[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 2, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9781-9790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4464]
[[Page 9781]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[FRL-7628-9]
RIN 2040-AE58
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Minor Corrections
and Clarification to Drinking Water Regulations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule proposes minor changes to clarify and correct the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Drinking Water regulations.
This proposal would clarify typographical errors, inadvertent
omissions, editorial errors, and outdated language in the final Long
Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR), the Surface
Water Treatment Rule, and other rules. In addition to these
clarifications, EPA is proposing optional monitoring for disinfection
profiling and an earlier compliance date for some requirements in the
LT1ESWTR, and a detection limit for the Uranium Methods. These three
changes are discussed first. This action proposes no new monitoring or
reporting requirements.
DATES: Submit comments on or before May 3, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or
through hand delivery/courier. Send comments to: Water Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-
0066. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section I.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
Safe Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone (800) 426-4791. The Safe
Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., eastern time. For technical
inquiries, contact Tracy Bone, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water (MC 4607), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-
5257.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Who Is Regulated by This Action?
Entities potentially regulated by this action are public water
systems (PWS). The following table provides examples of the regulated
entities under this rule. A public water system, as defined by section
1401 of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is ``a system for the provision
to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other
constructed conveyances, if such system has at least 15 service
connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals.'' EPA defines
``regularly served'' as receiving water from the system 60 or more days
per year. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action
include the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Tribal and Local Government..... State, Tribal or local
government-owned/operated
water supply systems using
ground water, surface water or
mixed ground water and surface
water.
Federal Government..................... Federally owned/operated
community water supply systems
using ground water, surface
water or mixed ground water
and surface water.
Industry............................... Privately owned/operated
community water supply systems
using ground water, surface
water or mixed ground water
and surface water.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in Sec. Sec. 141.2 and 141.3 of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
1. Docket
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under
Docket ID No. OW-2003-0066. The official public docket consists of the
documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments
received, and other information related to this action. Although a part
of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of
materials that is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in
the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202)
566-2426. If you would like to schedule an appointment for access to
docket material, please call (202) 566-2426.
2. Electronic Access
You may access this Federal Register document electronically
through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket
facility identified in section I.B.1.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
[[Page 9782]]
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.
C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not
required to consider these late comments.
1. Electronically
If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA
recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail
address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also
include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM
you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM.
This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment
and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance
of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment,
and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a
comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.
a. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No.
OW-2003-0066. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
b. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-0066. In contrast to
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
c. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to the mailing address identified in section I.C.2. These
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
2. By Mail
Send an original and three copies of your comments and any
enclosures to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. OW-2003-0066.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier
Deliver your comments to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2002-0066. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in
section I.B.1.
D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.
II. Changes and Clarifications
Today's notice proposes clarifications of typographical errors,
outdated language, editorial errors and inadvertent omissions in the
text of the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(LT1ESWTR), the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), and other rules.
Each clarification is discussed under the heading of the drinking water
rule that it amends (e.g., LT1ESWTR).
In addition to these clarifications, EPA is proposing optional
monitoring for disinfection profiling and an earlier compliance date
for some requirements in the LT1ESWTR, and a detection limit for the
Uranium Methods. These three changes are discussed first.
A. LT1ESWTR Compliance Date Change and Optional Monitoring for
Disinfection Profiling
The Final LT1ESWTR was published on January 14, 2002 (67 FR 1812).
In Sec. 141.502, of the LT1ESWTR, EPA directed PWSs to ``comply with
these requirements in this subpart beginning January 14, 2005, except
where otherwise noted.'' In today's rule, EPA proposes to change the
compliance date from January 14, 2005, to January 1, 2005, in Sec.
141.502 as well as in endnote 8 of subpart Q, Appendix B.
As stated in both Sec. 141.73 (the Surface Water Treatment Rule)
and Sec. 141.551 (LT1ESWTR), systems must meet a specified turbidity
limit ``in at least 95 percent of the turbidity measurements taken each
month.'' Under SWTR, which is currently effective, this limit is 0.5
NTU. Under LT1ESWTR, which will be effective in January 2005, this
limit is 0.3 NTU. With the current LT1ESWTR date, the month of January
2005 has two specified turbidity limits that the system would have to
meet in the measurements taken that month
[[Page 9783]]
(one for the SWTR and one for the LT1ESWTR).
In addition, the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) requires
community water systems to produce reports containing data collected in
a calendar year (Sec. 141.152(b)). Specifically regarding turbidity,
the CCR requires reporting of ``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.'' See Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(v)(C).
Shifting the compliance date of the LT1ESWTR to January 1, 2005, allows
systems to report only one specified turbidity limit for calendar year
2005 (versus two under the current compliance date) thus easing
implementation and readability of the CCR.
In general, regulations promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) are implemented 3 years after the date of promulgation.
Section 1412(b)(10) directs EPA to make national primary drinking water
regulations ``take effect on the date that is 3 years after the date on
which the regulation is promulgated unless the Administrator determines
that an earlier date is practicable. * * *'' For the reasons stated
earlier, EPA is proposing to move this date 2 weeks earlier than the 3
year time frame. EPA believes it is practicable for PWSs to meet this
earlier date. For the combined filter effluent requirements, systems
will not need to install any new equipment because systems are already
monitoring their combined filter effluent. For the individual filter
effluent requirements, systems will need to install new equipment--
turbidimeters, but they are readily available. In addition, EPA
considered the benefits of moving the compliance date to January 1,
2005, in concluding that this two week shift in the date is
practicable. EPA is also changing the date in the public notification
rule, subpart Q Appendix B, endnote 8--to be consistent with the new
compliance date of the LT1SWTR. By changing Sec. 141.502, the
following 12 requirements will have a compliance deadline of January 1,
2005: Sec. Sec. 141.520, 141.521, 141.522, 141.550, 141.551, 141.552,
141.553, 141.560, 141.561, 141.562, 141.563, and 141.564. July 1, 2003
(or January 1, 2004, for systems serving fewer than 500 persons),
remains the compliance date for Sec. Sec. 141.530-536. March 15, 2002,
remains the compliance date for Sec. Sec. 141.511.
In addition to changing the compliance date, EPA is proposing to
add a sentence to Sec. 141.531 to clarify that States may approve a
more representative TTHM and HAA5 data set (optional monitoring) to
avoid the disinfection profile monitoring required in Sec. 141.530.
EPA's intent was to allow this flexibility as evidenced by the
discussion in the preamble (67 FR 1820, January 14, 2002) which states
``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.'' In addition, States are required in Sec.
142.16(j)(2)(i) to describe as part of their primacy applications how
they will ``approve a more representative data set for optional TTHM
and HAA5 monitoring.'' Section 142.16(j) is being redesignated as Sec.
142.16(p), see discussion in II.D, please refer to the rule as
promulgated, 67 FR 1820, January 14, 2002. EPA would not have required
States to describe their procedure if EPA did not also intend to allow
a more representative data set for optional TTHM and HAA5 monitoring.
While EPA's intent was to allow this flexibility, EPA failed to make
this flexibility explicit in the regulation. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to correct Sec. 141.531 to explicitly allow States to
approve a more representative TTHM and HAA5 data set by adding the
sentence ``Your State may approve a more representative TTHM and HAA5
data set to determine these levels.''
B. Detection Limit for Compliance Monitoring of Uranium
EPA is proposing to specify a detection limit for compliance
determinations of uranium in drinking water at one microgram per liter
(1 [mu]g/L) to ease the monitoring burden on public water systems. This
amendment is needed for systems to take advantage of the initial
monitoring and repeat monitoring waiver provisions at Sec.
141.26(a)(3)(i). For gross alpha, radium-226, radium-228 or uranium,
these provisions provide the flexibility for the State to waive the
final two quarters of initial monitoring at a sampling point if the
results of the samples from the previous two quarters are below the
detection limit for a radionuclide. Also, the repeat monitoring
frequency will decrease to once every 9 years for entry points which
are below detection.
The December 7, 2000, final Radionuclides Rule (65 FR 76708)
included a detection limit for gross alpha, radium-226 and radium-228,
and reserved a place for a uranium detection limit in Table B at Sec.
141.25(c)(1). EPA did not specify a detection limit in the December
2000 final rule for uranium because no detection limit was discussed in
the 1991 rule that proposed maximum contaminant limits (MCLs) and
monitoring requirements for several radionuclides (56 FR 33050, July
18, 1991). However, the preamble of the December 2000 final rule states
that EPA would ``propose a detection limit for uranium in a future
rulemaking before the compliance date of this rule'' (65 FR 76724).
Commenters on this issue stated that EPA should be consistent with
other regulated radionuclides and set a detection limit for uranium
that is consistent with the sensitivity measures used for other
radionuclides (65 FR 76724).
In today's action, EPA is proposing to amend Table B at Sec.
141.25(c)(1) to add a detection limit of 1 [mu]g/L for uranium. EPA is
proposing the detection limit as 1 [mu]g/L because it is achievable by
all current and proposed methods, within the capability of a
substantial majority of laboratories, and well below the MCL of 30
[mu]g/L. Establishing a uranium detection limit permits States the
flexibility to substantially reduce the number of compliance samples
and the frequency of repeat monitoring for uranium. For systems with
initial monitoring results below detection for two quarters, repeat
monitoring would be reduced to a nine-year frequency. Accordingly, EPA
believes that a 1 [mu]g/L detection limit serves two purposes: It
assures a reliable measurement technique is used and allows systems
with a fraction, i.e. less than one-thirtieth of the MCL, to reduce
their monitoring frequency. EPA requests that commenters suggesting any
other detection limit provide any available research, testing results,
data, or other information that supports an alternative approach.
C. Radionuclide Rule Clarifications
In addition to proposing a detection limit for uranium, EPA
proposes to make two clarifications to the final Radionuclide Rule
(December 7, 2000, 65 FR 76708). In Sec. 141.26(b)(2)(iv), EPA
proposes to add ``screening level'' to the first sentence. (Note also,
that the second ``beta'' in this sentence is a typographical error, and
under today's rule would be removed.) With these revisions, the
sentence will read, ``If the gross beta particle activity minus the
naturally occurring potassium-40 beta particle activity at a sampling
point has a running annual average (computed quarterly) less than or
equal to 15 pCi/L (screening level), the State may reduce the frequency
of monitoring at that sampling point to every 3 years.'' This clarifies
that the 15 pCi/L is a screening
[[Page 9784]]
level for systems just as 50 pCi/L is a screening level for systems in
Sec. 141.26(b)(1)(i) (see 65 FR 76726). These are the same two
numerical screening levels that were in effect for many years in the
1976 rule; EPA intended to retain them. Similarly, EPA proposes to
clarify in 141.26(b)(5), that there are two screening levels by adding
the word ``appropriate'' to the first sentence so that it reads
``...exceeds the appropriate screening level...''.
In Sec. 141.26(b)(6), EPA proposes to revise the citation
``(b)(1)(ii)'' to read ``(b)(1)(i)'', and revise citation ``(b)(2)(i)''
to read ``(b)(2)(iv).'' These were typographical errors and should have
been (b)(1)(i) and (b)(2)(iv) which refer to meeting the screening
level requirements until the system meets the requirements for reduced
monitoring.
D. LT1ESWTR Clarifications
In addition to changing the date in Sec. 141.502 to reduce
monitoring burden as well as to allow States to approve alternative
data sets for optional monitoring in Sec. 141.531, EPA is proposing to
clarify typographical errors in the final LT1ESWTR. In subpart Q
Appendix B, in endnotes 4 and 8, the year of publication for the Long
Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule is incorrectly identified
as 2001 when it should be 2002. Also in endnote 4, the word ``monthly''
is misspelled.
In Sec. 141.530 EPA is proposing to remove the grammatically
incorrect, plural ``s'' from ``systems'' in the sentence ``If you are a
subpart H community or non-transient non-community water systems which
serves fewer * * * ''
Section 141.534 has two typographical errors. In the introductory
paragraph for Sec. 141.534, EPA inadvertently omitted a reference to
Sec. 141.74(b)(3)(v), which provides tables for determining the
appropriate CT99.9 value to calculate the inactivation ratio. These
tables for CT99.9 are referred to in other drinking water regulations
(for example, see the IESWTR, Sec. 141.172(b)(2)). EPA proposes to
change the introductory paragraph of Sec. 141.534 to: ``Use the tables
in Sec. 141.74(b)(3)(v) to determine the appropriate CT99.9 value.
Calculate the total inactivation ratio as follows, and multiply the
value by 3.0 to determine log inactivation of Giardia lamblia:''
In the table in Sec. 141.534(a)(2), EPA proposes to change the
``3'' to ``[Sigma]'' in the CT calculation formula. EPA inadvertently
changed the ``[Sigma]'' to a ``3'' during a text file conversion. This
clarification will assure consistency with the IESWTR, see Sec.
141.172(b)(4)(i)(B).
In Sec. 141.551(a)(2), EPA proposes to add a ``t'' to the ``no''
in ``A value determined by the State (no to exceed 1 NTU) * * * '' In
Sec. 141.551(b)(2), EPA proposes to add the word ``Filtration'' to the
phrase ``All other ``Alternative'' which will match related language in
Sec. 141.551(a)(2).
In the table in Sec. 141.563(b), the last sentence in the second
column is redundant. The last sentence reads: ``If a self-assessment is
required, the date that it was triggered and the date that it was
completed.'' EPA proposes to delete this sentence. This sentence is
properly included in the description of reporting requirements in the
table in Sec. 141.570(b)(3) but should not be included in the
regulation describing a follow-up action that a system must take if it
exceeds a turbidity limit. Also in the same table in Sec. 141.563(c),
the first column contains a typographical error. The acronym ``BTU''
should read ``NTU'' (Nephelometric Turbidity Units).
In the table in Sec. 141.570(b)(2) there is an omission. EPA is
proposing to add the phrase: ``and the cause (if known) for the
exceedance(s)'' to the description of information to report under Sec.
141.570(b)(2). As a result, the entire paragraph would read: ``The
filter number(s), corresponding date(s), and the turbidity value(s)
which exceeded 1.0 NTU during the month, and the cause (if known) for
the exceedance(s), but only if 2 consecutive measurements exceeded 1.0
NTU.'' This will make the wording in the table at 141.570(b)(2)
consistent with 141.563(a).
In the LT1ESWTR, EPA placed the special primacy requirements for
States in Sec. 142.16 (j), however that paragraph designation was
already reserved for a previously promulgated (though not yet
effective) drinking water rule (66 FR 6976, January 22, 2001). This
action proposes to redesignate the LT1ESWTR special primacy text as
Sec. 142.16(p). In addition, EPA proposes to revise a citation in
142.(p)(2)(ii) to ``141.536'' to read ``141.535.'' This was a
typographical error and should have been ``141.535'' which refers to
calculating inactivation.
E. Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
The Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule was
promulgated on December 16, 1998 (63 FR 69390). This rule required
systems to measure and report, among other things, violations of
maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs), see 141.134(c)(1)(iv)
(see 63 FR 69422 and 69472). However, EPA failed to add compliance with
the applicable MRDL to the compliance requirements in Sec.
141.133(a)(3). EPA proposes to correct this. The language in Sec.
141.133(a)(3) would now read ``If, during the first year of monitoring
under Sec. 141.132, any individual quarter's average will cause the
running annual average of that system to exceed the MCL for total
trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids (five), or bromate; or the MRDL for
chlorine or chloramine, the system is out of compliance at the end of
that quarter.'' The burden for this requirement was already accounted
for in the approved Information Collection Request No. 1895.02.
Also, in the final Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule, EPA incorrectly cited in Sec. 142.14(d)(12)(iv) and
142.14(d)(13) a reference to 142.16(f). The reference for both sections
should be Sec. 142.16(h)(2) and Sec. 142.16(h)(5) respectively.
Section 142.16 (f)(2) refers to reports required under the Consumer
Confidence Report Rule; however, Sec. Sec. 142.14(d)(12)(iv) and
142.14(d)(13) clearly intend to refer the reader to requirements
concerning disinfectants and disinfectant byproducts.
F. Surface Water Treatment Rule
The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) was promulgated on June 29,
1989 (54 FR 27486). In that final rule, EPA incorrectly cited in Sec.
141.74(b)(4)(ii) a reference to Sec. 142.72(a). This citation should
read Sec. 141.72(a), which refers to disinfection requirements for
public water systems rather than requirements for tribal eligibility
(Sec. 142.72(a)).
Also, EPA is proposing to clarify requirements concerning the
calibration of turbidimeters in Sec. Sec. 141.174(a) (IESWTR) and in
141.560(b) (LT1ESWTR) by adding the phrase already used in Sec.
141.74(a)(1), ``using analytical test procedures contained in Technical
Notes on Drinking Water Methods, EPA-600/R-94-173, October 1994.''
Section 141.174(a) would now end, ``must calibrate turbidimeters using
the procedure specified by the manufacturer and by using analytical
test procedures contained in Technical Notes on Drinking Water Methods,
EPA-600/R-94-173, October 1994.'' Section 141.560(b) would have
equivalent language so that it now ends, ``must calibrate turbidimeters
using the procedure specified by the manufacturer and by using
analytical test procedures contained in Technical Notes on Drinking
Water Methods, EPA-600/R-94-173, October 1994.''
EPA proposes to change all citations to Sec. 141.74(a)(3) or (4)
to Sec. 141.74(a)(1), and all citations to Sec. 141.74(a)(5) to
[[Page 9785]]
Sec. 141.74(a)(2). The SWTR, as published in 1989, had paragraphs
Sec. 141.74(a)(3)-(7). The original (a)(3) described HPC methods,
(a)(4) described turbidity methods, (a)(5) described residual
disinfectant concentration methods, (a)(6) described temperature
methods, and (a)(7) described pH methods. On December 5, 1994 (59 FR
62470), EPA revised the SWTR at Sec. 141.74. In that rule, EPA revised
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and removed paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(7).
EPA subsequently modified Sec. 141.74(a)(1) by moving the temperature
method listed in the table Sec. 141.74(a)(1) to the text of Sec.
141.74(a)(1) (June 29, 1995, 60 FR 34086). As a result of these two
notices (1994 and 1995) the requirements in (a)(1)-(7) were all
combined into paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), however; EPA failed to make
corresponding changes to the following cross references elsewhere in
part 141:
Table 1.--References to the Surface Water Treatment Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWTR provisions with incorrect cross
references Proposed amendment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
141.71(a)(2)........................... ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.71(c)(2)(i)........................ ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.72(a)(3)........................... ``(a)(5)'' to (a)(2)
141.72(a)(4)(i)........................ ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1) and
``(a)(5)'' to (a)(2)
141.72(a)(4)(ii)....................... ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
141.72(b)(2)........................... ``(a)(5)'' to (a)(2)
141.72(b)(3)(i)........................ ``(a)(5)'' to (a)(2) and,
``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
141.72(b)(3)(ii)....................... ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
141.73(a)(1)........................... ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.73(a)(2)........................... ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.73(b)(1)........................... ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.73(b)(2)........................... ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.73(c)(1)........................... ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.73(c)(2)........................... ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.74(b)(6)(ii)....................... ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
141.74(c)(3)(i)........................ ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
141.74(c)(3)(ii)....................... ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
141.75(a)(2)(viii)(G).................. ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
141.75(b)(2)(iii)(G)................... ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR) was promulgated on June
8, 2001 (66 FR 31086). EPA inadvertently provided incomplete citations
in subpart Q, Appendix A of the Public Notification rule for the FBRR
violations. In entry I.A.(8) of 40 CFR part 141, subpart Q, Appendix A,
EPA is proposing to add a ``(c)'' to the ``MCL/MRDL/TT violations
Citation'' column of Sec. 141.76; and, in the ``Monitoring & testing
procedure violations Citation'' column EPA is proposing to add ``(b),
(d)'' to Sec. 141.76. This will clarify which FBRR violations require
public notice and what type of notice is required.
The FBRR preamble (66 FR 31086, 31094) explicitly states that
violations of the recordkeeping and reporting portions of this
treatment technique trigger public notification (PN) obligations under
40 CFR part 141, subpart Q. Normally, recordkeeping and reporting
violations do not trigger PN. The preamble to the PN rule, as well as
the rule text, state that reporting and recordkeeping violations do not
trigger PN. For example, see Sec. 141, subpart Q, Appendix A, Endnote
1. Moreover, the table listing categories of violations that trigger
PN--Sec. 141.201 Table 1--does not list reporting or recordkeeping.
However, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the FBRR are
an integral part of the treatment technique itself and thus do trigger
PN.
EPA is clarifying this by making the following changes to the PN
rule: striking the reference to reporting violations in Appendix A,
endnote 1, and explicitly adding Sec. Sec. 141.76(b), (c) and (d) to
the list of categories requiring reporting in Appendix A (current
references are just to Sec. 141.76). These changes will harmonize the
two rules/preambles and help to clarify where the FBRR recordkeeping
and reporting requirements fit under the list of categories in Sec.
141.201 Table 1.
H. Bottled Water
In a November 1995 final rule (60 FR 57132), the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) moved their standards of quality for bottled water
from Sec. 103.35 (21 CFR 103.35) to Sec. 165.110. EPA proposes to
correct a reference in our regulations in Sec. 142.62(g)(2) to this
updated citation of these FDA regulations.
I. Information Collection Rule
The Information Collection Rule (ICR) was promulgated on May 14,
1996 (61 FR 24354). The requirements promulgated in the ICR expired on
December 31, 2000. As a result, the ICR requirements (referred to as
subpart M--Information Collection Requirements (ICRs) for Public Water
Systems) were removed from the Code of Federal Regulations in 2001.
However, there are remaining references to the data collected as a
result of the ICR in other sections of part 141 that refer to ``subpart
M''. EPA proposes to delete, ``or subpart M of this part'' from Sec.
141.132(a)(5). EPA is not proposing to delete or revise the other
references to subpart M because the data collected under the ICR are
still being used.
J. Phase V Rule
In the final Phase V Rule (July 17, 1992, 57 FR 31776), EPA
published a list of Best Available Technologies (BATs) for cyanide, see
Sec. 141.62(c). Subsequently, EPA identified the need for a rule
revision relating to one of the three BATs for cyanide, specifically
chlorine. EPA should have been more specific (see 57 FR 31089 of the
final rule and 55 FR 30419 of the proposed rule (July 25, 1990, 55 FR
30370)) as to the type of chlorination and instead listed ``alkaline
chlorination.'' EPA discussed this issue in a public memorandum,
``Public Water System Warning'' Memo, March 7, 1994. EPA also listed
``alkaline chlorination'' rather than chlorination in the Small System
Compliance Technology List for the Non-microbial Contaminants Regulated
Before 1996, see August 6, 1998, 63 FR 42039, Table 4 and 5. EPA
proposes to delete the ``10'' (code for chlorination) from the cyanide
BAT list and replace
[[Page 9786]]
it with ``13'' (new code for alkaline chlorination). In addition, the
new code for alkaline chlorination is added to the table key.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review. The Order defines ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is therefore not subject to Executive Order 12866.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This action modifies and clarifies existing regulations. It does not
add monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
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 in 40 CFR are listed
in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 government 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 the Small Business Administration's (SBA's)
Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, EPA considered small entities to be public water
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. This is the cut-off level
specified by Congress in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act 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 public
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 proposed
regulation as well.
This proposed rule imposes no cost on any entities over and above
those imposed by previously published drinking water rules. This action
corrects and clarifies existing regulations. The optional monitoring
for disinfection profiling provides flexibility for PWSs complying with
LT1ESWTR. The earlier compliance date will not increase the cost of
complying with LT1ESWTR since the monitoring and reporting requirements
are unchanged. By specifying the detection limit for uranium, States
have the flexibility to waive some monitoring for PWSs with samples
below the detection limit. This action does not add new requirements.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
[[Page 9787]]
Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. This proposed rule imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. This action corrects and clarifies existing
regulations. The optional monitoring for disinfection profiling
provides flexibility for PWSs to comply with LT1ESWTR. The earlier
compliance date will not increase the cost of complying with LT1ESWTR
since the monitoring and reporting requirements are unchanged. By
specifying the detection limit for uranium, States have the flexibility
to waive some monitoring for PWSs with samples below the detection
limit. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This proposed rule imposes no enforceable duty on any
State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This action
corrects and clarifies existing regulations. Thus, today's proposed
rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed 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. There is no cost to State and
local governments, and the proposed rule does not preempt State law.
This action corrects and clarifies existing regulations. The optional
monitoring for disinfection profiling provides flexibility for PWSs to
comply with LT1ESWTR. The earlier compliance date will not increase the
cost of complying with LT1ESWTR since the monitoring and reporting
requirements are unchanged. By specifying the detection limit for
uranium, States have the flexibility to waive some monitoring for PWSs
with samples below the detection limit. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order
13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between
EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment
on this proposed rule from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
There is no cost to tribal governments, and the proposed rule does not
preempt tribal law. This action corrects and clarifies existing
regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy
to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866.
Further, it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk
that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on
children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve any new technical
standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 141
Chemicals, Environmental protection, Indians-lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
[[Page 9788]]
40 CFR Part 142
Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Indians-lands,
Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply.
Dated: February 24, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
Sec. 141.25 [Amended]
2. Section 141.25(c)(1) is amended in the entry for uranium in
Table B by revising the word ``reserved'' to read ``1 [mu]g/L''.
Sec. 141.26 [Amended]
3. Section 141.26 is amended as follows:
a. Revise paragraph (b)(2)(iv) and (b)(5); and
b. In paragraph (b)(6) revise the citation ``(b)(1)(ii)'' to read
``(b)(1)(i)'' and revise the citation ``(b)(2)(i)'' to read
``(b)(2)(iv)'' as follows:
Sec. 141.26 Monitoring frequency and compliance requirements for
radionuclides in community water systems.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) If the gross beta particle activity minus the naturally
occurring potassium-40 beta particle activity at a sampling point has a
running annual average (computed quarterly) less than or equal to 15
pCi/L (screening level), the State may reduce the frequency of
monitoring at that sampling point to every 3 years. Systems must
collect the same type of samples required in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section during the reduced monitoring period.
* * * * *
(5) If the gross beta particle activity minus the naturally
occurring potassium-40 beta particle activity exceeds the appropriate
screening level, an analysis of the sample must be performed to
identify the major radioactive constituents present in the sample and
the appropriate doses must be calculated and summed to determine
compliance with Sec. 141.66(d)(1), using the formula in Sec.
141.66(d)(2), or Table E in Sec. 141.66(d). Doses must also be
calculated and combined for measured levels of tritium and strontium to
determine compliance.
* * * * *
Sec. 141.62 [Amended]
4. Section 141.62(c) is amended as follows:
a. In the Table ``BAT for inorganic compounds listed in section
141.62(b)'' amend the entry for ``cyanide'' by replacing the ``10''
with ``13''; and
b. In the list ``Key to BATS in Table 1'', add to the end of the
list as follows: ``13 = Alkaline Chlorination (pH = 8.5)''.
Sec. 141.71 [Amended]
5. Section 141.71 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory text revise the citation
``Sec. 141.74(a)(4)'' to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(1)''; and
b. In paragraph (c)(2)(i) revise the citation ``Sec.
141.74(a)(4)'' to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(1)''.
Sec. 141.72 [Amended]
6. Section 141.72 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(3) revise the citation ``Sec. 141.74(a)(5)''
to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(2)'';
b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i) revise the citation ``Sec.
141.74(a)(5)'' to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(2)'' and revise the citation
``Sec. 141.74(a)(3)'' to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(1)'';
c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii) revise the citation ``Sec.
141.74(a)(3)'' to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(1)'';
d. In paragraph (b)(2) revise the citation ``Sec. 141.74(a)(5)''
to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(2)'';
e. In paragraph (b)(3)(i) revise the citation ``Sec.
141.74(a)(5)'' to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(2)'', and revise the citation
``Sec. 141.74(a)(3)'' to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(1)''; and
f. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii) revise the citation ``Sec.
141.74(a)(3)'' to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(1)''.
Sec. 141.73 [Amended]
7. Section 141.73 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(1) revise the citation ``Sec. 141.74(a)(4)''
to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(1)'';
b. In paragraph (a)(2) revise the citation ``Sec. 141.74(a)(4)''
to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(1)'';
c. In paragraph (b)(1) revise the citation ``Sec. 141.74(a)(4)''
to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(1)'';
d. In paragraph (b)(2) revise the citation ``Sec. 141.74(a)(4)''
to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(1)'';
e. In paragraph (c)(1) revise the citation ``Sec. 141.74(a)(4)''
to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(1)''; and
f. In paragraph (c)(2) revise the citation ``Sec. 141.74(a)(4)''
to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(1)''.
Sec. 141.74 [Amended]
8. Section 141.74 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii) revise the citation ``Sec. 142.72(a)''
to read ``Sec. 141.72(a)'';
b. In paragraph (b)(6)(ii) revise the citation ``(a)(3)'' to read
``(a)(1)'';
c. In paragraph (c)(3)(i) revise the citation ``(a)(3)'' to read
``(a)(1)''; and
d. In paragraph (c)(3)(ii) revise the citation ``(a)(3)'' to read
``(a)(1)''.
Sec. 141.75 Amended
9. Section 141.75 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2)(viii)(G) revise the citation ``Sec.
141.74(a)(3)'' to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(1)''; and
b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(G) revise the citation ``Sec.
141.74(a)(3)'' to read ``Sec. 141.74(a)(1)''.
10. Section 141.132 is amended in paragraph (a)(5) by removing the
reference to ``or subpart M of this part''.
11. In Sec. 141.133 revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.133 Compliance requirements.
(a) * * *
(3) If, during the first year of monitoring under Sec. 141.132,
any individual quarter's average will cause the running annual average
of that system to exceed the MCL for total trihalomethanes, haloacetic
acids (five), or bromate; or the MRDL for chlorine or chloramine, the
system is out of compliance at the end of that quarter.
* * * * *
12. In Sec. 141.174 revise the first sentence of paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 141.174 Filtration sampling requirements.
(a) * * * In addition to monitoring required by Sec. 141.74, a
public water system subject to the requirements of this subpart that
provides conventional filtration treatment or direct filtration must
conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity for each individual filter
using an approved method in Sec. 141.74(a) and must calibrate
turbidimeters using the procedure specified by the manufacturer and by
using analytical test procedures contained in Technical Notes on
Drinking Water Methods, EPA-600/R-94-173, October 1994. * * *
* * * * *
13. In subpart Q, Appendix A is amended as follows:
[[Page 9789]]
a. In entry I.A.(8) revise the citation in the third column
``141.76'' to read ``141.76(c)'' and the citation in the fifth column
``141.76'' to read ``141.76 (b), (d)''.
b. Amend endnote 1 by removing the words ``reporting violations
and'' from the first parenthetical phrase.
14. In subpart Q, Appendix B revise endnotes 4 and 8 to read as
follows:
Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141--Standard Health Effects Language
for Public Notification
* * * * *
\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 2002 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule. The MCL for the monthly 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).
* * * * *
\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 2002 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 1, 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.
* * * * *
15. Revise Sec. 141.502 to read as follows:
Sec. 141.502 When must my system comply with these requirements?
You must comply with these requirements in this subpart beginning
January 1, 2005, except where otherwise noted.
16. In Sec. 141.530 in the second sentence, revise ``water
systems'' to read ``water system''.
17. Amend Sec. 141.531 by adding the following sentence to the end
of the section, to read as follows:
Sec. 141.531 What criteria must a State use to determine that a
profile is unnecessary?
* * * Your State may approve a more representative TTHM and HAA5
data set to determine these levels.
18. Section 141.534 is amended as follows:
a. By revising the introductory paragraph,
b. In the table in paragraph (a)(2), revise the ``3'' to read
``[Sigma]''.
Sec. 141.534 How does my system use this data to calculate an
inactivation ratio?
Use the tables in Sec. 141.74(b)(3)(v) to determine the
appropriate CT99.9 value. Calculate the total inactivation ratio as
follows, and multiply the value by 3.0 to determine log inactivation of
Giardia lamblia:
* * * * *
Sec. 141.551 [Amended]
19. Section 141.551 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(2) revise ``no'' to read ``not''; and
b. In paragraph (b)(2) revise ``''Alternative``'' to read
``Alternative Filtration''.
20. In Sec. 141.560, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.560 Is my system subject to individual filter turbidity
requirements?
* * * * *
(b) Calibration of turbidimeters must be conducted using procedures
specified by the manufacturer and by analytical test procedures
contained in Technical Notes on Drinking Water Methods, EPA-600/R-94-
173, October 1994.
* * * * *
141.563 [Amended]
21. Section 141.563 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (b) remove the last sentence in the second column
of the table, and
b. In paragraph (c) revise ``BTU'' to read ``NTU'' in the first
column of the table.
22. In Sec. 141.570, revise paragraph (b)(2) in the table to read
as follows:
Sec. 141.570 What does subpart T require that my system report to the
State?
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of
Corresponding requirement information to report Frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(b) Individual Filter
Turbidity Requirements
(Sec. Sec. 141.560-141.564)
(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,
and the cause (if
known) for the
exceedance(s), but
only if 2 consecutive
measurements exceeded
1.0 NTU.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
23. 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.
Sec. 142.14 [Amended]
24. Section 142.14 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (d)(12)(iv) revise the citation ``Sec.
142.16(f)(2)'' to read ``Sec. 142.16(h)(2)''; and
b. In paragraph (d)(13) revise the citation ``Sec. 142.16(f)(5)''
to read ``Sec. 142.16(h)(5)''.
[[Page 9790]]
Sec. 142.16 [Amended]
25. Section 142.16 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (l)(2) revise the citation ``Sec. 142.16 (e)(5)''
to read ``Sec. 142.16 (e)(2)'';
b. Redesignate paragraph (j) which was added on January 14, 2002,
at 67 FR 1812 as paragraph (p); and
c. In paragraph (p)(2)(ii) revise the citation ``141.536'' to read
``141.535''.
26. Section 142.62(g)(2) is amended by revising the citation
``103.35'' to read ``165.110''.
[FR Doc. 04-4464 Filed 3-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P