[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 29, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34732-34733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16536]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[FRL-6369-1]
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Consumer Confidence
Reports; Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA published in the Federal Register of August 19, 1998, a
final rule setting out the requirements for annual drinking water
quality reports that water suppliers must provide to their customers.
The final rule included several minor typographical mistakes. This
document corrects those mistakes.
DATES: Effective on June 29, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Allison, 202-260-9836; E-mail:
allison.rob@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the August 19, 1998 Federal Register (63
FR 44511), EPA published the Consumer Confidence Report Rule. Paragraph
f of the section on Report Content (Sec. 141.153) mistakenly refers to
the requirements of Sec. 141.153(d)(7) when it should refer to
Sec. 141.153(d)(6). This rule corrects that mistake.
The preamble to the August 19, 1998 rule explained that systems
that detect certain contaminants at concentrations above 50% of the
applicable MCL or action level must include additional educational
information about those contaminants in their reports. As explained in
the preamble to the final rule, EPA intended that all systems detecting
a contaminant at greater than 50% of the MCL or AL and not in violation
or exceedence would include this educational statement. (See discussion
at 63 FR 44514 (August 19, 1998)). Systems that violate or exceed the
applicable National Primary Drinking Water Regulation would not include
this additional statement because another part of the rule requires
them to provide a clear and readily understandable explanation of the
violation, including the potential adverse health effects. EPA's rule
language at Sec. 141.154(d) inaccurately described this requirement
when it said that the requirement applied to ``systems which detect
lead above the action level in more than 5%, but fewer than 10%, of
homes sampled....'' EPA's phrasing inadvertently exempts systems that
detect lead above the AL in precisely 10% of homes sampled. EPA is
clarifying its requirement by amending the statement to read ``Systems
which detect lead above the action level in more than 5%, and up to and
including 10%, of homes sampled * * *.''
In addition, Appendices A and B to Subpart O mischaracterized
regulatory levels for total coliforms and total trihalomethanes. The
Appendices listed the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for Total
Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) as zero. This is incorrect; under current EPA
regulations, TTHMs have no MCLG. This notice amends Appendices A and B
to replace the number zero for the TTHMs MCLG with ``n/a'' (the
abbreviation for ``not applicable.'') Similarly, the Appendices
mistakenly listed the Maximum Contaminant Level for Total Coliforms as
``presence of coliform bacteria in 5% of monthly samples''.
EPA is today correcting the Appendices to show that the MCL for total
coliforms is ``(systems that collect 40 or more samples per month) 5%
of monthly samples are positive; (systems that collect fewer than 40
samples per month) 1 positive monthly sample'.
Finally, in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of the section on Special
Primacy Requirements (Sec. 142.16), the rule mistakenly refers to 40
CFR 141.155(b) when it should refer to 40 CFR 141.155(c). This
amendment corrects that mistake.
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, an agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that
there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior
proposal and opportunity for comment because EPA merely is correcting
minor errors in the promulgated rule. Thus, notice and public comment
procedure are unnecessary. The Agency finds that this constitutes good
cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Moreover, since today's action does not
create any new regulatory requirements and affected parties have known
of the underlying rule since August 19, 1998, EPA finds that good cause
exists to provide for an immediate effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3) and 808(2).
Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. In addition,
this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded
mandate, or impose any significant or unique impact on small
governments as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not require prior consultation
with State, local, and tribal government officials as specified by
Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993) or Executive
Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998), or involve special
consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
[[Page 34733]]
Because this action is not subject to notice-and-comment
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other
statute, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This rule also
is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it is not economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866.
Further, EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045
because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to
mitigate health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
113) because it does not involve any technical standards. EPA's
compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the underlying
rule is discussed in the August 19, 1998 Federal Register notice.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which
the issuing agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding
and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule) that notice and
public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency
promulgating the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated
previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the
reasons therefor, and established an immediate effective date. EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and other required information to
the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
The final rule [FR Doc. 98-22056] published on August 19, 1998, (63
FR 44511)is corrected as follows:
PART 141--[CORRECTED]
1. On page 44528, in the middle column, in Sec. 141.153(f), correct
``Sec. 141.153(d)(7)'' to read ``Sec. 141.153(d)(6)''.
2. On page 44529, in the middle column, in Sec. 141.154, correct
``(d) Systems which detect lead above the action level in more than 5%,
but fewer that 10%, of homes sampled:'' to read ``(d) Systems which
detect lead above the action level in more than 5%, and up to and
including 10%, of homes sampled:''
3. In Appendix A to subpart O, on page 44530, in the fourth column
of the table, line 1, correct ``presence of coliform bacteria in
5% of monthly samples'' to read ``(systems that collect 40
or more samples per month) 5% of monthly samples are positive; (systems
that collect fewer than 40 samples per month) 1 positive monthly
sample''.
4. In Appendix A to subpart O, on page 44531, in the fifth column
of the table, line 73, correct ``0'' to read ``n/a''.
5. In Appendix B to subpart O, on page 44531, in the third column
of the table, line 1, correct ``presence of coliform bacteria in
5% of monthly samples'' to read ``(systems that collect 40
or more samples per month) 5% of monthly samples are positive; (systems
that collect fewer than 40 samples per month) 1 positive monthly
sample''.
6. In Appendix B to subpart O, on page 44533, in the second column
of the table, line 73, correct ``0'' to read ``n/a'.
PART 142--[CORRECTED]
7. On page 44535, in the third column, in Sec. 142.16(f)(2),
correct ``40 CFR 141.155(b)'' to read ``40 CFR 141.155(c)''.
8. On page 44535, in the third column, in Sec. 142.16(f)(3),
correct ``40 CFR 141.155(b)'' to read ``40 CFR 141.155(c)''.
Dated: June 18, 1999.
J. Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 99-16536 Filed 6-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
