[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 42 (Thursday, March 2, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11373-11385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4761]



[[Page 11371]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Part 141



Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems: 
Analytical Methods for Perchlorate and Acetochlor; Announcement of 
Laboratory Approval and Performance Testing (PT) Program for the 
Analysis of Perchlorate; Final Rule and Proposed Rul

[[Page 11372]]

e

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[FRL-6544-6 ]


Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water 
Systems; Analytical Methods for Perchlorate and Acetochlor; 
Announcement of Laboratory Approval and Performance Testing (PT) 
Program for the Analysis of Perchlorate

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, 
requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish criteria 
for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants and to publish a list 
of contaminants to be monitored. In fulfillment of this requirement, 
EPA published the Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 
Rule (UCMR) on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556), which included a list 
of contaminants to be monitored.
    Both perchlorate and acetochlor were placed on the UCMR (1999) List 
1, Assessment Monitoring, with the method listed as ``Reserved'' 
pending imminent conclusion of EPA refinement and review of the 
analytical methods for perchlorate and acetochlor. EPA is taking direct 
final action on this rule. This rule specifies the approved analytical 
methods for measurement of perchlorate and acetochlor in drinking water 
and includes notice to all laboratories interested in supporting 
perchlorate monitoring of the laboratory approval requirements, 
including participation in a perchlorate Performance Testing (PT) 
Program. The rule also includes minor technical changes to correct or 
clarify the rule published on September 17, 1999.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 1, 2001, without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 3, 2000. If EPA 
receives such comment we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take 
effect.
    The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in 
today's rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
January 1, 2001.
    For judicial review purposes, this final rule is promulgated as of 
1:00 p.m. (Eastern time) on March 16, 2000, as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.
    Any laboratory interested in conducting perchlorate monitoring must 
participate in the Performance Testing (PT) Program and should submit a 
request letter to EPA, received at the EPA by March 31, 2000. EPA will 
not be able to consider any letters received after this date. Any 
interested laboratory which does not meet this deadline or fails to 
successfully pass the initial PT study and would still like 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.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Comment Clerk, docket number W-
99-19, Water Docket (MC 4101), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington 
DC, 20460. Please submit an original and three copies of your comments 
and enclosures (including references). The full record for this 
document has been established under docket number W-99-19 and includes 
supporting documentation as well as printed, paper versions of 
electronic comments. The full record is available for inspection from 9 
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, at the 
Water Docket, East Tower Basement, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, 
Washington DC. For access to docket (Docket No. W-99-19) materials, 
please call (202) 260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday, to schedule an appointment. A reasonable fee may 
be charged for copying. Laboratories interested in supporting 
perchlorate monitoring must send a request letter to: Daniel P. 
Hautman, Perchlorate PT Program Coordinator, MLK 140, U.S. EPA, 26 W. 
Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Sakata, Standards and Risk 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street 
(MC 4607), Washington DC 20460, (202) 260-2527. For technical 
information regarding the methods, contact David Munch, Technical 
Support Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin 
Luther King Dr., Cincinnati OH, 45268, (513) 569-7843.
    General information may also be obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking 
Water Hotline. Callers within the United States may reach the Hotline 
at (800) 426-4791. The Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding 
federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For copies of EPA Method 314.0, 
``Determination of Perchlorate in Drinking Water Using Ion 
Chromatography,'' contact 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.

     Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in the Preamble and Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-DNT...................................  2,4-dinitrotoluene.
2,6-DNT...................................  2,6-dinitrotoluene.
4,4'-DDE..................................  4,4'-dichloro dichlorophenyl
                                             ethylene, a degradation
                                             product of DDT.
Alachlor ESA..............................  alachlor ethanesulfonic
                                             acid, a degradation product
                                             of alachlor.
AOAC......................................  Association of Official
                                             Analytical Chemists.
ASTM......................................  American Society for Testing
                                             and Materials.
CAS.......................................  Chemical Abstract Service.
CASRN.....................................  Chemical Abstract Service
                                             Registry Number.
CCL.......................................  Contaminant Candidate List.
CFR.......................................  Code of Federal Regulations.
CWS.......................................  community water system.
DCPA......................................  dimethyl
                                             tetrachloroterephthalate,
                                             chemical name of the
                                             herbicide dacthal.
DCPA mono- and di-acid degradates.........  degradation products of
                                             DCPA.
EPA.......................................  Environmental Protection
                                             Agency.
EPTC......................................  s-ethyl-
                                             dipropylthiocarbamate, an
                                             herbicide.
EPTDS.....................................  Entry Point to the
                                             Distribution System.
ESA.......................................  ethanesulfonic acid, a
                                             degradation product of
                                             alachlor.
FSIS......................................  federalism summary impact
                                             statement.
IC........................................  ion chromatography.
ICR.......................................  Information Collection Rule.
MCL.......................................  maximum contaminant level.
MCT.......................................  Matrix Conductivity
                                             Threshold.
MDL.......................................  method detection limit.
MRL.......................................  minimum reporting level.
MS........................................  sample matrix spike.
MSD.......................................  sample matrix spike
                                             duplicate.
NCOD......................................  National Drinking Water
                                             Contaminant Occurrence
                                             Database.
NTNCWS....................................  non-transient non-community
                                             water system.
NTTAA.....................................  National Technology Transfer
                                             and Advancement Act.
OGWDW.....................................  Office of Ground Water and
                                             Drinking Water.

[[Page 11373]]

 
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 Sec. 141.40
    A. Change to Sec. 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(C)
    B. Change to Sec. 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(G)
    C. Change to Sec. 141.40 (a)(5)(iii)(G)
    D. Change to Sec. 141.40 (b)(1)(i)
    E. Change to Sec. 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 Low-Income 
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                9511
                                                                        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.
Industry.............................................................  Private operators of community and non-transient non-community water         4941
                                                                        systems required to monitor.
Municipalities.......................................................  Municipal operators of community and non-transient non-community             9511
                                                                        water systems required to monitor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec. 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

[[Page 11374]]

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 non-community 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 non-transient, non-community water systems. For 
regulatory purposes, public water systems are categorized as 
``community water systems'' or ``non-community water systems''. 
Community water systems are specifically defined as ``public water 
systems which serve at least 15 service connections used by year-round 
residents or regularly serve at least 25 year round residents.'' (40 
CFR 141.2) A ``non-community water system'' means any other public 
water system. Non-community water systems include non-transient non-
community water systems and transient non-community water systems. Non-
transient 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 non-community 
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 non-transient non-community systems 
can be extrapolated to the transient non-community 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 11376]]

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 non-EPA 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 on-line 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

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(C), (a)(5)(iii)(G), 
(b)(1)(i), and (b)(1)(vii) and described here.
A. Change to Sec. 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 Sec. 141.40 (a)(3). EPA is 
correcting this provision to delete redundant wording that does not 
help to clarify the exception.
B. Change to Sec. 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(G)
    This paragraph describes the requirements for testing of the 
contaminants listed in Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 141.40 (a)(4)(i)(B) which applies to all systems analyzing for 
water quality parameters.
D. Change to Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.

[[Page 11378]]

    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: [email protected], 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: [email protected], 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

[[Page 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. Non-labor 
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

[[Page 11380]]

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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Publicly owned systems      Privately owned
                                                     ------------------------         systems
                    Size category                                            ------------------------ Total--All
                                                       Non-index     Index     Non-index     Index      systems
                                                        systems     systems     systems     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.


[[Page 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 low-income 
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.

[[Page 11382]]

    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, 
Indian-lands, 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 Sec. 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:


Sec. 141.40  Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *

[[Page 11383]]



                       Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List
                              [List 1--Assessment Monitoring Chemical Contaminants]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      6--Period
                                                                                                        during
                                             2--CAS        3--Analytical    4--Minimum  5--Sampling     which
             1--Contaminant                 registry          methods       reporting     location    monitoring
                                             number                           level                     to be
                                                                                                      completed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-dinitrotoluene.....................        121-14-2        EPA 525.2a      2 ug/Le       EPTDSf    2001-2003
2,6-dinitrotoluene.....................        606-20-2        EPA 525.2a      2 ug/Le       EPTDSf    2001-2003
Acetochlor.............................      34256-82-1        EPA 525.2a      2 ug/Lo       EPTDSf    2001-2003
DCPA mono-acid degradaten..............        887-54-7        EPA 515.1a      1 ug/Le       EPTDSf    2001-2003
                                                               EPA 515.2a
                                                                D5317-93b
                                                             AOAC 992.32c
DCPA di-acid degradaten................       2136-79-0        EPA 515.1a      1 ug/Le       EPTDSf    2001-2003
                                                               EPA 515.2a
                                                                D5317-93b
                                                             AOAC 992.32c
4,4'-DDE...............................         72-55-9          EPA 508a    0.8 ug/Le       EPTDSf    2001-2003
                                                               EPA 508.1a
                                                               EPA 525.2a
                                                                D5812-96b
                                                             AOAC 990.06c
EPTC...................................        759-94-4          EPA 507a      1 ug/Le       EPTDSf    2001-2003
                                                               EPA 525.2a
                                                                D5475-93b
                                                             AOAC 991.07c
Molinate...............................       2212-67-1          EPA 507a    0.9 ug/Le       EPTDSf    2001-2003
                                                               EPA 525.2a
                                                                D5475-93b
                                                             AOAC 991.07c
MTBE...................................       1634-04-4        EPA 524.2a      5 ug/Lg       EPTDSf    2001-2003
                                                                D5790-95b
                                                                SM 6210Dd
                                                                SM 6200Bd
Nitrobenzene...........................         98-95-3        EPA 524.2a     10 ug/Lg       EPTDSf    2001-2003
                                                                D5790-95b
                                                                 SM6210Dd
                                                                 SM6200Bd
Perchlorate............................      14797-73-0         EPA 314.0      4 ug/Lo       EPTDSf    2001-2003
Terbacil...............................       5902-51-2          EPA 507a      2 ug/Le       EPTDSf    2001-2003
                                                               EPA 525.2a
                                                                D5475-93b
                                                             AOAC 991.07c
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 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.


[[Page 11384]]

  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.
  eMinimum 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.
  gMinimum 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.
  iCompound 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.
  jMethods development currently in progress to develop a 
solid phase extraction/high performance liquid chromatography/
ultraviolet method for the determination of this compound.
  kCompound 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.
  lMethods development currently in progress to develop a 
solid phase extraction /gas chromatography /mass spectrometry method 
for the determination of this compound.
  mMethod 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.
  oMRL 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 141.35(d) for each sample. You must sign and date the 
sampling forms.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *

[[Page 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 non-purchased 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