Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 30, 2008 / Notices 44251 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Pesticides 

and pests. 

Dated: July 15, 2008. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. E8–17236 Filed 7–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2007–0068; FRL–8699–1] 

RIN 2040–AE60 

Drinking Water: Regulatory 

Determinations Regarding 

Contaminants on the Second Drinking 

Water Contaminant Candidate List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires 

the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to periodically 

publish a list of unregulated 

contaminants (known as the 

Contaminant Candidate List or CCL) and 

determine whether to regulate at least 

five contaminants on each list. Today’s 

action announces the Agency’s final 

determinations on whether to issue 

national primary drinking water 

regulations (NPDWRs) for 11 

contaminants listed on the second 

Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 2). 

On May 1, 2007, EPA published 

preliminary regulatory determinations 

for 11 of the 51 contaminants listed on 

CCL 2 and requested public comment 

on the determinations, process, 

rationale, and supporting technical 

information for each contaminant. The 

11 regulatory determination 

contaminants are boron; the dacthal 

mono- and di-acid degradates; 1,1- 

dichloro-2,2-bis(pchlorophenyl)ethylene (DDE); 1,3- 

dichloropropene; 2,4-dinitrotoluene; 

2,6-dinitrotoluene; s-ethyl 

dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC); fonofos; 

terbacil; and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane. 

In the May 2007 notice, the Agency 

made a preliminary determination that 

no regulatory action was appropriate for 

any of these 11 contaminants. 

EPA received comments from nine 

individuals or organizations on the 

preliminary regulatory determinations 

for the 11 contaminants and additional 

comments for other contaminants on 

CCL 2: perchlorate, methyl tertiary butyl 

ether (MTBE), metolachlor, and 

cyanotoxins. After careful review and 

consideration of these comments, the 

Agency is making a final determination 

that no regulatory action is appropriate 

at this time for any of the 11 CCL 2 

contaminants for which the Agency 

made preliminary regulatory 

determinations in the May 2007 notice. 

DATES: For purposes of judicial review, 

the regulatory determinations in this 

notice are issued as of July 30, 2008, as 

provided in 40 CFR 23.7. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2007–0068. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yvette Selby-Mohamadu, Standards and 

Risk Management Division, Office of 

Ground Water and Drinking Water, 

4607M, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 564–5245; e-mail 

address: selby-mohamadu.yvette@

epa.gov. For general information contact 

the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 

(800) 426–4791, or (703) 412–3330, from 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

μg/L—micrograms per liter 

ATSDR—Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

AwwaRF—American Water Works 

Association Research Foundation 

CCL—Contaminant Candidate List 

CCL 1—EPA’s First Contaminant Candidate 

List 

CCL 2—EPA’s Second Contaminant 

Candidate List 

1,3-DCP—1,3-dichloropropene 

DCPA—dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate 

(dacthal) 

DDE—1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(pchlorophenyl)ethylene 

DDT—1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(pchlorophenyl)ethane 

DNT—dinitrotoluene 

EPA—United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EPTC—s-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate 

ESA—ethane sulfonic acid 

FR—Federal Register 

HRL—health reference level 

IRIS—Integrated Risk Information System 

kg—kilogram 

L—liter 

MAC—Mycobacterium avium 

MCL—maximum contaminant level 

MCLG—maximum contaminant level goal 

MRL—minimum or method reporting limit 

(depending on the study or survey cited) 

MTBE—methyl tertiary butyl ether 

MTP—monomethyl-2,3,5,6- 

tetrachloroterephthalate 

NDWAC—National Drinking Water Advisory 

Council 

NIRS—National Inorganic and Radionuclide 

Survey 

NRC—National Research Council 

NPDWR—national primary drinking water 

regulation 

OA—oxanilic acid 

OPP—Office of Pesticide Programs 

PWS—public water system 

RSC—relative source contribution 

SDWA—Safe Drinking Water Act 

SOT—Society of Toxicology 

TPA—2,3,5,6-tetrachchloroterephthalic acid 

TRI—Toxics Release Inventory 

TT—treatment technique 

UCM—Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

UCMR 1—First Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Regulation issued after the 

1996 SDWA Amendments 

US—United States of America 

USGS—United States Geological Survey 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Impose Any 

Requirements on My Public Water 

System? 

II. Purpose, Background, and Summary of 

This Action 

A. What Is the Purpose of This Action? 

B. What Is the Statutory Requirement for 

the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) 

and Regulatory Determinations? 

C. What Contaminants Did EPA Consider 

for Regulation? 

III. What Approach and Analyses Did EPA 

Use To Make the Regulatory 

Determinations? 

A. Approach 

B. Analyses 

IV. Summary of Public Comments and the 

Agency’s Responses on the CCL 

Regulatory Determination Process 

A. Regulatory Determinations for the 11 

Contaminants 

B. Regulatory Determinations Approach 

C. Occurrence and Exposure Evaluation 

D. Comments on Boron, Perchlorate, 

MTBE, Metolachlor, and Cyanobacteria 

and Its Toxins 

V. Summary of the Agency’s Findings on the 

11 CCL 2 Contaminants 

A. Boron 

B. Dacthal mono- and di-acid degradates 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

44252 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 30, 2008 / Notices 

1The MCLG is the ‘‘maximum level of a 

contaminant in drinking water at which no known 

or anticipated adverse effect on the health of 

persons would occur, and which allows an 

adequate margin of safety. Maximum contaminant 

level goals are nonenforceable health goals’’ (40 

CFR 141.2). 

2An NPDWR is a legally enforceable standard 

that applies to public water systems. An NPDWR 

sets a legal limit (called a maximum contaminant 

level or MCL) or specifies a certain treatment 

technique (TT) for public water systems for a 

specific contaminant or group of contaminants. 

3The statute authorizes a nine month extension 

of this promulgation date. 

4Health information used for the regulatory 

determinations process includes but is not limited 

to health assessments available from the Agency’s 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the 

Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) in a 

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and/or the 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR). 

C. 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) 

ethylene 

D. 1,3-Dichloropropene 

E. 2,4- and 2,6-Dinitrotoluenes 

F. s-Ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate 

G. Fonofos 

H. Terbacil 

I. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

VI. How Will EPA Address the Data Needs 

of the Remaining CCL 2 Contaminants? 

VII. References 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Impose Any 

Requirements on My Public Water 

System? 

None of these regulatory 

determinations will impose any 

requirements on anyone. Instead, this 

action notifies interested parties of 

EPA’s determinations for 11 CCL 2 

contaminants and provides a summary 

of the major comments received on the 

May 1, 2007, preliminary 

determinations (72 FR 24016 (USEPA, 

2007a)). 

II. Purpose, Background and Summary 

of This Action 

A. What Is the Purpose of This Action? 

Today’s action briefly describes the 

statutory requirements for targeting 

potential drinking water contaminants 

for regulatory development and the 

approach EPA used to make regulatory 

determinations for 11 CCL 2 

contaminants. In addition, today’s 

action (1) summarizes the public 

comments received on EPA’s 

preliminary determinations and the 

Agency’s responses to those comments, 

(2) presents the Agency’s findings and 

final regulatory determination for 11 

CCL 2 contaminants, and (3) provides 

information regarding the other CCL 2 

contaminants. 

B. What Is the Statutory Requirement for 

the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) 

and Regulatory Determinations? 

The specific statutory requirements 

for the CCL and regulatory 

determinations can be found in SDWA 

section 1412(b)(1). The 1996 SDWA 

Amendments require EPA to publish the 

CCL every five years. The CCL is a list 

of contaminants that are not subject to 

any proposed or promulgated national 

primary drinking water regulations 

(NPDWRs), are known or anticipated to 

occur in public water systems (PWSs), 

and may require regulation under 

SDWA. The 1996 SDWA Amendments 

also direct EPA to determine whether to 

regulate at least five contaminants from 

the CCL every five years. SDWA 

requires EPA to publish a Maximum 

Contaminant Level Goal 1 (MCLG) and 

promulgate an NPDWR2 for a 

contaminant if the Administrator 

determines that: 

(a) The contaminant may have an 

adverse effect on the health of persons; 

(b) The contaminant is known to 

occur or there is a substantial likelihood 

that the contaminant will occur in 

public water systems with a frequency 

and at levels of public health concern; 

and 

(c) In the sole judgment of the 

Administrator, regulation of such 

contaminant presents a meaningful 

opportunity for health risk reduction for 

persons served by public water systems. 

If EPA determines that all three of 

these statutory criteria are met, it makes 

a determination that a national primary 

drinking water regulation is needed. In 

that case, the Agency has 24 months to 

publish a proposed MCLG and NPDWR. 

After the proposal, the Agency has 18 

months to publish a final MCLG and 

promulgate a final NPDWR (SDWA 

section 1412(b)(1)(E)).3

C. What Contaminants Did EPA 

Consider for Regulation? 

On May 1, 2007 (72 FR 24016 

(USEPA, 2007a)), EPA published 

preliminary regulatory determinations 

for 11 CCL 2 contaminants that have 

sufficient information to support a 

regulatory determination. The 11 

contaminants are boron; the dacthal 

mono- and di-acid degradates; 1,1- 

dichloro-2,2-bis(pchlorophenyl)ethylene (DDE); 1,3- 

dichloropropene; 2,4-dinitrotoluene 

(DNT); 2,6-dinitrotoluene; s-ethyl 

dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC); fonofos; 

terbacil; and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane. 

Information for the 11 contaminants is 

available in the regulatory 

determination support document 

(USEPA, 2008a), the occurrence 

technical support documents (USEPA, 

2008b–c), and the Health Effects 

Support Documents or Drinking Water 

Advisories for each of the contaminants 

(USEPA, 2008d–l). This information is 

available at the Water Docket (Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2007–0068) and is 

also available on EPA’s Safe Drinking 

Water Regulatory Determination Web 

site at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ 

ccl/reg_determine2.html. Brief 

descriptions of each of the 11 

contaminants considered for regulatory 

determinations are included in section 

V of this notice. 

III. What Approach and Analyses Did 

EPA Use To Make the Regulatory 

Determinations? 

A. Approach 

In identifying which CCL 2 

contaminants are candidates for 

regulatory determinations, the Agency 

considered whether sufficient 

information and/or data were available 

to characterize the potential health 

effects and the known/likely occurrence 

in and exposure from drinking water. 

For health effects, the Agency 

considered whether an Agencyapproved health risk assessment 4 was 

available to identify any potential 

adverse health effect(s) and derive an 

estimated level at which no adverse 

health effect(s) are likely to occur. For 

occurrence, the Agency considered 

whether available information/data 

provided a representative picture of 

known and/or likely occurrence in 

public water systems. If sufficient 

information/data were available to 

characterize adverse human health 

effects and known/likely occurrence in 

public water systems, the Agency 

identified the contaminant as a potential 

candidate for regulatory determinations. 

In addition to information/data for 

health and occurrence, EPA also 

considered the availability and 

adequacy of analytical methods (for 

monitoring) and treatment. 

In cases where EPA chose a 

contaminant as a candidate for 

regulatory determination, the Agency 

considered the following in evaluating 

each of the three statutory criteria. 

(a) First statutory criterion—Is the 

contaminant likely to cause an adverse 

effect on the health of persons? The 

Agency evaluated the best available, 

peer-reviewed assessments and studies 

to characterize the human health effects 

that may result from exposure to the 

contaminant when found in drinking 

water. Based on this characterization, 

the Agency estimated a health reference 

level (HRL) for each contaminant. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 30, 2008 / Notices 44253 

5The UCMR 1 monitoring survey began in 2001. 

As discussed in the May 2007 notice, fonofos was 

sampled as part of UCMR 1 Screening Monitoring 

and the remaining 8 contaminants were sampled as 

part of UCMR 1 Assessment Monitoring. 

6EPA implemented the UCM program in two 

phases or rounds. The first round of UCM 

monitoring generally extended from 1988 to 1992 

and is referred to as UCM Round 1 monitoring. The 

second round of UCM monitoring generally 

extended from 1993 to 1997 and is referred to as 

UCM Round 2 monitoring. 

7The monitoring for NIRS spanned from 1984 to 

1986. 

(b) Second statutory criterion—Is the 

contaminant known or likely to occur in 

public water systems at a frequency and 

level of public health concern? To 

evaluate known occurrence in PWSs, 

the Agency compiled, screened, and 

analyzed data from several occurrence 

data sets to develop representative 

occurrence estimates for public drinking 

water systems. EPA used the HRL 

estimate for each contaminant as a 

benchmark against which to conduct an 

initial evaluation or screening of the 

occurrence data. For each contaminant, 

EPA estimated the number of PWSs 

(and the population served by these 

PWSs) with detections greater than onehalf the HRL (> 1⁄2 HRL) and greater 

than the HRL (> HRL). To further 

evaluate the likelihood of a contaminant 

occurring in drinking water, the Agency 

considered information on the use and 

release of the contaminant into the 

environment and supplemental 

information on occurrence in water 

(e.g., ambient water quality data, State 

ambient or finished water data, and/or 

special studies performed by other 

agencies, organizations and/or entities). 

(c) Third statutory criterion—In the 

sole judgment of the Administrator, 

does regulation of the contaminant 

present a meaningful opportunity for 

health risk reduction for persons served 

by public water systems? EPA evaluated 

the potential health effects and the 

results of the occurrence estimates, as 

well as exposure estimates (i.e., the 

population exposed and the sources of 

exposure) at the health level of concern 

to determine if regulation presents a 

meaningful opportunity for health risk 

reduction. 

If the answers to all three statutory 

criteria are affirmative for a particular 

contaminant, then the Agency makes a 

determination that regulation is 

necessary and proceeds to develop an 

MCLG and a national primary drinking 

water regulation for that contaminant. It 

should be noted that this regulatory 

determination process is distinct from 

the more detailed analyses needed to 

develop a national primary drinking 

water regulation. Thus, a decision to 

regulate is the beginning of the Agency’s 

regulatory development process, not the 

end. 

If the answer to any of the three 

statutory criteria is negative based on 

the available data, then the Agency 

makes a determination that a national 

primary drinking water regulation is not 

necessary for that contaminant at that 

time. 

B. Analyses 

EPA has prepared Health Effects 

Support Documents or Drinking Water 

Advisories (USEPA, 2008d–l) for each of 

the 11 contaminants. In these 

documents, EPA characterized the 

human health effects that may result 

from exposure to a contaminant found 

in drinking water. The support 

documents address exposure from 

drinking water and other media, 

toxicokinetics, hazard identification, 

dose-response assessment, and an 

overall characterization of risk from 

drinking water. Based on this 

characterization, EPA estimated a health 

reference level (HRL) or benchmark 

value for each contaminant. 

To analyze occurrence and exposure, 

the Agency used data from the first 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Regulation (UCMR 1) for 9 of the 

contaminants: The dacthal mono- and 

di-acid degradates, 1,1-dichloro-2,2- 

bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene (DDE), 1,3- 

dichloropropene, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 

2,6-dinitrotoluene, s-ethyl 

dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC), fonofos, 

and terbacil.5 In addition, the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

(UCM 6) program provided additional 

data for 1,3-dichloropropene and 

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and the 

National Inorganic and Radionuclide 

Survey (NIRS 7) provided data for boron. 

The Agency used the UCMR 1, UCM, 

and NIRS data to estimate the number 

and percentage of PWSs and the 

population served by these PWSs at 

concentrations above the HRL 

benchmark values, and 1⁄2 the HRL 

values. The Agency also used these data 

to evaluate the geographic distribution 

of occurrence for these 11 CCL 2 

contaminants. 

EPA also employed State drinking 

water data, use and environmental 

release information (e.g., EPA’s Toxic 

Release Inventory (TRI), academic and 

private sector publications), as well as 

ambient water quality data (e.g., data 

from the U.S. Geological Survey’s 

National Water Quality Assessment 

program) as secondary sources of 

information to evaluate the likelihood of 

contaminant occurrence. 

A detailed discussion of the data 

collected and analyses for each 

contaminant can be found in the 

regulatory determination support 

document (USEPA, 2008a) and the 

occurrence technical support 

documents (USEPA, 2008b–c). In 

addition, a summary of the occurrence 

and exposure findings are included in 

Table 1. Table 1 in this notice is similar 

to Table 3 in the May 2007 notice (72 

FR 24016 (USEPA, 2007a)); however, 

note that EPA updated the occurrence 

data for the UCMR 1 results to include 

final results for 17 additional drinking 

water systems that were not available 

when the Agency was in the process of 

making its preliminary regulatory 

determinations. Updating these 

numbers did not change the outcome of 

today’s decisions. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE HEALTH AND OCCURRENCE INFORMATION AND THE FINAL DETERMINATIONS FOR THE 11 

CONTAMINANTS CONSIDERED UNDER CCL REGULATORY DETERMINATIONS 2 

# 

Contaminant and its 

chemical abstract 

registry number 

(CASRN) 

Determination 

Health 

reference 

level 

(HRL) 

Occurrence findings from primary data sources (UCMR 1, UCM round 1 and 2 cross sections, NIRS) 

Database 

PWSs with at least 

1 detection 

> 1⁄2 HRL 

Population served 

by PWSs with at 

least 1 detection > 1⁄2 HRL 

PWSs with at least 

1 detection 

> HRL 

Population served 

by PWSs with at 

least 1 detection 

> HRL 

1 ............... Boron (7440–42–8) Do not 

regulate 1.

1,400 μg/ 

L.

NIRS ....... 4.3% (43 of 989) ..... 2.9% (42.7K of 

1.48M).

1.7% or (17 of 

989) 1.

0.4% (6.4K of 

1.48M) 

2 ............... Dacthal di acid 

degradate 2

(2136–79–0).

Do not 

regulate.

70 μg/L 4 UCMR 1 5 0.05% (2 of 3,876) .. 0.33% (739K of 

225M).

0.03% (1 of 3,876) .. < 0.01% (500 of 

225M) 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

44254 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 30, 2008 / Notices 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE HEALTH AND OCCURRENCE INFORMATION AND THE FINAL DETERMINATIONS FOR THE 11 

CONTAMINANTS CONSIDERED UNDER CCL REGULATORY DETERMINATIONS 2—Continued 

# 

Contaminant and its 

chemical abstract 

registry number 

(CASRN) 

Determination 

Health 

reference 

level 

(HRL) 

Occurrence findings from primary data sources (UCMR 1, UCM round 1 and 2 cross sections, NIRS) 

Database 

PWSs with at least 

1 detection 

> 1⁄2 HRL 

Population served 

by PWSs with at 

least 1 detection > 1⁄2 HRL 

PWSs with at least 

1 detection 

> HRL 

Population served 

by PWSs with at 

least 1 detection 

> HRL 

3 ............... Dacthal mono acid 

degradate 3 (887–

54–7).

4 ............... DDE6 (72–55–9) ..... Do not 

regulate.

0.2 μg/L .. UCMR 1 7 .............................. 7 .............................. 0.03% 7 (1 of 

3,874) 8.

0.01% (18K of 

226M) 8

5 ............... 1,3-Dichloropropene 

(Telone) (542–75–

6).

Do not 

regulate.

0.4 μg/L .. UCM Rd1 

UCM Rd2 

UCMR 1

0.16% (15 of 

9,164) 9.

0.30% (50 of 

16,787) 9. 7 ..............................

0.86% (436K of 

51M) 9.

0.42% (193K of 

46M) 9. 7 ..............................

0.16% (15 of 

9,164) 9.

0.23% (38 of 

16,787) 9.

0.00% (0 of 796) 8 ...

0.86% (436K of 

51M) 9

0.33% (152K of 

46M) 9

0.00% (0 of 2.8M) 8

6 ............... 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 

(121–14–2).

Do not 

regulate.

0.05 μg/L UCMR 1 7 .............................. 7 .............................. 0.03% (1 of 3,873) 8 0.02% (38K of 

226M) 8

7 ............... 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 

(606–20–2).

Do not 

regulate.

0.05 μg/L UCMR 1 7 .............................. 7 .............................. 0.00% (0 of 3,873) 8 0.00% (0 of 226M) 8

8 ............... EPTC 10 (759–94–4) Do not 

regulate.

175 μg/L UCMR 1 0.00% (0 of 3,873) .. 0.00% (0 of 226M) .. 0.00% (0 of 3,873) .. 0.00% (0 of 226M) 

9 ............... Fonofos (944–22–9) Do not 

regulate.

10 μg/L ... UCMR 1 0.00% (0 of 295) ..... 0.00% (0 of 41M) .... 0.00% (0 of 295) ..... 0.00% (0 of 41M) 

10 ............. Terbacil (5902–51–

2).

Do not 

regulate.

90 μg/L ... UCMR 1 0.00% (0 of 3,873) .. 0.00% (0 of 226M) .. 0.00% (0 of 3,873) .. 0.00% (0 of 226M) 

11 ............. 1,1,2,2- 

Tetrachloroethane 

(79–34–5).

Do not 

regulate.

0.4 μg/L .. UCM Rd1 

UCM Rd2 

0.22% (44 of 

20,407) 9.

0.07% (18 of 

24,800) 9.

1.69% (1.6M of 

95M) 9.

0.51% (362K of 

71M) 9.

0.20% (41 of 

20,407) 9.

0.07% (17 of 

24,800) 9.

1.63% (1.5M of 

95M) 9

0.08% (56K of 

71M) 9

1EPA also considered the results of an AwwaRF study of PWSs indicating that surface water sources are unlikely to contain boron at levels > the HRL of 1,400 μg/ 

L (Frey et al., 2004). 2 2,3,5,6-tetrachloroterephthalic acid (TPA). 

3 monomethyl-2,3,5,6-tetrachloroterephthalate (MTP). 

4 Using the dacthal parent HRL since it includes the toxicity for the degradates. 

5 Degradates monitored in aggregate and converted to the parent equivalent. 

6 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene. 

7 Not reported since MRL > 1⁄2 the HRL. 8Shows results > MRL, rather than > HRL, since MRL is greater than the HRL. In all cases the MRL is within the 10¥4 to 10¥6 risk range. 9The MRLs used in UCM varied from below the 1⁄2 HRL to above the HRL. However, even the highest MRLs used are within the 10¥4 to 10¥6 risk range. 10 s-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate. 

IV. Summary of Public Comments and 

the Agency’s Responses on the CCL 

Regulatory Determination Process 

EPA received comments from nine 

organizations or individuals on the May 

1, 2007, Federal Register notice. These 

nine organizations/individuals include 

five water-related associations, one 

industry group, one State agency, one 

State-related association, and one 

anonymous person. A majority of the 

comments focused on the following four 

over-arching topic areas: 

• The regulatory determinations for 

the 11 contaminants; 

• The regulatory determinations 

approach; 

• The occurrence and exposure 

evaluation; and 

• Comments on specific CCL 2 

contaminants: boron, perchlorate, 

MTBE, metolachlor, and cyanobacteria 

and its toxins. 

A complete copy of the public 

comments and the Agency’s responses 

are included in the Docket for today’s 

action (USEPA, 2008m). The remainder 

of this section discusses the four key 

topic areas identified by commenters in 

response to the May 2007 preliminary 

regulatory determination notice (72 FR 

24016, (USEPA, 2007a)). 

A. Regulatory Determinations for the 11 

Contaminants 

Comment Summary: Most of the 

commenters agreed with EPA’s 

decisions not to regulate the 11 

contaminants. However, one State 

agency recommended that EPA 

reconsider its position of not regulating 

2,4- and 2,6-DNT because they found 

these two contaminants in ground water 

in numerous locations in and around 

ammunition and military sites in their 

State. 

Agency Response: EPA agrees with 

the commenters who believe that no 

regulation is warranted at this time for 

the 11 contaminants. In response to 

reconsidering the Agency’s decision for 

2,4- and 2,6-DNT, EPA respectfully 

disagrees. Monitoring data collected on 

2,4- and 2,6-DNT from UCMR 1 do not 

indicate that either of these chemicals 

occurs nationally in public drinking 

water systems at health levels of 

concern. EPA found only one detection 

of 2,4-DNT from among the 3,873 public 

water systems evaluated and no 

detections of 2,6-DNT. The information 

submitted by the commenter does not 

lead the Agency to change its decision 

because the occurrence appears to be 

highly localized and therefore, does not 

meet statutory criterion 2 (likely to 

occur in PWSs with a frequency and at 

a level of concern). To assist State and 

local communities that may have 

localized occurrence of 2,4- and/or 2,6- 

DNT, the Agency has updated the 

Health Advisory for both of these 

compounds as part of the regulatory 

determination process. If a State finds 

that it has highly localized levels of 2,4- 

and/or 2,6-DNT above the HRL of 0.05 

μg/L, the Agency encourages States to 

consider whether State-level guidance 

(or some other type of action) may be 

appropriate. 

B. Regulatory Determinations Approach 

Comment Summary: One commenter 

recommended that EPA expand its 

discussion of the logic underlying the 

determinations for these 11 

contaminants. The commenter stated 

that EPA needs to raise the level of 

transparency in its decision logic so that 

stakeholders can understand how data 

and information translate to 

determinations and to ensure 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 30, 2008 / Notices 44255 

8This paper can be found in the Docket for this 

notice at http://www.regulations.gov under the 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2007–0068. 

9This paper can be found in the Docket for this 

notice at http://www.regulations.gov under the 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2007–0068. 

consistency across the two parallel 

regulatory efforts (regulatory 

determinations and six-year reviews). 

The commenter asked for a discussion 

about the status of the remaining CCL 2 

contaminants. In addition, the 

commenter recommended that EPA’s 

drinking water research agenda be 

integrated with the regulatory 

development process. 

Another commenter agreed with the 

determinations not to regulate the 11 

contaminants but recommended that 

EPA include affordability criteria when 

evaluating whether regulation will 

result in a meaningful health benefit in 

future determinations. The commenter 

submitted a paper in support of their 

comment.8

Agency Response: In response to the 

first comment, EPA developed a 

consistent regulatory determination 

approach for evaluating CCL 2 

contaminants that followed the National 

Drinking Water Advisory Council’s 

(NDWAC, 2000) recommended protocol 

for both health effects and occurrence 

analyses. In this notice (section VI), EPA 

added a narrative and tables that 

summarize the data gaps for the other 40 

CCL 2 contaminants, which kept the 

Agency from making a regulatory 

determination at this time. EPA does not 

believe that it is appropriate to consider 

a research agenda specifically for those 

contaminants at this time because the 

Agency is in the process of developing 

a new CCL (CCL 3). The new process 

considers the knowledge and experience 

gained from evaluating unregulated 

contaminants on CCL 1 and CCL 2 and 

the recommendations and advice from 

the National Academies of Sciences’

National Research Council (NRC, 2001) 

and NDWAC (2004). The Agency 

anticipates that future CCL research 

needs will be directed at filling data 

gaps for contaminants on the new list 

(i.e., CCL 3), not CCL 2. All CCL 2 

contaminants will be examined for 

inclusion on CCL 3 and those that 

remain a high priority will be examined 

for research needs. 

In response to the second comment, 

the SDWA requires that EPA consider 

the costs and benefits, as well as 

affordability, as NPDWRs are developed. 

Specifically, SDWA requires that EPA 

perform a health risk reduction and cost 

analysis and an affordability analysis for 

proposed NPDWRs. EPA respectfully 

disagrees that an affordability analysis is 

necessary or required for regulatory 

determinations. For regulatory 

determination, SDWA requires that EPA 

use the three criteria discussed in 

section III.A. As a result, EPA will 

evaluate costs and affordability in more 

detail, including whether small system 

variances are appropriate, as part of the 

regulatory process after the Agency 

makes a positive regulatory 

determination. 

C. Occurrence and Exposure Evaluation 

Comment Summary: One commenter 

stated that ‘‘based on the first round of 

regulatory determinations, a range of 

0.02%–3.2% for national occurrence 

could be considered as the minimum 

threshold for development of a new 

regulation’’ and ‘‘national occurrence 

estimates for these eleven contaminants 

are well below this threshold, with 

boron having the highest prevalence of 

occurrence, at 1.7% of systems sampled 

in the National Inorganics and 

Radionuclides Survey (NIRS).’’

Another commenter provided a report 

by Phillips and Chambless 9 that 

evaluated compliance data for seven 

contaminants from five States obtained 

from a cross section of State regulatory 

agencies. Based on a preliminary 

analysis, the authors found that the 

variability in the means of quarterly 

samples taken for compliance purposes 

was consistently large. The commenter 

expressed the opinion that the 

variability (standard error of the mean 

divided by the mean) is significant 

enough (100 percent or more in many 

cases) to question the validity of 

decisions made based on the UCMR 

data (for unregulated contaminants). 

Based on that study, the commenter 

stated that there is no reason to assume 

that the quality of the occurrence data 

from the UCMR effort would be any 

better than the quality of the compliance 

data. The second commenter urged EPA 

to resolve this quality issue before trying 

to make CCL 2 regulatory decisions that 

are based on rather precise calculations 

of occurrence levels and the number of 

persons exposed. 

Agency Response: In response to the 

first comment, EPA considers both the 

extent of national occurrence and the 

severity of health effects for a 

contaminant, as well as other factors 

(e.g., sources of exposure), when 

deciding whether regulation presents a 

meaningful opportunity for health risk 

reduction. As a result, the Agency does 

not believe it is appropriate to set 

minimum occurrence thresholds for 

regulatory determinations. 

In response to the second comment 

regarding variability in occurrence 

measures based on the compliance 

monitoring data for regulated 

contaminants, the Agency believes the 

variability issues identified by Phillips 

and Chambless do not directly reflect 

the dependability of the UCMR 1 data 

used to support the Agency’s regulatory 

determinations. Compliance monitoring 

data is State data resulting from 

individual public water systems efforts 

to comply with regulatory monitoring 

requirements. The UCMR 1 is EPA’s 

program to collect data for contaminants 

suspected to be present in drinking 

water based upon a statistically-valid 

data set for nationwide occurrence 

estimates. The UCMR 1 program was 

designed to address this variability issue 

at the national level by defining a 

vulnerable period (the season of greatest 

vulnerability of contaminant 

occurrence, the season of increased flux 

of water movement) and requiring at 

least one UCMR 1 sample during that 

period. In addition, the monitoring 

periods for the large and small systems 

were performed over a three year 

period. Approximately one-third of all 

small UCMR 1 systems throughout the 

country conducted monitoring in each 

of the three years of UCMR 1 

monitoring. Furthermore, the 

monitoring schedules for these systems 

were conducted to include monitoring 

in every month and every season around 

the country. Large systems could 

conduct their one year of monitoring 

anytime during the UCMR 1 period from 

2001 to 2003. Like small systems, their 

monitoring schedules were spread 

throughout the year and were to include 

one sample during what was considered 

the most vulnerable season. In this way, 

the UCMR 1 monitoring results reflect 

multiple seasons and multiple years of 

climatic conditions throughout the 

country and are not directly affected (or 

biased) by weather conditions of a 

single season, year, or geographic 

region. Whereas some variability might 

still be expected, EPA believes this is 

unlikely to be a source of bias for 

national level occurrence estimates. 

In addition, it should be noted that 

EPA used peak occurrence estimates 

(the number and percent of systems 

with at least one observed detection 

greater than 1⁄2 the HRL and the HRL) 

as opposed to mean values in making its 

final decisions not to regulate the 11 

CCL 2 contaminants. Hence, taking 

variability around the mean into 

account would not have influenced the 

outcome of the final determinations for 

these 11 contaminants. The 

characterization of national occurrence 

provided by the UCMR 1 monitoring 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

44256 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 30, 2008 / Notices 

data is adequate and the best available 

data to support today’s decisions. 

D. Comments on Boron, Perchlorate, 

MTBE, Metolachlor, and Cyanobacteria 

and Its Toxins 

1. Boron. One anonymous commenter 

agreed with our determination for boron 

but commented on the fact that the 

health reference level does not 

incorporate the results of the 

preliminary chemical-specific Health 

Advisory Level (HAL) derived recently 

by EPA and presented at the 2007 

Society of Toxicology (SOT) meeting. 

Agency Response: The HRL used in 

making regulatory determinations is not 

equivalent to a lifetime health advisory 

value. As stated in the Health Effects 

Support Document for Boron (USEPA, 

2008d) and the May 1, 2007, notice (72 

FR 24016 (USEPA, 2007a)), an HRL is a 

benchmark against which to measure 

the occurrence data; it is not a Health 

Advisory guideline. For noncarcinogens 

such as boron, the HRL is calculated by 

multiplying the Agency Reference Dose 

by a 70 kg body weight and a 20 percent 

default Relative Source Contribution 

(RSC) and dividing the product by a 

drinking water intake of 2 L/day. 

As described in the May 2007 notice 

(72 FR 24016 (USEPA, 2007a)) and in 

evaluating contaminants for regulatory 

determinations, the Agency initially 

uses a default 20 percent RSC to 

estimate the HRLs for non-carcinogens 

because this approach derives the 

lowest and most conservative HRL value 

to use in screening the occurrence data. 

EPA used this approach to calculate the 

HRL benchmark for boron and to 

determine if boron might be occurring 

nationally at a level of potential health 

concern. In developing the health 

advisory for boron, the Agency 

performed a more refined assessment of 

the risk for those PWSs that 

occasionally find levels of boron that 

exceed the lifetime or shorter term 

health advisory values. While the 

Agency derived a more refined RSC for 

the determination of the lifetime Health 

Advisory for boron, this value is still 

limited by the RSC ceiling of 80 percent 

as a matter of policy. The derivation of 

health advisory values also incorporates 

the use of appropriate body weights for 

the target population. The 2007 SOT 

poster presentation used a body weight 

of 67 kg for a pregnant woman, 

consistent with the Human Health 

Methodology (USEPA, 2000) guidelines. 

There may be changes to that policy 

based on more recent data on pregnancy 

weights, and if so, the draft Health 

Advisory will be revised to reflect the 

new policy. 

2. Perchlorate. EPA received comment 

letters on perchlorate from eight 

commenters. The major areas of concern 

raised in the comments related to (1) the 

Agency’s decision not to make a 

regulatory determination for perchlorate 

at the same time as for the 11 

contaminants for which a regulatory 

determination is being finalized today, 

and (2) the Agency’s discussion of 

potential analyses to more fully 

characterize total perchlorate exposure 

in order to assess the opportunity for 

public health protection through a 

drinking water regulation. 

Agency Response: EPA will soon 

publish a preliminary determination for 

perchlorate. EPA will request public 

comment as part of that notice. EPA will 

consider the comments received on the 

May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA, 

2007a)) with respect to perchlorate as a 

part of that regulatory determination 

and will respond to such public 

comments at the time the Agency issues 

a regulatory determination for 

perchlorate. EPA intends to finalize a 

regulatory determination for perchlorate 

by December 2008. 

3. MTBE. Most commenters supported 

EPA’s decision not to make a regulatory 

determination for methyl tertiary-butyl 

ether (MTBE) at this time because the 

IRIS assessment is currently being 

revised. Also, one commenter felt that 

UCMR 1 would provide valuable 

occurrence data for MTBE when the risk 

assessment becomes available. 

Agency Response: EPA agrees that 

UCMR 1 data provides important 

occurrence information on MTBE and 

will be useful in making a regulatory 

determination once the final risk 

assessment is available. 

4. Metolachlor. Some commenters 

noted that additional research for the 

health effects and occurrence of 

metolachlor and its degradates is 

needed. One commenter felt that UCMR 

2 would provide valuable occurrence 

information for metolachlor and its 

degradates. One commenter did not 

have additional data but believes more 

information is needed on the occurrence 

and health effects of many herbicides 

and pesticides and their degradates. The 

results of this research should be 

appropriately included in regulatory 

decisions by the Office of Pesticide 

Programs (OPP) and the Office of 

Ground Water and Drinking Water. The 

commenter stated that EPA should 

promote further research to definitively 

determine whether metolachlor, a very 

widely used pesticide, is carcinogenic, 

as acetochlor, alachlor and metolachlor 

have very similar chemical structures. 

Agency Response: The Agency agrees 

that more information on the occurrence 

of metolachlor and its degradates is 

needed in order to determine if the 

combined parent compound and its 

degradates are occurring at levels of 

health concern. The available 

metolachlor data from earlier 

unregulated contaminant monitoring 

surveys indicate that metolachlor is 

found in finished water in many 

locations but at levels below the HRL. 

The occurrence data on the parent 

metolachlor, combined with the 

knowledge that it decomposes to several 

degradates that are more persistent than 

the parent, supported the inclusion of 

both metolachlor and its degradates in 

UCMR 2. Once available, the UCMR 2 

data will be useful in evaluating the 

occurrence of metolachlor and its 

degradates in public water systems and 

will assist the Agency in deciding 

whether to regulate these compounds. 

5. Cyanobacteria and its toxins. In the 

May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA, 

2007a)), EPA asked for comment on the 

usefulness of providing an information 

summary about cyanobacteria and its 

toxins. One commenter responded and 

recommended that EPA provide an 

information summary describing the 

state of the knowledge on the 

prevention, treatment, and health effects 

of cyanobacteria and its toxins. The 

commenter felt that a document would 

be useful for utilities and State agencies. 

The commenter recommended that the 

summary include information on 

occurrence, conditions that might favor 

growth of algae and production of 

toxins, and a strategy for 

communicating this information to 

utility customers. In addition, the 

commenter suggested that the summary 

include information on research funded 

by other organizations, particularly the 

AWWA Research Foundation 

(AwwaRF). 

Agency Response: EPA is developing 

an information sheet that will include 

the information suggested by the 

commenter and links to organizations 

performing research on the 

cyanobacteria and its toxins. The 

Agency anticipates making this 

information sheet available on its 

Safewater Web site (http:// 

www.epa.gov/safewater) shortly after 

the publication of this notice. 

V. Summary of the Agency’s Findings 

on the 11 CCL 2 Contaminants 

A. Boron 

1. Description. Boron, a metalloid, 

tends to occur in nature in the form of 

borates (e.g., boric acid, borax, boron 

oxide). Man-made releases are typically 

in the form of borates or boron halides 

(e.g., boron trichloride, boron 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 30, 2008 / Notices 44257 

trifluoride). Boron compounds are used 

in the production of glass, ceramics, 

cleaning agents, fire retardants, 

pesticides, cosmetics, photographic 

materials, and high energy fuels (USGS, 

2004; ATSDR, 1992). 

2. Agency Findings. The Agency is 

making a determination not to regulate 

boron with a national primary drinking 

water regulation. As noted in the May 

2007 notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA, 

2007a)), EPA used data from NIRS and 

an AwwaRF study (Frey et al., 2004) to 

evaluate occurrence and exposure at the 

HRL of 1,400 μg/L (as well as 1⁄2 the 

HRL). The NIRS data indicate that 

approximately 4.3 percent (or 43) of the 

989 ground water PWSs sampled had at 

least one detection of boron at levels 

greater than 700 μg/L, affecting 

approximately 2.9 percent of the 

population served (or 42,700 people 

from 1.48 million). Approximately 1.7 

percent (or 17) of 989 ground water 

PWSs sampled had at least one 

detection of boron at levels greater than 

1,400 μg/L, affecting approximately 0.4 

percent of the population served (6,400 

people from 1.48 million) (USEPA, 

2008c and 2008d). 

Because NIRS did not contain data for 

surface water systems, the Agency 

evaluated the results of the AwwaRF 

study (Frey et al., 2004) to gain a better 

understanding of the potential 

occurrence of boron in surface water 

systems. The AwwaRF study recruited 

189 PWSs representing 407 source 

waters that covered 41 States. Of these 

407 PWS source water samples, 342 

were returned and 341 were analyzed 

for boron. Of these 341 samples, 

approximately 67 percent (or 228) 

represented ground water sources and 

33 percent (or 113) represented surface 

water sources. None of the 113 surface 

water sources exceeded the boron HRL 

of 1,400 μg/L and the maximum 

concentration observed in surface water 

was 345 μg/L. Extrapolation of the data 

indicates that 95 percent of the ground 

water detections had boron levels less 

than 1,054 μg/L; the maximum observed 

concentration in ground water was 

approximately 3,300 μg/L. Seven of the 

228 ground water sources (from 5 

systems) had at least one sample with a 

boron concentration greater than 1,400 

μg/L (Seidel, 2006). 

While boron was found at levels 

greater than the HRL of 1,400 μg/L (and 1⁄2 the HRL) in several of the ground 

water systems surveyed by NIRS, it was 

not found at levels greater than the HRL 

(or 1⁄2 the HRL) in the surface water 

sources evaluated in the AwwaRF 

study. Taking this surface water 

information into account, the Agency 

believes the overall occurrence and 

exposure from both surface and ground 

water systems together is likely to be 

lower than the values observed for the 

NIRS ground water data. Because boron 

is not likely to occur at health levels of 

concern when considering both surface 

and ground water systems, the Agency 

believes that a national primary 

drinking water regulation does not 

present a meaningful opportunity for 

health risk reduction. 

The Agency presented a complete 

review of our analysis of the health 

effects, occurrence, and exposure for 

boron in the May 2007 notice (72 FR 

24016 (USEPA, 2007a)), the final 

regulatory support document (USEPA, 

2008a), and the health effects support 

document for boron (USEPA, 2008d). 

The Agency also plans to update the 

Health Advisory for boron to provide 

more recent health information. The 

updated Health Advisory will provide 

information to any States with public 

water systems that may have boron 

above the HRL. If a State finds highly 

localized occurrence of boron at 

concentrations above the HRL, the 

Agency encourages States to consider 

whether State-level guidance (or some 

other type of action) may be 

appropriate. 

B. Dacthal Mono- and Di-Acid 

Degradates 

1. Description. Dimethyl 

tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA), a 

synthetic organic compound (SOC) 

marketed under the trade name 

’’Dacthal,’’ is a pre-emergent herbicide 

historically used to control weeds in 

ornamental turf and plants, 

strawberries, seeded and transplanted 

vegetables, cotton, and field beans. 

DCPA is not especially mobile or 

persistent in the environment. 

Biodegradation and volatilization are 

the primary dissipation routes. 

Degradation of DCPA forms two 

breakdown products, the mono-acid 

degradate (monomethyl 

tetrachloroterephthalate or MTP) and 

the di-acid degradate 

(tetrachloroterephthalic acid or TPA). 

The di-acid, which is the major 

degradate, is unusually mobile and 

persistent in the field, with a potential 

to leach into water (USEPA, 1998a). 

2. Agency Findings. The Agency is 

making a determination not to regulate 

the DCPA mono-acid degradate and/or 

the DCPA di-acid degradate with a 

national primary drinking water 

regulation. As noted in the May 2007 

notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA, 2007a)), 

these degradates appear to occur 

infrequently at health levels of concern 

in PWSs, and the Agency believes that 

a national primary drinking water 

regulation does not present a 

meaningful opportunity for health risk 

reduction. While the Agency recognizes 

that these degradates have been detected 

in the PWSs monitored under the 

UCMR 1, only one PWS detected these 

degradates at a concentration above the 

HRL of 70 μg/L. 

The Agency presented a complete 

review of our analysis of the health 

effects, occurrence, and exposure for 

dacthal mono- and di-acid degradates in 

the May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016 

(USEPA, 2007a)), the final regulatory 

support document (USEPA, 2008a), and 

the health effects support document 

(USEPA, 2008e). The Agency also plans 

to update the Health Advisory for the 

DCPA parent to include the mono- and 

di-acid degradates, as well as any recent 

health information related to these 

compounds. The updated Health 

Advisory will provide information to 

any States with public water systems 

that may have DCPA degradates at 

levels above the HRL. If a State finds 

highly localized occurrence of DCPA 

degradates at concentrations above the 

HRL, the Agency encourages States to 

consider whether State-level guidance 

(or some other type of action) may be 

appropriate. 

C. 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(pchlorophenyl)ethylene 

1. Description. DDE is a primary 

metabolite of 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(pchlorophenyl)ethane (DDT), a pesticide 

used to protect crops and eliminate 

disease-carrying insects in the U.S. until 

it was banned in 1973. DDE itself has no 

commercial use and is only found in the 

environment as a result of prior 

contamination with DDT. While DDE 

tends to adsorb strongly to surface soil 

and is fairly insoluble in water, it may 

enter surface waters from runoff that 

contains DDE bound to soil particles. In 

both soil and water, DDE is subject to 

photodegradation, biodegradation, and 

volatilization (ATSDR, 2002). 

2. Agency Findings. The Agency is 

making a determination not to regulate 

DDE with a national primary drinking 

water regulation. As noted in the May 

2007 notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA, 

2007a)), DDE appears to occur 

infrequently at health levels of concern 

in PWSs, and the Agency believes that 

a national primary drinking water 

regulation does not present a 

meaningful opportunity for health risk 

reduction. DDE was detected in only 

one of the PWSs monitored under the 

UCMR 1 at a level greater than the MRL 

(0.8 μg/L). The MRL is greater than the 

HRL of 0.2 μg/L but represents a 

concentration that is within the 10¥4 to 

the 10¥6 cancer risk range targeted by 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

44258 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 30, 2008 / Notices 

the Agency. In addition, ambient water 

data from the USGS (Martin et al., 2003; 

Kolpin and Martin, 2003) indicate that 

the maximum concentrations detected 

in surface and ground water were less 

than the HRL. 

The Agency presented a complete 

review of our analysis of the health 

effects, occurrence, and exposure for 

DDE in the May 2007 notice (72 FR 

24016 (USEPA, 2007a)), the final 

regulatory support document (USEPA, 

2008a), and the health effects support 

document (USEPA, 2008f). If a State 

finds highly localized occurrence of 

DDE at concentrations above the HRL, 

the Agency encourages States to 

consider whether State-level guidance 

(or some other type of action) may be 

appropriate. 

D. 1,3-Dichloropropene 

1. Description. 1,3-Dichloropropene 

(1,3-DCP), a synthetic volatile organic 

compound, is used as a pre-plant soil 

fumigant to control nematodes and 

other pests in soils planted with all 

types of food and feed crops. 1,3-DCP is 

typically injected 12 inches to 18 inches 

beneath the soil surface and can only be 

used by certified handlers (USEPA, 

1998b). 

2. Agency Findings. The Agency is 

making a determination not to regulate 

1,3-DCP with a national primary 

drinking water regulation. As noted in 

the May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016 

(USEPA, 2007a)), 1,3-DCP appears to 

occur infrequently at health levels of 

concern in PWSs, and the Agency 

believes that a national primary 

drinking water regulation does not 

present a meaningful opportunity for 

health risk reduction. While 1,3-DCP 

was detected in the UCM Round 1 (late 

1980s) and the UCM Round 2 (mid 

1990s) surveys, it was not detected in a 

subsequent evaluation of 796 small 

systems from the UCMR 1 survey. In 

addition, the USGS did not detect 1,3- 

DCP in two occurrence studies 

performed between 1999 and 2001 using 

monitoring levels that were lower than 

the HRL. EPA believes the 1999 

pesticide application requirements, 

which are intended to mitigate risks to 

drinking water, may be one reason for 

the lack of occurrence of 1,3-DCP at 

health levels of concern in subsequent 

monitoring surveys. 

The Agency presented a complete 

review of our analysis of the health 

effects, occurrence, and exposure for 

1,3-DCP in the May 2007 notice (72 FR 

24016 (USEPA, 2007a)) and in the 

health effects support document 

(USEPA, 2008j). The Agency also plans 

to update the Health Advisory 

document for 1,3-DCP with more recent 

health information. The updated Health 

Advisory will provide information to 

any States with public water systems 

that may have 1,3-DCP above the HRL. 

If a State finds a highly localized 

occurrence of 1,3-DCP at concentrations 

above the HRL, the Agency encourages 

States to consider whether State-level 

guidance (or some other type of action) 

may be appropriate. 

E. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene and 2,6- 

Dinitrotoluene 

1. Description. 2,4- and 2,6- 

dinitrotoluene (DNT), semi-volatile 

organic compounds, are two of the six 

isomers of dinitrotoluene. 

Dinitrotoluenes are used in the 

production of polyurethane foams, 

automobile air bags, dyes, ammunition, 

and explosives, including 

trinitrotoluene or TNT (HSDB, 2004a 

and 2004b; ATSDR, 1998). Neither 2,4- 

DNT nor 2,6-DNT occurs naturally. 

They are generally produced as 

individual isomers or as a mixture 

called technical grade DNT. Technical 

grade DNT primarily contains a mixture 

of 2,4-DNT and 2,6-DNT, with the 

remainder consisting of the other 

isomers and minor contaminants such 

as TNT and mononitrotoluenes (HSDB, 

2004c). 

2. Agency Findings. The Agency is 

making a determination not to regulate 

2,4-or 2,6-DNT with a national primary 

drinking water regulation. As noted in 

the May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016 

(USEPA, 2007a)), 2,4- and 2,6-DNT 

appear to occur infrequently at health 

levels of concern in PWSs, and the 

Agency believes that a national primary 

drinking water regulation does not 

present a meaningful opportunity for 

health risk reduction. 2,4-DNT was 

detected only once at a minimum 

reporting level (MRL) of 2 μg/L and 2,6- 

DNT was not detected at this same level 

in any of the PWSs monitored under the 

UCMR 1. While the MRL is slightly 

greater than the HRL of 0.05 μg/L, this 

concentration is within the acceptable 

10¥4 to the 10¥6 cancer risk range 

targeted by the Agency. 

The Agency presented a complete 

review of our analysis of the health 

effects, occurrence, and exposure for 

2,4- and 2,6-DNT in the May 2007 

notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA, 2007a)) 

and in the health effects support 

document (USEPA, 2008l). The 

Agency’s original Health Advisories for 

2,4- and 2,6-DNT were developed for 

military installations. Because the 

Agency recognizes that 2,4 and 2,6-DNT 

may still be found at some military sites, 

the Agency has updated the Health 

Advisories to reflect recent health 

effects publications. EPA published a 

draft of the updated Health Advisory 

document for both 2,4 and 2,6-DNT as 

part of the regulatory determinations for 

these two isomers. The updated 

document is available on the Web at: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/ 

reg_determine2.html. The final Health 

Advisory document will be published in 

2008 and will provide information to 

States with public water systems that 

may have either 2,4- or 2,6-DNT at 

concentrations above health levels of 

concern. If a State finds highly localized 

occurrence of 2,4- and/or 2,6-DNT at 

concentrations above the HRL, the 

Agency encourages States to consider 

whether State-level guidance (or some 

other type of action) may be 

appropriate. 

F. s-Ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate 

1. Description. EPTC, a synthetic 

organic compound, is a thiocarbamate 

herbicide used to control weed growth 

during the pre-emergence and early 

post-emergence stages of weed 

germination. First registered for use in 

1958, EPTC is used across the U.S. in 

the agricultural production of a number 

of crops, most notably corn, potatoes, 

dried beans, alfalfa, and snap beans. 

EPTC is also used residentially on shade 

trees, annual and perennial 

ornamentals, and evergreens (USEPA, 

1999c). 

2. Agency Findings. The Agency is 

making a determination not to regulate 

EPTC with a national primary drinking 

water regulation. As noted in the May 

2007 notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA, 

2007a)), EPTC does not appear to occur 

at health levels of concern in PWSs, and 

the Agency believes that a national 

primary drinking water regulation does 

not present a meaningful opportunity 

for health risk reduction. While EPTC 

has been found in ambient waters at 

levels less than the HRL of 175 μg/L (as 

well as 1⁄2 the HRL), it was not found 

in the UCMR 1 survey of public water 

supplies. The Agency presented a 

complete review of our analysis of the 

health effects, occurrence, and exposure 

for EPTC in the May 2007 notice (72 FR 

24016 (USEPA, 2007a)), the final 

regulatory support document (USEPA, 

2008a), and in the health effects support 

document (USEPA, 2008g). 

G. Fonofos 

1. Description. Fonofos, an 

organophosphate, is a soil insecticide 

used to control pests such as corn 

rootworms, cutworms, symphylans (i.e., 

garden centipedes), and wireworms. 

Primarily used on corn crops, fonofos 

was also used on other crops such as 

asparagus, beans, beets, onions, 

peppers, tomatoes, cole crops, sweet 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 30, 2008 / Notices 44259 

10The UCM Round 1 and 2 surveys were 

performed in the late 1980’s and the mid 1990’s. 

These surveys should not be confused with the 

UCMR 1 Screening and Assessment Monitoring that 

began in 2001. 

potatoes, peanuts, peas, peppermint, 

plantains, sorghum, soybeans, 

spearmint, strawberries, sugarcane, 

sugar beets, white (Irish) potatoes, and 

tobacco (USEPA, 1999d). 

Fonofos was scheduled for a 

reregistration decision in 1999. 

However, before the review was 

completed, the registrant requested 

voluntary cancellation. The cancellation 

was announced in the Federal Register 

on May 6, 1998 (63 FR 25033 (USEPA, 

1998d)), with an effective date of 

November 2, 1998, plus a one-year grace 

period to permit the exhaustion of 

existing stocks (USEPA, 1999d). 

2. Agency Findings. The Agency is 

making a determination not to regulate 

fonofos with a national primary 

drinking water regulation. As noted in 

the May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016 

(USEPA, 2007a)), fonofos does not 

appear to occur at health levels of 

concern in PWSs and the Agency 

believes that a national primary 

drinking water regulation does not 

present a meaningful opportunity for 

health risk reduction. While fonofos has 

been found in ambient waters at levels 

less than the HRL of 10 μg/L (as well as 1⁄2 the HRL), it was not found in the 

UCMR 1 Screening Survey of public 

water supplies. Fonofos was voluntarily 

cancelled in 1998 and the Agency 

expects any remaining stocks and 

releases into the environment to 

decline. In addition, since fonofos tends 

to bind strongly to soil, any releases to 

the environment are not likely to 

contaminate source waters. The Agency 

presented a complete review of our 

analysis of the health effects, 

occurrence, and exposure for fonofos in 

the May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016 

(USEPA, 2007a)), the final regulatory 

support document (USEPA, 2008a), and 

in the health effects support document 

(USEPA, 2008h). 

H. Terbacil 

1. Description. Terbacil, a synthetic 

organic compound, is a selective 

herbicide used to control broadleaf 

weeds and grasses on terrestrial food/ 

feed crops (e.g., apples, mint, 

peppermint, spearmint, and sugarcane), 

terrestrial food (e.g., asparagus, 

blackberry, boysenberry, dewberry, 

loganberry, peach, raspberry, 

youngberry, and strawberry), terrestrial 

feed (e.g., alfalfa, forage, and hay) and 

forest trees (e.g., cottonwood) (USEPA, 

1998c). 

2. Agency Findings. The Agency is 

making a determination not to regulate 

terbacil with a national primary 

drinking water regulation. As noted in 

the May 2007 notice (72 FR 24016 

(USEPA, 2007a)), terbacil does not 

appear to occur at health levels of 

concern in PWSs. Accordingly, the 

Agency believes that a national primary 

drinking water regulation does not 

present a meaningful opportunity for 

health risk reduction. While terbacil has 

been found in ambient waters at the 

levels less than the HRL of 90 μg/L (as 

well as 1⁄2 the HRL), it was not found 

in the UCMR 1 survey of public water 

supplies. The Agency presented a 

complete review of our analysis of the 

health effects, occurrence, and exposure 

for terbacil in the May 2007 notice (72 

FR 24016 (USEPA, 2007a)), the final 

regulatory support document (USEPA, 

2008a), and in the health effects support 

document (USEPA, 2008i). 

I. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

1. Description. 1,1,2,2- 

Tetrachloroethane, a volatile organic 

compound, is not known to occur 

naturally in the environment (IARC, 

1979). Prior to the 1980s, 1,1,2,2- 

tetrachloroethane was synthesized for 

use in the production of other 

chemicals, primarily chlorinated 

ethylenes. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 

was also once used as a solvent to clean 

and degrease metals, in paint removers, 

varnishes, lacquers, and photographic 

films, and for oil/fat extraction (Hawley, 

1981). Commercial production of 

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane in the U.S. 

ceased in the 1980s, when other 

processes to generate chlorinated 

ethylenes were discovered (ATSDR, 

1996). 

2. Agency Findings. The Agency is 

making a determination not to regulate 

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane with a national 

primary drinking water regulation. As 

noted in the May 2007 notice (72 FR 

24016 (USEPA, 2007a)), 1,1,2,2- 

tetrachloroethane appears to occur 

infrequently at health levels of concern 

in PWSs. Accordingly, the Agency 

believes that a national primary 

drinking water regulation does not 

present a meaningful opportunity for 

health risk reduction. While 1,1,2,2- 

tetrachloroethane was detected in both 

the UCM Round 1 and the UCM Round 

2 surveys, the percentage of detections 

had decreased by the time the UCM 

Round 2 survey was performed in the 

mid-1990’s.10 In addition, the USGS did 

not detect 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane in 

two subsequent monitoring surveys of 

source waters that supply community 

water systems, using a reporting limit 

that is less than the 1,1,2,2- 

tetrachloroethane HRL of 0.4 μg/L. The 

Agency believes that this decrease in 

detections occurred because commercial 

production of 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 

ceased in the mid-1980’s. Hence, the 

Agency does not expect 1,1,2,2- 

tetrachloroethane to occur in many 

public water systems today. 

The Agency presented a complete 

review of our analysis of the health 

effects, occurrence, and exposure for 

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane in the May 

2007 notice (72 FR 24016 (USEPA, 

2007a)), the final regulatory support 

document (USEPA, 2008a), and in the 

health effects support document 

(USEPA, 2008k). The Agency also plans 

to update the Health Advisory 

document for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 

to provide more recent health 

information. The updated Health 

Advisory will provide information to 

any States with public water systems 

that may have 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 

at levels above the HRL. If a State finds 

highly localized occurrence of 1,1,2,2- 

tetrachloroethane at concentrations 

above the HRL, the Agency encourages 

States to consider whether State-level 

guidance (or some other type of action) 

may be appropriate. 

VI. How Will EPA Address the Data 

Needs of the Remaining CCL 2 

Contaminants? 

To support decisions on CCL 

contaminants, the Agency evaluates 

when and where these contaminants 

occur, the extent of exposure, and their 

risk to public health. EPA must also 

determine if regulating the contaminant 

presents a meaningful opportunity for 

reducing public health risk. 

Contaminants deemed ready for 

regulatory determination are those that 

have sufficient health and occurrence 

data to evaluate both exposure and risk 

to public health and support a decision 

as to whether a regulation is 

appropriate. The remaining CCL 2 

contaminants for which decisions are 

not being made today do not have 

sufficient data to support regulatory 

decisions at this time, except for 

perchlorate, which is the subject of a 

separate regulatory determination effort 

(see section IV.D.2 in this notice). 

Tables 2 and 3 list each contaminant 

and the type of data lacking for each 

contaminant. 

In addition, the Agency is evaluating 

the contaminants on CCL 2 as part of the 

new CCL 3 classification process. The 

new process is an expanded 

comprehensive system that evaluates a 

wider range of existing information, 

including data published after the CCL 

2 preliminary regulatory 

determinations. The new process also 

applies revised screening criteria to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

44260 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 30, 2008 / Notices 

generate the CCL 3 based upon 

recommendations from NRC (2001) and 

NDWAC (2004). EPA anticipates 

determining future research needs once 

the CCL 3 is finalized. 

TABLE 2—INFORMATION GAPS FOR THE CCL 2 CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS (AS OF MAY 2007)* 

Health effects Occurrence Health effects and occurrence 

Acetochlor 3 ......................................................... Diazinon 6 ......................................................... Alachlor ESA4 7

Aluminum 4 5 ....................................................... 2,4-Dichloropheno 6 .......................................... Metolachlor 7 8

Bromobenzene 3 ................................................. 2,4-Dinitrophenol 6 ............................................ Organotins 1357

1,1-Dichloroethane 4 ........................................... 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 6 ................................... Prometon 3 6

1,3-Dichloropropane 4 ......................................... Disulfoton 6 ....................................................... RDX3 7

2,2-Dichloropropane 4 ......................................... Diuron 6.

1,1-Dichloropropene 4 ......................................... Linuron 6.

p-Isopropyltoluane 4 ............................................ 2-Methylphenol 6.

Methyl Bromide 4 ................................................ Terbufos 6.

Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) 3 ................. Triazines 257.

Molinate 3 ............................................................ 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 6.

Nitrobenzene 3

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 4

Vanadium 4

* Perchlorate is not included in this table (see section IV.D.2). 

1Organotins include dimethyl tin, dibutyl tin, monomethyl tin, monobutyl tin from PVC stabilizers and triphenyl tin pesticide. 

2Triazines include the chlorodegradates (DEA, DIA, and DACT) of regulated contaminants—atrazine and simazine. 3 IRIS or OPP assessment in progress or needs an updated risk assessment. 

4 Insufficient data to do a quantitative risk assessment, health assessment incomplete, or no risk assessment available. 

5These chemicals also have analytical methods (i.e., organotins) and/or treatment (i.e. triazines, aluminum) gaps. 

6 Insufficient occurrence (sampling) data for a national estimate. 

7 Lack of finished water occurrence (monitoring) data. 

8 Lack of occurrence data for metolachlor’s degradates (ESA & OA). Metolachlor and its degradates are on UCMR 2. 

TABLE 3—INFORMATION GAPS FOR THE MICROBIAL CONTAMINANTS (AS OF MAY 2007) 

Health effects Occurrence Treatment Analytical methods 

Microsporidia ..................................

Some Cyanotoxins .........................

Microsporidia ................................

Some Cyanotoxins .......................

Aeromonas ...................................

Helicobacter ..................................

MAC ..............................................

Adenoviruses ................................

Caliciviruses ..................................

Coxsackieviruses ..........................

Echoviruses ..................................

Microsporidia ................................

Some Cyanotoxins .......................

Aeromonas ...................................

Helicobacter ..................................

MAC ..............................................

Adenoviruses ................................

Caliciviruses ..................................

Coxsackieviruses ..........................

Echoviruses ..................................

Microsporidia 

Some Cyanotoxins 

Aeromonas 

Helicobacter 

MAC 

VII. References 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR). 1992. Toxicological 

Profile for Boron. Atlanta, GA: Agency 

for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, Public Health Service, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. Available on the Internet at: 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/ 

tp26.html. 

ATSDR. 1996. Toxicological Profile for 

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane. Available on 

the Internet at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ 

toxprofiles/tp93.html. 

ATSDR. 1998. Toxicological Profile for 2,4- 

and 2,6-Dinitrotoluene. Available on the 

Internet at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ 

toxprofiles/tp109.html. 

ATSDR. 2002. Toxicological Profile DDT, 

DDE, and DDD. Available on the Internet 

at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/ 

tp35.html. 

Frey, M.M., C. Seidel, M. Edwards, J. Parks, 

and L. McNeill. 2004. Occurrence Survey 

for Boron and Hexavalent Chromium. 

AwwaRF Report 91044F. 

Hawley, G.G. 1981. Condensed Chemical 

Dictionary. 10th ed. New York, NY: Van 

Nostrand Reinhold Co. (As cited in 

ATSDR, 1996) 

Hazardous Substances Database (HSDB). 

2004a. ‘‘TOXNET: Toxicology Data 

Network—2,4-Dinitrotoluene.’’ Available 

on the Internet at: http:// 

toxnet.nlm.nih.gov. [Search for 2,4- 

dinitrotoluene.] Accessed November 1, 

2004. 

HSDB. 2004b. ‘‘TOXNET: Toxicology Data 

Network—2,6-Dinitrotoluene.’’ Available 

on the Internet at: http:// 

toxnet.nlm.nih.gov. [Search for 2,6- 

dinitrotoluene.] Accessed November 1, 

2004. 

International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARC). 1979. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane. 

IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of 

the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to 

Humans: Some Halogenated 

Hydrocarbons. Vol. 20. pp. 477–489. (As 

cited in ATSDR, 1996) 

Kolpin, D.W. and J.D. Martin. 2003. 

‘‘Pesticides in Ground Water: Summary 

Statistics; Preliminary Results from 

Cycle I of the National Water Quality 

Assessment Program (NAWQA), 1992–

2001.’’ Available on the Internet at: 

http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pestgw/ 

Pest-GW_2001_Text.html. Accessed 

August 24, 2004. A copy of this report 

is available in the docket. 

Martin, J.D., C.G. Crawford, and S.J. Larson. 

2003. ‘‘Pesticides in Streams: Summary 

Statistics; Preliminary Results from 

Cycle I of the National Water Quality 

Assessment Program (NAWQA), 1992–

2001.’’ Available on the Internet at: 

http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pestsw/ 

Pest-SW_2001_Text.html. Accessed 

August 24, 2004. A copy of this report 

is available in the docket. 

National Drinking Water Advisory Council 

(NDWAC). 2004. Report on the CCL 

Classification Process to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; May 

19, 2004. 

NDWAC. 2000. Proposed Recommendation 

from the Working Group on CCL and 6- 

Year Review to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; May 23, 2000. 

National Research Council. 2001. Classifying 

Drinking Water Contaminants for 

Regulatory Consideration. National 

Academy Press, Washington DC. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 30, 2008 / Notices 44261 

Seidel, C. 2006. Email Communication from 

C. Seidel to Brent Ranalli at The Cadmus 

Group, Inc. [concerning boron data from 

an AwwaRF-sponsored study, with data 

in an attached spreadsheet]. Denver, CO: 

McGuire Malcolm Pirnie; May 19, 2006. 

USEPA. 1998a. Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED)—DCPA. EPA Report 

738–R–98–005. Washington, DC: Office 

of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 

Substances. November 1998. Available 

on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

oppsrrd1/REDs/0270red.pdf. 

USEPA. 1998b. Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED)—1,3-Dichloropropene. 

EPA Report 738–R–98–016. Washington, 

DC: Office of Prevention, Pesticides and 

Toxic Substances. December 1998. 

Available on the Internet at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/ 

0328red.pdf. 

USEPA. 1998c. Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED)—Terbacil. EPA Report 

738–R–97–011. Washington, DC: Office 

of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 

Substances. January 1998. Available on 

the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

oppsrrd1/REDs/0039red.pdf. 

USEPA. 1998d. Notice of Receipt of Requests 

to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide 

Registrations. Federal Register. Vol. 63, 

No. 87. p. 25033, May 6, 1998. 

USEPA. 1999c. Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED)—EPTC. EPA Report 738–

R–99–006. Washington, DC: Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 

Substances. December 1999. Available 

on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

oppsrrd1/REDs/0064red.pdf. 

USEPA. 1999d. Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED) Facts—O-Ethyl S-phenyl 

ethylphosphonodithiolate (Fonofos). 

EPA Report 738–F–99–019. Washington, 

DC: Office of Prevention, Pesticides and 

Toxic Substances. November 1999. 

Available on the Internet at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/ 

0105fact.pdf. 

USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the 

Protection of Human Health (2000). EPA 

Report EPA–822–B–00–004. Washington, 

DC: Office of Water. October 2000. 

Available on the Internet at: http://

www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/

humanhealth/method/method.html 

USEPA. 2007a. Drinking Water: Regulatory 

Determinations Regarding Contaminants 

on the Second Drinking Water 

Contaminant Candidate List—

Preliminary Determinations. Notice. 

Federal Register. Vol. 72, No. 83, p. 

24016, May 1, 2007. 

USEPA. 2008a. Regulatory Determinations 

Support Document for Selected 

Contaminants from the Second Drinking 

Water Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 

2). EPA Report 815–R–08–012. June 

2008. 

USEPA. 2008b. The Analysis of Occurrence 

Data from the First Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

(UCMR 1) in Support of Regulatory 

Determinations for the Second Drinking 

Water Contaminant Candidate List. EPA 

Report 815–R–08–013. June 2008. 

USEPA. 2008c. The Analysis of Occurrence 

Data from the Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring (UCM) Program and National 

Inorganics and Radionuclides Survey 

(NIRS) in Support of Regulatory 

Determinations for the Second Drinking 

Water Contaminant Candidate List. EPA 

Report 815–R–08–014. June 2008. 

USEPA. 2008d. Health Effects Support 

Document for Boron. EPA Report 822–R–

08–002. June 2008. 

USEPA. 2008e. Health Effects Support 

Document for Dacthal Degradates: 

Tetrachloroterephthalic Acid (TPA) and 

Monomethyl Tetrachloroterephthalic 

Acid (MTP). EPA Report 822–R–08–005. 

June 2008. 

USEPA. 2008f. Health Effects Support 

Document for 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(pchlorophenyl)ethylene (DDE). EPA 

Report 822–R–08–003. June 2008. 

USEPA. 2008g. Health Effects Support 

Document for S-Ethyl 

dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC). EPA 

Report 822–R–08–006. June 2008. 

USEPA. 2008h. Health Effects Support 

Document for Fonofos. EPA Report 822–

R–08–009. June 2008. 

USEPA. 2008i. Health Effects Support 

Document for Terbacil. EPA Report 822–

R–08–004. June 2008. 

USEPA. 2008j. Health Effects Support 

Document for 1,3-Dichloropropene. EPA 

Report 822–R–08–008. June 2008. 

USEPA. 2008k. Health Effects Support 

Document for 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane. 

EPA Report 822–R–08–007. June 2008. 

USEPA. 2008l. Health Advisory for 2,4- and 

2,6-Dinitrotoluene. EPA Report 822–R–

08–010. June 2008. 

USEPA. 2008m. Comment Response 

Document for the Regulatory 

Determinations on the Second Drinking 

Water Contaminant Candidate List 2 

(Categorized Public Comments). June 

2008. 

USGS. 2004. ‘‘Mineral Commodity 

Summaries, January 2004—Boron.’’

January 2004. Available on the Internet 

at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/

pubs/commodity/boron/boronmcs04.pdf. 

Dated: July 24, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–17463 Filed 7–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2003–0397; FRL–8374–6] 

Molinate; Product Cancellation Order 

and Amendment to Terminate Uses 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA’s 

amendment to the order for the 

termination of uses, voluntarily 

requested by the registrant and accepted 

by the Agency, of products containing 

the pesticide molinate, pursuant to 

section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA), as amended. This amendment 

follows an April 7, 2004 Federal 

Register Notice of Order to Amend 

Registrations to Terminate Uses of 

molinate to control water grass in rice 

grown in California and the south 

central/south eastern states of Arkansas, 

Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and 

Texas. Nothing in today’s action 

changes the previous stop production 

date of June 30, 2008, nor does it change 

the stop use date of August 31, 2009. 

Today’s action only clarifies the 

deadline for persons other than the 

registrant to sell and distribute molinate 

until July 1, 2009. 

DATES: The cancellation amendment is 

effective July 30, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wilhelmena Livingston, Special Review 

and Reregistration Division (7508P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–8025; fax number: (703) 308–

8005; e-mail address: 

livingston.wilhelmena@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general, and may be of interest to a 

wide range of stakeholders including 

environmental, human health, and 

agricultural advocates; the chemical 

industry; pesticide users; and members 

of the public interested in the sale, 

distribution, or use of pesticides. Since 

others also may be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities that may be affected 

by this action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of this 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–

OPP–2003–0397. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either in 

the electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the Office of 

Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory 

Public Docket in Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES