[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 1998)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 44512-44536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22056]



[[Page 44511]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 141 and 142



National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Consumer Confidence 
Reports; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 1998 / 
Rules and Regulation  

[[Page 44512]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[FRL-6145-3]
RIN 2040-AC 99


National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence 
Reports

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today, EPA is promulgating a final rule that requires 
community water systems to prepare and provide to their customers 
annual consumer confidence 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 will 
provide valuable information to customers of community water systems 
and allow them to make personal health-based decisions regarding their 
drinking water consumption.
    These reports are the centerpiece of public right-to-know in SDWA. 
The information contained in consumer confidence reports can raise 
consumers' awareness of where their water comes from, help them 
understand the process by which safe drinking water is delivered to 
their homes, and educate them about the importance of preventative 
measures, such as source water protection, that ensure a safe drinking 
water supply. Consumer confidence reports can promote dialogue between 
consumers and their drinking water utilities, and can encourage 
consumers to become more involved in decisions which may affect their 
health. The information in the reports can be used by consumers, 
especially those with special health needs, to make informed decisions 
regarding their drinking water. Finally, consumer confidence reports 
are a key that can unlock more drinking water information. They will 
provide access through references and telephone numbers to source water 
assessments, health effects data, and additional information about the 
water system.

DATES: The effective date for this final rule is September 18, 1998.
    The information collection requirements contained in subpart O of 
part 141 have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and are not effective until OMB has approved them. EPA will 
publish a final rule announcing the effective date when OMB approves 
the information collection requirements.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the public comments received, EPA responses, and 
all other supporting documents are available for review at the U.S. EPA 
Water Docket (4101), Docket W-97-18, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC 
20460. For an appointment to review the docket, call 202-260-3027 
between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and refer to Docket W-97-18.

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. Regulatory Background
III. Significant Decisions Affecting the Final Rule
IV. Description of Today's Action
V. Cost of the 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
    I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Regulated persons. Potentially regulated persons are community 
water systems (CWSs).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Category                                       Example of regulated 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, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the applicability criteria in Sec. 141.151 of the rule. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult one of the people listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

I. Statutory Authority

    Section 114 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (Pub. 
L. 104-182), enacted August 6, 1996, amends section 1414(c) of the SDWA 
(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., by 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 further explanation.
    Section 1414 of SDWA, as amended, also provides, in a new section 
1414(c)(4)(B) of the Act, additional specific requirements for the 
contents of

[[Page 44513]]

the consumer confidence reports. The reports are required to include, 
but need not be limited to, the following information:
     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, a 
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 (NPDWR), as required by the Administrator, and a 
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 system's customers are located.
    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, making it available upon request, and 
providing notice of its availability 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.
    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 is intended to fulfill the rulemaking requirements 
outlined in section 1414(c)(4).

II. Regulatory Background

    The rule promulgated today was proposed on February 13, 1998. As 
required by SDWA, the Agency met extensively with a broad range of 
groups in the development of the proposal. In particular, EPA formed a 
working group under the aegis of the National Drinking Water Advisory 
Council (NDWAC) to analyze and debate issues related to the proposal. 
In addition, EPA convened a one-day meeting of a panel of experts in 
public health and communication of risk-related information. These 
consultations are described in detail in the preamble to the proposed 
rule (63 FR 7606, February 13, 1998). These consultations helped EPA 
draft proposed rule language which was then reviewed by NDWAC. The 
provisions contained in the proposal included all the provisions for 
which NDWAC reached consensus.
    After it proposed the rule, EPA had a series of four focus groups 
conducted by a contractor. The purpose of the focus groups was to test 
various alternatives for the definitions of MCL and MCLG and to gauge 
the public's reactions to health effects statements. In addition, focus 
group participants were asked to give their reaction to two consumer 
confidence reports that had actually been issued by community water 
systems. The availability of a report on the results of these focus 
groups was announced in the Federal Register on May 15,1998 with a 
request for comments to be submitted to EPA no later than June 15,1998. 
The Agency received a few comments and considered them, along with all 
other comments received on the proposal, in developing this final rule.

III. Significant Decisions Affecting the Final Rule

    The proposed rule discussed, but did not include, regulatory 
language addressing two issues which were discussed during the 
consultation process. EPA believed additional input through the comment 
process was necessary in order to make informed decisions.
    The first issue was the request by some stakeholders that reports 
include a general warning that drinking water may pose a special health 
risk for pregnant women and children. The second issue concerned the 
Administrator's statutory authority to require in the reports health 
effects language for not more than three regulated contaminants 
detected at levels below the MCL. Both of these issues relate to 
providing additional health information and commenters were asked to 
consider the link between these issues. The Agency has also considered 
this link when making decisions in today's rulemaking.

A. Health Warning for Pregnant Women and Children

    During the development of the proposal, some stakeholders advocated 
requiring all consumer confidence reports to include language alerting 
consumers to the dangers posed to pregnant women and children by 
certain contaminants in drinking water, such as nitrate, lead, and 
certain unspecified pesticides. The Agency stated in the proposal that 
inclusion of such a warning in all reports did not seem warranted but 
requested comments in order to reconsider this issue for the final 
rule. The Agency also requested data on pesticides and other 
contaminants which would support the need for a special warning for 
pregnant women and children.
    Most commenters argued that a general health warning for pregnant 
women and children was unnecessary, and would confuse and needlessly 
scare consumers. These commenters agreed with the Agency that the MCL 
for nitrate and the action level for lead protect at-risk populations. 
Other commenters

[[Page 44514]]

argued that some form of warning was necessary, particularly to address 
lead and nitrate, but they agreed that such a warning should only be 
included in reports of systems which detected these contaminants.
    No data were submitted on special risks presented by pesticides. 
The only data that commenters submitted were studies on the impact of 
lead on children and of trihalomethanes on pregnant women and fetuses. 
In addition, some commenters requested changes to the health effects 
language proposed in appendix B regarding the potential impacts of some 
contaminants on pregnant women, children, and at-risk populations. 
These comments are addressed in section G of this preamble.
    Some commenters suggested lead and nitrate as two of the 
contaminants for which the Administrator should use her authority to 
require health effects language even when systems are in compliance 
with the regulations. As explained below, the Agency believes that it 
can better use this authority for other contaminants.

B. Educational Information for Lead, Nitrate, and Arsenic

    The Agency sees merit in providing additional information on lead 
and nitrate under certain circumstances since these are contaminants 
for which a special risk for children has been clearly established. EPA 
also believes that consumers may require additional information about 
arsenic.
    In the case of nitrate, there is only a small margin of safety 
provided by the MCL, and the amount of nitrate in drinking water is 
subject to seasonal fluctuations beyond water systems' control. 
Although any recorded violations of the MCL would require public 
notification, it is possible due to monitoring frequency that in areas 
where nitrate levels are generally high, short-term spikes above the 
MCL could occur and not be detected. Therefore, EPA believes that it is 
prudent to require systems which detect nitrate above 5 mg/l (50% of 
the MCL) to include some educational information in their reports 
regarding the risk posed by nitrates for infants. This information will 
help parents to understand fully the potential effects of nitrate 
exposure above the MCL.
    For lead, the Agency's concern is that while the sampling is 
designed to look for the worst conditions, it is possible that a 
significant number of households could have high lead levels even 
though a system is technically in compliance with the lead rule. The 
closer a system is to exceeding the action level in more than 10% of 
the sampling sites, the higher that likelihood. Lead poses a 
substantial risk to infants and children, but it is easy for parents to 
take the small precautions necessary to reduce this risk. The Agency 
believes that incorporating educational information about lead in the 
reports of systems which detect lead above the action level in more 
than 5% of homes sampled (50% of the action level) is warranted.
    Other commenters expressed concerns about the adequacy of the MCL 
for arsenic because it does not take into account the contaminant's 
carcinogenicity. EPA is required to promulgate a revised arsenic 
standard by January 2001. In the meantime, EPA has decided that it is 
appropriate for systems that detect arsenic above 25   g/l 
(50% of the existing MCL) to include additional information about 
arsenic in their reports. As with nitrate, EPA is using a threshold of 
50% of the MCL to trigger this requirement based on comments received 
regarding the appropriate threshold for risk-related information. This 
requirement will be deleted from this rule when a revised arsenic MCL 
is promulgated. EPA is including an example of acceptable language in 
the regulation to help systems provide accurate information to 
customers. The regulations also provide that systems can use this 
language or develop their own in consultation with the primacy agency.
    Inclusion of this information on arsenic, lead, and nitrate is 
mandatory, and EPA is including an example of acceptable language in 
the regulation to help systems provide accurate information to 
customers. However, EPA believes that water systems should have the 
flexibility to tailor their information to specific local 
circumstances. Therefore, the regulations provide that systems can use 
the language provided by EPA or develop their own in consultation with 
the primacy agency. The Agency is using 50% of the MCL or action level 
as the threshold for this requirement because commenters generally 
agreed that additional warnings should only be required where systems 
actually detect the contaminants. Many commenters agreed that half the 
MCL would be an appropriate threshold for requiring additional risk-
related information (even if they expressed strong reservations about 
the need to do so).
    The requirement for these informational statements is based on 
EPA's authority to require information in the reports other than that 
detailed in SDWA section 1414(c). See section 1414(c)(4)(B).

C. Health Information for Additional Contaminants

    The 1996 SDWA Amendments authorize the Administrator to require 
inclusion of language describing health concerns in reports for ``not 
more than three regulated contaminants'' other than those detected at 
levels above the MCL. In the preamble to the proposal, the Agency 
stated its intent to use the authority provided by the statute in a 
judicious manner and requested comments on two options.
    Option I was to require health effects language whenever a 
regulated contaminant, for which EPA has proposed to lower the MCL or 
has promulgated a revised MCL for which the effective date has not yet 
occurred, is detected at a level above the revised level. The Agency 
noted that the immediate impact of this option would be that water 
systems that detect Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) above the proposed 
revised MCL of 80 g/l would have to include in their reports 
the language of the proposed rule's appendix B describing the health 
effects of TTHMs. Further, the preamble explained that the Agency would 
make decisions on additional revised MCLs on a case-by-case basis and 
that a likely candidate for future requirements under this scheme would 
be arsenic.
    Option II was to select three carcinogens for which the MCL allows 
a risk level in the range of 10-4 to 10-5. The 
Agency requested comments on which of these contaminants would be the 
most significant from a health standpoint if detected in the finished 
water. The Agency also requested comments on whether it should select a 
threshold for reporting on these contaminants, such as detection 
50% of the MCL.
    Most commenters believed that providing health effects language for 
any contaminant detected below its MCL would be confusing and urged EPA 
to not do so. Stakeholders that commented on the proposed options 
generally preferred Option I but only for newly promulgated MCLs, not 
for proposed MCLs. They expressed the belief that a promulgated MCL 
establishes a clear threshold for triggering the requirement. Also, by 
the time EPA promulgates an MCL, it has carefully documented the health 
effects which are the basis for the regulation and from which it can 
craft a short health effects statement.
    The Agency finds these arguments persuasive and will use this 
authority in future rulemaking to require health effects language for 
contaminants when MCLs are promulgated or revised. This

[[Page 44515]]

health effects language will be included in the reports of systems 
which are not technically in violation of the regulations because the 
MCL is not yet effective, but which detect the contaminant above the 
new or revised MCL.
    As noted in the proposal, the first rulemaking in which EPA will 
implement this authority will be the revision of the MCL for TTHMs 
(currently scheduled for promulgation later this year). In that 
rulemaking, EPA will amend 40 CFR part 141, subpart O (today's rule) to 
add a new paragraph (e) to Sec. 141.154 that will require systems 
detecting TTHMs at levels above the revised MCL to include in their 
reports the health effects information for TTHMs in appendix C prior to 
the effective date of the new MCL. EPA will make decisions about 
additional uses of this authority (for two additional contaminants) in 
later MCL rulemakings.

IV. Description of Today's Action

    This section explains the elements of the regulation and the 
changes from the proposal. In response to comments received, EPA has 
made several significant changes to the proposal, clarified some 
requirements, and slightly reorganized the regulatory language. EPA 
evaluated all the comments it received, and has prepared a document 
explaining EPA's responses to those public comments. That document in 
available in the Water Docket. The Agency also considered the results 
of the focus group study as it shaped this final rule.

A. Purpose and Applicability

    Section 141.151 establishes the purpose and applicability of this 
rule. Today's rule establishes the minimum requirements for the content 
of consumer confidence reports. The rule applies to existing and new 
community water systems as defined in Sec. 141.2.
    In response to comments, EPA has made several changes to this 
section. First, some commenters expressed concerns that the language of 
Sec. 141.151(a), which sets a performance standard for the reports, 
could be construed as requiring systems to include information on non-
detected contaminants. EPA is clarifying that systems only need to 
address the risks (if any) from detected contaminants by adding the 
word ``detected'' to qualify the word ``contaminants.''
    Second, commenters suggested that the term ``hook-ups,'' used in 
the definition of customers, was not generally recognized by the 
industry and that ``service connection'' should be used instead. The 
Agency has made that change.
    Third, many commenters believed that the word ``detected'' needed 
to be further defined by referring to detection limits specified 
elsewhere in the regulations. EPA agrees and has added Sec. 141.151(d) 
to clarify the meaning of ``detected'' for this subpart.
    Fourth, some commenters expressed concerns that States might 
exercise the flexibility to adopt alternative requirements for the form 
and content of the reports in ways that would undermine the intent of 
the Statute. EPA's intent in proposed Sec. 141.151(d) was to clearly 
define this flexibility consistent with the statutory language and 
intent. EPA has expanded this section (now codified as Sec. 141.151(e)) 
to clarify its meaning.
    Finally, several commenters pointed out that the first reports 
would be due before States would have time to adopt their own 
regulations. These commenters stated their opinion that this meant 
these reports would have to be mailed to EPA even though the proposal 
stated that reports should be mailed to the States. EPA is clarifying 
its intent by using the term ``primacy agency'' in this final rule at 
Sec. 141.151(f) and defining it as: the agency in the State or the 
tribal government which has jurisdiction over, and primary enforcement 
responsibility for, public water systems, even if that agency does not 
have interim or final primacy enforcement authority over this rule. 
Except in Wyoming, in the District of Columbia, and on tribal lands, 
the primacy agency is a state agency. EPA intends to enter into 
Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with these state agencies to share 
information about water systems that fail to prepare and deliver 
reports. EPA will enforce the regulations until States get primacy for 
this regulation.

B. Effective Dates

    Section 141.152 establishes the time line for implementation of 
this rule. Today's rule becomes effective 30 days after publication in 
the Federal Register. Community water systems must deliver the first 
report to their customers within 13 months of the regulation's 
effective date. This represents no change from the proposal, which was 
supported by most of the comments.
    However, in response to comments, EPA is making two significant 
changes to this section. Many commenters believed that the timing of 
the reports should coincide with other reporting required by the 
statute, such as annual compliance reports, and that all reports should 
be due on the same specific date. However, a significant number of 
commenters also believed that systems should be given flexibility to 
deliver reports as their billing cycle would allow, and that systems 
already delivering reports should be able to stay on their current 
schedule. Most commenters also believed that reports should contain 
calendar-year data. EPA's proposal would have allowed systems to choose 
any 12-month period for their reports as long as the period was 
consistent from report to report. Commenters argued that calendar-year 
data would allow States to assess report accuracy and evaluate 
compliance more easily.
    EPA agrees with this second point and therefore is requiring in 
Sec. 141.152(b) that the first report contain calendar year 1998 data, 
and that each report thereafter cover the succeeding calendar year. As 
far as the timing of delivery, EPA continues to believe that some 
flexibility is essential to avoid burdening systems with additional 
mailings, or severely disrupting the schedule of systems which already 
provide consumer confidence reports to their customers. However, since 
reports are now required for calendar-year data, it makes sense to 
require delivery of the report as close to the end of the calendar year 
as feasible, taking into account the fact that some data are second-
hand (from wholesaler to retailer) and that each of these entities 
should be provided sufficient time. Therefore, while the first report 
continues to be due no later than 13 months after this regulation 
becomes effective, the regulations now provide in Sec. 141.152(b) that 
the second report will be due by July 1, 2000 and subsequent reports by 
July 1 of each year thereafter. Systems may choose to deliver their 
reports earlier than these dates.
    EPA also agrees with commenters that new systems should report data 
on a calendar-year basis and on the same schedule as existing systems. 
EPA has revised Sec. 141.152(c) accordingly. It now requires new 
community water systems to deliver their first report by July 1 
following their first full calendar year in operation.
    Finally, as suggested by commenters, EPA is adding Sec. 141.152(d) 
to require drinking water wholesalers to deliver data to the retailers 
by a date certain. The first set of data will have to be provided six 
months before retailers must deliver their first reports, to give 
retailers adequate time to prepare the reports. In following years, 
data will have to be delivered by April 1, unless the wholesaler and 
the retailer agree in a contract to a different date. EPA

[[Page 44516]]

believes that this flexibility is appropriate since the wholesalers 
might prepare the bulk of the CCRs for their customers, in which case 
the customers would not need the data so far in advance.

C. Content of the Reports

    In the proposal, the Agency generally limited the requirements for 
the content of reports, found in Secs. 141.153 and 141.154, to a 
clarification and explanation of the requirements in section 114 of the 
1996 SDWA Amendments. In addition to today's rule, EPA is preparing 
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 is also developing a 
computerized fill-in-the-blank template 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 is aware of two 
organizations preparing similar templates, the American Water Works 
Association (AWWA) and the National Rural Water Association (NRWA).
1. Information on the Source of the Water Purveyed
    In Sec. 141.153(b), EPA proposed that reports 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.
    One issue on which the Agency specifically requested comment was 
the extent to which reports should discuss sources of contamination 
that may have an impact on the quality of a system's drinking water 
sources. The Agency proposed that when a source water assessment has 
been completed for the water system, that system's consumer confidence 
report must notify customers of the availability of this information 
and the means to obtain it. Some commenters offered persuasive 
arguments for the need to take advantage of these reports to raise 
consumers' awareness of the importance of source water protection. They 
noted that in addition to source water assessments, information is 
available through sanitary surveys and reports prepared under section 
305(b) of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, in the final rule, EPA is 
continuing to mandate in Sec. 141.153(b) a notice of the availability 
of source water assessments. In addition, EPA is encouraging systems 
that have information at hand regarding contamination sources, to 
include highlights of this information in their reports. EPA is also 
requiring systems, once the source water assessment is available, to 
include in the report a brief summary of the susceptibility of the 
drinking water source, using language provided by the primacy agency. 
EPA anticipates that States will prepare for the public brief summaries 
of source water assessments as part of the source water assessment 
process.
2. Definitions
    The proposal included definitions in Sec. 141.153(c) (1) and (2) of 
four terms: ``Maximum Contaminant Level Goal or MCLG,'' ``Maximum 
Contaminant Level or MCL,'' ``Variances,'' and ``Exemptions.'' These 
definitions differed from those found in 40 CFR 141.2 in order to 
explain these key regulatory terms in brief, plainly-worded sentences 
that consumers could easily understand.
    Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) and Maximum Contaminant Level 
(MCL). EPA specifically requested comments on its definitions for MCLG 
and MCL, and noted that the risk communication panel recommended that 
EPA test its definitions and, if necessary, revise them. The preamble 
included alternative definitions to the proposed language. EPA tested 
these alternatives on focus groups of consumers. The consumers reviewed 
the proposed definitions as well as definitions based on language 
suggested in the preamble.
    For MCLG, EPA tested three definitions:
    1. ``The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there 
is no known or expected risk to health.''
    2. ``The maximum level of a contaminant in drinking water at which 
no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur 
and which allows for an adequate margin of safety.''
    3. ``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.''
    For MCL, EPA tested three definitions:
    1. ``The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking 
water.''
    2. ``The maximum permissible level of a contaminant in drinking 
water which is delivered to any user of a public water system.''
    3. ``The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking 
water, which is set as close to the MCLG as feasible using the best 
available treatment.''
    Commenters were split on this issue, with a slight preference for 
EPA's proposed definitions (the first definitions above). However, many 
commenters believed that EPA's definitions were too short, that 
consumers need information about how MCLs and MCLGs are set, and that 
the difference between MCLs and MCLGs was lost. Members of the focus 
groups were comfortable with the third definitions above, which do 
provide some additional information and explain the difference between 
MCLGs and MCLs. Since the Agency's primary goal is to make these 
reports useful to the general public, EPA is basing the definitions in 
the final rule on this third set of definitions, with editorial 
modifications.
    The Agency notes that it will continue to rely on the standard 
reporting to States and EPA of contaminant levels in determining 
whether a compliance or enforcement action is necessary. Neither the 
simpler definitions of regulatory terms nor the way in which data are 
presented in the consumer confidence reports will affect enforcement 
decisions on compliance with MCLs or action levels.
    Variances and Exemptions. As recommended by the NDWAC Working 
Group, the proposal combined the definitions of variances and 
exemptions into a single definition, since the two terms describe a 
single concept. ``Variances and exemptions'' were defined in the 
proposal as ``State permission not to meet an MCL or a treatment 
technique under certain conditions.'' EPA requested comment on whether 
to add 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 variance or exemption. 
Most commenters agreed with including this sentence. Two commenters 
argued against it because they believe that it would cause confusion 
and undermine confidence in the MCLs. EPA agrees with these commenters. 
Further, the Statute provides for a different standard when issuing a 
variance (``adequate protection of human health'') or an exemption 
(``no unreasonable risk to health''). For the sake of brevity and 
accuracy, EPA believes that it is appropriate to promulgate this 
definition as proposed, with the minor change that the definition 
applies to systems ``operating under'' a variance or exemption. One 
commenter pointed out that, as proposed, the provision could be 
construed to apply to a system which

[[Page 44517]]

had been granted a variance or exemption in the past even if this 
variance or exemption were no longer in effect.
    EPA is also clarifying that the definitions apply only to variances 
and exemptions granted by the States or EPA pursuant to sections 1415 
and 1416 of SDWA.
    The definitions section of the proposed rule also included 
definitions for ``treatment technique'' and ``action level'' not 
mandated by SDWA but considered necessary by EPA to address situations 
likely to be encountered by many systems. The only significant comments 
on these definitions were from California utilities which pointed out 
that California has a different meaning for action level. This is a 
clear example of a requirement that a State may adjust in its own 
regulations. EPA is promulgating these definitions as proposed with a 
slight revision to the action level definition to render it more 
technically accurate.
    As stated in the proposal, EPA notes that the use of these 
definitions in the consumer confidence reports does not alter the legal 
and enforceable definitions of these terms.
3. Level of Detected Contaminants
    Section 141.153(d) of the proposal generated the most comments and 
has been changed significantly in this final rule. In order to make the 
changes as understandable as possible, this section of the preamble 
first highlights the major comments received and EPA's revised approach 
in response to these comments. A section-by-section explanation of the 
changes follows this discussion.
    Major Comments Regarding Sec. 141.153(d). By far the greatest 
number of comments was submitted on the proposed requirement that 
reports include only one number per contaminant--the highest level used 
to determine compliance with an NPDWR. During the deliberations on the 
proposal, many stakeholders expressed concern that the compliance 
number, when based on an average of several samples, was not the best 
reflection of the quality of water delivered to homes and the possible 
variability in the quality of that water. Particularly, some 
stakeholders were concerned that some customers might, at times, get 
water containing certain contaminants exceeding the MCL and that 
reports would provide no indication of that possibility. To address 
this issue, EPA took NDWAC's recommendation and proposed that systems 
in which more than 10 percent of the customers are exposed to a level 
of contaminant which is consistently higher than the MCL would include 
in their report information regarding the magnitude of exposure and the 
location of the exposed population.
    While some commenters agreed with the intent of this provision, all 
commenters, even some of its original proponents, deemed it unworkable. 
On the other hand, there was significant support among commenters for 
requiring inclusion of ranges of contaminant levels whenever compliance 
is based on an average. EPA believes that ranges will provide a more 
accurate picture of exposure to contaminants in a way which all systems 
can handle and which does not add any burden, since all measured 
contaminant levels are already in their files. California utilities 
pointed out that they provide ranges in their reports, and that this 
has proven to be neither a problem nor confusing to customers.
    Some of the most voluminous comments were based on misunderstanding 
of what data EPA intended the reports to contain when systems provide 
water from various sources, and how systems should deal with the 
variability of the finished water on a temporal or spatial basis. One 
problem stemmed from EPA's inartful use of the word ``blended'' in the 
proposal's Sec. 141.153(d)(3)(iii)(F). The other problem stemmed from 
the statement in proposed Sec. 141.153(d)(1) that the report should 
provide an accurate picture of the level of contaminants to which 
consumers may have been exposed during the year. Some commenters 
misinterpreted these sections as requiring separate columns for each 
source, well, or point of entry, and lengthy explanations of the 
variability of the delivered water. This was not the Agency's intent.
    With respect to systems with multiple sources, it is only when the 
water coming from each source remains completely hydraulically 
separated from water from other sources that EPA intended for reports 
to include separate columns of data. Most cases pointed out by 
commenters to show the infeasibility of the requirement--for example, 
``multiple sources of water serving an integrated distribution 
system,'' or ``in the course of a given year an individual resident 
could receive water from up to three different surface water sources 
and up to 30 different wells whose supplies are co-mingled prior to 
receipt by the customer'' were cases to which EPA had not intended the 
requirement apply. EPA has clarified this requirement in this final 
rule.
    With respect to variability, in proposed Sec. 141.153(d)(1), EPA 
prescribed a performance standard similar to the one in Sec. 141.151(a) 
but with the additional concept that operators needed to take into 
account seasonal variations which produce changes in water quality when 
selecting one number to put in the table. Since this final rule 
requires that the table include ranges, EPA believes that this 
reiteration of the performance standard in Sec. 141.151(a) is no longer 
necessary and has deleted this section from the final rule.
    Other significant comments concerned the organization of the 
information. While most commenters agreed that data on regulated 
contaminants should be highlighted as the focus of the report, many 
worried that the restriction of having to put all the mandated data in 
one table as required by proposed Sec. 141.153(d)(3) could result in a 
report that was not consumer-friendly, and would limit water systems' 
ability to be innovative in presenting the information.
    Commenters pointed out two further weaknesses of the one-table 
approach. First, for systems with many detected contaminants, one table 
may become overloaded with information. Commenters pointed out that 
contaminants could be split between several displays, e.g., organics 
and inorganics, or contaminants monitored at the treatment plant, in 
the distribution system, and at consumers' taps. Second, commenters 
pointed out that if a system wants to include additional data regarding 
these regulated contaminants, such as frequency of testing, or number 
of samples, it did not make sense to have to display this information 
separately. EPA agrees with the need to make presentation of the data 
as consumer-friendly as possible, and the need to provide sufficient 
flexibility so that reports can be improved based on feedback from 
customers. Therefore, EPA has modified this requirement to provide that 
information outlined in final Sec. 141.153(d) needs to be displayed in 
one contiguous portion of the report, but not necessarily in a single 
table. Further changes to this section are discussed below.
    Another major concern of commenters was the proposed requirement 
that reports use whole numbers to describe the MCL. Examples of such 
numbers were included in proposed Appendix A. Some commenters believed 
that EPA was asking that numbers be rounded up or that the detected 
level be expressed in whole numbers also. This was not the Agency's 
intent. As recommended by NDWAC, EPA proposed this requirement because 
it believes that

[[Page 44518]]

whole numbers make it easier for consumers to compare the level of a 
contaminant in the system's water with the MCL. Many consumers have 
trouble understanding decimal points. This was evident in the focus 
groups, in which people found reports containing mostly whole numbers 
much easier to read than reports where the significant digits came 
after multiple zeros. AWWA found similar results in its focus groups.
    Some commenters expressed concerns that whole numbers would look 
like big numbers and would scare people. In response, EPA is making a 
minor change in the final rule to allow MCLs to be expressed as any 
number greater than 1.0. Detected levels will generally be much 
smaller--a fact that will be more obvious if a person has to 
distinguish the difference between, for example, 2 ppb and 0.002 ppb, 
rather than 0.002 ppm and 0.000002 ppm. In appendix A to this subpart, 
EPA has listed the MCL for each regulated contaminant in standard units 
and provided the multiplication factor (usually 1,000) and the MCL in 
the unit appropriate for use in the CCR. EPA notes that in appendix A, 
as well as appendices B and C of this final rule, the contaminants 
Ethylene dibromide (EDB) and 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) are 
grouped with the synthetic organic chemicals, as recommended by a 
commenter. EPA's electronic template will allow operators to enter the 
detected level of a contaminant in its usual unit. The software will do 
the conversion and automatically enter in the MCL and MCLG for that 
contaminant in appropriate units for these reports.
    Detailed Analysis of Section 141.153(d). This section has been 
reorganized so that it now pertains only to contaminants for which 
monitoring is mandatory under the regulations (except Cryptosporidium). 
Requirements pertaining to reporting of Cryptosporidium, radon, and 
contaminants which a system detected through voluntary monitoring are 
now in Sec. 141.153(e). The specific contaminants to which the 
requirements of Sec. 141.153 apply are listed in Sec. 141.153(d)(1).
    In proposed Sec. 141.153(d)(2), EPA would have required that 
systems identify the 12-month period during which the data used to 
prepare the report were collected. This final rule establishes 
mandatory calendar-year reporting requirements. Therefore, this section 
is no longer necessary and is deleted from this final rule.
    In proposed Sec. 141.153(d)(3), EPA proposed that all mandatory 
data related to regulated contaminants, and contaminants subject to 
mandatory monitoring (with the exception of Cryptosporidium), be 
displayed in one discrete table. As explained above, EPA is changing 
this requirement. Section 141.153(d)(2) of this rule provides that all 
data relating to detected regulated contaminants, all data relating to 
unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is mandatory under 
Sec. 141.40, and all data related to contaminants for which monitoring 
is required under Secs. 141.142 and 141.143 (except Cryptosporidium) be 
displayed in one or several tables as long as these tables are adjacent 
to one another and the reader does not have to search for the 
information.
    In response to comments that finished water should be the focus of 
the table(s), EPA is also clarifying in Sec. 141.153(d)(1)(iii) that, 
for data collected under Secs. 141.142 and 141.143 (the Information 
Collection Rule (ICR)), systems must report only finished water 
results.
    When contaminants are monitored less than once a year, the proposal 
would have required that the report include the latest result and an 
explanation for why the sample was not taken during the reporting 
period. Commenters had concerns with the burden on operators of 
developing an explanation and with how far back in time a system should 
search for monitoring data. Commenters also requested clarification 
regarding how long ICR data should be reported. EPA has clarified these 
issues in Sec. 141.153(d)(3). Reports containing data on contaminants 
detected in previous calendar years only need to include the date of 
the results and a statement indicating that the data are from the most 
recent testing done in accordance with the regulations. No data older 
than five years need be included in the first or subsequent reports 
(Sec. 141.153(d)(3)(i)). Results of ICR monitoring need only be 
included for five years or until the detected contaminant becomes 
regulated, whichever comes first (Sec. 141.153(d)(3)(ii)).
    In response to comments, Sec. 141.153(d)(4) of this final rule 
specifies more precisely the data which must be included in the 
table(s) for regulated contaminants. As explained above, EPA is making 
a minor change to the proposed requirement that the MCL must be 
expressed as a whole number. Instead, the final rule requires that the 
MCL must be expressed as a number equal to or greater than 1.0. The 
MCLG and detected contaminant level must be expressed in the same units 
as the MCL.
    The proposed rule required that only the highest number reported to 
demonstrate compliance with the MCL should be included in the table. 
However, in a major change from the proposal, the final regulation 
requires that, for contaminants for which compliance with the MCL is 
determined by calculating an average of several samples, the range of 
results must also be included. When compliance with the MCL is 
calculated at a number of sampling points by averaging quarterly 
samples, the report must include the highest average of any of the 
sampling points and the range of all samples 
(Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(iv)(B)). When compliance is based on a system-wide 
average, the reports must include that average and the range of all 
samples (Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(iv)(C)).
    Some commenters pointed out that under certain conditions averages 
may be rounded to the same significant number of decimals as the MCL. 
For example, if the MCL for selenium is 0.05 mg/l and the average of 4 
samples is 0.052 mg/l, the system is considered in compliance with the 
MCL because the average result can be rounded to 0.05 mg/l. These 
commenters expressed concerned that, in the CCR, when the MCL is 
expressed as 50 ppb, the results would have to be reported as 52 ppb 
leading customers to believe that the system was in non-compliance. 
This was not the Agency's intent. The Agency has clarified in a Note in 
Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(iv)(C) that when rounding is allowed for compliance 
purposes, it should be done prior to multiplying the average number by 
the factor necessary to report the results in the same units as the 
MCL.
    For turbidity, as requested by commenters, the final regulations 
contain separate requirements for: (1) Systems which are required to 
install filtration but have not yet done so and for which turbidity has 
an MCL (Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(v)(A)), (2) systems which meet the 
filtration avoidance criteria (Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(v)(B)), and (3) 
systems which filter (Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(v)(C)). These requirements are 
designed to mirror the requirements for contaminants subject to an MCL 
by giving customers information about the range of conditions 
encountered by the system.
    The final regulations also contain, in Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(vi), 
specific requirements for reporting of lead and copper data. In 
addition to the 90th percentile value of the latest round of sampling, 
which customers can compare to the action level and which is equivalent 
to an ``average'' value for other contaminants, the regulations require 
reporting the number of sampling sites that exceeded the action

[[Page 44519]]

level. This will help customers understand that while a water system 
may be in compliance with the action level, people in certain homes may 
be exposed to lead or copper above that level.
    Finally, for reporting of total coliforms, as suggested by some 
commenters, the regulations require that the highest monthly number of 
positive samples be reported for systems which collect fewer than 40 
samples per month (Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(vii)). Systems which collect 40 
samples or more per month must report the highest monthly percentage of 
positive samples (Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(vii)). For fecal coliforms, 
reports must include the total number of positive samples 
(Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(viii)).
    The proposed rule required water systems to include in the table 
the likely source of any detected regulated contaminant. EPA noted that 
it expected systems to describe these sources in generic terms such as 
``agricultural runoff'' or ``petrochemical plants'' unless the system 
had information obtained through source water assessments or other 
means that would allow the report to be more specific. EPA also 
provided a generic listing of potential sources in appendix A (now 
titled appendix B) to help systems who had no other available 
information. In general, commenters found proposed appendix A useful, 
but some expressed concern that the list of sources for each 
contaminant was mandatory and that a report would have to include all 
listed sources even if the operator knew that such contaminant sources 
could not exist in the system's location (e.g., cherry orchards in 
Alaska). EPA's intent is for this information to be as specific as 
possible. If a system has specific information through source water 
assessments or other means, that information should be included in the 
report. In the absence of specific information the system can choose 
from among the sources listed in appendix B those that best fit its 
situation. EPA has clarified the requirement in Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(ix). 
If the system believes that none of the sources listed in appendix B 
clearly fit the system's situation, the report could include a footnote 
explaining that the typical sources of the contaminants are included in 
the table but do not exist in the source water areas to the best of the 
system's knowledge. EPA has also made some minor changes to the sources 
listed in the proposal, pursuant to comments received.
    EPA has also revised the language of proposed Sec. 141.153(d)(1) 
(iii)(F), now Sec. 141.153(d)(5), to clarify that separate data for 
multiple raw drinking water sources for one community water system are 
only necessary when the drinking water sources remain separate 
throughout the treatment plants and the distribution system, and to 
clearly include an option of doing several reports rather than one if 
the amount of data proved cumbersome.
    In Sec. 141.153(d)(3)(iv), EPA proposed to require that community 
water systems include specific information in their consumer confidence 
reports for every regulated contaminant detected in violation of an MCL 
or exceeding an action level. In general, commenters were supportive of 
the requirement as proposed and this section is promulgated as proposed 
with minor technical clarifications. Revised Sec. 141.153(d)(6) 
requires that the table(s) identify violations of MCLs and treatment 
techniques. The report must include: (1) An explanation of the 
violation, including its length, which may be measured in consecutive 
days or weeks, or in repeated occurrences, (2) the potential health 
effects using the appropriate language of appendix C, and (3) the 
actions taken by the system to address the violation.
    In proposed Sec. 141.153(d)(3)(v), EPA included a requirement that 
systems report the highest detected level of unregulated contaminants. 
Several commenters pointed out that averages would be more 
representative of the quality of the water. EPA agrees, so, to conform 
with decisions regarding regulated contaminants, today's rule requires 
at Sec. 141.153(d)(7) that reports include the average and range of 
detected unregulated contaminants.
4. Information on Other Contaminants
    Section 141.153(e) of the final rule specifies the information to 
be included in the reports for Cryptosporidium, radon, and contaminants 
detected through voluntary monitoring. This information can be 
displayed anywhere in the report that the operator chooses.
    In Sec. 141.153(d)(4), the proposal required systems to include 
information on Cryptosporidium whether it is detected in compliance 
with the ICR regulations or through voluntary monitoring performed by a 
system. Many commenters believed that this section required detailed 
explanation regarding sampling and analysis protocols. This is not 
EPA's intent. The Agency believes that the information can be presented 
in a succinct statement that indicates whether Cryptosporidium has been 
found and whether it was found in the source water or finished water. 
The systems are free to provide their interpretation of the 
significance of these results. EPA has modified the language of this 
requirement, codified in Sec. 141.153(e)(1), to make its intent 
clearer.
    When a system detects radon, the Agency proposed that the reports 
include the results of the monitoring, information on how the 
monitoring was performed, and an explanation of the significance of the 
results. EPA stated that it would provide examples in guidance of what 
such an explanation might be. Some commenters objected to this 
requirement. Other commenters were concerned that the requirement would 
require detailed explanations of sampling and analysis techniques. As 
with Cryptosporidium, EPA's intent was to give as much flexibility as 
feasible to the systems and to use guidance to help systems which 
detect radon comply with the requirement. The final regulations 
continue to require reporting of radon detections but EPA has modified 
the language in Sec. 141.153(e)(2) to clarify its intent.
    When a system detects any other unregulated contaminant through 
voluntary monitoring, the proposed rule strongly encouraged systems to 
include the results of such monitoring if the presence of that 
contaminant was a reason for concern. EPA recommended that systems 
determine whether there was a health advisory or a proposed NPDWR for 
that contaminant in order to determine whether there may be a health 
concern.
    Many commenters objected to this recommendation, while others asked 
that it be mandatory. 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 that 
contaminant is currently required. The Agency believes that requiring 
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)(1)(A) (which authorizes the 
Administrator to require water systems to report information to the 
public on unregulated contaminants). On the other hand, the Agency does 
not want to discourage systems from performing additional voluntary 
monitoring by requiring disclosure of information which they could not 
explain. Therefore, the Agency is including this provision in the final 
rule as proposed.

[[Page 44520]]

5. Compliance With National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
    In the proposed rule, the Agency required that reports contain 
information on all NPDWR violations other than those discussed above. 
This information was to include a clear and readily understandable 
explanation of the violation and its health significance. EPA requested 
comments on the need to include all NPDWR violations as listed in 
proposed Sec. 141.153(e), and on how detailed the explanation should 
be.
    The majority of commenters agreed that all violations, not just 
those posing a health risk, should be reported in the CCR. Commenters 
stated that increased awareness of violations would lead to increased 
compliance with regulations. Some commenters, however, argued that this 
requirement would duplicate the public notification (PN) requirements, 
and that minor violations that do not have a direct impact on health 
should not be reported in the CCR.
    The Statute clearly requires some duplication between CCR and PN 
requirements since both provisions mandate reporting of violations. 
Since neither the PN nor the CCR can assure complete notification of 
all consumers, in many instances the information will not be repetitive 
for the public. The Agency will explore in its revisions to the PN rule 
the feasibility of allowing the CCR to serve as PN for some violations, 
thereby eliminating some duplication. States can use their authority to 
promulgate alternative requirements in accordance with Sec. 141.151(e) 
to modify this requirement for the purpose of their final regulation.
    The Agency is retaining the requirement that CCRs report all NPDWR 
violations but is clarifying proposed Sec. 141.153(e), now 
Sec. 141.153(f).
    To aid readers, the Agency is placing in the introductory paragraph 
the requirements which apply to all violations. The Agency is not 
prescribing any mandatory language to describe the health significance 
of monitoring and reporting violations, violations of recordkeeping or 
special monitoring requirements, or violations of the terms of a 
variance, an exemption, or an administrative or judicial order because 
the explanation has to be tailored to the circumstances of the 
violation. In some cases, there may be no health significance--for 
example, failure to send a report on time. In other cases, the system 
should use the health effect language of appendix C--for example, 
repeated failure to perform required monitoring for a contaminant with 
acute health effects.
    The Agency also notes that the length of violation means the period 
of time during which a system does not have positive evidence that it 
has returned to compliance. If a system does not sample for an entire 
quarter, the report should state that the violation lasted for a 
quarter. It is also possible that a system would be in violation for 
the first and third quarters of a year. This should be explained in the 
report.
    Several commenters pointed out that the language contained in 
proposed Sec. 141.154(b) for violations of the surface water treatment 
rule was cumbersome and difficult to understand. EPA agrees, so this 
language has been simplified and is now included in Sec. 141.153(f)(2). 
The language is mandatory for systems which have failed to install 
adequate filtration or disinfection treatment, or have had failure of 
such equipment which constitutes a violation of the regulations, and 
for systems which fail to follow proper procedures to avoid filtration.
    EPA also received comments indicating that the health effects 
language of proposed appendix B was not appropriate for all violations 
of the lead and copper rule. EPA agrees, and in keeping with decisions 
regarding monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping violations explained 
above, EPA is not requiring the use of final appendix C language for 
these violations when they pertain to lead and copper. However, the 
Agency is requiring the use of appendix C language for failures to meet 
corrosion control requirements, the source water treatment 
requirements, and the lead service line replacement requirements 
(Sec. 141.153(f)(3)).
    One commenter pointed out that discussions of violations of terms 
of variances, exemptions, or judicial orders should be limited to 
violations occurring during the 12-month period covered by the report. 
EPA agrees and has added this clarification for all violations.
    Finally, commenters disagreed with the description of Acrylamide 
and Epichlorohydrin contained in proposed Sec. 141.154(b)(2) and (3). 
EPA agrees that these descriptions may not be adequate. In any case, 
they are unnecessary. Appendix B includes language regarding the source 
of these contaminants which a system can use when it violates the 
treatment technique. The proposed health effects language has been 
moved to appendix C for the sake of consistency. Section 141.153(f)(4) 
prescribes the use of this language for violation of the treatment 
techniques for Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin.
6. Variances and Exemptions
    The proposal included a requirement that reports must include 
information regarding variances or exemptions including: (1) An 
explanation of the reasons for the variance or exemption, (2) the dates 
when the variance or exemption was issued and is due for renewal, (3) 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, and (4) a notice of 
opportunities for public input into the process. Many people commented 
that EPA should only require a brief status report on compliance with 
the terms of the variance or exemption. This status report is embodied 
by the requirements of proposed Sec. 141.153(f)(3), promulgated as 
Sec. 141.153(g)(3). EPA does not believe, however, that this status 
report would make sense to consumers without the context that would be 
provided by final rule Sec. 141.153(g)(1) of the final rule. The Agency 
also notes that section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iv) of the Statute requires 
reports to include the basis on which the variance or exemption was 
granted. The remaining information requires only one or two sentences 
and is not burdensome.
    On the other hand, requiring a complete explanation of the terms 
and compliance schedule could be too long to fit in the short summary 
report envisioned by Congress. Therefore, the Agency is promulgating 
this requirement in the final rule as proposed with a minor 
clarification that the requirement applies to systems currently 
operating under a variance or an exemption.
7. Additional Information
    The proposed rule included three paragraphs in response to the 
statutory requirements that the regulations include a ``brief and 
plainly worded explanation regarding contaminants that may reasonably 
be expected to be present in drinking water, including bottled water.'' 
As explained in the proposal's preamble, EPA interpreted this section 
of the law as a mandate from Congress to include such an explanation in 
consumer confidence reports, because the people likely to read the 
regulations themselves already know why drinking water contains 
contaminants. It is reasonable to understand that Congress intended 
that this explanation be provided to customers.
    In general, commenters did not have many issues with the language 
proposed at Sec. 141.153(g)(1)(i) and (ii) which

[[Page 44521]]

fulfills the statutory requirement that an explanation be included in 
the regulation but provides systems the flexibility to adapt that 
explanation to their specific circumstances. There was some confusion, 
however, as to what EPA intended to require regarding bottled water. 
Some commenters believed that EPA meant for the reports to include 
results of bottled water analysis. This is not EPA's intent. The Agency 
does believe, however, that all customers have a right to know that 
bottled water may contain contaminants, just as tap water does, and 
that this was the Congressional concern behind the requirement that 
these regulations contain a statement about bottled water. Therefore, 
EPA has revised proposed Sec. 141.153(g)(1) (now Sec. 141.153(h)(1)) to 
combine the language of proposed paragraphs (iv) and (v) into one 
mandatory paragraph. It explains that drinking water, including bottled 
water, may contain contaminants, that the presence of contaminants does 
not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk, and that 
the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline can provide additional information 
about contaminants and health effects.
    EPA has slightly modified this language to account for the point 
raised by a commenter that some bottled water, presumably distilled 
water, contains no detectable contaminants. The language of 
Sec. 141.153(h)(1)(iii) is a slight modification of the proposed 
language, which clearly indicates that FDA's regulations must be 
equally protective of human health. This language is optional.
    In Sec. 141.153(g)(3), EPA proposed that, in communities with a 
large proportion of non-English speaking residents, the reports should, 
at a minimum, contain some statement in the appropriate language 
alerting customers to the importance of the report. Some commenters 
objected to this requirement, arguing that it would be difficult for 
systems to ascertain what was a large proportion of non-English 
speaking residents. EPA agrees and in Sec. 141.153(h)(3) the final rule 
provides that the primacy agency must determine when a population of 
non-English speakers is sufficiently large to require systems to take 
special measures for these residents.

D. Required Health Information and Rationale

    The Agency proposed at Sec. 141.154(a) that all consumer confidence 
reports include a statement that some people may be more vulnerable to 
contaminants in drinking water than the general population. The 
statement identified several categories of people who may be 
particularly at risk from infections, and encouraged them to seek 
advice from their health providers. It further informed people that 
EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection 
from Cryptosporidium can be obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking Water 
Hotline and provided the number, as required by section 1414(c)(4)(A).
    Commenters were generally supportive of this statement and 
Sec. 141.154(a) is promulgated as proposed, with the clarification that 
the CDC guidelines pertain to ``other microbial contaminants'' as well 
as Cryptosporidium.
    As discussed in section III of this preamble, the regulations 
require additional educational material for three contaminants if they 
are detected above 50% of the MCL (arsenic and nitrates) or above the 
action level in more than 5% of homes sampled (lead). These 
requirements are codified at Sec. 141.154(b), (c), and (d), 
respectively.

E. Report Delivery and Recordkeeping

    In response to comments, some minor modifications have been made to 
this section. First, commenters argued that as written, Sec. 141.155(a) 
implied that systems could use only the U.S. Postal Service to deliver 
reports to customers. EPA agrees that other means of delivering the 
reports could be used as long as reports get into customers' homes. For 
example, a system's water meter readers could deliver the reports. 
Therefore, the regulations now state in Sec. 141.155(a) that reports 
must be mailed or otherwise directly delivered to the customer.
    In proposed Sec. 141.155(a), EPA also proposed that systems make a 
good faith effort to reach consumers who do not get water bills. The 
Agency discussed its reasons for incorporating flexibility in this 
provision and included in the proposal examples of what such good faith 
efforts might be: posting on the Internet, publication of the report in 
subdivision newsletters, asking landlords to post reports in 
conspicuous places. The proposal left to the State the discretion to 
recommend specific means of delivery. Many commenters argued that this 
was insufficient and that EPA should mandate specific requirements 
designed to reach all consumers.
    The Agency strongly supports the right of all consumers to know 
about the quality of their drinking water and continues to believe that 
the means to reach consumers must be tailored to specific situations 
and cannot be mandated at the Federal level. Therefore, Sec. 141.155(b) 
does not prescribe specific means for reaching customers. However, to 
ensure that systems are aware of the variety of means at their 
disposition, EPA has clarified in the final rule what it considers an 
adequate good faith effort and has provided a menu of options from 
which the systems must select the most appropriate means to reach their 
consumers.
    The Agency believes that flexibility in these provisions is 
essential because it will take some time for EPA, States, and utilities 
working as partners to assess the efficacy of various good faith 
efforts. The Agency believes that this assessment can be achieved 
through voluntary means. It will require some information gathering by 
the States regarding how systems are implementing this provision. EPA 
also assumes that some systems will attempt to assess how effective 
their efforts are. EPA believes that this evaluation, which can be 
achieved through guidance after the rule is in place, could lead to 
more effective use of State and water system resources.
    In addition, based on comments received regarding the possible use 
of the Internet to reach consumers and the public at large, the 
regulations now require in Sec. 141.155(f) that systems serving 100,000 
or more people post their current year's report on the Internet. These 
systems serve almost 50% of the population served by community water 
systems and several of these larger systems already post their reports 
on the Internet. In addition, EPA will work with the States to make 
reports of systems serving more than 10,000 people available on the 
Internet within the next few years. Eventually, EPA expects that 
reports on the water consumed by more than 90% of persons served by 
community water systems will be readily available through the Internet. 
This would allow most consumers to go to their public library and have 
access to information from the variety of systems whose water they may 
consume.
    EPA will also work with the systems to ensure that the reports 
placed on the Internet are accessible through EPA's drinking water web 
site (www.epa.gov/safewater). EPA's site provides educational 
background on many of the report's terms and concepts. It offers 
resources such as fact sheets on drinking water regulations and on the 
potential health effects of each regulated contaminant. The site 
provides e-mail and telephone links so that consumers can get answers 
to individual questions. A state-by-state listing will provide 
information on the source water assessments referred to in the reports.

[[Page 44522]]

Other EPA web sites, such as Surf Your Watershed and the Index of 
Watershed Indicators, give consumers access to enormous amount of data 
and information about source water. Beginning in late 1999, the web 
site will also provide access to EPA's National Contaminant Occurrence 
Database which will contain information regarding contaminants detected 
in source water and finished water.
    Some commenters suggested that a deadline be included in the 
regulations for mailing of the report to the State. The Agency agrees, 
so Sec. 141.155(c) provides that reports be mailed to the State at the 
same time that they are distributed to customers, followed within three 
months by a certification that reports were distributed, and that the 
information contained in the reports is correct and consistent with 
previously submitted data.
    Section 141.155(c) of the proposal would have required a water 
system to mail a copy of its consumer confidence report to any other 
agency in the State with jurisdiction over community water systems. 
This could include public utility 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 authorized the State Director to designate any 
other agencies or clearinghouses to which he could require that systems 
send copies of their reports. Commenters argued that systems, 
particularly small systems, may routinely deal only with the primacy 
agency and not know of the other agencies listed in the proposal. EPA 
agrees, and the final regulations provide that systems need only mail 
additional copies of the report if required by the primacy agency.
    Finally, as suggested by commenters, the Agency has added a five-
year recordkeeping requirement for these reports Sec. 141.155(h).

F. Special State Implementation and Primacy Requirements, and Rationale

    Several commenters objected to EPA's proposal that States must 
adopt the requirements promulgated today (or alternative requirements 
as provided by Sec. 141.151) in order to maintain primacy. These 
commenters based their rationale on the fact that the consumer 
confidence reports are not considered National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations (NPDWRs) under the statute. EPA agrees that these 
regulations are not NPDWRs as defined under SDWA section 1401. However, 
EPA believes that it can require States to adopt these requirements 
under the authority of section 1413(a)(2) which requires States to 
adopt and implement adequate procedures for enforcement of NPDWRs. EPA 
believes that these reports contain data which provide the public with 
information which can be used to promote compliance with the 
regulations. Moreover, these reports are required under section 1414 of 
the SDWA which is the enforcement provision of the Act for the public 
water supply supervision program. EPA believes therefore that Congress 
intended these reports to be treated as necessary for enforcement 
pursuant to section 1413(a)(2), similar to public notification 
requirements (also under section 1414) which EPA has treated as a 
primacy requirement under section 1413(a)(2). Therefore, EPA is 
promulgating Sec. 142.16(f) as proposed.
    The proposed regulation included a provision Sec. 142.16(f)(2) that 
would have given States two options in discharging their responsibility 
to make reports available to the public. They could keep the reports 
themselves, or simply maintain a list of operators' phone numbers which 
could be provided to the public.
    Many States objected to having to serve as clearinghouses for these 
reports. They argued that the certification required by Sec. 141.155(c) 
would be sufficient for ascertaining compliance with these regulations. 
They also argued that maintaining the reports would require manpower 
and filing space. Some States also objected to the requirement that 
they maintain a list of operators' telephone numbers. Most believed 
that it was unnecessary because they already have such lists, but 
others said that it would be burdensome.
    Most members of the public who submitted comments believed, 
however, that easy access to reports by all members of the public was 
an essential element of any right-to-know regulation. Their comments 
were echoed by consumer advocates who requested a national 
clearinghouse.
    Based on all the comments received, EPA now believes that it is 
important for the States to maintain copies of the reports for two 
reasons. First, the Agency is convinced that there must be some access 
provided to the general public to reports other than from their own 
system. People with special needs may need to know about drinking water 
quality in other parts of the country when they travel, or might want 
to check a report from another part of the country when planning a 
move. Second, EPA believes that States themselves would want to have 
easy access to the reports in order to make decisions on how to 
exercise their flexibility to adopt alternative requirements, and in 
order to seek good new ideas for the reports. EPA is therefore 
requiring at Sec. 142.16(f)(2) that States make reports available to 
the public upon request and at Sec. 142.16(f)(3) that States maintain a 
copy of the reports for one year. This does not mean that all reports 
must be housed in one central location. Large States with field offices 
could maintain the reports in those offices. States could also arrange 
with an independent clearinghouse to make the reports available to the 
public. The option that States maintain lists of the operators' 
telephone numbers has been deleted.
    Some commenters asked for clarification regarding implementation of 
the regulations during the interim period between effective date of the 
federal requirements and effective date of State requirements. During 
this interim period, EPA must enforce the regulation in lieu of the 
States; however, the systems will submit their reports to the primacy 
agency. Therefore, a provision has been added in Sec. 142.16(f)(4) 
which clarifies that States must report violations to EPA so that EPA 
can take enforcement action as appropriate. Note that EPA interprets 
its regulations on primacy State reporting at Sec. 142.14(a) to require 
reporting of CCR violations. The term ``national primary drinking water 
regulations'' in that section refers generally to the regulations EPA 
has codified in 40 CFR part 141 (entitled National Primary Drinking 
Water Regulations), including today's regulations, rather than the 
somewhat narrower use of the term ``primary drinking water regulation'' 
under section 1401 of SDWA. Today's rule at Sec. 142.16(f)(4) is 
intended merely to clarify the intent of Sec. 142.15(a)(1) with respect 
to consumer confidence reporting.

G. Health Effect Language and Rationale

    In appendix B of the proposal, EPA included brief statements on 
health concerns of regulated contaminants to be used when systems 
reported detections in violation of NPDWRs. The Agency indicated that 
the language in proposed appendix B was a distillation of information 
contained in EPA fact sheets, which were included in the docket for 
this rulemaking. EPA requested comment on the accuracy and adequacy of 
this language. EPA also tested some of these statements with the focus 
groups. In general, comments

[[Page 44523]]

were supportive and most members of the focus groups formed correct 
opinions regarding the relative risk of the various scenarios presented 
to them. Therefore, EPA is promulgating appendix B, now titled appendix 
C, as proposed with some minor modifications.
    First, several commenters were concerned that the statements 
overstated risk and did not clearly convey that the basis for 
contaminant standard-setting is a probability that certain effects 
might occur in certain people, not a certainty. The statements now 
start with the words ``some people'' rather than ``people'' to convey 
the probabilistic nature of the standard-setting process.
    Some commenters also asked for clarification regarding the words 
``well in excess of the MCL'' used in some of the statements. In the 
proposal, EPA used these words to differentiate between carcinogens and 
chronic contaminants for which MCLs are set with a substantial margin 
of safety. EPA has reviewed this margin of safety and is keeping the 
words ``well in excess'' only for contaminants for which the MCL is at 
least a thousand times lower than the level at which there have been 
any observed health effects.
    Some commenters disputed the accuracy of some of the health effects 
noted for some contaminants. As suggested by a commenter, EPA has 
reviewed the health effects noted in EPA's Integrated Risk Information 
System (IRIS), which is a peer-reviewed compilation of the latest 
health information regarding contaminants. The Agency made some changes 
based on this information. It should be noted, however, that appendix C 
does not, and is not intended to, catalog all possible health effects 
for each contaminant. Rather, it is intended to inform consumers of the 
most significant and probable health effects associated with the 
contaminant in drinking water.
    Based on comments received, EPA has also removed the reference to 
cancer for any Group C (``possible'') carcinogen. EPA believes that the 
evidence of cancer for any of these contaminants is too weak to warrant 
inclusion in appendix C. All contaminant-specific changes are explained 
in detail in the comment-response document included in the docket for 
this rule.

V. Cost of the Rule

    EPA estimated the costs of complying with the requirements of the 
proposed rule and described the results of that analysis in the 
background information for the proposed rule (63 FR 7618-7619). EPA has 
adjusted its estimate to account for additional requirements added in 
the final rule: That systems store a copy of the report for five years 
after distributing it, and that systems serving 100,000 or more people 
place their CCR on the Internet.
    The costs of complying with the rule were evaluated 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 postage.
    Based on its analysis, the Agency estimates the annual 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 in this rule) is 
$20,807,555. EPA estimates that the average cost per system is 
approximately $442.

                                               Cost Summary Table                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Other costs             
                                                  Number of     Average      Average     per system   Total cost
  Some figures do not add because of rounding      systems    labor hours   labor cost     (e.g.,      for size 
                                                               per system   per system    postage)     category 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems serving  500................       27,135          4.9          $49        $0.35   $1,346,815
Systems serving 501-3,300......................       12,983         13.5          135          248    4,968,334
Systems serving 3,301-10,000...................        3,882         19.5          468          816    4,983,712
Systems serving 10,001-50,000..................        2,319         24.6          787        2,301    8,349,790
Systems serving  100,000............          336         25.1          803        2,644    1,158,904
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total for all Systems......................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........   20,807,555
Total State or Primacy Agency Cost.............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........    2,784,692
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Cost of rule...............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........   23,592,247
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recognizes that these cost estimates may appear understated to 
many commenters. These commenters stressed several factors that they 
believed EPA had overlooked or significantly underestimated, including 
some factors that have been discussed earlier, such as the need to 
report on multiple sources of water. In particular, however, two 
important trends emerged in the comments.
    One trend was represented by several commenters from very small 
systems, who argued that any CCR would be a financial burden to them. 
In addition to ignoring the Congressional mandate for the CCR, however, 
such commenters also frequently overlooked key factors that will affect 
the costs to small systems. These factors include, first, the statutory 
and regulatory provisions for waiver of delivery requirements for such 
systems. EPA did not receive any indications in the comments submitted 
on the proposed rule that State Governors would not make the necessary 
findings and certifications to allow the smallest systems to post their 
CCRs rather than deliver them to each customer, or that small systems 
would not be allowed to adopt alternatives to mail delivery. Therefore, 
the Agency's estimates reflect a significant use of alternative means 
of distribution by small systems. Second, EPA anticipates that the 
burden of preparation of the CCR for small systems will be 
substantially lessened by use of report templates, which will enable 
small

[[Page 44524]]

systems to avoid the costs of graphically designing reports; looking up 
and copying information, such as health effects language or typical 
sources of contamination; and calculating the conversions necessary to 
report detections in the form called for by the rule. Such templates 
will be made available by EPA and by trade associations representing 
water supply systems, and the Agency has reflected the widespread use 
of such templates in its estimates. In addition, EPA expects that small 
systems will receive assistance and support from State primacy agencies 
in collecting and interpreting data.
    The second trend was represented by commenters from larger systems, 
many of which already prepare and distribute various reports to their 
customers. They frequently suggested that use of professional graphic 
designers, use of multicolor printing, use of multiple pages for 
reports, and delivery to larger numbers of customers than incorporated 
into the EPA's cost estimate would lead to higher costs than those 
developed for this proposed rule. EPA recognizes that larger systems, 
in particular, may wish to develop CCRs that have very high graphic 
qualities that appeal to wide audiences, and certainly does not want to 
inhibit systems from making their CCRs as appealing as possible. In 
such cases, EPA recognizes, the costs of preparation and delivery of 
the CCR will be greater than those estimated for this rule.
    The purpose of the estimate provided in this rule, however, is to 
indicate the minimum cost that might be incurred by a system to comply 
with the Congressional and regulatory requirements. This approximation 
of the true cost of the regulations, as such, does not include the cost 
of embellishments that systems may reasonably find desirable but are 
not required. Contrary to the assumptions of some commenters, no costs 
of testing source water are properly attributable to the costs of 
complying with the CCR rule. EPA notes that even some large 
metropolitan water systems have succeeded in preparing clear and 
appealing water quality reports that can be placed on a single sheet of 
paper; that do not rely on multicolor printing but are nevertheless 
graphically distinctive; and that can be delivered without the very 
substantial increases in postage costs suggested as necessary by some 
commenters. Therefore, taking the ``bare bones'' nature of the CCR, as 
well as the tools that will be available for its production and the 
special procedures that will be allowed for its distribution by small 
systems, EPA considers that its estimated costs of compliance are 
adequate.

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.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' 
Therefore, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review. Substantive 
changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are 
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. Under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., an agency must prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) 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 a RFA.
    EPA has determined that this 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 
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 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 one percent of sales for small businesses and 
less than one percent of revenues for small governments. 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 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 a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 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; and incorporating procedures 
by which small systems can make reports available to their customers by 
methods other than mailing. Further, the Agency notes that in general 
the regulations issued under SDWA place a lesser burden on small 
systems, for example, for most regulated contaminants, small systems 
have to collect fewer samples. Therefore, small systems operators will 
have significantly less information to report in consumer confidence 
reports.
2. Use of Alternative Definition
    As discussed at length in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA is 
defining, for the purposes of this rule-making, a ``small entity'' as a 
public water system that serves 10,000 or fewer people. In the 
proposal, EPA requested comments on the issue. The Agency's review of 
those comments showed that stakeholders support the proposed 
definition. The SBA Office of Advocacy agreed with the Agency's choice 
of systems serving 10,000 or fewer people for an alternative small 
business definition for this rulemaking. EPA

[[Page 44525]]

intends to define ``small entity'' in the same way for regulatory 
flexibility assessments under the RFA for all future drinking water 
regulations.

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, OP 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 approximately 460,000 hours at an annual cost of $20,807,555. The 
estimated number of respondents is 47,040 community water systems. The 
frequency of responses is annual. The average burden per response is 
approximately 10 hours. 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.
    Send comments 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 to the Director, OPPE Regulatory 
Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' 
Comments are requested within September 18, 1998. Include the ICR 
number in any correspondence.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

    Unless the Federal government provides funds for State, local, or 
Tribal governments to pay the direct costs of implementing a Federal 
mandate upon them, Executive Order 12875, ``Enhancing Intergovernmental 
Partnerships,'' October 26, 1993, requires an agency to consult with 
State, tribal, and local entities in the development of rules that will 
affect them, provide OMB a description of the issues raised, and 
provide an Agency statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. 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.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private 
sector, in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections of 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This rule will 
establish requirements that affect small community water systems. 
However, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because the regulation requires minimal expenditure of 
resources. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of UMRA.

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

[[Page 44526]]

significant portion of the population, as determined by the Primacy 
Agency, 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

    On April 23, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13045, 
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks (62 FR 1988). A ``covered regulatory action'' is defined 
in section 2-202 as a substantive action in a rulemaking that (a) is 
likely to result in a rule that may be ``economically significant'' 
under Executive Order 12866 and (b) concerns an environmental health 
risk or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may 
disproportionally affect children. If the regulatory action meets both 
criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not a 
``covered regulatory action'' as defined in the Order because it is not 
economically significant (see section V above). EPA believes, however, 
that the rule has the potential to reduce risks to children.
    This regulation on consumer confidence reports addresses the 
particular risks that certain contaminants in drinking water may pose 
to children. The regulation requires that the reports include 
additional information aimed at parents of young children when lead or 
nitrates are detected in a system's water above certain levels. The 
health effects language provided in appendix C of the rule identifies 
risks to infants and children from drinking water containing lead, 
nitrate, or nitrite in excess of specified levels.

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 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.) that 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 rule 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.

I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1998, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective 
on September 18, 1998. For judicial review purposes, the effective date 
and time of this final rule is 1 p.m. eastern time on September 2, 
1998, as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.

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: August 11, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 
are amended as follows:

PART 141--[AMENDED]

    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 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 additional health information.
141.155  Report delivery and recordkeeping.
Appendix A to Subpart O--Converting MCL Compliance Values for 
Consumer Confidence Reports
Appendix B to Subpart O--Regulated Contaminants
Appendix C to Subpart O--Health Effects 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 detected 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 service connections to which water is delivered by a 
community water system.
    (d) For the purpose of this subpart, detected means: at or above 
the levels prescribed by Sec. 141.23(a)(4) for inorganic contaminants, 
at or above the levels prescribed by Sec. 141.24(f)(7) for the 
contaminants listed in Sec. 141.61(a), at or above the level prescribed 
by Sec. 141.24(h)(18) for the contaminants listed in Sec. 141.61(c), 
and at or above the levels prescribed by Sec. 141.25(c) for radioactive 
contaminants.
    (e) 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, and must be designed to achieve an 
equivalent level of public information and education as would be 
achieved under this subpart.
    (f) For purpose of Secs. 141.154 and 141.155 of this subpart, the 
term ``primacy agency'' refers to the State or tribal government entity 
that has jurisdiction over, and primary enforcement responsibility for, 
public water systems, even if that government does not have interim or 
final primary

[[Page 44527]]

enforcement responsibility for this rule. Where the State or tribe does 
not have primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems, 
the term ``primacy agency'' refers to the appropriate EPA regional 
office.


Sec. 141.152  Effective dates.

    (a) The regulations in this subpart shall take effect on September 
18, 1998.
    (b) Each existing community water system must deliver its first 
report by October 19, 1999, its second report by July 1, 2000, and 
subsequent reports by July 1 annually thereafter. The first report must 
contain data collected during, or prior to, calendar year 1998 as 
prescribed in Sec. 141.153(d)(3). Each report thereafter must contain 
data collected during, or prior to, the previous calendar year.
    (c) A new community water system must deliver its first report by 
July 1 of the year after its first full calendar year in operation and 
annually thereafter.
    (d) A community water system that sells water to another community 
water system must deliver the applicable information required in 
Sec. 141.153 to the buyer system:
    (1) No later than April 19, 1999, by April 1, 2000, and by April 1 
annually thereafter or
    (2) On a date mutually agreed upon by the seller and the purchaser, 
and specifically included in a contract between the parties.


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, ground water; 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. In addition, systems are encouraged to highlight in 
the report significant sources of contamination in the source water 
area if they have readily available information. Where a system has 
received a source water assessment from the primacy agency, the report 
must include a brief summary of the system's susceptibility to 
potential sources of contamination, using language provided by the 
primacy agency or written by the operator.
    (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. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety.
    (ii) Maximum Contaminant Level or MCL: The highest level of a 
contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to 
the MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology.
    (2) A report for a community water system operating under a 
variance or an exemption issued under Sec. 1415 or 1416 of SDWA must 
include the following definition: Variances and Exemptions: State or 
EPA 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 one or both 
of the following definitions as applicable:
    (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, if 
exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements which a water system 
must follow.
    (d) Information on Detected Contaminants.
    (1) This sub-section specifies the requirements for information to 
be included in each report for contaminants subject to mandatory 
monitoring (except Cryptosporidium). It applies to:
    (i) Contaminants subject to an MCL, action level, or treatment 
technique (regulated contaminants);
    (ii) Contaminants for which monitoring is required by Sec. 141.40 
(unregulated contaminants); and
    (iii) Disinfection by-products or microbial contaminants for which 
monitoring is required by Secs. 141.142 and 141.143, except as provided 
under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and which are detected in the 
finished water.
    (2) The data relating to these contaminants must be displayed in 
one table or in several adjacent tables. Any additional monitoring 
results which a community water system chooses to include in its report 
must be displayed separately.
    (3) The data must be derived from data collected to comply with EPA 
and State monitoring and analytical requirements during calendar year 
1998 for the first report and subsequent calendar years thereafter 
except that:
    (i) Where a system is allowed to monitor for regulated contaminants 
less often than once a year, the table(s) must include the date and 
results of the most recent sampling and the report must include a brief 
statement indicating that the data presented in the report are from the 
most recent testing done in accordance with the regulations. No data 
older than 5 years need be included.
    (ii) Results of monitoring in compliance with Secs. 141.142 and 
141.143 need only be included for 5 years from the date of last sample 
or until any of the detected contaminants becomes regulated and subject 
to routine monitoring requirements, whichever comes first.
    (4) For detected regulated contaminants (listed in appendix A to 
this subpart), the table(s) must contain:
    (i) The MCL for that contaminant expressed as a number equal to or 
greater than 1.0 (as provided in appendix A to this subpart);
    (ii) The MCLG for that contaminant expressed in the same units as 
the MCL;
    (iii) If there is no MCL for a detected contaminant, the table must 
indicate that 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/or action level, as 
appropriate, specified in paragraph(c)(3) of this section;
    (iv) For contaminants subject to an MCL, except turbidity and total 
coliforms, the highest contaminant level used to determine compliance 
with an NPDWR and the range of detected levels, as follows:
    (A) When compliance with the MCL is determined annually or less 
frequently: The highest detected level at any sampling point and the 
range of detected levels expressed in the same units as the MCL.
    (B) When compliance with the MCL is determined by calculating a 
running annual average of all samples taken at a sampling point: the 
highest average of any of the sampling points and the range of all 
sampling points expressed in the same units as the MCL.
    (C) When compliance with the MCL is determined on a system-wide 
basis by calculating a running annual average of all samples at all 
sampling points: the average and range of detection expressed in the 
same units as the MCL.

    Note to paragraph (d)(4)(iv): When rounding of results to 
determine compliance with the MCL is allowed by the regulations, 
rounding should be done prior to multiplying the results by the 
factor listed in appendix A of this subpart;

    (v) For turbidity.

[[Page 44528]]

    (A) When it is reported pursuant to Sec. 141.13: The highest 
average monthly value.
    (B) When it is reported pursuant to the requirements of 
Sec. 141.71: the highest monthly value. The report should include an 
explanation of the reasons for measuring turbidity.
    (C) When it is reported pursuant to Sec. 141.73: The highest single 
measurement and the lowest monthly percentage of samples meeting the 
turbidity limits specified in Sec. 141.73 for the filtration technology 
being used. The report should include an explanation of the reasons for 
measuring turbidity;
    (vi) For lead and copper: the 90th percentile value of the most 
recent round of sampling and the number of sampling sites exceeding the 
action level;
    (vii) For total coliform:
    (A) The highest monthly number of positive samples for systems 
collecting fewer than 40 samples per month; or
    (B) The highest monthly percentage of positive samples for systems 
collecting at least 40 samples per month;
    (viii) For fecal coliform: The total number of positive samples; 
and
    (ix) The likely source(s) of detected contaminants to the best of 
the operator's knowledge. Specific information regarding contaminants 
may be available in sanitary surveys and source water assessments, and 
should be used when available to the operator. If the operator lacks 
specific information on the likely source, the report must include one 
or more of the typical sources for that contaminant listed in appendix 
B to this subpart which are most applicable to the system.
    (5) If a community water system distributes water to its customers 
from multiple hydraulically independent distribution systems that are 
fed by different raw water sources, the table should contain a separate 
column for each service area and the report should identify each 
separate distribution system. Alternatively, systems could produce 
separate reports tailored to include data for each service area.
    (6) The table(s) must clearly identify any data indicating 
violations of MCLs or treatment techniques and the report must contain 
a clear and readily understandable explanation of the violation 
including: the length of the violation, the potential adverse health 
effects, and actions taken by the system to address the violation. To 
describe the potential health effects, the system must use the relevant 
language of appendix C to this subpart.
    (7) For detected unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is 
required (except Cryptosporidium), the table(s) must contain the 
average and range at which the contaminant was detected. The report may 
include a brief explanation of the reasons for monitoring for 
unregulated contaminants.
    (e) Information on Cryptosporidium, radon, and other contaminants:
    (1) If the system has performed any monitoring for Cryptosporidium, 
including monitoring performed to satisfy the requirements of 
Sec. 141.143, 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; and
    (ii) An explanation of the significance of the results.
    (2) 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; and
    (ii) An explanation of the significance of the results.
    (3) 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.
    (f) Compliance with NPDWR. In addition to the requirements of 
Sec. 141.153(d)(7), the report must note any violation that occurred 
during the year covered by the report of a requirement listed below, 
and 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.
    (1) Monitoring and reporting of compliance data;
    (2) Filtration and disinfection prescribed by subpart H of this 
part. For systems which have failed to install adequate filtration or 
disinfection equipment or processes, or have had a failure of such 
equipment or processes which constitutes a violation, the report must 
include the following language as part of the explanation of potential 
adverse health effects: Inadequately treated water may contain disease-
causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses, and 
parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, 
and associated headaches.
    (3) Lead and copper control requirements prescribed by subpart I of 
this part. For systems which fail to take one or more actions 
prescribed by Secs. 141.80(d), 141.81, 141.82, 141.83 or 141.84, the 
report must include the applicable language of appendix C to this 
subpart for lead, copper, or both.
    (4) Treatment techniques for Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin 
prescribed by subpart K of this part. For systems which violate the 
requirements of subpart K of this part, the report must include the 
relevant language from appendix C to this subpart.
    (5) Recordkeeping of compliance data.
    (6) Special monitoring requirements prescribed by Secs. 141.40 and 
141.41; and
    (7) Violation of the terms of a variance, an exemption, or an 
administrative or judicial order.
    (g) Variances and Exemptions. If a system is operating under the 
terms of a variance or an exemption issued under Sec. 1415 or 1416 of 
SDWA, 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, or 
renewal, of the variance or exemption.
    (h) Additional information:
    (1) The report 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 (h)(1) (i) through (iii) or systems may use 
their own comparable language. The report also must include the 
language of paragraph (h)(1)(iv) 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, in some cases, 
radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the 
presence of animals or from human activity.

[[Page 44529]]

    (ii) Contaminants that may be present in source water include:
    (A) Microbial 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 stormwater runoff, 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, urban stormwater runoff, and residential 
uses.
    (D) Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile 
organic chemicals, which are by-products of industrial processes and 
petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban 
stormwater runoff, and septic systems.
    (E) Radioactive contaminants, 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 which must provide the same 
protection for public health.
    (iv) Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be 
expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. 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 community water system as a source of 
additional information concerning the report.
    (3) In communities with a large proportion of non-English speaking 
residents, as determined by the Primacy Agency, the report must contain 
information in the appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of 
the 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 report must include 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 additional 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 and other microbial contaminants 
are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
    (b) A system which detects arsenic at levels above 25 ``g/
l, but below the MCL:
    (1) Must include in its report a short informational statement 
about arsenic, using language such as: EPA is reviewing the drinking 
water standard for arsenic because of special concerns that it may not 
be stringent enough. Arsenic is a naturally-occurring mineral known to 
cause cancer in humans at high concentrations.
    (2) May write its own educational statement, but only in 
consultation with the Primacy Agency.
    (c) A system which detects nitrate at levels above 5 mg/l, but 
below the MCL:
    (1) Must include a short informational statement about the impacts 
of nitrate on children using language such as: Nitrate in drinking 
water at levels above 10 ppm is a health risk for infants of less than 
six months of age. High nitrate levels in drinking water can cause blue 
baby syndrome. Nitrate levels may rise quickly for short periods of 
time because of rainfall or agricultural activity. If you are caring 
for an infant you should ask advice from your health care provider.
    (2) May write its own educational statement, but only in 
consultation with the Primacy Agency.
    (d) Systems which detect lead above the action level in more than 
5%, but fewer that 10%, of homes sampled:
    (1) Must include a short informational statement about the special 
impact of lead on children using language such as: Infants and young 
children are typically more vulnerable to lead in drinking water than 
the general population. It is possible that lead levels at your home 
may be higher than at other homes in the community as a result of 
materials used in your home's plumbing. If you are concerned about 
elevated lead levels in your home's water, you may wish to have your 
water tested and flush your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before 
using tap water. Additional information is available from the Safe 
Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
    (2) May write its own educational statement, but only in 
consultation with the Primacy Agency.


Sec. 141.155  Report delivery and recordkeeping.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each 
community water system must mail or otherwise directly deliver one copy 
of the report to each customer.
    (b) The system must make a good faith effort to reach consumers who 
do not get water bills, using means recommended by the primacy agency. 
EPA expects that an adequate good faith effort will be tailored to the 
consumers who are served by the system but are not bill-paying 
customers, such as renters or workers. A good faith effort to reach 
consumers would include a mix of methods appropriate to the particular 
system such as: Posting the reports on the Internet; mailing to postal 
patrons in metropolitan areas; advertising the availability of the 
report in the news media; publication in a local newspaper; posting in 
public places such as cafeterias or lunch rooms of public buildings; 
delivery of multiple copies for distribution by single-biller customers 
such as apartment buildings or large private employers; delivery to 
community organizations.
    (c) No later than the date the system is required to distribute the 
report to its customers, each community water system must mail a copy 
of the report to the primacy agency, followed within 3 months by 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 primacy agency.
    (d) No later than the date the system is required to distribute the 
report to its customers, each community water system must deliver the 
report to any other agency or clearinghouse identified by the primacy 
agency.
    (e) Each community water system must make its reports available to 
the public upon request.
    (f) Each community water system serving 100,000 or more persons 
must

[[Page 44530]]

post its current year's report to a publicly-accessible site on the 
Internet.
    (g) The Governor of a State or his designee, 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 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 
requirement of Sec. 141.155(a) 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 (g)(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.
    (h) Any system subject to this subpart must retain copies of its 
consumer confidence report for no less than 5 years.

Appendix A to Subpart O--Converting MCL Compliance Values for 
Consumer Confidence Reports

Key

AL=Action Level
MCL=Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG=Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MFL=million fibers per liter
mrem/year=millirems per year (a measure of radiation absorbed by the 
body)
NTU=Nephelometric Turbidity Units
pCi/l=picocuries per liter (a measure of radioactivity)
ppm=parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l)
ppb=parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (g/l)
ppt=parts per trillion, or nanograms per liter
ppq=parts per quadrillion, or picograms per liter
TT=Treatment Technique

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      MCL in compliance                                              MCLG in CCR
            Contaminant                  units (mg/L)      multiply by . . .     MCL in CCR units       units   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Microbiological Contaminants                                                                                 
                                                                                                                
1. Total Coliform Bacteria........  .....................  .................  Presence of coliform             0
                                                                               bacteria in 5% of monthly                 
                                                                               samples.                         
2. Fecal coliform and E. coli.....  .....................  .................  A routine sample and             0
                                                                               a repeat sample are              
                                                                               total coliform                   
                                                                               positive, and one is             
                                                                               also fecal coliform              
                                                                               or E. coli positive.             
3. Turbidity......................  .....................  .................  TT (NTU).............          n/a
                                                                                                                
     Radioactive Contaminants                                                                                   
                                                                                                                
4. Beta/photon emitters...........  4 mrem/yr............  .................  4 mrem/yr............            0
5. Alpha emitters.................  15 pCi/l.............  .................  15 pCi/l.............            0
6. Combined radium................  5 pCi/l..............  .................  5 pCi/l..............            0
                                                                                                                
      Inorganic Contaminants                                                                                    
                                                                                                                
7. Antimony.......................  .006.................               1000  6 ppb................            6
8. Arsenic........................  .05..................               1000  50 ppb...............          n/a
9. Asbestos.......................  7 MFL................  .................  7 MFL................            7
10. Barium........................  2....................  .................  2 ppm................            2
11. Beryllium.....................  .004.................               1000  4 ppb................            4
12. Cadmium.......................  .005.................               1000  5 ppb................            5
13. Chromium......................  .1...................               1000  100 ppb..............          100
14. Copper........................  AL=1.3...............  .................  AL=1.3 ppm...........          1.3
15. Cyanide.......................  .2...................               1000  200 ppb..............          200
16. Fluoride......................  4....................  .................  4 ppm................            4
17. Lead..........................  AL=.015..............               1000  AL=15 ppb............            0
18. Mercury (inorganic)...........  .002.................               1000  2 ppb................            2
19. Nitrate (as Nitrogen).........  10...................  .................  10 ppm...............           10
20. Nitrite (as Nitrogen).........  1....................  .................  1 ppm................            1
21. Selenium......................  .05..................               1000  50 ppb...............           50
22. Thallium......................  .002.................               1000  2 ppb................          0.5
                                                                                                                
  Synthetic Organic Contaminants                                                                                
     including Pesticides and                                                                                   
            Herbicides                                                                                          
                                                                                                                
23. 2,4-D.........................  .07..................               1000  70 ppb...............           70
24. 2,4,5-TP [Silvex].............  .05..................               1000  50 ppb...............           50
25. Acrylamide....................  .....................  .................  TT...................            0
26. Alachlor......................  .002.................               1000  2 ppb................            0
27. Atrazine......................  .003.................               1000  3 ppb................            3
28. Benzo(a)pyrene [PAH]..........  .0002................          1,000,000  200 ppt..............            0
29. Carbofuran....................  .04..................               1000  40 ppb...............           40

[[Page 44531]]

                                                                                                                
30. Chlordane.....................  .002.................               1000  2 ppb................            0
31. Dalapon.......................  .2...................               1000  200 ppb..............          200
32. Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate.......  .4...................               1000  400 ppb..............          400
33. Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate....  .006.................               1000  6 ppb................            0
34. Dibromochloropropane..........  .0002................          1,000,000  200 ppt..............            0
35. Dinoseb.......................  .007.................               1000  7 ppb................            7
36. Diquat........................  .02..................               1000  20 ppb...............           20
37. Dioxin [2,3,7,8-TCDD].........  .00000003............      1,000,000,000  30 ppq...............            0
38. Endothall.....................  .1...................               1000  100 ppb..............          100
39. Endrin........................  .002.................               1000  2 ppb................            2
40. Epichlorohydrin...............  .....................  .................  TT...................            0
41. Ethylene dibromide............  .00005...............          1,000,000  50 ppt...............            0
42. Glyphosate....................  .7...................               1000  700 ppb..............          700
43. Heptachlor....................  .0004................          1,000,000  400 ppt..............            0
44. Heptachlor epoxide............  .0002................          1,000,000  200 ppt..............            0
45. Hexachlorobenzene.............  .001.................               1000  1 ppb................            0
46. Hexachloro-cyclopentadiene....  .05..................               1000  50 ppb...............           50
47. Lindane.......................  .0002................          1,000,000  200 ppt..............          200
48. Methoxychlor..................  .04..................               1000  40 ppb...............           40
49. Oxamyl [Vydate]...............  .2...................               1000  200 ppb..............          200
50. PCBs [Polychlorinated           .0005................          1,000,000  500 ppt..............            0
 biphenyls].                                                                                                    
51. Pentachlorophenol.............  .001.................               1000  1 ppb................            0
52. Picloram......................  .5...................               1000  500 ppb..............          500
53. Simazine......................  .004.................               1000  4 ppb................            4
54. Toxaphene.....................  .003.................               1000  3 ppb................            0
                                                                                                                
   Volatile Organic Contaminants                                                                                
                                                                                                                
55. Benzene.......................  .005.................               1000  5 ppb................            0
56. Carbon tetrachloride..........  .005.................               1000  5 ppb................            0
57. Chlorobenzene.................  .1...................               1000  100 ppb..............          100
58. o-Dichlorobenzene.............  .6...................               1000  600 ppb..............          600
59. p-Dichlorobenzene.............  .075.................               1000  75 ppb...............           75
60. 1,2-Dichloroethane............  .005.................               1000  5 ppb................            0
61. 1,1-Dichloroethylene..........  .007.................               1000  7 ppb................            7
62. cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene......  .07..................               1000  70 ppb...............           70
63. trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene....  .1...................               1000  100 ppb..............          100
64. Dichloromethane...............  .005.................               1000  5 ppb................            0
65. 1,2-Dichloropropane...........  .005.................               1000  5 ppb................            0
66. Ethylbenzene..................  .7...................               1000  700 ppb..............          700
67. Styrene.......................  .1...................               1000  100 ppb..............          100
68. Tetrachloroethylene...........  .005.................               1000  5 ppb................            0
69. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene........  .07..................               1000  70 ppb...............           70
70. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane.........  .2...................               1000  200 ppb..............          200
71. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane.........  .005.................               1000  5 ppb................            3
72. Trichloroethylene.............  .005.................               1000  5 ppb................            0
73. TTHMs [Total trihalomethanes].  .10..................               1000  100 ppb..............            0
74. Toluene.......................  1....................  .................  1 ppm................            1
75. Vinyl Chloride................  .002.................               1000  2 ppb................            0
76. Xylenes.......................  10...................  .................  10 ppm...............           10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B to Subpart O--Regulated Contaminants

Key

AL=Action Level
MCL=Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG=Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MFL=million fibers per liter
mrem/year=millirems per year (a measure of radiation absorbed by the 
body)
NTU=Nephelometric Turbidity Units
pCi/l=picocuries per liter (a measure of radioactivity)
ppm=parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l)
ppb=parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (g/l)
ppt=parts per trillion, or nanograms per liter
ppq=parts per quadrillion, or picograms per liter
TT=Treatment Technique

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Major sources in drinking  
          Contaminant (units)                MCLG                 MCL                          water            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Microbiological Contaminants                                                                              
                                                                                                                
1. Total Coliform Bacteria.............             0  Presence of coliform       Naturally present in the      
                                                        bacteria in 5% of monthly samples.                               

[[Page 44532]]

                                                                                                                
2. Fecal coliform and E. coli..........             0  A routine sample and a     Human and animal fecal waste. 
                                                        repeat sample are total                                 
                                                        coliform positive, and                                  
                                                        one is also fecal                                       
                                                        coliform or E. coli                                     
                                                        positive.                                               
3. Turbidity...........................           n/a  TT.......................  Soil runoff.                  
                                                                                                                
        Radioactive Contaminants                                                                                
                                                                                                                
4. Beta/photon emitters (mrem/yr)......             0  4........................  Decay of natural and man-made 
                                                                                   deposits.                    
5. Alpha emitters (pCi/l)..............             0  15.......................  Erosion of natural deposits.  
6. Combined radium (pCi/l).............             0  5........................  Erosion of natural deposits.  
                                                                                                                
         Inorganic Contaminants                                                                                 
                                                                                                                
7. Antimony (ppb)......................             6  6........................  Discharge from petroleum      
                                                                                   refineries; fire retardants; 
                                                                                   ceramics; electronics;       
                                                                                   solder.                      
8. Arsenic (ppb).......................           n/a  50.......................  Erosion of natural deposits;  
                                                                                   Runoff from orchards; Runoff 
                                                                                   from glass and electronics   
                                                                                   production wastes.           
9. Asbestos (MFL)......................             7  7........................  Decay of asbestos cement water
                                                                                   mains; Erosion of natural    
                                                                                   deposits.                    
10. Barium (ppm).......................             2  2........................  Discharge of drilling wastes; 
                                                                                   Discharge from metal         
                                                                                   refineries; Erosion of       
                                                                                   natural deposits.            
11. Beryllium (ppb)....................             4  4........................  Discharge from metal          
                                                                                   refineries and coal-burning  
                                                                                   factories; Discharge from    
                                                                                   electrical, aerospace, and   
                                                                                   defense industries.          
12. Cadmium (ppb)......................             5  5........................  Corrosion of galvanized pipes;
                                                                                   Erosion of natural deposits; 
                                                                                   Discharge from metal         
                                                                                   refineries; runoff from waste
                                                                                   batteries and paints.        
13. Chromium (ppb).....................           100  100......................  Discharge from steel and pulp 
                                                                                   mills; Erosion of natural    
                                                                                   deposits.                    
14. Copper (ppm).......................           1.3  AL=1.3...................  Corrosion of household        
                                                                                   plumbing systems; Erosion of 
                                                                                   natural deposits; Leaching   
                                                                                   from wood preservatives.     
15. Cyanide (ppb)......................           200  200......................  Discharge from steel/metal    
                                                                                   factories; Discharge from    
                                                                                   plastic and fertilizer       
                                                                                   factories.                   
16. Fluoride (ppm).....................             4  4........................  Erosion of natural deposits;  
                                                                                   Water additive which promotes
                                                                                   strong teeth; Discharge from 
                                                                                   fertilizer and aluminum      
                                                                                   factories.                   
17. Lead (ppb).........................             0  AL=15....................  Corrosion of household        
                                                                                   plumbing systems; Erosion of 
                                                                                   natural deposits.            
18. Mercury [inorganic] (ppb)..........             2  2........................  Erosion of natural deposits;  
                                                                                   Discharge from refineries and
                                                                                   factories; Runoff from       
                                                                                   landfills; Runoff from       
                                                                                   cropland.                    
19. Nitrate [as Nitrogen] (ppm)........            10  10.......................  Runoff from fertilizer use;   
                                                                                   Leaching from septic tanks,  
                                                                                   sewage; Erosion of natural   
                                                                                   deposits.                    
20. Nitrite [as Nitrogen] (ppm)........             1  1........................  Runoff from fertilizer use;   
                                                                                   Leaching from septic tanks,  
                                                                                   sewage; Erosion of natural   
                                                                                   deposits.                    
21. Selenium (ppb).....................            50  50.......................  Discharge from petroleum and  
                                                                                   metal refineries; Erosion of 
                                                                                   natural deposits; Discharge  
                                                                                   from mines.                  
22. Thallium (ppb).....................           0.5  2........................  Leaching from ore-processing  
                                                                                   sites; Discharge from        
                                                                                   electronics, glass, and drug 
                                                                                   factories.                   
                                                                                                                
     Synthetic Organic Contaminants                                                                             
  including Pesticides and Herbicides                                                                           
                                                                                                                
23. 2,4-D (ppb)........................            70  70.......................  Runoff from herbicide used on 
                                                                                   row crops.                   
24. 2,4,5-TP [Silvex] (ppb)............            50  50.......................  Residue of banned herbicide.  
25. Acrylamide.........................             0  TT.......................  Added to water during sewage/ 
                                                                                   wastewater treatment.        
26. Alachlor (ppb).....................             0  2........................  Runoff from herbicide used on 
                                                                                   row crops.                   
27. Atrazine (ppb).....................             3  3........................  Runoff from herbicide used on 
                                                                                   row crops.                   
28. Benzo(a)pyrene [PAH] (nanograms/l).             0  200......................  Leaching from linings of water
                                                                                   storage tanks and            
                                                                                   distribution lines.          
29. Carbofuran (ppb)...................            40  40.......................  Leaching of soil fumigant used
                                                                                   on rice and alfalfa.         
30. Chlordane (ppb)....................             0  2........................  Residue of banned termiticide.
31. Dalapon (ppb)......................           200  200......................  Runoff from herbicide used on 
                                                                                   rights of way.               
32. Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (ppb).....           400  400......................  Discharge from chemical       
                                                                                   factories.                   
33. Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (ppb)...             0  6........................  Discharge from rubber and     
                                                                                   chemical factories.          
34. Dibromochloropropane (ppt).........             0  200......................  Runoff/leaching from soil     
                                                                                   fumigant used on soybeans,   
                                                                                   cotton, pineapples, and      
                                                                                   orchards.                    
35. Dinoseb (ppb)......................             7  7........................  Runoff from herbicide used on 
                                                                                   soybeans and vegetables.     
36. Diquat (ppb).......................            20  20.......................  Runoff from herbicide use.    

[[Page 44533]]

                                                                                                                
37. Dioxin [2,3,7,8-TCDD] (ppq)........             0  30.......................  Emissions from waste          
                                                                                   incineration and other       
                                                                                   combustion; Discharge from   
                                                                                   chemical factories.          
38. Endothall (ppb)....................           100  100......................  Runoff from herbicide use.    
39. Endrin (ppb).......................             2  2........................  Residue of banned insecticide.
40. Epichlorohydrin....................             0  TT.......................  Discharge from industrial     
                                                                                   chemical factories; An       
                                                                                   impurity of some water       
                                                                                   treatment chemicals.         
41. Ethylene dibromide (ppt)...........             0  50.......................  Discharge from petroleum      
                                                                                   refineries.                  
42. Glyphosate (ppb)...................           700  700......................  Runoff from herbicide use.    
43. Heptachlor (ppt)...................             0  400......................  Residue of banned termiticide.
44. Heptachlor epoxide (ppt)...........             0  200......................  Breakdown of heptachlor.      
45. Hexachlorobenzene (ppb)............             0  1........................  Discharge from metal          
                                                                                   refineries and agricultural  
                                                                                   chemical factories.          
46. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (ppb)....            50  50.......................  Discharge from chemical       
                                                                                   factories.                   
47. Lindane (ppt)......................           200  200......................  Runoff/leaching from          
                                                                                   insecticide used on cattle,  
                                                                                   lumber, gardens.             
48. Methoxychlor (ppb).................            40  40.......................  Runoff/leaching from          
                                                                                   insecticide used on fruits,  
                                                                                   vegetables, alfalfa,         
                                                                                   livestock.                   
49. Oxamyl [Vydate](ppb)...............           200  200......................  Runoff/leaching from          
                                                                                   insecticide used on apples,  
                                                                                   potatoes and tomatoes.       
50. PCBs [Polychlorinated biphenyls]                0  500......................  Runoff from landfills;        
 (ppt).                                                                            Discharge of waste chemicals.
51. Pentachlorophenol (ppb)............             0  1........................  Discharge from wood preserving
                                                                                   factories.                   
52. Picloram (ppb).....................           500  500......................  Herbicide runoff.             
53. Simazine (ppb).....................             4  4........................  Herbicide runoff.             
54. Toxaphene (ppb)....................             0  3........................  Runoff/leaching from          
                                                                                   insecticide used on cotton   
                                                                                   and cattle.                  
                                                                                                                
     Volatile Organic Contaminants                                                                              
                                                                                                                
55. Benzene (ppb)......................             0  5........................  Discharge from factories;     
                                                                                   Leaching from gas storage    
                                                                                   tanks and landfills.         
56. Carbon tetrachloride (ppb).........             0  5........................  Discharge from chemical plants
                                                                                   and other industrial         
                                                                                   activities.                  
57. Chlorobenzene (ppb)................           100  100......................  Discharge from chemical and   
                                                                                   agricultural chemical        
                                                                                   factories.                   
58. o-Dichlorobenzene (ppb)............           600  600......................  Discharge from industrial     
                                                                                   chemical factories.          
59. p-Dichlorobenzene (ppb)............            75  75.......................  Discharge from industrial     
                                                                                   chemical factories.          
60. 1,2-Dichloroethane (ppb)...........             0  5........................  Discharge from industrial     
                                                                                   chemical factories.          
61. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ppb).........             7  7........................  Discharge from industrial     
                                                                                   chemical factories.          
62. cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (ppb).....            70  70.......................  Discharge from industrial     
                                                                                   chemical factories.          
63. trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (ppb)...           100  100......................  Discharge from industrial     
                                                                                   chemical factories.          
64. Dichloromethane (ppb)..............             0  5........................  Discharge from pharmaceutical 
                                                                                   and chemical factories.      
65. 1,2-Dichloropropane (ppb)..........             0  5........................  Discharge from industrial     
                                                                                   chemical factories.          
66. Ethylbenzene (ppb).................           700  700......................  Discharge from petroleum      
                                                                                   refineries.                  
67. Styrene (ppb)......................           100  100......................  Discharge from rubber and     
                                                                                   plastic factories; Leaching  
                                                                                   from landfills.              
68. Tetrachloroethylene (ppb)..........             0  5........................  Leaching from PVC pipes;      
                                                                                   Discharge from factories and 
                                                                                   dry cleaners.                
69. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (ppb).......            70  70.......................  Discharge from textile-       
                                                                                   finishing factories.         
70. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ppb)........           200  200......................  Discharge from metal          
                                                                                   degreasing sites and other   
                                                                                   factories.                   
71. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ppb)........             3  5........................  Discharge from industrial     
                                                                                   chemical factories.          
72. Trichloroethylene (ppb)............             0  5........................  Discharge from metal          
                                                                                   degreasing sites and other   
                                                                                   factories.                   
73. TTHMs [Total trihalomethanes] (ppb)             0  100......................  By-product of drinking water  
                                                                                   chlorination.                
74. Toluene (ppm)......................             1  1........................  Discharge from petroleum      
                                                                                   factories.                   
75. Vinyl Chloride (ppb)...............             0  2........................  Leaching from PVC piping;     
                                                                                   Discharge from plastics      
                                                                                   factories.                   
76. Xylenes (ppm)......................            10  10.......................  Discharge from petroleum      
                                                                                   factories; Discharge from    
                                                                                   chemical factories.          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix C to Subpart O--Health Effects Language

Microbiological Contaminants

    (1) Total Coliform. Coliforms are bacteria that are naturally 
present in the environment and are used as an indicator that other, 
potentially-harmful, bacteria may be present. Coliforms were found 
in more samples than allowed and this was a warning of potential 
problems.
    (2) Fecal coliform/E.Coli. Fecal coliforms and E. coli are 
bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be contaminated 
with human or animal wastes. Microbes in these wastes can cause 
short-term effects, such as diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or 
other symptoms. They may pose a special health risk for infants, 
young children, and people with severely compromised immune systems.
    (3) Turbidity. Turbidity has no health effects. However, 
turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for 
microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-
causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses, and 
parasites that can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, 
and associated headaches.

[[Page 44534]]

Radioactive Contaminants

    (4) Beta/photon emitters. Certain minerals are radioactive and 
may emit forms of radiation known as photons and beta radiation. 
Some people who drink water containing beta and photon emitters in 
excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of 
getting cancer.
    (5) Alpha emitters. Certain minerals are radioactive and may 
emit a form of radiation known as alpha radiation. Some people who 
drink water containing alpha emitters in excess of the MCL over many 
years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
    (6) Combined Radium 226/228. Some people who drink water 
containing radium 226 or 228 in excess of the MCL over many years 
may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

Inorganic Contaminants

    (7) Antimony. Some people who drink water containing antimony 
well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience increases 
in blood cholesterol and decreases in blood sugar.
    (8) Arsenic. Some people who drink water containing arsenic in 
excess of the MCL over many years could experience skin damage or 
problems with their circulatory system, and may have an increased 
risk of getting cancer.
    (9) Asbestos. Some people who drink water containing asbestos in 
excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of 
developing benign intestinal polyps.
    (10) Barium. Some people who drink water containing barium in 
excess of the MCL over many years could experience an increase in 
their blood pressure.
    (11) Beryllium. Some people who drink water containing beryllium 
well in excess of the MCL over many years could develop intestinal 
lesions.
    (12) Cadmium. Some people who drink water containing cadmium in 
excess of the MCL over many years could experience kidney damage.
    (13) Chromium. Some people who use water containing chromium 
well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience allergic 
dermatitis.
    (14) Copper. Copper is an essential nutrient, but some people 
who drink water containing copper in excess of the action level over 
a relatively short amount of time could experience gastrointestinal 
distress. Some people who drink water containing copper in excess of 
the action level over many years could suffer liver or kidney 
damage. People with Wilson's Disease should consult their personal 
doctor.
    (15) Cyanide. Some people who drink water containing cyanide 
well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience nerve 
damage or problems with their thyroid.
    (16) Fluoride. Some people who drink water containing fluoride 
in excess of the MCL over many years could get bone disease, 
including pain and tenderness of the bones. Children may get mottled 
teeth.
    (17) 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 or high blood 
pressure.
    (18) Mercury (inorganic). Some people who drink water containing 
inorganic mercury well in excess of the MCL over many years could 
experience kidney damage.
    (19) Nitrate. Infants below the age of six months who drink 
water containing nitrate in excess of the MCL could become seriously 
ill and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms include shortness of breath 
and blue-baby syndrome.
    (20) Nitrite. Infants below the age of six months who drink 
water containing nitrite in excess of the MCL could become seriously 
ill and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms include shortness of breath 
and blue-baby syndrome.
    (21) Selenium. Selenium is an essential nutrient. However, some 
people who drink water containing selenium in excess of the MCL over 
many years could experience hair or fingernail losses, numbness in 
fingers or toes, or problems with their circulation.
    (22) Thallium. Some people who drink water containing thallium 
in excess of the MCL over many years could experience hair loss, 
changes in their blood, or problems with their kidneys, intestines, 
or liver.

Synthetic Organic Contaminants Including Pesticides and Herbicides

    (23) 2,4-D. Some people who drink water containing the weed 
killer 2,4-D well in excess of the MCL over many years could 
experience problems with their kidneys, liver, or adrenal glands.
    (24) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex). Some people who drink water containing 
silvex in excess of the MCL over many years could experience liver 
problems.
    (25) Acrylamide. Some people who drink water containing high 
levels of acrylamide over a long period of time could have problems 
with their nervous system or blood, and may have an increased risk 
of getting cancer.
    (26) Alachlor. Some people who drink water containing alachlor 
in excess of the MCL over many years could have problems with their 
eyes, liver, kidneys, or spleen, or experience anemia, and may have 
an increased risk of getting cancer.
    (27) Atrazine. Some people who drink water containing atrazine 
well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems 
with their cardiovascular system or reproductive difficulties.
    (28) Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH). Some people who drink water 
containing benzo(a)pyrene in excess of the MCL over many years may 
experience reproductive difficulties and may have an increased risk 
of getting cancer.
    (29) Carbofuran. Some people who drink water containing 
carbofuran in excess of the MCL over many years could experience 
problems with their blood, or nervous or reproductive systems.
    (30) Chlordane. Some people who drink water containing chlordane 
in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with 
their liver or nervous system, and may have an increased risk of 
getting cancer.
    (31) Dalapon. Some people who drink water containing dalapon 
well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience minor 
kidney changes.
    (32) Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate. Some people who drink water 
containing di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate well in excess of the MCL over 
many years could experience general toxic effects or reproductive 
difficulties.
    (33) Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Some people who drink water 
containing di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in excess of the MCL over 
many years may have problems with their liver, or experience 
reproductive difficulties, and may have an increased risk of getting 
cancer.
    (34) Dibromochloropropane (DBCP). Some people who drink water 
containing DBCP in excess of the MCL over many years could 
experience reproductive difficulties and may have an increased risk 
of getting cancer.
    (35) Dinoseb. Some people who drink water containing dinoseb 
well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience 
reproductive difficulties.
    (36) Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). Some people who drink water 
containing dioxin in excess of the MCL over many years could 
experience reproductive difficulties and may have an increased risk 
of getting cancer.
    (37) Diquat. Some people who drink water containing diquat in 
excess of the MCL over many years could get cataracts.
    (38) Endothall. Some people who drink water containing endothall 
in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with 
their stomach or intestines.
    (39) Endrin. Some people who drink water containing endrin in 
excess of the MCL over many years could experience liver problems.
    (40) Epichlorohydrin. Some people who drink water containing 
high levels of epichlorohydrin over a long period of time could 
experience stomach problems, and may have an increased risk of 
getting cancer.
    (41) Ethylene dibromide. Some people who drink water containing 
ethylene dibromide in excess of the MCL over many years could 
experience problems with their liver, stomach, reproductive system, 
or kidneys, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
    (42) Glyphosate. Some people who drink water containing 
glyphosate in excess of the MCL over many years could experience 
problems with their kidneys or reproductive difficulties.
    (43) Heptachlor. Some people who drink water containing 
heptachlor in excess of the MCL over many years could experience 
liver damage and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
    (44) Heptachlor epoxide. Some people who drink water containing 
heptachlor epoxide in excess of the MCL over many years could 
experience liver damage, and may have an increased risk of getting 
cancer.
    (45) Hexachlorobenzene. Some people who drink water containing 
hexachlorobenzene in excess of the MCL over many years could 
experience problems with their liver or kidneys, or adverse 
reproductive effects, and may have an increased risk of getting 
cancer.
    (46) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Some people who drink water 
containing hexachlorocyclopentadiene well in excess of the MCL over 
many years could experience problems with their kidneys or stomach.

[[Page 44535]]

    (47) Lindane. Some people who drink water containing lindane in 
excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with 
their kidneys or liver.
    (48) Methoxychlor. Some people who drink water containing 
methoxychlor in excess of the MCL over many years could experience 
reproductive difficulties.
    (49) Oxamyl [Vydate]. Some people who drink water containing 
oxamyl in excess of the MCL over many years could experience slight 
nervous system effects.
    (50) PCBs [Polychlorinated biphenyls]. Some people who drink 
water containing PCBs in excess of the MCL over many years could 
experience changes in their skin, problems with their thymus gland, 
immune deficiencies, or reproductive or nervous system difficulties, 
and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
    (51) Pentachlorophenol. Some people who drink water containing 
pentachlorophenol in excess of the MCL over many years could 
experience problems with their liver or kidneys, and may have an 
increased risk of getting cancer.
    (52) Picloram. Some people who drink water containing picloram 
in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with 
their liver.
    (53) Simazine. Some people who drink water containing simazine 
in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with 
their blood.
    (54) Toxaphene. Some people who drink water containing toxaphene 
in excess of the MCL over many years could have problems with their 
kidneys, liver, or thyroid, and may have an increased risk of 
getting cancer.

Volatile Organic Contaminants

    (55) Benzene. Some people who drink water containing benzene in 
excess of the MCL over many years could experience anemia or a 
decrease in blood platelets, and may have an increased risk of 
getting cancer.
    (56) Carbon Tetrachloride. Some people who drink water 
containing carbon tetrachloride in excess of the MCL over many years 
could experience problems with their liver and may have an increased 
risk of getting cancer.
    (57) Chlorobenzene. Some people who drink water containing 
chlorobenzene in excess of the MCL over many years could experience 
problems with their liver or kidneys.
    (58) o-Dichlorobenzene. Some people who drink water containing 
o-dichlorobenzene well in excess of the MCL over many years could 
experience problems with their liver, kidneys, or circulatory 
systems.
    (59) p-Dichlorobenzene. Some people who drink water containing 
p-dichlorobenzene in excess of the MCL over many years could 
experience anemia, damage to their liver, kidneys, or spleen, or 
changes in their blood.
    (60) 1,2-Dichloroethane. Some people who drink water containing 
1,2-dichloroethane in excess of the MCL over many years may have an 
increased risk of getting cancer.
    (61) 1,1-Dichloroethylene. Some people who drink water 
containing 1,1-dichloroethylene in excess of the MCL over many years 
could experience problems with their liver.
    (62) cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene. Some people who drink water 
containing cis-1,2-dichloroethylene in excess of the MCL over many 
years could experience problems with their liver.
    (63) trans-1,2-Dicholoroethylene. Some people who drink water 
containing trans-1,2-dichloroethylene well in excess of the MCL over 
many years could experience problems with their liver.
    (64) Dichloromethane. Some people who drink water containing 
dichloromethane in excess of the MCL over many years could have 
liver problems and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
    (65) 1,2-Dichloropropane. Some people who drink water containing 
1,2-dichloropropane in excess of the MCL over many years may have an 
increased risk of getting cancer.
    (66) Ethylbenzene. Some people who drink water containing 
ethylbenzene well in excess of the MCL over many years could 
experience problems with their liver or kidneys.
    (67) Styrene. Some people who drink water containing styrene 
well in excess of the MCL over many years could have problems with 
their liver, kidneys, or circulatory system.
    (68) Tetrachloroethylene. Some people who drink water containing 
tetrachloroethylene in excess of the MCL over many years could have 
problems with their liver, and may have an increased risk of getting 
cancer.
    (69) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene. Some people who drink water 
containing 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene well in excess of the MCL over 
many years could experience changes in their adrenal glands.
    (70) 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane. Some people who drink water 
containing 1,1,1-trichloroethane in excess of the MCL over many 
years could experience problems with their liver, nervous system, or 
circulatory system.
    (71) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane. Some people who drink water 
containing 1,1,2-trichloroethane well in excess of the MCL over many 
years could have problems with their liver, kidneys, or immune 
systems.
    (72) Trichloroethylene. Some people who drink water containing 
trichloroethylene in excess of the MCL over many years could 
experience problems with their liver and may have an increased risk 
of getting cancer.
    (73) TTHMs [Total Trihalomethanes]. Some people who drink water 
containing trihalomethanes in excess of the MCL over many years may 
experience problems with their liver, kidneys, or central nervous 
systems, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
    (74) Toluene. Some people who drink water containing toluene 
well in excess of the MCL over many years could have problems with 
their nervous system, kidneys, or liver.
    (75) Vinyl Chloride. Some people who drink water containing 
vinyl chloride in excess of the MCL over many years may have an 
increased risk of getting cancer.
    (76) Xylenes. Some people who drink water containing xylenes in 
excess of the MCL over many years could experience damage to their 
nervous system.

PART 142--[AMENDED]

    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 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(6)(vii) 
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 is 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 
August 21, 2000. 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.
    (3) Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must 
maintain a copy of the reports for a period of one year and the 
certifications obtained pursuant to 40 CFR 141.155(b) for a period of 5 
years.
    (4) Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must 
report violations of this subpart in accordance with the requirements 
of Sec. 142.15(a)(1).
    4. Section 142.72 is 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 
Sec. 141.155(a) if it meets the following criteria:
* * * * *
    5. Section 142.78 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 142.78  Procedure for processing an Indian Tribe's application.

* * * * *

[[Page 44536]]

    (b) A tribe that meets the requirements of Sec. 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 Sec. 144.155(a).

[FR Doc. 98-22056 Filed 8-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P