Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

• You are here: EPA Home
• Federal Register
• FR Years
• FR Months
• FR Days
• FR Documents
• National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods for Chemical Contaminants [[pp. 49647-49681]]

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods for Chemical Contaminants [[pp. 49647-49681]]

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

---

 
[Federal Register: August 18, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 159)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49647-49681]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18au03-46]
 
[[pp. 49647-49681]]
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; National Primary and 
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods 
for Chemical Contaminants

[[Continued from page 49646]]

[[Page 49647]]

per year. Although the estimated benefits for Alternatives 2 and 3 are 
potentially significant, EPA rejected these alternatives because the 
Agency believes that the uncertainty about the health effects data does 
not warrant the additional expense associated with these regulatory 
alternatives.
    Given the uncertainty in the health effects, and the resulting 
rejection of Alternatives 2 and 3, a comparison of Alternative 1 with 
the Preferred Alternative shows that Alternative 1 would have 
approximately the same benefits as the Preferred Alternative but with 
greater costs. This results from the inability of the Agency to 
estimate the additional benefits of reducing the bromate MCL. 
Alternative 1 was also determined to be unacceptable due to the 
potential for increased risk of microbial exposure. See section VII.A 
of today's action for a description of regulatory alternatives.

H. Benefits From the Reduction of Co-Occurring Contaminants

    Installing certain technologies to control DBPs also has the added 
benefit of controlling other drinking water contaminants. For example, 
some membrane technologies (depending on pore size) installed to reduce 
DBP precursors can also reduce or eliminate many other drinking water 
contaminants, including arsenic and microbial pathogens. EPA has 
finalized a rule to further control arsenic level in drinking water and 
has proposed the Ground Water Rule to address microbial contamination. 
The Stage 2 DBPR is also being concurrently proposed with the Long Term 
2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Because of the difficulties in 
establishing which systems would have multiple problems such as 
microbial contamination, arsenic, and DBPs (or any combination of the 
three), no estimate was made of the potential cost savings from 
addressing more than one contaminant simultaneously.

I. Are There Increased Risks From Other Contaminants?

    Today's proposed rule may slightly shift the distribution of TTHM 
and HAAs to brominated species. Some systems, depending on bromide and 
organic precursor levels in the source water and technology selection, 
may experience a shift to higher ratios or concentrations of brominated 
DBPs while the overall TTHM or HAA5 concentration decreases. However, 
EPA anticipates that this phenomenon may only occur in a small 
percentage of systems affected. For most systems, overall levels of 
DBPs, as well as brominated DBP species, should decrease as a result of 
this rule.
    EPA's analysis shows that a large portion of systems that do not 
currently meet Stage 2 requirements will do so by switching from 
chlorination to chloramination; approximately 5% of surface water 
plants and 1.3% of ground water plants in systems serving greater than 
10,000 are estimated to convert to chloramination in order to comply 
with the Stage 2 DBPR from the Stage 1 DBPR (USEPA 2003i). A potential 
chloramination byproduct is N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a probable 
human carcinogen. The concern over the formation of NDMA in the 
treatment process is based on the compound's ability to persist for a 
long period of time in the distribution system. The mechanism of 
formation of NDMA, however, is still under examination. A number of 
ongoing studies will also evaluate occurrence, factors that affect NDMA 
formation, mechanisms, treatment effectiveness and improved analytical 
methods for measuring NDMA.
    Another contaminant of concern to the Agency is chlorite. Levels 
may increase slightly because of technology shifts to chlorine dioxide 
resulting from this rule but very few systems (<0.1 percent) are 
predicted to install this technology. However, individual systems will 
not shift to chlorine dioxide unless they can meet the chlorite MCL 
(established under the Stage 1 DBPR) which is considered protective of 
public health.
    EPA also considered the impact this rule may have on microbial 
contamination that may result from altering disinfection practices. To 
address this concern, the Agency developed this rule jointly with the 
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR). EPA 
expects that the LT2ESWTR provisions will prevent significant increases 
in microbial risk resulting from the Stage 2 DBPR. EPA also expects the 
Ground Water Rule, scheduled for promulgation in 2003, to prevent any 
increases in microbial risk in ground water systems deemed vulnerable 
to source water contamination.

J. Effects on General Population and Subpopulation Groups

    Section III of today's proposed rule discusses the health effects 
associated with DBPs on the general population as well as the effects 
on pregnant women and fetuses. In addition, health effects associated 
with children and pregnant women are discussed in greater detail in 
subsection VIII.G of this preamble.

K. Uncertainties in Baseline, Risk, Benefit, and Cost Estimates

    Today's proposal models the current baseline risk from DBP exposure 
as well as the reduction in risk and the cost for various rule options. 
There is uncertainty regarding many aspects of this analysis including 
the risk calculation, the benefit estimate, and the cost estimates. EPA 
has tried to capture much of the uncertainty and also the variability 
associated with many of the inputs used in the economic analysis by 
using distributions or ranges as model inputs instead of point 
estimates whenever possible. The Stage 2 DBPR EA contains a more 
extensive discussion of the modeling techniques used to address 
uncertainty and variability (USEPA 2003i).
    In addition, the Agency conducted sensitivity analyses to address 
uncertainty. The sensitivity analyses focus on various benefit and cost 
factors that may have a significant influence on the outcome of the 
rule. All of these sensitivity analyses are explained in more detail in 
the EA for the Stage 2 DBPR (USEPA 2003i).
    The major source of benefit uncertainty is the scientific 
uncertainty regarding the impact of DBP exposure on reproductive and 
developmental outcomes. However, the Agency believes that the monetized 
value of these outcomes could be significant. As discussed in 
subsection VII.C.1, EPA performed an illustrative calculation that 
explored the potential implications for the proposed rule using some of 
the published results on fetal loss, but did not attempt to quantify 
benefits associated with reducing other reproductive and developmental 
endpoints potentially associated with DBP exposure.
    Another possible underestimation of today's monetized benefits 
results from the inability of the Agency to quantify or monetize the 
potential benefit from avoiding other cancers associated with DBP 
exposure such as colon and rectal cancers. Furthermore, while the 
Agency estimated the range of bladder cancer risks avoided to be 0 to 
182 cases per year, the true risk of bladder cancer avoided from 
decreased DBP exposure may be higher than this range.
    While EPA believes it has accounted for the significant costs of 
today's proposed rule, there are uncertainties about some of the cost 
inputs. As discussed in subsection VII.D.4, cost estimates do not 
include some alternatives to installing treatment (e.g., improving 
management of distribution system residence time) that may be a less 
costly means of complying with the

[[Page 49648]]

Stage 2 DBPR. The Agency also explored two additional uncertainties 
which might have the greatest impact on our current estimates by 
conducting sensitivity analyses. These include the impact of IDSE 
monitoring and the possibility that the primary analysis overestimates 
the compliance forecast for small surface water systems and all ground 
water systems. A detailed discussion of these analyses can be found in 
chapter 7 of the Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003i).
    Last, EPA has recently proposed or finalized new regulations for 
arsenic, radon, and microbials in ground water systems (Ground Water 
Rule); Cryptosporidium in small surface water systems and filter 
backwash in all system sizes (LT1ESWTR and Filter Backwash Rule); as 
well as concurrently proposing additional microbial control in surface 
water systems (Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule). 
These rules may have overlapping impacts on some drinking water systems 
but it is not possible to estimate these because of lack of information 
on co-occurrence. However, it is possible for a system to choose 
treatment technologies that would address multiple contaminants. 
Therefore, the total cost impact of these drinking water rules is 
uncertain; however, it may be less than the estimated total cost of all 
individual rules combined.

L. Benefit/Cost Determination for the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR

    The Agency has determined that the quantified and unquantified 
benefits of the proposed Stage 2 DBPR justify the costs. As discussed 
previously, the main concern for the Agency and the Advisory Committee 
involved in the Stage 2 rulemaking process was to address potential 
reproductive and developmental impacts associated with exposure to high 
DBP levels. The proposed rule achieves this objective using the least 
cost alternative by modifying how the annual average DBP level is 
calculated. This will reduce both average DBP levels associated with 
bladder cancer (and possibly other cancers) and peak DBP levels which 
are potentially associated with reproductive and developmental effects. 
In addition, this rule may reduce uncertainty about drinking water 
quality and may allow some systems to avoid installing additional 
technology to meet future drinking water regulations.
    Compared to other rule options consider by the Agency, the proposed 
rule option is also the most cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness 
analysis compares the annual dollar cost of the rule to the annual 
number of bladder cancer cases potentially avoided. For bladder cancer 
reduction, the cost per case avoided for the proposed rule would be 
$0.3 million if the PAR is 17%, and $3.1 million if the PAR is 2%, and 
also varies depending on the discount rate used.

M. Request for Comment

    The Agency requests comment on all aspects of the rule's economic 
impact analysis. Specifically, EPA seeks input into the following 
issues: (1) To what extent can systems install treatment to address 
multiple contaminants?; (2) Are there methods for monetizing potential 
reproductive and developmental endpoints associated with DBP exposure?; 
(3) To what extent will use of chloramination increase levels of NDMA 
and potentially associated health risks, and how should this be 
considered in this rule making; and (4) How should the Agency value 
nonfatal cancers? Specifically, EPA uses a range of severities to 
calculate the WTP estimate to avoid a case of chronic bronchitis. 
Should the Agency only consider the most severe case of chronic 
bronchitis as a better proxy for a non-fatal cancer? Also, should the 
Agency use the risk-risk trade-off estimate of WTP to avoid a case of 
chronic bronchitis instead of the risk-dollar trade-off estimate (see 
the EA (USEPA 2003i) for a complete discussion of these issues)?

VIII. 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 and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of 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 will be documented in 
the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned ICR No. 2068.01 (USEPA 2003m).
    The information collected as a result of this rule will allow the 
States and EPA to determine appropriate requirements for specific 
systems, and to evaluate compliance with the rule. For the first 3 
years after Stage 2 DBPR promulgation, the major information 
requirements involve monitoring activities, which include conducting 
the IDSE and submission of the IDSE report, and tracking compliance. 
The information collection requirements are mandatory (Part 141), and 
the information collected is not confidential.
    The estimate of annual average burden hours for the Stage 2 DBPR 
for systems and States is 248,568 hours. This estimate covers the first 
three years of the Stage 2 DBPR and includes implementation of Stage 2A 
and most of the IDSE (small system reports are not due until the fourth 
year). The annual average aggregate cost estimate is $18.0 million for 
operation and maintenance as a purchase of service for lab work, and 
$6.8 million is associated with labor. The annual burden hour per 
response is 2.59 hours. The frequency of response (average responses 
per respondent) is 11.8 annually. The estimated number of likely 
respondents is 8,131 per year (the product of burden hours per 
response, frequency, and respondents does not total the annual average 
burden hours due to rounding). Because disinfecting systems have 
already purchased basic monitoring equipment to comply with the Stage 1 
DBPR, EPA assumes no capital start-up costs are associated with the 
Stage 2 DBPR ICR.
    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

[[Page 49649]]

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.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection 
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which 
includes this ICR, under Docket ID No. OW-2002-0043. Submit any 
comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit 
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 
after August 18, 2003, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its 
full effect if OMB receives it by September 17, 2003. The final rule 
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., 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) through (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 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 is applied to this regulation.
    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. We have 
determined that 75 small systems using surface water or ground water 
under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI), which are 1.67% of 
all such systems affected by the Stage 2 DBPR, will experience an 
impact of greater than or equal to 1% of their revenues, and 49 small 
systems using surface water or GWUDI, which are 1.09% of all such 
systems affected by the Stage 2 DBPR, will experience an impact of 
greater than or equal to 3% of their revenues; further, 109 small 
ground water systems, which are 0.28% of all such systems affected by 
the Stage 2 DBPR, will experience an impact of greater than or equal to 
1% of their revenues, and 38 small ground water systems, which are 
0.10% of all such systems affected by the Stage 2 DBPR, will experience 
an impact of greater than or equal to 3% of their revenues (see Tables 
VIII-1 and VIII-2).
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 49650]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP18AU03.021
[[Page 49651]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP18AU03.022

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    As a result of the input received from stakeholders, the EPA 
workgroup, the Advisory Committee, and other interested parties, EPA 
has developed MCLs using locational running annual averages (LRAA) of 
0.080 and 0.060 mg/L for TTHM and HAA5 respectively, in combination 
with Initial Distribution Systems Evaluations (IDSE), as the preferred 
Stage 2 DBPR option. LRAAs are running annual averages calculated for 
each sample location in the distribution system. Since many small 
systems only monitor at one location, they will effectively base their 
compliance with the Stage 1 DBPR on an LRAA and therefore will not be 
significantly affected by the Stage 2 DBPR. In addition to meeting the 
MCLs for TTHM and HAA5, systems will be required to conduct IDSEs. The 
purpose of the IDSE is to identify compliance monitoring sites 
representing high TTHM and HAA5 levels in the distribution system. 
According to the Stage 2 DBPR Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003i), only 17% 
of all small water systems will conduct IDSE monitoring because small 
NTNCWSs are exempt from IDSE monitoring, systems serving fewer than 500 
people may receive a waiver from their States, and other systems are 
eligible for a 40/30 certification if all compliance monitoring samples 
have been <= 0.040 and <= 0.030 mg/L for TTHM and HAA5 respectively 
during the previous two years. A large number of small ground water 
systems will qualify for this certification. This provision is 
described in more detail in section V.H. of this preamble.
    Although not required by the RFA to convene a Small Business 
Advocacy

[[Page 49652]]

Review (SBAR) Panel because EPA determined that this proposal would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, EPA did convene a panel to obtain advice and recommendations 
from representatives of the small entities potentially subject to this 
rule's requirements.
    Before convening the SBAR Panel, EPA consulted with a group of 24 
SERs likely to be impacted by the Stage 2 M-DBP Rules. The SERs 
included small system operators, local government officials, and small 
nonprofit organizations. The SERs were provided with background 
information on the Safe Drinking Water Act, Stage 1 DBPR, IESWTR, and 
Stage 2 DBPR alternatives and unit cost analyses resulting from using 
different technologies to meet the required MCLs in preparation for the 
teleconferences on January 28, 2000, February 25, 2000, and April 7, 
2000. This information package included data on options and preliminary 
unit costs for treatment enhancements under consideration. It is 
important to note that, since EPA did not consider the IDSE 
requirements until after these consultations with SERs and the SBAR 
panel, no comments were received on the IDSE requirements from the SERs 
or the SBAR panel. However, small system representatives were included 
in the Advisory Committee that recommended the IDSE.
    During these conference calls, the information was discussed and 
EPA provided feedback and noted these initial SER comments. Following 
the calls, the SERs were asked to provide input on the potential 
impacts of the rule. Seven SERs provided written comments on these 
materials. These comments were provided to the SBAR Panel when the 
Panel convened in April 25, 2000. After a teleconference between the 
SERs and the Panel on May 25, 2000, the SERs were invited to provide 
additional comments on the information provided. Seven SERs provided 
additional comments on the rule components.
    In general, the SERs consulted on the Stage 2 M-DBP rules were 
concerned about the impact of these proposed rules on small water 
systems. They were particularly concerned with acquiring the technical 
and financial capability to implement requirements, maintaining 
flexibility to tailor requirements to their needs, and the limitations 
of small systems.
    The Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel members for the 
Stage 2 DBPR were: the Small Business Advocacy Chair of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Chief of the Standards and Risk 
Reduction Branch of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 
within EPA's Office of Water, the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and 
Budget, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration. The Panel convened on April 25, 2000, and met five 
times before the end of the 60-day Panel period on June 23, 2000. The 
SBAR Panel's report, ``Final Report of the Small Business Advocacy 
Review Panel on Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule 
(Stage 2 DBPR) and Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 
(LT2ESWTR)'', the Small Entity Representatives (SERs) comments on 
components of the Stage 2 MDBP Rules, and the background information 
provided to the SBAR Panel and the SERs are available for review in the 
Office of Water Docket.
    Today's proposal takes into consideration the recordkeeping and 
reporting concerns identified by the Panel and the SERs. The Panel 
recommended that EPA evaluate ways to minimize the rule recordkeeping 
and reporting burdens by ensuring that States have appropriate capacity 
for rule implementation and that EPA provide as much monitoring 
flexibility as possible to small systems. Continuity with the Stage 1 
DBPR was maintained to the extent possible to ease the transition to 
the Stage 2 DBPR, especially for small systems. EPA's decision to 
maintain the same MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 will also help to minimize the 
additional implementation burden. Generally, routine monitoring will be 
similar in frequency to monitoring for the Stage 1 DBPR, and systems 
with low DBP levels will still be eligible for reduced monitoring. Many 
small systems will conduct the same amount of monitoring for the Stage 
2 DBPR as for the Stage 1 DBPR. Surface and ground water community 
water systems (CWSs) serving 500 to 9,999 people and ground water 
systems serving at least 10,000 people may be required to add one 
sampling site and take an additional quarterly TTHM/HAA5 sample at that 
site. Also, EPA has specified consecutive system requirements; these 
will be new requirements in States where consecutive systems are not 
required to comply with some or all Stage 1 DBPR requirements. As noted 
before, since some small systems will be effectively complying with 
such requirements under the Stage 1 DBPR, the Stage 2 DBPR will not 
impose any additional burden on them.
    The Panel also noted the concern of several SERs that flexibility 
should be provided in the compliance schedule of the rule. SERs noted 
the technical and financial limitations that some small systems will 
have to address, the significant learning curve for operators with 
limited experience, and the need to continue providing uninterrupted 
service as reasons why additional compliance time may be needed for 
small systems. The panel encouraged EPA to keep these limitations in 
mind in developing the proposed rule and provide as much compliance 
flexibility to small systems as is allowable under the SDWA. EPA 
believes that the proposed compliance schedules provides sufficient 
time for small systems to achieve compliance.
    Under the proposed LT2ESWTR, certain subpart H systems with low 
levels of indicators such as E. coli will not have to monitor for 
Cryptosporidium. The efficacy of E. coli as an indicator will be 
evaluated using the large system data. Thus, small systems E. coli 
monitoring cannot be initiated until large and medium system monitoring 
has been completed. The LT2ESWTR compliance time line for small systems 
thus lags 1.5 to 2.5 years behind the large and medium systems; 
timeline. Because the Stage 2 DBPR must be implemented on a 
simultaneous schedule, the compliance timeline is similarly delayed 1.5 
to 2.5 years behind large and medium systems. In addition, if capital 
improvements are necessary for a particular PWS to comply, a State may 
allow the system up to an additional two years to comply with the MCL. 
The Agency is developing guidance manuals to assist small entities with 
their compliance efforts.
    The Panel considered a wide range of options and regulatory 
alternatives for providing small businesses with flexibility in 
complying with the Stage 2 DBPR. The Panel recognized the concern 
shared by most stakeholders regarding the need to reduce DBP 
variability in the distribution system. This concern comes from recent 
studies that, while not conclusive, suggest that there may be adverse 
reproductive effects associated with relatively short-term exposure to 
high levels of DBPs. Many small systems will be monitoring at only a 
single point in the distribution system (designed to represent the 
point of maximum TTHM and HAA5 exposure), and many small systems will 
be monitoring only once during the year, at a time which corresponds to 
the season with the highest potential occurrence.

[[Page 49653]]

    Since there is a chance for this single sample to exceed an MCL, 
today's proposal requires systems that exceed an MCL on an annual or 
less frequent sample to begin increased (quarterly) monitoring rather 
than immediately being in violation of the MCL. The system must comply 
with the MCL as an LRAA once it has collected four quarterly samples. 
This allows small systems to generally monitor less frequently (to 
reduce their monitoring burden) during the period when the highest DBP 
levels are expected (to protect public health) without penalizing them 
(by requiring them to meet an MCL that would effectively be based on a 
single highest value if the systems were immediately in violation after 
a single sample exceeds an MCL). This compliance determination is 
consistent with requirements for systems that monitor quarterly for 
whom compliance is based on the compliance monitoring results of the 
previous four quarters.
    It is important to note that based on the IDSE results, some small 
systems will have a high TTHM site that is different from the high HAA5 
site. These systems will need to monitor at two sites under the Stage 2 
DBPR. EPA believes that an approach based on compliance with 0.080 mg/L 
TTHM and 0.060 mg/L HAA5 LRAAs is an effective way of addressing 
concerns regarding locational variability.
    In addressing seasonal variability, the Panel was concerned about a 
regulatory alternative requiring compliance with 0.080 mg/L TTHM and 
0.060 mg/L HAA5 single highest value MCL (Alternative 2), because it 
would impose significant additional cost on some small systems. The 
Panel recommended that EPA instead explore an approach under which 
individual high values might trigger additional assessment and/or 
notification requirements, rather than an MCL violation.
    EPA agrees with the panel recommendations on a single highest value 
MCL. Under today's proposal, public water systems are required to 
maintain a record of TTHM and HAA5 concentrations detected at each 
sample location. As part of the sanitary survey process, systems are 
required to conduct an evaluation and consult with their State 
regarding significant excursions in TTHM and HAA5 occurrence that have 
occurred. EPA is developing guidance for public water systems and 
States on how to identify significant excursions and conduct 
significant excursion evaluations, and how to reduce DBP levels through 
actions such as distribution system operational changes (USEPA 2003n) 
(Section V.E.).
    The Panel noted the strong concerns expressed by some SERs about 
the uncertainty in the current scientific evidence regarding health 
effects from exposure to DBPs, particularly regarding short term 
exposure. A Panel member recommended that EPA give further serious 
consideration to making a determination that the currently available 
scientific evidence does not warrant imposing additional regulatory 
requirements beyond those in the Stage 1 DBPR at this time. This Panel 
member recommended that EPA instead continue to vigorously fund ongoing 
research in health effects, occurrence, and appropriate treatment 
techniques for DBPs, and reconsider whether additional requirements are 
appropriate during its next SDWA required six-year review of the 
standard. This panel member also recommended that EPA separately 
explore whether adequate data exist to warrant regulation of NTNCWSs at 
a national level at this time.
    EPA has considered these recommendations and believes the Stage 2 
DBPR is needed at this time to protect public health. EPA's main 
mission is the protection of human health and the environment. When 
carrying out this mission, EPA must often make regulatory decisions 
with less than complete information and with uncertainties in the 
available information. EPA believes it is appropriate and prudent to 
err on the side of public health protection when there are indications 
that exposure to a contaminant may present risks to public health, 
rather than take no action until risks are unequivocally proven. 
Therefore, while recognizing the uncertainties in the available 
information, EPA believes that the weight of evidence represented by 
the available epidemiology and toxicology studies on chlorinated water 
and DBPs supports a hazard concern and a protective public health 
approach to regulation. In addition, EPA has an ongoing research 
program to study DBP health effects, occurrence, and treatment.
    EPA continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

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 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. Based on total estimated nominal costs incurred 
by year, costs for public or private systems are not expected to exceed 
$100 million in any one year. In addition, total estimated annualized 
costs of this rule are $59 to $65 million for all systems, including 
labor burdens that States would face, such as training employees on the 
requirements of the Stage 2 DBPR, responding to PWS reports, and record 
keeping. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements 
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that the Stage 2 DBPR contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments (see Tables VIII-1 and VIII-2). Since the Stage 2 DBPR 
affects all size systems

[[Page 49654]]

and the impact on small entities will be 0.00 to 0.11 percent of 
revenues, the Stage 2 DBPR is not subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of UMRA.
    Nevertheless, in developing this rule, EPA consulted with small 
governments (see sections VIII.B., VIII.C. and VIII.F.). In preparation 
for the proposed Stage 2 DBPR, EPA conducted an analysis of small 
government impacts and included small government officials or their 
designated representatives in the rulemaking process. As noted 
previously, a variety of stakeholders, including small governments, had 
the opportunity for timely and meaningful participation in the 
regulatory development process through the SBREFA process, public 
stakeholder meetings, and Tribal meetings. Representatives of small 
governments took part in the SBREFA process for this rulemaking and 
they attended public stakeholder meetings. Through such participation 
and exchange, EPA notified several potentially affected small 
governments of requirements under consideration and provided officials 
of affected small governments with an opportunity to have meaningful 
and timely input into the development of this regulatory proposal.
    The Agency has developed fact sheets that describe requirements of 
the proposed Stage 2 DBPR. These fact sheets are available by calling 
the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791.

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 will not have federalism implications. It will 
not impose 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. The proposed rule 
has one-time costs for implementation of approximately $68.5 million. 
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    Although Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did 
consult with State and local officials in developing this proposed 
regulation. On February 20, 2001, EPA held a dialogue on both the Stage 
2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR with representatives of State and local 
governmental organizations including those that represent elected 
officials. Representatives from the following organizations attended 
the consultation meeting: Association of State Drinking Water 
Administrators (ASDWA), the National Governors' Association (NGA), the 
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the International 
City/County Management Association (ICMA), the National League of 
Cities (NLC), the County Executives of America, and health departments. 
At the consultation meeting, questions ranged from a basic inquiry into 
how Cryptosporidium gets into water to more detailed queries about 
anticipated implementation guidance, procedures, and schedules. No 
concerns were expressed. Some of the State and local organizations who 
attended the governmental dialogue on upcoming microbial and 
disinfection byproduct rulemakings were also participants in the 
Advisory Committee meetings and signed the Agreement in Principle. In 
addition, EPA consulted with a mayor in the SBREFA consultation 
described in section VIII B.
    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'' (59 FR 22951, 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.''
    Under Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation that 
has Tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by Tribal governments, or EPA consults with Tribal 
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation 
and develops a Tribal summary impact statement.
    EPA has concluded that this proposed rule may have Tribal 
implications because it may impose substantial direct compliance costs 
on Tribal governments, and the Federal government will not provide the 
funds necessary to pay those costs.
    Total Tribal costs are estimated to be approximately $199,372 per 
year (at a 3 percent discount rate) and this cost is distributed across 
559 Tribal systems. The cost for individual systems depend on system 
size and source water type. Of the 559 Tribes that may be affected in 
some form by the Stage 2 DBPR, 502 use ground water as a source and 57 
systems use surface water or GWUDI. Since the majority of Tribal 
systems are ground water systems serving fewer than 500 people, less 
than 10 percent of all Tribal systems will likely have to conduct an 
IDSE. As a result, the Stage 2 DBPR is most likely to have an impact on 
Tribes using surface water or GWUDI serving more than 500 people. 
Accordingly, EPA provides the following Tribal summary impact statement 
as required by section 5(b) of Executive Order 13175. EPA provides 
further detail on Tribal impact in the Economic Analysis for the Stage 
2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (USEPA 2003i).
    EPA consulted with Tribal officials early in the process of 
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely 
input into its development. Consistent with Executive Order 13175, EPA 
engaged in outreach and consultation efforts with Tribal officials in 
the development of this proposed regulation. The most long-term 
participation of Tribes was on the Advisory Committee through a 
representative of the All Indian Pueblo Council (AIPC), which is 
associated with approximately 20 Tribes.
    In addition to obtaining Tribal input during the Advisory Committee 
negotiations, EPA presented the Stage 2 DBPR at the 16th Annual 
Consumer Conference of the National Indian Health Board, the 
Environmental Council's Annual Conference, and the EPA/Inter-Tribal 
Council of Arizona, Inc. Over 900 attendees representing Tribes from 
across the country attended the National Indian Health Board's Consumer 
Conference and over 100

[[Page 49655]]

Tribes were represented at the annual conference of the National Tribal 
Environmental Council. Representatives from 15 Tribes participated at 
the EPA/Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona meeting. At the first two 
conferences, an EPA representative conducted workshops on EPA's 
drinking water program and upcoming regulations, including the Stage 2 
DBPR. EPA sent the presentation materials and a meeting summary to over 
500 Tribes and Tribal organizations.
    Fact sheets describing the requirements of the proposed rule and 
requesting Tribal input were distributed at an annual EPA Tribal 
meeting in San Francisco, and at a Native American Water Works 
Association meeting in Scottsdale, Arizona. EPA also worked through its 
Regional Indian Coordinators and the National Tribal Operations 
Committee to raise awareness of the development of the proposed rule. 
EPA mailed fact sheets on the Stage 2 DBPR to all of the federally 
recognized Tribes in November 2000, as well as the Tribal Caucus of the 
National Tribal Operations Committee.
    A few Tribes responded by requesting more information and 
expressing concern about having to implement too many regulations. Some 
members of the Tribal Caucus noted that the rule would have a benefit. 
They also expressed a concern about infrastructure costs and the lack 
of funding attached to the rule. In response to one Tribal 
representative's comments on the November 2000 mailout, EPA explained 
the health protection benefit expected to be gained by this proposed 
rule. EPA also directed those who asked for more information to the 
Agreement in Principle on the EPA Web site.
    EPA also held a teleconference for Tribal representatives on 
January 24, 2002. Prior to the teleconference, invitations were sent to 
all of the Federally-recognized Tribes, along with fact sheets 
explaining the rule. Twelve Tribal representatives and four regional 
Tribal Program Coordinators attended. The Tribal representatives 
requested further explanation of the rule and expressed concerns about 
funding sources. EPA also received calls from Tribes after the 
teleconference which provided EPA with further feedback. In the spirit 
of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 
consultation 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 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 proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order 
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive 
Order 12866, EPA nonetheless has reason to believe that the 
environmental health or safety risk (i.e., the risk associated with 
DBPs) addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on 
children. As a matter of EPA policy, we have therefore assessed the 
environmental health or safety effect of DBPs on children. EPA has 
consistently and explicitly considered risks to infants and children in 
all assessments developed for this rulemaking. The results of the 
assessments are contained in section III of this preamble, Health Risks 
to Fetuses, Infants, and Children: A Review (USEPA 2003a), and in the 
Economic Analysis (USEPA 2003i). A copy of all documents has been 
placed in the public docket for this action.
    EPA's Office of Water has historically considered risks to 
sensitive subpopulations (including fetuses, infants, and children) in 
establishing drinking water assessments, health advisories or other 
guidance, and standards (USEPA 1989c and USEPA 1991a). Waterborne 
disease from pathogens in drinking water is a major concern for 
children and other subgroups (elderly, immune compromised, pregnant 
women) because of their increased vulnerabilities (Gerba et al. 1996). 
There is a concern for potential reproductive and developmental risks 
posed by DBPs to children and pregnant women (USEPA 1994b; USEPA 1998c, 
Reif et al. 2000; Tyl, 2000). Specific to this action, human 
epidemiology and animal toxicology studies on DBPs have shown potential 
increased risks for spontaneous abortion, still birth, neural tube 
defects, cardiovascular effects and low birth weight. This rule is 
designed to lower those risks. EPA has provided an illustrative 
calculation of potential fetal losses avoided in section VII.C.1.
    Section V.D of this preamble presents the regulatory alternatives 
that EPA evaluated for the proposed Stage 2 DBPR, and the Economic 
Analysis (USEPA 2003i) provides a more detailed discussion. The Agency 
considered four alternatives involving different MCLs and different 
compliance calculations. The proposed alternative was recommended by 
the Advisory Committee and selected by EPA as the Preferred Regulatory 
Alternative because it provides significant public health benefits for 
an acceptable cost. EPA's analysis of benefits and costs indicates that 
the proposed alternative is superior among those evaluated with respect 
to maximizing net benefits, as shown in the Economic Analysis (USEPA 
2003i). The result of the Stage 2 DBPR may include a reduction in 
reproductive and developmental risk to children and pregnant women and 
a reduction in cancer risk.
    It should also be noted that the LT2ESWTR, which will be 
implemented at the same time as this proposed rule, provides better 
controls of pathogens and achieves the goal of increasing microbial 
drinking water protection for children. The public is invited to submit 
or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which EPA may not be 
aware that assessed results of early life exposure to DBPs.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The proposed Stage 2 DBPR 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. This 
determination is based on the following analysis.
    The first consideration is whether the Stage 2 DBPR would adversely 
affect the supply of energy. The Stage 2 DBPR does not regulate power 
generation, either directly or indirectly. The public and private 
utilities that the Stage 2 DBPR regulates do not, as a rule, generate 
power. Further, the cost increases borne by customers of water 
utilities as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR are a low percentage of the 
total cost of water, except for a very few small systems that might 
install advanced technologies that must spread that cost over a narrow 
customer base. Therefore,

[[Page 49656]]

the customers that are power generation utilities are unlikely to face 
any significant effects as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR. In sum, the 
Stage 2 DBPR does not regulate the supply of energy, does not generally 
regulate the utilities that supply energy, and is unlikely 
significantly to affect the customer base of energy suppliers. Thus, 
the Stage 2 DBPR would not translate into adverse effects on the supply 
of energy.
    The second consideration is whether the Stage 2 DBPR would 
adversely affect the distribution of energy. The Stage 2 DBPR does not 
regulate any aspect of energy distribution. The utilities that are 
regulated by the Stage 2 DBPR already have electrical service. As 
derived later in this section, the proposed rule is projected to 
increase peak electricity demand at water utilities by only 0.007 
percent. Therefore, EPA estimates that the existing connections are 
adequate and that the Stage 2 DBPR has no discernable adverse effect on 
energy distribution.
    The third consideration is whether the Stage 2 DBPR would adversely 
affect the use of energy. Because some drinking water utilities are 
expected to add treatment technologies that use electrical power, this 
potential impact is evaluated in more detail. The analyses that 
underlay the estimation of costs for the Stage 2 DBPR are national in 
scope and do not identify specific plants or utilities that may install 
treatment in response to the rule. As a result, no analysis of the 
effect on specific energy suppliers is possible with the available 
data. The approach used to estimate the impact of energy use, 
therefore, focuses on national-level impacts. The analysis estimates 
the additional energy use due to the Stage 2 DBPR, and compares that to 
the national levels of power generation in terms of average and peak 
loads.
    The first step in the analysis is to estimate the energy used by 
the technologies expected to be installed as a result of the Stage 2 
DBPR. Energy use is not directly stated in Technologies and Costs for 
Control of Microbial Contaminants and Disinfection By-Products (USEPA 
2003k), but the annual cost of energy for each technology addition or 
upgrade necessitated by the Stage 2 DBPR is provided. An estimate of 
plant-level energy use is derived by dividing the total energy cost per 
plant for a range of flows by an average national cost of electricity 
of $0.076/ kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr) (U.S. Department of Energy, 
Energy Information Administration (USDOE EIA) 2002). These calculations 
are shown in detail in Chapter 8 of the Economic Analysis for the Stage 
2 DBPR (USEPA 2003i). The energy use per plant for each flow range and 
technology is then multiplied by the number of plants predicted to 
install each technology in a given flow range. The energy requirements 
for each flow range are then added to produce a national total. No 
electricity use is subtracted to account for the technologies that may 
be replaced by new technologies, resulting in a conservative estimate 
of the increase in energy use. Table VIII-3 shows the estimated energy 
use for each Stage 2 DBPR compliance technology in kilowatt hours per 
year (kWh/yr). The incremental national annual energy usage is 0.08 
million megawatt-hours (mWh).
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP18AU03.023

    To determine if the additional energy required for systems to 
comply with the rule would have a significant adverse effect on the use 
of energy, the numbers in Table VIII-3 are compared to the national 
production figures for electricity. According to the U.S. Department of 
Energy's Information Administration, electricity producers generated 
3,800 million mWh of electricity in 2001 (USDOE EIA 2002). Therefore, 
even using the highest assumed energy use for the Stage 2 DBPR, the 
rule when fully implemented would result in only a 0.002 percent 
increase in annual average energy use.
    In addition to average energy use, the impact at times of peak 
power demand is important. To examine whether increased energy usage 
might significantly affect the capacity margins of energy suppliers, 
their peak season generating capacity reserve was compared to an 
estimate of peak

[[Page 49657]]

incremental power demand by water utilities.
    Both energy use and water use peak in the summer months, so the 
most significant effects on supply would be seen then. In the summer of 
2001, U.S. generation capacity exceeded consumption by 15 percent, or 
approximately 120,000 mW (USDOE EIA 2002). Assuming around-the-clock 
operation of water treatment plants, the total energy requirement can 
be divided by 8,760 hours per year to obtain an average power demand of 
8.3 mW. A more detailed derivation of this value is shown in Chapter 8 
of the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR (USEPA 2003i). Assuming 
that power demand is proportional to water flow through the plant and 
that peak flow can be as high as twice the average daily flow during 
the summer months, about 16.6 mW could be needed for treatment 
technologies installed to comply with the Stage 2 DBPR. This is only 
0.014 percent of the capacity margin available at peak use.
    Although EPA recognizes that not all areas have a 15 percent 
capacity margin and that this margin varies across regions and through 
time, this analysis reflects the effect of the rule on national energy 
supply, distribution, and use. While certain areas, notably California, 
have experienced shortfalls in generating capacity in the recent past, 
a peak incremental power requirement of 16.6 mW nationwide is not 
likely to significantly change the energy supply, distribution, or use 
in any given area. Considering this analysis, EPA has concluded that 
Stage 2 DBPR will not have any significant effect on the use of energy, 
based on annual average use and on conditions of peak power demand.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Pub. L. No. 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 standard 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 involves technical standards. EPA proposes 
to use American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D 6581-
00 for chlorite, bromide, and bromate compliance monitoring, which can 
be found in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards Volume 11.01. In the 
Stage 1 DBPR, EPA approved 13 methods from the Standard Methods 
Committee for measuring disinfectants, DBPs, and other parameters. 
Today's rule proposes to add the most recent versions of these 13 
methods as approved methods. These consist of Standard Methods 4500-Cl 
D, 4500-Cl F, 4500-Cl G, 4500-Cl E, 4500-Cl I, 4500-Cl H, 4500-
ClO2 D, 4500-ClO2 E, 6251 B, 5310 B, 5310 C, 5310 
D, and 5910 B for chlorine, chlorine dioxide, HAA5, chlorite, TOC/DOC, 
and UV254. These methods can be found in the 19th and 20th 
editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste 
Water (APHA 1995; APHA 1996; APHA 1998). Standard Methods 4500-Cl D, 
4500-Cl F, 4500-Cl G, 4500-Cl E, 4500-Cl I, 4500-Cl H, 4500-
ClO2 E, 6251 B, 5310 B, 5310 C, 5310 D, and 5910 B for 
chlorine, chlorine dioxide, HAA5, chlorite, TOC/DOC, and 
UV254 are also available in the On-Line Version of Standard 
Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water (APHA 2003).
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially 
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations or Low Income Populations

    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.
    Two aspects of the Stage 2 DBPR comply with the order that requires 
the Agency to consider environmental justice issues in the rulemaking 
and to consult with stakeholders representing a variety of economic and 
ethnic backgrounds. These are: (1) The overall nature of the rule, and 
(2) the convening of a stakeholder meeting specifically to address 
environmental justice issues.
    The Stage 1 DBPR has served as a template for the development of 
the Stage 2 DBPR. As such, the Agency built on the efforts conducted 
during the development of the Stage 1 DBPR 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 might impact sensitive subpopulations, minority populations, 
and low-income populations. This meeting was a continuation of 
stakeholder meetings that started in 1995 to obtain input on the 
Agency's Drinking Water Programs. Topics discussed included treatment 
techniques, costs and benefits, data quality, health effects, and the 
regulatory process. Participants were national, State, Tribal, 
municipal, and individual stakeholders. EPA conducted the meeting by 
video conference call between eleven cities. The major objectives for 
the March 12, 1998, meeting were the following:
    ? Solicit ideas from stakeholders on known issues concerning 
current drinking water regulatory efforts;
    ? Identify key areas of concern to stakeholders; and
    ? Receive suggestions from stakeholders concerning ways to 
increase representation of communities in OGWDW regulatory efforts.
    In addition, EPA developed a plain-English guide for this meeting 
to assist stakeholders in understanding the multiple and sometimes 
complex issues surrounding drinking water regulations.
    The Stage 2 DBPR and other drinking water regulations promulgated 
or under development are expected to have a positive effect on human 
health regardless of the social or economic status of a specific 
population. The Stage 2 DBPR serves to provide a similar level of 
drinking water protection to all groups. Where water systems have high 
DBP levels, they must reduce levels to meet the MCLs. Thus, the Stage 2 
DBPR meets the intent of Federal policy requiring incorporation of 
environmental justice into Federal agency missions.
    The Stage 2 DBPR applies uniformly to community water systems and 
nontransient noncommunity water systems that apply a chemical 
disinfectant or deliver water that has been chemically disinfected. 
Consequently, the health protection from DBP exposure that this rule 
provides is equal across all income and minority groups served by 
systems regulated by this rule.

[[Page 49658]]

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

    In accordance with sections 1412 (d) and (e) of SDWA, the Agency 
has consulted with the Science Advisory Board (SAB), the National 
Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC), and will consult with the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding the proposed Stage 2 
DBPR during the public comment period.
    EPA met with the SAB to discuss the Stage 2 DBPR on June 13, 2001 
(Washington, DC), September 25-26, 2001 (teleconference), and December 
10-12, 2001 (Los Angeles, CA). Written comments from the December 2001 
meeting of the SAB addressing the occurrence analysis and risk 
assessment were generally supportive. EPA met with the NDWAC on 
November 8, 2001, in Washington, DC to discuss the Stage 2 DBPR 
proposal. The Advisory Committee generally supported the need for the 
Stage 2 DBPR based on health and occurrence data, but also stressed the 
importance of providing flexibility to the systems implementing the 
rule. The results of these discussions are included in the docket for 
this rule.

L. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 encourages Federal agencies to write rules in 
plain language. EPA invites comments on how to make this proposed rule 
easier to understand. For example: Has EPA organized the material to 
suit commenters' needs? Are the requirements in the rule clearly 
stated? Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not 
clear? Would a different format (grouping and ordering of sections, use 
of headings, paragraphs) make the rule easier to understand? Could EPA 
improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? What else could 
EPA do to make the rule easier to understand?

IX. References

Acharya, S., K. Mehta, S. Rodrigues, J. Pereira, S. Krishman and 
C.V. Rao. 1995. Administration of Subtoxic Doses of T-butyl Alcohol 
and Trichloroacetic Acid to Male Wistar Rats to Study the 
Interactive Toxicity. Toxicol. Lett. 80: 97-104.
Acharya, S., K. Mehta, S. Rodrigues, J. Pereira, S. Krishman and 
C.V. Rao. 1997. A Histopathological Study of Liver and Kidney in 
Male Wistar Rats Treated with Subtoxic Doses of T-butyl Alcohol and 
Trichloroacetic Acid. Exp. Toxicol. Pathol. 49: 369-373.
American Cancer Society. 2002. Cancer Facts and Figures. 
http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CancerFacts&Figures2002TM.pdf.
 APHA 1995. Nineteenth Edition of Standard Methods for the 
Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health 
Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
APHA 1996. Supplement to the Nineteenth Edition of Standard Methods 
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health 
Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
APHA 1998. Twentieth Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination 
of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association, 1015 
Fifteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
APHA 2003. On-Line Version of Standard Methods for the Examination 
of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association, 1015 
Fifteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Aschengrau, A., Zierler S. and Cohen A. 1989. Quality of Community 
Drinking Water and the Occurrence of Spontaneous Abortions. Arch. 
Environ. Health. 44:283-90.
Aschengrau, A, Zierler S. and Cohen A. 1993. Quality of Community 
Drinking Water and the Occurrence of Late Adverse Pregnancy 
Outcomes. Arch. Environ. Health. 48:105-113.
ASTM 2002. Method D 6581-00. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol. 
11.01, American Society for Testing and Materials.
Balster, R.L., and J.F. Borzelleca, 1982. Behavioral Toxicology of 
Trihalomethane Contaminants of Drinking Water in Mice. Environmental 
Health Perspectives. 46, 127-136.
Baribeau, H., S.W. Krasner, R., Chin, R., and P.C. Singer. 2000. 
Impact of Biomass on the Stability of Haloacetic Acids and 
Trihalomethanes in a Simulated Distribution System. Proc. Of the 
Water Quality Technology Conference, Denver, CO. AWWA.
Bhat, H.K., M.F. Kanz, G.A. Campbell and G.A.S. Ansari. 1991. Ninety 
Day Toxicity Study of Chloroacetic Acids in Rats. Fundam. Appl. 
Toxicol. 17:240-253.
Bielmeier, S.R., D.S. Best, D.L. Guidici, and M.G. Narotsky. 2001. 
Pregnancy Loss in the Rat Caused by Bromodochloromethane. Toxicol 
Sci. Feb; 59(2):309-15.
Bolyard, M..G. and M.B. Stricklen. 1992. Expression of a modified 
Dutch elm disease toxin in Escherichia coli. Mol Plant Microb 
Interact 1992. 5(6):520-4.
Bove, F.J., M.C. Fulcomer, J.B. Koltz, J. Esmart, E.M. Dufficy, R.T. 
Zagraniski and J.E. Savrin. 1992. Report on Phase IV-B: Public 
Drinking Water Contamination and Birthweight and Selected and Birth 
Defects, a Case-Control Study. New Jersey Dept. of Health.
Bove, F.J. et al. 1995. Public Drinking Water Contamination and 
Birth Outcomes. Amer. J. Epidemiol., 141(9), 850-862.
Bove, F.J.; Shim, Y.; and Zeitz, P. 2002. Drinking Water 
Contaminants and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A Review. Environmental 
Health Perspectives 110(Suppl. 1):61-74.
Bull, R.J.; I.M. Sanchez, M.A. Nelson, J.L. Larson and A.J. Lansing. 
1990. Liver Tumor Induction is B6C3F1 Mice by 
Dichloroacetate and Trichloracetate. Toxicology. 63: 341-359.
Cantor, K.P., C.F. Lunch, M. Hildesheim, M. Dosemeci, J. Lubin, M. 
Alavanja, G.F. Craun. 1998. Drinking Water Source and Chlorination 
Byproducts. I. Risk of Bladder Cancer. Epidemiology; 9(1):21-28.
Cantor KP, Lynch CF, Hildesheim ME, Dosemeci M, Lubin J, Alavanja M, 
Craun G., 1999. Drinking Water Source and Chlorination Byproducts in 
Iowa. III. Risk of Brain Cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 150(6):552-60.
Chang, L.W., F. B. Daniel and A. B. DeAngelo. 1991. Analysis of DNA 
Strand Breaks Induced in Rodent Liver in vivo, Hepatocytes in 
Primary Culture, and a Human Cell Line by Chloroacetic Acids and 
Chloroacetaldehydes. Environ. Molec. Mutagen, 20:277-288.
Chlorine Institute 1999. Bromate in Sodium Hypochlorite solutions.
Chlorine Institute 2000. Bromate in Sodium Hypochlorite.
Christian, M.S., R.G. York, A.M. Hoberman, R.M. Diener, and L.C. 
Fisher. 2001. Oral (Drinking Water) Developmental Toxicity Studies 
of Bromodichloromethane (BDCM) in Rats and Rabbits. International 
Journal of Toxicology 20(4):225-237.
Christian M.S., York R.G., Hoberman A.M., Frazee, L.C., Fisher L.C., 
Brown W.R., and D.M. Creasy. 2002a. Oral (drinking water) Two 
Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study of Dibromoacetic Acid (DBA) 
in Rats. International Journal of Toxicology 21(4) 237-76.
Christian M.S., York R.G., Hoberman A.M., Diener R.M., Fisher L.C. 
2002b. Oral (drinking water) Two Generation Reproductive Toxicity 
Study of Bromodichloromethane (BDCM) in Rats. International Journal 
of Toxicology 21 (2):115-146.
Cosby, N. C. and W. R. Dukelow. 1992. Toxicology of Maternally 
Ingested Trichloroethylene (TCE) on Embryonal and Fetal Development 
in Mice and of TCE Metabolites on in vitro Fertilization. Fundam. 
Appl. Toxicol. 19(2): 268-74.
Day, J.A., Vonderheide, A.P., and Caruso, J.A. Second Laboratory 
Validation of U.S. EPA Method 321.8: Determination of Bromate in 
Drinking Waters by Ion Chromatography Inductively Coupled Plasma 
Mass Spectrometry. University of Cincinnati, January 2001.
D.C. Circuit 2000. Chlorine Chemistry Council and Chemical 
Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 206 F.3d 1286.
DeAngelo, A.B., F.B. Daniel, L. McMillan, P. Wernsing and R. E. 
Savage. 1989. Species and Strain Sensitivity to the Induction of 
Peroxisome Proliferation by Chloroacetic Acids. Toxicol. Appl. 
Pharmacol. 101:285-289.
DeAngelo, A.B., F.B. Daniel, B.M. Most and G.R. Olson. 1997. Failure 
of Monochloroacetic Acid and Trichloroacetic Acid Administered in 
the Drinking Water to Produce Liver Cancer in Male F344/N rats. J. 
of Toxicol. and Environ. Health. 52:425-445.
DeAngelo, A.B., M.H. George and D.E. House. 1999. 
Hepatocarcinogenicity in the Male

[[Page 49659]]

B6C3F1 Mouse Following a Lifetime Exposure to Dichloroacetic Acid in 
the Drinking Water: Dose-Response Determination and Modes of Action. 
J. Toxicol. Environ Health. 58(8):485-507.
DeAngelo, A.B., Geter D.R., Rosenberg D.W., Crary C.K., George M.H. 
2002. The induction of aberrant crypt foci (ACF) in the colons of 
rats by trihalomethanes administered in the drinking water. Cancer 
Letters 187(1-2):25-31.
Dees, C. and C. Travis. 1994. Trichloroacetate Stimulation of Liver 
DNA Synthesis in Male and Female Mice. Toxicol. Lett. 70:343-355.
DeMarini, D.M., E. Perry and M.L. Sheldon. 1994. Dichloroacetic Acid 
and Related Compounds: Induction of Prophage in E. coli and 
Mutagenicity and Mutation Spectra in Salmonella TA 100. Mutagenesis. 
9:429-437.
Dodds, L., W. King, C. Wolcott and J. Pole. 1999. Trihalomethanes in 
Public Water Supplies and Adverse Birth Outcomes. Epidemiology. 
10:233-237.
Dodds, L. and W.D. King. 2001. Relation Between Trihalomethane 
Compounds and Birth Defects. Occup Environ Med., 58(7):443-46.
Doyle, Timothy J; Zheng, Wei; Cerhan, James R; Hong, Ching-Ping. 
1997. The association of drinking water source and chlorination by-
products with cancer incidence among postmenopausal women in Iowa: A 
prospective cohort study. American Journal of Public Health, 
87(7):1168-1176.
Fair, P.S. Memo to the record. February 2002.
Fair, P.S., R.K. Sorrell, M. Stultz-Karapondo, et al., 2002. Quality 
of Information Collection Rule Monitoring Data. In Information 
Collection Rule Data Analysis, M.J. McGuire, J. McLain, and A. 
Obolensky (eds), AwwaRF, Denver, CO.
Ferreira-Gonzalez, A., A.B. DeAngelo, S. Nasim and C.T. Garrett. 
1995. Ras Oncogene Activation during Hepatocarcinogenesis in B6C3F1 
Male Mice by Dichloroacetic and Trichloroacetic Acids. 
Carcinogenesis. 16(3):495-500.
Fort, D., E. Stover, J. Rayburn, M. Hull and J. Bantle. 1993. 
Evaluation of the Developmental Toxicity of Trichloroethylene and 
Detoxification Metabolites using Xenopus. Teratogenesis, 
Carcinogenesis, and Mutagenesis. 13:35-45.
Fu, L., E.M. Johnson and L.M. Newman. 1990. Prediction of the 
Developmental Toxicity Hazard Potential of Halogenated Drinking 
Water Disinfection By-products Tested by the in vitro Hydra Assay. 
Reg. Toxicol. and Pharmacol. 11:213-219.
Gallagher, M.D., J.R. Nuckols, L. Stallones and D.A. Savitz. 1998. 
Exposure to Trihalomethanes and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes. 
Epidemiology. 9:484-489.
Gerba, C.P., J.B. Rose and C.N. Haas. 1996. Sensitive Populations: 
Who is at the Greatest Risk. Int. J. Food and Microbiology. 30:113-
123.
Giller, S., F. Le Curieux, F. Erb and D. Marzin. 1997. Comparative 
Genotoxicity of Halogenated Acetic Acids Found in Drinking Water. 
Mutagenesis. 12(5):321-328.
Goldsworthy, T.L. and J.A. Popp. 1987. Chlorinated Hydrocarbon-
Induced Peroxisomal Enzyme Activity in Relation to Species and Organ 
Carcinogenicity. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 88:225-233.
Harrington-Brock, K. C.L. Doerr and M.M. Moore. 1998. Mutagenicity 
of Three disinfection by-products; di- and trichloroacetic acid and 
chloral hydrate in L5178Y/TK+/-3.7.2C mouse lymphoma cells. Mutation 
Research. 413:265-276.
Hautman, D.P., Munch, D.J., Frebis, C.P., Wagner, H.P., and Pepich, 
B.V. 2001. Review of the Methods of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency for Bromate Determination and Validation of Method 
317.0 for Disinfection By-Product Anions and Low-Level Bromate. 
Journal of Chromatography A, 920 (2001) 221-229.
Heywood, R., R.J. Sortwell, P.R.B. Noel, A.E. Street, D.E. Prentice, 
F.J.C. Roe, P.F. Wadsworth, A.N. Worden, N.J. Van Abbe. 1979. Safety 
Evaluation of Toothpaste Containing Chloroform. III. Long-term Study 
in Beagle Dogs. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 2:835-851.
Hildesheim, M.E., K.P. Cantor, C.F. Lynch, M. Dosemeci, J. Lubin, M. 
Alavanja, and G.F. Craun. 1998. Drinking Water Source and 
Chlorination Byproducts: Risk of Colon and Rectal Cancers. 
Epidemiology. 9(1):29-35.
Hooper and Allgeier, 2002. Information Collection Rule Treatment 
Studies. AwwaRF.
Hrubek Z. and J.K. McLaughlin. 1997. ``Former cigarette smoking and 
mortality among U.S. veterans: a 26-year follow-up.'' In: Changes in 
cigarette related disease risks and their implication for prevention 
and control. D.M. Burns, L. Garfinkel, J.M. Samet (eds.). NIH 
Monograph No. 8, National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: 
National Cancer Institute, pp.501-530.
Hunter, III, E.S., E.H. Rogers, J.E. Schmid and A. Richard. 1996. 
Comparative Effects of Haloacetic Acids in Whole Embryo Culture. 
Teratology. 54:57-64.
Hwang, B., P. Magnus, and J.K. Jaakkola, 2002. Risk of Specific 
Birth Defects in Relation to Chlorination and the Amount of Natural 
Organic Matter in the Water Supply. Am J Epidemiol 2002; 156:374-
382.
ILSI 1998. International Life Sciences Institute. Exposure to 
Contaminants in Drinking Water Estimating Uptake through the Skin 
and by Inhalation.
Infante-Rivard, C., E. Olson, L. Jacques and P. Ayotte. 2001. 
Drinking Water Contaminants and Childhood Leukemia. Epidemiology 
12(1):13-19.
IRIS 1991. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). N-
nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0045.htm
IRIS 2001. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Chloroform. 
Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0025.htm
Jaakkola JJK, Magnus P, Skrondal A, Hwang B-F, Becher G, Dybing E. 
2001. Foetal growth and duration of gestation relative to water 
chlorination. Occup Environ Med 58:437-442.
Ji, Y., C. Qin-Yao, W. Xiao-fei, L. Yi and L. Hong-mei. 1998. 
Prescreening Teratogenic Potential of Chlorinated Drinking Water 
Disinfection By-products by using Hydra Regeneration Assay. J. of 
Environ. Sciences. 10(1):110-112.
Johnson, P.D., B.V. Dawson, and S.J. Goldberg. 1998. Cardiac 
Teratogenicity of Trichloroethylene Metabolites. J. American College 
of Cardiology. 32(2):540-545.
K[auml]ll[eacute]n, B.A.J .and E. Robert. 2000. Drinking water 
Chlorination and Delivery Outcome--a Registry Based Study in Sweden. 
Reprod. Toxicol. 14:303-309.
Kanitz S, Franco Y, Patrone V, Caltabellotta M, Raffo E, Riggi C, 
Timitilli D, Ravera G. 1996, Association between drinking water 
disinfection and somatic parameters at birth. Environ Health 
Perspect 104(5):516-520.
Kim, H. and C. P. Weisel. 1998. Dermal Absorption of Dichloro- and 
Trichloroacetic Acids from Chlorinated Water. J. of Exposure Anal. 
and Environ. Epidem. 8(4):555-575.
King, W., L. Dodds and A. Allen. 2000a. Relation between Stillbirth 
and Specific Chlorination By-products in Public Water Supplies. 
Environ. Health Perspect.108:883-886.
King, W.D., L.D. Marrett and C.G. Woolcott. 2000b. Case-Control 
Study of Colon and Rectal Cancers and Chlorination By-products in 
Treated Water. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 9:813-
818.
Klinefelter, G.R., Hunter, E.S., and Narotsky, M. 2001. Reproductive 
and Developmental Toxicity Associated with Disinfection By-Products 
of Drinking Water, In: Microbial Pathogens and Disinfection By-
Products of Drinking Water, ILSI Press, 309-323.
Klotz J.B. and L.A. Pyrch, 1998. A Case Control Study of Neural Tube 
Defects and Drinking Water Contaminants. U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR).
Klotz, J.B. and L.A. Pyrch, 1999. Neural Tube Defects and Drinking 
Water Disinfection Byproducts. Epidemiology 10:383-390.
Koivusalo M, T. Hakulinen, T. Vartiainen, et al., 1998. Drinking 
Water Mutagenicity and Urinary Tract Cancers: a Population-Based 
Case-Control Study in Finland. American Journal of Epidemiology 
148(7):704-12.
Kramer M.D., C.F. Lynch, P. Isacson, J.W. Hanson, 1992. The 
Association of Waterborne Chloroform with Intrauterine Growth 
Retardation. Epidemiology 3:407-413.
Krasner, S.W., Sclimenti, M.J., and Hwang, C.J. 1989. Experiences 
with Implementing a Laboratory Program to Sample and Analyze for 
Disinfection By-Products in a National Study. In Disinfection By-
Products: Current Perspectives, AWWA, Denver, CO.
Latendresse, J.R. and M.A. Pereira. 1997. Dissimilar Characteristics 
of N-methyl-N-nitrosourea-initiated Foci and Tumors Promoted by 
Dichloroacetic Acid or Trichloroacetic Acid in the Liver of Female 
B6C3F1 Mice. Toxicol. Pathol. 25(5): 433-440.
Linder, R.E., G.R. Klinefelter, L.F. Strader, J.D. Suarez, and C.J. 
Dyer. 1994a. Acute Spermatogenic Effects of Bromoacetic

[[Page 49660]]

Acids. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology. 22: 422-430.
Linder, R.E., G.R. Klinefelter, L.F. Strader, J.D. Suarez, N.L. 
Roberts, and C.J. Dyer. 1994b. Spermatotoxicity of Dibromoacetic 
Acid in Rats after 14 Daily Exposures. Reproductive Toxicology. 
8(3): 251-259.
Linder, R.E., G.R. Klinefelter, L.F. Strader, M.G. Narotsky, J.D. 
Suarez, N.L. Roberts and S.D. Perreault. 1995. Dibromoacetic Acid 
Affects Reproductive Competence and Sperm Quality in the Male Rat. 
Fundamental and Applied Toxicology. 28: 9-17.
Linder, R.E., G.R. Klinefelter, L.F. Strader, J.D. Suarez, and N.L. 
Roberts. 1997a. Spermatotoxicity of Dichloroacetic Acid. 
Reproductive Toxicology. 11(5): 681-688.
Linder, R.E., G.R. Klinefelter, L.F. Strader, D.N. Veeramachaneni, 
N.L. Roberts and J.D. Suarez, 1997b. Histopathologic Changes in the 
Testes of Rats Exposed to Dibromoacetic Acid. Reprod. Toxicol. 
11(1), 47-56.
Mackay, J.M., V. Fox, K. Griffiths, D.A. Fox, C.A. Howard, C. 
Coutts, I. Wyatt and J.A. Styles. 1995. Trichloroacetic Acid: 
Investigation into the Mechanism of Chromosomal Damage in the in 
vitro Human Lymphocyte Cytogenetic Assay and the Mouse Bone Marrow 
Micronucleus Test. Carcinogenesis. 16(5): 1127-1133.
Magat, W.A., W.K. Viscusi, and J. Huber. 1996. ``A Reference Lottery 
Metric for Valuing Health.'' Management Science 42:1118-1130.
Magnus, P., J.J.K. Jaakkola, A. Skrondal, J. Alexander, G. Becher, 
T. Krogh and E. Dybing. 1999. Water Chlorination and Birth Defects. 
Epidemiology. 10:513-517.
Malley, J., J. Show, and J. Ropp. 1996. Evaluation of the by-
products produced by the treatment of groundwaters with ultraviolet 
radiation. American Water Works Association Research Foundation, 
Denver, CO.
Mather, G.G, J.H. Exon and L.D. Koller. 1990. Subchronic 90-day 
Toxicity of Dichloroacetic and Trichloroacetic Acid in Rats. 
Toxicology 64: 71-80.
Murray, F.J., B.A. Schwetz, J.G. McBride, and R.E. Staples, 1979. 
Toxicity of Inhaled Chloroform in Pregnant Mice and Their Offspring. 
Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 50(3), 515-522.
Narotsky, M.G., and R.J. Kavlock. 1992. Effects of Bromoform and 
Bromodichloromethane in an in vivo Developmental Toxicity Screen. 
EPA report to Office of Water.
Narotsky, M.G., B.T. Hamby, and D.S. Best, 1997a. Developmental 
Effects of Dibromoacetic Acid (DBA) in a Segment II Study in Mice. 
Teratology 55 (1), 67.
Narotsky, M.G., R.A. Pegram, and R.J. Kavlock. 1997b. Effect of 
dosing Vehicle on the Developmental Toxicity of Bromodichlomethane 
and Carbon Tetrachloride in Rats. Fundamental and Applied Tox. 
40:30-36.
NATICH 1993. National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse. 
Acceptable ambient concentration guidelines or standards by 
pollutants: Trichloroacetic acid. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 
April 22, 1993.
Nelson, M.A. and R. J. Bull. 1988. Induction of Strand Breaks in DNA 
by Trichloroethylene and Metabolites in Rat and Mouse livers in 
vivo. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 94:45-54.
Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., M.B. Toledano, N.E. Eaton, J. Fawell and P. 
Elliott. 2000. Chlorination Disinfection By-products in Water and 
Their Association with Adverse Reproductive Outcomes: A Review. 
Occup. Environ. Med., 57(2):73-85.
NOAA 1998. Palmer Drought Severity Index Maps http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/
products/monitoring_and_data/drought.html. 
NTP 1987. National Toxicology Program. Toxicity and carcinogenesis 
studies of bromodichloromethane (CAS No. 75-27-4) in F344/N rats and 
B6C3F1 mice (gavage studies). Technical Report Series No. 321. 
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services.
NTP 1989. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of tribromomethane 
(bromoform) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (gavage studies). 
Technical Report Series No. 350. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services.
NTP 1992. NTP technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis 
Studies of Monochloroacetic Acid (CAS No. 79-11-8) in F344/N rats 
and B6C3F1 Mice (Gavage Studies). NTP TR 396. NTIS Publication No. 
PB92-189372.
OSTP 1985. Chemical Carcinogens; A Review of the Science and Its 
Associated Principles, February 1985. Presented in Risk Analysis: A 
guide to Principles and Methods for Analyzing Health and 
Environmental Risks. Appendix G. Fed. Reg., Pages 10371-10442. 
(March 14, 1985).
Overbeck, P.K. 2000. WQA Ozone Task Force--An Update. Water 
Conditioning and Purification. 42(3) 76-78.
Parrish, J.M., E.W. Austin, D.K. Stevens, D.H. Kinder and R.J. Bull. 
1996. Haloacetate-Induced Oxidative Damage to DNA in the Liver of 
Male B6C3F1 Mice. Toxicology. 110:103-111.
Pawlecki-Vonderheide, A.M., Munch, D.J., and Munch, J.W. 1997. 
Research Associated with the Development of EPA Method 552.2. J. of 
Chromatographic Science. 35:293-301.
Pereira, M. A. 1996. Carcinogenic Activity of Dichloroacetic Acid 
and Trichloroacetic Acid in the Liver of Female B6C3F1 Mice. Fundam. 
Appl. Toxicol. 31:192-199.
Pereira, M.A. and J.B. Phelps. 1996. Promotion by Dichloroacetic 
Acid and Trichloroacetic Acid of N-methyl-N-nitrosourea-initiated 
cancer in the Liver of Female B6C3F1 Mice. Cancer Lett. 102:133-141.
Personal communication from M. Kogevinas to M. Messner, 5/19/2003.
Raymer, J.H., Pellizzari, E.D., Hu, Y. et al. (2001). Assessment of 
Human Dietary Ingestion Exposures to Water Disinfection Byproducts 
via Food. Star Drinking Water Progress Review Meeting, February 22-
23, 2001, Silver Spring, MD.
Reif, J.S., A. Bachand and M. Andersen. 2000. Reproductive and 
Developmental Effects of Disinfection By-Products. Bureau of 
Reproductive and Child Health, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 
Canada. Executive summary available at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/
pphb-dgspsp/publicat/reif/index.html. 
Reimann, S., K. Grob and H. Frank. 1996. Environmental chloroacetic 
acids in foods analyzed by GC-ECD. Mitteilungen Aus Dem Gebiete der 
Lebensmitteluntersuchung und Hygiene. 87 (2):212-222.
Rice, 2000--personal communication: e-mail 7/14/2000.
Ruddick, J.A., D.C. Villeneuve, and I. Chu, 1983. A Teratological 
Assessment of Four Trihalomethanes in the Rat. J. Environ. Sci. 
Health B18(3), 333-349.
Saillenfait, A. M., I. Langonne and J. P. Sabate. 1995. 
Developmental Toxicity of Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene and 
Four of Their Metabolites in Rat Whole Embryo Culture. Arch. 
Toxicol. 70:71-82.
Salhi, E. and von Gunten, U. 1999. Simultaneous Determination of 
Bromide, Bromate and Nitrite in Low [mu]g l-1 Levels by 
Ion Chromatography without Sample Pretreatment. Water Research. 33 
(15):3239-3244.
Sanchez, I. M. and R. J. Bull. 1990. Early Induction of Reparative 
Hyperplasia in B6C3F1 Mice Treated with Dichloroacetate 
and Trichloroacetate. Toxicology. 64:33-46.
Savitz, D. A., K.W. Andrews and L. M. Pastore. 1995. Drinking Water 
and Pregnancy Outcome in Central North Carolina: Source, Amount, and 
Trihalomethane levels. Environ. Health Perspectives. 103(6), 592-
596.
Schwetz, B.A., K.J. Leong, and P.J. Gehring, 1974. Embryo- and 
Fetotoxicity of Inhaled Chloroform in Rats. Toxicol. Appl. 
Pharmacol. 28(3), 442-451.
Seidel, C. 2001. BAT Memorandum on SWAT Runs for Stage 2 BAT 
Evaluation. (June 25, 2001).
Simmons, J.E.; S Richardson, T. Speth, R. Miltner, G. Rice, K. 
Schenck, E.S. Hunter III, and L. Teuschler. 2002. Development of a 
Research Strategy for Integrated Technology-Based Toxicological and 
Chemical Evaluation of Complex Mixtures of Drinking Water 
Disinfection Byproducts. Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 110 
Supplement 6, 1013-1024.
Smith, M.K., J.L. Randall, and J.A. Stober. 1988. Developmental 
effects of trichloroacetic acid in Long-Evans rats. Teratology 
37(5), 495.
Smith, M.K., J.L. Randall, E.J. Read and J.A. Stober. 1989. 
Teratogenic Effects of Trichloroacetic Acid in the Rat. Teratology. 
40: 445-451.
Smith, M.K., J.L. Randall, E.J. Read, and J.A. Stober. 1990. 
Developmental effects of Chloroacetic acid in the Long-Evans Rat. 
Teratology 41 (5), 593 (Abstract No. P164).
Smith, V.K., G. Van Houtven and S.K. Pattanayak. 2002. Benefit 
transfer via preference calibration: `Prudential algebra' for 
policy. Land Economics, 78(1):132-152.
Stauber, A.J. and R.J. Bull. 1997. Differences in Phenotype and Cell 
Replicative Behavior of Hepatic Tumors Induced by Dichloroacetate 
(DCA) and Trichloroacetate (TCA). Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 144(2): 
235-46.

[[Page 49661]]

Tao, L., K. Li, P.M. Kramer and M.A.Perei.1996.Loss of 
Heterozygosity on Chromosome 6 in Dichloroacetic Acid and 
Trichloroacetic Acid-Induced Liver Tumors in Female 
B6C3F1 Mice. Cancer Lett. 108: 257-261.
Tao, L., P.M. Kramer, R. Ge and M.A. Pereira. 1998. Effect of 
Dichloroacetic Acid and Trichloroacetic Acid on DNA Methylation in 
Liver and Tumors of Female B6C3F1 Mice. Toxicol. 
Sciences. 43: 139-144.
Thompson, D.L., S.D. Warner, and V.B. Robinson, 1974. Teratology 
Studies in Orally Administered Chloroform in the Rat and Rabbit. 
Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 29, 348-357.
Toth, G.P., K.C. Kelty, E.L. George, E.J. Read, and M.K. Smith, 
1992. Adverse Male Reproductive Effects Following Subchronic 
Exposure of Rats to Sodium Dichloroacetate. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 19, 
57-63.
Tyl, R.W. 2000. Review of Animal Studies for Reproductive and 
Developmental Toxicity Assessment of Drinking Water Contaminants: 
Disinfection By-Products (DBPs). RTI Project No. 07639. Research 
Triangle Institute.
USDOE Energy Information Administration 2002. Table 7.1 Electricity 
Overview (Billion Kilowatthours). http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/txt/
mer7-1 USEPA 1979. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations; 
Control of Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water. FR 44:231:68624. 
(November 29, 1979).
USEPA 1985. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Volatile 
Synthetic Organic Chemicals; Final Rule and Proposed Rule. FR 
50:219:46880 (September 13, 1985).
USEPA 1986. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, FR 
51:185:33992-34003. EPA/600/8-87/045. NTIS PB88-123997. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/rafguid.htm USEPA
 1989a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; 
Filtration, Disinfection, Turbidity, Giardia lamblia, Viruses, 
Legionella, and Heterotrophic Bacteria; Final Rule. Part II. FR 
54:124: 27486. (June 29, 1989).
USEPA 1989b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Total 
Coliforms (Including Fecal Coliform and E. coli); Final Rule. FR 
54:124: 27544. (June 29, 1989).
USEPA 1989c. Review of Environmental Contaminants and Toxicology. 
U.S. EPA. Office of Drinking Water Health Advisories. Volume 106. 
225 pp.
USEPA 1991a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic 
Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals; Monitoring for 
Unregulated Contaminants; National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations Implementation; National Secondary Drinking Water 
Regulations. Final rule, January 31, 1991. FR 56:20: 3526.
USEPA 1991b. Guidelines for Developmental Toxicity Risk Assessment. 
FR 56:234:63798-63826.
USEPA 1992. EPA Method 552.1. In Methods for the Determination of 
Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--Supplement II. EPA 600/R-92/
129. NTIS, PB92-207703.
USEPA 1993. EPA Method 300.0. In Methods for the Determination of 
Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples. EPA/600/R/93/100.
USEPA 1994a. Draft Drinking Water Health Criteria Document for 
Chlorinated Acetic Acids/Alcohols/Aldehydes and Ketones. Office of 
Science and Technology, Office of Water.
USEPA 1994b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; 
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Proposed Rule. FR 
59:145:38668-38829. (July 29, 1994).
USEPA 1995. EPA Method 552.2. In Methods for the Determination of 
Organic Compounds in Drinking Water. Supplement III. EPA-600/R-95/
131. NTIS, PB95261616.
USEPA 1996a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Monitoring 
Requirements for Public Drinking Water Supplies: Cryptosporidium, 
Giardia, Viruses, Disinfection Byproducts, Water Treatment Plant 
Data and Other Information Requirements. Final Rule. FR 61:94:24354-
24388. (May 14, 1996).
USEPA 1996b. DBP/ICR Analytical Methods Manual. EPA 814-B-96-002. 
NTIS, PB96-157516.
USEPA 1997a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; 
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Notice of Data 
Availability; Proposed Rule. FR 62:212:59388-59484. (November 3, 
1997).
USEPA 1997b. Manual for the Certification of Laboratories Analyzing 
Drinking Water. EPA 815-B-97-001. http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/certlab/labindex.html
USEPA 1998a. Quantification of Bladder Cancer Risk from Exposure to 
Chlorinated Surface Water. Office of Science and Technology, Office 
of Water. November 9, 1998.
USEPA 1998b. Health Risk Assessment/Characterization of the Drinking 
Water Disinfection Byproduct Chloroform. Office of Science and 
Technology, Office of Water. EPA 815-B-98-006. PB 99-111346.
USEPA 1998c. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: 
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Final Rule. FR 
63:241:69390-69476. (December 16, 1998). http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/dbpfr.pdf
USEPA 1998d. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Interim 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; Final Rule. FR 63:241:38832-
38858. (December 16, 1998). http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/ieswtrfr.pdf
USEPA 1998e. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; 
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Notice of Data 
Availability; Proposed Rule. FR 63:61:15606-15692. (March 31, 1998).
USEPA 1998f. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Final Disinfectant/
Disinfection By-Products Regulations. Washington, DC. EPA Number 
815-B-98-002. PB 99-111304.
USEPA 1998g. National-Level Affordability Criteria Under the 1996 
Ammendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (Final Draft Report). 
Contact 68-C6-0039. (August 19, 1998).
USEPA 1998h. Variance Technology Findings for Contaminants Regulated 
Before 1996. Office of Water. EPA 815-R-98-003.
USEPA 1998i. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer 
Confidence Reports; Final Rule. FR 63:160:44512-44536.
USEPA 1998j. Revisions to State Primacy Requirements to Implement 
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments; Final Rule. FR 63:81:23362-23368.
USEPA 1999a. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. July SAB 
Review draft. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 
USEPA NCEA-F-0644. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/crasab.htm
USEPA 1999b. National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water 
Regulations: Analytical Methods for Chemical and Microbiological 
Contaminants and Revisions to Laboratory Certification Requirements; 
Final Rule. FR 64:230:67449. (December 1, 1999).
USEPA 1999c. Chloroform Mode of Action Analysis. Prepared for the 
Science Advisory Board by Office of Science and Technology, Office 
of Water. October 1999. http://www.epa.gov/sab/chloro00.htm
USEPA 1999d. Cost of Illness Handbook. Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics. Chapter 1 II.8. Cost of Bladder Cancer. 
September, 1999. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/coi
USEPA 2000a. Estimated per Capita Water Ingestion in the United 
States. EPA-82200-008. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/drinking/percapita/
USEPA 2000b. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Washington, 
DC. EPA 240R-00-003, September 2000.
USEPA 2000c. Information Collection Rule Auxiliary 1 Database, 
Version 5, EPA 815-C-00-002, April 2000.
USEPA 2000d. EPA Method 321.8. In Methods for the Determination of 
Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume 1. ORD-
NERL, Cincinnati, OH. EPA 815-R-00-014. Available on ORD-NERL Web 
site at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
USEPA 2000e. Removal of the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for 
Chloroform From the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. FR 
65:104:34404-34405. (May 30, 2000). http://www.epa.gov/safewater/regs/chlorfr.html
USEPA 2000f. Review of the EPA's Draft Chloroform Risk Assessment by 
a Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board. Science Advisory 
Board, Washington, DC. EPA-SAB-EC-00-009.
USEPA 2000g. Stage 2 Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Federal 
Advisory Committee Agreement in Principle. FR 65:251:83015-83024. 
(December 29, 2000). http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2000/December/Day-29/w33306.htm
USEPA 2000h. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Ground 
Water Rule. Proposed Rules. FR 65:91:30194-30274. (May 10, 2000).
USEPA 2000i. Quantitative Cancer Assessment for MX and 
Chlorohydroxyfuranones. Contract NO. 68-C-98-195. August 11, 2000, 
Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and 
Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.

[[Page 49662]]

USEPA 2000j. Drinking Water Baseline Handbook, Second Edition. 
Prepared by International Consultants, Inc. under contract with EPA 
OGWDW, Standards and Risk Management Division. March 17, 2000.
USEPA 2000k. Geometries and Characteristics of Public Water Systems. 
Final Report. EPA 815-R-00-024. December 2000.
USEPA 20001. EPA Method 300.1. In Methods for the Determination of 
Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume 1. OW-
OGWDW-TSC, Cincinnati, OH. EPA 815-R-00-014. Available on the OGWDW 
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.
USEPA 2000m. Information Collection Rule Treatment Study Database 
CD-ROM, Version 1.0.
USEPA 2000n. Science Advisory Board Final Report. Prepared for 
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee. July 27, 2000. EPA-SAB-
EEAC-00-013.
USEPA 2000o. Draft Dioxin Reassessment. EPA/600/P-00/001B 
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/part1and2.cfm?ActType=default.
USEPA 2001a. Relative Source Contribution for Chloroform. EPA-822-R-
01-006.
USEPA 2001b. Toxicological Review of Chloroform. In support of 
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Washington, DC. Draft. 
EPA/635/R-01/001.
USEPA 2001c. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Filter 
Backwash Recycling Rule. Final Rule. FR 66:111:31086-31105. (June 8, 
2001).
USEPA 2001d. Method 317.0, Revision 2.0. Determination of Inorganic 
Oxyhalide Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion 
Chromatography with the Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent for Trace 
Bromate Analysis. Revision 2.0. EPA 815-B-01-001. (Available on the 
OGWDW Web site at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.)
USEPA 2001e. Arsenic Rule Benefits Analysis: an SAB Review. August 
30, 2001. EPA-SAB-EC-01-008.
USEPA 2002a. Method 326.0. Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide 
Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography 
Incorporating the Addition of a Suppressor Acidified Postcolumn 
Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis. Revision 1.0. EPA 815-R-03-007. 
(Available on the OGWDW Web site at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.)
USEPA 2002b. Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. 
January 14, 2002. 67 FR 1812.
USEPA 2002c. Affordability Criteria for Small Drinking Water 
Systems: an EPA Science Advisory Board Report. December 2002. EPA-
SAB-EEAC-03-004.
USEPA 2003a. Health Risks to Fetuses, Infants, and Children: A 
Review. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health 
and Ecological Criteria Division.
USEPA 2003b. Addendum to the Criteria Document for Monochloroacetic 
Acid and Trichleoeacetic Acid: External Review Draft.
USEPA 2003c. Addendum to the Criteria Document for Dichloroacetic 
Acid: External Review Draft.
USEPA 2003d. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Brominated 
Trihalomethanes: External Review Draft.
USEPA 2003e. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Brominated 
Haloacetic Acids: External Review Draft.
USEPA 2003f. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Cyanogen Chloride, 
External Review Draft.
USEPA 2003g. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Glyoxal and 
Methylglyoxal: External Review Draft.
USEPA 2003h. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles: 
External Review Draft.
USEPA 2003i. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Stage 2 DBPR. 
Washington, DC. EPA 815-D-03-001.
USEPA 2003j. Draft Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance 
Manual. Washington, DC. EPA 815-D-03-002.
USEPA 2003k. Technologies and Costs for Control of Microbial 
Pathogens and Disinfection Byproducts. Prepared by the Cadmus Group 
and Malcolm Pirnie.
USEPA 2003l. Toxicologcal Review for Dichloroacetic Acid: Consensus 
Review Draft. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0654.htm
USEPA 2003m. Information Collection Request. Washington, DC. EPA 
815-D-03-003.
USEPA 2003n. Draft Significant Excursion Guidance Manual. 
Washington, DC. EPA 815-D-03-004.
USEPA 2003o. Stage 2 Occurrence Assessment for Disinfectants and 
Disinfection Byproducts (D/DBPs). EPA 68-C-99-206.
USEPA 2003p. Method 552.3. Determination of Haloacetic Acids and 
Dalapon in Drinking Water by Liquid-liquid Extraction, 
Derivatization, and Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture 
Detection. Revision 1.0. (Available on the OGWDW Web site at 
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.)
USEPA 2003q. Method 327.0. Determination of Chlorine Dioxide and 
Chlorite Ion in Drinking water Using Lissamine Green B and 
Horseradish Peroxidase with Detection by Visible Spectrophotometry. 
Revision 1.0. (Available on the OGWDW Web site at http://www.epa.gov/
safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.)
USEPA 2003r. Method 415.3. Determination of Total Organic Carbon, 
and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking 
Water. Revision 1.0. NERL, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
USEPA 2003s. Arsenic in Drinking Water: Cessation Lag Model. 
Prepared by Sciences International. Contract No. 68-c-98-195. 
January, 2003.
Veeramachaneni, D.N.R., T.T. Higuchi, J.S. Palmer, and C.M. Kane. 
2000. Dibromoacetic Acid, a Disinfection By-product in Drinking 
Water, Impairs Sexual Function and Fertility in Male Rabbits. Paper 
presented at the annual meeting for the Society for the Study of 
Reproduction, Madison, Wisconsin.
Vena, JE, Graham, S, Freudenheim, J, Marshall, J, Zielezny, M, 
Swanson, M, Sufrin, G. 1993. Drinking water, fluid intake, and 
bladder cancer in western New York. Archives of Environmental 
Health, 48(3):191-8.
Ventura, S.J., W.D. Mosher, S.C. Curtin, J.C. Abma, and S. Henshaw. 
2000. ``Trends in Pregnancies and Pregnancy Rates by Outcome: 
Estimates for the United States, 1976-96.'' National Center for 
Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 21(56).
Villanueva, C.M., F. Fernandez, N. Malats, J.O. Grimalt, M. 
Kogevinas. 2003. Meta-analysis of Studies on Individual Consumption 
of Chlorinated Drinking Water and Bladder Cancer. J Epidemiol 
Community Health, 57:166-173.
Wagner, H.P., Pepich, B.V., Frebis, C., Hautman, D.P., Munch, D.J., 
and Jackson, P.E. 2001. A Collaborative Study of EPA Method 317.0 
for the Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection By-
Products in Drinking Water using Ion Chromatography with the 
Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis. Journal 
of Chromatographic Science. Vol 39 (255-259), June 2001.
Wagner, H.P., Pepich, B.V., Frebis, C., Hautman, D.P. and Munch, 
D.J. 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 326.0, a new 
method for monitoring inorganic oxyhalides and optimization of the 
postcolumn derivatization for the selective determination of trace 
levels of bromate. Journal of Chromatography. A. Vol. 956 (93-101), 
May 2002.
Wallace, L.A. 1997. Human exposure and Body Burden for Chloroform 
and Other Trihalomethanes., Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 
27:113-94.
Waller, K., S.H. Swan, G. DeLorenze, B. Hopkins. 1998. 
Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water and Spontaneous Abortion. 
Epidemiology. 9(2):134-140.
Waller, K., S.H. Swan, G.C. Windham, L. Fenster. 2001. Influence of 
Exposure Assessment Methods on Risk Estimates in an Epidemiologic 
Study of Total Trihalomethane Exposure and Spontaneous Abortion. 
Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 11(6): 
522-531.
Weisel, C.P. and W.K. Jo. 1996. Ingestion, Inhalation, and Dermal 
Exposures to Chloroform and Trichloroethene from Tap Water. 
Environmental Health Perspectives. 104 (1): 48-51.
WHO 2000. World Health Organization, International Programme on 
Chemical Safety (IPCS). Environmental Health Criteria 216: 
Disinfectants and Disinfectant By-products.
Williams, S.L., Rindfleisch, D.F., and Williams, RL. 1995. Deadend 
on Haloacetic Acids (HAA). In Proceedings of the 1994 AWWA Water 
Quality Technology Conference, November 1994.
Windham GC, Waller K, Anderson M, Fenster L, Mendola P, Swan S. 
2003. Chlorination by-Products in Drinking Water and Menstrual Cycle 
Function. Environ Health Perspect: doi:10.1289/ehp.5922. 
http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2003/5922/abstract.html,  
Yang C.Y., H.F. Chiu, M.F. Cheng, et al. 1998. Chlorination of 
Drinking Water and Cancer Mortality in Taiwan. Environmental 
Research 78(1):1-6.

[[Page 49663]]

Yang, V., B. Cheng, S. Tsai, T. Wu, M. Lin M. and K. Lin. 2000. 
Association between Chlorination of Drinking Water and Adverse 
Pregnancy Outcome in Taiwan. Environ. Health. Perspect. 108:765-68.
Zheng, M., S. Andrews, and J. Bolton. 1999. Impacts of medium-
pressure UV on THM and HAA formation in pre-UV chlorinated drinking 
water. Proceedings, Water Quality Technology Conference of the 
American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 141

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

40 CFR Part 142

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

40 CFR Part 143

    Chemicals, Indians-lands, Water supply.

    Dated: July 11, 2003.
Linda J. Fisher,
Acting Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth 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.

    2. Section 141.2 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, 
definitions for ``Combined distribution system'', ``Consecutive 
system'', ``Consecutive system entry point'', ``Dual sample sets'', 
``Finished water'', ``Locational running annual average'', and 
``Wholesale system'' to read as follows:

Sec.  141.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Combined distribution system is the interconnected distribution 
system consisting of the distribution systems of wholesale systems and 
of the consecutive systems that receive finished water from those 
wholesale system(s).
* * * * *
    Consecutive system is a public water system that buys or otherwise 
receives some or all of its finished water from one or more wholesale 
systems, for at least 60 days per year.
    Consecutive system entry point is a location at which finished 
water is delivered at least 60 days per year from a wholesale system to 
a consecutive system.
* * * * *
    Dual sample set is a set of two samples collected at the same time 
and same location, with one sample analyzed for TTHM and the other 
sample analyzed for HAA5. Dual sample sets are collected for the 
purposes of conducting an IDSE under subpart U of this part and 
determining compliance with the TTHM and HAA5 MCLs under subpart V of 
this part.
* * * * *
    Finished water is water that is introduced into the distribution 
system of a public water system and is intended for distribution 
without further treatment, except that necessary to maintain water 
quality.
* * * * *
    Locational running annual average (LRAA) is the average of sample 
analytical results for samples taken at a particular monitoring site 
during the previous four calendar quarters.
* * * * *
    Stage 2A is the period beginning [date three years following 
publication of the final rule]
until the dates specified in subpart V 
of this part for compliance with Stage 2B, during which systems must 
comply with Stage 2A MCLs in Sec.  141.64(b)(2).
* * * * *
    Wholesale system is a public water system that treats source water 
and then sells or otherwise delivers finished water to another public 
water system for at least 60 days per year. Delivery may be through a 
direct connection or through the distribution system of one or more 
consecutive systems.
    3. In Sec.  141.23, the table in paragraph (k)(1) is amended by 
revising entries 13, 18, 19, and 20; revising the undesignated text 
after the table; and adding a new footnote 19 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.23  Inorganic chemical sampling and analytical requirements.

* * * * *
    (k) Inorganic analysis:
* * * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Contaminant and methodology \13\      EPA              ASTM \3\           SM \4\ (18th, 19th ed.)       SM \4\ (20th ed.)                Other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
13. Fluoride:
    Ion Chromatography...........   \6\ 300.0  D4327-97                   4110 B                     4110 B
                                   \19\ 300.1
    Manual Distill.; Color.        ..........  .                          4500-F B, D                4500-F B, D
     SPADNS..
    Manual Electrode.............  ..........  D1179-93B                  4500-F C                   4500-F C
    Automated Electrode..........  ..........  .                          .                          .                          380-75WE \11\
    Automated Alizarin...........  ..........  .                          4500-F E                   4500-F E                   129-71W \11\

                                                                      * * * * * * *
18. Nitrate:
    Ion Chromatography...........   \6\ 300.0  D4327-97                   4110 B                     4110 B                     B1011 \8\
                                   \19\ 300.1  .........................  .........................  .........................  ........................
    Automated Cadmium Reduction..   \6\ 353.2  D3867-90A                  4500-NO3 F                 4500-NO3 F                 ........................
    Ion Selective Electrode......  ..........  .                          4500-NO3 D                 4500-NO3 D                 601 \7\
    Manual Cadmium Reduction.....  ..........  D3867-90B                  4500-NO3 E                 4500-NO3 E                 ........................
19. Nitrite:
    Ion Chromatography...........   \6\ 300.0  D4327-97                   4110 B                     4110 B                     B-1011\8\
                                   \19\ 300.1  .........................  .........................  .........................  ........................
    Automated Cadmium Reduction..   \6\ 353.2  D3867-90A                  4500-NO3 F                 4500-NO3 F                 ........................
    Manual Cadmium Reduction.....  ..........  D3867-90B                  4500-NO3 E                 4500-NO3 E                 ........................
    Spectrophotometric...........  ..........  .........................  4500-NO2 B                 4500-NO2 B                 ........................
20. Orthophosphate: \12\

[[Page 49664]]

    Colorimetric, automated,         \6\365.1  .                          4500-P F                   4500-P F                   ........................
     ascorbic acid.
    Colorimetric, ascorbic acid,   ..........  D515-88A                   4500-P E                   4500-P E                   ........................
     single reagent.
    Colorimetric,                  ..........  .                          .                          .                          I-1601-85\5\
     phosphomolybdate.
    Automated-segmented flow.....  ..........  .                          .                          .                          I-2601-90\5\
    Automated discrete...........  ..........  .                          .                          .                          I-2598-85\5\
    Ion Chromatography...........   \6\ 300.0  D4327-97                   4110 B                     4110 B                     ........................
                                   \19\ 300.1  .........................  .........................  .........................  ........................

                                                                     * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed below. The incorporation by reference of the following documents listed in
  footnotes 1-11 and 16-19 was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the
  documents may be obtained from the sources listed below. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water
  Hotline at 800-426-4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room B102, Washington, DC
  20460 (Telephone: 202-566-2426); or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
* * * * * * *
\3\ Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, 1996, or 1999, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02, ASTM International; any year containing the cited version of the method
  may be used. The previous versions of D1688-95A, D1688-95C (copper), D3559-95D (lead), D1293-95 (pH), D1125-91A (conductivity) and D859-94 (silica)
  are also approved. These previous versions D1688-90A, C; D3559-90D, D1293-84, D1125-91A and D859-88, respectively are located in the Annual Book of
  ASTM Standards, 1994, Vol. 11.01. Copies may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.
\4\ Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition (1992), 19th edition (1995), or 20th edition (1998). American Public
  Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. The cited methods published in any of these three editions may be used, except
  that the versions of 3111 B, 3111 D, 3113 B and 3114 B in the 20th edition may not be used.
\5\ Method I-2601-90, Methods for Analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory--Determination of Inorganic and Organic
  Constituents in Water and Fluvial Sediment, Open File Report 93-125, 1993; For Methods I-1030-85; I-1601-85; I-1700-85; I-2598-85; I-2700-85; and I-
  3300-85 See Techniques of Water Resources Investigation of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 5, Chapter A-1, 3rd ed., 1989; Available from Information
  Services, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225-0425.
\6\ ``Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples'', EPA/600/R-93/100, August 1993. Available at NTIS, PB94-120821.
\7\ The procedure shall be done in accordance with the Technical Bulletin 601 ``Standard Method of Test for Nitrate in Drinking Water'', July 1994, PN
  221890-001, Analytical Technology, Inc. Copies may be obtained from ATI Orion, 529 Main Street, Boston, MA 02129.
\8\ Method B-1011, ``Waters Test Method for Determination of Nitrite/Nitrate in Water Using Single Column Ion Chromatography,'' August 1987. Copies may
  be obtained from Waters Corporation, Technical Services Division, 34 Maple Street, Milford, MA 01757.
* * * * * * *
\11\ Industrial Method No. 129-71W, ``Fluoride in Water and Wastewater'', December 1972, and Method No. 380-75WE, ``Fluoride in Water and Wastewater'',
  February 1976, Technicon Industrial Systems. Copies may be obtained from Bran & Luebbe, 1025 Busch Parkway, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089.
\12\ Unfiltered, no digestion or hydrolysis.
\13\ Because MDLs reported in EPA Methods 200.7 and 200.9 were determined using a 2X preconcentration step during sample digestion, MDLs determined when
  samples are analyzed by direct analysis (i.e., no sample digestion) will be higher. For direct analysis of cadmium and arsenic by Method 200.7, and
  arsenic by Method 3120 B sample preconcentration using pneumatic nebulization may be required to achieve lower detection limits. Preconcentration may
  also be required for direct analysis of antimony, lead, and thallium by Method 200.9; antimony and lead by Method 3113 B; and lead by Method D3559-90D
  unless multiple in-furnace depositions are made.
* * * * * * *
\19\ ``Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water'', Vol. 1, EPA 815-R-00-014, August 2000. Available at NTIS,
  PB2000-106981.

* * * * *
    4. Section 141.24 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(1) and by 
revising entry 30 in the table in paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  141.24  Organic chemicals, sampling and analytical requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) The following documents are incorporated by reference. This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies 
may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., EPA West, Room B102, Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-
566-2426); or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. Method 508A and 515.1 are in 
Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water, 
EPA/600/4-88-039, December 1988, Revised, July 1991. Methods 547, 550 
and 550.1 are in Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in 
Drinking Water--Supplement I, EPA/600-4-90-020, July 1990. Methods 
548.1, 549.1, 552.1 and 555 are in Methods for the Determination of 
Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--Supplement II, EPA/600/R-92-129, 
August 1992. Methods 502.2, 504.1, 505, 506, 507, 508, 508.1, 515.2, 
524.2 525.2, 531.1, 551.1 and 552.2 are in Methods for the 
Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--Supplement III, 
EPA/600/R-95-131, August 1995. Method 1613 is titled ``Tetra-through 
Octa-Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isotope-Dilution HRGC/HRMS'', 
EPA/821-B-94-005, October 1994. These documents are available from the 
National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB91-231480, PB91-146027, 
PB92-207703, PB95-261616 and PB95-104774, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll-free number 
is 800-553-6847. Method 6651 shall be followed in accordance with 
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th 
edition (1992), 19th edition (1995), or 20th edition (1998), American 
Public Health Association (APHA); any of these three editions may be 
used. Method 6610 shall be followed in accordance with Standard Methods 
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, (18th Edition Supplement) 
(1994), or with the 19th edition (1995) or 20th edition (1998) of 
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater; any of 
these publications may be used. The APHA documents are available from 
APHA, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20005. Other required 
analytical test procedures germane to the conduct

[[Page 49665]]

of these analyses are contained in Technical Notes on Drinking Water 
Methods, EPA/600/R-94-173, October 1994, NTIS PB95-104766. EPA Methods 
515.3 and 549.2 are available from U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)--Cincinnati, 26 
West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268. ASTM Method D 
5317-93 is available in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, (1999), Vol. 
11.02, ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 
19428, or in any edition published after 1993. EPA Method 515.4, 
``Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid 
Microextraction, Derivatization and Fast Gas Chromatography with 
Electron Capture Detection,'' Revision 1.0, April 2000, EPA/815/B-00/
001 and EPA Method 552.3, ``Determination of Haloacetic Acids and 
Dalapon in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Microextraction, 
Derivatization, and Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture 
Detection,'' Revision 1.0, July 2003 can be accessed and downloaded 
directly on-line at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ methods/
sourcalt.html. The Syngenta AG-625, ``Atrazine in Drinking Water by 
Immunoassay'', February 2001 is available from Syngenta Crop 
Protection, Inc., 410 Swing Road, Post Office Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 
27419, Phone number (336) 632-6000. Method 531.2 ``Measurement of N-
methylcarbamoyloximes and N-methylcarbamates in Water by Direct Aqueous 
Injection HPLC with Postcolumn Derivatization,'' Revision 1.0, 
September 2001, EPA 815/B/01/002 can be accessed and downloaded 
directly on-line at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ methods/
sourcalt.html.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Contaminant                EPA method \1\    Standard methods         ASTM              Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
30. Dalapon.........................      552.1, 515.1,  .................  .................  .................
                                          552.2, 515.3,
                                           515.4, 552.3

                                                 * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For previously approved EPA methods which remain available for compliance monitoring until June 1, 2001, see
  paragraph (e)(2) of this section.

* * * * *
    5. Section 141.33 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (a) introductory text, and adding paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  141.33  Record maintenance.

* * * * *
    (a) Records of microbiological analyses and turbidity analyses made 
pursuant to this part shall be kept for not less than 5 years. * * *
* * * * *
    (f) Copies of monitoring plans developed pursuant to this part 
shall be kept for the same period of time as the records of analyses 
are required to be kept under paragraph (a) of this section or for 
three years after modification, whichever is longer.
    6. Section 141.53 is amended by revising the table to read as 
follows:

Sec.  141.53  Maximum contaminant level goals for disinfection 
byproducts.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Disinfection byproduct                    MCLG (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bromodichloromethane.......................  zero.
Bromoform..................................  zero.
Bromate....................................  zero.
Chlorite...................................  0.8
Chloroform.................................  0.07
Dibromochloromethane.......................  0.06
Dichloroacetic acid........................  zero.
Monochloroacetic acid......................  0.03
Trichloroacetic acid.......................  0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Section 141.64 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  141.64  Maximum contaminant levels for disinfection byproducts.

    (a) Bromate and chlorite. The maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for 
bromate and chlorite are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Disinfection byproduct                     MCL (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bromate....................................................        0.010
Chlorite...................................................        1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Compliance dates for CWSs and NTNCWSs. Subpart H systems 
serving 10,000 or more persons must comply with this paragraph (a) 
beginning January 1, 2002. Subpart H systems serving fewer than 10,000 
persons and systems using only ground water not under the direct 
influence of surface water must comply with this paragraph (a) 
beginning January 1, 2004.
    (2) Best available technology. The Administrator, pursuant to 
section 1412 of the Act, hereby identifies the following as the best 
technology, treatment techniques, or other means available for 
achieving compliance with the maximum contaminant levels for bromate 
and chlorite identified in this paragraph (a):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Disinfection byproduct              Best available technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bromate...................................  Control of ozone treatment
                                             process to reduce
                                             production bromate.
Chlorite..................................  Control of treatment
                                             processes to reduce
                                             disinfectant demand and
                                             control of disinfection
                                             treatment processes to
                                             reduce disinfectant levels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) TTHM and HAA5.
    (1) Subpart L--RAA compliance. (i) Compliance dates. Subpart H 
systems serving 10,000 or more persons must comply with this paragraph 
(b)(1) beginning January 1, 2002 until the date specified for subpart V 
of this part compliance in Sec.  141.620(c). Subpart H systems serving 
fewer than 10,000 persons and systems using only ground water not under 
the direct influence of surface water must comply with this paragraph 
(b)(1) beginning January 1, 2004 until the date specified for subpart V 
of this part compliance in Sec.  141.620(c).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                MCL (mg/
                    Disinfection byproduct                         L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total trihalomethanes (TTHM)..................................     0.080
Haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5)................................     0.060
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Best available technology. The Administrator, pursuant to 
section 1412 of the Act, hereby identifies the following as the best 
technology, treatment techniques, or other means

[[Page 49666]]

available for achieving compliance with the maximum contaminant levels 
for TTHM and HAA5 identified in this paragraph (b)(1):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Disinfection byproduct              Best available technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and            Enhanced coagulation or
 Halaocetic acids (five) (HAA5).             enhanced softening or
                                             GAC10, with chlorine as the
                                             primary and residual
                                             disinfectant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Stage 2A--LRAA compliance. (i) Compliance dates. The Stage 2A 
MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 must be complied with as a locational running 
annual average at each subpart L of this part compliance monitoring 
location under Sec.  141.136 beginning [date three years after 
publication of the final rule]
until the date specified for subpart V 
of this part compliance in Sec.  141.620(c).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                MCL (mg/
                    Disinfection byproduct                         L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total trihalomethanes (TTHM)..................................     0.120
Haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5)................................     0.100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Best available technology. The Administrator, pursuant to 
section 1412 of the Act, hereby identifies the following as the best 
technology, treatment techniques, or other means available for 
achieving compliance with the maximum contaminant levels for TTHM and 
HAA5 identified in this paragraph (b)(2):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Disinfection byproduct              Best available technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and            Enhanced coagulation or
 Haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5).             enhanced softening or
                                             GAC10, with chlorine as the
                                             primary and residual
                                             disinfectant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Subpart V LRAA compliance. (i) Compliance dates. The subpart V 
of this part MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 must be complied with as a 
locational running annual average at each monitoring location beginning 
the date specified for Subpart V of this part compliance in Sec.  
141.620(c).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                MCL (mg/
                    Disinfection byproduct                         L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total trihalomethanes (TTHM)..................................     0.080
Haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5)................................     0.060
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Best technology for systems that disinfect their source water. 
The Administrator, pursuant to section 1412 of the Act, hereby 
identifies the following as the best technology, treatment techniques, 
or other means available for achieving compliance with the maximum 
contaminant levels for TTHM and HAA5 identified in this paragraph 
(b)(3) for all systems that disinfect their source water:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Disinfection byproduct              Best available technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and            Enhanced coagulation or
 Haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5).             enhanced softening, plus
                                             GAC10; or nanofiltration
                                             with a molecular weight and
                                             cutoff <=1000 Daltons; or
                                             GAC20.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Best available technology for systems that buy disinfected 
water. The Administrator, pursuant to section 1412 of the Act, hereby 
identifies the following as the best technology, treatment techniques, 
or other means available for achieving compliance with the maximum 
contaminant levels for TTHM and HAA5 identified in this paragraph 
(b)(3) for systems that buy disinfected water:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Disinfection byproduct              Best available technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and            Improved distribution system
 Haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5).             and storage tank management
                                             to reduce detention time
                                             plus the use of chloramines
                                             for disinfectant residual
                                             maintenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Extensions. A system that is installing GAC or membrane 
technology to comply with the MCLs in paragraphs (a) or (b)(1) of this 
section may apply to the State for an extension of up to 24 months past 
January 1, 2002, but not beyond January 1, 2004. In granting the 
extension, States must set a schedule for compliance and may specify 
any interim measures that the system must take. Failure to meet the 
schedule or any interim treatment requirements constitutes a violation 
of a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation.

Subpart L--[Amended]

    8. Section 141.131 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), 
(d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4)(i), (d)(4)(ii), and the table in paragraph 
(c)(1), and adding paragraph (d)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  141.131  Analytical requirements.

    (a) General. (1) Systems must use only the analytical methods 
specified in this section, or their equivalent as approved by EPA, to 
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart and with 
the requirements of subparts U and V. These methods are effective for 
compliance monitoring February 16, 1999, unless a different effective 
date is specified in this section or by the State.
    (2) The following documents are incorporated by reference. The 
Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by 
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., EPA West, Room B102, Washington, DC 20460, or at the 
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 
700, Washington, DC. EPA Method 552.1 is in Methods for the 
Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-Supplement II, 
USEPA, August 1992, EPA/600/R-92/129 (available through National 
Information Technical Service (NTIS), PB92-207703). EPA Methods 502.2, 
524.2, 551.1, and 552.2 are in Methods for the Determination of Organic 
Compounds in Drinking Water-Supplement III, USEPA, August 1995, EPA/
600/R-95/131. (Available through NTIS, PB95-261616). EPA Method 300.0 
for chlorite and bromide is in Methods for the Determination of 
Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples, USEPA, August 1993, EPA/
600/R-93/100 (available through NTIS, PB94-121811). EPA Methods 300.1 
for chlorite, bromate, and bromide and 321.8 for bromate are in Methods 
for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking 
Water, Volume 1, USEPA, August 2000, EPA 815-R-00-014 (available 
through NTIS, PB2000-106981). EPA Method 317.0, Revision 2.0, 
``Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection By-Products in 
Drinking Water Using Ion Chromotography with the Addition of a 
Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,'' USEPA, July 2001, EPA 
815-B-01-001, EPA Method 326.0, Revision 1.0, ``Determination of 
Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using 
Ion Chromatography Incorporating the Addition of a Suppressor Acidified 
Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,'' USEPA, June 2002, EPA 
815-R-03-007, EPA Method 327.0, Revision 1.0, ``Determination of 
Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite Ion in Drinking Water Using Lissamine 
Green B and Horseradish Peroxidase with Detection by Visible 
Spectrophotometry,'' USEPA, July 2003, and EPA Method 552.3, Revision 
1.0, ``Determination of Haloacetic Acids and Dalapon in Drinking Water 
by Liquid-liquid Extraction, Derivatization, and Gas Chromatography 
with Electron Capture Detection,'' USEPA, July 2003, can be

[[Page 49667]]

accessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.
 EPA Method 415.3, Revision 1.0, ``Determination 
of Total Organic Carbon and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source 
Water and Drinking Water,'' USEPA, June 2003, is available from: 
Chemical Exposure Research Branch, Microbiological & Chemical Exposure 
Assessment Research Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268, Fax Number 
513-569-7757, Phone number: 513-569-7586. Standard Methods 4500-Cl D, 
4500-Cl E, 4500-Cl F, 4500-Cl G, 4500-Cl H, 4500-Cl I, 4500-
ClO2 E, 6251 B, and 5910 B shall be followed in accordance 
with Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th 
or 20th Editions or the On-Line Version, American Public Health 
Association, 1995, 1998, and 2003, respectively. The cited methods 
published in any of these three editions may be used. Standard Method 
4500-ClO2 D shall be followed in accordance with Standard 
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th or 20th 
Editions, American Public Health Association, 1995 and 1998, 
respectively. Standard Methods 5310 B, 5310 C, and 5310 D shall be 
followed in accordance with the Supplement to the 19th Edition of 
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, or the 
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th 
Edition, or the On-Line Version, American Public Health Association, 
1995, 1998, and 2003, respectively. The cited methods published in any 
of these editions may be used. Copies may be obtained from the American 
Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20005. ASTM Method D 1253-86 shall be followed in accordance with the 
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 11.01, American Society for 
Testing and Materials, 1996 or any year containing the cited version of 
the method may be used. ASTM D 6581-00 shall be followed in accordance 
with the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 11.01, American Society 
for Testing and Materials, 2001 or any year containing the cited 
version of the method may be used; copies may be obtained from the 
American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West 
Conshohoken, PA 19428-2959.
    (b) Disinfection byproducts. (1) Systems must measure disinfection 
byproducts by the methods (as modified by the footnotes) listed in the 
following table:

                        Approved Methods for Disinfection Byproduct Compliance Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Contaminant and methodology \1\            EPA method            Standard Method \2\        ASTM Method \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTHM:
    P&T/GC/ElCD & PID................  502.2 \4\
    P&T/GC/MS........................  524.2
    LLE/GC/ECD.......................  551.1
HAA5:
    LLE (diazomethane)/GC/ECD........                            6251 B \5\...............
    SPE (acidic methanol)/GC/ECD.....  552.1 \5\
    LLE (acidic methanol)/GC/ECD.....  552.2, 552.3.
Bromate:
    Ion chromatography...............  300.1                     .........................  D 6581-00
    Ion chromatography & post column   317.0 Rev 2.0 \6\, 326.0
     reaction.                          \6\
    IC/ICP-MS........................  321.8 \6, 7\
Chlorite:
    Amperometric titration...........                            4500-C1O2 E \8\..........
    Spectrophotometry................  327.0 \8\.                .........................
    Ion chromatography...............  300.0, 300.1, 317.0 Rev.  .........................  D 6581-00
                                        2.0, 326.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ P&T = purge and trap; GC = gas chromatography; ElCD = electrolytic conductivity detector; PID =
  photoionization detector; MS = mass spectrometer; LLE = liquid/liquid extraction; ECD = electron capture
  detector; SPE = solid phase extraction; IC = ion chromatography; ICP-MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass
  spectrometer
\2\ 219th or 20th editions or the On-Line Version of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
  Wastewater, 1995, 1998, and 2003, respectively, American Public Health Association; any of these editions may
  be used.
\3\ Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 2001 or any year containing the cited version of the method, Vol 11.01.
\4\ If TTHMs are the only analytes being measured in the sample, then a PID is not required.
\5\ The samples must be extracted within 14 days of sample collection.
\6\ Ion chromatography & post column reaction or IC/ICP-MS must be used for monitoring of bromate for purposes
  of demonstrating eligibility of reduced monitoring, as prescribed in Sec.   141.132(b)(3)(ii).
\7\ Samples must be preserved at the time of sampling with 50 mg ethylenediamine (EDA)/L of sample and must be
  analyzed within 28 days.
\8\ Amperometric titration or spectrophotometry may be used for routine daily monitoring of chlorite at the
  entrance to the distribution system, as prescribed in Sec.   141.132(b)(2)(i)(A). Ion chromatography must be
  used for routine monthly monitoring of chlorite and additional monitoring of chlorite in the distribution
  system, as prescribed in Sec.   141.132(b)(2)(i)(B) and (b)(2)(ii).

    (2) Analysis under this section for disinfection byproducts must be 
conducted by laboratories that have received certification by EPA or 
the State, except as specified under paragraph (b)(3)of this section. 
To receive certification to conduct analyses for the DBP contaminants 
in Sec. Sec.  141.64, 141.135, and subparts U and V of this part, the 
laboratory must:
    (i) Analyze Performance Evaluation (PE) samples that are acceptable 
to EPA or the State at least once during each consecutive 12 month 
period by each method for which the laboratory desires certification.
    (ii) Achieve quantitative results on the PE sample analyses that 
are within the following acceptance limits which become effective [date 
60 days after date of final rule publication]
for purposes of 
certification:

[[Page 49668]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Acceptance
               DBP                    limits            Comments
                                    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTHM:
    Chloroform...................        +/-20  Laboratory must meet all
    Bromodichloromethane.........        +/-20   4 individual THM
    Dibromochloromethane.........        +/-20   acceptance limits in
    Bromoform....................        +/-20   order to successfully
                                                 pass a PE sample for
                                                 TTHM.
HAA5:
    Monochloroacetic Acid........        +/-40  Laboratory must meet the
    Dichloroacetic Acid..........        +/-40   acceptance limits for 4
    Trichloroacetic Acid.........        +/-40   out of 5 of the HAAS
    Monobromacetic Acid..........        +/-40   compounds in order to
    Dibromoacetic Acid...........        +/-40   successfully pass a PE
                                                 sample for HAA5.
Chlorite.........................        +/-30
Bromate..........................        +/-30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Report quantitative data for concentrations at least as low 
as the ones listed in the following table for all DBP samples analyzed 
for compliance with Sec. Sec.  141.64, 141.135, 141.136, and subparts U 
and V of this part:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Minimum
                                       reporting
                DBP                  level (ug/L)         Comments
                                          \7\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTHM \2\:
    Chloroform....................             1.0
    Bromodichloromethane..........             1.0
    Dibromochloromethane..........             1.0
    Bromoform.....................             1.0
HAA5: \2\
    Monochloroacetic Acid.........             2.0
    Dichloroacetic Acid...........             1.0
    Trichloroacetic Acid..........             1.0
    Monobromoacetic Acid..........             1.0
    Dibromoacetic Acid............             1.0
Chlorite..........................            200.
Bromate...........................      5.0 or 1.0  Laboratories that
                                                     use EPA Methods
                                                     317.0 Revision 2.0,
                                                     326.0 or 321.8 must
                                                     meet a 1.0 [mu]g/L
                                                     MRL for bromate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The calibration curve must encompass the minimum reporting level
  (MRL) concentration and the laboratory must verify the accuracy of the
  calibration curve at the lowest concentration for which quantitative
  data are reported by analyzing a calibration check standard at that
  concentration at the beginning of each batch of samples. The measured
  concentration for the check standard must be within +/-50% of the
  expected value. Data may be reported for concentrations lower than the
  MRL as long as the precision and accuracy criteria are met by
  analyzing a standard at the lowest reporting limit chosen by the
  laboratory.
\2\ When adding the individual trihalomethane or haloacetic acid
  concentrations to calculate the TTHM or HAA5 concentrations,
  respectively, a zero is used for any analytical result that is less
  than the MRL concentration for that DBP.

    (3) A party approved by EPA or the State must measure daily 
chlorite samples at the entrance to the distribution system.
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Residual Measured \1\
                                   Standard     ASTM       EPA   -----------------------------------------------
          Methodology               method     method    method      Free      Combined      Total     Chlorine
                                                                   chlorine    chlorine    chlorine     dioxide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amperometric Titration.........  4500-Cl D    D 1253-   ........  X           X           X           ..........
                                               86
Low Level Amperometric           4500-Cl E    ........  ........  ..........  ..........  X           ..........
 Titration.
DPD Ferrous Titrimetric........  4500-Cl F    ........  ........  X           X           X
DPD Colorimetric...............  4500-Cl G    ........  ........  X           X           X
Syringaldazine (FACTS).........  4500-Cl      ........  ........  X           ..........  ..........  ..........
Iodometric Electrode...........  4500-Cl      ........  ........  ..........  ..........  X           ..........
DPD............................  4500-ClO2    ........  ........  ..........  ..........  ..........  X
Amperometric Method II.........  4500-ClO2 E  ........  ........  ..........  ..........  ..........  X
Lissamine Green                  ...........  ........  327.0     ..........  ..........  ..........  X
 Spectrophotometric.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ X indicates method is approved for measuring specified disinfectant residual. Free chlorine or total
  chlorine may be measured for demonstrating compliance with the chlorine MRDL and combined chlorine or total
  chlorine may be measured for demonstrating compliance with the chloramine MRDL.

[[Page 49669]]

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Bromide. EPA Methods 300.0, 300.1, 317.0 Revision 2.0, 326.0, 
or ASTM D 6581-00.
    (3) Total Organic Carbon (TOC). Standard Method 5310 B (High-
Temperature Combustion Method) or Standard Method 5310 C (Persulfate-
Ultraviolet or Heated-Persulfate Oxidation Method) or Standard Method 
5310 D (Wet-Oxidation Method) or EPA Method 415.3. Inorganic carbon 
must be removed from the samples prior to analysis. TOC samples may not 
be filtered prior to analysis. TOC samples must be acidified at the 
time of sample collection to achieve pH less than or equal to 2 with 
minimal addition of the acid specified in the method or by the 
instrument manufacturer. Acidified TOC samples must be analyzed within 
28 days.
    (4) * * *
    (i) Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC). Standard Method 5310 B (High-
Temperature Combustion Method) or Standard Method 5310 C (Persulfate-
Ultraviolet or Heated-Persulfate Oxidation Method) or Standard Method 
5310 D (Wet-Oxidation Method) or EPA Method 415.3. DOC samples must be 
filtered through the 0.45 [mu]m pore-diameter filter as soon as 
practical after sampling, not to exceed 48 hours. After filtration, DOC 
samples must be acidified to achieve pH less than or equal to 2 with 
minimal addition of the acid specified in the method or by the 
instrument manufacturer. Acidified DOC samples must be analyzed within 
28 days. Inorganic carbon must be removed from the samples prior to 
analysis. Water passed through the filter prior to filtration of the 
sample must serve as the filtered blank. This filtered blank must be 
analyzed using procedures identical to those used for analysis of the 
samples and must meet the following criteria: DOC < 0.5 mg/L.
    (ii) Ultraviolet Absorption at 254 nm (UV254). Standard 
Method 5910 B (Ultraviolet Absorption Method) or EPA Method 415.3. UV 
absorption must be measured at 253.7 nm (may be rounded off to 254 nm). 
Prior to analysis, UV254 samples must be filtered through a 
0.45 [mu]m pore-diameter filter. The pH of UV254 samples may 
not be adjusted. Samples must be analyzed as soon as practical after 
sampling, not to exceed 48 hours.
* * * * *
    (6) Magnesium. All methods allowed in Sec.  141.23(k)(1) for 
measuring magnesium.
    9. Section 141.132 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and 
(e) to read as follows:

Sec.  141.132  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (ii) Reduced monitoring.
    (A) Until [date three years from final rule publication], systems 
required to analyze for bromate may reduce monitoring from monthly to 
quarterly, if the system's average source water bromide concentration 
is less than 0.05 mg/L based on representative monthly bromide 
measurements for one year. The system may remain on reduced bromate 
monitoring until the running annual average source water bromide 
concentration, computed quarterly, is equal to or greater than 0.05 mg/
L based on representative monthly measurements. If the running annual 
average source water bromide concentration is £=0.05 mg/L, 
the system must resume routine monitoring required by paragraph 
(b)(3)(i) of this section.
    (B) Beginning [date three years from final rule publication], 
systems may no longer use the provisions of paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) of 
this section to qualify for reduced monitoring. A system required to 
analyze for bromate may reduce monitoring from monthly to quarterly, if 
the system's running annual average bromate concentration is less than 
0.0025 mg/L based on monthly bromate measurements under paragraph 
(b)(3)(i) of this section for the most recent four quarters, with 
samples analyzed using Method 317.0 Revision 2.0, 325.0 or 321.8. If a 
system has qualified for reduced bromate monitoring under paragraph 
(b)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, that system may remain on reduced 
monitoring as long as the running annual average of quarterly bromate 
samples does not exceed 0.0025 mg/L based on samples analyzed using 
Method 317.0 Revision 2.0, 325.0, or 321.8. If the running annual 
average bromate concentration is £0.0025 mg/L, the system 
must resume routine monitoring required by paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (e) Monitoring requirements for source water TOC. In order to 
qualify for reduced monitoring for TTHM and HAA5 under paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii) of this section, subpart H systems not monitoring under the 
provisions of paragraph (d) of this section must take monthly TOC 
samples approximately every 30 days at a location prior to any 
treatment. In addition to meeting other criteria for reduced monitoring 
in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, the source water TOC running 
annual average must be <=4.0 mg/L (based on the most recent four 
quarters of monitoring) on a continuing basis at each treatment plant 
to reduce or remain on reduced monitoring for TTHM and HAA5.
* * * * *
    10. Section 141.134 is amended by revising paragraph (b) 
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  141.134  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) Disinfection byproducts. In addition to reporting required 
under Sec.  141.136(e), systems must report the information specified 
in the following table:
* * * * *
    11. Section 141.135 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to 
read as follows:

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

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Softening that results in removing at least 10 mg/L of 
magnesium hardness (as CaCO3), measured monthly according to 
Sec.  141.131(d)(6) and calculated quarterly as a running annual 
average.
* * * * *
    12. Section 141.136 is added to subpart L to read as follows:

Sec.  141.136  Additional compliance requirements for Stage 2A.

    (a) Applicability. Any system that takes TTHM and HAA5 compliance 
samples under this subpart at more than one location in its 
distribution system is subject to additional MCL requirements beginning 
[date 3 years after publication of final rule]
until the dates 
identified for compliance with subpart V in Sec.  141.620(c). Any 
system that takes samples at more than one location must calculate a 
locational running annual average (LRAA) for each sampling point and 
comply with the MCLs of 0.120 mg/L for TTHM and 0.100 mg/L for HAA5 
listed in Sec.  141.64(b)(2), except as provided for under paragraph 
(c) of this section.
    (b) Compliance. (1) Systems must calculate a locational running 
annual average each quarter for each monitoring location at which they 
took TTHM and HAA5 samples under their monitoring plan developed under 
Sec.  141.132(f) by averaging the results of TTHM or HAA5 monitoring at 
that sample location during the four most recent quarters.
    (2) Systems required to conduct quarterly monitoring under this 
subpart must begin to make compliance calculations under paragraph (b) 
of this

[[Page 49670]]

section at the end of the fourth calendar quarter that follows the 
compliance date in paragraph (a) of this section and at the end of each 
subsequent quarter. Systems required to conduct monitoring at a 
frequency that is less than quarterly under this subpart must make 
compliance calculations under paragraph (b) of this section beginning 
with the first compliance sample taken after the compliance date in 
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (3) Failure to monitor will be treated as a monitoring violation 
for each quarter that a monitoring result would be used in a locational 
running annual average compliance calculation.
    (c) Consecutive systems. A consecutive system must comply with the 
TTHM and HAA5 MCLs in Sec.  141.64(b)(2) at each monitoring location in 
its distribution system identified in its monitoring plan developed 
under Sec.  141.132(f).
    (d) Reporting. Systems must submit the compliance calculations and 
locational running annual averages under this section as part of the 
reports required under Sec.  141.134.

Subpart O--[Amended]

    13. Section 141.151 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  141.151  Purpose and applicability of this subpart.

* * * * *
    (d) For the purpose of this subpart, detected means: At or above 
the levels prescribed by Sec.  141.23(a)(4) for inorganic contaminants, 
at or above the levels prescribed by Sec.  141.24(f)(7) for the 
contaminants listed in Sec.  141.61(a), at or above the levels 
prescribed by Sec.  141.24(h)(18) for the contaminants listed in Sec.  
141.61(c), at or above the levels prescribed by Sec.  
141.131(b)(2)(iii) for the contaminants or contaminant groups listed in 
Sec.  141.64 and Sec.  141.153(d)(iv), and at or above the levels 
prescribed by Sec.  141.25(c) for radioactive contaminants.
* * * * *
    14. Section 141.153 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(4)(iv)(B) 
and (d)(4)(iv)(C) to read as follows:

Sec.  141.153  Content of the reports.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (B) When compliance with the MCL is determined by calculating a 
running annual average of all samples taken at a sampling point: the 
highest average of any of the sampling points and the range of all 
sampling points expressed in the same units as the MCL. For the MCLs 
for TTHM and HAA5 in Sec.  141.64(b)(2) and (3), systems must include 
the highest locational running annual average for TTHM and HAA5 and the 
range of individual sample results for all sampling points expressed in 
the same units as the MCL. If more than one site exceeds the MCL, the 
system must include the locational running annual averages for all 
sites that exceed the MCL.
    (C) When compliance with the MCL is determined on a system-wide 
basis by calculating a running annual average of all samples at all 
sampling points: the average and range of detection expressed in the 
same units as the MCL. The system is not required to include the range 
of individual sample results for the IDSE conducted under subpart U of 
this part.
* * * * *

Subpart Q--[Amended]

    15. In Appendix A, the table is amended by revising entries 1.G.1 
and 1.G.2, and endnotes 12 and 20, to read as follows:

     Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141.--NPDWR Violations and Other Situations Requiring Public Notice \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         MCL/MRDL/TT violations\2\          Monitoring and 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\

                                                  * * * * * * *
G. Disinfection Byproducts, * * *
1. Total trihalomethanes (TTHM).....            2  141.12\12\,                   3  141.30\12\,
                                                   141.64(b)\20\                    141.132(a)-(b)\20\,
                                                                                    141.620-.630
2. Haloacetic acids (HAA5)..........            2  141.64(b)\20\                 3  141.132(a)-(b)\20\,
                                                                                    141.620-.630
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Appendix A--Endnotes

    12. Sec. Sec.  141.12 and 141.30 will no longer apply after 
December 31, 2003.
* * * * *
    20. Sec. Sec.  141.64(b)(1) and 141.132(a)-(b) apply until 
Sec. Sec.  141.64(b)(3) and 141.620-.630 take effect under the 
schedule in Sec.  141.620(c). Sec.  141.64(b)(2) takes effect on 
[date three years following final rule publication]
and remains in 
effect until the effective dates for subpart V of this part 
compliance in the table in Sec.  141.620(c).
* * * * *
    16. In Appendix B the table is amended by revising entries H.79, 
H.80, and endnote 17, and adding endnote 23, to read as follows:

[[Page 49671]]

  Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141--Standard Health Effects Language
                         for Public Notification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Standard
                                                               health
                                 MCLG\1\                      effects
          Contaminant              mg/L      MCL\2\ mg/L    language for
                                                               public
                                                            notification
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
H. Disinfection Byproducts
 (DBPs), * * * \17\:
79. Total trihalomethanes       N/A        0.10/0.120/     * * *
 (TTHLM).                                   0.080 18, 19,
                                            23
80. Haloacetic acids (HAA5)...  N/A        0.060/0.10020,  * * *
                                            23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Appendix B--Endnotes

* * * * *
    17. Surface water systems and ground water systems under the 
direct influence of surface water are regulated under subpart H of 
40 CFR 141. Subpart H community and non-transient non-community 
systems serving £=10,000 must comply with subpart L DBP 
MCLs and disinfectant maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) 
beginning January 1, 2002. All other community and non-transient 
non-community systems must comply with subpart L DBP MCLs and 
disinfectant MRDLs beginning January 1, 2004. Subpart H transient 
non-community systems serving £=10,000 that use chlorine 
dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must comply with the chlorine 
dioxide MRDL beginning January 1, 2002. All other transient non-
community systems that use chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or 
oxidant must comply with the chlorine dioxide MRDL beginning January 
1, 2004.
* * * * *
    23. Community and non-transient non-community systems must 
comply with TTHM and HAA5 MCLs of 0.120 mg/L and 0.100 mg/L, 
respectively (with compliance calculated as a locational running 
annual average) beginning [date three years following publication of 
final rule]
until they are required to comply with subpart V TTHM 
and HAA5 MCLs of 0.080 mg/L and 0.060 mg/L, respectively (with 
compliance calculated as a locational running annual average). 
Community and non-transient non-community systems serving 
£=10,000 must comply with subpart V TTHM and HAA5 MCLs 
(with compliance calculated as a locational running annual average) 
beginning [date six years following publication of final rule]. 
Community and non-transient non-community systems serving <10,000 
must comply with subpart V TTHM and HAA5 MCLs (with compliance 
calculated as a locational running annual average) beginning [date 
90 months following publication of final rule].
* * * * *
    17. Part 141 is amended by adding new subpart U to read as follows:
Subpart U--Initial Distribution System Evaluations
Sec.
141.600 General requirements.
141.601 Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) requirements.
141.602 IDSE monitoring.
141.603 Alternatives other than IDSE monitoring.
141.604 IDSE reports.
141.605 Subpart V monitoring location recommendations to the State.

Subpart U--Initial Distribution System Evaluations

Sec.  141.600  General requirements.

    (a) The requirements of subpart U constitute national primary 
drinking water regulations. The regulations in this subpart establish 
monitoring and other requirements for identifying compliance monitoring 
locations to be used for determining compliance with maximum 
contaminant levels for total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic 
acids (five)(HAA5) in subpart V through the use of an Initial 
Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE). IDSEs are studies, used in 
conjunction with subpart L compliance monitoring, to identify and 
select subpart V compliance monitoring sites that represent high TTHM 
and HAA5 levels throughout the distribution system. The studies will be 
based on system-specific monitoring as provided in Sec.  141.602. As an 
alternative, you may use other system-specific data that provide 
equivalent or better information on site selection for monitoring under 
subpart V as provided for in Sec.  141.603(a).
    (b) Applicability. You are subject to these requirements if your 
system is a community water system that adds a primary or residual 
disinfectant other than ultraviolet light or delivers water that has 
been treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other than 
ultraviolet light or if your system is a nontransient noncommunity 
water system that serves at least 10,000 people and adds a primary or 
residual disinfectant other than ultraviolet light or delivers water 
that has been treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other 
than ultraviolet light. You must conduct an Initial Distribution System 
Evaluation (IDSE), unless you meet the 40/30 certification criteria in 
Sec.  141.603(b) or the State has granted a very small system waiver 
for the IDSE or you meet the criteria defined by the State for a very 
small system waiver under Sec.  141.603(c). If you have a very small 
system waiver for the IDSE under Sec.  141.603(c), you are not required 
to submit an IDSE report. All other systems must submit an IDSE report, 
even if you meet the 40/30 certification criteria in Sec.  141.603(c).
    (c) Schedule. You must comply with the Initial Distribution System 
Evaluation (IDSE) on the schedule in the following table, based on your 
system type.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            You must submit your IDSE
     If you are this type of system         report to the state by \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Subpart H serving                    [date 24 mos. following
    £=10,000.                              publication of final rule]
(2) Subpart H serving <10,000..........  [date 24 mos. following
                                          publication of final rule]
\2\
(3) Ground water serving                  [date 24 mos. following
    £=10,000.                              publication of final rule]
(4) Ground water serving <10,000.......  [date 24 mos. following
                                          publication of final rule]
\2\
(5) Consecutive system.................  at the same time as the system
                                          with the earliest compliance
                                          date in the combined
                                          distribution system \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Systems that meet the 40/30 certification criteria in Sec.
  141.603(b) are encouraged to submit their IDSE report as soon as the
  certification criteria are met.
\2\ You must comply by [date 24 mos. following publication of final
  rule]
if you are a wholesale system and any system in the combined
  distribution system serves at least 10,000 people. You must comply by
  [date 48 mos. following publication of final rule]
if no system in the
  combined distribution system serves at least 10,000 people.

[[Page 49672]]

\3\ You must comply by [date 24 mos. following publication of final
  rule]
if any system in the combined distribution system serves at
  least 10,000 people. You must comply by [date 48 mos. following
  publication of final rule]
if no system in the combined distribution
  system serves at least 10,000 people.

    (d) Violations. You must comply with specific monitoring and 
reporting requirements. You must prepare for, conduct, analyze, and 
submit your IDSE report no later than the date specified in Sec.  
141.600(c). Failure to conduct a required IDSE or to submit a required 
IDSE report by the date specified in paragraph (c) of this section is a 
monitoring violation. If you do not submit your IDSE report to your 
State, or if you submit the report after the specified date, you must 
comply with any additional State-specified requirements, which may 
include conducting another IDSE.


Sec.  141.601  Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) 
requirements.

    (a) You must conduct an IDSE that meets the requirements in Sec.  
141.602 or Sec.  141.603(a) or meet the 40/30 certification criteria in 
Sec.  141.603(b) or have received a very small system waiver for the 
IDSE from the State under Sec.  141.603(c). If you do not take the full 
complement of TTHM and HAA5 compliance samples required of a system 
with your population and source water under subpart L, but are required 
to conduct an IDSE under this subpart, you are not eligible for either 
the 40/30 certification in Sec.  141.603(b) or the very small system 
waiver in Sec.  141.603(c) and must conduct an IDSE that meets the 
requirements in Sec.  141.602 or Sec.  141.603(a).
    (b) You may use any alternative listed in the table below for which 
you qualify.

                                                IDSE Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Alternatives                        Eligibility                    Regulatory reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Monitoring...........................  All systems required to      Sec.   141.602
                                            conduct an IDSE.
(2) System-specific study................  All systems required to      Sec.   141.603(a)
                                            conduct an IDSE.
(3) 40/30 certification..................  Any system with all TTHM     Sec.   141.603(b)
                                            compliance samples <=0.040
                                            mg/L and all HAA5
                                            compliance samples <=0.030
                                            mg/L during the period
                                            specified in Sec.
                                            141.603(b).
(4) Very small system waiver.............  Any system serving <500 for  Sec.   141.603(c)
                                            which the State has
                                            granted a waiver.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) IDSE results will not be used for the purpose of determining 
compliance with MCLs in Sec.  141.64.
    (d) Additional provisions:
    (1) You may consider multiple wells drawing water from a single 
aquifer as one treatment plant for determining the minimum number of 
TTHM and HAA5 samples required, with State approval in accordance with 
criteria developed under Sec.  142.16(h)(5) of this chapter. State 
approvals made under Sec.  141.132(a)(2) to treat multiple wells 
drawing water from a single aquifer as one treatment plant remain in 
effect unless withdrawn by the State.
    (2) If you are a consecutive system, you must comply with the IDSE 
requirements in this subpart based on whether you buy some or all of 
your water from another PWS during 2004 for systems with an IDSE report 
due [date 24 months after publication of final rule]
or during 2006 for 
systems with an IDSE report due [date 48 months after publication of 
final rule]. A consecutive system that buys some, but not all, of its 
finished water during the period identified in this paragraph must 
treat each consecutive system entry point from a wholesale system as a 
treatment plant for the consecutive system for the purpose of 
determining monitoring requirements of this subpart if water is 
delivered from the wholesale system to the consecutive system for at 
least 60 consecutive days through any of the consecutive system entry 
points. A consecutive system that buys all its finished water during 
the period identified in this paragraph must monitor based on 
population and source water for the purpose of determining monitoring 
requirements of this subpart.
    (i) You may request that the State allow multiple consecutive 
system entry points from a single wholesale system to a single 
consecutive system to be considered one treatment plant.
    (ii) In the request to the State for approval of multiple 
consecutive system entry points to be considered one treatment plant, 
you must demonstrate that factors such as relative locations of entry 
points, detention times, sources, and the presence of treatment (such 
as corrosion control or booster disinfection) will have a minimal 
differential effect on TTHM and HAA5 formation associated with 
individual entry points.

Sec.  141.602  IDSE monitoring.

    (a) You must conduct IDSE monitoring for each treatment plant as 
indicated in the table in this paragraph. You must collect dual sample 
sets at each monitoring location. One sample in the set must be 
analyzed for TTHM. The other sample in the set must be analyzed for 
HAA5. If approved by the State under the provisions of Sec.  
141.601(d)(1), you may consider multiple wells drawing water from the 
same aquifer to be one treatment plant for the purpose of determining 
monitoring requirements. You must conduct one monitoring period during 
the peak historical month for TTHM levels or HAA5 levels or the month 
of warmest water temperature. You must review available compliance, 
study, or operational data to determine the peak historical month for 
TTHM or HAA5 levels or warmest water temperature.

[[Page 49673]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     At these locations
If you are this type of system    Then you must      for each treatment
                                     monitor           plant \1\,\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Subpart H serving            Approximately      Eight dual sample
    £=10,000.                     every 60 days      sets per monitoring
                                 for one year       period at locations
                                 (six monitoring    other than subpart L
                                 periods).          TTHM/HAA5 monitoring
                                                    locations based on
                                                    conditions:
                                                   If CHLORINE is used
                                                    as residual
                                                    disinfectant: one
                                                    near distribution
                                                    system entry point,
                                                    two at average
                                                    residence time, five
                                                    at points
                                                    representative of
                                                    highest expected
                                                    TTHM (three sites)
                                                    and HAA5
                                                    concentration (two
                                                    sites).
                                                   If CHLORAMINE is used
                                                    as residual
                                                    disinfectant for any
                                                    part of the year:
                                                    two near
                                                    distribution system
                                                    entry point, two at
                                                    average residence
                                                    time, four at points
                                                    representative of
                                                    highest expected
                                                    TTHM (two sites) and
                                                    HAA5 concentration
                                                    (two sites).
(2) Subpart H serving 500-      Approximately      Two dual sample sets
 9,999.                          every 90 days      per monitoring
                                 for one year       period at locations
                                 (four monitoring   other than the for
                                 periods).          one year subpart L
                                                    TTHM/HAA5 monitoring
                                                    location; one each
                                                    representative of
                                                    expected high
                                                    periods) TTHM level
                                                    and HAA5 level.
(3) Subpart H serving <500....  Approximately      Two dual sample sets
                                 every 180 days     per monitoring
                                 for one year       period at locations
                                 (two monitoring    other than the
                                 periods).          subpart L TTHM/HAA5
                                                    monitoring location;
                                                    one each
                                                    representative of
                                                    expected high
                                                    periods) TTHM level
                                                    and HAA5 level.
(4) Ground water serving         Approximately      Two dual sample sets
    £=10,000.                 every 90 days      per monitoring
                                 for one year       period at locations
                                 (four monitoring   other than the
                                 periods).          subpart L TTHM/HAA5
                                                    monitoring location;
                                                    one each
                                                    representative of
                                                    expected high
                                                    periods) TTHM level
                                                    and HAA5 level.
(5) Ground water serving <      Approximately      Two dual sample sets
 10,000.                         every 180 days     per monitoring
                                 for one year       period at locations
                                 (two monitoring    other than the
                                 periods).          subpart L TTHM/HAA5
                                                    monitoring location;
                                                    one each
                                                    representative of
                                                    expected high
                                                    periods) TTHM level
                                                    and HAA5 level.
(6) Consecutive system........  At a frequency     --For a consecutive
                                 based on source    system that buys all
                                 water and your     its finished water,
                                 population \3\.    number of samples
                                                    and locations as
                                                    specified in
                                                    paragraph (b) of
                                                    this section.
                                                   --For a consecutive
                                                    system that buys
                                                    some, but not all,
                                                    of its finished
                                                    water, serves 
                                                    £=10,000, and
                                                    receives water from
                                                    a subpart H system:
                                                    at IDSE locations
                                                    required of a
                                                    subpart H system
                                                    serving 
                                                    £=10,000.
                                                   --For a consecutive
                                                    system that does not
                                                    meet any other
                                                    criteria in this
                                                    paragraph: two dual
                                                    sample sets per
                                                    monitoring period at
                                                    locations other than
                                                    the subpart L TTHM/
                                                    HAA5 compliance
                                                    monitoring location;
                                                    one each
                                                    representative of
                                                    expected high TTHM
                                                    levels and HAA5
                                                    levels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Including treatment plants for consecutive system entry points that
  operate for at least 60 consecutive days.
\2\ The State may require additional monitoring.
\3\ You must monitor at the frequency required of a subpart H system
  with your population if you deliver any water required to be treated
  under subpart H. You must monitor at the frequency required of a
  ground water system with your population if you deliver no water
  required to be treated under subpart H.

    (b) IDSE monitoring for consecutive systems that buy all their 
water.

                   IDSE Monitoring Locations for Consecutive Systems that Buy All Their Water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Number of     Distribution system dual sample set locations
                                                   dual sample                         \1\
                                                       set     -------------------------------------------------
               Population category                  locations
                                                       per       Near entry    Average     Highest     Highest
                                                    monitoring   points \2\   residence      TTHM        HAA5
                                                      period                     time     locations   locations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Subpart H Consecutive Systems that buy all their water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<500 \3\.........................................            2                                1                1
500 to 4,999 \4\.................................            2                                1                1
5,000 to 9,999 \4\...............................            4                         1      2                1
10,000 to 24,999 \5\.............................            8            1            2      3                2
25,000 to 49,999 \5\.............................           12            2            3      4                3
50,000 to 99,999 \5\.............................           16            3            4      5                4
100,000 to 499,999 \5\...........................           24            4            6      8                6
500,000 to 1,499,999 \5\.........................           32            6            8     10                8
1,500,000 to 4,999,999 \5\.......................           40            8           10     12               10
£=5,000,000 \5\........................           48           10           12     14               12
--------------------------------------------------

[[Page 49674]]

                            Ground Water Consecutive Systems that buy all their water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<500 \3\.........................................            2  ...........  ...........      1                1
500 to 9,999 \4\.................................            2  ...........  ...........      1                1
10,000 to 99,999 \4\.............................            6            1            1      2                2
100,000 to 499,999 \4\...........................            8            1            1      3                3
£=500,000 \4\..........................           12            2            2      4               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sampling locations to be distributed through distribution system. You may not use subpart L compliance
  monitoring locations as IDSE sample sites. You must collect a dual sample set at each sample location.
\2\ If the actual number of entry points to the distribution system is fewer than the specified number of ``near
  entry point'' sampling sites, take additional samples equally at highest TTHM and HAA5 locations. If there is
  an odd extra location number, take the odd sample at highest TTHM location. If the actual number of entry
  points to the distribution system is more than the specified number of sampling locations, take samples first
  at subpart H entry points to the distribution system having the highest water flows and then at ground water
  entry points to the distribution system having the highest water flows.
\3\ You must conduct monitoring during two monitoring periods approximately 180 days apart.
\4\ You must conduct monitoring during four monitoring periods approximately 90 days apart.
\5\ You must conduct monitoring during six monitoring periods approximately 60 days apart.

    (c) You must prepare an IDSE monitoring plan prior to starting IDSE 
monitoring and implement that plan. In the plan, you must identify 
specific monitoring locations and dates that meet the criteria in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, as applicable.

Sec.  141.603  Alternatives other than IDSE monitoring.

    In lieu of IDSE monitoring under Sec.  141.602, you may use one of 
the alternatives identified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 
section for which you qualify to comply with this subpart.
    (a) System-specific study. You may perform an IDSE study based on 
system-specific monitoring or system-specific data if such a study 
identifies equivalent or superior monitoring sites representing high 
TTHM and HAA5 levels as would be identified by IDSE monitoring under 
Sec.  141.602. You must submit an IDSE report that complies with Sec.  
141.604.
    (b) 40/30 certification. In order to qualify for the 40/30 
certification, you must not have had any TTHM or HAA5 monitoring 
violations during the periods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(b)(3) of this section.
    (1) You are not required to comply with Sec.  141.602 or paragraph 
(a) of this section if you certify to your State that all compliance 
samples under subpart L in 2002 and 2003 (for subpart H systems serving 
£=10,000 people) or in 2004 and 2005 (for systems serving 
<10,000 people that are not required to submit an IDSE report by [date 
24 months following publication of final rule]) were <=0.040 mg/L for 
TTHM and <=0.030 mg/L for HAA5.
    (2) If you are a ground water system serving £=10,000 
people, you are not required to comply with Sec.  141.602 or paragraph 
(a) of this section if you certify to your State that all TTHM samples 
taken under Sec.  141.30 in 2003 are <=0.040 mg/L and that all TTHM and 
HAA5 compliance samples taken under subpart L during 2004 are <=0.040 
mg/L and <=0.030 mg/L, respectively.
    (3) If you are a consecutive system serving <10,000 required to 
submit an IDSE report by [date 24 months following publication of final 
rule], you are not required to comply with Sec.  141.602 or paragraph 
(a) of this section if you certify to your State that all TTHM and HAA5 
compliance samples taken under subpart L during 2004 are <=0.040 mg/L 
and <=0.030 mg/L, respectively.
    (4) You must submit an IDSE report that complies with Sec.  141.604 
and contains the required certification.
    (c) Very small system waiver. If you serve fewer than 500 people, 
the State may waive IDSE monitoring if the State determines that the 
TTHM and HAA5 monitoring site for each plant under Sec.  141.132 is 
sufficient to represent both the highest TTHM and the highest HAA5 
concentration in your distribution system. If your IDSE monitoring is 
waived, you are not required to submit an IDSE report. You must monitor 
under subpart V during the same month and at the same location as used 
for compliance sampling in subpart L.

Sec.  141.604  IDSE reports.

    You must submit your IDSE report to the State according to the 
schedule in Sec.  141.600(c).
    (a) If you complied by meeting the provisions of Sec. Sec.  141.602 
or 141.603(a), your IDSE report must include the elements required in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section.
    (1) Your report must include all TTHM and HAA5 analytical results 
from subpart L compliance monitoring conducted during the period of the 
IDSE presented in a tabular or spreadsheet format acceptable to the 
State. Your report must also include a schematic of your distribution 
system, with results, location, and date of all IDSE monitoring, 
system-specific study monitoring, and subpart L compliance samples 
noted.
    (2) If you conducted IDSE monitoring under Sec.  141.602, your 
report must include all IDSE TTHM and HAA5 analytical results presented 
in a tabular or spreadsheet format acceptable to the State. Your report 
must also include all additional data you relied on to justify IDSE 
monitoring site selection, plus your original monitoring plan developed 
under Sec.  141.602(c) and an explanation of any deviations from that 
plan.
    (3) If you used the system-specific study alternative in Sec.  
141.603(a), your report must include the basis (studies, reports, data, 
analytical results, modeling) by which you determined that the 
recommended subpart V monitoring sites representing high TTHM and HAA5 
levels are comparable or superior to those that would otherwise have 
been identified by IDSE

[[Page 49675]]

monitoring under Sec.  141.602. Your report must also include an 
analysis that demonstrates that your system-specific study 
characterized expected TTHM and HAA5 levels throughout your entire 
distribution system.
    (b) If you meet the 40/30 certification criteria in Sec.  
141.603(b), your IDSE report must include all TTHM and HAA5 analytical 
results from compliance monitoring used to qualify for the 40/30 
certification and a schematic of your distribution system (with 
results, location, and date of all compliance samples noted). You must 
also include results of those compliance samples taken after the period 
used to qualify for the 40/30 certification for State review.
    (c) Your IDSE report must include your recommendations and 
justification for where and during what month(s) TTHM and HAA5 
monitoring for Subpart V should be conducted. You must base your 
recommendations on the criteria in Sec.  141.605. Your IDSE report must 
also include the population served; system type (subpart H or ground 
water); whether your system is a consecutive system; and, if you 
conducted plant-based monitoring, the number of treatment plants and 
consecutive system entry points.
    (d) Recordkeeping. You must retain a complete copy of your IDSE 
report submitted under Sec.  141.604 for 10 years after the date that 
you submitted your IDSE report. If the State modifies the monitoring 
requirements that you recommended in your IDSE report or if the State 
approves alternative monitoring sites, you must keep a copy of the 
State's notification on file for 10 years after the date of the State's 
notification. You must make the IDSE report and any State notification 
available for review by the State or the public.

Sec.  141.605  Subpart V monitoring location recommendations to the 
State.

    (a) Subpart H systems serving at least 10,000 people. If you are a 
system required to take four dual sample sets per treatment plant per 
quarter under routine monitoring under Sec.  141.621, you must base 
your recommendations on the locations in the distribution system where 
you expect to find the highest TTHM and HAA5 LRAAs. In determining the 
highest LRAA, you must evaluate both subpart L compliance data and IDSE 
data. For each plant, you must recommend locations with:
    (1) The two highest TTHM locational running annual averages;
    (2) The highest HAA5 locational running annual average; and
    (3) An existing subpart L compliance monitoring location identified 
in the Sec.  141.132(f) monitoring plan that is the location of either 
the highest TTHM or HAA5 LRAA among the three compliance monitoring 
locations representative of average residence time (by calculating an 
LRAA for each compliance monitoring location using the compliance 
monitoring results collected during the period of the IDSE).
    (4) You may recommend locations other than those in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (3) of this section if you include a rationale for 
selecting other locations. If the State approves, you must monitor at 
these locations to determine compliance under subpart V.
    (5) If any of the criteria in this paragraph (a) of this section 
would cause fewer than four locations per treatment plant to be 
recommended, you must identify an additional location(s) with the next 
highest HAA5 LRAA.
    (b) All groundwater systems and subpart H systems serving fewer 
than 10,000 people. If you are a system required to take two dual 
sample sets per treatment plant per quarter or per year or one TTHM and 
one HAA5 sample per plant per year for routine monitoring under Sec.  
141.621, you must select the locations with the highest TTHM locational 
running annual average and highest HAA5 locational running annual 
average, unless you include a rationale for selecting other locations. 
If the State approves, you must monitor at these other locations to 
determine compliance under subpart V. If any of the criteria in this 
paragraph would cause only one location per treatment plant to be 
recommended, you must identify an additional location with the next 
highest HAA5 LRAA or request that you be allowed to monitor only at 
that location.
    (c) Systems that qualify for the 40/30 certification. If you use 
the 40/30 certification in Sec.  141.603(b), you may use either subpart 
L compliance monitoring locations or you may identify monitoring 
locations for Subpart V that are different from those for subpart L. 
You must include a rationale for changing existing subpart L locations, 
choosing locations with a long residence time and a detectable 
residual. If you choose monitoring locations other than those in 
subpart L as subpart V compliance monitoring locations, you must retain 
the subpart L locations with the highest TTHM and HAA5 LRAAs. If any of 
the criteria in this paragraph would cause only one location per 
treatment plant to be recommended, you must identify an additional 
location with the next highest HAA5 LRAA or request that you be allowed 
to monitor only at that location. If you are required to monitor at 
more locations under subpart V of this part than under subpart L of 
this part, you must identify additional locations with a long residence 
time and a detectable residual.
    (d) Consecutive systems that buy some, but not all, of their 
finished water. Your recommendations must comply with Sec. Sec.  
141.601(d) and 141.605 (a) through (c).
    (e) Consecutive systems that buy all their finished water.
    (1) You must select the number of monitoring locations specified in 
the following tables.

   Subpart V.--Sample Frequency for TTHM/HAA5 (as Dual Sample Sets) for Consecutive Systems That Buy All Their
                                                      Water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Population                                            Number of samples
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Subpart H Consecutive Systems That Buy All Their Water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<500................................................  1 TTHM and 1 HAA5 sample per year at different locations
                                                       and time if the highest TTHM and HAA5 occurred at
                                                       different locations and/or time or 1 dual sample set per
                                                       year if the highest TTHM and HAA5 occurred at the same
                                                       location and time of year, taken during the peak
                                                       historical month for DBP concentrations or (if unknown)
                                                       month of warmest water temperature.
500 to 4,999........................................  1 TTHM and 1 HAA5 sample per quarter at different
                                                       locations if the highest TTHM and HAA5 occurred at
                                                       different locations or 1 dual sample set per quarter if
                                                       the highest TTHM and HAA5 occurred at the same location.
5,000 to 9,999......................................  2 dual sample sets per quarter.
10,000 to 24,999....................................  4 dual sample sets per quarter.
25,000 to 49,999....................................  6 dual sample sets per quarter.
50,000 to 99,999....................................  8 dual sample sets per quarter.

[[Page 49676]]

100,000 to 499,999..................................  12 dual sample sets per quarter.
500,000 to 1,499,999................................  16 dual sample sets per quarter.
1,500,000 to 4,999,999..............................  20 dual sample sets per quarter.
£=5,000,000...............................  24 dual sample sets per quarter.
-----------------------------------------------------
                            Ground Water Consecutive Systems That Buy All Their Water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<500................................................  1 TTHM and 1 HAA5 sample per year at different locations
                                                       and time if the highest TTHM and HAA5 occurred at
                                                       different locations and/or time or 1 dual sample set per
                                                       year if the highest TTHM and HAA5 occurred at the same
                                                       location and time of year, taken during the peak
                                                       historical month for DBP concentrations, or, if unknown,
                                                       during month of warmest water temperature.
500 to 9,999........................................  2 dual sample sets per year. Must be taken during the peak
                                                       historical month for DBP concentrations.
10,000 to 99,999....................................  4 dual sample sets per quarter.
100,000 to 499,999..................................  6 dual sample sets per quarter.
£=500,000.................................  8 dual sample sets per quarter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You must select Subpart V monitoring locations based on subpart 
L compliance monitoring results collected during the period of the IDSE 
and IDSE monitoring results. You must follow the protocol in paragraphs 
(e)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, unless you provide a rationale 
for recommending different locations. If required to monitor at more 
than four locations, you must repeat the protocol as necessary, 
alternating between sites with the highest HAA5 LRAA and the highest 
TTHM LRAA not previously selected as a subpart V monitoring location 
for choosing locations under paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (i) Location with the highest TTHM LRAA not previously selected as 
a subpart V monitoring location.
    (ii) Location with the highest HAA5 LRAA not previously selected as 
a subpart V monitoring location.
    (iii) Existing subpart L average residence time compliance 
monitoring location.
    (iv) Location with the highest TTHM LRAA not previously selected as 
a subpart V monitoring location.
    (3) You may recommend locations other than those in paragraph 
(e)(2) of this section if you include a rationale for selecting other 
locations. If the State approves, you must monitor at these locations 
to determine compliance under subpart V.
    (4) If you used the 40/30 certification in Sec.  141.603(b) and do 
not have sufficient subpart L monitoring locations to identify the 
required number of Subpart V compliance monitoring locations, you must 
identify additional locations by selecting a site representative of 
maximum residence time and then a site representative of average 
residence time and repeating until the required number of compliance 
monitoring locations have been identified.
    (f) You must schedule samples during the peak historical month for 
TTHM and HAA5 concentration, unless the State approves another month. 
Once you have identified the peak historical month, and if you are 
required to conduct routine monitoring at least quarterly, you must 
schedule subpart V compliance monitoring at a regular frequency of 
approximately every 90 days or fewer.
    18. Part 141 is amended by adding new subpart V to read as follows:
Subpart V--Stage 2B Disinfection Byproducts Requirements
Sec.
141.620 General requirements.
141.621 Routine monitoring.
141.622 Subpart V monitoring plan.
141.623 Reduced monitoring.
141.624 Additional requirements for consecutive systems.
141.625 Conditions requiring increased monitoring.
141.626 Significant excursions.
141.627 Requirements for remaining on reduced TTHM and HAA5 
monitoring based on subpart L results.
141.628 Requirements for remaining on increased TTHM and HAA5 
monitoring based on subpart L results.
141.629 [Reserved]
141.630 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Subpart V--Stage 2B Disinfection Byproducts Requirements

Sec.  141.620  General requirements.

    (a) The requirements of subpart V constitute national primary 
drinking water regulations. These regulations establish requirements 
for control of certain disinfection byproducts that supercede some 
requirements in subpart L and that are in addition to other 
requirements that are currently required under subpart L of this part. 
The regulations in this subpart establish monitoring and other 
requirements for achieving compliance with maximum contaminant levels 
for total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (five)(HAA5).
    (b) Applicability. You are subject to these requirements if your 
system is a community water system or nontransient noncommunity water 
system that adds a primary or residual disinfectant other than 
ultraviolet light or delivers water that has been treated with a 
primary or residual disinfectant other than ultraviolet light.
    (c) Schedule. You must comply with the requirements in this subpart 
on the schedule in the following table, based on your system type.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   If you are this type of       You must comply with subpart V by: \1\
            system                              \2\ \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Subpart H serving           [date 72 mos following publication of
    £10,000.                    final rule].
(2) Subpart H serving <10,000  [date 90 mos following publication of
                                final rule]
if no Cryptosporidium
                                monitoring is required under Sec.
                                141.706(c) OR
                               [date 102 mos following publication of
                                final rule]
if Cryptosporidium
                                monitoring is required under Sec.
                                141.706(c).
(3) Ground water serving        [date 72 mos following publication of
    £=10,000.                final rule].
(4) Ground water serving       [date 90 mos following publication of
 <10,000.                       final rule].

[[Page 49677]]

(5) Consecutive system.......  --at the same time as the system with the
                                earliest compliance date in the combined
                                distribution system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State may grant up to an additional 24 months for compliance if
  you require capital improvements.
\2\ If you are required to conduct quarterly monitoring, you must begin
  monitoring in the first full calendar quarter that follows the
  compliance date in this table. If you are required to conduct
  monitoring at a frequency that is less than quarterly, you must begin
  monitoring in the calendar month recommended in the IDSE report
  prepared under Sec.   141.604 no later than 12 months after the
  compliance date in this table. If you are not required to submit an
  IDSE report, you must begin monitoring during the calendar month
  identified in the monitoring plan developed under Sec.   141.622 no
  later than 12 months after the compliance date.
\3\ If you are required to conduct quarterly monitoring, you must make
  compliance calculations at the end of the fourth calendar quarter that
  follows the compliance date and at the end of each subsequent quarter
  (or earlier if the LRAA calculated based on fewer than four quarters
  of data would cause the MCL to be exceeded regardless of the
  monitoring results of subsequent quarters). If you are required to
  conduct monitoring at a frequency that is less than quarterly, you
  must make compliance calculations beginning with the first compliance
  sample taken after the compliance date.

    (d) Monitoring and compliance. You must monitor at sampling 
locations identified in your monitoring plan developed under Sec.  
141.622. To determine compliance with subpart V MCLs, you must 
calculate locational running annual averages for TTHM and HAA5 using 
monitoring results collected under this subpart. If you fail to 
complete four consecutive quarters of monitoring, you must calculate 
compliance with the MCL based on an average of the available data from 
the most recent four quarters.
    (e) Violations. You must comply with specific monitoring and 
reporting requirements. Failure to monitor in accordance with the 
monitoring plan required under Sec.  141.622 is a monitoring violation. 
Failure to monitor will also be treated as a monitoring violation for 
the entire period covered by a locational running annual average 
compliance calculation for the subpart V MCLs in Sec.  141.64(b)(3).
    (f) Additional provisions.
    (1) You may consider multiple wells drawing water from a single 
aquifer as one treatment plant for determining the minimum number of 
TTHM and HAA5 samples required, with State approval in accordance with 
criteria developed under Sec.  142.16(h)(5) of this chapter. Approvals 
made under Sec. Sec.  141.132(a)(2) and 141.601(d) remain in effect 
unless withdrawn by the State.
    (2) Consecutive systems. For the purposes of this subpart, you must 
determine whether you buy all or some of your water based on your 
categorization for the IDSE under subpart U, unless otherwise directed 
by the State. If you were not categorized under subpart U, you must 
determine whether you buy all or some of your water based on your 
categorization during 2005, unless otherwise directed by the State.
    (3) For the purposes of determining monitoring requirements of this 
subpart, each consecutive system entry point from a wholesale system to 
a consecutive system that buys some, but not all, of its finished water 
is considered a treatment plant for that consecutive system.
    (i) You may request that the State allow multiple consecutive 
system entry points from a single wholesale system to a single 
consecutive system to be considered one treatment plant.
    (ii) In the request to the State for approval of multiple 
consecutive system entry points to be considered one treatment plant, 
you must demonstrate that factors such as relative locations of entry 
points, detention times, sources, and the presence of treatment (such 
as corrosion control or booster disinfection) will have a minimal 
differential effect on TTHM and HAA5 formation associated with 
individual entry points.

Sec.  141.621  Routine monitoring.

    (a) You must monitor at the locations and frequencies listed in the 
following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 At these locations for each
   If you are this type of system            Then you must monitor                   treatment plant \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Subpart H serving               four dual sample sets per quarter per  --locations recommended to the State
  £=10,000.                          treatment plant, taken approximately   in the IDSE report submitted under
                                      every 90 days. One quarterly set       subpart U.
                                      must be taken during the peak
                                      historical month for DBP
                                      concentrations \2\.
(2) Subpart H serving 500-9,999....  two dual sample sets per quarter per   --locations recommended to the State
                                      treatment plant, taken approximately   in the IDSE report submitted under
                                      every 90 days. One quarterly set       subpart U.\3\
                                      must be taken during the peak
                                      historical month for DBP
                                      concentrations \2\.
(3) Subpart H serving <500.........  one TTHM and one HAA5 sample per year  --locations recommended to the State
                                      per treatment plant, taken during      in the IDSE report submitted under
                                      the peak historical month for DBP      subpart U.\4\
                                      concentrations.
(4) Ground water serving              two dual sample sets per quarter per   --locations recommended to the State
  £=10,000.                          treatment plant, taken approximately   in the IDSE report submitted under
                                      every 90 days. One quarterly set       subpart U.\3\
                                      must be taken during the peak
                                      historical month for DBP
                                      concentrations \2\.
(5) Ground water serving 500-9,999.  two dual sample sets per year per      --locations recommended to the State
                                      treatment plant, taken during the      in the IDSE report submitted under
                                      peak historical month for DBP          subpart U.\3\
                                      concentrations \2\.
(6) Ground water serving <500......  one TTHM and one HAA5 sample per year  --locations recommended to the State
                                      per treatment plant, taken during      in the IDSE report submitted under
                                      the peak historical month for DBP      subpart U.\4\
                                      concentrations.
(7) Consecutive system that buys     based on your own population and       --locations recommended to the State
 some, but not all, of its finished   source water, except that              in the IDSE report submitted under
 water.                               consecutive systems that receive       subpart U.
                                      water from a subpart H system must
                                      monitor as a subpart H system.

[[Page 49678]]

(8) Consecutive system that buys     as specified in Sec.   141.605(e)....  --locations recommended to the State
 all its finished water.                                                     in the IDSE report submitted under
                                                                             subpart U.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless the State has approved or required other locations or additional locations based on the IDSE report
  or other information, or you have updated the monitoring plan under Sec.   141.622.
\2\ A dual sample set is a set of two samples collected at the same time and same location, with one sample
  analyzed for TTHM and the other sample analyzed for HAA5.
\3\ If you have a single location that has both the highest TTHM LRAA and highest HAA5 LRAA, you may take a dual
  sample set only at that location after approval by the State.
\4\ You are required to sample for both TTHM and HAA5 at one location if that location is the highest for both
  TTHM and HAA5. If different locations have high TTHM and HAA5 LRAAs, you may sample for TTHM only at the high
  TTHM location and for HAA5 only at the high HAA5 location. If you have received a very small system waiver for
  IDSE monitoring from the State under Sec.   141.603(c), you must monitor for TTHM and HAA5 as a dual sample
  set at the subpart L monitoring location (a point representative of maximum residence time) during the month
  of warmest water temperature.

    (b) You must begin monitoring at the locations you have recommended 
in your IDSE report submitted under Sec.  141.604 following the 
schedule in Sec.  141.620(c), unless the State requires other locations 
or additional locations after its review. If you have received a very 
small system waiver under Sec.  141.603(c), you must monitor at the 
location(s) identified in your monitoring plan in Sec.  141.132(f), 
updated as required by Sec.  141.622.
    (c) You must use an approved method listed in Sec.  141.131 for 
TTHM and HAA5 analyses in this subpart. Analyses must be conducted by 
laboratories that have received certification by EPA or the State as 
specified in Sec.  141.131.

Sec.  141.622  Subpart V monitoring plan.

    (a) You must develop and implement a monitoring plan to be kept on 
file for State and public review. You may comply by updating the 
monitoring plan developed under Sec.  141.132(f) no later than the date 
identified in Sec.  141.620(c) for subpart V compliance. If you have 
received a very small system waiver under Sec.  141.603(c), you must 
comply by updating the monitoring plan developed under Sec.  141.132(f) 
no later than the date identified in Sec.  141.620(c) for subpart V 
compliance. The monitoring plan must contain the elements in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section:
    (1) Monitoring locations;
    (2) Monitoring dates;
    (3) Compliance calculation procedures;
    (4) Monitoring plans for any other systems in the combined 
distribution system if monitoring requirements have been modified based 
on data from other systems; and
    (5) Any permits, contracts, or agreements with third parties 
(including other PWSs, laboratories, and State agencies) to sample, 
analyze, report, or perform any other system requirement in this 
subpart.
    (b) The monitoring plan will reflect the recommendations of the 
IDSE report required under subpart U, along with any State-mandated 
modifications. The State must approve any monitoring sites for which 
you are required to provide a rationale in your IDSE report by Sec.  
141.605(a)(4).
    (c) If you are a subpart H system serving more than 3,300 people, 
you must submit a copy of your monitoring plan to the State prior to 
the date you are required to comply with the monitoring plan.
    (d) You may modify your monitoring plan to reflect changes in 
treatment, distribution system operations and layout (including new 
service areas), or other factors that may affect TTHM or HAA5 
formation. If you change monitoring locations, you must replace 
locations with the lowest LRAA and notify the State how new sites were 
selected as part of the next report due under Sec.  141.630. The State 
may also require modifications in your monitoring plan.

Sec.  141.623  Reduced monitoring.

    (a) Systems other than consecutive systems that buy all their 
water. You may reduce monitoring by meeting the criteria in the table 
in this paragraph at all treatment plants in the system. You may only 
use data collected under the provisions of this subpart or subpart L of 
this part to qualify for reduced monitoring.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Then you may reduce     To reduce monitoring per plant at these locations/
                                     monitoring if you have                        frequency
  If you are this type of system    monitoring results under ---------------------------------------------------
                                       Sec.   141.621 and               TTHM                      HAA5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Subpart H serving             --the LRAA is <=0.040 mg/  --monitor once per        --monitor once per
  £=10,000.                        L for TTHM and <=0.030     quarter by taking a       quarter by taking a
                                    for HAA5 at ALL            dual sample set at the    dual sample set at the
                                    monitoring locations,      location with the         location with the
                                    AND                        highest TTHM LRAA or      highest HAA5 LRAA or
                                                               single measurement.       single measurement.
                                   --the source water annual
                                    average TOC level,
                                    before any treatment, is
                                    <=4.0 mg/L at each
                                    subpart H treatment
                                    plant \1\.
(2) Subpart H serving 500-9,999..  --the LRAA is <=0.040 mg/  --monitor once per year   --monitor once per year
                                    L for TTHM and <=0.030     by taking a dual sample   by taking a dual sample
                                    for HAA5 at ALL            set at the location       set at the location
                                    monitoring locations,      with the highest TTHM     with the highest HHA5
                                    AND                        single measurement        single measurement
                                                               during the quarter that   during the quarter that
                                                               the highest single TTHM   the highest single HHA5
                                                               measurement occurred      measurement
                                                               \2\.                      occurred.\2\
                                   --the source water annual
                                    average TOC level,
                                    before any treatment, is
                                    <=4.0 mg/L at each
                                    subpart H treatment
                                    plant \1\.
(3) Subpart H serving <500.......  --monitoring may not be    not applicable..........  not applicable.
                                    reduced to fewer than
                                    one TTHM sample and one
                                    HAA5 sample per year.
(4) Ground water serving        --the LRAA is <=0.040 mg/  --monitor once per year   --monitor once per year
  £=10,000.                        L for TTHM and <=0.030     by taking a dual sample   by taking a dual sample
                                    for HAA5 at ALL            set at the location       set at the location
                                    monitoring locations.      with the highest TTHM     with the highest HHA5
                                                               single measurement        single measurement
                                                               during the quarter that   during the quarter that
                                                               the highest single TTHM   the highest single HHA5
                                                               measurement occurred      measurement
                                                               \2\.                      occurred.\2\

[[Page 49679]]

(5) Ground water serving 500-      --the LRAA is <=0.040 mg/  --monitor once every      --monitor once every
 9,999.                             L for TTHM and <=0.030     third year by taking a    third year by taking a
                                    for HAA5 at ALL            dual sample set at the    dual sample set at the
                                    monitoring locations.      location with the         location with the
                                                               highest TTHM single       highest HHA5 single
                                                               measurement during the    measurement during the
                                                               quarter that the          quarter that the
                                                               highest single TTHM       highest single HHA5
                                                               measurement occurred      measurement
                                                               \2\.                      occurred.\2\
(6) Ground water serving <500....  --the LRAA is <=0.040 mg/  --monitor once every      --monitor once every
                                    L for TTHM and <=0.030     third year for TTHM at    third year for HAA5 at
                                    for HAA5 at ALL            the location with the     the location with the
                                    monitoring locations.      highest TTHM single       highest HAA5 single
                                                               measurement during the    measurement during the
                                                               quarter that the          quarter that the
                                                               highest single TTHM       highest single HAA5
                                                               measurement occurred      measurement
                                                               \2\.                      occurred.\2\
(7) Consecutive system that buys   --the LRAA is <=0.040 mg/  --monitor at the          --monitor at the
 some, but not all, of its          L for TTHM and <=0.030     location(s) and           location(s) and
 finished water \3\.                for HAA5 at ALL            frequency associated      frequency associated
                                    monitoring locations.      with a non-consecutive    with a non-consecutive
                                                               system with the same      system with the same
                                                               population and source     population and source
                                                               water type.               water type.\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ TOC monitoring must comply with the provisions of either Sec.   141.132(d) or Sec.   141.132(e).
\2\ If your location for reduced monitoring for TTHM and HAA5 is the same location and if your quarter for the
  highest TTHM and HAA5 single measurement is the same, you may take one dual sample set at that location during
  that quarter.
\3\ Consecutive systems that buy some, but not all, of their finished water may reduce monitoring based on their
  own population and their wholesale system(s)'s source water type to the frequency and location(s) required in
  this section, unless the consecutive system treats surface water or ground water under the direct influence of
  surface water. If the consecutive system treats surface water or ground water under the direct influence of
  surface water, it must base reduced monitoring on its population and classification as a subpart H system.

    (b) Consecutive systems that buy all their water. You may reduce 
monitoring to the level specified in the table in this paragraph if the 
LRAA is <=0.040 mg/L for TTHM and <=0.030 mg/L for HAA5 at all 
monitoring locations. You may only use data collected under the 
provisions of this subpart or subpart L of this part to qualify for 
reduced monitoring.

 Reduced Monitoring Frequency for Consecutive Systems That Buy All Their
                                 Water.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Reduced monitoring
                 Population                     frequency and location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Subpart H systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<500.......................................  Monitoring may not be
                                              reduced.
500 to 4,999...............................  1 TTHM and 1 HAA5 sample
                                              per year at different
                                              locations or during
                                              different quarters if the
                                              highest TTHM and HAA5
                                              measurements occurred at
                                              different locations or
                                              different quarters or 1
                                              dual sample set per year
                                              if the highest TTHM and
                                              HAA5 measurements occurred
                                              at the same location and
                                              quarter.
5,000 to 9,999.............................  2 dual sample sets per
                                              year; one at the location
                                              with the highest TTHM
                                              single measurement during
                                              the quarter that the
                                              highest single TTHM
                                              measurement occurred, one
                                              at the location with the
                                              highest HAA5 single
                                              measurement during the
                                              quarter that the highest
                                              single HAA5 measurement
                                              occurred.
10,000 to 24,999...........................  2 dual sample sets per
                                              quarter at the locations
                                              with the highest TTHM and
                                              highest HAA5 LRAAs.
25,000 to 49,999...........................  2 dual sample sets per
                                              quarter at the locations
                                              with the highest TTHM and
                                              highest HAA5 LRAAs.
50,000 to 99,000...........................  4 dual sample sets per
                                              quarter--at the locations
                                              with the two highest TTHM
                                              and two highest HAA5
                                              LRAAs.
100,000 to 499,999.........................  4 dual sample sets per
                                              quarter--at the locations
                                              with the two highest TTHM
                                              and two highest HAA5
                                              LRAAs.
500,000 to 1,499,999.......................  6 dual sample sets per
                                              quarter--at the locations
                                              with the three highest
                                              TTHM and three highest
                                              HAA5 LRAAs.
1,500,000 to 4,999,999.....................  6 dual sample sets per
                                              quarter--at the locations
                                              with the three highest
                                              TTHM and three highest
                                              HAA5 LRAAs.
£=5,000,000......................  8 dual sample sets per
                                              quarter at the locations
                                              with the four highest TTHM
                                              and four highest HAA5
                                              LRAAs.
--------------------------------------------
                          Ground water systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<500.......................................  1 TTHM and 1 HAA5 sample
                                              every third year at
                                              different locations and
                                              time if the highest TTHM
                                              and HAA5 measurements
                                              occurred at different
                                              locations and/or time or 1
                                              dual sample set every
                                              third year if the highest
                                              TTHM and HAA5 measurements
                                              occurred at the same
                                              location and time of year.
500 to 9,999...............................  1 TTHM and 1 HAA5 sample
                                              every year at different
                                              locations and time if the
                                              highest TTHM and HAA5
                                              measurements occurred at
                                              different locations and/or
                                              time or 1 dual sample set
                                              every year if the highest
                                              TTHM and HAA5 measurements
                                              occurred at the same
                                              location and time of year.
10,000 to 99,000...........................  2 dual sample sets per
                                              year; one at the location
                                              with the highest TTHM
                                              single measurement during
                                              the quarter that the
                                              highest single TTHM
                                              measurement occurred and
                                              one at the location with
                                              the highest HAA5 single
                                              measurement during the
                                              quarter that the highest
                                              single HAA5 measurement
                                              occurred.
100,000 to 499,999.........................  2 dual sample sets per
                                              quarter; at the locations
                                              with the highest TTHM and
                                              highest HAA5 LRAAs.
£=500,000........................  4 dual sample sets per
                                              quarter; at the locations
                                              with the two highest TTHM
                                              and two highest HAA5
                                              LRAAs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) You may remain on reduced monitoring as long as the TTHM LRAA 
<=0.040 mg/L and the HAA5 LRAA <=0.030 mg/L at each monitoring location 
(for systems with quarterly monitoring) or each TTHM sample <=0.060 mg/
L and each HAA5 sample <=0.045 mg/L (for systems with annual or less 
frequent monitoring). In addition, the source water annual average TOC 
level, before any treatment, must be <=4.0 mg/L at each treatment plant 
treating surface water or ground water under the direct influence of 
surface water, based on monitoring conducted under either Sec. Sec.  
141.132(d) or 141.132(e). If the LRAA at any location exceeds either 
0.040 mg/L for TTHM or 0.030 mg/L for HAA5 or if the annual (or less 
frequent) sample at any location exceeds either 0.060 mg/L for TTHM or 
0.045 mg/L for HAA5, or if the source water annual average TOC level, 
before any treatment, £4.0 mg/L at any treatment plant 
treating surface water or ground water under the direct influence of 
surface water, the system must resume routine monitoring

[[Page 49680]]

under Sec.  141.621 for all treatment plants or begin increased 
monitoring for all treatment plants if Sec.  141.625 applies.
    (d) The State may return your system to routine monitoring at the 
State's discretion.

Sec.  141.624  Additional requirements for consecutive systems.

    If you are a consecutive system that does not add a disinfectant 
but delivers water that has been disinfected with other than 
ultraviolet light, you must comply with monitoring requirements for 
chlorine and chloramines in Sec.  141.132(c)(1) and the compliance 
requirements in Sec.  141.133(c)(1) beginning [date three years after 
publication of final rule]
and report monitoring results under Sec.  
141.134(c), unless required earlier by the State.

Sec.  141.625  Conditions requiring increased monitoring.

    (a) If you are required to monitor at a particular location yearly 
or less frequently than yearly under Sec. Sec.  141.621 or 141.623, you 
must increase monitoring to dual sample sets once per quarter (taken 
approximately every 90 days) at all locations if either the annual (or 
less frequent) TTHM sample £0.080 mg/L or the annual (or less 
frequent) HAA5 sample £0.060 mg/L at any location.
    (b) You are not in violation of the MCL until the LRAA calculated 
based on four consecutive quarters of monitoring (or the LRAA 
calculated based on fewer than four quarters of data if the MCL would 
be exceeded regardless of the monitoring results of subsequent 
quarters) exceeds the subpart V MCLs in Sec.  141.64(b)(3). You are in 
violation of the monitoring requirements for each quarter that a 
monitoring result would be used in calculating an LRAA if you fail to 
monitor.
    (c) You may return to routine monitoring once you have conducted 
increased monitoring for at least four consecutive quarters and the 
LRAA for every location is <=0.060 mg/L for TTHM and <=0.045 mg/L for 
HAA5.

Sec.  141.626  Significant excursions.

    If a significant excursion occurs, you must conduct a significant 
excursion evaluation and prepare a written report of the evaluation no 
later than 90 days after being notified of the analytical result that 
shows the significant excursion. You must discuss the evaluation with 
the State no later than the next sanitary survey for your system. Your 
evaluation must include an examination of distribution system 
operational practices that may contribute to TTHM and HAA5 formation 
(such as flushing programs and storage tank operations and excess 
capacity) and how these practices may be modified to reduce TTHM and 
HAA5 levels.

Sec.  141.627  Requirements for remaining on reduced TTHM and HAA5 
monitoring based on subpart L results.

    You may remain on reduced monitoring after the dates identified in 
Sec.  141.620(c) for compliance with this subpart only if you qualify 
for a 40/30 certification under Sec.  141.603(b) or have received a 
very small system waiver under Sec.  141.603(c), plus you meet the 
reduced monitoring criteria in Sec.  141.623(c), and you do not change 
or add monitoring locations from those used for compliance monitoring 
under subpart L. If your monitoring locations under this subpart differ 
from your monitoring locations under subpart L, you may not remain on 
reduced monitoring after the dates identified in Sec.  141.620(c) for 
compliance with this subpart.

Sec.  141.628  Requirements for remaining on increased TTHM and HAA5 
monitoring based on subpart L results.

    If you were on increased monitoring under subpart L, you must 
remain on increased monitoring until you qualify for a return to 
routine monitoring under Sec.  141.625(c). You must conduct increased 
monitoring under Sec.  141.625 at the monitoring locations in the 
monitoring plan developed under Sec.  141.622 beginning at the date 
identified in Sec.  141.620(c) for compliance with this subpart and 
remain on increased monitoring until you qualify for a return to 
routine monitoring under Sec.  141.625(c).

Sec.  141.629  [Reserved]

Sec.  141.630  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Reporting. (1) You must report the following information for 
each monitoring location to the State within 10 days of the end of any 
quarter in which monitoring is required:
    (i) Number of samples taken during the last quarter.
    (ii) Date and results of each sample taken during the last quarter.
    (iii) Arithmetic average of quarterly results for the last four 
quarters (LRAAs).
    (iv) Whether the MCL was violated.
    (2) If you are a subpart H system seeking to qualify for or remain 
on reduced TTHM/HAA5 monitoring, you must report the following source 
water TOC information for each treatment plant that treats surface 
water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water to 
the State within 10 days of the end of any quarter in which monitoring 
is required:
    (i) The number of source water TOC samples taken each month during 
last quarter.
    (ii) The date and result of each sample taken during last quarter.
    (iii) The quarterly average of monthly samples taken during last 
quarter.
    (iv) The running annual average (RAA) of quarterly averages from 
the past four quarters.
    (v) Whether the RAA exceeded 4.0 mg/L.
    (b) Recordkeeping. You must retain any subpart V monitoring plans 
and your subpart V monitoring results as required by Sec.  141.33.

PART 142-- NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 
IMPLEMENTATION

    1. 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.

    2. Section 142.14 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  142.14  Records kept by States.

    (a) * * *
    (8) Any decisions made pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR part 
141, subparts U and V of this chapter.
    (i) Those systems for which the State has determined that the 40 
CFR part 141, subpart L approved monitoring site is representative of 
the highest TTHM and HAA5 and therefore have been granted a very small 
system waiver under Sec.  141.603(c) of this chapter. The State must 
provide a copy of the decision to the system. A copy of the decision 
must be kept until reversed or revised.
    (ii) System IDSE reports, plus any modifications required by the 
State. Reports must be kept until reversed or revised in their 
entirety.
* * * * *
    3. Section 142.16 is amended by adding paragraph (m) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  142.16  Special primacy conditions.

* * * * *
    (m) Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFR part 141, subparts U 
and V. In addition to the general primacy requirements elsewhere in 
this part, including the requirements that State regulations be at 
least as stringent as federal requirements, an application for approval 
of a State program revision that adopts 40 CFR part 141, subparts U

[[Page 49681]]

and V, must contain a description of how the State will accomplish the 
following:
    (1) For PWSs serving fewer than 500 people, a very small system 
waiver procedure for subpart U IDSE requirements that will apply to all 
systems that serve fewer than 500 people without the State making a 
system-by-system waiver determination, if the State elects to use such 
an authority.
    (2) A procedure for evaluating system-specific studies under Sec.  
141.603(a) of this chapter, if system-specific studies are conducted in 
the State.
    (3) A procedure for determining that multiple consecutive system 
entry points from a single wholesale system to a single consecutive 
system should be treated as a single treatment plant for monitoring 
purposes.
    (4) A procedure for addressing consecutive systems outside the 
provisions of Sec.  141.29 of this chapter or part 141 subparts U and V 
of this chapter, if the State elects to use such an authority.
    (5) A procedure for systems to identify significant excursions.

PART 143--NATIONAL SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 143 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.

    2. In Sec.  143.4, the table in paragraph (b) is amended by 
revising entries 2 and 9 and footnotes 3 and 4, and by adding footnote 
6 to read as follows:

Sec.  143.4  Monitoring.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    SM 4 18th and
         Contaminant                 EPA             ASTM 3           19th ed.       SM 4 20th ed.      Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2. Chloride..................         300.0 1  D4327-97.........  4110 B..........  4110 B.........
                                      300.1 6  .................  ................  ...............
                                               .................  4500-Cl -D......  4500-Cl -D.....  ...........
                                               D512-89B.........  4500-Cl-B.......  4500-Cl-B......  ...........

                                                  * * * * * * *
9. Sulfate...................         300.0 1  D4327-97.........  4110B...........  4110B..........
                                      300.1 6  .................  ................  ...............  ...........
                                      375.2 1  .................  4500-SO4 2-F....  4500-SO4 2-F...
                                                                  4500-SO4 2-C, D.  4500-SO 4 2-C,
                                                                                     D.
                                               D516-90..........  4500-SO4 2-E....  4500-SO4 2-E...

                                                 * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
1 ``Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples'', EPA/600/R-93-100, August
  1993. Available at NTIS, PB94-120821.
* * * * *
3 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, 1996, or 1999, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02, ASTM International; any year
  containing the cited version of the method may be used. Copies may be obtained from ASTM International, 100
  Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.
4 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition (1992), 19th edition (1995), or
  20th edition (1998). American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. The
  cited methods published in any of these three editions may be used, except that the versions of 3111 B, 3111
  D, and 3113 B in the 20th edition may not be used.
* * * * *
6 ``Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water'', Vol. 1, EPA 815-R-00-
  014, August 2000. Available at NTIS, PB2000-106981.

[FR Doc. 03-18149 Filed 8-15-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

Local Navigation

• FR Home
• About the Site
• FR Listserv
• FR Search
• Selected Electronic Dockets
• Regulatory Agenda
• Executive Orders
• Current Laws and Regulations

• EPA Home
• Privacy and Security Notice
• Contact Us