a form

and manner that is reasonably

calculated to reach persons served in

the required time period. The form and

manner of the public notice may vary

based on the specific situation and type

of water system, but it must at a

minimum meet the following

requirements:

(1) Unless directed otherwise by the

primacy agency in writing, community

water systems must provide notice by:

(i) Mail or other direct delivery to

each customer receiving a bill and to

other service connections to which

water is delivered by the public water

system; and

(ii) Any other method reasonably

calculated to reach other persons

regularly served by the system, if they

would not normally be reached by the

notice required in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of

this section. Such persons may include

those who do not pay water bills or do

not have service connection addresses

(e.g., house renters, apartment dwellers,

university students, nursing home

patients, prison inmates, etc.). Other

methods may include: Publication in a

local newspaper; delivery of multiple

copies for distribution by customers that

provide their drinking water to others

(e.g., apartment building owners or large

private employers); posting in public

places served by the system or on the

Internet; or delivery to community

organizations.

(2) Unless directed otherwise by the

primacy agency in writing, noncommunity water systems must provide

notice by:

(i) Posting the notice in conspicuous

locations throughout the distribution

system frequented by persons served by

the system, or by mail or direct delivery

to each customer and service connection

(where known); and

(ii) Any other method reasonably

calculated to reach other persons served

by the system if they would not

normally be reached by the notice

required in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this

section. Such persons may include

those served who may not see a posted

notice because the posted notice is not

in a location they routinely pass by.

Other methods may include: Publication

in a local newspaper or newsletter

distributed to customers; use of E-mail

to notify employees or students; or,

delivery of multiple copies in central

locations (e.g., community centers).

§ 141.204 Tier 3 Public Notice—Form,

manner, and frequency of notice.

(a) Which violations or situations

require a Tier 3 public notice? Table 1

of this section lists the violation

categories and other situations requiring

a Tier 3 public notice. Appendix A to

this subpart identifies the tier

assignment for each specific violation or

situation.

lllllllllllllllllllll

TABLE 1 TO § 141.204.—VIOLATION

CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A TIER 3 PUBLIC

NOTICE

(1) Monitoring violations under 40 CFR part

141, except where a Tier 1 notice is required under § 141.202(a) or where the primacy agency determines that a Tier 2 notice is required;

TABLE 1 TO § 141.204.—VIOLATION

CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A TIER 3 PUBLIC

NOTICE—Continued

(2) Failure to comply with a testing procedure

established in 40 CFR part 141, except

where a Tier 1 notice is required under

§ 141.202(a)) or where the primacy agency

determines that a Tier 2 notice is required;

(3) Operation under a variance granted under

Section 1415 or an exemption granted

under Section 1416 of the Safe Drinking

Water Act;

(4) Availability of unregulated contaminant

monitoring results, as required under

§ 141.207; and

(5) Exceedance of the fluoride secondary

maximum contaminant level (SMCL), as

required under § 141.208.

(b) When is the Tier 3 public notice

to be provided?

(1) Public water systems must provide

the public notice not later than one year

after the public water system learns of

the violation or situation or begins

operating under a variance or

exemption. Following the initial notice,

the public water system must repeat the

notice annually for as long as the

violation, variance, exemption, or other

situation persists. If the public notice is

posted, the notice must remain in place

for as long as the violation, variance,

exemption, or other situation persists,

but in no case less than seven days

(even if the violation or situation is

resolved).

(2) (2) Instead of individual Tier 3

public notices, a public water system

may use an annual report detailing all

violations and situations that occurred

during the previous twelve months, as

long as the timing requirements of

paragraph (b)(1) of this section are met.

(c) What is the form and manner of

the Tier 3 public notice? Public water

systems must provide the initial notice

and any repeat notices in a form and

manner that is reasonably calculated to

reach persons served in the required

time period. The form and manner of

the public notice may vary based on the

specific situation and type of water

system, but it must at a minimum meet

the following requirements:

(1) Unless directed otherwise by the

primacy agency in writing, community

water systems must provide notice by:

(i) Mail or other direct delivery to

each customer receiving a bill and to

other service connections to which

water is delivered by the public water

system; and

(ii) Any other method reasonably

calculated to reach other persons

regularly served by the system, if they

would not normally be reached by the

notice required in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of

26038 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

this section. Such persons may include

those who do not pay water bills or do

not have service connection addresses

(e.g., house renters, apartment dwellers,

university students, nursing home

patients, prison inmates, etc.). Other

methods may include: Publication in a

local newspaper; delivery of multiple

copies for distribution by customers that

provide their drinking water to others

(e.g., apartment building owners or large

private employers); posting in public

places or on the Internet; or delivery to

community organizations.

(2) Unless directed otherwise by the

primacy agency in writing, noncommunity water systems must provide

notice by:

(i) Posting the notice in conspicuous

locations throughout the distribution

system frequented by persons served by

the system, or by mail or direct delivery

to each customer and service connection

(where known); and

(ii) Any other method reasonably

calculated to reach other persons served

by the system, if they would not

normally be reached by the notice

required in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this

section. Such persons may include

those who may not see a posted notice

because the notice is not in a location

they routinely pass by. Other methods

may include: Publication in a local

newspaper or newsletter distributed to

customers; use of E-mail to notify

employees or students; or, delivery of

multiple copies in central locations

(e.g., community centers).

(d) In what situations may the

Consumer Confidence Report be used to

meet the Tier 3 public notice

requirements? For community water

systems, the Consumer Confidence

Report (CCR) required under Subpart O

of this part may be used as a vehicle for

the initial Tier 3 public notice and all

required repeat notices, as long as:

(1) The CCR is provided to persons

served no later than 12 months after the

system learns of the violation or

situation as required under § 141.204(b);

(2) The Tier 3 notice contained in the

CCR follows the content requirements

under § 141.205; and

(3) The CCR is distributed following

the delivery requirements under

§ 141.204(c).

§ 141.205 Content of the public notice.

(a) What elements must be included

in the public notice for violations of

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations (NPDWR) or other

situations requiring a public notice?

When a public water system violates a

NPDWR or has a situation requiring

public notification, each public notice

must include the following elements:

(1) A description of the violation or

situation, including the contaminant(s)

of concern, and (as applicable) the

contaminant level(s);

(2) When the violation or situation

occurred;

(3) Any potential adverse health

effects from the violation or situation,

including the standard language under

paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section,

whichever is applicable;

(4) The population at risk, including

subpopulations particularly vulnerable

if exposed to the contaminant in their

drinking water;

(5) Whether alternative water supplies

should be used;

(6) What actions consumers should

take, including when they should seek

medical help, if known;

(7) What the system is doing to correct

the violation or situation;

(8) When the water system expects to

return to compliance or resolve the

situation;

(9) The name, business address, and

phone number of the water system

owner, operator, or designee of the

public water system as a source of

additional information concerning the

notice; and

(10) A statement to encourage the

notice recipient to distribute the public

notice to other persons served, using the

standard language under paragraph

(d)(3) of this section, where applicable.

(b) What elements must be included

in the public notice for public water

systems operating under a variance or

exemption?

(1) If a public water system has been

granted a variance or an exemption, the

public notice must contain:

(i) An explanation of the reasons for

the variance or exemption;

(ii) The date on which the variance or

exemption was issued;

(iii) A brief status report on the steps

the system is taking to install treatment,

find alternative sources of water, or

otherwise comply with the terms and

schedules of the variance or exemption;

and

(iv) A notice of any opportunity for

public input in the review of the

variance or exemption.

(2) If a public water system violates

the conditions of a variance or

exemption, the public notice must

contain the ten elements listed in

paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) How is the public notice to be

presented?

(1) Each public notice required by this

section:

(i) Must be displayed in a

conspicuous way when printed or

posted;

(ii) Must not contain overly technical

language or very small print;

(iii) Must not be formatted in a way

that defeats the purpose of the notice;

(iv) Must not contain language which

nullifies the purpose of the notice.

(2) Each public notice required by this

section must comply with multilingual

requirements, as follows:

(i) For public water systems serving a

large proportion of non-English

speaking consumers, as determined by

the primacy agency, the public notice

must contain information in the

appropriate language(s) regarding the

importance of the notice or contain a

telephone number or address where

persons served may contact the water

system to obtain a translated copy of the

notice or to request assistance in the

appropriate language.

(ii) In cases where the primacy agency

has not determined what constitutes a

large proportion of non-English

speaking consumers, the public water

system must include in the public

notice the same information as in

paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, where

appropriate to reach a large proportion

of non-English speaking persons served

by the water system.

(d) What standard language must

public water systems include in their

public notice? Public water systems are

required to include the following

standard language in their public notice:

(1) Standard health effects language

for MCL or MRDL violations, treatment

technique violations, and violations of

the condition of a variance or

exemption. Public water systems must

include in each public notice the health

effects language specified in Appendix

B to this subpart corresponding to each

MCL, MRDL, and treatment technique

violation listed in Appendix A to this

subpart, and for each violation of a

condition of a variance or exemption.

(2) Standard language for monitoring

and testing procedure violations. Public

water systems must include the

following language in their notice,

including the language necessary to fill

in the blanks, for all monitoring and

testing procedure violations listed in

Appendix A to this subpart:

We are required to monitor your drinking

water for specific contaminants on a regular

basis. Results of regular monitoring are an

indicator of whether or not your drinking

water meets health standards. During

[compliance period], we ‘‘did not monitor or

test’’ or ‘‘did not complete all monitoring or

testing’’ for [contaminant(s)], and therefore

cannot be sure of the quality of your drinking

water during that time.

(3) Standard language to encourage

the distribution of the public notice to

all persons served. Public water systems

must include in their notice the

following language (where applicable):

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26039

Please share this information with all the

other people who drink this water, especially

those who may not have received this notice

directly (for example, people in apartments,

nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You

can do this by posting this notice in a public

place or distributing copies by hand or mail.

§ 141.206 Notice to new billing units or

new customers.

(a) What is the requirement for

community water systems? Community

water systems must give a copy of the

most recent public notice for any

continuing violation, the existence of a

variance or exemption, or other ongoing

situations requiring a public notice to

all new billing units or new customers

prior to or at the time service begins.

(b) What is the requirement for noncommunity water systems? Noncommunity water systems must

continuously post the public notice in

conspicuous locations in order to

inform new consumers of any

continuing violation, variance or

exemption, or other situation requiring

a public notice for as long as the

violation, variance, exemption, or other

situation persists.

§ 141.207 Special notice of the availability

of unregulated contaminant monitoring

results.

(a) When is the special notice to be

given? The owner or operator of a

community water system or nontransient, non-community water system

required to monitor under § 141.40 must

notify persons served by the system of

the availability of the results of such

sampling no later than 12 months after

the monitoring results are known.

(b) What is the form and manner of

the special notice? The form and

manner of the public notice must follow

the requirements for a Tier 3 public

notice prescribed in §§ 141.204(c),

(d)(1), and (d)(3). The notice must also

identify a person and provide the

telephone number to contact for

information on the monitoring results.

§ 141.208 Special notice for exceedance of

the SMCL for fluoride.

(a) When is the special notice to be

given? Community water systems that

exceed the fluoride secondary

maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of

2 mg/l as specified in § 143.3

(determined by the last single sample

taken in accordance with § 141.23), but

do not exceed the maximum

contaminant level (MCL) of 4 mg/l for

fluoride (as specified in § 141.62), must

provide the public notice in paragraph

(c) of this section to persons served.

Public notice must be provided as soon

as practical but no later than 12 months

from the day the water system learns of

the exceedance. A copy of the notice

must also be sent to all new billing units

and new customers at the time service

begins and to the State public health

officer. The public water system must

repeat the notice at least annually for as

long as the SMCL is exceeded. If the

public notice is posted, the notice must

remain in place for as long as the SMCL

is exceeded, but in no case less than

seven days (even if the exceedance is

eliminated). On a case-by-case basis, the

primacy agency may require an initial

notice sooner than 12 months and

repeat notices more frequently than

annually.

(b) What is the form and manner of

the special notice? The form and

manner of the public notice (including

repeat notices) must follow the

requirements for a Tier 3 public notice

in § 141.204(c) and (d)(1) and (d)(3).

(c) What mandatory language must be

contained in the special notice? The

notice must contain the following

language, including the language

necessary to fill in the blanks:

This is an alert about your drinking water

and a cosmetic dental problem that might

affect children under nine years of age. At

low levels, fluoride can help prevent cavities,

but children drinking water containing more

than 2 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of fluoride

may develop cosmetic discoloration of their

permanent teeth (dental fluorosis). The

drinking water provided by your community

water system [name] has a fluoride

concentration of [insert value] mg/l.

Dental fluorosis, in its moderate or severe

forms, may result in a brown staining and/

or pitting of the permanent teeth. This

problem occurs only in developing teeth,

before they erupt from the gums. Children

under nine should be provided with

alternative sources of drinking water or water

that has been treated to remove the fluoride

to avoid the possibility of staining and pitting

of their permanent teeth. You may also want

to contact your dentist about proper use by

young children of fluoride-containing

products. Older children and adults may

safely drink the water.

Drinking water containing more than 4 mg/

L of fluoride (the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s drinking water standard)

can increase your risk of developing bone

disease. Your drinking water does not

contain more than 4 mg/l of fluoride, but

we’re required to notify you when we

discover that the fluoride levels in your

drinking water exceed 2 mg/l because of this

cosmetic dental problem.

For more information, please call [name of

water system contact] of [name of community

water system] at [phone number]. Some

home water treatment units are also available

to remove fluoride from drinking water. To

learn more about available home water

treatment units, you may call NSF

International at 1–877–8–NSF–HELP.’’

§ 141.209 Special notice for nitrate

exceedances above MCL by noncommunity water systems (NCWS), where

granted permission by the primacy agency

under § 141.11(d)

(a) When is the special notice to be

given? The owner or operator of a noncommunity water system granted

permission by the primacy agency

under § 141.11(d) to exceed the nitrate

MCL must provide notice to persons

served according to the requirements for

a Tier 1 notice under § 141.202(a) and

(b).

(b) What is the form and manner of

the special notice? Non-community

water systems granted permission by the

primacy agency to exceed the nitrate

MCL under § 141.11(d) must provide

continuous posting of the fact that

nitrate levels exceed 10 mg/l and the

potential health effects of exposure,

according to the requirements for Tier 1

notice delivery under § 141.202(c) and

the content requirements under

§ 141.205.

§ 141.210 Notice by primacy agency on

behalf of the public water system.

(a) May the primacy agency give the

notice on behalf of the public water

system? The primacy agency may give

the notice required by this subpart on

behalf of the owner and operator of the

public water system if the primacy

agency complies with the requirements

of this subpart.

(b) What is the responsibility of the

public water system when notice is

given by the primacy agency? The

owner or operator of the public water

system remains responsible for ensuring

that the requirements of this subpart are

met.

26040 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICE 1

Contaminant

MCL/MRDL/TT violations 2 Monitoring & testing procedure violations

Tier of public notice required Citation Tier of public notice required Citation

I. Violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

(NPDWR): 3

A. Microbiological Contaminants

1. Total coliform ................................................................ 2 141.63(a) 3 141.21(a)–(e)

2. Fecal coliform/E. coli .................................................... 1 141.63(b) 4 1, 3 141.21(e)

3. Turbidity MCL ............................................................... 2 141.13(a) 3 141.22

4. Turbidity MCL (average of 2 days’ samples >5 NTU) 5 2, 1 141.13(b) 3 141.22

5. Turbidity (for TT violations resulting from a single exceedance of maximum allowable turbidity level) .......... 6 2, 1 141.71(a)(2),

141.71(c)(2)(i),

141.73(a)(2),

141.73(b)(2),

141.73(c)(2),

141.73(d),

141.173(a)(2),

141.173(b)

3 141.74(a)(1),

141.74(b)(2),

141.74(c)(1),

141.174

6. Surface Water Treatment Rule violations, other than

violations resulting from single exceedance of max. allowable turbidity level (TT) ............................................ 2 141.70–141.73 3 141.74

7. Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule violations, other than violations resulting from single exceedance of max. turbidity level (TT) ........................... 2 7 141.170–141.173 3 141.172, 141.174

B. Inorganic Chemicals (IOCs)

1. Antimony ....................................................................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)

2. Arsenic .......................................................................... 2 141.11(b),

141.23(n)

3 141.23(a), (l), (m)

3. Asbestos (fibers >10 μm) ............................................. 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a)–(b)

4. Barium .......................................................................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)

5. Beryllium ....................................................................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)

6. Cadmium ...................................................................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)

7. Chromium (total) ........................................................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)

8. Cyanide ........................................................................ 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)

9. Fluoride ......................................................................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)

10. Mercury (inorganic) .................................................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)

11. Nitrate ......................................................................... 1 141.62(b) 8 1, 3 141.23(a), (d),

141.23(f)(2)

12. Nitrite .......................................................................... 1 141.62(b) 8 1, 3 141.23(a), (e),

141.23(f)(2)

13. Total Nitrate and Nitrite .............................................. 1 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a)

14. Selenium ..................................................................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)

15. Thallium ...................................................................... 2 141.62(b) 3 141.23(a), (c)

C. Lead and Copper Rule (Action Level for lead is 0.015 mg/

L, for copper is 1.3 mg/L)

1. Lead and Copper Rule (TT) ......................................... 2 141.80–141.85 3 141.86–141.89

D. Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs)

1. 2,4–D ............................................................................ 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

2. 2,4,5–TP (Silvex) .......................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

3. Alachlor ......................................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

4. Atrazine ........................................................................ 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

5. Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) ............................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

6. Carbofuran .................................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

7. Chlordane ..................................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

8. Dalapon ........................................................................ 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

9. Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate .............................................. 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

10. Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ......................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

11. Dibromochloropropane ............................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

12. Dinoseb ...................................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

13. Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) ................................................ 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

14. Diquat ......................................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

15. Endothall ..................................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

16. Endrin ......................................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

17. Ethylene dibromide ..................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

18. Glyphosate ................................................................. 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

19. Heptachlor .................................................................. 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

20. Heptachlor epoxide .................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

21. Hexachlorobenzene .................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

22. Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene ...................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

23. Lindane ....................................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26041

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC

NOTICE 1—Continued

Contaminant

MCL/MRDL/TT violations 2 Monitoring & testing procedure violations

Tier of public notice required Citation Tier of public notice required Citation

24. Methoxychlor .............................................................. 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

25. Oxamyl (Vydate) ......................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

26. Pentachlorophenol ...................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

27. Picloram ...................................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

28. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) .............................. 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

29. Simazine ..................................................................... 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

30. Toxaphene .................................................................. 2 141.61(c) 3 141.24(h)

E. Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)

1. Benzene ....................................................................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

2. Carbon tetrachloride ..................................................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

3. Chlorobenzene (monochlorobenzene) ......................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

4. o-Dichlorobenzene ....................................................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

5. p-Dichlorobenzene ....................................................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

6. 1,2-Dichloroethane ....................................................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

7. 1,1-Dichloroethylene ..................................................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

8. cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene ............................................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

9. trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene ........................................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

10. Dichloromethane ........................................................ 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

11. 1,2-Dichloropropane ................................................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

12. Ethylbenzene .............................................................. 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

13. Styrene ....................................................................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

14. Tetrachloroethylene .................................................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

15. Toluene ....................................................................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

16. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ............................................... 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

17. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ................................................. 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

18. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ................................................. 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

19. Trichloroethylene ........................................................ 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

20. Vinyl chloride .............................................................. 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

21. Xylenes (total) ............................................................ 2 141.61(a) 3 141.24(f)

F. Radioactive Contaminants

1. Beta/photon emitters .................................................... 2 141.16 3 141.25(a),

141.26(b)

2. Alpha emitters .............................................................. 2 141.15(b) 3 141.25(a),

141.26(a)

3. Combined radium (226 & 228) ..................................... 2 141.15(a) 3 141.25(a),

141.26(a)

G. Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs), Byproduct Precursors,

Disinfectant Residuals. Where disinfection is used in the

treatment of drinking water, disinfectants combine with organic and inorganic matter present in water to form chemicals called disinfection byproducts (DBPs). EPA sets

standards for controlling the levels of disinfectants and

DBPs in drinking water, including trihalomethanes (THMs)

and haloacetic acids (HAAs).9

1. Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) ................................... 2 10 141.12,

141.64(a)

3 141.30,

141.132(a)–(b)

2. Haloacetic Acids (HAA5) .............................................. 2 141.64(a) 3 141.132(a)–(b)

3. Bromate ........................................................................ 2 141.64(a) 3 141.132(a)–(b)

4. Chlorite ......................................................................... 2 141.64(a) 3 141.132(a)–(b)

5. Chlorine (MRDL) .......................................................... 2 141.65(a) 3 141.132(a), (c)

6. Chloramine (MRDL) ..................................................... 2 141.65(a) 3 141.132(a), (c)

7. Chlorine dioxide (MRDL), where any 2 consecutive

daily samples at entrance to distribution system only

are above MRDL ........................................................... 2 141.65(a),

141.133(c)(3)

2 11, 3 141.132(a), (c),

141.133(c)(2)

8. Chlorine dioxide (MRDL), where sample(s) in distribution system the next day are also above MRDL .......... 12 1 141.65(a),

141.133(c)(3)

1 141.132(a), (c),

141.133(c)(2)

9. Control of DBP precursors—TOC (TT) ........................ 2 141.135(a)–(b) 3 141.132(a), (d)

10. Bench marking and disinfection profiling ................... N/A N/A 3 141.172

11. Development of monitoring plan ................................ N/A N/A 3 141.132(f)

H. Other Treatment Techniques

1. Acrylamide (TT) ............................................................ 2 141.111 N/A N/A

2. Epichlorohydrin (TT) ..................................................... 2 141.111 N/A N/A

II. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring: 13

A. Unregulated contaminants .................................................. N/A N/A 3 141.40

B. Nickel ................................................................................... N/A N/A 3 141.23(c), (k)

26042 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC

NOTICE 1—Continued

Contaminant

MCL/MRDL/TT violations 2 Monitoring & testing procedure violations

Tier of public notice required Citation Tier of public notice required Citation

III. Public Notification for Variances and Exemptions:

A. Operation under a variance or exemption .......................... 3 14 1415, 1416, N/A N/A

B. Violation of conditions of a variance or exemption ............. 2 1415, 1416, 15 142.307N/A N/A

IV. Other Situations Requiring Public Notification:

A. Fluoride secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL)

exceedance .......................................................................... 3 143.3 N/A N/A

B. Exceedance of nitrate MCL for non-community systems,

as allowed by primacy agency ............................................. 1 141.11(d) N/A N/A

C. Availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring data .... 3 141.40 N/A N/A

D. Waterborne disease outbreak ............................................. 1 141.2,

141.71(c)(2)(ii)

N/A N/A

E. Other waterborne emergency 16 .......................................... 1 N/A N/A N/A

F. Other situations as determined by primacy agency ........... 17 1, 2, 3 N/A N/A N/A

Appendix A—Endnotes

1. Violations and other situations not listed

in this table (e.g., reporting violations and

failure to prepare Consumer Confidence

Reports), do not require notice, unless

otherwise determined by the primary agency.

Primacy agencies may, at their option, also

require a more stringent public notice tier

(e.g., Tier 1 instead of Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead

of Tier 3) for specific violations and

situations listed in this Appendix, as

authorized under § 141.202(a) and

§ 141.203(a).

2. MCL—Maximum contaminant level,

MRDL—Maximum residual disinfectant

level, TT—Treatment technique

3. The term Violations of National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) is used

here to include violations of MCL, MRDL,

treatment technique, monitoring, and testing

procedure requirements.

4. Failure to test for fecal coliform or E. coli

is a Tier 1 violation if testing is not done after

any repeat sample tests positive for coliform.

All other total coliform monitoring and

testing procedure violations are Tier 3.

5. Systems that violate the turbidity MCL

of 5 NTU based on an average of

measurements over two consecutive days

must consult with the primacy agency within

24 hours after learning of the violation. Based

on this consultation, the primacy agency may

subsequently decide to elevate the violation

to Tier 1. If a system is unable to make

contact with the primacy agency in the 24-

hour period, the violation is automatically

elevated to Tier 1.

6. Systems with treatment technique

violations involving a single exceedance of a

maximum turbidity limit under the Surface

Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) or the Interim

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

(IESWTR) are required to consult with the

primacy agency within 24 hours after

learning of the violation. Based on this

consultation, the primacy agency may

subsequently decide to elevate the violation

to Tier 1. If a system is unable to make

contact with the primacy agency in the 24-

hour period, the violation is automatically

elevated to Tier 1.

7. Most of the requirements of the Interim

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (63

FR 69477) (§§ 141.170–141.171, 141.173–

141.174) become effective January 1, 2002 for

Subpart H systems (surface water systems

and ground water systems under the direct

influence of surface water) serving at least

10,000 persons. However, § 141.172 has some

requirements that become effective as early

as April 16, 1999. The Surface Water

Treatment Rule remains in effect for systems

serving at least 10,000 persons even after

2002; the Interim Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment Rule adds additional requirements

and does not in many cases supercede the

SWTR.

8. Failure to take a confirmation sample

within 24 hours for nitrate or nitrite after an

initial sample exceeds the MCL is a Tier 1

violation. Other monitoring violations for

nitrate are Tier 3.

9. Subpart H community and non-transient

non-community systems serving ≥10,000

must comply with new DBP MCLs,

disinfectant MRDLs, and related monitoring

requirements beginning January 1, 2002. All

other community and non-transient noncommunity systems must meet the MCLs and

MRDLs beginning January 1, 2004. Subpart H

transient non-community systems serving

10,000 or more persons and using chlorine

dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must

comply with the chlorine dioxide MRDL

beginning January 1, 2002. Subpart H

transient non-community systems serving

fewer than 10,000 persons and using only

ground water not under the direct influence

of surface water and using chlorine dioxide

as a disinfectant or oxidant must comply

with the chlorine dioxide MRDL beginning

January 1, 2004.

10. § 141.12 will no longer apply after

January 1, 2004.

11. Failure to monitor for chlorine dioxide

at the entrance to the distribution system the

day after exceeding the MRDL at the entrance

to the distribution system is a Tier 2

violation.

12. If any daily sample taken at the

entrance to the distribution system exceeds

the MRDL for chlorine dioxide and one or

more samples taken in the distribution

system the next day exceed the MRDL, Tier

1 notification is required. Failure to take the

required samples in the distribution system

after the MRDL is exceeded at the entry point

also triggers Tier 1 notification.

13. Some water systems must monitor for

certain unregulated contaminants listed in

§ 141.40.

14. This citation refers to §§ 1415 and 1416

of the Safe Drinking Water Act. §§ 1415 and

1416 require that ‘‘a schedule prescribed . . .

for a public water system granted a variance

[or exemption] shall require compliance by

the system . . .’’

15. In addition to §§ 1415 and 1416 of the

Safe Drinking Water Act, 40 CFR 142.307

specifies the items and schedule milestones

that must be included in a variance for small

systems.

16. Other waterborne emergencies require

a Tier 1 public notice under § 141.202(a) for

situations that do not meet the definition of

a waterborne disease outbreak given in 40

CFR 141.2 but that still have the potential to

have serious adverse effects on health as a

result of short-term exposure. These could

include outbreaks not related to treatment

deficiencies, as well as situations that have

the potential to cause outbreaks, such as

failures or significant interruption in water

treatment processes, natural disasters that

disrupt the water supply or distribution

system, chemical spills, or unexpected

loading of possible pathogens into the source

water.

17. Primacy agencies may place other

situations in any tier they believe

appropriate, based on threat to public health.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26043

APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Contaminant MCLG 1 mg/L MCL 2 mg/L Standard health effects language for public notification

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations (NPDWR):

A. Microbiological Contaminants:

1a. Total coliform ........................ Zero See footnote 3Coliforms 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 more samples than allowed and

this was a warning of potential problems.

1b. Fecal coliform/E. coli ............ Zero Zero Fecal coliforms and 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 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.

2a. Turbidity (MCL) 4 ................... None 1 NTU 5/5

NTU

Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These organisms

include bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause symptoms

such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea and associated headaches.

2b. Turbidity (SWTR TT) 6 .......... None TT 7 Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These organisms

include bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause symptoms

such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea and associated headaches.

2c. Turbidity (IESWTR TT) 8 ....... None TT Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-causing organisms. These organisms

include bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause symptoms

such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea and associated headaches.

B. Surface Water Treatment Rule

(SWTR) and Interim Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment Rule

(IESWTR) violations:

3. Giardia lamblia (SWTR/

IESWTR).

Zero TT 10 Inadequately treated water may contain disease-causing organisms.

These organisms include bacteria, viruses, and parasites which can

cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated

headaches.

4. Viruses (SWTR/IESWTR).

5. Heterotrophic plate count

(HPC) bacteria 9 (SWTR/

IESWTR).

6. Legionella (SWTR/IESWTR).

7. Cryptosporidium (IESWTR).

8. Antimony ................................. 0.006 0.006 Some people who drink water containing antimony well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience increases in blood cholesterol

and decreases in blood sugar.

9. Arsenic .................................... None 0.05 Some people who drink water containing arsenic in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience skin damage or problems with their

circulatory system, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

10. Asbestos (10 μm) ................. 7 MFL 11 7 MFL Some people who drink water containing asbestos in excess of the MCL

over many years may have an increased risk of developing benign intestinal polyps.

11. Barium .................................. 2 2 Some people who drink water containing barium in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience an increase in their blood pressure.

12. Beryllium ............................... 0.004 0.004 Some people who drink water containing beryllium well in excess of the

MCL over many years could develop intestinal lesions.

13. Cadmium .............................. 0.005 0.005 Some people who drink water containing cadmium in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience kidney damage.

14. Chromium (total) ................... 0.1 0.1 Some people who use water containing chromium well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience allergic dermatitis.

15. Cyanide ................................. 0.2 0.2 Some people who drink water containing cyanide well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience nerve damage or problems

with their thyroid.

16. Fluoride ................................. 4.0 4.0 Some people who drink water containing fluoride in excess of the MCL

over many years could get bone disease, including pain and tenderness of the bones. Fluoride in drinking water at half the MCL or more

may cause mottling of children’s teeth, usually in children less than

nine years old. Mottling, also known as dental fluorosis, may include

brown staining and/or pitting of the teeth, and occurs only in developing teeth before they erupt from the gums.

17. Mercury (inorganic) ............... 0.002 0.002 Some people who drink water containing inorganic mercury well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience kidney damage.

26044 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION—

Continued

Contaminant MCLG 1 mg/L MCL 2 mg/L Standard health effects language for public notification

18. Nitrate ................................... 10 10 Infants below the age of six months who drink water containing nitrate in

excess of the MCL could become seriously ill and, if untreated, may

die. Symptoms include shortness of breath and blue baby syndrome.

19. Nitrite .................................... 1 1 Infants below the age of six months who drink water containing nitrite in

excess of the MCL could become seriously ill and, if untreated, may

die. Symptoms include shortness of breath and blue baby syndrome.

20. Total Nitrate and Nitrite ........ 10 10 Infants below the age of six months who drink water containing nitrate

and nitrite in excess of the MCL could become seriously ill and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms include shortness of breath and blue

baby syndrome.

21. Selenium ............................... 0.05 0.05 Selenium is an essential nutrient. However, some people who drink

water containing selenium in excess of the MCL over many years

could experience hair or fingernail losses, numbness in fingers or

toes, or problems with their circulation.

22. Thallium ................................ 0.0005 0.002 Some people who drink water containing thallium in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience hair loss, changes in their blood,

or problems with their kidneys, intestines, or liver.

C. Lead and Copper Rule:

23. Lead ...................................... Zero TT 12 Infants and children who drink water containing lead in excess of the action level could experience delays in their physical or mental development. Children could show slight deficits in attention span and learning abilities. Adults who drink this water over many years could develop kidney problems or high blood pressure.

24. Copper .................................. 1.3 TT 13 Copper is an essential nutrient, but some people who drink water containing copper in excess of the action level over a relatively short

amount of time could experience gastrointestinal distress. Some people who drink water containing copper in excess of the action level

over many years could suffer liver or kidney damage. People with Wilson’s Disease should consult their personal doctor. 11D. Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs):

25. 2,4–D .................................... 0.07 0.07 Some people who drink water containing the weed killer 2,4–D well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with

their kidneys, liver, or adrenal glands.

26. 2,4,5–TP (Silvex) .................. 0.05 0.05 Some people who drink water containing silvex in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience liver problems.

27. Alachlor ................................. Zero 0.002 Some people who drink water containing alachlor in excess of the MCL

over many years could have problems with their eyes, liver, kidneys,

or spleen, or experience anemia, and may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

28. Atrazine ................................. 0.003 0.003 Some people who drink water containing atrazine well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience problems with their cardiovascular system or reproductive difficulties.

29. Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) ....... Zero 0.0002 Some people who drink water containing benzo(a)pyrene in excess of

the MCL over many years may experience reproductive difficulties

and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

30. Carbofuran ............................ 0.04 0.04 Some people who drink water containing carbofuran in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience problems with their blood, or

nervous or reproductive systems.

31. Chlordane ............................. Zero 0.002 Some people who drink water containing chlordane in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience problems with their liver or

nervous system, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

32. Dalapon ................................ 0.2 0.2 Some people who drink water containing dalapon well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience minor kidney changes.

33. Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate ....... 0.4 0.4 Some people who drink water containing di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience general toxic

effects or reproductive difficulties.

34. Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate .... Zero 0.006 Some people who drink water containing di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in

excess of the MCL over many years may have problems with their

liver, or experience reproductive difficulties, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

35. Dibromochloropropane

(DBCP).

Zero 0.0002 Some people who drink water containing DBCP in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience reproductive difficulties and may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

36. Dinoseb ................................. 0.007 0.007 Some people who drink water containing dinoseb well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience reproductive difficulties.

37. Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) .......... Zero 3×10 ¥8 Some people who drink water containing dioxin in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience reproductive difficulties and may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

38. Diquat ................................... 0.02 0.02 Some people who drink water containing diquat in excess of the MCL

over many years could get cataracts.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26045

APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION—

Continued

Contaminant MCLG 1 mg/L MCL 2 mg/L Standard health effects language for public notification

39. Endothall ............................... 0.1 0.1 Some people who drink water containing endothall in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience problems with their stomach or intestines.

40. Endrin ................................... 0.002 0.002 Some people who drink water containing endrin in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience liver problems.

41. Ethylene dibromide ............... Zero 0.00005 Some people who drink water containing ethylene dibromide in excess

of the MCL over many years could experience problems with their

liver, stomach, reproductive system, or kidneys, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

42. Glyphosate ............................ 0.7 0.7 Some people who drink water containing glyphosate in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience problems with their kidneys

or reproductive difficulties.

43. Heptachlor ............................ Zero 0.0004 Some people who drink water containing heptachlor in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience liver damage and may have

an increased risk of getting cancer.

44. Heptachlor epoxide ............... Zero 0.0002 Some people who drink water containing heptachlor epoxide in excess

of the MCL over many years could experience liver damage, and may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

45. Hexachlorobenzene .............. Zero 0.001 Some people who drink water containing hexachlorobenzene in excess

of the MCL over many years could experience problems with their

liver or kidneys, or adverse reproductive effects, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

46. Hexachlorocyclo-pentadiene 0.05 0.05 Some people who drink water containing hexachlorocyclopentadiene

well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with their kidneys or stomach.

47. Lindane ................................. 0.0002 0.0002 Some people who drink water containing lindane in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience problems with their kidneys or

liver.

48. Methoxychlor ........................ 0.04 0.04 Some people who drink water containing methoxychlor in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience reproductive difficulties.

49. Oxamyl (Vydate) ................... 0.2 0.2 Some people who drink water containing oxamyl in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience slight nervous system effects.

50. Pentachlorophenol ................ Zero 0.001 Some people who drink water containing pentachlorophenol in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience problems with their liver

or kidneys, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

51. Picloram ................................ 0.5 0.5 Some people who drink water containing picloram in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience problems with their liver.

52. Polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs).

Zero 0.0005 Some people who drink water containing PCBs in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience changes in their skin, problems

with their thymus gland, immune deficiencies, or reproductive or nervous system difficulties, and may have an increased risk of getting

cancer.

53. Simazine ............................... 0.004 0.004 Some people who drink water containing simazine in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience problems with their blood.

54. Toxaphene ............................ Zero 0.003 Some people who drink water containing toxaphene in excess of the

MCL over many years could have problems with their kidneys, liver,

or thyroid, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer. 11E.

Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs):

55. Benzene ................................ Zero 0.005 Some people who drink water containing benzene in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience anemia or a decrease in blood

platelets, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

56. Carbon tetrachloride ............. Zero 0.005 Some people who drink water containing carbon tetrachloride in excess

of the MCL over many years could experience problems with their

liver and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

57. Chlorobenzene (monochlorobenzene).0.1 0.1 Some people who drink water containing chlorobenzene in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience problems with their liver

or kidneys.

58. o-Dichlorobenzene ................ 0.6 0.6 Some people who drink water containing o-dichlorobenzene well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with

their liver, kidneys, or circulatory systems.

59. p-Dichlorobenzene ................ 0.075 0.075 Some people who drink water containing p-dichlorobenzene in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience anemia, damage to their

liver, kidneys, or spleen, or changes in their blood.

60. 1,2-Dichloroethane ............... Zero 0.005 Some people who drink water containing 1,2-dichloroethane in excess

of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting

cancer.

61. 1,1-Dichloroethylene ............. 0.007 0.007 Some people who drink water containing 1,1-dichloroethylene in excess

of the MCL over many years could experience problems with their

liver.

26046 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION—

Continued

Contaminant MCLG 1 mg/L MCL 2 mg/L Standard health effects language for public notification

62. cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene ....... 0.07 0.07 Some people who drink water containing cis-1,2-dichloroethylene in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with

their liver.

63. trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene .... 0.1 0.1 Some people who drink water containing trans-1,2-dichloroethylene well

in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems

with their liver.

64. Dichloromethane ................... Zero 0.005 Some people who drink water containing dichloromethane in excess of

the MCL over many years could have liver problems and may have

an increased risk of getting cancer.

65. 1,2-Dichloropropane ............. Zero 0.005 Some people who drink water containing 1,2-dichloropropane in excess

of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting

cancer.

66. Ethylbenzene ........................ 0.7 0.7 Some people who drink water containing ethylbenzene well in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience problems with their liver

or kidneys.

67. Styrene ................................. 0.1 0.1 Some people who drink water containing styrene well in excess of the

MCL over many years could have problems with their liver, kidneys,

or circulatory system.

68. Tetrachloroethylene .............. Zero 0.005 Some people who drink water containing tetrachloroethylene in excess

of the MCL over many years could have problems with their liver, and

may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

69. Toluene ................................. 1 1 Some people who drink water containing toluene well in excess of the

MCL over many years could have problems with their nervous system, kidneys, or liver.

70. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ......... 0.07 0.07 Some people who drink water containing 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience changes in

their adrenal glands.

71. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ............ 0.2 0.2 Some people who drink water containing 1,1,1-trichloroethane in excess

of the MCL over many years could experience problems with their

liver, nervous system, or circulatory system.

72. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ............ 0.003 0.005 Some people who drink water containing 1,1,2-trichloroethane well in

excess of the MCL over many years could have problems with their

liver, kidneys, or immune systems.

73. Trichloroethylene .................. Zero 0.005 Some people who drink water containing trichloroethylene in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience problems with their liver

and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

74. Vinyl chloride ........................ Zero 0.002 Some people who drink water containing vinyl chloride in excess of the

MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

75. Xylenes (total) ....................... 10 10 Some people who drink water containing xylenes in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience damage to their nervous system.

11F. Radioactive Contaminants:

76. Beta/photon emitters ............ Zero 4 mrem/yr 14 Certain minerals are radioactive and may emit forms of radiation known

as photons and beta radiation. Some people who drink water containing beta and photon emitters in excess of the MCL over many

years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

77. Alpha emitters ....................... Zero 15 pCi/L 15 Certain minerals are radioactive and may emit a form of radiation known

as alpha radiation. Some people who drink water containing alpha

emitters in excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

78. Combined radium (226 &

228).

Zero 5 pCi/L Some people who drink water containing radium 226 or 228 in excess

of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting

cancer.

G. Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs),

Byproduct Precursors, and Disinfectant Residuals: Where disinfection is used in the treatment of

drinking water, disinfectants combine with organic and inorganic

matter present in water to form

chemicals called disinfection byproducts (DBPs). EPA sets standards for controlling the levels of

disinfectants and DBPs in drinking

water, including trihalomethanes

(THMs) and haloacetic acids

(HAAs): 16

79. Total trihalomethanes

(TTHMs).

N/A 0.10/

0.08017 18

Some people who drink water containing trihalomethanes in excess of

the MCL over many years may experience problems with their liver,

kidneys, or central nervous system, and may have an increased risk

of getting cancer.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26047

APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141.—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION—

Continued

Contaminant MCLG 1 mg/L MCL 2 mg/L Standard health effects language for public notification

80. Haloacetic Acids (HAA) ........ N/A 0.060 19 Some people who drink water containing haloacetic acids in excess of

the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

81. Bromate ................................ Zero 0.010 Some people who drink water containing bromate in excess of the MCL

over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

82. Chlorite ................................. 0.08 1.0 Some infants and young children who drink water containing chlorite in

excess of the MCL could experience nervous system effects. Similar

effects may occur in fetuses of pregnant women who drink water containing chlorite in excess of the MCL. Some people may experience

anemia.

83. Chlorine ................................ 4 (MRDLG) 20 4.0 (MRDL) 21 Some people who use water containing chlorine well in excess of the

MRDL could experience irritating effects to their eyes and nose. Some

people who drink water containing chlorine well in excess of the

MRDL could experience stomach discomfort.

84. Chloramines .......................... 4 (MRDLG) 4.0 (MRDL) Some people who use water containing chloramines well in excess of

the MRDL could experience irritating effects to their eyes and nose.

Some people who drink water containing chloramines well in excess

of the MRDL could experience stomach discomfort or anemia.

85a. Chlorine dioxide, where any

2 consecutive daily samples

taken at the entrance to the

distribution system are above

the MRDL.

0.8 (MRDLG) 0.8 (MRDL) Some infants and young children who drink water containing chlorine dioxide in excess of the MRDL could experience nervous system effects. Similar effects may occur in fetuses of pregnant women who

drink water containing chlorine dioxide in excess of the MRDL. Some

people may experience anemia.

Add for public notification only: The chlorine dioxide violations reported

today are the result of exceedances at the treatment facility only, not

within the distribution system which delivers water to consumers. Continued compliance with chlorine dioxide levels within the distribution

system minimizes the potential risk of these violations to consumers.

85b. Chlorine dioxide, where one

or more distribution system

samples are above the MRDL.

0.8 (MRDLG) 0.8 (MRDL) Some infants and young children who drink water containing chlorine dioxide in excess of the MRDL could experience nervous system effects. Similar effects may occur in fetuses of pregnant women who

drink water containing chlorine dioxide in excess of the MRDL. Some

people may experience anemia.

Add for public notification only: The chlorine dioxide violations reported

today include exceedances of the EPA standard within the distribution

system which delivers water to consumers. Violations of the chlorine

dioxide standard within the distribution system may harm human

health based on short-term exposures. Certain groups, including

fetuses, infants, and young children, may be especially susceptible to

nervous system effects from excessive chlorine dioxide exposure.

86. Control of DBP precursors

(TOC).

None TT Total organic carbon (TOC) has no health effects. However, total organic carbon provides a medium for the formation of disinfection byproducts. These byproducts include trihalomethanes (THMs) and

haloacetic acids (HAAs). Drinking water containing these byproducts

in excess of the MCL may lead to adverse health effects, liver or kidney problems, or nervous system effects, and may lead to an increased risk of getting cancer.

H. Other Treatment Techniques:

87. Acrylamide ............................ Zero TT Some people who drink water containing high levels of acrylamide over

a long period of time could have problems with their nervous system

or blood, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

88. Epichlorohydrin ..................... Zero TT Some people who drink water containing high levels of epichlorohydrin

over a long period of time could experience stomach problems, and

may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

Appendix B—Endnotes

1. MCLG—Maximum contaminant level

goal

2. MCL—Maximum contaminant level

3. For water systems analyzing at least 40

samples per month, no more than 5.0 percent

of the monthly samples may be positive for

total coliforms. For systems analyzing fewer

than 40 samples per month, no more than

one sample per month may be positive for

total coliforms.

4. There are various regulations that set

turbidity standards for different types of

systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, the 1989

Surface Water Treatment Rule, and the 1998

Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

Rule. The MCL for the monthly turbidity

average is 1 NTU; the MCL for the 2-day

average is 5 NTU for systems that are

required to filter but have not yet installed

filtration (40 CFR 141.13).

5. NTU—Nephelometric turbidity unit

6. There are various regulations that set

turbidity standards for different types of

systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, the 1989

Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), and

the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment Rule (IESWTR). Systems subject to

the Surface Water Treatment Rule (both

filtered and unfiltered) may not exceed 5

NTU. In addition, in filtered systems, 95

percent of samples each month must not

exceed 0.5 NTU in systems using

conventional or direct filtration and must not

exceed 1 NTU in systems using slow sand or

diatomaceous earth filtration or other

filtration technologies approved by the

primacy agency.

7. TT—Treatment technique

8. There are various regulations that set

turbidity standards for different types of

26048 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, the 1989

Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), and

the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment Rule (IESWTR). For systems

subject to the IESWTR (systems serving at

least 10,000 people, using surface water or

ground water under the direct influence of

surface water), that use conventional

filtration or direct filtration, after January 1,

2002, the turbidity level of a system’s

combined filter effluent may not exceed 0.3

NTU in at least 95 percent of monthly

measurements, and the turbidity level of a

system’s combined filter effluent must not

exceed 1 NTU at any time. Systems subject

to the IESWTR using technologies other than

conventional, direct, slow sand, or

diatomaceous earth filtration must meet

turbidity limits set by the primacy agency.

9. The bacteria detected by heterotrophic

plate count (HPC) are not necessarily

harmful. HPC is simply an alternative

method of determining disinfectant residual

levels. The number of such bacteria is an

indicator of whether there is enough

disinfectant in the distribution system.

10. SWTR and IESWTR treatment

technique violations that involve turbidity

exceedances may use the health effects

language for turbidity instead.

11. The bacteria detected by heterotrophic

plate count (HPC) are not necessarily

harmful. HPC is simply an alternative

method of determining disinfectant residual

levels. The number of such bacteria is an

indicator of whether there is enough

disinfectant in the distribution system.

12. Millions fibers per liter.

13. Action Level = 0.015 mg/L

14. Action Level = 1.3 mg/L

15. Millirems per years

16. Picocuries per liter

17. Surface water systems and ground

water systems under the direct influence of

surface water are regulated under Subpart H

of 40 CFR 141. Supbart H community and

non-transient non-community systems

serving ≥ 10,000 must comply with DBP

MCLs and disinfectant maximum residual

disinfectant levels (MRDLs) beginning

January 1, 2002. All other community and

non-transient noncommunity systems must

meet the MCLs and MRDLs beginning

January 1, 2004. Subpart H transient noncommunity systems serving 10,000 or more

persons and using chlorine dioxide as a

disinfectant or oxidant must comply with the

chlorine dioxide MRDL beginning January 1,

2002. Subpart H transient non-community

systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons

and systems using only ground water not

under the direct influence of surface water

and using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant

or oxidant must comply with the chlorine

dioxide MRDL beginning January 1, 2004.

18. The MCL of 0.10 mg/l for TTHMs is in

effect until January 1, 2002 for Subpart H

community water systems serving 10,000 or

more. This MCL is in effect until January 1,

2004 for community water systems with a

population of 10,000 or more using only

ground water not under the direct influence

of surface water. After these deadlines, the

MCL will be 0.080 mg/l. On January 1, 2004,

all systems serving less than 10,000 will have

to comply with the new MCL as well.

19. The MCL for total trihalomethanes is

the sum of the concentrations of the

individual trihalomethanes.

20. The MCL for haloacetic acids is the

sum of the concentrations of the individual

haloacetic acids.

21. MRDLG—Maximum residual

disinfectant level goal.

22. MRDL—Maximum residual

disinfectant level.

Appendix C to Subpart Q of Part 141—List

of Acronyms Used in Public Notification

Regulation

CCR Consumer Confidence Report

CWS Community Water System

DBP Disinfection Byproduct

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

HPC Heterotrophic Plate Count

IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment Rule

IOC Inorganic Chemical

LCR Lead and Copper Rule

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfectant

Level

MRDLG Maximum Residual Disinfectant

Level Goal

NCWS Non-Community Water System

NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water

Regulation

NTNCWS Non-Transient Non-Community

Water System

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

OGWDW Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water

OW Office of Water

PN Public Notification

PWS Public Water System

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant

Level

SOC Synthetic Organic Chemical

SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule

TCR Total Coliform Rule

TT Treatment Technique

TWS Transient Non-Community Water

System

VOC Volatile Organic Chemical

PART 142—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 142

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2,

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

300 j–9, and 300 j–11.

2. Section 142.10 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(6)(v) to read as

follows:

§ 142.10 Requirements for a determination

of primary enforcement responsibility.

(b) * * *

(6) * * *

(v) Authority to require public water

systems to give public notice that is no

less stringent than the EPA

requirements in Subpart Q of Part 141

of this chapter and § 142.16(a).

3. Section 142.14 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (f) as (g) and

adding a new (f), to read as follows:

§ 142.14 Records kept by States.

* * * * *

(f) Public notification records under

Subpart Q of Part 141 of this chapter

received from public water systems

(including certifications of compliance

and copies of public notices) and any

state determinations establishing

alternative public notification

requirements for the water systems must

be retained for three years.

* * * * *

4. Section 142.15 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(1), to read as

follows:

§ 142.15 Reports by States.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(1) New violations by public water

systems in the State during the previous

quarter of State regulations adopted to

incorporate the requirements of national

primary drinking water regulations,

including violations of the public

notification requirements under Subpart

Q of Part 141 of this chapter;

* * * * *

5. Section 142.16 is amended by

revising paragraph (a), to read as

follows:

§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements.

(a) State public notification

requirements.

(1) Each State that has primary

enforcement authority under this part

must submit complete and final requests

for approval of program revisions to

adopt the requirements of Subpart Q of

Part 141 of this chapter, using the

procedures in § 142.12(b) through (d).

At its option, a State may, by rule, and

after notice and comment, establish

alternative public notification

requirements with respect to the form

and content of the public notice

required under Subpart Q of Part 141 of

this chapter. The alternative

requirements must provide the same

type and amount of information

required under Subpart Q and must

meet the primacy requirements under

§ 142.10.

(2) As part of the revised primacy

program, a State must also establish

enforceable requirements and

procedures when the State adds to or

changes the requirements under:

(i) Table 1 to 40 CFR 141.201(a)(Item

(3)(v))—To require public water systems

to give a public notice for violations or

situations other than those listed in

Appendix A of Subpart Q of Part 141 of

this chapter;

(ii) 40 CFR 141.201(c)(2)—To allow

public water systems, under the specific

circumstances listed in § 141.201(c)(2),

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26049

to limit the distribution of the public

notice to persons served by the portion

of the distribution system that is out of

compliance;

(iii) Table 1 of 40 CFR 141.202(a)

(Items (5), (6), and (8))—To require

public water systems to give a Tier 1

public notice (rather than a Tier 2 or

Tier 3 notice) for violations or situations

listed in Appendix A of Subpart Q of

Part 141 of this chapter;

(iv) 40 CFR 141.202(b)(3)—To require

public water systems to comply with

additional Tier 1 public notification

requirements set by the State

subsequent to the initial 24-hour Tier 1

notice, as a result of their consultation

with the State required under

§§ 141.202(b)(2);

(v) 40 CFR 141.202(c), 141.203(c) and

141.204(c)—To require a different form

and manner of delivery for Tier 1, 2 and

3 public notices.

(vi) Table 1 to 40 CFR 141.203(a)

(Item (2))—To require the public water

systems to provide a Tier 2 public

notice (rather than Tier (3)) for

monitoring or testing procedure

violations specified by the State;

(vii) 40 CFR 141.203(b)(1)—To grant

public water systems an extension up to

three months for distributing the Tier 2

public notice in appropriate

circumstances (other than those

specifically excluded in the rule);

(viii) 40 CFR 141.203(b)(2)—To grant

a different repeat notice frequency for

the Tier 2 public notice in appropriate

circumstances (other than those

specifically excluded in the rule), but no

less frequently than once per year;

(ix) 40 CFR 141.203(b)(3)—To

respond within 24 hours to a request for

consultation by the public water system

to determine whether a Tier 1 (rather

than a Tier 2) notice is required for a

turbidity MCL violation under

§ 141.13(b) or a SWTR/IESWTR TT

violation due to a single exceedance of

the maximum allowable turbidity limit;

(x) 40 CFR 141.205(c)—To determine

the specific multilingual requirement

for a public water system, including

defining ‘‘large proportion of nonEnglish-speaking consumers.’’

* * * * *

§ 142.16 [Amended]

6. Section 142.16(e) introductory text

is amended by removing ‘‘§ 141.32’’.

PART 143—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 143

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.

§ 143.5 [Removed]

2. Part 143 is amended by removing

§ 143.5.

[FR Doc. 00–9534 Filed 5–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P