Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 251 / Friday, December 29, 2000 / Notices 83015

proposed settlements are available from:

Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. EPA,

Region 4 (WMD–PSB), 61 Forsyth Street

SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562–

8887.

Written comments may be submitted

to Ms. Batchelor within 30 calendar

days of the date of this publication.

Dated: December 21, 2000.

Franklin E. Hill,

Chief, CERCLA Program Services Branch,

Waste Management Division.

[FR Doc. 00–33356 Filed 12–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6924–9]

Stage 2 Microbial and Disinfection

Byproducts Federal Advisory

Committee Agreement in Principle

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of agreement in

principle.

SUMMARY: The purpose of today’s notice

is to make available to the public

recommendations to the Administrator

of the Environmental Protection Agency

contained in the Stage 2 Microbial and

Disinfection Byproducts (M–DBP)

Federal Advisory Committee Agreement

in Principle (Agreement) that was

signed in September 2000. The Stage 2

M–DBP rules are a set of interrelated

drinking water regulations which

address risks from microbial pathogens

and disinfection byproducts (DBPs). The

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) convened the Stage 2 M–DBP

Federal Advisory Committee

(Committee) to collect, share, and

analyze information that has become

available since promulgation of the

Stage 1 M–DBP rules in December 1998.

The purpose of the Committee was to

evaluate whether and to what degree

USEPA should establish revised or

additional DBP and microbial standards

to protect public health. The Committee

consisted of organizational members

representing USEPA, public interest

groups, State and local public health

and regulatory agencies, local elected

officials, Indian tribes, drinking water

suppliers, and chemical and equipment

manufacturers. Recommendations from

the Committee are contained in the

Agreement in Principle which is

provided below. This Agreement is the

result of a tremendous collaborative

effort and USEPA would like to express

its appreciation to all members of the

Committee, as well as to members of the

Technical Workgroup (TWG) which

supported the Committee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information contact the Safe

Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone

(800) 426–4791. The Safe Drinking

Water Hotline is open Monday through

Friday, excluding federal holidays, from

9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. For

technical inquiries contact Dan

Schmelling or Jennifer McLain, Office of

Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC

4607), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone

(202) 260–1439 (Schmelling) or (202)

260–0431 (McLain).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction and Background

The Stage 2 M–DBP rules represent

the final stage in a two phase M–DBP

rulemaking strategy agreed upon by

USEPA and stakeholders during a

regulatory negotiation process in 1992–

93, and later affirmed by Congress as

part of the 1996 Amendments to the

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). They

comprise the Long Term 2 Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment Rule

(LT2ESWTR) and the Stage 2

Disinfectants and Disinfection

Byproducts Rule (DBPR). The

LT2ESWTR focuses on risk from

microbial pathogens, specifically

Cryptosporidium, and the Stage 2 DBPR

addresses risk from DBPs. These rules

are being developed simultaneously in

order to address complex risk trade-offs

between the control of pathogens and

limiting exposure to DBPs. Statutory

deadlines require USEPA to promulgate

the Stage 2 DBPR by May 2002.

Consistent with statutory objectives for

risk balancing, EPA will finalize the

LT2ESWTR concurrent with the Stage 2

DBPR to ensure parallel protection from

microbial and DBP risks.

Committee recommendations for the

Stage 2 M–DBP rules would build upon

the public health protection provided by

the Stage 1 M–DBP rules, which include

the Stage 1 DBPR, Interim Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment Rule

(IESWTR), and Long Term 1 Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment Rule

(LT1ESWTR). The Stage 1 DBPR and

IESWTR were issued in December,

1998, and promulgation of the

LT1ESWTR is anticipated for late 2000

or early 2001. The Stage 1 M–DBP rules

are based on stakeholder agreements

reached during the 1992–93 negotiated

rulemaking, as well as the agreement of

a subsequent Federal Advisory

Committee which met from March to

July 1997.

Prior to convening the Stage 2 M–DBP

Advisory Committee, USEPA held three

preparatory stakeholder meetings on

pathogen and DBP health effects,

occurrence, and treatment. The

Committee then held fourteen formal

negotiation meetings between March

1999 and September 2000 to discuss

issues related to the Stage 2 DBPR and

LT2ESWTR. The objective of the

Committee at the outset was to reach a

consensus regarding provisions for the

two rules. Technical support for these

discussions was provided by the TWG,

which was established by the

Committee at its first meeting. The

Committee’s activities resulted in the

collection, development, evaluation,

and presentation of substantial new

information related to key elements for

both rules. This information included

new data on pathogenicity, occurrence,

and treatment of microbial

contaminants, specifically including

Cryptosporidium, as well as new data on

DBP health risks, exposure, and control.

A significant source of new data was

the Information Collection Rule (ICR),

which EPA promulgated in 1996

pursuant to SDWA requirements. The

ICR required approximately 300 large

public water systems to conduct 18

months of sampling for water quality

and treatment parameters related to DBP

formation and the occurrence of

microbial pathogens. Data on DBP

formation in small systems was

obtained through a survey of

approximately 120 treatment plants in

systems serving fewer than 10,000

people. Seven states also provided small

system DBP data. Subsequent to the ICR,

EPA obtained additional data on

pathogen occurrence through the ICR

Supplemental Surveys (ICRSS). These

surveys involved 127 water treatment

plants, including 40 small systems, and

comprised one year of bi-monthly

sampling for Cryptosporidium, Giardia,

and other water quality parameters

(small systems did not measure

protozoa).

USEPA and the TWG developed a

series of eight databases to facilitate

analysis of ICR data. The ICR databases

were integrated with a Surface Water

Analytical Tool model to predict the

impact of potential new standards for

DBPs and/or pathogens on shifts in

treatment technologies among water

systems and resulting DBP exposure

profiles. Based on data supplied by

equipment vendors, the TWG produced

unit cost estimates for a number of

potential regulatory compliance

technologies. These technology unit

costs were used in conjunction with

SWAT projections of technology shifts

83016 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 251 / Friday, December 29, 2000 / Notices

to make national cost estimates for

regulatory options.

USEPA, in consultation with

nationally recognized experts in the

field of statistics, evaluated ICR and

ICRSS data to generate estimates of the

national occurrence distribution of

Cryptosporidium. Occurrence

distributions were coupled with data on

the infectivity of different strains of

Cryptosporidium and assumptions for

the removal efficiency of treatment

plants to make projections of the

possible risk associated with

Cryptosporidium in drinking water. In

considering risks associated with DBPs,

the Committee reviewed available

toxicological and epidemiological data

from a number of studies on

reproductive and developmental health

effects (e.g., early term miscarriages), as

well as cancer.

Despite the evaluation of a large

amount of data, the Committee

recognized that uncertainty remains in a

number of areas regarding the precise

nature and magnitude of risk associated

with DBPs and pathogens in drinking

water. In light of this uncertainty, the

Committee recommended a series of

balanced steps to address the areas of

greatest health concern, taking into

careful consideration the costs and

potential impacts on public water

systems.

In regard to DBPs, the Committee

recommended a two phase approach to

provide further control of concentration

peaks in the distribution system. In

Phase 1, systems would continue to

meet maximum contaminant levels

(MCLs) established by the Stage 1 DBPR

for total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and

five haloacetic acids (HAA5) of 0.080

and 0.060 mg/L, respectively, with

compliance based on a running annual

average (RAA). In addition, Phase 1

would add new MCLs of 0.120 and

0.100 mg/L for TTHM and HAA5,

respectively, with compliance based on

a locational running annual average

(LRAA). Under an LRAA standard, the

annual average at each monitoring point

must not exceed the MCL. This

compares with the RAA established by

the Stage 1 DBPR in which compliance

is determined by averaging across all

monitoring points. All Phase 1

monitoring would be conducted at Stage

1 DBPR sites. Phase 2 would consist of

maintaining MCLs of 0.080 mg/L for

TTHM and 0.060 mg/L for HAA5 but

compliance with these levels would be

based on the LRAA. Under Phase 2,

monitoring would be conducted at new

sites determined from an initial

distribution system evaluation designed

to select site-specific optimal sample

points for capturing DBP peaks.

The two phase approach

recommended by the Committee for the

Stage 2 DBPR would provide an initial

level of protection from DBP peaks

under Phase 1. Systems would then

make decisions regarding the potentially

more significant treatment changes

necessary to comply with Phase 2

during the same time period as they

evaluate options to comply with the

LT2ESWTR. This approach is consistent

with the Committee’s support for

simultaneous compliance for the Stage 2

M–DBP rules and the statutory

objectives for balancing microbial and

DBP risks.

In regard to microbial pathogens, the

Committee recognized that systems with

poor quality source waters may need to

provide additional protection against

Cryptosporidium. The Committee

recommended a ‘Microbial Framework’

approach which involves assignment of

systems into different categories (or

bins) based on the results of source

water Cryptosporidium monitoring.

Additional treatment requirements

depend on the bin to which the system

is assigned. Systems would chose

technologies to comply with additional

treatment requirements from a ‘toolbox’

of options. The Committee also made

recommendations for unfiltered systems

and uncovered finished water

reservoirs.

The Agreement in Principle is the full

statement of the points on which the

Committee reached consensus. The

Agreement is divided into Parts A & B.

The recommendations in each part

stand alone and are independent of one

another. The entire Committee reached

consensus on Part A, which contains

provisions that apply directly to the

Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR. The full

Committee with the exception of the

National Rural Water Association agreed

to Part B, which has recommendations

for future activity by USEPA in the areas

of distribution systems and microbial

water quality criteria. Following the

Agreement in today’s notice is a list of

the twenty one organizational members

of the Committee and their alternates.

The recommendations contained in

the Stage 2 M–DBP Agreement in

Principle reflect the Committee’s

emphasis on targeted, risk based

rulemaking. They incorporate

substantial initial monitoring to identify

systems with the highest potential risk.

Additional treatment steps are required

only where systems exceed specified

locational average DBP concentrations

or source water Cryptosporidium

occurrence levels. In addition, the

recommendations address risks from

Cryptosporidium in unfiltered systems,

as well as longstanding concerns over

risks from uncovered finished water

reservoirs. They also facilitate the use of

nontraditional and potentially low cost

treatment technologies like UV

disinfection.

These recommendations represent an

important and balanced step forward in

controlling public health risks

associated with drinking water. The

ability of Committee representatives

with different interests, areas of

expertise, and perspectives to find

common ground and reach agreement

reflects an exceptional commitment to

public health protection and to the

regulatory negotiation process. In the

future, results from new research will

provide further insights into drinking

water risks associated with reproductive

and developmental toxicity of DBPs, the

occurrence and pathogenicity of

microorganisms, and other related

topics. As new information evolves,

USEPA will continue to work with

stakeholders in evaluating the adequacy

of existing drinking water standards and

the need for revised or additional

measures to protect public health.

USEPA has agreed to develop a

proposed rulemaking for the Stage 2

DBPR and LT2ESWTR in 2001 that will

reflect recommendations contained in

the Agreement in Principle. As part of

the proposed rulemaking, USEPA will

solicit comments on the Agreement.

Today’s notice, however, is intended

only to inform the public of the

availability of the Agreement and

USEPA does not request comment on

this notice.

Dated: December 19, 2000.

J. Charles Fox,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.

1.0 Introduction

Pursuant to requirements under the

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

is developing interrelated regulations to

control microbial pathogens and

disinfectants/disinfection byproducts

(D/DBPs) in drinking water. These rules

are collectively known as the microbial/

disinfection byproducts (M–DBP) rules.

The regulations are intended to

address complex risk trade-offs between

the two different types of contaminants.

In keeping with a phased M–DBP

strategy agreed to by stakeholders

during the 1992–93 negotiated

rulemaking on these matters and

affirmed by Congress as part of the 1996

Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water

Act, EPA issued the final Stage 1

Disinfectants and Disinfection

Byproducts Rule (DBPR) and Interim

Enhanced Surface Water Rule (IESWTR)

in December 1998. These two rules built

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 251 / Friday, December 29, 2000 / Notices 83017

upon stakeholder agreements reached in

1993 but also reflected the more recent

1997 Agreement in Principle signed by

stakeholders who participated in an

intensive Stage 1 M–DBP Federal

Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

negotiation process from March to July

1997.

As part of the 1996 amendments to

the SDWA, Congress established

deadlines for the M–DBP rules,

beginning with a November 1998

deadline for promulgation of both the

IESWTR and the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule.

Related statutory deadlines for the Stage

2 M–DBP process require that EPA

promulgate a Stage 2 Disinfectants and

Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR) by

May 2002. The Agency plans to

promulgate the Long Term 2 Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment Rule

(LT2ESWTR) by May 2002, as well. The

central challenge of the Stage 2 M–DBP

rule development process has been to

assess information and research not

fully considered in the Stage 1 process

or only available since 1998 and

evaluate whether and to what degree

EPA should establish revised or

additional DBP and microbial standards

to protect public health.

As agreed to during Stage 1, EPA has

convened a Stage 2 M–DBP Advisory

Committee made up of organizational

members (parties) named by EPA (see

Attachment A). The purpose of the

Advisory Committee is to develop

recommendations for the Stage 2 DBPR

and LT2ESWTR to be proposed in 2001.

This Committee met from March 1999

through September 2000, with the

initial objective to reach consensus.

This document is the Committee’s

statement on the points of agreement

reached. This document is separated

into Part A and Part B. The

recommendations in each part stand

alone and are independent of one

another.

2.0 Agreement in Principle

The Stage 2 M–DBP Federal Advisory

Committee (Stage 2 FACA) considered

both the strengths and limitations of

new M–DBP information as well as the

related technical and policy issues

involved in developing a Stage 2 DBPR

and a LT2ESWTR under the Safe

Drinking Water Act and recommends

that the Environmental Protection

Agency base the applicable sections of

its anticipated Stage 2 DBPR and

LT2ESWTR proposals on the elements

of agreement described below.

This agreement in principle Part A

and B represents the consensus of the

parties on the best conceptual principles

that the Committee was able to generate

within the allocated time and resources

available.

The lllll, a party to the

negotiations, agrees that:

2.1 The person signing Part A or Part

B of this agreement is authorized to

commit this party to the terms of Part

A or Part B, as the case may be.

2.2 EPA agrees to develop a Proposed

Rulemaking in 2001 in accordance with

applicable statutes and procedural

requirements that will reflect

recommendations contained in this

Agreement in Principle, and will obtain

comments from Stage 2 FACA parties

and the public.

2.3 Each party and individual

signatory that submits comments on the

Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR proposals

agrees to support those components of

the proposals that reflect the

recommendations contained in this

Agreement in Principle. Each party and

individual signatory reserves the right to

comment, as individuals or on behalf of

the organization he or she represents, on

any other aspect of the proposals.

2.4 If new information becomes

available that significantly affects the

basis for provisions in this Agreement in

Principle, EPA agrees to publish this

information in a NODA and will

consider whether it is necessary to

reconvene the FACA.

2.5 EPA will work jointly with

stakeholders while developing guidance

documents in order to ensure that

technical issues are adequately

addressed prior to the final rule. EPA

agrees to publish revised guidance

documents that reflect consideration of

comments on earlier drafts.

2.6 Concurrent with publication of the

proposed rules, EPA will publish a draft

guidance document that includes ozone

and chlorine dioxide CT tables for the

inactivation of Cryptosporidium (UV

tables are addressed in 5.0). EPA will

request comment in the proposed

LT2ESWTR on whether any of the CT

tables or other criteria in the guidance

document should be incorporated into

the final LT2ESWTR.

2.7 EPA will consider all relevant

comments submitted concerning the

Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR Notice(s)

of Proposed Rulemaking and in

response to such comments will make

such modifications to the proposed

rule(s) and preamble(s) as EPA

determines are appropriate when

issuing a final rule.

2.8 Recognizing that under the

Appointments Clause of the

Constitution governmental authority

may be exercised only by officers of the

United States and recognizing that it is

EPA’s responsibility to issue final rules,

EPA intends to issue final rules that are

based on the provisions of the Safe

Drinking Water Act, pertinent facts, and

comments received from the public.

2.9 Each party agrees not to take any

action to inhibit the adoption of final

rule(s) to the extent it and

corresponding preamble(s) have the

same substance and effect as the

elements of the Agreement in Principle

Part A or Part B or both parts as

evidenced by the signature following

each part.

2.10 EPA will hold a stakeholder

meeting during the comment period to

update stakeholders on new information

germane to the Stage 2 DBPR and

LT2ESWTR.

2.11 Implementation Schedule

2.11.a Compliance schedules for the

LT2ESWTR will be tied to the

availability of sufficient analytical

capacity at approved laboratories for all

large and medium affected systems to

initiate Cryptosporidium and E. coli

monitoring, and the availability of

software for transferring, storing, and

evaluating the results of all microbial

analyses.

(1) If the availability of adequate

laboratory capacity or data management

software for microbial monitoring under

LT2ESWTR for large or medium systems

is delayed then monitoring,

implementation, and compliance

schedules for both the LT2ESWTR and

Stage 2 DBPR described under 2.11.c

will be delayed by an equivalent time

period.

2.11.b The principle of simultaneous

compliance reflected in the Stage 1 MDBP rules will be continued in the Stage

2 M–DBP rules.

(1) The principle of simultaneous

compliance means that systems will

address the Stage 2 DBPR and

LT2ESWTR requirements concurrently

in order to protect public health and

optimize technology choice decisions.

2.11.c Implementation Schedule

(1) Once the Stage 2 M-DBP rules

have been promulgated, systems will

conduct Cryptosporidium (Section 4.1)

and IDSE (Section 3.1.a) monitoring and

submit the results to their States/

Primacy Agency. Large and medium

systems must submit a report with the

results of the Initial Distribution System

Evaluation (IDSE) (including any

monitoring) and the results of the

Cryptosporidium monitoring two years

and two and a half years after rule

promulgation, respectively. Small

systems must submit a report

recommending new DBP compliance

monitoring locations and supporting

data with the results of their IDSE,

83018 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 251 / Friday, December 29, 2000 / Notices

1Systems which monitor for an indicator

organism (e.g., E. coli) and do not monitor for

Cryptosporidium must submit the results of the

indicator monitoring three and one-half years after

rule promulgation.

2The objective of this monitoring provision and

similar monitoring provisions herein after is to

prevent systems from avoiding monitoring during

peak occurrence.

including any monitoring, and

Cryptosporidium monitoring 4 years

and 5 years after rule promulgation,

respectively.1

(2) Systems will comply with the

Stage 2 DBPR MCL for TTHMs/HAA5 in

two phases:

(a) Phase 1: 3 years after rule

promulgation (with an additional 2 year

extension available for systems

requiring capital improvements), all

systems must comply with a 120/100

locational running annual average

(LRAA) based on Stage 1 monitoring

sites and also continue to comply with

the Stage 1 80/60 running annual

average.

(b) Phase 2: Systems must comply

with 80/60 LRAA based on new

sampling sites identified under the

IDSE. This will begin 6 years after rule

promulgation (with an additional 2 year

extension available for systems

requiring capital improvements) for

large and medium systems. For small

systems required to do Cryptosporidium

monitoring, compliance with the 80/60

LRAA will begin 8.5 years after rule

promulgation (with an additional 2 year

extension available for systems

requiring capital improvements). For all

other small systems, compliance with

the 80/60 LRAA will begin 7.5 years

after rule promulgation (with an

additional 2 year extension available for

systems requiring capital

improvements).

Part A

3.0 Disinfection Byproducts

The requirements in the Stage 2 DBPR

will apply to all community water

systems and non-transient noncommunity water systems that add a

disinfectant other than UV or deliver

water that has been disinfected.

The Stage 2 DBPR is designed to

reduce DBP occurrence peaks in the

distribution system based on changes to

compliance monitoring provisions.

Compliance monitoring will be

preceded by an initial distribution

system monitoring (IDSE)/study to

select site-specific optimal sample

points for capturing peaks. The FACA

recognizes that TTHM and HAA5

concentrations vary over time and space

and therefore agrees that compliance

monitoring locations should reflect this

variability.

3.1 TTHM/HAA5

Compliance with each MCL will be

determined based on a Locational

Running Annual Average (a running

annual average must be calculated at

each sample location). Systems will

comply with the Stage 2 DBPR MCL in

two phases:

Phase 1: 3 years after rule

promulgation (with an additional 2 year

extension available for systems

requiring capital improvements), all

systems must comply with a 120/100

locational running annual average

(LRAA) based on Stage 1 monitoring

sites and also continue to comply with

the Stage 1 80/60 running annual

average.

Phase 2: 6 years after rule

promulgation (with an additional 2 year

extension available for systems

requiring capital improvements) large

and medium systems must comply with

an 80/60 LRAA based on new sampling

sites identified under the IDSE. For

small systems required to do

Cryptosporidium monitoring,

compliance with the 80/60 LRAA will

begin 8.5 years after rule promulgation

(with an additional 2 year extension

available for systems requiring capital

improvements). For all other small

systems, compliance with the 80/60

LRAA will begin 7.5 years after rule

promulgation (with an additional 2 year

extension available for systems

requiring capital improvements).

3.1.a Initial Distribution System

Evaluation (IDSE)

IDSEs are studies conducted by

Community Water Systems and are

intended to select new compliance

monitoring sites that more accurately

reflect sites representing high TTHM

and HAA5 levels. The studies will be

based either on system specific

monitoring or other system specific data

that provides equivalent or better

information on site selection. Systems

will recommend new or revised

monitoring sites to their State/Primacy

Agency based on their IDSE study. IDSE

results will not be used for compliance

purposes.

Systems conducting IDSE monitoring

shall monitor for one year under a

schedule determined by source water

type (e.g., surface water vs. ground

water) and system size as discussed in

1–3 below. As a part of the monitoring

schedule, all systems conducting IDSE

monitoring must monitor during the

peak historical month for DBP levels or

water temperature. All IDSE samples

will be paired (i.e., TTHM and HAA5

sample at each site).

(1) Surface Water Systems ≥ 10,000:

Systems must monitor bimonthly on a

regular schedule of approximately every

60 days 2 for one year at 8 distribution

system sites per plant (at sites that are

in addition to the Stage 1 DBPR

compliance monitoring sites).

The location of the 8 sites will be

determined by residual disinfectant type

as follows:

(a) For plants with chloramine

distribution systems: 2 near distribution

system entry point, 2 at average

residence time, and 4 at points

representative of highest THM and

HAA5 concentrations;

(b) For plants with chlorine

distribution systems: 1 near distribution

system entry point, 2 at average

residence time, and 5 at points

representative of highest THM and

HAA5 concentrations.

(2) Surface Water Systems < 10,000:

(a) 500–9,999: Systems must monitor

quarterly on a regular schedule of

approximately every 90 days for one

year at 2 distribution system sites per

plant (at sites that are in addition to the

Stage 1 DBPR compliance monitoring

sites).

(b) Under 500: System must monitor

semi-annually on a regular schedule of

approximately every 180 days for one

year at 2 distribution system sites per

plant (at sites that are in addition to the

Stage 1 DBPR compliance monitoring

sites).

(i) This monitoring requirement for

systems under 500 may be waived if the

State/Primacy Agency determines that

the monitoring site approved for Stage

1 DBPR compliance is sufficient to

represent both the highest HAA5 and

the highest TTHM concentrations. The

State/Primacy Agency must submit

criteria for this determination to EPA as

part of their Primacy application.

(3) Ground Water Systems:

Multiple wells drawing water from a

single aquifer may, with State/Primacy

Agency approval, be considered one

treatment plant.

(a) ≥ 10,000: Systems must monitor

quarterly on a regular schedule of

approximately every 90 days for one

year at 2 distribution system sites per

plant (at sites that are in addition to the

Stage 1 DBPR compliance monitoring

sites)

(b) < 10,000: Systems must monitor

semi-annually on a regular schedule of

approximately every 180 days for one

year at 2 distribution system sites per

plant (at sites in addition to the Stage 1

DBPR compliance monitoring sites)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 251 / Friday, December 29, 2000 / Notices 83019

3The objective of this monitoring provision and

similar monitoring provisions herein after is to

prevent systems from avoiding monitoring during

peak occurrence.

(i) This monitoring requirement for

systems under 500 may be waived if the

State/Primacy Agency determines that

the monitoring site approved for Stage

1 DBPR compliance is sufficient to

represent both the highest HAA5 and

the highest TTHM concentrations. The

State/Primacy Agency must submit

criteria for this determination to EPA as

part of their Primacy application.

(4) System Specific Studies—In lieu

of the IDSE monitoring, systems may

perform an IDSE study based on other

system specific monitoring or system

specific data which will provide

comparable or superior selection of new

monitoring sites that target high DBP

levels. EPA agrees to work with

stakeholders to develop guidance on

criteria for system specific studies.

(5) Systems that certify to their State/

Primacy Agency that all samples taken

in the last 2 years were below 40/30 are

not required to conduct the IDSE.

3.1.b. Long Term Compliance

Monitoring (Phase 2)

Principles of the reduced compliance

monitoring strategy reflected in the

Stage 1 DBPR shall be continued in the

Stage 2 DBPR. These principles are

designed for systems with very low DBP

levels.

Systems will collect paired samples

(TTHM and HAA5) at each compliance

monitoring sample site with the

possible exception of some systems

serving < 500 people.

(1) Surface Water Systems ≥ 10,000:

Systems must monitor quarterly on a

regular schedule of approximately every

90 days 3 at 4 distribution system sites

per plant. At least 1 quarterly sample

must be taken during the peak historical

month for DBP levels.

The location of the 4 sites in the

distribution system will be determined

as follows:

—One representative average from

among current Stage 1 locations.

—One representative highest HAA5

identified under IDSE.

—Two at highest TTHM identified

during IDSE.

(2) Surface Water Systems < 10,000.

(a) 500–9,999: Systems must monitor

quarterly on a regular schedule of

approximately every 90 days at the

highest TTHM and the highest HAA5

points in the distribution system as

identified under the IDSE. The State/

Primacy Agency may determine, based

on the results of the IDSE, that the site

representative of the highest TTHM is at

the same location as the site

representative of the highest HAA5 and

thus may determine that the system

only has to monitor at a single site.

(b) Under 500: Systems must monitor

annually at the site representing the

highest TTHM and the highest HAA5

points in the distribution system as

identified under the IDSE. If the State/

Primacy Agency determines, based on

the results of the IDSE, that this site is

not representative of both the highest

TTHM and HAA5 concentrations, the

system should collect unpaired samples

at two sites in the distribution system

(i.e., TTHM only at one site and HAA5

only at another site).

(i) If the State/Primacy Agency has

waived the requirement to conduct the

IDSE, systems under 500 will conduct

annual sampling at the point of

maximum residence time in the

distribution system during the month of

warmest water temperature.

(ii) Systems under 500 have the

option of moving to quarterly

compliance sampling consistent with

the Stage 1 sampling strategy.

(3) Groundwater Systems:

(a) ≥ 10,000: Systems must monitor

quarterly on a regular schedule of

approximately every 90 days at the

highest TTHM and the highest HAA5

points in the distribution system as

identified under the IDSE. The State/

Primacy Agency may determine, based

on the results of the IDSE, that the site

representative of the highest TTHM is at

the same location as the site

representative of the highest HAA5 and

thus may determine that the system

only has to monitor at a single site.

(b) 500–9,999: Systems must monitor

annually at the highest TTHM and the

highest HAA5 points in the distribution

system as identified under the IDSE.

The State/Primacy Agency may

determine, based on the results of the

IDSE, that the site representative of the

highest TTHM is at the same location as

the site representative of the highest

HAA5 and thus may determine that the

system only has to monitor at a single

site.

(i) Ground water systems under

10,000 have the option of moving to

quarterly compliance sampling

consistent with Stage 1 sampling

strategy.

(c) Under 500: Systems must monitor

annually at the site representing the

highest TTHM and the highest HAA5

points in the distribution system as

identified under the IDSE. If the State/

Primacy Agency determines, based on

the results of the IDSE, that this site is

not representative of both the highest

TTHM and HAA5 concentrations, the

system should collect unpaired samples

at two sites in the distribution system

(i.e., TTHM only at one site and HAA5

only at another site).

(i) If the State/Primacy Agency waives

the requirement for systems under 500

to conduct the IDSE, they will conduct

annual sampling at the point of

maximum residence time in the

distribution system during the month of

warmest water temperature.

(ii) Ground water systems under 500

have the option of moving to quarterly

compliance sampling consistent with

Stage 1 sampling strategy.

3.1.c Wholesale and Consecutive

Systems

The FACA has considered the issues

of consecutive systems and recommends

that EPA propose that all wholesale and

consecutive systems must comply with

provisions of the Stage 2 DBPR on the

same schedule required of the wholesale

or consecutive system serving the

largest population in the combined

distribution system.

Principles:

• Consumers in consecutive systems

should be just as well protected as

customers of all systems, and

• Monitoring provisions should be

tailored to meet the first principle.

The FACA recognizes that there may

be issues that have not been fully

explored or completely analyzed and

therefore recommends that EPA solicit

comments.

3.1.d Peaks

Recognizing that significant

excursions of DBP levels will sometimes

occur, even when systems are in full

compliance with the enforceable MCL,

public water systems that have

significant excursions during peak

periods are to refer to EPA guidance on

how to conduct peak excursion

evaluations, and how to reduce such

peaks. Such excursions will be reviewed

as a part of the sanitary survey process.

EPA guidance on DBP level excursions

will be issued prior to promulgation of

the final rule and will be developed in

consultation with stakeholders.

3.2. Bromate MCL

The Stage 2 M–DBP Advisory

Committee has considered the present

potential that reducing the bromate

MCL to 0.005 mg/L would both increase

the concentration of other DBPs in the

drinking water and interfere with the

efficacy of microbial pathogen

inactivation. Therefore, the Committee

recommends for purposes of Stage 2 that

the bromate MCL remain at 0.010 mg/

L. This recommendation is based upon

current alternative technology

utilization and upon current

83020 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 251 / Friday, December 29, 2000 / Notices

understanding of bromate formation as

a result of bromide concentrations. EPA

commits to review the bromate MCL as

part of the 6 year review and determine

whether the MCL should remain at

0.010 mg/L or be reduced to 0.005 mg/

L or a lower concentration. As a part of

that review, EPA will consider the

increased utilization of alternative

technologies and whether the risk/risk

concerns reflected in today’s

recommendation remain valid. The

FACA agrees that it is important to

continue research on bromate detection,

formation, treatment, and health effects.

4.0 LT2ESWTR

The requirements of the LT2ESWTR

will apply to all public water systems

that use surface water or ground water

under the direct influence of surface

water.

The FACA recognizes that systems

may need to provide additional

protection against Cryptosporidium, and

that such decisions should be made on

a system specific basis. The LT2ESWTR

incorporates system specific treatment

requirements based on a ‘Microbial

Framework’ approach. This approach

generally involves assignment of

systems into different categories (or

bins) based on the results of source

water Cryptosporidium monitoring.

Additional treatment requirements

depend on the bin to which the system

is assigned. Systems will choose

technologies to comply with additional

treatment requirements from a ‘toolbox’

of options.

4.1 Monitoring and Treatment

Requirements for Filtered Systems

4.1.a Monitoring for Bin Classification

(1) Systems ≥ 10,000:

For purposes of bin classification,

source water Cryptosporidium

monitoring shall be conducted using

EPA Method 1622/23 and no less than

10L samples. EPA will provide guidance

for those cases where it is not possible

to process a 10L sample.

(a) Cryptosporidium, E. coli, and

turbidity source water sampling shall be

carried out on a predetermined schedule

for 24 months with two choices:

(i) Bin classification based on highest

12 month running annual average if

monthly samples, OR

(ii) Optional bin classification based

on 2 year mean if facility conducts twice

per month monitoring for 24 months

(i.e. 48 samples). Systems may carry out

additional sampling but it must be

evenly distributed over the 2 year

monitoring period.

(b) Systems with at least 2 years of

historical Cryptosporidium data that is

equivalent in sample number,

frequency, and data quality (e.g. volume

analyzed, percent recovery) to data that

would be collected under the

LT2ESWTR with EPA Method 1622/23

may use those data to determine bin

classification in lieu of further

monitoring. Systems which are able to

use historical data in lieu of conducting

new monitoring must submit such

Cryptosporidium data to the State/

Primacy Agency for consideration in

selecting bin placement.

(c) Systems that provide 2.5 logs of

treatment for Cryptosporidium

(equivalent to Bin 4, including

inactivation) in addition to conventional

treatment are exempt from monitoring

for purposes of selecting bin placement.

Conventional treatment is defined as

coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation

and granular media filtration.

(d) EPA agrees to work with

stakeholders to develop a guidance

manual with appropriate QA/QC

procedures for Cryptosporidium

sampling

(2) Systems < 10,000:

(a) Based on the large system

monitoring under 4.1.a, EPA will work

with stakeholders to evaluate alternative

indicators and system characterization

scenarios for predicting

Cryptosporidium occurrence in small

systems. This evaluation will include

new information on surrogates,

including E. coli, and will assess

whether E. coli concentrations of 10 and

50 per 100ml are appropriate values to

trigger Cryptosporidium monitoring in

lakes/reservoirs and flowing streams,

respectively.

(b) In the absence of an alternative

indicator specified by the State/Primacy

Agency, based on EPA guidance, source

water E. coli levels trigger

Cryptosporidium monitoring as

described below:

(i) Systems must begin one year of

biweekly E. coli source water

monitoring 2 years after large systems

initiate Cryptosporidium monitoring.

(ii) Systems must conduct

Cryptosporidium monitoring if E. coli

concentrations exceed the following

levels:

—annual mean > 10/100 ml for lakes

and reservoirs.

—annual mean > 50/100 ml for flowing

streams.

(c) Systems that provide 2.5 logs of

treatment for Cryptosporidium

(equivalent to Bin 4, including

inactivation) in addition to conventional

treatment are exempt from monitoring

for purposes of selecting bin placement.

(d) The FACA recommends that E.

coli monitoring for small systems will

begin two and one half years after rule

promulgation and also that

Cryptosporidium monitoring be

comprised of 24 samples over 1 year.

The FACA also recommends that EPA

solicit comment on any additional

approaches to expedite small system

compliance.

(e) EPA will work with stakeholders

to explore the feasibility of developing

alternative, lower frequency,

Cryptosporidium monitoring criteria for

providing a conservative mean estimate.

4.1.b Action Bins (for conventional

treatment plants)

(1) The bins have been structured

considering the total Cryptosporidium

oocyst count, uncorrected for recovery,

as measured using EPA Method 1623

and 10 L samples.

(2) Systems have 3 years following

initial bin classification to meet the

treatment requirements associated with

the bin (see Bin Requirements Table

below). The State/Primacy Agency may

grant systems an additional 2 year

extension to comply when capital

investments are necessary.

(3) Systems currently using ozone,

chlorine dioxide, UV, or membranes in

addition to conventional treatment may

receive credit for those technologies

towards bin requirements.

(4) Bin requirements table is shown

below:

BIN REQUIREMENTS TABLE

Bin

No. Average Cryptosporidium concentration Additional treatment requirements for systems with conventional treatment that are in fullcompliance with IESWTR 4

1 ....... Cryptosporidium <0.075/L ............................. No action.

2 ....... 0.075/L ≤Cryptosporidium <1.0/L .................. 1-log treatment (systems may use any technology or combination of technologies from

toolbox as long as total credit is at least 1-log).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 251 / Friday, December 29, 2000 / Notices 83021

BIN REQUIREMENTS TABLE—Continued

Bin

No. Average Cryptosporidium concentration Additional treatment requirements for systems with conventional treatment that are in fullcompliance with IESWTR 4

3 ....... 1.0/L ≤Cryptosporidium < 3.0/L ..................... 2.0 log treatment (systems must achieve at least 1-log of the required 2-log treatment

using ozone, chlorine dioxide, UV, membranes, bag/cartridge filters, or in-bank filtration).

4 ....... Cryptosporidium ≥3.0/L ................................. 2.5 log treatment (systems must achieve at least 1-log of the required 2.5-log treatment

using ozone, chlorine dioxide, UV, membranes, bag/cartridge filters, or in-bank filtration).

4FACA has not addressed direct filtration systems. EPA will address direct filtration systems in connection with bins 2–4 in the proposed

LT2ESWTR and request comment.

(5) The additional treatment

requirements in the bin requirement

table are based, in part, on the

assumption that conventional treatment

plants in compliance with the IESWTR

achieve an average of 3 logs removal of

Cryptosporidium. The total

Cryptosporidium removal requirements

for the action bins with 1 log, 2 log, and

2.5 log additional treatment correspond

to total Cryptosporidium removals of 4,

5, and 5.5 log respectively.

(6) FACA recommends that EPA

request public comment on whether

current guidance regarding Giardia

treatment requirements for meeting the

Surface Water Treatment Rule need to

be revised (to be consistent with

multiple barrier concept in the current

guidance and the FACA

recommendations herein).

4.1.c Toolbox

(1) Meeting the log treatment

requirements identified for each

‘‘Action Bin’’ may necessitate one or

more actions from an array of

management strategies which include

watershed control, reducing influent

Cryptosporidium concentrations,

improved system performance, and

additional treatment barriers.

(2) Based on available information,

the FACA recommends that LT2ESWTR

employ a ‘‘toolbox’’ approach, and that

the following tools when properly

designed and implemented receive the

following log credit (or range of credit).

As recognized previously in this

Agreement, EPA must employ the best

information available in developing the

final rule and will request comment on

the proposed log credits assigned in the

following table.

(3) EPA will provide guidance for

determining if toolbox options are

properly designed and implemented.

(4) Table with microbial toolbox

components and associated potential log

credit is shown below:

MICROBIAL TOOLBOX COMPONENTS

[To be used in addition to existing treatment]

Treatment approach

Potential log credit

0.5 1.0 2.0 >2.5

Watershed Control:

Watershed Control Program (1) ............................................................................... X

Reduction in oocyst concentration (3) ...................................................................... As measured

Reduction in viable oocyst concentration (3) ........................................................... As measured

Alternative Source:

Intake relocation (3) .................................................................................................. As measured

Change to alternative source of supply (3) .............................................................. As measured

Management of intake to reduce capture of oocysts in source water (3) ............... As measured

Managing timing of withdrawal (3) ........................................................................... As measured

Managing level of withdrawal in water column (3) ................................................... As measured

Pretreatment:

Off-stream raw water storage w/detention of X days (1) ......................................... X

Off-stream raw water storage w/detention of Y weeks (1) ...................................... X

Pre-settling basin w/coagulant ................................................................................. X ‰

Lime softening (1) ..................................................................................................... ‰ ‰

In-bank filtration (1) .................................................................................................. X ‰ ‰

Improved Treatment:

Lower finished water turbidity (0.15 NTU 95%tile CFE) .......................................... X

Slow sand filters (1) .................................................................................................. X

Roughing filters (1) ................................................................................................... X ‰‰‰

Membranes (MF, UF, NF, RO) (1) ........................................................................... X

Bag filters (1) ............................................................................................................ X ‰ ‰

Cartridge filters (1) .................................................................................................... X

Improved Disinfection:

Chlorine dioxide (2) .................................................................................................. X X

Ozone (2) .................................................................................................................. X X X

UV (2) ....................................................................................................................... X

Peer Review/Other Demonstration/Validation or System Performance:

Peer review program (e.g., Partnership Phase IV) .................................................. X

83022 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 251 / Friday, December 29, 2000 / Notices

5The FACA recommends that EPA analyze the

Deutscher Verein des Gas und Wasserfaches

(DVGW) Technical Guidelines W 294 in developing

the validation protocol.

MICROBIAL TOOLBOX COMPONENTS—Continued

[To be used in addition to existing treatment]

Treatment approach

Potential log credit

0.5 1.0 2.0 >2.5

Performance studies demonstrating reliable specific log removals for technologies not listed above. This provision does not supercede other inactivation

requirements. ........................................................................................................ As demonstrated

Key to table symbols: (X) indicates potential log credit based on proper design and implementation in accordance with EPA guidance. (‰) indicates estimation of potential log credit based on site specific or technology specific demonstration of performance.

Table footnotes: (1) Criteria to be specified in guidance to determine allowed credit, (2) Inactivation dependent on dose and source water

characteristics, (3) Additional monitoring for Cryptosporidium after this action would determine new bin classification and whether additional treatment is required.

4.1.d Reassessment and Future

Monitoring

(1) Systems that provide a total of 2.5

logs of treatment (equivalent to Bin 4

including inactivation) for

Cryptosporidium in addition to

conventional treatment are exempt from

reassessment and future monitoring.

(2) Four years after initial bin

characterization, EPA will initiate a

stakeholder process to review available

methods and the bin characterization

structures. EPA will conduct a

stakeholder process to determine the

appropriate analytical method,

monitoring frequency, monitoring

location, etc., for this second round of

national assessment monitoring.

(3) Six years after completion of the

initial bin characterization, systems will

conduct a second round of monitoring,

equivalent or superior to the initial

round from a statistical perspective, as

part of a national reassessment . In the

absence of an improved

Cryptosporidium method (specified by

the State/Primacy Agency, based on

EPA guidance or rule and appropriate

adjustment factors) site-specific

reassessment monitoring will utilize

method 1623 and site specific rebinning will occur under the current bin

structure and time interval. If a new

monitoring method is used, or the

assumptions underlying the current bin

structure change, the resulting data will

be used for a site specific risk

characterization in accordance with a

revised bin structure (may require a

revised rule) reflecting the changes in

the underlying method.

(4) As part of the three-year sanitary

survey process, the Primacy Agency will

assess any significant changes in the

watershed and source water. The

Primacy Agency will determine with the

systems what follow-up action is

appropriate. Actions that may be

deemed appropriate include those

outlined in the toolbox in this

agreement.

4.2 Unfiltered Systems

4.2.a Unfiltered systems must:

(1) Continue to meet filtration

avoidance criteria, and

(2) Provide 4 log virus inactivation,

and

(3) Provide 3 log Giardia lamblia

inactivation, and

(4) Provide 2 log Cryptosporidium

inactivation.

4.2.b Overall inactivation

requirements must be met using a

minimum of 2 disinfectants.

4.2.c Ongoing monitoring and any

eventual reassignment to risk bins for

unfiltered systems will be consistent

with requirements for other systems of

their size, with the provision that

unfiltered systems must demonstrate

that their Cryptosporidium occurrence

level continues to be less than or equal

to 1 in 100 liters (or equivalent, using

advanced methods) or provide 3 logs of

Cryptosporidium inactivation.

4.3 Uncovered Finished Water

Reservoirs 4.3.a Systems with uncovered

finished water reservoirs must:

(1) Cover the uncovered finish water

reservoir, or

(2) Treat reservoir discharge to the

distribution system to achieve a 4 log

virus inactivation, unless

(3) State/Primacy Agency determines

that existing risk mitigation is adequate.

(a) Systems must develop and

implement risk mitigation plans.

(i) Risk mitigation plans must address

physical access, surface water run-off,

animal and bird waste, and on-going

water quality assessment.

(ii) Risk mitigation plans must

account for cultural uses by tribes.

5.0 Ultraviolet Light

5.1 Based on available information,

EPA believes that ultraviolet (UV)

disinfection is available and feasible.

However, information is needed in

order to clarify how UV disinfection

will be used as a tool for compliance

with the proposed LT2ESWTR. Issues of

particular importance include

engineering issues like: Hydraulic

control, reliability, redundancy,

monitoring, placement of sensors, lamp

cleaning and replacement, and lamp

breakage, as well as confirmation of the

information underlying EPA’s

assessment that UV is available and

feasible.

5.2 Concurrent with publication of the

proposed rules, EPA will publish the

following:

5.2.a Tables specifying UV doses

(product of irradiance (I) and exposure

time (T)) needed to achieve up to 3 logs

inactivation of Giardia lamblia, up to 3

logs inactivation of Cryptosporidium,

and up to 4 logs inactivation of viruses.

5.2.b Minimum standards to

determine if UV systems are acceptable

for compliance with drinking water

disinfection requirements. These

standards will address the following:

(1) A UV Validation Protocol to be

established for drinking water

applications of UV technology.5

Protocol to be premised on post-filter

application of UV. Protocol will include

the following:

(a) Water quality criteria and site

specific performance demonstration

requirements for alternative placement

of UV treatment in WTP.

(b) Demonstration of adherence with

the UV dose tables for inactivation per

the identified protocols.

(c) Testing of UV reactors to validate

performance under worst case

conditions (These independent testing

protocols would necessarily encompass

a range of worst case conditions

appropriate to the range of WTPs that

must comply with the LT2ESWTR).

(d) Minimum UV sensor performance

characteristics (e.g. accuracy, stability,

sensitivity).

(2) Description of on-site monitoring

required to ensure ongoing compliance

with required dose, including necessary

testing and calibration of UV sensors.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 251 / Friday, December 29, 2000 / Notices 83023

5.2.c UV Guidance Manual, the

purpose of which is primarily to

facilitate design and planning of UV

installations by familiarizing State/

Primacy Agencies and utilities with

important design and operational issues,

including:

(1) Redundancy, reliability and

hydraulic constraints in UV system

design including design limitations with

respect to plant/pipe size

(2) Design considerations to account

for water quality (e.g. UV absorbance,

turbidity), lamp fouling and aging

(3) Appropriate operations and

maintenance protocols to ensure

performance of UV lamp (e.g., sleeve

cleaning systems).

(4) Recommendations for water

systems when soliciting UV disinfection

systems to ensure conformance to

criteria described under 5.2.b.

(5) Instructions on routine equipment

and water quality monitoring practices

used to assure reliable UV performance

over time.

5.3 The availability of UV disinfection

is a fundamental premise of this

Agreement in Principle. The FACA

recommends that EPA incorporate into

the final LT2ESWTR provisions in 5.2

that will facilitate the approval of UV

technology by Primacy Agencies. EPA

agrees in the proposed LT2ESWTR to

request comment on which criteria

should be incorporated into the final

LT2ESWTR.

5.4 EPA agrees to publish revised IT

tables and revised guidance manuals as

part of the final LT2ESWTR that reflect

comments on earlier drafts.

5.5 EPA agrees to conduct a

stakeholder meeting during the

comment period for the proposed

LT2ESWTR to update stakeholders on a

range of issues including the status of

UV and any outstanding guidance

manual issues.

5.6 If EPA identifies substantial new

information related to the availability or

feasibility of UV, EPA agrees to publish

this information in a NODA. If EPA

determines that this information

significantly impacts the basis for

provisions in this agreement, EPA

agrees to reconvene the FACA to

address feasibility and availability of

UV.

6.0 Health Risk Reduction and Cost

Analysis (HRRCA)

EPA agrees to include in the Stage 2

DBPR and LT2ESWTR proposals an

estimate of public health effects, and a

health risk reduction and cost analysis

(HRRCA). EPA agrees to use costing

analysis that was developed to support

the FACA process as part of its HRRCA

analysis and where there is a significant

difference in costing information EPA

will use HRCCA to explain the

difference. EPA also agrees to request

comments from the Science Advisory

Board prior to proposal.

STAGE 2—M–DBP AGREEMENT IN

PRINCIPLE

PART A, Section 1.0–6.0 agreed to by:

Name, Organization

Date

All members of the Stage 2 M-DBP

Advisory Committee signed Part A.

Part B

7.0 Distribution Systems

7.1 The FACA recognizes that

finished water storage and distribution

systems may have an impact on water

quality and may pose risks to public

health.

7.2 The FACA recognizes that cross

connections and backflow in

distribution systems represent a

significant public health risk 7.3 The

FACA recognizes that water quality

problems can be related to infrastructure

problems and that aging of distribution

systems may increase risks of

infrastructure problems.

7.4 The FACA recognizes that

distribution systems are highly complex

and that there is a significant need for

additional information and analysis on

the nature and magnitude of risk

associated with them.

7.5 Therefore, the FACA recommends

that beginning in January 2001, as part

of the 6-year review of the Total

Coliform Rule, EPA should evaluate

available data and research on aspects of

distribution systems that may create

risks to public health and, working with

stakeholders, initiate a process for

addressing cross connection control and

backflow prevention requirements and

consider additional distribution system

requirements related to significant

health risks.

8.0 Microbial Water Quality Criteria

The FACA recommends the

development of national water quality

criteria funded by EPA under the Clean

Water Act for microbial pathogens for

stream segments designated by states/

tribes for drinking water use. The FACA

recognizes that both nonpoint sources

and point sources may be a significant

contributor to microbial contamination

of drinking water and both must be

responsible for reducing their

individual contributions to microbial

contamination to achieve water quality

standards.

STAGE 2 M—DBP AGREEMENT IN

PRINCIPLE

PART B, Section 1.0–8.0 agreed to by:

Name, Organization lllllllllll

Date llllllllllllllllll

All members of the Stage 2 M–DBP

Advisory Committee except for the

National Rural Water Association

signed Part B. 

Stage 2 M–DBP Advisory Committee

Members and Alternates

International Ozone Association

Michael Dimitriou, IDI Aqua Source

Rip Rice, Rice International

Consulting Enterprises (Alternate)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cynthia Dougherty, Office of Ground

Water and Drinking Water, Office of

Water

All Indian Pueblo Council, Pueblo

Office of Environmental Protection

Dave Esparza, All Indian Pueblo

Council

Everett Chavez, All Indian Pueblo

Council (Alternate)

Physicians for Social Responsibility

Cathey Falvo, New York Medical

College

Caroline Poppell, Physicians for

Social Responsibility (Alternate)

Chlorine Chemistry Council

Peggy Geimer, MD, Arch Chemicals,

Inc.

Keith Christman, Chlorine Chemistry

Council (Alternate)

National Association of People with

AIDS

Jeffrey K. Griffiths, Tufts University

Schools of Medicine & Veterinary

Medicine

Terje Anderson, National Association

of People with AIDS (Alternate)

Association of State Drinking Water

Administrators

Richard Haberman, California

Department of Health Services

Vanessa Leiby, Association of State

Drinking Water Administrators

(Alternate)

Environmental Council of the States

Barker G. Hamill, Bureau of Safe

Drinking Water

Eva Nieminski, Utah Department of

Environmental Quality (Alternate)

National Association of State Utility

Consumer Advocates

Christine Hoover, Office of Consumer

Advocate, PA

Brian Gallagher, National Association

of State Utility Consumer

Advocates (Alternate)

Unfiltered Systems

Rosemary Menard, Water Resources

Management Group, Portland Water

Bureau

Steve Leonard, San Francisco PUC

(Alternate)

83024 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 251 / Friday, December 29, 2000 / Notices

National Association of Water

Companies

Richard Moser, American Water

Works Service Company

Peter Cook, National Association of

Water Companies (Alternate)

Natural Resources Defense Council

Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense

Council

Adrianna Quintero, Natural Resources

Defense Council (Alternate)

Conservation Law Foundation

David Ozonoff, School of Public

Health, Boston University

American Water Works Association

David Paris, Manchester Water Works

John Sullivan, American Water Works

Association (Alternate)

Association of Metropolitan Water

Agencies

Brian Ramaley, Newport News

Waterworks

Diane Van De Hei, Association of

Metropolitan Water Agencies

(Alternate)

Water and Wastewater Equipment

Manufacturers Association

Charles Reading, Jr., ITT/SafeWater

Solutions

Gary Van Stone, Calgon Carbon

Corporation (Alternate)

National Rural Water Association

Rodney Tart, Harnett County Public

Utility, NC

Randy Van Dyke, National Rural

Water Association (Alternate)

National League of Cities

Bruce Tobey, Mayor of Gloucester,

Massachusetts

Carol Kocheisen, National League of

Cities (Alternate)

National Environmental Health

Association

National Association of County and City

Health Officials

Chris Wiant, TriCounty Health

Department

National Association of Regulatory

Utility Commissioners

John Williams, Florida Public Service

Commission

Clean Water Action

Marguerite Young, Clean Water

Action

Lynn Thorp, Clean Water Action

(Alternate)

[FR Doc. 00–33306 Filed 12–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSON

[Report No. AUC–00–38–C (Auction No. 38);

DA 00–2571]

Auction of Licenses for the 700 MHz

Guard Bands Scheduled for February

13, 2001; Auction Notice and Filing

Requirements for 8 Licenses in the 700

MHz Guard Bands Minimum Opening

Bids and Other Procedural Issues

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This document announces the

procedures and minimum opening bids

for the upcoming auction of eight Guard

Band Manager licenses in the 700 MHz

Guard Bands (‘‘Auction No. 38’’).

DATES: Auction No. 38 is scheduled for

February 13, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Legal questions contact Howard

Davenport, Auctions Attorney, at (202)

418–0660. For general auction and

bidding questions, contact Linda

Sanderson, Auctions Project Manager, at

(717) 338–2888 or Craig Bomberger,

Auctions Analyst, at (202) 418–0660.

Media Contact, Mark Rubin at (202)

418–2924. For licensing questions,

contact Roger Noel, Chief, Licensing &

Technical Analysis Branch, at (202)

418–0620.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of a public notice released

November 14, 2000. The complete text

of the public notice, including

attachments, is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Center

(Room CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554. It may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services, Inc. (ITS, Inc.) 1231 20th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036,

(202) 857–3800. It is also available on

the Commission’s web site at http://

www.fcc.gov.

List of Attachments available at the

FCC.

Attachment A—Licenses to be

Auctioned

Attachment B—FCC Auction Seminar

Registration Form

Attachment C—Electronic Filing and

Review of the FCC Form 175

Attachment D—Guidelines for

Completion of FCC Form 175 and

Exhibits

Attachment F—FCC Bidding Preference/

Remote Software Order Form

Attachment G—Accessing the FCC

Network to File FCC Form 175

Attachment H—Summary of Documents

Addressing the Anti-Collusion Rules

Attachment I—Incumbent Television

Licensees on Channels 59–68

I. General Information

A. Introduction

1. This public notice announces the

procedures and minimum opening bids

for the upcoming auction of eight Guard

Band Manager licenses in the 700 MHz

Guard Bands (‘‘Auction No. 38’’). On

October 13, 2000, the Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau (‘‘Bureau’’)

released a public notice, seeking

comment on the establishment of

reserve prices or minimum opening bids

for Auction No. 38, in accordance with

the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In

addition, the Bureau sought comment

on a number of procedures to be used

in Auction No. 38. The Bureau received

no comments in response to the Auction

No. 38 Comment Public Notice 65 FR

63584 (October 24, 2000).

i. Background of Proceeding

2. The 746–806 MHz band has

historically been used exclusively by

television stations (Channels 60–69).

Incumbent analog television

broadcasters are permitted by statute to

continue operations in this band until

their markets are converted to digital

television (‘‘DTV’’). The Budget Act

directed the Commission to reallocate

this spectrum for public safety and

commercial use by December 31, 1997,

and to commence competitive bidding

for the commercial licenses on the

reallocated spectrum after January 1,

2001. In November 1999, Congress

enacted a consolidated appropriations

statute that revised the latter

instruction. This legislation accelerated

the schedule for auction of the

commercial spectrum bands.

Accordingly, the Bureau held an auction

that began on September 6, 2000 and

concluded on September 21, 2000

(Auction No. 33).

ii. Licenses to Be Auctioned

3. The licenses available in this

auction consist of the following licenses

that remained unsold in Auction No. 33.

Market No. Market name Block Bandwidth

MEA012 ........ Pittsburgh, PA ....................................................................................................................................... A 2 MHz

MEA014 ........ Columbus, OH ...................................................................................................................................... B 4 MHz

MEA028 ........ Little Rock, AR ...................................................................................................................................... B 4 MHz