[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 9 (Monday, January 14, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1812-1844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-409]



[[Page 1811]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142



National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 1 Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2002 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 1812]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142

[WH-FRL-7124-2]
RIN 2040-AD18


National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 1 Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is finalizing the Long Term 1 Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR). The purposes of the LT1ESWTR 
are to improve control of microbial pathogens, specifically the 
protozoan Cryptosporidium, in drinking water and address risk trade-
offs with disinfection byproducts. The rule will require systems to 
meet strengthened filtration requirements as well as to calculate 
levels of microbial inactivation to ensure that microbial protection is 
not jeopardized if systems make changes to comply with disinfection 
requirements of the Stage 1 Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts 
Rule (DBPR). The LT1ESWTR applies to public water systems that use 
surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface 
water and serve fewer than 10,000 persons. The LT1ESWTR builds upon the 
framework established for systems serving a population of 10,000 or 
more in the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR). 
This rule was proposed in combination with the Filter Backwash 
Recycling Rule (FBRR) in April 2000.

DATES: This regulation is effective February 13, 2002. As discussed in 
the supplementary information section and consistent with sections 
1412(b)(10) and 1445 of SDWA, regulated entities must comply with this 
rule starting March 15, 2002. For judicial review purposes, this final 
rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m. eastern time on January 14, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Public comments, the comment/response document, applicable 
Federal Register notices, other major supporting documents, and a copy 
of the index to the public docket for this rulemaking (W-99-10, Final 
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule) are available for 
review at EPA's Drinking Water Docket: 401 M Street, SW., Rm. EB57, 
Washington, DC 20460 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. For access to docket 
materials or to schedule an appointment please call (202) 260-3027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical inquiries contact Tom 
Grubbs at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., MC4607, Washington, DC 20460, 
(202) 564-5262. For general information contact the Safe Drinking Water 
Hotline, telephone (800) 426-4791. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is 
open Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 
5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by the LT1ESWTR are public water 
systems (PWSs) that use surface water or ground water under the direct 
influence of surface water (GWUDI) and serve fewer than 10,000 persons. 
Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Examples of regulated
                 Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................  PWSs that use surface water
                                             or GWUDI.
State, Local, Tribal or Federal             PWSs that use surface water
 Governments.                                or GWUDI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the 
LT1ESWTR. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this rule. Other types of entities 
not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the definition of PWS in Sec. 141.2 of title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations and applicability criteria in Sec. 141.501 of today's final 
rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of the LT1ESWTR 
to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

List of Abbreviations Used in This Document:

AWWA  American Water Works Association
AWWSCo  American Water Works Service Company
 deg.C  Degrees Celsius
CCP  Composite Correction Program
CCR  Consumer Confidence Report
CDC  Centers for Disease Control
CFR  Code of Federal Regulations
CFSII  Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
COI  Cost of Illness
CPE  Comprehensive Performance Evaluation
CTA  Comprehensive Technical Assistance
DAF  Dissolved Air Flotation
DBP  Disinfection Byproducts
DBPR  Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule
EPA  Environmental Protection Agency
ESWTR  Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
FACA  Federal Advisory Committee Act
FBRR  Filter Backwash Recycle Rule
FR  Federal Register
gpm  Gallons per Minute
GWUDI  Ground Water Under Direct Influence of Surface Water
HAA5  Haloacetic Acids (Monochloroacetic, Dichloroacetic, 
Trichloroacetic, Monobromoacetic and Dibromoacetic Acids)
HRRCA  Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis
ICR  Information Collection Request
IESWTR  Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
LT1ESWTR  Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
MCLG  Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
M-DBP  Microbial and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts
NDWAC  National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NPDWR  National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NODA  Notice of Data Availability
NTTAA  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NTU  Nephelometric Turbidity Units
O&M  Operation and Maintenance
OMB  Office of Management and Budget
PBMS  Performance-based Measurement System
PRA  Paperwork Reduction Act
PWS  Public Water System
PWSS  Public Water Supply Supervision
RFA  Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA  Regulatory Impact Analysis
SAB  Science Advisory Board
SBA  Small Business Administration
SBAR  Small Business Advocacy Review
SBREFA  Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SDWA  Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS  Safe Drinking Water Information System
SWTR  Surface Water Treatment Rule
TTHM  Total Trihalomethanes
UMRA  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
WTP  Willingness to Pay

Table of Contents

I. Summary

[[Page 1813]]

    A. Why is EPA Promulgating the LT1ESWTR?
    B. What is Cryptosporidium?
    C. What are the Health Concerns Associated with Cryptosporidium?
    D. Does this Regulation Apply to My Water System?
    E. How is the EPA Regulating Cryptosporidium in the LT1ESWTR?
    F. What Other Requirements are Included in this Rule?
    G. How Will this Regulation Protect Public Health?
II. Background
    A. What is the Statutory Authority for the LT1ESWTR?
    B. What is the Regulatory History for the LT1ESWTR?
    C. How were Stakeholders Involved in Developing the LT1ESWTR?
    D. What did the April 10, 2000 Proposal Contain?
III. Discussion of the Final Rule
    A. What Level of Cryptosporidium Removal does the LT1ESWTR 
Require?
    B. What Combined Filter Effluent Requirements does the LT1ESWTR 
Contain?
    C. What Individual Filter Monitoring Requirements does the 
LT1ESWTR Contain?
    D. What Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Requirements 
does the LT1ESWTR Contain?
    E. How does the Definition of Ground Water Under the Direct 
Influence of Surface Water Change?
    F. What Additional Requirements does the LT1ESWTR Contain for 
Unfiltered Systems?
    G. What does the LT1ESWTR Require for Finished Water Reservoirs?
    H. What is the Compliance Schedule for the LT1ESWTR?
    I. What Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report 
Requirements are Contained in the LT1ESWTR?
IV. State Implementation
    A. What Special State Primacy Requirements does the LT1ESWTR 
Contain?
    B. What State Recordkeeping Requirements does the LT1ESWTR 
Contain?
    C. What State Reporting Requirements does the LT1ESWTR Contain?
    D. How Must a State Obtain Interim Primacy for the LT1ESWTR?
V. Economic Analysis (Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis)
    A. What are the Costs of the LT1ESWTR?
    B. What are the Household Costs of the LT1ESWTR?
    C. What are the Benefits of the LT1ESWTR?
    D. What are the Incremental Costs and Benefits?
    E. Are there Benefits From the Reduction of Co-Occurring 
Contaminants?
    F. Is there Increased Risk From Other Contaminants?
    G. What are the Uncertainties in the Risk, Benefit, and Cost 
Estimates for the LT1ESWTR?
    H. What is the Benefit/Cost Determination for the LT1ESWTR?
VI. Other Requirements
    A. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    E. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    F. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Consultations with the Science Advisory Board, National 
Drinking Water Advisory Council, and the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services
    I. Executive Order 13132: Executive Orders on Federalism
    J. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Likely Effect of Compliance with the LT1ESWTR on the 
Technical, Financial, and Managerial Capacity of Public Water 
Systems
    L. Plain Language
    M. Congressional Review Act
    N. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
VII. References

I. Summary

A. Why Is EPA Promulgating the LT1ESWTR?

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires EPA to set enforceable 
standards to protect public health from contaminants that may occur in 
drinking water. As explained in more detail in the April 10, 2000 
proposal for today's rule (65 FR 19046), EPA has determined that the 
presence of microbiological contaminants is a substantial health 
concern. If finished water supplies contain microbiological 
contaminants, disease outbreaks may result. Disease symptoms may 
include diarrhea, cramps, nausea, jaundice, headaches, and fatigue. EPA 
has set enforceable drinking water treatment techniques to reduce the 
risk of waterborne disease outbreaks. Treatment technologies such as 
filtration and disinfection can remove or inactivate microbiological 
contaminants.
    Physical removal is critical to the control of Cryptosporidium 
because it is highly resistant to standard disinfection practices. 
Cryptosporidiosis, the infection caused by Cryptosporidium, may 
manifest itself as a severe infection that can last several weeks and 
may cause the death of individuals with compromised immune systems. In 
1993, Cryptosporidium caused over 400,000 people in Milwaukee, WI to 
experience intestinal illness. More than 4,000 were hospitalized and at 
least 50 deaths were attributed to the cryptosporidiosis outbreak. 
There have also been cryptosporidiosis outbreaks in Nevada, Oregon, and 
Georgia over the past several years.
    In 1990, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) cited drinking water 
contamination as one of the most important environmental risks and 
indicated that disease causing microbial contaminants (i.e., bacteria, 
protozoa, and viruses) are probably the greatest remaining health risk 
management challenge for drinking water suppliers (USEPA/SAB, 1990). 
The LT1ESWTR addresses this challenge by improving the control of a 
wide range of microbial pathogens in public drinking water systems and, 
specifically addressing Cryptosporidium for the first time in systems 
serving fewer than 10,000 people.

B. What Is Cryptosporidium?

    Cryptosporidium is a protozoan parasite found in humans, other 
mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles. It is common in the environment and 
widely found in surface water supplies (Rose, 1998; LeChevallier and 
Norton, 1995; Atherholt et al., 1998; EPA, 2000a). In the infected 
animal, the parasite multiplies in the gastrointestinal tract. The 
animal then excretes oocysts of the parasite in its feces. These 
oocysts are tiny spore-like organisms 4 to 6 microns in diameter (too 
small to be seen without a microscope), which carry within them the 
infective sporozoites. The oocysts of Cryptosporidium are very 
resistant to adverse factors in the environment and can survive dormant 
for months in cool, dark conditions such as moist soil, or for up to a 
year in clean water. When ingested by another animal they can transmit 
the cryptosporidiosis disease and start a new cycle of infection. 
Cryptosporidiosis is primarily a waterborne disease, but has also been 
transmitted by consumption of contaminated food, unhygienic diaper 
changing practices (and other person-to-person contact), and contact 
with young farm animals.
    Cryptosporidium oocysts are not easily killed by commonly-used 
disinfectants. They are relatively unaffected by chlorine and 
chloramines in the concentrations that are used for drinking water 
treatment. Oocyst infectivity appears to persist under normal 
temperatures, although oocysts may lose infectivity if sufficiently 
cooled or heated (USEPA, 2000a). Research indicates that oocysts may 
remain viable even after freezing (Fayer and Nerad, 1996).

[[Page 1814]]

C. What Are the Health Concerns Associated With Cryptosporidium?

    When someone is infected with Cryptosporidium, they may contract 
cryptosporidiosis, a disease which can cause diarrhea, stomach cramps, 
nausea, loss of appetite, and a mild fever. Cryptosporidium has become 
recognized as one of the most common causes of waterborne disease 
(drinking and recreational) in humans in the United States. The 
parasite is found in every region of the United States and throughout 
the world (www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/cryptosporidiosis/factsht_cryptosporidiosis.htm). The symptoms of cryptosporidiosis begin 
an average of seven days after infection. Persons with a normal, 
healthy immune system can expect their illness to last for two weeks or 
less, with constant or intermittent diarrhea. However, even after 
symptoms cease, an individual can still pass Cryptosporidium in the 
stool for up to two months, and may be a source of infection for 
others.
    Cryptosporidiosis is not treatable with antibiotics, so prevention 
of infection is critical. People with weakened immune systems (those 
with HIV/AIDS, on cancer chemotherapy, or who have received organ 
transplants) will have cryptosporidiosis for a longer period of time, 
and it could become life-threatening. Young children, pregnant women, 
or the elderly infected with cryptosporidiosis can quickly become 
severely dehydrated.
    Twelve waterborne cryptosporidiosis outbreaks have occurred at 
drinking water systems since 1984 (Craun, 1998; USEPA, 2000a). The 
largest of the known outbreaks occurred in Milwaukee and was 
responsible for over 400,000 illnesses and at least 50 deaths (Hoxie, 
et al., 1997; MacKenzie et al., 1994); other known outbreaks have 
occurred in smaller communities and have involved many fewer people. An 
incident such as a rainstorm that flushes many oocysts into the source 
water or causes a sanitary sewer overflow combined with a water 
treatment plant upset could allow a large pulse of oocysts to move past 
the multiple barriers of a water treatment plant.

D. Does This Regulation Apply to My Water System?

    Today's final regulation applies to all small (serving less than 
10,000 people) public water systems (PWSs) that use surface water or 
ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI).

E. How Is the EPA Regulating Cryptosporidium in the LT1ESWTR?

    In the IESWTR (63 FR 69478), EPA established a maximum contaminant 
level goal (MCLG) of zero for Cryptosporidium. When establishing an 
MCLG, EPA must also establish either a corresponding Maximum 
Contaminant Level (MCL) or a treatment technique. In the IESWTR and in 
today's LT1ESWTR, the Agency chose to establish a treatment technique 
that relies on strengthening water treatment processes already in 
place. For filtered systems this means achieving at least 2-log (99 
percent) removal of Cryptosporidium by meeting strengthened combined 
filter effluent turbidity limits as established by today's rule. For 
unfiltered systems it means maintaining and improving Cryptosporidium 
control under existing watershed control plans.

F. What Other Requirements Are Included in This Rule?

    Today's final regulation includes several requirements.

--All surface water and GWUDI systems serving fewer than 10,000 people 
must meet the requirements for achieving a 2-log removal or control of 
Cryptosporidium;
--Conventional and direct filtration systems must comply with specific 
combined filter effluent turbidity requirements while alternative 
filtration systems (systems using filtration other than conventional 
filtration, direct filtration, slow sand filtration, or diatomaceous 
earth filtration), must demonstrate the ability to achieve 2-log 
removal of Cryptosporidium and comply with specific State-established 
combined filter effluent turbidity requirements;
--Conventional and direct filtration systems must continuously monitor 
the turbidity of individual filters and perform follow-up activities if 
this monitoring indicates a potential problem;
--Systems must develop a disinfection profile unless they can 
demonstrate that their TTHM and HAA5 disinfection byproduct (DBP) 
levels are less than 0.064 mg/L and 0.048 mg/L respectively;
--Systems considering a significant change to their disinfection 
practice must develop a disinfection inactivation benchmark of their 
existing level of microbial protection and consult with the State for 
approval prior to implementing the disinfection change;
--Finished water reservoirs for which construction begins after the 
effective date of today's rule must be covered; and
--Unfiltered systems must comply with updated watershed control 
requirements that add Cryptosporidium as a pathogen of concern.

G. How Will This Regulation Protect Public Health?

    Today's rule for the first time establishes Cryptosporidium control 
requirements for small systems by requiring a minimum 2-log removal for 
Cryptosporidium. The rule also strengthens filter performance 
requirements to ensure 2-log Cryptosporidium removal, establishes 
individual filter monitoring to minimize contaminant pass-through and 
support improved performance, includes Cryptosporidium in the 
definition of GWUDI, and explicitly considers unfiltered system 
watershed control provisions. Today's rule also reflects a commitment 
to the importance of maintaining existing levels of microbial 
protection in public water systems as plants take steps to comply with 
newly applicable DBP standards. Systems considering significant changes 
to their disinfection practices must first evaluate current levels of 
Giardia inactivation (and virus inactivation if applicable) and consult 
with their State Primacy Agency for approval before implementing those 
changes to assure that current microbial protection is not 
significantly reduced. Thus, compliance with the provisions of today's 
rule will improve public health protection by reducing the risk of 
exposure to Cryptosporidium in small systems serving fewer than 10,000 
people even as those systems begin to take steps to comply with related 
DBP standards.

II. Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for the LT1ESWTR?

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA or the Act), as amended in 1986, 
requires EPA to publish a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for 
each contaminant which in the judgement of the EPA Administrator, may 
have an adverse effect on the health of persons, occurs in public water 
systems with a frequency and at a level of public health concern, and 
whose regulation would represent a meaningful public health risk 
reduction (Section 1412(b)(1)(A)). MCLGs are non-enforceable health 
goals to be set at a level at which no known or anticipated adverse 
effect on the health of persons occur and which allows an adequate 
margin of safety (Section 1412(b)(4)). The Act was again

[[Page 1815]]

amended in August 1996 (Public Law 104-83), resulting in the 
renumbering and augmentation of certain sections with additional 
statutory language. New sections were added establishing new drinking 
water requirements.
    The 1986 Amendments to SDWA requires EPA to publish an enforceable 
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) that specifies 
either a maximum contaminant level (MCL) or treatment technique 
(Sections 1401(1) and 1412(7)(a)) at the same time it publishes an 
MCLG. EPA is authorized to promulgate a NPDWR that requires the use of 
a treatment technique in lieu of establishing an MCL, if the Agency 
finds that it is not economically or technologically feasible to 
ascertain the level of the contaminant. Today's rule relies upon the 
treatment technique of improved filter performance based on 
strengthened turbidity limits to control for Cryptosporidium because an 
analytical method suitable for finished water compliance purposes is 
currently not economically or technologically feasible. In accordance 
with a schedule established by Section 1412(b)(2)(C) of SDWA as added 
by the 1996 Amendments to SDWA, EPA is required to promulgate today's 
rule by November 2000.

B. What Is the Regulatory History for the LT1ESWTR?

    In 1989, EPA promulgated the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) 
(54 FR 27486, June 29, 1989 (USEPA, 1989)) that set MCLGs of zero for 
Giardia lamblia, viruses, and Legionella and promulgated regulatory 
requirements for all PWSs using surface water or GWUDI. The SWTR 
includes treatment technique requirements for filtered and unfiltered 
systems that are intended to protect against the adverse health effects 
of exposure to Giardia lamblia, viruses, and Legionella, as well as 
many other pathogenic organisms. Briefly, those requirements include 
(1) requirements for maintenance of a disinfectant residual in the 
distribution system; (2) removal and/or inactivation of 3-log (99.9 
percent) for Giardia and 4-log (99.99 percent) for viruses; (3) 
combined filter effluent turbidity performance standard of 5 
nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) as a maximum and 0.5 NTU at the 
95th percentile monthly, based on 4-hour monitoring for treatment 
plants using conventional treatment or direct filtration (with separate 
standards for other filtration technologies); and (4) watershed 
protection and other requirements for unfiltered systems. Systems 
seeking to avoid filtration were required to meet avoidance criteria 
and obtain avoidance determinations from States by December 30, 1991, 
otherwise filtration must have been provided by June 29,1993. For 
systems properly avoiding filtration, later failures to meet avoidance 
criteria triggered a requirement that filtration be provided within 18 
months.
    The intention of the SWTR was to provide appropriate multiple 
barriers of treatment to control pathogen occurrence in finished 
drinking water. Cryptosporidium, however, was not addressed under the 
SWTR, because EPA lacked sufficient health, occurrence, and water 
treatment control data regarding this organism at the time of the 
rule's development. The IESWTR and today's final rule address these 
gaps in microbial protection.
    In 1992, EPA initiated a negotiated rulemaking (Reg-Neg) to develop 
a disinfectants and disinfection byproducts rule. The Reg-Neg Committee 
consisting of a variety of stakeholder groups met from November 1992 
through June 1993. As part of this effort, the Committee concluded that 
the SWTR needed to be revised to address the health risk of high 
densities of pathogens in poorer quality source waters than the SWTR 
addressed as well as the health risks of Cryptosporidium. The Committee 
recommended the development of three sets of rules: a two-staged 
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR), an ``interim'' 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), a ``long term'' 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR), and an Information 
Collection Rule. The IESWTR was only to apply to those systems serving 
10,000 or more persons. The Committee agreed that the ``long term'' 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule would be needed for systems 
serving fewer than 10,000 persons.
    Congress legislatively affirmed this Microbial/Disinfection 
Byproduct (M-DBP) strategy as part of the 1996 SDWA Amendments. As part 
of those new Amendments, Congress also established a new schedule for 
EPA promulgation of these rules (which is the basis for the November 
2000 schedule for today's rule). EPA established the M-DBP Advisory 
Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in 1997 to 
seek advice on how to proceed towards these deadlines in light of new 
information available since the 1993 negotiated rulemaking discussions. 
The Committee met five times in March through July 1997 to discuss 
issues related to the IESWTR and the Stage 1 DBPR. The Committee 
reached agreement in July of 1997 and its recommendations are embodied 
in an Agreement in Principle document dated July 15, 1997, which is 
also found in two Notices of Data Availability (NODA) (USEPA1997a,b). 
The major issues addressed in the Agreement in Principle were discussed 
in the NODA for the IESWTR (62 FR 59486, November 3, 1997) and Stage 1 
DBPR (62 FR 59388, November 3, 1997).
    On December 16, 1998, EPA promulgated the IESWTR (63 FR 69478), 
which applies to surface water and GWUDI systems serving 10,000 or more 
persons. The purposes of the IESWTR are to improve control of microbial 
pathogens (specifically Cryptosporidium) and to address risk trade-offs 
with DBPs. Key provisions established in the IESWTR include: (1) An 
MCLG of zero for Cryptosporidium; (2) a 2-log Cryptosporidium removal 
requirements for systems that filter; (3) strengthened combined filter 
effluent turbidity performance standards and individual filter 
turbidity provisions; (4) disinfection benchmarking provisions to 
assure continued levels of microbial protection while facilities take 
the necessary steps to comply with new DBP standards; (5) inclusion of 
Cryptosporidium in the definition of GWUDI, as another pathogen that 
would indicate the presence of GWUDI, and in the watershed control 
requirements for unfiltered public water systems; (6) requirements for 
covers on new finished water reservoirs; and (7) sanitary surveys for 
all surface water and GWUDI systems regardless of size.
    Today's rule is based in large part upon the data, research, and 
technical analysis that supported the major components included in the 
1998 IESWTR. To that degree, it reflects the national interim microbial 
protection control strategy ratified by a wide range of experts and 
stakeholders as part of the 1997 M/DBP Agreement in Principle. However, 
as was discussed in the April 10, 2000 proposal, today's rule also is 
based on new small system information that became available since 1998 
and, equally important, it also reflects a major commitment to 
significantly reduce small system compliance burdens wherever possible, 
while maintaining public health protection.

C. How Were Stakeholders Involved in the Development of the LT1ESWTR?

    EPA began outreach efforts to develop the LT1ESWTR in the summer of 
1998 with two public meetings: one in Denver, Colorado and the other in 
Dallas, Texas (USEPA, 1999a,b). Building on these two public meetings, 
EPA has also held a number of additional meetings with stakeholders,

[[Page 1816]]

trade associations, environmental groups, and representatives of State 
and local elected officials. Of particular importance for this rule, 
given its focus on small systems, EPA received valuable input from 
small entity representatives as part of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel. The panel was initiated in 
April of 1998 and officially convened in August of 1998. Many of the 
panel's recommendations are reflected in today's rule.
    EPA provided numerous opportunities for stakeholder and public 
involvement. In early June 1999, EPA mailed an informal draft of the 
LT1ESWTR preamble to the approximately 100 stakeholders who attended 
either of the public stakeholder meetings. Members of trade 
associations and the SBREFA panel also received the draft preamble. EPA 
received valuable suggestions and stakeholder input from 15 State 
representatives, trade associations, environmental interest groups, and 
individual stakeholders. EPA proposed the LT1ESWTR on April 10, 2000. 
During the comment period, the Agency held a public meeting in 
Washington D.C. on April 14, 2000. Additionally, the proposed rule was 
presented to industry, State representatives, and the public in nearly 
50 meetings across the US, including a May 30, 2000 meeting in 
Washington, D.C. with ten representatives of elected State and local 
officials (USEPA 2000g,h). Finally, EPA mailed approximately 200 copies 
of the proposed rule to stakeholders.

D. What Did the April 10, 2000 Proposal Contain?

    The proposed rulemaking package, which is the basis for today's 
final rule, was entitled The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water 
Treatment and Filter Backwash Proposed Rule (USEPA, 2000b).
    The proposed rule included two distinct sets of provisions: 
LT1ESWTR provisions and Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR) 
provisions. The Agency promulgated the final FBRR in a Federal Register 
announcement on June 8, 2001 (66 FR 31086), separate from today's final 
rule. The LT1ESWTR proposed rule provisions applied to surface and 
GWUDI systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons and included the 
following provisions:

--2-log removal of Cryptosporidium;
--Compliance with specific combined filter effluent turbidity 
requirements;
--Continuous turbidity monitoring for individual filters with follow-up 
activities if monitoring results indicated a potential problem;
--Development of a disinfection profile unless optional monitoring at a 
particular plant demonstrated TTHM and HAA5 levels less than 0.064 mg/L 
and 0.048 mg/L respectively;
--Development of a Giardia inactivation disinfection benchmark and 
consultation with the State for approval before making a significant 
change in disinfection practices;
--Mandatory covers for all newly constructed finished water reservoirs; 
and
--Unfiltered system compliance with updated watershed control 
requirements that add Cryptosporidium as a pathogen of concern.

III. Discussion of the Final Rule

A. What Level of Cryptosporidium Removal Does the LT1ESWTR Require?

1. What Does Today's Rule Require?
    Today's final rule establishes a treatment technique requirement 
for 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium for surface water and GWUDI 
systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons. This requirement applies 
between a point where the raw water is not subject to contamination by 
surface water runoff and a point downstream before or at the first 
customer.
2. How Was This Requirement Developed?
    As discussed previously in today's rule, Cryptosporidium is a 
microbiological contaminant that has caused several outbreaks of 
cryptosporidiosis and poses serious health risks. For these reasons, 
the Agency set forth to develop requirements to minimize risks 
associated with Cryptosporidium in drinking water. In the IESWTR, EPA 
established a MCLG of zero for Cryptosporidium. EPA decided to 
establish 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium as the accompanying 
treatment technique for this MCLG. This requirement is based on a 
number of treatment effectiveness studies that demonstrate the ability 
of well-operated conventional and direct filtration plants to achieve 
at least a 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium (Patania et al., 1995; 
Nieminski and Ongerth, 1995; Ongerth and Pecoraro, 1995; LeChevallier 
and Norton, 1992; LeChevallier et al., 1991; Foundation for Water 
Research, 1994; Kelly et al., 1995; and West et al., 1994). The 
information and data in these eight studies provide convincing evidence 
that conventional and direct filtration plants that employ coagulation, 
flocculation, sedimentation (in conventional filtration only), and 
filtration steps, have the ability to achieve a minimum of 2-log 
removal of Cryptosporidium when meeting specific turbidity limits. EPA 
has also provided data in the proposal for today's final rule that 
indicate the ability of slow sand filtration, diatomaceous earth 
filtration, and alternative filtration (membrane filtration, cartridge 
filtration, etc.) to achieve at least 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium 
(Jacangelo et al., 1995; Drozd & Schartzbrod, 1997; Hirata & Hashimoto, 
1998; Goodrich et al., 1995; Collins et al., 1996; Lykins et al., 1994; 
Adham et al., 1998; Shuler & Ghosh, 1991; Timms et al., 1995; Shuler et 
al., 1990; and Ongerth & Hutton, 1997). The Agency believes that the 
technological feasibility for 2-log removal is demonstrated for both 
large and small systems and therefore today's rule extends the 2-log 
Cryptosporidium removal requirement established for large and medium 
systems in the 1998 IESTWR to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 
persons.
3. What Major Comments Were Received?
    The majority of the commenters on the proposed rule agreed with the 
appropriateness of establishing a 2-log removal requirement for 
Cryptosporidium. A few commenters noted that small systems should not 
be required to meet the same Cryptosporidium log removal requirements 
as large systems. EPA disagrees. The technological feasibility of 2-log 
removal is well demonstrated (as shown in the studies discussed in the 
proposal for today's final rule) and the Agency believes that persons 
served by all sized systems should be afforded comparable levels of 
public health protection (i.e., the small systems subject to the 
LT1ESWTR should have the same MCLG, and the 2-log Cryptosporidium 
removal treatment technique as large systems subject to the IESWTR).

B. What Combined Filter Effluent Requirements Does the LT1ESWTR 
Contain?

1. What Does Today's Rule Require?
    Today's final rule requires strengthened combined filter effluent 
performance for conventional filtration, direct filtration, and 
alternative filtration systems (systems using filtration technologies 
other than conventional filtration, direct filtration, diatomaceous 
earth filtration, or slow sand filtration) as the treatment technique 
for achieving a 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium. For conventional and 
direct filtration systems, the

[[Page 1817]]

turbidity level of representative samples of a system's combined filter 
effluent water must be less than or equal to 0.3 NTU in at least 95 
percent of the measurements taken each month. The turbidity level of 
representative samples of a system's filtered water must at no time 
exceed 1 NTU. Under today's rule, conventional and direct filtration 
plants meeting these filter performance requirements are presumed to 
achieve at least a 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium. Slow sand and 
diatomaceous earth filtration plants are presumed to achieve at least 
2-log removal of Cryptosporidium if they continue to meet the existing 
filter performance requirements established in the SWTR. Systems using 
alternative filtration (i.e., membrane filtration, cartridge 
filtration, etc.) must demonstrate to the State that their system 
achieves 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium. The State will then 
establish appropriate turbidity limits to reflect this performance. At 
the end of each month, systems must report the total number of combined 
filter effluent turbidity measurements taken each month, as well as the 
number and percentage of turbidity measurements that exceeded their 
95th percentile turbidity limit and the number of measurements that 
exceeded their maximum turbidity limit. Combined filter effluent 
turbidity measurements must be kept for at least three years.
2. How Was This Requirement Developed?
    In establishing the 2-log removal as a treatment technique for 
Cryptosporidium, the Agency relied on the aforementioned studies to 
demonstrate the technological feasibility of establishing the 2-log 
removal. These studies demonstrated that specific treatment would 
achieve 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium when operated to achieve 
specific turbidity performance limits. For conventional and direct 
filtration systems, studies demonstrated that achieving a turbidity of 
0.3 NTU 95 percent of the time and never exceeding 1 NTU would ensure 
at least 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium. For slow sand and 
diatomaceous earth filtration systems, the studies demonstrated that 
meeting existing SWTR turbidity limits would ensure at least 2-log 
removal of Cryptosporidium. Alternative filtration systems were shown 
to achieve at least 2-log removal of Cryptosporidium at a variety of 
turbidities based on the type of filtration and other site-specific 
characteristics. The requirements of today's final rule reflect the 
recommendations of the 1997 M-DBP Committee.
    As part of the LT1ESWTR development process, EPA analyzed 
performance data from 211 small systems in 15 different States. That 
data indicated that a substantial number of small systems are presently 
meeting the tighter performance standards of today's rule. For example, 
50 percent of the 211 systems are currently meeting 0.3 NTU 12 months 
out of the year. In addition, 93 percent of the 211 systems never 
exceeded the 1 NTU maximum 12 months out of the year. Therefore, EPA 
believes that the strengthened filter performance standards established 
for small systems in today's final rule are feasible and achievable.
3. What Major Comments Were Received?
    The majority of the commenters on the proposal agreed with the 
appropriateness of the combined filter effluent requirements. Many 
commenters raised concerns with the proposal's reliance on turbidity as 
an indicator for demonstrating that membrane filtration meets the same 
Cryptosporidium removal requirements as conventional and direct 
filtration systems. Commenters indicated that although turbidity is the 
most prevalent form of water quality monitoring, establishing a 0.3 NTU 
95th percentile limit and 1 NTU maximum limit would not be as 
appropriate an indicator of the performance of membranes than other 
parameters such as flux or membrane integrity. They noted that using 
turbidity was appropriate if site specific turbidity limits were 
utilized. At most facilities these limits would typically be much lower 
than 0.3 NTU. Additionally, commenters asserted that since the typical 
operational turbidities of membranes ( 0.05 NTU) were so much lower 
than those of conventional filtration, it would be inappropriate to 
require membranes to meet turbidity limits that were significantly 
higher than standard operating practices. In response, EPA notes that 
in the proposed rule, EPA allowed membrane systems to meet either 
conventional filtration or alternative filtration combined filter 
effluent requirements. After further evaluating existing studies and 
information provided by commenters, EPA agrees that other appropriate 
indicators may be used to determine the treatment efficiency of 
membrane filtration, and that given the different operational 
turbidities of conventional filtration and membrane filtration, 
different turbidity limits are appropriate. Therefore, today's final 
rule treats membrane filtration as an available alternative filtration 
technology, instead of requiring membranes to meet the same turbidity 
limits as conventional and direct filtration.

C. What Individual Filter Monitoring Requirements Does the LT1ESWTR 
Contain?

1. What Does Today's Rule Require?
    Today's final rule establishes a requirement that all systems using 
surface water or GWUDI, serving fewer than 10,000 persons, and 
utilizing conventional or direct filtration must continuously monitor 
the individual filter turbidity for each filter used at the system. For 
purposes of this rule, continuous monitoring means at least every 15 
minutes. Systems must keep the results of this monitoring for at least 
three years. Each month systems must report to the State that they have 
conducted individual filter turbidity monitoring, and are required to 
indicate the dates, filter number, and turbidities of any measurements 
that exceeded 1.0 NTU. Today's rule provides that systems with two or 
fewer filters may monitor combined filter effluent turbidity 
continuously, in lieu of individual filter turbidity monitoring. Based 
on this monitoring, if a system exceeds 1.0 NTU in two consecutive 
measurements the system must include the filter number, date, time and 
reason for the exceedance at the end of the month in its monthly filter 
performance report to the State. If this occurs three months in a row 
for the same filter, a system is required to conduct a self-assessment 
of the filter. If a self-assessment is required, it must take place 
within 14 days of the day the filter exceeded 1.0 NTU in two 
consecutive measurements for the third straight month. The system must 
report to the State that the self-assessment was completed. A self-
assessment must include at least the following components:

--Assessment of filter performance;
--Development of a filter profile;
--Identification and prioritization of factors limiting filter 
performance;
--Assessment of the applicability of corrections; and
--Preparation of a self-assessment report.

    If a system exceeds 2.0 NTU (in two consecutive measurements 15 
minutes apart) for two months in a row, the system must contact the 
State to arrange for the State or an approved third party to conduct a 
Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE) not later than 60 days 
following the day the filter exceeded 2.0 NTU in two consecutive 
measurements for the second straight month. The CPE must be completed 
and

[[Page 1818]]

submitted to the State no later than 120 days following the day the 
filter exceeded 2.0 NTU in two consecutive measurements for the second 
straight month.
2. How Was This Requirement Developed?
    Performance of individual filters within a plant is of paramount 
importance in preventing pathogen breakthrough. Two important concepts 
regarding individual filters underlie today's individual filter 
monitoring requirement. First, as discussed in more detail in the April 
10, 2000 proposal, poor performance (and potential pathogen 
breakthrough) of one filter can be masked by optimal performance of the 
remaining filters, without exceeding combined filter effluent turbidity 
performance standards. Second, recent filter performance research 
demonstrates that individual filters are susceptible to turbidity 
spikes of short duration that may not be captured by four-hour combined 
filter effluent measurements. Several studies (Amirthatajah, 1988; 
Bucklin et al., 1988; Cleasby 1990; Hall and Croll 1996; and McTigue et 
al., 1998) have confirmed the frequency and magnitude of individual 
filter turbidity spikes. To address these spikes and the potential for 
masking, and provide system operators with information and advanced 
warning with regards to individual filter performance problems before 
they lead to treatment technique violations, the Agency proposed 
individual filter turbidity monitoring. EPA proposed one option and 
requested comment on two alternative approaches. The alternatives 
consisted of an approach identical to the IESWTR that entailed 
significantly more burden, and an approach that included 95th 
percentile and maximum triggers instead of a trigger based on two 
consecutive measurements. The proposed option has been revised in three 
minor ways. In today's rule:

--Systems with two or fewer filters may monitor combined filter 
effluent turbidity continuously, in lieu of individual filter turbidity 
(the proposal required all filters be monitored);
--Systems must schedule CPEs within 60 days and complete them within 
120 days (the proposal required 30 and 90 days);
--A system has 14 days following a turbidimeter malfunction to resume 
continuous individual filter monitoring before a violation occurs (the 
proposal required 5 days).
3. What Major Comments Were Received?
    The majority of the commenters on the proposal agreed with the 
appropriateness of the individual filter monitoring requirements. The 
Agency requested comment on a variety of issues to which commenters 
responded. Most commenters supported the modification that States be 
provided the opportunity to allow systems with two or fewer filters to 
monitor combined filter effluent turbidity continuously, in lieu of 
individual filter turbidity indicating that poor performance of one 
filter could not simply be masked by optimal performance of an 
additional filter. The Agency has included this modification in today's 
final rule because it reduces the burden on small systems while still 
providing continuous monitoring that can be used to indicate whether 
filters are performing poorly.
    Several commenters supported a modification to lengthen CPE 
schedules by 30 days. The Agency has included this modification in 
today's final rule in order to provide States added flexibility in 
performing these activities. The extra 30 days will provide States the 
opportunity to marshal unique resources (specifically, employees 
trained in conducting CPEs) and prioritize the conduct of CPEs, when 
several systems trigger them during the same time period.
    Several commenters indicated that allowing only five working days 
for an on-line turbidimeter to be off-line before a violation resulted 
would be inappropriate for small systems. Commenters indicated that 
smaller systems often do not have back-up units onsite and would be 
required to contact manufacturers and await shipping and installation 
which could easily exceed the five days. EPA agrees and has modified 
the requirement to allow systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons, 14 
days to resume online monitoring prior to incurring a violation.
    Several commenters noted that systems serving fewer than 10,000 
persons should be subject to less frequent monitoring of individual 
filter effluent. EPA believes that continuous individual filter 
monitoring is feasible and assures improved performance of filtration 
systems. As explained in the proposal, continuous filter monitoring is 
necessary to identify short duration turbidity spikes which are likely 
to be missed with less frequent monitoring. This is true for systems of 
all sizes. Less frequent monitoring would not identify many turbidity 
spikes and accordingly would not provide a comparable level of public 
health protection as that of continuous monitoring required for large 
systems under the IESWTR. In fact, the actual frequency of individual 
filter monitoring has little effect on burden as much of the costs 
associated with monitoring are derived from the purchase of the 
necessary equipment and would be incurred regardless of the frequency. 
Reduced monitoring would represent reduced public health protection and 
the Agency firmly believes that the consumers of these small systems 
should be afforded a comparable level of public health protection as 
larger systems.

D. What Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Requirements Does the 
LT1ESWTR Contain?

1. What Does Today's Rule Require?
    Today's final rule requires community and non-transient non-
community systems that use surface water or GWUDI and serve fewer than 
10,000 persons to develop a disinfection profile based on a 52 week 
period. Systems serving between 500 and 9,999 must begin profiling and 
notify the State to this effect by July 1, 2003. Systems serving fewer 
than 500 must begin profiling and notify the State to this effect by 
January 1, 2004. To conduct the profile, systems must:

--Monitor disinfectant residual concentration, water temperature in 
degrees Celsius, pH, and contact time during peak hourly flow once a 
week (on the same calendar day) during all months that the system is 
operational;
--Calculate Giardia lamblia inactivation for each of the 52 weeks; and
--Plot graphically, the 52 weekly inactivations.

    Results of the profile must be kept indefinitely. EPA is developing 
guidance materials that provide detailed information on this procedure. 
A State may determine that a system's profile is unnecessary where a 
system submits TTHM and HAA5 data that:

--Is taken during the month of warmest water temperature (beginning no 
earlier than 1998);
--Is taken at the point of maximum residence time; and
--Reports levels of TTHM and HAA5 of less than 0.064 mg/L and 0.048 mg/
L respectively.

    Today's final rule also requires any system which developed a 
profile and which decides to make a significant change to their 
disinfection practice to determine their disinfection benchmark (the 
average microbial inactivation during the month with the lowest

[[Page 1819]]

inactivation), consult with the State for approval, and provide the 
following information during consultation:

--Description of the proposed change;
--Disinfection profile (and data used to develop profile); and
--Analysis of how the proposed change will affect the current levels of 
disinfection.

Results of the disinfection benchmark (including the raw data and 
analysis) must be kept indefinitely.
2. How Was This Requirement Developed?
    The disinfection benchmarking requirements provide the necessary 
link between simultaneous compliance with microbial protection 
requirements of the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR and disinfection byproduct 
requirements of the DBPR. The requirements were established pursuant to 
the authority of Section 1445 of SDWA to ensure that systems would not 
jeopardize microbial protection when making changes in disinfection 
practices to comply with the DBPR.
    During the 1997 M/DBP FACA deliberations, all participants agreed 
to the fundamental premise that new standards for control of DBPs must 
not lead to significant reductions in existing levels of microbial 
protection. This premise is reflected in the 1997 M-DBP Advisory 
Committee Agreement in Principle document. The Advisory Committee 
reached agreement on the use of a microbial profiling and benchmarking 
process, whereby a system and State, working together, could assure 
that there would not be a significant increase in microbial risk as a 
result of modifying disinfection practices to meet MCLs for TTHM and 
HAA5. The final IESWTR established the disinfection benchmark procedure 
to require large systems (serving 10,000 or more persons) that might be 
considering a significant change to their disinfection practice 
(defined as systems with TTHM or HAA5 concentrations at or above 80 
percent of the respective MCLs (e.g., 0.064 mg/L TTHM or 0.048 mg/L 
HAA5)) to evaluate the impact on microbial risk. Under the IESWTR, 
large systems whose TTHM and/or HAA5 average levels exceeded the 
aforementioned values were required to develop a disinfection profile 
of microbial inactivation over the course of a year by calculating the 
daily level of Giardia inactivation. Those large systems required to 
develop a disinfection profile that also plan to make a significant 
change to disinfection practices were required to develop a 
``benchmark'' of existing levels of Giardia microbial protection and to 
consult with the State prior to implementing the change.
    In developing the disinfection benchmarking requirements of the 
LT1ESWTR, EPA used the IESWTR requirements as a starting point and, 
using significant input from stakeholders, modified the requirements to 
significantly reduce burden yet maintain a comparable level of public 
health protection. The April 10, 2000 proposal included several 
alternatives for establishing the microbial profiling and benchmarking 
process.
    Of the four TTHM and HAA5 monitoring alternatives, the first was 
identical to the IESWTR, and included four quarters of monitoring at 
four points in the distribution system. The second alternative matched 
DBP compliance monitoring, requiring systems serving fewer than 500 to 
monitor once per year, and systems serving 500 or greater to monitor 
quarterly. A third alternative required only one sample taken at the 
point of maximum residence time for all systems. The fourth alternative 
(which was proposed) made TTHM and HAA5 monitoring optional. This 
alternative was chosen over the others, because it significantly 
reduces burden and the concern about ``early implementation,'' that is, 
the need for systems to comply with requirements of a rule before 
primacy states have adopted new conforming regulations, while still 
retaining the ability for systems and States to utilize monitoring data 
to demonstrate low TTHM and HAA5 levels, and therefore avoid profiling. 
Since this monitoring is no longer required to determine the 
applicability of systems to conduct profiles, the final LT1ESWTR refers 
to this monitoring as ``optional monitoring.'' The associated TTHM and 
HAA5 samples that must be conducted under this optional monitoring, are 
described in section 141.531. Of the four profiling alternatives, the 
first was identical to the IESWTR, requiring daily profiling for a 
year. The second alternative did not require profiling. The third 
alternative, which was proposed, required weekly profiling for a year. 
The fourth alternative required daily profiling during a single month. 
The Agency proposed weekly profiling over the course of a full year 
because it significantly reduces burden associated with conducting 
profiling (as compared to the first alternative), but still provides 
information on the seasonal variation associated with microbial 
inactivation, and develops an accurate microbial benchmark as systems 
moved to comply with the Stage 1 DBPR. The second and fourth profiling 
alternatives would not provide such information. The Agency has revised 
the proposed option in one minor way. In today's rule:

--Systems serving between 500 and 9,999 persons must begin weekly 
profiling no later than July 1, 2003, and systems serving fewer than 
500 persons must begin weekly profiling no later than January 1, 2004 
(the proposal required all systems to begin profiling no later than 
January 7, 2003).
3. What Major Comments Were Received?
    The Agency received significant comment on the disinfection 
benchmarking provisions of the proposed rule. Commenters both supported 
and opposed the proposed ``optional'' TTHM and HAA5 monitoring. Several 
commenters argued that EPA should not require systems or states to 
undertake activities, even optional monitoring, before three years from 
the date a rule is promulgated because it would result in early 
implementation of the rule. While the Agency agrees that to the extent 
possible, implementation should be minimized in the first three years 
after the promulgation of a national primary drinking water regulation, 
as required by Section 1412(b)(10) of SDWA, the Agency continues to 
believe that allowing systems to conduct optional monitoring prior to 
three years after promulgation is appropriate and authorized under 
section 1445 of SDWA.
    Several commenters raised ``early implementation'' concerns with 
profiling as well, and suggested profiling should take place only after 
using the first round of DBP monitoring in 2004 as optional monitoring 
for profiling activities. The Agency does agree, that to the extent 
possible, early implementation should be minimized in the first two 
years after the promulgation of the rule. However, the Agency believes 
that developing a microbial profile and benchmark prior to compliance 
monitoring under the Stage 1 DBPR is key to ensuring that systems do 
not jeopardize existing microbial protection when making changes to 
their disinfection practices to comply with the Stage 1 DBPR. 
Consequently, today's final rule requires systems serving fewer than 
500 persons to begin profiling in January 2004, while systems serving 
greater than 500 to 9,999 persons are required to begin profiling in 
July 2003.
    Other commenters believed that the proposed requirement represented 
burden reduction for small systems and

[[Page 1820]]

States while still achieving the goals of optional monitoring and 
profiling as developed by the 1997 FACA and EPA. Additionally, 
commenters noted that EPA should provide States and systems the ability 
to use more representative data if available (i.e., allowing systems to 
average over several quarters of data similar to the IESWTR 
requirements). EPA agrees that systems and States should be allowed the 
opportunity to use more representative samples, and today's final rule 
affords States the opportunity to allow more representative data for 
optional monitoring and profiling.

E. How Does the Definition of Ground Water Under the Direct Influence 
of Surface Water Change?

1. What Does Today's Rule Require?
    Today's final rule modifies the definition of ground water under 
the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) to include 
Cryptosporidium, as another pathogen that would indicate the presence 
of GWUDI, for all PWSs.
2. How Was This Requirement Developed?
    Although ground water is typically protected from microbial 
contaminants that are characteristic of surface water supplies, some 
ground water systems are susceptible to microbial contamination from 
surface water. Ground water that exhibits physical water quality 
indicators that closely correlate with nearby surface water and which 
contain surface water indicator organisms is ``under the influence,'' 
of that surface water. In order to protect customers of such systems 
from illnesses resulting from exposure to Giardia and other microbial 
pathogens, the Agency addressed this issue during development of the 
1989 SWTR. The final SWTR requires that systems with source water found 
to be GWUDI are subject to the filtration and disinfection requirements 
of Section 141 subpart H.
    During development of today's final rule, the Agency proposed to 
modify the definition of GWUDI to include Cryptosporidium, as another 
pathogen that would indicate the presence of GWUDI. This is consistent 
with the approach taken by the Agency in the IESWTR and is further 
supported by recently available data indicating Cryptosporidium 
occurrence in 21 public water system wells (Hancock et al., 1998). As a 
result, EPA believes it appropriate and necessary to include 
Cryptosporidium in the definition of GWUDI for systems serving fewer 
than 10,000 persons in today's rule.
3. What Major Comments Were Received?
    Commenters agreed with the appropriateness of modifying the 
definition of GWUDI to include Cryptosporidium for all PWSs. Today's 
final rule reflects the GWUDI definition as proposed.

F. What Additional Requirements Does the LT1ESWTR Contain for 
Unfiltered Systems?

1. What Does Today's Rule Require?
    Today's rule modifies the requirements for surface water or GWUDI 
systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons that do not provide 
filtration by including Cryptosporidium in the watershed control 
provisions everywhere Giardia lamblia is mentioned.
2. How Was This Requirement Developed?
    Watershed control requirements were initially established in 1989 
as part of the SWTR. The SWTR contains specific conditions that a 
system must meet in order to avoid filtration. These conditions include 
good source water quality disinfection requirements, periodic on-site 
inspections, the absence of waterborne disease outbreaks, compliance 
with the Total Coliform Rule, and a watershed control program. The SWTR 
requires that the watershed control program must be maintained 
specifically to minimize the potential for contamination by Giardia 
lamblia cysts and viruses in the source water.
    During development of today's rule, the Agency proposed that 
Cryptosporidium should also be included as a focus in watershed program 
for unfiltered systems. For the same public health reasons explained in 
detail as part of the April 10, 2000 proposal and outlined earlier 
regarding the risks associated with exposure to Cryptosporidium, the 
Agency believes it is important that watershed control requirements for 
unfiltered systems be revised to include Cryptosporidium. This is 
particularly important since such systems do not have the additional 
treatment barrier provided by filtration to protect against possible 
pass-through of Cryptosporidium into the distribution system.
3. What Major Comments Were Received?
    Commenters agreed with the appropriateness of including 
Cryptosporidium in the watershed control program requirements for 
unfiltered systems. No substantive changes were made to this provision 
between proposal and today's final rule.

G. What Does the LT1ESWTR Require for Finished Water Reservoirs

1. What Does Today's Rule Require?
    Today's final rule requires that all finished water reservoirs, 
holding tanks, or storage water facilities for finished water at 
systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons, for which construction 
begins after March 15, 2002 must be covered.
2. How Was This Requirement Developed?
    Open finished water reservoirs, holding tanks, and storage tanks 
are utilized by PWSs throughout the country. Because these reservoirs 
are open to the environment and outside influences, they can be subject 
to the reintroduction of contaminants that the treatment plant was 
designed to remove. Existing EPA guidelines recommend that all finished 
water reservoirs and storage tanks be covered (USEPA, 1991). 
Additionally, many States currently require that finished water storage 
be covered, and the American Water Works Association (AWWA) has issued 
a policy statement strongly supporting the covering of reservoirs that 
store potable water (AWWA, 1983). In the July 29, 1994 IESWTR proposal 
(59 FR 38832), the Agency requested comment on whether to issue 
regulations requiring systems to cover finished water storage. Most 
commenters supported either Federal or State requirements, with some 
suggesting requirements should only apply to newly constructed 
reservoirs. In the final IESWTR, the Agency required systems using 
surface water and GWUDI and serving 10,000 persons or more to cover any 
newly constructed finished water reservoirs, holding tanks, or storage 
tanks. Through discussions with stakeholders and evaluations of 
available information, the Agency is unaware of any newly constructed 
uncovered finished water reservoirs at small systems since discussions 
with stakeholders regarding the LT1ESWTR began in 1998. The Agency is 
furthermore unaware of any future plans of small systems to construct 
uncovered finished water reservoirs. In fact the drinking water 
industry (regulators, consultants, and industry groups) have 
discouraged the construction of new uncovered reservoirs for many 
years. Furthermore, creating a prohibition on newly constructed 
uncovered finished water reservoirs would not affect current unfinished 
water reservoirs or even any system, which, despite the industry

[[Page 1821]]

standard of constructing only covered finished water reservoirs, may 
have already commenced construction on an uncovered finished water 
reservoir unbeknownst to the Agency or stakeholders which provided 
input on the rule. Therefore, in accordance with Section 1412(b)(10) of 
SDWA, the Agency has determined it is practicable to require as part of 
today's rule that systems serving fewer than 10,000 people provide 
covers for all finished water reservoirs, holding tanks, or storage 
reservoirs constructed after March 15, 2002.
3. What Major Comments Were Received?
    Commenters agreed with the appropriateness of requiring that newly 
constructed finished water storage be covered. Several States noted 
that they currently require that all finished water reservoirs be 
covered. No substantive changes were made to this provision between 
proposal and today's final rule.

H. What Is the Compliance Schedule for the LT1ESWTR?

1. When Must My System Comply With Each of the Requirements of the 
Rule?
    Each of the components of the final LT1ESWTR has a specific 
compliance date. The following table lists each requirement, along with 
the appropriate Federal Register citation and the compliance date:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Rule requirements             FR citation       Compliance date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cover new finished water          Sec.  141.511.....  March 15, 2002.
 reservoirs.
Comply with updated watershed     Secs.  141.520,     January 14, 2005.
 control requirements              141.521 & 141.522.
 (unfiltered PWSs).
Begin Developing Disinfection     Secs.  141.530-141  July 1, 2003 for
 Profile.                          .536.               systems serving
                                                       between 500 and
                                                       9,999 persons and
                                                       January 1, 2004
                                                       for systems
                                                       serving fewer
                                                       than 500 persons.
Complete the Disinfection         Secs.  141.530-141  July 1, 2004 for
 Profile.                          .536.               systems serving
                                                       between 500 and
                                                       9,999 persons and
                                                       January 1, 2005
                                                       for systems
                                                       serving fewer
                                                       than 500 persons.
Combined Filter Effluent          Secs.  141.550,     January 11, 2005.
 Turbidity Limits.                 141.551, 141.552,
                                   & 141.553.
Individual Filter Turbidity       Secs.  141.560,     January 11, 2005.
 Monitoring.                       141.561, 141.562,
                                   141.563, 141.564.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What Major Comments Were Received?
    Many commenters noted that they would not support requirements that 
would take place prior to two years after the promulgation of today's 
final rule. Several others recommended requiring that no portions of 
the rule should take effect until three years after the date of 
promulgation. The Agency does agree that to the extent possible, 
implementation should be minimized in the first two years after the 
promulgation of the rule. However, today's final rule requires systems 
serving fewer than 500 persons to begin profiling in January 2004, 
while systems serving greater than 500 to 9,999 persons are required to 
begin profiling in July 2003. This would allow time for States to work 
with systems, yet still provide profiling data prior to compliance 
sampling under the Stage 1 DBPR.

I. What Public Notification and Consumer Confidence Report Requirements 
Are Contained in the LT1ESWTR?

    Today's final rule modifies the Public Notification (PN) 
requirements found in Appendix A and B of subpart Q of Part 141 to 
include public notification requirements for systems subject to the 
LT1ESWTR that are consistent with those for systems subject to the 
IESWTR.
    Today's rule does not specifically modify the Consumer Confidence 
Report (CCR) Requirements found in subpart O of Part 141. However, 
consumer confidence reports must contain any violations of treatment 
techniques or requirements of NPDWRs as specified in Sec. 141.153(d)(6) 
and Sec. 141.153(f). This includes any such violations of the LT1ESWTR.
    Updated CCR and PN appendices can be found on the Agency's Web site 
at http://www/epa.gov/safewater/tables.html.

IV. State Implementation

A. What Special State Primacy Requirements does the LT1ESWTR Contain?

    In addition to adopting drinking water regulations at least as 
stringent as the Federal regulations of the LT1ESWTR, EPA requires that 
States adopt certain additional provisions related to this regulation 
to have their program revision application approved by EPA. This 
information advises the regulated community of State requirements and 
assists EPA in its oversight of State programs.
    Under the final LT1ESWTR, there are several special primacy 
requirements that a State's application must include:

--Description of how the State will consult with the system and approve 
modifications to disinfection practices;
--Description of how the State will approve a more representative data 
set for optional monitoring and profiling under Secs. 141.530-141.536.
--Description of how existing rules, adoption of appropriate rules or 
other authority under Sec. 142.16(i)(1) require systems to participate 
in a Comprehensive Technical Assistance (CTA) activity, and the 
performance improvement phase of the Composite Correction Program 
(CCP);
--Description of how the State will approve a method to calculate the 
logs of inactivation for viruses for a system that uses either 
chloramines, chlorine dioxide, or ozone for primary disinfection; and
--For alternative filtration technologies (filtration other than 
conventional filtration treatment, direct filtration, slow sand 
filtration or diatomaceous earth filtration), a description of how the 
State will determine under Sec. 142.16(i)(2)(iv), that a PWS may use a 
filtration technology if the PWS demonstrates to the State, using pilot 
plant studies or other means, that the alternative filtration 
technology, in combination with the disinfection treatment that meets 
the requirements of subpart T of this title, consistently achieves 3-
log (99.9 percent) removal and/or inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts 
and 4-log (99.99 percent) removal and/or inactivation of viruses, and 
2-log (99 percent) removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts; and a 
description of how, for the

[[Page 1822]]

system that makes this demonstration, the State will set turbidity 
performance requirements that the system must meet 95 percent of the 
time and that the system may not exceed at any time.

B. What State Recordkeeping Requirements Does the LT1ESWTR Contain?

    Today's rule includes changes to the existing recordkeeping 
provisions to implement the requirements in today's final rule. States 
must maintain records of the following:
    (1) Records of turbidity measurements;
    (2) Records of disinfectant residual measurements and other 
parameters necessary to document disinfection effectiveness;
    (3) Decisions made on a system-by-system basis and case-by-case 
basis under provisions of section 141, subpart H or subpart P or 
subpart T;
    (4) Records of systems consulting with the State concerning a 
significant modification to their disinfection practice (including the 
status of the consultation);
    (5) Records of decisions that a system using alternative filtration 
technologies can consistently achieve a 2-log (99 percent) removal of 
Cryptosporidium oocysts, as well as the required levels of removal and/
or inactivation of Giardia and viruses for systems using alternative 
filtration technologies, including State-set enforceable turbidity 
limits for each system. A copy of the decision must be kept until the 
decision is reversed or revised and the State must provide a copy of 
the decision to the system, and;
    (6) Records of those systems required to perform filter self-
assessments, CPE or CCP.

C. What State Reporting Requirements Does the LT1ESWTR Contain?

    Currently States must report information to EPA under section 
142.15 regarding violations, variances and exemptions, enforcement 
actions and general operations of State public water supply programs. 
There are no additional requirements under this rule, but States are 
required to report violations, variances and exemptions, and 
enforcement actions related to this rule.

D. How Must a State Obtain Interim Primacy for the LT1ESWTR?

    To maintain primacy for the Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) 
program and to be eligible for interim primacy enforcement authority 
for future regulations, States must adopt today's final rule. A State 
must submit a request for approval of program revisions that adopt the 
revised MCL or treatment technique and implement regulations within two 
years of promulgation, unless EPA approves an extension per 
Sec. 142.12(b). Interim primacy enforcement authority allows States to 
implement and enforce drinking water regulations once State regulations 
are effective and the State has submitted a complete and final primacy 
revision application. To obtain interim primacy, a State must have 
primacy with respect to each existing NPDWR. Under interim primacy 
enforcement authority, States are effectively considered to have 
primacy during the period that EPA is reviewing their primacy revision 
application.

V. Economic Analysis (Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis)

    This section summarizes the Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis 
(HRRCA) in support of the LT1ESWTR as required by section1412(b)(3)(C) 
of the 1996 SDWA. In addition, under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, EPA must estimate the costs and benefits of the 
LT1ESWTR. EPA has prepared an economic analysis to comply with the 
requirements of this order and the SDWA Health Risk Reduction and Cost 
Analysis (USEPA, 2001a). The final economic analysis has been published 
on the Agency's Web site, and can be found at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt1eswtr. The analysis can also be found in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
    EPA has estimated the total annualized cost for implementing the 
LT1ESWTR and analyzed the total benefits that result from the rule. 
Total annual costs for the rule are $39.5 million, in 1999 dollars, 
using three percent discount rate [$44.8 million using a seven percent 
discount rate]. The cost estimate includes capital costs for treatment 
changes and start-up and annual labor costs for monitoring and 
reporting activities. More detailed information, including the basis 
for these estimates and alternate cost estimates using different cost 
of capital assumptions are described in the LT1ESWTR economic analysis 
(USEPA, 2001a). Combining the value of illness and mortalities avoided, 
the estimate of the total quantified annual benefits of the LT1ESWTR 
range from $18.9 million to $90.9 million. However, this range does not 
incorporate many of the sources of uncertainty related to quantifying 
benefits, including many benefits the Agency was unable to evaluate. 
Accordingly, incorporating additional uncertainties would necessarily 
increase the size of the range. For example, the number of avoided 
cases of cryptosporidiosis might be higher or lower than the number 
reflected in this range. More detailed information, including the basis 
for these estimates, are described in the LT1ESWTR economic analysis 
(USEPA, 2001a).

A. What Are the Costs of the LT1ESWTR?

    In estimating the costs of today's final rule, the Agency 
considered impacts on PWSs and on States (including territories and EPA 
implementation in non-primacy States). The LT1ESWTR will result in 
increased costs to public water systems for implementing the components 
of today's final rule. States will also incur implementation costs. EPA 
estimates that the annualized cost of today's final rule will be $39.5 
million using a three percent discount rate ($44.8 million using a 
seven percent discount rate).
    Approximately 84 percent ($33.1 million using a 3 percent discount 
rate and $38.2 million using a 7 percent discount rate) of the rule's 
total annual costs are imposed on drinking water utilities. States 
incur the remaining 16 percent ($6.4 million using 3 percent and $6.6 
million using 7 percent) of the LT1ESWTR's total annual cost. The 
turbidity provisions, which include treatment changes, monitoring, and 
reporting, account for the largest portion of the total rule costs 
($37.7 million using 3 percent and $42.7 million using 7 percent). 
Systems will incur most of the turbidity provision costs and this is 
discussed in more detail in the next section. The national estimate of 
annual system costs is based on estimates of system-level costs for the 
rule and estimates of the number of systems expected to incur each type 
of cost. Total capital costs for the LT1ESWTR (non-annualized) is 
$173.6 million.
    Turbidity Provision Costs--The turbidity provisions are estimated 
to cost both public drinking water systems and States approximately 
$37.7 million annually using a three percent discount rate ($42.7 
million using 7 percent). However, the majority of these costs will be 
borne by the systems and are the result of treatment changes to meet 
the 0.3 NTU turbidity standard as well as the cost for some systems to 
purchase turbidimeters in order to meet the monitoring requirements of 
this rule. The Agency estimates that 2,207 systems will modify their 
water treatment in response to this rule provision while 2,327 
conventional and direct filtration systems will need to install 
turbidimeters. In addition to the capital costs associated with this 
rule

[[Page 1823]]

provision there will also be increases in operation and maintenance 
(O&M) costs. These combined capital and O&M costs have an estimated 
cost to systems of $27.1 million annually using a 3 percent discount 
rate ($31.8 million using a 7 percent discount rate). The O&M 
expenditures account for 59 percent of the $27.1 million using a 3 
percent discount rate ($31.8 million using a 7 percent discount rate) 
while the remaining 41 percent represents annualized capital costs. In 
addition to the turbidity treatment costs, turbidity monitoring costs 
apply to all small surface water or GWUDI systems using conventional or 
direct filtration methods. There are an estimated 5,817 systems that 
fall under this criterion. The annualized individual filter turbidity 
monitoring cost to PWSs is approximately $4.5 million using a 3 percent 
discount rate ($4.7 million using 7 percent). In addition to the 
turbidity treatment and monitoring costs, individual filter turbidity 
exceedance reporting is estimated to cost systems $0.6 million annually 
(using either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate).
    The Agency estimated that the total State cost for the turbidity 
provision (monitoring and exceptions) is $6.1 million annually (using 
either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate), with start-up and 
monitoring comprising of 81 percent of these annual costs ($4.9 million 
annually using either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate). The 
remaining $1.2 million (using either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount 
rate) in annual costs includes the costs for States to review the 
individual filter turbidity exceedance reports and individual filter 
self-assessment costs.
    Disinfection Benchmarking Costs--The disinfection benchmarking 
provision involves three components: benchmarking, profiling, and 
optional monitoring. The start-up costs for this provision are 
estimated to cost systems $2.9 million ($0.2 million annualized using a 
three percent discount rate and $0.3 million using a seven percent 
discount rate). Disinfection benchmarking and profiling are estimated 
to cost systems approximately $0.4 million annually using a 3 percent 
discount rate ($0.5 million using 7 percent). TTHM and HAA5 monitoring 
is optional and estimated to cost $0.3 million annually using a 3 
percent discount rate ($0.4 million using a 7 percent discount rate). 
State disinfection benchmarking annualized costs are estimated to be 
$0.4 million using a 3 percent discount rate ($0.5 million using a 7 
percent discount rate). This estimate includes start-up, compliance 
tracking/recordkeeping, and consultation costs.
    Covered Finished Water Reservoir Provision Costs--The LT1ESWTR 
requires that small systems cover all newly constructed finished water 
reservoirs, holding tanks, or other storage facilities for finished 
water. Total annual costs, including annualized capital costs and one 
year of O&M costs are expected to be $0.8 million (using either a 3 
percent or 7 percent discount rate) for this provision. This estimate 
is calculated from a projected construction rate of new reservoirs and 
unit cost assumptions for covering new finished water reservoirs. Also, 
the Agency believes that this is an overestimate since there may be 
additional States that currently require finished water requirement.
    Although EPA has estimated the cost of all the rule's components on 
drinking water systems and States, there are some costs that the Agency 
did not quantify. These non-quantifiable costs result from 
uncertainties surrounding rule assumptions and from modeling 
assumptions. For example, EPA did not estimate a cost for systems to 
acquire land if they needed to build a treatment facility or 
significantly expand their current facility because the need for and 
cost of land is highly system specific. Additionally, if the cost for 
land was prohibitive, an alternative compliance option may be available 
(such as connecting to another source). Once again, the Agency has not 
quantified costs for this scenario due to the high degree of site 
specificity. However, based on evaluations of Comprehensive Performance 
Evaluations (CPEs), EPA believes that most systems possess more than 
adequate property to construct new facilities.
    In addition, other LT1ESWTR provisions may affect some systems but 
the Agency was not able to quantify these costs. These non-quantified 
costs include those for systems that incur incremental costs increases 
as a result of including Cryptosporidium in the definition of GWUDI and 
also by including Cryptosporidium in the watershed control requirements 
for unfiltered systems. The Agency lacked data on the number of systems 
potentially affected by these two provisions and was therefore, unable 
to estimate their costs. By including Cryptosporidium in the 
definition, more ground water systems may be determined to be under the 
direct influence of surface water resulting in additional cost because 
these systems must comply with the 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule 
and today's rule. EPA also did not estimate the costs for unfiltered 
systems to control Cryptosporidium in their watersheds. These systems 
already control for other pathogens from similar sources as 
Cryptosporidium so it is likely that this provision will have a 
relatively minor impact.

B. What Are the Household Costs of the LT1ESWTR?

    The mean annual cost per household is $6.24 and the cost per 
household is less than $15 for 90 percent of 6.3 million households 
potentially affected by today's final rule. Of the remaining 
households, nine percent will experience a range of annual costs from 
$15 to $120 ($10/month), while only one percent of households are 
estimated to experience annual costs exceeding $120.
    As indicated in the economic analysis supporting today's final 
rule, per-household costs exceed $240/year for approximately 5,600 
households out of the 6.3 million households potentially impacted by 
the LT1ESWTR. However, this analysis likely overestimates costs for 
most of these households, allowing that systems might choose to incur 
costs with up to 28 separate treatment changes when in fact it is 
likely to be more cost-effective to install a new treatment system. 
(This can be thought of as building an automobile piece by piece from 
an auto parts store compared to buying one at a dealership.) The 
aforementioned 5,600 households are associated with the end of the cost 
distribution where systems undertake an unrealistically large number of 
treatment changes.

C. What Are the Benefits of the LT1ESWTR?

    The primary benefits of today's final rule come from reductions in 
the risks of microbial illness from drinking water. In particular, 
LT1ESWTR focuses on reducing the risk associated with disinfection 
resistant pathogens, such as Cryptosporidium. Exposure to other 
pathogenic protozoa, such as Giardia, or other waterborne bacteria, 
viral pathogens, and other emerging pathogens are likely to be reduced 
by the provisions of this rule as well, but are not quantified. In 
addition, LT1ESWTR produces non-quantifiable benefits associated with 
the risk reductions that result from the uncovered reservoir provision, 
including Cryptosporidium in GWUDI definition, and including 
Cryptosporidium in watershed requirements for unfiltered systems. Non-
quantifiable benefits also include reducing the risks to sensitive 
subpopulations and the likelihood of

[[Page 1824]]

incurring costs associated with outbreaks.

1. Quantifiable Health Benefits

    The quantified benefits from this rule are based solely on the 
reductions in the risk of cryptosporidiosis that result from the 
turbidity provision. As a result of data limitation, this analysis only 
addresses endemic illness and not illness that results from epidemic 
disease outbreaks. Cryptosporidiosis is an infection caused by 
Cryptosporidium which is an acute, self-limiting illness lasting 7 to 
14 days, with symptoms that include diarrhea, abdominal cramping, 
nausea, vomiting and fever (Juranek, 1995). The monetized value of an 
avoided case of cryptosporidiosis is estimated to range from $796 to 
$1,411 per case based on a cost-of-illness methodology (Harrington et 
al., 1985; USEPA 2001a). The high end of the range includes losses for 
medical costs, work time, productivity, and leisure time. However, the 
low end of the range only values medical costs and work time. The 
medical costs may be overestimated as they are assumed to be the same 
as medical costs for a case of Giardiasis which has a significantly 
longer duration. However, the Agency believes it is appropriate not to 
prorate medical costs for the shorter duration of Cryptosporidiosis 
because (1) available data suggests that the median length of hospital 
stays is essentially the same for Cryptosporidiosis compared to 
Giardiasis; (2) the Harrington et al. study was conducted in the mid-
1980's, and consequently, the higher direct medical costs associated 
with treating individuals with HIV/AIDS, who are more severely impacted 
by Cryptosporidiosis, was not included; and (3) Cryptosporidiosis has 
no known medical treatment and available data indicates that the range 
of the length of hospital stays for immunocompromised individuals is 
larger for cases of Cryptosporidiosis compared to Giardiasis. The 
Agency also recognizes however, that many individuals with 
Cryptosporidiosis do not seek medical treatment and thus have little or 
no associated medical cost, and that the percentage of such cases may 
be higher for Cryptosporidiosis than Giardiasis given its shorter 
duration.
    The benefits of the turbidity provisions of LT1ESWTR come from 
improvements in filtration performance at water systems. The benefits 
analysis accounts for some of the variability and uncertainty in the 
analysis by estimating benefits under two different current treatment 
and three improved removal assumptions. In addition, EPA used Monte 
Carlo simulations to derive a distribution of estimates to address 
uncertainty.
    In order to quantify the benefits of this rule, the Agency 
estimated changes in the incidence of cryptosporidiosis that would 
result from the rule. The analysis included estimating the baseline 
(pre-LT1ESWTR) level of exposure and risk from Cryptosporidium in 
drinking water and the reductions in such exposure and risk resulting 
from the turbidity provisions of the LT1ESWTR. Baseline levels of 
Cryptosporidium in finished water were estimated by assuming national 
source water occurrence distribution (based on data by LeChevallier and 
Norton, 1995) and a national distribution of Cryptosporidium removal by 
treatment.
    In the LT1ESWTR economic analysis, the following two assumptions 
were made regarding the current Cryptosporidium oocyst removal 
performance to estimate finished water Cryptosporidium concentrations. 
First, based on treatment removal efficiency data presented in the 
proposal, EPA assumed a national distribution of physical removal 
efficiencies with a mean of 2.0 logs and a standard deviation of 0.63 
logs. Because the finished water concentrations of oocysts represent 
the baseline against which improved removal from the LT1ESWTR is 
compared, variations in the log removal assumption could have 
considerable impact on the risk assessment. Second, to evaluate the 
impact of the removal assumptions on the baseline and resulting 
improvements, an alternative mean log removal/inactivation assumption 
of 2.5 logs and a standard deviation of 0.63 logs were also used to 
calculate finished water concentrations of Cryptosporidium.
    For each of the two baseline assumptions, EPA assumed that a 
certain number of plants would show low, mid, or high improved removal 
as a result of the turbidity provisions. The amount of improved removal 
depends upon factors such as water matrix conditions, filtered water 
turbidity effluent levels, and coagulant treatment conditions. The low, 
mid, and high improved removals were derived from Patania et al., 
(1995). This study demonstrated that an incremental decrease in 
turbidity from 0.3 NTU to 0.1 NTU (or a 0.2 NTU reduction overall) 
resulted in increased oocyst removals of up to one-log. The Agency used 
this data to construct low, mid, and high removal assumptions that 
would capture uncertainty associated with improved removal. The Agency 
also utilized different low, mid, and high removal assumptions for 
distinct categories of current turbidity performance (.2NTU, 0.2-0.3 
NTU, 0.3-0.4 NTU, and > 0.4 NTU). For instance, systems currently 
operating at greater than 0.4 NTU would need to target 0.2 NTU to 
ensure compliance with the 0.3 NTU limit and EPA accordingly assumed a 
low improved removal of 0.5-log, a mid improved removal of 0.75-log and 
a high improved removal of 0.9-log. However, systems currently 
operating between 0.2 NTU and 0.3 NTU were only expected to minimally 
improve turbidity performance and would therefore only expect improved 
log removals of 0.15, 0.25, and 0.3 (low, mid, and high). As a result, 
the economic analysis considers various baseline and with-rule 
scenarios to develop a range of endemic health damages avoided. 
Additional information is found in the Benefits chapter of the Economic 
Analysis supporting today's final rule.
    The finished water Cryptosporidium distributions that would result 
from additional log removal with the turbidity provisions were derived 
assuming that additional log removal was dependent on current removal, 
i.e., that systems currently operating at the highest filtered water 
turbidity levels would show the largest improvements or high improved 
removal assumption. For example, plants now failing to meet a 0.4 NTU 
limit would show greater removal improvements than plants now meeting a 
0.3 NTU limit.
    In addition to assuming the more conservative baseline and removal 
assumptions, the lower-end of the LT1ESWTR's benefit estimate does not 
include valuations for leisure time, productivity losses (returning to 
work but still experiencing symptoms), and other loss categories that 
the authors discuss but do not quantify (e.g., ``high valued'' 
leisure). The authors (Harrington et al.) were highly confident in the 
estimates for direct medical expenditures and work losses which 
comprise the lower benefit estimate; and less confident in the values 
for leisure time losses and productivity losses which are included in 
the upper benefit estimate only. The decreased level of confidence was 
based on the data and methods used to estimate only these losses. The 
authors also conclude that: ``* * * nonetheless, the loss categories in 
this group-[productivity, leisure time, etc.] are unquestionably 
present and therefore, raise losses above those reported in [the lower-
end benefit estimate]''. The Agency believes that these categories have 
positive value as stated in Harrington et al. consequently the lower-
end estimate for the

[[Page 1825]]

LT1ESWTR understates the true value of these loss categories.
    The Agency further notes that the medical expense component of the 
valuation may be overstated because it is not prorated for the shorter 
duration of Cryptosporidiosis relative to Giardiasis (mean duration of 
11.5 v. 41.6 days). The Agency believes this is appropriate however, 
because (1) available data suggests that the median length of hospital 
stays is essentially the same for Cryptosporidiosis compared to 
Giardiasis; (2) the Harrington et al. study was conducted in the mid-
1980's, and consequently, the higher direct medical costs associated 
with treating individuals with HIV/AIDS, who are more severely impacted 
by Cryptosporidiosis, was not included; and (3) Cryptosporidiosis has 
no known medical treatment and available data indicates that the range 
of the length of hospital stays for immunocompromised individuals is 
larger for cases of Cryptosporidiosis compared to Giardiasis. The 
Agency also recognizes however, that many individuals with 
Cryptosporidiosis do not seek medical treatment and thus have little or 
no associated medical cost, and that the percentage of such cases may 
be higher for Cryptosporidiosis than Giardiasis given its shorter 
duration.
    Table V.1 indicates estimated annual quantified benefits associated 
with implementing the LT1ESWTR. The benefits analysis examines only the 
endemic health damages avoided based on the LT1ESWTR for each of the 
turbidity provision scenarios discussed previously. For each of these 
scenarios, EPA calculated the mean of the distribution of the number of 
illnesses avoided. The 10th and 90th percentiles imply that there is a 
10 percent chance that the estimated value could be lower than the 10th 
percentile and there is a 10 percent chance that the estimated value 
could be higher than the 90th percentile. The modeling assumptions used 
to obtain the distribution of illness and mortality avoided for each 
baseline and the removal scenarios considers both variability and 
uncertainty. Specifically, the Agency used a 2-dimensional Monte Carlo 
simulation to include both uncertainty and variability inputs. The 
components that EPA considered uncertain include the probability of 
illness given an infection, the variability of Cryptosporidium to cause 
either an infection or illness, and the infectivity dose-response 
factor. The variability components include: Cryptosporidium occurrence 
in the finished water, individual daily drinking water consumption, and 
the number of days per year of exposure.
    In the 2-dimensional simulation structure, a set of values for the 
uncertainty parameters is chosen from their respective distributions. 
This set of values is then ``frozen'' and a specified number of 
iterations are run where different values are chosen for the 
variability factors. This process is repeated for some specified number 
of sets of uncertainty parameters. For this analysis, 250 sets of 
uncertainty parameters were used, with 1,000 variability iterations 
performed on each of the 250 uncertainty sets.
    This modeling exercise provides the Agency with 250 sets of 
statistics for individual annual risk of illness (e.g., mean, standard 
deviation) that each reflect different possible combinations of 
uncertainty factors. The 250 estimates for each set of statistics 
(i.e., mean, confidence intervals) were then used to compute an overall 
population average annual risk of illness.
    Next, the Agency estimates cases of illness and mortality from the 
average annual risk of illness estimates. In order to do this, the 
average annual probability of illness is multiplied by the number of 
exposed individuals. In a separate Monte Carlo simulation for this 
calculation, the average annual probability of illness is treated as an 
uncertainty variable. As a result, the Agency has mean estimates with 
confidence intervals for various baseline and post LT1ESWTR assumptions 
regarding Cryptosporidium removal from source water. The 90th 
percentile confidence bounds on the expected values largely reflect the 
following uncertainty variables: the probability of illness given 
infection, the variability of Cryptosporidium to cause either an 
infection or illness, and the infectivity dose-response factor.
    The Agency has done its best to represent a reasonable range of 
quantifiable uncertainty using standard modeling techniques. However, 
the Agency recognizes that additional sources of uncertainty exist 
which could not be quantified. To the extent that these are 
significant, the true range of uncertainty may be greater than that 
reflected in the quantified analysis.
    EPA has evaluated drinking water consumption data from USDA's 1994-
1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) Study. 
EPA's analysis of the CSFII Study using the ``all sources, consumer 
only'' information resulted in a daily water ingestion lognormally 
distributed with a mean of 1.2 liters per person per day (USEPA, 
2000j). Results of alternative model calculations based on USDA 
consumption data for ``community water supplies, all respondents'' 
(mean of 0.93 liters per person per day) are presented in the appendix 
to the economic analysis as a lower bound estimate.

                        Table V.1.--Quantified Benefits From Illnesses and Mortalities Avoided Annually From Turbidity Provisions
                                                                       [$Millions]*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Daily drinking water ingestion and baseline Cryptosporidium log-removal assumptions, $Millions, 1999
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Quantified benefits                                      2.0 log                                            2.5 log
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Low              Mild             High             Low              Mid              High
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean Benefit from Avoided Illnesses...............      $23.9-$42.4      $31.6-$56.0      $32.9-$58.3       $9.5-$16.8      $11.2-$19.8      $12.7-$22.6
    10th Percentile...............................        11.4-20.3        15.2-27.0        14.1-24.9          2.2-3.9          2.8-5.0          4.2-7.5
    90th Percentile...............................        50.1-88.8       58.8-104.2       56.5-100.2        26.6-47.2        27.6-48.9        33.6-59.5
Mean Benefits from Avoided Mortalities............             23.7             31.3             32.5              9.4             11.1             12.6
    10th Percentile...............................             11.3             15.0             13.9              2.2              2.8              4.2
    90th Percentile...............................             49.6             58.2             55.9             26.3             27.3             33.2
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Mean Quantified Benefits................        47.6-66.1        62.9-87.3        65.4-90.9        18.9-26.2        22.2-30.9       25.4-35.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not equal due to rounding.


[[Page 1826]]

    According to the economic analysis performed for the LT1ESWTR 
published today, the rule is estimated to reduce the mean annual number 
of illnesses caused by Cryptosporidium in water systems with improved 
filtration performance by 12,000 to 41,000 cases per year depending 
upon which of the six baseline and improved Cryptosporidium removal 
assumptions was used, and assuming the 1.2 liter drinking water 
consumption distribution. Based on these values, the mean estimated 
annual benefits of reducing the illnesses ranges from $9.5 million to 
$58.3 million per year. The economic analysis also indicated that the 
rule could result in a mean reduction of 1 to 5 fatalities each year, 
depending upon the varied baseline and improved removal assumptions. 
Using a mean value of $6.3 million per statistical life saved, reducing 
these fatalities could produce benefits in the range of $9.4 million to 
$32.5 million. Combining the value of illness and mortalities avoided, 
the estimate of the total quantified annual benefits of the LT1ESWTR 
range from $18.9 million to $90.9 million. However, this range does not 
incorporate many of the sources of uncertainty related to quantifying 
benefits, including many benefits the Agency was unable to evaluate. 
Accordingly, incorporating additional uncertainties would necessarily 
increase the size of the range.
    New occurrence data and infectivity data is currently being 
evaluated by the Agency in the context of the Long Term 2 Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR). The analysis is currently 
ongoing and peer review has not been completed. EPA conducted a 
sensitivity analysis in the economic analysis supporting today's final 
rule to predict the effect that new data may have on the benefits 
presented earlier. Table V.2 provides a summary of this sensitivity 
analysis and depicts the cumulative change to the benefits range that 
each of the four new changes (new occurrence data, new infectivity 
data, new morbidity data, and new viability data) could have on 
benefits. The economic analysis includes a more detailed analysis using 
this data.

               Table V.2.--Summary of Results of Sensitivity Analysis To Predict Effects of New Data and Information on Range of Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Current EA          New occurence data     New infectivity data    New morbidity data     New viability data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change.............................  No Changes............  Occurrence changes      Rate of infection      Morbidity changes      Viability changes
                                                              from 4.7 oocyst/L to    from .00424 to         from 0.39 to 0.5.      from 16.4 percent to
                                                              1.06 oocyst/L.          .02317.                                       55.2 percent.
Benefits Range.....................  $18.9-$90.9...........  $5.4-$25.2............  $17.3-$74.4..........  $22.5-$88.0..........  $51.2-$195.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Non-Quantified Health and Non-Health Related Benefits
    The quantified benefits from filter performance improvements do not 
fully capture all the benefits of the turbidity provision. Even the 
upper bound estimates, which are based on a cost-of-illness (COI) 
methodology (expanded to incorporate lost leisure time and lost 
productivity while working), may not fully capture the willingness-to-
pay to avoid a case of Cryptosporidiosis. In addition, the Harrington, 
et al. study was conducted in the mid-1980's in a rural community and 
may not be fully representative of the current national population 
including individuals with HIV/AIDS and chemotherapy patients that are 
more severely impacted by Cryptosporidiosis. If this population was 
more accurately represented, it may be that the average per-case 
valuation would be higher than the range presented in this analysis. 
Further, the turbidity provisions are also expected to decrease the 
risk of waterborne disease outbreaks. However, the quantified benefits 
reflect only the reduction in endemic Cryptosporidiosis and not any 
outbreak-related illness or mortalities.
    Other disinfection resistant pathogens may also be removed more 
efficiently due to implementation of the LT1ESWTR. Exposure to other 
pathogenic protozoa, such as Giardia, or other waterborne bacterial or 
viral pathogens are likely to be reduced by the provisions of this rule 
as well.
    In addition to preventing illnesses, this rule is expected to have 
other non-health related benefits. During an outbreak, local 
governments and water systems must issue warnings and alerts and may 
need to provide an alternative source of water. Systems also face 
negative publicity and possibly legal costs. Businesses have to supply 
their customers and employees with alternative sources of water and 
some, especially restaurants, may even have to temporarily close. 
Households also have to boil their water, purchase water, or obtain 
water from another source. A study of a Giardia outbreak in Luzerne 
County, Pennsylvania showed that these non-health related outbreak 
costs can be quite significant (Harrington et al., 1985). This outbreak 
resulted in an estimated loss to individuals of $31 million to $92 
million. Additional losses were also calculated for restaurants and 
bars ($2 million to $7 million), government agencies ($0.4 million) and 
the water supply utility ($3 million).
    The remaining rule provisions (disinfection benchmarking, covered 
finished water reservoirs, inclusion of Cryptosporidium in the GWUDI 
definition, and inclusion of Cryptosporidium in watershed control 
requirements for unfiltered systems) provide additional benefits. 
However, EPA is only able to discuss the benefits of these rule 
provisions qualitatively because of data limitations. The disinfection 
benchmark provision will ensure that adequate microbial protection is 
in place if a system must make changes to its disinfection practices as 
a result of the Stage 1 DBP rule. Covering finished water reservoirs 
will protect the finished water from becoming re-contaminated from such 
things as animal or bird droppings, surface water runoff, and algae. If 
Cryptosporidium is found in ground water supplies, they will be 
required to change treatment practice to prevent illness. Finally, by 
requiring Cryptosporidium control in watersheds of unfiltered systems, 
this will minimize the potential for illness and may also lower the 
overall costs of drinking water treatment.

D. What Are the Incremental Costs and Benefits?

    EPA evaluated the incremental or marginal costs of today's final 
rule turbidity provision by analyzing various turbidity limits, 0.3 
NTU, 0.2 NTU, and 0.1 NTU. For each turbidity limit, EPA developed 
assumptions about which process changes systems might implement to meet 
the turbidity level and how many systems would adopt each change. The 
comparison of total compliance cost estimates shows that costs are 
expected to increase

[[Page 1827]]

significantly across other turbidity limits considered by the Agency. 
The total cost of a 0.2 NTU limit is 346 percent higher than the final 
rule limit of 0.3 NTU, and a 0.1 NTU limit would be 1,192 percent 
higher.

E. Are There Benefits From the Reduction of Co-Occurring Contaminants?

    If a system chooses to install treatment, it may choose a 
technology that would also address other drinking water contaminants. 
For example, some membrane technologies installed to remove bacteria or 
viruses can reduce or eliminate many other drinking water contaminants 
including arsenic.
    The technologies used to reduce individual filter turbidities have 
the potential to reduce concentrations of other pollutants as well. 
Reductions in turbidity that result from today's proposed rule are 
aimed at reducing Cryptosporidium by physical removal. However, health 
risks from Giardia lamblia and emerging disinfection resistant 
pathogens, such as microsporidia, Toxoplasma, and Cyclospora, are also 
likely to be reduced as a result of improvements in turbidity removal. 
The frequency and extent that LT1ESWTR would reduce risk from other 
contaminants has not been quantitatively evaluated because of the 
Agency's lack of data on the removal efficiencies of various 
technologies for emerging pathogens and the lack of co-occurrence data 
for microbial pathogens and other contaminants from drinking water 
systems.

F. Is There Increased Risk From Other Contaminants?

    It is unlikely that LT1ESWTR will result in any increased risk from 
other contaminants. Improvements in plant turbidity performance will 
not result in any increases in risk. In fact the disinfection 
benchmarking component of today's final LT1ESWTR will provide 
information to systems so they can minimize the increased risk from 
microbial contaminants as they take steps to address risks associated 
with DBPs under the Stage 1 DBPR.

G. What Are the Uncertainties in the Risk, Benefit and Cost Estimates 
for the LT1ESWTR?

    EPA has included in the economic analysis, a detailed discussion of 
the possible sources of uncertainty in risk, benefit and cost 
estimates. Some sources of possible uncertainty associated with 
calculation of risk and benefits include occurrence of Cryptosporidium 
oocysts in source waters and finished waters, reduction of 
Cryptosporidium oocysts due to improved treatment, viability and 
infectivity of Cryptosporidium oocysts, characterization of risk, and 
willingness to reduce risk and avoid costs. Uncertainty associated with 
costs includes assumptions with respect to treatment a system might 
choose to employ to comply with the rule, assumptions about costs of 
labor, maintenance, and capital, and the number of systems expected to 
undertake certain activities. The Agency believes that the risks, 
benefits, and costs have been accurately portrayed. Discussions and 
analyses of risks, benefits, and costs in the economic analysis 
indicate where uncertainty may be introduced and to the extent 
possible, the effect uncertainty may have on analysis (USEPA, 2001a).

H. What Is the Benefit/Cost Determination for the LT1ESWTR?

    The Agency has determined that the benefits of the LT1ESWTR justify 
the costs. As shown in Table V.3, the quantified net benefits of this 
rule based on the Agency's estimate range from $20.6 million to $51.4 
million using the 3 percent discount rate ($25.9 million to $46.1 
million at the 7 percent discount rate). Additionally, EPA believes 
that quantified net benefits would be larger if both unquantified 
benefits and costs were able to be monetized.

                                       Table V.3.--Annualized Net Benefits of the LT1ESWTR, Millions, 1999 Dollars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Costs using a 3  Costs using a 7
                                                                      Benefit range       percent          percent      Net benefits (3  Net benefits (7
                                                                                       discount rate    discount rate       percent)         percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate of Benefits...............................................      $18.9-$90.9            $39.5            $44.8     $-20.6-$51.4     $-25.9-$46.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Other Requirements

A. 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 small 
entities, EPA considered small entities to be PWSs serving fewer than 
10,000 persons. This is the cut-off level specified by Congress in the 
1996 Amendments to the SDWA for small system flexibility provisions. In 
accordance with the RFA requirements, EPA proposed using this 
alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7620, February 
13, 1998), requested comment, consulted with the Small Business 
Administration (SBA), and expressed its intention to use the 
alternative definition for all future drinking water regulations in the 
Consumer Confidence Reports regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998). 
As stated in that final rule, the alternative definition would be 
applied to this regulation as well.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In accordance with section 603 of the RFA, EPA convened a Small 
Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and 
recommendations from representatives of small entities that would 
potentially be regulated by the rule in accordance with section 609(b) 
of the RFA. A detailed discussion of the Panel's advice and 
recommendations is found in the Panel Report found in the docket for 
today's final rule (USEPA, 1998k). The Panel recommendations emphasized 
the need to provide small systems flexibility. The Agency has 
structured today's final

[[Page 1828]]

LT1ESWTR with an emphasis on providing flexibility and reducing burden 
for small systems. For example, the Agency originally contemplated 
requiring four quarters of TTHM and HAA5 monitoring and disinfection 
profiling based on daily measurements. Today's final rule requires 
profiling based on weekly measurements and allows systems the option of 
using one quarter of TTHM and HAA5 monitoring to opt-out of profiling. 
Today's rule also provides systems with two or fewer filters the 
flexibility to monitor combined filter effluent in lieu of individual 
filter turbidity monitoring, effectively allowing these systems to 
reduce their recordkeeping burden. A complete summary of the Panel's 
recommendations is presented in the proposal (65 FR 19046, 19127-
19130).
    While EPA could have certified the proposed rule based on the 
proposed rule requirements, the Agency originally developed an IRFA 
(see 65 FR 19046, 19126-19127) and convened an SBAR Panel because 
several of the additional alternatives EPA was requesting comment on 
would have resulted in substantial costs for small systems thereby 
preventing the Agency from certifying. While EPA included these 
additional alternatives in the proposal and estimated costs in the 
economic analysis for the proposal, the Agency re-evaluated the 
economic effects on small entities after publication of the April 10, 
2000 LT1ESWTR proposal using the rule requirements of today's final 
rule and was able to certify that today's final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    EPA's analysis showed that of the approximately 11,000 small 
entities potentially affected by the LT1ESWTR, over 5,000 are expected 
to incur average annualized costs of less than $70 dollars (0.003 
percent of average annual revenue) while slightly more than 3,000 are 
expected to incur average annualized costs of less than $850 dollars 
(0.03 percent of average annual revenue). Of the remaining systems, 
approximately 500 systems are expected to incur average annualized 
costs of approximately $2,500 dollars (0.1 percent of average annual 
revenue), approximately 2,000 systems are expected to incur average 
annualized costs of approximately $13,000 dollars (0.6 percent of 
average annual revenue). Less than 100 systems are expected to incur 
average annualized costs of approximately $15,700 dollars (0.7 percent 
of average annual revenue). The Agency has included a detailed 
description of this analysis in the Regulatory Flexibility Screening 
Analysis prepared for the rule (USEPA, 2000e).

B. 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 2040-0229. The information collected as 
a result of this rule will allow the States and EPA to determine 
appropriate requirements for specific systems, in some cases, and to 
evaluate compliance with the rule. For the first three years after 
February 13, 2002, the major information requirements are related to 
disinfection profiling activities. The information collection 
requirements in Secs. 141.530-141.536, 141.540-141.544, 141.550-
141.553, 141.560-141.564, and 141.570-141.571, for systems, and 
Secs. 142.14 and 142.16, for States, are mandatory. The information 
collected is not confidential. The final estimate of aggregate annual 
average burden hours for LT1ESWTR is 330,329. Annual average aggregate 
cost estimate is $1,583,538 for capital (expenditures for monitoring 
equipment), and $1,919,563 for operation and maintenance including lab 
costs (which is a purchase of service). The burden hours per response 
is 21.8. The frequency of response (average responses per respondent) 
is 2.8 annually. The estimated number of likely respondents is 5,404 
(the product of burden hours per response, frequency, and respondents 
does not total the annual average burden hours due to rounding).
    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 maintaining 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. EPA is 
amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR control 
numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the information 
requirements contained in this final rule.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. Summary of UMRA Requirements
    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 by State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by 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.
    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. The estimated annual cost of this rule is $39.5 
million. Thus today's rule is not

[[Page 1829]]

subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. Of the approximately 6,500 small government entities 
potentially affected by the LT1ESWTR, approximately 3,000 are expected 
to incur average annualized costs of less than $70 dollars (0.003 
percent of average annual revenue) while approximately 2,000 are 
expected to incur average annualized costs of less than $850 dollars 
(0.03 percent of average annual revenue). Of the remaining systems, 
less than 300 are expected to incur average annualized costs of 
approximately $2,500 dollars (0.1 percent of average annual revenue), 
approximately 1,200 systems are expected to incur average annualized 
costs of approximately $13,000 dollars (0.6 percent of average annual 
revenue). Less than 100 systems are expected to incur average 
annualized costs of approximately $15,700 dollars (0.7 percent of 
average annual revenue). While today's final rule only applies to 
systems serving fewer than 10,000, it is not unique as it provides a 
comparable level of health protection to individuals served by small 
systems as the IESWTR provided to individuals served by large systems. 
While there are small differences between the LT1ESWTR and IESWTR, 
these differences reflect an effort to reduce burden for small systems 
while still maintaining a comparable level of health protection. Thus, 
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
    Nevertheless, EPA has tried to ensure that State, local, and Tribal 
governments had opportunities to provide comment. EPA consulted with 
small governments to address impacts of regulatory requirements in the 
rule that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As 
discussed next, a variety of stakeholders, including small governments, 
were provided the opportunity for timely and meaningful participation 
in the regulatory development process. EPA used these opportunities to 
notify potentially affected small governments of regulatory 
requirements being considered.
    EPA began outreach efforts to develop the LT1ESWTR in the summer of 
1998. Two public stakeholder meetings, which were announced in the 
Federal Register, were held on July 22-23, 1998, in Lakewood, Colorado, 
and on March 3-4, 1999, in Dallas, Texas. Stakeholders include 
representatives of State, local and Tribal governments, environmental 
groups and publicly owned and privately owned public water systems. In 
addition to these meetings, EPA has held several formal and informal 
meetings with stakeholders including the Association of State Drinking 
Water Administrators and representatives of State and local elected 
officials. A summary of each meeting and attendees is available in the 
public docket for this rule. EPA also convened a Small Business 
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel in accordance with the RFA, as amended by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to 
address small entity concerns including those of small local 
governments. The SBAR Panel allows small regulated entities to provide 
input to EPA early in the regulatory development process. In early June 
1999, EPA mailed an informal draft of the LT1ESWTR preamble to the 
approximately 100 stakeholders who attended one of the public 
stakeholder meetings. Members of trade associations and the SBREFA 
Panel also received the draft preamble. EPA received valuable 
suggestions and stakeholder input from 15 State representatives, trade 
associations, environmental interest groups, and individual 
stakeholders. The majority of concerns dealt with reducing burden on 
small systems and maintaining flexibility.
    To inform and involve Tribal governments in the rulemaking process, 
EPA presented the LT1ESWTR at three venues: the 16th Annual Consumer 
Conference of the National Indian Health Board, the annual conference 
of the National Tribal Environmental Council, and the EPA/Inter Tribal 
Council of Arizona, Inc. Tribal consultation meeting. Over 900 
attendees representing Tribes from across the country attended the 
National Indian Health Board's Consumer Conference and over 100 Tribes 
were represented at the annual conference of the National Tribal 
Environmental Council. At the first two conferences, an EPA 
representative conducted two workshops on EPA's drinking water program 
and upcoming regulations, including the LT1ESWTR.
    At the EPA/Inter Tribal Council of Arizona meeting, representatives 
from 15 Tribes participated. The presentation materials and meeting 
summary were sent to over 500 Tribes and Tribal organizations. 
Additionally, EPA contacted each of the 12 Native American Drinking 
Water State Revolving Fund Advisors to invite them, and representatives 
of their organizations to the stakeholder meetings described 
previously.
    During the comment period for today's final rule, the Agency held a 
public meeting in Washington D.C. on April 14, 2000. Additionally, the 
proposed rule was either presented or discussed in nearly 50 meetings 
across the U.S. Finally, EPA mailed approximately 200 copies of the 
proposed rule to stakeholders requesting comment. EPA received 67 
comments from a variety of stakeholders including 24 States, 21 
municipalities, one Tribe, one elected official, two consultants, eight 
trade groups, and four private industries.
    In addition, EPA will educate, inform, and advise small systems, 
including those run by small governments, about the LT1ESWTR 
requirements. The Agency is developing plain-English guidance that will 
explain what actions a small entity must take to comply with the rule. 
Also, the Agency has developed a fact sheet that concisely describes 
various aspects and requirements of the LT1ESWTR. This fact sheet is 
available by calling the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791.

D. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, 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 
the Office of Management and Budget, explanations when the Agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    Today's rule does not establish any technical standards, thus, 
NTTAA does not apply to this rule. It should be noted, however, that 
systems complying with this rule need to use one of three previously 
approved technical standards already included in Sec. 141.74 (a). 
Method 2130B (APHA, 1995), is published in Standard Methods for the 
Examination of Water and Wastewater (19th ed.) and is a voluntary 
consensus standard. The Great Lakes Instrument Method 2, has been 
approved by USEPA as an alternate test procedure (Great Lakes 
Instruments, 1992). EPA Method 180.1 for turbidity measurement was 
published in August 1993 in Methods for the Determination of Inorganic

[[Page 1830]]

Substances in Environmental Samples (EPA-600/R-93-100) (USEPA, 1993).
    Today's final rule also requires calibration of the individual 
turbidimeter to be conducted using procedures specified by the 
manufacturer. EPA encouraged comments on this aspect of the rulemaking 
and specifically invited the public to identify potentially applicable 
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should 
be used in this regulation. EPA received no comments on this issue.

E. 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, 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.
    Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' As 
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in 
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in the 
public record.

F. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

    Executive Order 12898 establishes a Federal policy for 
incorporating environmental justice into Federal agency missions by 
directing agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 
policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The 
Agency has considered environmental justice related issues concerning 
the potential impacts of this action and consulted with minority and 
low-income stakeholders.
    This preamble has discussed how the IESWTR served as a template for 
the development of the LT1ESWTR. As such, the Agency also built on the 
efforts conducted during the IESWTRs development to comply with 
Executive Order 12898. On March 12, 1998, the Agency held a stakeholder 
meeting to address various components of pending drinking water 
regulations and how they may impact sensitive sub-populations, minority 
populations, and low-income populations. Topics discussed included 
treatment techniques, costs and benefits, data quality, health effects, 
and the regulatory process. Participants included national, State, 
Tribal, municipal, and individual stakeholders. EPA conducted the 
meetings by video conference call between 11 cities. This meeting was a 
continuation of stakeholder meetings that started in 1995 to obtain 
input on the Agency's Drinking Water Programs. The major objectives for 
the March 12, 1998 meeting were to:

--Solicit ideas from stakeholders on known issues concerning current 
drinking water regulatory efforts;
--Identify key issues of concern to stakeholders, and;
--Receive suggestions from stakeholders concerning ways to increase 
representation of communities in EPA's Office of Water drinking water 
regulatory efforts.

    In addition, EPA developed a plain-English guide specifically for 
this meeting to assist stakeholders in understanding the multiple and 
sometimes complex issues surrounding drinking water regulation.
    The LT1ESWTR applies to community water systems, non-transient non-
community water systems, and transient non-community water systems that 
use surface water or GWUDI as their source water for PWSs serving less 
than 10,000 people. These requirements will also be consistent with the 
protection already afforded to people being served by systems serving 
10,000 or more persons.

G. 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.
    While this final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because 
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, 
we nonetheless have reason to believe that the environmental health or 
safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect 
on children. As a matter of EPA policy, we therefore have assessed the 
environmental health effects of Cryptosporidium on children. The 
results of this assessment are contained in the LT1ESWTR economic 
analysis (USEPA, 2001a). A copy of the analysis and supporting 
documents are found in the public docket for today's final rule (W-99-
10, Final Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. The docket 
is available for public review at EPA's Drinking Water Docket: 401 M 
Street, SW., Rm. EB57, Washington, DC 20460.
    The risk of illness and death due to cryptosporidiosis depends on 
several factors, including age, nutrition, exposure, genetic 
variability, disease and immune status of the individual. Mortality 
resulting from diarrhea shows the greatest risk of mortality occurring 
among the very young and elderly (Gerba et al., 1996). For 
Cryptosporidium, young children are a vulnerable population subject to 
infectious diarrhea (CDC 1994). Cryptosporidiosis is prevalent 
worldwide, and its occurrence is higher in children than in adults 
(Fayer and Ungar, 1986).
    Cryptosporidiosis appears to be more prevalent in populations, such 
as infants, that may not have established immunity against the disease 
and may be in greater contact with environmentally contaminated 
surfaces (DuPont, et al., 1995). An infected child may spread the 
disease to other children or family members. Evidence of such secondary 
transmission of cryptosporidiosis from children to household and other 
close contacts has been found in a number of outbreak investigations 
(Casemore, 1990; Cordell et al., 1997; Frost et al., 1997). Chapelle et 
al., (1999) found that prior exposure to Cryptosporidium through the 
ingestion of a low oocyst dose provides protection from infection and 
illness. However, it is not known whether this immunity is life-long or 
temporary. Data

[[Page 1831]]

also indicate that either mothers confer short term immunity to their 
children or that babies have reduced exposure to Cryptosporidium, 
resulting in a decreased incidence of infection during the first year 
of life. For example, in a survey of over 30,000 stool sample analyses 
from different patients in the United Kingdom, the one to five year age 
group suffered a much higher infection rate than individuals less than 
one year of age. For children under one year of age, those older than 
six months of age showed a higher rate of infection than individuals 
aged fewer than six months (Casemore, 1990).
    EPA has not been able to quantify the health effects for children 
as a result of Cryptosporidium-contaminated drinking water. However, 
the result of the LT1ESWTR will be a reduction in the risk of illness 
for the entire population, including children. Because available 
evidence indicates that children may be more vulnerable to 
Cryptosporidiosis than the rest of the population, the LT1ESWTR would, 
therefore, result in greater risk reduction for children than for the 
general population.

H. Consultations With the Science Advisory Board, National Drinking 
Water Advisory Council, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services

    In accordance with section 1412 (d) and (e) of the SDWA, the Agency 
consulted with the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC), 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the EPA Science 
Advisory Board (SAB) on the proposed LT1ESWTR. None of the three 
consultations resulted in substantive comments on the LT1ESWTR.
    On March 13 and 14, 2000 in Washington, DC, the Agency met with SAB 
during meetings open to the public where several of the Agency's 
drinking water rules were discussed. A copy of the SAB's comments are 
found in the docket (USEPA, 2000l). Comments on the LT1ESWTR were 
generally supportive.
    On May 10, 2000 in San Francisco, California, the Agency met with 
NDWAC. A copy of the materials presented to the NDWAC, as well as the 
charge presented to the council are found in the docket (USEPA, 2000f, 
NDWAC, 2000).
    EPA invited the Secretary of Health and Human Services to the April 
14th, 2000 informational meeting regarding the proposed Long Term 1 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and consulted with the Centers 
for Disease Control (CDC) during a June 20, 2000 conference call with 
the Centers' Working Group on Waterborne Cryptosporidiosis. The meeting 
notes for that call are found in the docket (CDC, 2000). CDC's role as 
an Agency of the Department of Health and Human Services is to provide 
a system of health surveillance to monitor and prevent the outbreak of 
diseases. With the assistance of States and other partners, CDC guards 
against international disease transmission, maintains national health 
statistics, and provides for immunization services and supports 
research into disease and injury prevention.

I. Executive Order 13132: Executive Orders on 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.''
    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. Today's final rule does not have 
a substantial direct effect on local and State governments because it 
is not expected to impose substantial direct compliance costs. The rule 
imposes annualized compliance costs on State and local governments of 
approximately $30.6 million. $6.4 million of these costs are 
attributable to States, while $24.2 million is attributable to local 
governments serving fewer than 10,000 persons. As described in Section 
V1.A of the preamble for today's final rule, this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
including small governments. Furthermore, the rule does not have a 
substantial direct effect on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 because the rule does not change the current 
roles and relationships of the Federal government, State governments 
and local governments in implementing drinking water programs. Thus 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Although the 
Executive Order does not apply to this rule, EPA did consult with State 
and local officials in developing this rule. In addition to our 
outreach efforts described earlier, on May 30, 2000, the Agency held a 
meeting in Washington, DC with ten representatives of elected State and 
local officials to discuss how new Federal drinking water regulations 
(LT1ESWTR, FBRR, Ground Water Rule, Radon Rule, Radionuclides Rule, and 
Arsenic Rule) may affect State, county, and local governments. 
Throughout the consultation, stakeholders asked EPA for clarification 
of basic concepts and rule elements. EPA addressed these issues 
throughout the consultation and provided background and clarification 
to promote better understanding of the issues. For example, 
stakeholders asked EPA to describe what Cryptosporidium is and how 
individuals are diagnosed with cryptosporidiosis. A detailed summary of 
this consultation meeting and the concerns raised is found in the 
docket (USEPA, 2000g). No significant concerns were raised regarding 
the LT1ESWTR.

J. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    On November 6, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249) entitled, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 took effect on January 6, 2001, 
and revoked Executive Order 13084 (also entitled Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.'') as of that date. 
However, EPA developed and proposed this final rule when Executive 
Order 13084 was in effect, and before the effective date of the 
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175. Therefore, the 
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 apply to this rule.
    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA could not issue a regulation that 
was not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affected 
the communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposed 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provided the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the Tribal governments, or EPA consulted 
with those governments.
    Executive Order 13084 required EPA to provide to the Office of 
Management and Budget, in a separately identified

[[Page 1832]]

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 required 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.''
    EPA has concluded that this rule will not significantly or uniquely 
affect communities of Indian Tribal governments, and will not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on such communities. This rule will 
affect approximately 70 of the 700 total Tribal drinking water systems. 
Of these 70 systems, half are estimated to incur annualized compliance 
costs of less than $70 per year (0.003 percent of average annual 
revenue) and approximately 20 systems are estimated to incur annualized 
compliance costs of less than $850 per year (0.03 percent of average 
annual revenue). The remaining systems would incur an estimated 
annualized compliance costs of less than $13,000, or 0.6 percent of 
average annual revenue.
    Nonetheless, EPA provided representatives of Tribal governments 
with several opportunities to become knowledgeable of the proposed rule 
and to provide meaningful and timely input in its development. EPA 
began outreach efforts to develop the LT1ESWTR in the summer of 1998 as 
discussed in detail above in the UMRA and Federalism sections. To 
inform and involve the representatives of Tribal governments 
specifically, EPA presented the LT1ESWTR at three venues: The 16th 
Annual Consumer Conference of the National Indian Health Board, the 
annual conference of the National Tribal Environmental Council, and the 
EPA/Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. Tribal consultation meeting. 
Summaries of the meetings have been included in the public docket for 
this rulemaking. EPA's consultation, the nature of the Tribal concerns, 
and the position supporting the need for this rule are discussed in 
Section VI.C., which addresses compliance with UMRA.
    Over 900 Tribal representatives from across the country attended 
the National Indian Health Board's Consumer Conference and over 100 
Tribes were represented at the annual conference of the National Tribal 
Environmental Council. At the first two conferences, an EPA 
representative conducted two workshops on EPA's drinking water program 
and upcoming regulations, including the LT1ESWTR. At the EPA/Inter 
Tribal Council of Arizona meeting, representatives from 15 Tribes 
participated. The presentation materials and meeting summary were sent 
to over 500 Tribes and Tribal organizations. Additionally, EPA 
contacted and invited each of the 12 Native American Drinking Water 
State Revolving Fund Advisors to attend the meetings described above.
    During the comment period for today's final rule, the Agency held a 
public meeting in Washington, DC on April 14, 2000 which was announced 
in the Federal Register. Additionally, the proposed rule was either 
presented or discussed in nearly 50 meetings across the country. 
Finally, EPA mailed approximately 200 copies of the proposed rule to 
stakeholders, including Tribal representatives, requesting comment. EPA 
received 67 comments, one of which was from a Tribe. The Tribe 
indicated that they operated one surface water treatment plant and 
asked several clarifying questions with respect to optional monitoring 
and turbidity monitoring.

K. Likely Effect of Compliance With the LT1ESWTR on the Technical, 
Financial, and Managerial Capacity of Public Water Systems

    Section 1420(d)(3) of the SDWA as amended requires that, in 
promulgating a NPDWR, the Administrator shall include an analysis of 
the likely effect of compliance with the regulation on the technical, 
financial, and managerial capacity of public water systems. This 
analysis can be found in the LT1ESWTR economic analysis (USEPA, 2001a). 
Overall water system capacity is defined in EPA guidance (USEPA, 1998j) 
as the ability to plan for, achieve, and maintain compliance with 
applicable drinking water standards. Capacity has three components: 
Technical, managerial, and financial. Technical capacity is the 
physical and operational ability of a water system to meet SDWA 
requirements. Technical capacity refers to the physical infrastructure 
of the water system, including the adequacy of source water and the 
adequacy of treatment, storage, and distribution infrastructure. It 
also refers to the ability of system personnel to adequately operate 
and maintain the system and to otherwise implement requisite technical 
knowledge. Managerial capacity is the ability of a water system to 
conduct its affairs to achieve and maintain compliance with SDWA 
requirements. Managerial capacity refers to the system's institutional 
and administrative capabilities. Financial capacity is a water system's 
ability to acquire and manage sufficient financial resources to allow 
the system to achieve and maintain compliance with SDWA requirements. 
Technical, managerial, and financial capacity can be assessed through 
key issues and questions, including:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Technical Capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source water adequacy.............  Does the system have a reliable
                                     source of drinking water? Is the
                                     source of generally good quality
                                     and adequately protected?
Infrastructure adequacy...........  Can the system provide water that
                                     meets SDWA standards? What is the
                                     condition of its infrastructure,
                                     including well(s) or source water
                                     intakes, treatment, storage, and
                                     distribution? What is the
                                     infrastructure's life expectancy?
                                     Does the system have a capital
                                     improvement plan?
Technical knowledge and             Is the system's operator certified?
 implementation.                     Does the operator have sufficient
                                     technical knowledge of applicable
                                     standards? Can the operator
                                     effectively implement this
                                     technical knowledge? Does the
                                     operator understand the system's
                                     technical and operational
                                     characteristics? Does the system
                                     have an effective operation and
                                     maintenance program?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Managerial Capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership accountability..........  Are the system owner(s) clearly
                                     identified? Can they be held
                                     accountable for the system?
Staffing and organization.........  Are the system operator(s) and
                                     manager(s) clearly identified? Is
                                     the system properly organized and
                                     staffed? Do personnel understand
                                     the management aspects of
                                     regulatory requirements and system
                                     operations? Do they have adequate
                                     expertise to manage water system
                                     operations? Do personnel have the
                                     necessary licenses and
                                     certifications?

[[Page 1833]]

 
Effective external linkages.......  Does the system interact well with
                                     customers, regulators, and other
                                     entities? Is the system aware of
                                     available external resources, such
                                     as technical and financial
                                     assistance?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Financial Capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue sufficiency...............  Do revenues cover costs? Are water
                                     rates and charges adequate to cover
                                     the cost of water?
Credit worthiness.................  Is the system financially healthy?
                                     Does it have access to capital
                                     through public or private sources?
Fiscal management and controls....  Are adequate books and records
                                     maintained? Are appropriate
                                     budgeting, accounting, and
                                     financial planning methods used?
                                     Does the system manage its revenues
                                     effectively?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Systems not making significant modifications to the treatment 
process to meet LT1ESWTR requirements are not expected to require 
significantly increased technical, financial, or managerial capacity. 
As noted previously, less than 1 percent of affected systems are 
expected to incur annual costs exceeding 1 percent of their annual 
revenue as described in Section VI.A. Accordingly, most systems are not 
expected to require significantly increased technical, financial, or 
managerial capacity. EPA does recognize that a very small number of 
facilities may realize some technical, managerial, or financial 
capacity concerns as a result of the rule. EPA works closely with 
organizations such as the National Rural Water Association and the 
American Water Works Association to develop technical and managerial 
tools, materials, and assistance to aid small systems. Additionally, 
the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, established the 
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to make funds available to 
drinking water systems to finance infrastructure improvements. The 
program emphasizes providing funds to small and disadvantaged 
communities and to programs that encourage pollution prevention as a 
tool for ensuring safe drinking water.

L. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write its rules in 
plain language. Readable regulations help the public find requirements 
quickly and understand them easily. They increase compliance, 
strengthen enforcement, and decrease mistakes, frustration, phone 
calls, appeals, and distrust of government. Of the several techniques 
typically utilized for writing readably, using a question and answer 
format, and using the word 'you' for whoever must comply, do the most 
to improve the look and sound of a regulation. Today's preamble and 
final rule use both of these principles and was developed using a plain 
language format, except in the case of modifications or additions to 
existing subparts of parts 141 and 142, where such a format would not 
fit into existing rule language. The Agency requested comment on this 
approach and several commenter's indicated that the proposal was clear 
and easy to understand.

M. 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 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective February 13, 2002.

N. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' 66 FR 28355, 
(May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The requirements 
in this rule would have a negligible impact upon the energy demands of 
some public water supply systems. Therefore, there is not a significant 
adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use.

VII. References

Adham, S., Gagliado, P., Smith, D., Ross, D., Gramith, K., and 
Trussell, R. 1998. Monitoring of Reverse Osmosis for Virus 
Rejection, Proceedings Water Quality and Technology Conference. 9pp.
American Water Works Association Committee Report. 1983. 
Deterioration of water quality in large distribution reservoirs 
(open reservoirs). AWWA Committee on Control of Water Quality in 
Transmission and Distribution Systems. J. AWWA. June 1983, 313-318.
Amirtharajah, A. 1988. Some theoretical and conceptual views of 
filtration. J. AWWA. (80:12: 36-46).
APHA. 1995. 19th Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of 
Water and Wastewater, 1995. American Public Health Association. 1015 
15th Street NW, Washington D.C. 20005. (Includes method 2130A, B).
Atherholt, T., LeChevallier, M., Norton, W., and Rosen, J. 1998. 
Effect of rainfall on Giardia and crypto. J.AWWA (90:9:66-80).
Bucklin, K., Amirtharajah, A., and Cranston, K. 1988. The 
characteristics of initial effluent quality and its implications for 
the filter-to-waste procedure. AWWARF. Denver, 158pp.
Casemore, D. 1990. Epidemiological aspects of human 
cryptosporidiosis. Epidemiol. Infect. (104:1-28).
CDC 1994. Addressing Emerging Infectious Disease Threats: A 
Prevention Strategy for the United States. Executive Summary. P. 1-
3.
CDC 2000. Notes from June 20, and October 10, 2000, CDC Working 
Group on Waterborne Cryptosporidiosis Teleconference. October 10, 
2000.
Chappell, C., Okhuysen, P., Sterling, C., Wang, C., Jakubowski, W., 
and Dupont, H. 1999. Infectivity of Cryptosporidium Parvum in 
Healthy Adults with Pre-existing Anti-C. Parvum Serum Immunoglobulin 
G. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. (60:1:157-164).
Cleasby, J. 1990. Filtration, Chapter 8, IN: (F. Pontius, ed) Water 
Quality and Treatment. AWWA, Denver, 57pp.
Collins, M., Dwyer, P., Margolin, A., and Hogan, S. 1996. Assessment 
of MS2 Bacteriphage Virus Giardia Cyst and Cryptosporidium Oocyst 
Removal by Hollow Fiber Ultrafiltration (Polysulfone) Membranes. 
Proceedings AWWA Membrane Conference, Reno, NV 1996.
Cordell, R., Thor, P., Addiss, D., Theurer, J., Lichterman, R., 
Ziliak, S., Juranek, D., and Davis, J. 1997. Impact of a massive 
waterborne cryptosporidiosis outbreak on child care facilities in 
metropolitan Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Pediatr Infect Dis J. (16:639-
44).
Craun, Gunther. 1998. Memorandum from G. Craun to U. S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (M. Negro), dated 10/26/98. 
Waterborne outbreak data 1971-1996, community and noncommunity water 
systems.
Drozd, C., and Schartzbrod, J. 1997. ``Removal of Cryptosporidium 
from River Water by Crossflow Microfiltration: A Pilot Scale 
Study,'' Water Science and Technology. (35:11-12:391-395).

[[Page 1834]]

Dupont, H., Chappell, C., Sterling, C., Okhuysen, P., Rose, J., and 
Jakubowski, W. 1995. The Infectivity of Cryptosporidium parvum in 
Healthy Volunteers. N. Engl. J. Med. (332:13:855-859).
Fayer, R. and Ungar, B. 1986. Cryptosporidium spp. and 
cryptosporidiosis. Microbial Review. (50:4:458-483).
Fayer, R., and T. Nerad. 1996. Effects of low temperatures on 
viability of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts. Appl. Environ. 
Microbiol. 62:1431-1433.
Foundation for Water Research. 1994. Removal of Cryptosporidium 
oocysts by water treatment processes. Foundation for Water Research, 
Britain. April.
Frost, F., Craun, G., Calderon, R., and Hubbs, S. 1997. So many 
oocysts, so few outbreaks. J. AWWA (89:12:8-10).
Gerba, C.P., J.B. Rose and C.N. Haas (1996). Sensitive populations: 
who is at the greatest risk? International Journal of Food 
Microbiology: 30(1-2), 10pp.
Goodrich, J., Sylvana, Y., and Lykins, B. 1995. Cost and Performance 
Evaluations of Alternative Filtration Technologies for Small 
Communities. Proceedings AWWA Annual Conference.
Great Lakes Instruments. 1992. Analytical Method for Turbidity 
Measurement: GLI Method 2. GLI, Milwaukee, WI. 8 pp.
Hall, T., and Croll, B. 1996. The UK Approach to Cryptosporidium 
Control in Water Treatment. Proceedings AWWA Water Quality and 
Technology Conference, 14pp.
Hancock, C., Rose, J., and Callahan, M. 1998. Crypto and Giardia in 
U.S. groundwater. J. AWWA (90:3:58-61).
Harrington W., Krupnick, A.J., and W.O. Spofford. 1985. ``The 
Benefits of Preventing an Outbreak of Giardiasis Due to Drinking 
Water Contamination.'' EPA/Resources for the Future Report.
Hirata, T., and Hashimoto, A. 1998. ``Experimental Assessment of the 
Efficacy of Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration for Cryptosporidium 
Removal,'' Water Science and Technology. (38:12:103-107).
Hoxie, N., Davis, J., Vergeront, J., Nashold, R., and Blair, K. 
1997. Cryptosporidiosis-associated mortality following a massive 
waterborne outbreak in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Amer. J. Publ. Health 
(87:12:2032-2035).
Jacangelo, J., Adham, S., and Laine, J. 1995. Mechanism of 
Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and MS2 virus removal by MF and UF. J. 
AWWA (87:9:107-121).
Juranek, D. 1995. Cryptosporidiosis: Sources of Infection and 
Guidelines for Prevention. Clinical Infectious Diseases: 21 (1). See 
also www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/sources.html
Kelley, M., Warrier, P., Brokaw, J., Barrett, K. and Komisar, S. 
1995. A Study of Two U.S. Army Installation Drinking Water Sources 
and Treatment Systems for the Removal of Giardia and 
Cryptosporidium. Proceedings AWWA Annual Conference.
LeChevallier, M., Norton, W., and Lee, R. 1991. Giardia and 
Cryptosporidium spp. in filtered drinking water supplies. Appl. 
Environ. Microbial. (57:9:2617-2621).
LeChevallier, M., and Norton, W. 1992. Examining relationships 
between particle counts and Giardia, Cryptosporidium and turbidity. 
J. AWWA (84:120:54-60).
LeChevallier, M., and Norton, W. 1995. Giardia and Cryptosporidium 
in raw and finished water. J. AWWA (87:9:54-68).
Lykins, B., Adams, J., Goodrich, J., and Clark, R., Meeting Federal 
Regulations with MF/UF--EPA Ongoing Projects. Microfiltration II 
Conference, November 12-13, 1994, San Diego, CA.
MacKenzie, W.R., N.J. Hoxie, M.E. Proctor, M.S. Gradus, K.A. Blair, 
D.E. Peterson, J.J. Kazmierczak, D.G. Addiss, K.R. Fox, J.B. Rose, 
and J.P. Davis. 1994. A massive outbreak in Milwaukee of 
Cryptosporidium infection transmitted through the public water 
supply. New England Jour. Med. 331(3):161-167.
McTigue, N., LeChevallier, M., Arora, H., and Clancy, J. 1998. 
National Assessment of Particle Removal by Filtration. AWWARF. 
Denver, 256pp.
NDWAC, 2000. National Drinking Water Advisory Council Meeting 
Minutes and Recommendations, June 14, 2000.
Nieminski, E., and Ongerth, J. 1995. Removing Giardia and 
Cryptosporidium by Conventional Treatment and Direct Filtration. J. 
AWWA (87:9:96-106).
Ongerth, J., and Pecoraro, J. 1995. Removing Cryptosporidium Using 
Multimedia Filters. J. AWWA. (87:12:83-89).
Ongerth, J., and Hutton, P. 1997. DE Filtration to Remove 
Cryptosporidium. JAWWA. December. pp. 39-46.
Patania, N., Jacangelo, J., Cummings, L., Wilczak, A., Riley, K., 
and Oppenheimer, J. 1995. Optimization of Filtration for Cyst 
Removal. AWWARF. Denver, 178pp.
Rose, J.B., 1988, ``Occurrence and Significance of Cryptosporidium 
in water, J. AWWA 80(2):53-58.
Schuler, P., and Gosh, M. 1990. Diatomaceous Earth Filtration of 
Cysts and Other Particulates Using Chemical Additives. Journal AWWA 
(Dec 1990). 82(12):67-75.
Schuler, P., and Gosh, M. 1991. Slow Sand Filtration of Cysts and 
Other Particulates. AWWA Annual Conference Proceedings. June. Pp 
235-252.
Timms, S., Slade, J. and Fricker, C. 1995. Removal of 
Cryptosporidium by Slow Sand Filtration. Wat. Sci. Tech. Vol. 31. 
No. 5-6, pp. 81-84.
USEPA.1989. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Filtration, 
Disinfection; Turbidity, Giardia lamblia, Viruses, Legionella, and 
Heterotrophic Bacteria; Final Rule (SWTR). 54 FR 27486, June 29, 
1989.
USEPA.1991. Guidance Manual for compliance with the filtration and 
disinfection requirements for public water systems using surface 
water sources. Washington, D.C., 574pp. [Also published by AWWA].
USEPA.1993. Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in 
Environmental Samples. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. 
Cincinnati, OH 45268. August. 169pp. 600/R-93-100.
USEPA.1997a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Interim 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Notice of Data Availability. 62 FR 
59486. EPA-815-Z-97-001.
USEPA.1997b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: 
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Notice of Data 
Availability. 62 FR 59388. EPA-815-Z-97-002/USEPA.1998a. National 
Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Interim Enhanced Surface Water 
Treatment; Final Rule. 63 FR 69477, December 16, 1998. EPA 815-Z-98-
009.
USEPA.1998b. Cryptosporidium and Giardia Occurrence Assessment for 
the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Prepared for the 
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC by Science 
Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA, 185pp.
USEPA.1998c. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: 
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Final Rule. 63 FR 69389, 
December 16, 1998.
USEPA.1998d. Addendum to the Drinking Water Criteria Document for 
Giardia. Prepared for Office of Water, Office of Science and 
Technology, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., by ARCTECH, Inc., 1999. 
Gunther F. Craun & Associates. 271pp.
USEPA 1998e. Demographic Distribution of Sensitive Population 
Groups. Final Report. Prepared by SRA Technologies, Inc., Falls 
Church, VA. Work Assignment No. B-11/22 (SRA 557-05/14: February 
24).
USEPA 1998f. National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Consumer 
Confidence Reports; Final Rule. 63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998.
USEPA 1998g. Revision of Existing Variance and Exemption Regulations 
To Comply With Requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 63 FR 
43833, August 14, 1998.
USEPA 1998h. Announcement of the Drinking Water Contaminant 
Candidate List; Notice. 63 FR 10273, March 2, 1998.
USEPA.1998i. Revisions to State Primacy Requirements to Implement 
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments; Final Rule. 63 FR 23362.
USEPA.1998j. Guidance on Implementing the Capacity Development 
Provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. EPA 
Document Number: 816-R-98-006.
USEPA.1998k. Final Report of the SBREFA Small Business Advocacy 
Review Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule: Long Term 1 Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule, 76pp.
USEPA.1998l. Response to Comment Document for the Interim Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule.
USEPA.1999a. Meeting Summary: Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water 
Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) and Filter Backwash Recycle Rule (FBR). 
Dallas, TX. March. 11pp.
USEPA.1999b. Stakeholder Meeting Summary: Long Term 1 Enhanced

[[Page 1835]]

Surface Water Treatment Rule and Filter Backwash Recycle Rule. 
Denver, CO. July. 67pp.
USEPA.2000a. Occurrence Assessment for the Long Term 1 Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment and Filter Backwash Recycle Rule, (EPA/815/
R/00/019).
USEPA.2000b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 
1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment and Filter Backwash Rule; 
Proposed Rule. 65 FR 19046. April 10, 2000. (EPA/815/Z/00/01).
USEPA.2000c. Summary of the Proposed Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface 
Water Treatment and Filter Backwash Rule. April, 14, 2000.
USEPA.2000d. Application of the Microbial Framework to LT2ESWTR FACA 
Options, M/DBP FACA Meeting, June 1, 2000.
USEPA.2000e. Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis for the Long 
Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, September 26, 2000.
USEPA.2000f. Proposed Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment 
and Filter Backwash Rule (LT1FBR) Issues for the National Drinking 
Water Advisory Council. April 20, 2000.
USEPA.2000g. Meeting Summary, Government Dialogue on EPA's Upcoming 
Drinking Water Regulations, May 30, 2000.
USEPA.2000h. Representative List of Meetings Attended where 
Presentations were Made or where Materials were Handed out (LT1ESWTR 
and FBRR).
USEPA.2000i. Response to Comment Document for the Filter Backwash 
Recycle Rule.
USEPA.2000j. Estimated Per Capita Water Ingestion in the United 
States. Office of Science and Technology. February, 2000.
USEPA.2000k. M/DBP FACA Meeting Materials. June 1-2, 2000.
USEPA.2000l. SAB Commentary on EPA's Draft Proposal for LT1ESWTR and 
FBRR. EPA-SAB-DWC-COM-00-004. May 23, 2000.
USEPA.2001a. Economic Analysis for the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface 
Water Treatment Rule. EPA Document Number 815-R-00-021. October 12, 
2001.
USEPA.2001b. Response to Comment Document for the Long Term 1 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. EPA Document Number EPA 815-
R-01-026.
USEPA/SAB 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for 
Environmental Protection. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Science Advisory Board (A-101), Washington, D.C. Report No. SAB-EC-
90-021 (September).
West, T., Danile, P., Meyerhofer, P., DeGraca, A., Leonard, S., and 
Gerba, C. 1994. Evaluation of Cryptosporidium Removal through High-
rate Filtration. Proceedings AWWA Annual Conference, June. Pp 493-
504.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Parts 9

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 141

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians-lands, 
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Chemicals, Indians-lands, Radiation protection, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

    Dated: December 20, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

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

PART 9--[AMENDED]

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

    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; Executive Order 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. In Sec. 9.1 the table is amended by adding under the indicated 
heading:
    a. By adding entries 141.530-141.536, 141.540-141.544, 141.550-
141.553, 141.560-141.564 and 141.570-141.571 in numerical order.
    b. By removing the entry 142.14(a)-(d)(7) and adding in its place a 
new entry Sec. 142.14(b)-(d)(7).
    c. By adding a new entry for 142.14(a) in numerical order.
    d. By adding new entries for 142.16(g) and 142.16(j) in numerical 
order.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec. 9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
                     40 CFR citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
141.530-141.536.........................................       2040-0229
141.540-141.544.........................................       2040-0229
141.550-141.553.........................................       2040-0229
141.560-141.564.........................................       2040-0229
141.570-141.571.........................................       2040-0229
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
142.14(a)...............................................       2040-0229
                                                               2040-0090
142.14(b)-(d)(7)........................................       2040-0090
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
142.16(g)...............................................       2040-0229
142.16(j)...............................................       2040-0229
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

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

    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.


    4. Section 141.2 is amended by revising the definitions of 
``Comprehensive performance evaluation'' (CPE), ``Ground water under 
the direct influence of surface water'' and ``Disinfection profile'' to 
read as follows:


Sec. 141.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Comprehensive performance evaluation (CPE) is a thorough review and 
analysis of a treatment plant's performance-based capabilities and 
associated administrative, operation and maintenance practices. It is 
conducted to identify factors that may be adversely impacting a plant's 
capability to achieve compliance and emphasizes approaches that can be 
implemented without significant capital improvements. For purpose of 
compliance with subparts P and T of this part, the comprehensive 
performance evaluation must consist of at least the following 
components: Assessment of plant performance; evaluation of major unit 
processes; identification and prioritization of performance limiting 
factors; assessment of the applicability of comprehensive technical 
assistance; and preparation of a CPE report.
* * * * *
    Disinfection profile is a summary of Giardia lamblia inactivation 
through the treatment plant. The procedure for developing a 
disinfection profile is contained in Sec. 141.172 (Disinfection 
profiling and benchmarking) in subpart P and Secs. 141.530-141.536 
(Disinfection profile) in subpart T of this part.
* * * * *

[[Page 1836]]

    Ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) 
means any water beneath the surface of the ground with significant 
occurrence of insects or other macroorganisms, algae, or large-diameter 
pathogens such as Giardia lamblia or Cryptosporidium, or significant 
and relatively rapid shifts in water characteristics such as turbidity, 
temperature, conductivity, or pH which closely correlate to 
climatological or surface water conditions. Direct influence must be 
determined for individual sources in accordance with criteria 
established by the State. The State determination of direct influence 
may be based on site-specific measurements of water quality and/or 
documentation of well construction characteristics and geology with 
field evaluation.
* * * * *

    5. Section 141.70 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 141.70  General requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) Additional requirements for systems serving fewer than 10,000 
people. In addition to complying with requirements in this subpart, 
systems serving fewer than 10,000 people must also comply with the 
requirements in subpart T of this part.

    6. Section 141.73 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(4) and 
revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 141.73  Filtration.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) Beginning January 14, 2005, systems serving fewer than 10,000 
people must meet the turbidity requirements in Secs. 141.550 through 
141.553.
* * * * *
    (d) Other filtration technologies. A public water system may use a 
filtration technology not listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 
section if it demonstrates to the State, using pilot plant studies or 
other means, that the alternative filtration technology, in combination 
with disinfection treatment that meets the requirements of 
Sec. 141.72(b), consistently achieves 99.9 percent removal and/or 
inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts and 99.99 percent removal and/or 
inactivation of viruses. For a system that makes this demonstration, 
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section apply. Beginning 
January 1, 2002, systems serving at least 10,000 people must meet the 
requirements for other filtration technologies in Sec. 141.173(b). 
Beginning January 14, 2005, systems serving fewer than 10,000 people 
must meet the requirements for other filtration technologies in 
Sec. 141.550 through 141.553.

    7. Section 141.153 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (d)(4)(v)(C) to read as follows:


Sec. 141.153  Content of the reports.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (C) When it is reported pursuant to Sec. 141.73 or Sec. 141.173 or 
Sec. 141.551: the highest single measurement and the lowest monthly 
percentage of samples meeting the turbidity limits specified in 
Sec. 141.73 or Sec. 141.173, or Sec. 141.551 for the filtration 
technology being used. * * *
* * * * *

    8. The heading to Subpart P is revised to read as follows:

Subpart P--Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection--Systems Serving 
10,000 or More People

* * * * *

    9. Section 141.170 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 141.170  General requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) Subpart H systems that did not conduct optional monitoring 
under Sec. 141.172 because they served fewer than 10,000 persons when 
such monitoring was required, but serve more than 10,000 persons prior 
to January 14, 2005 must comply with Secs. 141.170, 141.171, 141.173, 
141.174, and 141.175. These systems must also consult with the State to 
establish a disinfection benchmark. A system that decides to make a 
significant change to its disinfection practice, as described in 
Sec. 141.172(c)(1)(i) through (iv) must consult with the State prior to 
making such change.

    10. Section 141.202 is amended in Table 1 by revising entry 6 to 
read as follows:


Sec. 141.202  Tier 1 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of 
notice.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *

   Table 1 to Sec. 141.202.--Violation Categories and Other Situations
                    Requiring a Tier 1 Public Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *
                  *                  *                  *
(6) Violation of the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), Interim
 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) or Long Term 1 Enhanced
 Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) treatment technique requirement
 resulting from a single exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity
 limit (as identified in Appendix A), where the primacy agency
 determines after consultation that a Tier 1 notice is required or where
 consultation does not take place within 24 hours after the system
 learns of the violation;
 
*                  *                  *                  *
                  *                  *                  *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    11. Section 141.203 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 141.203  Tier 2 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of 
notice.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Violation of the SWTR, IESWTR or LT1ESWTR treatment technique 
requirement resulting from a single exceedance of the maximum allowable 
turbidity limit.
* * * * *

    12. Appendix A to subpart Q is amended:
    a. Under I.A. by revising entry 5.
    b. Under I.A. by revising entry 7.
    c. Adding a new entry 9.
    d. Under I.G. by revising entry 10.
    e. Revising endnote 6.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

[[Page 1837]]



     Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141.--NPDWR Violations and Other Situations Requiring Public Notice \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           MCL/MRDL/TT violations \2\          Monitoring & testing procedure
                                     --------------------------------------              violations
                                                                           -------------------------------------
             Contaminant                Tier of                               Tier of
                                         public            Citation            public
                                         notice                                notice            Citation
                                        required                              required
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Violations of National Primary
 Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR):
 \3\
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
A. Microbiological Contaminants
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
    5. Turbidity (for TT violations       \6\ 2,1  141.71(a)(2),141.71(c)(            3  141.74(a)(1),
     resulting from a single                        2)(i), 141.73(a)(2),                  141.74(b)(2),
     exceedance of maximum allowable                141.73 (b)(2), 141.73                 141.74(c)(1), 141.174,
     turbidity level).                              (c)(2), 141.73(d),                    141.560(a)-(c),
                                                    141.173(a)(2),                        141.561.
                                                    141.173(b), 141.551(b).
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
    7. Interim Enhanced Surface             \7\ 2  141.170-141.173,                   3  141.172, 141.174,
     Water Treatment Rule                           141.500-141.553.                      141.530-141.544,
     violations, other than                                                               141.560-141.564.
     violations resulting from
     single exceedance of max.
     turbidity level (TT).
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
    9. Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface             2  141.500-141.553........            3  141.530-141.544,
     Water Treatment Rule violations.                                                     141.560-141.564.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
G. Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs),
 Byproduct Precursors, Disinfectant
 Residuals. Where disinfection is
 used in the treatment of drinking
 water, disinfectants combine with
 organic and inorganic matter
 present in water to form chemicals
 called disinfection byproducts
 (DBPs). EPA sets standards for
 controlling the levels of
 disinfectants and DBPs in drinking
 water, including trihalomethanes
 (THMs) and haloacetic acids
 (HAAs).\9\
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
    10. Bench marking and                     N/A  N/A....................            3  141.172 141.530-
     disinfection profiling.                                                              141.544.
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A-Endnotes:
\1\ Violations and other situations not listed in this table (e.g., reporting violations and failure to prepare
  Consumer Confidence Reports), do not require notice, unless otherwise determined by the primacy agency.
  Primacy agencies may, at their option, also require a more stringent public notice tier (e.g., Tier 1 instead
  of Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead of Tier 3) for specific violations and situations listed in this Appendix, as
  authorized under Sec.  141.202(a) and Sec.  141.203(a).
\2\ MCL--Maximum contaminant level, MRDL--Maximum residual disinfectant level, TT--Treatment technique
\3\ The term Violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) is used here to include
  violations of MCL, MRDL, treatment technique, monitoring, and testing procedure requirements.
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
   *
\6\ Systems with treatment technique violations involving a single exceedance of a maximum turbidity limit under
  the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), or the
  Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) are required to consult with the primacy agency
  within 24 hours after learning of the violation. Based on this consultation, the primacy agency may
  subsequently decide to elevate the violation to Tier 1. If a system is unable to make contact with the primacy
  agency in the 24-hour period, the violation is automatically elevated to Tier 1.
\7\ Most of the requirements of the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (63 FR 69477) (Secs.  141.170--
  141.171, 141.173--141.174) become effective January 1, 2002 for the Subpart H systems (surface water systems
  and ground water systems under the direct influence of surface water) serving at least 10,000 persons.
  However, Sec.  141.172 has some requirements that become effective as early as April 16, 1999. The Surface
  Water Treatment Rule remains in effect for systems serving at least 10,000 persons even after 2002; the
  Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule adds additional requirements and does not in many cases
  supercede the SWTR.
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
  *
\9\ Subpart H community and non-transient non-community systems serving 10,000 must comply with new
  DBP MCLs, disinfectant MRDLs, and related monitoring requirements beginning January 1, 2002. All other
  community and non-transient non-community systems must meet the MCLs and MRDLs beginning January 1, 2004.
  Subpart H transient non-community systems serving 10,000 or more persons and using chlorine dioxide as a
  disinfectant or oxidant must comply with the chlorine dioxide MRDL begining January 1, 2002. Subpart H
  transient non-community systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons and using only ground water not under the
  direct influence of surface water and using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must comply with the
  chlorine dioxide MRDL beginning January 1, 2004.


[[Page 1838]]

Appendix B--[Amended]

    13. Appendix B to subpart Q is amended by:
    a. Revising entry A.2c.
    b. Revising heading B.
    c. Revising entries B.3., B.4, B.5, B.6., and B.7.
    d. Revising endnotes 4, 6 and 10.
    e. Revising endnote 8.
    The revisions read as follows:

         Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141.--Standard Health Effects Language for Public Notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Standard health effects
            Contaminant                  MCLG \1\, mg/L           MCL \2\ mg/L           language for public
                                                                                             notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Primary Drinking Water
 Regulations (NPDWR):
A. Microbiological Contaminants
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
    2c. Turbidity (IESWTR TT and     None..................  TT                      Turbidity has no health
     LT1ESWTR TT) \8\.                                                                effects. However,
                                                                                      turbidity can interfere
                                                                                      with disinfection and
                                                                                      provide a medium for
                                                                                      microbial growth.
                                                                                      Turbidity may indicate the
                                                                                      presence of disease-
                                                                                      causing organisms. These
                                                                                      organisms include
                                                                                      bacteria, viruses, and
                                                                                      parasites that can cause
                                                                                      symptoms such as nausea,
                                                                                      cramps, diarrhea and
                                                                                      associated headaches.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
B. Surface Water Treatment Rule
 (SWTR), Interim Enhanced Surface
 Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR),
 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water
 Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) and the
 Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
 (FBRR) violations:
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
    3. Giardia lamblia.............  Zero..................  TT \10\                 Inadequately treated water
    (SWTR/IESWTR/LT1ESWTR).........                                                   may contain disease-
                                                                                      causing organisms. These
                                                                                      organisms include
                                                                                      bacteria, viruses, and
                                                                                      parasites which can cause
                                                                                      symptoms such as nausea,
                                                                                      cramps, diarrhea, and
                                                                                      associated headaches.
    4. Viruses
    (SWTR/IESWTR/LT1ESWTR).........
    5. Heterotrophic plate count
     (HPC) bacteria \9\
    (SWTR/IESWTR/LT1ESWTR).........
    6. Legionella
    (SWTR/IESWTR/LT1ESWTR).........
    7. Cryptosporidium
    (IESWTR/FBRR/LT1ESWTR) ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
   *
\1\ MCLG--Maximum contaminant level goal.
\2\ MCL--Maximum contaminant level.
\4\ There are various regulations that set turbidity standards for different types of systems, including 40 CFR
  141.13, and the 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule, the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and
  the 2001 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. The MCL for the montly turbidity average is 1 NTU;
  the MCL for the 2-day average is 5 NTU for systems that are required to filter but have not yet installed
  filtration (40 CFR 141.13).
\6\ There are various regulations that set turbidity standards for different types of systems, including 40 CFR
  141.13, and the 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule, the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and
  the 2001 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Systems subject to the Surface Water Treatment
  Rule (both filtered and unfiltered) may not exceed 5 NTU. In addition, in filtered systems, 95 percent of
  samples each month must not exceed 0.5 NTU in systems using conventional or direct filtration and must not
  exceed 1 NTU in systems using slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration or other filtration technologies
  approved by the primacy agency.
\8\ There are various regulations that set turbidity standards for different types of systems, including 40 CFR
  141.13, the 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
  (IESWTR) and the 2001 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR). For systems subject to the
  IESWTR (systems serving at least 10,000 people, using surface water or ground water under the direct influence
  of surface water), that use conventional filtration or direct filtration, after January 1, 2002, the turbidity
  level of a system's combined filter effluent may not exceed 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of monthly
  measurements, and the turbidity level of a system's combined filter effluent must not exceed 1 NTU at any
  time. Systems subject to the IESWTR using technologies other than conventional, direct, slow sand, or
  diatomaceous earth filtration must meet turbidity limits set by the primacy agency. For systems subject to the
  LT1ESWTR (systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, using surface water or ground water under the direct
  influence of surface water) that use conventional filtration or direct filtration, after January 14, 2005 the
  turbidity level of a system's combined filter effluent may not exceed 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of
  monthly measurements, and the turbidity level of a system's combined filter effluent must not exceed 1 NTU at
  any time. Systems subject to the LT1ESWTR using technologies other than conventional, direct, slow sand, or
  diatomaceous earth filtration must meet turbidity limits set by the primacy agency.
\9\ The bacteria detected by heterotrophic plate count (HPC) are not necessarily harmful. HPC is simply an
  alternative method of determining disinfectant residual levels. The number of such bacteria is an indicator of
  whether there is enough disinfectant in the distribution system.
\10\ SWTR, IESWTR, and LT1ESWTR treatment technique violations that involve turbidity exceedances may use the
  health effects language for turbidity instead.


[[Page 1839]]


    14. Part 141 is amended by adding a new subpart T to read as 
follows:
Subpart T--Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection--Systems Serving Fewer 
Than 10,000 People

General Requirements

141.500  General requirements
141.501  Who is subject to the requirements of subpart T?
141.502  When must my system comply with these requirements?
141.503  What does subpart T require?

Finished Water Reservoirs

141.510  Is my system subject to the new finished water reservoir 
requirements?
141.511  What is required of new finished water reservoirs?

Additional Watershed Control Requirements for Unfiltered Systems

141.520  Is my system subject to the updated watershed control 
requirements?
141.521  What updated watershed control requirements must my 
unfiltered system implement to continue to avoid filtration?
141.522  How does the State determine whether my system's watershed 
control requirements are adequate?

Disinfection Profile

141.530  What is a Disinfection Profile and who must develop one?
141.531  What criteria must a State use to determine that a profile 
is unnecessary?
141.532  How does my system develop a Disinfection Profile and when 
must it begin?
141.533  What data must my system collect to calculate a 
Disinfection Profile?
141.534  How does my system use this data to calculate an 
inactivation ratio?
141.535 What  if my system uses chloramines, ozone, or chlorine 
dioxide for primary disinfection?
141.536  My system has developed an inactivation ratio; what must we 
do now?

Disinfection Benchmark

141.540  Who has to develop a Disinfection Benchmark?
141.541  What are significant changes to disinfection practice?
141.542  What must my system do if we are considering a significant 
change to disinfection practices?
141.543  How is the Disinfection Benchmark calculated?
141.544  What if my system uses chloramines, ozone, or chlorine 
dioxide for primary disinfection?

Combined Filter Effluent Requirements

141.550  Is my system required to meet subpart T combined filter 
effluent turbidity limits?
141.551  What strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity limits 
must my system meet?
141.552  My system consists of ``alternative filtration'' and is 
required to conduct a demonstration. What is required of my system 
and how does the State establish my turbidity limits?
141.553  My system practices lime softening--is there any special 
provision regarding my combined filter effluent?

Individual Filter Turbidity Requirements

141.560  Is my system subject to individual filter turbidity 
requirements?
141.561  What happens if my system's turbidity monitoring equipment 
fails?
141.562  My system only has two or fewer filters--is there any 
special provision regarding individual filter turbidity monitoring?
141.563  What follow-up action is my system required to take based 
on continuous turbidity monitoring?
141.564  My system practices lime softening--is there any special 
provision regarding my individual filter turbidity monitoring?

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

141.570  What does subpart T require that my system report to the 
State?
141.571  What records does subpart T require my system to keep?

Subpart T--Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection--Systems Serving 
Fewer Than 10,000 People

General Requirements


Sec. 141.500  General requirements.

    The requirements of this subpart constitute national primary 
drinking water regulations. These regulations establish requirements 
for filtration and disinfection that are in addition to criteria under 
which filtration and disinfection are required under subpart H of this 
part. The regulations in this subpart establish or extend treatment 
technique requirements in lieu of maximum contaminant levels for the 
following contaminants: Giardia lamblia, viruses, heterotrophic plate 
count bacteria, Legionella, Cryptosporidium and turbidity. The 
treatment technique requirements consist of installing and properly 
operating water treatment processes which reliably achieve:
    (a) At least 99 percent (2 log) removal of Cryptosporidium between 
a point where the raw water is not subject to recontamination by 
surface water runoff and a point downstream before or at the first 
customer for filtered systems, or Cryptosporidium control under the 
watershed control plan for unfiltered systems; and
    (b) Compliance with the profiling and benchmark requirements in 
Secs. 141.530 through 141.544.


Sec. 141.501  Who is subject to the requirements of subpart T?

    You are subject to these requirements if your system:
    (a) Is a public water system;
    (b) Uses surface water or GWUDI as a source; and
    (c) Serves fewer than 10,000 persons.


Sec. 141.502  When must my system comply with these requirements?

    You must comply with these requirements in this subpart beginning 
January 14, 2005 except where otherwise noted.


Sec. 141.503  What does subpart T require?

    There are seven requirements of this subpart, and you must comply 
with all requirements that are applicable to your system. These 
requirements are:
    (a) You must cover any finished water reservoir that you began to 
construct on or after March 15, 2002 as described in Secs. 141.510 and 
141.511;
    (b) If your system is an unfiltered system, you must comply with 
the updated watershed control requirements described in Secs. 141.520-
141.522;
    (c) If your system is a community or non-transient non-community 
water systems you must develop a disinfection profile as described in 
Secs. 141.530-141.536;
    (d) If your system is considering making a significant change to 
its disinfection practices, you must develop a disinfection benchmark 
and consult with the State for approval of the change as described in 
Secs. 141.540-141.544;
    (e) If your system is a filtered system, you must comply with the 
combined filter effluent requirements as described in Secs. 141.550-
141.553;
    (f) If your system is a filtered system that uses conventional or 
direct filtration, you must comply with the individual filter turbidity 
requirements as described in Secs. 141.560-141.564; and
    (g) You must comply with the applicable reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements as described in Secs. 141.570 and 141.571.

Finished Water Reservoirs


Sec. 141.510  Is my system subject to the new finished water reservoir 
requirements?

    All subpart H systems which serve fewer than 10,000 are subject to 
this requirement.


Sec. 141.511  What is required of new finished water reservoirs?

    If your system begins construction of a finished water reservoir on 
or after March 15, 2002 the reservoir must be covered. Finished water 
reservoirs for which your system began construction prior to March 15, 
2002 are not subject to this requirement.

Additional Watershed Control Requirements for Unfiltered Systems


Sec. 141.520  Is my system subject to the updated watershed control 
requirements?

    If you are a subpart H system serving fewer than 10,000 persons 
which does

[[Page 1840]]

not provide filtration, you must continue to comply with all of the 
filtration avoidance criteria in Sec. 141.71, as well as the additional 
watershed control requirements in Sec. 141.521.


Sec. 141.521  What updated watershed control requirements must my 
unfiltered system implement to continue to avoid filtration?

    Your system must take any additional steps necessary to minimize 
the potential for contamination by Cryptosporidium oocysts in the 
source water. Your system's watershed control program must, for 
Cryptosporidium:
    (a) Identify watershed characteristics and activities which may 
have an adverse effect on source water quality; and
    (b) Monitor the occurrence of activities which may have an adverse 
effect on source water quality.


Sec. 141.522  How does the State determine whether my system's 
watershed control requirements are adequate?

    During an onsite inspection conducted under the provisions of 
Sec. 141.71(b)(3), the State must determine whether your watershed 
control program is adequate to limit potential contamination by 
Cryptosporidium oocysts. The adequacy of the program must be based on 
the comprehensiveness of the watershed review; the effectiveness of 
your program to monitor and control detrimental activities occurring in 
the watershed; and the extent to which your system has maximized land 
ownership and/or controlled land use within the watershed.

Disinfection Profile


Sec. 141.530  What is a Disinfection Profile and who must develop one?

    A disinfection profile is a graphical representation of your 
system's level of Giardia lamblia or virus inactivation measured during 
the course of a year. If you are a subpart H community or non-transient 
non-community water systems which serves fewer than 10,000 persons, 
your system must develop a disinfection profile unless your State 
determines that your system's profile is unnecessary. Your State may 
approve the use of a more representative data set for disinfection 
profiling than the data set required under Secs. 141.532-141.536.


Sec. 141.531  What criteria must a State use to determine that a 
profile is unnecessary?

    States may only determine that a system's profile is unnecessary if 
a system's TTHM and HAA5 levels are below 0.064 mg/L and 0.048 mg/L, 
respectively. To determine these levels, TTHM and HAA5 samples must be 
collected after January 1, 1998, during the month with the warmest 
water temperature, and at the point of maximum residence time in your 
distribution system.


Sec. 141.532  How does my system develop a Disinfection Profile and 
when must it begin?

    A disinfection profile consists of three steps:
    (a) First, your system must collect data for several parameters 
from the plant as discussed in Sec. 141.533 over the course of 12 
months. If your system serves between 500 and 9,999 persons you must 
begin to collect data no later than July 1, 2003. If your system serves 
fewer than 500 persons you must begin to collect data no later than 
January 1, 2004.
    (b) Second, your system must use this data to calculate weekly log 
inactivation as discussed in Secs. 141.534 and 141.535; and
    (c) Third, your system must use these weekly log inactivations to 
develop a disinfection profile as specified in Sec. 141.536.


Sec. 141.533  What data must my system collect to calculate a 
Disinfection Profile?

    Your system must monitor the following parameters to determine the 
total log inactivation using the analytical methods in Sec. 141.74 (a), 
once per week on the same calendar day, over 12 consecutive months:
    (a) The temperature of the disinfected water at each residual 
disinfectant concentration sampling point during peak hourly flow;
    (b) If your system uses chlorine, the pH of the disinfected water 
at each residual disinfectant concentration sampling point during peak 
hourly flow;
    (c) The disinfectant contact time(s) (``T'') during peak hourly 
flow; and
    (d) The residual disinfectant concentration(s) (``C'') of the water 
before or at the first customer and prior to each additional point of 
disinfection during peak hourly flow.


Sec. 141.534  How does my system use this data to calculate an 
inactivation ratio?

    Calculate the total inactivation ratio as follows, and multiply the 
value by 3.0 to determine log inactivation of Giardia lamblia:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       If your system * * *           Your system must determine * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Uses only one point of          (1) One inactivation ratio (CTcalc/
 disinfectant application.           CT99.9) before or at the first
                                     customer during peak hourly flow
                                         or
                                    (2) Successive CTcalc/CT99.9 values,
                                     representing sequential
                                     inactivation ratios, between the
                                     point of disinfectant application
                                     and a point before or at the first
                                     customer during peak hourly flow.
                                     Under this alternative, your system
                                     must calculate the total
                                     inactivation ratio by determining
                                     (CTcalc/CT99.9) for each sequence
                                     and then adding the (CTcalc/CT99.9)
                                     values together to determine
                                     (3CTcalc/CT99.9).
(b) Uses more than one point of     The (CTcalc/CT99.9) value of each
 disinfectant application before     disinfection segment immediately
 the first customer.                 prior to the next point of
                                     disinfectant application, or for
                                     the final segment, before or at the
                                     first customer, during peak hourly
                                     flow using the procedure specified
                                     in paragraph (a)(2) of this
                                     section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 141.535  What if my system uses chloramines, ozone, or chlorine 
dioxide for primary disinfection?

    If your system uses chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for 
primary disinfection, you must also calculate the logs of inactivation 
for viruses and develop an additional disinfection profile for viruses 
using methods approved by the State.


Sec. 141.536  My system has developed an inactivation ratio; what must 
we do now?

    Each log inactivation serves as a data point in your disinfection 
profile. Your system will have obtained 52 measurements (one for every 
week of the year). This will allow your system and the State the 
opportunity to evaluate how microbial inactivation varied over the 
course of the year by looking at all 52 measurements (your Disinfection 
Profile). Your system must retain the Disinfection Profile data in 
graphic form, such as a spreadsheet, which must be available for review 
by the State as part of a sanitary survey. Your system must use this 
data to calculate a benchmark if you are considering changes to 
disinfection practices.

Disinfection Benchmark


Sec. 141.540  Who has to develop a Disinfection Benchmark?

    If you are a subpart H system required to develop a disinfection 
profile under

[[Page 1841]]

Sec. Sec. 141.530 through 141.536, your system must develop a 
Disinfection Benchmark if you decide to make a significant change to 
your disinfection practice. Your system must consult with the State for 
approval before you can implement a significant disinfection practice 
change.


Sec. 141.541  What are significant changes to disinfection practice?

    Significant changes to disinfection practice include:
    (a) Changes to the point of disinfection;
    (b) Changes to the disinfectant(s) used in the treatment plant;
    (c) Changes to the disinfection process; or
    (d) Any other modification identified by the State.


Sec. 141.542  What must my system do if we are considering a 
significant change to disinfection practices?

    If your system is considering a significant change to its 
disinfection practice, your system must calculate a disinfection 
benchmark(s) as described in Secs. 141.543 and 141.544 and provide the 
benchmark(s) to your State. Your system may only make a significant 
disinfection practice change after consulting with the State for 
approval. Your system must submit the following information to the 
State as part of the consultation and approval process:
    (a) A description of the proposed change;
    (b) The disinfection profile for Giardia lamblia (and, if 
necessary, viruses) and disinfection benchmark;
    (c) An analysis of how the proposed change will affect the current 
levels of disinfection; and
    (d) Any additional information requested by the State.


Sec. 141.543  How is the Disinfection Benchmark calculated?

    If your system is making a significant change to its disinfection 
practice, it must calculate a disinfection benchmark using the 
procedure specified in the following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   To calculate a disinfection benchmark your system must perform the
                             following steps
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Using the data your system collected to develop the Disinfection
 Profile, determine the average Giardia lamblia inactivation for each
 calendar month by dividing the sum of all Giardia lamblia inactivations
 for that month by the number of values calculated for that month.
Step 2: Determine the lowest monthly average value out of the twelve
 values. This value becomes the disinfection benchmark.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 141.544  What if my system uses chloramines, ozone, or chlorine 
dioxide for primary disinfection?

    If your system uses chloramines, ozone or chlorine dioxide for 
primary disinfection your system must calculate the disinfection 
benchmark from the data your system collected for viruses to develop 
the disinfection profile in addition to the Giardia lamblia 
disinfection benchmark calculated under Sec. 141.543. This viral 
benchmark must be calculated in the same manner used to calculate the 
Giardia lamblia disinfection benchmark in Sec. 141.543.

Combined Filter Effluent Requirements


Sec. 141.550  Is my system required to meet subpart T combined filter 
effluent turbidity limits?

    All subpart H systems which serve populations fewer than 10,000, 
are required to filter, and utilize filtration other than slow sand 
filtration or diatomaceous earth filtration must meet the combined 
filter effluent turbidity requirements of Secs. 141.551-141.553 . If 
your system uses slow sand or diatomaceous earth filtration you are not 
required to meet the combined filter effluent turbidity limits of 
subpart T, but you must continue to meet the combined filter effluent 
turbidity limits in Sec. 141.73.


Sec. 141.551  What strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity 
limits must my system meet?

    Your system must meet two strengthened combined filter effluent 
turbidity limits.
    (a) The first combined filter effluent turbidity limit is a ``95th 
percentile'' turbidity limit that your system must meet in at least 95 
percent of the turbidity measurements taken each month. Measurements 
must continue to be taken as described in Sec. 141.74(a) and (c). 
Monthly reporting must be completed according to Sec. 141.570. The 
following table describes the required limits for specific filtration 
technologies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Your 95th percentile
      If your system consists of * * *         turbidity value is * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Conventional Filtration or Direct        0.3 NTU.
 Filtration.
(2) All other ``Alternative'' Filtration...  A value determined by the
                                              State (no to exceed 1 NTU)
                                              based on the demonstration
                                              described in Sec.
                                              141.552.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) The second combined filter effluent turbidity limit is a 
``maximum'' turbidity limit which your system may at no time exceed 
during the month. Measurements must continue to be taken as described 
in Sec. 141.74(a) and (c). Monthly reporting must be completed 
according to Sec. 141.570. The following table describes the required 
limits for specific filtration technologies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Your maximum turbidity
      If your system consists of * * *              value is * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Conventional Filtration or Direct        1 NTU.
 Filtration.
(2) All other ``Alternative''..............  A value determined by the
                                              State (not to exceed 5
                                              NTU) based on the
                                              demonstration as described
                                              in Sec.  141.552.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1842]]

Sec. 141.552  My system consists of ``alternative filtration'' and is 
required to conduct a demonstration--what is required of my system and 
how does the State establish my turbidity limits?

    (a) If your system consists of alternative filtration(filtration 
other than slow sand filtration, diatomaceous earth filtration, 
conventional filtration, or direct filtration) you are required to 
conduct a demonstration (see tables in Sec. 141.551). Your system must 
demonstrate to the State, using pilot plant studies or other means, 
that your system's filtration, in combination with disinfection 
treatment, consistently achieves:
    (1) 99 percent removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts;
    (2) 99.9 percent removal and/or inactivation of Giardia lamblia 
cysts; and
    (3) 99.99 percent removal and/or inactivation of viruses.
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec. 141.553  My system practices lime softening--is there any special 
provision regarding my combined filter effluent?

    If your system practices lime softening, you may acidify 
representative combined filter effluent turbidity samples prior to 
analysis using a protocol approved by the State.

Individual Filter Turbidity Requirements


Sec. 141.560  Is my system subject to individual filter turbidity 
requirements?

    If your system is a subpart H system serving fewer than 10,000 
people and utilizing conventional filtration or direct filtration, you 
must conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity for each individual 
filter at your system. The following requirements apply to continuous 
turbidity monitoring:
    (a) Monitoring must be conducted using an approved method in 
Sec. 141.74(a);
    (b) Calibration of turbidimeters must be conducted using procedures 
specified by the manufacturer;
    (c) Results of turbidity monitoring must be recorded at least every 
15 minutes;
    (d) Monthly reporting must be completed according to Sec. 141.570; 
and
    (e) Records must be maintained according to Sec. 141.571.


Sec. 141.561  What happens if my system's turbidity monitoring 
equipment fails?

    If there is a failure in the continuous turbidity monitoring 
equipment, your system must conduct grab sampling every four hours in 
lieu of continuous monitoring until the turbidimeter is back on-line. 
Your system has 14 days to resume continuous monitoring before a 
violation is incurred.


Sec. 141.562  My system only has two or fewer filters--is there any 
special provision regarding individual filter turbidity monitoring?

    Yes, if your system only consists of two or fewer filters, you may 
conduct continuous monitoring of combined filter effluent turbidity in 
lieu of individual filter effluent turbidity monitoring. Continuous 
monitoring must meet the same requirements set forth in Sec. 141.560(a) 
through (d) and Sec. 141.561.


Sec. 141.563  What follow-up action is my system required to take based 
on continuous turbidity monitoring?

    Follow-up action is required according to the following tables:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             If * * *                      Your system must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) The turbidity of an individual  Report to the State by the 10th of
 filter (or the turbidity of         the following month and include the
 combined filter effluent (CFE)      filter number(s), corresponding
 for systems with 2 filters that     date(s), turbidity value(s) which
 monitor CFE in lieu of individual   exceeded 1.0 NTU, and the cause (if
 filters) exceeds 1.0 NTU in two     known) for the exceedance(s).
 consecutive recordings 15 minutes
 apart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a system was required to report
        to the State * * *                 Your system must  * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) For three months in a row and   Conduct a self-assessment of the
 turbidity exceeded 1.0 NTU in two   filter(s) within 14 days of the day
 consecutive recordings 15 minutes   the filter exceeded 1.0 NTU in two
 apart at the same filter (or CFE    consecutive measurements for the
 for systems with 2 filters that     third straight month unless a CPE
 monitor CFE in lieu of individual   as specified in paragraph (c) of
 filters).                           this section was required. Systems
                                     with 2 filters that monitor CFE in
                                     lieu of individual filters must
                                     conduct a self assessment on both
                                     filters. The self-assessment must
                                     consist of at least the following
                                     components: assessment of filter
                                     performance; development of a
                                     filter profile; identification and
                                     prioritization of factors limiting
                                     filter performance; assessment of
                                     the applicability of corrections;
                                     and preparation of a filter self-
                                     assessment report. If a self-
                                     assessment is required, the date
                                     that it was triggered and the date
                                     that it was completed.
(c) For two months in a row and     Arrange to have a comprehensive
 turbidity exceeded 2.0 BTU in 2     performance evaluation (CPE)
 consecutive recordings 15 minutes   conducted by the State or a third
 apart at the same filter (or CFE    party approved by the State not
 for systems with 2 filters that     later than 60 days following the
 monitor CFE in lieu of individual   day the filter exceeded 2.0 NTU in
 filters).                           two consecutive measurements for
                                     the second straight month. If a CPE
                                     has been completed by the State or
                                     a third party approved by the State
                                     within the 12 prior months or the
                                     system and State are jointly
                                     participating in an ongoing
                                     Comprehensive Technical Assistance
                                     (CTA) project at the system, a new
                                     CPE is not required. If conducted,
                                     a CPE must be completed and
                                     submitted to the State no later
                                     than 120 days following the day the
                                     filter exceeded 2.0 NTU in two
                                     consecutive measurements for the
                                     second straight month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 141.564  My system practices lime softening--is there any special 
provision regarding my individual filter turbidity monitoring?

    If your system utilizes lime softening, you may apply to the State 
for alternative turbidity exceedance levels for the levels specified in 
the table in Sec. 141.563. You must be able to demonstrate to the State 
that higher turbidity levels are due to lime carryover only, and not 
due to degraded filter performance.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements


Sec. 141.570  What does subpart T require that my system report to the 
State?

    This subpart T requires your system to report several items to the 
State. The following table describes the items which must be reported 
and the

[[Page 1843]]

frequency of reporting. Your system is required to report the 
information described in the following table, if it is subject to the 
specific requirement shown in the first column.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Description of
  Corresponding  requirement     information to report      Frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Combined Filter Effluent    (1) The total number    By the 10th of
 Requirements.                   of filtered water       the following
(Secs.  141.550-141.553)......   turbidity               month.
                                 measurements taken
                                 during the month.
                                (2) The number and      By the 10th of
                                 percentage of           the following
                                 filtered water          month.
                                 turbidity
                                 measurements taken
                                 during the month
                                 which are less than
                                 or equal to your
                                 system's required
                                 95th percentile limit.
                                (3) The date and value  By the 10th of
                                 of any turbidity        the following
                                 measurements taken      month.
                                 during the month
                                 which exceed the
                                 maximum turbidity
                                 value for your
                                 filtration system.
(b) Individual Turbidity        (1) That your system    By the 10th of
 Requirements.                   conducted individual    the following
 (Secs.  141.560-141.564).....   filter turbidity        month.
                                 monitoring during the
                                 month.
                                (2) The filter          By the 10th of
                                 number(s),              the following
                                 corresponding           month.
                                 date(s), and the
                                 turbidity value(s)
                                 which exceeded 1.0
                                 NTU during the month,
                                 but only if 2
                                 consecutive
                                 measurements exceeded
                                 1.0 NTU.
                                (3) If a self-          By the 10th of
                                 assessment is           the following
                                 required, the date      month (or 14
                                 that it was triggered   days after the
                                 and the date that it    self-assessment
                                 was completed.          was triggered
                                                         only if the
                                                         self-assessment
                                                         was triggered
                                                         during the last
                                                         four days of
                                                         the month)
                                (4) If a CPE is         By the 10th of
                                 required, that the      the following
                                 CPE is required and     month.
                                 the date that it was
                                 triggered.
                                (5) Copy of completed   Within 120 days
                                 CPE report.             after the CPE
                                                         was triggered.
(c) Disinfection Profiling....  (1) Results of          (i) For systems
(Secs.  141.530-141.536)......   optional monitoring     serving 500-
                                 which show TTHM         9,999 by July
                                 levels 0.064 mg/l and   1, 2003;
                                 HAA5 levels 0.048 mg/  (ii) For systems
                                 l (Only if your         serving fewer
                                 system wishes to        than 500 by
                                 forgo profiling) or     January 1,
                                 that your system has    2004.
                                 begun disinfection
                                 profiling.
(d) Disinfection Benchmarking.  (1) A description of    Anytime your
(Secs.  141.540-141.544)......   the proposed change     system is
                                 in disinfection, your   considering a
                                 system's disinfection   significant
                                 profile for Giardia     change to its
                                 lamblia (and, if        disinfection
                                 necessary, viruses)     practice.
                                 and disinfection
                                 benchmark, and an
                                 analysis of how the
                                 proposed change will
                                 affect the current
                                 levels of
                                 disinfection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 141.571  What records does subpart T require my system to keep?

    Your system must keep several types of records based on the 
requirements of subpart T, in addition to recordkeeping requirements 
under Sec. 141.75. The following table describes the necessary records, 
the length of time these records must be kept, and for which 
requirement the records pertain. Your system is required to maintain 
records described in this table, if it is subject to the specific 
requirement shown in the first column.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Description of necessary
        Corresponding requirement                     records             Duration of time records must be kept
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Individual Filter Turbidity            Results of individual filter  At least 3 years.
 Requirements.                              monitoring.
(Secs.  141.560-141.564).................
(b) Disinfection Profiling...............  Results of Profile            Indefinitely.
(Secs.  141.530-141.536).................   (including raw data and
                                            analysis).
(c) Disinfection Benchmarking............  Benchmark (including raw      Indefinitely.
(Secs.  141.540-141.544).................   data and analysis).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 
IMPLEMENTATION

    15. The authority citation for Part 142 continues to read as 
follows:

    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.

    16. Section 142.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), 
(a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii) introductory text, and (a)(7) to read as follows:


Sec. 142.14  Records kept by States.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Records of turbidity measurements must be kept for not less 
than one year. The information retained must be set forth in a form 
which makes possible comparison with the limits specified in 
Secs. 141.71, 141.73, 141.173 and 141.175, 141.550-141.553 and 141.560-
141.564 of this chapter. Until June 29, 1993, for any public water 
system which is providing filtration treatment and until December 30, 
1991, for any public water system not providing filtration treatment 
and not required by the State to provide filtration treatment, records 
kept must be set forth in a form which makes possible comparison with 
the limits contained in Sec. 141.13 of this chapter.
    (4)(i) Records of disinfectant residual measurements and other 
parameters necessary to document disinfection effectiveness in 
accordance with Secs. 141.72 and 141.74 of this chapter and the 
reporting requirements of Secs. 141.75, 141.175, and 141.570, of this 
chapter must be kept for not less than one year.
    (ii) Records of decisions made on a system-by-system and case-by-
case basis

[[Page 1844]]

under provisions of part 141, subpart H, subpart P, or subpart T of 
this chapter, must be made in writing and kept by the State.
* * * * *
    (7) Any decisions made pursuant to the provisions of part 141, 
subpart P or subpart T of this chapter.
    (i) Records of systems consulting with the State concerning a 
modification to disinfection practice under Secs. 141.170(d), 
141.172(c), and 141.542 of this chapter, including the status of the 
consultation.
    (ii) Records of decisions that a system using alternative 
filtration technologies, as allowed under Secs. 141.173(b) and 
Sec. 141.552 of this chapter, can consistently achieve a 99.9 percent 
removal and/or inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts, 99.99 percent 
removal and/or inactivation of viruses, and 99 percent removal of 
Cryptosporidium oocysts. The decisions must include State-set 
enforceable turbidity limits for each system. A copy of the decision 
must be kept until the decision is reversed or revised. The State must 
provide a copy of the decision to the system.
    (iii) Records of systems required to do filter self-assessment, 
CPE, or CCP under the requirements of Secs. 141.175 and 141.563 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *

    17. Section 142.16 is amended by revising paragraph (g) 
introductory text and adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec. 142.16  Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFR part 141, Subpart P 
Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection--Systems Serving 10,000 or More 
People. In addition to the general primacy requirements enumerated 
elsewhere in this part, including the requirement that State provisions 
are no less stringent than the Federal requirements, an application for 
approval of a State program revision that adopts 40 CFR part 141, 
Subpart P Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection--Systems Serving 10,000 
or More People, must contain the information specified in this 
paragraph:
* * * * *
    (j) Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFR part 141, Subpart T 
Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection--Systems Serving Fewer than 10,000 
People. In addition to the general primacy requirements enumerated 
elsewhere in this part, including the requirement that State provisions 
are no less stringent than the Federal requirements, an application for 
approval of a State program revision that adopts 40 CFR part 141, 
Subpart T Enhanced Filtration and Disinfection--Systems Serving Fewer 
than 10,000 People, must contain the information specified in this 
paragraph:
    (1) Enforceable requirements. States must have rules or other 
authority to require systems to participate in a Comprehensive 
Technical Assistance (CTA) activity, the performance improvement phase 
of the Composite Correction Program (CCP). The State must determine 
whether a CTA must be conducted based on results of a CPE which 
indicate the potential for improved performance, and a finding by the 
State that the system is able to receive and implement technical 
assistance provided through the CTA. A CPE is a thorough review and 
analysis of a system's performance-based capabilities and associated 
administrative, operation and maintenance practices. It is conducted to 
identify factors that may be adversely impacting a plant's capability 
to achieve compliance. During the CTA phase, the system must identify 
and systematically address factors limiting performance. The CTA is a 
combination of utilizing CPE results as a basis for follow-up, 
implementing process control priority-setting techniques and 
maintaining long-term involvement to systematically train staff and 
administrators.
    (2) State practices or procedures.
    (i) Section 141.530-141.536--How the State will approve a more 
representative data set for optional TTHM and HAA5 monitoring and 
profiling.
    (ii) Section 141.536 of this chapter--How the State will approve a 
method to calculate the logs of inactivation for viruses for a system 
that uses either chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for primary 
disinfection.
    (iii) Section 141.542 of this chapter--How the State will consult 
with the system and approve significant changes to disinfection 
practices.
    (iv) Section 141.552 of this chapter--For filtration technologies 
other than conventional filtration treatment, direct filtration, slow 
sand filtration, or diatomaceous earth filtration, how the State will 
determine that a public water system may use a filtration technology if 
the PWS demonstrates to the State, using pilot plant studies or other 
means, that the alternative filtration technology, in combination with 
disinfection treatment that meets the requirements of Sec. 141.72(b) of 
this chapter, consistently achieves 99.9 percent removal and/or 
inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts and 99.99 percent removal and/or 
inactivation of viruses, and 99 percent removal of Cryptosporidium 
oocysts. For a system that makes this demonstration, how the State will 
set turbidity performance requirements that the system must meet 95 
percent of the time and that the system may not exceed at any time at a 
level that consistently achieves 99.9 percent removal and/or 
inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts, 99.99 percent removal and/or 
inactivation of viruses, and 99 percent removal of Cryptosporidium 
oocysts.

[FR Doc. 02-409 Filed 1-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P