
[Federal Register: April 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 69)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 19319-19348]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09ap08-17]                         


[[Page 19319]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 141



National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Drinking Water Regulations 
for Aircraft Public Water Systems; Proposed Rule


[[Page 19320]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0025; FRL-8551-3]
RIN 2040-AE84

 
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Drinking Water 
Regulations for Aircraft Public Water Systems

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to amend and 
consolidate in one place the federal drinking water requirements (known 
as National Primary Drinking Water Regulations or NPDWRs) for aircraft 
public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Aircraft 
public water systems are subject to the requirements of SDWA and the 
NPDWRs. The existing federal drinking water standards were primarily 
designed to regulate water quality in stationary public water systems 
and the application of these requirements to mobile water systems with 
the capability of flying throughout the world has created 
implementation challenges. The proposed requirements are intended to 
tailor existing health-based drinking water standards to the unique 
characteristics of aircraft public water systems for the enhanced 
protection of public health against illnesses attributable to 
microbiological contamination. This is accomplished through multiple-
barrier protection and procedural control measures. EPA believes that 
the combination of these components will better protect public health 
while building upon existing aircraft operations and maintenance 
programs, better coordinate federal programs that regulate aircraft 
water systems, and minimize disruption of aircraft flight schedules.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 8, 2008. Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection 
provisions must be received by OMB on or before May 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2005-0025, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov.
     Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In 
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information 
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 
Headquarters West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be 
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-
0025. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Naylor, Drinking Water 
Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC-
4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-3847; e-mail address: 
naylor.richard@epa.gov. For general information, contact the Safe 
Drinking Water Hotline, telephone number: (800) 426-4791. The Safe 
Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    Entities potentially regulated by the proposed Aircraft Drinking 
Water Rule include air carriers that operate aircraft public water 
systems using finished surface water, finished ground water under the 
direct influence of surface water (GWUDI), or finished ground water. 
Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
              Category                NAICS code         entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduled passenger air                   481111  Air carriers.
 transportation.
Nonscheduled chartered passenger          481211  Air carriers.
 air transportation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This 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 air carrier is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in section Sec.  141.800 of this 
proposed rule. If you

[[Page 19321]]

have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding section 
entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk 
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

C. Abbreviations Used in This Notice

ADWR: Aircraft Drinking Water Rule.
ANSI: American National Standards Institute.
AOC: Administrative Order on Consent.
ATA: Air Transport Association.
BMP: Best Management Practice.
CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations.
CRMP: Comprehensive Representative Monitoring Plan.
CWS: Community Water System.
DBP: Disinfection Byproducts.
E. Coli: Escherichia coli.
EO: Executive Order.
EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
FAA: United States Federal Aviation Administration.
FDA: United States Food and Drug Administration.
FR: Federal Register.
GWS: Ground Water System.
GWUDI: Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water.
HACCP: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point.
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services.
HPC: Heterotrophic Plate Count.
ICC: Interstate Carrier Conveyance.
ICR: Information Collection Request.
IESWTR: Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.
LIMS: Laboratory Information Management System.
mL: Milliliters.
MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level.
MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal.
MDRL: Maximum Disinfectant Residual Level.
mg/L: Milligrams per Liter.
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
NCWS: Non-Community Water System.
NDWAC: National Drinking Water Advisory Committee.
NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water Regulation.
NSF: NSF International.
NTNCWS: Non-Transient Non-Community Water System.
NTTAA: National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.
PWS: Public Water System.
OMB: Office of Management and Budget.
QAPP: Quality Assurance Project Plan.
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act.
SAB: Science Advisory Board.
SBA: Small Business Association.
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act.
SDWIS: Safe Drinking Water Information System.
SWTR: Surface Water Treatment Rule.
TC: Total Coliform.
TCR: Total Coliform Rule.
TNCWS: Transient Non-Community Water System.
TT: Treatment Technique.
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
WHO: World Health Organization.
WSG: Water Supply Guidance.
WSP: Water Safety Plan.

D. Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
    A. Legal Authority
    B. Purpose of the Proposed Rule
    C. Scope of Proposed Rule
    D. Potential Health Concerns Associated With Aircraft Water 
Systems
    E. Regulatory and Enforcement History
III. Proposed Rule Development
    A. Stakeholder Involvement
    B. Data Collection Efforts
    C. Framework for Proposed Rule Development
IV. Elements of the Proposed Aircraft Drinking Water Rule
    A. Sampling Requirements
    B. Responses to Sample Results
    C. Aircraft Water System Operation and Maintenance Plan
    D. Notification Requirements to Passengers and Crew
    E. Reporting Requirements
    F. Recordkeeping Requirements
    G. Audit and Self-Inspection Requirements
    H. Supplemental Treatment
    I. Violations
    J. Compliance Date
V. Cost Analysis
    A. Summary of Regulatory Alternatives Considered
    B. National Cost Estimates
    C. Comparison of Cost of Regulatory Alternatives
    D. Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule to Air Carrier Passengers
    E. Non-quantified Costs and Uncertainties
VI. Relative Risk Analysis and Benefits
    A. Relative Risks--Qualitative Analysis
    B. Assessment of Potential Quantitative Relative Risk Analyses
    C. Non-quantified Benefits
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations or Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Consultations with the Science Advisory Board, National 
Drinking Water Advisory Council, and the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services
    L. Plain Language
VIII. References

II. Background

A. Legal Authority

    EPA is proposing this regulation under the authority of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq., 
primarily sections 1401, 1411, 1412 and 1450. Under SDWA, EPA 
establishes minimum requirements for tap water provided to the public, 
known as the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations or NPDWRs; 
these standards are applicable to ``public water systems.'' SDWA 
Section 1401 and EPA's regulations define a ``public water system'' 
(PWS) as a system for providing water for human consumption to the 
public through

[[Page 19322]]

pipes or other constructed conveyances and that regularly serves an 
average of a least twenty-five individuals daily, at least 60 days per 
year. 40 CFR 141.2.
    All public water systems are subject to the NPDWRs unless they are 
excluded from regulatory requirements under SDWA Section 1411. Section 
1411 excludes from regulation any public water system that receives all 
its water from another regulated public water system, does not sell or 
treat the water, and is not a ``carrier which conveys passengers in 
interstate commerce.'' The classes of interstate carrier conveyances 
(ICCs) include aircraft, trains, buses, and water vessels. As a result, 
all ICCs that regularly serve water to an average of at least twenty-
five individuals daily, at least 60 days per year are public water 
systems and are currently subject to existing NPDWRs regardless of 
whether they treat or sell the water. Due to the unique characteristics 
of aircraft water systems and demonstrated implementation challenges, 
EPA has decided that a new NPDWR specifically tailored to aircraft 
water systems is necessary and an Agency priority. EPA may decide to 
tailor existing requirements to other classes of ICCs in the future.

B. Purpose of the Proposed Rule

    The primary purpose of the proposed Aircraft Drinking Water Rule 
(ADWR) is to ensure that safe and reliable drinking water is provided 
to aircraft passengers and crew. This entails providing air carriers 
with a feasible way to comply with SDWA and the NPDWRs. The existing 
NPDWRs were designed primarily with traditional, stationary public 
water systems in mind. Some of these requirements have proven difficult 
to implement when applied to aircraft water systems, which are 
operationally very different. For example, aircraft must maintain 
rigorous operating schedules. They fly to multiple destinations 
throughout the course of any given day and may board drinking water 
from sources at any of these destinations. Aircraft board water from 
airport watering points via temporary connections. Aircraft drinking 
water safety depends on a number of factors including the quality of 
the water that is boarded from these multiple sources, the care used to 
board the water, and the operation and maintenance of the onboard water 
system and the water transfer equipment (such as water cabinets, 
trucks, carts, and hoses). These unique operational characteristics 
present different challenges, which EPA is addressing in this proposal.
    EPA's NPDWRs establish different requirements based on the 
classification of the public water system (water system), including 
whether the system is a ``community,'' ``nontransient noncommunity,'' 
or ``transient noncommunity'' system and whether the system uses 
surface water or groundwater. Aircraft public water systems are 
considered transient noncommunity water systems (TNCWS), because they 
are not community water systems and they do not regularly serve at 
least 25 of the same persons over six months per year (See 40 CFR 
141.2). Also, aircraft are regulated as surface water systems because 
they are likely to board finished drinking water from other public 
water systems that use surface water in whole or in part. EPA considers 
water for human consumption to include water for drinking and food 
preparation as well as water for brushing teeth and hand washing (see 
63 FR 41941 (August 5, 1998)). Therefore, if an aircraft has a sink in 
the lavatory, then the water provided to that sink must be suitable for 
human consumption.

C. Scope of Proposed Rule

    The proposed ADWR only addresses aircraft regulated under SDWA. 
SDWA does not regulate aircraft water systems operating outside the 
U.S.; however, EPA is supporting an international effort led by the 
World Health Organization (WHO) to develop international guidelines for 
aircraft drinking water. The proposed ADWR applies to the onboard water 
system only. EPA defers to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with 
respect to regulating watering points such as water cabinets, carts, 
trucks, and hoses from which aircraft board water. Aircraft that do not 
provide water for human consumption or those with water systems that do 
not regularly serve an average of at least twenty-five individuals 
daily at least 60 days out of the year do not meet the definition of a 
public water system; these aircraft are not regulated under the NPDWRs 
or covered under the new NPDWR proposed today. An estimated 63 air 
carriers and 7,327 aircraft public water systems are covered by this 
proposal.

D. Potential Health Concerns Associated With Aircraft Water Systems

    The proposed ADWR assumes that only finished water is boarded on 
aircraft. 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 
necessary to maintain water quality in the distribution system (e.g., 
supplemental disinfection, addition of corrosion control chemicals) (40 
CFR 141.2). The assumption that only finished water is boarded on 
aircraft is based on a FDA requirement that only potable water may be 
provided for drinking and culinary purposes on interstate carrier 
conveyances (ICCs) (21 CFR 1240.80). Aircraft public water systems that 
are boarding water that is not finished water will continue to be 
subject to existing NPDWRs and will not be subject to the new NPDWR 
proposed today. However, even when the water boarded is finished water, 
the opportunity exists for microbiological organisms to be introduced 
during the act of transferring the water from the supplier truck, 
cabinet, or cart to the aircraft water system, or for biofilm to 
develop within the water system itself.
    The proposed ADWR seeks to protect against disease-causing 
microbiological contaminants or pathogens through the required 
development and implementation of aircraft water system operation and 
maintenance plans that include best management practices, air carrier 
training requirements, and periodic sampling of the onboard drinking 
water. Testing drinking water for each individual pathogen is not 
practical, nor feasible. Instead, water quality and public health 
professionals use total coliform bacteria as an indicator organism. 
Total coliforms are a group of closely related, mostly harmless 
bacteria that live in soil and water as well as in the guts of animals. 
The presence of total coliforms in drinking water suggests that there 
may be disease-causing agents in the water or there has been a breach, 
failure, or other change in the integrity of the drinking water. 
Normally, total coliforms are not harmful to human health. However, if 
Escherichia coli (E. coli), a type of coliform bacteria, is present, it 
can be harmful to human health. Total coliforms are inactivated, or 
made harmless, by treatment or die off naturally in a manner similar to 
most bacterial organisms. However, if total coliforms are found in a 
water system, the system may be vulnerable to disease-causing bacteria 
(i.e., pathogens), whether pathogens are actually present or not. If an 
aircraft water system is not disinfected and/or flushed on a routine 
basis, it may be at risk for biofilm or other bacterial growth.
    Most of the bacteria in drinking water distribution systems are 
associated with biofilms. There are several studies showing that 
pathogenic organisms can survive longer and have greater resistance to 
chlorine when occurring in biofilms than in drinking water (Lehtola et 
al., 2007). Most aircraft water tanks

[[Page 19323]]

are either topped off or drained on a daily basis. However, there are 
occasional situations when the water may become stagnant. Some examples 
are aircraft that are occasionally taken out of service for an extended 
maintenance period, or cold weather conditions that affect the ability 
to drain tanks (due to concerns about the drained water freezing on the 
tarmac). Additionally, aircraft with water in their tanks that 
experience long layovers or overnight stays in high temperature areas 
have a higher potential for rapid growth of organisms. There are no 
data on outbreaks of illness caused by drinking water on aircraft. That 
does not mean there is no illness because there is a high rate of 
underreporting of illnesses caused by drinking water contamination. 
Illness resulting from consuming contaminated aircraft water would be 
no exception to this because the population onboard disperses after a 
flight and even if passengers develop gastrointestinal symptoms within 
hours of deplaning, they are unlikely to associate the illness with the 
aircraft water or to contact the air carrier or any government agency 
to report the illness. The effects of waterborne disease are usually 
acute, resulting from a single or small number of exposures. Most 
waterborne pathogens cause gastrointestinal illness with diarrhea, 
abdominal discomfort, nausea, vomiting, or other symptoms. Most such 
cases involve a sudden onset and generally are of short duration in 
healthy people. Some pathogens (e.g., Giardia and Cryptosporidium), 
however, may cause extended illness, lasting weeks or longer in 
otherwise healthy individuals. Waterborne pathogens are particularly 
harmful to sensitive populations, such as the immuno-compromised, and 
can sometimes prove fatal.

E. Regulatory and Enforcement History

    SDWA, including the amendments of 1986 and 1996, require EPA to 
promulgate NPDWRs to prevent tap water contamination that may adversely 
affect human health. As TNCWSs, aircraft are subject to certain NPDWRs 
specific to this category of systems. EPA published Water Supply 
Guidance 29 (WSG 29) in October 1986 to assist ICC operators, including 
air carriers, in complying with these standards (USEPA 1986). WSG 29 
described an alternative under which the operator of an ICC water 
system could use an approved operation and maintenance program in lieu 
of monitoring requirements. However, this guidance did not alter the 
regulatory requirements for ICCs. Since then, EPA has determined that a 
new rule specifically adapted to aircraft water systems would provide a 
clearer and more implementable regulatory framework for aircraft water 
systems. EPA suspended the earlier guidance in 2003 and is no longer 
approving operation and maintenance programs in lieu of monitoring 
under WSG 29 while the ICC program is being revised.
    In 2004, EPA found all aircraft water systems to be out of 
compliance with the NPDWRs. According to the air carriers, it is not 
feasible for them to comply with all of the monitoring that is required 
in the existing regulations. Subsequently, EPA tested 327 aircraft of 
which 15 percent tested positive for total coliform. In response to 
these findings, EPA embarked on a process to tailor the existing 
regulations for aircraft public water systems. In the interim, EPA 
placed 45 air carriers under Administrative Orders on Consent (AOC) 
that will remain in effect until tailored aircraft drinking water 
regulations are final. The air carrier AOCs combine sampling, best 
management practices, corrective action, public notification, and 
reporting and recordkeeping to ensure public health protection.
    Many drinking water rules for systems using surface water or ground 
water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) relate to the 
treatment of source water, but because aircraft board finished water, 
the responsibility for treating the water is borne by the water 
supplier from which aircraft obtain their water. This situation is 
comparable to traditional, stationary water systems that are 
consecutive systems (i.e., buy finished water from other PWSs). The 
proposed ADWR adapts to aircraft water systems the applicable 
requirements from the Total Coliform Rule, the suite of surface water 
treatment regulations, and the Public Notification Rule, the relevant 
sections of which are summarized as follows.
1. The 1989 Total Coliform Rule
    The Total Coliform Rule (TCR) (USEPA, 1989) applies to all public 
water systems. Because monitoring water systems for every possible 
pathogenic organism is not feasible, coliform organisms are used as 
indicators of possible source water and distribution system 
contamination. Coliforms are easily detected in water and are used to 
indicate a water system's source and distribution system vulnerability 
to pathogens. In the TCR, EPA sets a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal 
(MCLG) of zero for total coliforms. EPA also sets a monthly Maximum 
Contaminant Level (MCL) for total coliforms and requires testing of 
total coliform-positive cultures for the presence of E. coli or fecal 
coliforms. E. coli and fecal coliforms indicate more immediate health 
risks from sewage or fecal contamination and are used as a trigger of 
acute contamination. In addition, the TCR requires sanitary surveys 
(i.e., onsite review of the water source, facilities, equipment, 
operation and maintenance of a PWS for the purpose of evaluating the 
adequacy of such source, facilities, equipment, operation and 
maintenance for producing and distributing safe drinking water). The 
TCR requires sanitary surveys by the State primacy agency every 5 years 
for systems that collect fewer than 5 total coliform samples per month 
(those serving 4,100 people or fewer). A TNCWS using surface water 
serving less than 1,000 persons daily would typically be required to 
take one total coliform sample per month for routine sampling 
requirements.
2. Surface Water Treatment Regulations
    EPA has promulgated a suite of regulations to address 
microbiological contamination of surface water. These regulations 
include the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), the Interim Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), the Filter Backwash Recycling 
Rule, and the Long Term 1 and Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water 
Treatment Rules. These rules apply monitoring and treatment technique 
requirements to protect the public from microbiological pathogens in 
drinking water such as bacteria, viruses, Giardia lamblia, and 
Cryptosporidium. The monitoring and treatment technique requirements 
must be met prior to water entering the distribution system. Aircraft 
which board only finished water are not required to provide source 
water treatment or to perform monitoring of source water because these 
activities are the responsibility of the public water system from which 
the aircraft obtains finished water for boarding. However, the SWTR 
includes provisions for maintaining a detectable distribution system 
disinfectant residual and for monitoring distribution system 
disinfectant residuals at the same time and location as used for total 
coliform monitoring. Because disinfectant residual monitoring is 
required in the distribution system, current regulations require 
aircraft to perform this monitoring. A TNCWS using surface water 
serving less than 1,000 persons daily would typically be required to 
take one disinfectant residual sample per month. Additionally, the 
IESWTR requires primary enforcement agencies to conduct sanitary 
surveys for all

[[Page 19324]]

surface water and GWUDI systems regardless of size, and specifies a 
frequency of every 5 years for noncommunity water systems.
3. The Public Notification Rule
    Public water systems must give notice to persons served by the 
water system for violations of NPDWRs and for other situations posing a 
risk to public health from drinking water. The term ``NPDWR 
Violations'' is used in the public notification regulations to include 
violations of the MCL, Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL), 
treatment technique (TT), monitoring, and testing procedure 
requirements. Public notice requirements are divided into three tiers, 
which take into account the seriousness of the violation or situation 
and of any potential adverse health effects that may be involved. Due 
to the transient nature of the public served by TNCWSs, public notice 
is typically provided through posting of the notice at locations where 
the public may access drinking water from the water system.
4. Roles of the FAA and FDA in Regulating Aircraft Drinking Water
    Drinking water safety on air carriers is jointly regulated by the 
EPA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA). EPA regulates the parent public water systems 
within the United States that supply water to the airports and the 
drinking water once it is onboard the aircraft. EPA is responsible for 
developing and implementing the NPDWRs for all public water systems, 
including public water systems on aircraft. FAA requires that air 
carrier companies submit operation and maintenance programs (14 CFR 
part 43, 14 CFR part 91, 14 CFR part 121) for all parts of the 
aircraft, including the water system. Under the current Memorandum of 
Understanding between EPA and FDA, the FDA takes the lead in regulating 
culinary water and the watering points where aircraft obtain water at 
the individual airports. FDA is responsible for approving all ICC 
watering points (21 CFR 1240.83(a)), (1) to ensure the water supply 
meets EPA's NPDWRs and (2) to ensure the methods (i.e., water transfer 
process) of and facilities (e.g., water cabinets, carts, trucks, 
containers, and hoses) for delivery of such water to the conveyance and 
the sanitary conditions surrounding such delivery prevent the 
introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases.
    In addition to the EPA and FDA requirements, air carriers have many 
different on-going programs and practices for assessing and correcting 
deficiencies and risks associated with the drinking water supply and 
related safety, security and sanitation issues. Such programs and 
practices may include FAA Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category 
Airplanes (airworthiness maintenance and inspection program) (14 CFR 
part 43, 14 CFR part 91, and 14 CFR part 121); vulnerability 
assessments/security programs; FDA regulations for Interstate 
Conveyance Sanitation (USFDA 2005); FDA sanitary surveys of watering 
points and servicing areas; and FDA certification of aircraft 
sanitation systems including potable (finished) water, sewage, and 
galleys. These programs may contribute valuable information related to 
the condition of the aircraft water system and water quality. EPA has 
worked closely with FDA and FAA to ensure that this proposal for 
aircraft water system regulation is integrated with these programs to 
avoid unnecessary duplication.

III. Proposed Rule Development

A. Stakeholder Involvement

    In November 2004, when EPA announced that it had initiated a 
rulemaking process to develop regulations for aircraft public water 
systems, the Agency committed to working collaboratively with other 
federal agencies overseeing the air carrier industry, industry 
representatives, and interested stakeholders to identify appropriate 
requirements to ensure safe drinking water onboard aircraft. This 
collaborative rule development process has allowed EPA an opportunity 
to obtain information from, and hear the concerns and questions of 
stakeholders who would be affected by this rule in an organized and 
formal process prior to development of this proposed rule.
    EPA has held three public meetings; these were held in June 2005, 
January 2006, and March 2007. All three events were well-attended by 
stakeholders representing a diverse group of interests including: Air 
carriers, airports, flight attendants, pilots, passengers, public 
health officials, environmental groups, states, public water systems, 
water treatment and equipment vendors, laboratories, foreign government 
agencies, and other federal agencies (e.g., FDA, FAA, and CDC).
    EPA used a third-party skilled in conflict resolution to help 
facilitate the process and to involve the full range of interests. 
Given the number and complexity of issues associated with aircraft 
drinking water, EPA began with an assessment process to identify 
options to support and engage the full range of stakeholders in the 
regulatory development process.
    In June 2005, EPA held a public information meeting to kick-off the 
rulemaking process. The meeting was followed by the development of a 
stakeholder assessment report, produced by the third-party facilitator, 
which is available in the docket for this rule. This report included 
recommendations for a series of joint education workshops to bring 
diverse stakeholders together to identify and understand the issues and 
to provide input and comment on regulatory approaches and options.
    The first workshop was held on January 18-19, 2006. This workshop 
provided an opportunity for stakeholders to learn about aircraft water 
systems and watering points, current regulations, and other information 
relevant to the rulemaking. The stakeholders were encouraged to share 
their initial ideas about the issues that should be addressed in 
developing the proposed rule. EPA also presented for consideration by 
the stakeholders a conceptual approach for the rule, which draws on the 
principles of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) 
and multiple barrier approaches. This systematic approach, known as the 
Water Safety Plan (WSP) approach, is described in greater detail in 
section III. C. Framework for Proposed Rule Development.
    The second workshop was conducted on March 28-29, 2007. At this 
workshop, EPA presented for comment examples of the application of the 
Water Safety Plan approach to aircraft water systems. Also, EPA 
presented the preliminary monitoring data collected under the air 
carrier Administrative Orders on Consent. The majority of the workshop 
time was spent soliciting stakeholder input on topics critical to the 
development of the ADWR including monitoring, best management 
practices, public and crew notification, reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, and program oversight and verification.

B. Data Collection Efforts

    In developing the ADWR proposal, EPA analyzed preliminary 
monitoring results submitted under the Administrative Orders on Consent 
(AOCs) from 2005-2007. In addition, to gain a better understanding of 
the drinking water quality on domestic aircraft as indicated by total 
coliform, E.coli/fecal coliform, and chlorine residual, EPA drew upon 
the results of the following three studies: (1) A

[[Page 19325]]

voluntary monitoring study completed by the Air Transport Association 
(ATA) in Fall 2003; (2) an EPA study of aircraft NPDWR compliance 
completed in 2004; and (3) the Canadian Inspection Program monitoring 
results completed in 2006
    The EPA data summaries presented here should not be used to draw 
any definitive conclusions. The AOC dataset is incomplete and therefore 
considered preliminary since it represents 15 out of 45 domestic air 
carriers under AOCs with EPA. The 45 domestic air carriers were placed 
under AOCs to resolve non-compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act 
and the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The AOCs 
established interim aircraft water testing and disinfection protocols. 
Each of the air carriers, at a minimum, was required to implement the 
following regular monitoring and disinfection protocols for its entire 
fleet: Regular monitoring of aircraft water systems for coliforms and 
disinfectant residuals; regular disinfection of aircraft water systems 
and water transfer equipment; corrective action for total coliform-
positive sample(s); analysis of any total coliform-positive culture 
media for the presence of fecal coliforms or E. coli; provision of 
public notice or restriction of water service when there is a total 
coliform-positive sample result; performance of a study of possible 
sources of contamination that exist outside of the aircraft; and 
inclusion of information regarding various aspects of its domestic and 
foreign water practices.
    Specific to the AOC sampling data, air carriers were required to 
submit two documents for EPA approval that set the stage for monitoring 
and disinfection protocols/procedures: A Comprehensive Representative 
Monitoring Plan (CRMP) and a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The 
CRMP describes the air carrier's sampling and disinfection processes 
and protocols for collecting samples within a 12-month period. The QAPP 
describes the air carrier's Quality Assurance/Quality Control processes 
to ensure good quality data and the methods for collecting and 
assessing data, such as use of State- or EPA-certified laboratories and 
EPA-approved analytical methods for analyzing drinking water samples. 
Once the plans were approved, air carriers were required to collect and 
submit their aircraft water system sampling data to EPA. As reflected 
in Table III-1, air carriers followed slightly different monitoring and 
disinfection protocols based on their fleet size.

  Table III-1.--Monitoring and Disinfection Protocols as Required Under
                                the AOCs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Air carriers     Air carriers
                                          with greater    with less than
                                            than 20       or equal to 20
                                            aircraft         aircraft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MONITORING \1\
For each sample event, collect at              [check]          [check]
 least one sample from a galley and
 one from a lavatory for Total
 Coliform (TC) and Disinfectant
 Residual (total residual chlorine)...
Sample 25% of fleet quarterly.........         [check]   ...............
Sample all fleet quarterly............  ...............         [check]
DISINFECTING AND FLUSHING \2\
Disinfect and flush each aircraft's            [check]          [check]
 water system no less than quarterly..
Disinfect and flush watering points            [check]          [check]
 (e.g., water trucks, carts, cabinets,
 hoses) no less than monthly..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The air carrier was required to use State- or EPA-certified
  laboratories and EPA-approved analytical methods for analyzing
  drinking water samples.
\2\ If the air carrier has a pre-AOC monitoring and disinfecting program
  requiring a higher frequency, the air carrier was required to continue
  in accordance with their program, unless modification was requested
  and approved by EPA.

    As of May 31, 2007, of the 45 air carriers under AOCs, EPA has 
analyzed preliminary drinking water sampling data from 15 air carriers 
consisting of 2,316 aircraft out of an estimated total fleet size of 
5,558. The total number of samples (routine and repeat) was 12,099. Of 
these samples, 3.1 percent (378 samples) were total coliform-positive. 
Of the 378 total coliform-positive samples, 2.4 percent (9 samples) 
were E. coli/fecal coliform-positive. Of a total of 7,489 routine 
chlorine residual samples taken, 26.1 percent (1,957) resulted in a 
non-detect. However, in relating the preliminary AOC sampling data to 
other aircraft water quality studies only the routine samples were 
used. Repeat samples were not used because they by nature have a higher 
probability of being total coliform-positive since repeats are taken 
after a routine sample is total coliform-positive. In addition, the 
other studies did not take repeat samples, therefore, the routine 
samples are most analogous to the data collected under the other 
studies.
    Therefore, in determining an estimated baseline of domestic air 
carrier drinking water quality the following was observed in the 
preliminary AOC data: Out of 7,812 routine samples, 2.8 percent (222 
samples) were total coliform-positive. Of the 222 total coliform-
positive samples, 2.3 percent (5 samples) were E. coli/fecal coliform-
positive. Of the 3,952 routine chlorine residual samples taken, 21.5 
percent (848) resulted in a non-detect.
    Under a voluntary study coordinated with EPA, ATA sampled 265 
passenger aircraft operated by eight ATA-member U.S. air carriers. As 
noted by ATA, these eight air carriers represent the majority of the 
U.S. commercial passenger fleet, and serve both domestic and 
international routes. The aircraft were randomly selected and samples 
were generally collected from the galley, except in some cases where 
the galley faucets were equipped with filters, efforts were made to 
collect residual disinfectant samples from the lavatory. The samples 
were analyzed for total coliform (and in the case of a total coliform-
positive result, the sample was tested for E. coli/fecal coliform), 
total residual chlorine, turbidity, total nitrate, and nitrite. 
Regarding microbiological testing, of the 265 aircraft sampled, 2.6 
percent (7 aircraft) were total coliform-positive; there were no fecal 
coliform or E. coli-positive samples. Water samples from forty-one 
percent of the aircraft had non-detectable chlorine residuals (ATA 
2003).
    In the 2004 EPA NPDWR Compliance study, 327 passenger aircraft 
belonging to ATA and non-ATA members were randomly tested at 12 U.S. 
airports that served both domestic and international routes. EPA 
analyzed the drinking water samples from galleys and lavatories for 
total coliform (and in the case of a total coliform-positive result, 
the sample was tested for E. coli/fecal coliform), total

[[Page 19326]]

residual chlorine, heterotrophic plate count, total nitrate, and 
nitrite. In regard to microbiological presence, 15 percent (49/327) of 
the aircraft tested positive for total coliform, and 4.1 percent (2/49 
aircraft) of these total coliform positive aircraft also tested 
positive for E. coli/fecal coliform. Twenty-one percent (69/327) of the 
aircraft tested had a non-detectable chlorine residual.
    Under the Canadian Inspection Program, Health Canada randomly 
inspected 431 aircraft for microbiological presence in drinking water. 
Of the 431 aircraft tested, 15.1 percent (65 aircraft) were total 
coliform-positive, and 7.7 percent (5/65 aircraft) of these total 
coliform positive aircraft were also E. coli positive. Most of the 
contamination (4 samples) was found in water from the lavatory faucets. 
The Canadian study did not test for chlorine residual (Canada 2007a and 
2007b).
    It is important to note that the intended purpose and use of the 
preliminary AOC and the other aircraft sampling results were to protect 
public health by providing an understanding of the quality of airline 
drinking water. Although they were not collected to drive the ADWR 
rulemaking process, these datasets provide important information for an 
estimated baseline of aircraft drinking water quality for total 
coliform, E. coli/fecal coliform, and residual chlorine.
    Although it is difficult to complete a one-to-one comparison of the 
sampling results among the studies, observed differences may be 
attributed to several factors. For instance, best management practices 
and protocols (such as systematic sampling, disinfecting, and flushing 
procedures) established under the AOCs may have played a part in the 
varying results. These systematic protocols may have created a greater 
chance of consistency and effectiveness among the air carriers in 
implementing the operational and maintenance procedures of an aircraft 
water system. In addition, these findings suggest that best management 
practices are important for public health protection.
    EPA will continue to collect and analyze the aircraft sampling data 
for the 45 air carriers under the AOCs. EPA will use the data to 
improve the Agency's understanding of aircraft drinking water quality 
relevant to microbiological controls. A summary of the final results 
will be released along with available sampling data from the 45 air 
carriers under AOCs. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0025.

C. Framework for Proposed Rule Development

    For today's proposal, EPA has considered both the existing NPDWRs 
applicable to aircraft water systems--the Total Coliform Rule, the 
Surface Water Treatment Regulations and the Public Notification Rule--
and a systematic risk management approach used for food and water 
safety by other agencies, which EPA believes can be particularly 
effective when dealing with mobile sources of drinking water. The 
resulting proposed rule is intended to consolidate the three existing 
NPDWRs into one new NPDWR and modify them, based on the Water Safety 
Plan approach described as follows, so that the drinking water 
standards can be more effectively implemented for aircraft water 
systems and better integrated with FDA and FAA programs and 
requirements.
1. HACCP and Water Safety Plan Approaches
    EPA believes that an effective means of assuring safe drinking 
water onboard aircraft is through the application of a systematic risk 
management approach referred to as the Water Safety Plan (WSP) 
approach. The Water Safety Plan concept was developed by the World 
Health Organization (WHO) as part of the 3rd edition of its drinking 
water guidelines (WHO 2004). It is based on the Hazard Analysis and 
Critical Control Point (HACCP) concepts and the multiple barrier 
approach to protecting public health.
    The basic HACCP concepts were originally developed in 1959 by the 
Pillsbury Company with cooperation and participation from the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Natick Laboratories of 
the U.S. Army, and the U.S. Air Force Space Laboratory Project Group. 
The purpose was to ensure food and beverage safety from microbiological 
hazards for the first NASA manned space missions. Since the 1980s, the 
HACCP system has been adopted by food and beverage industries world-
wide, where it forms an important part of their ``food safety plans.'' 
For example, the FDA has adopted the HACCP system as an effective 
approach for its food safety program. FDA utilized the HACCP approach 
in the final rules for the seafood and juice industries. HACCP 
guidelines developed by WHO, known as Codex Alimentarius, have been 
adopted internationally as the primary recognized food safety 
methodology for risk management. The current HACCP guideline (WHO, 
1997) was developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
    In the multiple barrier approach, technical and managerial barriers 
help prevent contamination at the source, treatment, distribution, and 
tap to provide a safe supply of drinking water for consumers. The 
barriers include risk prevention, risk management, monitoring and 
compliance, and individual action. As an enhancement of the HACCP 
approach, the Water Safety Plan approach identifies control measures 
not only at critical control points, as is done for HACCP, but also at 
the point of contamination where the hazardous event occurs as well as 
downstream of the potential contamination point. The intent is to 
enable the effect of the multiple barriers to be assessed together 
(Davison et al., 2005). The Water Safety Plan approach continues to 
evolve as the water industry gains experience by developing and 
implementing Water Safety Plans.
2. Proposed Rule Approach
    The proposed approach for this rulemaking effort includes elements 
of the HACCP approach and WHO's Water Safety Plan approach and builds 
on the foundation of the controls established under the existing NPDWRs 
applicable to aircraft water systems. This proposed regulation does not 
require each air carrier to develop its own Water Safety Plan (WSP). 
Instead, the WSP approach was used to outline the priority hazards and 
the control measures that could be implemented to control these hazards 
in the entire aircraft water supply and transfer chain. By looking 
holistically at the entire process, EPA ensured a collaborative working 
relationship with other federal agencies overseeing the air carrier 
industry. This holistic approach will minimize duplication of effort 
and regulation by multiple federal agencies over the same segment of 
the process. It also helps minimize concerns of over-regulation in one 
segment of a process to address an issue that could be more effectively 
handled in another segment of the process. Once the hazards and 
potential control measures were identified, EPA could then focus on the 
specific area of its jurisdiction, the onboard water system.
3. Identified Hazard Events and Potential Control Measures
    The following are examples of the primary hazard events and 
potential control measures for aircraft water systems identified 
through the WSP approach.
     Water to be boarded does not meet NPDWRs applicable to 
TNCWSs. The potential control measure is to prevent boarding of water, 
if operational needs (e.g., flushing of toilets) can be met

[[Page 19327]]

without boarding additional water. If water must be boarded, 
appropriate control measures are to: Restrict public access, provide 
public notification, including posting notices at lavatory and galley 
taps stating that the water is not for consumption; provide bottled 
water for coffee making and drinking; providing antiseptic alcohol-
based hand gels or wipes for handwashing; disinfecting and flushing the 
aircraft water system as soon as possible; and demonstrating 
satisfactory aircraft water quality through follow-up sampling before 
resumption of unrestricted public access to the aircraft water system.
     Air carrier or aircraft crew is notified that water 
already boarded does not meet NPDWRs applicable to TNCWSs. The 
potential control measures are to: Restrict public access, provide 
public notification, including posting notices at lavatory and galley 
taps stating that the water is not for consumption; providing bottled 
water for coffee making and drinking; providing antiseptic alcohol-
based hand gels or wipes for handwashing; disinfecting and flushing the 
aircraft water system as soon as possible; and demonstrating 
satisfactory aircraft water quality through follow-up sampling before 
resumption of unrestricted public access to the aircraft water system.
     Use of a watering point, including transfer and delivery 
systems, not approved by FDA. The potential control measure is for the 
air carrier to obtain approval from FDA for new watering points or when 
changing watering points.
     Contamination or cross contamination due to unsanitary 
practices. The potential control measures are to: Clean and disinfect 
hoses, transfer pumps, water trucks, and other equipment; develop 
written standard operating procedures (SOPs) and provide training for 
sanitary water transfer practices and aircraft cleaning; conduct total 
coliform monitoring; restrict public access, provide public 
notification, including posting notices at lavatory and galley taps 
stating that the water is not for consumption; providing bottled water 
for coffee making and drinking; providing antiseptic alcohol-based hand 
gels or wipes for handwashing; disinfecting and flushing the aircraft 
water system as soon as possible; and demonstrating satisfactory 
aircraft water quality through follow-up sampling before resumption of 
unrestricted public access to the aircraft water system; and conducting 
audits or inspections.
     Backflow from unprotected cross connection, failure of 
backflow prevention devices, or cross contamination from water line 
break. The potential control measures are to: Identify possible cross 
connections and install backflow prevention devices as warranted; 
repair failed backflow prevention devices; repair water line breaks; 
disinfect and flush the aircraft water system as soon as possible; and 
resample aircraft water quality before returning to service.
     Improperly designed aircraft water system. The potential 
control measure is to obtain FDA review and approval of plans and 
specifications (Certificate of Sanitary Construction) for new aircraft 
water systems.
     Bacterial growth in aircraft water system. The potential 
control measures are to: Conduct routine total coliform monitoring; and 
routinely disinfect and flush the aircraft water system.

IV. Elements of the Proposed Aircraft Drinking Water Rule

    The following sections describe the elements of the aircraft 
drinking water rule as proposed by EPA. The proposed rule has 
significant operational advantages over the other more prescriptive 
alternatives, which are described in section V. EPA specifically 
designed the proposed rule to allow air carriers to follow the 
manufacturer recommendations for disinfecting and flushing aircraft 
water systems, instead of prescribing the frequency, chemical type and 
concentration to be used. Another advantage of the proposed rule over 
the approaches described in the alternatives 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.
    EPA requests comment on all aspects of this rule. Please note, 
however, that EPA is not requesting, and will not consider, comments on 
any aspect of the TCR, surface water treatment regulations, Public 
Notification Rule or any other NPDWR other than as applied to aircraft 
water systems in this proposal. In addition to rule requirements, EPA 
identifies specific requests for comment on subject matters pertaining 
to the proposed rule.

A. Sampling Requirements

1. Coliform Sampling Plan
    As discussed above, the existing TCR requires testing for total 
coliforms in water systems. Under this proposal, EPA is requiring each 
air carrier to develop a coliform sampling plan (within six months 
after the final rule is published in the Federal Register) for each 
aircraft that identifies the following: (1) Coliform sample collection 
procedures, (2) sample tap location(s) representative of the aircraft 
water system, including both galley and lavatory taps when available, 
(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, and (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. The 
development of a sampling plan will assist the air carrier in tracking 
regulatory requirements, identifying coliform detection trends, if any 
exist, and in maintaining compliance.
2. Coliform Sampling Requirements
    In keeping with the current TCR, air carriers need only determine 
the presence or absence of total coliforms in water samples collected 
from aircraft water systems; a determination of total coliform density 
would not be required. EPA believes this aids in making the sampling 
process more efficient and avoids unnecessary analysis. In addition, 
this proposed rule specifies that only analytical methodologies 
approved by EPA are to be used for sampling. For routine monitoring, 
each aircraft water system water sample must be 100 mL. One sample must 
be taken from a lavatory and one sample from a galley; each must be 
analyzed for total coliform. EPA believes the selection of sample taps 
from both the lavatory and the galley is necessary since tap options 
throughout these types of water systems is limited. 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.
    Routine coliform sampling should be representative of the general 
conditions of the aircraft water system. To ensure that results of 
routine samples are not inadvertently skewed by sampling too soon after 
a disinfection event, routine coliform samples must not be collected 
within 72 hours after completing disinfection and flushing procedures. 
EPA believes that spacing routine samples evenly across monitoring 
periods will help. This is necessary in order to capture a 
representative sample from normal aircraft water system operations. 
Additional, or special, coliform sampling is always encouraged and 
recommended by EPA.

[[Page 19328]]

    Routine coliform monitoring frequencies are as follows:
     If the air carrier disinfects and flushes the entire water 
system at least quarterly, then coliform monitoring must occur at least 
annually;
     If the air carrier disinfects and flushes the entire water 
system one to three times per year, then coliform monitoring must occur 
at least quarterly; or
     If the air carrier disinfects and flushes the entire water 
system less than once per year, then coliform monitoring must occur at 
least monthly.
    It should be noted that this is the first NPDWR that requires 
disinfection and flushing as a required extra barrier for the 
protection of public health. EPA understands that most of the air 
carrier maintenance programs employ water system disinfection and 
flushing; however, EPA believes that making three sampling frequency 
options available to air carriers for the aircraft water systems that 
they operate provides the flexibility to meet the evolving needs of the 
industry while still providing adequate barriers of protection.
    This proposal uses calendar-based monitoring and reporting 
frequencies. This basis is also consistent with EPA's current methods 
of oversight and is compatible with the Agency's current data systems. 
EPA is aware that the air carrier industry typically schedules 
maintenance or other activities based on aircraft flight hours or 
flight days. Scheduling activities on a calendar basis could lead to 
incompatibility and challenges in creating regular maintenance 
schedules. On the other hand, if an aircraft is not in frequent 
operation, basing aircraft water system activities on a flight time 
basis could lead to an extended calendar period before any actions are 
taken, which would not be protective of public health. EPA requests 
comment on whether the proposed calendar basis could reasonably be 
integrated with the air carrier industry's flight time basis, or if 
not, how the Agency should transpose the proposed requirements to an 
equivalent standard on a flight time basis.

B. Response to Sampling Results

    1. All routine coliform samples are negative. If all routine 
samples are total coliform-negative in a monitoring period, then the 
air carrier must continue to maintain its routine monitoring for 
coliform based on the frequency required under the rule.
    2. The sample yields a positive result for total coliform. If any 
routine or repeat coliform sample is total coliform-positive, then that 
total coliform-positive culture medium must be analyzed to determine if 
fecal coliforms or E. coli are present.
    3. One of two routine water samples test positive for total 
coliform, but negative for E. coli or fecal coliforms. In response to a 
single total coliform-positive sample result that is fecal/E. coli 
negative, the air carrier must perform at least one of the following:
     Disinfection and flushing no later than 72 hours after the 
laboratory notifies the air carrier of the positive result. Follow-up 
samples must be collected after disinfection and flushing is performed 
to ensure the effectiveness of the process. A complete set of post 
disinfection and flushing follow-up sample results (i.e., one from the 
lavatories and one from the galleys) 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; or
     Repeat Sampling. Collect four 100 mL repeat samples within 
24 hours of being notified of the positive result. Repeat samples must 
be collected and analyzed from four taps within the aircraft water 
system: 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, the 
system returns to its routine monitoring schedule and no further 
follow-up is required.
    4. Any sample test result is fecal coliform positive or E. coli-
positive. Since fecal coliform or E. coli bacteria indicate the 
potential presence of contaminants that can cause acute health risks, 
EPA believes it is necessary to take immediate corrective action for 
the protection of public health. The aircraft water system is not a 
traditional water system and the air carrier must therefore take 
additional measures to prevent any disease or illness. If any routine 
or repeat sample is fecal coliform-positive or E. coli-positive, then 
the air carrier must perform all of the following:
     Restrict public access to the aircraft water system which 
includes providing notification to passengers and crew as soon as 
possible but no later than 24 hours after being notified of the 
positive result.
     Conduct disinfection and flushing 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.
     Collect follow-up samples after disinfection and flushing 
is performed to ensure the effectiveness of the process. A complete set 
of post disinfection and flushing 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. Follow-up sample procedures must, at 
a minimum, follow routine coliform sample locations and procedures.
    5. More than one sample resulted in a total coliform-positive but 
was fecal coliform-negative or E. coli-negative. If more than one of 
any routine, repeat, or a combination of samples is total coliform 
positive and fecal coliform-negative or E. coli negative, then the air 
carrier must perform all of the following:
     Restrict public access to the aircraft water system which 
includes providing notification to passengers and crew as soon as 
possible but no later than 24 hours after being notified of the 
positive result.
     Conduct disinfection and flushing 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.
     Collect follow-up samples after disinfection and flushing 
is performed to ensure the effectiveness of the process. A complete set 
of post disinfection and flushing 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. Follow-up sample procedures must, at 
a minimum, follow routine coliform sample locations and procedures.
    6. Post disinfection and flushing follow-up sampling. Follow-up 
samples are necessary to validate the effectiveness of the disinfection 
and flushing procedures. If one or more of the follow-up samples in a 
set of follow-up samples is total coliform-positive then, as a minimum, 
the air carrier must disinfect and flush again, then take a new set of 
follow-up samples. Both follow-up sample results must be total 
coliform-negative before the aircraft water system provides water to 
passengers and crew and the air carrier returns to the routine 
monitoring frequency for coliform.

[[Page 19329]]

    7. Failure to conduct routine coliform monitoring or analysis, or 
boarding water from a watering point not approved by the FDA. If there 
was a failure to collect and analyze the required number of routine 
coliform samples, or water was boarded in the United States from a 
watering point not approved by the FDA, or outside the United States in 
a manner not in accordance with the air carrier's procedures for 
ensuring the water is safe, then the air carrier must perform all of 
the following:
     Provide notification to passengers and crew as soon 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; or provide notification to passengers and 
crew as soon as possible but in no case later than 24 hours after 
boarding water from a watering point not approved by FDA.
     Conduct disinfection and flushing within 72 hours.
     Collect follow-up samples after disinfection and flushing 
is performed to ensure the effectiveness of the process. A complete set 
of post disinfection and flushing 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. Follow-up sample procedures must, at 
a minimum, follow routine coliform sample locations and procedures.
    This situation does not require the same degree of restricted 
access because there is no specific indication that the water is not 
safe. However, to ensure public health protection, carriers must still 
warn passengers not to drink the water, and must provide a full 
explanation of the situation to the crew.
    8. Failure to conduct repeat or follow-up monitoring or analysis, 
or boarding water known to not meet NPDWRs applicable to TNCWSs. If 
there was a failure to collect and analyze the required number of 
repeat or follow-up coliform samples, or water was boarded which is 
known to not meet NPDWRs, then the air carrier must perform all of the 
following:
     Restrict public access to the water system which includes 
providing notification to passengers and crew as soon as possible but 
no later than 24 hours after discovery of failure to collect required 
samples or after being notified by EPA of failure to collect required 
samples,
     Conduct disinfection and flushing prior to resumption of 
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.
     Collect follow-up samples after disinfection and flushing 
is performed to ensure the effectiveness of the process. A complete set 
of post disinfection and flushing 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. Follow-up sample procedures must, at 
a minimum, follow routine coliform sample locations and procedures.
    This situation, in contrast to the one above, is one in which there 
is a specific indication that the water is or may not be safe to drink. 
In this case, in order to protect public health, the same level of 
restricted access and public notice is required as for situations in 
which there has been a positive coliform detection.
Restricted Access to the Water System
    In any situation where there is an affirmative indicator of actual 
or potential contamination (e.g., more than one coliform-positive 
sample, a single fecal coliform- or e-coli-positive sample, water 
boarded from a known contaminated source, etc.), the carrier is 
required to restrict access to the water system as expeditiously as 
possible, but in no case more than 24 hours after the event triggering 
the requirement (e.g., positive sample result). Ideally, access to all 
lavatory and galley taps, built in coffee/tea maker, etc. should be 
physically shut off, and this is required where feasible. The carrier 
must also make provisions for alternatives such as bottled water and 
antiseptic alcohol-based hand gels or wipes. In cases where it is not 
feasible to physically prevent access, the carrier must provide notice 
in each lavatory, galley tap, etc., which clearly indicates to 
passengers and crew that the water is non-potable and should not be 
used for drinking, food or beverage preparation, teeth-brushing, hand 
washing, or any other consumptive use. Additional information must also 
be provided to the crew (see Section D. Notification Requirements to 
Passengers and Crew).
Request for Comment on Sampling Requirements and Response
1. Microbiological Indicators
    The Agency's primary interest is in crafting a regulation for 
aircraft water systems that is both implementable and fully protective 
of public health. While current methods and indicators exist to provide 
meaningful characterization of safe drinking water, this proposal 
relies on coliform bacteria as an indicator of microbiological quality. 
A second indicator commonly used to gain insight on water quality is 
heterotrophic plate count (HPC).
    The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) includes a provision which 
allows a system to conduct heterotrophic plate counts in lieu of 
measuring for residual disinfectant concentrations. Finished water with 
heterotrophic bacteria concentration less than or equal to 500 per mL 
is deemed to have a detectable disinfectant residual concentration for 
purposes of determining compliance with the SWTR. HPC sampling could be 
done at the same time and place as routine coliform monitoring, or more 
routinely such as monthly as an additional check. If heterotrophic 
counts are greater than 500/ml, then corrective action could be 
required.
    EPA requests comment on whether HPC should be allowed, required, or 
not considered as another indicator of water quality in addition to 
coliform monitoring.
2. Potential for Bacterial Growth
    Water in the aircraft system which sits for an extended period of 
time or is otherwise not turned over could be at risk for biofilm or 
other bacterial growth, especially if a strong disinfectant residual is 
not present. Furthermore, total coliform as an indicator may not 
identify the presence of other organisms that may be present in biofilm 
such as mycobacterium and Legionella. Activities such as routine 
disinfection and flushing, as well as the presence of a disinfectant 
residual, may help reduce risk from organisms that are not detected via 
routine total coliform monitoring.
    Most aircraft water tanks are either topped off or drained on an 
almost daily basis. However, there are occasional situations when the 
water may sit stagnant. Some examples are aircraft taken out of service 
for an extended maintenance period, or cold weather conditions that 
affect the ability to drain tanks (due to environmental concerns 
involving water disposal in addition to concerns about the drained 
water freezing on the tarmac). Additionally, aircraft that experience 
long layovers or overnight stays in high temperature areas have a 
higher potential for rapid growth of organisms. This proposal does not 
specifically address such situations; however, EPA requests comment on 
whether the final rule should include a provision to address extended 
stagnant periods, high water temperatures or

[[Page 19330]]

other situations that may augment concern regarding bacterial growth.
3. Temperature of Sample Taps
    This proposal does not specify whether samples should be taken from 
hot or cold taps. Some concern exists about sampling from hot taps 
since hot water could kill microorganisms, masking whether there is a 
microbiological problem in the aircraft system. EPA requests comment on 
whether sampling should only be limited to cold taps when they are 
available. EPA also requests comment on whether the temperature of the 
hot taps should be measured to provide some indication of whether the 
temperature achieved is high enough to alter the microbiological 
results.
4. Statistical Sampling
    As stated earlier, each aircraft water system is a unique system 
that draws water from a potentially large number and combination of 
sources and distribution systems, which may vary on a daily basis, or 
even more often. This proposal requires corrective action based on 
monitoring results for each individual system to directly address the 
risks to that system. Some stakeholders have suggested that a 
representative number of aircraft be sampled, resulting in a 
statistical sample of the air carrier fleet instead of all aircraft 
being sampled. Under current practices, the source(s) of water for an 
individual aircraft are so varied that it is difficult for a 
statistical sample to provide an accurate representation of all water 
being served on the aircraft. In addition, if the Agency did have 
enough evidence that allowed an extrapolation of the statistical sample 
to the entire fleet, the implication is that any positive coliform 
result in the statistical sample would trigger additional monitoring 
and/or corrective action in the entire fleet, as the statistical sample 
would be used as an indicator for a systemic problem.
    EPA requests comment on the use of statistical sampling 
methodologies, specifically on what type of monitoring scheme would 
allow a statistical sample to be representative of the whole. EPA is 
especially interested in getting input on whether such methodologies, 
if allowed, should only be used in conjunction with onboard or other 
supplemental treatment such as adding a disinfectant or ultraviolet 
light. EPA also requests input regarding the support for such an 
option, given the cost and logistical implications of a positive result 
in the statistical sample triggering follow-up action in the entire 
fleet.
5. Option for Repeat Sampling
    Under this proposal, an aircraft water system that has one total 
coliform-positive result under its routine monitoring sample, but no 
fecal coliform or E. coli-positive, can opt to either go directly to 
corrective action (disinfection and flushing) or perform repeat 
sampling. In some cases, by the time the air carrier is notified that 
the routine sample results are total coliform-positive it is likely 
that the original water in the aircraft water system has been changed. 
Under this scenario, the repeat samples may not be providing an 
accurate picture of the water quality since it is not characterizing 
the same water as the routine sample.
    EPA requests comment on whether to disallow the option for repeat 
sampling in response to the original routine total coliform-positive if 
the aircraft has boarded water since the routine sample.
6. Disinfectant Residual Monitoring
    This proposal relies on a combination of coliform bacteria 
monitoring with routine disinfection and flushing of the aircraft water 
system to ensure the safety and quality of water onboard aircraft. 
EPA's SWTR requires public water systems relying on surface water as 
their water source to maintain a detectable disinfectant residual in 
the distribution system to ensure that disinfection is maintained 
throughout the water system. Since aircraft may board water more than 
once per day from a variety of sources (some of which may be ground 
water that is not disinfected), EPA is uncertain whether monthly (or 
less frequent) disinfectant residual monitoring would be adequate to 
provide useful information for aircraft water systems. Instead, EPA 
believes that more frequent flushing and disinfection of the entire 
aircraft water system as a treatment technique combined with other 
barriers will ensure microbiologically safe tap water is provided on 
the aircraft in lieu of the residual disinfectant requirements 
applicable to stationary public water systems. However, EPA is also 
soliciting comment on an alternative which would add disinfectant 
residual monitoring to the proposed monitoring requirements.
    The microbiological safety of drinking water supplied by public 
water systems in the United States relies heavily on disinfection of 
the water. This is especially the case for systems that use surface 
water as a source of water. Although some microorganisms are resistant 
to disinfection (e.g., Cryptosporidium), maintenance of a disinfection 
residual throughout the distribution system helps to inactivate many 
types of microorganisms in the distribution system and controls biofilm 
growth.
    Not all water boarded onto aircraft at airports is necessarily 
disinfected or has disinfectant residuals. Domestic ground water 
systems do not necessarily disinfect nor have a disinfectant residual 
in the distribution system. Even if the water supplied to airports by 
regulated public water systems have disinfectant residuals at the 
airport taps, the process of getting the water into aircraft water 
tanks via water trucks, carts and hoses can provide enough mixing and 
aeration of the water to volatilize the disinfectant.
    As noted above, EPA believes that this proposal adequately 
addresses concerns about disinfection through the coliform monitoring 
and disinfection and flushing requirements. However, EPA requests 
comment on whether it is appropriate to require routine monitoring for 
disinfectant residuals at aircraft water systems and if so, the 
frequency at which this monitoring should occur, and what corrective 
action(s) should be required if sufficient disinfectant residuals are 
not detected.
7. Time Frame for Disinfection and Flushing
    The proposed rule requires disinfection and flushing to be 
conducted within 72 hours in certain situations, for example after 
receiving lab results indicating two total-coliform positive samples or 
a single fecal coliform- or e-coli positive sample (except where the 
water system is physically shut off). EPA understands that this will 
generally require bringing the aircraft to a designated maintenance 
facility equipped to perform disinfection and flushing. EPA requests 
comment on whether this time frame is appropriate.

C. Aircraft Water System Operations and Maintenance Plan

    EPA is proposing to require each air carrier to develop and 
implement an aircraft water system operations and maintenance plan 
covering each type of aircraft operated by the air carrier. An 
effectively implemented plan is essential to ensure that safe and 
reliable drinking water is provided to aircraft passengers and crew. 
EPA believes that the most reliable way to ensure effective 
implementation is to require that the water system operations and 
maintenance plan be included in a Federal Aviation Administration 
approved or accepted aircraft operations and maintenance program. The 
FAA requires all maintenance and

[[Page 19331]]

operational procedures to be formally documented for each aircraft. 
Failure by an air carrier to perform the prescribed program 
requirements may result in forfeiture of air carrier operating 
certificates and/or fines. Furthermore, EPA is attempting to minimize 
duplication of effort between the two agencies in conducting routine 
oversight and review of water system operations and maintenance plans 
by requiring the air carriers to include these plans in the FAA 
approved or accepted operations and maintenance program. However, EPA 
will provide oversight of operation and maintenance plans through 
periodic compliance audits.
    In order to ensure that the appropriate multiple barriers are in 
place, each aircraft water system operation and maintenance plan 
(referred to as the Plan) must include the following components:
     Watering Point Selection Requirement. The Plan must ensure 
that all water boarded within the United States is from an approved FDA 
watering point as required under 21 CFR 1240.80, and that water boarded 
outside the United States be in accordance with procedures designed to 
ensure that it is safe for human consumption. In no event should the 
air carrier knowingly serve water that violates NPDWRs.
     Procedures for Disinfection and Flushing of Aircraft Water 
System. The Plan must include a description of procedures for 
disinfection and flushing of aircraft water systems that are conducted 
in accordance with or are no less stringent than the manufacturer 
recommendations. Specifically, the frequency of disinfection must be no 
less than the minimum recommended by the manufacturer, though it may be 
more frequent. This allows for equipment-specific designs and for 
flexible implementation with the evolution of technology. Inclusion in 
the Plan of the specific disinfection frequency, disinfecting agent 
used, disinfectant concentration, disinfectant contact time, and 
flushing volume or flushing time allows for consistent implementation 
of these procedures. EPA understands that some manufacturers do not 
provide equipment disinfection and flushing recommendations. Where a 
recommended routine disinfection and flushing frequency is not 
specified by the aircraft water system manufacturer, the aircraft water 
system must be disinfected and flushed no less frequently than 
quarterly.
     Procedures for Follow-up Sampling. These must be included 
in the operation and maintenance plan to ensure consistency in the 
procedures.
     Training Requirements. The Plan must describe training 
protocols for all staff involved with the operation and maintenance 
provisions of this proposed regulation and those persons conducting or 
managing the microbiological requirements of this proposed regulation; 
all such staff are required to receive training. The NPDWRs require 
that each public water system using a surface water source or a ground 
water source under the direct influence of surface water must be 
operated by qualified personnel. It is vital that persons responsible 
for operating or maintaining aircraft water systems be adequately 
trained to ensure proper system operation. In order to ensure that 
persons who maintain aircraft public water systems are competent and 
efficient, training of qualified air carrier personnel specified in the 
Plan must include training on at least the following: water boarding 
procedures, sample collection procedures, disinfection and flushing 
procedures, and public health and safety reasons for the requirements 
of this proposed regulation.
     Self-Inspection Procedures. The Plan must describe the 
self-inspections to be conducted and documented by the air carrier (see 
Section IV.G for a description of self-inspection requirements under 
this rule). Documentation of the results of such inspection must be 
made available to EPA during compliance audits.
     Water Boarding Procedures. The Plan must ensure that water 
boarded within the United States is from a watering point approved by 
FDA, and describe procedures for ensuring that water boarded outside 
the United States is safe for human consumption. The Plan must also 
provide a description or a discussion of how the water will be 
transferred from the approved source to the aircraft. This information 
will be helpful for ground crews responsible for maintaining the 
equipment supplying the aircraft with finished water. EPA understands 
and recognizes that aircraft traveling overseas may board water from 
sources that are outside the jurisdiction of the United States. EPA is 
aware that a number of air carriers already have procedures in place to 
provide assurances on the quality of water boarded from such sources. 
The proposed rule requires that all carriers have such procedures and 
that they be documented in the Plan. The Agency is also aware that in 
limited circumstances, water of unknown quality is occasionally boarded 
to operate essential systems, such as toilets. When instances such as 
these occur, passengers and crew must be notified, and disinfection and 
flushing of the aircraft water system must occur within 72 hours. If 
water known to be in violation of NPDWRs applicable to TNCWSs must be 
boarded, the rule imposes the same requirements as for positive 
coliform detects (restricted access, public notice, and disinfection 
and flushing with follow-up sampling before unrestricted access is 
restored). EPA believes this will provide the best method of protection 
of public health by minimizing the risks of exposure to unknown 
contaminants. The Plan must also include a statement as to whether the 
aircraft water system can be physically disconnected/shut off to the 
crew and passengers.
     Coliform Sampling Plan. The aircraft operation and 
maintenance plan must also include the monitoring plan for coliforms 
developed by the air carrier for the specific aircraft.

Request for Comment on Operation and Maintenance Plan Requirements

    As far as EPA is aware, there are currently no procedures or 
requirements for recording information regarding where, how much, and 
when water is boarded. The boarding of water is usually done on an as 
needed and as requested basis. EPA believes that recording such 
information could help identify potential hazards from water source(s) 
in the event of a total coliform-positive sample. Once the potential 
source(s) are identified, further analysis could be done to determine 
whether the potential bacteriological contamination originated from the 
water source(s) or the aircraft water system. However, given the 
frequency with which aircraft currently board water, this could lead to 
a large amount of data being recorded, and therefore, EPA is not 
proposing to require aircraft to record this information. EPA requests 
comment on whether the potential benefit of recording information on 
water boarded outweighs the information collection burden. Also, EPA 
requests comment on whether follow-up sampling should be required to 
confirm the effectiveness of routine disinfection and flushing, and if 
so, the frequency at which this monitoring should occur. (As previously 
noted, the proposed rule already requires follow-up sampling for 
disinfection and flushing performed as corrective action.)

D. Notification Requirements to Passengers and Crew

    A fundamental principle of SDWA is that consumers have a right to 
know in a timely manner whenever drinking

[[Page 19332]]

water violations occur. EPA believes that this includes knowing when 
situations require that public access to the aircraft water system is 
restricted. The public also has a right to know when the quality of the 
water cannot be assured, for example, when water has been boarded from 
a watering point not approved by FDA or in a manner that does not 
otherwise comply with the air carrier's procedures for ensuring safe 
water outside the United States; and about any other situation where 
the Administrator, air carrier or crew determines that notification is 
necessary to protect public health.
    Due to the nature of violations, or other events that require the 
restriction of water service, and the transient nature of the 
population served, air carriers must provide notification to passengers 
and crew as expeditiously as possible, but no later than 24 hours after 
being informed of sample results 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:
     Broadcast over public announcement system on aircraft;
     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;
     Hand delivery of the notice to passengers and crew;
     Another delivery method approved in writing by the 
Administrator.
    The air carrier must continue to provide notification until all 
follow-up coliform samples are total coliform-negative. Each notice:
     Must be displayed in a conspicuous way when printed or 
posted;
     Must not contain overly technical language or very small 
print;
     Must not be formatted in a way that defeats the purpose of 
the notice;
     Must not contain language that nullifies the purpose of 
the notice;
     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 
appropriate an easily-recognizable symbol for non-potable water.
     When public access to the aircraft water system is 
restricted the air carrier must provide the following public 
notification:
     A prominently-displayed, clear statement in each lavatory 
and galley 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
     A prominent notice in the galley directed at the crew 
which includes:
    [cir] 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;
    [cir] A description of the violation or situation triggering the 
notice, including the contaminant(s) of concern;
    [cir] When the violation or situation occurred;
    [cir] Any potential adverse health effects from the violation or 
situation;
    [cir] The population at risk, including sensitive subpopulations 
particularly vulnerable if exposed to the contaminant in the drinking 
water;
    [cir] What the air carrier is doing to correct the violation or 
situation; and
    [cir] When the air carrier expects to return to compliance or 
resolve the situation;
    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 to the crew is required. This exception only applies 
when there is no possibility of the passengers accessing the water 
system for consumptive use.
    Notice when water has been boarded from a watering point not 
approved by FDA or when required routine monitoring or disinfection and 
flushing was not conducted must include:
     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 (in this 
situation, hand washing need not be restricted, given that there is no 
affirmative indication of a problem with the water and hand washing 
generally reduces microbial risk); and
     A prominent notice in the galley directed at the crew 
which includes:
    [cir] A clear statement that the water is non-potable and should 
not be used for drinking, food or beverage preparation, or teeth 
brushing;
    [cir] An indication that water was boarded from a watering point 
that has not been approved by FDA, or when required monitoring or 
required disinfection and flushing was not conducted and it is not 
known whether the water is contaminated;
    [cir] When and where the water was boarded from a watering point 
that has not been approved by FDA, or when the specific monitoring or 
disinfection and flushing requirement was not met;
    [cir] Any potential adverse health effects from exposure to 
waterborne pathogens that might be in the water;
    [cir] The population at risk, including sensitive subpopulations 
particularly vulnerable if exposed to the contaminant in the drinking 
water; and
    [cir] A statement indicating when the system will be disinfected 
and flushed and returned to service if known;
    EPA is proposing the following standard health effects language for 
air carriers to use in creating public notices to the crew:
     Health effects language to be used when notice was 
triggered by an event other than a coliform-positive sample, including 
where water was boarded from a watering point not approved by FDA:

    Because [required monitoring 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.

     Health effects language to be used when more than one 
routine sample is total coliform-positive and fecal coliform-negative 
and E. coli-negative, or a repeat sample is total coliform-positive and 
fecal coliform-negative or E. coli-negative must include the following:

    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.

     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

[[Page 19333]]

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.

    All notification required to be posted or announced must continue 
until all follow-up coliform samples are total coliform-negative.

E. Reporting Requirements

    As for all public water systems, EPA believes it is essential for 
accountability and regulatory oversight that certain information be 
reported to EPA by the air carrier. At the same time, EPA believes that 
the type and amount of information should be carefully tailored to the 
purpose of reporting it, to avoid duplication, wasted resources, and 
unnecessary burdens for either industry or EPA. Therefore, the 
reporting requirements of the proposed rule are designed to capture 
only information that will be used for compliance and accountability.
    For existing aircraft water systems, the air carrier must report to 
EPA the frequency for routine coliform sampling identified in the 
coliform sampling plan required for each aircraft public water system 
and that the air carrier has updated its operations and maintenance 
plan by six months after the final rule is published. For new aircraft 
water systems, the air carrier must report to EPA the frequency for 
routine coliform sampling as identified in the coliform sampling plan 
for each aircraft and that the air carrier has an approved operations 
and maintenance plan within the first calendar quarter of initial 
operation of the aircraft.
    In addition, the air carrier must report the following information 
through electronic means as approved or established by EPA:
     The air carrier must report its complete inventory of 
aircraft that are PWSs to EPA no later than six months after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Inventory 
information includes: (1) The unique aircraft identifier number, (2) 
the status of the aircraft water system as active or inactive, (3) any 
water system treatment installed on the aircraft, and (4) whether 
access to the water system can be physically shut off or disconnected 
to passengers and crew.
     Changes in aircraft inventory no later than 10 days 
following the calendar month in which the change occurred. Changes 
include new aircraft, aircraft that are removed from service, and a 
change to any of the data items previously listed in (1) through (4) of 
this section.
     All sampling results no later than 10 calendar days 
following the monitoring period in which the sampling occurred.
     All events requiring notification of passengers and crew 
and non-routine disinfection and flushing must be reported within 10 
days of the air carrier being informed of sample results. Because the 
corrective action requirements for aircraft water systems are contained 
directly in the rule (e.g., restricted access, disinfection and 
flushing, follow-up sampling), and do not require consultation with the 
primacy agency, EPA believes it is appropriate to allow a slightly 
longer time frame for reporting than would be required for land-based 
public water systems (i.e., generally 24 hours).
     Evidence of self-inspection must be provided to EPA within 
90 days of completion, including an indication that any deficiencies 
identified during the self-inspections have been addressed. Air 
carriers must also report within 90 days that deficiencies identified 
during a compliance audit have been addressed. If any deficiency 
identified during either self-inspection or a compliance audit has not 
been addressed within 90 days, the carrier must report details of the 
deficiency, why it has not yet been addressed, and a schedule for 
addressing it as expeditiously as possible.
    Failure to provide this information within a timely manner will 
result in noncompliance with the rule and may result in an enforcement 
action, which may include the assessment of penalties.
    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.
    Reporting requirements begin six months after the final rule is 
published. As the primacy agency, EPA has to oversee reporting by air 
carriers. To facilitate collection and analysis of aircraft water 
system data, EPA is developing an internet based electronic data 
collection and management system. This approach is similar to that used 
under the EPA SDWIS/STATE (Safe Drinking Water Information System/State 
version) reporting program. Inventory and analytical results for 
microbiological testing will be reported directly to this database 
using web forms and software that can be downloaded free of charge. The 
data system will perform logic checks on data entered and calculate 
final results for accountability and regulatory oversight. This is 
intended to reduce the reporting errors and limit the time involved in 
investigating, checking, and correcting errors at all levels. Air 
carriers should instruct their laboratories to either manually enter 
sample analysis results into an EPA managed web-based data system, or 
to electronically upload data files from their laboratory information 
management systems (LIMS) to a web-based data file submission program. 
These data files must be in a format prescribed by EPA. If an air 
carrier believes that a result was entered into the data system 
erroneously, the air carrier may notify the laboratory to rectify the 
entry. The laboratory must be a state- or EPA-certified laboratory that 
adheres to the approved quality control procedures for checking 
analytical data for completeness and correctness. In addition, if an 
air carrier believes that a result is incorrect, they may submit the 
result as a contested result and petition EPA to invalidate the sample. 
If an air carrier contests a sample result, they must submit a 
rationale to EPA, including a supporting statement from the laboratory, 
providing a justification. The invalidation of a total coliform sample 
result can only be made by EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 
141.21(c)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) or by the state- or EPA-certified 
laboratory in accordance with 40 CFR 141.21 (c)(2). Also, if an air 
carrier determines that its laboratory does not have the capability to 
report data electronically, they can submit a request to EPA to use an 
alternate reporting format.

F. Recordkeeping Requirements

    EPA is proposing that air carriers retain certain information for 
the aircraft that they own or operate. Records to be retained include 
the following:
     Records of bacteriological analyses must be kept for at 
least 5 years and must include the following information: date, time 
and place of sampling, and the name of the person who collected the 
sample; identification of the sample as a routine, repeat, follow-up or 
other special purpose sample; date of the analysis; laboratory and 
person responsible for performing the analysis; the analytical 
technique/method used; and the results of the analysis.
     Records of any disinfection and flushing must be kept at 
least 5 years.
     Records of a self inspection must be kept for at least 10 
years.
     Sampling plans must be maintained by the air carrier and 
made available for review by EPA upon request, including during 
compliance audits.
     Aircraft water system operation and maintenance plans must 
be maintained

[[Page 19334]]

by the air carrier and made available for review by EPA in accordance 
with FAA requirements; such plans must be available for review by EPA 
upon request, including during compliance audits.
     Records of notices to passengers and crew issued as 
required by this proposal must be kept for at least 3 years after 
issuance.

G. Audit and Self-Inspection Requirements

    SDWA sections 1413 and 1451 authorize EPA to approve States and 
Indian Tribes to be the primary implementation authority for federal 
drinking water standards; this is known as ``primacy.'' However, EPA 
regulations provide that State/Tribal primacy programs do not include 
public water systems on ICCs, such as aircraft (40 CFR 142.3). As a 
result, EPA remains responsible for implementation, including 
enforcement, of the ADWR.
    EPA may conduct routine compliance audits as deemed necessary in 
providing regulatory oversight to ensure proper implementation of the 
requirements in the proposed rule. Compliance audits may include, but 
are not limited to, the following: bacteriological sampling of aircraft 
drinking water, 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 observation of 
procedures involving the handling of finished water, watering point 
selection, boarding of water, operation, disinfection and flushing, and 
general maintenance of aircraft water systems.
    In addition, instead of the sanitary survey required for other 
public water systems every 5 years, EPA is proposing that self-
inspections be conducted by the air carrier for each aircraft water 
system no less frequently than once every 5 calendar years. The air 
carrier must address deficiencies found as a result of 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. EPA notes that the air carrier industry conducts routine 
inspections for flight safety before each flight. The safety of all 
flight participants, pilot, flight attendants and passengers, is 
considered prior to take-off. EPA expects the same level of attention 
to be exhibited when air carriers conduct self-inspections of their 
aircraft public water systems. When conducting inspections of their 
water systems, air carriers should examine, but are not limited to, the 
storage tank, distribution system, supplemental treatment, fixtures, 
valves, and backflow prevention devices.

H. Supplemental Treatment

    Onboard treatment units are not required for use with finished 
water but can provide a desirable additional barrier of protection. If 
used, they must be acceptable to FDA, must meet NSF International / 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards, and must be 
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the 
manufacturer's plans and specifications and approved or accepted by FAA 
(14 CFR Part 43, 14 CFR Part 91, 14 CFR Part 121). Water treatment and 
production equipment must produce water that meets the standards 
prescribed in 40 CFR Part 141.
Request for Comment on Supplemental Treatment
    A supplemental treatment protection barrier for water boarded onto 
aircraft water systems is not required by the proposed rule. However, 
the proposed rule includes other multiple barriers that ensure the 
protection of public health. These protection barriers include 
requirements that boarded water must meet all NPDWRs applicable to 
TNCWSs, must be obtained from an FDA-approved watering point, and that 
personnel involved in the water transfer process must receive adequate 
training on appropriate procedures to maintain water quality and 
prevent contamination. Furthermore, the proposed rule requires 
disinfection and flushing of aircraft water systems on a routine basis 
to ensure tanks and piping on each aircraft are clean. As proposed, the 
interval for routine disinfection and flushing of the aircraft water 
system may vary from four times per year (quarterly) to less than once 
per year based on manufacturer recommendations. Also, the proposed rule 
establishes compliance monitoring schedules for each aircraft water 
system at frequencies that increase or decrease in relation to the 
disinfection and flushing intervals. For example, if an aircraft water 
system is disinfected and flushed once per quarter, the air carrier is 
required to sample for microbiological presence annually. On the other 
hand, if an aircraft water system is disinfected and flushed less than 
once per year, the air carrier must sample monthly for microbiological 
presence. If compliance monitoring indicates a potential contamination 
problem, the proposed rule requires specific actions (e.g., sampling, 
disinfection and flushing, and notifying the passengers and crew) to be 
taken to address the problem.
    While these barriers are specifically tailored to reduce risk, the 
possibility exists that microbiological contamination of the aircraft 
water system may occur. Traditional water systems often rely on 
maintenance of a distribution system disinfectant residual to help 
inactivate certain microorganisms and control biofilm growth. In 
situations where the disinfectant added at the water treatment plant is 
insufficient to maintain a residual throughout the distribution system, 
supplemental disinfection within the distribution system may be used to 
maintain a detectable disinfectant residual. For example, traditional 
systems frequently supplement or ``boost'' the disinfectant residual 
level by injecting a chlorine solution into the water in specific areas 
of a distribution system. However, the distribution system in a 
traditional water system may be very extensive compared to the very 
limited distribution system onboard an aircraft. Another critical 
consideration is that some of the chemical properties of chlorine 
(e.g., corrosive, volatile, toxic) may be problematic if stored in 
quantity for supplemental treatment purposes onboard aircraft.
    Another option for providing a barrier against microbiological 
contamination is the use of ultraviolet light (UV) to provide a means 
of physical disinfection. Interest in using UV light to disinfect 
drinking water is growing among public water systems due to its ability 
to inactivate pathogenic microorganisms without forming regulated 
disinfection byproducts. UV light has also proven effective against 
some pathogens, such as Cryptosporidium, which are resistant to 
commonly used disinfectants like chlorine. EPA is aware that at least 
one manufacturer provides UV disinfection systems certified by the FAA 
to be retrofitted onto passenger aircraft. EPA is interested in 
obtaining information about this or other treatment system 
specifications with respect to cost, reliability, operation and 
maintenance, etc.
    EPA requests comment on whether to require supplemental 
disinfection of water boarded onto aircraft and whether to require 
monitoring for disinfectant residuals either in addition to or in lieu 
of supplemental disinfection. EPA is interested in obtaining any other 
information that should be considered in evaluating this alternative, 
or if there are other alternatives that would be effective in providing 
additional safety of aircraft drinking water from

[[Page 19335]]

microbiological contamination. In addition, EPA is requesting comment 
on the feasibility of using other types of supplemental disinfection, 
such as UV treatment onboard aircraft, including providing incentives 
such as reduced routine monitoring or routine disinfection and flushing 
if an air carrier provides supplemental treatment.

I. Violations

    For purposes of this proposed rule, the following situations will 
constitute a violation where an air carrier will be required to provide 
notification to passengers and crew on the aircraft that triggered the 
violation:
     Failure to disinfect and flush;
     Failure to monitor for total coliform and where required 
for fecal coliform/E. coli;
     Failure to take required corrective action;
     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).
    In addition, the following situations will constitute a violation, 
but does not trigger additional public notification requirements:
     Failure to comply with the proposed rule's public notice 
requirements;
     Failure to comply with reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements;
     Failure to conduct a self-inspection or address 
deficiencies;
     Failure to develop a coliform sampling plan; and develop 
and include an aircraft water system operations and maintenance plan in 
an FAA approved or accepted operations and maintenance program,

J. Compliance Date

    EPA is proposing that the date for air carriers to comply with the 
requirements of this rule be six months from the date of promulgation 
for several reporting and planning requirements and one year from the 
date of promulgation for the rest of the rule requirements. Section 
1412(b)(10) of SDWA directs EPA to establish a date for compliance that 
is three years after publication unless EPA determines that a shorter 
compliance date is practicable. EPA believes that the six months and 
one year timeframes are practicable for several reasons. First, this 
rule will be directly implemented by EPA so it will not be necessary to 
allow two years for States to obtain primary enforcement authority to 
implement the rule. Second, since air carriers were out of compliance 
with the existing NPDWRs, most have been placed under Administrative 
Orders on Consent, which have requirements similar to those of the 
proposed ADWR. Complying with the proposed requirements will not 
require significant changes in practice from the existing 
administrative orders. In addition, an earlier compliance date will 
allow the air carriers to be taken off of the AOCs and be brought into 
compliance with the NPDWRs sooner. EPA also believes it is practicable 
for air carriers to implement and report within six months of 
promulgation of the rule the following: (1) The development of a 
coliform sampling plan and the selected frequency of coliform sampling, 
(2) the development of operations and maintenance plans in accordance 
with the rule and (3) fleet inventory data. None of these three rule 
provisions require extensive planning or expenditures.
    EPA is requesting comment on the compliance dates of the proposed 
ADWR.

V. Cost Analysis

    This section summarizes EPA's estimates of the cost of this 
proposal, as well as the estimated costs of other regulatory 
alternatives that were considered but rejected.

A. Summary of Regulatory Alternatives Considered

    In developing this proposed rule, EPA evaluated four options: The 
current regulations and three alternatives, one of which is the 
proposed rule. For each option, EPA estimated annualized costs and 
relative risks, and characterized anticipated benefits. The 
alternatives considered include the following:
    (1) Existing Drinking Water Regulations.
    (2) Regulatory Requirements Similar to the Air Carrier 
Administrative Orders on Consent (AOCs).
    (3) Water Supply Guidance 29.
    (4) Proposed Rule.
    The following briefly summarizes the three alternatives plus the 
proposed rule. For the purposes of each alternative, aircraft are 
assumed to be boarding finished water. Finished water is defined in 40 
CFR 141.2 as water that is introduced into the distribution system of a 
PWS and is intended for distribution and consumption without further 
treatment, except treatment necessary to maintain water quality in the 
distribution system. Prior to boarding the water, compliance with FDA 
and FAA requirements is expected to ensure that water from the supplier 
meets NPDWR standards and that the equipment used in transferring this 
water to the aircraft is maintained and operated so as to preserve that 
level of water quality.

Alternative 1--Existing Drinking Water Regulations

    Alternative 1 assumes that all carriers with aircraft water systems 
subject to SDWA continue to be subject to the current requirements 
under the applicable NPDWRs for each aircraft water system. Alternative 
1 includes the following regulatory components for compliance with 
existing NPDWRs:
     Monthly routine monitoring (single sample) for total 
coliform bacteria (TC);
     Repeat monitoring for TC after an initial TC positive 
sample;
     Analysis of TC positive culture media for the presence of 
fecal coliforms or E. coli);
     Additional routine TC samples in the month following a 
positive routine sample;
     Sanitary surveys conducted every 5 years: Includes an 
evaluation of the applicable components of a water system (source; 
treatment; distribution system; finished water storage; pumps, pump 
facilities, and controls; monitoring, reporting, and data verification; 
system management and operation; and air carrier compliance with state 
requirements);
     Monthly disinfection residual monitoring; and
     Public notification for violations.

Alternative 2--Regulatory Requirements Similar to the Air Carrier 
Administrative Orders on Consent

    Alternative 2 describes requirements similar to those negotiated 
under the Administrative Orders on Consent (AOCs), and with which many 
air carriers must currently comply as an interim measure until the ADWR 
is finalized. Alternative 2 includes the following regulatory 
components:
     All maintenance personnel responsible for the operations 
and maintenance of aircraft water systems receive training. The 
training would be implemented by the air carrier responsible for the 
aircraft.
     Aircraft operations and maintenance plans and monitoring 
plans must be updated to reflect new schedules, procedures, and 
activities.
     Air carriers must monitor for total coliforms and 
disinfectant residual.
     If an aircraft water system tests positive for total 
coliforms, the TC positive culture medium must be analyzed for fecal 
coliform or E. coli.
     If an aircraft water system tests positive for fecal 
coliform or E. coli, or if it tests positive for total coliform in any 
sample, the air carrier must notify EPA within 24 hours and must 
conduct

[[Page 19336]]

corrective action disinfection and flushing procedures, including 
follow-up sampling, and must implement public notification activities.
     Copies of operations and maintenance plans, monitoring 
plans, and monitoring data must be maintained by the air carrier.
     Approximately 25 percent of the aircraft fleet must be 
monitored for coliforms and disinfectant residual quarterly, so that 
all aircraft are sampled at least annually.
     Routine disinfection and flushing must be performed at 
least quarterly.
     A self-certification that affirms that the aircraft water 
system was disinfected and flushed according to the operations and 
maintenance plan must be submitted to EPA each quarter.
     Air carriers must report monitoring results quarterly 
(within 10 business days of the end of a quarter of monitoring).

Alternative 3--Water Supply Guidance 29

    Alternative 3 describes the requirements included in Water Supply 
Guidance 29, which described an alternative to the NPDWRs and was in 
effect from October 1986 until it was suspended by EPA in September 
2003. WSG 29 described the implementation of an operations and 
maintenance program that included disinfection and flushing the 
aircraft in lieu of monitoring for those contaminants that pose an 
acute health threat based on short-term consumption by passengers and 
crew. These include turbidity, coliform, and nitrate. It is notable 
that WSG 29 was written prior to promulgation of the Total Coliform 
Rule, the Surface Water Treatment Rule, or the Phase II Chemical 
contaminant rule (which included revised requirements for nitrate). 
Alternative 3 includes the following components:
     Air carriers would comply with either the monitoring and 
reporting requirements or with their approved operations and 
maintenance plans.
     Minimum monitoring requirements would include daily 
turbidity monitoring, quarterly coliform monitoring, and annual 
nitrate/nitrite monitoring.
     Corrective action of disinfection and flushing the 
aircraft's water system would be required following a TC positive 
sample.
     Operations and maintenance requirements include quarterly 
disinfection and flushing of onboard water systems.
Proposed Rule
    The proposed rule represents a hybrid approach that combines what 
EPA believes are the most practical elements of the other alternatives 
with flexibility for the air carriers in how they implement the 
regulatory requirements. This proposed approach allows compliance with 
regulatory components that are most tailored to the unique 
circumstances of aircraft drinking water systems and the operational 
needs of each air carrier. Key components of the proposal include the 
following:
     Routine disinfection and flushing of the aircraft water 
system based on manufacturer recommendations.
     Routine coliform monitoring using one of three monitoring 
frequency options determined by the frequency of disinfection and 
flushing of the aircraft water system.
     Two routine coliform samples collected at the frequency 
chosen, one sample from a lavatory and one sample from a galley. If one 
routine sample is total coliform-positive the air carrier chooses to 
either perform repeat sampling (collecting 4 samples) or conduct 
corrective action, which includes disinfection and flushing of the 
water system and follow-up monitoring.
     In the event of a fecal coliform/E. coli-positive sample 
or more than one total coliform-positive sample, corrective action 
disinfection and flushing is performed, access to water is restricted, 
and public notice is to be posted and/or announced until the water 
system is disinfected and flushed and all follow-up samples are total 
coliform-negative.
     Disinfectant residual monitoring is not required but is 
recommended as a means of indicating water quality and prompting 
voluntary corrective measures such as flushing and refilling the tank 
with water containing a residual.
     Specific training requirements of maintenance personnel 
are included in the aircraft operations and maintenance plan.
     Specific requirements for disinfection and flushing 
procedures are included in the aircraft operations and maintenance 
plans.
     Monitoring results and compliance status are reported to 
EPA.
     Water system operations and maintenance plans are 
incorporated into FAA approved/accepted aircraft operations and 
maintenance programs.
     EPA performs compliance audits as needed.
     Carriers perform self-inspections of the each aircraft 
water system every 5 years and certify completion of the self-
inspections.

B. National Cost Estimates

    EPA estimates that the annualized cost to the air carriers of 
carrying out the activities required in this proposed rule is $7.86 
million at a 3 percent discount rate and $7.96 million at a 7 percent 
discount rate. EPA compares the costs of the regulatory alternatives in 
the next section. Also, Table V-2 presents total annualized present 
value costs by alternative. Because EPA is the primacy agency for 
aircraft water systems, EPA's costs to implement the proposed 
requirements have also been estimated. Table V-1 presents the total 
annualized costs to air carriers (airlines) and EPA for the proposed 
ADWR preferred alternative at 3 and 7 percent discount rates.

                                         Table V-1.--Total Annualized Present Value Costs for the Proposed ADWR
                                                                   [$Millions, 2006$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Air carriers       Agency           Total       Air carriers       Agency           Total

                                                         -----------------------3%----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                7%
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation..........................................          $0.002          $0.01           $0.01           $0.003          $0.01           $0.01
Annual Administration...................................  ..............           0.25            0.25   ..............           0.25            0.25
Sampling Plan...........................................           0.002           0.001           0.003           0.003           0.001           0.004
O&M Plan................................................           0.01            0.000           0.01            0.02            0.000           0.02
Coliform Monitoring.....................................           5.32            0.04            5.36            5.39            0.04            5.43
Routine Disinfection and Flushing.......................           2.37   ..............           2.37            2.40   ..............           2.40
Corrective Action Disinfection and Flushing.............           0.14   ..............           0.14            0.14   ..............           0.14
Compliance Audit........................................           0.01            0.01            0.02            0.01            0.01            0.02
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 19337]]


    Total...............................................           7.86            0.30            8.16            7.96            0.31            8.27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Comparison of Cost of Regulatory Alternatives

    Table V-2 provides a summary of the annualized present value costs 
for each regulatory alternative considered during the regulatory 
development process at 3 and 7 percent discount rates. EPA used the 
same process for developing cost estimates for all regulatory 
alternatives as was done for the proposed option. Unit costs were 
multiplied by the number of air carriers or aircraft performing various 
components of each alternative, and results were summed for all 
components.
    Relative to the regulatory requirements currently in the Code of 
Federal Regulations (Alternative 1), the proposed rule (Alternative 4) 
represents a significant reduction in cost. The estimated total 
annualized present value cost of $8.16-$8.27 million for the proposed 
rule is only about one-fourth of the estimated cost of Alternative 1, 
as a result of tailoring the current regulations to the specific 
operational characteristics of aircraft drinking water systems. 
Relative to the Administrative Orders on Consent (Alternative 2), which 
is the current practice of aircraft water systems, the proposed rule 
represents a slight increase. However, the proposed rule offers 
operational advantages over the other alternatives including the 
slightly less costly, but more prescriptive, Alternative 2. EPA 
specifically designed the proposed rule to allow air carriers to follow 
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 19338]]

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

[[Page 19339]]

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

[[Page 19340]]

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

[[Page 19341]]

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.

[[Page 19342]]

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

[[Page 19343]]

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

[[Page 19344]]

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

[[Page 19345]]

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

[[Page 19346]]

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

[[Page 19347]]

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

[[Page 19348]]

    (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
