[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3770-3780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-655]



[[Page 3769]]

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

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142



Revisions to the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 
(IESWTR), the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule 
(Stage 1DBPR), and Revisions to State Primacy Requirements To Implement 
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66 , No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 3770]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142

[FRL-6925-7]
RIN 2040-AD43


Revisions to the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 
(IESWTR), the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule 
(Stage 1DBPR), and Revisions to State Primacy Requirements To Implement 
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final action will make minor revisions to the Interim 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the Stage 1 
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR) which 
were published December 16, 1998 and the Revisions to State Primacy 
Requirements to Implement Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments 
(Primacy Rule) published April 28, 1998. This final rule revises the 
compliance dates for the IESWTR and the Stage 1 DBPR so that they 
coincide with calendar quarters. This change will facilitate 
implementation of both rules. This action also extends the use of new 
analytical methods to compliance monitoring for long-standing drinking 
water regulations for total trihalomethanes. In addition, this document 
corrects typographical errors, replaces inadvertently deleted text, and 
clarifies some of the regulatory provisions found in the published 
rules. Lastly, this document contains minor corrections to the Primacy 
Rule. These regulations relate to the requirements and procedures for 
States to obtain primary enforcement authority (primacy) for the Public 
Water System Supervision (PWSS) program under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act as amended by the 1996 Amendments. At this time, EPA is not taking 
final action on the proposed changes to Sec. 141.130(a)(1) (consecutive 
systems) and to Sec. 141.174(b) (filtration sampling requirements). 
These changes will be considered in future rulemaking.

DATES: This regulation is effective on February 15, 2001. For judicial 
review purposes, this final rule is promulgated as of 1:00 p.m. EST on 
January 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Public comments, the comment/response document for the April 
14, 2000 proposed rule, and applicable Federal Register documents are 
available for review at EPA's Drinking Water Docket: East Tower 
Basement, USEPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 from 9 a.m. to 
4 p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
record for this rule has been established under docket number W-99-11. 
For access to docket materials, please call 202-260-3027 to schedule an 
appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Melch, Drinking Water 
Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC-
4606), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington DC 20460, (202) 260-7035. Information 
may also be obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers 
within the United States may reach the Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The 
Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 
9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EST.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    The entities regulated by the IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR, and thus by 
these revisions to those rules, are public water systems. These include 
community and noncommunity water systems. States are subject to the 
primacy rule requirements as revised.
    Regulated categories and entities include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Examples of potentially
             Category                 regulated entities         SIC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Tribal, and Territorial     States, Territories, and         9511
 Governments.                       Tribes that analyze
                                    water samples on behalf
                                    of public water systems
                                    required to conduct
                                    such analysis; States,
                                    Territories, and Tribes
                                    that operate public
                                    water systems required
                                    to monitor under the
                                    IESWTR or Stage 1 DBPR.
Industry.........................  Private operators of             9511
                                    public water systems
                                    required to monitor
                                    under the IESWTR or
                                    Stage 1 DBPR.
Municipalities...................  Municipal operators of           9511
                                    public water systems
                                    required to monitor
                                    under the IESWTR or
                                    Stage 1 DBPR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
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 Secs. 141.2, 141.70, 141.130, 141.170, 
142.2, 142.3, and 142.10 of title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Abbreviations

CWS: Community water system
DBPR: Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
GWUDI: Ground water under the direct influence of surface water
HAA5: Haloacetic Acids (monochloroacetic, dichloroacetic, 
trichloroacetic, monobromoacetic and dibromoacetic acids)
ICR: Information Collection Request
IESWTR: Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
MCL: Maximum contaminant level
MCLG: Maximum contaminant level goal
MRDL: Maximum residual disinfectant level
MRDLG: Maximum residual disinfectant level goal
NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NTNCWS: Non-transient, non-community water system
OMB: Office of Management and Budget
Primacy: Primary enforcement responsibility
PWS: Public water system
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
TNCWS: Transient, non-community water system
TOC: Total organic carbon
TTHM: Total Trihalomethanes (chloroform, bromodichloromethane, 
dibromochloromethane, and bromoform)
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Table of Contents

I. Background

[[Page 3771]]

II. Today's Action
    A. IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR
    1. Shifting Compliance Date of Rules
    2. New Analytical Methods Use
    3. Regulated Entities Compliance with Stage 1 DBPR
    4. TTHM and HAA5 Monitoring and Compliance Provisions
    a. Criteria to Return to Routine Monitoring
    b. MCL Exceedence Triggers Quarterly Monitoring
    c. Compliance Criteria for Systems on Reduced Monitoring
    5. Chlorite Provisions
    6. Disinfection Byproduct Precursors Provisions
    7. System Reporting and Recordkeeping
    a. Reporting Requirement Added to IESWTR
    b. Clarification of Reporting Tables
    8. Filtration Provisions
    B. Primacy Rule
III. 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. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

    On December 16, 1998, EPA published the final Interim Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR; 63 FR 69478) and Stage 1 
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR; 63 FR 
69390). On April 28, 1998, EPA published the Revisions to State Primacy 
Requirements to Implement the SDWA Amendments (63 FR 23362). On April 
14, 2000, EPA published revisions to the IESWTR, Stage 1 DBPR, and 
Primacy Rule as a direct final rule (65 FR 20304) and parallel proposed 
rule (65 FR 20314). On June 13, 2000, EPA withdrew the direct final 
rule (65 FR 37052) because of receipt of adverse comment and reopened 
the comment period on the proposed rule, at the request of numerous 
stakeholders, until July 13, 2000 (65 FR 37092).
    IESWTR: The IESWTR was designed to improve control of microbial 
pathogens, including the protozoan Cryptosporidium, in drinking water 
and to address risk trade-offs with disinfection byproducts. The IESWTR 
builds upon the treatment technique requirements of the Surface Water 
Treatment Rule. Key provisions established in the final IESWTR include: 
a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of zero for Cryptosporidium; 2-
log Cryptosporidium removal requirements for systems that filter; 
strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity performance standards 
and individual filter turbidity monitoring provisions; disinfection 
benchmark provisions to assure continued levels of microbial protection 
while facilities take the necessary steps to comply with new 
disinfection byproduct standards; inclusion of Cryptosporidium in the 
definition of ground water under the direct influence of surface water 
(GWUDI) and additional avoidance criteria for unfiltered public water 
systems; requirements for covers on new finished water reservoirs; and 
sanitary surveys for all surface water and GWUDI systems regardless of 
size.
    The IESWTR applies to public water systems that use surface water 
or GWUDI and serve 10,000 or more people, except that the rule requires 
primacy States to conduct sanitary surveys for all surface water and 
GWUDI systems regardless of size.
    EPA believes that implementation of the IESWTR will significantly 
reduce the level of Cryptosporidium in finished drinking water supplies 
through improvements in filtration and reduce the likelihood of the 
occurrence of cryptosporidiosis outbreaks by providing an increased 
margin of safety against such outbreaks for some systems. In addition, 
the filtration provisions of the rule are expected to increase the 
level of protection from exposure to other pathogens (i.e., Giardia or 
other waterborne bacterial or viral pathogens).
    Stage 1 DBPR: The Stage 1 DBPR was designed to reduce the levels of 
disinfection byproducts in drinking water supplies. The DBPR 
established maximum residual disinfectant level goals (MRDLGs) for 
chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide; maximum contaminant level 
goals (MCLGs) for four trihalomethanes (chloroform, 
bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform), two 
haloacetic acids (dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid), 
bromate, and chlorite; and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 
(NPDWRs) for three disinfectants (chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine 
dioxide), two groups of organic disinfection byproducts (total 
trihalomethanes (TTHM)--a sum of chloroform, bromodichloromethane, 
dibromochloromethane, and bromoform; and haloacetic acids (HAA5)--the 
sum of dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, monochloroacetic acid 
and mono- and dibromoacetic acids), and two inorganic disinfection 
byproducts (chlorite and bromate). The NPDWRs consist of maximum 
residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) for these disinfectants and 
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or treatment techniques for their 
byproducts. The NPDWRs also include monitoring, reporting, and public 
notification requirements for these compounds.
    The Stage 1 DBPR applies to public water systems that are community 
water systems (CWSs) and nontransient noncommunity water systems 
(NTNCWSs) that treat water with a chemical disinfectant for either 
primary or residual treatment. In addition, certain requirements for 
chlorine dioxide apply to transient noncommunity water systems 
(TNCWSs).
    The Stage 1 DBPR provides public health protection for households 
that were not previously covered by drinking water rules for 
disinfection byproducts. The rule adds coverage for CWSs and NTNCWSs 
serving fewer than 10,000 persons. In addition, the rule, for the first 
time, provides public health protection from exposure to haloacetic 
acids, chlorite (a major chlorine dioxide byproduct) and bromate (a 
major ozone byproduct).
    Primacy Rule: This rule codified new statutory requirements under 
the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) involving 
changes to the process and requirements for States to obtain or retain 
primary enforcement authority for the Public Water System Supervision 
program under section 1413 of the SDWA and to the definition of a 
``public water system'' under section 1401 of the SDWA.

II. Today's Action

A. IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR

    This document revises the IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR to move 
compliance dates to facilitate implementation, correct typographical 
errors identified in these rules, replace text inadvertently deleted, 
delete incorrect text, and clarify certain provisions in the final 
rules. The revisions include the following modifications:
1. Shifting Compliance Date of Rules
    Today's rule finalizes provisions in the April 14, 2000 proposed 
rule that revise the compliance dates of both rules by extending them 
approximately

[[Page 3772]]

two weeks. This shift will facilitate the implementation of the IESWTR 
and the Stage 1 DBPR as the monitoring periods for both rules will 
coincide with calendar quarters and consequently with the monitoring 
periods for other contaminants.

Summary of Comments and Response

    There were no significant comments on shifting the compliance date 
of the rules and therefore EPA is finalizing this provision as 
proposed.
2. New Analytical Methods Use
    Today's rule finalizes the proposed action modifying Sec. 141.30 to 
extend the use of new analytical methods included in the DBPR 
Sec. 141.131(b) for compliance monitoring for long-standing drinking 
water regulations at Sec. 141.30 for total trihalomethanes.

Summary of Comments and Response

    There were no significant comments on extending the use of 
analytical methods in the Stage 1 DBPR and therefore EPA is finalizing 
this provision as proposed.
3. Regulated Entities Compliance With Stage 1 DBPR
    After evaluating the comments on the proposal, EPA is not taking 
final action at this time on the proposed changes to Sec. 141.130(a). 
EPA proposed the change to Sec. 141.130(a) to clarify which systems 
must meet the new MCLs and MRDLs under the Stage 1 DBPR. The current 
language specifies that systems which ``add a chemical disinfectant to 
the water in any part of the drinking water treatment process'' are 
responsible for complying with the rule. EPA proposed a clarification 
adding ``or systems which provide water that contains a chemical 
disinfectant.'' EPA intended to include all consecutive systems in the 
original rule making and included them in the regulatory impact 
analyses for the original rule. EPA will consider this issue in the 
future. The September 2000 Stage 2 M-DBP Agreement in Principle 
contains a recommendation at section 3.1.c. on ``Wholesale and 
Consecutive Systems'' that states:

    ``The FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act group) has considered 
the issues of consecutive systems and recommends that EPA propose 
that all wholesale and consecutive systems must comply with the 
provisions of the Stage 2 DBPR on the same schedule required of the 
wholesale or consecutive system serving the largest population in 
the combined distribution system.
    Principles:
     Consumers in consecutive systems should be just as well 
protected as customers of all systems, and
     Monitoring provisions should be tailored to meet the 
first principle.
    The FACA recognizes that there may be issues that have not been 
fully explored or completely analyzed and therefore recommends that 
EPA solicit comments.''

    Therefore, EPA plans to seek further comment on this issue in the 
proposal for the Stage 2 M-DBP rule making.
4. TTHM and HAA5 Monitoring and Compliance Provisions
    The regulatory language addressing TTHM and HAA5 monitoring and 
compliance determination has been revised to clarify the intention of 
the regulatory requirements in Sec. 141.132(b)(1). Sections a. through 
c. below discuss these revisions.
a. Criteria To Return to Routine Monitoring
    This clarification specifies the criteria under which certain 
subpart H systems may return to routine monitoring from increased 
monitoring. The systems affected by this revision are those that use 
surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface 
water serving 500 people and ground water systems serving 10,000 people 
on increased monitoring. Such systems are required to increase 
monitoring if the compliance sample or average of annual compliance 
samples, if more than one sample is taken, exceeds the MCL. The rule 
language in the 1998 Stage 1 DBPR omitted criteria that would govern 
returning to routine monitoring from increased monitoring. EPA proposed 
that systems on increased monitoring may return to routine monitoring 
if their TTHM annual average was 0.040 mg/L or less and their HAA5 
annual average was 0.030 mg/L or less; these values are consistent with 
the criteria for reduced monitoring for other systems on quarterly 
monitoring. However, a number of commentors urged EPA to allow systems 
on increased monitoring to return to routine monitoring if their TTHM 
annual average is 0.060 mg/L or less and their HAA5 annual average is 
0.045 mg/L or less; these values were discussed in the preamble to the 
1998 rule. These are the same values that trigger systems to return to 
routine monitoring from reduced monitoring. EPA is persuaded by these 
commentors and is promulgating these criteria. A corresponding change 
is reflected in the table in Sec. 141.132(b)(1). Also, the reference 
``paragraph c'' in the third and fifth entries of the proposal will be 
replaced by ``paragraph (b)(1)(iv)'' in today's final rule.
b. MCL Exceedence Triggers Quarterly Monitoring
    Today's rule finalizes the proposed action which clarifies the 
monitoring requirements for ground water systems serving 10,000 on 
reduced monitoring (one sample per plant every 3 years). As issued in 
1998, there was concern that the Stage 1 DBPR language was ambiguous. 
The proposed rule clarified that in the situation where a sample 
collected during reduced monitoring exceeds the MCL, EPA's intention is 
to assure that the system would be triggered into quarterly monitoring 
immediately following the exceedence rather than first return to 
routine monitoring (one sample per plant per year).

Summary of Comments and Response

    There were no significant comments on this clarification and 
therefore EPA is finalizing these revisions as proposed.
c. Compliance Criteria for Systems on Reduced Monitoring
    EPA is finalizing the proposed clarification on compliance 
determination for TTHM and HAA5 in Sec. 141.133(b)(1). The 
clarification deals specifically with systems monitoring less 
frequently than quarterly with TTHM or HAA5 sample results above the 
MCL. Compliance should not be calculated based solely on a sample taken 
at a frequency less than quarterly. The intention of the rule is that 
these systems should immediately begin quarterly monitoring. Compliance 
should be determined based on the results of four consecutive quarters 
of monitoring (averaging the sample results from the sample that 
triggered the increased monitoring and the following three quarters of 
monitoring). For systems with exceptionally high levels of DBPs, 
compliance could be calculated with fewer than four quarters of 
sampling results. (The exceptions to this are when the results of fewer 
than four quarters will cause the running annual average to exceed the 
MCL, or if the system fails to collect the four samples over four 
consecutive quarters, in which case the MCL is calculated based on the 
average of the available data for the four-quarter compliance period). 
This intent is clarified by deleting the last two sentences of 
Sec. 141.133(b)(1)(i), revising paragraphs (b)(1) (ii) and (iii), and 
adding new paragraph (b)(1)(iv).

Summary of Comments and Responses

    There were no significant comments on this clarification and 
therefore EPA is finalizing these revisions as proposed.

[[Page 3773]]

5. Chlorite Provisions
    Today's rule finalizes the proposed revisions to two provisions 
addressing chlorite. First, EPA is correcting the general requirements 
for transient non-community water systems (TNCWS) in Sec. 141.130 which 
incorrectly states that TNCWS must comply with chlorite requirements. 
This correction is accomplished by deletion of the chlorite reference 
in paragraph (b)(2).
    Second, EPA is clarifying the monitoring provisions in 
Sec. 141.131(b) for daily chlorite analysis. The Stage 1 DBPR of 1998 
required analysis to be performed by a certified lab. Water system 
personnel, however, are capable of analyzing routine samples for 
chlorite using amperometric titration. Therefore, language has been 
added to allow public water system personnel to be approved for such 
monitoring. This change results in a reduction of the financial and 
operational burden on systems and will make data available immediately 
so that operational changes can be made on a more timely basis.

Summary of Comments and Response

    There were no significant comments on modifications to the chlorite 
provisions and therefore EPA is finalizing these revisions as proposed.
6. Disinfection Byproduct Precursor Removal Provisions
    This rule finalizes the proposed clarifications to the public 
notification requirements related to compliance with DBP precursor 
removal requirements under Sec. 141.133. The revision to 
Sec. 141.133(d) states that for systems required to meet Step 1 TOC 
removals, if the value calculated under Sec. 141.135(c)(1)(iv) is less 
than 1.00, the system has a treatment technique violation and must 
notify the public.
    Today's rule also finalizes proposed language clarifications 
regarding the Step 2 TOC removal requirements under Sec. 141.135. The 
revision to the Step 2 TOC removal requirements clarifies that the 
submitted bench or pilot-scale tests must be used to determine the 
alternate enhanced coagulation level. In the table in 
Sec. 141.135(b)(2), ``60-120'' is corrected to read ``>60-
120'' in the heading of the second column and percentage signs--%--are 
added to all values while the word ``percent'' is deleted from the 
three column headings.

Summary of Comments and Response

    There were no significant comments on the clarifications to the DBP 
precursors provisions in Stage 1 DBPR and therefore EPA is finalizing 
these revisions as proposed.
7. System Reporting and Recordkeeping
a. Reporting Requirement Added to the IESWTR
    EPA is finalizing this provision as proposed. The revision adds 
system reporting requirements which were inadvertently omitted from 
Sec. 141.175 of the IESWTR. These requirements mirror the reporting 
requirements in Sec. 141.75 of the Surface Water Treatment Rule. 
Today's rule requires that when the combined filter effluent sample in 
a direct or conventional filtration system exceeds the maximum 
turbidity limit of 1 NTU, the system must inform the State no later 
than the end of the next business day. Similarly, when the combined 
filter effluent sample in a system using alternative filtration 
technologies exceeds the maximum turbidity level set by the State under 
Sec. 141.173(b), the system must inform the State no later than the end 
of the next business day.

Summary of Comments and Response

    While EPA received several comments supporting this revision, 
several other commentors disagreed with this correction and stated that 
the current reporting requirements were sufficient and that requiring 
systems to inform the State by the end of the next business day was 
excessive and unnecessary. Additionally, two commentors were unsure 
whether this requirement applied to individual or combined filter 
effluent samples.
    After review of all comments, EPA has determined that the reporting 
requirement promulgated today is necessary and not an undue burden. 
Today's requirement simply parallels the Surface Water Treatment Rule's 
longstanding reporting requirement (5 NTU) but at the tighter maximum 
standard promulgated in the IESWTR. Also, a combined filter effluent 
turbidity above 1 NTU can be an indicator of significant operational or 
other problems in a water treatment plant. The State should be informed 
as quickly as possible so that action can be taken to minimize any 
threat to public health. The burden associated with today's reporting 
requirement is not expected to increase from the burden associated with 
the Surface Water Treatment Rule which is covered by the general PWSS 
program ICR (OMB No. 2040-0090). Even though Sec. 141.175(c) alters 
(for large systems only) the level at which turbidity exceedences are 
reported, data indicate that large systems have high compliance rates 
and we do not expect a significant increase in violations and burden 
associated with this new level.
b. Clarification of Reporting Tables
    Today's rule also adds clarifying text to the Sec. 141.134 
reporting tables. These changes will clarify a system's reporting 
requirements for the disinfectant byproducts, disinfectants, and 
disinfectant byproduct precursors and enhanced coagulation or enhanced 
softening.
    In the section (b) table, all entries in the ``You must report'' 
column are revised to add the citation of the MCL and replace the word 
``exceeded'' with ``violated.'' In the second entry, under the second 
reporting requirement, the phrase ``last quarter'' is replaced with 
``last monitoring period,'' and in the fourth entry, the language in 
all four reporting requirements is revised. In the section (c) table, 
all entries in the ``You must report'' column are revised to add the 
citation of the MRDL and replace the word ``exceeded'' with 
``violated.'' In the section (d) table, the first entry is revised by 
deleting the phrase ``prior to continuous disinfection'' from the first 
reporting requirement.

Summary of Comments and Response

    Several comments expressed concern that these table revisions 
change the table format, thus creating inconsistency among the existing 
tables in Sec. 141.134. EPA agrees with this comment and will work with 
the Federal Register to ensure consistency.
8. Filtration Provisions
    Under the 1998 IESWTR, Sec. 141.174 states that if continuous 
turbidity monitoring equipment fails, the system must repair or replace 
the equipment within five working days. In the April 14, 2000 Federal 
Register, EPA proposed that if a system did not make this repair, it 
would be assessed a violation. After evaluating the comments on the 
proposal, EPA is not taking final action on the proposed change at this 
time. EPA will consider this issue in future microbial rulemaking.

B. Primacy Rule

    EPA is finalizing all the primacy rule clarifications as proposed. 
The final primacy regulations subject to these corrections increase the 
time for a State to adopt new or revised Federal regulations from 18 
months to two years. Inadvertently, this time increase was not 
reflected in Sec. 142.12(d)(2) of the final regulations. This rule 
corrects that error.
    In addition, this rule updates the interim primacy provision at 
Sec. 142.12(b)(3)(i). Interim primacy gives States full responsibility 
for implementation and enforcement during

[[Page 3774]]

the time that EPA reviews the complete and final primacy revision 
application, provided that States have full primacy for all prior 
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. When extensions to the 
time frame for submission of primacy revision applications are granted, 
States must agree to conditions for rule implementation. These 
conditions are lifted when a State receives primacy. EPA believes that 
under the SDWA amendments, these conditions should also be lifted when 
a State receives interim primacy. Inadvertently, this intent was not 
reflected in the Federal Register of Tuesday, April 28, 1998 (63 FR 
23362). Today's change to Sec. 142.12(b)(3)(i) clarifies that the 
conditions that go with an extension are not necessary after a State 
receives interim primacy.

Summary of Comments and Response

    There were no significant comments on corrections to the Primacy 
Rule and therefore EPA is finalizing these provisions as proposed.

III. 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 the 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 (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 final 
rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866.

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 section 202 of the UMRA, 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 an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA 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 why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA 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.
    Today's rule makes minor revisions and corrections to three SDWA 
regulations. EPA has determined that this 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 the 
private sector in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    For the same reason, EPA has determined that this rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 
information collection, reporting and recordkeeping requirements must 
be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. 
Information Collection Request (ICR) documents for the original IESWTR, 
Stage 1DBPR and Primacy Rule were prepared by EPA and approved by OMB 
(OMB Nos. 2040-0205, 2040-0204, and 2040-0915 respectively) and copies 
may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at OPPE Regulatory 
Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at: 
[email protected], or by calling: (202) 260-2740.
    The system reporting requirements contained in Sec. 141.175(c) are 
covered by the general PWSS program ICR (OMB No. 2040-0090). This ICR 
calculates the burden associated with reporting turbidity exceedences 
under Sec. 141.75(a)(5). Although Sec. 141.175(c) alters for large 
systems the level at which turbidity exceedences are reported, data 
indicate that such systems already have high compliance rates with the 
new levels and there would be no significant increase in violations and 
burden associated with this new level. The part 9 table is amended in 
this rule to reflect OMB approval of these reporting requirements.

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

[[Page 3775]]

analysis of any rule subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking 
requirement 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 
government jurisdictions. This rule makes only minor revisions, 
corrections, and clarifications to promulgated regulations that will 
facilitate the implementation of those regulations. This rule does not 
impose additional burden on any regulated small entity since impacts 
were included in the original rule analysis. The additional reporting 
requirements contained in today's rule apply only to systems that serve 
10,000 or more people. Thus, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., material 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 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action extends the applicability of analytical methods 
established under the Stage 1 DBPR in the December 16, 1998 Federal 
Register. In developing the Stage 1 DBPR, EPA's process for selecting 
analytical test methods was consistent with section 12(d) of the NTTAA. 
EPA performed literature searches to identify analytical methods from 
industry, academia and voluntary consensus standards, and provided an 
opportunity for comment. For a more detailed discussion, refer to page 
69457 of the Stage 1 DBPR (63 FR 69390, Dec. 16, 1998). Neither the 
IESWTR nor the Primacy Rule involve standards subject to this Act.

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 populations and low-income populations 
with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all 
communities. Today's changes to the IESWTR, Stage 1 DBPR, and Primacy 
Rule will not diminish the health protection to minority and low-income 
populations.

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 makes only minor 
revisions, corrections and clarifications to three SDWA rules that were 
promulgated in 1998. The result of these revisions, corrections and 
clarifications will be to facilitate the implementation of these 
regulations at the State and local levels of government. 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 the Office of Management and Budget, 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.''
    This rule makes minor revisions, corrections and clarifications to 
promulgated regulations. It does not significantly or uniquely affect 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, nor does it impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on them. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

J. 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

[[Page 3776]]

is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective 
February 15, 2001.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142

    Environmental protection, Analytical methods, Drinking water, 
Intergovernmental relations, Public utilities, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Reservoirs, Utilities, Water supply, 
Watersheds.

    Dated: December 22, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.


    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

    1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735; 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.


    2. Section 9.1 is amended by removing the entry for Sec. 141.174-
141.175 in the table and adding new entries in its place to read as 
follows:


Sec. 9.1  [Amended]

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              40 CFR citation                      OMB control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
141.174(a)-(b)............................  2040-0205
141.175...................................  2040-0205
141.175(a)-(b)............................  2040-0205
141.175(c)................................  2040-0090
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

    3. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.


Sec. 141.12  [Amended]

    4. Section 141.12 is amended by revising ``December 16, 2001'' to 
read ``December 31, 2001'' and by revising the two occurrences of 
``December 16, 2003'' to read ``December 31, 2003''.


Sec. 141.30  [Amended]

    5. Amend Sec. 141.30 by:
    a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e); and
    b. In paragraph (h), revising ``December 16, 2001'' to read 
``December 31, 2001'', and revising the two occurrences of ``December 
16, 2003'' to read ``December 31, 2003''.


Sec. 141.30  Total trihalomethanes sampling, analytical and other 
requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) Sampling and analyses made pursuant to this section shall be 
conducted by one of the total trihalomethanes methods as directed in 
Sec. 141.24(e), and the Technical Notes on Drinking Water Methods, EPA-
600/R-94-173, October 1994, which is available from NTIS, PB-104766, or 
in Sec. 141.131(b). * * *
* * * * *


Sec. 141.64  [Amended]

    6. Amend Sec. 141.64 by:
    a. In paragraph (b)(1), revising ``December 16, 2001'' to read 
``January 1, 2002'' and revising ``December 16, 2003'' to read 
``January 1, 2004''; and
    b. In paragraph (b)(2), revising ``December 16, 2003'' to read 
``December 31, 2003''.


Sec. 141.65  [Amended]

    7. Section 141.65, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) are amended by 
revising ``December 16, 2001'' to read ``January 1, 2002'' and revising 
``December 16, 2003'' to read ``January 1, 2004'', wherever they 
appear.


Sec. 141.71  [Amended]

    8. Section 141.71(b)(6) is amended by revising the two occurrences 
of ``December 17, 2001'' to read ``December 31, 2001''.


Sec. 141.73  [Amended]

    9. Amend Sec. 141.73 by:
    a. In paragraph (a)(3), revising ``December 17, 2001'' to read 
``January 1, 2002''; and
    b. In paragraph (d), revising ``December 17, 2001'' to read 
``January 1, 2002''.


Sec. 141.130  [Amended]

    10. Amend Sec. 141.130 by:
    a. In paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), revising ``December 16, 2001'' 
to read ``January 1, 2002'' and revising ``December 16, 2003'' to read 
``January 1, 2004''; and
    b. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the phrase ``and chlorite'' from 
the first and second sentences.


Sec. 141.131  [Amended]

    11. Amend Sec. 141.131 by revising the first sentence of paragraph 
(b)(2) and adding paragraph (b)(3) to read:


Sec. 141.131  Analytical requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Analysis under this section for disinfection byproducts must be 
conducted by laboratories that have received certification by EPA or 
the State, except as specified under paragraph (b)(3) of this section. 
* * *
    (3) A party approved by EPA or the State must measure daily 
chlorite samples at the entrance to the distribution system.
* * * * *


Sec. 141.132  [Amended]

    12. Amend Sec. 141.132 by:
    a. In paragraph (a)(2), revising the reference 
``Sec. 142.16(f)(5)'' to read ``Sec. 142.16(h)(5)'';
    b. In paragraph (b)(1)(i), revising the third and fifth entries and 
footnote 2 in the table;
    c. In paragraph (b), revising the last two sentences in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii), redesignating paragraph (b)(1)(iv) as (b)(1)(v), adding a 
new paragraph (b)(1)(iv); and
    d. In paragraph (c), revising the first sentence after the heading 
in paragraph (c)(1)(i).
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec. 141.132  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *

[[Page 3777]]



             Routine Monitoring Frequency for TTHM and HAA5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Sample location in
       Type of system          Minimum monitoring     the distribution
                                    frequency              system
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *
                  *                  *                  *
Subpart H system serving      One sample per year   Locations
 fewer than 500 persons.       per treatment plant   representing
                               during month of       maximum residence
                               warmest water         time.\1\ If the
                               temperature.          sample (or average
                                                     of annual samples,
                                                     if more than one
                                                     sample is taken)
                                                     exceeds the MCL,
                                                     the system must
                                                     increase monitoring
                                                     to one sample per
                                                     treatment plant per
                                                     quarter, taken at a
                                                     point reflecting
                                                     the maximum
                                                     residence time in
                                                     the distribution
                                                     system, until the
                                                     system meets
                                                     criteria in
                                                     paragraph
                                                     (b)(1)(iv) of this
                                                     section.
 
*                  *                  *                  *
                  *                  *                  *
System using only ground      One sample per year   Locations
 water not under direct        per treatment plant   representing
 influence of surface water    \2\ during month of   maximum residence
 using chemical disinfectant   warmest water         time.\1\ If the
 and serving fewer than        temperature.          sample (or average
 10,000 persons.                                     of annual samples,
                                                     if more than one
                                                     sample is taken)
                                                     exceeds the MCL,
                                                     the system must
                                                     increase monitoring
                                                     to one sample per
                                                     treatment plant per
                                                     quarter, taken at a
                                                     point reflecting
                                                     the maximum
                                                     residence time in
                                                     the distribution
                                                     system, until the
                                                     system meets
                                                     criteria in
                                                     paragraph
                                                     (b)(1)(iv) of this
                                                     section.
 
*                  *                  *                  *
                  *                  *                  *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If a system elects to sample more frequently than the minimum
  required, at least 25 percent of all samples collected each quarter
  (including those taken in excess of the required frequency) must be
  taken at locations that represent the maximum residence time of the
  water in the distribution system. The remaining samples must be taken
  at locations representative of at least average residence time in the
  distribution system.
\2\ Multiple wells drawing water from a single aquifer may be considered
  one treatment plant for determining the minimum number of samples
  required, with State approval in accordance with criteria developed
  under Sec.  142.16(h)(5) of this chapter.

    (ii) * * *
    (iii) * * * Systems that do not meet these levels must resume 
monitoring at the frequency identified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 
section (minimum monitoring frequency column) in the quarter 
immediately following the monitoring period in which the system exceeds 
0.060 mg/L or 0.045 mg/L for TTHM or HAA5 respectively. For systems 
using only ground water not under the direct influence of surface water 
and serving fewer than 10,000 persons, if either the TTHM annual 
average is >0.080 mg/L or the HAA5 annual average is >0.060 mg/L, the 
system must go to the increased monitoring identified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(i) of this section (sample location column) in the quarter 
immediately following the monitoring period in which the system exceeds 
0.080 mg/L or 0.060 mg/L for TTHMs or HAA5 respectively.
    (iv) Systems on increased monitoring may return to routine 
monitoring if, after at least one year of monitoring their TTHM annual 
average is 0.060 mg/L and their HAA5 annual average is 
0.045 mg/L.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Routine Monitoring. Community and nontransient noncommunity 
water systems that use chlorine or chloramines must measure the 
residual disinfectant level in the distribution system at the same 
point in the distribution system and at the same time as total 
coliforms are sampled, as specified in Sec. 141.21. * * *
* * * * *

    13. Amend Sec. 141.133 by:
    a. In the first sentence of paragraph (a)(1), revising ``system's 
failure'' to read ``system fails'';
    b. In paragraph (b), removing the last two sentences of paragraph 
(b)(1)(i), revising paragraphs (b)(1) (ii) and (iii), and adding new 
paragraph (b)(1)(iv);
    c. In paragraph (c), removing the phrase ``of quarterly averages'' 
in the second sentence of paragraph (c)(1)(i) and adding the phrase 
``in addition to reporting to the State pursuant to Sec. 141.134'' to 
the end of the second and third sentences in paragraph (c)(2)(i) and 
the second and third sentences of paragraph (c)(2)(ii); and
    d. In paragraph (d), revising the reference ``Sec. 141.135(b)'' in 
the first sentence to read ``Sec. 141.135(c)'' and adding a sentence to 
the end of the paragraph.
    The additions and revisions as follows


Sec. 141.133  Compliance requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) For systems monitoring less frequently than quarterly, systems 
demonstrate MCL compliance if the average of samples taken that year 
under the provisions of Sec. 141.132(b)(1) does not exceed the MCLs in 
Sec. 141.64. If the average of these samples exceeds the MCL, the 
system must increase monitoring to once per quarter per treatment plant 
and such a system is not in violation of the MCL until it has completed 
one year of quarterly monitoring, unless the result of fewer than four 
quarters of monitoring will cause the running annual average to exceed 
the MCL, in which case the system is in violation at the end of that 
quarter. Systems required to increase monitoring frequency to quarterly 
monitoring must calculate compliance by including the sample which 
triggered the increased monitoring plus the following three quarters of 
monitoring.
    (iii) If the running annual arithmetic average of quarterly 
averages covering any consecutive four-quarter period exceeds the MCL, 
the system is in violation of the MCL and must notify the public 
pursuant to Sec. 141.32 or Sec. 141.202, whichever is effective for 
your system, in addition to reporting to the State pursuant to 
Sec. 141.134.
    (iv) If a PWS fails to complete four consecutive quarters of 
monitoring, compliance with the MCL for the last four-quarter 
compliance period must be

[[Page 3778]]

based on an average of the available data.
* * * * *
    (d) * * * For systems required to meet Step 1 TOC removals, if the 
value calculated under Sec. 141.135(c)(1)(iv) is less than 1.00, the 
system is in violation of the treatment technique requirements and must 
notify the public pursuant to Sec. 141.32, in addition to reporting to 
the State pursuant to Sec. 141.134.

    14. Amend Sec. 141.134 by:
    a. In paragraph (b), revising the table;
    b. In paragraph (c), revising the table; and
    c. In paragraph (d), revising the first entry in the table, 
designating the second entry in the first column as (2), and 
redesignating its corresponding entries in the second column as (i) 
through (ix).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec. 141.134  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           If you are a * * *                 You must report * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) System monitoring for TTHMs and      (i) The number of samples taken
 HAA5 under the requirements of Sec.      during the last quarter.
 141.132(b) on a quarterly or more       (ii) The location, date, and
 frequent basis.                          result of each sample taken
                                          during the last quarter.
                                         (iii) The arithmetic average of
                                          all samples taken in the last
                                          quarter.
                                         (iv) The annual arithmetic
                                          average of the quarterly
                                          arithmetic averages of this
                                          section for the last four
                                          quarters.
                                         (v) Whether, based on Sec.
                                          141.133(b)(1), the MCL was
                                          violated.
(2) System monitoring for TTHMs and      (i) The number of samples taken
 HAA5 under the requirements of Sec.      during the last year.
 141.132(b) less frequently than         (ii) The location, date, and
 quarterly (but as least annually).       result of each sample taken
                                          during the last monitoring
                                          period.
                                         (iii) The arithmetic average of
                                          all samples taken over the
                                          last year.
                                         (iv) Whether, based on Sec.
                                          141.133(b)(1), the MCL was
                                          violated.
(3) System monitoring for TTHMs and      (i) The location, date, and
 HAA5 under the requriements of Sec.      result of each sample taken
 141.132(b) less frequently than         (ii) Whether, based on Sec.
 annually.                                141.133(b)(1), the MCL was
                                          violated.
(4) System monitoring for chlorite       (i) The number of entry point
 under the requirements of Sec.           samples taken each month for
 141.132(b).                              the last 3 months.
                                         (ii) The location, date, and
                                          result of each sample (both
                                          entry point and distribution
                                          system) taken during the last
                                          quarter.
                                         (iii) For each month in the
                                          reporting period, the
                                          arithmetic average of all
                                          samples taken in each three
                                          samples set taken in the
                                          distribution system.
                                         (iv) Whether, based on Sec.
                                          141.133(b)(3), the MCL was
                                          violated, in which month, and
                                          how many times it was violated
                                          each month.
(5) System monitoring for bromate under  (i)The number of samples taken
 the requirements of Sec.  141.132(b).    during the last quarter.
                                         (ii)The location, date, and
                                          result of each sample taken
                                          during the last quarter.
                                         (iii) The arithmetic average of
                                          the monthly arithmetic
                                          averages of all samples taken
                                          in the last year.
                                         (iv) Whether, based on Sec.
                                          141.133(b)(2), the MCL was
                                          violated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State may choose to perform calculations and determine whether
  the MCL was exceeded, in lieu of having the system report that
  information

    (c) * * *


------------------------------------------------------------------------
           If you are a * * *                 You must report * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) System monitoring for chlorine or    (i) The number of samples taken
 chloramines under the requirements of    during each month of the last
 Sec.  141.132(c).                        quarter.
                                         (ii) The month arithmetic
                                          average of all samples taken
                                          in each month for the last 12
                                          months.
                                         (iii) The arithmetic average of
                                          the monthly averages for the
                                          last 12 months.
                                         (iv) Whether, based on Sec.
                                          141.133(c)(1), the MRD was
                                          violated.
(2) System monitoring for chlorine       (i) The dates, result, and
 dioxide under the requirements of Sec.   locations of samples taken
  141.132(c).                             during the last quarter.
                                         (ii) Whether, based on Sec.
                                          141.133(c)(2), the MRDL was
                                          violated.
                                         (iii) Whether the MRDL was
                                          exceeded in any two
                                          consecutive daily samples and
                                          whether the resulting
                                          violation was acuate or
                                          nonacute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State may choose to perform calculations and determine whether
  the MRDL was exceeded, in lieu of having the system report that
  information.

    (d) * * *


[[Page 3779]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
           If you are a * * *                 You must report * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) System monitoring monthly or         (i) The number of paired
 quarterly for TOC under the              (source water and treated
 requirements of Sec.  141.132(d) and     water) samples taken during
 required to meet the enhanced            the last quarter.
 coagulation or enhanced softening       (ii) The location, date, and
 requirements in Sec.  141.135(b)(2) or   results of each paired sample
 (3).                                     and associated alkalinity
                                          taken during the last quarter.
                                         (iii) For each month in the
                                          reporting period that paired
                                          samples were taken, the
                                          arithmetic average of the
                                          percent reduction of TOC for
                                          each paired sample and the
                                          required TOC percent removal.
                                         (iv) Calculations for
                                          determining compliance with
                                          the TOC prevent removal
                                          requirements, as provided in
                                          Sec.  141.135(c)(1).
                                         (v) Whether the system is in
                                          compliance with the ehnanced
                                          coagulation or enhanced
                                          softening percent removal
                                          requirements in Sec.
                                          141.135(b) in Sec.  141.135(b)
                                          for the last four quarters.
 
*                  *                  *                  *
                  *                  *                  *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State may choose to perform calculations and determine whether
  the treatment technique was met, in lieu of having the system report
  taht information.

Sec. 141.135  [Amended]

    15. Amend Sec. 1A141.135 by:
    a. In paragraph (a)(2)(iii), revising ``as required by'' in the 
first sentence to read ``according to'', and revising ``June 16, 2005'' 
in the third sentence to read ``June 30, 2005'';
    b. In paragraph (b)(2), revising the table;
    c. In paragraph (b)(4), removing the phrase ``(as aluminum)'' 
wherever it appears and revising the introductory text; and
    d. In paragraph (c)(1), revising the table;
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec. 141.135  Treatment technique for control of disinfection byproduct 
(DBP) precursors.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *

   Step 1 Required Removal of TOC by Enhanced Coagulation and Enhanced
    Softening for Subpart H Systems Using Conventional Treatment 1 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Source-water alkalinity, mg/
                                            L as CaCO 3 (in precentages)
          Source-water TOC, mg/L           -----------------------------
                                              0-60     >60-120   >120 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>2.0-4.0..................................      35.0      25.0      15.0
>4.0-8.0..................................      45.0      35.0      25.0
>8.0......................................      50.0      40.0     30.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Systems meeting at least one of the conditions in paragraph
  (a)(2)(i)-(vi) of this section are not required to operate with
  enhanced coagulation.
\2\ Softening system meeting one of the alternative compliance criteria
  in paragraph (a)(3) of this section are not required to operate with
  enhanced softening.
\3\ System practicing softening must meet the TOC removal requirements
  in this column.

    (3) * * *
    (4) Alternate minimum TOC removal (Step 2) requirements. 
Applications made to the State by enhanced coagulation systems for 
approval of alternate minimum TOC removal (Step 2) requirements under 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section must include, at a minimum, results of 
bench- or pilot-scale testing conducted under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of 
this section. The submitted bench- or pilot-scale testing must be used 
to determine the alternate enhanced coagulation level.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Subpart H systems other than those identified in paragraph 
(a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section must comply with requirements 
contained in paragraph (b)(2) or (b)(3) of this section. * * *
* * * * *


Sec. 141.170  [Amended]

    16. Section 141.170(a) is amended in the introductory text by 
revising ``December 17, 2001'' to read ``January 1, 2002''.


Sec. 141.172    [Amended]

    17. Amend Sec. 141.172 by:
    a. In paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(A), revising ``March 16, 2000'' to read 
``March 31, 2000'';
    b. In paragraph (a)(5), revising ``December 16, 1999'' to read 
``December 31, 1999'' wherever it appears;
    c. In paragraph (a)(5)(iii), revising ``March 16, 2000'' to read 
``March 31, 2000'';
    d. In the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2), revising ``March 
16, 2000'' to read ``April 1, 2000'';
    e. In paragraph (b)(3)(i), revising ``March 16, 2000'' to read 
``March 31, 2000''; and
    f. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), revising the last sentence to read:


Sec. 141.172  Disinfection profiling and benchmarking.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * * The (CTcalc/CT99.9) value of each segment and 
((CTcalc/CT99.9)) must be calculated using the 
method in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section.
* * * * *


Sec. 141.173    [Amended]

    18.-19. In Sec. 141.173, amend the introductory text by revising 
``December 17, 2001'' to read ``December 31, 2001''.


Sec. 141.175  [Amended]

    20. Amend Sec. 141.175 by revising the two occurrences of 
``December 17, 2001'' to read ``January 1, 2002'' in the introductory 
text and adding paragraph (c);

[[Page 3780]]

Sec. 141.175  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

* * * * *
    (c) Additional reporting requirements.
    (1) If at any time the turbidity exceeds 1 NTU in representative 
samples of filtered water in a system using conventional filtration 
treatment or direct filtration, the system must inform the State as 
soon as possible, but no later than the end of the next business day.
    (2) If at any time the turbidity in representative samples of 
filtered water exceeds the maximum level set by the State under 
Sec. 141.173(b) for filtration technologies other than conventional 
filtration treatment, direct filtration, slow sand filtration, or 
diatomaceous earth filtration, the system must inform the State as soon 
as possible, but no later than the end of the next business day.

PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 
IMPLEMENTATION

    21. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 
300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300J-11.

    22. In Sec. 142.12, revise paragraph (b)(3)(i) and the last 
sentence of (d)(2), to read as follows:


Sec. 142.12  Revision of state programs

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Informing public water systems of the new EPA (and upcoming 
State) requirements and that EPA will be overseeing implementation of 
the requirements until the State, if eligible for interim primacy, 
submits a complete and final primacy revision request to EPA, or in all 
other cases, until EPA approves the State program revision;
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Final request. * * * Complete and final State requests for 
program revisions shall be submitted within two years of the 
promulgation of the new or revised EPA regulations, as specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *


Sec. 142.15  [Amended]

    23. In the first sentence of paragraph (c)(5), revise the reference 
``Sec. 141.16(b)(3)'' to read ``Sec. 142.16(b)(3)''.

[FR Doc. 01-655 Filed 1-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P