Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2273

action brought under the New Jersey

Penalty Enforcement Act (N.J.S.2A.:58–

1 et seq.)

(f) Review procedures. Under the

plan, employers, employees and other

affected parties may seek informal

review with the Department of Labor

relative to a notice of violation/Order to

Comply, the reasonableness of the

abatement period, any penalty and/or

may seek formal administrative review

with the Occupational Safety and

Health Review Commission, a board

appointed by the Governor and

authorized under section 34:6A.42 of

the New Jersey Act to hear and rule on

appeals of orders to comply and any

penalties proposed. Any employer,

employee or employee representative

affected by a determination of the

Commissioner may file a contest within

fifteen (15) working days of the issuance

of an order to comply. The Review

Commission will issue an order, based

on a finding of fact, affirming,

modifying, or vacating the

commissioner’s order to comply or the

proposed penalty, or directing other

appropriate relief, and the order shall

become final 45 days after its issuance.

Judicial review of the decision of the

Review Commission may be sought at

the Appellate Division of the Superior

Court.

(g) Staffing and Resources. The plan

further provides assurances of a fully

trained, adequate staff, including 20

safety and 7 health compliance officers

for enforcement inspections, and 4

safety and 3 health consultants to

perform consultation services in the

public sector, and 2 safety and 3 health

training and education staff. The State

has assured that it will continue to

provide a sufficient number of

adequately trained and qualified

personnel necessary for the enforcement

of standards as required by 29 CFR

1956.10. The State has also given

satisfactory assurance of adequate

funding to support the plan.

(h) Records and reports. The plan

provides that public employers in New

Jersey will maintain appropriate records

and make timely reports on

occupational injuries and illnesses in a

manner substantially identical to that

required for private sector employers

under Federal OSHA. New Jersey has

assured that it will continue its

participation in the Bureau of Labor

Statistics Annual Survey of Injuries and

Illnesses with regard to both private and

public sector employers. The State will

comply with the provisions of 29 CFR

1904.7 which allows full employee and

employee representative access,

including employee’s names, to the log

of workplace injuries and illnesses; and

will amend its regulations accordingly.

The plan also contains assurances that

the Commissioner of Labor will provide

reports to OSHA in such form as the

Assistant Secretary may require, and

that New Jersey will participate in

OSHA’s Integrated Management

Information System.

(i) Voluntary compliance programs.

The plan provides that training will be

provided to public employers and

employees; seminars will be conducted

to familiarize affected individuals with

OSHA standards, requirements and safe

work practices; an on-site consultation

program in the public sector will be

established to provide services to public

employers who so desire; and, all State

agencies and political subdivisions will

be encouraged to develop and maintain

self inspection programs as well as

internal safety and health programs as

an adjunct to but not a substitute for the

Commissioner of Labor’s enforcement.

§ 1956.61 Developmental Schedule.

The New Jersey State plan is

developmental. The following is a

schedule of major developmental steps

as provided in the plan:

(a) Adopt standards identical to or at

least as effective as all existing OSHA

standards within one year after plan

approval.

(b) Adopt amendments to regulations

regarding inspections, citations, and

proposed penalties equivalent to 29 CFR

part 1903 within one year after plan

approval.

(c) Develop a five year strategic plan

within two years after plan approval.

(d) Develop field inspection reference

manual and/or field operations manual

within two years after plan approval.

(e) Fully implement public employer/

employee consultation, training and

education program equivalent to 29 CFR

part 1908 within three years after plan

approval.

(f) Adopt amendments to regulations

regarding discrimination against

employees equivalent to 29 CFR part

1977 within two years after plan

approval.

(g) Adopt amendments to regulations

regarding variances equivalent to 29

CFR part 1905 within two years after

plan approval.

(h) Adopt amendments to regulations

regarding record keeping equivalent to

29 CFR part 1904 within two years after

plan approval.

§ 1956.62 Completion of developmental

steps and certification. (Reserved).

§ 1956.63 Determination of operational

effectiveness. (Reserved).

§ 1956.64 Location of plan for inspection

and copying.

A copy of the plan may be inspected

and copied during normal business

hours at the following locations: Office

of State Programs, U.S. Department of

Labor, Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Room N–3700,

Washington, D.C. 20210; Office of the

Regional Administrator, U.S.

Department of Labor, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, 1201

Varick Street, Room 670, New York,

New York 10014; and New Jersey

Department of Labor, Division of Public

Safety and Occupational Safety and

Health, Office of Public Employees’

Safety, P.O. Box 386, 225 East State

Street, 8th Floor West, Trenton, New

Jersey 08625–0386.

[FR Doc. 01–684 Filed 1–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[FRL–6920–6]

RIN 2040–AD58

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation for Public Water Systems;

Analytical Methods for List 2

Contaminants; Clarifications to the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires

the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency to establish criteria for a

program to monitor unregulated

contaminants and to publish a list of

contaminants to be monitored. In

fulfillment of this requirement, EPA

published the Revisions to the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation (UCMR) for public water

systems on September 17, 1999, which

included lists of contaminants for which

monitoring was required or would be

required in the future. These lists

included: List 1 for contaminants with

approved analytical methods; List 2 for

contaminants with methods that were

being refined; and List 3 for

2274 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

contaminants with methods that were

still being developed.

Today’s rule approves the analytical

methods for thirteen chemical

contaminants on List 2, and requires

monitoring for those contaminants in

drinking water. This rule also sets the

schedule for monitoring one

microbiological contaminant,

Aeromonas, contingent on promulgation

of its analytical method. These methods

and associated monitoring will be used

to support EPA decisions concerning

whether or not to regulate and establish

standards for these contaminants in

drinking water. The intent of regulating

and setting standards for any of these

contaminants that may be found to

occur at levels of health concern is to

protect public health. Additionally, in

today’s rule, EPA includes

modifications to the UCMR (published

September 17, 1999) that affect the

implementation of monitoring for both

List 1 and List 2 contaminants.

DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is

effective January 11, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of the

publications listed in today’s rule is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of January 11, 2001.

For purposes of judicial review, this

final rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m.

Eastern time on January 11, 2001, as

provided in 40 CFR 23.7.

ADDRESSES: Documents relevant to this

action are available for inspection from

9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday

through Friday, excluding legal

holidays, at the Water Docket, East

Tower Basement, Room 57, U.S. EPA,

401 M Street, SW., Washington DC. For

access to docket (Docket No. W–00–01)

materials, please call (202) 260–3027

between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m, Eastern

Time, Monday through Friday, to

schedule an appointment. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Job, Drinking Water Protection

Division, Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water (MC–4607), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington

D.C. 20460, (202) 260–7084. General

information may also be obtained from

the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline.

Callers within the United States may

reach the Hotline at (800) 426–4791.

The Hotline is open Monday through

Friday, excluding federal holidays, from

9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regional Contacts

I. Chris Ryan, 1 Congress Street, 11th Floor,

Boston, MA 02118. Phone: 617–918–

1567.

II. Robert Poon, 290 Broadway, Room 2432,

New York, NY 10007–1866. Phone: 212–

637–3821.

III. Michelle Hoover, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia PA 19103–2029. Phone:

215–814–5258.

IV. Janine Morris, Sam Nunn Federal Center,

61 Forsyth St., SW., Atlanta GA 30303.

Phone: 404–562–9480.

V. Janet Kuefler, 77 West Jackson Blvd.,

Chicago, IL 60604–3507. Phone: 312–

886–0123.

VI. Andrew J. Waite, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202. Phone:

214–665–7332.

VII. Stan Calow, 901 N. Fifth Street, Kansas

City, KS 66101. Phone: 913–551–7410.

VIII. Rod Glebe, One Denver Place, 999 18th

Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202.

Phone: 303–312–6627.

IX. Jill Korte, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105. Phone: 415–744–

1853.

X. Gene Taylor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

WA 98101. Phone: 206–553–1389.

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in the

Preamble and Final Rule

2,4-DNT—2,4-dinitrotoluene

2,6-DNT—2,6-dinitrotoluene

4,4′-DDE—4,4′-dichloro dichlorophenyl

ethylene, a degradation product of DDT

Alachlor ESA—alachlor ethanesulfonic acid,

a degradation product of alachlor

AOAC—Association of Official Analytical

Chemists

APHA—American Public Health Association

ASDWA—Association of State Drinking

Water Administrators

ASTM—American Society for Testing and

Materials

CAS—Chemical Abstract Service

CASRN—Chemical Abstract Service Registry

Number

CCL—Contaminant Candidate List

CCR—Consumer Confidence Reports

CERCLA—Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation & Liability Act

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations

CFU/mL—colony forming units per milliliter

CWS—community water system

DCPA—dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate,

chemical name of the herbicide dacthal

DCPA mono- and di-acid degradates—

degradation products of DCPA

DDE—dichloro dichlorophenyl ethylene, a

degradation product of DDT

DDT—dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane, a

general insecticide

DNA—deoxyribonucleic acid

EDL—estimated detection limit

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency

EPTC—s-ethyl-dipropylthiocarbamate, an

herbicide

EPTDS—Entry Point to the Distribution

System

ESA—ethanesulfonic acid, a degradation

product of alachlor and other acetanilide

pesticides

FACA—Federal Advisory Committee Act

FSIS—federalism summary impact statement

FTE—full-time equivalent

GC—gas chromatography, a laboratory

method

GLI method—Great Lakes Instruments

method

GW—ground water

GUDI—ground water under the direct

influence (of surface water)

HPLC—high performance liquid

chromatography, a laboratory method

IC—ion chromatography

ICR—Information Collection Rule

IRFA—initial regulatory flexibility analysis

IMS—immunomagnetic separation

IRIS—Integrated Risk Information System

IS—internal standard

LLE—liquid/liquid extraction, a laboratory

method

MAC—Mycobacterium avium complex

MCL—maximum contaminant level

MCT—matrix conductivity threshold

MDL—method detection limit

MOA—Memorandum of agreements

MRL—minimum reporting level

MS—mass spectrometry, a laboratory method

MS—sample matrix spike

MSD—sample matrix spike duplicate

MTBE—methyl tertiary-butyl ether, a

gasoline additive

NAICS—North American Industry

Classification System

NAWQA—National Water Quality

Assessment Program

NCOD—National Drinking Water

Contaminant Occurrence Database

NDWAC—National Drinking Water Advisory

Council

NERL—National Environmental Research

Laboratory

NPS—National Pesticide Survey

NTIS—National Technical Information

Service

NTNCWS—non-transient non-community

water system

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

OGWDW—Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water

OMB—Office of Management and Budget

PAH—Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PB—particle beam

PBMS—Performance-Based Measurement

System

pCi/L—picocuries per liter

PCR—polymerase chain reaction

210Pb—Lead-210 (also Pb-210), a lead isotope

and radionuclide; part of the uranium

decay series 210Po—Polonium-210 (also Po-210), a

polonium isotope and radionuclide; part of

the uranium decay series

PWS—Public Water System

PWSF—Public Water System Facility

QA—quality assurance

QC—quality control

RDX—royal demolition explosive,

hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act

RPD—relative percent difference

RSD—relative standard deviation

SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

SD—standard deviation

SDWA—Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS—Safe Drinking Water Information

System

SDWIS/FED—the Federal Safe Drinking

Water Information System

SM—Standard Methods for the Examination

of Water and Wastewater

SMF—Standard Compliance Monitoring

Framework

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2275

SOC—synthetic organic compound

SOP—standard operating procedure

SPE—solid phase extraction, a laboratory

method

spp.—multiple species

SRF—State Revolving Fund

STORET—Storage and Retrieval System

SW—surface water

TBD—to be determined

TDS—total dissolved solid

TNCWS—transient non-community water

system

TTHM—total trihalomethane

UCMR—Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulation/Rule

UCM—Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

USEPA—United States Environmental

Protection Agency

UV—ultraviolet

VOC—volatile organic compound

μg/L—micrograms per liter

μS/cm—microsiemens per centimeter

Preamble Outline

I. Statutory Authority

II. Major Program Revisions

III. Summary of Today’s Rule

IV. Process of Preparing the Final Rule

V. Explanation of Today’s Action

A. Relation to the UCMR Published in

September 1999

B. Systems Affected by This Rule

C. Changes to the UCMR Associated with

the Screening Survey for List 2

Contaminants

1. Description of Screening Surveys for List

2 Contaminants

2. Contaminants and Analytical Methods

a. New Methods for Use in Screening

Survey One

(i) Summary of EPA Method 532.0:

Determination of Phenylurea

Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid

Phase Extraction and High Performance

Liquid Chromatography with Ultraviolet

Detection

(ii) Summary of EPA Method 528:

Determination of Phenols in Drinking

Water by Solid Phase Extraction and

Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/

Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)

(iii) Summary of EPA Method 526:

Determination of Selected Semivolatile

Organic Compounds in Drinking Water

by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary

Column GC/MS

(iv) Peer Review

(v) Laboratory Approval and Certification

b. Monitoring Nitrobenzene at Low-Level

in Screening Survey One

c. Monitoring of Aeromonas in Screening

Survey Two

d. Exclusion of RDX, and Alachlor ESA

and Other Acetanilide Pesticide

Degradation Products from Monitoring

under Screening Survey at This Time

e. Movement of Polonium-210 from UCMR

(1999) List 2 to UCMR (1999) List 3

3. All List 2 Monitoring at Entry Points to

the Distribution System

4. Implementation

a. Coordination of Assessment Monitoring

and Screening Surveys

b. Selection of Systems by Water Source

and Size

c. Sampling Period, Location and

Frequency

d. Sample Analysis

e. Reporting

D. Other Technical Changes and

Clarifications to the UCMR (40 CFR

141.40)

1. Updating the National Drinking Water

Contaminant Occurrence Database

2. Reporting System and Laboratory

Contacts

3. Modification of Data Element Definitions

4. Clarification of Data Reporting

Procedures

5. Clarification of Systems Purchasing

Water from Other Systems

6. Clarification of Source (Raw) Water

Monitoring Alternative

7. Clarification of Treatment Plant

Latitude/Longitude Options

8. Addition of Consensus Method for

Testing

9. Approval of EPA Method 502.2 and

Standard Methods 6200C for the

Analysis of MTBE

10. Approval of EPA Methods 515.3 and

515.4 for the Analysis of DCPA monoacid degradate and DCPA di-acid

degradate

11. Use of pH as a Water Quality Parameter

12. Detection Limit Reference

13. Detection Confirmation

14. Method Defined Quality Control

15. Clarification of Resampling

16. Identification of Laboratories Approved

for UCMR Monitoring

VI. Additional Issues From Public Comment

and EPA Response

A. Reporting Data on Other Contaminants

B. More Complete Specification of

Contaminants for Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring in the Future

C. Synchronization of UCMR and CCL in

the Future

VII. Guidance Manuals

VIII. Costs and Benefits of the Rule

A. Program Cost Estimates

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

B. Executive Order 13045—Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et.seq.

F. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

G. Executive Order 12898—Federal

Actions to Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

I. Executive Order 13084—Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

J. Plain Language

K. Congressional Review Act

L. Administrative Procedure Act

X. Public Involvement in Regulation

Development

XI. References

Potentially Regulated Entities

The regulated entities are public

water systems. All large community and

non-transient non-community water

systems serving more than 10,000

persons are required to monitor. A

community water system (CWS) means

a public water system which serves at

least 15 service connections used by

year-round residents or regularly serves

at least 25 year-round residents. Nontransient non-community water system

(NTNCWS) means a public water system

that is not a community water system

and that regularly serves at least 25 of

the same persons over 6 months per

year. Only a national representative

sample of community and non-transient

non-community systems serving 10,000

or fewer persons will be required to

monitor. Transient non-community

systems (i.e., systems that do not

regularly serve at least 25 of the same

persons over six months per year) will

not be required to monitor. States,

Territories, and Tribes, with primacy to

administer the regulatory program for

public water systems under the Safe

Drinking Water Act, sometimes conduct

analyses to measure for contaminants in

water samples and are regulated by this

action. Categories and entities

potentially regulated by this action

include the following:

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICS

State, Territorial and Tribal Governments ... States, Territories, and Tribes that analyze water samples on behalf of public water

systems required to conduct such analysis; States, Territories, and Tribes that themselves operate community and non-transient non-community water systems required

to monitor.

924110

Industry ........................................................ Private operators of community and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor.221310

Municipalities ............................................... Municipal operators of community and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor.924110

2276 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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 of that could potentially be

regulated by this action. Other types of

entities not listed in the table could also

be regulated. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

I. Statutory Authority

SDWA section 1445 (a)(2), as

amended in 1996, requires EPA to

establish criteria for a program to

monitor unregulated contaminants and

to issue, by August 6, 1999, a list of

contaminants to be monitored. In

fulfillment of this requirement, EPA

published the Revisions to the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation (UCMR) for public water

systems on September 17, 1999 (64 FR

50556), which included lists of

contaminants for which monitoring was

required or would be required in the

future. These lists included: List 1 for

contaminants with approved analytical

methods; List 2 for contaminants with

methods that were being refined; and

List 3 for contaminants with methods

that were still being developed. The rule

covered: (1) The frequency and schedule

for monitoring, based on PWS size,

water source, and likelihood of finding

contaminants; (2) a new, shorter list of

contaminants for which systems will

monitor; (3) procedures for selecting

and monitoring a nationally

representative sample of small PWSs

(those serving 10,000 or fewer persons);

and (4) procedures for entering the

monitoring data in the National

Drinking Water Contaminant

Occurrence Data Base (NCOD), as

required under section 1445.

II. Major Program Revisions

Today’s action establishes analytical

methods for measurement of 13

chemical contaminants, which were

included on the UCMR (1999) List 2,

and requirements for monitoring of

those contaminants by public water

systems. The 1999 List 2 contaminants

and their sources, including

amendments to List 2 established today,

are presented in Table 1, Uses and

Environmental Sources of UCMR (1999)

List 2 Contaminants. This action also

establishes modifications affecting the

sample collection, analysis and

reporting of both List 1 and List 2

contaminants. Such modifications

include clarifying source water

monitoring, resampling conditions,

additional methods, and clarification of

definitions of some data elements for

reporting. None of these changes result

in a major burden or impact and some

changes may reduce burden, but they

should improve data quality.

TABLE 1.—USES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOURCES OF UCMR (1999) LIST 2 CONTAMINANTS

Contaminant Name CASRN Use or Environmental Source

Final Chemical Contaminants

1,2-diphenylhydrazine ................................. 122–66–7 Used in the production of benzidine and anti-inflammatory drugs.

2-methylphenol ............................................ 95–48–7 Released in automobile and diesel exhaust, coal tar and petroleum refining, and

wood pulping.

2,4-dichlorophenol ....................................... 120–83–2 Chemical intermediate in herbicide production.

2,4-dinitrophenol ......................................... 51–28–5 Released from mines, metal, petroleum, and dye plants.

2,4,6-trichlorophenol ................................... 88–06–2 By-product of fossil fuel burning, used as bactericide and wood/glue preservative.

Alachlor ESA and other acetanilide pesticides.N/A Degradation product of alachlor and other acetanilide pesticides, herbicides generally used with corn, bean, peanut, and soybean crops to control grasses and

weeds.

Diazinon ...................................................... 333–41–5 Insecticide used with rice, fruit, vineyards, and corn crops.

Disulfoton .................................................... 298–04–4 Insecticide used with cereal, cotton, tobacco, and potato crops.

Diuron .......................................................... 330–54–1 Herbicide used on grasses in orchards and wheat crops.

Fonofos ....................................................... 944–22–9 Soil insecticide used on worms and centipedes.

Linuron ........................................................ 330–55–2 Herbicide used with corn, soybean, cotton, and wheat crops.

Nitrobenzene ............................................... 98–95–3 Used in the production of aniline, which is used to make dyes, herbicides, and

drugs.

Prometon ..................................................... 1610–18–0 Herbicide used on annual and perennial weeds and grasses.

RDX (royal demolition explosive,

hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine).

121–82–4 Used in explosives; ammunition plants.

Terbufos ...................................................... 13071–79–9 Insecticide used with corn, sugar beet, and grain sorghum crops.

Microbiological Contaminant

Aeromonas .................................................. N/A Present in all freshwater and brackish water.

III. Summary of Today’s Rule

The September 1999 rule included a

list of contaminants to be monitored

which was further subdivided into three

lists: List 1 for contaminants with

current approved analytical methods,

List 2 for contaminants with methods

being refined, and List 3 for

contaminants with methods being

developed in research. In a

supplemental rule, published March 2,

2000, (65 FR 11371), the methods for

two List 1 contaminants were

established as were some technical

corrections to the UCMR rule.

Sixteen contaminants were included

on the UCMR (1999) List 2, with their

analytical methods listed as ‘‘reserved,’’

pending the conclusion of EPA

refinement and review of the analytical

methods. EPA proposed analytical

methods for 13 chemical contaminants

and nitrobenzene, as well as

Aeromonas, a microbiological

contaminant, on List 2 on September 13,

2000. Today’s final rule amends the

1999 UCMR to specify analytical

methods for monitoring for 13 organic

chemical contaminants, and it

establishes the monitoring schedule for

13 contaminants (13 organic chemicals)

on List 2. Today’s rule adds one

contaminant to List 2, nitrobenzene,

(Note: Nitrobenzene is also on List 1

using a method with a higher minimum

reporting level) and moves one other

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2277

contaminant, polonium-210, from List 2

to List 3. In addition, today’s final rule

activates Screening Survey monitoring

for these 13 contaminants, as described

in § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2. This

final rule also contains several minor

wording and technical changes to the

September 1999 rule in response to

comments received on the September

2000 proposal. Additionally, the

preamble to today’s rule includes

discussion of EPA’s responses to the

comments received on the proposed

rule.

IV. Process of Preparing the Final Rule

EPA has been developing the final

revisions to the Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation

(UCMR) for public water systems since

1997. In December 1997, EPA’s UCMR

development workgroup held a

stakeholders meeting to obtain input

from the public on major issues and

options affecting the program and

emanating from the Safe Drinking Water

Act, as amended in 1996. EPA held a

second stakeholders meeting in May

1998, on options under serious

consideration for the UCMR. EPA

engaged eleven external expert

reviewers from March 1 through April

22, 1999, to examine and comment on

the technical aspects of the UCMR.

These technical reviewers evaluated and

commented on the chemical and

microbiological contaminant analytical

methods and reporting requirements,

the statistical approach for the

representative sample of small systems,

and the sampling and monitoring

approach. The comments of the

technical reviewers were available to

the public through the official docket

and on the Internet through EPA’s

Office of Ground Water and Drinking

Water electronic homepage.

The comment period on the original

UCMR revision (published in the

Federal Register on April 30, 1999)

closed on June 14, 1999, with

submissions from 155 commenters

meeting the deadline and addressing all

major aspects of the proposed rule.

The final rule on the original UCMR

revisions was published on September

17, 1999 (64 FR 50556). EPA conducted

five national workshops on

implementation of the final regulation.

At these workshops, EPA received many

comments from State, Tribal and

Regional participants concerning

various aspects of implementing the

rule. As a result of this additional input,

EPA subsequently modified the original

UCMR on March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11371)

through a direct final rule and proposed

additional changes to the original rule

on September 13, 2000. Today’s final

rule promulgates the modifications

proposed on September 13, 2000 (in

addition to establishing List 2

monitoring requirements).

The comment period for the

September 13, 2000, List 2 proposal (65

FR 55362) closed on October 13, 2000.

EPA received 15 comments which were

submitted within the specified comment

period. These comments addressed all

major aspects of the proposal and EPA

considered and addressed all comments

in the process of developing this final

regulation.

V. Explanation of Today’s Action

A. Relation to the UCMR Published in

September 1999

The final UCMR, published on

September 17, 1999, and subsequently

revised on March 2, 2000, consisted of

many program elements designed to

enhance and improve the unregulated

contaminant monitoring program in

several important ways. The rule

specifies (1) which systems must

monitor, including a statistical approach

to select a representative sample of

small public water systems; (2) a list of

contaminants for which systems must

monitor; (3) the monitoring time,

frequency, and location of sampling; (4)

which methods are to be used for

analyzing the contaminants; (5) quality

control elements that must be followed

in addition to those specified in each

analytical method; (6) reporting

requirements; and (7) State and Tribal

participation concerning the

implementation of the monitoring

program.

EPA divided the list of contaminants

for which systems must monitor into

three separate lists based on the

availability of analytical methods and

the scope of monitoring to be required.

List 1, Assessment Monitoring,

consisted of 12 contaminants for which

analytical methods were available. List

2, Screening Survey, consisted of 16

contaminants for which EPA expected

analytical methods would be developed

by the time of initial monitoring in

2001. Pre-Screen Testing, List 3,

consisted of eight contaminants for

which analytical methods research was

being conducted. Only the contaminants

on List 1 must be monitored at all 2,774

large community and non-transient noncommunity public water systems

serving more than 10,000 persons, and

at a representative sample of

approximately 800 systems serving

10,000 or fewer persons. From this set

of approximately 3,600 large and small

public water systems, EPA has

randomly selected approximately 300

large and small systems to monitor for

List 2 contaminants in Screening

Surveys. Today’s rule specifies the

analytical methods for 13 List 2

contaminants. The method for the

microbiological contaminant,

Aeromonas, is reserved in today’s

notice, but EPA expects to promulgate

EPA Method 1605 in 2001. Methods for

the other two List 2 contaminants, RDX

and Alachlor ESA, need to be refined for

analysis in treated drinking water.

The placement of 16 contaminants on

List 2 meant that their analytical

methods were being further refined and

were not ready for the extensive

monitoring that would occur for the List

1 contaminants. The evaluation of the

13 new methods during monitoring for

List 2 contaminants will include

developing the data necessary to

support the determination of practical

quantitation levels, which are needed to

support possible future regulations, as

well as determining the occurrence of

the analytes measured. Today’s final

rule provides for monitoring 13 List 2

chemical contaminants at the 180 small

systems randomly selected from the 800

small systems in the State Monitoring

Plans beginning in January 2001 (with

the small systems (or State) doing the

sampling and EPA conducting the

testing and reporting). State Monitoring

Plans (SMPs) collectively specify the

800 randomly selected small water

systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons

and constitute the national

representative sample of small systems.

The SMPs also collectively specify 120

randomly selected large systems that

must monitor for List 2 contaminants,

beginning in January 2002. A second

Screening Survey for one List 2

microbiological contaminant

(Aeromonas) will be performed in 2003

by 180 other small systems and 120

other large systems once the final

method is promulgated. The delay of the

Screening Survey for the

microbiological contaminant will allow

EPA to publish the new method and

will allow time for laboratories to gain

experience with the new method and

have capacity available for large system

testing.

The rule establishes timing that will

allow monitoring of these List 2

contaminants at small systems

concurrently with the List 1,

Assessment Monitoring, contaminants.

Small systems will monitor in 2001 for

List 2 contaminants ahead of large

systems in 2002 because EPA is paying

for the small system monitoring, and

also plans to review the performance of

the methods prior to large system

monitoring, which must be paid for by

the large systems.

2278 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Methods are still being refined for the

remaining two List 2 chemical

contaminants. If methods for these

contaminants are developed in a timely

fashion, they may be added for

monitoring in a separate rule, probably

during the next UCMR 5-year regulatory

cycle.

As provided in the September 1999

rule (64 FR 50556), surface water

systems will monitor quarterly for one

year, and ground water systems will

monitor twice in one year for List 2

chemical contaminants. Today’s final

rule specifies quarterly monitoring for

microbiological contaminants with

monthly monitoring during the

vulnerable (warm) quarter. List 1

Assessment Monitoring must be done

within the three years of 2001 through

2003, which is intended to allow

coordination with the three-year

compliance monitoring cycle for

regulated contaminants. The exceptions

that would involve Assessment

Monitoring beyond 2003 include: loss of

samples for any reason, necessitating

another sampling event, or initiating

sampling at entry points to the

distribution system if contaminants are

found in systems that conduct their

other compliance monitoring at source

(raw) water sampling points. One of

these quarterly or semiannual sampling

events must occur in the most

vulnerable period of May through July,

or an alternate vulnerable period

designated by the State, to ensure

monitoring of seasonally elevated

contaminant concentrations.

B. Systems Affected by This Rule

The focus of UCMR List 2 is on the

occurrence or likely occurrence of

contaminants in drinking water of

community and non-transient, noncommunity water systems. For

regulatory purposes, public water

systems are categorized as ‘‘community

water systems,’’ or ‘‘non-community

water systems.’’ Community water

systems are specifically defined as

‘‘public water systems which serve at

least 15 service connections used by

year-round residents or regularly serve

at least 25 year round residents’’ (40

CFR 141.2). A ‘‘non-community water

system’’ means any other public water

system. Non-community water systems

include non-transient non-community

water systems and transient noncommunity water systems. Nontransient non-community systems are

those that regularly serve at least 25 of

the same persons over six months per

year (e.g., schools, industrial buildings).

Transient systems are all other noncommunity systems, which typically

serve a transient population such as

restaurants or hotels. As explained in

the September 1999 UCMR, EPA is

excluding transient water systems from

monitoring for unregulated

contaminants, including those on List 2.

The results from the small community

and non-transient non-community

systems can be extrapolated to the

transient non-community systems, if

needed.

With respect to size, about 2,800 large

systems (defined here as those serving

more than 10,000 persons) provide

drinking water to about 80 percent of

the U.S. population that is served by

public water systems. The SDWA does

not provide for EPA funding of this

monitoring. Under the UCMR program,

all large systems are required to monitor

for List 1 unregulated contaminants.

Only a representative sample of systems

serving 10,000 persons or fewer can be

required to monitor for unregulated

contaminants. SDWA authorizes EPA to

pay for the reasonable testing costs for

the national representative sample of

small systems.

As described in the September 17,

1999, Federal Register (64 FR 50556),

EPA has selected 300 large and small

systems from the systems required to

conduct Assessment Monitoring for List

1 to participate in the monitoring for

List 2 contaminants. The 300 systems

were divided as follows: 120 large

systems serving more than 10,000

persons and 180 small systems serving

10,000 or fewer persons. These

allocations were approximately

subdivided as follows: For the large

systems, 60 systems were selected from

systems serving more than 50,000

persons and 60 were from systems

serving from 10,001 to 50,000 persons.

For the small systems, 60 systems were

selected from each of the following

service size categories: 25 to 500

persons, 501 to 3,300 persons, and 3,301

to 10,000 persons. These systems were

further allocated by water source type

and were randomly selected from the

systems required to conduct Assessment

Monitoring for List 1 contaminants. The

final systems selected are identified in

the final State Monitoring Plans that

EPA is sending to the States. The final

allocations may vary from these

numbers based on the State Monitoring

Plan review and final system selection.

TABLE 2.—STATUS OF ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS ON THE UCMR (1999) LIST

CAS# Availability of analytical methods Status of availability

UCMR (1999)

List 1—Chemical Contaminant:

2,4-dinitrotoluene ............................... 121–14–2 EPA Method 525.2 ................................... Methods is adequate for List 1 monitoring.

2,6-dinitrotoluene ............................... 606–20–2 EPA Method 525.2 ................................... Method is adequate for List 1 monitoring.

4,4’–DDE ............................................ 72–55–9 EPA Method 508, EPA Method 508.1,

EPA Method 525.2, D5812–96, AOAC

990.06.

Methods are adequate for List 1 monitoring.

Acetochlor .......................................... 34256–82–1 EPA Method 525.2 ................................... Method is adequate for List 1 monitoring.

DCPA di acid degradate .................... 2136–79–0 EPA Method 515.1, EPA Method 515.2,

EPA Method 515.3, EPA Method

515.4, D5317–93, AOAC 992.32.

Methods are adequate for List 1 monitoring.

DCPA mono acid degradate .............. 887–54–7 EPA Method 515.1, EPA Method 515.2,

EPA Method 515.3, EPA Method

515.4, D5317–93, AOAC 992.32.

Methods are adequate for List 1 monitoring.

EPTC ................................................. 759–94–4 EPA Method 507, EPA Method 525.2,

D5475–93, AOAC 991.07.

Methods are adequate for List 1 monitoring.

Molinate ............................................. 2212–67–1 EPA Method 507, EPA Method 525.2,

D5475-93, AOAC 991.07.

Methods are adequate for List 1 monitoring.

MTBE ................................................. 1634–04–4 EPA Method 502.2, EPA Method 524.2,

D5790–95, SM6210D, SM6200B,

SM6200C.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2279

TABLE 2.—STATUS OF ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS ON THE UCMR (1999) LIST—Continued

CAS# Availability of analytical methods Status of availability

Nitrobenzene ...................................... 98–95–3 EPA Method 524.2, D5790–95,

SM6210D, SM6200B.

Methods are adequate for List 1 monitoring.

Perchlorate ......................................... 14797–73–0 EPA Method 314.0 ................................... Method is adequate for List 1 monitoring.

Terbacil .............................................. 5902–51–2 EPA Method 507, EPA Method 525.2,

D5475–93, AOAC 991.07.

Methods are adequate for List 1 monitoring.

UCMR (1999)

List 2—Chemical Contaminant

1,2-diphenylhydrazine ........................ 122–66–7 EPA Method 526 ...................................... Methods is adequate for List 2 Monitoring

in 2001–2002 a

2,4,6-trichlorophenol .......................... 88–06–2 EPA Method 528 ...................................... Method is adequate for List 2 Monitoring

in 2001–2002 a

2,4-dichlorophenol ............................. 120–83–2 EPA Method 528 ...................................... Method is adequate for List 2 Monitoring

in 2001–2002 a

2,4-dinitrophenol ................................ 51–28–5 EPA Method 528 ...................................... Methods is adequate for List 2 Monitoring

in 2001–2002 a

2-methyl-phenol ................................. 95–48–7 EPA Method 528 ...................................... Method is adequate for List 2 Monitoring

in 2001–2002 a

Alachlor ESA and degradation byproducts of acetanilide pesticides..................... Being refined ............................................. Candidate for a 3rd Screening Survey, if

conducted

Diazinon ............................................. 333–41–5 EPA Method 526 ...................................... Method is adequate for List 2 Monitoring

in 2001–2002 a

Disulfoton ........................................... 298–04–4 EPA Method 526 ...................................... Method is adequate for List 2 Monitoring

in 2001–2002 a

Diuron ................................................ 330–54–1 EPA Method 532 ...................................... Method is adequate for List 2 Monitoring

in 2001–2002 a

Fonofos .............................................. 944–22–9 EPA Method 526 ...................................... Method is adequate for List 2 Monitoring

in 2001–2002 a

Linuron ............................................... 330–55–2 EPA Method 532 ...................................... Method is adequate for List 2 Monitoring

in 2001–2002 a

Nitrobenzene ...................................... 98–95–3 EPA Method 526 ...................................... Method is adequate for List 2 Monitoring

in 2001–2002 a

Prometon ........................................... 1610–18–0 EPA Method 526 ...................................... Method is adequate for List 2 Monitoring

in 2001–2002 a

RDX ................................................... 121–82–4 Being refined ............................................. Candidate for a 3rd Screening Survey, if

conducted

Terbufos ............................................. 13071–79–9 EPA Method 526 ...................................... Method is adequate for List 2 Monitoring

in 2001–2002 a

UCMR (1999)

List 3—Chemical Contaminant:

Polonium-210 (210Po) ....................... 13981–52–7 In development ......................................... Radichemistry laboratory capacity is limited.

Lead-210 (210Pb) .............................. 14255–04–0 In development ......................................... Method is time-consuming and expensive. Radiochemistry laboratory capacity is limited.

aSmall systems selected for the Screening Survey One will monitor for these contaminants in 2001, and large systems selected for the

Screening Survey One will monitor in 2002.

TABLE 3.—STATUS OF ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS ON THE UCMR (1999) LIST

Availability of Analytical

Methods Status of Availability

UCMR (1999)

List 2—Microbiological Contaminants:

Aeromonas ........................ Reserved ............................... Method has been proposed. EPA expects to promulgate the method in 2001.

UCMR (1999)

List 3—Microbiological Contaminants:

Cyanobacteria (blue-green

algae, other freshwater

algae and their toxins).

Methods available but not

standardized.

Methods are avialable for counting cyanobacteria but new, standardized methods are needed for direct counts of targeted species with filtration methods

or a counting chamber. Standardized analytical methods are also needed to

detect the more important cyanobacterial toxins.

Echoviruses ....................... Methods available but not

standardized.

Echoviruses can be cultured on BGM cells available and detected by the ICR

method but require supplemental methods such as serological typing to distinguish echoviruses from other viruses. Cost of cell culture assays plus

serotyping can be high. RT/PCR methods are subject to interferences and

do not demonstrate infectivity. Combined cell culture and PCR, which demonstrates infectivity, may be considered.

2280 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 3.—STATUS OF ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS ON THE UCMR (1999) LIST—

Continued

Availability of Analytical

Methods Status of Availability

Coxsackieviruses .............. Methods available but not

standardized.

Group B coxsackieviruses are easy to grow in tissue culture but group A

coxsackievirus detection in cell culture is variable. Culturable

coxsackieviruses can be detected with the ICR method but serological typing

is needed to distinguish coxsackieviruses from other viruses. RT/PCR methods are subject to interferences and do not demonstrate infectivity. New,

standardized methods are needed. Combined cell culture and PCR methods

may be considered.

Helicobacter pylori ............ No suitable method currently

available.

Helicobacter pylori is difficult to cultivate because of its slow growth rate and

the need for a low oxygen environment. No selective medium exists that will

discriminate H. pylori from background bacteria. A culture-based method that

demonstrates viability is preferred. Methods are needed for selective growth

and identification. IMS has been used to concentrate Helicobacter pylori.

Methods using PCR alone have been used but have not been validated by

EPA. In general, PCR methods are not preferred due to interferences and

their inability to demonstrate viability. A combined cultural and molecular

method may be considered.

Microsporidia ..................... No suitable method currently

available.

No methods are available for the monitoring of the two species of human

microsporidia which may have a waterborne route of transmission

[Enterocytozoon bienuesi and Encephalitozoon (formerly Septata)

intestinalis]. Spores could possibly be detected by methods similar to those

being developed for Cryptosporidium parvum. Potential methods may utilize

water filtration, clean-up with IMS, and detection using microscopy with either fluorescent antibody or gene probe procedures. Provided that procedures are validated by EPA, reverse-transcriptase (RT)–PCR techniques

may be considered for monitoring, although PCR methods in general are not

preferred at this time due to interferences and their inability to demonstrate

viability. Due to the small size of microsporida, problems could be encountered during filtration.

Adenoviruses .................... No suitable method currently

available.

Adenoviruses serotypes 1 to 39 and 42 to 47 can be grown in tissue culture

but enteric adenoviruses 40 to 41 are difficult to grow. Several selective tissue culture methods and detection methods have been reported. A selective,

standardized method is needed for monitoring. PCR methods are not preferred, as they are subject to interferences and do not demonstrate infectivity. A combined cell culture and PCR method may be considered.

Caliciviruses ...................... No suitable method currently

available.

No tissue culture methods exist for the two genogroups of caliciviruses on the

CCL (the Norwalk-like and the Snow Mountain-like agents). No sensitive or

fully developed detection methods exist. PCR methods are not preferred, as

they are subject to interferences and do not demonstrate infectivity. A combined cell culture and PCR method may be considered if a suitable cell line

is found.

C. Changes to the UCMR Associated

With the Screening Survey for List 2

Contaminants

1. Description of Screening Surveys for

List 2 Contaminants

The contaminants for which EPA is

promulgating new methods are listed in

§ 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2. Today’s

rule activates the Screening Survey

monitoring for these List 2 contaminants

for which methods are being

promulgated today. The purpose of the

Screening Survey is to analyze for

contaminants where the use of newly

developed, non-routine analytical

methods are required. The Screening

Survey approach will allow EPA to

maximize scientifically-defensible

occurrence data for emerging

contaminants of concern more quickly

than could be obtained through a more

standard unregulated contaminant

monitoring effort. The Screening Survey

will, for example, be useful in

addressing questions concerning

whether a contaminant of concern is in

fact occurring in drinking water and the

range of concentrations of that

occurrence. The Screening Survey is

also intended to allow EPA to screen

contaminants to see if they occur at high

enough frequencies or at concentrations

that justify inclusion in future

unregulated contaminant Assessment

Monitoring or at sufficiently low

frequencies so that they do not require

further monitoring or regulation.

Under today’s rule, the Screening

Survey for List 2 contaminants will be

implemented in two parts: Screening

Survey One for chemical contaminants

in 2001 at selected small systems and

2002 at selected large systems, and

Screening Survey Two for Aeromonas, a

microbiological contaminant, in 2003 at

selected small and large systems.

The contaminants in UCMR (1999)

List 2 will be monitored, as part of a

Screening Survey, by a smaller,

statistically selected sample of 300

systems which represent all (large and

small) community and non-transient

non-community water systems. As in

Assessment Monitoring for List 1

contaminants, public water systems

serve as a surrogate for the population

potentially affected, and are a more

efficient way to develop a sampling

approach to estimate exposure to

contaminants. These systems have been

selected using a random number

generator. As discussed in the proposal,

EPA will use the data from the

Screening Survey as an initial

assessment of occurrence to determine

whether: (1) More extensive monitoring

of a contaminant is warranted (e.g., in

the next round of Assessment

Monitoring) to determine the need for

future regulation; (2) a contaminant

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2281

should be eliminated from further

consideration for regulation; or, (3)

under circumstances of wide-spread

occurrence, a contaminant should be

moved directly into consideration for

regulatory development. EPA will, of

course, evaluate other factors and not

just this measure of occurrence before

deciding to regulate a contaminant.

EPA will pay for the shipping, testing,

and reporting for the Screening Survey

for systems serving 10,000 or fewer

persons. Systems serving 10,000 or

fewer persons will be responsible for

sample collection and preparing the

samples for shipment. EPA will pay for

the shipping of these samples to an

EPA-designated laboratory for testing

and for reporting of monitoring results

to EPA, with a copy to the State. Large

systems, those serving more than 10,000

persons, must arrange and pay for the

monitoring, shipping, testing, and

reporting of results.

2. Contaminants and Analytical

Methods

In today’s final rule, EPA establishes

the use of three new EPA methods for

the monitoring of 13 chemical

contaminants on List 2. These

contaminants and methods are listed in

Table 2. In addition, EPA has added

nitrobenzene to List 2. Methods for two

chemical contaminants alachlor ESA

and RDX are still being refined and

remain reserved on List 2. EPA has

moved polonium-210 to List 3. Finally,

Aeromonas remains reserved for List 2

monitoring (see Table 3). Other

pertinent information is listed on Table

4 related to the detection and

quantitation for the 13 contaminants to

be monitored from List 2. The status of

the contaminants and methods are

discussed in further detail in this

section.

TABLE 4.—DETECTION AND QUANTITATION FOR LIST 2 CONTAMINANTS

Detection limit Final MRL a

Contaminant:

2-methylphenol ................................................................................................................................ 0.03 μg/L ................ 1 μg/L

2,4,6-trichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................ 0.05 μg/L ................ 1 μg/l

2,4-dichlorophenol ........................................................................................................................... 0.03 μg/L ................ 1 μg/L

2,4-dinitrophenol .............................................................................................................................. 0.3 μg/L .................. 5 μg/L

1,2 diphenylhydrazine ...................................................................................................................... 0.03 μg/L ................ 0.5 μg/L

Diazinon ........................................................................................................................................... 0.02 μg/L ................ 0.5 μg/L

Disulfoton ......................................................................................................................................... 0.02 μg/L ................ 0.5 μg/L

Fonofos ............................................................................................................................................ 0.02 μg/L ................ 0.5 μg/L

Prometon ......................................................................................................................................... 0.04 μg/L ................ 0.5 μg/L

Terbufos ........................................................................................................................................... 0.02 μg/L ................ 0.5 μg/L

Nitrobenzene .................................................................................................................................... 0.01 μg/L ................ 0.5 μg/L

Linuron ............................................................................................................................................. 0.07 μg/L ................ 1 μg/L

Diuron .............................................................................................................................................. 0.1 μg/L .................. 1 μg/L

Alachlor ESA and other acetanilide pesticide degradates .............................................................. Reserved b ............. Reserved b

RDX ................................................................................................................................................. Reserved b ............. Reserved b

Microbiological Contaminant:

Aeromonas ....................................................................................................................................... Reserved b ............. Reserved b

a Minimum Reporting Level based upon precision and accuracy data derived during methods development and verified in second laboratory

validation. bTo be determined.

a. New Methods for Use in Screening

Survey One

This section includes summaries of

the three analytical methods for use for

the chemicals included in the Screening

Survey in 2001 and 2002. Tables 2 and

3 list the contaminants and new

methods. The details of these methods

and the results of their peer reviews are

documented in Water Docket W–00–01.

(i) Summary of EPA Method 532.0:

Determination of Phenylurea

Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid

Phase Extraction and High Performance

Liquid Chromatography with Ultraviolet

Detection. Today, EPA establishes the

use of EPA Method 532.0 to analyze for

diuron and linuron. Under this method,

a 500 milliliter volume of water is

extracted on a chemically bonded C18

cartridge or disk, extracted with a small

amount of methanol, and the resulting

extract injected into a high performance

liquid chromatographic (HPLC) system

equipped with a C18 column and a UV

detector. All positive results are

confirmed using a second, dissimilar

HPLC column.

• Refinements from Previous

Methods. While linuron and diuron are

included in the scope of NPS Method 4

(LLE/HPLC/UV) and EPA Method 553

(SPE/HPLC/MS), these methods were

determined to be inappropriate for this

monitoring. NPS Method 4 uses

mercuric chloride for biological

stabilization, does not contain any

reagents to reduce disinfectant

residuals, and requires the extraction of

1 liter water samples with 180 mL of

methylene chloride. EPA Method 553

does not include biological stabilization,

and requires the use of a HPLC/MS

equipped with a particle beam interface.

EPA Method 532, copper sulfate is used

to biologically stabilize samples, rather

than the toxic compound mercuric

chloride, solid phase extraction of 500

mL samples, rather than extracting one

liter samples with methylene chloride

results in a significant reduction of

solvent. In addition, analysis is

conducted by performing separation and

detection using more commonly

available HPLC/UV instrumentation,

rather than particle beam interfaces

which are no longer manufactured.

(ii) Summary of EPA Method 528:

Determination of Phenols in Drinking

Water by Solid Phase Extraction and

Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/

Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). Under this

final regulation, EPA requires the use of

EPA Method 528 to analyze for 2-

methyl-phenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol,

2,4-dichlorophenol, and 2,4-

dinitrophenol. Under this method, a 1

liter water sample is extracted on a solid

phase extraction cartridge containing

0.5 grams of a modified polystyrene

divinyl benzene solid phase which is

eluted with a small amount of

methylene chloride. The resulting

extract is then analyzed using a

capillary column equipped with GC/

MS.

• Refinements from Previous

Methods. EPA Method 552 lists 2,4-

dichlorophenol and 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol as an analyte; however,

2282 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

under the conditions specified, the

analytes interfere with one another.

Other methods evaluated required the

use of techniques that are no longer

used in modern laboratories such as

large volume solvent extraction, acid,

base/neutral fractionation, and were

developed for packed column

chromatography. In addition, no

documentation of either aqueous or

extract analyte stability was available.

In EPA Method 528, sample

extractions are performed using solid

phase extraction without fractionation,

capillary column separation without the

need to derivatize the analytes, and uses

mass spectrometry to reduce false

positives. Samples are biologically

preserved through acidification and

disinfectant residuals are reduced with

sodium sulfite.

(iii) Summary of EPA Method 526:

Determination of Selected Semivolatile

Organic Compounds in Drinking Water

by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary

Column GC/MS. Under this final

regulation, EPA requires the use of EPA

Method 526 to analyze for 1,2-

diphenylhydrazine, diazinon,

disulfoton, fonofos, prometon,

nitrobenzene, and terbufos. Under this

method, a 1 liter sample is extracted on

a chemically bonded styrene divinyl

benzene organic phase cartridge or disk.

The cartridge or disk is eluted with

small quantities of ethyl acetate

followed by methylene chloride. The

resulting extract is then analyzed on a

capillary column equipped GC/MS.

• Refinements from Previous

Methods. While several of the analytes

included in EPA Method 526 are also

listed as analytes in EPA Method 507,

EPA Method 508, EPA Method 525.2

and other methods, accurate and precise

measurement of these analytes in stored

samples is not achieved, because of

extremely rapid aqueous degradation of

these analytes. Literature searches and

data collected during methods

development of EPA Method 526

demonstrated that many of these

analytes are subject to both acid and

base catalyzed hydrolysis and that this

hydrolysis is also catalyzed by the

presence of metals. These compounds

are also subject to biological degradation

in stored samples, and degradation by

free chlorine. In EPA Method 526,

reagents are added to all samples to

stabilize the analytes. This includes a

buffer to neutralize pH, EDTA to

complex metals, a biocide to stabilize

analytes against biological degradation,

and a reagent to reduce disinfectant

residuals. Using these reagents, analyte

stability has been demonstrated. In

addition, all of these reagents can be

added to the sample bottles prior to

their shipment to the sample collection

site.

(iv) Peer Review. EPA conducted peer

reviews of the analytical methods made

final today. The peer reviews were

conducted both within EPA and by

personnel from Montgomery Watson

Laboratories, Philadelphia Suburban

Water Company, and the American

Water Works Service Company.

Summaries of these reviews and EPA

responses to them are available at the

Water Docket (MC 4101), U.S. EPA, 401

M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460,

Docket number W–00–01.

(v) Laboratory Approval and

Certification. Laboratories currently

certified to conduct drinking water

compliance monitoring using EPA

Method 525.2 are automatically

approved to conduct UCMR analysis

using EPA Methods 526 and/or 528.

Laboratories currently certified to

conduct drinking water compliance

monitoring using EPA Methods 549.1 or

549.2, are automatically approved to

conduct UCMR analysis using EPA

Method 532. As noted earlier, EPA

Method 525.2 is a solid phase extraction

GC/MS method as are both EPA

Methods 526 and 528. EPA Methods

549.1 and 549.2 are solid phase

extraction HPLC methods as is EPA

Method 532. Using this system of

laboratory approval for the UCMR

ensures that the laboratories that

perform these analysis are currently

certified to perform compliance

monitoring with methods that use the

same technologies as those incorporated

in the UCMR methods, while providing

PWSs with the widest possible source of

approved laboratories.

For small systems, EPA conducted a

competitive solicitation to select

laboratories to analyze for List 2

contaminants under contract to EPA. All

small system shipping and analysis

costs will be paid by EPA.

b. Monitoring Nitrobenzene at LowLevel in Screening Survey One

One comment was received on the

proposed rule concerning the

monitoring of nitrobenzene in both the

Assessment and Screening phases of the

UCMR. The commentor questioned

EPA’s retention of a much less sensitive

analytical method to test for

nitrobenzene under the initial

Assessment Monitoring, when

nitrobenzene will be measured by a

method that is 100 times more sensitive

during the Screening (List 2)

Monitoring. The commentor added that

restricting nitrobenzene to List 2

contaminant monitoring avoids a

redundant and costly element in

Assessment Monitoring, while

providing a statistically significant

estimation of occurrence that could, if

warranted, trigger more comprehensive

monitoring.

EPA believes that nitrobenzene can be

reliably and accurately measured at

concentrations above 10 μg/L using the

purge and trap GC/MS methods

approved for use in the Assessment

Monitoring phase of the UCMR. Even

though currently available preliminary

health effects information suggests that

nitrobenzene may be of concern at

concentrations lower than can be

reliably measured using purge and trap

GC/MS methods, nitrobenzene was

nonetheless included in the monitoring

required under Assessment Monitoring

since methods reliably measuring

nitrobenzene at lower concentrations

were not then available. In addition,

since the same purge and trap GC/MS

methods were being approved of the

analyses of other compounds in the

assessment phase of the UCMR

monitoring, monitoring for nitrobenzene

using these methods could be

accomplished at very little additional

cost to the regulated utilities, States, or

EPA. Therefore, EPA felt it was prudent

to require this monitoring to obtain

valid national occurrence data for this

compound.

Since health effects information under

current review indicates that

nitrobenzene may be of concern at

concentrations lower than that

measured under Assessment

Monitoring, EPA also included

nitrobenzene in the list of compounds

for which additional methods

development was required (List 2

compounds). The analytical method

(EPA Method 526) developed for the

analyses of diazinon, disulfoton,

fonofos, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine, and

prometon can also reliably measure

nitrobenzene at considerably lower

concentrations than can the purge and

trap methods approved for the analyses

of nitrobenzene under Assessment

Monitoring. EPA Method 526 was not

available at the time that methods were

approved for the Assessment. Therefore,

EPA is retaining the required

monitoring for nitrobenzene in the

Assessment Monitoring phase of the

UCMR using the previously approved

purge and trap GC/MS methods to

collect national monitoring data, but it

is also requiring monitoring for

nitrobenzene in this Screening Survey

phase of the UCMR using EPA Method

526. This will permit the Agency to

obtain substantial amounts of

occurrence data for nitrobenzene at

concentrations above 10 ug/L through

UCMR assessment monitoring and a

statistically significant estimate of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2283

nitrobenzene at much lower

concentrations with the Screening

Survey monitoring, and yet not impose

additional substantial cost burdens on

affected entities. Including nitrobenzene

under both Assessment Monitoring and

the Screening Survey may also

eliminate the need for future UCMR

monitoring of nitrobenzene.

c. Monitoring of Aeromonas in

Screening Survey Two

Under today’s action, EPA is

approving the proposed monitoring plan

for Aeromonas as part of Screening

Survey Two, to be conducted by 180

small systems and 120 large systems

beginning in 2003. Many of the options

for monitoring Aeromonas were

discussed in the proposed rule

published on September 13, 2000 (65 FR

55362). As part of this final rule, EPA

is reserving the method for Aeromonas,

and expects to promulgate EPA Method

1605 in 2001 (briefly summarized

below) for monitoring Aeromonas for

Screening Survey Two.

Analytical Method. The proposed

Aeromonas spp. method in the

proposed rule for List 2 monitoring was

EPA Method 1605, which is a

membrane filter assay based on the

ampicillin-dextrin agar (ADA) method

of Havelaar et al. (1987), with two

additional tests for confirmation:

cytochrome oxidase and trehalose

fermentation. Proposed EPA Method

1605, ‘‘Determination of Aeromonas in

Water’’, is currently available on-line at

http://www.EPA.gov/nerlcwww/

1605sp00.pdf or by contacting the Safe

Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426–

4791; however, the final approval of the

method and minimum reporting level

will be reserved until promulgated in a

subsequent method update rule. This

proposed method identifies Aeromonas

to the genus level and detects A.

hydrophila and a majority of the other

aeromonad species. Laboratories

wishing to analyze samples for

Aeromonas for the UCMR must use the

final approved EPA Method 1605 after

it is promulgated. Aeromonas analyses

must be performed by laboratories

certified under § 141.28 for compliance

analysis of coliform indicator bacteria

using an EPA approved membrane

filtration procedure. Because of

differences between Method 1605 and

existing membrane filtration methods,

laboratories performing EPA Method

1605 must also participate in

performance testing (PT) studies to be

conducted by EPA. EPA received five

comments regarding performance

testing (PT) for Aeromonas. EPA has

decided once the method is published

as final, to require laboratories that

analyze samples for Aeromonas to

participate in a PT program.

Laboratories wishing to participate in

the Aeromonas PT program and be

approved must submit a ‘‘request to

participate’’ letter to EPA. EPA has

established a tentative time of late 2001

and early 2002 by which to receive the

‘‘request to participate’’ letter,

contingent on the publication of the

final Aeromonas method. EPA will

publish further information on the

Aeromonas PT program for potential

participants at the time it promulgates

the final method. Any interested

laboratory which does not apply for

participation or fails to successfully

pass the initial PT study but still wishes

to support this monitoring, will need to

submit a request letter at a later time

that will be specified with the

promulgation of the final method to be

eligible for the second or third PT study.

Upon completion of the Aeromonas PT

Program, EPA will provide each

successful laboratory with an approval

letter identifying the laboratory by name

and the approval date. This letter may

then be presented to any Public Water

System (PWS) as evidence of laboratory

approval for Aeromonas analysis

supporting the UCMR. Laboratory

approval is contingent upon the

laboratory maintaining certification to

perform drinking water compliance

monitoring using an approved coliform

membrane filtration method.

EPA Method 1605 identifies

Aeromonas to the genus level, but does

not distinguish between pathogenic and

nonpathogenic types. To obtain

additional information on Aeromonas

strains detected with Method 1605,

isolates from the ADA plates will be

tested for taxonomic characteristics that

are associated with pathogenic clinical

isolates in follow-up tests conducted by

EPA or an EPA contractor. EPA will do

these additional analyses for small and

large systems that have confirmed

positive colonies of Aeromonas (see

proposed § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2,

footnote j). Confirmed Aeromonas

colonies must be archived by analytical

laboratories performing Method 1605,

and shipped to EPA. The Agency will

arrange to have additional analyses

done on isolates to determine the

hybridization groups that are associated

with pathogenic forms.

Analytical Method for Determining

Hybridization Groups. The phenotypic

method described by Abbott et al.,

(1992) will be used to identify the

hybridization group of each isolate.

These investigators described a group of

biochemical tests that were able to place

132 of 133 Aeromonas isolates in the

correct hybridization group. The use of

biochemical tests to determine

hybridization groups of Aeromonas is

well established (Borrell et al., 1998,

Altwegg et al., 1990 and others). EPA

may also use restriction fragment length

polymorphism (RFLP) for hybridization

group identification.

Sampling Times and Locations. As

included in EPA’s proposal at

§ 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(B), Table 3, Monitoring

Frequency by Contaminant and Water

Source Types, EPA is requiring, once

the method is promulgated as final, that

systems monitoring for Aeromonas

under Screening Survey Two sample six

times during the year, once per quarter

during the cooler seasons and once per

month during the warmest (vulnerable)

quarter, unless the EPA or the State

designates a different vulnerable period.

This results in one of three sampling

schemes: (1) January, April, July,

August, September, and October, (2)

February, May, July, August, September,

and November, or (3) March, June, July,

August, September, and December,

unless the EPA or State designates a

different vulnerable period. Public

comments received asked for an option

for greater flexibility in setting the

sampling schedule for the warmest

(vulnerable) month. These sampling

times have been revised in response to

comments received. At each sample

time, three samples must be taken from

the distribution system owned or

controlled by the PWS selected to

monitor. In response to public

comments, consecutive systems are no

longer included for this monitoring in

the distribution system for Aeromonas.

Sampling locations must include one

midpoint in the distribution system

where the disinfectant residual will be

expected to be typical for the system

(midpoint, or MD, as defined in the

Rule), and two other points: One of

maximum retention time and one where

the disinfectant residual will have

typically declined (point of maximum

residence, or MR, and location of lowest

disinfectant residual or LD, respectively,

as defined in the Rule). Each sample

analyzed for Aeromonas will be

considered to be an individual data

point and will not be averaged with

values determined for other samples.

Sites selected for Aeromonas samples

may utilize locations identified for

certain other contaminants which may

occur under similar conditions to those

described for Aeromonas. Sampling for

coliform indicator bacteria, which

includes midpoint samples, is described

in 40 CFR 141.21. Compliance

monitoring samples for coliform

bacteria are taken from a variety of

locations through the distribution

system. Some of these samples are from

2284 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

locations where the disinfectant

residual is representative of the

distribution system and will not have

significantly declined. Locations

specified in the sample plan for

coliform bacteria that meet this

description may be used for the

Aeromonas midpoint sample.

Additionally, a sample must be taken

from a location in the distribution

system where the disinfectant residual

is expected to be low, which is similar

to total trihalomethane (TTHM) sample

points. Sample locations for TTHMs are

described in 63 FR 69468 (1998), the

Disinfectants and Disinfection

Byproducts Rule, and 40 CFR 141.30.

These sample locations must be at distal

parts of the distribution system (taking

care to avoid disinfectant booster

stations) or dead ends, or locations

which had previously been determined

to have the lowest disinfectant residual.

Ground water systems that do not

disinfect may utilize the same distal

sample locations as those that disinfect.

Additional information on Aeromonas

occurrence in relation to retention time

or disinfectant residual are given in

Havelaar et al., 1990, Burke et al., 1984,

Gavriel et al., 1998, Holmes and Nicolls,

1995. These studies suggest that

Aeromonas is more likely to occur

where the disinfectant residual has

declined to less than 0.3 mg/L or where

the residence time in the distribution

system is longest. Stelzer et al. (1992)

found Aeromonas more commonly at

distances greater than 10 km from the

treatment plant. Holmes et al. (1996)

reported after growth of Aeromonas in

part of a distribution system where the

retention time of treated water could

exceed 72 hours.

Sample location descriptions for large

distribution systems may not be

applicable for small systems (or ground

water systems that do not disinfect). In

the event that the midpoint and distal

or low disinfectant residual sample

locations described for larger systems do

not apply, small systems may use a

coliform sample location, and two

samples at the farthest point(s) from the

source water intake.

Water Quality Parameters Required

for Aeromonas Samples. The water

quality parameters identified in

§ 141.40(a)(4)(i)(B), Table 2, Water

Quality Parameters to be Monitored

with UCMR Contaminants, must be

analyzed and reported for the

microbiological contaminant on List 2,

Aeromonas, once its analytical method

is final and ready for use. These

parameters include water pH, turbidity,

temperature, and free and total

disinfectant residual.

d. Exclusion of RDX, and Alachlor ESA

and Other Acetanilide Pesticide

Degradation Products From Monitoring

Under Screening Survey at This Time

Not all of the contaminants included

in the UCMR (1999) List 2 in the final

UCMR Rule (64 FR 50556) are activated

for Screening Survey monitoring by this

rule. In the proposal for this final rule,

EPA identified many important issues,

including the development of

appropriate analytical methods, that

must be resolved before monitoring can

be conducted for RDX and Alachlor

ESA. The public comments that were

received supported the reserve status for

these methods and contaminants at this

time. The methods for these

contaminants (as well as all the List 3

contaminants identified in the

September 1999 Revisions to the UCMR)

are currently under development and it

is not certain when these methods will

be completed. If these methods are still

in development in December 2001, EPA

will consider including these

contaminants in the next five-year cycle

of UCMR, rather than proposing their

methods during this first five-year

UCMR cycle.

e. Movement of Polonium-210 From

UCMR (1999) List 2 to UCMR (1999)

List 3

With today’s action, EPA is removing

the radionuclide polonium-210 from

List 2 of the UCMR (1999) List and

moving it to List 3. As discussed in the

proposal, many issues still need to be

addressed before monitoring is required

for this contaminant. Public comments

supported moving polonium-210 to List

3. In particular, additional development

and validation work is needed before

possible methods can be used for

routine drinking water analysis.

Furthermore, there are laboratory

capacity and capability concerns, as an

appropriate method for polonium-210

may be very time consuming and will

likely require an experienced analyst.

Unlike RDX and alachlor ESA, for

which analytical methods are available

but are being refined, the methods for

polonium-210 are not yet at a sufficient

point to be used for drinking water

analyses, let alone be refined for routine

application. Thus, for drinking water

analyses, the methods still require

development, peer review and EPA

approval. As a result, polonium-210 is

more appropriately placed on List 3.

The movement of polonium-210 from

List 2 to List 3 is reflected in

§ 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 3.

3. All List 2 Monitoring at Entry Points

to the Distribution System

Today’s action also modifies

§ 141.40(a)(7), which addresses

monitoring for List 2 contaminants, to

clarify that all List 2 monitoring for

chemical contaminants in Screening

Survey One must be done at entry

points to the distribution system

(EPTDS). Public comment supported

this approach. The only exception to

this requirement for EPTDS sampling is

where the EPA or State determines that

no treatment or processing is in place

between the source water and the

EPTDS that would affect measurement

of the contaminants involved. Under

Assessment Monitoring, systems that

routinely sample at source (raw) water

sampling points are allowed to sample

List 1 contaminants at those points until

an unregulated chemical contaminant is

found. After such a detection, the

system must generally initiate

monitoring at the entry points to the

distribution system for those

contaminants detected. For monitoring

for List 2 contaminants, however, EPA

believes that allowing such flexibility in

sampling locations would jeopardize the

consistency of the data generated by the

Screening Surveys. Specifically, the

revisions to § 141.40(a)(7) specify that

List 2 chemical contaminant monitoring

must be at the entry point to the

distribution system for all systems, to

provide for consistent results nationally.

In addition, EPA is specifying that List

2 monitoring must be conducted over 1

year (2001 for the first Screening Survey

of small systems and 2002 for the first

Screening Survey of large systems),

rather than any 12 months over the 3-

year period, as with List 1 Assessment

Monitoring.

4. Implementation

a. Coordination of Assessment

Monitoring and Screening Surveys

While EPA has not modified the

regulation for coordination of

Assessment Monitoring of List 1 and

Screening Surveys for List 2, such

coordination, to the extent possible, is

an important aspect of the UCMR

program. For small systems that are

required to conduct both Assessment

Monitoring and Screening Survey One

for chemicals during 2001, the timing

and location of sampling will be the

same. The one exception will occur for

systems that are collecting their

Assessment Monitoring samples from

source (raw) water sampling points.

Sampling locations for Assessment

Monitoring and Screening Survey One

for chemicals will not coincide for these

systems, because all Screening Survey

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2285

One samples must be collected from the

entry points to the distribution system.

Note that not all small systems

conducting Assessment Monitoring in

2001 were selected for Screening Survey

monitoring, but for those that are, this

is clearly indicated in the UCMR State

Monitoring Plans for small systems. For

large systems serving more than 10,000

persons, the systems randomly selected

for Screening Survey One must carry

out the monitoring for that survey in

2002.

Assuming the method to analyze for

Aeromonas is published as final, large

and small systems selected for the

Screening Survey Two for Aeromonas

must monitor for that microorganism in

2003. This second Screening Survey

does not coincide with Assessment

Monitoring from the standpoint of

sampling time and location. However,

the monitoring for Aeromonas is only

being conducted at 300 large and small

systems in 2003, which has a limited

effect on the systems overall. This is a

one time, one-year survey, specific to

Aeromonas, which is being conducted

with the expectation that it will provide

a nationally consistent result. Figure 1

provides a timeline for implementation

of the UCMR, including the Screening

Survey for List 2 contaminants.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

2286 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2287

b. Selection of Systems by Water Source

and Size

EPA selected the systems required to

conduct List 2 monitoring from the

approximately 2,800 large systems and

800 small systems previously identified

by EPA for Assessment Monitoring. One

hundred twenty (120) large systems and

180 small systems were randomly

selected to monitor for each Screening

Survey (i.e., both Screening Survey One

for chemicals and Two for Aeromonas),

approximately based on the following

allocation:

System size

(persons)

Water source

Ground

water

Surface

water

25–500 ...................... 30 30

501–3,300 ................. 30 30

3,301–10,000 ............ 30 30

10,001–50,000 .......... 30 30

50,000 or more persons ....................... 30 30

This allocation was designed to

ensure adequate coverage in both small

and large system size and the source

water categories. The final selection of

Screening Survey systems may vary

from this allocation, given the logistical

adjustments that some States had to

make to their State Monitoring Plans.

c. Sampling Period, Location and

Frequency

For small systems serving 10,000 or

fewer persons, monitoring for List 2

chemicals is to be conducted in 2001

(Screening Survey One for chemicals),

which is also the first year of

Assessment Monitoring. EPA will pay

for sample shipping, testing, and

reporting for small systems. EPA

expects to evaluate both the occurrence

and the analytical methods used for List

2 contaminants at this time. If

adjustments to the methods need to be

made before large systems are required

to monitor in 2002, EPA has time to

make these changes before large systems

conduct Screening Survey One

monitoring. Large systems serving more

than 10,000 persons are required to

conduct monitoring in 2002. Once the

analytical method is promulgated, the

monitoring for Aeromonas in Screening

Survey Two is to be conducted by all

selected small and large systems in

2003.

The sampling location for the

chemical contaminants on List 2 is the

entry point to the distribution system.

For Aeromonas, the sampling locations

are three places in the distribution

system, which is owned or controlled by

the selected PWS, representing: (1) A

point (midpoint (MD) in the distribution

system from § 141.35(d)(3), Table 1)

where the disinfectant residual is

representative of the distribution

system. This sample location may be

selected from sample locations which

have been previously identified for

samples to be analyzed for coliform

indicator bacteria. Coliform sample

locations are described in 40 CFR

141.21. This same approach must be

used for the Aeromonas midpoint

sample where the disinfectant residual

would not have declined and would be

typical for the distribution system; (2)

The distal or dead-end location in the

distribution system (point of maximum

retention (MR) furthest from the entry

point to the distribution system from

§ 141.35(d)(3), Table 1), avoiding

disinfectant booster stations; and (3) A

location where previous determinations

have indicated the lowest disinfectant

residual in the distribution system

(point where the disinfectant residual is

lowest (LD) from § 141.35(d)(3), Table

1). If these two locations of distal and

low disinfectant residual sites coincide,

then the second sample must be taken

at a location between the MD and MR

sites. Locations in the distribution

system where the disinfectant residual

is expected to be low are similar to

TTHM sampling points. Sampling

locations for TTHMs are described in 63

FR 69468.

The frequency of sampling for

chemical contaminants on List 2 is the

same as for List 1 Assessment

Monitoring: four consecutive quarters

for surface water systems and two times

six months apart for ground water

systems, with one of these sampling

events (for both water source types)

during the vulnerable time specified by

EPA in the rule, or by the State in its

State Monitoring Plan. For Aeromonas,

sampling frequency is six times during

the year 2003: during the same month

(first, second or third month) selected

by the system in each quarter, and each

month during the warmest quarter (July,

August and September, or other

vulnerable (warm) period designated by

EPA or the State). Additionally, a

footnote was added to the year 2003 in

column 6 (Table 1, List 2), ‘‘Period

During Which Monitoring to be

Completed,’’ indicating that the

monitoring period is contingent on

promulgation of the analytical method

and minimum reporting level for

Aeromonas.

d. Sample Analysis

Large systems will sample and send

their samples to the EPA certified

laboratory of their choice and report the

results to EPA as specified in § 141.35.

Large systems will pay for the cost of

the shipping, testing, and reporting of

the results. At small systems, unless the

State has agreed to collect the samples

for small systems, the owner or operator

will collect the sample in EPA-provided

equipment. EPA will pay for the

shipment, analysis of the samples, and

reporting of test results for small

systems.

Large systems selected for the

Screening Survey will be notified by the

State or EPA at least 90 days before the

dates established for collecting and

submitting samples to determine the

presence of contaminants on List 2. One

commentor expressed concern over the

timing of this notification, noting that

systems need adequate time to properly

coordinate with contract laboratories.

EPA notes that it intends (with

assistance from partner States) to

provide notification more than 120 days

in advance and that 90 days would be

the minimum.

e. Reporting

Systems are responsible for reporting

the results of UCMR monitoring to EPA,

with a copy to the State in a format

specified by EPA, through their

analytical agent or laboratory, within 30

days following the month in which the

results are received from the laboratory.

EPA will allow an additional 60 days for

system, State, and EPA quality control

review before posting the results to the

National Drinking Water Contaminant

Occurrence Database (NCOD) portion of

the Safe Drinking Water Information

System. Additionally, EPA has modified

the regulation in response to comments

about the readiness of the electronic

reporting system. Systems will not be

required to submit data until September

30, 2001 for the first two quarters of

calendar year 2001, but may begin

reporting as early as July 1, 2001. EPA

has modified § 141.35(c) to reflect this

change and provide sufficient time for

the reporting system to be ready to

accept results.

EPA contract laboratories will

generate small system results and will

report the data directly into the EPA

system. EPA will provide small systems

the opportunity to conduct a 30-day

quality control review of their results

before EPA reports them to the NCOD

and before the 60-day quality control

review by systems and States. During

this 60-day period, EPA will also

conduct its own quality control review.

Figures 2 and 3, below, illustrate the

UCMR monitoring approach, as well as

the timeline for implementation of the

first cycle of UCMR monitoring.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

2288 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2289

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C D. Other Technical Changes and

Clarifications to the UCMR (40 CFR

141.40)

Changes described in this section will

affect monitoring and reporting for both

List 1 and List 2 contaminants

beginning in 2001.

2290 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1. Updating the National Drinking Water

Contaminant Occurrence Database

EPA modified § 141.35(c) to recognize

the updating cycle of the National

Drinking Water Contaminant

Occurrence Database (NCOD). The

existing rule provides for placing the

data reported to EPA by systems in the

NCOD after a 60-day quality control

review period. Today’s final rule will

continue to provide for the 60-day

quality control review by systems,

States and the Agency. However, today’s

rule requires that EPA place the

available unregulated contaminant

occurrence data resulting from UCMR

monitoring in the NCOD at the time of

each update of the database, which

currently is on the same quarterly

update cycle as the Safe Drinking Water

Information System. Since updating the

databases incurs costs, being able to

coordinate this update with an existing

update process provides a lower level of

expenditure for database maintenance.

The NCOD will be updated four times

per year, rather than six times. Public

comments supported this reporting

process. Because these data are for longterm analytical purposes, this change

should not inhibit their principal use for

regulatory determination and

development. The data will still be

regularly available to the public through

the NCOD. The results of detections of

unregulated contaminants is also

required to be reported by PWS to

consumers through consumer

confidence reports.

2. Reporting System and Laboratory

Contacts

Section 141.35(d) identifies the data

elements to be reported with UCMR

contaminant monitoring results. In the

process of initiating implementation of

the UCMR, including discussions with

stakeholders, EPA realized that to

facilitate communication in a rule for

which EPA had direct implementation

responsibility, the agency needed points

of contact with public water systems

and their analytical agents or

organizations (laboratories). In today’s

final rule, EPA is amending § 141.35(d)

to clarify that systems must provide

‘‘point-of-contact’’ information. Today’s

action amends the UCMR to require

systems and laboratories to provide the

following information: name, mailing

address, phone number, and email

address for: (1) PWS technical person

(i.e., the person at the PWS who is

responsible for the technical aspects of

UCMR activities, such as details

concerning sampling and reporting); (2)

PWS official UCMR spokesperson (i.e.,

the person at the PWS who is able to

function as the official spokesperson for

the PWS); and (3) laboratory contact

person (i.e., the person at the laboratory

who is able to address questions

concerning the analyses performed).

Systems are asked to update this

information if it changes during the

course of UCMR implementation. The

information will be used to facilitate:

communication with PWSs and labs

regarding any reporting system

problems/modifications; resolution of

specific data questions; and periodic

distribution of any related materials.

Public comments supported this

technical change.

3. Modification of Data Element

Definitions

With today’s rule, EPA made minor

changes in nine data element

definitions, in response to comments

received on the final UCMR during

implementation workshops and to

clarify what is to be reported. These

data elements are: PWS facility

identification number, sample

identification number, sample analysis

type, sample batch identification

number, analytical precision, analytical

accuracy, detection level, detection

level unit of measure, and presence/

absence. The changes appear in

§ 141.35, Table 1. The clarifications are

as follows:

(a) PWS facility identification

sampling point number is now to be a

two-part number, made up of the PWS

facility identification number and a

unique sampling point number within

the PWS and assigned by the State, as

well as the sampling point type, to

allow for relationships between

sampling points and other facilities to

be reported and maintained, and for

appropriate analyses to be made.

(b) Sample identification number has

been changed to specify a sample or

group of samples that are collected at

the same time and place.

(c) Sample analysis type has been

modified to address raw and treated

field and duplicate samples to ensure

that the full range of sample types can

be reported.

(d) Sample batch identification

number has been changed to clarify that

an extraction or an analysis batch

number are to be reported along with

the laboratory identification number

and analysis date.

(e) Analytical accuracy and analytical

precision have both been modified to

clarify the meaning of each variable

identified in the current equations.

(f) EPA modified and eliminated

reporting of the detection level and

detection level unit of measure to

provide additional reporting flexibility.

EPA is requiring the reporting of

‘‘minimum reporting level’’ and

‘‘minimum reporting level unit of

measure,’’ in the data elements. PWSs

are required to report all detections

occurring at or above the minimum

reporting level (MRL). Several

commentors were concerned about

allowing laboratories to establish their

own minimum reporting levels (MRL) as

long as they are lower than the UCMR

MRL for that analyte. Five comments

were received questioning the

usefulness of data reported below the

UCMR MRL and wondered if it would

defeat the purpose of setting

standardized MRLs. EPA agrees with the

commentors and has changed the final

regulation to remove the option for

reporting of data below the UCMR MRL.

(g) The presence/absence data

element is being reserved for potential

future use. All of the contaminants

currently being monitored can be

accurately and precisely quantified.

Therefore, their presence or absence

does not need to be reported; however,

the data element is not deleted. This

data element is being reserved for future

contaminants to permit the use of

presence/absence measured if warranted

in future regulations.

Special Note on PWS Facility

Identification Number. Table 1 of

Section 141.35 previously required that

the same PWS Facility Identification

Number be used consistently

throughout the history of unregulated

contaminant monitoring to facilitate

analysis of the data. States are already

required to number and report to EPA

water source intakes and treatment

plants, but there is no requirement to

hold those numbers static, or even to

store them in the State’s database. EPA

is aware that States converting to the

State version of the Safe Drinking Water

Information System (SDWIS/STATE)

will have new numbers assigned to PWS

facilities within that State. Other States

converting to other databases during the

next several years may face a similar

problem. It may be less burdensome on

the State to be able to change the

number, but the State must report what

number the new number is replacing so

that SDWIS/FED can link the two for

historical tracking. As a result, EPA is

including additional flexibility in this

definition to allow tracing of historical

to current facility identification

numbers.

4. Clarification of Data Reporting

Procedures

EPA also modified § 141.35 to

improve the electronic process that EPA

intends to implement for the large

amount of data that is expected to be

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2291

reported under the UCMR. As EPA

evolves its electronic reporting

approach Agency-wide, EPA is trying to

learn from lessons of such streamlining

in the past. Specifically, the electronic

reporting that occurred under the

Information Collection Rule resulted in

a process whereby laboratories entered

data electronically using their own

formats, provided a hard copy of the

report to the public water system, and

then the system reentered the data to an

electronic disc which was sent to EPA.

This resulted in rekeying (data entry)

errors and transmission errors,

including loss of discs (through mail or

damage). EPA is moving toward a ‘‘oneentry’’ approach for data reporting. This

will improve reporting quality and

reduce reporting errors and reduce the

time involved in investigating, checking

and correcting errors at all levels

(laboratory, system, State and EPA).

This one-entry approach will make the

data more useful and available earlier.

In light of these electronic reporting

developments and experiences, EPA

modified § 141.35(e) and (f) to clarify its

format for reporting and to indicate that

a system must instruct the agent or

organization that conducts the testing

and laboratory analysis for the

unregulated contaminants (herein after

referred to as ‘‘the laboratory’’) to enter

the data into the UCMR electronic

reporting system. EPA is developing a

template for electronically reporting

UCMR results to the Agency. The

template will allow a PWS regulated by

the UCMR to review and approve

submission of the results to EPA. The

template is being developed in both

direct ‘‘batch’’ electronic data transfer

and web-based ‘‘manual’’ entry formats.

If the laboratory cannot enter the

monitoring results using EPA’s direct or

manual electronic reporting system,

then the PWS must explain to EPA in

writing the reasons why alternate

reporting is necessary and must receive

EPA’s approval to use an alternate

reporting procedure. To ensure security,

laboratories and public water systems

will need to register to have access to

the UCMR database. Registration will

begin after January 16, 2001. EPA will

provide systems with information on

the registration process. During the PWS

registration process, the PWSs will have

the opportunity to review and correct

relevant PWS inventory information.

(Questions may be directed to the Safe

Drinking Water Hotline, 1–800–426–

4791.)

In addition to reporting analytical

results, such data entry also includes

the sample collection and PWS

information specified in Table 1 of

§ 141.35.

A public water system has choices for

reporting the data to EPA:

(a) The public water system can

instruct its analytical agent (laboratory)

to electronically report its UCMR results

to EPA on the system’s behalf. The lab

can use either the batch transfer

protocol or the web-interface data entry

template that EPA will make available

over the internet. After the data are

submitted by the lab, the PWS can

review the results on-line and

electronically indicate its approval.

Only after the system has submitted the

approved data to EPA, and final quality

reviews are completed, will the results

be available for Agency decision-making

or public review.

(b) Systems may require their

laboratories to receive their approval

before the laboratories report the UCMR

results to EPA. In this case, the PWS can

review the results prior to the laboratory

reporting the data to EPA’s electronic

reporting system through its own

arrangements for receiving data from the

laboratory. Typically, the laboratory has

already entered the data into its

electronic laboratory information

management system (LIMS). Once the

laboratory receives approval to submit

the data from the PWS, it could

electronically send the data in batch

form from its LIMS to EPA’s electronic

reporting system.

(c) A system may determine that its

laboratory does not have the capability

to report electronically (even through

entering the data on the web-based

screen format) or does not have the

capability to provide data to the system

prior to submitting it to EPA without

rekeying. In this case, the system may

submit a request to EPA to use an

alternate reporting format.

Under any circumstances, the results

must be submitted to EPA within 30

days following the month the PWS

receives the results. EPA received

comments expressing concern with the

reporting deadline relative to the first

UCMR sampling in 2001. Commentors

were concerned that the new electronic

reporting system would not be ready in

time for reporting the data that are

collected in the first months of 2001,

and/or that problems with the initial use

of the system would delay reporting. To

address the concerns raised by the

commentors, EPA has put extra

resources toward having the reporting

system ready for late January 2001. EPA

has also revised the rule to require

initial reporting of UCMR data to be

done between July 1 and September 30,

2000.

For small water systems, EPA will

enter and report the results directly to

its electronic reporting system through

its contract laboratories. Since the

samples, once sent to EPA by the small

system, are in EPA’s charge, EPA

potentially may be required to make the

data available to the public if requested

prior to the system’s review. Again,

however, EPA will consider the small

system data preliminary and unreliable

until the data have undergone quality

control review by the system and EPA,

and will so inform the public if the

Agency is required to release the data

before it is reviewed.

This final rule further clarifies that if

a PWS chooses to report multiple results

for a particular contaminant for the

same sampling point and same

monitoring event (i.e., date) via the

UCMR electronic reporting system, the

highest reported value will be used as

the official result.

While § 141.35 (b) specifies that the

PWS ‘‘must report the results of

unregulated contaminant monitoring to

EPA and provide a copy to the State

* * *’’, note that States will have

electronic access to the monitoring

results for State review concurrent with

the PWS reporting those results to EPA.

Therefore, States may decide to forego

the requirement for an independent

copy and are free to do so. PWSs should

also be aware that some States may have

additional requirements (i.e., beyond

those specified in this rule), such as

immediate reporting of monitoring

results which suggest an imminent

threat to public health. States are asked

to address any additional reporting

requirements (or waiver of

requirements) when they notify PWSs of

their UCMR responsibilities. In the

absence of any State direction on this

matter, PWSs are expected to provide

States with a copy of monitoring results

concurrent with reporting those results

to EPA via the electronic reporting

system.

Additionally, for small systems in

States requiring immediate reporting by

PWSs of contaminants found in those

systems, EPA will report these results to

the system and the State promptly after

EPA receives the results from its

laboratory. In these States, systems still

have the responsibility to report the

results to the State, regardless of EPA’s

arrangements to make the data available

to the State. Such a State requirement

for systems to immediately report any

contaminants found is not a

requirement on EPA and EPA bears no

liability if such reporting is beyond a

State’s reporting date or if there are

errors in the reporting of the

information. An example in which

reporting results may present a concern

to a small system is when EPA sends a

paper report to the PWS and the PWS

2292 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

does not report to the State, and the

Agency’s electronic process does not

recognize the State as a State requiring

immediate reporting which precludes

the State from obtaining the PWS data

from the EPA information system within

the time specified by State law.

5. Clarification of Systems Purchasing

Water From Other Systems

In § 141.40(a)(1)(ii), the UCMR

indicates that large public water systems

not purchasing their water from another

wholesale or retail public water system

must monitor under the requirements

outlined in the rule. However, at

§ 141.40(a)(1)(iii) and (v), it specifies

monitoring requirements for large and

small public water systems purchasing

their water supply from a wholesale

public water system only, with no

mention of retail systems. Sections

141.40(a)(1)(iii) and (v) have been

modified to address both wholesale and

retail systems. This technical correction

clarifies and provides consistency in

regards to wholesale and retail systems

in the rule. The original intent was to

address purchase of water from another

system in these cases, whether or not it

was a wholesale or retail system.

Additionally, for small systems

purchasing their entire water supply,

today’s rule changes the wording

‘‘wholesale’’ to ‘‘another’’ public water

system to clarify that the selected small

system may have to monitor, in

particular in the distribution system,

regardless of the type of system from

which it purchases water. EPA had also

proposed to require monitoring for

Aeromonas in selected consecutive

systems. However, stakeholder

comments pointed out various problems

with conducting such monitoring for

Screening Surveys and EPA has

modified the final rule to eliminate

these systems from monitoring. Only the

systems statistically selected and

notified must conduct the Screening

Survey monitoring for Aeromonas, as

discussed elsewhere in this Rule.

6. Clarification of Source (Raw) Water

Monitoring Alternative

In § 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(C), the UCMR

allows systems in States requiring

source (raw) water monitoring for

compliance monitoring to conduct

UCMR monitoring in the source water

for List 1 contaminants. However, once

one or more contaminants on the UCMR

list are found, the monitoring must also

be done at the entry points to the

distribution system. This final rule

establishes that should a system in a

State requiring source (raw) water

monitoring find a contaminant in the

source water, the system must initiate

monitoring at the entry point to the

distribution system only for the

contaminant(s) found, unless it desires

to sample and test for all contaminants

analyzed by that same method, or for all

the contaminants, at its option. EPA has

also clarified the rule to specify that the

monitoring, once initiated at the entry

point to the distribution system, must be

conducted for the next 12 month period

(four times for surface water systems

and two times five to seven months

apart for ground water systems), even if

the monitoring extends past the end of

2003. This requirement to move the

monitoring activity was necessary to

allow EPA to assemble a nationally

consistent data set for UCMR

contaminants.

While this was the original intent, the

September 1999 final rule was not clear

on this matter. In response to comments,

the rule also clarifies (see

§ 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(C)), however, that EPA

or the State may determine that

sampling at the entry point to the

distribution system is unnecessary

because no treatment was instituted

between the source water sampling

point and the distribution system that

would affect measurement of the

contaminants involved. Further, if a

system would like to guard against the

possibility of extending the sampling

period then it can take all UCMR

samples at the EPTDS. These samples

would be separate from compliance

monitoring samples for regulated

contaminants taken at the source water.

7. Clarification of Treatment Plant

Latitude/Longitude Options

At § 141.40(b)(1)(ix), the existing rule

states that, if a State enters into a

Memorandum of Agreement with EPA

to implement the UCMR, the State must

report the latitude and longitude of its

systems’ treatment plants when the

systems report the first Assessment

Monitoring results for List 1

contaminants. The agency wants to

clarify that this requirement under the

UCMR is in addition to a preexisting

requirement to report by January 1,

2000, either the latitude and longitude

or the street address of each treatment

plant location. The preexisting reporting

requirement is based on 40 CFR

142.15(b)(1) (which requires States to

submit inventory information

concerning their public water systems,

according to a format and schedule

prescribed by EPA; the requirement for

reporting latitude/longitude information

for treatment plants was transmitted to

States by memorandum of July 10, 1998,

from Robert J. Blanco, Director,

Implementation and Assistance

Division, OGWDW, as ‘‘Revised

Inventory Reporting Requirements for

the Safe Drinking Water Information

System,’’ June 1998, EPA 816–R–98–

007, with a reporting date of January 1,

2000) and the EPA Locational Data

Policy (published as Information

Resources Management Policy Manual

2600, Chapter 13, April 8, 1991). The

EPA Locational Data Policy specifies the

content of latitude and longitude data

that are to be reported by facilities and

other entities. The final rule establishes

that the State may use the latitude and

longitude of closely adjacent facilities at

or near the same site, when the facilities

are associated with the treatment

plant(s). Specifically, the State may use

the latitude and longitude of the intake

or wellhead/field if the treatment plant

is on the same site, or the latitude and

longitude of the entry point to the

distribution system if it is on the same

site as the treatment plant. Other

facilities located closely adjacent to the

treatment plant and part of the PWS for

which it has a latitude and longitude

may also be used. As a guide, ‘‘closely

adjacent’’ should be taken to mean

approximately 1⁄4 mile or 400 meters

away from the treatment plant or a

reasonable location determined by the

State. This approach provides the State

with the flexibility to use closely

associated measurements without

having to return to take field

measurements. It also provides EPA

with the information to be used in

health risk assessment relating to the

location of contaminants to populations

potentially affected. This report of

latitude and longitude will be a onetime reporting, unless the information

needs to be updated.

8. Addition of Consensus Method for

Testing

The 1999 UCMR required systems to

arrange for testing of the listed

contaminants by a laboratory certified

for compliance analysis using specified

EPA analytical methods. Since the

September 17, 1999, publication of the

UCMR, EPA has approved a consensus

organization method for compliance

monitoring that is also approved for

UCMR analysis. Therefore, EPA revised

§ 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(G), ‘‘Testing’’, to allow

laboratories certified to perform

compliance monitoring using any

approved consensus methods that are

also approved for UCMR monitoring to

be automatically approved to perform

UCMR monitoring using that method.

The same holds true for any aproved

EPA method.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2293

9. Approval of EPA Method 502.2 and

Standard Methods 6200C for the

Analysis of MTBE

With today’s action, in response to

comments from stakeholders, EPA is

approving the use of EPA Method 502.2

and Standard Methods 6200C for

analyses of MTBE, included on List 1

for Assessment Monitoring. Those

methods are an addition to those

previously identified in § 141.40(a)(3),

Table 1, for analysis of MTBE. For

systems that want to report MTBE data

collected prior to 2001 to meet the

UCMR regulatory requirements, they

will need to use the UCMR (1999) data

elements, as revised by this rule, to meet

the reporting requirements of the

UCMR. Otherwise, the data will not

meet EPA’s minimum reporting

requirements for UCMR data and will

limit the use of the data in subsequent

regulatory analyses. This final rule also

modifies § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1,

footnote ‘‘n,’’ that sample preservation

techniques and holding times specified

in EPA Method 524.2 must be used by

laboratories using either EPA Method

502.2 or Standard Methods 6200C, as

the sampling and holding time

requirements of Standard Methods

6010B are not adequate for the purposes

of the UCMR.

10. Approval of EPA Methods 515.3 and

515.4 for the Analysis of DCPA Monoacid Degradate and DCPA Di-acid

Degradate

In today’s final rule, and in response

to comments, EPA modified

§ 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1, to add

EPA Methods 515.3 and 515.4 for

analysis of DCPA acid metabolites.

Adding these methods will provide

systems and their laboratories more

flexibility in analyzing these UCMR

contaminants and managing costs.

These methods are an addition to those

previously identified in § 141.40(a)(3),

Table 1, for analysis of DCPA mono and

di-acid degradates. In this rule, EPA also

modified § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1,

footnote ‘‘j,’’ to permit the use of EPA

Method 515.3 for the analysis of DCPA

mono-acid and di-acid degradates in the

UCMR with the following conditions:

1. When monitoring is conducted

using EPA Method 515.3, only the

results for DCPA mono-acid and di-acid

degradates which are less than the

UCMR MRL for these analytes may be

reported.

2. If DCPA mono-acid or di-acid

degradates are observed at greater than

or equal to the UCMR MRL using EPA

Method 515.3, then either a duplicate

sample must be analyzed within the

method specified sample holding time,

or a replacement sample, collected

within the same month as the original

sample, must be analyzed using one of

the other methods approved for UCMR

analysis of DCPA mono-acid and di-acid

degradates. The PWS will then only

report the result of subsequent analysis.

EPA also recently developed a revised

version of EPA Method 515.3 titled EPA

Method 515.4, which includes a wash

step following hydrolysis that will

remove the parent compound, DCPA. In

this rule, EPA is approving the use of

EPA Method 515.4 for UCMR

monitoring of DCPA mono-acid and diacid degradates. As this method

includes a wash step to remove the

parent compound, the use of EPA

Method 515.4 is not subject to the

conditions described above. EPA may

also propose the approval of Method

515.4 for compliance monitoring in a

future regulation. Until that time, EPA

Method 515.4 is not approved for

drinking water compliance monitoring.

EPA Method 515.4, ‘‘Determination of

Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by

Liquid-Liquid Extraction, Derivatization

and Gas Chromatography with Electron

Capture Detection,’’ April 2000; EPA

#815/B–00/001, is available by

requesting a copy from the EPA Safe

Drinking Water Hotline within the

United States at 800–426–4791 (Hours

are Monday through Friday, excluding

federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30

p.m. Eastern Time). Alternatively, the

method can be assessed and

downloaded directly on-line at

www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/

sourcalt.html.

11. Use of pH as a Water Quality

Parameter

Today’s final rule also clarifies that

pH need not be reported as a water

quality parameter for chemical

contaminants. For the reasons explained

in the proposal (65 FR 55362), EPA does

not believe that analyzing the pH of

finished drinking water will provide

relevant data related to the occurrence

of these particular UCMR chemical

contaminants. Thus, EPA has

eliminated pH as a water quality

parameter for chemical contaminants.

EPA still requires, however, that all the

water quality parameters in

§ 141.40(a)(4)(i)(B), Table 2, Water

Quality Parameters to be Monitored

with UCMR Contaminants, be reported

for microbiological contaminants. The

only microbiological contaminant

currently required to be monitored

under the 1999 UCMR is Aeromonas,

under Screening Survey Two, to be

conducted in 2003, after promulgation

of its method.

12. Detection Limit Reference

EPA had proposed to remove the

reference to the 40 CFR part 136

appendix B definition of method

detection limit (MDL) in the Appendix

to § 141.40 and instead to reference the

detection limit calculations listed in

each method. EPA received three

comments on this subject. These

commentors support EPA’s proposed

approach for drinking water. These

commentors stated that the requirement

to fortify samples for detection limit

determination at a level less than or

equal to the minimum reporting level

(MRL) is a logical simplification and

results in significant savings for

analytical laboratories on multi-element

analyses. While all three of these

commentors were strongly in support of

the proposed change, two of them also

stated that this proposed change should

not apply to all programs. Specifically,

these commentors stated that the 40

CFR part 136 appendix B concept

should continue to be applied to

wastewater. These two commentors

further stated that the MRL concept

used in the UCMR makes sense because

there is no meaning attached to levels

below the MRL and it is more

appropriately based on data quality

objectives (DQOs).

EPA agrees with the commentors that

the use of the 40 CFR part 136 appendix

B MDL concept is not required for

purposes of this rule because EPA’s goal

is to collect analytical data at the MRL

or above. The MRL represents a

concentration that can be both

quantitatively measured and may be of

potential health concern. EPA also

wishes to affirm the commentors’

statements related to the continued

application of the 40 CFR part 136

appendix B MDL concept to other

programs.

With respect to today’s action, EPA is

implementing the proposed approach as

described in appendix A to § 141.40,

paragraph (2). In particular, the

regulatory provision in today’s final rule

requires the calculation of a detection

limit, consistent with the procedures

described in each respective method for

the analyte under consideration.

However, the Agency wants to eliminate

any potential confusion between this

approach and the 40 CFR part 136

appendix B MDL methodology. The

approach in today’s rule includes other

considerations not included in 40 CFR

part 136 appendix B, such as requiring

the detection limit to be determined

over multiple days and not requiring the

detection limit samples to be fortified

near the calculated detection limit, that

may result in a different calculated level

2294 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

of detection for those analytes measured

than would be obtained through use of

the procedures described in 40 CFR part

136 appendix B. EPA has determined

that the data gathering needs under the

UCMR lend themselves to the use of

quantitation based limits such as the

MRL and less stringent requirements for

determination of detection than the

needs of other compliance monitoring

programs with differing data quality

objectives and programmatic

requirements.

13. Detection Confirmation

With the addition of an HPLC method

for the determination of linuron and

diuron, and a proposed membrane

filtration method for the analysis of

Aeromonas, the previous UCMR

requirement to confirm all detections by

GC/MS can no longer apply to all

analyses. Therefore, EPA has modified

appendix to § 141.40 to clarify that all

detections observed using a gas

chromatographic analytical method are

to be confirmed by GC/MS, however

this confirmation requirement does not

apply to analytes detected using a nongas chromatographic method.

14. Method Defined Quality Control

EPA received questions from

representatives of PWS and laboratories

concerning the quality control

requirements specified for UCMR

analyses. EPA has clarified the quality

control requirements contained in the

appendix to § 141.40 to indicate that by

specifying quality control elements

specific to UCMR analyses, EPA did not

intend to change the methods

requirements concerning the analyses of

Laboratory Fortified Blanks or

Laboratory Performance checks.

15. Clarification of Resampling

EPA offers the following guidance on

resampling in response to questions

about the 1999 UCMR since its

publication in September 1999. If

laboratory or shipping problems cause

the loss of a sample, then all efforts

should be made to replace that sample

at the earliest possible time (i.e.,

resample). EPA’s preference is that the

sample be replaced within the same

month it was originally sampled. If this

is not possible, EPA’s next preference is

within the same quarter. In all but one

case, the schedule for future samples

should not change: for example, if a

surface water PWS is on a sampling

schedule of January, April, July, and

October and an April sample is lost, it

should be resampled as soon as possible

(i.e., in April or early May) and the next

quarter’s samples shall still be taken in

July as previously scheduled. The only

time this guideline should not be

followed is when all the samples from

the first sampling period are lost. In this

case, the sampling frequency will be

determined by when the first set of

samples is collected, analyzed and

reported: for example, if the plan was to

take samples in January, April, July and

October, but all the January samples

were lost. In such an event, the PWS

may decide to resample in February,

and its new sampling schedule would

become February, May, August and

November.

16. Identification of Laboratories

Approved for UCMR Monitoring

EPA has received questions from State

and PWS representatives regarding the

availability of a comprehensive list of

laboratories approved to conduct the

analysis which support UCMR

monitoring. Approval to conduct

analysis for the other UCMR

contaminants on List 1, Assessment

Monitoring and List 2, Screening Survey

(chemical monitoring only) relies on

existing State or primacy agency

laboratory certification for compliance

monitoring. For the List 1, Assessment

Monitoring contaminants, the existing

certifications for methods used in

compliance monitoring are directly

applicable. For example, a laboratory

that has State certification to conduct

compliance monitoring in drinking

water using EPA Method 525.2 is

automatically approved to use that

method for UCMR monitoring of any

parameter which has EPA Method 525.2

as the UCMR approved method. For the

List 2, Screening Survey One for

chemical contaminants, the compliance

methods and certifications are not

directly applicable because none of the

approved UCMR List 2 methods are

currently used for compliance

monitoring. However, the List 2

methods for chemicals are similar (both

mechanistically and in terms of the

determinative step) to other compliance

monitoring methods and consequently,

State or primacy agency certification in

a specified similar analytical procedure

will serve as an approval to conduct

these List 2 chemical analyses, as

specified in today’s rule at

§ 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(G), ‘‘Testing.’’

Following the example cited above, and

applying it to the List 2 chemical

monitoring, a laboratory with

certification to conduct compliance

monitoring using EPA Method 525.2 is

automatically approved to use EPA

Method 526 and 528 to support

monitoring for those respective List 2,

Screening Survey chemical

contaminants. EPA Method 532 is the

third approved method for the List 2

chemical contaminants and for this

method approval is contingent upon

State or primacy agency certification in

EPA Method 549.1 or EPA Method

549.2.

For both perchlorate and Aeromonas

(once EPA promulgates a final analytical

method), a laboratory must pass a

performance test in addition to using its

certification for related methods for

approval to analyze and report results

for public water systems under the

revised UCMR. This is addressed in the

rule in § 141.40(a)(5)(G).

EPA does not have a comprehensive

or accurate list of laboratories which are

currently certified at the State level for

drinking water compliance monitoring.

Most States have primacy over drinking

water compliance issues in their

respective State, and laboratory

certification is a key component of their

State program. If a PWS is attempting to

locate a certified laboratory for any of

these UCMR analysis, they should first

check with the certified laboratory

which normally conducts their

compliance monitoring. If their regular

compliance laboratory does not have the

capability or the proper certifications,

they should contact their State drinking

water administrator to assist in locating

an alternate State certified laboratory.

Since UCMR monitoring is a direct

implementation rule, the PWS could

choose a laboratory which has the

proper certification for the UCMR

approved methods in any other State

(several, but not all, of the UCMR

perchlorate approved laboratories

would qualify). However, if the PWS

wishes their UCMR laboratory to

provide concurrent compliance

monitoring data (i.e. Phase II/V) with

these UCMR analysis, that alternate

laboratory will need to have

certification in their respective State.

Currently, the only list of approved

laboratories, which has been published

by EPA, is specific to the List 1,

Assessment Monitoring of perchlorate

using EPA Method 314.0 (available at:

www.epa.gov/safewater/standard/ucmr/

aprvlabs.html). This perchlorate

approval is contingent on these labs

maintaining their State or primacy

agency certification for an inorganic

parameter using an approved ion

chromatographic compliance

monitoring method, and is only granted

after these labs have passed the EPA

perchlorate PT program.

VI. Additional Issues From Public

Comment and EPA Response

Several issues were raised during the

public comment processes. EPA

received a total of 15 public comments

within the specified public comment

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2295

period. Other major issues that were

addressed that have not been discussed

are summarized below.

A. Reporting Data on Other

Contaminants

EPA will be paying for the analysis of

samples for small systems. The

analytical methods used for the List 1

and 2 contaminants will routinely

determine the presence of other

contaminants for which testing is not

required to be done and reported. The

contaminants that are not required to be

reported but are identified in the

analysis of samples from small systems

will become research data for EPA and

may provide the basis of future

Contaminant Candidate Lists.

Commentors generally supported

collecting such data from small systems

(where EPA is conducting the analytical

work) but differed on how best to store

data in the EPA database. EPA will

place these data in the NCOD since they

would be considered reliable results for

unregulated contaminants under the

SDWA and, therefore, must be placed in

the NCOD under SDWA Section

1445(g). EPA plans to clearly label these

data to indicate that monitoring for

these contaminants is not required

under this regulation and that reporting

under the CCR is not required. Also,

because large systems are not included,

these data are not completely

representative and EPA will not use the

data to make a determination to

regulate, without supplemental

information.

B. More Complete Specification of

Contaminants for Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring in the Future

The current approach of listing

specific contaminants for monitoring

under the UCMR program does not

address the complete effect of the

individual contaminant on the

environment and in drinking water. For

example, a pesticide may have several

degradates. Unregulated contaminant

monitoring only for the parent pesticide

may entirely miss potentially harmful

degradates and by products. For

example, the European Union treats

several categories of contaminants as

groups for the specification of

monitoring requirements, such as

‘‘pesticides and degradates.’’ (European

Union, 1997). Public comments were

mixed on the issue of how to group

unregulated contaminants to more

completely assess the occurrence of

such contaminants in source water and

drinking water. The current CCL

includes contaminants that are parent

compounds, degradates and groups of

degradates. EPA will consider the

comments received in developing any

future proposals for the UCMR. This is

a complex topic and further expert and

stakeholder discussions may be

warranted.

C. Synchronization of UCMR and CCL in

the Future

The current schedules for the

development of the CCL and UCMR are

February 1998 and August 1999,

respectively, and then every five years

after each of those dates. This

scheduling means that the UCMR

responds to the contaminant list of the

CCL, rather than allowing the UCMR to

anticipate contaminants for which the

CCL deliberations could evaluate and

decide whether or not to regulate. Given

the current characteristics of the UCMR

program and CCL process, EPA

requested public comment on whether

the UCMR monitoring list revisions

could be promulgated at the same time

as the publication of the revised CCL,

indicating which contaminants would

be on the Lists 1, 2 or 3 about 11⁄2 years

earlier than under the current process.

The comments provided a wide range

of opinions reflecting the complexity of

the issue. While commentors supported

some synchronization, they also

expressed reservations, noting that the

CCL needed to come first to establish

the candidate list and priorities. There

is no decision on this process and EPA

will continue to consider the comments.

VII. Guidance Manuals

EPA will provide guidance manuals

to further explain the quality control

measures that laboratories are required

to perform for List 2 (appendix A to 40

CFR 141.40), as well as all unregulated

contaminant monitoring. For small

systems that are part of the national

representative sample, the sampling

guidance, ‘‘Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulation Guidance for

Operators of Public Water Systems

Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons’’ (EPA

815–R–00–018, December 2000), is

available. The ‘‘Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation

Analytical Methods and Quality Control

Manual’’ (EPA 815–R–99–003, March

2000) and its ‘‘Supplement A to the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation Analytical Methods and

Quality Control Manual’’ (EPA 815–R–

00–002, March 2000) are available.

These documents are available through

the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at

800–426–4791, or through EPA’s Office

of Ground Water and Drinking Water

Homepage at http://www.epa.gov/

safewater.

VIII. Costs and Benefits of the Rule

A. Program Cost Estimates

Today’s amendment to the UCMR (64

FR 50556) adds methods for monitoring

the UCMR (1999) List 2 contaminants.

The average annual cost for Screening

Survey One over the period 2001–2005

is $428,720: EPA, $127,650; States, $0;

small systems $120; and large systems,

$300,950. The first set of List 2

contaminants may be collected at the

same time as the Assessment

Monitoring component of the UCMR

program. As described elsewhere in this

Preamble, the first Screening Survey

will be conducted over a 2-year period

from 2001 to 2002. One hundred eighty

small systems randomly selected from

the first 267 small systems monitoring

in 2001, and 120 large systems

randomly selected from the 2,774 large

PWSs will monitor in 2002.

Of the 16 List 2 contaminants, today’s

rule establishes the analytical methods

for 13 chemical contaminants, which

will be monitored under Screening

Survey One. Today’s rule also sets the

schedule for the monitoring of

Aeromonas, which will be monitored

under Screening Survey Two once its

analytical method is promulgated. Since

the method for Aeromonas is not being

established under today’s rule, the

estimated costs associated with

Aeromonas monitoring are not included

here, but will be addressed with the

promulgation of the final method for

Aeromonas. Estimated system and EPA

costs are based on the analytical costs

for these methods. EPA recognizes that

these Screening Survey methods are

new and will not coincide with other

compliance monitoring. However, since

the 13 List 2 chemical contaminants for

the first Screening Survey may be

analyzed by laboratories using water

samples that are collected at the same

time as the Assessment Monitoring

contaminants, there are only minimal

incremental labor costs anticipated for

systems, in the form of taking an

additional sample for List 2

contaminants at the same time of List 1

sampling. The Agency assumes there is

minimal added labor burden associated

with filling one more sample bottle.

In addition, today’s Rule makes

several clarifications and technical

corrections to the UCMR (1999). EPA

believes that none of these clarifications

and corrections will increase the costs

or labor burden to public water systems

or States. Most of these items were

already included in the cost and burden

analyses for the UCMR (1999); their

explanation is simply being clarified.

These assumptions are discussed below.

2296 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Updating the NCOD on a quarterly

basis rather than six times per year will

not be an additional expense to systems

or States, and will reduce EPA costs

marginally. Requiring one-time

reporting of system and laboratory

points-of-contact will improve the

implementation of the program by

allowing EPA to convey important

testing and reporting information to

systems and laboratories, thereby

enhancing the long-term data quality.

Clarifying the data element definitions

will provide more usable information by

more clearly conveying the data that

should be reported and should not be an

additional cost to any entity. Clarifying

the data reporting procedures through a

‘‘single-entry’’ electronic data reporting

process, will reduce costs to systems

marginally. Clarification of the source

(raw) water monitoring alternative

option does not increase the costs to

systems beyond those that EPA had

anticipated originally in adopting the

alternative so that systems in States

requiring source water compliance

monitoring could coordinate

unregulated contaminant monitoring

with other monitoring. Providing

options for reporting treatment plant

latitude and longitude should

marginally reduce costs to States which

had not previously reported these

locational data. Approval of EPA

Method 502.2 and Standard Methods

6200C for the analysis of MTBE

provides systems more flexibility to use

methods that they may already be using

to monitor for this unregulated

contaminant, possibly providing cost

savings to them. Approval of EPA

Methods 515.3 and 515.4 for the

analysis of DCPA mono-acid degradate

and DCPA di-acid degradate provides

flexibility to systems to use methods

similar to those used in compliance

monitoring and may reduce costs for

testing and analysis of those

unregulated contaminants. Eliminating

the use of pH as a water quality

parameter required for reporting

chemical contaminant results will

marginally reduce costs to systems for

testing and analysis. Removing the

reference to 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix

B definition of Minimum Detection

Limit is a technical change with no cost.

Providing contaminant detection

confirmation clarification for linuron

and diuron as applying only to non-gas

chromatographic methods does not

change the costs of the rule for the other

unregulated contaminants. This change

only applies to these two List 2

contaminants and is included in the

cost analysis for the List 2 contaminant

methods. Clarifying that the method

quality controls for UCMR contaminants

are to be used along with the UCMRspecific quality controls for testing and

analysis does not increase the cost of the

regulation. Finally, clarifying the

resampling process when samples must

be resubmitted does not increase the

cost of the regulation. These costs were

included in the original analysis.

As noted, additional non-labor costs

from this rule are solely attributed to the

laboratory fees that will be charged for

analysis of these contaminants. These

costs will only be incurred by EPA and

by large PWSs. EPA assumes that there

will be additional charges imposed for

analysis of the List 2 contaminants,

since these contaminants will be

analyzed under new methods or

modifications of existing methods. EPA

estimates that the average laboratory fee

for the analyses for the 13 Screening

Survey One chemical contaminants,

using EPA Methods 526, 528, and 532

will be $560. The costs for Screening

Survey One for laboratory analyses are

calculated as follows: the number of

systems multiplied by the number of

entry or sampling points, multiplied by

the sampling frequency, and then

multiplied by the cost of analysis.

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether a regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or Tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this rule

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

B. Executive Order 13045—Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks 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.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is not

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866. Further,

this rule does not concern an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. This

rule makes only clarifying changes to

the September 1999 UCMR and

establishes analytical methods and

procedures for monitoring of the List 2

unregulated contaminants.

However, this rule is part of the

Agency’s overall strategy for deciding

which contaminants to set drinking

water standards for under the Safe

Drinking Water Act (see discussion of

the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) at

63 FR 10273). Its purpose is to ensure

that EPA obtains data on the occurrence

of contaminants on the CCL—

specifically, 13 of the List 2 chemical

contaminants—where those data are

currently lacking. In addition, today’s

rule sets the schedule for monitoring

one microbiological contaminant. The

method for this contaminant,

Aeromonas, is reserved, and will be

published in a subsequent notice. EPA

is also taking steps to ensure that the

Agency will have data on the health

effects of these contaminants on

children through its research program.

The Agency will use these occurrence

and health effects data to decide

whether to regulate these contaminants.

C. 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 UMRA section 202, EPA

generally must prepare a written

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2297

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,

UMRA section 205 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 of 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 UMRA section 203 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 today’s rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

for the private sector in any one year.

Total annual costs of today’s rule (across

the implementation period of 2001–

2005), for State, local, and Tribal

governments and the private sector, are

estimated to be $428,720, of which EPA

will pay $127,650, or approximately 30

percent. Again, States are assumed to

incur no additional costs associated

with the Screening Survey component

of the UCMR. Thus, today’s rule is not

subject to the requirements of UMRA

sections 202 and 205.

EPA has determined that this rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments because EPA will

pay for the costs of shipping and sample

testing for the small PWSs required to

sample and test for unregulated

contaminants under this rule, including

those owned and operated by small

governments. The only thing small

governments will have to pay for is the

cost of collecting the sample and

reviewing the sample result. Screening

Survey One samples will generally be

collected coincident with Assessment

Monitoring and therefore have minimal

associated additional burden. These

labor costs are minimal. This rule will,

therefore, not significantly or uniquely

affect small governments. Thus, today’s

rule is not subject to the requirements

of UMRA section 203.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has approved the information

collection requirements contained in

this rule under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB

control number 2040–0208.

The information to be collected under

today’s rule fulfills the statutory

requirements of section 1445(a)(2) of the

Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in

1996. The data to be collected will

describe the source of the water,

location of the water source and

treatment plant, and test results for

samples taken from PWSs. The

concentrations of any of the 13 UCMR

List 2 contaminants will be evaluated

regarding health effects and will be

considered for future regulation

accordingly. Reporting is mandatory.

The data are not subject to

confidentiality protection.

The cost estimates described below

for the List 2 contaminants are

attributed to sampling and additional

contract laboratory fees. The additional

labor burden that will be incurred by

PWSs during the ICR period (2001–

2003) for sampling is 100 hours.

Screening Survey One sampling will

generally be coincident with

Assessment Monitoring and the burden

and costs for sample collection, packing,

and shipping, and reporting were

included in the original ICR for the

UCMR (1999), except for the small

incremental sampling burden of 100

hours. For the first Screening Survey,

180 small water systems (from the

national representative sample of

systems serving 10,000 or fewer people)

will collect and test samples during

2001, and 120 large public water

systems will collect and test samples

during 2002. It is estimated that each

small system will incur an average of

0.06 hours of labor per system per year,

with an average labor cost of $1 per

system per year. During the ICR period,

large systems and EPA will incur costs

for the analysis of the 13 List 2 chemical

contaminants (e.g., Screening Survey

One). Each large system respondent will

incur an annual average cost of $4,200.

Program implementation costs and

burdens for the States, Territories and

EPA were already included in the

original ICR for UCMR (1999).

EPA will incur no additional labor

costs for implementation of today’s rule.

EPA’s annual non-labor costs for the ICR

period 2001–2003 are estimated to be

$212,700 for Screening Survey One,

which consists of 13 chemical

contaminants. The non-labor costs are

solely attributed to the cost of sample

testing by contract laboratories and the

shipping of the sample kits to the 180

small systems.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or

provide information to or for a Federal

agency. This includes the time needed

to review instructions; develop, acquire,

install, and use 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

respond to a collection of information;

search data sources; complete and

review the collection of information;

and transmit or otherwise disclose the

information.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15. EPA is not amending the table in 40

CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR

control numbers. The control number

previously approved for UCMR and the

approved sections of 40 CFR Part 141

have not been changed.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The 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. It also

authorizes an agency to use alternative

definitions for each category of small

entity, ‘‘which are appropriate to the

2298 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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 the

above, to establish an alternative small

business definition, agencies must

consult with the Small Business

Administration’s (SBA) Chief Counsel

for Advocacy.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s rule on small entities, EPA

considered small entities to be systems

serving 10,000 or fewer persons. This is

the size of system specified in SDWA as

requiring special consideration with

respect to small system flexibility. In

accordance with the RFA requirements,

EPA proposed using this alternative

definition in the Federal Register, (63

FR 7605, February 13, 1998), requested

public comment, consulted with SBA

on the definition as it relates to small

businesses, and expressed its intention

to use the alternative definition for all

future drinking water regulations in the

final Consumer Confidence Reports

regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19,

1998). As stated in that final rule, the

alternative definition would be applied

to regulation, as well.

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s final rule on small

entities, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The estimated distribution of the

representative sample of small entities

required to monitor under today’s rule,

categorized by ownership type, source

water and system size, is presented in

Table 1.

TABLE 1.—NUMBER OF PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY OWNED SYSTEMS TO PARTICIPATE IN SCREENING SURVEY ONE

Size category

Publicly

owned

systems

Privately

owned

systems

Total—all

systems

Ground Water Systems

500 and under ......................................................................................................................................... 8 31 39

501 to 3,300 ............................................................................................................................................. 31 14 45

3,301 to 10,000 ........................................................................................................................................ 24 7 31

Subtotal Ground Water Systems .................................................................................................. 63 52 115

Surface Water Systems

500 and under ......................................................................................................................................... 6 14 20

501 to 3,300 ............................................................................................................................................. 10 5 15

3,301 to 10,000 ........................................................................................................................................ 24 7 30

Subtotal Surface Water Systems .................................................................................................. 40 26 65

Total .............................................................................................................................................. 102 78 180

The basis for the UCMR RFA

certification for today’s rule, which adds

the Screening Survey contaminants and

methods to the UCMR program, is as

follows: The average annual compliance

cost of the rule for a small system is $1

which represents 0.0004 percent of

revenue/sales for the 180 small systems

required to monitor in Screening Survey

One as a result of today’s rule. In order

to reduce burden on small systems, EPA

is paying for the costs of analyses,

shipping and quality control for all

small systems (97% of the entire cost of

monitoring and testing by small

systems).

F. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule, section

12(d) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA

to use voluntary consensus standards in

its regulatory activities unless to do so

will 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.

This rulemaking involves technical

standards. Therefore, the Agency

conducted a search to identify

potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards. However, we

identified no such standards. Therefore,

EPA has decided to use EPA Methods

526, 528, and 532.

G. Executive Order 12898—Federal

Actions To Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal

Actions To Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations’’ (February 11,

1994), focuses Federal attention on the

environmental and human health

conditions of minority and low-income

populations with the goal of achieving

environmental protection for all

communities. By seeking to identify

unregulated contaminants that may pose

health risks via drinking water from all

PWSs, today’s regulation furthers the

protection of public health for all

citizens, including minority and lowincome populations using public water

supplies.

H. 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 final 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2299

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. 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. This Rule

specifies the approved analytical

methods for 13 List 2 chemical

contaminants, thereby allowing these

contaminants to be included in the

UCMR Screening Survey program, and

makes other minor corrections to the

September rule (64 FR 50556). The cost

to State and local governments is

minimal, and the rule does not preempt

State law. Thus, Executive Order 13132

does not apply to this rule.

I. Executive Order 13084—Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian Tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the Tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected Tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

Indian Tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian Tribal governments. Only one

Tribal water system serves more than

10,000 persons and will be required to

monitor and test under this rule. The

costs for monitoring and testing for the

large system are not significant. All the

other Tribal water systems serve 10,000

or fewer persons, and in today’s rule

had an equal probability of being

selected in the national representative

sample of small systems. EPA will pay

the costs of unregulated contaminant

testing for small Tribal water systems

just as they will for other small water

systems. The actual cost of taking the

sample is considered minimal. Tribal

water systems will be treated the same

as other water systems and the impact

of this rule on them will not be

significant or unique. There are no costs

associated with the minor amendments

that clarify the September 1999 UCMR.

This rule will not impose substantial

direct compliance costs on Tribal

communities either because, with the

exception of the one large Tribal water

system, the Federal government will

provide the funds necessary to pay the

potential direct costs incurred by Tribal

governments in complying with the rule

for the testing and reporting of

contaminant occurrence of small

systems. By statute, EPA must pay the

reasonable testing and laboratory

analysis costs for small systems selected

to participate in this monitoring

program. Accordingly, the requirements

of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this Rule.

J. Plain Language

Executive Order 12866 and the

President’s memorandum of June 1,

1998, require each agency to write all

rules in plain language. EPA requested

comment in the proposed rule on ways

to make this rule easier to understand.

The Agency did not receive any

comments on this matter.

K. Congressional Review Act

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. 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. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will

be effective January 11, 2001.

L. Administrative Procedure Act

Under the Administrative Procedure

Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d), an agency

must normally provide a minimum of

30 days between publication of a final

rule and its effective date. The effective

date for today’s rule will be January 11,

2001. Hence, there will be less than 30

days between publication and the

effective date. The APA provides that an

agency can make a rule effective in less

than 30 days, however, where the

agency finds ‘‘good cause’’ for doing so

and publishes the reasons with the rule.

EPA believes that such ‘‘good cause’’

exists for making this rule effective in

less than 30 days. These reasons are as

follows. With respect to List 1

Assessment Monitoring, this is

primarily a supplemental rulemaking

related to the Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulation (UCMR), that

was published on September 17, 1999,

and which specified that List 1

monitoring would begin on January 1,

2001. Today’s rule does not alter the

original effective date for List 1

monitoring but it does make minor

revisions to requirements to conducting

the monitoring and reporting

monitoring results for List 1

contaminants. Because List 1

monitoring has long been scheduled to

begin on January 1, 2001, and affected

systems have been gearing up to do so,

it is critical that all the minor

amendments to the original UCMR be

effective as soon as possible, so that

systems that are scheduled to begin

monitoring can do so in compliance

with the new requirements.

With respect to List 2 Screening

Survey monitoring for 13 contaminants,

EPA wants to make this rule effective

January 11, 2001, in order to reduce the

burden on small systems and allow

them to complete their List 2 monitoring

coincident with their List 1 Assessment

Monitoring.

X. Public Involvement in Regulation

Development

EPA’s Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water has developed a process

for stakeholder involvement in its

regulatory activities to provide early

input to regulation development.

Today’s rule amended the September

1999 UCMR, by establishing the method

requirements for 13 List 2 chemical

contaminants and making other minor

changes in the UCMR. At the time of

UCMR publication—September 1999—

the methods for these contaminants

were still being refined by EPA. For a

description of public involvement

activities related to the UCMR, please

see the discussion at 64 FR 50556. EPA

conducted a series of five national

implementation workshops for States

and EPA Regions, regarding the

September 1999 UCMR, from March 26

through April 27, 2000, in Philadelphia,

Atlanta, Kansas City, Denver, and San

Francisco. Participants, other than EPA

personnel, represented 35 States, two

territories, and one Tribe. Questions

about implementation of the UCMR

2300 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

prompted many of today’s technical

changes and clarifications.

XI. References

European Union. The Council. 1997. Council

Directive 98 on the Quality of Water

Intended for Human Consumption.

Abbot, S.L., W.K.W. Cheung, S. KroskeBystrom, T. Malekzadeh, and J.M. Janda.

1992. Identification of Aeromonas strains

to the genospecies level in the clinical

laboratory. J. Clin. Microbiol. 30:1262–

1266.

Altwegg, M., A.G. Steigerwalt, R. AltweggBissig, J. Lu ̈

thy-Hottenstein, and D.J.

Brenner. 1990. Biochemical Identification

of Aeromonas Genospecies Isolated from

Humans. Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

28(2):258–264.

Barbash, J.E., and E.A. Resek. 1996.

Pesticides in Ground Water, Volume Two

of the Series Pesticides in the Hydrologic

System. Ann Arbor Press, Inc., Chelsea,

Michigan.

Borrell, N., M.J. Figueras, and J. Guarro. 1998.

Phenotypic Identification of Aeromonas

Genomospecies from Clinical and

Environmental Sources. Canadian Journal

of Microbiology. 44:103–108.

Burke, V., J. Robinson, M. Gracy, D. Peterson,

and K. Partridge. 1984. Isolation of

Aeromonas hydrophila from a

Metropolitan Water Supply: Seasonal

Correlation with Clinical Isolates. Applied

and Environmental Microbiology. 148:361–

366.

Gavriel, A.A., J.P.B. Landre, and A.J. Lamb.

1998. Incidence of Mesophilic Aeromonas

within a Public Drinking Water Supply in

North-East Scotland. Journal of Applied

Microbiology. 84:383–392.

Havelaar, A.H., M. During, and J.F.M.

Versteegh. 1987. Ampicillin-Dextrin Agar

Medium for the Enumeration of

Aeromonas Species in Water by Membrane

Filtration. Journal of Applied

Microbiology. 62:279–287

Havelaar, A.H., J.F.M. Versteegh, and M.

During. 1990. The Presence of Aeromonas

in Drinking Water Supplies in the

Netherlands. Zbl. Hyg. 190:236–256.

Holmes, P. and L.M. Nicolls. 1995.

Aeromonads in Drinking-Water Supplies:

Their Occurrence and Significance. Journal

of the Chartered Institution of Water and

Environmental Management. 9(5):464–469.

Holmes, P., L.M. Niccolls, and D.P. Sartory.

1996. The Ecology of Mesophilic

Aeromonas in the Aquatic Environment.

In: The Genus Aeromonas, B. Austin, M.

Altwegg, P.J. Gosling, and S. Joseph (eds.),

John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England.

Mumtaz, M., D. McKean, R. Bruins, R.

Schoeny, and C. DeRosa. 1991. Research

Strategy for Risk Characterization of

Complex Exposures. In: Proceedings of the

Fourth International Conference on the

Combined Effects of Environmental

Factors. Johns Hopkins University Press,

Baltimore, MD, pp. 15–21.

Schwarzenbach, R.P., Gschwend, P.M., and

D.M. Imboden. 1993. Environmental

Organic Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons,

Inc., New York.

Selzer, W., J. Jacob, I. Feuerpfeil and E.

Schulze. 1992. A Study of the Prevalence

of Aeromonads in a Drinking Water

Supply. Zentralbl. Mikrobiol. 147:231–235.

US EPA. 1999. Proposed Guidance on

Cumulative Risk Assessment of Pesticide

Chemicals that Have a Common

Mechanism of Toxicity (Preliminary Draft).

Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington,

DC. Chapters 4 and 6. 59 pp.

van der Kooij, D. 1999. Personal

Communication with Dr. James Sinclair,

US EPA. December 9, 1999.

Yang, R.S.H. 1997. Toxicological Interactions

of Chemical Mixtures. In: Comprehensive

Toxicology, Vol. 1: General Principles,

Toxicokinetics, and Mechanisms of

Toxicity. Bond, J., ed. Elsevier, Oxford,

England, pp. 189–203.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

Environmental protection, Analytical

methods, Chemicals, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Microorganisms, Monitoring, Water

supply.

Dated: December 15, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is 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. Section 141.35 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (c);

b. Revising paragraph (d) (including

Table 1);

c. Revising paragraph (e); and

d. Revising paragraph (f).

The Revisions read as follows:

§ 141.35 Reporting of unregulated

contaminant monitoring results.

* * * * *

(c) When must I report monitoring

results? You must report the results of

unregulated contaminant monitoring

within thirty (30) days following the

month in which you received the results

from the laboratory. EPA will conduct

its quality control review of the data for

sixty (60) days after you report the data,

which will also allow for quality control

review by systems and States. After the

quality control review, EPA will place

the data in the national drinking water

contaminant occurrence database at the

time of the next database update.

Exception: Reporting of monitoring

results to EPA received by public water

systems prior to June 30, 2001, must

occur between July 1 and September 30,

2001.

(d) What information must I report?

(1) You must provide the following

‘‘point of contact’’ information: name,

mailing address, phone number, and email address for:

(i) PWS Technical Contact, the person

at your PWS that is responsible for the

technical aspects of your unregulated

contaminant monitoring regulation

(UCMR) activities, such as details

concerning sampling and reporting;

(ii) PWS Official, the person at your

PWS that is able to function as the

official spokesperson for your UCMR

activities; and

(iii) Laboratory Contact Person, the

person at your laboratory that is able to

address questions concerning the

analysis that they provided for you.

(2) You must update this information

if it changes during the course of UCMR

implementation.

(3) You must report the information

specified for data elements 1 through 16

in the following table for each sample.

TABLE 1.—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Data Element Definition

1. Public Water System (PWS) Identification

Number.

The code used to identify each PWS. The code begins with the standard two-character postal

State abbreviation; the remaining seven characters are unique to each PWS.

2. Public Water System Facility Identification

Number—Sampling Point Identification Number and Sampling Point Type Identification.

The Sampling point identification number and sampling point type identification must either be

static or traceable to previous numbers and type identifications throughout the period of unregulated contaminant monitoring. The Sampling point identification number is a three-part

alphanumeric designation, made up of:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2301

TABLE 1.—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued

Data Element Definition

a. The Public Water System Facility Identification Number is an identification number established by the State, or at the State’s discretion the PWS, that is unique to the PWS for an

intake for each source of water, a treatment plant, a distribution system, or any other facility

associated with water treatment or delivery and provides for the relationship of facilities to

each other to be maintained;

b. The Sampling Point Identification Number is an identification number established by the

State, or at the State’s discretion the PWS, that is unique to each PWS facility that identifies

the specific sampling point and allows the relationship of the sampling point to other facilities

to be maintained; and

c. Sampling Point Type Identification is one of following:

SR—Untreated water collected at the source of the water system facility.

EP—Entry point to the distribution system.

MD—midpoint in the distribution system where the disinfectant residual would be expected to

be typical for the system such as the location for sampling coliform indicator bacteria as described in 40 CFR 141.21.

MR—point of maximum retention is the point located the furthest from the entry point to the

distribution system which is approved by the State for trihalomethane (THM) (disinfectant

byproducts (DBP)) and/or total coliform sampling.

LD—location in the distribution system where the disinfectant residual is the lowest which is

approved by the State for THM (DBP) and/or total coliform sampling.

3. Sample Collection Date .................................. The date the sample is collected reported as 4-digit year, 2-digit month, and 2-digit day.

4. Sample Identification Number ........................ An alphanumeric value of up to 15 characters assigned by the laboratory to uniquely identify

containers or groups of containers containing water samples collected at the same time and

sampling point.

5. Contaminant/Parameter .................................. The unregulated contaminant or water quality parameter for which the sample is being analyzed.

6. Analytical Results—Sign ................................ An alphanumeric value indicating whether the sample analysis result was:

a. (<) ‘‘less than’’ means the contaminant was not detected or was detected at a level ‘‘less

than’’ the MRL.

b. (=) ‘‘equal to’’ means the contaminant was detected at a level ‘‘equal to’’ the value reported

in ‘‘Analytical Result—Value.’’

7. Analytical Result—Value ................................ The actual numeric value of the analysis for chemical and microbiological results, or the minimum reporting level (MRL) if the analytical result is less than the contaminant’s MRL.

8. Analytical Result—Unit of Measure ................ The unit of measurement for the analytical results reported. [e.g., micrograms per liter, (μg/L);

colony-forming units per 100 milliliters, (CFU/100 mL), etc.]

9. Analytical Method Number ............................. The identification number of the analytical method used.

10. Sample Analysis Type .................................. The type of sample collected. Permitted values include:

a. RFS—Raw field sample—untreated sample collected and submitted for analysis under this

rule.

b. RDS—Raw duplicate field sample—untreated field sample duplicate collected at the same

time and place as the raw field sample and submitted for analysis under this rule.

c. TFS—Treated field sample—treated sample collected and submitted for analysis under this

rule.

d. TDS—Treated duplicate field sample—treated field sample duplicate collected at the same

time and place as the treated field sample and submitted for analysis under this rule.

11. Sample Batch Identification Number ............ The sample batch identification number consists of three parts:

a. Up to a 10-character laboratory identification code assigned by EPA.

b. Up to a 15-character code assigned by the laboratory to uniquely identify each extraction or

analysis batch.

c. The date that the samples contained in each extraction batch extracted or in an analysis

batch were analyzed, reported as an 8-digit number in the form 4-digit year, 2-digit month,

and 2-digit day.

12. Minimum Reporting Level ............................. Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) refers to the lowest concentration of an analyte that may be

reported. Unregulated contaminant monitoring (UCM) MRLs are established in § 141.40

monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.

13. Minimum Reporting Level Unit of Measure .. The unit of measure to express the concentration, count, or other value of a contaminant level

for the Minimum Reporting Level reported. (e.g., μg/L, colony forming units/100 mL (CFU/

100 mL), etc.).

14. Analytical Precision ...................................... Precision is the degree of agreement between two repeated measurements and is monitored

through the use of duplicate spiked samples. For purposes of the Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulation (UCMR), Analytical Precision is defined as the relative percent difference (RPD) between spiked matrix duplicates. The RPD for the spiked matrix duplicates

analyzed in the same batch of samples as the analytical result being reported is to be entered in this field. Precision is calculated as Relative Percent Difference (RPD) of spiked

matrix duplicates from the mean using:

RPD = absolute value of [(X1—X2) /(X1 +X2)/2 ] x 100%.

where:

X1 is the concentration observed in spiked field sample minus the concentration observed in

unspiked field sample.

X2 is the concentration observed in duplicate spiked field sample minus the concentration observed in unspiked field sample.

2302 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued

Data Element Definition

15. Analytical Accuracy ...................................... Accuracy describes how close a result is to the true value measured through the use of spiked

field samples. For purposes of unregulated contaminant monitoring, accuracy is defined as

the percent recovery of the contaminant in the spiked matrix sample analyzed in the same

analytical batch as the sample result being reported and calculated using:

% recovery = [(amt. found in spiked sample—amt. found in sample) ¥ amt. spiked] × 100%.

16. Spiking Concentration .................................. The concentration of method analyte(s) added to a sample to be analyzed for calculating analytical precision and accuracy where the value reported use the same unit of measure reported for Analytical Results.

17. Presence/Absence ........................................ Reserved.

(e) How must I report this

information? (1) You must report results

from monitoring under this rule using

EPA’s electronic reporting system. For

quality control purposes, you must

instruct the organization(s) responsible

for the analysis of unregulated

contaminant samples taken under

§ 141.40 to enter the results into the

reporting system, in the format specified

by EPA. You are responsible for

reviewing those results and approving

the reporting (via the electronic system)

of the results to EPA. You must also

provide a copy of the results to the

State, as directed by the State.

(2) If you report more than one set of

valid results for the same sampling

point and the same sampling event (for

example, because you have had more

than one organization (e.g., a laboratory)

analyze replicate samples collected

under § 141.40, or because you have

collected multiple samples during a

single monitoring event at the same

sampling point), EPA will use the

highest of the reported values as the

official result.

(f) Does the laboratory to which I send

samples report the results for me? While

you must instruct the organization

conducting unregulated contaminant

analysis (e.g., a laboratory) to enter the

results into EPA’s electronic reporting

system, you are responsible for

reviewing and approving the

submission of the results to EPA. If the

analytical organization or laboratory

cannot enter these data for you using

EPA’s electronic reporting system, then

you may explain to EPA in writing the

reasons why alternate reporting is

necessary and must receive EPA’s

approval to use an alternate reporting

procedure.

* * * * *

3. Section 141.40 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii)

introductory text;

b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(v)

introductory text;

c. Revising Table 1, List 1, List 2 and

List 3, in paragraph (a)(3);

d. Revising Table 2, in paragraph

(a)(4)(i);

e. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B)

(including table 3);

f. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(C);

g. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(G);

h. Revising paragraphs (a)(7)(i), (ii),

and (iii);

i. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ix);

j. In the Appendix A to § 141.40 by

revising paragraphs (2) and (9); and

k. Adding paragraph (11) to the

Appendix A to § 141.40.

The revisions and additions read as

follows:

§ 141.40 Monitoring requirements for

unregulated contaminants.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) Large systems purchasing their

entire water supply from another

system. If you own or operate a public

water system (other than a transient

system) that serves more than 10,000

persons and purchase your entire water

supply from a wholesale or retail public

water system, you must monitor as

follows:

* * * * *

(v) Small systems purchasing their

entire water supply from another

system. If you own or operate a public

water system (other than a transient

system) that serves 10,000 or fewer

persons and purchase your entire water

supply from another public water

system, you must monitor as follows:

* * * * *

(3) * * *

TABLE 1.—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REGULATION (1999) LIST

List 1—assessment monitoring chemical contaminants

1-contaminant 2–CAS registry

number 3-analytical methods

4-minimum

reporting

level

5-sampling

location

6-period during which

monitoring to be

completed

2, 4-dinitrotoluene .............. 121–14–2 ......... EPA Method 525.2 a ........... 2 μg/L e ............. EPTDSf ............ 2001–2003

2, 6 dinitrotoluene .............. 606–20–2 ......... EPA Method 525.2 a ........... 2 μg/L e ............. EPTDSf ............ 2001–2003

Acetochlor .......................... 34256–82–1 ..... EPA Method 525.2 a ........... 2 μg/L o ............. EPTDSf ............ 2001–2003

DCPA mono-acid

degradate h.

887–54–7 ......... EPA Method 515.1 a, EPA

Method 515.2 a, EPA

Method 515.3 i,j, EPA

Method 515.4 k, D5317–

93 b, AOAC 992.32 c.

1 μg/L e ............. EPTDSf ............ 2001–2003

DCPA di-acid degradate h .. 2136–79–0 ....... EPA Method 515.1 a, EPA

Method 515.2 a, EPA

Method 515.3 i,j, EPA

Method 515.4 k, D5317–

93 b, AOAC 992.32 c.

1 μg/L e ............. EPTDSf ............ 2001–2003

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2303

TABLE 1.—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REGULATION (1999) LIST—Continued

List 1—assessment monitoring chemical contaminants

1-contaminant 2–CAS registry

number 3-analytical methods

4-minimum

reporting

level

5-sampling

location

6-period during which

monitoring to be

completed

4,4′-DDE ............................ 72–55–9 ........... EPA Method 508 a, EPA

Method 508.1 a, EPA

Method 525.2 a, D5812–

96 b, AOAC 990.06 c.

0.8 μg/L e .......... EPTDSf ............ 2001–2003

EPTC .................................. 759–94–4 ......... EPA Method 507 a, EPA

Method 525.2 a, D5475–

93 b, AOAC 991.07 c.

1 μg/L e ............. EPTDSf ............ 2001–2003

Molinate .............................. 2212–67–1 ....... EPA Method 507 a, EPA

Method 525.2 a, D5475–

93 b, AOAC 991.07 c.

0.9 μg/L e .......... EPTDSf ............ 2001–2003

MTBE ................................. 1634–04–4 ....... EPA Method 502.2 a,n, SM

6200C d,n, EPA Method

524.2 a, D5790–95 b, SM

6210D d, SM 6200Bd.

5 μg/L g ............. EPTDSf ............ 2001–2003

Nitrobenzene ...................... 98–95–3 ........... EPA Method 524.2 a,

D5790–95 b, SM6210D d,

SM6200Bd.

10 μg/L g ........... EPTDSf ............ 2001–2003

Perchlorate ......................... 14797–73–0 ..... EPA Method 314.0 1 .......... 4 μg/L m ............ EPTDSf ............ 2001–2003

Terbacil .............................. 5902–51–2 ....... EPA Method 507 a, EPA

Method 525.2 a, D5475–

93 b, AOAC 991.07 c.

2 μg/L e ............. EPTDSf ............ 2001–2003

Column headings are:

1—Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the contaminants to be analyzed.

2—CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry No. or Identification Number: a unique number identifying the chemical contaminants. 3—Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants.

4—Minimum Reporting Level: the value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration or density of the contaminant must be measured using the Approved Analytical Methods. 5—Sampling Location: the locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.

6—Years During Which Monitoring to be Completed: The years during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant.

The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed next in these footnotes. The incorporation by reference of the following

documents listed in footnotes b-d, i, k and l was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the following sources. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained

from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800–426–4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA’s Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202–260–3027); or at the Office of FEDERAL REGISTER, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. aThe version of the EPA methods which you must follow for this Rule are listed at § 141.24 (e).

bAnnual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996, 1998 and 1999, Vol. 11.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. Method D5812–96, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Organochlorine Pesticides in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography’’, is located in the Annual

Book of ASTM Standards, 1998 and 1999, Vol. 11.02. Methods D5790–95, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry’’; D5475–93, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Nitrogen- and Phosphorus-Containing Pesticides in Water by Gas Chromatography with a Nitrogen-Phosphorus Detector’’; and D5317–93, ‘‘Standard Test Method

for Determination of Chlorinated Organic Acid Compounds in Water by Gas Chromatography with an Electron Capture Detector’’ are located in

the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol 11.02. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials,

100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. cOfficial Methods of Analysis of AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemist) International, Sixteenth Edition, 4th Revision, 1998, Volume

I, AOAC International, First Union National Bank Lockbox, PO Box 75198, Baltimore, MD 21275–5198. 800–379–2622. dSM 6210 D is only found in the 18th and 19th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995,

American Public Health Association; either edition may be used. SM 6200 B and 6200 C are only found in the 20th edition of Standard Methods

for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1998. Copies may be obtained from the American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth

Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. e Minimum Reporting Level determined by multiplying by 10 the least sensitive method’s detection limit (detection limit =standard deviation

times the Student’s t value for 99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom), or when available, multiplying by 5 the least sensitive method’s estimated detection limit (where the estimated detection limit equals the concentration of compound yielding approximately a 5 to 1 signal to

noise ratio or the calculated detection limit, whichever is greater). fEntry Points to the Distribution System (EPTDS), after treatment, representing each non-emergency water source in use over the twelvemonth period of monitoring: this only includes entry points for sources in operation during the months in which sampling is to occur. Sampling

must occur at the EPTDS, unless the State has specified other sampling points that are used for compliance monitoring under 40 CFR 141.24

(f)(1), (2), and (3). See 40 CFR 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(C) for a complete explanation of requirements, including the use of source (raw) water sampling

points. g Minimum Reporting Levels (MRL) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) determined by multiplying either the published detection limit or 0.5

μg/L times 10, whichever is greater. The detection limit of 0.5 μg/L (0.0005 mg/L) was selected to conform to VOC detection limit requirements of

40 CFR 141.24(f)(17)(E). hThe approved methods do not allow for the identification and quantitation of the individual acids. The single analytical result obtained should

be reported as total DCPA mono- and di-acid degradates. iEPA Method 515.3, ‘‘Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction, Derivatization and Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection,’’ Revision 1.0 July 1996. EPA 815-R–00–014, ‘‘Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic compounds in Drinking Water, Volume 1,’’ August 2000. Available from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB2000–106981,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free number is 800–553–6847. Alternatively, the

method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html. JSince EPA Method 515.3 does not include a solvent wash step following hydrolysis, the parent DCPA is not removed prior to analysis, therefore, only non-detect data may be reported using EPA Method 515.3. All samples with results above the MRL must be analyzed by one of the

other approved methods.

2304 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

kEPA Method 515.4, ‘‘Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Microextraction, Derivatization and Fast Gas

Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection,’’ Revision 1.0, April 2000, EPA #815/B–00/001. Available by requesting a copy from the EPA

Safe Drinking Water Hotline within the United States at 800–426–4791 (Hours are Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9

a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time). Alternatively, the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/

sourcalt.html. lEPA Method 314.0, ‘‘Determination of Perchlorate in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography,’’ Revision 1.0, EPA 815-B–99–003, November 1999. EPA 815-R–00–014, ‘‘Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume 1,’’ August

2000. Available from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB2000–106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free number is 800–553–6847. Alternatively, the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at

www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html. m MRL was established at a concentration, which is at least 1⁄4th the lowest known adverse health concentration, at which acceptable precision

and accuracy has been demonstrated in spiked matrix samples. nSample preservation techniques and holding times specified in EPA Method 524.2 must be used by laboratories using either EPA Method

502.2 or Standard Methods 6200C.

List 2—screening survey chemical contaminants

1-contaminant 2-CAS registry

number

3-Analytical

methods

4-Minimum

reporting

level

5-sampling

location

6-Period during which

monitoring to be

completed

1,2-diphenylhydrazine ........ 122–66–7 ......... EPA Method 526 a .............. 0.5 μg/L ............ EPTDSe ............ 2001—Selected Systems

serving ≤10,000 persons;

2002—Selected systems

serving > 10,000 persons.

2-methyl-phenol ................. 95–48–7 ........... EPA Method 528 b ............. 1 μg/L f .............. EPTDSe ............ Same as above.

2,4-dichlorophenol .............. 120–83–2 ......... EPA Method 528 b ............. 1 μg/L f .............. EPTDSe ............ Same as above.

2,4-dinitrophenol ................ 51–28–5 ........... EPA Method 528 b ............. 5 μg/L f .............. EPTDSe ............ Same as above.

2,4,6-trichlorophenol .......... 88–06–2 ........... EPA Method 528 b ............. 1 μg/L f .............. EPTDSe ............ Same as above.

Alachlor ESA ...................... Reserved d ........ Reserved d .......................... Reserved d ........ Reserved d ........ Reserved d

Diazinon ............................. 333–41–5 ......... EPA Method 526 a .............. 0.5 μg/L f ........... EPTDSe ............ 2001—Seleected Systems

serving ≤10,000 persons;

2002—Selected systems

serving > 10,000 persons.

Disulfoton ........................... 298–04–4 ......... EPA Method 526 a .............. 0.5 μg/L f ........... EPTDSe ............ Same as above.

Diuron ................................. 330–54–1 ......... EPA Method 532 c .............. 1 μg/L f .............. EPTDSe ............ Same as above.

Fonofos .............................. 944–22–9 ......... EPA Method 526 a .............. 0.5 μg/L f ........... EPTDSe ............ Same as above.

Linuron ............................... 330–55–2 ......... EPA Method 532 c .............. 1 μg/L f .............. EPTDSe ............ Same as above.

Nitrobenzene ...................... 98–95–3 ........... EPA Method 526 a .............. 0.5 μg/L f ........... EPTDSe ............ Same as above.

Prometon ............................ 1610–18–0 ....... EPA Method 526 a .............. 0.5 μg/L f ........... EPTDSe ............ Same as above.

RDX .................................... 121–82–4 ......... Reserved d .......................... Reserved d ........ Reserved d ........ Reserved d.

Terbufos ............................. 13071–79-9 ...... EPA Method 526 a .............. 0.5 μg/L fK ......... EPTDSe ............ 2001—Selected Systems

serving ≤10,000 persons;

2002-Selected systems

serving > 10,000 persons.

List 2—screening survey microbiological contaminants to be sampled after notice of analytical methods availability

1-contaminant 2-identification number 3-analytical methods 4-minimum reporting

level 5-sampling location

6-period during which

monitoring to

be completed

Aeromonas .................... NA ............................... Reserved d ................... Reserved d ................... Distribution System g ... 2003 h

Column headings are:

1—Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the contaminants to be analyzed.

2—CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry No. or Identification Number: a unique number identifying the chemical contaminants. 3—Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants.

4—Minimum Reporting Level: the value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration or density of the contaminant must be measured using the Approved Analytical Methods. 5—Sampling Location: the locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.

6—Years During Which Monitoring to be Completed: the years during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant.

The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed next in these footnotes. The incorporation by reference of the following

documents listed in footnotes a–c, was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

Copies of the documents may be obtained from the following sources. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from

the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800–426–4791. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the sources listed in these footnotes. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800–426–4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA’s Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202–260–3027); or at the Office of Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. aEPA Method 526, ‘‘Determination of Selected Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary

Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),’’ Revision 1.0, June 2000. EPA 815–R–00–014, ‘‘Methods for the Determination of

Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume 1,’’ August 2000. Available from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS

PB2000–106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free number is 800–553–6847. Alternatively, the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2305

bEPA Method 528, ‘‘Determination of Phenols in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass

Spectrometry (GC/MS),’’ Revision 1.0, April 2000. EPA 815–R–00–014, ‘‘Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in

Drinking Water, Volume 1,’’ August 2000. Available from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB2000–106981, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free number is 800–553–6847. Alternatively, the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. cEPA Method 532, ‘‘Determination of Phenylurea Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and High Performance Liquid Chromatography with UV Detection,’’ Revision 1.0, June 2000. EPA 815–R–00–014, ‘‘Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume 1,’’ August 2000. Available from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB2000–106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free number is 800–553–6847. Alternatively, the method can

be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html. dTo be specified at a later time.

eEntry Points to the Distribution System (EPTDS), after treatment, representing each non-emergency water source in use over the twelvemonth period of monitoring: this only includes entry points for sources in operation during the months in which sampling is to occur. Sampling

must occur at the EPTDS, source water sampling points are not permitted for List 2 contaminant monitoring. f Minimum Reporting Level represents the value of the lowest concentration precision and accuracy determination made during methods development and documented in the method. If method options are permitted, the concentration used was for the least sensitive option. gThree samples must be taken from the distribution system, which is owned or controlled by the selected PWS. The sample locations must include one sample from a point (MD from § 141.35(d)(3), Table 1) where the disinfectant residual is representative of the distribution system. This

sample location may be selected from sample locations which have been previously identified for samples to be analyzed for coliform indicator

bacteria. Coliform sample locations encompass a variety of sites including midpoint samples which may contain a disinfectant residual that is typical of the system. Coliform sample locations are described in 40 CFR 141.21. This same approach must be used for the Aeromonas midpoint

sample where the disinfectant residual would not have declined and would be typical for the distribution system. Additionally, two samples must

be taken from two different locations: the distal or dead-end location in the distribution system (MR from § 141.35(d)(3), Table 1), avoiding disinfectant booster stations, and from a location where previous determinations have indicated the lowest disinfectant residual in the distribution

system (LD from § 141.35(d)(3), Table 1). If these two locations of distal and low disinfectant residual sites coincide, then the second sample

must be taken at a location between the MD and MR sites. Locations in the distribution system where the disinfectant residual is expected to be

low are similar to TTHM sampling points. Sampling locations for TTHMs are described in 63 FR 69468. hThis monitoring period is contingent upon promulgation of the analytical method and minimum reporting level.

List 3—Pre-screen testing radionuclides to be sampled after notice of analytical methods availability

1-contaminant 2-CAS registry

number 3-Analytical methods

4-Minimum

reporting

level

5-Sampling

location

6-Period during which

monitoring to be

completed

Lead-210 ............................ 14255–04–0 ..... Reserved a .......................... Reserved a ........ Reserved a ........ Reserved.a

Polonium-210 ..................... 13981–52–7 ..... Reserved a .......................... Reserved a ........ Reserved a ........ Reserved.a

List 3—Pre-screen testing microorganisms to be sampled after notice of analytical methods availability

1-contaminant 2-identification

number

3-Analytical methods4-Minimum reporting level5-Sampling location

6-Period during

which monitoring to

be completed

Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae, other

freshwater algae and their toxins).

Reserved a Reserved a ............. Reserved a ............. Reserved a ............. Reserved.a

Echoviruses ............................................ Reserved a Reserved a ............. Reserved a ............. Reserved a ............. Reserved.a

Coxsackieviruses ................................... Reserved a Reserved a ............. Reserved a ............. Reserved a ............. Reserved.a

Helicobacter pylori ................................. Reserved a Reserved a ............. Reserved a ............. Reserved a ............. Reserved.a

Microsporidia .......................................... Reserved a Reserved a ............. Reserved a ............. Reserved a ............. Reserved.a

Calciviruses ............................................ Reserved a Reserved a ............. Reserved a ............. Reserved a ............. Reserved.a

Adenoviruses ......................................... Reserved a Reserved a ............. Reserved a ............. Reserved a ............. Reserved.a

Column headings are:

1–Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the contaminants to be analyzed.

2–CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry No. or Identification Number: a unique number identifying the chemical contaminants.

3–Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants.

4–Minimum Reporting Level: the value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration or density of the contaminant must be measured using the Approved Analytical Methods.

5–Sampling Location: the locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.

6–Years During Which Monitoring to be Completed: the years during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant. a To be determined at a later time.

* * * * *

(4) * * *

(i) * * *

TABLE 2.—WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS TO BE MONITORED WITH UCMR CONTAMINANTS

Parameter Contaminant type

Analytical methods

EPA method Standard methods 1 Other

pH ...................................... Microbiological .................. EPA Method 150.12, EPA

Method 150.22.

4500–H∂ B ....................... ASTM D1293–843, ASTM

D1293–953.

Turbidity ............................. Microbiological .................. EPA Method 180.1 4,5 ....... 2130 B4 ............................ GLI Method 24,6.

2306 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2.—WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS TO BE MONITORED WITH UCMR CONTAMINANTS—Continued

Parameter Contaminant type

Analytical methods

EPA method Standard methods 1 Other

Temperature ...................... Microbiological .................. ........................................... 2550.

Free Disinfectant Residual Microbiological .................. ........................................... 4500–Cl D, 4500–Cl F,

4500–Cl G, 4500–Cl H,

4500–ClO2 D, 4500–

ClO2 E, 4500–O3 B.

ASTM 1253–863

Total Disinfectant Residual Microbiological .................. ........................................... 4500–Cl D, 4500–Cl E,4

4500–Cl F, 4500–Cl G4,

4500–Cl I.

ASTM D 1253–86 3

The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed in these footnotes. The incorporation by reference of the following documents was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the documents

may be obtained from the sources listed in these footnotes. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe

Drinking Water Hotline at 800–426–4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA’s Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460 (Telephone: 202–260–3027); or at the Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. 1The 18th and 19th Editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995. Methods 2130 B; 2550;

4500–Cl D, E, F, G, H, I; 4500–ClO2 D, E; 4500–H∂ B; and 4500–O3 B in the 20th edition Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and

Wastewater, 1998, American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth St. NW, Washington D.C., 20005. 2EPA Methods 150.1 and 150.2 are available from US EPA, NERL, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. The identical methods are also in ‘‘Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,’’ EPA–600/4–79–020, March 1983, available from the National Technical

Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, Virginia 22161, PB84–128677. (Note: NTIS toll-free

number is 800–553–6847.) 3Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Editions 1994, 1996, 1998 and 1999, Volumes 11.01, American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr

Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Version D1293–84, ‘‘Standard Test Methods for pH of Water’’ is located in the Annual Book of

ASTM Standards, 1994, Volumes 11.01. Version D1293–95, ‘‘Standard Test Methods for pH of Water’’ is located in the Annual Book of ASTM

Standards, 1996, 1998 and 1999, Volumes 11.01. 4 ‘‘Technical Notes on Drinking Water,’’ EPA–600/R–94–173, October 1994, Available at NTIS, PB95–104766.

5 ‘‘Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples,’’ EPA–600/R–93–100, August 1993. Available at NTIS,

PB94–121811 6GLI Method 2, ‘‘Turbidity,’’ November 2, 1992, Great Lakes Instruments Inc., 8855 North 55th St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53223.

* * * * *

(5) * * *

(ii) * * *

(B) Frequency. You must collect the

samples within the timeframe and

according to the following frequency

specified by contaminant type and

water source type:

TABLE 3.—MONITORING FREQUENCY BY CONTAMINANT AND WATER SOURCE TYPES

Contaminant type Water source type Timeframe Frequency

Chemical ............................. Surface water ..................... Twelve (12) months ........... Four quarterly samples taken as follows: Select either

the first, second, or third month of a quarter and

sample in that same month of each of four (4) consecutive quarters a to ensure that one of those sampling events occurs during the vulnerable time.b

Ground water ..................... Twelve (12) months ........... Two (2) times in a year taken as follows: Sample during one (1) month of the vulnerable time b and during one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months earlier or later.c

Microbiological .................... Surface and ground water Twelve (12) months ........... Six (6) times in a year taken as follows: Select either

the first, second, or third month of a quarter and

sample in that same month of each of four (4) consecutive quarters, and sample an additional 2

months during the warmest (vulnerable) quarter of

the year.d

a ‘‘Select either the first, second, or third month of a quarter and sample in that same month of each of four (4) consecutive quarters’’ means

that you must monitor during each of the four (4) months of either: January, April, July, October; or February, May, August, November; or March,

June, September, December. b ‘‘Vulnerable time’’ means May 1 through July 31, unless the State or EPA informs you that it has selected a different time period for sampling

as your system’s vulnerable time. c ‘‘Sample during one (1) month of the vulnerable time and during one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months earlier or later’’ means, for example, that if you select May as your ‘‘vulnerable time’’ month to sample, then one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months earlier would be either

October, November or December of the preceding year, and one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months later would be either, October, November, or December of the same year. dThis means that you must monitor during each of the six (6) months of either: January, April, July, August, September, October; or February,

May, July, August, September, November; or March, June, July, August, September, December; unless the State or EPA informs you that a different vulnerable quarter has been selected for your system.

(C) Location. You must collect

samples at the location specified for

each listed contaminant in column 5 of

the Table 1, UCMR (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The

sampling location for chemical

contaminants must be the entry point to

the distribution system or the

compliance monitoring point specified

by the State or EPA under 40 CFR

141.24 (f)(1), (2), and (3). Except as

provided in this paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(C),

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 2307

if the compliance monitoring point as

specified by the State is for source (raw)

water and any of the contaminants in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section are

detected, then you must complete the

source water monitoring for the

indicated timeframe and also sample at

the entry point to the distribution

system representative of the affected

source water only for the contaminant(s)

found in the source water over the next

twelve month timeframe, beginning in

the next required monitoring period as

indicated in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B),

Table 3 of this section, even though

monitoring might extend beyond the

last year indicated in column 6, Period

during which monitoring to be

completed, in Table 1 of paragraph

(a)(3). Exception: If the State or EPA

determines that sampling at the entry

point to the distribution system is

unnecessary because no treatment was

instituted between the source water and

the distribution system that would affect

measurement of the contaminants listed

in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, then

you do not have to sample at the entry

point to the distribution system. Note:

The sampling for List 2 chemical

contaminants must be at the entry point

to the distribution system, as specified

in Table 1, List 2.

* * * * *

(G) Testing. (1) Except as provided in

paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(G)(2) and (3) of this

section, you must arrange for the testing

of the contaminants identified in List 1

of Table 1 by a laboratory certified

under § 141.28 for compliance analysis

using any of the analytical methods

listed in column 3 for each contaminant

in List 1 of Table 1, Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation

(1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this

section, whether you use the EPA

analytical methods or non-EPA methods

listed in List 1 of Table 1. Laboratories

are automatically certified for the

analysis of UCMR contaminants in List

1 of Table 1 if they are already certified

to conduct compliance monitoring for a

contaminant included in the same

method being approved for UCMR

analysis.

(2) You must arrange for the testing of

Perchlorate as identified in List 1 of

Table 1 by a laboratory certified under

§ 141.28 for compliance analysis using

an approved ion chromatographic

method as listed in § 141.28 and that

has analyzed and successfully passed

the Performance Testing (PT) Program

administered by EPA.

(3) You must arrange for the testing of

the chemical contaminants identified in

List 2 of Table 1 by a laboratory certified

under § 141.28 for compliance analysis

using EPA Method 525.2 if performing

UCMR analysis using EPA Methods 526

or 528, or a laboratory certified under

§ 141.28 for compliance analysis using

EPA Methods 549.1 or 549.2 if

performing UCMR analysis using EPA

Method 532. You must arrange for the

testing for Aeromonas using the

approved method as identified in List 2

of Table 1 by a laboratory which is both

certified under § 141.28 for compliance

analysis for coliform indicator bacteria

using an EPA approved membrane

filtration procedure and which also has

been granted approval for UCMR

monitoring of Aeromonas by

successfully passing the Aeromonas

Performance Testing (PT) Program

administered by EPA.

* * * * *

(7) * * *

(i) All systems. You must:

(A) Analyze the additional parameters

specified in paragraph § 141.40(a)(4)(i),

Table 2, ‘‘Water Quality Parameters to

be Monitored with UCMR

Contaminants’’ for each relevant

contaminant type. You must analyze the

parameters for each sampling event of

each sampling point, using the method

indicated, and report the results using

the data elements 1 through 10 in Table

1, § 141.35(d), Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Reporting requirements;

(B) Review the laboratory results to

ensure reliability; and

(C) Report the results as specified in

§ 141.35.

(ii) Large systems. If your system

serves over 10,000 persons, you must

collect and arrange for testing of the

contaminants in List 2 and List 3 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, in

accordance with the requirements set

out in paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of this

section, with one exception: you must

sample only at sampling locations

specified in Table 1. You must send the

samples to one of the laboratories

approved under paragraph (G), this

section. You are also responsible for

reporting these results as required in

§ 141.35.

(iii) Small systems. If your system

serves 10,000 or fewer persons, you

must collect samples in accordance with

the instructions sent to you by the EPA

or State, or, if informed by the EPA or

State that the EPA or State will collect

the sample, you must assist the State or

EPA in identifying the appropriate

sampling locations and in taking the

samples. EPA will report the results to

you and the State.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ix) Revise system’s treatment plant

location(s) to include latitude and

longitude. For reporting to the Safe

Drinking Water Information System,

EPA already requires reporting of either

the latitude and longitude or the street

address for the treatment plant location.

If the State enters into an MOA, the

State must report each system’s

treatment plant location(s) as latitude

and longitude (in addition to street

address, if previously reported) by the

time of the system’s reporting of

Assessment Monitoring results to the

National Drinking Water Contaminant

Occurrence Database. The State may use

the latitude and longitude of facilities

related to the public water system on

the same site, or closely adjacent to the

same site as the treatment plant, such as

the latitude and longitude of the intake

or wellhead/field or the entry point to

the distribution system, if such

measurements are available.

* * * * *

Appendix A to § 141.40—Quality

Control Requirements for Testing All

Samples Collected

* * * * *

(2) Detection Limit. Calculate the

laboratory detection limit for each

contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999)

List, of paragraph (a)(3) of this section using

the appropriate procedure in the specified

method with the exception that the

contaminant concentration used to fortify

reagent water must be less than or equal to

the minimum reporting level (MRL) for the

contaminants as specified in column 4, Table

1, UCMR (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of

this section. The calculated detection limit is

equal to the standard deviation times the

Student’s t value for 99% confidence level

with n-1 degrees of freedom. (The detection

limit must be less than or equal to one-half

of the MRL.)

* * * * *

(9) Detection Confirmation. Confirm any

chemical contaminant analyzed using a gas

chromatographic method and detected above

the MRL, by gas chromatographic/mass

spectrometric (GC/MS) methods. If testing

resulted in first analyzing the sample extracts

via specified gas chromatographic methods,

an initial confirmation by a second column

dissimilar to the primary column may be

performed. If the contaminant detection is

confirmed by the secondary column, then the

contaminant must be reconfirmed by GC/MS

using three (3) specified ion peaks for

contaminant identification. Use one of the

following confirming techniques: perform

single point calibration of the GC/MS system

for confirmation purposes only as long as the

calibration standard is at a concentration

within ± 50% of the concentration

determined by the initial analysis; or perform

a three (3) point calibration with single point

daily calibration verification of the GC/MS

2308 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 8 / Thursday, January 11, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

system regardless of whether that verification

standard concentration is within ± 50% of

sample response. If GC/MS analysis confirms

the initial contaminant detection, report

results determined from the initial analysis.

* * * * *

(11) Method Defined Quality Control. As

appropriate to the method’s requirements,

perform analysis of Laboratory Fortified

Blanks and Laboratory Performance Checks

as specified in the method. Each method

specifies acceptance criteria for these quality

control checks.

[FR Doc. 01–59 Filed 1–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–301099; FRL–6762–5]

RIN 2070–AB78

Clopyralid; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation amends

tolerances for residues of clopyralid

(3,6-dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid)

in or on sugar beet roots and sugar beet

tops. In addition, this regulation

establishes a tolerance for sugar beet

molasses. Finally, the established

tolerances for barley forage and milled

fractions of barley, oats and wheat are

being added back to the tolerance

expression for clopyralid after being

inadvertently deleted. Dow

AgroSciences LLC requested this

tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the

Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.

DATES: This regulation is effective

January 11, 2001. Objections and

requests for hearings, identified by

docket control number OPP–301099,

must be received by EPA on or before

March 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests may be submitted by

mail, in person, or by courier. Please

follow the detailed instructions for each

method as provided in Unit VI. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, your objections

and hearing requests must identify

docket control number OPP–301099 in

the subject line on the first page of your

response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Joanne I. Miller, Registration

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,

NW.,Washington, DC 20460; telephone

number: (703) 305–6224; and e-mail

address: miller.joanne@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if

you are an agricultural producer, food

manufacturer, or pesticide

manufacturer. Potentially affected

categories and entities may include, but

are not limited to:

Categories NAICS

codes

Examples of potentially affected

entities

Industry 111 Crop production

112 Animal production

311 Food manufacturing

32532 Pesticide manufacturing

This listing is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. Other types of

entities not listed in the table could also

be affected. The North American

Industrial Classification System

(NAICS) codes have been provided to

assist you and others in determining

whether or not this action might apply

to certain entities. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information, Including Copies of this

Document and Other Related

Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain

electronic copies of this document, and

certain other related documents that

might be available electronically, from

the EPA Internet Home Page at http://

www.epa.gov/. To access this

document, on the Home Page select

‘‘Laws and Regulations’’, ‘‘Regulations

and Proposed Rules,’’ and then look up

the entry for this document under the

‘‘Federal Register—Environmental

Documents.’’ You can also go directly to

the Federal Register listings at http://

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. To access the

OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines

referenced in this document, go directly

to the guidelines at http://www.epa.gov/

opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.

2. In person. The Agency has

established an official record for this

action under docket control number

OPP–301099. The official record

consists of the documents specifically

referenced in this action, and other

information related to this action,

including any information claimed as

Confidential Business Information (CBI).

This official record includes the

documents that are physically located in

the docket, as well as the documents

that are referenced in those documents.

The public version of the official record

does not include any information

claimed as CBI. The public version of

the official record, which includes

printed, paper versions of any electronic

comments submitted during an

applicable comment period is available

for inspection in the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),

Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson

Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB

telephone number is (703) 305–5805.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

In the Federal Register of February 9,

1999 (64 FR 6351) (FRL–6058–3), EPA

issued a notice pursuant to section 408

of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a as

amended by the Food Quality Protection

Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Public Law 104–

170) announcing the filing of a pesticide

petition (PP 8F3600) for tolerance by

Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville

Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268. This

notice included a summary of the

petition prepared by Dow AgroSciences

LLC, the registrant. There were no

comments received in response to the

notice of filing.

The petition requested that 40 CFR

180.431 be amended by establishing

tolerances for residues of the herbicide

clopyralid (3,6-dichloro-2-

pyridinecarboxylic acid) in or on sugar

beet roots at 2.0 parts per million (ppm),

sugar beet tops at 3.0 ppm, and sugar

beet molasses at 16.0 ppm.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the

legal limit for a pesticide chemical

residue in or on a food) only if EPA

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines ‘‘safe’’ to

mean that‘‘ there is a reasonable

certainty that no harm will result from

aggregate exposure to the pesticide

chemical residue, including all

anticipated dietary exposures and all

other exposures for which there is

reliable information.’’ This includes

exposure through drinking water and in

residential settings, but does not include

occupational exposure. Section

408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special

consideration to exposure of infants and

children to the pesticide chemical

residue in establishing a tolerance and

to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable

certainty that no harm will result to

infants and children from aggregate