National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence Reports

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to require community water systems to prepare

and provide to their customers annual reports on the quality of the

water delivered by the systems. This action is mandated by the 1996

amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). These reports would

provide valuable information to consumers of tap water from community

water systems and allow them to make personal health-based decisions

regarding their drinking water consumption.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received by EPA

on or before March 30, 1998. EPA will hold a public meeting about the

proposal in Washington, DC on March 3, 1998 beginning at 9 a.m. A

second public meeting will take place in San Francisco, CA on March 10,

1998 beginning at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on this proposed rule to the Consumer

Confidence Report Comment Clerk: Water Docket MC-4101 (docket #W-97-

18), Environmental Protection Agency: 401 M Street, S.W., Washington DC

20460. Please submit an original and three copies of your comments and

enclosures (including references).

Commenters who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments

must enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes)

will be accepted. Comments may also be submitted electronically to ow-

[email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and forms of

encryption. Electronic comments must be identified by Docket #W-97-18.

Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1

format or ASCII file format. Electronic comments on this notice may be

filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

The record for this rulemaking has been established under docket

#W-97-18, and includes supporting documentation as well as printed

paper versions of electronic comments. The record is available for

review at EPA's Water Docket: 401 M Street, S.W., Washington DC 20460.

For access to the Docket materials, call 202-260-3027 between 9:00 a.m.

and 3:30 p.m. for an appointment and reference ``Docket #W-97-18''.

The public meetings will take place in the following locations:

Washington, DC--EPA Auditorium, 401 M St, SW, Washington, DC. San

Francisco--EPA, 1st floor conference rooms, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll

free 800-426-4791 for general information about, and copies of, this

document. For technical inquiries, contact: Francoise M. Brasier 202-

260-5668 or Rob Allison 202-260-9836.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Statutory Authority

II. Consultation with Public Water Systems, State and Local

Governments, Environmental Groups, Public Interest Groups, and Risk

Communication Experts

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Purpose and Applicability

B. Effective Dates and Rationale

C. Rationale for Content of the Reports

D. Required Health Information and Rationale

E. Report Delivery

F. Special State Primacy Requirements and Rationale

G. Health Effect Language and Rationale

IV. Request for Public Comments

V. Cost of Rule

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. General

2. Use of Alternative Definition

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Environmental Justice

G. Risk to Children Analysis

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Regulated persons

Potentially regulated persons are community water systems.

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

Example of regulated

Category entities

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

Publicly-owned CWSs....................... Municipalities; County

Governments; Water

districts; Water and Sewer

Authorities.

Privately-owned CWSs...................... Private water utilities;

homeowners associations.

Ancillary CWSs............................ Persons who deliver drinking

water as an adjunct to

their primary business

(e.g. trailer parks,

retirement homes).

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

The table is not intended to be exhaustive. It 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 Sec. 141.151 of the rule. If you have

questions regarding the applicability of this section to a particular

entity, consult the persons listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

Consumer Right-To-Know Provisions in the Safe Drinking Water Act

The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act contain

extensive provisions for consumer involvement and right-to-know that

herald a new era of public participation in drinking water protection.

These provisions are founded on the principle that consumers have a

right to know what is in their drinking water and where it comes from

before they turn on the tap. With the information provided in these

provisions, consumers will be better able to make health decisions for

themselves and their families.

The Consumer Confidence Reports are the centerpiece of public

right-to-know in SDWA. The information contained in these reports can

raise consumers' awareness of where their water comes from, show them

the process by which safe drinking water is delivered to their homes,

educate them about the importance of prevention measures such as source

water protection to a safe drinking water supply. The reports can be a

tool that starts a dialogue between consumers and their drinking water

utilities, and one that gets consumers more involved in decisions which

may affect their health. The information can be a means for consumers,

especially those with special health needs, to make informed decisions

regarding their drinking water. And finally, the reports

[[Page 7607]]

are a key to unlock more drinking water information. They will provide

access through references or telephone numbers to source water

assessments, health effects data, and additional information about the

water system. The Agency is considering demonstrating its support for

the consumer confidence reports by establishing, in consultation with

the states, an award program which would recognize innovative reports.

Other right-to-know provisions in SDWA include changes to the

public notification requirements, which will give the consumers of

public water supplies more accurate and timely information on

violations. Persons served by a public water system must be given

notice within 24 hours of any violation of a national drinking water

standard ``that has the potential to have serious adverse effects on

human health as a result of short-term exposure.'' EPA's regulation

making these changes is scheduled to be promulgated in August, 1999.

In addition, the public will have access to the completed source

water assessments. States are required under the 1996 SDWA amendments

to assess the condition of every public water supply within the State,

including the boundaries of the source of that water supply and

contamination threats within that source. The consumer confidence

reports will provide information on the availability of the assessment

for that water supply.

By August, 1999, EPA will develop a national contaminant occurrence

data base, that will provide information on the occurrence of both

regulated and unregulated contaminants in public water systems. This

information will be made available to the public through the Internet.

Finally, the public will be provided with early information on

state variance decisions involving their public water system. Public

water systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons that cannot meet

national primary drinking water regulations may apply for a variance to

use an alternate technology to meet the regulation. Consumers served by

that water supply have a right to object to the variance.

All of these public right-to-know provisions are based on the

belief that accountability to the public and the understanding and

support of the public will be vital to address and prevent threats to

drinking water quality in the years ahead. The provisions provide

unprecedented opportunities for the public to participate in decisions

related to the protection of their water supplies. If the public uses

the opportunities, they can ensure that the choices made--particularly

by EPA and the states, but also by water suppliers--respond to the

public's needs and concerns.

I. Statutory Authority

Section 114 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996

(Public Law 104-182), enacted August 6, 1996, amends Section 1414(c) of

the Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)). A new section 1414(c)(4) provides for

annual consumer confidence reports by community water systems to their

customers. Section 1414(c)(4)(A) mandates a number of actions by the

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who is required

to develop and issue regulations within 24 months of the date of

enactment (i.e. in August 1998). The regulations must be developed in

consultation with public water systems, environmental groups, public

interest groups, risk communication experts, the States, and other

interested parties. The regulations must, at a minimum, require each

community water system to mail to each customer of the system at least

once annually a report on the level of contaminants in the drinking

water purveyed by that system. The regulations are required by section

1414(c)(4)(A) to provide a ``brief and plainly worded'' definition of

four terms: ``maximum contaminant level goal,'' ``maximum contaminant

level,'' ``variances,'' and ``exemptions.'' In addition, section

1414(c)(4)(A) requires the regulations to contain brief statements in

plain language regarding the health concerns that resulted in

regulation of each regulated contaminant, and a brief and plainly

worded explanation regarding contaminants that may reasonably be

expected to be present in drinking water, including bottled water.

Finally, section 1414(c)(4)(A) requires the regulations to provide for

an EPA toll-free hotline that consumers can call for more information

and explanation.

Section 1414 of SDWA, as amended, also provides, in a new section

(c)(4)(B) of the Act, additional specific requirements for the contents

of the consumer confidence reports. The reports are required to

include, but need not be limited to, the following information:

Information on the source of the water purveyed. (section

1414(c)(4)(B)(i))

A brief and plainly worded definition of the terms

``maximum contaminant level goal,'' ``maximum contaminant level,''

``variances,'' and ``exemptions,'' as provided in regulations by the

Administrator. (section 1414(c)(4)(B)(ii))

If any regulated contaminant is detected in the water

purveyed by the community water system, a statement setting forth: (1)

the maximum contaminant level goal, (2) the maximum contaminant level,

(3) the level of such contaminant in the water system, and (4) for any

regulated contaminant for which there has been a violation of the

maximum contaminant level during the year covered by the report, the

brief statement in plain language regarding the health concerns that

resulted in regulation of that contaminant, as provided by the

Administrator in regulations under section 1414(c)(4)(A). (section

1414(c)(4)(B)(iii))

Information on compliance with national primary drinking

water regulations, as required by the Administrator, and notice if the

system is operating under a variance or exemption and the basis on

which the variance or exemption was granted. (section

1414(c)(4)(B)(iv))

Information on the levels of unregulated contaminants for

which monitoring is required under section 1445(a)(2) (including levels

of Cryptosporidium and radon where States determine they may be found.)

(section 1414(c)(4)(B)(v))

A statement that the presence of contaminants in drinking

water does not necessarily indicate that the drinking water poses a

health risk and that more information about contaminants and potential

health effects can be obtained by calling the Safe Drinking Water

hotline. (section 1414(c)(4)(B)(vi))

Section 1414(c)(4)(B) also provides that a community water system

may include any additional information that it deems appropriate for

public education. In addition, the Administrator may require, through

regulation, a consumer confidence report to include for not more than

three regulated contaminants, a brief statement in plain language

regarding the health concerns that resulted in regulation of the

contaminant even if there has not been a violation of the maximum

contaminant level during the year concerned.

Section 1414(c)(4)(C) authorizes the Governor of a State to

determine not to apply the mailing requirement to community water

systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons. Such systems then would be

required to inform their customers that the system will not be mailing

the report; make the report available on request to the public; and

publish the report annually in one or more local newspapers serving the

areas in which the systems' customers are located.

[[Page 7608]]

Section 1414(c)(4)(D) allows those community water systems that are

not required to meet the mailing requirements, and which serve 500

persons or fewer, to meet their consumer confidence report obligation

by preparing an annual report and providing notice at least once per

year to each customer by mail, by door-to-door delivery, by posting, or

by any other means authorized in the regulations, that the consumer

confidence report is available upon request.

Section 1414(c)(4)(E) provides that a State exercising primary

enforcement responsibility may establish by rule, after public notice

and comment, alternative requirements with respect to the form and

content of the consumer confidence reports.

This rule, when issued in final form, is intended to fulfill the

rulemaking requirements outlined in amended section 1414(c)(4).

II. Consultation With Public Water Systems, State and Local

Governments, Environmental Groups, Public Interest Groups, and Risk

Communication Experts

As required under section 1414 of SDWA, as amended, the Agency has

met extensively with a broad range of groups in the development of this

proposed rule. Early in the regulatory development process, EPA held a

series of meetings with community water system operators and customers

located in California, to obtain information about California's annual

Water Quality Reports requirement, which has been in effect since 1990,

and to learn from the California program's experiences. In particular,

EPA held meetings with operators of small rural public water systems at

the California Rural Water Association Annual Meeting held in February

1997. Also in February 1997, EPA met with a focus group of water

customers in California to obtain information about their reactions to

receiving annual reports about drinking water quality and how such

reports should be structured and used. Finally, EPA met with members of

the Association of California Water Agencies, primarily including

representatives from large public water systems, public utility

commissions, cities, and metropolitan areas.

The Agency met four times between February and July 1997 with a

special working group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council

(NDWAC). The Advisory Council has been established under Section

10(a)(2) of Public Law 92-423, ``The Federal Advisory Committee Act''

and SDWA. By law, NDWAC is empowered to provide advice to EPA on

regulatory issues. The Consumer Confidence Report Working Group, in

turn, was established by NDWAC to provide advice to it on the

particular issues raised in the development of EPA's regulation on

consumer confidence reports.

The NDWAC Consumer Confidence Report Working Group was composed of

a designated Federal officer; three NDWAC members who served as liaison

between the full NDWAC and the Working Group; and eighteen other

members. The Working Group contained members from public health

organizations; local, State, and Federal government agencies with

responsibilities for supervising public drinking water providers;

operators of large and small drinking water systems; consumer

representatives; environmental organizations; and business and trade

associations. The Working Group met in four two-day sessions, between

February and July 1997, to discuss issues raised by the consumer

confidence report requirements in the 1996 SDWA amendments and to

analyze and debate initial proposals for the consumer confidence report

regulatory requirements. At the end of the Working Group meetings, in

July 1997, the group submitted a draft of the regulations highlighting

unresolved issues to the full NDWAC for its review. NDWAC in turn

presented its recommendations to EPA on the regulation being proposed

today in a NDWAC report submitted in August 1997. These documents are

available in the Docket for this rulemaking.

In June 1997, EPA convened a one-day meeting of a group of private,

State, and Federal experts in public health and the communication of

risk-related information to general audiences. The panel critiqued

preliminary ideas for the consumer confidence report regulatory

requirements and provided suggestions to EPA on effective methods of

communicating risk information.

As it developed today's regulatory proposal, EPA continued to meet

with water system operators and customers. In May 1997 the Agency

obtained the views of system operators in Wyoming, a State chosen

because EPA operates the drinking water program in that State. The

Agency also held a town meeting in Casper, Wyoming to solicit the views

of water system customers.

EPA also received the views of a number of organizations on the

potential contents of consumer confidence reports. In particular,

Agency staff attended a one-day workshop in May 1997 sponsored by the

Environmental Law Institute in which water customers and citizens in

the Washington, D.C. area discussed communication of drinking water

information. EPA also was provided the results of a series of focus

groups held in six locations across the country by the American Water

Works Association to obtain information and viewpoints about drinking

water risk communication issues.

EPA also discussed the proposal with, and received comments from,

another EPA advisory group, the Local Government Advisory Committee.

EPA discussed the statute and EPA's plans for developing the proposal

at a meeting with the Committee in San Francisco in February 1997, and

provided a draft of the rule to the Committee and discussed the draft

at its meeting in New Orleans in May 1997.

The rule being proposed today is based on the NDWAC recommendations

to EPA and has been developed in close consultation with public water

systems, environmental groups, public interest groups, risk

communication experts, the States, and other interested parties, as

required by the 1996 Amendments.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Purpose and Applicability

The rule being proposed today establishes the minimum requirements

for the content of consumer confidence reports.

The rule would apply to existing and new community water systems.

``Community water systems'' are a subset of ``public water systems.'' 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.'' ``Community water systems'' are public water systems

which serve year-round residents. Thus, systems that do not have 15 or

more service connections used by year-round residents or regularly

supply at least 25 year-round residents are not subject to today's

rule.

Out of the approximately 180 thousand water systems in the United

States, only approximately 60 thousand are considered community water

systems. They range from large municipal systems that serve millions of

persons to small systems, which serve fewer than 100 persons. Community

water systems can be further categorized as publicly-owned systems,

including systems owned and operated by municipalities, townships,

counties,

[[Page 7609]]

water districts, and water authorities; privately-owned systems, which

may be owned and operated by groups ranging from investor owned water

companies to homeowners associations; and ancillary systems, which are

small systems that provide water as an ancillary function of their

principal business or enterprise. Ancillary systems are primarily

mobile home parks and a variety of institutional water providers.

Public, private, and ancillary community water systems are all subject

to today's rule.

The balance of the water systems in the United States, or

approximately 130 thousand systems, are either so-called ``transient

non-community systems'' which do not serve the same people on a day to

day basis (for example, highway rest stops) or ``non-transient non-

community systems'' which serve at least 25 of the same people at least

6 months of the year (for example, schools). Because today's rule

applies only to community water systems, as provided by Congress in the

1996 Amendments to SDWA, transient and non-transient non-community

systems are not covered.

EPA notes that water wholesalers are also considered community

water systems. However, if such a system did not retail water to any

customer, i.e. billing unit or drinking water hook-up, the system would

not have to prepare a consumer confidence report. EPA notes that these

systems already provide monitoring information to the States. They

would have to provide that information to the purchaser so that the

purchaser can prepare the consumer confidence report. In the case of

consecutive systems, i.e. a chain of utilities which provide water to

each other, the system delivering water to the customers would be the

one preparing the consumer confidence report.

B. Effective Dates and Rationale

Today's rule would become effective 30 days after publication of

the final rule in the Federal Register and community water systems

would have to deliver the first report to their customers within 13

months of the effective date of the regulations. The Agency is anxious

that these requirements become effective as soon as practicable because

of the importance of this provision. The Agency also believes that the

proposed dates are practicable since they would give systems a full 14

months to prepare their first report. Each consumer confidence report

is required to describe monitoring results for the past twelve-month

period. EPA believes that giving community water systems a period

slightly longer than a year to prepare the first report ensures that

they will have the time to assemble the necessary information, to

develop the necessary report format, and to arrange for distribution of

the consumer confidence reports. In addition, some States are already

implementing or developing their own reporting requirements. EPA also

believes that the 14 month period after enactment of the rule would

ensure that systems that had recently prepared a State mandated report

would not be required to immediately prepare another report required by

today's rule.

New community water systems, that is, community water systems that

begin delivering water to customers after the effective date of today's

rule, must deliver their first report within 18 months of the date that

they begin delivering water to customers. EPA concluded that the longer

period of time before delivery of the first reports would allow new

systems to initiate and carry out a broader range of monitoring

activities (some required monitoring requires at least one year's

collection of data; other required monitoring may occur over a period

in excess of 12 months). In addition, the 18 month period will allow

new systems to develop and implement procedures for preparing and

distributing the reports.

Some stakeholders argued that the Agency should propose that all

reports be due on a certain date. They believed that this would give

the reports more impact by allowing for an orchestrated outreach

campaign at the time of issuance. The Agency believes however, that

there are merits to allowing some flexibility since different utilities

will have different start-up needs. States can make different decisions

when they promulgate their regulations and would be free to impose a

specific date for issuance of the consumer reports under their

jurisdiction.

C. Rationale for Content of the Reports

In developing today's rule on the contents of consumer confidence

reports prepared by community water systems, EPA sought to provide

community water systems with the maximum amount of flexibility to

design their reports, consistent with the requirements of the 1996

Amendments. The Agency therefore generally limited the requirements for

the content of reports, found in Secs. 141.153 and 141.154 of the

proposed rule, to a clarification and explanation of the requirements

in section 114 of the 1996 Amendments. In addition to today's rule, EPA

is planning to prepare and issue detailed guidance that will provide

supplementary information and examples of ways in which systems can

prepare and present the data in consumer confidence reports. The Agency

also will develop, prior to the effective date of the rule computerized

``fill-in-the-blank'' templates that water systems will be able to use

if they are unable or do not choose to develop their own consumer

confidence report format. The Agency anticipates that very small

systems, in particular, will be able to use these templates to minimize

the burden of preparing the reports.

1. Information on the Source of the Water Purveyed

Consumer confidence reports are intended primarily to convey

information to persons served by community water systems about the

quality of the water they are consuming. Thus, the emphasis of the

reports is on ``finished'' rather than ``source'' water. Congress did,

however, require the reports to include information about the sources

of the water delivered by the system. In addition, many of the

participants in public meetings on the consumer confidence reports held

by EPA, and the members of the expert panel on risk communication

convened by EPA, argued that the reports will be substantially more

interesting and useful to persons if the reports provide context for

the information about finished water. Therefore, today's rule specifies

that each report must identify the sources of the water delivered by

the community water system by providing information on the type of

water (that is, whether the source is ground water, surface water, a

combination of the two, or water obtained from another system); and the

commonly used name or names (if any) and location of the body or bodies

of water. Several commenters on the report requirements suggested to

EPA that maps of water sources are a particularly effective means of

communicating this information. The Agency is encouraging systems to

use maps in the consumer confidence reports whenever possible, although

maps have not been included in the mandatory contents of the reports.

One issue raised during the development of the proposal was whether

the rule should require information on sources of contamination that

may have an impact on the quality of the source water used by a

community water system. Some stakeholders argued that if particular

sources of contamination are known for the sources of water delivered

by the community water system, the consumer confidence reports should

provide a concise description of them. The public frequently has a

general knowledge of

[[Page 7610]]

the contamination sources that affect particular surface water bodies,

according to the advocates of this provision, and failing to provide

information about them can reduce the credibility of the reports

generally. Other stakeholders noted that the consumer confidence

reports deal primarily with the quality of the finished water as it is

delivered to its consumers. They argued that a requirement to provide

information on contaminants in source water without regard to their

presence in the finished water may lead to unnecessary concerns. The

Agency notes the difficulty of definitively linking contaminants to

specific sources and the liability issues that may arise if the reports

attempt to do so without adequate documentation.

The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act created a new

program of source water assessments under section 1453 of the Act. The

Agency has issued guidance on State Source Water Assessment and

Protection Programs, under which States with primary enforcement

authority must: (1) delineate the boundaries of the areas providing

source waters for public water systems and (2) identify, to the extent

practical, the origins of regulated and certain unregulated

contaminants in the delineated area to determine the susceptibility of

public water systems to such contaminants. Assessments are to be

completed for all public water systems within two years after EPA's

approval of the State's program with possible 18 month extensions.

In an effort to balance competing concerns regarding the provisions

of information on contaminant sources in the report, today's rule

creates a linkage with this Source Water Assessment program by

requiring that if a source water assessment has been completed for the

community water system, that system's consumer confidence report must

notify customers of the availability of this information and the means

to obtain it. This will allow interested parties to get accurate and

detailed information on the sources of contaminants.

However, as recommended by the NDWAC, today's rule does not include

a requirement that consumer confidence reports contain specific

information about sources of contamination which may affect the quality

of the source water, although it does require that generic information

be provided about the likely sources of detected regulated

contaminants. The Agency is inviting comments on this issue.

2. Definitions

The rule contains definitions in Sec. 141.153 (c)(1) and (2) of

four terms that must be used in consumer confidence reports: ``Maximum

contaminant level goal or MCLG,'' ``Maximum Contaminant Level or MCL,''

``Variances,'' and ``Exemptions.'' These definitions differ from those

found in 40 CFR 141.2. The definitions are designed to explain key

components of the national primary drinking water regulations in brief,

plainly worded terms. The draft definitions were examined closely by

the NDWAC Consumer Confidence Reports Working Group, by the expert

panel, and by EPA's own staff. All of these reviewers recognized that

the definitions, particularly the definitions for maximum contaminant

level goal (MCLG) and maximum contaminant level (MCL), represent

dramatic simplifications of complicated processes. The expert panel, in

particular, recommended that EPA test these definitions and, if

necessary, revise them. The Agency therefore is specifically requesting

comments on these proposed definitions.

Maximum Contaminant Level Goal or MCLG is defined by the proposed

rule as ``The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which

there is no known or expected risk to health.'' This definition

therefore highlights the requirement in the SDWA that EPA set MCLGs at

a level at which ``no known or anticipated adverse effects on the

health of persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of

safety.'' The definition does not attempt to describe the use of

Reference Doses to determine the MCLG for non-carcinogenic contaminants

and Class C carcinogens, nor does it specify that for Class A and B

carcinogens the MCLG must be set at zero. The expert panel was

particularly concerned by the lack of context in the proposed

definition, noting that it contains no information about how drinking

water is determined to be safe. At the same time, the Panel recognized

the difficulty of developing a simple and accurate description of the

process that would be suitable for inclusion in the reports. Some panel

members suggested that EPA develop a one-page handout on the process of

setting MCLs and MCLGs, which could either be included in the reports

or made separately available to drinking water consumers. EPA is

requesting comment on this issue.

Maximum Contaminant Level or MCL is defined by the proposed rule as

``the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking

water.'' This definition highlights the function of the MCL as an

enforceable standard under the primary drinking water regulations. The

agency is aware that this definition does not provide an explanation of

how the MCLs are set. As provided by SDWA, EPA sets MCLs as close to

the corresponding MCLGs as ``feasible with the use of the best

technology, treatment techniques, and other means, which the

Administrator finds, after examination for efficacy under field

conditions and not solely under laboratory conditions are available

(taking cost into consideration).''

The expert panel in particular noted that these definitions do not

provide any content for interpreting the health significance of a

contaminant concentration above the MCLG but below the MCL and

recommended that EPA use a longer definition of MCL such as: ``the

level determined to provide the best protection to health, given cost

and treatment feasibility''. The working group, however, was not able

to agree on any characterization of the MCL beyond a minimal

description of its regulatory function. Some members wanted to stress

the safety factors built into the MCL setting process while others

believed strongly that whenever an MCL is set above an MCLG the best

protection to health is not achieved. One alternative would be to

paraphrase language from the SDWA to provide additional context for the

definitions. For example, MCLG might be defined as ``The level of a

contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected

risk to health, allowing an adequate margin of safety.'' MCL could then

be defined as ``The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in

drinking water, which is set as close to the MCL as feasible using the

best available treatment technology.'' The Agency requests comments on

the proposed definitions of both MCL and MCLG. Commenters should bear

in mind that brevity and plain language are required by the Statute for

these definitions.

The NDWAC Working Group recommended combining the definitions of

variances and exemptions into a single definition, since in its opinion

the two terms described a single concept. ``Variances and exemptions''

therefore are defined in the rule as ``State permission not to meet an

MCL or a treatment technique under certain conditions.'' Some members

of the Working Group suggested adding the phrase ``provided there is no

unreasonable risk to health'' to the definition, in order to inform

report recipients that this is one of the statutory conditions for

receiving a

[[Page 7611]]

variance or exemption. EPA is requesting comment on this suggestion.

The definitions section of the proposed rule also includes two

definitions not mandated by the 1996 Amendments but considered

necessary by EPA to address situations likely to be encountered by many

systems. When an MCL cannot be established, EPA may set a treatment

technique or action level. Section 141.153(c)(3) of the proposed rule

states that when a report contains data on a contaminant for which EPA

has set a treatment technique or an action level, the report must

define treatment technique as ``A required process intended to reduce

the level of a contaminant in drinking water;'' and must define action

level as ``The concentration of a contaminant which triggers treatment

or other requirement which a water system must follow.''

EPA notes that the use of these definitions in the consumer

confidence reports is not meant in any way to alter the legal and

enforceable definition of these terms.

3. Level of Detected Contaminants

Sections 1414(c)(4)(B)(iii) and (v) of SDWA as amended establish

reporting requirements for ``regulated'' and ``unregulated

contaminants'' detected in the water purveyed by a community water

system. The Agency believes that information on contaminants detected

by the system is the lynchpin of the reports. This is the information

which will allow water consumers to make educated health-related

decisions based on their personal circumstances. Therefore it is

important that the information be as complete and accurate as feasible

without falling into the trap of information overload.

As far as accuracy is concerned, the Agency is aware that choosing

one number to put in the report which gives a true representation of

the water that customers may have consumed during the year will

sometimes be difficult. The quality of the water is subject to spatial

and temporal variability. This variability is magnified in large

systems where blending of several sources may occur. It is not feasible

for the Agency to lay down hard and fast rules to deal with all

instances where the quality of the water may be variable; therefore,

the Agency is proposing a performance standard in Sec. 141.153(d)(1)

which requires operators to provide customers with an accurate picture

of the level of contaminant they may have been exposed to during the

year. The quantitative information on levels of detected contaminants

may, however, provide only part of the picture. The Agency expects that

systems may need to provide qualititative explanations of water quality

variations as well. These explanations could, for example, describe to

customers the fact that warm temperatures facilitate microbial growth

and may necessitate higher levels of disinfectant in the water. EPA

requests comment on the usefulness of such information.

EPA recognizes that this rule will require water system operators

to present information on contaminants detected at very low levels. The

Agency does not intend that operators report levels beneath the Minimum

Detection Limits, based upon the analytic requirements listed in 40 CFR

141 Subpart C, which are levels so low that they are analytically

invalid.

EPA believes that, in order for the public to make well-informed

health decisions, the reports should contain information available to

the systems on any contaminant which may have an impact on the health

of persons whether or not monitoring for these contaminants is

currently required by regulations promulgated under the SDWA. While

section 1414(c)(4) does not explicitly require that the reports contain

all of this information, EPA believes that such reporting is authorized

under both section 1414(c)(4)(B) (which states that the contents of the

report must include, but not be limited to, certain items) and section

1445(a)(2) (which authorizes the Administrator to require regulated

systems to report information to the public on unregulated

contaminants). On the other hand, the Agency does not want

inadvertently to stop systems from performing additional voluntary

monitoring by requiring disclosure of information the significance of

which they could not explain. Therefore the Agency is proposing to

include a provision which strongly encourages systems to include in the

reports any information indicating a possible health concern from

contaminants for which EPA has proposed an NPDWR or issued a health

advisory. If, for example, a contaminant is found at a level exceeding

a proposed MCL or a health advisory level of concern, EPA believes that

the system should disclose this result to its customers. On the other

hand, if the system believes that its voluntary monitoring results are

inconclusive or insignificant from a health standpoint, it need not

report them.

EPA proposes that the reports address, in separate sections, (1)

the results of monitoring mandated by regulation for both regulated and

unregulated contaminants as mandated by section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iii)and

(v), and (2) the results of voluntary monitoring performed by the

system that has shown a detection of radon or Cryptosporidium or the

presence of any additional contaminant which a system elects to include

in the reports.

With respect to the manner in which data are presented, the

proposed rule contains a number of provisions:

a. The initial report must identify the twelve-month period that it

covers. Subsequent reports must identify and cover successive twelve

month periods, to ensure that gaps do not exist between periods covered

by the reports.

b. Data on detected contaminants for which monitoring is mandatory

would be displayed in a table. These data include contaminants subject

to an MCL, action level or treatment technique (regulated

contaminants), contaminants for which monitoring is required by

Sec. 141.40 (unregulated contaminants), and disinfection byproducts and

microbiological contaminants (except Cryptosporidium) for which

monitoring is required by Secs. 141.140 and 141.142 (the information

collection rule). The Agency is not mandating a particular format for

the table. EPA is seeking to leave the maximum possible amount of

flexibility to drinking water systems to design effective methods of

presenting the required data. However, the rule would contain a number

of provisions pertaining to the manner in which the data is presented.

If a system is allowed to monitor for certain contaminants less

often than once a year, the report must include the date and results

of the most recent sampling and a brief explanation (e.g. in a

footnote) for why the sample was not taken within the reporting

period (e.g., ``monitoring only required once every 3 years'').

The MCL for detected regulated contaminants should be presented

in whole units. EPA has recalculated the MCLs in such units, and has

incorporated them into Appendix A of the regulation. The MCLG for

each contaminant should be expressed in the same units as the MCL.

Detections also should be expressed in the same units. The Agency

notes that it will continue to rely on the numbers reported to the

State to comply with the regulations to determine compliance and

undertake enforcement action if necessary. In no case would the way

in which data is presented in the consumer confidence reports affect

an enforcement decision on compliance with MCLs or action levels.

The expert panel encouraged EPA to allow community water systems

to use illustrative examples to clarify the meaning of the detected

levels (e.g., ``equivalent to one drop in a railroad tank car''); in

contrast, the NDWAC working group believed that such illustrations

could be subject to misinterpretation or misuse. The Agency

concluded that it would allow systems the

[[Page 7612]]

flexibility to adopt such examples, but would not encourage their

use.

For contaminants subject to an NPDWR, EPA concluded that

community water systems should be required to report ``the highest

test result used to determine compliance with an NPDWR.'' Thus,

whenever compliance with an MCL is based on a monthly or quarterly

average, the highest average for the year should be included in the

table. If compliance is determined by averaging the results for

various sampling points, only the average should be reported in the

table. Several members of the NDWAC working group and members of the

expert panel urged, instead, that ranges of results or highest

values should be reported. Thus, when compliance is based on an

average, in addition to reporting the average, the system would also

report the highest value detected. The advocates of this approach

noted that for some contaminants, such as TTHMs, parts of the

distribution system may be exposed to concentrations above the

average. The Agency concluded, however, that presentation of ranges

and highest values could be confusing. Instead the Agency is

proposing that for these contaminants, the reports clearly indicate

that the results are based on an average and explain what an average

means. Further, based on the NDWAC recommendations, the Agency is

proposing an exception to this single number reporting. For MCLs

such as TTHMs for which reporting is based on a system-wide average,

and for which substantial variation of contaminant levels may occur

within the distribution system, the reports should disclose

instances where a significant portion (10%) of the population is

consistently exposed to a level higher than the MCL. In such

instances the reports would have to identify the portions of the

service areas where consumers are exposed to these higher levels and

specify what these levels are. The Agency would like specific

comments on this issue. The Agency notes that these circumstances

should not arise if the sampling points for TTHMs have been chosen

in accordance with the regulations and is requesting commenters to

submit specific data if they have information to the contrary. The

Agency also notes that, at this time, this requirement would have no

impact on systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons since they are

exempt from the TTHM requirements. The Agency is also requesting

comment on whether it is necessary for the reports to note

contaminant levels that are averages and explain what that means for

chronic contaminants where the MCL is based on cumulative exposure

over many years.

EPA notes that while in the case of some regulated contaminants,

water systems would report averages rather than the single highest

level, in the case of detected unregulated contaminants, it expects

water systems to report the highest detected level. Some concern was

raised that this single highest level might not be representative of

the water quality, and that consumers might be better served by

putting in place instead a performance standard for the unregulated

contaminants similar to that for the regulated contaminants,

requiring systems to provide customers with an accurate picture of

the level of contaminants they may have been exposed to during the

year. The Agency is requesting comment on this issue.

The proposed rule would require community water systems to

include in the table the likely source of any detected regulated

contaminant. In general EPA is expecting systems to describe these

sources in generic terms such as ``agricultural runoff'',

``petrochemical plants''. In some cases, however the system may have

information obtained though a source water assessment which would

allow the report to be more specific. When the source is not

definitely known the system should include in the table the generic

description of major sources derived from Appendix A. The inclusion

of this requirement was the subject of lengthy discussion among

stakeholders. While some believe that it is important for the public

to understand that contaminants in the finished water are often the

result of activities which are not under the control of the water

systems, others were concerned that requiring operators,

particularly of small systems, to seek specific information would be

too burdensome. The Agency believes that providing generic

descriptions for use in cases where a specific source is not

definitely known appropriately balances those concerns. The Agency

is requesting comments on this requirement and particularly on the

usefulness of the generic list and on its wording.

The proposed rule requires a community water source that

distributes water to its customers from several raw sources which

are not blended, to include a separate column in its table of

results for each service area. The report should also identify the

service area for each entry point into the distribution system.

Today's rule requires community water systems to include

specific information in their consumer confidence reports for every

regulated contaminant detected in violation of an MCL. This

information, which must include a clear and readily understandable

explanation of the violation, the potential health effects, and the

actions taken by the system to address the violation, need not be

included in the table of results (though it may be). Instead, the

system may provide the required information in a separate section on

violations and what they mean, although that section should be

clearly labeled as addressing violations and situated close to the

table of results. The description of potential adverse health

effects included in this section would use the relevant language of

Appendix B. A discussion of the linkages between this proposed

requirement and the requirements for public notification is included

in Section VI of this preamble.

c. Additionally today's rule would require water systems to provide

information on detection of Cryptosporidium, radon and other currently

unregulated contaminants.

Information on Cryptosporidium would be included whether it is

detected in compliance with the ICR regulations or through voluntary

monitoring performed by a system. Specifically, the reports must

include a summary of the monitoring results, information on how the

monitoring was performed, and an explanation of the significance of

the results. When EPA promulgated the ICR, it explained that its

intent in collecting these data was to gain information that it

could use in aggregate to determine national occurrence of

Cryptosporidium and evaluate the treatment cost implications of new

regulations. The Agency emphasized that these data should not be

used to make judgements about the compliance of any specific water

system with drinking water standards. The Agency is not changing

this policy and remains aware that Cryptosporidium presents

difficult measurement challenges. EPA was clear in its preamble for

the ICR (61 FR 24363, May 14, 1996) that laboratory approval

criteria for the ICR were designed to conduct national regulatory

impact analysis and that better method performance would be needed

for individual systems to comply with future rules. Therefore, while

EPA believes that it is appropriate for the systems to disclose

these results to their customers it is not dictating how. The

proposed rule requires water systems that detect Cryptosporidium to

summarize the results of monitoring but is not requiring that these

data be included in the table to give systems more flexibility

regarding how they display the information and how they explain the

significance of the results to consumers. The rule also would

require systems to explain how the monitoring was performed. This

provision is not meant to require systems to give detailed

explanations about laboratory methods or sampling protocols; rather,

EPA expects the systems to provide some indication whether raw water

or finished water was sampled and the extent of sampling. EPA

requests comments about the inclusion of these data in the consumer

confidence reports and the appropriate format for doing so.

When a system detects radon, the Agency is proposing that the

reports must include the results of the monitoring, information on

how the monitoring was performed, and an explanation of the

significance of the results. EPA will provide examples in guidance

of what such an explanation might be. As with Cryptosporidium, EPA

does not expect detailed explanations of the sampling or laboratory

methods.

When a system detects any other unregulated contaminant, the

proposed rule would strongly encourage systems to determine if there

is a health advisory or a proposed NPDWR for that contaminant in

order to determine whether there may be a health concern which

warrants inclusion of the data in the consumer confidence reports.

Note that for Cryptosporidium, radon, and any other contaminants

for which monitoring is not required, the proposed rule allows

systems the flexibility to present results either in the table or in

another section of the report.

4. Compliance With National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

Under section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iv) of SDWA as amended, consumer

confidence reports must contain information on compliance with

[[Page 7613]]

national primary drinking water regulations, as required by the

Administrator. The statute speaks in terms of ``compliance,'' which

might be interpreted to require only certification of compliance/

noncompliance with the NPDWR. However, the Agency believes it is

appropriate to require reporting of any violation of the standards in

the regulations, with the exception of violations of MCLs, which are

addressed elsewhere in the consumer confidence reports. The Agency

requests comments on the need to include all NPDWR violations as listed

in the 144.153(e). An alternative would be to select only these

violations which could clearly result in a health risk. If this

alternative is recommended by commenters, they should include a

discussion of how EPA could differentiate such violations, and specific

suggestions for types of violations (e.g., record-keeping) that

wouldn't need to be reported.

The proposed rule further specifies that the report must contain a

clear and readily understandable explanation of the violation and its

health significance. EPA recognizes that for violations other than MCLs

and treatment techniques, explanations of health significance will need

to be fairly general (e.g., for violation of a monitoring requirement,

the explanation might be ``Failure to perform required monitoring may

cause contaminants with potentially adverse health effects to go

undetected''). Finally, the report must describe the steps the system

has taken to correct the violation. A full discussion of the linkage

between this proposed requirement and the public notification

requirements is included in Section VI of this preamble.

5. Variances and Exemptions

Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iv) also mandates that consumer confidence

reports must include ``notice if the system is operating under a

variance or exemption and the basis on which the variance or exemption

was granted.'' In order to ensure that the public has an opportunity to

fully understand the basis for the variance or exemption and to

participate in consideration of it, the proposed rule adds a

requirement that two additional items of information be included in the

report. First, the report must provide the dates when the variance or

exemption was issued and when it is due for renewal. Second, the report

must provide a 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 for the variance or exemption.

While the Agency is mindful of the importance of keeping the consumer

confidence reports brief and relatively simple, it also believes that

in the case of a variance or exemption, the public is best served by a

complete explanation of the situation. The Agency requests comment on

an alternate requirement which would call for a ``brief status report

on compliance with the terms of the variance or exemption.''

6. Additional Information

Section 1414(c)(4)(A) requires EPA's consumer confidence report

regulations to include a ``brief and plainly worded explanation

regarding contaminants that may reasonably be expected to be present in

drinking water, including bottled water.'' Although the statute does

not specify explicitly that reports delivered to customers of community

water systems include this explanation, the Agency concluded that

otherwise there would have been no function served when Congress

required it to be included in the regulation. Further, section

1414(c)(4)(B) gives the Administrator the authority to require that

additional information be included in the reports. The Agency is

proposing therefore that such an explanation must be included in the

reports.

Today's proposed rule includes three paragraphs in response to this

requirement. The first explains that surface water and ground water

provide the source water for both tap water and bottled water, and that

both surface and ground water dissolve naturally-occurring minerals and

radioactive material and can pick up substances resulting from the

presence of animals or from human activity. The second paragraph

provides a short description of the types of contaminants that may be

present in source water. The third paragraph explains that EPA and the

Food and Drug Administration prescribe regulations that limit the

amount of certain contaminants in water provided by community water

systems and in bottled water, respectively. As required by section

1414(c)(4)(B)(ii), it further explains that the presence of

contaminants does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a

health risk, and indicates that the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline can

provide additional information about contaminants and health effects.

The NDWAC Working Group and the expert panel both debated the

material at length. Some members were concerned that the language

shifted the focus of the report from finished water to source water. In

addition, members noted that the reports should not suggest that water

can ever be completely free of contaminants, because naturally

occurring contaminants are always going to be present in some

concentration. Some commenters on the language suggested that the

description of potential contaminants could unnecessarily alarm

customers whose water did not contain all of the described categories

of contaminants. The NDWAC's recommendation was that this section of

the report should be entirely optional.

EPA believes that the statute requires that the report include an

explanation for the presence of contaminants and has included this

requirement in Sec. 141.153(g)(1). The Agency agrees with stakeholders

that the systems should be given flexibility in the wording of the

explanation. Therefore, EPA's proposal includes optional language in

proposed Sec. 141.153(g)(1)(i),(ii) and (iii) which systems may use to

fulfill the requirement. Alternatively, subparagraph (iv) provides

minimal language that a system may use to fulfill the requirement.

Systems may also develop their own language. EPA is proposing to

require that the language of subparagraph(v) be included in all reports

since this language is mandated by the statute in section

1414(c)(4)(B)(vi).

D. Required Health Information and Rationale

All consumer confidence reports are required by today's proposed

regulation to include a statement that some people may be more

vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general

population. The statement goes on to identify several categories of

persons who may be particularly at risk from infections, and encourages

them to seek advice from their health providers. It further informs

people that EPA/CDC Guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk

of infection from Cryptosporidium may be obtained from the EPA Safe

Drinking Water Hotline and provides the number, as required by the 1996

Amendments. EPA is requesting comments on the clarity and usefulness of

this statement, particularly whether it is clear that only certain

populations are particularly at-risk from infectious contaminants and

whether the statement is appropriate for inclusion in all reports.

In addition to the health effects information that must be included

in the report where there is a violation of an MCL discussed above, the

rule also specifies language that must be included in the reports if

the system has identified a violation of a treatment technique. This

required health information for violation of the surface water

treatment rule describes the

[[Page 7614]]

organisms that may be present in unfiltered or inadequately treated

surface water, and presents information about the health effects that

may result from consumption of such water. This section also addresses

acrylamide and epichlorohydrin, which are impurities in chemicals used

in drinking water treatment, and which are limited under treatment

techniques specified by EPA. Required health effects language also must

be provided in consumer confidence reports about these contaminants, if

their specified treatment techniques are violated.

E. Report Delivery

The rule being proposed today tracks section 1414(c) of SDWA with

respect to how the reports should be delivered to drinking water system

customers. It requires one copy of the report to be mailed to each

customer, unless the Governor of a State has waived the mailing

requirement and the system serves fewer than 10,000 persons. Systems

for whom the mailing requirements have been waived are required to

publish the report in one or more local newspapers serving the area in

which the system is located; inform their customers, either in the

newspapers in which the reports are published or by other means

approved by the state, that the report will not be mailed; and make the

reports available to the public upon request. A further exception is

carved out in the Statute for systems serving 500 or fewer persons for

which the Governor has waived the mailing requirements. These systems

may forego publication of the report in a local newspaper if they

provide notice by mail, door-to-door delivery, or posting in an

appropriate location that the report is available upon request.

The Agency has clarified the report delivery requirements with

respect to community water systems that are in Indian Country. Under

the proposed rule, Tribal Leaders can exercise the same authority as

State Governors to waive the mailing requirement for systems serving

fewer than 10,000 persons, if EPA finds that the tribe is eligible to

be treated in the same manner as a state under section 1451 of SDWA for

purposes of the authority to waive the mailing requirements for such

systems contained in section 1414(c). Under section 1451 (codified at

42 U.S.C. 300j-11) the Administrator of EPA is authorized to treat

Indian Tribes in the same manner as States. Under today's rule, a tribe

may seek eligibility to be treated in the same manner as a state for

purposes of waiving the mailing requirement either by applying as part

of the Tribe's application for primacy over the Public Water System

Program or by applying separately for waiver authority. EPA is not

requiring tribes to have primacy over other aspects of the Public water

system Program to receive waiver authority.

Under either option, a tribe must demonstrate, using the procedures

outlined in 40 CFR section 142.76, that it meets the treatment in the

same manner as a state eligibility requirements contained in SDWA

section 1451 and 40 CFR section 142.72: (1) federal recognition; (2) a

governing body exercising substantial governmental duties and powers;

(3) jurisdiction; and (4) capability. Consistent with the Agency's 1994

``Simplification Rule'' which simplified the tribal eligibility

process, a tribe that has been treated in the same manner as a state

for purposes of another EPA program will not need to reestablish the

first two criteria when applying to waiver authority. Rather, such a

tribe will only need to demonstrate that it meets the jurisdictional

and capability requirements. For detailed guidance on demonstrating the

eligibility requirements, see 53 FR 37396, 37398-402 and 59 FR 64339-

341. EPA proposes to amend CFR sections 142.72 and 142.78 to include

the authority to waive the mailing requirement as a provision for which

EPA is authorized to treat tribes in the same manner as states. EPA

anticipates that a number of community water systems in Indian Country

may be subject to this provision, and it is important for EPA to

provide a mechanism by which the mailing requirement may be waived.

In areas of Indian country where EPA has not found a tribe eligible

to waive the mailing requirement and no state has been explicitly

approved to implement the PWS program, EPA may waive the mailing

requirement of 40 CFR Sec. 144.155(a). EPA does not believe it is

appropriate to require Indian tribes to seek the authority to waive the

mailing requirement because the SDWA does not require tribes to seek

such authority and, while EPA has streamlined the process, seeking

approval to be treated in the same manner as a state may still be a

significant effort that Tribes may not wish to undertake solely to

obtain the authority to waive the mailing requirement for consumer

confidence reports. Yet, as noted above, EPA believes that small

community water systems in Indian Country are just as likely, if not

more likely to need the relief from the mailing requirement. EPA is

authorized under SDWA Sec. 1451, where it is inappropriate or

administratively infeasible to treat tribes as identical to states for

a particular provision, to administer such provision in a manner that

will achieve the purposes of the provision. EPA intends to exercise

that authority to waive the mailing requirement for small systems in

Indian Country in consultation with the Tribe to achieve the purposes

of Section 1414(c) where the relevant tribe has not been approved to be

treated in the same manner as a state and no state has been explicitly

approved by EPA to implement the Public Water System program. EPA

solicits comment on this issue.

EPA considers ``Indian country'' or ``Indian lands'' to be: (a) all

land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction

of the United States government, notwithstanding the issuance of any

patent, and including rights-of-way running through the reservation,

(b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United

States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory

thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a State, and (c)

all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been

extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. See 40

CFR Sec. 144.3; see also 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1151. EPA has used the term

``Indian lands'' in the past under SDWA, but has defined it as ``Indian

country'' as defined under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1151. See 40 CFR Sec. 144.3.

To avoid confusion, EPA will use the term ``Indian country'' in today's

proposed rule.

In the course of its public meetings concerning the form and

contents of the consumer confidence report requirements, EPA was urged

by some members of the public to require the reports to be distributed

to all consumers of water supplied by a particular community water

system, rather than only to customers of the system which is the usage

in section 1414(c). Advocates of the consumer-related approach argued

that, for example, residents of apartment houses, condominiums, or

other similar living accommodations might not be indicated in community

water system billing records as customers, and thus would not receive

personal copies of the reports. Rather than relying on their own

customer lists, community water systems could obtain lists of postal

patrons, utilize so-called criss-cross directories, use voter lists, or

in some other way obtain lists of likely consumers of their supplied

water. While the Agency recognizes that sending consumer confidence

reports to water system customers may not reach every person who may

have consumed water from the system, it believes that

[[Page 7615]]

alternative approaches may be more efficient than mandated mailings to

all consumers. Therefore, today's rule calls for systems to make a

``good faith'' effort to reach consumers who do not receive water

bills, using means recommended by the Director of the State Drinking

Water Program. Such means may include posting the report on the

Internet, publishing it in subdivision newsletters, or asking landlords

or apartment managers to post the report in a conspicuous place in

their building. The Agency specifically requests comments on this

issue.

Under Sec. 141.155(b) of the rule, a community water system must

send one copy of its report to the Director of the State Drinking Water

Program, in States with primary enforcement authority. This provision

will help to ensure that reports are prepared and distributed annually,

since the report submitted to the State Director must be accompanied by

a written certification that the report has been distributed to the

system's customers and that the information contained in the report is

correct and consistent with the compliance monitoring data previously

submitted to the State. States will have the opportunity to set up

State clearinghouses of consumer confidence reports, either as a State

function or through a designated third party, so that interested

persons could obtain copies of consumer confidence reports from those

clearinghouses. At a minimum, states that do not set up a clearinghouse

must maintain a list of the phone numbers of community water systems

operators to assist interested persons in obtaining reports.

Section 141.155(c) of the rule requires community water systems to

mail a copy of their consumer confidence report to any other agency in

the State with jurisdiction over community water systems. This could

include public utilities commissions, if they have jurisdiction over

rate making; public health agencies, which may either have primary

jurisdiction over water systems or share that jurisdiction with other

agencies; State environmental agencies; and State agricultural or

natural resource agencies, if they have jurisdiction over water rights,

wells, or other aspects of the system's source water. This section also

authorizes the State Director to designate any other agencies or

clearinghouses to which he can direct copies of the report to be sent.

Section 141.155(e) specifies that all systems, regardless of size,

are required to make their consumer confidence report available to the

public upon request. The rule does not specify the means that systems

must use, leaving them free to mail copies of reports, send them by

telefax, or place copies on an Internet site. However, EPA believes

that the means chosen must be practical from the standpoint of all

potential persons requesting copies of the report. Thus, placing a copy

of the report on the Internet but refusing to mail a copy to a person

without Internet access would be contrary to the intent of this

provision of the rule. The Agency is also interested in getting

comments from States on their ability or interest in placing reports on

the Internet to simplify access to the reports for the general public.

Today's rule does not require that the report be delivered in

languages other than English. However, Sec. 141.153, discussed above,

does require systems in communities with a large proportion of non-

English speaking residents to include information in the appropriate

language in their reports regarding the importance of the report or to

offer additional information in that language.

EPA has been encouraged to require posting of the consumer

confidence reports on the Internet. However, the Agency is uncertain

whether all community water systems possess the necessary means to set

up and maintain an Internet site or, in some case, even to access the

Internet; and whether community water system customers would find such

posting to be useful. Therefore, the Agency is requesting comments on

this subject, as described below.

F. Special State Implementation and Primacy Requirements, and Rationale

As discussed in Section III.B., EPA is proposing that existing

systems must deliver an initial report to customers within 14 months of

the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. New systems

must deliver an initial report within 18 months after beginning water

delivery service. See proposed section 141.152. Since EPA considers

implementation of this rule to be a requirement for a State to obtain

or maintain primary enforcement responsibility under SDWA Section 1413,

each State with primacy must adopt the requirements of this Subpart (40

CFR 141 Subpart O) no later than two years after the final rule is

published in the Federal Register. See proposed section 142.16(f). As a

result, within several years, all primacy States should have primary

responsibility for implementation of this rule. During any time period

that this rule is effective but that a State does not have either

interim or final primary enforcement responsibility for this rule, EPA

will implement this rule directly in that State.

EPA is proposing that primacy States may adopt alternative

requirements concerning the form and content of these reports through

notice and comment rulemaking. EPA is proposing that the alternative

requirements provide the same type and amount of information as

required by the Federal regulations. Under the SDWA, a State in order

to maintain primacy must adopt requirements which are no less stringent

than the Federal regulations. In the case of consumer confidence

reports, EPA is proposing to interpret stringency as type and amount of

information. State members of the Working Group were concerned that

this interpretation would limit the authority given to the states by

Congress to develop alternative requirements with respect to form and

content of the reports. EPA notes that this proposal contains few

requirements not specifically mandated by the Statute. However, the

Statute provides that the content of the report as prescribed by EPA's

regulations need not be limited to the statutory elements. EPA has

exercised this discretion in a few instances. For example, the rule

would require information on the source of detected contaminant, and a

warning on infectious agents. The Agency's interpretation of stringency

would require state regulations to include the provisions for

information on contaminant sources and the health warning to

susceptible populations. EPA is requesting comments on whether any

information beyond that specifically required by the Statute should be

mandatory for inclusion in state regulations. Under the proposed rule,

States already would have flexibility in specifying how the required

information is presented. For example, definitions of terms, choice of

units for the MCLs, or health effect language could be altered by the

states. These changes would have to be approved by EPA in the context

of primacy revisions.

The proposed rule contains a requirement that each State with

primary enforcement authority make consumer confidence reports

submitted to it available to the public upon request or maintain a list

of telephone numbers for operators of community water systems that

could be used by the public to request copies of reports directly from

the water systems. Representatives from States expressed concern over

the lack of resources in some states to serve as a central distribution

point for the reports, and asserted that neither requirement was

necessary, since States already maintain telephone numbers for the

systems in the State, and State

[[Page 7616]]

Freedom of Information procedures are available if necessary to obtain

access to documents held by the State. The Agency is requesting

comments on whether either requirement should be incorporated into the

regulation.

G. Health Effect Language and Rationale

The SDWA Amendments require EPA to develop and include in the

consumer confidence report regulations ``brief statements in plain

language regarding the health concerns that resulted in regulation of

each regulated contaminant.'' These statements are provided for use by

community water systems in their reports as language that EPA believes

accurately describes those health concerns that customers of the water

system might appropriately have if they consume water containing

contaminants at concentrations above the MCL.

The Agency has placed the brief statements on health concerns in an

appendix to the regulations, because most community systems are in

compliance with the regulations and will not need to refer to this

language. However, the Agency considers the language of the statements

to be mandatory for use in the consumer confidence reports, unless

individual states choose to alter the language for their own

regulations.

EPA examined a number of sources that could be used as the basis

for the brief statements on health concerns, and held extensive

discussions with the NDWAC working group and with its expert panel on

the topic. The two groups looked primarily at the language developed by

EPA for public notification purposes, (Sec. 141.32) which emphasizes

how the MCLs were developed, and EPA's contaminant-specific fact

sheets, which EPA distributes through the SDWA Hotline. The fact sheets

convey more information on expected health effects on humans. In

general, the language in Appendix B being proposed today is a

distillation of information contained in EPA fact sheets which are

included in the docket for this rulemaking.

The expert panel urged EPA to avoid scientific jargon in preparing

the brief statements. The panel also stressed the importance of

communicating effectively that MCLs are set using a conservative

approach. Some members of the expert panel also stated that exceedence

of an MCL does not necessarily lead to health effects. EPA believes

that the proposed language conveys appropriate risk information by

indicating that chronic adverse health effects ``could'' result from

exposures ``in excess'' or ``well in excess'' of the MCL ``over many

years.'' In cases where human or animal exposure to high doses have

indicated that a contaminant is a possible carcinogen, the language

indicates that people who drink water containing the contaminant at

levels above the MCL over many years ``may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.'' EPA believes that the proposed health effects

language accurately conveys what is known about the risk from these

contaminants, but is sensitive to the concern that some water system

customers may interpret the language as indicating a significantly

higher level of incremental risk than would actually result from

exposures at the levels that are likely to occur. EPA is thus seeking

comment on whether there are other ways to communicate to water system

customers the degree of health risk they may face as a result of MCL

violations.

The expert panel further recommended that the statements indicate

whether human or animal studies formed the basis for identifying

adverse health effects. However, EPA is not sure whether this

information is useful to most customers in evaluating the health

significance of MCL violations, and is mindful of the need to keep the

language brief and easy to understand. Thus, the proposed language does

not indicate whether the potential health effects were identified

through human or animal studies. EPA is requesting comment on this

issue.

More generally, EPA is requesting comments on whether the proposed

language accurately summarizes the health concerns associated with each

contaminant, whether the proposed language accurately reflects the risk

assessments and health analyses underlying the regulations of each

contaminant and whether the language adequately informs consumers of

relevant health effects. EPA requests commenters to provide alternative

health effects language and the rationale for such alternative

language. The Agency itself will continue to explore the adequacy of

the proposed health effects language for accurately and appropriately

communicating information about risk. EPA also requests comments on the

fact sheets and their accuracy in summarizing the health effects of

regulated contaminants and whether, as an alternative to the language

of Appendix B, systems should be allowed to simply enclose an approved

EPA fact sheet to provide health effects information.

EPA is particularly interested in the language proposed for

contaminants which present a special risk to pregnant women or

children. Several stakeholders have advocated requiring all consumer

confidence reports to include language alerting consumers to the

dangers posed to pregnant women and children by certain contaminants.

For example, nitrate, lead, and certain non-specified pesticides have

been identified as possibilities for general information on risk. The

Agency believes that inclusion of such a warning in all reports may not

be warranted but plans to reconsider this issue for the final rule and

is requesting comments on appropriate courses of action. The Agency

notes that the MCL for nitrates and the action level for lead have been

established at levels protective of these at-risk populations. The

health effects language included in Appendix B reflects the special

risk that these contaminants may cause. Most importantly, EPA's public

notification regulations require immediate notification and explanation

of health effects for violations of these standards, including impacts

on pregnant women and children. EPA does not believe that the consumer

confidence reports are adequate for addressing these risks because they

will not generally be received soon enough. Nevertheless, violations of

these standards will also be included in the reports. EPA is

specifically requesting comments on the language in Appendix B. With

regard to pesticides and other contaminants EPA is interested in

information and data that commenters may have on the need for a special

warning for pregnant women and children. EPA requests that commenters

submit such information and data to the agency. EPA is also requesting

comments on health effect language to be included in the consumer

confidence reports for 3 regulated contaminants detected below the MCL

(see Section IV.1 of this preamble). Commenters are also invited to

consider this issue within the context of their response to the

comments requested in Section IV.1.

Issues regarding the linkage between the language of Appendix B and

the public notification requirements are discussed in Section VI of

this preamble.

IV. Additional Requests for Public Comments

Throughout the preceding exposition, EPA has requested comment on

various issues. Following are two more issues which did not fit cleanly

into the discussion above and on which EPA would appreciate specific

suggestions and comments.

[[Page 7617]]

1. Health Information on Additional Contaminants

The 1996 Amendments authorize the Administrator to require language

describing health concerns to be included in reports for ``not more

than 3 regulated contaminants'' other than those detected at levels

above the MCL. This provision was discussed at length during the

working group meetings. Some members of the NDWAC working group

strongly encouraged the Agency to require health effect information for

total trihalomethanes (TTHMs), nitrate, and arsenic, even if they were

not detected at levels above their respective MCLs, because of their

question concerning the protectiveness of the MCLs. Other commenters

argued that providing health effects descriptions for chemicals

detected at concentrations below their MCLs would be confusing to

report recipients. The NDWAC recommended that the Administrator not

avail herself of this authority at this time.

The Agency believes that it is important to use the authority

provided by the statute in a judicious manner. Therefore it is

requesting comments on the following alternatives, any of which may be

included in the final rule.

One option would be to require health effects language whenever a

regulated contaminant, for which EPA has proposed to lower the MCL or

promulgated a revised MCL for which the effective date has not yet

occurred, is detected at a level above the lower level. The immediate

impact of this option would be that systems which detect TTHMs above

the proposed revised MCL of 80 mg/l would have to include the language

of Appendix B describing the health effects of TTHMs in their reports.

The Agency would then consider, as it proposes additional revised MCLS,

whether health effect language for these contaminants should be

included in the consumer confidence reports. These possible inclusions

would be discussed in the preamble to these future rulemakings and,

where appropriate, a direct final rule could be issued to require their

inclusion in the reports prior to the promulgation of the new standard.

A likely candidate for future requirements under this scheme would be

arsenic.

Another option would be to select 3 carcinogens for which the MCL

allows a risk level in the range of 10-4 to 10-5.

Candidates on this list include:

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

Contaminant Risk level

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

Carbon tetrachloride..................... 2 x 10-5

1,2-Dichloroethane....................... 1 x 10-5

Vinyl chloride........................... 1 x 10-4

Chlordane................................ 7 x 10-5

1,2-Dichloropropane...................... 1 x 10-5

Ethylene dibromide....................... 1.25 x 10-4

PCBs..................................... 1 x 10-4

Dichloromethane.......................... 1 x 10-5

Dioxin................................... 1.3 x 10-4

Hexachlorobenzene........................ 5 x 10-5

PAHs..................................... 1 x 10-5

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

The Agency is requesting comments on which of these contaminants

would be the most significant from a health standpoint if detected in

the finished water. The Agency could rank these contaminants and

systems would have to report their top three detects or select 3

contaminants outright. The Agency is also requesting comments on

whether it should select a threshold for these contaminants such as

detection of 50% or greater of the MCL below which no health effect

language would be necessary.

2. Linkage With the Public Notification Requirements

EPA is currently revising its requirements for public notification.

A water supplier triggers these requirements when it fails to comply

with a MCL, treatment technique, or other NPDWR (i.e., monitoring and

treatment procedures), or is subject to a variance or exemption under

section 1415. Current regulations [40 CFR 141.32] require public

notification:

--by electronic media within 72 hours if the violation represents an

acute health risk;

--by newspaper within two weeks and by mail within 45 days if the water

system violates a MCL or treatment technique; and

--by mail and newspaper within 90 days if the water system violates a

monitoring or testing standard.

Under the 1996 SDWA Amendments, EPA must revise these standards so

that consumers receive quicker notification in the event of a possible

acute health risk, and so that water suppliers have more time (up to

one year) to notify customers of violations with less immediate

effects. The statutory requirements for these revisions would allow

water systems to incorporate their reporting on less serious

violations: (I) in the first bill (if any) prepared after the date of

the occurrence of the violation, (II) in an annual report issued not

later than 1 year after the date of the occurrence of the violation, or

(III) by mail or direct delivery as soon as practicable, but not later

than 1 year after the occurrence of the violation [section

1414(c)(2)(D)(i)].

The option exists for a linkage between the rule proposed today and

those that EPA will revise for public notification. EPA recognizes that

the inclusion of some public notice elements in annual consumer

confidence reports could mean a significant savings of time and

resources for some water systems, and is mindful of its responsibility

under the Paperwork Reduction Act to avoid unnecessarily duplicative

reporting requirements. On the other hand, EPA does not want to

minimize the seriousness of any violation, and believes that it is

essential that consumers know if and when their water supplier has

failed to comply with drinking water regulations.

In trying to balance the issues noted above, EPA requests public

comment on the following issues.

Regarding violations of MCLs, action levels, and treatment

techniques, the Agency realizes that today's rule would duplicate the

current public notification requirements by requiring inclusion of

essentially the same information as is currently required in

Sec. 141.32(d) with the exception of the health effect language. The

proposed rule would require a clear and readily understandable

explanation of the violation, any potential adverse health effects, and

the steps the system has taken to correct the violation. This could be

helpful to consumers who might have overlooked or forgotten about the

regular public notification. One issue on which EPA is specifically

requesting comment is whether this health effect language would be

appropriate for public notification requirements, since having a single

set of health effects explanations would facilitate integration of the

two rules. The Agency notes that when members of the working group

discussed the health effect language they did not discuss it in that

context. Under the current regulations any of these violations would

have already been reported to the public and the consumer confidence

reports were envisioned as a reminder of what customers had already

been told. Further the working group was mindful of the limited amount

of information which could be included in consumer confidence reports

on any specific issue. However, EPA has started the process of revising

the public notification requirements pursuant to the 1996 Amendments to

the SDWA and this issue has been raised. Therefore, EPA requests

comments on the following options:

As this rule is promulgated the Agency would replace the health

effect language in Sec. 141.32 with the language

[[Page 7618]]

proposed in Appendix B of today's proposal so that the same language

would be included in consumer confidence reports and public

notifications.

The Agency would not modify the public notification language until

it promulgated revised regulations for public notification but the

language proposed today would form the core of the public notification

language and be expanded as seen fit for the purpose of public

notification.

Today's proposal is similarly redundant with the current public

notification requirements for violations of other NPDWRs (such as

monitoring and reporting). A less redundant alternative would allow

water systems to simply note a violation of an NPDWR and to attach to

their consumer confidence report a copy of the notice issued at the

time of the violation.

Finally, since SDWA allows public notice for less serious

violations within one year, there might be some violations which

systems would need to report exclusively in the consumer confidence

report. These could even include MCL violations for some contaminants

with strictly chronic health effects. This would allow community water

systems to put out fewer mailings. Besides saving resources, a reduced

number of mailings might encourage consumers to read those notices that

they do receive. This option however would only be available to

community water systems. Non-community water systems who are not

subject to these requirements would have to issue a public notification

for all violations.

If water suppliers were to report certain violations only in the

consumer confidence report, EPA would add language along the following

lines to the proposed regulation:

--[at Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(ii)] If the report is used to satisfy the

requirements of section 1414(c)(2)(D) of SDWA, the report must include

information on [a subset to be determined of] violations which have

occurred within the last 12 months.

--[at Sec. 141.155(d)] Except when the report is used to satisfy the

requirement of section 1414(c)(2)(D) of SDWA, the Governor of a State

or the Tribal Leader can waive the mailing requirement of

Sec. 144.155(a) for community water systems serving fewer than 10,000

persons.

The Agency is requesting comments on this option. Particularly the

Agency would welcome input on violations which systems could

appropriately report exclusively in the consumer confidence reports.

These comments will be used to inform both this rulemaking and the

public notification revisions rulemaking.

V. Cost of Rule

EPA has estimated the costs of complying with the requirements of

the proposed rule in terms of fixed costs and variable costs. Fixed

costs include those costs that a community water system must incur to

comply with the requirements regardless of how many copies of the

report it must deliver. These costs include the costs associated with

reviewing the regulations, collecting data regarding monitoring results

and MCL violations, preparing the technical content of the consumer

confidence report in a format suitable for distribution, identifying

the recipients of the reports, and providing instructions about report

production. Variable costs are costs that increase or decrease along

with the number of consumer confidence reports to be delivered. These

costs include costs of producing the reports (costs of paper,

photocopying or printing, and labels), and inserting the reports in

bills or otherwise delivering them. Based on its analysis, the Agency

estimates the total fixed and variable annualized cost of delivering a

report to every customer served by all community water systems

nationally (except for California, which already requires notices

similar to the consumer confidence reports required by the proposed

rule) is $20,286,113. This includes $7,295,575 in fixed costs and

$12,990,538 in variable costs. Table V.1 gives a breakdown of costs by

system size and also shows state and federal costs.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 7619]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13FE98.006

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 7620]]

For more information about the costs of the rule and how EPA

estimated them, see the Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis and

the Supporting Statement for the EPA Information Collection Request

(ICR #1832.01) that EPA submitted for OMB approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act. EPA is requesting comment on its cost estimates and

methodology.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (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 legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory

action'' because it may raise novel legal or policy issues. The rule

represents the first time that water systems will be required to submit

important information to customers regarding the quality of their

drinking water on a routine basis. Therefore, EPA submitted this action

to OMB for review. Substantive changes made in response to OMB

suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. General

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), requires EPA to

consider explicitly the effect of proposed regulations on small

entities. The Agency assesses the impact of the proposed rule on small

entities and considers regulatory alternatives if a rule has a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., an agency must prepare an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the economic impact

of a rule on small entities as part of rulemaking. However, under

section 605(b) of the RFA, if EPA certifies that the rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities, EPA is not required to prepare an IRFA.

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will affect small water

utilities, since it is applicable to all community water systems,

including small systems. However, EPA has estimated the impact of the

proposed rule and concluded that the impact of the rule will not be

significant. Therefore, the Administrator is today certifying, pursuant

to section 605(b) of the RFA, that this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The basis for this certification is as follows: the annualized

compliance costs of the rule represent less than 1% of sales for small

businesses and less than 1% of revenues for small governments. No small

not-for-profit enterprises were identified as community water systems.

For this analysis EPA selected systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons

as the criterion for small water systems and therefore as the

definition of small entity for the purposes of the RFA. This is the

cut-off level specified by Congress in this provision for small system

flexibility in delivery of the reports. Because this does not

correspond to the definition established under the RFA, EPA has

consulted with the Small Business Administration (SBA) on the use of

this alternative definition (see next section). Further information

supporting this certification is available in the public docket for

this rule.

Since the Administrator is certifying this rule, the Agency did not

prepare an IRFA. Nevertheless, the Agency has conducted outreach to

address the small-entity impacts that do exist and to gather

information. The Agency also has structured the rule to avoid

significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities by

providing flexibility to community water systems in the design of

consumer confidence reports; offering them the choice to use a

simplified format to prepare the reports; incorporating procedures by

which small systems can make reports available to their customers by

methods other than mailing; and by limiting the absolute requirement

for distribution of reports to water system customers rather than

consumers. Further the Agency notes that in general the regulations

issued under SDWA place a lesser burden on small systems, for example,

the TTHM and information collection rules do not apply to small

systems. For most regulated contaminants, small systems have to collect

fewer samples. Therefore the small systems operators will have

significantly less information to report in consumer confidence

reports.

2. Use of Alternative Definition

As explained above, for this assessment of impact on small

entities, EPA has defined a small entity as a public water system (PWS)

that serves 10,000 or fewer persons. PWSs affected by this proposal

would include PWSs owned and operated by governmental jurisdictions as

well as those that are privately owned. As indicated above, there are

no PWSs owned by not-for-profit organizations.

EPA proposes to define ``small entity'' for purposes of its

regulatory flexibility assessments under the RFA for all future

drinking water regulations in the same way. By using this definition

for the regulatory flexibility assessments, EPA will better reflect the

realities of the drinking water industry. Furthermore, this definition

is consistent with specific direction from Congress in several

provisions of the 1996 amendments that provide relief from regulatory

requirements for PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people.

As previously described, the RFA requires an agency, whenever it

publishes a notice of general rulemaking, to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a rule on small

entities unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C.

Secs. 603(a), 604(a) and 605(b). Under the RFA, the term ``small

entity'' means ``small business,'' ``small governmental jurisdiction''

and ``small organization.'' These terms are further defined by the Act.

In the case of a ``small business,'' the term has the same meaning

as a ``small business concern'' under section 3 of the Small Business

Act. ``Small governmental jurisdiction'' means the government of

cities, counties, towns and villages, among others, with a population

of less than 50,000. A ``small organization'' is any not-for-profit

enterprise that is independently owned and operated. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601

(3), (4) & (5).

The RFA authorizes an agency to establish an alternative definition

for these terms after an opportunity for

[[Page 7621]]

public comment. Additionally, in the case of an alternative definition

of ``small business,'' an agency must consult with the Office of

Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) concerning such

alternative definition.

EPA is today asking for public comment on its intention to define

``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental

jurisdiction'' for purposes of the regulatory flexibility assessments

for its drinking water regulations as a PWS serving 10,000 or fewer

people. The Agency has consulted with the SBA Office of Advocacy. The

Office of Advocacy agreed with the Agency's choice of systems serving

less than 10,000 persons for an alternative small business definition

for this rulemaking, and plans to revisit this issue with EPA in future

rulemakings under SDWA.

The following provides additional explanation why the Agency

proposes to use a different definition from that which would generally

be applicable under the RFA.

The alternate definition will focus the Agency's regulatory

flexibility analysis on those PWS most likely to experience an economic

hardship associated with complying with new drinking water regulations

to be proposed under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). There are

several compelling factual, statutory and programmatic reasons to

support the proposed definition.

SBA has by regulation defined small business concerns. SBA

regulations typically define a small business in terms of either total

revenues or total employees. Under SBA's definition, a ``small,''

privately-owned water utility would be one with revenues of less than

$5,000,000. Using this definition, ``small'' privately-owned water

systems would include systems that serve up to approximately 40,000

people. Ninety-eight percent of PWSs serve populations of 10,000 or

fewer. The average annual revenue for a system in this class size is

less than $600,000.

The Agency has concluded that defining a ``small entity'' for RFA

purposes as a PWS that serve 10,000 or fewer persons is both more

reflective of the small water systems in the water supply industry and

will provide a more meaningful analysis of those entities likely to

have the most significant economic impacts as a result of drinking

water regulations. It is the EPA's view that a population of 40,000 or

fewer (or a private PWS with annual revenue of $5,000,000 or less) is

not an appropriate criterion under the drinking water program for

differentiating private small entities from larger ones. Using such a

yardstick would not distinguish PWSs that have stronger technical

expertise and revenue sources from those that do not. Using data from

EPA's Community Water Supply Survey, a private community water system

with revenues of $5 million would correspond to a system that serves

more than 40,000 people. By contrast, community water systems that

serve between 3,300 and 10,000 have a median revenue of $605,000. As a

result, EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that in virtually all

circumstances, systems that serve 10,000 or fewer people have annual

revenues well below $5 million. Given the economies of scale, the per

family cost of system compliance with national drinking water

regulations will be higher for systems serving populations of 10,000 or

fewer because a smaller group of people will be paying for an inelastic

set of regulatory requirements. Thus, the proposed definition will

focus the Agency's resources on the needs and concerns of the systems

that really need the assistance.

In addition to the fact that the proposed alternative definition of

``small business'' better reflects the reality of this industry, the

definition is consistent both with Congressional direction for relief

to small systems as well as EPA's historic regulatory practice. As part

of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, Congress expressly

addressed the issue of small system size. Reflecting the same concerns

that underlie the RFA, Congress recognized that PWSs below a certain

size may have greater difficulty, for economic and technical reasons,

in complying with the public health provisions of the SDWA than larger

systems. Consequently, the 1996 amendments specifically provide that

for systems serving under 10,000, the Administrator may allow

alternative treatment technologies, modified monitoring schedules, and

variances from maximum contaminant levels. Congress also provided that

the Administrator may consider additional flexibility for systems that

serve 3,300 people or fewer. Specifically, the Administrator may grant

extensions of temporary exemptions from compliance with specific

drinking water standards so long as the exemption does not result in an

unreasonable risk to health. And, as discussed previously, the SDWA

provisions on which this proposed rule are based provide still an

additional level of flexibility in the report distribution requirements

to systems serving 500 or fewer persons.

EPA has historically recognized that smaller systems have financial

and technical difficulty in meeting Federal drinking water standards.

As a result of this concern, the Agency's regulations have in some

cases treated systems serving 10,000 or fewer customers differently.

For example, in 1979, EPA issued regulations for one group of

disinfection by-products (total trihalomethanes or TTHM) that exempted

systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. In 1994, EPA proposed the

Stage 1 Disinfection/Disinfection By-Products rule, that provided

systems serving 10,000 or fewer with at least 24 months longer than

larger system to comply with the regulation depending on the system

type. EPA routinely evaluates the economic impacts of a proposed

drinking water regulation on public water systems (both publicly and

privately owned) serving 10,000 or fewer people. EPA has specifically

focused on this subgroup in the Disinfection Byproducts Stage 1, the

Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and the Total Coliform

Rule.

The Agency will be proposing a number of regulations over the next

five years to meet its new SDWA obligations. The use of a single

definition for purposes of the regulatory impact analysis for small

business, small governmental jurisdiction, and small organization

should decrease confusion for the regulated community and facilitate

communication.

The Agency is interested in receiving comments on the use of this

alternative definition of small entity.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule have been

submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document

has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1832.01) and a copy may be obtained

from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC

20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. The information collection

requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.

This information is being collected in order to fulfill the

statutory requirements of section 114(c)(4) of the Safe Drinking Water

Act Amendments of 1996 (Public Law 104-182) enacted August 6, 1996.

Responses are mandatory.

The burden to the regulated community is based on the cost of the

rule discussed under section V. The burden to community water systems

is 459,505 hours at an annual cost of $20,286,113. The estimated number

of

[[Page 7622]]

respondents is 47,040 community water systems. The frequency of

responses is annual. The average burden per response is 9.5 hours. For

additional information on burden to water systems by size category, see

Table V.1 above. The annual burden to EPA and state primacy agencies

over three years is based on 3 elements: preparing reports for some

small community water systems, receiving and reviewing reports, and

filing reports. EPA estimates the annual burden incurred by

implementing agencies for activities associated with the proposed

regulations to be approximately 98,230 hours at an annual cost of

$2,784,692.

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

transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

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.

Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,

the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested

methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of

automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the

Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460; and

to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20503,

marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include ICR number 1832.01

in any correspondence.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

Executive Order 12875, ``Enhancing Intergovernmental

Partnerships,'' October 26, 1993, requires EPA to consult with State,

tribal, and local entities in the development of rules that will affect

them, and to document for OMB review the issues raised and how the

issues were addressed. As described in Section II of the Supplementary

Information above, EPA held extensive meetings with a wide variety of

State, tribal, and local representatives, who provided meaningful and

timely input in the development of the proposed rule. Summaries of the

meetings have been included in the public docket for this rulemaking.

E. 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 any 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, 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.

Because this rule is not estimated to impose annual costs of $100

million or more on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the

private sector, EPA is not required to prepare an unfunded mandate

statement. This rule will establish requirements that affect small

community water systems. EPA does not believe at this time that these

requirements will significantly affect the systems or the governments

that operate them. However, EPA is requesting comment on the issue. The

Agency has already consulted with representatives of small governments

that may be affected by the rule and will continue to do so prior to

promulgation of the final rule. If EPA determines that the requirements

may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including

tribal governments, the Agency will prepare a small government agency

plan as required.

F. 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 two of today's proposed requirements will be particularly

beneficial to these communities. One is that community water systems

must include information in language other than English if a

significant number of the population does not speak English. The other

is that systems must make a good faith effort to reach consumers who

are not bill paying customers.

G. Risk to Children Analysis

Under the Executive Order entitled ``Protection of Children from

Environmental Risks and Safety Risks,'' dated April 21, 1997, EPA must

ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address

environmental and safety risks to children. Every regulatory action

submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 must include

information that evaluates the environmental health and safety effects

of the planned regulation on children and explains why the planned

regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably

feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

The proposed regulation on consumer confidence reports addresses

risks to children from contaminants in drinking water. The health

effects language provided in Appendix B of the proposed rule identifies

risks to infants and children from drinking water containing lead,

nitrate, or nitrite in excess of specified levels. EPA is specifically

requesting comments on this language and solicits information that

could lead to inclusion of similar language for

[[Page 7623]]

violations of other contaminants particularly pesticides.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act, the Agency is required to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory and procurement 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, business practices,

etc.) which are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard

bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus

standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to provide

Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, an explanation

of the reasons for not using such standards. Because this proposal does

not involve or require the use of any technical standards, EPA does not

believe that this Act is applicable to this rule. Moreover, EPA is

unaware of any voluntary consensus standards relevant to this

rulemaking. Therefore, even if the Act were applicable to this kind of

rulemaking, EPA does not believe that there are any ``available or

potentially applicable'' voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Chemicals, Indian-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation

protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

Dated: February 10, 1998.

Carol W. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Environmental

Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 as

follows:

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 141 is revised 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. Subpart O is proposed to be added to read as follows:

Subpart O--Consumer Confidence Reports

Sec.

141.151 Purpose and applicability of this subpart.

141.152 Effective dates.

141.153 Content of the reports.

141.154 Required health information.

141.155 Report delivery.

Appendix A to Subpart O of Part 141--Regulated Contaminants

Appendix B to Subpart O of Part 141--Health Effect Language

Subpart O--Consumer Confidence Reports

Sec. 141.151 Purpose and applicability of this subpart.

(a) This subpart establishes the minimum requirements for the

content of annual reports that community water systems must deliver to

their customers. These reports must contain information on the quality

of the water delivered by the systems and characterize the risks (if

any) from exposure to contaminants in the drinking water in an accurate

and understandable manner.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 141.3, this subpart

applies only to community water systems.

(c) For the purpose of this subpart, customers are defined as

billing units or hook-ups to which water is delivered by a community

water system.

(d) A State that has primary enforcement responsibility may adopt

by rule, after notice and comment, alternative requirements for the

form and content of the reports. The alternative requirements must

provide the same type and amount of information as required by

Secs. 141.153 and 141.154.

Sec. 141.152 Effective dates.

(a) The Regulations in this Subpart shall take effect on [date 30

days after publication of final rule in the Federal Register].

(b) Existing community water systems must deliver the first report

by [date 14 months after publication of final rule in the Federal

Register] and annually thereafter.

(c) New community water systems must deliver their first report

within 18 months of the date they begin delivering water to customers

and annually thereafter.

Sec. 141.153 Content of the reports.

(a) Each community water system must provide to its customers an

annual report that contains the information specified in this section

and Sec. 141.154.

(b) Information on the source of the water delivered. (1) Each

report must identify the source(s) of the water delivered by the

community water system by providing information on:

(i) The type of the water: e.g. surface water, groundwater; and

(ii) The commonly used name (if any) and location of the body (or

bodies) of water.

(2) If a source water assessment has been completed, the report

must notify consumers of the availability of this information and the

means to obtain it.

(c) Definitions. (1) Each report must include the following

definitions:

(i) Maximum Contaminant Level Goal or MCLG: The level of a

contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected

risk to health.

(ii) Maximum Contaminant Level or MCL: The highest level of a

contaminant that is allowed in drinking water.

(2) A report for a community water system which has been granted a

variance or an exemption must include the following definition:

Variances and Exemptions: State permission not to meet an MCL or a

treatment technique under certain conditions.

(3) A report which contains data on a contaminant for which EPA has

set a treatment technique or an action level must include the following

definitions:

(i) Treatment Technique: A required process intended to reduce the

level of a contaminant in drinking water.

(ii) Action Level: The concentration of a contaminant which

triggers treatment or other requirement which a water system must

follow.

(d) Level of detected contaminants. (1) Each report must contain

relevant information to provide customers with an accurate picture of

the level of contaminants they may have been exposed to during the year

taking into account such factors as seasonal variations that produce

changes in water quality.

(2) The first report must identify the 12-month period during which

the data was collected. Each report thereafter must cover and identify

a successive 12-month period.

(3) Each report must contain a discrete table depicting the data

specified below. Any additional monitoring results which a community

water system chooses to include in its report must be displayed

separately.

(i) The data must be derived from data collected to comply with EPA

and State monitoring and analytical requirements for:

(A) contaminants subject to an MCL, action level or treatment

technique (regulated contaminants);

(B) any other contaminant for which monitoring is required by

Sec. 141.40 (unregulated contaminants); and

(C) monitoring for disinfection by-products or microbiological

[[Page 7624]]

contaminants as required by Secs. 141.140 and 141.142, except as

provided under paragraph (d)(4) of this section.

(ii) Where a system is allowed to monitor for certain contaminants

less often than once a year, the report must include the results and

date of the most recent sampling and a brief explanation for why the

sample was not taken within the 12-month period covered by the report.

(iii) For detected regulated contaminants (listed in Appendix A to

this subpart), the table must contain:

(A) The MCL for that contaminant expressed in whole numbers (such

as those in Appendix A to this subpart);

(B) The MCLG for that contaminant expressed in the same units;

(C) If there is no MCL for a detected contaminant, the table must

note whether there is a treatment technique or specify the action level

applicable to that contaminant, and the report must include the

definitions for treatment technique and action level specified in

paragraph (c)(3) of this section;

(D) The highest contaminant level used to determine compliance with

an NPDWR. This may be either an individual reading or an average,

depending on compliance monitoring requirements for the contaminant.

The table must clearly identify MCLs for which compliance is based on

an average and explain what that means. When an MCL is based on a

system-wide average and more than 10 percent of the customers are

exposed to a level of contaminant which is consistently higher than the

MCL, the report must contain information regarding the magnitude of

exposure and the location of the exposed population.

(E) The likely source(s) for the contaminant. If the operator is

not certain of the specific source of a contaminant, the reports must

include the typical sources for that contaminant listed in Appendix A

to this subpart.

(F) If a community water system distributes water to its customers

from several raw sources and the sources are not blended, the table

should contain a separate column for each service area and the report

should identify the service area for each entry point.

(iv) The table must clearly identify regulated contaminants

detected in violation of a MCL or exceeding an action level, 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 B to this subpart.

(v) For detected unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is

required, (except Cryptosporidium) the table must contain the highest

level at which the contaminant was detected. The reports may include a

brief explanation of the reasons for monitoring for unregulated

contaminants.

(4) If the system has performed any monitoring for Cryptosporidium,

including monitoring performed to satisfy the requirements of

Sec. 141.142, which indicates that Cryptosporidium may be present in

the source water or the finished water, the report must include:

(i) A summary of the results of the monitoring;

(ii) Information on how the monitoring was performed; and

(iii) An explanation of the significance of the results.

(5) If the system has performed any monitoring for radon which

indicates that radon may be present in the finished water, the report

must include:

(i) the results of the monitoring;

(ii) information on how the monitoring was performed; and

(iii) an explanation of the significance of the results.

(6) If the system has performed additional monitoring which

indicates the presence of other contaminants in the finished water, EPA

strongly encourages systems to report any results which may indicate a

health concern. To determine if results may indicate a health concern,

EPA recommends that systems find out if EPA has proposed an NPDWR or

issued a health advisory for that contaminant by calling the Safe

Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791). EPA considers detects above a

proposed MCL or health advisory level to indicate possible health

concerns. For such contaminants, EPA recommends that the report

include:

(i) The results of the monitoring; and

(ii) An explanation of the significance of the results noting the

existence of a health advisory or a proposed regulation.

(e) Compliance with NPDWR. In addition to the requirements of

Sec. 141.153(d)(3)(iv), the report must:

(1) Note any violation of the following requirements:

(i) Monitoring and reporting;

(ii) Treatment techniques;

(A) Filtration and disinfection;

(B) Lead and copper control requirements;

(C) Treatment techniques for Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin;

(iii) Record keeping;

(iv) Special monitoring requirements; and

(v) Violation of the terms of a variance, an exemption, or an

administrative or judicial order; and

(2) Include a clear and readily understandable explanation of the

violation, any potential adverse health effects, and the steps the

system has taken to correct the violation. For a violation of a

treatment technique, the report must include the relevant health effect

language of Sec. 141.154(c).

(f) Variances and exemptions. If a system has been granted a

variance or an exemption, the report must contain:

(1) An explanation of the reasons for the variance or exemption;

(2) The date on which the variance or exemption was issued;

(3) 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

(4) A notice of any opportunity for public input in the review of

the variance or exemption.

(g) Additional information. (1) The reports must contain a brief

explanation regarding contaminants which may reasonably be expected to

be found in drinking water including bottled water. This explanation

may include the language of paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this

section. Paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section is provided as a minimal

alternative to paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.

Systems may also develop their own comparable language. The report also

must include the language of paragraph (g)(1)(v) of this section.

(i) The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled

water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and

wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the

ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring minerals and radioactive

material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of

animals or from human activity.

(ii) Contaminants that may be present in source water include:

(A) Biological contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, which

may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural

livestock operations, and wildlife.

(B) Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can be

naturally-occurring or result from urban storm run-off, industrial or

domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or

farming.

(C) Pesticides and herbicides, which may come from a variety of

sources such as agriculture, storm water runoff, and residential uses.

[[Page 7625]]

(D) Organic chemicals, including synthetic and volatile organics,

which are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production,

and can also come from gas stations, urban storm water run-off and

septic systems.

(E) Radioactive materials, which can be naturally-occurring or be

the result of oil and gas production and mining activities. (iii) In

order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, EPA prescribes

regulations which limit the amount of certain contaminants in water

provided by public water systems. FDA regulations establish limits for

contaminants in bottled water.

(iv) All drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be

expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants.

(v) The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that

water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and

potential health effects can be obtained by calling the Environmental

Protection Agency's Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).

(2) The report must include the telephone number of the owner,

operator, or designee of the public water system as a source of

additional information concerning the report.

(3) In communities with a large proportion of non-English speaking

residents, the report must contain information in the appropriate

language regarding the importance of the report or contain a telephone

number or address where such residents may contact the system to obtain

a translated copy of the report or assistance in the appropriate

language.

(4) The systems must include in the report information (e.g., time

and place of regularly scheduled board meetings) about opportunities

for public participation in decisions that may affect the quality of

the water.

(5) The systems may include such additional information as they

deem necessary for public education consistent with, and not detracting

from, the purpose of the report.

Sec. 141.154 Required health information.

(a) All reports must prominently display the following language:

Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water

than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons such as persons

with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ

transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders,

some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections.

These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health

care providers. EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the

risk of infection by Cryptosporidium are available from the Safe

Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).

(b) Reports which identify a violation of a treatment technique

must include the relevant language listed in paragraph (c) of this

section:

(1) Surface Water Treatment Rule: (i) For unfiltered systems

required to filter: Unfiltered water may contain organisms such as

viruses, bacteria, and Giardia. When they are present in sufficient

number, these organisms can cause symptoms such as diarrhea, cramps,

headaches, and fatigue. EPA has determined that these organisms can be

controlled more effectively by requiring water systems to filter that

water rather than by setting an MCL.

(ii) For filtered systems in violation of the SWTR: Inadequately

treated water may contain organisms such as viruses, bacteria, Giardia,

and Legionella. When they are present in sufficient number, these

organisms can cause symptoms such as diarrhea, cramps, headaches and

fatigue. EPA has determined that these organisms can be controlled more

effectively by requiring water systems to filter and disinfect that

water than by setting an MCL.

(2) Acrylamide: Acrylamide is an impurity found in some chemicals

used in drinking water treatment. EPA has determined that requiring

proper use of water treatment chemicals is more effective than setting

an MCL for their impurities. People who drink water containing high

levels of acrylamide over a long period of time could have problems

with their nervous system including paralysis and may have an increased

risk of getting cancer.

(3) Epichlorohydrin: Epichlorohydrin is an impurity found in some

chemicals used in drinking water treatment. EPA has determined that

requiring proper use of water treatment chemicals is more effective

than setting an MCL for their impurities. People who drink water

containing high levels of epichlorohydrin over a long period of time

could experience stomach, eye, or skin irritation, and may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

Sec. 141.155 Report delivery.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, each

community water system must mail one copy of the report to each

customer. In addition, the system must make a good faith effort to

reach consumers who do not get water bills, using means recommended by

the State.

(b) Each community water system must mail a copy of the report to

the State with a certification that the report has been distributed to

customers, and that the information is correct and consistent with the

compliance monitoring data previously submitted to the State.

(c) Each community water system must mail a copy of the report to:

(1) Any other Agency in the State with jurisdiction over community

water systems, such as Public Utility Commissions;

(2) To State consumer advocate offices (if any); and

(3) To any other Agency or Clearinghouse identified by the Drinking

Water Program Director.

(d) Each community water system must make its reports available to

the public upon request.

(e) The Governor of a State, or the Tribal Leader where the Tribe

has met the eligibility requirements contained in Sec. 142.72 for the

purposes of waiving the mailing requirement, can waive the mailing

requirement of paragraph (a) of this section for community water

systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons. In consultation with the

tribal government, the regional Administrator may waive the mailing

requirement of paragraph (a) of this section in areas in Indian country

where no tribe has been deemed eligible.

(1) Such systems must:

(i) Publish the reports in one or more local newspapers serving the

area in which the system is located;

(ii) Inform the customers that the reports will not be mailed,

either in the newspapers in which the reports are published or by other

means approved by the State; and

(iii) Make the reports available to the public upon request.

(2) Systems serving 500 or fewer persons may forego the

requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) (i) and (ii) of this section if they

provide notice at least once per year to their customers by mail, door-

to-door delivery or by posting in an appropriate location that the

report is available upon request.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 7626]]

Appendix A to Subpart O to Part 141--Regulated Contaminants

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13FE98.007

[[Page 7627]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13FE98.008

[[Page 7628]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13FE98.009

[[Page 7629]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13FE98.010

[[Page 7630]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13FE98.011

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 7631]]

Appendix B to Subpart O of Part 141-- Health Effect Language

Biological Contaminants

(1) Total Coliform. Coliforms are bacteria which 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.

(2) Fecal coliform/E.Coli. Fecal coliform and E. Coli are

bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be contaminated

with human or animal wastes. Germs in these wastes can cause

diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or fatigue.

Radioactive Contaminants

(3) Beta/photon emitters. Certain minerals are radioactive;

photons and beta radiation are types of radioactivity. 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.

(4) Alpha emitters. Certain minerals are radioactive and emit a

form of radiation known as alpha radiation. People who drink water

containing these alpha emitters in excess of the MCL over many years

may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(5) Combined Radium 226/228. 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.

Inorganic Contaminants

(6) Antimony. People who drink water containing antimony well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience changes in the

cholesterol or glucose level in their blood.

(7) Arsenic. People who drink water containing arsenic well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience skin damage or

problems with their nervous system.

(8) Asbestos. People who drink water containing asbestos in

excess of the MCL over many years could get lung disease or may have

an increased risk of getting cancer.

(9) Barium. People who drink water containing barium well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience high blood

pressure.

(10) Beryllium. People who drink water containing beryllium in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience bone or lung

problems, or may have an increased risk of cancer.

(11) Cadmium. People who drink water containing cadmium well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience kidney problems.

(12) Chromium. People who drink water containing chromium well

in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with

their kidneys or circulation.

(13) Copper. Copper is an essential nutrient but people who

drink water containing copper in excess of the action level over a

relatively short amount of time could experience problems with their

stomach or intestines. People who drink water containing copper well

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.

(14) Cyanide. People who drink water containing cyanide well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience weight loss,

nerve damage, or problems with their thyroid.

(15) Fluoride. People who drink water containing fluoride well

in excess of the MCL over many years could get bone disease.

(16) Lead. 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, high blood

pressure, or may be at an increased risk of getting cancer.

(17) Mercury. People who drink water containing mercury well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience kidney damage.

(18) Nitrate. Infants below the age of six months who drink

water containing nitrate in excess of the MCL could become seriously

ill and die. Adults who drink water containing nitrates well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience kidney or spleen

problems.

(19) Nitrite. Infants below the age of six months who drink

water containing nitrite in excess of the MCL could become seriously

ill and die. Adults who drink water containing nitrite well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience kidney or spleen

problems.

(20) Selenium. Selenium is an essential nutrient. However,

people who drink water containing selenium well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience hair or fingernail losses, or

problems with their kidneys, liver, nervous system, or circulation.

(21) Thallium. People who drink water containing thallium well

in excess of the MCL over many years could experience changes in

their blood, problems with their kidney, intestine, or liver, or

hair loss.

(22) Turbidity. There is no MCL for turbidity, and turbidity has

no health effects. However, turbidity can provide a medium for

bacterial growth.

Synthetic Organic Chemicals Including Pesticides and Herbicides

(23) 2,4-D. 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 nervous system, kidneys, or liver.

(24) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex). People who drink water containing silvex

well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience minor

liver or kidney problems.

(25) Alachlor. People who drink water containing alachlor in

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

liver, kidneys, or spleen, or may have an increased risk of getting

cancer.

(26) Atrazine. People who drink water containing atrazine in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience weight loss,

problems with their heart or retinas, some muscle deterioration, or

may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(27) Benzo(a)pyrene [PAHs]. People who drink water containing

benzo(a)pyrene in excess of the MCL over many years may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(28) Carbofuran. People who drink water containing carbofuran

well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems

with their nervous or reproductive systems.

(29) Chlordane. People who drink water containing chlordane in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with

their liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, spleen or adrenal glands, or may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(30) Dalapon. People who drink water containing dalapon well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience minor kidney

changes.

(31) Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate. People who drink water

containing di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate well in excess of the MCL over

many years could experience reduced body weight or bone mass,

problems with their liver or testicles, or may have an increased

risk of getting cancer.

(32) Di (2-ethylhexyl) phathalate. People who drink water

containing di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in excess of the MCL over

many years may have problems with their liver, testicles, or

experience adverse reproductive effects, and may have an increased

risk of getting cancer.

(33) Dinoseb. People who drink water containing dinoseb well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience changes in their

thyroid or testicles.

(34) Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). People who drink water containing

dioxin in excess of the MCL over many years could experience

problems with their reproductive system and may have an increased

risk of getting cancer.

(35) Diquat. People who drink water containing diquat well in

excess of the MCL over many years could get cataracts.

(36) Endothall. People who drink water containing endothall well

in excess of the MCL over many years could experience an increase in

the size of their stomach or intestines.

(37) Endrin. People who drink water containing endrin well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience convulsions or

liver problems.

(38) Glyphosate. People who drink water containing glyphosate

well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems

with their kidneys or adverse reproductive effects.

(39) Heptachlor. People who drink water containing heptachlor in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience extensive liver

damage and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(40) Heptachlor epoxide. People who drink water containing

heptachlor epoxide in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience extensive liver damage, and may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

(41) Hexachlorobenzene. People who drink water containing

hexachlorobenzene in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver or kidneys, adverse

reproductive effects, benign tumor of endocrine glands, and may have

an increased risk of getting cancer.

(42) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene. People who drink water

containing hexachloro-

[[Page 7632 ]]

cyclopentadiene well in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their stomach or kidneys.

(43) Lindane. People who drink water containing lindane well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with

their kidneys or liver.

(44) Methoxychlor. People who drink water containing

methoxychlor well in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver, heart, or kidneys.

(45) Oxamyl [Vydate]. People who drink water containing oxamyl

well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience weight

loss.

(46) PCBs [Polychlorinated biphenyls]. People who drink water

containing PCBs in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience irritation of the nose, throat, or gastrointestinal

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

(47) Pentachlorophenol. 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.

(48) Picloram. People who drink water containing picloram well

in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with

their liver.

(49) Simazine. People who drink water containing simazine in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience tremors, have

problems with their kidneys, liver, or thyroid, and have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(50) Toxaphene. People who drink water containing toxaphene in

excess of the MCL over many years could suffer from kidney or liver

degeneration, have problems with their nervous system, and may have

an increased risk of getting cancer.

Volatile Organic Chemicals

(51) Benzene. People who drink water containing benzene in

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

getting cancer.

(52) Carbon Tetrachloride. 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.

(53) Chlorobenzene. People who drink water containing

chlorobenzene well in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their kidneys, liver, or nervous system.

(54) Dibromochloropropane (DBCP). People who drink water

containing DBCP in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience some kidney damage and may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

(55) o-Dichlorobenzene. People who drink water containing o-

dichlorobenzene well in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver, kidneys, nervous systems, or

damage to their blood cells.

(56) para-Dichlorobenzene. People who drink water containing p-

dichlorobenzene well in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience anemia, skin lesions, loss of appetite, damage to their

liver, or changes in their blood.

(57) 1,2-Dichloroethane. People who drink water containing 1,2-

dichloroethane in excess of the MCL over many years may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(58) 1,1-Dichloroethylene. People who drink water containing

1,1-dichloroethylene in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver and kidneys and may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(59) cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene. People who drink water containing

cis-1,2-dichloroethylene well in excess of the MCL over many years

could experience problems with their liver, their circulation, or

their nervous system.

(60) trans-1,2-Dicholoroethylene. People who drink water

containing trans-1,2-dichloroethylene well in excess of the MCL over

many years could experience problems with their liver, their

circulation, or their nervous system.

(61) Dichloromethane. 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.

(62) 1,2-Dichloropropane. People who drink water containing 1,2-

dichloropropane in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver, kidneys, bladder, digestive or

respiratory systems, and may have an increased risk of getting

cancer.

(63) Ethylbenzene. People who drink water containing

ethylbenzene well in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver, kidneys, central nervous

system, or eyes.

(64) Ethylene dibromide. People who drink water containing

ethylene dibromide in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their nervous system, liver, heart, or

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

(65) Styrene. People who drink water containing styrene in

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

liver and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(66) Tetrachloroethylene. People who drink water containing

tetrachloroethylene in excess of the MCL over many years could have

problems with their liver, kidney or nervous system, and may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(67) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene. 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.

(68) 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane. People who drink water containing

1,1,1-trichloroethane well in excess of the MCL over many years

could experience problems with their liver, nervous system or

circulation.

(69) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane. People who drink water containing

1,1,2-trichloroethane in excess of the MCL over many years could

have problems with their liver or kidneys, and may have an increased

risk of getting cancer.

(70) Trichloroethylene. 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.

(71) THMs [Total Trihalomethanes]. People who drink water

containing trihalomethanes in excess of the MCL over many years may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(72) Toluene. 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.

(73) Vinyl Chloride. People who drink water containing vinyl

chloride in excess of the MCL over many years could have problems

with their liver or nervous system, and may have an increased risk

of getting cancer.

(74) Xylenes. People who drink water containing xylenes well in

excess of the MCL over many years could experience damage to their

nervous system or problems with their liver or kidneys.

PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

IMPLEMENTATION

1. The authority citation for part 142 is revised 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 142.10 would be amended by adding a new paragraph

(b)(6)(vii) to read as follows:

Sec. 142.10 Requirements for a determination of primary enforcement

responsibility.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) * * *

(vii) Authority to require community water systems to provide

consumer confidence reports as required under 40 CFR part 141, subpart

O.

* * * * *

3. Section 142.16 would be amended by adding paragraph (f) to read

as follows:

Sec. 142.16 Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *

(f) Consumer confidence report requirements. (1) Each State that

has primary enforcement responsibility must adopt the requirements of

40 CFR part 141, subpart O, no later than [date 2 years after date of

publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. States must submit

revised programs to EPA for approval using the procedures in

Sec. 142.12(b) through (d).

(2) Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must

make reports submitted to the States in compliance with 40 CFR

141.155(b) available to the public upon request or maintain a list of

telephone numbers for operators of community water systems.

(3) Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must

maintain the certifications obtained pursuant to 40 CFR 141.155(b) for

a period of 5 years.

[[Page 7633]]

4. Section 142.72 would be amended by revising the introductory

text to read as follows:

Sec. 142.72 Requirements for tribal eligibility.

The Administrator is authorized to treat an Indian tribe as

eligible to apply for primary enforcement for the Public Water System

Program and the authority to waive the mailing requirements of 40 CFR

141.155(a) if it meets the following criteria:

* * * * *

5. Section 142.78 would be amended by revising paragraph (b) to

read as follows:

Sec. 142.78 Procedure for processing an Indian tribe's application.

* * * * *

(b) A tribe that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 141.72 is

eligible to apply for development grants and primacy enforcement

responsibility for a Public Water System Program and associated funding

under section 1443(a) of the Act and for primary enforcement

responsibility for public water systems under section 1413 of the Act

and for the authority to waive the mailing requirement of 40 CFR

141.155(a).

[FR Doc. 98-3752 Filed 2-12-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P