EPA 816-Z-01-007
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 171/Tuesday, September 4, 2001/Rules and Regulations 46221
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
[FRL-7048-8]
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation for Public Water Systems;
Amendment to the List 2 Rule and
Partial Delay of Reporting of
Monitoring Results
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to establish criteria for a
program to monitor unregulated
contaminants and to publish a list of
contaminants to be monitored. In
fulfillment of this requirement, EPA
published Revisions to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
(UCMR) for public water systems on.
September 17; 1999 (64 FR 50556),
March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11372) and
January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2273), which
included lists of contaminants for which
monitoring was required or would be
required in the future. EPA is taking
direct final action to correct an omission
in the January 11, 2001, List 2 UCMR
concerning laboratory certification. This
correction will automatically approve
laboratories of public water systems,
that are certified to conduct compliance
monitoring using Method 515.3, to also
use Method 515.4 for UCMR analyses.
Additionally, EPA is delaying
requirements for the electronic reporting
of unregulated contaminant monitoring
results until its electronic reporting
system is ready to accept data. The
January 11, 2001, List 2 UCMR requires
certain public water systems to start
reporting the results of their unregulated
contaminant monitoring to EPA
electronically by July 1, 2001. This rule
notifies such public water systems that
the electronic reporting system that EPA
is developing to accept monitoring data
is not ready and that EPA is removing
the reporting requirement until it is
available. This action does not delay or
suspend the implementation of any of
the requirements of the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulations for
sample collection and analysis on the
previously established schedule.
DATES: This rule is effective on
November 5, 2001, without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse
comment by October 4, 2001. If we
receive such comment, we will publish
a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that this
rule will not take effect. For judicial-
review purposes, this final rule is
promulgated as of 1 p.m. ET on
September 18, 2001 as provided in 40
CFR 23.7.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and
three copies of your comments and
enclosures (including references) to
docket number W-00-Ol-IH, Comment
Clerk, Water Docket (MC4101), USEPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460. Hand deliveries
should be delivered to EPA's Water
Docket at 401 M. St., Room EB57,
Washington, DC. Commenters who want
EPA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments should enclose a self-
addressed, stamped envelope. No
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments may also be submitted
electronically to ow-
docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic
comments must be submitted as a Word
Perfect (WP) WP5.1, WP6.1 or WP8 file
or as an ASCII file, avoiding the use of
special characters and forms of
encryption. Electronic comments must
be identified by the docket number W-
00-01—HI. Comments and data will also
be accepted on disks in WP 5.1, 6.1, 8
or ASCII file format. Electronic
comments on this rule may be filed
online at'many Federal Depository-
Libraries.
The record for this rulemaking has
been established under docket number
W—00—01—DJ and includes supporting
documentation as well as printed, paper
versions of electronic comments. The
record is available for inspection from 9
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays at the Water
Docket, EB 57, USEPA Headquarters,
401 M, Washington, DC. For access to
docket materials, please call 202/260-
3027 to schedule an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Job (202-260-7084) or Jeffrey
Bryan' (202-260-4934), Drinking Water
Protection Division, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water (MC-4607),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20460. General
information about UCMR may be
obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking
Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The
Hotline operates Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays,
from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ET.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Potentially Regulated Entities
The regulated entities are public
water systems. All large community and
non-transient non-community water
systems serving more than 10,000
persons are required to monitor under
the UCMR. A community water system
(CWS) means a public water system
which serves at least 15 service,
connections used by year-round
residents or regularly serves at least 25
year-round residents. Non-transient
non-community water system
(NTNCWS) means a public water system
that is not a community water system
and that regularly serves at least 25 of
the same persons over 6 months per
year. Only a national representative
sample of community and non-transient
non-community systems serving 10,000
or fewer persons are required to monitor
under the UCMR. Transient non-
community systems (i.e., systems that
do not regularly serve at least 25 of the
same persons over six months per year)
are not required to monitor. States,
Territories, and Tribes, with primacy to
administer the regulatory program for
public water systems under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, sometimes conduct
analyses to measure for contaminants in
water samples and are regulated by this
action. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action
include the'following:
Category
State, Territorial and Tribal Gov-
ernments.
Industry
Municipalities
Examples of potentially regulated entities
States, Territories, and Tribes that analyze water samples on behalf of public water systems re-
quired to conduct such analysis; States, Territories, and Tribes that themselves operate commu-
nity and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor.
Private operators of community and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor
Municipal operators of community and non-transient non-community water systems required to mon-
itor.
NAICS
924110
221310
924110
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is now
aware of that could potentially be
-------
regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also
be regulated. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult one of the
persons listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
I. Purpose of this Action
The purpose of this action is to
correct an omission in the revised
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (UCMR) and to delay the
requirement to electronically report to
EPA until EPA's electronic reporting
system is ready to receive data. The
revised UCMR was published in the
Federal Register on September 17,1999
(64 FR 50556), and supplemented on
March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11372) and
January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2273).
At § 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(G)(l), EPA
intended to provide automatic
certification to laboratories of public
water systems that are already certified
to use EPA Method 515.3 to also use
EPA Method 515.4 for unregulated
contaminant monitoring analysis. Four
analytical methods have been
(DCPA) degradates in UCMR
monitoring. Three of these methods,
EPA Methods 515.1, 515.2, and 515.3
are currently approved for drinking
water compliance monitoring. A
regulation has not yet been promulgated
to approve EPA Method 515.4 for
drinking water compliance monitoring.
Since all other UCMR methods are
currently approved for compliance
monitoring, EPA stated in the January
11,2001 UCMR preamble that
laboratories certified to conduct
compliance monitoring using these
methods are automatically approved to-
conduct UCMR analysis using Method
515.4. The January 11, 2001 UCMR
promulgated Method 515.4 for UCMR
monitoring but failed to specify how
laboratories would be certified to
conduct analysis using Method 515.4.
As discussed in the January 11, 2001
UCMR, EPA developed a revised
version of EPA Method 515.3, titled
EPA Method 515.4, which includes a
wash step following hydrolysis. Method
515.4 was developed to eliminate the
need for laboratories using Method
515.3 to reanalyze positive samples.
Since Method 515.4 is procedurally the
same as Method 515.3 except for the
addition of a wash step, EPA is adding
a sentence approving laboratories use of
Method 515.4 if they are currently
certified to perform compliance
monitoring using Method 5.15.3.
In addition, EPA is also amending the
January 11,2001, UCMR to delay
reporting of unregulated contaminant
monitoring data to EPA until EPA's
electronic reporting system is ready to
receive the data. Section 141.35(c) of the
January 11, 2001, UCMR requires the
following reporting from public water
systems subject to UCMR monitoring:
(c) When must I report monitoring results?
You must report the results of unregulated
contaminant monitoring within, thirty (30)
days following the month, in which you
received the results from the laboratory. EPA
will conduct its quality control review of the
data for sixty (60) days after you report the
data, which will also allow for quality
control review by systems and States. After
the quality control review, EPA will place the
data in the national drinking water
contaminant occurrence database at the time
of the next database update. Exception:
Reporting of monitoring results to EPA
received by public water systems prior to
June 30, 2001, must occur between July 1 and
September 30,2001. (Italics added.)
Public water systems must report
these monitoring results to EPA
electronically, as required in § 141.35(e).
EPA was not able to have its
electronic reporting system ready for
reporting by July 1, 2001, as originally
planned. Establishing a new information
system for these results was more
complex than EPA anticipated. The
complexities of establishing a new
information system for monitoring data
that provides Internet based reporting
include: use of a modem computer
language not previously used by EPA
information systems in a complex
reporting structure; new reporting
arrangements from laboratories directly
to EPA, with electronic approval
capability for public water systems and
viewing rights for States and EPA; a new •
data exchange portal (EPA's Central
Data Exchange—CDX); new security
checks through CDX with subsequent
testing; and, development of appropriate
user guidance.
Therefore, the affected regulated
public water systems will not be able to
comply with the requirements for '
reporting of unregulated contaminant
monitoring results to EPA because the
electronic reporting system is not
operational. EPA, in this action, is .
delaying the current UCMR requirement
to electronically report to the EPA. EPA
anticipates that the electronic reporting
system will be ready in two to three
months. As soon as EPA knows for sure
when the electronic reporting system
will be available, EPA will undertake a
rulemaking to specify the new
electronic data submission date for data
collected since January 1, 2001.
EPA reiterates that this rule does not
suspend the implementation of any of
the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulations for sample
collection and analysis on the
previously established schedules.
TJ. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR
51735 (October 4,1993)) the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is "significant" and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule
is not a "significant regulatory action"
under the terms of Executive Order
12866.
B. Executive Order 13045—Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23,1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be "economically
significant" as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency. This rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not "economically
significant" under Executive Order
12866, nor does it concern an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 171/Tuesday, September 4, 2001 /Rules and Regulations 46223
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title n of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and Tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent witii 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 publisb.es 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
bave developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan.
The plan must provide for notifying i
potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small •
governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA
regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates,
and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory, requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title H of the UMRA} for
State, local, or Tribal governments or
the private sector. The rule imposes no
additional enforceable duty on any
State, local or Tribal governments or the
private sector. This rule does not change
the costs to State, local, or Tribal
governments as estimated in the final
revisions to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule (64 FR
50556, September 17,1999; 65 FR
11372, March 2, 2000; and 66 FR 2273,
January 11/2001) because the rule
approves laboratories for monitoring
with EPA Method 515.4, and delays
reporting of results to EPA until EPA's
electronic reporting system is ready to
accept data. The lab approval •will not
incur any additional costs to
laboratories, and instead allows for an
additional method to be used when
analyzing for DCPA acid degradates.
Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of-
the UMRA.
For the same reason, EPA has
determined that this final rule contains
no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Thus today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rule
makes minor revisions to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended
by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes
of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
response to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter
15.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. .
The RFA generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to the
notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirement under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute
unless the Agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and
small government jurisdictions.
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 for the agency" after proposing
the alternative definition(s) in the
Federal Register and taking comment. 5
U.S.C. sees. 601(3)-(5). In addition to
the above, to establish an alternative
small business definition, agencies must
consult with the Small Business
Administration's (SBA's) Chief Counsel
for Advocacy.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today's 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 for all three
categories of small entities in the
Federal Register, (63 FR 7620, February
13,1998) requested public comment,
consulted with SBA regarding the
alternative definition as it relates to
small businesses, and expressed its
intention to use the alternative
definition for all future drinking water
regulations in the Consumer Confidence
Reports regulation (63 FR 44511, August
19,1998). As stated in that final rule,
the alternative definition would be
applied to this regulation as well.
After considering the economic
impacts of today's rule on small entities,
I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This rule makes two minor revisions to
the January 11, 2001 UCMR and
imposes no additional enforceable duty
on any State, local or Tribal
governments or the private sector. It
merely approves laboratories to conduct
UCMR monitoring using EPA Method
515.4, and delays reporting of results to
EPA until the EPA electronic reporting
system is ready to accept data. The lab
approval revision will not increase
laboratory costs. It allows for an
additional method to be used when
analyzing for DCPA acid degradates.
F. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12 (d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-
113 Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
-------
46224 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 171/Tuesday, September 4, 2001/Rules and Regulations
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
material specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
EPA's use of voluntary consensus
standards in the UCMR program and
approval of Method 515.4 was
addressed in the September 1999 and
January 2001 rulemakings (64 FR 50608
and 66 FR 2298). This action does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
G. Executive Order 12898—
Environmental Justice Strategy
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. Today's rule
makes two minor changes to the January
11,2001 UCMR, and does not alter the
regulatory impact of those regulations.
H. Executive Order 13132—Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
"meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications." "Policies that have
federalism implications" is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have "substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government."
This rule does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. Today's rule
makes two minor changes to the January
11,2001 UCMR, approving laboratories
currently certified to conduct analyses
using EPA Method 515.3 to use EPA
Method 515.4 for UCMR analysis, and
delaying reporting of results to EPA
until the EPA electronic reporting
system is ready to accept data. There is
no cost to State and local governments,
and the rule does not preempt State law.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this rule.
I. Executive Order 13175—Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
"Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure "meaningful arid 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
file distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes."
This rule does not have Tribal
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on Tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 1317.5.
Today's rule makes minor changes to
the January 11, 2001 UCMR. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule.
/. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13211, "Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)), provides that agencies shall
prepare and submit to the Administrator
of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, a Statement of
Energy Effects for certain actions
identified as "significant energy
actions." Section 4(b) of Executive
Order 13211 defines "significant energy
actions" as "any action by an agency
(normally published in the Federal
Register) that promulgates or is
expected to lead to the promulgation of
a final rule or regulation, including
notices of inquiry, advance notices of
proposed rulemaking, and notices of
proposed rulemaking: (l)(i) That is a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866 or any successor
order, and (ii) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that
is designated by the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs as a significant energy action."
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
K. Administrative Procedure Act
EPA is publishing this rule without
prior proposal because it views this as
a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipates no adverse comment. EPA
does not anticipate adverse comment
because this rule provides labs with
another Method to perform analyses at
no cost to them, as well as delays the
need for applicable public water
systems to report monitoring data,
again, at no cost to the public water
systems. However, in the "Proposed
Rule" section of today's Federal
Register publication, EPA is publishing
a separate document that will serve as
the proposal for the correction to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation for Public Water Systems if
adverse comments are filed. This rale
will be effective on November 5, 2001
without further notice unless EPA
receives adverse comment by October 4,
2001. If EPA receives adverse comment,
it will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect.
EPA will address all public comments
in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time.
L. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a "major rule" as
defined by 5 U.S.C. § 804(2). This rule
will be effective on November 5, 2001.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Indian
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 171/Tuesday, September 4, 2001/Rules and Regulations 46225
lands, Intergovernmental relations,
Radiation protection, Reporting and
reeordkeeping requirements, Water
supply.
Dated: August 28,2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is 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-I, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-4,
300J-9, and 300J-11.
2. Section 141.35 is amended by
revising the last sentence in paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
§ 141.35 Reporting of unregulated
contaminant monitoring results.
*****
(c) * * * Exception: Reporting of.
monitoring results to EPA is not
required until EPA's electronic
reporting system is operational; EPA
will provide notice of applicable
reporting deadlines in a future
rulemaking.
*****
3. Section 141.40 is amended by
adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(G)(2) to read as
follows:'
§141.40 Monitoring requirements for
unregulated contaminants.
(a)* * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(G) * * *
(!}*** Laboratories certified under
§ 141.28 for compliance analysis using
EPA Method 515.3 are automatically
approved to conduct UCMR analysis
using EPA Method 515.4.
*****
[FRDoc. 01-22114 Filed 8-29-01; 2:33 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
45 CFR Part 96
Tobacco Regulation and Maintenance
of Effort Reporting Requirements for
Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Block Grant Applicants
AGENCY: Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
SUMMARY: This interim final rule
clarifies that States may no longer
obtain extensions to submit the
maintenance of effort (MOE)
information required under section
1930(c) of the Public Health Service
(PHS) Act; separates the annual report
required under section 1926(b)(2)(B)
(hereinafter referred to as the Synar
report), of that Act, from the Substance
Abuse Prevention and Treatment
(SAPT) Block Grant application; and
establishes a deadline for submission of
the Synar report of no later than
December 31 of the fiscal year for which
a State is applying for a grant.
DATES: Effective Date: September 4,
2001.
Comment Date: The Secretary is
requesting written comments which
must be received on or before November
5, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this
interim final rule must be sent to David
Robbins, Acting Director, Division of
State and Community Systems
Development, Center for Substance
Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Rockwall H
Building, 9th Floor, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Robbins, telephone no. (301) 443-
0369.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: States are
required under sections 1930(c) and
1932(a)(5) of the PHS Act and 45 CFR
96.122(d) to submit to the Secretary
maintenance of effort information
regarding State expenditures. The
required MOE information must be
sufficient to make a determination of
whether the principal agency for
substance abuse services maintained
aggregate State expenditures for these
activities at a level not less than the
average level of such State expenditures
for the two year period preceding the
fiscal year for which the State is
applying for a grant. The MOE
information is required, by statute, to be
submitted as a part of the SAPT Block
Grant application.
In SAMHSA's recent reauthorization,
Pub. L. 106-310 (Oct. 17, 2000),
Congress established a receipt date for
the SAPT Block Grant application of
October 1 of the fiscal year for which a
State is seeking Federal funds.
Previously, the SAPT Block Grant
application due date was established by
regulation and the States were permitted
by regulation to receive an extension
allowing them to submit the MOE
information no later than December 31.
See former 45 CFR 96.122(d). However,
because the statute now requires States
to submit their SAPT Block Grant
applications by October 1 and there is
no authority for the Secretary to extend
the deadline for submission of the MOE
information, this rule clarifies that
States must submit such information by
October 1 and may no longer obtain
extensions of that deadline. This
clarification is merely a technical
change to make the regulation
consistent with what is explicitly
required by statute.
With regard to the Synar report, States
are required under section 1926(b)(2)(B)
of the PHS Act and 45 CFR 96.130(e) to
annually submit to the Secretary a
report describing, among other things,
their efforts to enforce youth tobacco
access laws and success during the
previous fiscal year for which the State
is applying for a grant. The Synar report
is currently required, by regulation only,
to be submitted as part of the SAPT
Block Grant application.
As mentioned above, in SAMHSA's
recent reauthorization, Congress
established a receipt date for the SAPT
Block Grant application of October 1 of
the fiscal year for which a State is
seeking Federal funds. Previously, by
regulation, the States were permitted to
receive an extension allowing them to
submit the Synar report by no later than
December 31. See 45 CFR 96.122(d).
A number of States informed
SAMHSA that they required additional
time beyond October 1 to complete their
Synar reports and would not be able to
meet the statutory due date of October
1; thus would be in jeopardy of losing
their SAPT Block Grant funding.
Many States need the later due date
for the Synar report because they rely on
youth to perform a central function in
the work required for compliance with
the program; that is, these youth attempt
to buy, under adult supervision, tobacco
products from tobacco outlets to
determine retailer compliance with
State laws. These youth inspectors are
only available to many of the States
during the summer school recess.
Without a rule change, States have
essentially one month to collate data,
complete data analysis and report on the
results by the new October 1 SAPT
Block Grant application deadline.
Providing States the opportunity to
continue to submit their Synar reports
as late as December 31 ensures that all
States will have the necessary time to
meet the Synar reporting requirements,
thus enabling them to receive their
SAPT Block Grant funds.
Because of the burden on States, the
Department is changing the rule to
separate the Synar report from the SAPT
Block Grant application and to require
that the Synar report be submitted no
later than December 31 of the Federal
-------
------- |