[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25964-26001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11162]



[[Page 25963]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 141, 142, and 143



National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Public Notification Rule; 
Proposed Rule



Public Notification Handbook--Draft for Comment; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 25964]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141, 142, and 143

[FRL-6334-8]
RIN 2040-AD06


National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Public Notification 
Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise the general public notification 
regulations for public water systems to implement the public 
notification requirements of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 
amendments. The regulations set the requirements that public water 
systems must follow regarding the form, manner, frequency, and content 
of the public notice. Public notice of violations is an integral part 
of the public health protection and consumer right-to-know provisions 
of the 1996 SDWA amendments. The public notification requirements apply 
to owners and operators of public water systems which: fail to comply 
with the requirements of the National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations (NPDWR); have a variance or exemption from the drinking 
water regulations; or are facing other situations posing risk to public 
health.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise the State implementation 
regulations allowing a State, by rule, to establish alternative public 
notification requirements with respect to the form and content of the 
notice. Finally, EPA is proposing to consolidate in a single subpart of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) all the public notification 
requirements for public water systems.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received by EPA 
on or before July 12, 1999. EPA will hold two public meetings on the 
proposal:
    1. May 26, 1999, 9:00 a.m., Madison, Wisconsin.
    2. June 3, 1999, 10:00 a.m., Washington, D.C.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments on this proposed rule to the 
Public Notification Rule Comment Clerk (docket #W-98-19), Water Docket 
(MC-4101); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street, S.W., 
Washington, DC, 20460. Comments may be hand-delivered to the Water 
Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street, S.W., Room 
EB 57; Washington, D.C., 20460.
    Commenters who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
should enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles 
(faxes) will be accepted. Comments may also be submitted electronically 
to [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as 
a WP 5/6/7/8 file or an ASCII file, avoiding the use of special 
characters and form and encryption. Electronic comments must be 
identified by the docket number (W-98-19). Comments and data will also 
be accepted on disks in WP 5/6/7/8 or ASCII file format. Electronic 
comments on this notice may be filed online at many Federal Depository 
Libraries.
    The public meetings will take place in the following locations: 
Madison, Wisconsin--Best Western Inn at the Park; 22 S. Carroll Street; 
Madison, Wisconsin 53703. Washington, D.C.--U.S. EPA Waterside Mall; 
North Conference Center Room 1; 401 M Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 
20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll 
free (800) 426-4791 for general information about the public 
notification regulations and to register for the public meetings and 
request copies of this document. For technical inquiries, contact Carl 
B. Reeverts at (202) 260-7273.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Statutory Authority
II. GAO Report Findings and Recommendations Regarding Public 
Notification
III. Consultation With Public Water Systems, State and Local 
Governments, Environmental Groups, and Public Interest Groups
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule
    A. Purpose and Applicability
    B. Effective Dates and Rationale
    C. Summary of Changes to Public Notification Requirements
    D. Rationale for Format of Proposed Rule
    E. General Provisions of Proposed Rule (Sec. 141.201)
    1. Who Must Give Public Notice?
    2. What Type of Public Notice is Required for Each Situation?
    3. Who Must Be Notified?
    F. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the Tier 1 Public Notice: 
Violations With Significant Potential to Have Serious Adverse 
Effects on Human Health as a Result of Short-Term Exposure 
(Sec. 141.202)
    1. Tier 1 Violations and Situations
    2. Timing of the Tier 1 Public Notice (and Consultation 
Requirement)
    3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the Tier 1 Notice
    G. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the Tier 2 Public Notice: 
Other Violations With Potential to Have Serious Adverse Effects on 
Human Health (Sec. 141.203)
    1. Tier 2 Violations and Situations
    2. Timing of the Tier 2 Public Notice
    3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the Tier 2 Notice
    H. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the Tier 3 Public Notice: All 
Other Violations and Situations Requiring Public Notice 
(Sec. 141.204)
    1. Tier 3 Violations and Situations
    2. Timing of the Tier 3 Public Notice
    3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the Tier 3 Notice
    I. Content of the Public Notice (Sec. 141.205)
    1. Standard Elements of the Public Notice (Sec. 141.205 (a)-(c))
    2. Standard Health Effects Language (Sec. 141.205(d)(1))
    3. Standard Language for Monitoring and Testing Procedure 
Violations (Sec. 141.205(d)(2))
    4. Standard Language to Encourage Customers Receiving the Public 
Notice to Distribute the Notice to Other Persons Served 
(Sec. 141.205(d)(3))
    J. Other Public Notification Requirements
    1. Notice to New Billing Units or New Customers (Sec. 141.206)
    2. Special Notice to Announce the Availability of the Results of 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (Secs. 141.207 and 141.35)
    3. Special Notice for Exceedance of the Fluoride Secondary 
Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) (Sec. 141.208)
    4. Conditions Under Which the Primacy Agency May Give Notice on 
Behalf of Public Water System (Sec. 141.209)
    K. Reporting to the Primacy Agency and Retention of Records 
(Secs. 141.31 and 141.33)
    L. Special State/Tribal Primacy Requirements and Rationale (40 
CFR Part 142, Subpart B)
V. Relationship of Public Notification Regulation to Consumer 
Confidence Report (CCR) Regulation
VI. Request for Public Comments on Alternatives to Proposal
    A. Requiring Tier 2 Public Notice for Monitoring and Testing 
Procedure Violations
    B. Giving PWS Flexibility in Method of Delivery of Tier 2 and 3 
Notices
VII. Cost of Rule
VIII. Other Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental 
Partnerships
    E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Environmental Justice
    H. Risk to Children Analysis
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action 
are public water systems (PWS). The following table provides examples 
of the regulated entities under this rule. A public water system, as 
defined by section 1401 of SDWA, is ``a system for the provision of

[[Page 25965]]

water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed 
conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen service connections or 
regularly serves at least twenty-five individuals.'' EPA defines 
``regularly served'' as sixty or more days per year. EPA has an 
inventory totaling over 170,000 public water systems nationwide.

                       Table of Regulated Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
                     Category                        regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State/Local/Tribal governments....................  Publicly-owned PWSs,
                                                     such as
                                                     municipalities;
                                                     county governments,
                                                     water districts,
                                                     water and sewer
                                                     authorities, state
                                                     governments, and
                                                     other publicly-
                                                     owned entities that
                                                     deliver drinking
                                                     water as an adjunct
                                                     to their primary
                                                     business (e.g.,
                                                     schools, State
                                                     parks, roadside
                                                     rest stops).
Industry..........................................  Privately-owned
                                                     PWSs, such as
                                                     private utilities,
                                                     homeowner
                                                     associations, and
                                                     other privately-
                                                     owned entities that
                                                     deliver drinking
                                                     water as an adjunct
                                                     to their primary
                                                     business (e.g.,
                                                     trailer parks,
                                                     factories,
                                                     retirement homes,
                                                     day care centers).
Federal government................................  Federally-owned
                                                     PWSs, such as water
                                                     systems on military
                                                     bases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. 
This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could 
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not 
listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether your 
facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria in Sec. 141.201 of the rule. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this section to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.
    Additional Information for Commenters. Please send an original and 
three copies of your comments and enclosures (including references) to 
Public Notification Rule (docket #W-98-19) Comment Clerk, Water Docket 
(MC 4101), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20460. 
Comments must be received or post-marked by midnight July 12, 1999.
    To ensure that EPA can read, understand, and therefore properly 
respond to comments, the Agency would prefer that comments cite, where 
possible, the paragraph(s) or sections in the notice or supporting 
documents to which each comment refers. Comments should use a separate 
paragraph for each issue discussed. The record for this rulemaking has 
been established under docket number W-98-19, and includes supporting 
documentation as well as printed, paper versions of electronic 
comments. The record is available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, at the Water Docket, 
EB 57, U.S. EPA Headquarters, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. For 
access to docket materials, please call (202) 260-3027 to schedule an 
appointment.
    Consumer Right-to-Know Provisions in the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) contain 
extensive provisions for consumer involvement and right-to-know that 
herald a new era of public participation in drinking water protection. 
These provisions are founded on the principle that consumers have a 
right to know what is in their drinking water and where it comes from 
before they turn on the tap. With the information provided in these 
provisions, consumers will be better able to make health decisions for 
themselves and their families.
    The public notification requirement is one of six interrelated 
provisions now included in the SDWA. The purpose of public notification 
is to alert persons served by public water systems that a drinking 
water standard has been violated and to provide information quickly to 
enable consumers to take precautions to protect their health. The 
public notification provision was included in the original SDWA, 
enacted in 1974. The existing regulations are being revised here to 
address revisions in the 1996 SDWA amendments.
    Five other right-to-know provisions were added to the SDWA through 
the 1996 SDWA amendments.
     Community water systems are now required to prepare and 
provide to their customers annual Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR) on 
the quality of the water delivered by the systems. The CCR is the 
centerpiece of the public right-to-know provisions in the SDWA. The 
information contained in these reports can raise consumers' awareness 
of where their water comes from, show them the steps that are necessary 
to deliver safe drinking water to their homes, and educate them about 
the importance of source water protection for assuring safe drinking 
water. The CCR and the public notification rule are interrelated: an 
annual summary of violations occurring during the year is one of the 
elements of the CCR. EPA's regulation requiring the annual CCR was 
promulgated on August 19, 1998 (40 CFR part 141, Subpart O; 63 FR 
44511). All community water systems must complete the first CCR by 
October, 1999.
     Primacy agencies are required to prepare and release an 
annual report listing violations of national primary drinking water 
regulations (NPDWR) which occurred in the last year in the public water 
systems within their jurisdictions. EPA is also required to issue an 
annual report which summarizes and evaluates the State reports and 
makes recommendations concerning the resources needed to improve 
compliance with the SDWA. The first State violation reports were 
released on January 1, 1998. EPA's first report was released in July, 
1998.
     Primacy States are required to make completed source water 
assessments available to the public. States are required under the 1996 
SDWA amendments to assess the condition of every public water supply 
within the State, including the boundaries of the source of that water 
supply and contamination threats within those boundaries. The source 
water assessments are to be completed by the States for all public 
water systems by 2003.
     EPA is required to develop and make available a national 
contaminant occurrence database that will provide information on the 
occurrence of both regulated and unregulated contaminants in public 
water systems. This information will be made available to the public 
through the Internet. The initial version of the national contaminant 
occurrence database is scheduled for release in August, 1999.
     Primacy agencies are required to notify the public of 
proposed decisions to allow a variance to the federal drinking water 
standards involving their public water system. Public water systems 
serving 10,000 or fewer persons that cannot meet the requirements of 
EPA national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs), using 
technology identified in the NPDWR, may apply for a variance to use an 
alternate technology

[[Page 25966]]

to meet the regulation. Consumers served by that water system will be 
provided an opportunity to comment on or object to the variance.
    All of these public right-to-know provisions are based on the 
belief that accountability to the public and the understanding and 
support of the public will be vital to address threats to drinking 
water quality in the years ahead. The provisions provide unprecedented 
opportunities for the public to participate in decisions related to the 
protection of their water supplies. If the public uses the 
opportunities, it can ensure that the choices made--particularly by EPA 
and the States, but also by water systems--respond to the public's 
needs and concerns within the constraints of the SDWA.

I. Statutory Authority

    Section 114 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 
(Public Law 104-182), enacted August 6, 1996, amended Section 1414(c) 
of the Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)). Sections 1414 (c)(1) and (c)(2) were 
significantly revised and require EPA to amend the existing public 
notification regulations. The amended rules are intended to give 
consumers more accurate and timely information on violations, taking 
into account the seriousness of any potential adverse health effects 
that may be involved. There is no deadline for promulgating the revised 
public notification rule, but EPA intends to complete this rulemaking 
by the end of 1999 to allow States and the regulated community to 
coordinate public notification implementation with implementation of 
the Consumer Confidence Report.
    The public notification (PN) provisions were part of the original 
SDWA in 1974 and were subsequently modified in the 1986 SDWA 
amendments. The public notification regulations currently in place were 
promulgated in 1987 and became effective in 1989 (40 CFR 141.32). The 
existing rule remains in place until the new rule is promulgated.
    SDWA Section 1414(c)(1) establishes who must give public notice, 
under what circumstances a notice must be given, and who must receive 
the notice. Section 1414(c)(1)(A) requires that all public water 
systems give notice to all persons served of any failure to comply with 
any national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWR), including any 
required monitoring. Section 1414(c)(1)(B) further requires a public 
water system to provide a notice when it is operating under a variance 
or exemption, and when a water system fails to comply with the 
requirements of a variance or exemption. Section 1414(c)(1)(C) 
authorizes EPA, at the Administrator's discretion, to require public 
water systems to provide notice of the concentration level of any 
unregulated contaminant monitored under EPA regulations. Except for the 
addition of paragraph (C) of Section 1414(c)(1), these requirements are 
unchanged from the previous SDWA.
    Section 1414(c)(2) sets the specific requirements for the form, 
manner, and frequency of the notice. Section 1414(c)(2)(A) requires EPA 
to issue regulations, after consultation with the States, that 
prescribe the detailed public notification requirements. The 
regulations must provide for different frequencies of notices based on 
the persistence of the violations and the seriousness of any potential 
adverse health effects that may be involved. Except for now requiring 
EPA to consult with the States prior to promulgating the revised 
regulations, the general directions to EPA for issuing regulations are 
unchanged from the previous SDWA.
    Section 1414(c)(2)(B) enables States, at their option, to establish 
alternate requirements with respect to the form and content of the 
public notice, as long as the alternative State program provides the 
same type and amount of information as required under the EPA 
regulations. This Section was added with the 1996 amendments.
    Section 1414(c)(2)(C) directs EPA to issue regulations which 
require public water systems to distribute a notice within 24 hours to 
all persons served for violations with potential to have serious 
adverse effects on human health from short-term exposure. The public 
water system is also required to send the same notice to the primacy 
agency and to consult with the primacy agency within the same 24-hour 
period on any additional public notice requirements. This section is a 
new statutory requirement.
    Section 1414(c)(2)(D) directs that EPA's regulations require public 
water systems to provide written notice to each person served for each 
violation not covered under Section 1414(c)(2)(C). The Section 
specifies that the notice may be: (1) in the first bill, if any, after 
the violation; (2) in an annual report issued no later than one year 
after the violation; or (3) by mail or direct delivery as soon as 
practicable, but no later than one year after the violation. This 
section significantly revises and simplifies the previous statutory 
requirements on the form, manner, and timing of the notice.
    Section 1414(c)(2)(E) allows the Administrator the option to 
require the public water system to give notice to persons served of the 
results of unregulated contaminant monitoring required by EPA under 
1445(a). EPA will soon propose a revised unregulated contaminant 
monitoring regulation (UCMR) This section is new under the 1996 SDWA 
amendments.
    This rule, when issued in final form, is intended to fulfill the 
rulemaking requirements outlined in amended sections 1414(c)(1) and 
1414(c)(2).

II. GAO Report Findings and Recommendations Regarding Public 
Notification

    In June, 1992, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report 
entitled: ``Drinking Water Consumers Often Not Well Informed of 
Potentially Serious Violations'' (GAO/RCED-92-135). GAO found:
     Low compliance with the existing public notification 
requirements on the part of public water systems and limited compliance 
tracking and enforcement on the part of EPA and the States;
     Aspects of the requirements may be a complicating factor, 
especially for small systems, making it difficult to effectively 
communicate important information to consumers; and
     Notices tended to be too technical, provide little 
guidance on actions to take in response to violations, and not focus 
enough attention on the most serious violations.
    GAO made several recommendations to improve the public notification 
process, including:
     Changing the regulations to focus notification on more 
serious violations by allowing water systems to consolidate notices for 
less serious violations;
     Revising the health effects language to be less technical; 
and
     Better oversight by EPA and the States.
    EPA used the GAO findings and recommendations from this audit as 
one of the principal starting points in developing the proposed rule.

III. Consultation With Public Water Systems, State and Local 
Governments, Environmental Groups, and Public Interest Groups

    Today's proposal is based on input from a broad range of 
stakeholders from the public and private sectors. The Agency has 
actively involved the States as partners in the rule development and 
has held a series of stakeholder meetings throughout the country to 
gain input and information from other groups and individuals.
    First, Section 1414 (c)(2)(A) requires that EPA consult with the 
States before

[[Page 25967]]

revising the public notification regulation. Accordingly, EPA met very 
early in the regulatory development process with a group of States, as 
part of the early involvement meetings set up by the Association of 
State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), to develop the scope of 
the process and identify significant issues under the new statute. 
States participated throughout the development process as members of 
the EPA regulation workgroup. EPA provided briefings to ASDWA on 
request several times during the past year as the development of the 
rule moved forward.
    Second, in addition to the active involvement and consultation with 
the States, EPA held a series of well-attended stakeholder meetings 
early in the process to solicit input on the scope of the rule, issues 
with the current rule and how they could be corrected, and how the 
statutory changes should be covered in the regulation. Over a period of 
four months in late summer and fall of 1997, EPA held stakeholder 
meetings in Indianapolis, Indiana, Washington, D.C., and Seattle, 
Washington. The participants at these meetings ranged from State and 
local government officials (including water utilities) to risk 
communication experts and representatives of public interest groups. 
During this same period, meetings were also held with the Washington 
Drinking Water Advisory Committee, a statewide group of managers from 
various public and private entities, and a group of utility and State 
managers from several Midwestern States. Several recurring themes 
surfaced during these meetings:
     Public notices are extremely important to consumers; they 
must reach the appropriate audiences in a timely fashion to protect 
public health and allow consumers to make choices.
     It appears that the public notification process has not 
been effective (i.e., based on the results of the 1992 GAO audit and 
stakeholder experiences); a new regulation has to be less complex and 
better targeted to the seriousness of the violation to be effective.
     Public notices and their follow-up must be tailored 
carefully to the specific situation to be effective: it depends on the 
specific violation; the type and size of the water system; the affected 
population; and the availability of communication outlets. Therefore, 
any EPA regulation must be flexible enough to accommodate local 
situations.
     The timing and content of the public notices should be 
differentiated based on the severity of the violations.
     Public notices of violations should never be the 
centerpiece of a public water system's consumer awareness approach. EPA 
should actively encourage water systems to closely coordinate the 
public notice requirements with the Consumer Confidence Report and 
other longer term education strategies.
    Third, EPA has begun a new initiative outside the rulemaking 
process, in collaboration with the States, utilities, and public 
interest groups, to develop a public notification handbook. The 
handbook will provide public notification ``templates'' for public 
water systems to help them respond quickly to the many different 
violation circumstances they may encounter. This initiative, which 
involves a series of focus group meetings with the public and others to 
assess effectiveness, provides ``real world'' experience in advance of 
the final rulemaking. The Handbook is not intended as an additional set 
of regulatory requirements, but rather as a resource that public water 
systems may use at their discretion to craft effective and timely 
notices. The draft handbook is being issued concurrently with the 
proposed rule. It will be announced through the Federal Register and 
copies will be mailed to stakeholders and made available through EPA's 
Internet home page.
    Finally, EPA continues to provide information to our stakeholders 
on the status of the rulemaking. EPA periodically provides updates to 
the National Drinking Water Advisory Council and informational 
briefings, upon request, to other stakeholder groups.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Purpose and Applicability

    The rule being proposed today revises the minimum requirements 
public water systems must meet regarding the form, manner, frequency, 
and content of the public notification. Public water systems must give 
notice to all persons served for all violations of National Primary 
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) and for other situations posing a 
risk to public health from the drinking water. The term NPDWR 
Violations is used in the public notification regulations to include 
violations of Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), Maximum Residual 
Disinfectant Level (MRDL), treatment technique (TT), monitoring, and 
testing procedure requirements. Public notice is not required, for 
example, for violation of the new Consumer Confidence Report 
regulation. See Table 1 and Appendix A of the proposed rule for the 
NPDWR violations and other situations requiring a public notice. 
Violations not listed in Appendix A do not require a public notice 
under Subpart Q.
    The rule would apply to existing and new public water systems that 
violate a NPDWR or have other situations that pose a risk to health 
from the drinking water. A ``public water system,'' as defined in 40 
CFR 141.2 , is ``a system for the provision to the public of water for 
human consumption through pipes or, after August 5, 1998, other 
constructed conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen service 
connections or regularly serves at least twenty-five individuals daily 
at least 60 days out of the year.''
    A public water system is either a community water system (CWS) or 
non-community water system (NCWS). A CWS, as defined in Sec. 141.2, 
means ``a public water system which serves at least 15 service 
connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 
25 year-round residents.'' A NCWS means ``a public water system that is 
not a community water system.''
    Non-community water systems are further broken out in the drinking 
water regulations into transient non-community water systems (TWS) and 
non-transient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWS). A NTNCWS is defined 
by EPA under Sec. 141.2 as ``a public water system that is not a 
community water system and that regularly serves 25 of the same people 
over six months of the year.'' An example is a school or business that 
has its own water well. A TWS is defined by EPA under Sec. 141.2 as ``a 
noncommunity water system that does not regularly serve 25 of the same 
persons over six months of the year.'' An example is a roadside rest 
stop with its own water well.
    For illustration purposes, Table A provides a summary of the number 
of public water systems, broken out by type of system, the number of 
these systems with violations during FY 1996, and the total number of 
violations during the same period. Table A shows that 46,572 of the 
172,248 public water systems had one or more violations in FY 1996. 
Overall, the 46,572 public water systems with violations committed 
243,604 violations in FY 1996. The overwhelming majority of these 
violations were failure to monitor according to the regulations. 
Although not all violations require a separate public notice, each 
violation requires the public water system to comply with the public 
notification requirements.

[[Page 25968]]



  Table A.--Number of Water Systems Regulated Under Public Notification
                             Rule in FY 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Systems
       Type of water system         Number of       with      Violations
                                     systems     violations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Community Water Systems (CWS).       55,427       14,620      126,853
2. Nontransient Noncommunity            20,237        6,227       51,796
 Water Systems (NTNCWS)..........
3. Transient Noncommunity Water         96,584       25,725       57,565
 Systems (TWS)...................
                                  --------------------------------------
Public Water Systems (PWS).......      172,248       46,572     236,214
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: PWS Inventory and Compliance Statistics: FY 1992-FY 1996.

    As shown in Table A, 55,427 of the regulated public water systems 
are CWSs. CWSs must comply with all the NPDWRs in effect, currently 
covering 80 separate contaminants. CWSs serve residential populations 
and range from large municipal systems that serve millions of persons 
to small systems, which serve fewer than 100 persons. CWSs can be 
further categorized as publicly-owned systems, privately-owned systems, 
and systems which provide water as an ancillary function of their 
principal purpose. In FY 1996, 14,620 CWSs committed 126,853 
violations. Approximately 80 percent of community water systems serve 
fewer than 3,300 people.
    Of the regulated public water systems, 20,237 are NTNCWS. Virtually 
all NTNCWSs provide water as an ancillary function of their principal 
purpose (for example, schools, day-care facilities, factories). NTNCWSs 
must comply with the same national primary drinking water regulations 
as community water systems. During FY 1996, 6,227 NTNCWSs committed 
51,796 violations. Approximately 99 percent of NTNCWSs serve fewer than 
3,300 people.
    The balance of the regulated public water systems (96,584) are TWS. 
Virtually all TWSs provide water as an ancillary function of their 
principal purpose (for example, highway rest stops, gas stations, state 
parks). TWSs must comply only with existing national primary drinking 
water regulations where short-term violations may pose a health 
threat--total coliform, nitrate, nitrite, combined nitrate+nitrite, and 
the surface water treatment rule. In FY 1996, 25,725 TWSs committed 
57,565 violations. Over 99 percent of TWSs serve fewer than 3,300 
people.

B. Effective Dates and Rationale

    EPA is proposing that the revised public notification rule become 
effective no later than two years after the final rule is published in 
the Federal Register or on the date the primacy agency's revised 
regulation becomes effective, whichever comes first. Setting the two-
year effective date matches the time period allowed for States under 
the primacy regulations (40 CFR Part 142, Subpart B) to adopt new or 
revised National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). As the 
public notification rule is not an NPDWR, EPA has discretion to set an 
effective date for the revised rule. EPA believes it is appropriate to 
set the effective date consistent with the basic two-year time period 
allowed States to adopt the revised regulation. This coordinated phase-
in of the new public notification requirements in each State will be 
more efficient and will avoid the potential confusion of having 
different State and EPA requirements in effect at the same time.
    EPA is proposing to make the rule effective in a State as soon as 
the State's revised regulation is effective under its primacy program. 
In practical terms, this will mean that the new requirements will go 
into effect at different times nation-wide based on the speed of the 
State adoption of the new requirements. Where EPA directly implements 
the program (such as in Wyoming and Washington, D.C., and on Indian 
lands), the revised rule will go into effect 90 days after EPA 
publication of the final rule. Regardless of the primacy situation, the 
rule would go into effect after two years for all water systems, even 
in those States that request and are granted an extension to adopt the 
revised regulation beyond the basic two-year time period.
    The revised public notification rule will apply to new and existing 
violations of NPDWRs, variances or exemptions granted by a primacy 
agency, and violations of conditions of an existing variance or 
exemption after the effective date of this rule. However, EPA does not 
intend to require that public water systems provide initial public 
notices under the new rule for violations and situations where the 
initial public notice has already been given under the regulations in 
place at the time. Unless the primacy agency makes a different 
determination on a case-by-case basis, the revised rule will apply to 
repeat notices for existing violations or any public notice 
requirements applying subsequent to the public notices given under the 
old rule.
    EPA considered a number of options on the effective date of the 
rule before settling on the two-year time frame. EPA believes that the 
new regulation, consistent with the revised statute, will make the 
public notification process simpler, more efficient, and better 
targeted than the current regulation. In this respect, the sooner the 
new rule goes into effect, the more effective the public notification 
process will be. However, because the proposed rule replaces a State 
program already in operation, applying the new rule to public water 
systems well in advance of the change in the State program would be 
confusing to the regulated community and the public. It could result in 
two sets of public notice requirements (i.e., the current State rule 
and the new EPA rule) being in effect for the public water systems 
during this transition period. Because the intent is still to replace 
the current regulation with the new streamlined rule as soon as 
possible, comments are requested on the proposed effective date. 
Suggestions on other options to put the new regulations into effect 
sooner are welcome.

C. Summary of Changes to Current Public Notification Requirements

    The proposed rule is substantially different from the public 
notification regulation currently in effect. Table B is a summary of 
the major differences between the current regulation and the proposed 
rule.

[[Page 25969]]



                    Table B.--Summary of Differences Between Proposed Rule and Existing Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Statutory authority (SDWA, as
          amended in 1996)                 Current rule (Sec.  141.32)      Proposed rule  (part 141, subpart Q)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1414(c)(1)                            (Sec.  141.32(a) and (b)) Owner or    (Secs.  141.201(a) and 141.202(a))
Each owner or operator of a PWS        operators of PWSs must notify for     Includes violations from current
 shall give notice of NPDWR            the following violations/             rule and adds broader definition of
 violations, levels of unregulated     situations:                           waterborne disease outbreak, adds
 contaminants, and existence of a     Maximum contaminant levels (MCL)       new IESWTR and DBP standards, moves
 variance or exemption.               Treatment technique                    fluoride SMCL and unregulated
                                      Testing procedure                      contaminant monitoring public
                                      Monitoring                             notices from other parts of the
                                      Operation under a variance or          regulations. Adds a new Appendix A
                                       exemption                             to the rule listing all violations
                                      Noncompliance with variance or         and situations where public
                                       exemption schedule                    notification is required.
1414(c)(2)(A)                         (Secs.  141.32 (a)(1)(iii) and        (Sec.  141.201(b)) Tiers are defined
Manner, frequency, and form are        141.32(a) and (b)) There is a three-  based on seriousness of the
 prescribed based on seriousness and   tier system, although tiers are not   violation or situation and of
 frequency of violations.              named.                                potential health effects, and all
                                      Public notices are divided into        violations or situations are
                                       three tiers: violations of MCLs       assigned to a tier (Appendix A)
                                       that may pose an acute risk to       Tier 1 notice for violations or
                                       human health; MCLs, treatment         situations with significant
                                       technique, and variance or            potential to have serious adverse
                                       exemption schedule violations; and    effects on human health as a result
                                       other violations (including           of short-term exposure;
                                       monitoring) and operation under a    Tier 2 notice for all other
                                       variance or exemption.                violations or situations with
                                                                             potential to have serious adverse
                                                                             effects on human health; and
                                                                            Tier 3 notice for all other
                                                                             violations and situations not
                                                                             included in Tier 1 and Tier 2.
1414(c)(2)(C)(iii)                    (Sec.  141.31(d)) System must         (Sec.  141.31(d)) Revised to require
Notice must be provided to             provide a copy of the notice to the   PWS to submit a certification and a
 Administrator or primacy agency       State within 10 days.                 copy of the notice to the primacy
                                                                             agency within 10 days.
                                                                            (Secs.  141.202(b) and 141.201(c))
                                                                             New section added to require
                                                                             consultation with primacy agency
                                                                             within 24 hours for violations or
                                                                             situations requiring a Tier 1
                                                                             notice.
1414(c)(2)(C)(1)                      (Sec.  141.32(a)(1)(iii)(A)-(D)       (Sec.  141.202) Tier 1 notice--
For violations with potential to       Acute violations include              Violations and situations include
 have serious adverse effects on      (1) Any violations specified by        those defined as acute in the
 human health as a result of short-    State                                 current rule, plus: an expanded
 term exposure, notice must be        (2) Nitrate/nitrite MCLs               definition of waterborne disease
 distributed as soon as practicable   (3) Fecal coliform/ E. coli            outbreak to include all water
 but no later than 24 hours after     (4) Waterborne disease outbreak in     systems; chlorine dioxide MRDL
 the occurrence of the violation       unfiltered systems subject to         violation under new DBP rule where
                                       Surface Water Treatment Rule          samples taken in the distribution
                                                                             system exceed the standard or where
                                                                             samples are not taken in the
                                                                             distribution system; and violation
                                                                             of the testing procedures to
                                                                             determine if fecal coliform is
                                                                             present after the presence of total
                                                                             coliform in the distribution system
                                                                             is confirmed.
                                      Provide copy of notice to radio and   Timing revised to require notice
                                       TV stations within 72 hours, or by    within 24 hours; must be by
                                       posting or hand delivery within 72    electronic media, posting, or hand
                                       hours. Posting must continue as       delivery, plus any additional
                                       long as the violation exists.         methods necessary to reach all
                                                                             persons served.
                                      Additional notices: by newspaper      Revised to not require additional
                                       within 14 days or posting or hand     notices for same violation,
                                       delivery if no newspaper is           deferring instead to the primacy
                                       available; by mail within 45 days     agency to set additional
                                       (may be waived if state determines    requirements (including additional
                                       violation has been corrected); and    notices) on a case-by-case basis.
                                       repeat notice every three months
                                       thereafter.
1414(c)(2)(D)(1)                      (Sec.  141.32)(a)) For MCL,           (Sec.  141.203) Tier 2 notice
Regulations shall specify              treatment technique, and variance     includes those described in Sec.
 notification procedures for           or exemption schedule violations.     141.32(a) of the current rule, plus
 violations other than Tier 1;                                               the new standards under the IESWTR
 notice shall be in written form                                             and DBP rules, and serious and
                                                                             persistent monitoring and testing
                                                                             procedure violations, as determined
                                                                             by the primacy agency .

[[Page 25970]]

 
                                      By newspaper within 14 days or by     Revised to require notice within 30
                                       posting or hand delivery if no        days unless the primacy agency
                                       newspaper is available.               allows an extension of up to three
                                                                             months for specific circumstances.
                                                                             Unless primacy agency directs
                                                                             otherwise, CWS must use mail or
                                                                             direct delivery, and other methods
                                                                             reasonably calculated to reach
                                                                             persons served. NCWS must use
                                                                             posting, direct delivery, or mail,
                                                                             and other methods reasonably
                                                                             calculated to reach persons served.
                                      Additional notices: by mail within    The initial notice does not require
                                       45 days (may be waived if state       multiple methods of delivery unless
                                       determines violation has been         it is needed to reach persons
                                       corrected), and repeat notice every   served. Repeat notice required
                                       three months thereafter by mail or    every three months where violation
                                       hand delivery.                        persists, unless the primacy agency
                                                                             determines less frequent repeat
                                                                             notice (no less frequent than
                                                                             annually) is warranted because of
                                                                             specific circumstances. Method of
                                                                             delivery for repeat notice is not
                                                                             specified.
                                      (Sec.  141.32(b) For monitoring and   (Sec.  141.204) The violations and
                                       testing procedure violations, and     situations requiring a Tier 3
                                       operation under variance or           notice are the same as those
                                       exemption.                            described in Sec.  141.32(b) of
                                                                             current rule, with the addition of
                                                                             a notice requirement for ``other
                                                                             violations'' determined by the
                                                                             primacy agency to require a Tier 3
                                                                             notice.
                                      By newspaper within three months of   Revised to require notice within one
                                       the violation or the granting of      year. Unless primacy agency directs
                                       variance or exemption, or by hand     otherwise, CWS must use mail or
                                       delivery or posting if no newspaper   direct delivery, and other methods
                                       is available. State may allow less    reasonably calculated to reach
                                       frequent public notice (up to 1       persons served. NCWS must use
                                       year) for minor monitoring            posting, direct delivery, or mail,
                                       violations.                           and other methods reasonably
                                                                             calculated to reach persons served.
                                                                             CCR or other annual reports may be
                                                                             used, as long as notice in CCR
                                                                             meets PN requirements.
                                      Repeat notice every three months      Repeat notice annually; no method
                                       thereafter by mail or hand            specified.
                                       delivery.
Notice to new billing units (not in   (Sec.  141.32(c)) Community water     (Sec.  141.206) Revised to require
 statute)                              system must give a copy of the most   notice for any outstanding
                                       recent public notice for any          violation, including monitoring and
                                       outstanding violation of any MCL,     testing procedure violations.
                                       any treatment technique              Revised to require non-community
                                       requirement, or any V&E schedule.     systems to keep notice posted for
                                                                             as long as violation exists, even
                                                                             if notice was initially hand-
                                                                             delivered or otherwise distributed.
1414(c)(2)(C)(ii) and                 (Sec.  141.32(d)) Each notice must    (Sec.  141.205) Adds ``when
 1414(c)(2)(D)(ii)                     provide a clear explanation of the    violation was found'' and ``when
Content of notices                     violation, potential health           system expects to return to
                                       effects, population at risk, steps    compliance'' to content elements.
                                       being taken to correct violation,     New requirement to include
                                       telephone number of the owner,        ``contaminant level''. Adds new
                                       operator, or designee of the public   element requiring standard language
                                       water system, necessity for seeking   asking bill paying customers to
                                       alternative water supplies, if any,   provide copies of notice to other
                                       and any preventive measures           persons served who may not have
                                       consumers should take until the       received the notice directly from
                                       violation is corrected.               the PWS.
                                                                            Also, adds minimum content elements
                                                                             for notices of operation under
                                                                             variance or exemption, which
                                                                             parallels CCR requirements. No
                                                                             longer requires health effects
                                                                             language for operation under a
                                                                             variance or exemption.
                                      (141.32(e)) Systems must include      (New Appendix B) Revises standard
                                       standard health effects language      health effects language.
                                       for MCL, treatment technique,        Adds standard language for
                                       variance or exemption schedule        monitoring and testing procedure
                                       violations, and operation under a     violations.
                                       variance or exemption.
Special notice for exceedance of      (Sec.  141.32(f)) Notice of SMCL      (Sec.  141.208) Moved to new Subpart
 Fluoride Secondary Maximum            exceedances required within 12        Q, mandatory language is simplified
 Contaminant Level (SMCL) (not in      mos.; shall contain language in
 statute)                              Sec.  143.5(b).

[[Page 25971]]

 
Public notice by primacy agency (not  (Sec.  141.32(g)) The State may give  (Sec.  141.209) No change.
 in statute)                           notice to the public on behalf the
                                       public water system if the State
                                       complies with the requirements of
                                       Sec.  141.32. However, the owner or
                                       operator of the public water system
                                       remains legally responsible.
1414(c)(2)(E)                         (Sec.  141.35(d)) Written notice of   (Sec.  141.207) Revised to require
Administrator may require notice of    availability of results within        notice of availability of results
 levels of unregulated contaminants    three months after system receives    within 12 months, following Tier 3
 monitored under section 1445(a)       results (surface water systems only   delivery requirements; deletes Sec.
                                       need to notify after the first         141.35(d).
                                       quarter of monitoring).
1414(c)(2)(B)                         (Sec.  142.10(a)) Authority to        (Sec.  142.10(a)) No change.
States may establish alternative       require public water systems to
 notification requirements             give public notice that is no less
                                       stringent than the EPA requirements
                                       in Secs.  141.32 and 142.16(a).
                                      (Sec.  142.16(a)) If the state        (Sec.  142.16(a)) Deletes current
                                       chooses to decrease notice            requirement. Reaffirms under Sec.
                                       frequency for minor monitoring        142.16(a)(1) the two year deadline
                                       violations it must submit to EPA      (with possible 2-year extension)
                                       the criteria used to decide the       for State primacy program revision.
                                       decreased frequency and which        New 142.16(a)(2) added to require
                                       violations are minor, and it must     State to include in primacy program
                                       submit the new notice requirements.   enforceable requirements and
                                                                             procedures when State opts to use
                                                                             its discretion to deviate from EPA
                                                                             rule.
                                                                            New 142.16(a)(3) added to allow
                                                                             primacy agencies to establish
                                                                             alternative public notification
                                                                             requirements with respect to form
                                                                             and content of notice, consistent
                                                                             with 1414(c)(2) (B) of 1996 SDWA
                                                                             amendments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Rationale for Format of Proposed Rule

    EPA is proposing a new ``plain language'' format for the revised 
public notification regulation, consistent with the requirements 
outlined in the June 1, 1998 memorandum sent by President Clinton to 
all Federal agencies and the ongoing Agency initiative to take steps to 
improve both the clarity and comprehension of regulatory language. The 
difficulty in understanding federal regulations has been a longstanding 
criticism of federal agencies, including EPA. The current public 
notification rule, in particular, has been criticized by GAO and others 
as being too complex and confusing to implement. This criticism was 
viewed by GAO in its 1992 report as one of the reasons the public 
notification process is ineffective.
    The proposed rule is structured in a question and answer format. 
Where possible, tables were inserted in the rule to make the various 
requirements easier to understand. In addition, EPA is proposing that 
an appendix be added to list the acronyms used in the public 
notification regulation. (See Appendix C to 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart 
Q.)
    EPA welcomes comments on the new format and is soliciting ideas on 
ways to make the public notification regulation more readable by the 
regulated community:
     Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and ordering of 
sections, use of headings, paraphrasing) make the rule easier to 
understand?
     Would more (or shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?

E. General Provisions of Proposed Rule (Sec. 141.201)

    Today's proposal would replace the existing public notification 
regulation with an entirely new subpart (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q), 
which incorporates the new provisions under sections 1414(c)(1) and 
(c)(2) of the SDWA, as amended in 1996, and would streamline the 
requirements to more effectively meet the objectives of the public 
notification process. Informing consumers of violations has been a key 
feature of the SDWA since the statute was first enacted in 1974.
    The primary purpose of public notification is to inform consumers 
of any potential adverse health effects related to the drinking water 
provided to them and of the steps they can take to minimize the impact. 
Public notification also addresses the fundamental issue of consumer-
right-to-know, providing information on a timely basis that allows 
consumers to make informed choices about use of their drinking water. 
The statute requires EPA to issue regulations prescribing the manner, 
frequency, form, and content for giving public notice. The proposed 
rule would revise the existing public notification requirements:
     To focus the public notification on the violations posing 
the greatest potential risk to public health,
     To give greater latitude to States to develop alternative 
programs to meet their unique needs;
     To provide greater flexibility to public water systems to 
tailor distribution of the notice to best reach the affected 
population; and
     To encourage water systems to use the annual Consumer 
Confidence Report or other annual reporting mechanism to give the 
initial public notice for less serious violations.
    These changes to the regulation are intended to better meet the 
purposes of the public notification process to better

[[Page 25972]]

inform consumers about drinking water issues affecting their health.
    1. Who must give public notice? EPA is proposing to amend the 
current regulatory language to explicitly require public notice for 
``other situations determined by the primacy agency to have potential 
of serious adverse effects on human health.'' (See Table 1 of 40 CFR 
141.201 of the proposed rule.) Other than this addition, EPA is 
proposing to maintain the current regulatory requirements defining who 
must give public notice and in what situations it must be given. Public 
water systems are required under the proposed rule, as now, to give 
public notice to persons served by the system for any failure to comply 
with a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR), including 
any monitoring and testing procedure requirements, and where the water 
system is operating under a variance or exemption to the NPDWR. The 
proposal will include the public notification provisions for the new 
Disinfection Byproduct (DBP) and Interim Enhanced Surface Water 
Treatment Rule (IESWTR) regulations which were published on December 
16, 1998 (63 FR 69389 and 69477).
    The proposed new language to this section enables the primacy 
agency to require public notice for other situations not explicitly 
listed under Sections 1414(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the SDWA. EPA recognizes 
that Sections 1414(c)(1) and (c)(2) limits public notification 
requirements to violations of NPDWRs or required monitoring, variances 
and exemptions, and unregulated contaminant monitoring results. Thus, 
the situations identified for public notice in Sections 1414(c)(1) and 
(2) are limited to violations or notification concerning existing 
drinking water regulations. However, in some cases, such as in the 
Milwaukee cryptosporidium outbreak, dangerous situations may occur 
without a violation of existing drinking water requirements. In these 
cases as well, public notification may be critical to informing the 
public of the need to take immediate steps to avoid health risks. EPA 
is proposing to add such situations to the list of required public 
notices in this rule. The Agency believes that Section 1445(a) of the 
SDWA provides ample additional authority for requiring public 
notification of situations other than those listed in Section 
1414(c)(1) and (c)(2) that are deemed by EPA in its regulations or by 
the primacy agency on a case-by-case basis to present a potential 
danger to drinking water consumers.
    To improve the clarity and understanding of when a public notice is 
required, the proposed rule also consolidates into a new subpart (Part 
141, Subpart Q) other special public notice requirements (i.e., 
exceedance of the fluoride secondary MCL; the notice of the 
availability of the results of unregulated contaminant monitoring 
data). A list of all violations and situations requiring a public 
notice, including the specific regulatory citation, is presented in a 
detailed Appendix A attached to the rule. Appendix A is intended to be 
updated as new NPDWRs are promulgated or when other situations arise 
where a public notice is required. A public notice is only required for 
the violations or other situations listed in Appendix A (unless the 
primacy agency requires notice for other situations.).
    EPA is asking for comment on the proposed addition of explicit 
regulatory language enabling the primacy agency (including EPA in its 
regulations) to require public notification for other situations it 
believes have the potential for serious health risk. EPA is also asking 
for comment on its proposal to present in tabular form all the 
situations requiring a public notice and its plans to update Appendix A 
as new rules are promulgated.
    2. What type of public notice is required for each situation? EPA 
is proposing to divide the public notice requirements into three tiers:
     Tier 1 Public Notice, for violations and situations with 
significant potential to have serious adverse effects on human health 
as a result of short-term exposure;
     Tier 2 Public Notice, for other violations and situations 
with potential to have serious adverse effects on human health; and
     Tier 3 Public Notice, for all other violations and 
situations requiring a public notice not included in Tier 1 and Tier 2.
    The form, manner, and frequency of the public notice is determined 
by the tier the violation or situation is assigned. Appendix A assigns 
each violation and situation to one of the three tiers. The specific 
requirements for the public notice in each tier are defined under 
Secs. 141.202, 141.203, and 141.204 of this proposed rule.
    The proposed three-tier approach to public notification will be 
consistent with the intent of the new public notification provisions in 
the 1996 SDWA amendments. Section 1414(c)(2)(A) directs the 
Administrator to issue regulations that provide for different 
frequencies of notice based on the differences between intermittent and 
persistent violations and the seriousness of any potential adverse 
health effects. Section 1414(c)(2)(C) sets very specific requirements 
for violations with potential to have serious adverse effects on human 
health from short-term exposure. This includes a new requirement that 
such notices be distributed to all persons served no later than 24 
hours after the occurrence of the violation. Section 1414(c)(2)(D) 
requires EPA to define in its regulations the notification procedures 
for all violations not included under subparagraph (C). This section 
requires that such procedures specify that the water system provide 
written notice to each person served in either: (1) the first bill 
prepared, if any, after the violation; (2) in an annual report issued 
no later than one year after the violation; or (3) by mail or direct 
delivery as soon as practicable, but no later than one year after the 
violation.
    EPA was guided by several objectives in developing and evaluating 
options to meet the provisions under Sections 1414(c)(1) and (c)(2) of 
the 1996 SDWA amendments. The proposed regulation reflects these 
baseline objectives:
     First, to be effective in meeting the statutory mandate 
under 1414(c)(2)(C) to get the notice out no later than 24 hours for 
the most serious violations affecting health from short-term exposure, 
the public notice regulations had to focus sharply on a very limited 
set of violations. EPA believes that requiring the 24-hour notice for 
too many violations would be confusing, complex, and more difficult to 
implement. It might also dilute the effectiveness of the 24-hour 
notices if customers receive too many of them. Therefore, EPA decided 
in its proposal to limit the requirements for 24-hour notices to those 
violations with very strong evidence of serious short-term health 
risks. Other violations and situations that may require a 24-hour 
notice on a case-by-case basis would be handled by the primacy agency. 
EPA recognizes that there are other violations with possible short-term 
health effects which have not been included in Tier 1. But EPA believes 
these violations do not routinely require the same urgency as those 
violations where the evidence of serious short-term risk to health is 
strong. Examples of such violations include Total Coliform Rule (TCR) 
violations where no fecal coliform is present and surface water 
treatment rule treatment technique violations.
     Second, to address the notice requirements for all the 
other violations, the public notice regulation has to take into account 
the differences in risk between the different types of

[[Page 25973]]

violations. A sharp separation is clear between the violations that may 
pose a direct risk due to exposure to harmful contaminants (either from 
short-term or chronic exposure) and the vast majority of violations 
which pose no known health risk in themselves. Examples that may pose a 
direct health risk are:

--Violations of the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and maximum 
residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs), because the contaminant was 
actually found in the drinking water at harmful levels; and
--Violations of treatment technique (TT) requirements, because such a 
violation indicates a deficiency in water system treatment or 
operations that increases the likelihood that contaminants may be in 
the drinking water.

    Violations that are not directly related to health risks include 
the majority of the monitoring and testing procedure violations, which 
are onetime violations resolved during the next monitoring period. The 
purposes of the public notice for the two groups are different. Notices 
for MCL, MRDL, and TT violations are necessary to inform consumers 
where the probability of direct exposure to harmful contaminants is 
elevated, to give them an opportunity to take action to avoid continued 
exposure. Timing of the notice is important. Notices for monitoring 
violations in most cases are necessary to meet a consumer right-to-know 
objective, separate from the known or potential health risks from the 
drinking water. An annual summary for these violations is adequate.
     Third, to be effective, the public notice regulation has 
to be easy to understand, be simple to implement in practice, and must 
provide States and water systems enough flexibility to tailor their 
public notices to the specific local situation. EPA is well aware that 
the complexity of the current public notification regulations is a 
contributing factor in the inability of public water systems to meet 
the legislative objectives.
    EPA considered a number of options for meeting these objectives. 
Other than the proposed three-tier option, the option most seriously 
considered was to define a two-tier public notice structure, separating 
violations with potential short-term health effects from all other 
violations. The first tier would incorporate the provisions under 
1414(c)(2)(C). The regulations for the second tier would either 
prescribe the form, manner, and frequency of the notice or simply 
incorporate the statutory language under 1414(c)(2)(D). This option 
would allow the primacy agencies to define additional notice 
requirements to separate the violations posing potential health risks 
from other administrative and technical violations. Where primacy 
agencies had no alternative program, the discretion on the notice 
requirements for these other violations would be left to the individual 
water systems. The advantages of such a two-tier public notice 
structure are that it would make the federal requirement simple for 
water systems to understand, would leave greater flexibility to the 
States to tailor the public notice requirements to their specific 
needs, and would probably result in fewer separate notices for 
violations in the lower tier. This might lead customers to take notices 
for violations in the upper tier more seriously.
    However, EPA is not proposing this two-tier structure. EPA and most 
of the stakeholders EPA consulted believe there are compelling reasons 
for the EPA regulation to differentiate among the lower tier violations 
based on the seriousness and urgency of the risk. These violations span 
a wide range of potential health risks. A ``middle-tier'' public notice 
requirement between the 24-hour notice and the annual notice is 
appropriate for those lower-tier violations and situations that may 
have the potential for serious adverse effects on human health, but are 
not significant or urgent enough to require an emergency notice. EPA 
believes a three-tier system of public notification would:
     Effectively separates the form, manner, content, and 
frequency of public notice based on the seriousness of any potential 
adverse health effects (as mandated under 1414(c)(2)(A));
     Meets the clear objectives and purposes of public 
notification;
     Be simple and straightforward to implement; and
     Meets the requirements of the statute.
    EPA requests comment on whether the two- or three-tiered structure 
would be more appropriate for the final EPA regulation and what the 
advantages and disadvantages of the preferred tier structure would be.
    3. Who must be notified? The SDWA requires that public notice be 
provided to ``the persons served by the system.'' (SDWA, Section 
1414(c)(1)). Reaching the persons served may pose a challenge to some 
water systems. Some consumers (such as apartment dwellers, other 
renters, and condominium residents) may not be the persons paying the 
water bill. Thus, the form and manner of the public notice necessary to 
reach the persons served is unique to the local situation. The proposed 
rule will require water systems to provide the notice in a form and 
manner that is reasonably calculated to get the information to all 
persons served in the required time period. The minimum methods to 
satisfy this requirement are specified in the proposal for each public 
notification tier. The proposed rule would also retain the requirement 
that copies of the public notice be sent to the primacy agency within 
10 days, in accordance with the requirements proposed in 40 CFR 
141.31(d).

F. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the Tier 1 Public Notice: Violations 
With Significant Potential To Have Serious Adverse Effects on Human 
Health as a Result of Short-Term Exposure (Sec. 141.202)

    Today's rule proposes to define the form, manner, and frequency of 
a Tier 1 public notice and to require that public water systems use a 
Tier 1 public notice.
1. Tier 1 Violations and Situations
    The proposed rule would require a Tier 1 public notice for the 
following violation categories and other situations:
     Violation of the MCL for total coliform, when fecal 
coliform or E. coli are present in the water distribution system; or 
failure to test for fecal coliforms or E. coli after the presence of 
coliform bacteria is confirmed in the water distribution system;
     Violation of the MCL for nitrate, nitrite, or combined 
nitrate+nitrite;
     Violation of the MRDL for chlorine dioxide, where one or 
more required repeat samples taken in the distribution system the 
following day exceed the MRDL, or when repeat samples are not taken in 
the distribution system;
     Occurrence of a waterborne disease outbreak, as defined in 
Sec. 141.2; and
     Other violations or situations with significant potential 
to cause serious adverse health effects from short-term exposure, as 
determined by the primacy agency.
    The violations and situations listed here as requiring a Tier 1 
public notice all have significant potential to cause serious adverse 
health effects from short-term exposure to the drinking water. The list 
of violations requiring a Tier 1 public notice include all those 
defined as posing acute health effects in the current rule. In 
addition, three new violations and situations are being proposed today 
for Tier 1 public notice:
     First, a Tier 1 notice would be required for violations of 
the new chlorine dioxide standard when the violation is based on 
monitoring results in the distribution system. This was

[[Page 25974]]

added to the list of violations requiring a Tier 1 notice to be 
consistent with the public notification requirements included with the 
disinfection byproducts regulation published on December 16, 1998 (63 
FR 69389). Violations of the chlorine dioxide standard within the 
distribution system may harm human health based on short-term exposure. 
Systems that do not monitor for chlorine dioxide in the distribution 
system after exceeding the MRDL in entry point monitoring also must 
issue a Tier 1 notice, to remain in effect until they are able to 
demonstrate that chlorine dioxide is not present at these harmful 
levels in the distribution system.
     Second, the Tier 1 coverage for waterborne disease 
outbreaks would expand the definition in the current rule beyond 
violations of the SWTR for unfiltered systems. The proposed rule 
broadens this definition to include waterborne disease outbreaks from 
all public water systems that meet the definition in Sec. 141.2:

    Waterborne disease outbreak means the significant occurrence of 
acute infectious illness, epidemiologically associated with the 
ingestion of water from a public water system which is deficient in 
treatment, as determined by the appropriate local or State agency.

Expanding the coverage to require a Tier 1 notice from any public water 
system linked to a waterborne disease outbreak meets the public health 
objectives of the public notification provision. The Agency believes 
that Section 1445(a) of the SDWA provides ample additional authority 
for requiring public notification in such situations, even where the 
situation is not explicitly listed as requiring public notification in 
Section 1414(c)(1) and (2) of the SDWA. [See discussion of this in 
Section IV.E.1 above.] This expansion of the Tier 1 public notification 
requirements was recommended and broadly supported by the stakeholders 
consulted during the development of the proposed rule.
     Finally, failure to test for fecal coliform once the 
presence of total coliform in the water distribution system is 
confirmed would trigger a Tier 1 public notice, to remain in effect 
until the system was able to demonstrate that fecal coliform or E. coli 
bacteria is no longer present. The current rule does not specifically 
address the public notice requirements when a PWS fails to test for 
fecal coliform after confirming the presence of total coliforms. EPA 
believes strongly that such violations pose great potential for short-
term adverse health risks to consumers, because a system's failure to 
test for fecal coliforms in such situations may disguise a very serious 
drinking water quality situation. Requiring a Tier 1 public notice in 
such situations was widely supported by stakeholders consulted during 
this rulemaking.
    EPA considered several options that would add or subtract from the 
list of violations requiring this emergency public notice. A number of 
violations that may have the potential to pose health risks from short-
term exposure are not included in the proposed list. Specifically, 
violations of the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) MCL (without the presence 
of fecal coliform) and the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) 
treatment techniques are not listed in Tier 1, although they may be 
associated with potential health risks from short-term exposure. The 
vast majority of the MCL and TT violations in FY 1996 were violations 
of the TCR and SWTR. EPA does not believe these violations routinely 
require the same urgency as those violations included in Tier 1, where 
the potential for serious short-term risk to health is significant 
whenever it occurs.
    EPA is proposing to limit the violations routinely requiring a Tier 
1 notice to those with a significant potential for serious adverse 
health effects from short-term exposure. Other violations which may 
have a potential for adverse health risk from short-term exposure, but 
where such risk is not routinely significant, would be included in the 
Tier 2 list. EPA believes focusing the proposed 24-hour notice 
requirement on the more limited set of violations will increase the 
effectiveness of the Tier 1 notices and lead to greater health 
protection. EPA recognizes that in certain situations a TCR or SWTR 
violation may create a significant and immediate health risk. In those 
situations, a 24-hour notice is necessary to immediately alert 
consumers to the potential risk. Because such situations are best 
determined on a case-by-case basis, EPA is proposing to enable primacy 
agencies to determine when special circumstances require 24-hour 
notices for situations not listed in Sec. 141.202 of the rule.
2. Timing of the Tier 1 Public Notice (and Consultation Requirement)
    The proposed rule will require that a Tier 1 public notice be 
provided by the public water system as soon as practicable but no later 
than 24 hours after the system learns of the violation. Under the 
proposal, the public water system would also be required to initiate 
consultation with the primacy agency within that same 24-hour period 
and comply with whatever subsequent public notification requirements 
are established during that consultation.
    The requirement that the public water system consult with the 
primacy agency within the first 24 hours of discovering the violation 
is new in the proposed rule. The 1996 SDWA amendments, under 
1414(c)(2)(C)(iii), require that a copy of the initial Tier 1 notice 
also be sent to the primacy agency within the same 24 hour period after 
the occurrence of the violation. Under 1414(c)(2)(C)(iv), the statute 
requires that a public water system facing a Tier 1 notice situation 
distribute a notice when required by the primacy agency after 
consultation. EPA is interpreting the statutory requirements under 
clause C(iii) and clause C(iv) to require that the public water system 
consult with the primacy agency within the first 24 hours after the 
violation becomes known to the water system to determine subsequent 
public notice requirements. EPA further interprets the statute to 
require the initial public notice required within the first 24 hours 
under 1414(c)(2)(I) to apply regardless of when the consultation with 
the primacy agency takes place. In contrast, the current rule sets the 
subsequent public notice requirements (e.g., repeat notice frequencies, 
form and manner of subsequent notice, etc.) in the rule itself, rather 
than as a result of consultation on a case-by-case basis.
    The proposed rule would identify a number of elements which may be 
covered during the consultation, including the timing, form, manner, 
frequency, and content of subsequent notices and other actions 
reasonably calculated to ensure the notice is provided to all persons 
served. Additional notices may be necessary to reach other persons 
served who may not have seen the initial notice and to reaffirm the 
seriousness of the public health risk from drinking the water. EPA also 
believes that a supplemental notice to announce that the violation has 
been resolved and the risk from the drinking water has been abated is 
an effective way to bring closure to the emergency situation. When to 
require subsequent notices can best be handled by the primacy agency on 
a case-by-case basis in consultation with the public water system.
    In summary, the timing and process established for the Tier 1 
public notice in the proposed rule would be significantly different 
from the current rule. First, the public water system would be required 
to distribute the notice within 24 hours (as required under 
1414(c)(2)(C)), rather than 72 hours. This is a statutory obligation 
for such violations under the 1996 SDWA

[[Page 25975]]

amendments. Second, the proposed rule would set a new requirement that 
the water system consult with the primacy agency to determine 
subsequent public notification requirements. As described earlier, EPA 
interprets the statute as requiring this consultation with the primacy 
agency.
3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the Tier 1 Notice
    The proposed rule would allow water systems some flexibility in 
choosing the form and manner used to distribute the notice, but it 
reaffirms the enforceable requirement that the form and manner of 
notice delivery selected by the public water system be reasonably 
calculated to reach all persons served within the 24 hour period. To 
satisfy this requirement, the proposed rule would require water systems 
to use, as a minimum, appropriate broadcast media, posting of the 
notice in conspicuous locations, and/or hand delivery to residences or 
businesses served by the system. In contrast, the current rule requires 
that the initial notice be by electronic media and subsequent notices 
be first in the newspaper and later on by mail. The changes in the 
public notification process for these emergency-type situations are 
expected to ensure faster public communication that is better tailored 
to the specific situation.
    EPA is requesting comment on the Tier 1 public notification 
requirements, in particular the list of violations requiring such a 
notice, the new consultation process now proposed in lieu of more 
prescriptive EPA requirements, EPA's interpretation of the statute 
under 1414(c)(2)(C) which allows EPA to require public water systems to 
consult with the primacy agency, and the revised requirements for the 
form and manner of the Tier 1 notices.

G. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the Tier 2 Public Notice: Other 
Violations With Potential to Have Serious Adverse Effects on Human 
Health (Sec. 141.203)

    Today's rule proposes to define the form, manner, and frequency of 
a Tier 2 public notice.
1. Tier 2 Violations and Situations
    The proposed rule would require a Tier 2 public notice for the 
following violation categories and other situations:
     All violations of the MCL, MRDL, and treatment technique 
requirements not included in the Tier 1 notice category;
     Violations of the monitoring and testing procedure 
requirements where the primacy agency determines that a Tier 2 public 
notice is required; and
     Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of any 
existing variance or exemption in place.
    The above list is similar to the list in the comparable section of 
the current rule, with two exceptions. First, the proposed rule would 
set the new public notice requirements for the recently published 
Disinfection Byproducts Rule and the Interim Enhanced Surface Water 
Treatment Rule (63 FR 69389 and 69477). Second, the proposed rule would 
allow the primacy agency, at its option, to require a Tier 2 public 
notice for a specific monitoring or testing procedure violation. Unless 
the primacy agency determines otherwise, monitoring and testing 
procedure violations would be reported in the annual Tier 3 notice.
    EPA considered two other options that would add or subtract from 
the list of violations requiring a Tier 2 notice:
     The first option was to move some of the MCL or treatment 
technique violations into Tier 3 rather than Tier 2, with the leading 
candidates for Tier 3 notice being MCL violations posing chronic health 
risk and the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) treatment technique violations. 
EPA also considered separating the LCR treatment technique violations 
further, putting some of the lesser violations unlikely to pose a 
direct risk to public health (e.g., public education) into Tier 3. 
However, this could make the requirements too complex and too difficult 
to communicate simply. Simplicity in understanding and implementing the 
requirements was one of the main recommendations of the GAO report. EPA 
is further concerned that delaying the initial notice for MCL 
violations, even if levels barely exceed the standard, beyond 30 days 
(or three months at the primacy agency's discretion) may not be 
consistent with the Agency's consumer right-to-know objective.
     The second option was to move the notice for the 
monitoring violations from Tier 3 to Tier 2, recognizing that 
persistent monitoring violations could disguise potentially serious 
drinking water quality violations. EPA did not select this option. 
Instead, the proposal enables the primacy agency to require on a case-
by-case basis that serious monitoring and testing procedure follow the 
Tier 2 public notice requirements where necessary. EPA developed an 
alternative approach to the proposal that is discussed in Section VI(A) 
of the Preamble. Comments are requested on both the proposal and the 
option discussed in Section VI(A).
2. Timing of the Tier 2 Public Notice
    The proposed rule, under Sec. 141.203(b), would require the public 
water system to provide a Tier 2 public notice to persons served as 
soon as practicable, but no later than 30 days after the system learns 
of the violation. The public water system would be obligated to get the 
notice out as soon as practicable, particularly where the situation 
requires an earlier notice. The proposal also would require the public 
water system to repeat the notice every three months for as long as the 
violation exists. Under the proposal, the primacy agency may opt to 
define specific violation circumstances that warrant an extension of 
the initial Tier 2 notice or a different repeat notice frequency for 
continuing violations. The proposal allows the primacy agency to define 
specific circumstances where the initial notice may be extended beyond 
30 days (up to three months) and where the repeat notice may be set 
less frequently than every three months (but no less frequently than 
once a year).
    In contrast, the current rule requires a newspaper notice within 14 
days, a notice mailed to all bill-payers within forty-five days, and a 
repeat notice mailed every three months thereafter until the violation 
is resolved. The shift from 14 days to 30 days for the initial notice, 
with a possible extension for up to three months, is being proposed to 
help consumers distinguish between those violations posing significant 
short-term health risks requiring immediate action (Tier 1) from 
violations potentially posing health risks but where no urgent action 
by the consumer is necessary (Tier 2). The 30-day (or three month) 
period also would give the water system more time to initiate steps to 
resolve the violation before notifying the consumers.
    EPA believes that giving the primacy agency flexibility to adapt 
the timing requirements to fit specific circumstances is clearly 
warranted. The violation situations under Tier 2 are very diverse, 
ranging from violations potentially posing a health risk from short-
term exposure to violations posing a chronic risk only from long-term 
exposure. One size does not fit all. An extension beyond 30 days may be 
especially appropriate for contaminants posing a chronic rather than 
acute health risk (e.g., fluoride, arsenic, radium). EPA standards for 
such contaminants are designed to protect against long-term exposure. 
An extension may also be appropriate for violations that were quickly 
resolved and no longer pose any risk to persons served (e.g., some 
Total Coliform Rule

[[Page 25976]]

or Surface Water Treatment Rule violations). Finally, an extension to 
three months may allow the water system to include the initial notice 
in the same mailing as the quarterly bill, with no loss in 
effectiveness.
    An alternative option to the approach proposed in today's rule 
would be to require a three month deadline (rather than 30 days) for 
delivery of the initial Tier 2 notice, and/or a one-year frequency for 
repeat notices rather than three months. Under this alternative, the 
primacy agency would retain the discretion to require the notice sooner 
on a case-by-case basis or across the board for all Tier 2 violations. 
EPA requests comment on this alternative approach to the proposal.
3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the Tier 2 Notice
    The proposed rule would retain the public water system obligation 
to provide the Tier 2 notice to persons served by the water system. 
This is a statutory obligation. The proposed rule, however, would 
significantly change the specific method of delivery required to meet 
this obligation. The proposed rule would first set a performance 
standard: that the notice be provided in a form and manner reasonably 
calculated to reach persons regularly served by the system. It would 
also require a specified minimum method of delivery, but then would 
provide much greater flexibility in what the water system must do to 
reach other persons regularly served if they are not reached by the 
minimum method. In contrast, the current rule (for community water 
systems) first requires a newspaper notice, followed by a notice either 
mailed or directly delivered to customers. The proposed rule would 
require that community water systems:
     Mail or otherwise directly deliver the notice to each 
customer receiving a bill (or other service connections); and
     Use any other method reasonably calculated to reach other 
persons regularly served by the system if they would not normally be 
reached by the mail or direct delivery requirement (e.g., newspaper, 
posting in public places, delivery to community organizations, etc.).
    For non-community water systems, the current rule requires posting 
for as long as the violation exists. The proposed rule would require 
that non-community systems:
     Post or mail or directly deliver to each customer; and
     Use any other method reasonably calculated to reach other 
persons served by the system if they would not normally be reached by 
the posting, mail, or direct delivery requirement (e.g., organization 
newsletter, delivery of multiple copies to a central location, etc.).
    In every case, the proposal would give the primacy agency the 
option to prescribe a different method of delivery for the water 
system, based on policies and procedures established as part of their 
approved primacy program.
    EPA believes that in practice, the proposed requirements for method 
of delivery for the Tier 2 (and Tier 3) notices will ensure that 
notices announcing violation of drinking water requirements are 
communicated sooner and more effectively than under the current rule to 
a wider range of the people served by the water system. At a minimum, 
those people reached by mail or direct delivery would receive the 
notice early enough to make informed choices about their drinking 
water. The notice would also reach other consumers who do not pay water 
bills and who are not routinely informed of the risk from the drinking 
water when violations occur.
    EPA discussed this provision at length with the States and at 
various stakeholder meetings. A number of options emerged for delivery 
of both Tier 2 and Tier 3 notices, ranging from setting a ``performance 
standard'' with no minimum method prescribed to retaining the current 
very prescriptive requirements. The proposal selected was to require a 
minimum method to deliver the notice, but to broaden the options a 
water system may select in its efforts to reach other persons served. 
The option was proposed because it sets a clear and easily 
understandable minimum for all water systems to follow and requires 
water systems to follow a deliberate process to determine what else 
needs to be done to reach other persons served. Compliance requirements 
under the proposed option would be clear and enforceable.
    EPA developed an alternative approach to the proposal that is 
discussed in Section VI(B) of the Preamble. Comments are requested on 
both the proposal and the option discussed in Section VI(B).
    EPA is requesting comment on the Tier 2 public notification 
requirements, in particular the list of violations included under Tier 
2, the 30-day time period for the initial notice, the requirement for a 
repeat notice of ongoing violations every three months, the discretion 
given to the primacy agency to extend the initial notice to three 
months or the repeat notice frequency to one year (either on a case-by-
case basis or by rule), and the revised requirements for the method of 
delivery of the Tier 2 public notice. Comments are also requested on 
the two specific options discussed in Section VI as alternatives to the 
proposed language.

H. Form, Manner, and Frequency of the Tier 3 Public Notice: All Other 
Violations and Situations Requiring Public Notice (Sec. 141.204)

    Today's rule proposes to define the form, manner, and frequency of 
a Tier 3 public notice and to require that public water systems use a 
Tier 3 public notice.
1. Tier 3 Violations and Situations
    The proposed rule would require a Tier 3 public notice for the 
following violation categories and other situations:
     Monitoring violations, unless the primacy agency 
determines that the violation requires a Tier 2 or Tier 1 notice;
     Failure to comply with a required testing procedure;
     Operation under a variance granted under Section 1415 or 
exemption granted under Section 1416 of the SDWA; and
     Any other violations and situations determined by the 
primacy agency to require a Tier 3 public notice.
    The list of violations requiring a Tier 3 notice is similar to the 
list in Sec. 141.32(b), the comparable section of the current public 
notification rule. The language in the proposed rule, however, notes 
explicitly that the primacy agency may require that public water 
systems provide a Tier 2 (rather than a Tier 3) notice for specific 
monitoring or testing procedure violations. This is discussed in 
Section V(G) above and in Section VI(A).
2. Timing of the Tier 3 Public Notice
    The proposed rule would require that public water systems provide a 
Tier 3 public notice to persons served no later than one year after the 
system learns of the violation or begins operating under a variance or 
exemption. The proposal would also require the public water system to 
repeat the notice annually for as long as the violation or situation 
exists. In contrast, the current rule requires the notice to be mailed 
within three months (with possible extension to one year at the State's 
option) and a repeat notice every three months thereafter until the 
violation is resolved. EPA believes that the annual notice for Tier 3-
type situations is appropriate, given the nature of the violation 
(e.g., for failure to monitor) and the great number of violations 
requiring such a notice (i.e., 216,522 of the 235,214 violations 
reported to EPA in FY 1996).

[[Page 25977]]

3. Form and Manner of the Delivery of the Tier 3 Notice
    The proposed rule would require that public water systems provide 
the Tier 3 notice to all persons served by the water system. This is a 
statutory obligation that applies for all notices required under the 
public notification rule. The method of delivery requirements for Tier 
3 public notices would be the same as those prescribed for the Tier 2 
public notice. A summary of the requirements and a rationale are 
included in Section V(G) above and in Section VI(B).
    Water systems have the option under the proposed rule to provide an 
annual notice summarizing all Tier 3 violations occurring during the 
previous year in lieu of individual Tier 3 public notices. For 
community water systems, the proposal would allow the Consumer 
Confidence Report (CCR) to be used as the vehicle for notifying persons 
served of violations occurring during the previous year. The CCR is the 
appropriate vehicle for initial public notices as long as the public 
notification timing and distribution requirements are met. In 
particular, the CCR must be mailed or hand-delivered to persons served 
and it may only include those violations occurring within 12 months of 
publication. The advantages to using an annual notice instead of 
individual notices for every violation are compelling, both in terms of 
reduced cost and in terms of effective communication with the 
consumers. Since the vast majority of violations require a Tier 3 
public notice, the burden on public water systems would be dramatically 
reduced through use of an annual notice. EPA strongly recommends that 
public water systems make use of the annual notice option.
    EPA is requesting comment on the proposed Tier 3 public notice 
requirements, in particular on the option to allow public water systems 
to provide an annual report of violations in lieu of individual notices 
twelve months after each violation. Comments are also requested on the 
use of the Consumer Confidence Report to meet the Tier 3 public 
notification requirements. Finally, comments are requested on the 
revised requirements for the method of delivery of the Tier 3 notices. 
See Section VI(B) for a discussion of an alternative to the proposed 
method of delivery for Tier 3 public notices.

I. Content of the Public Notice (Sec. 141.205)

    Today's proposal specifies a list of elements that must be included 
in a public notice both for water systems with violations of National 
Primary Drinking Water Regulations and for water systems operating 
under a variance or exemption. The proposed rule would carry forward 
from the current rule the requirement that water systems use standard 
health effects language for MCL, MRDL, and treatment technique 
violations. The health effects language in the proposed rule would be 
simplified in response to concerns raised by various stakeholders and 
the GAO report that the current mandatory health language is too 
lengthy and not focused on the core health effects information 
consumers need to know. The proposed rule also would add new standard 
language for monitoring violations. Finally, it would add new standard 
language to encourage the recipients of the public notice to distribute 
the public notice to others served by the water system.
    Note that the States may establish alternative public notification 
requirements related to the content of the public notice (as part of 
their primacy program revision under 40 CFR 142.16(a)(3)), as long as 
these alternative requirements provide the same type and amount of 
information and are designed to achieve an equivalent level of public 
notice as EPA's regulation. This would allow the States, for example, 
to submit to EPA for approval a primacy program revision that includes 
alternatives to the required language on health effects, monitoring 
violations, or distribution of the notice to others.
1. Standard Elements of the Public Notice (Sec. 141.205(a)-(c))
    The proposed rule would revise and edit the list of standard 
elements required in public notices.
     Ten elements would be required (under Sec. 141.205(a)) for 
public notices for violations of the NPDWR: a description of the 
violation that occurred (including the contaminant level); when the 
violation occurred; any potential adverse health effects; the 
population at risk; whether alternative water supplies should be used; 
what actions consumers should take; what the system is doing to correct 
the violation; when the water system expects to return to compliance; 
the phone number of the water system owner or operator; and a statement 
appended to the notice to encourage notice recipients to distribute the 
notice to other consumers who might not have received their own copy of 
the notice.
     Four elements would be required (under Sec. 141.205(b)) 
for public notices for water systems operating under a variance or 
exemption: an explanation for the reasons for the variance or 
exemption; the date the primacy agency granted the variance or 
exemption; a brief status report on compliance with the variance or 
exemption conditions; and a notice of any opportunity for public input 
into the review of the variance or exemption. Note that this 
information is identical to that already required to be included in the 
CCR. Community water systems that use the CCR as the vehicle for the 
initial public notices would not need to add any additional information 
to meet the content requirements for the variance and exemption notices 
required under this proposal.
     Four performance standards will be listed (under 
Sec. 141.205(c)) defining the adequacy of the notice: the notice must 
be displayed in a conspicuous way (where applicable); must not contain 
overly technical language or very small print; must not be formatted in 
a way that defeats the purpose of the notice; and must not contain 
language that nullifies the purpose of the notice.
     For public water systems serving a large proportion of 
non-English speaking consumers (as determined by the primacy agency), 
the public notice would be required to contain information in the 
appropriate language regarding the importance of the notice or contain 
a telephone number or address where persons served may contact the 
water system to obtain a translated copy of the notice or to request 
assistance in the appropriate language.
    The proposed rule (under Sec. 141.205(a)) would edit and rearrange 
the list of required elements from the current rule. The most 
significant change to Sec. 141.205(a) is to require that the notice for 
MCL and MRDL violations include the contaminant level. The proposed 
rule also would add a new section Sec. 141.205(b) setting the required 
elements for a variance or exemption notice. This would be added to 
cover the specific notice requirements unique to water systems 
operating under a variance or exemption.
    The proposed rule would modify the current rule by requiring public 
water systems serving a large non-English speaking population (as 
determined by the primacy agency) to either include information 
regarding the importance of the notice in the appropriate language, or 
provide a water system contact to assist the non-English speaking 
consumers. The current rule under Sec. 141.32 (d) sets a similar 
requirement, but in much more general terms, requiring simply that the 
notice shall be multi-lingual where appropriate. The proposed public 
notification requirement is identical to the provision contained in the 
Consumer Confidence

[[Page 25978]]

Report (CCR) regulation, 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart O [63 FR 44511 
(August 19, 1998)]. Under the proposed rule, public water systems 
serving a large non-English speaking population would be required at a 
minimum to take concrete steps to communicate the importance of the 
notice in the appropriate language so that non-English speakers could 
get assistance in understanding it. EPA encourages water systems to go 
beyond this minimum and provide a translated copy of the notice on 
request or offer telephone assistance in the appropriate language. The 
draft Public Notification Handbook issued with the proposed rule for 
comment contains sample language regarding the importance of the notice 
in various languages as well as complete sample Tier 1 public notices 
in Spanish.
    EPA modified the list of elements to be required in the public 
notice in response to stakeholder requests to provide clearer national 
minimum standards for notice content and consistency. Comments are 
requested on the list of elements in the proposal, the four performance 
standards identified for how the notices must be presented, and the 
more specific requirement for public water systems to communicate with 
large non-English speaking populations about the importance of the 
public notice when violations occur.
2. Standard Health Effects Language (Sec. 141.205(d)(1))
    The proposed rule would retain the requirement that all public 
notices for MCL and treatment technique violations use mandatory health 
effects language to explain the health risks posed by the violation. 
The language being proposed today in Subpart Q, Appendix B is identical 
to the language promulgated in the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) 
regulation, 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart O, Appendix C. The proposal would 
replace language in the current rule that was added when each NPDWR was 
promulgated. The proposed language is shorter, simpler, and consistent 
with the language EPA uses in similar outreach forums and documents.
    EPA is proposing to use the language for the public notification 
rule that is identical to health effects language from the CCR 
regulation because it does not make sense to draft different language 
to meet such a similar requirement, unless there is a compelling reason 
that is specific to the intent of the public notification provision. 
Although EPA recognizes that the CCR and public notice may be given at 
different times and may be intended to meet different objectives, EPA 
believes that the benefits of having identical language to communicate 
the same health effects from violations outweighs the value of 
tailoring the language to the unique objectives of the public notice. 
EPA expects that public water systems will supplement the mandatory 
health effects language or otherwise put the language in the context of 
the overall notice to meet the unique purposes of the specific public 
notice. Examples of public notices applicable to different situations 
are included in the draft Public Notification Handbook which is being 
issued concurrently with this proposed rule for comment.
    EPA is requesting comment on the proposal to use the CCR standard 
health effects language to meet the public notification requirement. In 
particular, EPA is soliciting comment on specific situations or 
violations where the CCR language is believed to be inappropriate or 
incomplete. Recommendations for alternative language for such 
situations would also be helpful.
3. Standard Language for Monitoring and Testing Procedure Violations 
(Sec. 141.205(d)(2))
    The proposed rule would add a new section requiring that all public 
notices contain standard language for monitoring and testing procedure 
violations. The proposed standard language informs consumers that 
because the water system did not monitor or follow the required testing 
procedure during the compliance period, the presence or absence of the 
contaminant during that time could not be determined and the water 
system is unable to tell whether there was a risk to health during that 
time. This new mandatory language is being proposed because of 
stakeholder concerns that consumers may presume that because there is 
no reported MCL, MRDL, or treatment technique violation that the 
drinking water provided by their water system is safe. This may not 
always be an appropriate presumption. The mandatory language as 
proposed is intended to be included in all public notices for 
monitoring and testing procedure violations.
    The proposed standard language was developed after the EPA 
workgroup (in consultation with a number of States) considered 
alternative approaches. EPA is soliciting comment on the proposed 
standard language and welcomes recommendations on alternative language 
that would effectively inform consumers of the significance of the 
monitoring violation. In particular, EPA will consider alternatives to 
the phrase ``* * * and we are unable to tell whether your health was at 
risk during that time.'' The phrase is included in the proposal to 
clearly and simply alert consumers that lack of monitoring may disguise 
a potential risk to health. It is intended to raise questions about the 
significance of the specific monitoring violation, not to alarm 
consumers unnecessarily. EPA recognizes that many monitoring violations 
pose no risk to health and that most water systems resume monitoring 
quickly after a single violation. The proposed standard language will 
be most effective where the water system supplements the standard 
language with a clear explanation of what the violation meant and how 
it was rectified. EPA will consider options to this standard language 
in its final rule.
    Another option would be not to require that any specific language 
be included for all monitoring violations, but to set a performance 
standard instead. The performance standard might be that all monitoring 
violations be explained in a way that appropriately communicates the 
public health significance of the violation. EPA also requests comment 
on this alternative approach.
4. Standard Language to Encourage Customers Receiving the Public Notice 
To Distribute the Notice to Other Persons Served (Sec. 141.205(d)(3))
    The proposed rule would add a new section requiring that public 
notices contain standard language encouraging the customers receiving 
the public notice to distribute the notice to other persons served by 
the water system (such as tenants, residents, patients, etc.). Mailed 
notices, in particular, are routinely sent to only the bill-paying 
customers, and therefore may not reach some consumers at risk unless 
actions are taken to notify them of the violations. EPA believes that 
this standard language is appropriate as a safety net and necessary to 
encourage those receiving the public notice to take steps to alert 
others of the violations and potential risk from drinking water. 
Compliance with this requirement is one of the ``reasonably-calculated 
steps'' a public water system must take to reach other persons not 
expected to receive the initial notice. EPA requests comment on the 
proposed standard language and would welcome alternative language that 
aids the water system in reaching all persons served.

J. Other Public Notification Requirements

1. Notice to New Billing Units or New Customers (Sec. 141.206)
    EPA is proposing to modify the current regulatory provision 
requiring

[[Page 25979]]

that community water systems send a copy of the most recent public 
notice to all new billing units for ongoing MCL and TT violations or 
existing variances and exemptions. The proposed rule would broaden the 
requirement to include notice for on-going monitoring and testing 
procedure violations and adds a new provision requiring non-community 
water systems to continuously post the notice or otherwise take steps 
to inform new customers of any ongoing violations. EPA is proposing 
this change to the existing requirement to better ensure that new 
customers served by all public water systems are made aware of any 
continuing violations of drinking water standards. The initial notice, 
if posted in a location where new consumers pass by, will meet this new 
requirement. However, water systems that deliver the initial notice by 
hand delivery or otherwise have the notice out of sight of new 
consumers would have an additional responsibility under this new 
provision. EPA believes this new provision will make notices more 
readily available to new consumers not receiving the notice under the 
current regulation. EPA requests comment on the change to the current 
regulation extending the requirement to cover on-going monitoring and 
testing procedure violations and to require that the notice be provided 
to new customers by both community and non-community water systems.
2. Special Notice To Announce the Availability of the Results of 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (Secs. 141.207 and 141.35)
    Section 1414(c)(2)(E) of the SDWA, as amended in 1996 gives EPA the 
authority, at its option, to require public water systems to give 
notice to persons served of the concentration levels of unregulated 
contaminants, where such monitoring is required by EPA. The authority 
for EPA to require such notice was part of the SDWA prior to the 1996 
amendments. However, the 1996 SDWA amendments, under Section 
1445(a)(2)(E), now require public water systems to give notice of the 
results of the unregulated contaminant monitoring required by EPA to 
persons served by the system. EPA believes that the intent of these 
statutory provisions is met by the existing public notification 
provision under Sec. 141.35, as amended under this proposal. Section 
141.35 requires water systems to announce the availability of the 
results of required unregulated contaminant monitoring through the 
public notice process. Further, the CCR regulation requires the results 
of such monitoring to be included in the annual CCR. Together, the two 
existing requirements meet the public-right-to-know objective and are 
protective of public health.
    EPA is proposing to amend the current provision under Sec. 141.35 
and move the amended provision to the new Subpart Q. The current 
provision requires that the water systems give notice of the 
availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results within three 
months of receiving the results. The amended requirement under 
Sec. 141.207 retains the same reporting requirement but changes the 
timing from three months to twelve months after the results are known. 
The proposed change in the timing of the public notice is to allow 
water systems, at their option, to report the availability of all the 
results just once during the year, reducing the number of notices from 
four to one. For community water systems, the annual reporting 
requirement can also be met through the CCR, which already must include 
the actual results of the unregulated contaminant monitoring. EPA 
believes close coordination between the public notification requirement 
and the CCR reporting requirement for this information will be both 
more efficient and less confusing to the regulated community and the 
public.
    EPA requests comment on the proposed approach to meet the 
requirements under Sections 1414(c)(2)(E) and 1445(a)(2)(E). EPA also 
requests comment on its proposal to shift the reporting frequency 
announcing the results of unregulated contaminant monitoring from three 
months to twelve months.
3. Special Notice for Exceedance of the Fluoride Secondary Maximum 
Contaminant Level (SMCL) (Sec. 141.208)
    EPA is proposing to modify the standard language and to make other 
minor changes to the existing special notice currently required under 
Sec. 143.5 for community water systems that exceed the SMCL for 
fluoride. The proposal would move the revised special fluoride notice 
requirement into the new Subpart Q public notification provision. The 
special public notice for exceedances of the SMCL is to alert persons 
served that the fluoride levels in the drinking water may pose a 
cosmetic dental risk to children under nine years old. The SMCL is 2 
mg/l. The annual public notice would continue to be required whenever 
drinking water monitoring shows fluoride levels above 2 mg/l but below 
the MCL violation level of 4 mg/liter. The public notice requirements 
for violations of the fluoride MCL would be addressed separately from 
the special fluoride SMCL public notice required under Sec. 141.208.
    The proposed regulation under Sec. 141.208 will make two changes to 
the current public notice requirements for exceedance of the fluoride 
SMCL:
     To require that the form and manner of the special notice 
follow the Tier 3 requirements in Secs. 141.204(c) and 141.204(d) of 
the proposed rule; and
     To revise and simplify the mandatory language, consistent 
with the format used to develop the revised standard health effects 
language for MCL, MRDL, and TT violations.
    The proposed requirement that the notice be provided within 12 
months from the day the water system learns of the exceedance, is 
unchanged from the existing requirement.
    EPA believes it is important to retain the existing fluoride SMCL 
notice requirement with only minor conforming changes. Consumers have a 
right to know about the cosmetic effects from dental fluorosis that may 
occur in children from prolonged exposure to drinking water exceeding 
the fluoride SMCL. The notice requirement for exceedance of the 
fluoride SMCL at 40 CFR 143.5 was put in place when the fluoride 
national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) was published in 
April 2, 1986 [50 FR 11396]. The fluoride NPDWR replaced the more 
stringent MCL in place as an interim standard since the original SDWA 
in 1974. The interim MCL of 2 mg/l became the SMCL when the final 
primary standard was published on April 2, 1986. Part of the 
justification for reducing the stringency of the MCL from 2 mg/l to 4 
mg/l was that the public would be notified of the potential for 
developing dental fluorosis from exposure to their drinking water when 
the levels exceeded 
2 mg/l.
    EPA considered a number of options changing the current fluoride 
SMCL notice requirements, ranging from eliminating the notice 
altogether to requiring the notice every three months rather than 12. 
EPA also discussed extending the SMCL notice requirement to NTNCWS, as 
the risk to children from drinking water exceeding the SMCL from 
schools and day-care centers (e.g., NTNCWS) may be as great as drinking 
such water from their primary residences (e.g., CWS). Although NTNCWS 
are not currently required to monitor for fluoride under EPA's current 
regulations, and therefore the EPA SMCL notice requirement does not 
apply, EPA recommends that both CWS and NTNCWS known to be providing 
drinking water with fluoride levels

[[Page 25980]]

exceeding 2 mg/l provide the special SMCL notice to persons served. 
After reviewing the various options, EPA sees no reason to re-open the 
decision made at that time to require the notice only when CWSs exceed 
the SMCL of 2 mg/l.
    EPA requests comment on whether EPA should retain the special 
public notice for exceedance of the fluoride SMCL and, if retained, 
whether retaining the requirement allowing the public notice to be 
given 12 months after the exceedance is known is sufficient. EPA also 
requests comment on whether the revised mandatory language better 
communicates the purpose of the notice and the cosmetic risks from 
drinking the water.
4. Conditions Under Which the Primacy Agency May Give Notice on Behalf 
of Public Water System (Sec. 141.209)
    EPA is proposing to retain the provision in the current rule 
specifying under what conditions the primacy agency may give notice on 
behalf of a public water system. Under this provision, the primacy 
agency may give a public notice for the public water system if all 
public notification requirements are met. The responsibility to comply, 
however, would always remain with the public water system. EPA requests 
comment on the proposal to retain this provision.

K. Reporting to the Primacy Agency and Retention of Records 
(Secs. 141.31 and 141.33)

    Under the current Sec. 141.31, public water systems are required to 
submit copies of all public notices to the primacy agency within 10 
days of completing each public notice. EPA is proposing to amend the 
existing reporting requirement under Sec. 141.31 by also requiring 
public water systems to submit a certification to the primacy agency 
that all public notification requirements have been met. EPA considered 
a number of options to the proposal to require that public water 
systems certify after each violation that all public notification 
requirements were met:
     One option was to broaden the proposed certification 
provision to require a public water system to not only certify that it 
met the public notice requirements but also to explain how the 
requirements were met. EPA decided not to propose this broader 
requirement because such additional reporting is resource intensive and 
unnecessary in most cases. The requirement for water systems to send 
copies of all notices with a simple certification of compliance 
provides sufficient information for primacy agencies to identify non-
compliers.
     A second option was to leave the existing reporting 
provision unchanged, with no certification required. EPA believes that 
a self certification of compliance to the primacy agency (with copies 
of the notices) saves primacy agency resources and allows better 
targeting of non-compliers.
     A third option was to shift the 10-day requirement to 
submit the certification and copies of notices to the primacy agency to 
30 days, three months, or even a year after the public notice. EPA is 
proposing to maintain the existing 10-day requirement to give primacy 
agencies enough information to immediately target non-complying water 
systems. The potential for such immediate feedback where a 
certification is not received will increase voluntary compliance.
    The proposal would also amend Sec. 141.33 to require that public 
water systems retain public notification records for three years. The 
current regulation has no provision for retention of public 
notification records. A record retention requirement for public notices 
conforms with the requirements already in place for other EPA 
regulatory requirements (e.g., sampling results, CCRs, variances and 
exemptions). The record retention period of no more than three years is 
consistent with the limits set in the Office of Management and Budget 
regulations at 5 CFR 1320.5 implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    Regulations at 5 CFR 1320.5, governing the imposition of reporting 
and record keeping requirements by Federal agencies on the public, 
specify that those reporting information should not be required to 
retain records (other than health, medical, government contract, grant-
in-aid, or tax records) for more than three years, unless the agency 
demonstrates that a longer retention period is necessary to satisfy 
statutory requirements or other substantial need. These regulations 
were published by the Office of Management and Budget to implement the 
Paperwork Reduction Act goal of minimizing the paperwork burden for 
individuals, small businesses, education, and non-profit institutions, 
Federal contractors, state, local, and tribal governments, and other 
persons resulting from the allocation of information by or for the 
Federal government. In accordance with these regulations, EPA is 
proposing a 3-year record retention requirement for public notification 
records.
    EPA is also asking for comment on an alternative to the proposal 
that would extend the record retention period from three years to five 
years for public notification records. EPA believes that the public 
notification regulation is important to public health because of the 
important health information provided to the public upon finding a 
violation. Because of the public health protection provided by this 
regulation, all enforcement options should be maintained by the Agency 
and citizens using the citizen provisions of the SDWA. Record retention 
will ensure speedy and less costly enforcement. This alternative to the 
proposal would ensure that records are available to EPA and citizens to 
support penalty enforcement actions for the full five year federal 
statute of limitations. A five-year retention period for public 
notification records would also be consistent with the retention period 
for the related CCR regulation.
    EPA requests comment on the reporting and record-keeping proposal, 
including the alternative to the proposal to set the retention period 
for records under the public notification regulations to five years. 
EPA also requests comment on whether the record retention periods 
required under the related CCR regulation should be adjusted to three 
years, if necessary to be consistent with the final public notification 
retention requirement and Paperwork Reduction Act regulations.

L. Special State/Tribal Primacy Requirements and Rationale (40 CFR Part 
142, Subpart B)

    The rule being proposed today would amend Secs. 142.16 and 142.10 
of the primacy regulations (40 CFR Part 142, Subpart B) to define the 
requirements that States (including eligible Indian Tribes) must follow 
to incorporate the revised public notification regulations into their 
approved primacy program. The proposed rule also revises Sec. 142.14 to 
require that the State retain, for three years, the certifications and 
public notices received from the public water systems and any 
determinations establishing alternative public notification 
requirements. Finally, the proposal revises Sec. 142.15 to reaffirm the 
requirement that the State report violations of the public notification 
regulations on a quarterly basis to EPA.
    The proposed changes to the primacy requirements for the revised 
public notification rule would amend both Secs. 142.10 and 142.16(a). 
Under the primacy regulations, a State is required to adopt, as a 
condition of primacy, a State rule that is no less stringent than the 
regulation being proposed today. The requirements States must meet to 
receive primary enforcement responsibility (``primacy'') are listed in

[[Page 25981]]

Sec. 142.10 and requirements to revise an approved primacy program are 
in Sec. 142.12. Under Sec. 142.10(b)(6)(v), each State with primary 
enforcement responsibility must adopt and implement adequate procedures 
to require public water systems to give public notice that is no less 
stringent than the EPA public notification requirements. Special 
primacy requirements unique to specific regulations are in Sec. 142.16. 
The special primacy requirements for the public notification regulation 
are in Sec. 142.16(a).
    EPA is proposing to amend Sec. 142.10(b)(6)(v) to replace the 
existing citation with the new public notification citation (40 CFR 
Part 141, Subpart Q). The proposed change to Sec. 142.16(a) would 
delete the existing language and replace it with a new section 
comprised of three elements.
    First, Sec. 142.16(a)(1) would require primacy States to submit 
requests for approval of a revised primacy program adopting the new 
public notification requirements under 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q. 
States will have two years after the final rule is published in the 
Federal Register to submit a complete and final primacy program 
revision package to EPA, unless the State requests and EPA approves an 
extension of up to two additional years.
    Second, Sec. 142.16(a)(2) would require that States establish, as 
part of their revised primacy program, enforceable requirements and 
procedures when the State opts to use the authority under:
     Sec. 141.201(a)--To require public water systems to give a 
public notice for situations other than those listed in Appendix A, 
where the State determines that the situation has significant potential 
for serious adverse effects on human health;
     Sec. 141.202(a)--To require public water systems to give a 
Tier 1 public notice (rather than a Tier 2 or Tier 3 notice) for 
violations or situations other than those listed in Appendix A;
     Sec. 141.202(b)(3)--To require public water systems to 
comply with additional Tier 1 public notification requirements set by 
the State subsequent to the initial 24-hour notice, as a result of 
their consultation with the State required under Sec. 141.202(b)(2);
     Sec. 141.203(a)--To require the public water systems to 
provide a Tier 2 public notice (rather than Tier 3) for monitoring or 
testing procedure violations specified by the State;
     Sec. 141.203(b)--To grant public water systems an 
extension of time (up to three months) for distributing the Tier 2 
public notice, for specific circumstances defined in the State's 
primacy program;
     Sec. 141.203(b)--To require a different repeat notice 
frequency for the Tier 2 public notice (to be no less frequent than 
once per year), for specific circumstances defined in the State's 
primacy program; and
     Secs. 141.203(c) and 141.204(c)--To require a different 
form and manner of delivery for Tier 2 and 3 public notices.
    Third, Sec. 142.16(a)(3) would allow the State to establish, by 
rule, alternative public notification requirements from those 
established in the rule being proposed today. Section 142.16(a)(3) 
incorporates language in Sec. 1414(c)(2)(B) of the SDWA, as amended in 
1996, defining the alternative program. Under this section, a State may 
develop an alternative program with respect to the form and content of 
the notice, as long as the program contains the same amount and type of 
information. EPA is proposing to interpret the ``no less stringent'' 
standard of EPA's primacy regulations as requiring States to maintain 
the same type and amount of information as EPA's rule. The State 
alternative public notification program would have to be approved by 
EPA as part of the process established under the primacy rule to review 
revisions to approved primacy programs.
    EPA is requesting comment on the proposed requirements States would 
have to follow to develop the approved primacy program revision and on 
other changes to the State record keeping and reporting requirements 
related to the public notification rule. EPA is also requesting comment 
on the proposed interpretation of the primacy standard to be applied 
for review of State alternative programs.

V. Relationship of Public Notification Regulation to Consumer 
Confidence Report (CCR) Regulation

    The rule being proposed today would be closely related to the 
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) regulation promulgated in August, 1998 
[63 FR 44511 (August 19, 1998)]. In developing the proposal for the 
public notification rule, EPA identified provisions of both rules that 
either overlap or need to be consistent. The proposed rule has used 
identical language from the CCR rule where there was an overlap, 
deferred to the CCR process where the public notification objectives 
could be effectively accomplished through the CCR, and otherwise used 
language consistent with the CCR when it was appropriate.
     Health Effects Language (Sec. 141.205(d)(1), Appendix B). 
Language on health effects of violations is required both for the CCR 
and public notification. EPA is proposing that the health effects 
language for the public notice would be identical to the language in 
the CCR (Sec. 141.153(d)(6), Appendix C).
     Use of CCR for Some Public Notices (Sec. 141.204(d)). The 
annual CCR requires an annual summary of all violations that have 
occurred in the last year (Sec. 141.153(f)). EPA is proposing today 
that community water systems, at their option, use the Consumer 
Confidence Report as the mechanism to notify their customers of any or 
all Tier 3 violations as long as those violations occurred within the 
last 12 months (see discussion in part IV(H) above). EPA is also 
proposing that public water systems not required to distribute a CCR 
consider an annual report of all their Tier 3 violations or variance or 
exemptions, in lieu of individual public notices. In all cases, the CCR 
or other annual report would have to follow the requirements of the 
public notice rule to be used for this purpose.
     State Primacy Requirements (Sec. 142.216(a)). Both the CCR 
and the public notice regulations must be adopted by the State as a 
condition of primacy. EPA is proposing today that the standards and 
process for primacy approval for the public notification rule would 
follow the same requirements contained in the CCR rule 
(Sec. 142.16(f)).
     Notice of the Availability of the Results of Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Sec. 141.207). The 1996 SDWA amendments for both 
the CCR and public notification contained provisions related to giving 
notice of the results of unregulated contaminant monitoring required by 
EPA. The CCR provision makes such reporting mandatory (Sec. 141.153(d) 
and (e)). The public notice provision (Sec. 1414(c)(2)(E)) requires 
such reporting at the option of the EPA Administrator. EPA is proposing 
today to defer to the requirement that such information be included in 
the annual CCR for community water systems. EPA is also proposing today 
to continue (with some revisions) to require that community water 
systems give notice of the availability of the results of the 
unregulated contaminant monitoring now required under Sec. 141.35.
     Certification by PWS That Public Notification Requirements 
Are Met (Sec. 141.31(d)). The proposed rule would add a new requirement 
that public water systems submit a letter to the primacy agency 
certifying that all requirements have been met. This would be 
consistent with the certification requirement in the CCR regulation 
(Sec. 141.155(c)).
     Use of Multilingual Notices (Sec. 141.205(c)(2)). The CCR 
regulation requires that in communities with a

[[Page 25982]]

large population of non-English speaking residents, as determined by 
the primacy agency, the report must contain information in the 
appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of the notice or 
contain a telephone number or address where persons served may contact 
the water system to obtain a translated copy of the notice or to 
request assistance in the appropriate language. The proposed public 
notification would be identical to the provision in the CCR rule 
(Sec. 141.153(h)(3)).
    EPA is requesting comment on the approach in the proposed rule to 
align the public notification requirements with the parallel 
requirements in the CCR rule for the six areas identified above and for 
any other areas that would make compliance with the two rules more 
effective and efficient.

VI. Request for Public Comment on Alternatives to Proposal

    EPA has requested comment throughout this preamble on the various 
elements of the regulation proposed today. EPA is requesting here 
comments on two specific options that are alternative approaches to 
what is being proposed. EPA will consider comment on these two 
alternative options to determine the final rule requirements.

A. Requiring Tier 2 Public Notice for Monitoring and Testing Procedure 
Violations

    During the development of the proposed public notice requirements 
for specific violations, several options emerged for the proper 
placement of monitoring and testing procedure violations. Over 90 
percent of all violations of National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations are monitoring and testing procedure violations. These 
violations range in severity from an administrative error quickly 
corrected to failure to monitor over the whole year. EPA is proposing 
that the public notice for all monitoring and testing procedure 
violations follow the Tier 3 annual notice requirements, unless the 
primacy agency determines on a case-by-case basis that the more 
stringent Tier 2 notice is necessary. EPA believes that Tier 3 notices 
are appropriate for the vast majority of monitoring violations because 
they are unlikely to result in significant health threats. Recognizing, 
however, that in some cases they may disguise such a threat, EPA is 
providing flexibility to the primacy agency to place monitoring 
violations in Tier 2 (or even in Tier 1) on a case-by-case basis. EPA 
is concerned that requiring more frequent notices for monitoring and 
testing procedure violations on a routine basis may dilute the 
effectiveness of the public notification process.
    Some stakeholders have expressed concern that this proposal was not 
sufficiently protective of public health and the consumer's right-to-
know. They argue that placing all monitoring and testing procedure 
violations in Tier 3, even though the primacy agency has the option to 
place them in a higher tier when warranted, may in some cases increase 
the possibility that timely public notices for serious violations would 
not be made. In cases where inadequate monitoring disguises MCL or TT 
violations, the lack of timely notice may pose a risk to public health.
    EPA is, therefore, requesting comment on an alternative to the 
proposal that would require public water systems to use Tier 2 (rather 
than Tier 3) public notice for monitoring and testing procedure 
violations. Under this alternative proposal, primacy agencies would be 
allowed, by rule, to designate some or all monitoring and testing 
procedure violations as Tier 3 rather than Tier 2. The presumption 
under this alternative is that the violation would require a Tier 2 
notice unless the primacy agency decided otherwise (as part of its 
approved primacy program). Another option would be to allow the primacy 
agency to classify monitoring and testing procedure violations as Tier 
3 on a case-by-case basis. Both the proposed language and these 
alternatives give the primacy agency flexibility to tailor the public 
notice to the seriousness of the violation. The difference lies in what 
the default would be in the absence of action by the primacy agency. 
Because EPA believes that Tier 3 is appropriate for the vast majority 
of monitoring and testing procedure violations, the proposed rule makes 
Tier 3 the default.
    Comments are requested on these alternative proposals for 
determining the proper public notice tier for monitoring and testing 
procedure violations.

B. Giving PWS Flexibility in Method of Delivery of Tier 2 and 3 Notices

    The proposed rule would require that community water systems mail 
or directly deliver notices to bill-paying customers (or service 
connections) and use any other method reasonably calculated to reach 
other persons if they would not normally be reached by the mail or 
direct delivery requirement. The proposed rule has a parallel provision 
for non-community water systems, allowing posting in lieu of mail or 
hand delivery.
    EPA discussed this provision at length with the various stakeholder 
groups. EPA is asking for comment on an alternative to the proposed 
language that would allow the public water system to choose from a 
longer list of possible delivery methods. Unlike the proposal, the 
alternative would not require a specific method to be used by all the 
water systems (e.g., mail or direct delivery by all community water 
systems). In both the proposed language and this alternative, the water 
system's obligation under the rule would be the same: to take steps 
reasonably calculated to reach all persons served.
    The advantage of this alternative is that it gives the water system 
a menu of methods to choose from to reach all persons served, which 
encourages creative and more efficient solutions than possible under 
the proposal. It recognizes the need to tailor the methods of delivery 
used to the specific situation. The disadvantage is that it sets a less 
precise regulatory obligation that may lead to inadequate compliance 
with the intent of the public notice provision. It may also be more 
difficult for EPA and the States to enforce this less precise 
requirement.
    EPA is requesting comment on this alternative to the language in 
the proposal for delivering Tier 2 and Tier 3 notices. If the 
alternative is chosen in the final rule, what optional methods should 
EPA include in the regulatory list of acceptable delivery methods?

VII. Cost of Rule

    EPA has estimated the costs for both public water systems, which 
must comply with the requirements of the proposed public notification 
rule, and the State primacy agencies, which must implement the new 
requirements on behalf of EPA.
    For public water systems, the estimated costs of complying with the 
new regulation are divided into three component activities: notice 
preparation costs, notice distribution costs, and costs of repeat 
notices. Only public water systems with a violation or other situation 
requiring a public notice incur costs under this rule. Notice 
preparation costs include those costs that a public water system must 
incur to comply with the requirements regardless of how many copies of 
the notice it must deliver. These costs include the labor hour costs 
associated with becoming familiar with the requirements for the notice, 
collecting data regarding monitoring results and the violation, 
consulting with the primacy agency (when necessary), preparing the 
technical content of the public notification in a format suitable for 
distribution, identifying the recipients of the notice, and providing 
instructions

[[Page 25983]]

about production of the notice. Notice distribution costs are costs 
that increase or decrease along with the number of public notices to be 
delivered. These costs include costs of producing the reports (costs of 
paper, photocopying or printing, and labels), postage costs when the 
notice is mailed, costs of a notice in a newspaper when necessary, 
costs of posting notices in specified locations, and other labor hour 
costs of producing and delivering the notices. Repeat notice costs 
involve only the costs of delivering a second copy of the notice, if 
the violation is not corrected within the specified time period.
    For primacy agencies, the estimated incremental costs of 
implementing the new requirements are also divided into three 
components: costs of consulting with public water systems to clarify 
notice requirements on a case-by-case basis; costs of receiving and 
reviewing the public water system compliance certification and copies 
of the notices; and costs of filing and maintaining the public 
notification records.
    Table C provides a summary of the estimated total dollar and hour 
costs to public water systems and to the State primacy agencies. The 
public water system costs are broken out by size of the system. The 
combined total cost per year to both the PWS and the primacy agencies 
is $17,956,117. The combined total burden hours are 972,107.

           Table C.--Average Annual Cost and Labor Hours for Public Water Systems and Primacy Agencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Number of   Labor hours    Cost per
                 Summary table                   Total cost  Total labor   systems in    per system  system  (1)/
                                                  per year      hours       violation     (2)/(3)        (3)
                                                        (1)          (2)           (3)          (4)          (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Water Systems (PWS):
    PWS serving 25-500........................   $6,867,175      686,718        40,467        16.97      $169.70
    PWS serving 501-3,300.....................    1,804,545      146,732         4,473        32.80       403.43
    PWS serving 3,301-10,000..................    1,266,782       36,718           912        40.26     1,389.02
    PWS serv. 10,001-100,000..................    2,614,813       36,186           667        54.25     3,920.26
    PWS serving over 100,000..................    3,837,948        4,634            53        87.42    72,414.11
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals for PWS:.........................   16,391,263      910,987        46,572        19.56       351.96
                                               =================================================================
State Primacy Agencies........................    1,564,854       61,120    56 primacy      1,091.0   $27,944.00
                                                                             agencies.    hours per  per primacy
                                                                                            primacy      agency.
                                                                                            agency.
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals..................................   17,956,117      972,107
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs include both labor hour costs and O&M costs.
\2\ Table C-4, PWS (and Pop.) in Violation by System Size, National Public Water System Supervision Program,
  Draft Compliance Report, FY 1996, data for FY 1996.

    The Agency estimates that the annual cost to all public water 
systems with one or more violations during the year is $16,391,263, 
including the costs for 910,987 labor hours and the costs for postage 
and other related O&M costs. This is an average annual cost of $351.96 
for the 46,572 public water systems required to comply with the public 
notice requirements because they had one or more violations during the 
year. As shown in Table C, per system costs and labor hours vary most 
significantly by size of the water system:
     The dollar costs include both labor hour costs and non-
labor costs. The non-labor costs incurred are principally to cover 
costs of the postage to mail the notice. Because the cost of 
distribution varies directly with the number of persons served, the 
cost per water system for the large and very large water systems is 
many times higher than the cost per water system for small and very 
small systems (e.g., $169.70 per system serving less than 500 people 
vs. $72,414.11 per system serving over 100,000).
     The labor hours vary by both the type and size of the 
water system. For example, a non-community water system may post the 
notice, a significantly lower labor hour burden than preparing a 
mailing or hand delivering the notice. System size also makes a 
significant difference in total labor costs. The labor estimated to 
prepare and distribute the notice for a very small system is 14.7 
hours. For very large systems, the labor hour estimate is 90.8 hours, 
more than six times the rate estimated for the very small systems.
    The Agency estimates the annual primacy agency costs and labor 
hours to be $1,564,854, and 61,120 hours. The average annual cost per 
primacy agency is estimated at $27,944 per primacy agency ($1,564,854 
divided by 56) and the annual labor hours per primacy agency are 
estimated at 1,091 hours per primacy agency (61,120 divided by 56). 
This does not include the costs to EPA of implementing this regulation 
where EPA directly implements the regulatory program on Indian lands.
    The paperwork burden associated with the existing public 
notification requirements in 40 CFR Part 141.32 is currently included 
in the baseline drinking water ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0090, EPA ICR 
#270.39). The estimated burden under ICR #270.39 is 955,191 hours, and 
the costs are $21,969,393. This is the estimated cost to public water 
systems only, as the approved ICR did not include any incremental costs 
to the primacy agencies.
    To estimate the change in the burden under the proposed rule to 
public water systems, EPA re-calculated the burden numbers under the 
current rule to provide a common basis for comparing the existing rule 
with the proposed rule. The existing ICR estimate could not be used as 
the basis of comparison because it used different lower external cost 
and workload assumptions. First, the cost assumptions in the current 
ICR used different postage and labor rates. Second, the current ICR 
assumes different violation levels than the proposed ICR. Third, some 
activities, such as repeat notices, were omitted from the current 
estimate.
    The combined changes in burden and cost to both primacy agencies 
and PWSs, based on comparing the proposed rule estimate to the adjusted 
current rule estimate, are shown in the table below:

[[Page 25984]]



         Burden and Cost Estimates Under the Current and Proposed Rules (for PWSs and Primacy Agencies)
                   [Rounded to Nearest 10,000 for Burden Hours and Nearest $100,000 for Cost]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Current rule
                                                       (Re-        Proposed rule     Decrease     Percent change
                                                    calculated)         ICR
--------------------------------------------------------\1\-----------------------------------------------------
Burden..........................................       1,200,000         970,000         230,000            19.2
Cost............................................     $27,000,000     $17,900,000      $9,100,000           33.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To make the current rule estimate and proposed rule estimate comparable, the current rule estimate is
  adjusted to be the sum of the costs under the proposed rule plus the estimated cost savings that will be
  realized under the proposed rule.

    Two programmatic changes associated with the proposed rule account 
for the bulk of the reduction in burden and cost estimates from the 
current rule.
     The proposed rule changes both the timing and method of 
delivery options for Tier 3 violations--

--The proposed rule would require notice within one year after the 
occurrence of the violation rather than within three months, as 
required by the current rule. Systems with monitoring and testing 
procedure violations occurring several times throughout the year are 
able under the proposed rule to consolidate their notices into one 
annual notice. The current rule limits the PWS's ability to combine 
multiple violations into a single notice to those occurring within the 
prior three months. For estimating the burden reduction from this 
change, EPA assumes that, under the current rule, systems with 
violations send out an average of 1.5 notices per year.
--The proposed rule allows community water systems to meet the public 
notice requirements for Tier 3 through the existing Consumer Confidence 
Report (CCR). Tier 3 violations are primarily monitoring or testing 
procedure violations. Systems that would otherwise incur a large labor 
burden and postage burden for distributing a mail notice and paying for 
a newspaper notice will be able to insert the text of the notice into 
the CCR and incur no additional costs. EPA estimates that half of all 
community water systems serving less than 10,000 and all community 
systems serving more than 10,000 will use the CCR for Tier 3 notices.
--The estimated burden reduction for the proposed changes to the timing 
and method of delivery for Tier 3 notices is approximately 210,000 
hours (17.5 percent) and the cost reduction is approximately $6,500,000 
(24.1 percent).

     The proposed rule changes the required methods of delivery 
for Tiers 1 and 2 notices. The existing rule requires both newspaper 
and mail delivery for all tiers, although the primacy agency may waive 
the mail requirement if it determines the violation has been resolved 
within a given time. Those systems for whom no newspaper outlet is 
available are allowed to hand deliver or post instead of mailing and 
using the newspaper. Under the current rule, systems with Tier 1 
violations must also issue a notice via television or radio. The 
proposed rule requires only one method of delivery for Tier 2--mail or 
hand delivery (or posting for non-community systems). The burden 
reduction for Tier 2 is small, because it eliminates only newspaper 
notices, which are estimated to take only 1 hour of labor. For Tier 1, 
however, systems will have the option of issuing the notice via 
electronic media, hand delivery, or posting. The burden reduction 
resulting from the change in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 method of delivery 
requirements in the proposed rule would be approximately 20,000 hours 
(1.7 percent), and the cost reduction would be $2,600,000 (9.6 
percent).
    The estimated total savings resulting from the above changes to the 
requirements in the proposed rule are approximately 230,000 hours (19.2 
percent) and $9,100,000 (33.7 percent).
    Several caveats should be borne in mind in interpreting these cost 
estimates. A number of costs have been omitted from the estimates. 
These include costs for Tier 1 notices for waterborne disease outbreaks 
or other situations determined by the primacy agency to have the 
potential for serious adverse health impacts as a result of short-term 
exposure, costs for repeat notices for fecal coliform violations, costs 
for notices on the availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring 
results for systems that would not otherwise have to prepare an annual 
notice, costs for stuffing notices into bills, costs for air time on 
broadcast media if they refuse to run adequate notices as public 
service announcements, costs for notices that cannot be included in 
CCRs or customer bills because the required time frames preclude it, 
costs for notices associated with the recently promulgated Stage 1 
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts (D/DBP) rule and the Interim 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), and costs to States 
associated with adopting primacy regulations to implement the new 
public notification requirements. EPA is continuing to refine its cost 
estimates and will incorporate as many of these costs as possible into 
its economic analysis for the final rule.
    Most of these costs have been omitted from the analysis for the 
proposed rule because they are not expected to be large and would not 
significantly change the bottom line cost and burden estimates. 
However, the public notification costs associated with violations of 
the D/DBP rule and the IESWTR may be significant. These rules contain a 
number of new standards as well as significant new monitoring 
requirements, and will require a significant capital investment from 
some systems. Because these two rules have not yet gone into effect, 
EPA has omitted the cost estimates for the proposed public notification 
rule. EPA does not currently have any basis on which to project the 
annual number of violations requiring a public notice. However, EPA 
recognizes that meeting the public notification requirements for these 
new rules could raise the costs of the current and proposed public 
notification rule significantly.
    In considering the burden and cost reduction for the proposed rule 
relative to the current requirements, it is important to keep in mind 
that this comparison is based on assuming full compliance with both 
rules. In fact, as documented in the GAO report, there has been 
widespread non-compliance with the current requirements. EPA expects 
that by clarifying and streamlining these requirements, the proposed 
rule will result in a significantly higher level of compliance. To the 
extent that this occurs, there will also be an increase in State and 
water system resources devoted to public notification, despite the 
savings estimated here because of the streamlined rule that is being 
proposed. On the other hand, for those systems that have been complying 
with public

[[Page 25985]]

notice requirements all along, the proposed rule may result in genuine 
cost and burden savings.
    For more information about the costs of the rule and how EPA 
developed the estimates, see the Supporting Statement for the EPA 
Information Collection Request (ICR #1898.01) and the Regulatory 
Flexibility Screening Analysis that EPA submitted for OMB approval. EPA 
is requesting comment on its cost estimates and methodology.

VIII. Other 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 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 or entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of the 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of the legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' As 
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in 
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in 
the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA), EPA generally is required to conduct a regulatory flexibility 
analysis describing the impact of the regulatory action 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 regulatory flexibility analysis. Pursuant to 
section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the 
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    There are three types of small entities under the RFA:
     A ``small business'' is any small business concern that is 
independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field as 
defined by the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). Public water systems 
within this category include privately owned community water systems, 
mobile home parks, and day care centers.
     A ``small organization'' is any not-for-profit enterprise 
that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field. 
Examples of water systems that are small organizations are churches, 
schools, and homeowners associations.
     A ``small governmental jurisdiction'' includes cities, 
counties, towns, school districts or special districts with populations 
of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601).
    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 as amended by 
SBREFA. This is the cut-off level specified by Congress in the 1996 
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act for small system flexibility 
provisions. Because this definition does not correspond to the 
definitions of ``small'' for small businesses, governments, and non-
profit organizations previously established under the RFA, EPA 
requested comment on an alternative definition of ``small entity'' in 
the Preamble to the proposed Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) 
regulation (63 FR 7620, February 13, 1998). Comments showed that 
stakeholders support the proposed alternative definition. EPA also 
consulted with the SBA Office of Advocacy on the definition as it 
relates to small businesses. In the preamble to the final CCR 
regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998), EPA stated its intent to 
establish this alternative definition for regulatory flexibility 
assessments under the RFA for all drinking water regulations and has 
thus used it for this public notification rulemaking. Further 
information supporting this certification is available in the public 
docket for this rule.
    The basis for the Administrator's certification is as follows: the 
annualized compliance costs of the rule represent less than one percent 
of annual sales for small businesses and less than one percent of 
annual operating revenues for small government entities. The analyses 
supporting this certification are contained in the ``Regulatory 
Flexibility Screening Analysis'' prepared for this proposed rule. Each 
analysis compared the average estimated per-system compliance costs 
associated with the proposed regulation with the average estimated per-
system revenues or expenditures.
    The first analysis, using existing data, categorized systems as 
small businesses, small governments, and small organizations. Within 
these categories, EPA subdivided the entity categories into three size 
range categories: those systems serving 25-500 people; those systems 
serving 501-3,300 people; and those serving 3,301-10,000 people. The 
analysis was completed for each of the small entity types and sizes. 
The existing data included only CWSs and NTNCWSs. TWSs were excluded 
because no data were available for them on entity type. The resulting 
ratios ranged from less than 0.01 percent for small organization water 
systems serving 500 or more persons to 0.20 percent for small 
government systems serving 25 to 500 persons.
    The second analysis categorized systems by system type (i.e., CWS, 
NTNCWS, and TWS), using the same three size categories as the first 
analysis. The resulting ratios ranged from less than 0.01 percent for 
non-transient non-community water systems serving less than 500 persons 
to 0.36 percent for transient non-community water systems serving 
3,301-10,000 persons.
    All system types and system size categories are well below a 1 
percent impact on average. This methodology obscures to some extent the 
potential for impact on individual systems. For example, the average 
revenue for a CWS in the 25-500 size range is estimated at $93,743 
while the average compliance cost is estimated at $183, or 0.20 percent 
of average revenue. Many systems in this size range have lower 
revenues, however, and if they had several violations in one year could 
have higher compliance costs. Thus, many individual systems may 
experience compliance costs higher than 0.20 percent of revenue.
    Even so, EPA believes these potential costs are unlikely to 
represent a significant adverse economic impact for more than a handful 
of systems. The proposed rule would reduce the costs of implementation 
currently required for all public water systems under the existing 
public notification rule, even though (as discussed in Part VII) as a 
practical matter the actual costs

[[Page 25986]]

incurred will likely increase for water systems not complying with the 
current public notification regulations.
    Since the Administrator is certifying this rule, the Agency did not 
prepare an RFA. 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 public water systems on the method of delivery 
of the public notice and by offering all public water systems the 
opportunity to use an annual report of violations in lieu of individual 
Tier 3 notices. In addition, all community water systems are encouraged 
to use the CCR to meet the requirements of the public notice rule 
wherever appropriate. (Note that to use the CCR, many small systems 
would have to distribute their CCR more widely to meet the public 
notification distribution requirements.) Finally, small community water 
systems and all non-community water systems may hand deliver or post 
the notice in lieu of mailing, reducing substantially their overall 
cost of compliance with this rule.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. 1898.01) 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, by E-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. The supporting 
statement for the ICR is available for review from the EPA Docket for 
this rule, titled: ``Supporting Statement for EPA Information 
Collection Request Number #1898.01, Public Water System Supervision 
Program Public Notification Requirements.'' A copy may also be 
downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information 
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 (SDWA) of 1996 (Public Law 104-182) enacted August 6, 
1996. Public notice of violations is an integral part of a number of 
public health protection and consumer right-to-know provisions of the 
1996 SDWA amendments. The public notification requirement is one of six 
interrelated provisions now included in the SDWA related to providing 
information to the public. Responses are mandatory. None of the 
information submitted under the proposed rule is confidential business 
information.
    The burden to public water systems is based on the cost of the rule 
discussed under Section VII of the Preamble. Burden means the total 
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, 
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a 
Federal Agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; 
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the 
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, 
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing 
information; adjust the existing way to comply with any previous 
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to 
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete 
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise 
disclose the information.
    The total annual burden to both public water systems and primacy 
agencies is 972,107 hours at an annual cost of $17,956,117. The cost 
estimate includes both the labor hour costs and the O&M costs of 
implementing the rule.
    The annual burden to public water systems of meeting the 
requirements of the revised public notification rule is 910,987 hours 
at an annual cost of $16,391,263. The burden estimate is the sum of the 
costs of three component activities: notice preparation costs; notice 
distribution costs; and costs of repeat notices. The costs to the 
public water systems include labor and non-labor costs, such as the 
costs of postage to mail the public notices where required. Public 
water systems are required to comply with the public notification rule 
if they have one or more violations of National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations (NPDWR) or have other situations requiring a public notice. 
The number of public water systems estimated to have violations on an 
annual basis is 46,572. The annual average burden per public water 
system violating one or more drinking water standards is $351.96 and 
19.6 hours.
    The annual burden to primacy agencies of implementing the new 
public notification regulations is 61,120 hours at an annual cost of 
$1,564,854. The burden estimate is also the sum of three component 
activities: costs of consulting with public water systems; costs of 
receiving and reviewing the compliance certification and notice copies 
received from the public water system; and the costs of filing and 
maintaining the public water system notification records. The costs to 
the primacy agency include labor costs only. Primacy agencies are 
required to adopt and implement the new public notification regulation 
as a condition of maintaining primacy. (Note that the burden to the 
state for adopting the regulation has not been included in the draft 
ICR but will be included in the ICR for the final rule.) Fifty-six 
States and Territories currently have primacy under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. EPA directly implements the regulatory program in Wyoming, 
Washington, D.C., and the Indian Lands. The average annual burden for 
each of the 56 States and Territories with primacy to implement the 
proposed public notification rule is $27,944 and 1,091 hours per 
primacy agency.
    The paperwork burden associated with the existing public 
notification requirements in 40 CFR 141.32 is currently included in the 
baseline drinking water ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0090, EPA ICR 
#270.39). The estimated burden under ICR #270.39 is 955,191 hours, and 
$21,969,393. This is the estimated cost to public water systems only, 
as the approved ICR did not include any incremental costs to the 
primacy agencies.
    To estimate the change in the burden under the proposed rule to 
public water systems, EPA re-calculated the burden numbers under the 
current rule to provide a common basis to compare the existing rule 
with the proposed rule. The existing ICR estimate could not be used as 
the basis of comparison because it used different lower external cost 
and workload assumptions.
    The adjusted burden of the current rule was calculated to be 
approximately 1,200,000 hours and the adjusted cost was calculated at 
approximately $27,000,000. The burden reduction, therefore, under the 
proposed rule would be approximately 230,000 hours (or 19.2 percent) 
and the cost reduction approximately $9,100,000 (or 33.7 percent). Two 
programmatic changes associated with the proposed rule account for the 
bulk of the reduction in burden and cost estimates from the current 
rule.
     The proposed rule changes both the timing and method of 
delivery options for Tier 3 violations. The proposed rule would require 
notice within one year after the occurrence of the violation rather 
than within three months, as required by the current rule. Systems with 
monitoring and testing procedure

[[Page 25987]]

violations occurring several times throughout the year are able under 
the proposed rule to consolidate their notices into one annual notice. 
The proposed rule would also allow community water systems to meet the 
public notice requirements for Tier 3 through the existing Consumer 
Confidence Report (CCR). Tier 3 violations are primarily monitoring or 
testing procedure violations. EPA estimates that half of all community 
water systems serving less than 10,000 and all community systems 
serving more than 10,000 will use the CCR for Tier 3 notices. The 
estimated burden reduction for the proposed changes to the timing and 
method of delivery for Tier 3 notices is approximately 210,000 hours 
(17.5 percent) and the cost reduction is approximately $6,500,000 (24.1 
percent).
     The proposed rule changes the required methods of delivery 
for Tiers 1 and 2 notices. The current rule requires both newspaper and 
mail delivery for all tiers. Those systems for whom no newspaper outlet 
is available are allowed to hand deliver or post instead of mailing and 
using the newspaper. Under the current rule, systems with Tier 1 
violations must also issue a notice via television or radio. The 
proposed rule requires only one method of delivery for Tier 2--mail or 
hand delivery (or posting for non-community systems). The burden 
reduction for resulting from the change in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 method 
of delivery requirements in the proposed rule would be approximately 
20,000 hours (1.7 percent), and the cost reduction would be $2,600,000 
(9.6 percent).
    Section VII of the preamble presents more detailed information on 
the cost of the rule. Section VII also discusses several caveats that 
should be borne in mind when considering these cost and burden 
estimates.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, OP Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460; and 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, 
marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include ICR number 1898.01 
in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision 
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after May 13, 1999, a comment 
to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by 
June 14, 1999. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public 
comments on the information collection requirements contained in this 
proposal.

D. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or Tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and Tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, any written communications 
from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local and Tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    EPA has concluded that this rule will create a mandate on State, 
local and Tribal governments that own or operate PWSs, and that the 
Federal government will not provide the funds necessary to pay the 
direct costs incurred by the State, local and Tribal governments in 
complying with the mandate. In developing this rule, EPA consulted with 
State, local and Tribal governments to enable them to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of this rule. As 
described in section III of the Supplementary Information above, EPA 
held a series of stakeholder meetings with a wide variety of State, 
local, and Tribal representatives, who provided meaningful and timely 
input in the development of the proposed rule. The principal concerns 
raised by the State, local, and Tribal governments were the potential 
drain on their resources and the potential complexity of the Federal 
rule, which would make it difficult to implement effectively. EPA 
believes it has addressed these concerns in the proposed regulation, 
which provides considerable flexibility in how the public notice is 
developed and what delivery mechanisms are available. The costs of the 
proposed regulation are less than those required for full compliance 
with the existing public notification rule. Summaries of the meetings 
have been included in the public docket for this rulemaking.

E. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the Tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected Tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian Tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in 
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on such communities. Further, the 
impact on Tribal governments is not unique in that this rule applies 
equally to all public water systems, including those owned and operated 
by Federal, State, and local governments. Public water systems on 
Indian lands incur costs under the public notification rule only if 
they violate a national primary drinking water regulation or have a 
variance or exemption from EPA. The public notification requirements 
will in most cases be met either through hand delivery of a single 
notice to all persons served or by posting the notice in conspicuous 
locations. Costs of meeting these requirements will be minimal. In

[[Page 25988]]

fact, the public notification costs resulting from this rule are less 
than those required for full compliance with the existing regulation. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to this proposed rule.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement (including a cost-benefit 
analysis) for 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 and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule would not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. The estimated cost of the proposed rule is 
$34,771,019. (See section VII of the Supplementary Information.) Thus, 
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 
of the UMRA. This rule will establish requirements that affect small 
community water systems. However, EPA has determined that this rule 
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because the regulation requires 
minimal expenditure of resources. In fact, the public notification 
costs resulting from this rule are less than those required for full 
compliance with the existing regulation. Thus, today's rule is not 
subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

G. Environmental Justice

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), 
the Agency has considered environmental justice related issues with 
regard to the potential impacts of this action on the environmental and 
health conditions in low-income and minority communities. The Agency 
believes that several of today's proposed requirements will be 
particularly beneficial to these communities:
     Public water systems would be required to distribute the 
notice to all persons served, both through the use of required delivery 
methods and through the use of additional measures reasonably 
calculated to reach other persons served, if they would not normally be 
reached by the required method. In addition, the notice to bill-paying 
customers must include standard language encouraging those receiving 
the public notice to make the notice available to other consumers who 
are not bill paying customers (e.g., renters, transients, students).
     Public notices would include information on what the 
consumers should do to minimize the health risk from drinking water in 
violation of EPA standards and on when to seek further medical advice. 
All notices would be required to include the name and phone number of 
the water system official who can provide further information.
     Public water systems would include information on the 
importance of the notice in a language other than English if a large 
proportion of the population does not speak English (as determined by 
the primacy agency).

H. Risk to Children Analysis

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health 
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate affect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it 
is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. The purpose 
of the proposed rule is to provide a public notice to all persons 
served when a violation of EPA drinking water standards occurs, to 
enable consumers to avoid health and safety risks from potential 
exposure to harmful contaminants in the drinking water. The regulation 
addresses the particular risks that certain contaminants may pose by 
considering such risks in assigning contaminants to the appropriate 
tier and by identifying such risks in the required health effects 
language, with specific reference to risks to children, where 
appropriate. The public notice requirements, however, apply to 
potential health and safety risks to all consumers and all vulnerable 
populations, and are not targeted specifically to address a 
disproportionate risk to children.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, 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 standards 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. The 
Agency does not believe that this proposed rule addresses any technical 
standards subject to the NTTAA. A commenter who disagrees with this 
conclusion should indicate how the rule is subject to the Act and 
identify any potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards.

[[Page 25989]]

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 141

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians--lands, 
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Chemicals, Indians--lands, Radiation protection, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 143

    Chemicals, Indians-lands, Water supply.

    Dated: April 27, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 141, 142, and 143 as 
follows:

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300 g-3, 300g-4, 300 
g-5, 300 g-6, 300 j-4, 300 j-9, and 300 j-11.

    2. In part 141, the heading for subpart D is revised to read as 
follows:

Subpart D--Reporting and Record Keeping

    3. Section 141.31 is amended by revising paragraph (d), to read as 
follows:


Sec. 141.31  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) The public water system, within 10 days of completion of each 
public notice required pursuant to subpart Q of this part, must submit 
to the primacy agency a certification that all public notification 
requirements have been met and must include with this certification a 
representative copy of each type of notice distributed, published, 
posted, and made available to the persons served by the system and to 
the media.
* * * * *
    4. Section 141.32 is amended by revising the introductory 
paragraph, to read as follows:


Sec. 141.32  Public notification.

    The requirements in this section apply until the requirements of 
Subpart Q of this part become effective. For public water systems where 
EPA directly implements the public water system supervision program, 
the requirements in Subpart Q of this part will become effective on 
[date 90 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register]. For all other public water systems, the requirements in 
Subpart Q of this part will become effective on [date two years after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] or the date the 
State-adopted rule becomes effective, whichever comes first.
* * * * *
    5. Section 141.33 is amended by adding paragraph (e), to read as 
follows:


Sec. 141.33  Record maintenance.

* * * * *
    (e) Copies of public notices issued pursuant to subpart Q of this 
part and certifications made to the primacy agency pursuant to 
Sec. 141.31 must be kept for three years after issuance.


Sec. 141.35  [Amended]

    6. Section 141.35 is amended by removing paragraph (d).
    7. Part 141 is amended by adding subpart Q, to read as follows:

Subpart Q--Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations

Sec.
141.201  General public notification requirements.
141.202  Tier 1 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of 
notice.
141.203  Tier 2 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of 
notice.
141.204  Tier 3 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of 
notice.
141.205  Content of the public notice.
141.206  Notice to new billing units or new customers.
141.207  Special notice of the availability of unregulated 
contaminant monitoring results.
141.208  Special notice for exceedance of the SMCL for fluoride.
141.209  Notice by primacy agency on behalf of the public water 
system.
Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141--NPDWR Violations and Situations 
Requiring Public Notice
Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141--Standard Health Effects 
Language for Public Notification
Appendix C to Subpart Q of Part 141--List of Acronyms Used in Public 
Notification Regulation

Subpart Q--Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations


Sec. 141.201  General public notification requirements.

    The requirements in this subpart are effective no later than [date 
two years after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] 
or on the date the State-adopted rule becomes effective, whichever 
comes first. For public water systems where EPA directly implements the 
public water system supervision (PWSS) program (i.e., Indian lands, 
Wyoming, Washington, D.C.), the requirements in this section are 
effective 90 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register.
    (a) Who must give public notice? Each owner or operator of a public 
water system (community water systems, non-transient non-community 
water systems, and transient non-community water systems) must give 
notice for all violations of national primary drinking water 
regulations (NPDWR) and for other situations, as listed in Table 1 of 
this section. Appendix A to this subpart identifies the tier assignment 
for each specific violation or situation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 1 to Sec.  141.201.--Violation Categories and Other Situations
                        Requiring a Public Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (1) NPDWR violations (MCL, MRDL, treatment technique, monitoring and
                           testing procedure)
 
(i) Failure to comply with an applicable maximum contaminant level (MCL)
 or maximum residual disinfectant level (MRDL).
(ii) Failure to comply with a prescribed treatment technique (TT).
(iii) Failure to perform water quality monitoring, as required by the
 regulations.
(iv) Failure to comply with testing procedures as prescribed by a
 drinking water regulation.
 
    (2) Variance and exemptions under sections 1415 and 1416 of SDWA
 
(i) Operation under a variance or an exemption.
(ii) Failure to comply with the requirements of any schedule that has
 been set under a variance or exemption.
   (3) Special public notices
(i) Occurrence of a waterborne disease outbreak. Exceedance of the
 secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) for fluoride. Availability
 of unregulated contaminant monitoring data. Other situations determined
 by the primacy agency to have a potential for serious adverse effects
 on human health.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) What type of public notice is required for each violation or 
situation? Public notice requirements are divided into three tiers, to 
take into account the seriousness of the violation or situation and of 
any potential adverse health effects that may be involved. The public 
notice requirements for each violation or situation listed in Table 1 
of this section are determined by the tier to which it is assigned. 
Table 2 of this section provides the definition of each tier. Appendix 
A to this subpart identifies the tier assignment for each specific 
violation or situation.


[[Page 25990]]


----------------------------------------------------------------------


       Table 2 to Sec.  141.201--Definition of Public Notice Tiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Tier 1 public notice--required for NPDWR violations and situations
 with significant potential to have serious adverse effects on human
 health as a result of short-term exposure.
(2) Tier 2 public notice--required for all other NPDWR violations and
 situations with potential to have serious adverse effects on human
 health.
(3) Tier 3 public notice--required for all other NPDWR violations and
 situations not included in Tier 1 and Tier 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Who must be notified? Each public water system must provide 
public notice to persons served by the water system, in accordance with 
this subpart. A copy of the notice must also be sent to the primacy 
agency, in accordance with the requirements under Sec. 141.31(d).


Sec. 141.202  Tier 1 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of 
notice.

    (a) Which violations or situations require a Tier 1 public notice? 
Table 1 of this section lists the violation categories and other 
situations requiring a Tier 1 public notice. Appendix A to this subpart 
identifies the tier assignment for each specific violation or 
situation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 1 to Sec.  141.202.--Violation Categories and Other Situations
                    Requiring a Tier 1 Public Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Violation of the MCL for total coliforms, when fecal coliform or E.
 coli are present in the water distribution system (as specified in Sec.
  141.63(b)), or failure to test for fecal coliforms or E. coli after
 the presence of coliform bacteria in the water distribution system is
 confirmed (as specified in Sec.  141.21(e));
(2) Violation of the MCL for nitrate, nitrite, or combined
 nitrate+nitrite, as defined in Sec.  141.62;
(3) Violation of the MRDL for chlorine dioxide, when one or more repeat
 samples taken in the distribution system exceed the MRDL, or when
 required repeat samples are not taken in the distribution system, as
 defined in Sec.  141.65(a);
(4) Occurrence of a waterborne disease outbreak, as defined in Sec.
 141.2; and
(5) Other violations or situations with potential to have serious
 adverse effects on human health as a result of short-term exposure, as
 determined by the primacy agency either in its regulations or on a case-
 by-case basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) When is the Tier 1 public notice to be provided? What 
additional steps are required? 
    Public water systems must:
    (1) Provide a public notice as soon as practicable but no later 
than 24 hours after the system learns of the violation;
    (2) Initiate consultation with the primacy agency as soon as 
practicable, but no later than 24 hours after the public water system 
learns of the violation or situation, to determine additional public 
notice requirements; and
    (3) Comply with any additional public notification requirements 
(including any repeat notices) that are established as a result of the 
consultation with the primacy agency. Such requirements may include the 
timing, form, manner, frequency, and content of repeat notices (if any) 
and other actions designed to reach all persons served.
    (c) What is the form and manner of the public notice? Public water 
systems must provide the notice in a form and manner reasonably 
calculated to reach all persons served within 24-hours. The form and 
manner used by the public water system are to fit the specific 
situation, but must be designed to reach residential, transient, and 
non-transient users of the water system. In order to reach all persons 
served, water systems are to use, at a minimum, one or more of the 
following forms of delivery:
    (1) Appropriate broadcast media (such as radio and television);
    (2) Posting of the notice in conspicuous locations; or
    (3) Hand delivery of the notice to persons served by the water 
system.


Sec. 141.203  Tier 2 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of 
notice.

    (a) Which violations or situations require a Tier 2 public notice? 
Table 1 of this section lists the violation categories and other 
situations requiring a Tier 2 public notice. Appendix A to this subpart 
identifies the tier assignment for each specific violation or 
situation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 1 to Sec.  141.203.--Violation Categories and Other Situations
                    Requiring a Tier 2 Public Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) All violations of the MCL, MRDL, and treatment technique
 requirements not included in the Tier 1 notice category;
(2) Violations of the monitoring and testing procedure requirements,
 where the primacy agency determines that a Tier 2 rather than a Tier 3
 public notice is required, taking into account potential health impacts
 and persistence of the violation; and
(3) Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of any variance or
 exemption in place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) When is the Tier 2 public notice to be provided? Public water 
systems must provide the public notice as soon as practicable, but no 
later than 30 days after the system learns of the violation. The 
primacy agency may allow additional time in specific circumstances of 
up to three months from the date the system learns of the violation. 
The public water system must repeat the notice every three months, 
unless the primacy agency determines that specific circumstances 
warrant a different repeat notice frequency. In no circumstance will 
the repeat notice be less frequent than once per year. If the public 
notice is posted, the notice must remain in place for as long as the 
violation or situation exists.
    (c) What is the form and manner of the Tier 2 public notice? Public 
water systems must provide the notice in a form and manner that is 
reasonably calculated to reach persons served in the required time 
period. The form and manner of the public notice may vary based on the 
specific situation and type of water system, but it must at a minimum 
meet the following requirements:
    (1) Unless directed otherwise by the primacy agency, community 
water systems must provide notice by:
    (i) Mail or other direct delivery to each customer receiving a bill 
or other service connections; and
    (ii) Any other method reasonably calculated to reach other persons 
regularly served by the system, if they would not normally be reached 
by the notice required in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section. Such 
methods may include: publication in a local newspaper; delivery of 
multiple copies for distribution by single-biller customers (e.g., 
apartment buildings or large private employers); posting in public 
places or on the Internet; or delivery to community organizations.
    (2) Unless directed otherwise by the primacy agency, non-community 
water systems must provide notice by:
    (i) Posting the notice in conspicuous locations frequented by 
persons served by the system, or by mail or direct delivery to each 
customer (where known); and
    (ii) Any other method reasonably calculated to reach other persons 
served by the system if they would not

[[Page 25991]]

normally be reached by the notice required in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of 
this section. Such methods may include: publication in a local 
newspaper or newsletter distributed to customers; use of E-mail to 
notify employees or students; or, delivery of multiple copies in 
central locations (e.g., community centers).


Sec. 141.204  Tier 3 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of 
notice.

    (a) Which violations or situations require a Tier 3 public notice? 
Table 1 of this section lists the violation categories and other 
situations requiring a Tier 3 public notice. Appendix A to this subpart 
identifies the tier assignment for each specific violation or 
situation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 1 to Sec.  141.204.--Violation Categories and Other Situations
                    Requiring a Tier 3 Public Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Monitoring violations under 40 CFR part 141, unless the primacy
 agency determines that the violation requires a Tier 2 notice;
(2) Failure to comply with a testing procedure established in 40 CFR
 part 141;
(3) Operation under a variance granted under section 1415 or exemption
 granted under section 1416 of the Act; and
(4) Any other violations and situations determined by the primacy agency
 to require a Tier 3 public notice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) When is the Tier 3 public notice to be provided? (1) Public 
water systems must provide the public notice not later than one year 
after the public water system learns of the violation or begins 
operating under a variance or exemption. Following the initial notice, 
the public water system must repeat the notice annually for as long as 
the violation, variance, exemption, or other situation exists. If the 
public notice is posted, the notice must remain in place for as long as 
the violation, variance, exemption, or other situation exists.
    (2) Instead of individual public notices, a public water system may 
use an annual report summarizing all violations occurring during the 
previous twelve months to meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section.
    (c) What is the form and manner of the Tier 3 public notice? Public 
water systems must provide the notice in a form and manner that is 
reasonably calculated to reach all persons served in the required time 
period. The form and manner of the public notice may vary based on the 
specific situation and type of water system, but it must at a minimum 
meet the following requirements:
    (1) Unless directed otherwise by the primacy agency, community 
water systems must provide notice by:
    (i) Mail or other direct delivery to each customer receiving a bill 
or other service connections; and
    (ii) Any other method reasonably calculated to reach other persons 
regularly served by the system, if they would not normally be reached 
by the notice required in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section. Such 
methods may include: publication in a local newspaper; delivery of 
multiple copies for distribution by single-biller customers (e.g., 
apartment buildings or large private employers); posting in public 
places or on the Internet; or delivery to community organizations.
    (2) Unless directed otherwise by the primacy agency, non-community 
water systems must provide notice by:
    (i) Posting the notice in conspicuous locations frequented by 
persons served by the system, or by mail or direct delivery to each 
customer (where known); and
    (ii) Any other method reasonably calculated to reach other persons 
served by the system, if they would not normally be reached by the 
notice required in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. Such methods 
may include: publication in a local newspaper or newsletter distributed 
to customers; use of E-mail to notify employees or students; or, 
delivery of multiple copies in central locations (e.g., community 
centers).
    (d) In what situations may the Consumer Confidence Report be used 
to meet the Tier 3 public notice requirements? For community water 
systems, the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) required under subpart O 
of this part may be used as a vehicle for the initial Tier 3 public 
notice and all required repeat notices, as long as the CCR is provided 
to all persons served no later than 12 months after the system learns 
of the violation and as long as the CCR follows the form, manner, and 
content requirements of this section.


Sec. 141.205  Content of the public notice.

    (a) What elements must be included in the public notice for 
violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR), 
including the monitoring and testing procedure requirements? When a 
public water system violates an NPDWR, each public notice must include 
the following elements:
    (1) A description of the violation, including the contaminant of 
concern, and (as applicable) the contaminant level ;
    (2) When the violation occurred;
    (3) Any potential adverse health effects from the violation, 
including the standard language under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of 
this section, whichever is applicable;
    (4) The population at risk, including subpopulations particularly 
vulnerable if exposed to the contaminant in their drinking water;
    (5) Whether alternative water supplies should be used;
    (6) What actions consumers should take, including when they should 
seek medical help, if known;
    (7) What the system is doing to correct the violation;
    (8) When the water system expects to return to compliance;
    (9) The phone number of the water system owner, operator, or 
designee of the public water system as a source of additional 
information concerning the notice; and
    (10) A statement to encourage the notice recipient to distribute 
the public notice to other persons served, using the standard language 
under paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (b) What elements must be included in the public notice for public 
water systems operating under a variance or exemption? (1) If a public 
water system has been granted a variance or an exemption, the public 
notice must contain:
    (i) An explanation of the reasons for the variance or exemption;
    (ii) The date on which the variance or exemption was issued;
    (iii) A brief status report on the steps the system is taking to 
install treatment, find alternative sources of water, or otherwise 
comply with the terms and schedules of the variance or exemption; and
    (iv) A notice of any opportunity for public input in the review of 
the variance or exemption.
    (2) If a public water system violates the conditions of a variance 
or exemption, the public notice must contain the ten elements listed in 
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) How is the public notice to be presented? (1) Each public 
notice required by this section:
    (i) Must be displayed in a conspicuous way (where applicable);
    (ii) Must not contain overly technical language or very small 
print;
    (iii) Must not be formatted in a way that defeats the purpose of 
the notice;
    (iv) Must not contain language which nullifies the purpose of the 
notice.
    (2) For public water systems serving a large proportion of non-
English

[[Page 25992]]

speaking consumers, as determined by the primacy agency, the public 
notice must contain information in the appropriate language(s) 
regarding the importance of the notice or contain a telephone number or 
address where persons served may contact the water system to obtain a 
translated copy of the notice or to request assistance in the 
appropriate language.
    (d) What standard language must public water systems include in 
their public notice? Public water systems are required to include the 
following standard language in their public notice:
    (1) Standard health effects language for MCL or MRDL violations, 
treatment technique violations, and violations of the condition of a 
variance or exemption. Public water systems must include in each public 
notice the health effects language specified in Appendix B to this 
subpart corresponding to each MCL, MRDL, and treatment technique 
violation listed in Appendix A to this subpart, and for each violation 
of a condition of a variance or exemption.
    (2) Standard language for monitoring and testing procedure 
violations. Public water systems must include the following language in 
their notice for all monitoring and testing procedure violations listed 
in Appendix A to this subpart:

    Because we [``did not monitor or test'' or ``failed to monitor 
or test completely''] during [compliance period], we do not know 
whether the contaminant was present in your drinking water during 
that time period, and we are unable to tell whether your health was 
at risk during that time.

    (3) Standard language to encourage the distribution of the public 
notice to all persons served. Public water systems must include in or 
attach to their notice the following language:

    If other people receive water from you, such as tenants, 
residents, patients, students, or employees, it is important that 
you provide this notice to them by posting it in a conspicuous 
location or by direct hand or mail delivery.


Sec. 141.206  Notice to new billing units or new customers.

    (a) What is the requirement for community water systems? Community 
water systems must give a copy of the most recent public notice for any 
continuing violation or the existence of a variance or exemption to all 
new billing units or new hookups prior to or at the time service 
begins.
    (b) What is the requirement for non-community water systems? Non-
community water systems must continuously post the public notice in a 
conspicuous place in order to inform new consumers of any continuing 
violation, variance, or exemption for as long as the violation exists.


Sec. 141.207  Special notice of the availability of unregulated 
contaminant monitoring results.

    (a) When is the special notice to be given? The owner or operator 
of a community water system or non-transient, non-community water 
system required to monitor under Sec. 141.40 must notify persons served 
by the system of the availability of the results of such sampling no 
later than 12 months after the monitoring results are known.
    (b) What is the form and manner of the special notice? The form and 
manner of the public notice must follow the requirements for a Tier 3 
public notice prescribed in Secs. 141.204(c) and (d). The notice must 
also identify a person and provide the telephone number to contact for 
information on the monitoring results.


Sec. 141.208  Special notice for exceedance of the SMCL for fluoride.

    (a) When is the special notice to be given? Community water systems 
that exceed the secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) for fluoride 
as determined by the last single sample taken in accordance with 
Sec. 141.23, but do not exceed the maximum contaminant level for 
fluoride as specified in Sec. 141.62, must provide the public notice in 
paragraph (c) of this section to all persons served. Public notice must 
be provided as soon as practicable but no later than 12 months from the 
day the water system learns of the exceedance.
    (b) What is the form and manner of the special notice? The form and 
manner of the public notice (including repeat notices) must follow the 
requirements for a Tier 3 public notice in Secs. 141.204(c) and (d).
    (c) What mandatory language must be contained in the special 
notice? The notice must contain the following language, including the 
language necessary to fill in the blanks:

    The drinking water provided by [name of community water system] 
has a fluoride concentration of [insert value] milligrams per liter 
(mg/l). Although your drinking water does not violate the drinking 
water standard of 4 mg/l for fluoride, the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency requires us to notify you when we discover that 
the fluoride levels in your drinking water exceed 2 mg/l. This is to 
alert you about a cosmetic dental problem that might affect children 
under nine years old.
    Fluoride at lower levels helps prevent cavities. However, 
children drinking water containing fluoride at the levels present in 
your drinking water may develop dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis, 
in its moderate or severe forms, may result in a brown staining and/
or pitting of the permanent teeth. This problem occurs only in 
developing teeth, before they erupt from the gums.
    Children under nine should be provided with alternative sources 
of drinking water to avoid the possibility of staining and pitting 
of their permanent teeth. Older children and adults may safely drink 
the water.
    For more information and to learn about available water 
treatment systems, please call [name of water system contact] of 
[name of community water system] at [phone number].


Sec. 141.209  Notice by primacy agency on behalf of the public water 
system.

    (a) When may the primacy agency give the notice on behalf of the 
public water system? The primacy agency may give the notice required by 
this subpart on behalf of the owner and operator of the public water 
system if the primacy agency complies with the requirements of this 
subpart.
    (b) What is the responsibility of the public water system when 
notice is given by the primacy agency? The owner or operator of the 
public water system remains legally responsible for ensuring that the 
requirements of this subpart are met.

[[Page 25993]]



     Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141.--NPDWR Violations and Other Situations Requiring Public Notice\1\
                                     (Including D/DBP and IESWTR Violations)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      MCL/MRDL/TT violations \2\             Monitoring and testing procedure
                              ------------------------------------------                violations
                                                                        ----------------------------------------
         Contaminant             Tier of                                   Tier of
                                  public              Citation              public
                                  notice                                    notice             Citation
                                 required                                  required
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    I. Violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR): \3\
                                          Microbiological Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total coliform...............            2  141.63(a)..................            3  141.21(a-d)
Fecal coliform/E. coli.......            1  141.63(b)..................            1  141.21(e)
Turbidity....................            2  141.13, 141.71(c)..........            3  141.22
Surface Water Treatment Rule             2  141.70-141.73..............            3  141.74
 violations.
Interim Enhanced Surface                 2  141.170-141.173 \4\........            3  141.172, 141.174
 Water Treatment Rule
 violations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Inorganics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.....................            2  141.62(b)..................            3  141.23(a, c)
Arsenic......................            2  141.11(b), 141.23(n).......            3  141.23(a, l, m)
Asbestos (fibers >10 m).
Barium.......................            2  141.62(b)..................            3  141.23(a, c)
Beryllium....................            2  141.62(b)..................            3  141.23(a, c)
Cadmium......................            2  141.62(b)..................            3  141.23(a, c)
Chromium (total).............            2  141.62(b)..................            3  141.23(a, c)
Cyanide......................            2  141.62(b)..................            3  141.23(a, c)
Fluoride.....................            2  141.62(b)..................            3  141.23(a, c)
Mercury (inorganic)..........            2  141.62(b)..................            3  141.23(a, c)
Nitrate......................            1  141.62(b)..................            3  141.23(a, d), 141.23(f)(2)
Nitrite......................            1  141.62(b)..................            3  141.23(a, e), 141.23(f)(2)
Nitrate+Nitrite..............            1  141.62(b)..................            3  141.23(a)
Selenium.....................            2  141.62(b)..................            3  141.23(a, c)
Thallium.....................            2  141.62(b)..................            3  141.23(a, c)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Lead and Copper Rule (Action Level for lead is 0.015 mg/L, for copper is 1.3 mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead and Copper Rule.........            2  141.80-141.85..............            3  141.86-141.89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Synthetic Organic Chemicals (VOCS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-D........................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)............            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Alachlor.....................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Atrazine.....................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs)........            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Carbofuran...................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Chlordane....................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Dalapon......................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate....            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate..            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Dibromochloropropane.........            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Dinoseb......................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)........            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Diquat.......................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Endothall....................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Endrin.......................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Ethylene dibromide...........            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Glyphosate...................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Heptachlor...................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Heptachlor epoxide...........            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Hexachlorobenzene............            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene....            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Lindane......................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Methoxychlor.................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Oxamyl (Vydate)..............            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Pentachlorophenol............            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Picloram.....................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Polychlorinated biphenyls                2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
 (PCBs).
Simazine.....................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
Toxaphene....................            2  141.61(c)..................            3  141.24(h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 25994]]

 
                                        Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene......................            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
Carbon tetrachloride.........            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
Chlorobenzene                            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
 (monochlorobenzene).
o-Dichlorobenzene............            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
p-Dichlorobenzene............            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
1,2-Dichloroethane...........            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
1,1-Dichloroethylene.........            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene.....            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene...            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
Dichloromethane..............            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
1,2-Dichloropropane..........            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
Ethylbenzene.................            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
Styrene......................            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
Tetrachloroethylene..........            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
Toluene......................            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.......            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane........            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
1,1,2-Trichloroethane........            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
Trichloroethylene............            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
Vinyl chloride...............            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
Xylenes (total)..............            2  141.61(a)..................            3  141.24(f)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Radioactive Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beta/photon emitters.........            2  141.16.....................            3  141.25(a), 141.26(b)
Alpha emitters...............            2  141.15(b)..................            3  141.25(a), 141.26(a)
Combined radium (226 & 228)..            2  141.15(a)..................            3  141.25(a), 141.26(a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs), Byproduct Precursors, Disinfectant Residuals. Where disinfection is used in the
  treatment of drinking water, disinfectants combine with organic and inorganic matter present in water to form
     chemicals called disinfection byproducts (DBPs). EPA also sets standards for controlling the levels of
 disinfectants and DBPs in drinking water, which includes trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs).\5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)            2  141.12,\6\ 141.64(a).......            3  141.30, 141.132(a-b)
--Chloroform
--Bromodichloromethane
--Dibromochloromethane
--Bromoform
Haloacetic Acids (HAA5)......            2  141.64(a)..................            3  141.132(a-b)
--Monochloroacetic acid
--Dichloroacetic acid
--Trichloroacetic acid
--Monobromoacetic acid
Bromate......................            2  141.64(a)..................            3  141.132(a-b)
Chlorite.....................            2  141.64(a)..................            3  141.132(a-b)
Chlorine (MRDL)..............            2  141.65(a)..................            3  141.132(a, c)
Chloramine (MRDL)............            2  141.65(a)..................            3  141.132(a, c)
Chlorine dioxide (MRDL), 2 consecutive samples                                                          141.133(c)(2)
 at entry point only are
 above MRDL.
Chlorine dioxide (MRDL),                 1  141.65(a), 141.133(c)(2)...            1  141.132(a, c),
 sample(s) in distribution                                                             141.133(c)(2)
 system above MRDL.
Control of DBP precursors--              2  141.135(a-b)...............            3  141.132(a, d)
 TOC (TT).
Bench marking and                      N/A  N/A........................            3  141.172
 disinfection profiling.
Development of monitoring              N/A  N/A........................            3  141.132(f)
 plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Other Treatment Techniques
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrylamide (TT)..............            2  141.111....................          N/A  N/A
Epichlorohydrin (TT).........            2  141.111....................          N/A  N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               II. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Results \7\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unregulated contaminants.....          N/A  N/A........................            3  141.40

[[Page 25995]]

 
Nickel.......................          N/A  N/A........................            3  141.23(c, k)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              III. Public Notification for Variances and Exemptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation under a variance or            3  1415, 1416 \8\.............          N/A  N/A
 exemption.
Violation of conditions of a             2  1415, 1416.................          N/A  N/A
 variance or exemption.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               IV. Other Situations Requiring Public Notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluoride secondary maximum               3  143.3......................          N/A  N/A
 contaminant level (SMCL)
 exceedance.
Availability of unregulated              3  141.40.....................          N/A  N/A
 contaminant monitoring data.
Waterborne disease outbreak..            1  141.2, 141.71(c)(2)(ii)....          N/A  N/A
Other situations as                  (\9\)  N/A........................          N/A  N/A
 determined by primacy agency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A Endnotes

    1. Violations and other situations not listed in this table do 
not require notice, unless otherwise determined by the primacy 
agency. Primacy agencies may move violations requiring public notice 
to a higher tier as well (e.g., Tier 3 to Tier 2).
    2. MCL--Maximum contaminant level, MRDL--Maximum residual 
disinfectant level, TT--Treatment technique.
    3. The term Violations of National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations (NPDWR) is used here to include violations of MCL, MRDL, 
treatment technique, monitoring, and testing procedure requirements.
    4. Most of the requirements of the Interim Enhanced Surface 
Water Treatment Rule (63 FR 69477) (Secs. 141.170-141.171, 141.73-
141.174) become effective December 16, 2001 for Subpart H systems 
(surface water systems and ground water systems under the direct 
influence of surface water) serving more than 10,000. The Surface 
Water Treatment Rule (Secs. 141.70-141.73, 141.74) remains in effect 
for these systems until that time. However, Sec. 141.172 has some 
requirements that become effective as soon as April 16, 1999.
    5. Subpart H community and non-transient non-community systems 
serving 10,000 must comply with new DBP MCLs, 
disinfectant MRDLs, and related monitoring requirements beginning 
December 16, 2001. All other community and non-transient non-
community systems must meet the MCLs and MRDLs beginning December 
16, 2003.
    6. Sec. 141.12 will no longer apply after December 16, 2003.
    7. Monitoring is currently required for 34 unregulated 
contaminants listed in Sec. 141.40. These include aldicarb, aldicarb 
sulfone, and aldicarb sulfoxide.
    8. This citation refers to sections 1415 and 1416 of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. There are no regulations requiring water systems 
to comply with the conditions of a variance or exemption. However, 
sections 1415 and 1416 require that ``a schedule prescribed * * * 
for a public water system granted a variance [or exemption] shall 
require compliance by the system * * *''
    9. Primacy agencies may place other situations in any tier they 
believe appropriate, based on threat to public health.

         Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141.--Standard Health Effects Language for Public Notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Standard health effects language for public
           Contaminant              MCLG \1\ mg/L   MCL \2\ mg/L                    notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR)
 
                                          Microbiological Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a. Total coliform...............            Zero    Presence \3\  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.
1b. Fecal coliform/E. coli.......            Zero        Presence  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.
2. Turbidity.....................            None     1 NTU \4\/5  Turbidity has no health effects. However,
                                                          NTU \5\   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 25996]]

 
Interim Enhanced Surface Water               Zero          TT \7\  Inadequately treated water may contain
 Treatment Rule (IESWTR)                                            disease-causing organisms. These organisms
 violations:                                                        include bacteria, viruses, and parasites
3. Giardia lamblia                                                  which can cause symptoms such as nausea,
4. Viruses                                                          cramps, diarrhea, and associated
5. Heterotrophic plate count                                        headaches.\8\
 (HPC) bacteria 6
6. Legionella
7. Cryptosporidium
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Inorganics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Antimony......................           0.006           0.006  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    antimony well in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience increases in blood
                                                                    cholesterol and decreases in blood sugar.
9. Arsenic.......................            None            0.05  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    arsenic in excess of the MCL over many years
                                                                    could experience skin damage or problems
                                                                    with their circulatory system, and may have
                                                                    an increased risk of getting cancer.
10. Asbestos (>10 m)....       7 MFL \9\           7 MFL  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    asbestos in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years may have an increased risk of
                                                                    developing benign intestinal polyps.
11. Barium.......................               2               2  Some people who drink water containing barium
                                                                    in excess of the MCL over many years could
                                                                    experience an increase in their blood
                                                                    pressure.
12. Beryllium....................           0.004           0.004  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    beryllium well in excess of the MCL over
                                                                    many years could develop intestinal lesions.
13. Cadmium......................           0.005           0.005  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    cadmium in excess of the MCL over many years
                                                                    could experience kidney damage.
14. Chromium (total).............             0.1             0.1  Some people who use water containing chromium
                                                                    well in excess of the MCL over many years
                                                                    could experience allergic dermatitis.
15. Cyanide......................             0.2             0.2  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    cyanide well in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience nerve damage or
                                                                    problems with their thyroid.
16. Fluoride.....................             4.0             4.0  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    fluoride in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could get bone disease, including pain
                                                                    and tenderness of the bones. Children may
                                                                    get mottled teeth.
17. Mercury (inorganic)..........           0.002           0.002  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    inorganic mercury well in excess of the MCL
                                                                    over many years could experience kidney
                                                                    damage.
18. Nitrate......................              10              10  Infants below the age of six months who drink
                                                                    water containing nitrate in excess of the
                                                                    MCL could become seriously ill and, if
                                                                    untreated, may die. Symptoms include
                                                                    shortness of breath and blue-baby syndrome.
19. Nitrite......................               1               1  Infants below the age of six months who drink
                                                                    water containing nitrite in excess of the
                                                                    MCL could become seriously ill and, if
                                                                    untreated, may die. Symptoms include
                                                                    shortness of breath and blue-baby syndrome.
20. Nitrate+Nitrite..............              10              10  Infants below the age of six months who drink
                                                                    water containing nitrate and nitrite in
                                                                    excess of the MCL could become seriously ill
                                                                    and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms include
                                                                    shortness of breath and blue baby syndrome.
21. Selenium.....................            0.05            0.05  Selenium is an essential nutrient. However,
                                                                    some people who drink water containing
                                                                    selenium in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience hair or fingernail
                                                                    losses, numbness in fingers or toes, or
                                                                    problems with their circulation.
22. Thallium.....................          0.0005           0.002  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    thallium in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience hair loss, changes in
                                                                    their blood, or problems with their kidneys,
                                                                    intestines, or liver.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Lead and Copper Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Lead.........................            Zero         TT \10\  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.

[[Page 25997]]

 
24. Copper.......................             1.3         TT \11\  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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Synthetic Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 2,4-D........................            0.07            0.07  Some people who drink water containing the
                                                                    weed killer 2,4-D well in excess of the MCL
                                                                    over many years could experience problems
                                                                    with their kidneys, liver, or adrenal
                                                                    glands.
26. 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)............            0.05            0.05  Some people who drink water containing silvex
                                                                    in excess of the MCL over many years could
                                                                    experience liver problems.
27. Alachlor.....................            Zero           0.002  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    alachlor in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could have problems with their eyes,
                                                                    liver, kidneys, or spleen, experience
                                                                    anemia, or may have an increased risk of
                                                                    getting cancer.
28. Atrazine.....................           0.003           0.003  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    atrazine well in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience problems with their
                                                                    cardiovascular system or reproductive
                                                                    difficulties.
29. Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs)........            Zero          0.0002  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    benzo(a)pyrene in excess of the MCL over
                                                                    many years may experience reproductive
                                                                    difficulties or may have an increased risk
                                                                    of getting cancer.
30. Carbofuran...................            0.04            0.04  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    carbofuran in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience problems with their
                                                                    blood, or nervous or reproductive systems.
31. Chlordane....................            Zero           0.002  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    chlordane in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience problems with their
                                                                    liver, or nervous system, and may have an
                                                                    increased risk of getting cancer.
32. Dalapon......................             0.2             0.2  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    dalapon well in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience minor kidney changes.
33. Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate....             0.4             0.4  Some people who drink water containing di (2-
                                                                    ethylhexyl) adipate well in excess of the
                                                                    MCL over many years could experience general
                                                                    toxic effects or reproductive difficulties.
34. Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate...            Zero           0.006  Some people who drink water containing di (2-
                                                                    ethylhexyl) phthalate in excess of the MCL
                                                                    over many years may have problems with their
                                                                    liver, or experience reproductive
                                                                    difficulties, and may have an increased risk
                                                                    of getting cancer.
35. Dibromochloropropane (DBCP)..            Zero          0.0002  Some people who drink water containing DBCP
                                                                    in excess of the MCL over many years could
                                                                    experience reproductive difficulties and may
                                                                    have an increased risk of getting cancer.
36. Dinoseb......................           0.007           0.007  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    dinoseb well in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience reproductive
                                                                    difficulties.
37. Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)........            Zero      3 x 10-\8\  Some people who drink water containing dioxin
                                                                    in excess of the MCL over many years could
                                                                    experience reproductive difficulties and may
                                                                    have an increased risk of getting cancer.
38. Diquat.......................            0.02            0.02  Some people who drink water containing diquat
                                                                    in excess of the MCL over many years could
                                                                    get cataracts.
39. Endothall....................             0.1             0.1  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    endothall in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience problems with their
                                                                    stomach or intestines.
40. Endrin.......................           0.002           0.002  Some people who drink water containing endrin
                                                                    in excess of the MCL over many years could
                                                                    experience liver problems.
41. Ethylene dibromide...........            Zero         0.00005  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    ethylene dibromide in excess of the MCL over
                                                                    many years could experience problems with
                                                                    their liver, stomach, reproductive system,
                                                                    or kidneys, and may have an increased risk
                                                                    of getting cancer.
42. Glyphosate...................             0.7             0.7  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    glyphosate in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience problems with their
                                                                    kidneys or reproductive difficulties.
43. Heptachlor...................            Zero          0.0004  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    heptachlor in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience liver damage and may
                                                                    have an increased risk of getting cancer.
44. Heptachlor epoxide...........            Zero          0.0002  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    heptachlor epoxide in excess of the MCL over
                                                                    many years could experience liver damage,
                                                                    and may have an increased risk of getting
                                                                    cancer.

[[Page 25998]]

 
45. Hexachlorobenzene............            Zero           0.001  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    hexachlorobenzene in excess of the MCL over
                                                                    many years could experience problems with
                                                                    their liver or kidneys, or adverse
                                                                    reproductive effects, and may have an
                                                                    increased risk of getting cancer.
46. Hexachlorocyclo pentadiene...            0.05            0.05  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    hexachlorocyclopentadiene well in excess of
                                                                    the MCL over many years could experience
                                                                    problems with their kidneys or stomach .
47. Lindane......................          0.0002          0.0002  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    lindane in excess of the MCL over many years
                                                                    could experience problems with their kidneys
                                                                    or liver.
48. Methoxychlor.................            0.04            0.04  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    methoxychlor in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience reproductive
                                                                    difficulties.
49. Oxamyl (Vydate)..............             0.2             0.2  Some people who drink water containing oxamyl
                                                                    in excess of the MCL over many years could
                                                                    experience slight nervous system effects.
50. Pentachlorophenol............            Zero           0.001  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    pentachlorophenol in excess of the MCL over
                                                                    many years could experience problems with
                                                                    their liver or kidneys, and may have an
                                                                    increased risk of getting cancer.
51. Picloram.....................             0.5             0.5  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    picloram in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience problems with their
                                                                    liver.
52.  Polychlorinated biphenyls               Zero          0.0005  Some people who drink water containing PCBs
 (PCBs).                                                            in excess of the MCL over many years could
                                                                    experience changes in their skin, problems
                                                                    with their thymus gland, immune
                                                                    deficiencies, or reproductive or nervous
                                                                    system difficulties, and may have an
                                                                    increased risk of getting cancer.
53. Simazine.....................           0.004           0.004  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    simazine in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience problems with their
                                                                    blood.
54. Toxaphene....................            Zero           0.003  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    toxaphene in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could have problems with their
                                                                    kidneys, liver, or thyroid, and may have an
                                                                    increased risk of getting cancer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Volatile Organic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. Benzene......................            Zero           0.005  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    benzene in excess of the MCL over many years
                                                                    could experience anemia or a decrease in
                                                                    blood platelets, and may have an increased
                                                                    risk of getting cancer.
56. Carbon tetrachloride.........            Zero           0.005  Some people who drink water containing carbon
                                                                    tetrachloride in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience problems with their
                                                                    liver and may have an increased risk of
                                                                    getting cancer.
57.  Chlorobenzene                            0.1             0.1  Some people who drink water containing
 (monochlorobenzene).                                               chlorobenzene in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could experience problems with their
                                                                    liver or kidneys.
58. o-Dichlorobenzene............             0.6             0.6  Some people who drink water containing o-
                                                                    dichlorobenzene well in excess of the MCL
                                                                    over many years could experience problems
                                                                    with their liver, kidneys, or circulatory
                                                                    systems.
59. p-Dichlorobenzene............           0.075           0.075  Some people who drink water containing p-
                                                                    dichlorobenzene in excess of the MCL over
                                                                    many years could experience anemia, damage
                                                                    to their liver, kidneys, or spleen, or
                                                                    changes in their blood.
60. 1,2-Dichloroethane...........            Zero           0.005  Some people who drink water containing 1,2-
                                                                    dichloroethane in excess of the MCL over
                                                                    many years may have an increased risk of
                                                                    getting cancer.
61. 1,1-Dichloroethylene.........           0.007           0.007  Some people who drink water containing 1,1-
                                                                    dichloroethylene in excess of the MCL over
                                                                    many years could experience problems with
                                                                    their liver.
62. cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene.....            0.07            0.07  Some people who drink water containing cis-
                                                                    1,2-dichloroethylene in excess of the MCL
                                                                    over many years could experience problems
                                                                    with their liver.
63. trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene...             0.1             0.1  Some people who drink water containing trans-
                                                                    1,2-dichloroethylene well in excess of the
                                                                    MCL over many years could experience
                                                                    problems with their liver.
64. Dichloromethane..............            Zero           0.005  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    dichloromethane in excess of the MCL over
                                                                    many years could have liver problems and may
                                                                    have an increased risk of getting cancer.
65. 1,2-Dichloropropane..........            Zero           0.005  Some people who drink water containing 1,2-
                                                                    dichloropropane in excess of the MCL over
                                                                    many years may have an increased risk of
                                                                    getting cancer.
66. Ethylbenzene.................             0.7             0.7  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    ethylbenzene well in excess of the MCL over
                                                                    many years could experience problems with
                                                                    their liver or kidneys.

[[Page 25999]]

 
67. Styrene......................             0.1             0.1  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    styrene well in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could have problems with their liver,
                                                                    kidneys, or circulatory system.
68. Tetrachloroethylene..........            Zero           0.005  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    tetrachloroethylene in excess of the MCL
                                                                    over many years could have problems with
                                                                    their liver, and may have an increased risk
                                                                    of getting cancer.
69. Toluene......................               1               1  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    toluene well in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years could have problems with their nervous
                                                                    system, kidneys, or liver.
70. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.......            0.07            0.07  Some people who drink water containing 1,2,4-
                                                                    trichlorobenzene well in excess of the MCL
                                                                    over many years could experience changes in
                                                                    their adrenal glands.
71. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane........             0.2             0.2  Some people who drink water containing 1,1,1-
                                                                    trichloroethane in excess of the MCL over
                                                                    many years could experience problems with
                                                                    their liver, nervous system, or circulatory
                                                                    system.
72. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane........           0.003           0.005  Some people who drink water containing 1,1,2-
                                                                    trichloroethane well in excess of the MCL
                                                                    over many years could have problems with
                                                                    their liver, kidneys, or immune systems.
73. Trichloroethylene............            Zero           0.005  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    trichloroethylene in excess of the MCL over
                                                                    many years could experience problems with
                                                                    their liver and may have an increased risk
                                                                    of getting cancer.
74. Vinyl chloride...............            Zero           0.002  Some people who drink water containing vinyl
                                                                    chloride in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years may have an increased risk of getting
                                                                    cancer.
75. Xylenes (total)..............              10              10  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    xylenes in excess of the MCL over many years
                                                                    could experience damage to their nervous
                                                                    system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Radioactive Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
76. Beta/photon emitters.........            Zero  4 mrem/yr \12\  Certain minerals are radioactive and may emit
                                                                    forms of radiation known as photons and beta
                                                                    radiation. Some people who drink water
                                                                    containing beta and photon emitters in
                                                                    excess of the MCL over many years may have
                                                                    an increased risk of getting cancer.
77. Alpha emitters...............            Zero   15 pCi/L \13\  Certain minerals are radioactive and may emit
                                                                    a form of radiation known as alpha
                                                                    radiation. Some people who drink water
                                                                    containing alpha emitters in excess of the
                                                                    MCL over many years may have an increased
                                                                    risk of getting cancer.
78. Combined radium (226 & 228)..            Zero         5 pCi/L  Some people who drink water containing radium
                                                                    226 or 228 in excess of the MCL over many
                                                                    years may have an increased risk of getting
                                                                    cancer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs), Byproduct Precursors, and Disinfectant Residuals: Where disinfection is used in
  the treatment of drinking water, disinfectants combine with organic and inorganic matter present in water to
   form chemicals called disinfection byproducts (DBPs). EPA also sets standards for controlling the levels of
 disinfectants and DBPs in drinking water, which include trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs).\14\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)                      0.10/0.080  Some people who drink water containing
--Chloroform.....................        Zero\15\       \16\ \17\   trihalomethanes in excess of the MCL over
--Bromodichloromethane...........            Zero                   many years may experience problems with
--Dibromochloromethane...........            0.06                   their liver, kidneys, or central nervous
--Bromoform......................            Zero                   system, and may have an increased risk of
                                                                    getting cancer.
80. Haloacetic Acids (HAA5)......                      0.060 \18\  Some people who drink water containing HAAs
--Monochloroacetic acid..........            None                   in excess of the MCL over many years may
--Dichloroacetic acid............            Zero                   have an increased risk of developing cancer.
--Trichloroacetic acid...........             0.3
--Monobromoacetic acid...........            None
--Dibromoacetic acid.............            None
81. Bromate......................            Zero           0.010  Some people who drink water containing
                                                                    bromate in excess of the MCL over many years
                                                                    may have an increased risk of developing
                                                                    cancer.
82. Chlorite.....................            0.08             1.0  Some infants and young children who drink
                                                                    water containing chlorite in excess of the
                                                                    MCL could experience nervous system effects.
                                                                    Similar effects may occur in fetuses of
                                                                    pregnant mothers who drink water containing
                                                                    chlorite in excess of the MCL. Some people
                                                                    may experience anemia.
83. Chlorine.....................  4 (MRDLG) \19\      4.0 (MRDL)  Some people who contact drinking water
                                                             \20\   containing chlorine well in excess of the
                                                                    MRDL could experience irritating effects to
                                                                    their eyes and nose. Some people who drink
                                                                    water containing chlorine well in excess of
                                                                    the MRDL could experience stomach
                                                                    discomfort.

[[Page 26000]]

 
84. Chloramines..................       4 (MRDLG)      4.0 (MRDL)  Some people who contact drinking water
                                                                    containing chloramines well in excess of the
                                                                    MRDL could experience irritating effects to
                                                                    their eyes and nose. Some people who drink
                                                                    water containing chloramines well in excess
                                                                    of the MRDL could experience stomach
                                                                    discomfort or anemia.
85a. Chlorine dioxide, >2             0.8 (MRDLG)      0.8 (MRDL)  Some infants and young children who drink
 consecutive samples at entry                                       water containing chlorine dioxide in excess
 point only are above MRDL.                                         of the MRDL could experience nervous system
                                                                    effects. Similar effects may occur in
                                                                    fetuses of pregnant mothers who drink water
                                                                    containing chlorine dioxide in excess of the
                                                                    MRDL. Some people may experience anemia.
                                                                   The chlorine dioxide violations reported
                                                                    today are the result of exceedances at the
                                                                    treatment facility only, not within the
                                                                    distribution system which delivers water to
                                                                    consumers. Continued compliance with
                                                                    chlorine dioxide levels within the
                                                                    distribution system minimizes the potential
                                                                    risk of these violations to consumers.
85b. Chlorine dioxide, sample(s)      0.8 (MRDLG)      0.8 (MRDL)  Some infants and young children who drink
 in distribution system are above                                   water containing chlorine dioxide in excess
 MRDL.                                                              of the MRDL could experience nervous system
                                                                    effects. Similar effects may occur in
                                                                    fetuses of pregnant mothers who drink water
                                                                    containing chlorine dioxide in excess of the
                                                                    MRDL. Some people may experience anemia.
                                                                   The chlorine dioxide violations reported
                                                                    today include exceedances of the EPA
                                                                    standard within the distribution system
                                                                    which delivers water to consumers.
                                                                    Violations of the chlorine dioxide standard
                                                                    within the distribution system may harm
                                                                    human health based on short-term exposures.
                                                                    Certain groups, including fetuses, infants,
                                                                    and young children, may be especially
                                                                    susceptible to nervous system effects from
                                                                    excessive chlorine dioxide exposure.
86. Control of DBP precursors                None              TT  Total organic carbon (TOC) has no health
 (TOC).                                                             effects. However, total organic carbon
                                                                    provides a medium for the formation of
                                                                    disinfection by products. These byproducts
                                                                    include trihalomethanes (THMs) and
                                                                    haloacetic acids (HAAs), which may lead to
                                                                    adverse health effects, liver or kidney
                                                                    problems, or nervous system effects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Other Treatment Techniques
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
87. Acrylamide...................            Zero              TT  Some people who drink water containing high
                                                                    levels of acrylamide over a long period of
                                                                    time could have problems with their nervous
                                                                    system or blood, and may have an increased
                                                                    risk of getting cancer.
88. Epichlorohydrin..............            Zero              TT  Some people who drink water containing high
                                                                    levels of epichlorohydrin over a long period
                                                                    of time could experience stomach problems,
                                                                    and may have an increased risk of getting
                                                                    cancer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B Endnotes

    1. MCLG--Maximum contaminant level goal.
    2. MCL--Maximum contaminant level.
    3. For water systems analyzing at least 40 samples per month, no 
more than 5.0 percent of the monthly samples may be positive for 
total coliforms. For systems analyzing fewer than 40 samples per 
month, no more than one sample per month may be positive for total 
coliforms.
    4. NTU--Nephelometric turbidity unit.
    5. The MCL for the monthly turbidity average is 1 NTU; the MCL 
for the 2-day average is 5 NTU. The standard language for turbidity 
may also be used where a turbidity exceedance is the reason for a 
treatment technique violation.
    6. The bacteria detected by HPC are not necessarily harmful. HPC 
is simply an alternative method of determining disinfectant residual 
levels. The number of such bacteria is an indicator of whether there 
is enough disinfectant in the distribution system.
    7. TT--Treatment technique.
    8. This language may be used for both SWTR and IESWTR 
violations.
    9. Millions of fibers per liter.
    10. Action Level=0.015 mg/L.
    11. Action Level=1.3 mg/L.
    12. Millirems per year.
    13. Picocuries per liter.
    14. Surface water systems and ground water systems under the 
direct influence of surface water are regulated under Subpart H of 
40 CFR part 141. Subpart H community and non-transient non-community 
systems serving 10,000 must comply with DBP MCLs and 
disinfectant maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) beginning 
December 16, 2001. All other community and non-transient 
noncommunity systems must meet the MCLs and MRDLs beginning December 
16, 2003.
    15. The MCLG for chloroform may change if the final DBP rule 
changes.
    16. The MCL of 0.10 mg/l for TTHMs is in effect until December 
16, 2001 for Subpart H community water systems larger than 10,000. 
This MCL is in effect until December 16, 2003 for community water 
systems with a population larger than 10,000 using only ground water 
not under the direct influence of surface water. After these 
deadlines, the MCL will be 0.080 mg/l. On December 16, 2003, all 
systems serving less than 10,000 will have to comply with the new 
MCL as well.
    17. The MCL for total trihalomethanes is the sum of the 
concentrations of the individual trihalomethanes.
    18. The MCL for haloacetic acids is the sum of the 
concentrations of the individual haloacetic acids.
    19. MRDLG--Maximum residual disinfectant level goal.
    20. MRDL--Maximum residual disinfectant level.

Appendix C to Subpart Q of Part 141, List of Acronyms Used in Public 
Notification Regulation

CCR  Consumer Confidence Report
CWS  Community Water System
DBP  Disinfection Byproduct
EPA  Environmental Protection Agency
IESWTR  Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
IOC  Inorganic Chemical

[[Page 26001]]

LCR  Lead and Copper Rule
MCL  Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG  Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MRDL  Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level
NCWS  Non-Community Water System
NPDWR  National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NTNCWS  Non-Transient Non-Community Water System
OGWDW  Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OW  Office of Water
PN  Public Notification
PWS  Public Water System
SDWA  Safe Drinking Water Act
SMCL  Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
SOC  Synthetic Organic Chemical
SWTR  Surface Water Treatment Rule
TCR  Total Coliform Rule
TT  Treatment Technique
TWS  Transient Non-Community Water System
VOC  Volatile Organic Chemical

PART 142--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300 g-3, 300g-4, 300 
g-5, 300 g-6, 300 j-4, 300 j-9, and 300 j-11.

    2. Section 142.14 is amended by redesignating paragraph (f) as (g) 
and adding a new (f), to read as follows:


Sec. 142.14  Records kept by States.

* * * * *
    (f) Public notification records under subpart Q of part 141 of this 
chapter received from public water systems (including the 
certifications of compliance and copies of the public notices) and any 
state determinations establishing alternative public notification 
requirements for the water systems must be retained for three years.
* * * * *
    3. Section 142.15 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1), to read 
as follows:


Sec. 142.15  Reports by States.

    (a) * * *
    (1) New violations by public water systems in the State during the 
previous quarter of State regulations adopted to incorporate the 
requirements of national primary drinking water regulations, including 
violations of the public notification requirements under subpart Q of 
part 141 of this chapter;
* * * * *
    4. Section 142.16 is amended by revising paragraph (a), to read as 
follows:


Sec. 142.16  Special primacy requirements.

    (a) State public notification requirements. (1) Each State that has 
primary enforcement authority under this part must submit complete and 
final requests for approval of program revisions to adopt the 
requirements of subpart Q of part 141 of this chapter, using the 
procedures in Sec. 142.12(b) through (d).
    (2) As part of the revised primacy program, a State must also 
establish enforceable requirements and procedures when the State opts 
to add to or change the minimum requirements under:
    (i) 40 CFR 141.201(a)--To require public water systems to give a 
public notice for situations other than those listed in appendix A of 
subpart Q of part 141 of this chapter, where the State determines that 
the situation has the potential for serious adverse effects on human 
health;
    (ii) 40 CFR 141.202(a)--To require public water systems to give a 
Tier 1 public notice (rather than a Tier 2 or Tier 3 notice) for 
violations or situations other than those listed in appendix A of 
subpart Q of part 141 of this chapter;
    (iii) 40 CFR 141.202(b)(3)--To require public water systems to 
comply with additional Tier 1 public notification requirements set by 
the State subsequent to the initial 24-hour notice, as a result of 
their consultation with the State required under Sec. 141.202(b)(2) of 
this chapter;
    (iv) 40 CFR 141.203(a)--To require the public water systems to 
provide a Tier 2 public notice (rather than Tier 3) for monitoring or 
testing procedure violations specified by the State;
    (v) 40 CFR 141.203(b)--To grant public water systems an extension 
of time (up to three months) for distributing the Tier 2 public notice, 
under specific circumstances defined in the State's primacy program;
    (vi) 40 CFR 141.203(b)--To require a different repeat notice 
frequency for the Tier 2 public notice (to be no less frequent than 
once per year), under specific circumstances defined in the States's 
primacy program; and
    (vii) 40 CFR 141.203(c) and 141.204(c)--To require a different form 
and manner of delivery for Tier 2 and 3 public notices.
    (3) At its option, a State may, by rule, and after notice and 
comment, establish alternative public notification requirements with 
respect to the form and content of the public notice required under 
subpart Q of part 141 of this chapter. The alternative requirements 
must provide the same type and amount of information required under 
subpart Q and must be designed to achieve an equivalent level of public 
notice of violations as would be achieved under subpart Q of part 141 
of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 143--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 143 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.


Sec. 143.5  [Amended]

    2. Part 143 is amended by removing Sec. 143.5.

[FR Doc. 99-11162 Filed 5-6-99; 9:42 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P