Federal Register / Vol. 42, No. 65 / Thursday, March 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 11373

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED

IN THE PREAMBLE AND FINAL

RULE—Continued

OMB ................... Office of Management

and Budget.

PBMS ................. Performance-based

Measurement System.

PWS ................... Public Water System.

QA ...................... quality assurance.

QC ...................... quality control.

RFA .................... Regulatory Flexibility Act.

SBREFA ............. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

SDWA ................ Safe Drinking Water Act.

SM ...................... Standard Methods.

SOP .................... standard operating procedure.

TDS .................... total dissolved solid.

UCMR ................ Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulation/

Rule.

UCM ................... Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring.

UMRA ................. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

USEPA ............... United States Environmental Protection Agency.

VOC ................... volatile organic compound.

ug/L .................... micrograms per liter.

uS/cm ................. microsiemens per centimeter.

Preamble Outline

I. Regulatory Background

II. Explanation of Today’s Action

A. Relation to the UCMR Published in

September 1999

B. Systems Affected by This Rule

C. Analytical Methods

1. Perchlorate

2. Acetochlor

3. Quality Control and Analytical

Confirmation

D. Peer Review

1. Perchlorate

2. Acetochlor

E. Laboratory Approval and Certification

1. Perchlorate

2. Acetochlor

F. Implementation

G. Performance-based Measurement

System

III. Technical Changes and Clarification to

§ 141.40

A. Change to § 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(C)

B. Change to § 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(G)

C. Change to § 141.40 (a)(5)(iii)(G)

D. Change to § 141.40 (b)(1)(i)

E. Change to § 141.40 (b)(1)(vii)

F. Clarification of Monitoring for DCPA

Mono and Di-Acid Degradate

IV. Cost and Benefits of the Rule

V. 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 U.S.C. 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. Administrative Procedure Act

K. Congressional Review Act

VI. Public Involvement in Regulation

Development

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 under

the revised UCMR. A community water

system (CWS) is a public water system

which serves at least 15 service

connections used by year-round

residents or regularly serve at least 25

year-round residents. Non-transient

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 are required to monitor

for perchlorate and acetochlor.

Transient non-community systems,

which are systems that do not regularly

serve at least 25 of the same persons

over six months per year, are not

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 SIC

State, Territorial, and Tribal governments .. States, territorial and tribal governments that analyze water samples on behalf of

public water systems required to conduct such analysis; States, Territorial and tribal governments that themselves operate community and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor.

9511

Industry ....................................................... Private operators of community and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor.4941

Municipalities .............................................. Municipal operators of community and non-transient non-community water systems

required to monitor.

9511

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. To determine whether

your facility is regulated by this action,

you should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 141.40 of the

revised Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Rule, published September

17, 1999 in 64 FR 50556. If you have

questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult

the first person listed in the preceding

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

I. Regulatory Background

SDWA section 1445 (a)(2), as

amended in 1996, requires EPA to

establish criteria for a program to

monitor unregulated contaminants and

to publish a list of contaminants to be

monitored. To meet these requirements,

EPA published the Revisions to the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water

Systems on September 17, 1999, (64 FR

50556) which substantially revised the

previous Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring (UCM) Program, codified at

40 CFR 141.40. The UCMR revised the

regulations at 40 CFR 141.35, 141.40,

142.16 and deleted and reserved

142.15(c)(3). The UCMR 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, referred to as the UCMR (1999)

List; (3) procedures for selecting and

monitoring a nationally representative

sample of small PWSs (those serving

11374 Federal Register / Vol. 42, No. 65 / Thursday, March 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

10,000 or fewer persons), and; (4)

procedures for entering the monitoring

data in the National Drinking Water

Contaminant Occurrence Database

(NCOD), as required under section 1445.

This final rule included a list of

contaminants which must be monitored

beginning January 2001 to obtain data

on contaminants occurring or likely to

occur in the drinking water of public

water systems.

Perchlorate and acetochlor were

included on the UCMR (1999) List 1,

with their analytical methods listed as

‘‘reserved’’, pending the imminent

conclusion of EPA refinement and

review of the analytical methods and

implementation of a laboratory approval

for perchlorate and validation studies

for acetochlor. Today’s rule amends the

1999 UCMR to specify methods for

monitoring of perchlorate and

acetochlor. Today’s rule also contains

several technical corrections to the

September 1999 rule.

II. Explanation of Today’s Action

Today’s action promulgates analytical

methods for measurement of perchlorate

and acetochlor in drinking water,

contaminants which were placed on the

UCMR (1999) List 1.

A. Relation to the UCMR Published in

September 1999

The final UCMR, published on

September 17, 1999, 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)

methods to be used for analyzing the

contaminants; (5) reporting

requirements; and (6) 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. List

1, Assessment Monitoring, consisted of

12 contaminants for which analytical

methods were available at the time the

rule was promulgated, with the

exception of perchlorate and acetochlor.

List 2, Screening Survey, consisted of 16

contaminants for which analytical

methods are expected to be developed

by the time of initial monitoring in

2001. List 3, Pre-Screen Testing,

consisted of 8 contaminants for which

analytical methods research is 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. EPA believed

that this three-tiered approach to the

UCMR, which was recommended by

stakeholders, reflected a balance

between the implementability of current

analytical methods and the need to

obtain data in time frames that are

useful for responding to concerns about

the contaminants identified.

Although methods were not available

at the time of publication, perchlorate

and acetochlor were both included on

List 1, Assessment Monitoring, because

EPA was engaged in the final validation

of their analytical methods. EPA felt

that, with the validation, the analytical

methods would be sufficiently ready for

monitoring by 2001. Therefore, these

contaminants were added to List 1,

Assessment Monitoring. Today’s rule

publishes the analytical methods,

minimum reporting levels, and

sampling locations for perchlorate and

acetochlor. This rule will enable

monitoring of these contaminants to

begin with all the other List 1,

Assessment Monitoring contaminants in

2001.

As required in the September 1999

UCMR, surface water systems will

monitor for perchlorate and acetochlor

quarterly for one year and ground water

systems will monitor twice in one year.

Assessment Monitoring must be done

within the three years of 2001 to 2003,

which will allow coordination with the

three-year compliance monitoring cycle

for regulated contaminants. 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 elevated contaminant

concentrations.

B. Systems Affected by This Rule

The UCMR states that monitoring in

the rule focuses on the occurrence or

likely occurrence of contaminants in

drinking water of community and nontransient, non-community water

systems. For regulatory purposes, public

water systems are categorized as

‘‘community water systems’’ or ‘‘noncommunity 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 6 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. In the September

1999 UCMR, EPA excluded transient

water systems from this monitoring. The

variation in the 97,000 transient systems

would be difficult to reflect in a national

representative sample and would be

very costly to monitor. The results from

the very small community and nontransient non-community systems can

be extrapolated to the transient noncommunity systems.

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 US population served by public

water systems. The SDWA does not

provide for EPA funding of this

monitoring. Under the UCMR program

all large systems will be required to

monitor for unregulated contaminants.

Only a representative sample of systems

serving 10,000 persons or fewer will be

required to monitor for unregulated

contaminants. SDWA requires EPA to

pay for the reasonable testing costs for

the representative sample of small

systems.

C. Analytical Methods

1. Perchlorate. In today’s rule, EPA is

amending the September 1999 UCMR to

include EPA Method 314.0

‘‘Determination of Perchlorate in

Drinking Water Using Ion

Chromatography, Revision 1 (November

1999)’’ for the analysis of perchlorate. In

this method, perchlorate is separated

and measured, using a system

comprised of an ion chromatographic

pump, sample injection valve, guard

column, analytical column, suppressor

device, and conductivity detector. This

method recommends an ion

chromatography (IC) column and

analytical conditions which were

determined to be the most effective for

the widest array of sample matrices.

The development of Method 314.0

included investigations into the

performance of alternate 4 millimeter IC

guard and analytical separator columns

which are specified for the IC analysis

of perchlorate specified by the

California Department of Health

Services and also by Dionex

Federal Register / Vol. 42, No. 65 / Thursday, March 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 11375

Corporation. These alternate guard

/separator columns included the Dionex

AG5/AS5 and the Dionex AG11/AS11,

respectively. The AG5/AS5 is currently

specified in the standard operating

procedure (SOP) for the IC analysis of

perchlorate written by the State of

California, Department of Health

Services. The AG5/AS5 is a hydrophilic

analytical column which was developed

several years ago for higher valence

anions such as tripolyphosphate and

trimetaphosphate as well as polarizable

anions such as iodide, thiocyanate and

thiosulfate. The AG11/AS11 is used by

several commercial laboratories

conducting IC analysis for perchlorate

and is recognized by California as an

acceptable alternate to the AG5/AS5. A

multi-laboratory validation study

included both of these analytical

columns and indicated comparable

results could be attained. In the

Agency’s studies, both the AG5/AS5

and the AG11/AS11 performed well for

reagent water and simulated drinking

water samples with low to moderate

common anion levels, such as sulfate,

chloride and carbonate, but as these

levels increased, performance began to

diminish for both columns. The more

recently developed AG16/AS16

columns could tolerate much higher

levels of these anions and are therefore

recommended in Method 314.0 as the

columns of choice although alternate

columns such as the AS5 and AS11 are

permitted to be used.

The Agency’s primary reason for

publishing Method 314.0 instead of

simply approving the published SOPs

was the impact of high concentrations of

total dissolved solids (TDS); primarily

sulfate, carbonate, and chloride on the

accuracy of perchlorate determinations.

Neither the California Department of

Health Services nor the Dionex

Corporation method incorporate a

quality control element to assess the

impact of high concentrations of TDS.

Sample matrices with high

concentrations of common anions such

as chloride, sulfate and carbonate can

make the analysis problematic by

destabilizing the baseline in the

retention time window for perchlorate.

This is evidenced by observing a

protracted tailing following the initial

elution of the more weakly retained

anions which extends into the

perchlorate retention time window.

These common anion levels can be

indirectly assessed by monitoring the

conductivity of the matrix.

Consequently, Method 314.0 specifies

that all sample matrices must be

monitored for conductivity prior to

analysis. When the laboratory

determined Matrix Conductivity

Threshold (MCT) is exceeded,

procedures incorporating sample

dilution and/or pretreatment must be

performed.

The columns and conditions

identified in Method 314.0 are

recommended since they bear the

highest tolerance for the very highest

levels of common inorganic anions

interference; however, use of the

columns and conditions recommended

in other ion chromatographic methods

for the analyses of perchlorate are also

permitted as long as they meet the

performance criteria specified in

Method 314.0.

In addition to recommending the

AG16/AS16 column used in Method

314.0, the primary advantages of

Method 314.0 are the requirements

associated with determining the matrix

conductivity threshold (MCT) and

reducing the impact of TDS on the

accuracy of perchlorate determinations.

The MCT is the highest permitted

conductance of an unknown sample

matrix, measured prior to conducting

the analysis, which is used to determine

when sample matrix dilution or

pretreatment is required. The

conductance of a sample matrix is

proportional to the common anions

present in the matrix (which contribute

to the TDS level) which can greatly

affect the integrity of this analysis. The

MCT is dependent upon the

chromatographic column used, its age

and condition, the instruments used,

and the analyst. Consequently, this

threshold is not method defined and

must be determined by the individual

analytical laboratory during the initial

demonstration of capability and

confirmed in each analysis batch using

an instrument performance check

solution. At EPA’s laboratory the MCTs

determined varied from approximately

3000 microsiemens per centimeter (uS/

cm) for the AS5 and AS11 columns to

approximately 6000 uS/cm for the AS16

column. Instructions on how to

determine a laboratory’s MCT are

included in EPA Method 314.

Both pretreatment cartridges and, in

some cases, sample dilution can be

effective as a means to eliminate or

minimize the impact of certain matrix

interferences. With any proposed

pretreatment, Method 314.0 specifies

that the analyst must verify that the

target analyte is not affected by

monitoring recovery after pretreatment

and that no background contaminants

are introduced by the pretreatment. Use

of advanced analytical separator column

technology which employs higher

capacity anion exchange resins, such as

the AG16/AS16 which is recommended

in Method 314.0, greatly reduces the

need for these cartridges.

2. Acetochlor. Several commenters on

the proposed UCMR revisions asserted

that acetochlor could be reliably

measured using EPA Method 525.2. At

the time that EPA issued the final

UCMR, EPA did not have available the

laboratory data necessary to support

those assertions. In addition, no data

were available concerning the sample

and extract storage stability of

acetochlor when stored under the

preservation conditions specified in

EPA Method 525.2. Since that time, EPA

has obtained those data necessary to

support approval of EPA Method 525.2

for the analysis of acetochlor. Today’s

rule, therefore, amends the September

1999 UCMR to specify this method for

acetochlor analysis.

3. Quality Control and Analytical

Confirmation. Additional guidance for

quality control and analytical

confirmation are specified in a

supplement to the ‘‘Supplement to

UCMR Analytical Methods and Quality

Control Manual’’, available by the time

this rule is published.

D. Peer Review

EPA conducted two separate peer

reviews, one for the perchlorate method

and the other to determine if acetochlor

could be added to EPA Method 525.2.

The results of the peer review are

summarized here:

1. Perchlorate. The peer review for

EPA Method 314.0 was conducted in

early November 1999 by three experts,

external to the EPA and familiar with

perchlorate issues, occurrence, and

monitoring. All three peer reviewers

concluded the method was ‘‘acceptable

after minor revision’’. The majority of

comments were editorial, requiring

either typographical editing or further

text clarification and explanation. All

reviewers provided either verbal or

written support for including the MCT

as a quality control parameter used to

monitor matrix conductance as it relates

to reducing interference problems

associated with high TDS levels.

2. Acetochlor. In November 1999,

EPA provided peer reviewers with a

memorandum titled ‘‘Documentation of

Agency Decisions Concerning the

Analyses of Acetochlor in the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation’’. This memorandum

detailed the minimum detection level,

precision and accuracy, analyte

stability, and current health effects

information that was used in the

decision to approve EPA Method 525.2

for the analysis of acetochlor in the

UCMR, and to set the Minimum

Reporting Level (MRL) at 2 ug/L. This

11376 Federal Register / Vol. 42, No. 65 / Thursday, March 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

memorandum was reviewed by three

methods experts external to the Agency,

with one reviewer representing a State

and the other two reviewers

representing drinking water utilities. All

three were supportive of the Agency’s

decision to approve EPA Method 525.2

for the analysis of acetochlor, and with

the decision to set the MRL at 2 ug/L.

Reports of these peer reviews and our

responses to their comments are in the

docket referred to above under

ADDRESSES.

E. Laboratory Approval and

Certification

1. Perchlorate. In order to allow data

on perchlorate occurrence in PWSs that

were obtained prior to January 2001 to

be grandparented, the data must meet

the reporting requirements of the UCMR

which include the successful

completion of the perchlorate PT

Program by a laboratory approved to

perform the original analyses.

Approximately 2,800 large PWSs that

serve more than 10,000 persons will be

required to monitor for perchlorate

using an approved laboratory. For the

small PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer

persons, EPA will contract with an

approved laboratory for perchlorate

laboratory analysis.

Since this rule specifies the approved

analytical method for analyses of

perchlorate and is a new method which

includes matrix specific quality control

criteria, laboratories must go through a

separate approval process to test for

perchlorate. Laboratories certified under

40 CFR 141.28 for compliance analysis

using the EPA analytical methods

specified in the UCMR (1999) List,

whether the laboratory uses EPA or nonEPA analytical methods on the List, are

automatically certified to do analyses of

UCMR List 1 contaminants using the

listed methods for which it is certified,

with the exception of perchlorate.

Those laboratories interested in

performing perchlorate testing must be

previously certified (by the primacy

agency in the State where the laboratory

is located) to conduct laboratory

analysis supporting regulatory

compliance monitoring of drinking

water for any inorganic anion using an

approved ion chromatographic method

(such as nitrate analysis by EPA Method

300.0). In addition, the laboratory must

successfully complete the perchlorate

Performance Testing (PT) Program. This

PT Program involves a blind control

study, using a test sample with an

unknown value.

Any laboratory, wishing to participate

in the perchlorate PT Program and

obtain approval, must submit a letter

requesting this information to EPA,

received no later than March 31, 2000.

Any interested laboratory which does

not meet this deadline or fails to

successfully pass this initial PT study

and still wishes to support this

monitoring, will need to submit a

request letter by October 6, 2000 in

order to be eligible for a second PT

study. EPA will not be able to consider

any laboratory request letters received

after October 6, 2000 and does not

intend to conduct any additional PT

studies. Any laboratory gaining

approval in the first PT study will not

be required to participate in the second

PT study. These will be the only two PT

studies offered for laboratories wishing

to gain approval to conduct perchlorate

analysis in support of UCMR assessment

monitoring. Any laboratory which does

not request participation by October 6,

2000 and fails to pass either of these two

PT studies will not be approved to

support this perchlorate monitoring.

The submitted request letter must be

signed by the laboratory manager with

a statement that the laboratory is

currently certified, by the primacy

agency in which the laboratory is

located, to perform drinking water

compliance monitoring using an

approved ion chromatographic method.

A copy of the letter or certificate issued

by the State or primacy agency detailing

this certification must also be

submitted. Details pertaining to

laboratory certification can be found online at www.epa.gov/OGWDW/

labcint.html.

A laboratory’s request letter must

include the following information:

(1) Laboratory Name.

(2) Complete Laboratory Mailing

Address.

(3) Ion chromatography analytical

method the laboratory is certified to

perform.

(4) A copy of the letter or certificate

issued by the State or primacy agency

which issued the certification to the

laboratory.

(5) Contact Person.

(6) Contact Phone, FAX, and e-mail (if

available).

The letter should be mailed to:

Perchlorate PT Program Coordinator,

U.S.EPA, MLK 140, 26 W. Martin

Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio

45268.

To participate successfully in this

program the laboratory will also need to

become proficient in the application of

U.S. EPA Method 314.0, ‘‘Determination

of Perchlorate in Drinking Water Using

Ion Chromatography’’. Laboratories

must follow the procedure as well as all

the QC protocols prescribed in the

method. To obtain a copy of EPA

Method 314.0, contact the Safe Drinking

Water Hotline at 1–800–426–4791 or

access an electronic copy of the method

directly on-line at www.epa.gov/

safewater/methods/sourcalt.html. 

Upon successful completion of the

perchlorate 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

perchlorate analysis supporting the

UCMR. Laboratory approval is retained

as long as the laboratory maintains

certification by the State or primacy

agency in which the laboratory is

located, to perform drinking water

compliance monitoring using an

approved ion chromatographic method.

If a laboratory maintains this

certification, the laboratory approval for

perchlorate analysis supporting the

UCMR will be limited to the time period

beginning on the date specified in the

EPA issued approval letter and

extending through January 28, 2004.

Additionally, EPA will establish a

website indicating which laboratories

are approved to conduct perchlorate

monitoring.

2. Acetochlor. No performance testing

sample analyses are required for

laboratory approval for the analysis of

acetochlor under the UCMR. All

laboratories currently certified to

perform drinking water compliance

monitoring using EPA Method 525.2 are

automatically approved to perform

acetochlor analysis in the UCMR.

F. Implementation

Implementation of this rule will allow

monitoring for perchlorate and

acetochlor using the specified methods

in this rule. Systems will follow the

monitoring requirements described in

the September 1999 UCMR at the

designated sampling location four times

a year for surface water systems, or two

times six months apart for ground water

systems, with one of the sampling times

during the May-July vulnerable time, or

an alternate vulnerable period specified

by the State.

G. Performance-based Measurement

System

EPA’s Office of Water plans to

implement a performance-based

measurement system (PBMS) that would

allow the option of using either

performance criteria or reference

methods in its drinking water regulatory

programs, removing the requirement

that only EPA-specified and approved

analytical methods be used in SDWA

regulatory programs. The requirement to

use approved methods for SDWA

Federal Register / Vol. 42, No. 65 / Thursday, March 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 11377

regulatory programs would, however, be

maintained for certain method-defined

analytes (e.g., Total Coliform and

asbestos), and for data gathering

prospective to regulation, such as the

contaminant monitoring in this rule.

As noted above, many of the

contaminants of interest for the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

(UCM) program can be classified as

‘‘emerging’and thus do not have existing

performance criteria or reference

methods. In addition to collecting

information about contaminant

occurrence, the UCM program will

enable the development of reference

methods and performance criteria. UCM

testing will provide data to assist the

Agency in developing performance

criteria that would be proposed with the

MCL, monitoring requirements, etc. for

an analyte. For these reasons, the

Agency is specifying the method to be

used for UCM testing. Once, however, a

contaminant proceeds to regulation

development as a National Primary

Drinking Water Regulation, EPA expects

to have sufficient data and method

development information to be able to

propose both performance criteria and a

validated reference method, either of

which could be used for compliance

monitoring of the contaminant.

III. Technical Changes and Clarification

to § 141.40

After reviewing the UCMR subsequent

to its publication in the Federal Register

on September 17, 1999, EPA found five

changes that should be made to correct

or clarify the wording of the regulation.

These changes are at § 141.40

(a)(5)(ii)(C), (a)(5)(iii)(G), (b)(1)(i), and

(b)(1)(vii) and described here.

A. Change to § 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(C)

This paragraph describes the location

at which unregulated contaminant

monitoring is to occur. However, the

paragraph provides an exception where

a State determines that no treatment is

instituted between the source water and

the distribution system that would affect

measurement of the contaminants listed

in § 141.40 (a)(3). EPA is correcting this

provision to delete redundant wording

that does not help to clarify the

exception.

B. Change to § 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(G)

This paragraph describes the

requirements for testing of the

contaminants listed in § 141.40 (a)(3) by

a certified laboratory. This paragraph

states that laboratories certified to

conduct compliance analysis using EPA

analytical methods in column 3,

§ 141.40 (a)(3), may conduct analyses for

the UCMR contaminants. EPA is adding

a paragraph to address laboratory

approval to analyze for perchlorate in

drinking water samples.

C. Change to § 141.40 (a)(5)(iii)(G)

This paragraph specifies that

sampling forms must be completed by

owners or operators of small systems

conducting the sampling for

unregulated contaminants before

sending the results to the EPA

designated laboratory. The data

elements that the owner or operator

must complete are incorrectly specified

as 1 through 6. The rule corrects the

language to identify the data elements to

be 1 through 4: Public Water System

Identification Number; Public Water

System Facility Identification Number—

Source, Treatment Plant, and Sampling

Point; Sample Collection Date; and

Sample Identification Number.

The rule also corrects the reporting for

small systems to include data elements

5 through 10 if water quality parameters

are required to be reported from the

field. These parameters include:

Contaminant/Parameter; Analytical

Results-sign; Analytical Results-Value;

Analytical Result-Unit of Measure;

Analytical Method Number; and Sample

Analysis Type. This clarification makes

this section consistent with § 141.40

(a)(4)(i)(B) which applies to all systems

analyzing for water quality parameters.

D. Change to § 141.40 (b)(1)(i)

This paragraph describes the process

for States and Tribes to accept or modify

the State Monitoring Plans for small

systems. The paragraph incorrectly

refers to ‘‘distribution line.’’ This

reference should be to a ‘‘distribution

system’’ to be consistent with other

sections of and the intent of the rule.

E. Change to § 141.40 (b)(1)(vii)

This paragraph describes the process

for a State or Tribe to participate in

monitoring for the Screening Surveys

for small and large systems. This

paragraph contains an exclusion for

systems purchasing water (unless the

system is to conduct microbiological

contaminant monitoring)[emphasis

added]. The intent of the exception

identified in the parenthetical phrase

‘‘unless the system is to conduct

microbiological monitoring’’ was to

address any contaminants for which the

distribution system should be the

appropriate location for monitoring, not

just microbiological contaminants. The

reference to microbiological

contaminant monitoring is an artifact of

a previous draft of the rule which was

not corrected. Today’s rule provides the

intended wording and allows the

exclusion of certain systems ‘‘(unless

the system is to conduct monitoring for

a contaminant with the sampling

location specified as the ‘‘distribution

system’’).’’

F. Clarification of Monitoring for DCPA

Mono and Di-Acid Degradate

In the September 17, 1999, Federal

Register (64 FR 50556), EPA included as

separate contaminants both DCPA

mono-acid and DCPA di-acid degradates

on the UCMR (1999) Monitoring List. As

noted in the ‘‘UCMR Analytical

Methods and Quality Control Manual,’’

August 1999, all of the approved

methods identify total mono and di-acid

forms as a single analytical result. None

of the approved methods allow for the

identification and quantification of the

individual acids. To provide for the

consistent reporting of results and to

avoid confusion, EPA is specifying in

Table 1 of § 141.40 (UCMR List 1, 1999)

that the single analytical result obtained

from these methods should be reported

as total DCPA mono- and di-acid

degradates.

IV. Cost and Benefits of the Rule

Today’s amendment to the UCMR (64

FR 50555) adds methods for monitoring

perchlorate and acetochlor to the UCMR

(1999) List 1. These contaminants will

be collected as part of the Assessment

Monitoring component of the UCMR

program. Perchlorate and acetochlor

were part of the original UCMR (1999)

List 1 contaminants, but were withheld

from the September 1999 Final Rule

pending finalization of their analytical

methods. As described elsewhere in this

Preamble, Assessment Monitoring will

be conducted over a 3-year period from

2001 to 2003 by all 2,774 large PWSs

and a randomly selected representative

sample of 800 small systems.

Since perchlorate and acetochlor will

be analyzed by laboratories using water

samples that are collected at the same

time as the other 10 Assessment

Monitoring contaminants, there are no

additional labor costs related to today’s

addition of these contaminants. Systems

will only be required to collect one

additional sample for perchlorate

analysis at the same sampling point

where they are collecting the other

Assessment Monitoring samples. No

measurable added labor burden is

associated with filling one more sample

bottle. Additional non-labor costs are

solely attributed to the laboratory fees/

costs associated with analyzing samples

for these contaminants. These costs will

only be incurred by EPA and by large

PWSs. No additional shipping costs will

be incurred, since the weight of one

sample bottle will not increase the

shipment pricing category.

11378 Federal Register / Vol. 42, No. 65 / Thursday, March 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

EPA assumes that no additional costs

will be incurred for analysis of

acetochlor, since this contaminant will

be analyzed under method 525.2, along

with 2,4-dinitrotoluene and 2,6-

dinitrotoluene. EPA estimates that the

average laboratory fee/cost for

perchlorate analysis, using the ion

chromotography Method 314.0 will be

$60 per sample. The additional costs for

laboratory analysis are calculated as

follows: the product of the number of

systems and the number of entry or

sampling points is multiplied by the

sampling frequency and then multiplied

by the cost of analysis.

The details of EPA’s cost assumptions

and estimates for Assessment

Monitoring contaminants, with the

exception of perchlorate and acetochlor,

can be found in the Information

Collection Request (ICR) previously

prepared for the UCMR (OMB number

2040–0208), which presents estimated

cost and burden for the 1999–2001

period. The Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) approved the ICR on June

30, 1999. An inventory correction

worksheet (ICW) was prepared for this

rule to address the hours and dollars

associated with monitoring and

analyzing for perchlorate and

acetochlor. Copies of the ICR may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at:

OP Regulatory Information Division;

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC

20460, by email at:

farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling:

(202) 260–2740. For technical

information regarding the ICR, please

contact Chuck Job, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, (4607); 401 M St.,

S.W.; Washington DC 20460, by email

at: job.charles@epa.gov, or by calling

(202) 260–7084. A copy may also be

downloaded from the Internet at: http:

//www.epa.gov/icr.

In preparing the UCMR ICR and the

ICW, EPA relied on standard

assumptions and data sources used in

the preparation of other drinking water

program ICRs. These include the public

water system inventory, number of entry

points per system, and labor rates. To

estimate the labor burden for State and

some system activities, the Agency used

its standard State Resource Model,

which is documented in the Resource

Analysis Computer Program for State

Drinking Water Agencies (January

1993). Other assumptions are discussed

below.

Over the UCMR implementation

period of 2001 through 2005, EPA

estimates that the average annual cost of

the nationwide addition of perchlorate

and acetochlor to Assessment

Monitoring is approximately $560,700,

as follows:

1. EPA: $70,200, exclusively for the

additional testing costs for small

systems.

2. States: $0.

3. Small systems: $0.

4. Large systems: $490,500.

The estimated average annual cost is

approximately $177 per large system.

V. 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 is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not

establish an environmental standard

intended to mitigate health or safety

risks. This rule makes purely clarifying

changes to the September 1999 UCMR

and establishes analytical test methods

for measurement of the unregulated

contaminants perchlorate and

acetochlor.

However, this Rule is part of the

Agency’s overall strategy for deciding

whether to regulate the contaminants

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 perchlorate

and acetochlor—where those data are

currently lacking. 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

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 a 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

Federal Register / Vol. 42, No. 65 / Thursday, March 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 11379

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 $560,700, of which EPA

will pay $70,200, or approximately 12

percent. 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 reasonable costs of 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. Small systems will incur

minimal additional labor or non-labor

costs as a result of this rule, since

laboratory analysis of perchlorate and

acetochlor will be conducted using

samples that systems were already

collecting under the September 1999

UCMR. 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. As part of

the September 1999 UCMR, 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 water, location, and

test results for samples taken from

PWSs. The concentrations of any

identified UCMR 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.

For a discussion of the costs for the

full monitoring program from 2001

through 2005, please refer to Section V.,

‘‘Costs and Benefits of the Rule’’ in the

preamble. EPA has an approved ICR for

the 10 UCMR Assessment Monitoring

contaminants and is in the process of

processing the ICW for the addition of

perchlorate and acetochlor methods to

the UCMR. This discussion focuses on

the estimated costs during the ICR

period of 1999–2001.

The cost estimates described below

for the additional contaminants,

perchlorate and acetochlor, are solely

attributed to additional laboratory fees/

costs. No additional labor or hour

burden will be incurred because of the

addition of these contaminants to the

UCMR (1999) List 1. For Assessment

Monitoring, the respondents are the 800

small water systems (in the national

representative sample of systems

serving 10,000 or fewer people), the

2,774 large public water systems, and

the 56 States and primacy agents (3,630

total respondents). The frequency of

response varies across respondents and

years. However, there are no additional

responses associated with this rule

amendment, and thus no additional

hour burden for any respondents.

Minimal additional costs will be

incurred by small systems or States.

Large systems and EPA will incur the

additional laboratory fees/costs for the

analysis of perchlorate and acetochlor.

For the three year ICR period only, each

large system respondent will incur an

annual average additional cost of $295.

This was calculated by the average cost

per system over three years. [E.g., ($884

per large system) divided by three

years]. The additional cost for

perchlorate and acetochlor is estimated

to be $300 per response by a large

system. This is calculated by the average

cost per system over the three years

[E.g., ($884 per large system) divided by

the average number of responses per

system over the entire three year period

(2.9 per large system)].

EPA will incur no additional labor or

hour costs for implementation of today’s

rule. EPA’s annual non-labor costs (for

the ICR period 1999–2001) are estimated

to be $36,400 for the analysis of small

system perchlorate and acetochlor

Assessment Monitoring samples. Nonlabor costs are solely attributed to the

cost of sample testing for the 800 small

systems.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and aintaining

information, and disclosing and

providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

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

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 SBA’s Chief Counsel for

Advocacy.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s rule on all three categories of

small entities, EPA considered small

entities to be systems serving 10,000 or

fewer customers because 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 for all three categories of

small entities in the Federal Register,

(63 FR 7605, February 13, 1998)

requested public comment, consulted

with SBA regarding the alternative

definition as it relates to small

11380 Federal Register / Vol. 42, No. 65 / Thursday, March 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

businesses, and finalized the alternative

definition in the Consumer Confidence

Reports rulemaking, (63 FR 44511,

August 19,1998). As stated in that final

rule, the alternative definition would be

applied to this regulation as well.

For the UCMR, published on

September 17, 1999, EPA analyzed

separately the impact on small privately

and publicly owned water systems

because of the different economic

characteristics of these ownership types.

For publicly owned systems, EPA used

the ‘‘revenue test,’’ which compares a

system’s annual costs attributed to the

rule with the system’s annual revenues.

EPA used a ‘‘sales test’’ for privately

owned systems, which involves the

analogous comparison of UCMR-related

costs to a privately owned system’s

sales. EPA assumes that the distribution

of the national representative sample of

small systems will reflect the

proportions of publicly and privately

owned systems in the national

inventory. The estimated distribution of

the representative sample, categorized

by ownership type, source water, and

system size, is presented below in Table

1.

TABLE 1.—NUMBER OF PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY OWNED SYSTEMS TO PARTICIPATE IN ASSESSMENT MONITORING

[Including perchlorate and acetochlor]

Size category

Publicly owned systems Privately owned systems

Total—All

Non-index systems

systems

Index

systems

Non-index

systems

Index

systems

Ground Water Systems

500 and under .................................................................................................... 20 1 76 2 99

501 to 3,300 ....................................................................................................... 146 6 67 3 222

3,301 to 10,000 .................................................................................................. 144 7 40 2 193

Subtotal ground .......................................................................................... 310 14 183 7 514

Surface Water Systems

500 and under .................................................................................................... 18 0 49 0 67

501 to 3,300 ....................................................................................................... 51 2 23 1 77

3,301 to 10,000 .................................................................................................. 106 5 30 1 142

Subtotal surface .......................................................................................... 175 7 102 2 286

Total ........................................................................................................ 485 21 285 9 800

The basis for the UCMR RFA

certification for today’s rule, which adds

perchlorate and acetochlor to the

Assessment Monitoring program, is as

follows: the average annual compliance

costs of the rule represent less than 1

percent of revenues/sales for the 800

small water systems that will be

affected. The EPA estimates that EPA

and small system costs for adding

perchlorate and acetochlor to the

Assessment Monitoring program (2001–

2005) will be approximately $350,890.

Since the Agency specifically structured

the rule to avoid significantly affecting

small entities by assuming all costs for

laboratory analyses, shipping, and

quality control for small entities, EPA

incurs the entirety of the costs

associated with adding methods for

monitoring perchlorate and acetochlor

to the Assessment Monitoring list. Table

2 presents the annual costs to EPA for

the small system sampling program,

along with the number of participating

small systems during each of the 5 years

of the program. The table also illustrates

that no additional costs are incurred by

the small systems.

TABLE 2.—EPA COSTS FOR SMALL SYSTEMS FOR THE ADDITION OF PERCHLORATE AND ACETOCHLOR METHODS TO

UCMR ASSESSMENT MONITORING

Cost description 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

Total Costs to EPA for Small System Sampling of Perchlorate and Acetochlor: analytical costs

$109,150 $109,150 $109,150 $11,720 $11,720 $350,890

Costs to Small Systems: no additional labor or non-labor costs incurred

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for UCMR

$109,150 $109,150 $109,150 $11,720 $11,720 $350,890

Number of Systems to be conducting Assessment Monitoring each Year (thus collecting perchlorate and acetochlor samples): Non-Index and

Index in 2001–2003, Index only in 2004–20051

Public ............................................................................... 182 182 182 107 21 533

Private .............................................................................. 104 104 104 81 9 267

Total .......................................................................... 286 286 286 188 30 800

1Total number of systems is 800. All 30 Index systems sample during each year 2001–005. One-third of Non-Index systems sample during

each year from 2001–2003. The rows do not add across, because the same 30 Index systems sample during every year of 5-year implementation cycle.

Federal Register / Vol. 42, No. 65 / Thursday, March 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 11381

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s direct final rule on

small entities, I certify that this action

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. EPA has determined that the

addition of perchlorate and acetochlor

to the UCMR data collection will not

affect small water utilities. The rationale

for this conclusion is that those 800

small PWSs that will participate in

Assessment Monitoring will not be

required to conduct additional activities

related to this rule. Further, EPA will

assume all additional costs for testing of

the samples for small systems. We have

therefore concluded that today’s final

rule will impose no regulatory burden

for small entities. Also, the minor

amendments to the UCMR are purely for

clarification or correction, and do not

impose any costs.

F. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No.

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 would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

EPA searched for but did not find any

voluntary consensus standards for the

measurement of acetochlor or

perchlorate. Analytical methods for

perchlorate have been published by the

California Department of Health and by

Dionex Corporation, however neither of

these methods incorporates a quality

control element which assesses the

impact of high concentrations of total

dissolved solids (TDS), frequently

present in water samples. The presence

of these high TDS in samples can result

in inaccurate quantitation of perchlorate

or may even mask its presence.

Therefore, EPA developed EPA Method

314.0 for the analysis of perchlorate

which incorporates a quality control

element that both identifies the

presence of high concentrations of TDS

and provides a mechanism to reduce

their concentrations, thereby permitting

accurate quantitation of perchlorate. In

addition, EPA’s Method 314.0 permits

the use of both the California

Department of Health and the Dionex

procedures within its scope; therefore,

laboratories currently using either of

these procedures can convert to using

EPA Method 314.0 simply by adopting

the quality control element specified in

EPA Method 314.0 without needing to

change any other aspects of their

analyses.

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, this 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.’’

Under section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

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

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. This rule merely

specifies the analytical methods

approved for the measurement of

perchlorate and acetochlor in drinking

water, thereby allowing these

contaminants to be included in the

UCMR Assessment Monitoring program

and makes other minor corrections to

the September UCMR. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do 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 nor does it

impose substantial direct compliance

costs on them. Only one tribal water

system serves more than 10,000 persons.

All the other tribal water systems serve

10,000 or fewer persons, and in today’s

rule have an equal probability of being

selected in the national representative

sample of small systems, for which EPA

will pay the costs of unregulated

contaminant testing. Thus, these tribal

water systems will be treated the same

as water systems of a State and the

impact of the rule on them will not be

significant.

11382 Federal Register / Vol. 42, No. 65 / Thursday, March 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

This rule will not impose substantial

direct compliance costs on such

communities because, with the

exception of the one large tribal water

system, the Federal government will

provide most of the funds necessary to

pay the direct costs incurred by tribal

governments in complying with the

rule. Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

J. Administrative Procedure Act

EPA is publishing this methods rule

without prior proposal because it views

this as a noncontroversial amendment

and anticipates no adverse comment.

While developing these methods, EPA

worked closely with those people

involved in similar work or developing

similar methods. For perchlorate,

Method 314.0 is an adaptation of the

current methods available to test for

perchlorate, but with additional QC

requirements. For the UCMR, public

comment indicated that EPA Method

525.2 could perform analyses for

acetochlor. However, elsewhere in this

issue of the Federal Register, EPA is

publishing a separate document that

will serve as the proposal for the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation for Public Water Systems;

Analytical Methods for Perchlorate and

Acetochlor if adverse comments are

filed. This rule will be effective on

January 1, 2001, without further notice

unless EPA receives adverse comment

by April 3, 2000. If EPA receives

adverse comment, we will publish a

timely withdrawal in the Federal

Register informing the public that the

rule will not take effect. EPA will

address all public comments in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

must do so at this time. Finally, the

minor amendments made to the

September 1999 UCMR in today’s rule

are purely clarifying changes and thus

public comment is unnecessary under

the Administrative Procedure Act. 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

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 1, 2001.

VI. 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 amends the September

1999 UCMR, by establishing the method

requirements for perchlorate and

acetochlor. At the time of UCMR

publication—September 1999—the

methods for these contaminants were

still under review by the EPA. For a

description of public involvement

activities please see the discussion at 64

FR 50556.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Incorporation by reference, Indianlands, Intergovernmental relations,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water supply.

Dated: February 23, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I of Code of

Federal Regulations, are 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–l, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4,

300j–9, and 300j–11.

2. Effective January 1, 2001 § 141.40

as revised on 9/17/99 (64 FR 50556) and

effective January 1, 2001 is further

amended by:

a. Revising Table 1, List 1, in

paragraph (a)(3) and revising the

column heading notations and footnotes

at the end of paragraph (a)(3);

b. Revising paragraphs (a)(5)(ii)(C)

and (a)(5)(ii)(G);

c. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(G);

d. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(i); and

e. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(vii).

The Revisions read as follows:

§ 141.40 Monitoring requirements for

unregulated contaminants.

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 42, No. 65 / Thursday, March 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 11383

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 525.2 a 2 ug/L e EPTDSf 2001–2003

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

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

DCPA mono-acid degradate n ...................................................... 887–54–7 EPA 515.1 a

EPA 515.2 a

D5317–93 b

AOAC 992.32 c

1 ug/L e EPTDSf 2001–2003

DCPA di-acid degradate n ............................................................. 2136–79–0 EPA 515.1 a

EPA 515.2 a

D5317–93 b

AOAC 992.32 c

1 ug/L e EPTDSf 2001–2003

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

EPA 508.1 a

EPA 525.2 a

D5812–96 b

AOAC 990.06 c

0.8 ug/L e EPTDSf 2001–2003

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

EPA 525.2 a

D5475–93 b

AOAC 991.07 c

1 ug/L e EPTDSf 2001–2003

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

EPA 525.2 a

D5475–93 b

AOAC 991.07 c

0.9 ug/L e EPTDSf 2001–2003

MTBE ............................................................................................ 1634–04–4 EPA 524.2 a

D5790–95 b

SM 6210D d

SM 6200Bd

5 ug/L g EPTDSf 2001–2003

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

D5790–95 b

SM6210D d

SM6200Bd

10 ug/L g EPTDSf 2001–2003

Perchlorate ................................................................................... 14797–73–0 EPA 314.0 4 ug/L o EPTDSf 2001–2003

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

EPA 525.2 a

D5475–93 b

AOAC 991.07 c

2 ug/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 below. The incorporation by reference of the following documents listed

in footnotes b-d and m 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 below. 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 and 1998, Vol. 11.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. Method D5812–96 is located in

the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1998, Vol. 11.02. Methods D5790–95, D5475–93, and D5317–93 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. 1–800–379–2622.

11384 Federal Register / Vol. 42, No. 65 / Thursday, March 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 is 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 minimum detection limit (MDL=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 EDL equals the concentration of compound yielding approximately a 5 to 1 signal to noise

ratio or the calculated MDL, whichever is greater). fEntry Points to the Distribution System (EPTDS), After Treatment, representing each non-emergency water source in routine use over

the twelve-month period of monitoring; sampling must occur at the EPTDS, unless the State has specified other sampling points that

are used for compliance monitoring 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 Method Detection

Limit (MDL) or 0.5 ug/L times 10, whichever is greater. The MDL of 0.5 ug/L (0.0005 mg/L) was selected to conform to VOC MDL

requirements of 40 CFR 141.24(f)(17(E). hTo be Determined at a later time.

i Compound currently not listed as a contaminant in this method. Methods development currently being conducted in an attempt to add

it to the scope of this method.

j Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/high performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet method

for the determination of this compound. k Compound listed as being a contaminant using EPA Method 525.2; however, adequate sample preservation is not available. Preservation

studies currently being conducted to develop adequate sample preservation. l Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction /gas chromatography /mass spectrometry method for

the determination of this compound. m Method 314.0, ‘‘Determination of Perchlorate in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography,’’ Revision 1.0, EPA 815–B–99–003, November

1999. 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). Alternately, the method can be assessed

and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html. nThe approved methods do not allow for the identification and quantification of the individual acids, the single analytical result obtained

should be reported as total DCPA mono- and di-acid degradates. o 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.

* * * * *

(5) * * *

(ii) * * *

(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). 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 also sample at

the entry point to the distribution

system at the frequency indicated in

paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B) of this section

with the following exception: If the

State or EPA determines that 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.

* * * * *

(G) Testing. Except as provided in

paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(G)(2) of this section

for new methods, you must arrange for

the testing of the contaminants by a

laboratory certified under § 141.28 for

compliance analysis using the EPA

analytical methods listed in column 3

for each contaminant in 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 Table 1.

(1) Laboratory certification for

previously approved methods used for

the UCMR. Laboratories are

automatically certified for the analysis

of UCMR contaminants if they are

already certified to conduct compliance

monitoring for a contaminant included

in the same method being approved for

UCMR analysis.

(2) Laboratory approval for new

methods used for the UCMR. To receive

approval to conduct analyses for

perchlorate, you must be certified to

conduct compliance monitoring using

an approved ion chromatographic

method as listed in § 141.28 and you

must analyze and successfully pass the

Performance Testing (PT) Program

administered by EPA.

(iii) * * *

(G) Sampling forms. You must

completely fill out the sampling forms

sent to you by the laboratory, including

the data elements 1 through 4 listed in

§ 141.35(d) for each sample. If EPA

requests that you conduct field analysis

of water quality parameters specified in

paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) of this section, you

must also complete the sampling form

to include the information for data

elements 5 through 10 listed in

§ 141.35(d) for each sample. You must

sign and date the sampling forms.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 42, No. 65 / Thursday, March 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 11385

(i) Accept or modify the initial plan.

EPA will first specify the systems

serving 10,000 or fewer persons by

water source and size in an initial State

Monitoring Plan for each State using a

random number generator. EPA will

also generate a replacement list of

systems for systems that may not have

been correctly specified on the initial

plan. This initial State Monitoring Plan

will also indicate the year and day, plus

or minus two (2) weeks from the day,

that each system must monitor for the

contaminants in List 1 of Table 1 of this

section, Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulation (1999) List. EPA

will provide you with the initial

monitoring plan for your State or Tribe,

including systems to be Index systems

and those systems to be part of the

Screening Surveys. Within sixty (60)

days of receiving your State’s initial

plan, you may notify EPA that you

either accept it as your State Monitoring

Plan or request to modify the initial

plan by removing systems that have

closed, merged or are purchasing water

from another system and replacing them

with other systems. Any purchased

water system associated with a nonpurchased water system must be added

to the State Monitoring Plan if the State

determines that its distribution system

is the location of the maximum

residence time or lowest disinfectant

residual of the combined distribution

system. In this case, the purchased

water system must monitor for the

contaminants for which the

‘‘distribution system’’ is identified as

the point of ‘‘maximum residence time’’

or ‘‘lowest disinfectant residual,’’

depending on the contaminant, and not

the community water system selling

water to it. You must replace any

systems you removed from the initial

plan with systems from the replacement

list in the order they are listed. Your

request to modify the initial plan must

include the modified plan and the

reasons for the removal and replacement

of systems. If you believe that there are

reasons other than those previously

listed for removing and replacing one or

more other systems from the initial

plan, you may include those systems

and their replacement systems in your

request to modify the initial plan. EPA

will review your request to modify your

State’s initial plan. Please note that

information about the actual or potential

occurrence or non-occurrence of

contaminants at a system or a system’s

vulnerability to contamination is not a

basis for removal from or addition to the

plan.

* * * * *

(vii) Participate in monitoring for the

Screening Surveys for small and large

systems. Within 120 days prior to

sampling, EPA will notify you which

systems have been selected to

participate in the Screening Surveys, the

sampling dates, the designated

laboratory for testing, and instructions

for sampling. You must review the small

systems that EPA selected for the State

Monitoring Plan to ensure that the

systems are not closed, merged or

purchasing water from another system

(unless the system is to conduct

monitoring for a contaminant with the

sampling location specified as

‘‘distribution system’’), and then make

any replacements in the plan, as

described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this

section. You must notify the selected

systems in your State of these Screening

Surveys requirements. You must

provide the necessary Screening

Surveys information to the selected

systems at least ninety (90) days prior to

the sampling date.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–4761 Filed 3–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P