the manufacturer recommendations for disinfecting and flushing aircraft
water systems, instead of prescribing the frequency, chemical type and
concentration to be used, which is the case in Alternative 2. The less
prescriptive approach of the proposed rule addresses valuable
stakeholder input, which recommended that EPA utilize the technical
recommendations of the water system manufacturer rather than prescribe
disinfection and flushing procedures that may not be appropriate for
all aircraft water systems and may even be detrimental. Another
advantage of the proposed rule over the approach used in Alternative 2
is that by utilizing the manufacturer recommendations for disinfection
and flushing, the rule requirements will automatically evolve (another
stakeholder recommendation) with technological improvements in aircraft
water tank lining and piping materials and as new more effective
disinfectants are developed.
    In addition to operational advantages, the less prescriptive
approach taken by the proposed rule may translate into a lower cost
than is reflected in Table V-2. First, the proposed rule allows air
carriers to perform the disinfection and flushing of aircraft water
systems on schedules that are based on (or more frequent than) the
manufacturer recommended maintenance frequencies and are included in
their FAA-approved or accepted operation and maintenance programs. To
provide this flexibility, EPA designed the monitoring schedules for
aircraft water systems around the manufacturer recommended disinfection
and flushing frequencies. EPA believes this approach is less disruptive
to airline operations, which reduces the overall cost of the proposed
rule by some unquantified amount.
    Under the proposed rule, the more frequently the aircraft water
system is cleaned, the less monitoring is required. In estimating the
cost of the proposed rule in Table V-2, EPA assumed for simplicity that
45% of the aircraft water systems would follow a schedule of quarterly
disinfection and flushing and annual fleet monitoring, which is the
same schedule as prescribed in Alternative 2. If more than 45% of the
aircraft water systems covered by the proposed rule choose this
frequency, then any difference in cost between the proposed rule and
Alternative 2 will be reduced or possibly eliminated.

                        Table V--2.--Total Annualized Present Value Costs, by Alternative
                                               [$Millions, 2006$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Alt 1     Alt 2     Alt 3     Alt 4     Alt 1     Alt 2     Alt 3     Alt 4

                                 -------------------3%----------------------------------------------------------
                                                    7%
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation..................      0.01      0.01      0.01      0.01      0.01      0.01      0.01      0.01
Annual Administration...........      0.25      0.25      0.25      0.25      0.25      0.25      0.25      0.25
Monitoring Plan.................     0.003     0.003     0.001     0.003     0.004     0.004     0.002     0.004
O&M Plan........................  ........  ........      0.01      0.01  ........  ........      0.01      0.02
Coliform Monitoring.............     26.53      1.68      2.29      5.36     26.85      1.70      2.31      5.43
Disinfectant Residual Monitoring      3.65      0.75  ........  ........      3.69      0.76  ........  ........
Routine Disinfection and          ........      4.98      3.39      2.37  ........      5.04      3.43      2.40
 Flushing.......................
Corrective Action Disinfection    ........      0.05      0.05      0.14  ........      0.05      0.05      0.14
 and Flushing...................
Sanitary Survey/Compliance Audit      0.72  ........  ........      0.02      0.73  ........  ........      0.02
Turbidity Monitoring............  ........  ........     15.01  ........  ........  ........     15.19  ........
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................     31.16      7.72     21.00      8.16     31.54      7.82     21.26      8.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule to Air Carrier Passengers

    EPA assumes that air carriers will pass on some or all of the costs
of a new regulation to their passengers in the form of ticket price
increases. EPA estimates that 708.4 million passengers travel each year
on aircraft that are affected by the ADWR. The cost passed on to
passengers can be roughly estimated by dividing the air carriers'
annualized costs incurred by the number of passengers traveling each
year. Based on this approximation, EPA estimates that passengers could
face a relatively negligible increase of about one cent per ticket.

E. Non-quantified Costs and Uncertainties

1. Non-quantified Costs
    Although EPA has estimated the majority of costs of the proposed
ADWR, there are some costs that EPA was not able to quantify, such as:
     Air carrier costs for service interruptions due to
unanticipated aircraft maintenance needs;
     Passenger costs due to flight cancellations or delays
related to aircraft maintenance;
     Air carrier costs to provide bottled water due to lack of
onboard tap water during a coliform violation;
     Air carrier customer service response to customer concerns
following notification to passengers and crew.

    EPA believes that the most significant non-quantified cost is the
cost associated with the disruption to air carriers' flight schedules
caused by monitoring and maintenance requirements. Table V-3 presents
the estimated number of monitoring and disinfection and flushing events
per year for all regulatory alternatives. Some fraction of these could
cause disruption to air carrier schedules.

             Table V-3.--Summary of Monitoring and Disinfection/Flushing Events for All Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Monitoring                        Disinfection and Flushing
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Routing    Disinfectant                              Corrective   Total number
       Rule Alternative          monitoring    residual       Total        Routine       action          of
                                  coliform    monitoring    number of   disinfection  disinfection  disinfection
                                  sampling     sampling      sampling   and flushing  and flushing  and flushing
                                events/year   events/year  events/year   events/year   events/year   events/year
                                          A             B    C = A + B             D             E     F = D + E
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt 1.........................       46,248        46,248       92,496  ............  ............  ............
Alt 2.........................        7,708         7,708       15,416        29,308           454        29,762
Alt 3.........................        7,708  ............        7,708        29,308           454        29,762
Alt 4.........................       26,593  ............       26,593        20,516         1,175        21,691
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the alternatives that require disinfection and flushing, the
proposed rule has the least estimated number of disinfection and
flushing events/year (21,691), and Alternative 2 and 3 have fewer
estimated monitoring events than the proposed rule. EPA does not have
sufficient data to quantify the number of events that would actually
cause disruption to air carriers and the costs of such disruptions.
However, EPA believes that the number of actual disruptions would be
lower for the proposed rule compared to Alternatives 1-3 due to the
flexibility offered to air carriers in choosing monitoring frequencies
under the proposal. EPA assumes that the increased flexibility of the
proposal would allow air carriers to schedule routine monitoring and
disinfection and flushing to coincide with existing routine maintenance
checks. This would in turn decrease potential disruption to air carrier
flight schedules and thus decrease air carrier burden and cost for
complying with the proposed ADWR monitoring and disinfection and
flushing requirements. Therefore, if disruption costs were included in
the quantified costs of the rule, the costs for the proposed rule
option would likely decrease with respect to the other Alternatives.
2. Uncertainties in Cost Estimates
    Many factors contribute to uncertainty in the national cost
estimates including:
     Percent of aircraft that will be subject to each coliform
monitoring option.
     Expected results from total coliform monitoring.
     Estimated time for air carrier management to read,
understand, and decide how to best comply with the ADWR; and develop
training, train staff, and oversee compliance.
    For simplicity, EPA assumed for this analysis that all air carriers
subject to the proposed ADWR would spend equal management time on ADWR
requirements, regardless of fleet size or aircraft type. Assuming equal
burden for all air carriers to comply with these proposed rule
management and oversight requirements could result in an over- or
under-estimate of the costs presented.
    In developing costs for air carriers to comply with the proposed
self-inspection requirements, EPA assumed that with the exception of
reporting and recordkeeping burden, no additional costs for self-
inspections are incurred by air carriers. Labor burden for self-
inspections, which involve a thorough review and inspection of an
aircraft water system, is already captured under current FAA
requirements and therefore is not included in the cost estimate for
this rule. This assumption potentially underestimates air carrier labor
burden for self-inspections where deficiencies noted during self-
inspections are not addressed during routine aircraft maintenance
procedures.

VI. Relative Risk Analysis and Benefits

    This section summarizes the risk (and benefit) tradeoffs between
compliance with existing NPDWRs (baseline conditions) and the
alternatives considered during the regulatory development process.
Evaluations include a qualitative analysis that compares the risks for
each regulatory alternative as compared to baseline conditions. The
qualitative analysis uses the collective professional judgment of an
EPA team that included scientists and engineers and representatives of
FDA and FAA, not quantitative data, to establish a relative risk rating
for each regulatory component. Potential benefits of compliance with
the regulatory alternatives are also discussed. It is important to note
that these analyses are only for comparing the alternatives relative to
one another. EPA did not conduct a risk assessment, and the analyses
are not intended to provide any insights into either the nature or the

magnitude of possible public health risks that are associated with the
consumption of drinking water on aircraft, or with the expected
reductions in those public health risks anticipated from implementation
of this rule.

A. Relative Risks--Qualitative Analysis

    The goal of the ADWR is to tailor existing NPDWRs to the unique
characteristics of aircraft water systems. Because the requisite data
on contaminant occurrence (both frequency and concentration), health
effects, and water consumption are not available to support a
quantitative analysis, EPA estimated the relative risks of the
regulatory options considered for the proposed ADWR. The existing
NPDWRs that apply to transient noncommunity water systems using
purchased finished surface water were used as the baseline for
comparison. The overall change in risks from each alternative relative
to the Alternative 1 baseline are a result of the complex interaction
of all regulatory components. EPA used best professional judgment to
qualitatively estimate the relative risk of each regulatory
alternative. This assessment was made with contributions from a range
of experts, including public health scientists, engineers,
administrators, and regulatory experts. The consensus opinions
resulting from the qualitative assessment of risks for each alternative
relative to the Alternative 1 baseline are presented here.
Alternative 2
    Regulatory Alternative 2 mirrors the requirements set forth in the
AOCs. In consideration of the regulatory components, the expert
consensus is that the dominant factor affecting risk is the periodic
disinfection and flushing of aircraft water systems. This type of
periodic maintenance is important in an operating environment that is
as variable as that of aircraft water systems. Though there is
currently no data on how large the marginal effect of increasing
disinfection and flushing frequency is, any increase in periodicity for
this activity is expected to yield larger health risk reductions in
comparison to other regulatory components such as periodic monitoring.
    Based on all the considerations discussed above, the expert
consensus is that the overall health risk remaining after Alternative 2
is most likely less than the baseline.
Alternative 3
    The regulatory components of Alternative 3 are generally not as
comprehensive as Alternative 2, yet are similar for those components
that are included in both. In particular, the disinfection and flushing
requirements are the same for a subset of aircraft in Alternative 3
(i.e., those that choose to comply with an O&M plan in lieu of
monitoring). Based on the similarities between Alternatives 2 and 3,
the same process and rationale was used to evaluate the two
alternatives. Thus, the expert consensus is similar: the overall health
risk posed by Alternative 3 is most likely less than the Alternative 1
baseline, though the magnitude of the difference is expected to be
smaller compared to Alternative 2 due to the flexibility in choosing
between monitoring and an O&M plan.
The Proposed Rule
    The regulatory components of the proposed rule allow greater
flexibility than Alternatives 2 and 3 with regard to disinfection and
flushing. Thus, some aircraft will not perform disinfection and
flushing as often as required under those alternatives. However, this
is compensated for by requiring more routine monitoring in those
situations. As a result, the expert consensus is that the overall
health risk posed by the proposed rule is most likely less than the
Alternative 1 baseline, and about the same as Alternative 2.

B. Assessment of Potential Quantitative Relative Risk Analyses

    In addition to the qualitative relative risk analysis presented in
section VI.A, EPA has considered analyses for incorporating
quantitative data into a relative risk analysis. However, EPA is
limited by the purpose, quality, and quantity of data available in
developing meaningful analyses. Any comparison of risk between the
Alternatives considered for the proposed rule requires robust data that
would support: (1) Direct comparisons of the overall baseline
conditions with the overall conditions under each of the Alternatives,
or (2) comparisons of specific regulatory components (i.e.,
disinfection and flushing frequencies) that could be used to compare
the baseline and all Alternatives. As of the time of proposal, only
limited baseline data and partial data collected under the AOCs are
available for analysis. Therefore, EPA has determined that it is not
feasible to perform a quantitative relative risk analysis at this time.
As additional AOC data are received, EPA will continue to assess the
data and evaluate whether additional quantitative analyses are possible
and can be used to inform the final ADWR. If EPA determines that
additional quantitative analyses are feasible, we will provide the
public with an opportunity to review the data prior to finalizing the
ADWR.

C. Non-Quantified Benefits

    Routine disinfection and flushing required under the proposed rule
is expected to remove pathogens that may be living in biofilm in the
aircraft distribution system and contributing to endemic disease.
Disinfection and flushing associated with corrective action is also
expected to inactivate or remove any pathogens that may have entered
the distribution system, resulting in decreased chance of illness. By
reducing the potential for illness contracted through exposure to
aircraft drinking water, EPA expects that the implementation of the
proposed rule will reduce the occurrence of illness passed through
secondary spread. Furthermore, EPA expects the additional barriers to
pathogens required under the proposed rule, disinfection and flushing
combined with monitoring and air carrier training requirements, will
reduce the likelihood of outbreaks associated with aircraft drinking
water.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' since it raises
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this 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. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2279.01
    EPA requires comprehensive and current information on total
coliform monitoring and associated corrective action activities to
implement its program oversight and enforcement responsibilities
mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA will use the
information collected as a result of this proposed Aircraft Drinking
Water Rule (ADWR) to support the

responsibilities outlined in SDWA by strengthening the implementation
of the proposed ADWR in the areas of monitoring and flushing and
disinfecting, best management practices, and public notification, while
decreasing the risk to public health. The rule requirements described
in section IV of this notice are intended to improve the implementation
from that of the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) by tailoring the proposed
ADWR to fit the unique challenges in the maintenance and operation
practices of air carriers, and do not alter the original maximum
contaminant level goals or the fundamental approach to controlling
total coliform in drinking water.
    Section 1401(1)(D) of SDWA requires that there must be ``criteria
and procedures to assure a supply of drinking water which dependably
complies with such maximum contaminant levels; including accepted
methods for quality control and testing procedures to insure compliance
with such levels and to insure proper operation and maintenance of the
system, * * *'' Furthermore, section 1445(a)(1) of SDWA requires that
every person who is a supplier of water ``shall establish and maintain
such records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring, and provide
such information as the Administrator may reasonably require by
regulation to assist the Administrator in establishing regulations * *
* in determining whether such person has acted or is acting in
compliance'' with this title. Section 1412(b) of SDWA, as amended in
1996, requires the EPA to publish maximum contaminant level goals and
promulgate NPDWRs for contaminants that may have an adverse effect on
the health of persons, are known to or anticipated to occur in public
water systems, and, in the opinion of the Administrator, present an
opportunity for health risk reduction. The NPDWRs specify maximum
contaminant levels or treatment techniques for drinking water
contaminants (42 U.S.C. 300g-1). Section 1412(b)(9) requires that EPA,
no less than every 6 years, review and if appropriate, revise existing
drinking water standards. Currently, the Total Coliform Rule, which
established the regulatory standards (i.e., maximum contaminant level
goals and treatment techniques) by which this proposed ADWR is based,
is being revised in accordance with the finding of the EPA's first Six-
Year Review (68 FR 42907, July 18, 2003). Promulgation of the ADWR
complies with these statutory requirements.
Burden Estimate
    The universe of respondents for this Information Collection Request
(ICR) is comprised of 63 air carriers that operate approximately 7,327
aircraft public water systems, classified as Transient Non-Community
Water Systems and the ten EPA Regions. The burden per response for air
carriers is about 0.3 hours with a cost per response of approximately
$31. The average annual burden per air carrier respondent is 535 hours
or about 5 hours per aircraft. The average annual cost per air carrier
respondent is $61,968 or $534 per aircraft. The total burden incurred
by air carriers during the 3-year period covered by this ICR is 101,155
hours which equates to about 1606 hours per air carrier and 14 hours
per aircraft. The total estimated capital and start-up costs (including
operation and maintenance) for the ICR are estimated to be $7,809,188.
    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 ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the EPA will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR
part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for
the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final rule.
    To comment on the EPA's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0025. Submit any
comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB
is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after April 9, 2008, a comment to OMB is best assured of having
its full effect if OMB receives it by May 9, 2008. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity.
Small entities are defined under the RFA as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any ``not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field.'' However, the RFA also
authorizes an agency to use alternative definitions for each category
of small entity, ``which are appropriate to the activities of the
agency'' after proposing the alternative definition(s) in the Federal
Register and taking comment. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(5). In addition, to
establish an alternative small business definition, agencies must
consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy. For purposes of
assessing the impacts of drinking water regulations on small entities
under the RFA, EPA has defined small entities as public water systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons (see EPA's Consumer Confidence Reports
regulation, 63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998).
    However, for purposes of assessing the economic impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities, EPA is proposing to define ``small
entity'' using the SBA

standard as air carriers (NAICS codes 481111 and 481211) having fewer
than 1,500 employees (13 CFR 121.201) rather than using the definition
EPA has used for small stationary public water systems (``a public
water system that serves 10,000 or fewer people''). As discussed in
section II.B, many of the requirements under the existing NPDWR have
proven difficult to implement when applied to mobile aircraft water
systems that are operationally very different from traditional water
systems. Under the proposed ADWR, the air carrier is the business
entity rather than the individual aircraft water system. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to use the SBA standard based on the number of air carrier
employees instead of population served by each aircraft water system.
The Agency is interested in receiving comments on the use of this
alternative definition of small entity.
    In addition, the Agency has consulted with the SBA Chief Counsel
for Advocacy on using the SBA small business definition of fewer than
1500 employees for purposes of assessing the economic impacts of this
rule on small entities. As a result of this consultation, SBA agrees
with the Agency's approach to the small entity definition for air
carriers for this proposed rule. However, SBA did request that EPA
verify that they have captured the entire universe of small entities
that may be impacted by the proposed rule. SBA recommended that EPA
contact two additional aviation and air transportation associations to
determine whether there may be additional entities that may experience
a significant economic impact as a result of this proposed rule, which
were not accounted for in the Agency's earlier analysis. EPA contacted
those associations and they confirmed the Agency's earlier findings
from other sources, including the FAA, that EPA had taken into account
all available information on the universe of small entities during the
Agency's earlier analysis.
    EPA also is proposing to use this alternative definition of ``small
entity'' for purposes of its regulatory flexibility assessments under
the RFA for this rule, revisions to this rule, and any future drinking
water regulations that address air carriers.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA has
determined that the following businesses would be affected by the
proposed Aircraft Drinking Water Rule: scheduled passenger air
transportation (NAICS 481111) and nonscheduled chartered passenger air
transportation (481211). Of the 63 air carriers estimated to be
affected by this rule, 30 are small businesses; however, this
represents less than one percent of total service to the U.S.
population. We have determined that 1 small business air carrier could
experience an impact of 1.4 percent of its average annual revenue. This
represents 3.3 percent of all small air carriers.
    Although this proposed rule will not impact a substantial number of
small entities, we continue to be interested in the potential impacts
of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.

D. 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 UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation as to 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 proposed regulatory action does not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Annual costs to air
carriers include the costs of administration, monitoring, corrective
action, self-inspection and compliance audits. EPA estimates the
annualized compliance cost to air carriers of $7.9 million (3 percent
discount rate) and $8.0 million (7 percent discount rate). States,
local, and Tribal governments, however, will not incur annual costs
associated with this proposed rule, since oversight of air carriers
(i.e., interstate commerce carriers) is directly implemented by EPA and
EPA will incur costs associated with this rulemaking. Thus, this rule
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
For these reasons, EPA has also determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. States are not directly affected
by any requirements in this rule, since oversight of air carriers
(i.e., interstate commerce carriers) is implemented by EPA. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
tribal governments, nor does it impose substantial direct compliance
costs on those communities. The provisions of this proposed rule apply
to all aircraft transient non-community water systems. At present, EPA
has not identified any Tribal governments that may be owners/air
carriers of such systems. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    While this proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, we nonetheless have reason to believe that the
environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action can have
an effect on children. This proposed rule does not change the core
Total Coliform Rule requirements in place to assure the protection of
children from the effects of contaminants in drinking water. Rather
this proposed rule, which is tailored to meet the specific challenges
in the maintenance and operations of aircraft water systems, will
improve the implementation of the current provisions under the Total
Coliform Rule for aircraft water systems, and thereby, is expected to
ensure and enhance more effective protection of public health,
including the health of children who are aircraft passengers.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The
proposed rule addresses the unique implementation challenges facing
aircraft water systems.
    This proposed rule does not affect the supply of energy as it does
not regulate power generation. The proposed rule does not regulate any
aspect of energy distribution as the aircraft covered by the proposed
ADWR already have their own power source. Finally, these regulatory
revisions do not adversely affect the use of energy as EPA does not
anticipate that a significant number of air carriers will add treatment
technologies that use electrical power to comply with these regulatory
revisions. As such, EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule
will adversely affect the use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The proposed rule may involve voluntary consensus standards in that
it would require monitoring for total coliform, and monitoring and
sample analysis methodologies are often based on voluntary consensus
standards. However, the proposed rule does not change any
methodological requirements for monitoring or sample analysis as are
indicated in the Total Coliform Rule; only, in some cases, the required
frequency and number of samples. Also, EPA's approved monitoring and
sampling protocols generally include voluntary consensus standards
developed by agencies such as the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and other such bodies wherever EPA deems these methodologies
appropriate for compliance monitoring.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.

K. Consultations With the Science Advisory Board, National Drinking
Water Advisory Council, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services

    In accordance with sections 1412(d) and 1412(e) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Agency consulted with the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC or the Council); the Secretary
of Health and Human Services; and requested a consultation with the
Science Advisory Board, which will take place in 2008.
    The Agency consulted with NDWAC during the Council's May 25-27,
2007, semi-annual meeting. In general, NDWAC recommended that EPA
consider and request public comment on best management practices (BMPs)
and public notification requirements, which may be feasible
alternatives for

the air carrier industry while providing greater public health
protection. EPA has incorporated these recommendations into the
proposed ADWR by providing flexible BMP alternatives and timely
notification requirements which have been tailored specifically to meet
the unique operational characteristics of aircraft public water systems
and the air carrier industry. EPA has expressly requested public
comment in these areas of the proposed ADWR.
    On August 8, 2007, EPA consulted with the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). EPA received a favorable response to the Agency's
novel approach and development of the proposed ADWR and no issues were
raised as a result of the consultation.

L. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 encourages Federal agencies to write rules in
plain language. EPA invites comments on how to make this proposed rule
easier to understand. For example: Has EPA organized the material to
suit commenters' needs? Are the requirements in the rule clearly
stated? Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not
clear? Would a different format (e.g., grouping and ordering of
sections, use of headings, paragraphs) make the rule easier to
understand? Could EPA improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams? What else could EPA do to make the rule easier to understand?

VIII. References

ATA (Air Transport Association of America, Inc.) 2003. Air Transport
Association: Aircraft Drinking Water Sampling Program, Final Report:
December 31, 2003. http://www.airlines.org.
Canada. 2007a. Health Canada. Healthy Living. Aircraft Inspection
Program--Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/
travel-voyage/general/inspection/airplane-aeronefs_e.html.
Canada. 2007b. Health Canada. Healthy Living. Advisory. Health
Canada cautions air travelers with compromised immune systems
regarding water quality on aircraft. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/
media/advisories-avis/2006/2006_53_e.html.
Davison, A., Howard, G., Stevens, M., et al. 2005. Water, Sanitation
and Health Protection and the Human Environment, World Health
Organization, Geneva. Water Safety Plans: Managing drinking-water
quality from catchment to consumer. http://www.who.int/water--
sanitation--health/.
Lehtola, M., Torvinen, E., Kusnetsov, J., et al. 2007. Survival of
Mycrobacterium avium, Legionella pneumophila, Escherichia coli, and
Caliciviruses in Drinking Water-Associated Biofilms Grown under
High-Shear Turbulent Flow. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
73:2854-2859.
USEPA. 1986. Water Supply Guidance 29: Plan for Implementation of
the Safe Drinking Water Act on Interstate Carrier Conveyance.
USEPA. 1989. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
Total Coliform Rule; Final Rule. Part III. Federal Register,
54:124:27544. (June 29, 1989).
USEPA. 2008. Economic and Supporting Analyses; Proposed Aircraft
Drinking Water Rule. EPA 816-D-08-002.
USEP. 2008. DRAFT Information Collection Request for the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Aircraft Drinking Water
Rule. EPA 816-D-08-001.
USFDA. 2005. Title 21--Food and Drugs, Chapter 1--Food and Drug
Administration, Part 1250--Interstate Conveyance Sanitation. http://
www.accessdata. fda.gov/.
WHO. 1997. HACCP--Introducing the Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Point System. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
WHO. 2004. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. 3rd Edition,
Volume 1--Recommendations, Chapter 4 Water Supply Plans. Geneva,
Switzerland: WHO.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

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

    Dated: March 28, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

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

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

    2. Part 141 is amended by adding a new subpart X to read as
follows:
Subpart X--Aircraft Drinking Water Rule
Sec.
141.800 Applicability and compliance date.
141.801 Definitions.
141.802 Coliform sampling plan.
141.803 Coliform sampling.
141.804 Aircraft water system operations and maintenance plan.
141.805 Notification of passengers and crew.
141.806 Reporting requirements.
141.807 Recordkeeping requirements.
141.808 Audits and inspections.
141.809 Supplemental treatment.
141.810 Violations.

Subpart X --Aircraft Drinking Water Rule

Sec.  141.800  Applicability and compliance date.

    The requirements of this subpart constitute the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for aircraft that are public water systems,
which board only finished water for human consumption. To the extent
there is a conflict between the requirements in this subpart and the
regulatory requirements established elsewhere in this part, this
subpart governs. Compliance Date. Aircraft public water systems must
comply, unless otherwise noted, with the requirements of this subpart
beginning [DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal
Register].

Sec.  141.801  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart, the term:
    Administrator means the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency or his authorized representative.
    Air carrier means a person who undertakes directly by lease, or
other arrangement, to engage in air transportation. The air carrier is
responsible for ensuring all of the aircraft it owns or operates that
are public water systems comply with all provisions of this subpart.
    Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for
flight in the air.
    Aircraft water system means an aircraft that qualifies as a public
water system under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations. The components of an aircraft water system
include the water service panel, the filler neck of the aircraft
finished water storage tank, and all finished water storage tanks,
piping, treatment equipment, and plumbing fixtures within the aircraft
that supply water to passengers or crew.
    Aircraft water system operation and maintenance plan means the
schedules and procedures for operating, monitoring, and maintaining an
aircraft water system that is included in an aircraft operation and
maintenance program approved or accepted by the Federal Aviation
Administration. (14 CFR Part 43, 14 CFR Part 91, 14 CFR Part 121).
    Finished water means water that is introduced into the distribution
system of a public water system and is intended for distribution and
consumption without further treatment, except as treatment necessary to
maintain water quality in the distribution system (e.g., supplemental
disinfection, addition of

corrosion control chemicals). (40 CFR 141.2). Human consumption means
drinking, bathing, showering, hand washing, teeth brushing food
preparation, dishwashing, and maintaining oral hygiene.
    Self inspection means an onsite review of the aircraft water
system, including the water service panel, the filler neck of the
aircraft finished water storage tank; all finished water storage tanks,
piping, treatment equipment, and plumbing fixtures; and a review of the
aircraft operations, maintenance, monitoring, and recordkeeping for the
purpose of evaluating the adequacy of such water system components and
practices for providing safe drinking water to passengers and crew.
    Watering point means a facility where finished water is transferred
from a water supply to the aircraft. These facilities may include water
trucks, carts, cabinets, and hoses.

Sec.  141.802  Coliform sampling plan.

    (a) Each air carrier under this subpart must develop a coliform
sampling plan covering each aircraft water system owned or operated by
the air carrier that identifies the following:
    (1) Coliform sample collection procedures.
    (2) Sample tap location(s) representative of the aircraft water
system per Sec.  141.803(b)(2) and (b)(3).
    (3) Frequency and number of routine coliform samples to be
collected.
    (4) Frequency of routine disinfection and flushing as specified in
the operation and maintenance plan under Sec.  141.804.
    (5) Procedures for communicating sample results promptly so that
any required actions including repeat and follow-up sampling,
corrective action, and notification of passengers and crew may be
conducted in a timely manner.
    (b) Aircraft with a water system meeting the definition of a PWS,
must be covered by a coliform sampling plan by [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER
FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register].
    (c) The coliform sampling plan must be included in the Aircraft
Water System Operation and Maintenance Plan required in Sec.  141.804.

Sec.  141.803  Coliform sampling.

    (a) Analytical Methods. (1) Coliform sampling of aircraft public
water systems under this section need only determine the presence or
absence of total coliforms; a determination of total coliform density
is not required.
    (2) EPA approved analytical methodologies must be used for the
analysis of coliform bacteria. The invalidation of a total coliform
sample result can only be made by the Administrator in accordance with
Sec.  141.21(c)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) or by the State or EPA certified
laboratory in accordance with Sec.  141.21(c)(2).
    (b) Routine Monitoring. For each aircraft water system, the air
carrier must collect two 100 mL total coliform routine samples at the
frequency specified in the sampling plan in Sec.  141.802. The sampling
frequency must be determined by the disinfection and flushing frequency
recommended by the aircraft water system manufacturer and as identified
in the operation and maintenance plan in Sec.  141.804.
    (1) Routine monitoring frequencies must be as follows:
    (i) If the aircraft water system is disinfected and flushed at
least quarterly, then coliform monitoring must occur at least annually,
or
    (ii) If the aircraft water system is disinfected and flushed one to
three times per year, then coliform monitoring must occur at least
quarterly, or
    (iii) If the aircraft water system is disinfected and flushed less
than once per year, then coliform monitoring must occur at least
monthly.
    (2) One sample must be taken from a lavatory and one sample from a
galley; each must be analyzed for total coliform.
    (3) If only one water tap is located in the aircraft water system
due to aircraft model type and construction, then a single tap may be
used to collect two separate 100 mL samples.
    (4) If any routine coliform sample is total coliform-positive, the
air carrier must analyze that total coliform-positive culture medium to
determine if fecal coliforms are present, except that the system may
test for E. coli in lieu of fecal coliforms.
    (5) Routine coliform samples must not be collected within 72 hours
after completing disinfection and flushing procedures.
    (c) Coliform Sample Results. (1) Negative Routine Coliform Sample
Results. If no routine sample is total coliform-positive, then the air
carrier must maintain the routine monitoring frequency for total
coliform as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (2) Single Routine Total Coliform-Positive Sample Result that is
Fecal/E. coli-negative. In response to a single routine total coliform-
positive sample result that is fecal/E. coli negative, the air carrier
must perform at least one of the following:
    (i) Disinfection and Flushing. In accordance with Sec.  141.804,
initiate disinfection and flushing of the system no later than 72 hours
after the laboratory notifies the air carrier of the total coliform-
positive result. After disinfection and flushing are completed, the air
carrier must collect follow-up samples in accordance with paragraph (d)
of this section.
    (ii) Repeat Sampling. Collect four 100 mL repeat samples no later
than 24 hours after the laboratory notifies the air carrier of the
total coliform-positive result. Repeat samples must be collected and
analyzed from four taps within the aircraft as follows: the tap which
resulted in the total coliform-positive sample, one other lavatory tap,
one other galley tap, and one other tap; if less than four taps exist,
then a total of four 100 mL samples must be collected and analyzed from
the available taps within the aircraft water system. If no repeat
sample is total coliform-positive, then the aircraft water system must
maintain the routine monitoring frequency for coliform as specified in
paragraph (b) of this section. If any repeat coliform sample is total
coliform-positive, the aircraft water system must analyze that total
coliform-positive culture medium to determine if fecal coliforms are
present, except that the air carrier may test for E. coli in lieu of
fecal coliforms.
    (3) If any routine or repeat sample is fecal coliform-positive or
E. coli-positive, then the air carrier must perform all of the
following:
    (i) Restrict public access to the aircraft water system in
accordance with paragraph (c)(5) of this section as expeditiously as
possible, but in no case later than 24 hours after being notified of
the positive result by the laboratory;
    (ii) Conduct disinfection and flushing pursuant to Sec.  141.804
prior to resumption of unrestricted public access to the aircraft water
system, or no later than 72 hours if the aircraft water system cannot
be physically disconnected/shut off to the crew and passengers as
stated in Sec.  141.804(b)(8); and
    (iii) Collect follow-up samples pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section.
    (4) If more than one routine sample or any repeat sample is total
coliform-positive and fecal coliform-negative (or E. coli-negative),
then the air carrier must perform all of the following:
    (i) Restrict public access to the aircraft water system in
accordance with paragraph (c)(5) of this section as expeditiously as
possible, but in no case later than 24 hours after being notified of
the positive result by the laboratory;
    (ii) Conduct disinfection and flushing pursuant to Sec.  141.804
prior to resumption of unrestricted public access to the aircraft water
system, or no later

than 72 hours if the aircraft water system cannot be physically
disconnected/shut off to the crew and passengers as stated in Sec.
141.804(b)(8); and
    (iii) Collect follow-up samples pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section.
    (5) Restriction of public access includes, but need not be limited
to, the following:
    (i) Physically disconnecting or shutting off the aircraft water
system where feasible;
    (ii) Providing public notification to passengers and crew in
accordance with Sec.  141.805; and
    (iii) Providing alternatives to use of the aircraft water system,
such as bottled water for drinking and coffee preparation; antiseptic
alcohol based hand gels or wipes in the galley and lavatories, and
other feasible measures that reduce or eliminate the need to use the
aircraft water system during the limited period before public use of
the aircraft water system is restored.
    (d) Post Disinfection and Flushing Follow-up Sampling. Following a
coliform-positive that requires disinfection and flushing, air carriers
must comply with post disinfection and flushing follow-up sampling
procedures that, at a minimum, consist of the following:
    (1) For each aircraft water system, the air carrier must collect
coliform follow-up samples consisting of two 100 mL total coliform
samples at the same routine sample locations as identified in
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section.
    (2) If one or more of the follow-up samples is total coliform-
positive then, as a minimum, the air carrier must re-disinfect and
flush the aircraft water system in accordance with Sec.  141.804(b)(2)
and take additional follow-up samples in accordance with paragraph
(d)(1) of this section.
    (3) All follow-up sample results must be total coliform-negative
before the air carrier provides water from the aircraft water system to
passengers and crew and returns to the routine monitoring frequency for
coliform as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (e) Failure to Collect Required Routine Samples. If there was a
failure to collect and analyze the required number of routine coliform
samples, the air carrier must:
    (1) Notify passengers and crew in accordance with Sec.  141.805 as
expeditiously as possible, but in no case later than 24 hours after
discovery of failure to collect required samples or after being
notified by EPA of failure to collect required samples, and
    (2) Conduct disinfection and flushing within 72 hours in accordance
with Sec.  141.804(b)(2).
    (3) Collect follow-up samples pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section.
    (f) Failure to Collect Repeat or Follow-up Samples: If there was a
failure to collect and analyze the required number of repeat or follow-
up samples, then the air carrier must:
    (1) Restrict public access to the aircraft water system in
accordance with paragraph (c)(5) of this section as expeditiously as
possible, but in no case later than 24 hours after discovery of failure
to collect required samples or after being notified by EPA of failure
to collect required samples.
    (2) Conduct disinfection and flushing pursuant to Sec.  141.804
prior to resumption of unrestricted public access to the aircraft water
system, or no later than 72 hours if the aircraft water system cannot
be physically disconnected/shut off to the crew and passengers as
stated in Sec.  141.804(b)(8); and
    (3) Collect follow-up samples pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section.

Sec.  141.804  Aircraft water system operations and maintenance plan.

    (a) Each air carrier must have and follow an aircraft water system
operation and maintenance plan for each aircraft water system that it
owns or operates. This plan must be included in a Federal Aviation
Administration approved or accepted air carrier operations and
maintenance program (14 CFR Part 43, 14 CFR Part 91, 14 CFR Part 121).
    (b) Each aircraft water system operation and maintenance plan must
include the following:
    (1) Watering Point Selection Requirement. All water sources must be
from a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved watering point in
accordance with 21 CFR 1240.80.
    (2) Procedures for Disinfection and Flushing of Aircraft Water
System.
    (i) The air carrier must conduct disinfection and flushing of the
aircraft water system in accordance with or be no less stringent than
the water system manufacturer's recommendations. The air carrier may
conduct disinfection and flushing more frequently, but not less
frequently, than the manufacturer recommends.
    (ii) The operation and maintenance plan must identify the
disinfection frequency, type of disinfecting agent, disinfectant
concentration to be used, and the disinfectant contact time, and
flushing volume or flushing time.
    (iii) In cases where a recommended routine disinfection and
flushing frequency is not specified by the aircraft water system
manufacturer, the air carrier must perform disinfection and flushing of
each aircraft water system no less frequently than quarterly.
    (3) Procedures for follow-up sampling in accordance with Sec.
141.803(d).
    (4) Training Requirements. Training for all personnel involved with
the aircraft water system operation and maintenance provisions of this
regulation must include, but is not limited to:
    (i) Water boarding procedures;
    (ii) Sample collection procedures;
    (iii) Disinfection and flushing procedures;
    (iv) Public health and safety reasons for the requirements of this
subpart.
    (5) Procedures for Conducting Self-inspections of the Aircraft
Water System. Procedures must include, but are not limited to,
inspection of: Storage tank, distribution system, supplemental
treatment, fixtures, valves, and backflow prevention devices.
    (6) Procedures for Boarding Water.
    (i) Within the United States, the air carrier must board water from
an approved FDA watering point.
    (ii) The operation and maintenance plan must include a description
of how the carrier will ensure that water boarded outside the United
States is safe for human consumption.
    (iii) In no event should the air carrier knowingly serve water that
violates NPDWRs. If water must be boarded that is known to violate
NPDWRs, the carrier must meet the requirements in Sec.  141.803(c)(3).
    (iv) The operation and maintenance plan must provide a description
of how the water will be transferred from the watering point to the
aircraft in a manner that ensures it will not become contaminated
during the transfer.
    (v) The operation and maintenance plan must also describe emergency
procedures to be used in the event that water is boarded to operate
essential systems, such as toilets, but is not boarded from an FDA
approved or otherwise safe watering point, as specified above,
including:
    (A) Notification of passengers and crew in accordance with Sec.
141.805 as expeditiously as possible, but in no case later than 24
hours after boarding the water, and
    (B) Conducting disinfection and flushing within 72 hours in
accordance with (b)(2) of this section.
    (C) Collect follow-up samples pursuant to Sec.  141.803(d) of this
section.
    (7) Coliform Sampling Plan. The air carrier must include the
coliform

sampling plan prepared in accordance with Sec.  141.802.
    (8) A statement as to whether the aircraft water system can be
physically disconnected/shut off to the crew and passengers.
    (c) For existing aircraft, the air carrier must develop their
operations and maintenance plan required by this section by [DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register];
    (d) For new aircraft, the air carrier must develop the operations
and maintenance plan required by Sec.  141.804 within the first
calendar quarter of initial operation of the aircraft.

Sec.  141.805  Notification of passengers and crew.

    (a) Air Carriers must give notice for each aircraft in all of the
following situations where:
    (1) Public access to the aircraft water system is required to be
restricted, in accordance with Sec.  141.803(c)(3) or (4);
    (2) There has been a failure to collect required samples, in
accordance with Sec.  141.803(e) or (f);
    (3) Water has been boarded from a watering point that has not been
approved by FDA, or otherwise determined to be safe in accordance with
the procedures specified in Sec.  141.804(b)(6); and
    (4) The Administrator, the carrier, or the crew otherwise determine
that notification is necessary to protect public health.
    (b) Air carriers must provide notification to passengers and crew
within 24 hours of being informed of sample results or other events
which trigger notification, or within 24 hours of being informed by EPA
to perform notification, whichever occurs first. Notification must be
in a form and manner reasonably calculated to reach all passengers and
crew while onboard the aircraft by using one or more of the following
forms of delivery:
    (1) Broadcast over public announcement system on aircraft;
    (2) Posting of the notice in conspicuous locations throughout the
area served by the water system. These locations would normally be the
galleys and in the lavatories of each aircraft requiring posting;
    (3) Hand delivery of the notice to passengers and crew;
    (4) Another delivery method approved in writing by the
Administrator.
    (c) All notification must continue until all follow-up coliform
samples are total coliform-negative. Each notice:
    (1) Must be displayed in a conspicuous way when printed or posted;
    (2) Must not contain overly technical language or very small print;
    (3) Must not be formatted in a way that defeats the purpose of the
notice;
    (4) Must not contain language that nullifies the purpose of the
notice;
    (5) Must contain information in the appropriate language(s)
regarding the importance of the notice reflecting a good faith effort
to reach the non-English speaking population served, including where
applicable, an easily recognized symbol for non-potable water.
    (d) Notice when public access to the aircraft water system is
restricted must include:
    (1) A prominently-displayed, clear statement in each lavatory
indicating that the water is non-potable and should not be used for
drinking, food or beverage preparation, hand washing, teeth brushing,
or any other consumptive use; and
    (2) A prominent notice in the galley directed at the crew which
includes:
    (i) A clear statement that the water is non-potable and should not
be used for drinking, food or beverage preparation, hand washing, teeth
brushing, or any other consumptive use;
    (ii) A description of the violation or situation triggering the
notice, including the contaminant(s) of concern;
    (iii) When the violation or situation occurred;
    (iv) Any potential adverse health effects from the violation or
situation, as appropriate, under paragraph (g) of this section.
    (v) The population at risk, including sensitive subpopulations
particularly vulnerable if exposed to the contaminant in the drinking
water;
    (vi) What the air carrier is doing to correct the violation or
situation; and
    (vii) When the air carrier expects to return the system to
unrestricted access;
    (e) If access to the water system by passengers is physically
prevented through disconnecting or shutting off the water, or if water
is supplied only to lavatory toilets, and not to any lavatory taps,
then only the notice specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section is
required.
    (f) Notice when water has been boarded from a watering point not
approved by FDA or otherwise determined to be safe in accordance with
the procedures in Sec.  141.804(b)(6), or when required monitoring or
required disinfection and flushing was not conducted must include:
    (1) A prominently-displayed, clear statement in each lavatory
indicating that the water is non-potable and should not be used for
drinking, food or beverage preparation, or teeth brushing; and
    (2) A prominent notice in the galley directed at the crew which
includes:
    (i) A clear statement that the water is non-potable and should not
be used for drinking, food or beverage preparation, or teeth brushing;
    (ii) An indication that water was boarded from a watering point
that has not been approved by FDA, or otherwise determined to be safe
in accordance with the procedures specified in Sec.  141.804(b)(6), or
that required monitoring or required disinfection and flushing was not
conducted, and it is thus not known whether the water is contaminated;
    (iii) When and where the water was boarded or the specific
monitoring or disinfection and flushing requirement was not met;
    (iv) Any potential adverse health effects from exposure to
waterborne pathogens that might be in the water;
    (v) The population at risk, including sensitive subpopulations
particularly vulnerable if exposed to the contaminant in the drinking
water; and
    (vi) A statement indicating when the system will be disinfected and
flushed and returned to full service if known;
    (g) The following standard health effects language must be included
in each public notice to the crew.
    (1) Health effects language to be used when notice was triggered by
detection of total coliforms only (not fecal coliforms or E. coli):

    Coliform are bacteria that are naturally present in the
environment and are used as an indicator that other, potentially
harmful, bacteria may be present. Coliforms were found in [INSERT
NUMBER OF SAMPLES DETECTED] samples collected and this is a warning
of potential problems. If human pathogens are present, they can
cause short-term health effects, such as diarrhea, cramps, nausea,
headaches, or other symptoms. They may pose a special health risk
for infants, young children, some of the elderly, and people with
severely compromised immune systems.

    (2) Health effects language to be used when any routine or repeat
sample is fecal coliform positive or E. coli positive:

    Fecal coliform 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 health effects, such
as diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. They may
pose a special health risk for infants, young children, some of the
elderly, and people with severely compromised immune systems.

    (3) Health effects language to be used when notice was triggered by
an event other than a coliform-positive sample, including where
required monitoring

and analysis or flushing and disinfection was not conducted and where
water was boarded from a watering point that has not been approved by
FDA or was not otherwise determined to be safe in accordance with
procedures specified in Sec.  141.804(b)(6):

    Because [REQUIRED MONITORING AND ANALYSIS WAS NOT CONDUCTED],
[REQUIRED DISINFECTION AND FLUSHING WAS NOT CONDUCTED] [WATER WAS
BOARDED FROM A WATERING POINT NOT APPROVED BY FDA], or [other
appropriate explanation], we cannot be sure of the quality of the
drinking water at this time. However, drinking water contaminated
with human pathogens can cause short-term health effects, such as
diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. They may
pose a special health risk for infants, young children, some of the
elderly, and people with severely compromised immune systems. This
water may be used for hand washing, but not for drinking, food or
beverage preparation, or teeth brushing.

Sec.  141.806  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Reporting of the development of the coliform sampling plan and
the operations and maintenance plan and coliform sampling frequency.
    (1) The air carrier must report to the Administrator that they have
developed the coliform sampling plan required by Sec.  141.802 that
covers each existing aircraft water system as well as report the
frequency for routine coliform sampling identified in the coliform
sampling plan by [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE
Federal Register]. The air carrier must report to the Administrator
that they have developed their operations and maintenance plan required
by Sec.  141.804 by [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE
Federal Register];
    (2) For each new aircraft meeting the definition of an aircraft
water system, which becomes operational after promulgation of the ADWR,
the air carrier must report to the Administrator that they have
developed the coliform sampling plan required by Sec.  141.802 as well
as report the frequency for routine coliform sampling identified in the
coliform sampling plan within the first calendar quarter of initial
operation of the aircraft. The air carrier must report to the
Administrator that they have included the aircraft's water system in
the operations and maintenance plan required by Sec.  141.804, and
indicate the routine coliform sampling frequency for the aircraft,
within the first calendar quarter of initial operation of the aircraft.
    (b) The air carrier must report the following information to the
Administrator:
    (1) A complete inventory of aircraft that are public water systems
by [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal
Register]. Inventory information includes:
    (i) The unique aircraft identifier number;
    (ii) The status of the aircraft water system as active or inactive;
    (iii) The type and location of any treatment equipment installed on
the water system; and
    (iv) Whether aircraft water can be shut off and the extent to which
it can be made inaccessible to the passengers and crew.
    (2) Changes in aircraft inventory no later than 10 days following
the calendar month in which the change occurred. Changes in inventory
information include:
    (i) The unique identifier number for any new aircraft, or any
aircraft removed from the carrier's fleet;
    (ii) Change in status of any aircraft water systems (active to
inactive or vice versa); and
    (iii) Type and location of any treatment equipment added to or
removed from the water system.
    (3) All sampling results no later than 10 calendar days following
the monitoring period in which the sampling occurred. The monitoring
period is based on the monitoring frequency identified in the coliform
sampling plan required under Sec.  141.802.
    (4) All events requiring notification to passengers and crew and
non-routine disinfection and flushing must be reported within 10 days
of the event triggering the notification or disinfection and flushing
requirement (e.g., notification of positive sample result by
laboratory), including an indication of whether required notification
was provided to passengers and/or crew.
    (5) The air carrier must report to EPA within 10 calendar days the
failure to comply with the monitoring or disinfection and flushing
requirements of this proposed regulation.
    (c) The air carrier must provide evidence of a self-inspection to
the Administrator within 90 days of completion of the self-inspection
required under Sec.  141.808(b), including an indication that all
deficiencies were addressed in accordance with Sec.  141.808(c). The
air carrier must also report to the Administrator within 90 days that
any deficiencies identified during a compliance audit conducted in
accordance with Sec.  141.808(a) have been addressed. If any deficiency
has not been addressed within 90 days of identification of the
deficiency, the report must also include a description of the
deficiency, an explanation as to why it has not yet been addressed, and
a schedule for addressing it as expeditiously as possible.
    (d) All information required to be reported to the Administrator
under this subpart must be in an electronic format established or
approved by the Administrator. If an air carrier is unable to report
electronically, the air carrier may use an alternative approach that
the Administrator approves.

Sec.  141.807  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) The air carrier must keep records of bacteriological analyses
for at least 5 years and must include the following information:
    (1) The date, time and place of sampling, and the name of the
person who collected the sample;
    (2) Identification of the sample as a routine, repeat, follow-up or
other special purpose sample;
    (3) Date of the analysis;
    (4) Laboratory and person responsible for performing the analysis;
    (5) The analytical technique/method used; and
    (6) The results of the analysis.
    (b) The air carrier must keep records of any disinfection and
flushing for at least 5 years.
    (c) The air carrier must keep records of a self-inspection for at
least 10 years.
    (d) The air carrier must maintain sampling plans and make such
plans available for review by the Administrator upon request, including
during compliance audits.
    (e) The air carrier must maintain aircraft water system operation
and maintenance plans in accordance with FAA requirements; and make
such plans available for review by the Administrator upon request,
including during compliance audits.
    (f) The air carrier must keep notices to passengers and crew issued
as required by this subpart for at least 3 years after issuance.

Sec.  141.808  Audits and inspections.

    (a) The Administrator may conduct routine compliance audits as
deemed necessary in providing regulatory oversight to ensure proper
implementation of the requirements in this subpart. Compliance audits
may include, but are not be limited to:
    (1) Bacteriological sampling of aircraft water system;
    (2) Reviews and audits of records as they pertain to water system
operations and maintenance such as log entries, disinfection and
flushing procedures, and sampling results; and

    (3) Observation of procedures involving the handling of finished
water, watering point selection, boarding of water, operation,
disinfection and flushing, and general maintenance and self-inspections
of aircraft water system.
    (b) Air carriers or their representatives must perform a self-
inspection of all water system components for each aircraft water
system no less frequently than once every 5 years.
    (c) The air carrier must address any deficiency identified during
routine compliance audits or self-inspections within 90 days of
identification of the deficiency or where such deficiency is identified
during extended or heavy maintenance before the aircraft is put back
into service. This includes any deficiency in the water system's
design, construction, operation, maintenance, or administration, as
well as any failure or malfunction of any system component that has the
potential to cause an unacceptable risk to health or that could affect
the reliable delivery of safe drinking water.

Sec.  141.809  Supplemental treatment.

    (a) Any onboard drinking water treatment units installed onboard
existing or new aircraft must be acceptable to FAA and FDA; must meet
the applicable NSF/ANSI Standards; and must be installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's plans and
specifications and FAA requirements.
    (b) Water treatment and production equipment must produce water
that meets the standards prescribed in this part.

Sec.  141.810  Violations.

    (a) An air carrier is in violation of this subpart and must provide
notification to passengers and crew onboard any aircraft it owns or
operates for which any of the following occur:
    (1) It fails to disinfect and flush in accordance with Sec. Sec.
141.803 and 141.804.
    (2) It fails to monitor for coliforms in accordance with Sec.
141.803.
    (3) It fails to perform any of the requirements in accordance with
Sec.  141.803(c).
    (4) It has one or more fecal coliform positive or E. coli positive
sample in any monitoring period (routine and repeat samples are used in
this determination).
    (b) An air carrier is in violation of this subpart when for any
aircraft water system it owns or operates any of the following occur:
    (1) It fails to provide notification to passengers and crew in
accordance with Sec.  141.805.
    (2) It fails to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of this subpart.
    (3) It fails to conduct a self-inspection or address a deficiency
in accordance with Sec.  141.808.
    (4) It fails to develop a coliform sampling plan in accordance with
Sec.  141.802, or fails to have and follow an operations and
maintenance plan, which is included in a FAA approved or accepted
program in accordance with Sec.  141.804.

 [FR Doc. E8-7035 Filed 4-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


TABLE 2: ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS UNDER NSPS FOR BULK GASOLINE TERMINALS  SUBPART XX Occurrences/ Hours/

Hours per respondent/ Hours/ Respondents/ Respondents/ Cost/

Occurrence year year per yr. per yr. yr.($)

( A) ( B) ( C= AxB) ( D) ( E= CxD) ( F) a ACTIVITY 1. APPLICATIONS    N/ A

2. SURVEY AND STUDIES    N/ A

3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS A. Read Instructions 1 1 1 0 b 0 0 B. Required Activities Initial performance test 60 1 60 0 b 0 0 Repeat of performance test 60 0.2 c 60 0 b 0 0 C. Gather Existing Information Included in 3D.

D. Write Report Notification of construction/

modification 2 1 2 0 b 0 0 Notification of anticipated startup 2 1 2 0 b 0 0 Notification of actual startup 1 1 2 0 b 0 0 Notification of initial performance test 2 1 2 0 b 0 0 Report of performance test Included in 3B. TABLE 2: ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS UNDER NSPS FOR BULK GASOLINE TERMINALS  SUBPART XX ( cont.)

Occurrences/ Hours/

Hours per respondent/ Hours/ Respondents Respondent/ Cost/

Occurrence year year per yr. per yr. yr.($)

( A) ( B) ( C= AxB) ( D) ( E= CxD) ( F) a ACTIVITY 4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS A. Read Instructions Included in 3A.

B. Plan Activities Included in 4C.

C. Implement Activities Included in 3B.

D. Develop Record System      N/ A

E. Time to Enter Information Records of startup,

shutdown, malfunction, etc. 1.5 50 d 75 40 e 3,000 166,020 Records of tank identification #' s 0.1f 2,100 g 210 40 e 8,400 464,856 Leak detection records from monthly inspection of control equipment 0.5 1 0.5 40 e 20 1,107 F. Audits      N/ A

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 11,420 631,983 a United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2000, Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group.

The rates are from column 1, Total compensation. The wage rate was increased by 110% to $ 55.34 per hour to account for private industry benefit packages.

b A total of 0 new lines constructed per year.

c Assume 20 percent of initial performance tests must be repeated due to failure. ( 0.2 x 0 = 0)

d Assume one occurrence per week ( 50 weeks per year).

e Average total number of facilities derived from previous ICR and projected growth rate of 0 facilites per year. Assume the average total number of facilities over the next three years with no growth = 40 + ( 0 + 0 + 0)/ 2 = 40 f Assume it takes six minutes to enter each tank identification number.

g Assume an average of six tank trucks loading each day ( 6 x 350 days per year = 2100).